Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide nest boxes for stingless beesOne replicated trial tested nest boxes placed in trees for the stingless bee Melipona quadrifasciata in Brazil and found no uptake.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F49https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F49Thu, 20 May 2010 11:16:43 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide red squirrel feeders We have captured no evidence for the effects of providing red squirrel feeders 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%2F82https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F82Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:21:16 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide otter holts We have captured no evidence for the effects of providing otter holts 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%2F83https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F83Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:22:28 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide other resources for birds (water, sand for bathing) A small study in France found that grey partridge density was higher in areas where a combination of supplementary food, water, shelter and sand for bathing were provided.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F117https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F117Tue, 01 Nov 2011 20:37:30 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide refuges during harvest or mowing Three studies examined the effect of providing refuges for birds during harvest or mowing in France and the UK. One replicated study in France found evidence that providing refuges during mowing reduced contact between mowing machinery and unfledged quail and corncrakes. However one replicated controlled study and a review from the UK found that Eurasian skylark did not use nesting refuges more than other areas.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F147https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F147Sat, 14 Jan 2012 14:49:58 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide owl nest boxes (Tawny owl, Barn owl) Two studies from the UK (a before-and-after study and a controlled study) found that the provision of owl nest boxes in farm buildings maintained barn owl nesting and roosting activity and resulted in an increase in population density. A study from the Netherlands found that the barn owl population increased with increased availability of nest boxes. A replicated, controlled study in Hungary found that juvenile barn owls fledged from nest boxes were significantly less likely to be recovered alive than those reared in church towers. A replicated study from the UK investigating barn owl nest site use, found that the number of occupied nest sites and the proportion breeding decreased from 2001 to 2009, but were unaffected by the number of boxes.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F154https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F154Sat, 14 Jan 2012 15:38:54 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide nest boxes for birds Two studies (including one before and after study) from the Netherlands and the UK found that following the provision of nest boxes there was an increase in the number of Eurasian kestrel clutches and breeding tree sparrows. One replicated study from Switzerland found the number of Eurasian wryneck broods in nest boxes declined over five years whilst the number of Eurasian hoopoe broods increased. Eight studies from Finland, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK (six were replicated) found that nest boxes in agricultural habitats were occupied by Eurasian kestrel, long-eared owl, common starling, tits Parus spp., tree sparrow, stock dove and jackdaw, and Eurasian wryneck and Eurasian hoopoe. Whilst two studies from the UK (a replicated, paired site study and a controlled study) found that carrion crows did not nest in artificial trees and tree sparrows showed a preference for nest boxes in wetland habitat, compared to those in farmland sites. Two replicated studies from Sweden found that nest success within boxes was related to the amount of pasture available and nest boxes positioned higher above the ground had higher occupancy, numbers of eggs and numbers of hatched young.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F155https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F155Sat, 14 Jan 2012 15:49:39 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide or retain set-aside areas in farmland We found 34 studies comparing use of set-aside areas with control farmed fields. Two were reviews, none were randomized, replicated, controlled trials. Of these, 20 (from Austria, Finland, Germany and the UK) showed benefits to or higher use by all wildlife groups considered. Twelve (from Finland, Germany, Ireland, Sweden and the UK) found some species or groups used set-aside more than crops, others did not. Two studies (all from the UK) found no effect, one found an adverse effect of set-aside. Three of the studies, all looking at skylarks, went beyond counting animal or plant numbers and measured reproductive success. Two from the UK found higher nest survival or productivity on set-aside than control fields. One from the UK found lower nest survival on set-aside. Fifteen studies (from Belgium, Germany, Sweden and the UK) monitored wildlife on set-aside fields, or in landscapes with set-aside, without directly comparing with control fields or landscapes. Three looked at set-aside age and found more plants or insects on set-aside more than a year old. Two compared use of different non-crop habitats and found neither insects nor small mammals preferred set-aside. Two showed increased bird numbers on a landscape scale after set-aside was introduced, amongst other interventions. Eight looked at effects of set-aside management such as use of fertilizer and sowing or cutting regimes. A systematic review from the UK found significantly higher densities of farmland birds on fields removed from production and under set-aside designation than on conventionally farmed fields in both winter and summer. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F156https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F156Thu, 29 Mar 2012 19:03:54 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide or retain un-harvested buffer strips Four replicated studies from Canada and the USA  found that wider buffer strips retained a bird community more similar to that of uncut forest than narrower strips. Two replicated and controlled studies from the USA found that several forest-specialist species were absent from buffers up to 70 m wide. Two replicated and controlled studies from the USA found that richness was higher in buffers <100 m wide, compared to wider strips or forest. A replicated, controlled study in the USA (6) found that thinned buffer strips had lower abundances of forest species than unthinned strips, but higher abundances of early successional species. A replicated study from the USA (4) found that species richness was similar between 20–50 m buffers and original forest. A replicated study from the USA found that bird abundances were higher in 20–50 m wide buffer strips than in original forest. A replicated study in the USA found no differences in productivity of birds nests between buffer strips wider than 350 m, compared to those thinner than 250 m. Whilst a replicated, controlled study from the USA found that predation of artificial nests was significantly higher in buffer strips compared with continuous forest, but that there was no diffrerence between narrow and wide buffers. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F161https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F161Tue, 15 May 2012 14:59:57 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide or retain set-aside areas in farmland Three replicated studies and a review of five studies from Europe and North America examining species richness or diversity found that more species were found on set-aside than on crops. One found fewer species on set-aside than other agricultural habitats. All 21 studies, including a systematic review, 12 replicated experiments and two reviews, from Europe and North America that investigated population trends or habitat associations found that some species were found at higher densities or used set-aside more than other habitats, or were found on set-aside. Four studies (three replicated) from the UK found that some species were found at lower densities on set-aside compared to other habitats. Three of four replicated studies from the UK found that waders and Eurasian skylarks had higher productivities on set-aside, compared to other habitats. One study found that skylarks nesting on set-aside had lower productivity compared to those on cereal crops, and similar productivities to those on other crops. One replicated paired study from the UK found that rotational set-aside was used more than non-rotational set-aside, a replicated paired study found no differences between rotational and non-rotational set-aside. A review from Europe and North America found that naturally regenerated set-aside held more birds and more species than sown set-aside. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F175https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F175Sun, 27 May 2012 15:10:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide refuges for fish within pondsA controlled cross-over trial in the UK found that great cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo foraging success was lower in a pond with artificial refuges, compared to a control pond.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F253https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F253Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:49:06 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide paths to limit the extent of disturbanceA before-and-after study from the UK found that two species of wader nested closer to a path, or at higher densities near the path, following resurfacing, which resulted in far fewer people leaving the path.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F311https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F311Wed, 25 Jul 2012 17:34:15 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide nesting material for wild birds A replicated study in the UK found that songbirds used feathers provided at a very low rate and nest construction did not appear to be resource limited. A replicated, controlled study from Australia found that four species of egrets used supplementary nesting material provided, preferentially taking material from raised platforms over water compared to plots on dry land.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F501https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F501Tue, 04 Sep 2012 16:23:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide nesting habitat for birds that is safe from extreme weather A small from New Zealand found Chatham Island oystercatchers Haematopus chathamensis used raised nest platforms made from car tyres (designed to raise nests above the level of storm surges). The success of these nests is not reported. Two replicated, controlled studies from the USA found that the nesting success of terns and waders was no higher on specially raised areas of nesting substrate, compared to unraised areas, with one study finding that a similar proportion of nests were lost to flooding in raised and unraised areas.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F504https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F504Thu, 06 Sep 2012 13:55:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide paraffin stoves We found no evidence for the effects of providing paraffin stoves on forests. '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%2F1184https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1184Thu, 19 May 2016 11:40:40 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide non-monetary benefits to local communities for sustainably managing their forest and its wildlife (e.g. better education, infrastructure development) One before-and-after study in the Republic of Congo found that 70% of the central chimpanzees reintroduced to an area where local people were provided non-monetary benefits, alongside other interventions, survived over seven years. One before-and-after study in India found that numbers of hoolock gibbons increased by 66% over five years after providing local communities with alternative income, alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1510https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1510Wed, 18 Oct 2017 15:39:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide new technologies to reduce pressure on wild biological resources We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of providing new technologies (e.g. fuel-efficient stoves) to reduce pressure on wild biological resources. ‘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%2F1748https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1748Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:29:05 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide or retain set-aside areas in farmland We found no studies that evaluated the effects of providing or retaining set-aside areas in farmland 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%2F1937https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1937Mon, 03 Dec 2018 13:17:14 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide paths to limit extent of disturbance to mammals We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of providing paths to limit the extent of disturbance to mammals. ‘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%2F2337https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2337Thu, 21 May 2020 15:21:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide or retain set-aside areas on farmland Four studies evaluated the effects on mammals of providing or retaining set-aside areas on farmland. Three studies were in the UK and one was in Switzerland. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): Three replicated studies (including two site comparison studies), in the UK and Switzerland, found that set-aside did not enhance small mammal numbers relative to cropland or to uncultivated field margins and farm woodland, or brown hare numbers relative to numbers on farms without set-aside areas. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): A before-and-after study in the UK found that use of uncut set-aside areas by wood mice increased after crop harvesting. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2377https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2377Wed, 27 May 2020 08:48:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide refuges during crop harvesting or mowing We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of providing refuges during crop harvesting or mowing. ‘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%2F2389https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2389Thu, 28 May 2020 09:02:08 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide new technologies to reduce harvesting pressure on vegetationWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation or human behaviour, of providing new technologies to reduce harvesting pressure on vegetation in marshes or swamps.   ‘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%2F3014https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3014Wed, 31 Mar 2021 14:22:01 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide or maintain hedgerows on farmland One study evaluated the effects of providing or maintaining linear features on reptile populations. This study was in Madagascar. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Community composition (1 study): One site comparison study in Madagascar found that reptile communities in cultivated areas with hedges were more similar to those found in forests than were communities from cultivated areas without hedges. The study also found that more reptile species were found only areas with hedges than only in areas without hedges. POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3519https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3519Tue, 07 Dec 2021 14:42:00 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide or retain set-aside areas on farmland We found no studies that evaluated the effects of providing or retaining set-aside areas 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%2F3520https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3520Tue, 07 Dec 2021 14:46:32 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide or retain set‐aside areas in farmland Nine studies evaluated the effects of providing or retaining set-aside areas in farmland on butterflies and moths. Three studies were in the UK, and one was in each of Germany, Ireland, Switzerland, Hungary, Finland and the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Community composition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Germany found that butterfly communities in older set-aside fields included species which were less migratory, spent longer as caterpillars, and had fewer generations/year than species found in newer set-aside fields. Richness/diversity (5 studies): Three of four replicated studies (including one randomized, controlled study and three site comparison studies) in Germany, Ireland, Hungary and Finland found that sown or naturally regenerating set-aside had a greater species richness of butterflies and day-flying moths than cereal fields or pasture, especially when the set-aside was sown with less competitive grasses. One of these studies found a higher species richness of butterflies and day-flying moths in second-year set-aside than in first-year set-aside, but another found no difference in butterfly species richness between 1–3-year-old set-aside. The other study found that set-aside fields had a similar species richness of butterflies and moths to arable and pasture fields. One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that set-aside fields had a similar species richness of butterflies to native prairies. POPULATION RESPONSE (8 STUDIES) Abundance (8 studies): Two of five replicated studies (including one randomized, controlled study and four site comparison studies) in the UK, Ireland, Hungary and Finland found that the abundance of butterflies and day-flying moths in sown set-aside was higher than in cereal fields, especially when the set-aside was sown with less competitive grasses. One of these studies found a higher abundance of butterflies and day-flying moths in second-year set-aside than in first-year set-aside, but another found no difference in butterfly abundance between 1–3-year-old set-aside. The other three studies found that fallow and stubble set-aside had a similar abundance of adult butterflies and butterfly and moth caterpillars to arable fields and pasture. Two site comparison studies (including one replicated study) in the UK and Switzerland found that set-aside fields had a similar abundance of butterfly and moth adults and caterpillars to uncultivated field boundaries and extensively farmed land. One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that set-aside fields had a similar abundance of butterflies to native prairies in their first year, but a lower abundance of butterflies thereafter. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3980https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3980Thu, 18 Aug 2022 10:53:43 +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