Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage land under power lines for wildlifeOne replicated trial in Maryland, USA found more bee species under power lines managed as scrub than in equivalent areas of annually mown grassland.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F31https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F31Thu, 20 May 2010 01:34:31 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage hedges to benefit beesOne replicated controlled trial showed that hedges managed under the Scottish Rural Stewardship scheme do not attract more nest-searching or foraging queen bumblebees in spring than conventionally managed hedgerows.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F15https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F15Thu, 20 May 2010 21:16:02 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage land under power lines to benefit wildlife We have captured no evidence for the effects of managing land under power lines to benefit wildlife on farmland wildlife. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F99https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F99Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:51:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage hedgerows to benefit wildlife (includes no spray, gap-filling and laying) Ten studies from Switzerland and the UK (three replicated and controlled studies of which one was randomized) found that managing hedges for wildlife resulted in increased berry yields, species diversity or richness of plants and invertebrates and diversity or abundance of farmland birds. Five studies from the UK (including one replicated, controlled and randomized study) found that hedge management did not affect plant species richness, numbers of bumblebee queens or farmland birds. Two replicated studies have shown mixed or adverse effects, with hedge management having mixed effects on invertebrates or leading to reduced hawthorn berry yield. A replicated site comparison in the UK found hedges cut every two years had more suitable nesting habitat for grey partridge than other management regimes. A replicated study from the UK found that hawthorn berry yield was reduced when management involved removing fruit-bearing wood.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F116https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F116Tue, 01 Nov 2011 20:32:06 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage ditches to benefit wildlife Five out of a total eight studies from the Netherlands and the UK (including one replicated, controlled paired study and three replicated site comparisons) looking at the effects of managing ditches on biodiversity, found that this intervention resulted in increased invertebrate biomass or abundance, plant species richness, emergent plant cover, amphibian diversity and abundance, bird visit rates and higher numbers of some bird species or positive impacts on some birds in plots with ditches managed under agri-environment schemes. One replicated controlled and paired study from the Netherlands found higher plant diversity on ditch banks along unsprayed edges of winter wheat compared to those sprayed with pesticides. Three studies from the Netherlands and the UK (including two replicated site comparisons) found that ditch management had negative or no clear effects on some farmland bird species or plants.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F135https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F135Thu, 17 Nov 2011 21:35:00 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage heather by swiping to simulate burning A replicated controlled trial in Northern Ireland found that heather moorland subject to flailing to simulate burning had more plant species eight years after the management, than control unflailed plots, but fewer plant species than burned plots.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F151https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F151Sat, 14 Jan 2012 15:19:00 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage heather, gorse or grass by burning A long-term replicated controlled trial in Switzerland found that annual spring burning of calcareous grassland did not increase plant species richness relative to abandoned plots, after 15 years. A replicated controlled trial in Northern Ireland found that heather moorland subject to a single burn had more plant species eight years after the management, than control unburned plots.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F152https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F152Sat, 14 Jan 2012 15:22:28 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage hedges to benefit birds The one study of six that investigated species richness found no difference in species richness between a UK site with wildlife-friendly hedge management and three control sites. Seven studies from the UK and Switzerland, five replicated, found that some species studied increased in relation to managed hedges or were more likely to be found in managed hedges, compared to other habitats. Two investigated several interventions at once. One replicated study found that species that showed positive responses to hedge management in some regions showed weak or negative responses in other parts of the UK. Four studies from the UK found that some species declined or showed no response to wildlife-friendly management of hedges. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F177https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F177Wed, 30 May 2012 13:46:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage ditches to benefit wildlife Three out of four replicated studies from the UK found that some farmland birds responded positively to the presence of ditches managed for wildlife. All three also found that some species did not respond positively or responded negatively to management. A replicated, controlled and paired sites study from the UK found that bunded ditches were visited by more birds than non-bunded ditches. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F180https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F180Wed, 30 May 2012 14:17:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage ditches One controlled, before-and-after study in the UK found that managing ditches increased common toad numbers. One replicated, site comparison study in the Netherlands found that numbers of amphibian species and abundance was significantly higher in ditches managed under agri-environment schemes compared to those managed conventionally.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F749https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F749Thu, 18 Jul 2013 16:10:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage grazing regime One replicated, controlled study in the UK found that grazed plots did not have higher abundance of natterjack toads than ungrazed plots and had lower abundance of common toads. Five studies (including four replicated studies) in Denmark, Estonia and the UK found that habitat management that included reintroduction of grazing increased green toad populations, maintained or increased natterjack toad populations and maintained common toad populations. One before-and-after study in the USA found that the decline in amphibian species was similar under traditional season-long or intensive-early cattle stocking.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F780https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F780Thu, 22 Aug 2013 13:11:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage cutting regimeOne study investigating the effects of changing mowing regimes is discussed in ‘Habitat restoration and creation – Change mowing regime’.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F788https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F788Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:31:54 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage fertilizer or herbicide application near peatlands We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of managing fertilizer or herbicide use in adjacent areas. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1784https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1784Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:16:21 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage hedges to benefit bats Two studies evaluated the effects of managing hedges to benefit bat populations. Both studies were in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the UK found that hedges trimmed ≥3 years prior had more bat species recorded along them than hedges trimmed during the previous winter. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One replicated, paired sites study in the UK found that pipistrelle activity (relative abundance) did not differ between hedges managed for wildlife on agri-environment scheme farms and hedges on conventional farms. One replicated, site comparison study in the UK found that hedges trimmed ≥3 years prior had higher activity of two of eight bat species/species groups than hedges trimmed during the previous winter. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1943https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1943Tue, 04 Dec 2018 09:54:05 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage ditches to benefit bats We found no studies that evaluated the effects of managing ditches to benefit bat populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1944https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1944Tue, 04 Dec 2018 09:59:42 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage grazing regimes to increase invertebrate prey We found no studies that evaluated the effects of managing grazing regimes to increase invertebrate prey on bat populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1949https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1949Tue, 04 Dec 2018 12:17:10 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage forest and woodland to encourage understorey growth One study evaluated the effects of managing forest and woodland to encourage understorey growth on bat populations. The study was in Germany. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One paired sites study in Germany found more bat species and higher bat diversity in a forest managed to encourage understorey growth than in a managed forest without understorey growth. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One paired sites study in Germany found higher overall bat activity (relative abundance) in a forest managed to encourage understorey growth than in a managed forest without understorey growth. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1986https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1986Wed, 05 Dec 2018 11:04:01 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage hedgerows to benefit wildlife on farmland We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of managing hedgerows to benefit wildlife on farmland. ‘We found no studies' means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2382https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2382Wed, 27 May 2020 14:33:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage fertilizer or herbicide applicationWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation in marshes or swamps, of managing fertilizer or herbicide use in these habitats or adjacent areas.   ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3156https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3156Tue, 06 Apr 2021 12:13:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage ditches on farmland We found no studies that evaluated the effects of managing ditches on farmland on reptile populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3530https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3530Tue, 07 Dec 2021 15:39:53 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage land under power lines for butterflies and moths Six studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of managing land under power lines for butterflies and moths. Two studies were in each of the USA and Finland, and one was in each of the UK and Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (3 studies): Two replicated, site comparison studies (including one paired study) in Finland found that land under power lines managed by mechanical cutting had a higher species richness of butterflies than unmanaged land, and butterfly species richness was highest 2–4 years after scrub and trees were cleared. One replicated, site comparison study in Canada found that the species richness of butterflies was similar under power lines and on road verges mown once or twice a year, or left unmown. POPULATION RESPONSE (6 STUDIES) Abundance (6 studies): One of two replicated, site comparison studies (including one paired study) in Finland and Canada found that land under power lines managed by mechanical cutting had a higher abundance of butterflies than unmanaged land. The other study found that land under power lines and on road verges managed by mowing had a lower abundance of pearl crescent and northern pearl crescent butterflies, and a similar abundance of other butterflies, to those left unmown. Two of three site comparison studies (including two replicated studies) in the USA, the UK and Finland found that the time since management under power lines did not affect the abundance of Karner blue butterflies or small pearl-bordered fritillaries, but chequered skipper abundance was higher in areas cleared ≤2 years ago than in areas cut ≥4 years earlier. The other study found that power lines cleared of trees and scrub 2–4 years earlier had a higher abundance of butterflies than power lines cleared 1 year or 6–8 years earlier. Two site comparison studies in the USA found that land under power lines managed by cutting or herbicide application, and by mowing or cutting, had a similar abundance of Karner blue butterflies and six other butterfly species, but the abundance of frosted elfin was higher under power lines managed by mowing than those managed by cutting. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the UK reported that pearl-bordered fritillaries used areas under power lines where scrub had been cleared one or two years earlier, but not under power lines cleared three or more years ago. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3855https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3855Tue, 05 Jul 2022 12:26:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage host species’ populations for the benefit of dependent parasite/mutualist species We found no studies that evaluated the effects of managing host species’ populations for the benefit of dependent parasite or mutualist species of butterfly or moth. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3913https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3913Wed, 10 Aug 2022 15:02:26 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage heathland by cutting Three studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of managing heathland by cutting. Two studies were in the USA1,2 and one was in the UK3. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): One site comparison study in the USA2 found that a pine barren managed for 13 years by mechanical cutting had a higher abundance of Karner blue butterflies than barrens managed by rotational burning or unburned refuges. One before-and-after study in the USA1 found that the abundance of five butterfly species did not change after the management of a pine barren was changed from rotational burning to unintensive cutting. One before-and-after study in the UK3 reported that the abundance of high brown fritillary and small pearl-bordered fritillary increased after scrub cutting, along with tree felling, coppicing and grazing. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3947https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3947Sat, 13 Aug 2022 14:59:19 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage hedgerows to benefit wildlife (e.g. no spray, gap-filling and laying) Seventeen studies evaluated the effects of managing hedgerows to benefit wildlife on butterflies and moths. Fourteen studies were in the UK, and one was in each of Belgium, Costa Rica and Italy. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (9 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (9 studies): Three replicated, site comparison studies in the UK and Costa Rica found that hedgerows with trees or a more complex structure had a higher species richness or diversity of butterflies and macro-moths than simpler hedgerows without trees. Three of six replicated studies (including three randomized, paired, controlled studies, one randomized, site comparison, and two site comparison studies) in the UK and Italy found that hedgerows cut to allow incremental growth had a higher diversity of caterpillars and pupae than hedgerows cut to the same size, that hedgerows kept between 1–2 m tall had a higher species richness of butterflies than hedgerows kept below 1 m tall and that fields with hedgerows of a larger volume had higher species richness of butterflies than those with hedgerows of a smaller volume, but only in one of two study years. The other three studies found that hedgerows managed according to agri-environment scheme prescriptions (including less frequent or winter cutting, gap-filling and restricted mowing, in one case in combination with other agri-environment scheme habitat) had a similar species richness of butterflies and moths to conventionally managed hedgerows. POPULATION RESPONSE (17 STUDIES) Abundance (17 studies): Four of six replicated studies (including four randomized, paired, controlled studies, one controlled study, and one paired, site comparison study) in the UK found that hedgerows cut once every 2–3 years, cut in autumn, or cut to allow incremental growth, had a higher abundance of adult butterflies and moths, moth caterpillars and pupae and brown hairstreak eggs than hedgerows cut to the same size every winter. However, one of these studies also found that hedgerows cut to allow incremental growth had a similar abundance of moth caterpillars and pupae to hedgerows cut to the same size. The other two studies found that hedgerows managed by gap-filling and cutting every three years had a similar abundance of moths to conventionally managed hedgerows, and that hedgerows cut in winter, or less frequently in autumn, had more concealed moth caterpillars, but a similar abundance of free-living caterpillars, to hedgerows cut annually in autumn. Three of five replicated, site comparison studies (including one paired study) in the UK and Costa Rica found that hedgerows with trees had a similar total abundance of macro-moths to hedgerows without trees. The other two studies found that hedgerows with trees, or with a more complex structure, had a higher abundance of butterflies and pale shining brown moths than simple hedgerows. Two replicated, site comparison studies in Belgium and Italy found that hedgerows managed with scalloped edges, or maintained at below 1 m tall, had more brown hairstreak eggs and a higher abundance of adult butterflies, than hedgerows with straight edges or allowed to grow over 2 m tall. One of two studies (including one controlled and one replicated, site comparison study) in the UK found that laid or coppiced hedgerows had a higher abundance of butterflies than unmanaged hedgerows. The other study found that managed hedgerows had a lower abundance of caterpillars than remnant hedgerows. One replicated, randomized, site comparison study in the UK found that butterfly abundance was higher in fields with hedgerows of a larger volume, but only in one of two study years. One replicated, site comparison study in the UK found that field margins next to hedgerow trees had a higher abundance of most shrub- and tree-feeding, but not grass- and herb-feeding, moth species than margins away from hedgerow trees. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3975https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3975Thu, 18 Aug 2022 09:18:48 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage ditches to benefit butterflies and moths We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of managing ditches to benefit butterflies and moths. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3977https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3977Thu, 18 Aug 2022 10:39:00 +0100
What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 21

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust
For a full list of, and information about, our champions:
All Evidence Champions
About our champions, why and how to become one:
Become an Evidence Champion

This website uses Cookies

We use limited Cookies to run the site and to analyse our traffic (none for site vendors). By using this site, you will be providing your consent to our use of Cookies.

Accept & continue