Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Increase crop diversity All four studies (including one replicated, controlled study and one review) from Belgium, Germany, Hungary and unspecified European countries reported a positive effect of crop rotations on ground beetles or plants. Three studies found higher ground beetle species richness and/or abundance and one study found higher plant species richness in rotation fields or on farms with more crops in rotation compared to monoculture fields. A study from Hungary found that fields in monoculture had a more stable and abundant ground beetle community than fields within a rotation.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F560https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F560Tue, 25 Sep 2012 12:08:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Convert or revert arable land to permanent grassland All seven individual studies (including four replicated studies, of which two also controlled and a review) looking at the effects of reverting arable land to grassland found no clear benefit to wildlife. The studies monitored UK birds in winter and summer, wading birds in Denmark, grey partridges, brown hares in the UK, and plants in the Czech Republic. One of the studies, a controlled before-and-after study from the UK, showed that grey partridge numbers fell significantly following the reversion of arable fields to grassland.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F561https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F561Tue, 25 Sep 2012 12:33:31 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Leave cultivated, uncropped margins or plots (includes 'lapwing plots') Nineteen individual studies looked at the effect of uncropped, cultivated margins or plots on wildlife. Seventeen studies from the UK and northwest Europe (six reviews and seven replicated studies of which two were site comparisons, one a before-and-after trial and one was controlled and randomized) found that leaving uncropped, cultivated margins or plots on farmland provides benefits to some or all target farmland bird species, plants, invertebrates, and mammals. These wildlife benefits included increased species richness of plants, bumblebees, species richness and abundance of spiders, abundance of ground-dwelling invertebrates and ground beetles, increased stone curlew breeding population size, northern lapwing hatching success, Eurasian skylark nesting success and the establishment, abundance or species richness of rare arable plant species. A replicated study found northern lapwing, Eurasian skylark, grey partridge and yellow wagtail bred in lapwing plots. Two studies (a replicated study and a review) from the UK found that leaving uncropped, cultivated margins or plots on farmland had no effect on 11 out of 12 farmland bird species or ground beetles. A replicated site comparison study in the UK found fewer seed-eating birds on fallow plots for ground-nesting birds in two out of three regions. One review from the UK found evidence that pernicious weeds were more commonly found on uncropped cultivated margins than conservation or conventional headlands. A replicated site comparison from the UK found the proportion of young grey partridges in the population was lower in areas with a high proportion of uncropped cultivated margins and plots. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F562https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F562Tue, 25 Sep 2012 14:57:25 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create open patches or strips in permanent grassland Two studies (both randomized, replicated and controlled) investigated the effects of creating open strips in permanent grassland. One trial from the UK found that more Eurasian skylarks used fields containing open strips, but variations in skylark numbers were too great to draw conclusions from this finding. One trial from Scotland found insect numbers in grassy headlands initially dropped when strips were cleared.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F563https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F563Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:19:06 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant cereals in wide-spaced rows One replicated, controlled randomized study and four reports from the same replicated, controlled study in the UK investigated the effects of planting cereals in wide-spaced rows on birds, invertebrates and plants. Both studies found no or inconsistent differences in plant and invertebrate abundance and/or species richness between wide-spaced row and control fields. The replicated controlled study found higher undesirable weed cover, and one study found no significant difference in weed cover in fields with wide-spaced rows compared to control fields. One study found significantly lower invertebrate abundances and fewer Eurasian skylark nests in wide-spaced row fields than control fields or fields with undrilled patches. However it also found an increase in the body condition of nestlings over the breeding season in wide-spaced row fields compared with control fields.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F564https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F564Wed, 26 Sep 2012 16:47:40 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restrict certain pesticides A small scale study in the UK found that using the fungicides Propiconazole and Triadimefon reduced chick food insect abundance less than using Pyrazophos. A replicated, controlled trial in Switzerland found that applying metaldehyde slug pellets in a 50 cm band along the field edge adjacent to wildflower strips provided equivalent crop protection to broadcasting the pellets across the whole field.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F565https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F565Fri, 28 Sep 2012 15:37:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Connect areas of natural or semi-natural habitat All four studies (including one site comparison and two replicated trials) from the Czech Republic, Germany and the Netherlands investigating the effects of habitat corridors or restoring areas of natural or semi-natural habitat between existing patches found some degree of colonization of these areas by invertebrates or mammals. However for invertebrates one unreplicated site comparison reported that the colonization process was slow (Gruttke 1994), and three studies found that the extent of colonization varied between invertebrate taxa. One small, replicated study from the Czech Republic investigated colonization of two bio-corridors by small mammal species. It found more small mammal species in the bio-corridors than in an adjacent forest or arable fields. All three studies from Germany and the Netherlands looking at the effects on invertebrates found mixed results. One replicated study found more species of some wasps (cavity-nesting wasps and caterpillar-hunting wasps) in grass strips connected to forest edges than in isolated strips. An unreplicated study found that the abundance of three ground beetle species substantially increased in an arable field undergoing restoration to heathland but that typical heathland species failed to colonize over the 12 year period. One study found that two out of 85 ground beetle species used a meadow and hedge-island strip extending from semi-natural habitats into arable farmland. In the same study the habitat strip did not function well for ground beetles and harvestmen but was colonized by snails and spiders. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F579https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F579Thu, 04 Oct 2012 11:08:34 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant wild bird seed or cover mixture Thirty individual studies investigated the effects on birds of sowing wild bird seed or cover mixture, 21 studies found positive effects. Fourteen studies from the UK (including one systematic review and nine replicated controlled trials of which four randomized, and three reviews) found that fields sown with wild bird cover mix had higher abundance, density, species diversity and species richness of birds than other farmland habitats. Six studies from the UK (including one review and two replicated studies) found that birds showed a preference for wild bird cover and used it significantly more than other habitats. One review found the grey partridge population increased substantially on farms where conservation measures including cover crops were in place. Nine replicated studies from France and the UK reported mixed or negative effects of wild bird cover on birds compared to other farmland habitats. Six studies found that mixtures including kale or a mixture of kale and/or other species attracted the largest number of bird species or highest bird abundance. Twelve studies from the UK looked at the effects of wild bird cover strips on invertebrates. Seven studies from the UK (including one review and four replicated controlled studies of which two were also randomized) found positive effects. Farmland habitats sown with wild bird cover mix were used more by butterflies, and had a higher abundance or species richness of butterflies and/or bees than other farmland habitats. One review found wild bird cover benefited invertebrates. Four studies (including one review and two replicated trials) reported mixed or negative effects of wild bird cover on invertebrate numbers compared with other farmland habitats. One study found that bees and butterflies showed preferences for particular plant species. Eight studies from the UK looked at plants and wild bird cover. Six studies (including two reviews and two replicated controlled trials) found that planting wild bird cover mix was one of the three best options for conservation of annual herbaceous plant communities, benefited plants and resulted in increased plant diversity and species richness. However two replicated studies (of which one a site comparison) found mixed/negative effects for plant species richness. One replicated trial from the UK found that small mammal activity was higher in wild bird cover than in the crop in winter but not in summer.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F594https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F594Fri, 12 Oct 2012 14:56:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide 'sacrificial' grasslands to reduce the impact of wild geese on crops All six studies from the UK (including four replicated, controlled trials) found that managing grasslands for geese increased the number grazing there. Two replicated, controlled studies found that fertilized and cut areas were grazed by more white-fronted geese or brent geese than control areas. A replicated, controlled trial found that re-seeded and fertilized wet pasture fields were used by more barnacle geese than control fields, and that fertilized areas were used less than re-seeded ones. A replicated, controlled study found that spring fertilizer application increased the use of grassland fields by pink-footed geese. A replicated study found that plots sown with white clover were preferred by dark-bellied brent geese compared to plots sown with grasses. However, four of the studies found that the birds were moving within a relatively small area (i.e. within the study site) and therefore the grasslands may not reduce conflict with farmers.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F641https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F641Mon, 15 Oct 2012 16:28:48 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Sow rare or declining arable weeds Two studies from the UK (both replicated, controlled and randomized) found that the establishment of rare or declining arable weeds depended upon cover crop, cultivation, timing of cut and year or a combination of cultivation in autumn and herbicide treatment.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F642https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F642Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:52:39 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create rotational grass or clover leys A controlled study in Finland found that creating clover leys resulted in higher spider abundance and fewer pest insects than a barley control plot. A study in the UK found that one-year ley plots had significantly lower earthworm species richness and abundance than three-and-a-half-year leys. A replicated study in the UK found that grass leys had fewer plant species than nine other conservation measures.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F643https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F643Tue, 16 Oct 2012 15:45:06 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore or create wood pasture One replicated controlled trial in Belgium found that protection from grazing enhanced the survival and growth of tree seedlings planted in pasture. One replicated study in Switzerland found that cattle browsing increased the mortality of tree saplings of four species, and reduced average shoot production and total above-ground biomass. Browsing frequency decreased with increasing height of the surrounding vegetation.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F644https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F644Wed, 17 Oct 2012 15:01:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use scaring devices (eg. gas guns) and other deterrents to reduce persecution of native species One replicated, controlled trial in Germany found phosphorescent tape was more effective than normal yellow tape at deterring deer from an area, but had no effect on wild boar or European hare.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F645https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F645Wed, 17 Oct 2012 17:00:06 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Leave unharvested cereal headlands in arable fields We have captured no evidence for the effects on farmland wildlife of leaving unharvested cereal headlands. '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%2F646https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F646Wed, 17 Oct 2012 17:14:41 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain upland heath/moorland Of 15 individual studies from the UK, eight (including three replicated, controlled trials, of which one also randomized) found that appropriate management can help to maintain the conservation value of upland heath or moorland. Of these eight studies, four tested the effectiveness of excluding or reducing grazing. Impacts included increases in the abundance of Scottish primrose and other broadleaved plant species, heather cover and numbers of true bugs, biomass of arthropods associated with the bird diet, number and diversity of moths and benefits to black grouse. Among other treatments, repeated cutting and grazing by goats were found to be effective in controlling the dominance of certain grass species. A review found management under the Environmentally Sensitive Areas scheme had broadly positive effects on moorland birds and a reduction in grazing benefited most bird species and increased heath vegetation and heather cover. A replicated before-and-after study found that moorland management under the Environmentally Sensitive Area scheme maintained the number of plant species in two out of three areas. Three studies (including one before-and-after trial) reported mixed results for invertebrates or birds, where management to maintain upland heath or moorland benefited some but not all species or where the effect depended on the vegetation type. Treatments tested included reducing grazing intensity and grouse moor management (burning and predator control). Four studies (including one controlled site comparison and two reviews) found that reducing the intensity of livestock grazing reduced the abundance of soil organisms including invertebrates, bacteria or fungi. A randomized, replicated before-and-after study found that heather cover declined over nine years on a moorland site managed under the Environmentally Sensitive Areas scheme in which grazing intensity had increased.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F647https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F647Wed, 17 Oct 2012 17:51:16 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide supplementary food for birds or mammals A total of 18 individual studies investigated the effects of providing supplementary food. Nine studies from France, Sweden and the UK (six replicated studies, of which five controlled and one also randomized and paired) found that the provision of supplementary food increased farmland bird abundance, breeding population size, density, body mass, hatching, nestling growth and fledging rates, increased overwinter survival of a declining house sparrow population and that fed male hen harriers bred with more females than control birds. Two studies did not separate the effects of several other interventions carried out on the same study site. Four studies from the UK and Finland (three replicated studies, of which one controlled and one randomized) found that farmland songbirds and field voles (field voles on unmown plots only) used supplementary food when provided, including the majority of targeted species such as tree sparrow, yellowhammer and corn bunting. Five replicated studies from the UK (of which two also controlled) found that the provision of supplementary food had no clear effect on farmland bird breeding abundance, European turtle dove reproductive success, territory size or territory density, overwinter survival of three stable house sparrow populations, tree sparrow nest box use, or the abundance of weed seeds on the soil surface. One replicated, controlled study from Sweden found no effect of supplementary food provision on common starling clutch size or nestling weight, and lower fledging rates in nests which received supplementary food compared to nests without supplementary food in one year. Four studies from the UK (two replicated of which one was also randomized and controlled) found that the use of supplementary food by farmland birds varied between species and region, depended upon the time of year and proximity to other feeding stations and natural feeding areas. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F648https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F648Thu, 18 Oct 2012 14:20:34 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain wood pasture and parkland A randomized, replicated, controlled trial in Sweden found that annual mowing maintained the highest number of plant species on wood pasture.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F649https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F649Fri, 19 Oct 2012 13:59:40 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore or create upland heath/moorland A small unreplicated trial of heather moorland restoration in northern England found that mowing and flail cutting along with grazing could be used to control the dominance of purple moor grass. The same study found moorland restoration benefited one bird species, with one or two pairs of northern lapwing found to breed in the area of restored moorland, where none had bred prior to restoration. A review from the UK concluded that vegetation changes took place very slowly following the removal of grazing to restore upland grassland to heather moorland.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F650https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F650Tue, 23 Oct 2012 13:03:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create beetle banks Fourteen reports from eight studies out of a total 24 reports from 12 individual studies (including eight replicated studies of which three controlled and four literature reviews) from Denmark and the UK found that beetle banks provide some benefits to farmland biodiversity. Sixteen reports from eight individual studies looked at invertebrates and beetle banks. Five reports from two replicated studies (of which one controlled) and a review found positive effects on invertebrate densities/numbers, distribution, or higher ground beetle density and species diversity in spring and summer but not winter. Six reports from three replicated studies (of which one randomized and controlled) found that invertebrate numbers varied between specific grass species sown on beetle banks. Two replicated studies (one paired and controlled) found that the effect of beetle banks varied between invertebrate groups or families. Five replicated studies (of which two controlled) found lower or no difference in invertebrate densities or numbers on beetle banks relative to other habitats. One review found lesser marsh grasshopper did not forage on two plant species commonly sown in beetle banks. Six studies looked at birds and beetle banks. Two reviews and one replicated controlled trial found positive effects on bird numbers (in combination with other farmland conservation measures) or evidence that birds used beetle banks. Two studies (one replicated site comparison) found mixed effects on birds. One replicated study found no farmland bird species were associated with beetle banks. One replicated, paired, controlled study and a review looked at the effects of beetle banks on plants and found either lower plant species richness on beetle banks in summer, or that grass margins including beetle banks were generally beneficial to plants but these effects were not pronounced on beetle banks. One controlled study and a review found beetle banks acted as nest sites for harvest mice. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F651https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F651Tue, 23 Oct 2012 16:24:44 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Leave headlands in fields unsprayed (conservation headlands) Twenty-two studies from 14 replicated, controlled experiments (of which two randomized) including two reviews, from a total of 32 studies from 20 experiments (of which 17 replicated, controlled) including three reviews from Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK that investigated species richness and diversity of farmland wildlife found that conservation headlands contained higher species richness or diversity of invertebrates or plants than other habitat types. Twelve studies (including a review) from ten replicated experiments (of which eight controlled and three controlled and randomized) found that some or all invertebrates or plants investigated did not have higher species richness or diversity on conservation headlands compared to other habitat types. This included both replicated, controlled studies investigating bee diversity. Two replicated studies from the UK found that unfertilized conservation headlands had more plant species than fertilized conservation headlands. Positive effects of conservation headlands on abundances or behaviours of some or all species investigated were found by 27 studies from 15 replicated experiments (of which 13 controlled) including five reviews out of a total of 36 studies from 20 experiments (17 replicated, controlled) including five reviews from Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK that investigated birds (some studies looked at number of visits), mammals (some studies looked at number of visits), invertebrates and plant abundance/cover. One review from the UK found a positive effect on grey partridge populations but did not separate the effects of several other interventions including conservation headlands. Nineteen studies from 13 replicated (12 controlled) experiments and a review from Finland, Germany, the Netherlands and the UK found that some or all species of birds, invertebrates or plants investigated were at similar, or lower, abundances on conservation headlands compared to other management. One review from the UK and a study in Germany found conservation headlands had a positive effect on plants and some, but not all invertebrates, or rare arable weeds but did not specify how. All eight studies from the UK and Sweden that investigated species’ productivity, from three replicated (two controlled) experiments including two reviews found that grey partridge productivity or survival was higher in conservation headlands (or in sites with conservation headlands), compared to other management. One replicated study from the UK found that conservation headlands did not increase the proportion of young grey partridges in the population. A before-and-after study from the UK found that some invertebrates in conservation headlands survived pesticide applications to neighbouring fields. A review found crop margins reduce the effects of spray drift on butterflies. A replicated study from Germany and a review found that conservation headlands appeared to prevent or reduce the establishment and spread of pernicious weeds. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F652https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F652Wed, 31 Oct 2012 09:36:44 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce chemical inputs in grassland management A total of 16 studies (including five reviews) investigated the effects of reducing inputs in permanent grasslands. Six studies from the Netherlands, Switzerland and the UK (including one review and four replicated studies of which one was also controlled and one a randomized and controlled before-and-after trial) found that stopping fertilizer inputs in permanent grassland resulted in an increase in plant species richness, reduced the rate of plant species loss and attracted a higher abundance or species richness of some or all invertebrates studied. One review from the Netherlands found that low fertilizer input grasslands favour common meadow bird species. One review found a study showing that densities of some invertebrates were higher in unfertilized plots compared with those receiving nitrogen inputs. Two replicated, controlled trials from the Czech Republic and the UK (one randomized) found that applying fertilizer to permanent grasslands reduced plant species richness or diversity and that the effects on plant communities were still apparent 16 years after the cessation of fertilizer application. Four studies from Ireland, the Netherlands and the UK (including two replicated trials of which one randomized and one controlled and a review) found that reducing fertilizer inputs on grassland had no clear or rapid effect on plant species richness. A review found no clear effect of reducing fertilizer inputs on the density of soil-dwelling invertebrates. One replicated study found that fertilizer treatment only affected seed production of a small number of meadow plants. One replicated study from the UK found lower invertebrate abundance on plots with reduced fertilizer inputs but the differences were not significant.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F694https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F694Sat, 01 Dec 2012 17:52:25 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Leave overwinter stubbles Eighteen studies (including four reviews and one systematic review) investigated the effects of overwinter stubbles on farmland wildlife. Thirteen studies from Finland, Switzerland and the UK (six replicated trials, including two site comparisons, four reviews and a systematic review) found evidence that leaving overwinter stubbles provides some benefits to plants, insects, spiders, mammals and farmland birds. These benefits include higher densities of farmland birds in winter, increased grey partridge productivity, and increased cirl bunting population size (in combination with several other conservation measures) and territory density. One replicated site comparison study from the UK found evidence that leaving overwinter stubbles had inconsistent or no effects on farmland bird numbers. Three studies found only certain bird species showed positive associations with overwinter stubbles. Two replicated studies (of which one also randomized and controlled) found that only Eurasian skylark or both Eurasian skylark and Eurasian linnet benefited, out of a total 23 and 12 farmland bird species tested respectively. One study found that only grey partridge and tree sparrow showed positive population responses to areas with overwinter stubbles. Two studies from the UK (one randomized, one replicated and controlled) found that different farmland bird species benefited from different stubble heights. One replicated site comparison found mixed effects between different stubble management options on seed-eating bird abundance.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F695https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F695Sun, 02 Dec 2012 12:01:18 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain traditional water meadows (includes management for breeding and/or wintering waders/waterfowl) Four studies from Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands and the UK (including two site comparisons of which one also replicated) found that maintaining traditional water meadows resulted in an increased population size or number of territories of northern lapwing, common redshank and black-tailed godwit and increased plant species richness. However one of these studies also found common snipe declined on all sites under management to maintain traditional water meadows, and another of the studies found that differences in numbers of birds were present before meadow bird management. Two studies (a replicated study and a review of European studies) found that managing traditional water meadows by grazing had mixed impacts on wildlife and that the productivity of northern lapwings was too low to sustain populations on three of the four water meadows managed for waders. A randomized, replicated, controlled trial in the Netherlands found that cutting in June maintained relatively stable vegetation and a review found mowing could be used to maintain water meadows but had variable effects on plant species richness. One replicated site comparison from the Netherlands found more birds bred on 12.5 ha plots with management for wading birds (in combination with per-clutch payments), however at the field scale there was no difference in bird abundance or species richness between conventionally managed fields and those managed for birds.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F696https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F696Fri, 07 Dec 2012 09:05:54 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Employ areas of semi-natural habitat for rough grazing (includes salt marsh, lowland heath, bog, fen) A series of site comparison studies from the UK found that areas of heathland that had been re-seeded with grass to improve livestock grazing were avoided by nesting whimbrels but were the main early spring feeding areas for them. There was no difference in whimbrel chick survival between areas of heathland re-seeded with grass and those that had not. Two replicated studies from the UK found higher butterfly abundance and species richness and a higher frequency of occurrence of songbirds and invertebrate-feeding birds on areas of grazed semi-natural upland grassland than grazed improved pasture. However members of the crow family showed the opposite trend. A review found excluding cattle from fenland reduced the number of plant species, and that low-medium grazing levels could have positive effects on fenland biodiversity but may need to be accompanied by additional management such as mowing. One study from the UK found northern lapwing nest survival and clutch size were greater on ungrazed than grazed marshes. A replicated site comparison from the UK found the proportion of young grey partridges was negatively associated with rough grazing (in combination with several other interventions). Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F697https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F697Fri, 07 Dec 2012 15:57:06 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use mowing techniques to reduce mortality Eight studies investigated the effects of different mowing techniques on wildlife. Seven studies (including four replicated trials of which one randomized, and one controlled and three reviews) from Germany, Ireland, Switzerland and the UK found that using specific mowing techniques can reduce mortality or injury in birds, mammals, amphibians or invertebrates. A review found the UK corncrake population increased around the same period that Corncrake Friendly Mowing schemes were introduced. One replicated trial found that changing the mowing pattern reduced the number of corncrake chicks killed. Sixty-eight percent of chicks escaped mowing when fields were mown from the centre outwards, compared to 45% during conventional mowing from the field edge inwards. Six studies looked at the effects of using different mowing machinery. Two studies (one review, one randomized, replicated trial) found bar mowers and one report found double chop mowers caused less damage or lower mortality among amphibians and/or invertebrates than other types of mowing machinery. A review found evidence that twice as many small mammals were killed by rotary disc mowers with conditioners compared to double blade mowers. Two studies found that using a mechanical processor or conditioner killed or injured more invertebrates than without a conditioner, however one replicated controlled study found mower-conditioners resulted in higher Eurasian skylark nest survival than using a tedder. A review of studies found that skylark chick survival was four times higher when wider mowing machinery was used, whilst a replicated controlled trial found skylark nest survival was highest when swather mowers and forage harvesters were used.    Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F698https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F698Sun, 09 Dec 2012 10:30:37 +0000
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