Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pay farmers to cover the costs of bird conservation measures Three reviews from the UK of three studies captured reported population increases of three species after the introduction of specially-designed agri-environment schemes. These species were cirl buntings, corncrakes and Eurasian thick-knees. One of these found that many other species continued to decline. Twenty-two of 25 studies all from Europe, including a systematic review,  examining local population levels or densities found that at least some birds studied were at higher densities, had higher population levels or more positive population trends on sites with agri-environment schemes, compared to non-agri-environment scheme sites. Some studies found that differences were present in all seasons, others in either summer or winter. Fifteen studies from Europe, including a systematic review, found that some or all species were not found at higher densities, had similar or lower population levels, showed similar population trends on sites with agri-environment schemes, compared with non-agri-environment scheme sites, or showed negative population trends. A study from the Netherlands found that many agri-environment scheme farms were sited in areas where they were unlikely to be effective. One small study from the UK found no differences between winter densities of seed-eating birds on UK Higher Levels Stewardship sites, compared with those under Entry Level Stewardship. A replicated study from the UK found that grey partridge survival was higher on agri-environment scheme sites than non-scheme sites. This difference was not significant every year. Two of three studies investigating reproductive productivity, including one replicated study, found that productivity was higher on farms under agri-environment schemes. One replicated study from the UK found no effect of agri-environment schemes on productivity. A review (Vickery et al. 2010) found that the amount of land entering an agri-environment scheme was on target, but that some options were not being used at high enough rates to help many species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F172https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F172Sun, 20 May 2012 14:06:41 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pay farmers to cover the cost of conservation measures (as in agri-environment schemes) Twenty-six studies from four European countries (including one UK systematic review and three European reviews) looked at the effects of agri-environment schemes on birds. Twenty-four studies (including one systematic review, six site comparisons and nine reviews) found increases in population size, density or more favourable population trends of some or all birds studied on sites with agri-environment schemes compared to non-scheme sites (some of these differences were seasonal). Eleven studies (including one systematic review and four reviews) found negative or no effects. One UK study found higher numbers of some birds where higher tier management was in place, another UK study found no difference between Entry Level or Higher Level Stewardship Scheme fields. One study from the Netherlands found that not all agri-environment scheme agreements were sited in ideal locations for black-tailed godwit. Eleven studies from five European countries (including three replicated paired site comparisons and two reviews) looked at the effects of agri-environment schemes on plants. Seven studies (including three replicated paired site comparisons and one European review) found agri-environment schemes maintained or had little or no effect on plants, plant diversity or species richness. Three studies found increases in plant species richness in areas with agri-environment schemes, two found decreases. A replicated site comparison study from Estonia found higher flower abundance on farms with agri-environment schemes in two out of four areas. A review found Environmentally Sensitive Areas in England had contributed to halting the loss of semi-natural grassland habitats but were less effective at enhancing or restoring grassland biodiversity. Ten studies from three European countries (including two replicated paired site comparisons and a review) looked at the effects of agri-environment schemes on invertebrates. Six studies (including two replicated site comparisons) showed agri-environment schemes maintained or had little or no effect on some invertebrates in terms of diversity, abundance, species richness or bee colony growth. Five studies found increases in abundance or species richness of some invertebrates. A UK study found agri-environment scheme prescriptions had a local but not a landscape-scale effect on bee numbers. Four studies (including two replicated site comparisons and a review) from the UK looked at the effects of agri-environment schemes on mammals. One study found positive effects, three studies found mixed effects in different regions or for different species. Three of the studies above found higher numbers of wildlife on land before agri-environment schemes were introduced. However two studies collecting baseline data found no difference in the overall number of birds or earthworms and soil microorganisms between areas with and without agri-environment schemes. A review found two out of three agri-environment schemes in Europe benefited wildlife. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F700https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F700Fri, 21 Dec 2012 14:38:13 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pay farmers to cover the costs of conservation measures Three studies (including one replicated study) in Denmark, Sweden and Taiwan found that payments to farmers created amphibian breeding habitat or increased frog or toad populations. However, a second study in Taiwan found that payments did not maintain green tree frog habitat. One replicated, site comparison study in the Netherlands found that ditches managed under agri-environment schemes had higher numbers of amphibian species and higher abundance than those managed conventionally.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F818https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F818Fri, 23 Aug 2013 09:47:58 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pay farmers to cover the costs of conservation measures (e.g. agri-environment schemes) Three studies evaluated the effects of agri-environment schemes on bat populations. The three studies were in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): Two of three replicated, paired sites studies in the UK found that overall bat activity (relative abundance) or the occurrence of six bat species did not differ significantly between farms managed under agri-environment schemes and those managed conventionally. One of the studies found that agri-environment scheme farms had similar activity of five bat species, and lower activity of one bat species, compared to conventional farms. The other study found lower overall bat activity and activity of pipistrelle species on agri-environment scheme farms than conventional farms. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F962https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F962Fri, 20 Dec 2013 10:25:45 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pest regulation: Add compost to the soilPest regulation (2 studies): Of two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from the USA and an unspecified Mediterranean country, one study found less disease in crops grown in soils with added compost, compared to soils without it, in some comparisons, but one study found no differences in most crop diseases. One replicated, controlled study from the USA found similar amounts of Escherichia coli bacteria in plots with or without added compost. This study also found that similar percentages of pests were consumed by natural enemies in plots with or without added compost. Crop damage (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study found fewer dead tomato plants in soil with added compost, compared to soil without added compost, in some comparisons. Ratio of natural enemies to pests (1 study): One replicated, controlled study from the USA found similar ratios of natural enemies to pests (mostly aphids) in plots with or without added compost. Pest numbers (1 study): One replicated, controlled study from the USA found similar pest numbers in plots with or without added compost. Natural enemy numbers (0 studies)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1392https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1392Mon, 15 May 2017 16:13:04 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pest regulation: Grow cover crops in arable fieldsPest regulation (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found that fewer aphids were parasitized in plots with cover crops (living mulches) between broccoli plants, compared to plots without cover crops, in some comparisons. Crop damage (6 studies): Three controlled studies (two replicated and randomized) from the USA found similar numbers of diseased broccoli seedlings or tomato plants in plots with or without winter cover crops. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from the USA found less-severely diseased lettuces in plots with winter cover crops, compared to winter fallows, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found inconsistent differences in tomato damage between plots with cover crops or fallows. Ratio of natural enemies to pests (0 studies) Pest numbers (14 studies) Weeds (8 studies): Four replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Israel and Italy found fewer weeds in plots with cover crops, compared to plots without them, in some or all comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found more weeds in plots with winter cover crops, compared to plots without them, in some comparisons. Two replicated, controlled studies (one randomized) from Italy and the USA found that winter cover crops had inconsistent effects on weeds (sometimes more, sometimes fewer, compared to plots without winter cover crops). One controlled study from the USA found similar amounts of weeds in plots with winter cover crops or fallows. Weed species (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Italy found fewer weed species in plots with winter cover crops, compared to plots without them, in one of three comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found different weed communities in plots with or without winter cover crops. Other pests (6 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from the USA found fewer aphids in plots with cover crops (living mulches) between broccoli plants, compared to plots without cover crops, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found more mites (in some comparisons), but similar numbers of centipedes and springtails, in plots with winter cover crops, compared to plots without them. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found similar numbers of leafminers in plots with or without winter cover crops. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found similar amounts of fungus in soils with or without winter cover crops. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found inconsistent differences in nematode numbers between soils with cover crops or fallows. Natural enemy numbers (0 studies) Implementation options (13 studies): Nine studies from Israel, Italy, and the USA found that different cover crops had different effects on crop damage or pest numbers. Two studies from the USA found that different cover crops (living mulches) did not have different effects on pest regulation or pest numbers. Two studies from the USA found that different methods of seeding cover crops had different effects on pest numbers.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1394https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1394Mon, 15 May 2017 16:19:52 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pest regulation: Plant flowersPest regulation (3 studies): Three replicated studies from Italy and the USA found greater pest reduction or higher proportions of parasitized pests in fields and farms with planted flower strips. Crop damage (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Italy found more damage by caterpillars, but not by aphids, in tomatoes next to planted flower strips, compared to tomatoes next to bare ground. One replicated, paired, controlled study from Italy found that planted flower strips had inconsistent effects on crop damage by pests. Pest numbers (2 studies): One replicated, paired, controlled study from Italy found more pests on tomatoes next to planted flower strips, compared to tomatoes next to unplanted field margins. One replicated before-and-after study from the USA found more aphids in fields after flower strips were made available. Natural enemy numbers (4 studies): Two replicated studies from the USA found more natural enemies in fields with planted flower strips, compared to fields without planted flower strips, in some comparisons. Two replicated, controlled studies from Italy found more natural enemies in planted flower strips than on bare ground, and one of these studies also found more species of natural enemies. Implementation options (4 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies from the USA and Spain found that some flower species were more attractive to natural enemies than others. Two replicated, controlled studies from Italy found that planting more species of flowers, compared to fewer, had inconsistent effects on pests and pest species, but one of these found less crop damage next to flower strips with more species, compared to fewer, in some comparisons. This study also found more species of natural enemies in flower strips, over time, but did not find more individuals.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1400https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1400Fri, 19 May 2017 09:13:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pest regulation: Plant hedgerowsPest regulation (1 study): One replicated, paired, site comparison from the USA found that a higher proportion of pest eggs were parasitized in tomato fields with hedgerows, compared to fields with weedy edges, but only up to 100 m into the crop. Crop damage (1 study): One replicated, paired, site comparison from the USA found that pest damage to tomatoes was no different in fields with hedgerows than it was in fields with weedy edges. Ratio of natural enemies to pests (2 studies): Of two replicated site comparisons from the USA, one paired study found a greater ratio of natural enemies to pests in hedgerows, compared to weedy edges, but one unpaired study did not. The unpaired study also found no difference in the ratio of natural enemies to pests between fields with hedgerows and fields with weedy edges. Pest numbers (1 study): One replicated, paired, site comparison from the USA found fewer pests in fields or field edges with hedgerows, compared to fields or field edges without hedgerows. Natural enemy numbers (1 study): One replicated, paired, site comparison from the USA found more natural enemies in fields with hedgerows, compared to fields with weedy edges, and in hedgerows themselves, compared to weedy edges, in some comparisons.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1401https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1401Fri, 19 May 2017 09:15:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pest regulation: Exclude grazersPest regulation (0 studies) Pest damage (1 study): One site comparison in grassland in the USA found no relationship between plant numbers and gopher numbers in ungrazed sites, but found fewer plant species in grazed sites with more gophers. Ratio of natural enemies to pests (0 studies) Pest numbers (1 study): One site comparison in grassland in the USA found more signs of gopher activity in ungrazed sites, compared to grazed sites. Natural enemy numbers (0 studies)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1403https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1403Fri, 19 May 2017 09:21:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pay farmers to cover the costs of non-harmful strategies to deter primates We found no evidence for the effects of paying farmers to cover the costs of non-harmful strategies to deter primates on primate populations. '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%2F1429https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1429Tue, 17 Oct 2017 09:51:35 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Permanent presence of staff/manager One before-and-after study in Kenya found that numbers of Tana River red colobus and crested mangabeys decreased despite permanent presence of reserve staff, alongside other interventions. One study in Thailand found that a reintroduced population of lar gibbons declined over three years despite permanent presence of reserve staff alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in Belize found that numbers of black howler monkeys increased by 138% over 13 years after introducing permanent presence of reserve staff, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in Congo found that most reintroduced central chimpanzees survived over five years after being accompanied by reserve staff, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in Gabon found that most reintroduced western lowland gorillas survived over nine months, after being accompanied by reserve staff, alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1517https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1517Thu, 19 Oct 2017 09:22:48 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Parrot’s feather: Use of lightproof barriers We found no evidence on the use of lightproof barriers to control parrot’s feather. '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%2F1576https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1576Fri, 20 Oct 2017 12:32:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Parrot’s feather: Water level drawdown One replicated, randomized, controlled laboratory study in the USA found that water removal to expose plants to drying during the summer led to lower survival of parrot’s feather plants than exposing plants to drying during the winter. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1585https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1585Fri, 20 Oct 2017 13:07:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Parrot’s feather: Use of salt We found no evidence on the impact of using salt on the control of parrot's feather. '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%2F1605https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1605Fri, 20 Oct 2017 15:18:45 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Parrot’s feather: Use of herbicides - triclopyr Two replicated, controlled laboratory studies in New Zealand and the USA reported reduced growth of parrot’s feather following treatment with triclopyr. One replicated, before-and-after and one replicated, controlled field study in New Zealand found that cover was reduced after treatment with triclopyr. However, one of the studies noted that cover later increased to levels close to pre-treatment. One replicated, controlled laboratory study in New Zealand found that the application of triclopyr led to a greater reduction in cover than the application of glyphosate. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1689https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1689Mon, 23 Oct 2017 10:03:03 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Parrot’s feather: Use of herbicides - other herbicides One replicated, controlled laboratory study in New Zealand found that the application of dichlobenil reduced the growth of parrot’s feather. Two replicated, randomized, controlled field studies in Portugal and New Zealand found that the application of dichlobenil reduced cover less than the combined application of the herbicides 2,4-D and MCPA eight days after treatment but not 45 days after treatment and that plants treated with dichlobenil presented lower vegetation cover soon after herbicide application but cover later increased to levels close to pre-treatment. Three laboratory studies (including two replicated, controlled studies and one randomized, controlled study) in the USA found that the herbicides imazamox and imazapyr reduced the growth of parrot’s feather. One replicated, randomized, controlled field study in Portugal and one replicated, controlled, laboratory study in the USA reported reduced parrot’s feather biomass after treatment with glyphosate. One replicated, randomized, controlled field study in Portugal found that the application of gluphosinate-ammonium reduced the biomass of parrot’s feather. Three replicated, controlled laboratory studies in New Zealand and the USA found that treatment with fluridone, clopyralid and copper chelate did not reduce growth of parrot’s feather. One replicated, controlled laboratory study in the USA found that the application of flumioxazin reduced the growth of parrot’s feather. One replicated, randomized, controlled laboratory study in the USA found that the application of florpyrauxifen-benzyl reduced the growth of parrot’s feather. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1699https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1699Mon, 23 Oct 2017 11:11:47 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pay landowners to protect peatlands One study evaluated the effects on peatland habitats of paying landowners to protect them. The study was of bogs. Peatland habitat (1 study): One review from reported that agri-environment schemes in the UK had mixed effects on bogs, protecting the area of bog habitat in three of six cases. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1799https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1799Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:27:33 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Periodically move and relocate moorings We found no studies that evaluated the effects of periodically moving and relocating moorings on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations.   ‘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%2F2093https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2093Mon, 21 Oct 2019 15:22:28 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pay monetary compensation for habitat damage remediation We found no studies that evaluated the effects of paying monetary compensation for habitat damage remediation on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations.   ‘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%2F2263https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2263Wed, 23 Oct 2019 10:58:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pay farmers to cover the costs of conservation measures Three studies evaluated the effects on mammals of paying farmers to cover the costs of conservation measures. The three studies were in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): A replicated, controlled study, in the UK found that agri-environment scheme enrolment was associated with increased brown hare density in one of two regions studied. A replicated, site comparison study in Northern Ireland, UK found that agri-environment scheme enrolment did not increase numbers of Irish hares. A replicated, controlled study in the UK found that in field margins created through enrolment in an agri-environment scheme, small mammal abundance in spring increased, whereas it remained stable in conventionally managed margins. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2387https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2387Thu, 28 May 2020 08:38:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pay farmers to compensate for losses due to predators/wild herbivores to reduce human-wildlife conflict Five studies evaluated the effects on mammals of paying farmers compensation for losses due to predators or wild herbivores to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Three studies were in Kenya and one each was in Italy and Sweden. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): Two studies, in Italy and Sweden, found that compensating livestock owners for losses to predators led to increasing populations of wolves and wolverines. Survival (3 studies): Three before-and-after studies (including two replicated studies), in Kenya, found that when pastoralists were compensated for livestock killings by predators, fewer lions were killed. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2414https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2414Fri, 29 May 2020 15:48:47 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pay stakeholders to protect marshes or swamps Two studies evaluated the overall effects, on vegetation or human behaviour, of paying stakeholders to protect marshes or swamps. There was one study in each of the UK and Nigeria. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Overall extent (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after, site comparison study in the UK found that paying landowners to manage farmland ditches under agri-environment rules had no clear or significant effect on the frequency of emergent vegetation. Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the UK found that farmland ditches managed under agri-environment rules contained a similar number of plant species to ditches not managed under these rules. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE   VEGETATION STRUCTURE   OTHER Human behaviour (1 study): One study in Nigeria reported that 58 communities with access to micro-credits for sustainable development changed their behaviour. In particular, they switched from livelihood practices that damaged mangrove forests to more sustainable practices. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3387https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3387Mon, 12 Apr 2021 11:49:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pay farmers to cover the costs of conservation measures   One study evaluated the effects of paying farmers to cover the costs of conservation measures on reptiles. This study was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Australia found that sites managed under agri-environment schemes had similar reptile species richness compared to sites that were managed purely for livestock production or areas of unmanaged woodland. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Australia found that sites managed under agri-environment schemes had similar reptile abundances compared to sites that were managed purely for livestock production or areas of unmanaged woodland. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3486https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3486Fri, 03 Dec 2021 13:08:13 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Patrol or monitor nesting beaches Seven studies evaluated the effects of patrolling or monitoring nesting beaches on reptile populations. Three studies were in Costa Rica and one was in each of the US Virgin Islands, Mexico, Mozambique and the Dominican Republic. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Reproductive success (2 studies): One before-and-after site comparison study in Costa Rica found that olive ridley turtle nests that were moved to a patrolled hatchery and nests that were camouflaged on the nesting beach had similar hatching success. One replicated, controlled study in the Dominican Republic found that on beaches with regular patrols, hatching success of leatherback turtle nests was higher than in nests relocated to hatcheries. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (6 STUDIES) Human behaviour change (6 studies): Two studies in the US Virgin Islands and Costa Rica found that during years when beach patrols were carried out poaching of leatherback turtle nests decreased. Three studies (including two before-and-after studies) in Costa Rica and Mexico found that when beach patrols were carried out in combination with either an education programme for local communities, limiting beach access or camouflaging nests and moving nests to a hatchery, poaching of leatherback turtle nests and olive ridley turtle nests decreased. One before-and-after study in Mozambique found that during a community-based turtle monitoring project no green turtle egg collection or hunting of adults was recorded. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3541https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3541Tue, 07 Dec 2021 16:56:30 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pay farmers to cover the costs of conservation measures (as in agri-environment schemes or conservation incentives) Thirty-two studies evaluated the effects of paying farmers to cover the costs of conservation measures on butterflies and moths. Eighteen studies were in the UK, eight were in Switzerland two were in Finland, and one was in each of Sweden, the Czech Republic, the USA and Germany. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (18 STUDIES) Community composition (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Switzerland found that the community composition of butterflies on grasslands that farmers were paid to manage for wildlife was similar to intensively managed grasslands. Richness/diversity (19 studies): Twelve of 15 studies (including eight controlled, one before-and-after and five site comparison studies) in Switzerland, the United Kingdom and Sweden found that the species richness or diversity of butterflies and moths on grassland, field margins, wildflower strips or whole farms managed under agri-environment schemes was higher than on conventional fields or farms. The other three studies found that the species richness of butterflies and micro-moths on grassland, field margins, wildflower strips or whole farms managed under agri-environment schemes was similar to conventional fields or farms. One of two replicated, site comparison studies in Switzerland found that the species richness of butterflies was higher in landscapes with a greater proportion of land managed under agri-environment schemes than in landscapes with a smaller proportion of agri-environment schemes, but the other study found that species richness of butterflies was similar on individual farms with more land managed under agri-environment schemes than on farms with smaller areas of agri-environment schemes. One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that the species richness of butterflies on grassland sown under a conservation incentive program was similar to that on native prairie. One replicated, site comparison study in Finland found that the species richness of butterflies and day-flying moths on grassland managed under an agri-environment scheme was lower than on abandoned, unmanaged grassland. POPULATION RESPONSE (27 STUDIES) Abundance (27 studies): Seventeen of 19 studies (including seven controlled studies, one replicated, site comparison study, two before-and-after studies, and eight site comparison studies) in the UK, Sweden, Switzerland and Germany found that the abundance of butterflies and moths overall, and of specific species of butterflies or moths, in woodland, grassland, field margins, wildflower strips or whole farms managed under agri-environment schemes was higher than in unmanaged woodland or conventional fields or farms. The other two studies found that the abundance of butterflies and macro-moths on field margins managed under agri-environment schemes was similar to conventional margins. Three of four replicated studies (including one controlled and three site comparison studies) in the UK and Switzerland found that the abundance of butterflies was higher on farms or in landscapes with a higher proportion of land managed under agri-environment schemes than in areas with less land in agri-environment schemes. The other study found that the abundance of some species was higher, but others were lower, on farms with enhanced agri-environment management compared to simple management. Three studies (including one before-and-after and two replicated, site comparison studies) in Finland and the Czech Republic found that grassland grazed or restored under agri-environment scheme prescriptions had a lower abundance of all but three butterfly and day-flying moth species compared to unmanaged grassland, and that Danube clouded yellow abundance declined after agri-environment scheme mowing was initiated on abandoned grasslands. One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that the abundance of butterflies on grassland sown under a conservation incentive program was lower than on native prairie. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3915https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3915Wed, 10 Aug 2022 15:41:00 +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