Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water: Use crop rotationsWater use (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Turkey found higher water-use efficiency in plots with crop rotations, compared to continuous wheat, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found lower water-use efficiency in plots with crop rotations, compared to continuous wheat, in some comparisons. Water availability (3 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Australia found similar amounts of water in soils with crop rotations or continuous crops. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Turkey found inconsistent differences in water storage in soils with or without crop rotations. Pathogens and pesticides (0 studies) Nutrients (0 studies) Sediments (0 studies) Implementation options (1 study): One study from Spain found no difference in water-use efficiency between plots with different crop rotations.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1383https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1383Mon, 15 May 2017 15:45:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water: Use no tillage in arable fieldsWater use (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found that barley used water more efficiently in plots without tillage, compared to plots with tillage, in some comparisons. Water availability (14 studies): Nine controlled studies (eight replicated and randomized) from Spain and the USA found more water in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage, in some or all comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Lebanon found less water in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage, in some comparisons. Three replicated, controlled studies (two randomized) from Spain and the USA sometimes found more water, and sometimes found less water, in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found lower porosity in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage, in some comparisons. Pathogens and pesticides (0 studies) Nutrients (0 studies) Sediments (0 studies)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1384https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1384Mon, 15 May 2017 15:49:43 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water: Use no tillage instead of reduced tillageWater use (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found that crops used water more efficiently in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage, in one of four comparisons. Water availability (9 studies): Six controlled studies from Spain (five of which were replicated and randomized) found more water in soils with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage, in some or all comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found less water in soils with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage, in one of fifteen comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Australia and Lebanon found similar amounts of water in soils with no tillage or reduced tillage. Pathogens and pesticides (0 studies) Nutrients (0 studies) Sediments (0 studies)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1385https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1385Mon, 15 May 2017 15:53:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water: Use reduced tillage in arable fieldsWater use (3 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain and Turkey found that crops used water more efficiently in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Egypt found that crops used water more efficiently in plots with less-frequent tillage (one pass with a plough, compared to two), but crops used water less efficiently in plots with shallow tillage, compared to deep tillage. Water availability (14 studies) Water content (12 studies): Six controlled studies (five replicated and randomized) from Egypt and Spain found more water in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some or all comparisons. Two of these studies also found less water in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Lebanon and the USA found less water in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons. Four controlled studies from Egypt, Italy, and Spain (three of which were replicated and randomized), found similar amounts of water in soils with reduced tillage or conventional tillage, in all comparisons. Water loss (2 studies): One replicated, controlled study from France found that less water was lost through drainage from soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, during the growing season, but more water was lost during the fallow season, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Egypt found that less water was lost through runoff from soils with less-frequent tillage (one pass with a plough, compared to two), but more water was lost through runoff from soils with shallow tillage, compared deep tillage. Water infiltration (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Egypt found that water infiltration rates were faster in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons. Two replicated, controlled studies from Spain and the USA found that water infiltration rates were similar in soils with reduced tillage or conventional tillage. Pathogens and pesticides (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from France found that less herbicide was leached from soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Nutrients (0 studies) Sediments (0 studies) Implementation options (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Egypt found more water and faster water infiltration rates in soils that were tilled at slower tractor speeds, but found that water losses and water-use efficiencies were similar in plots that were tilled at different tractor speeds. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Turkey found that water-use efficiencies were similar in plots with different types of reduced tillage (rototilling and disking, compared to double disking).Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1386https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1386Mon, 15 May 2017 15:58:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water: Plant buffer stripsWater use (0 studies) Water availability (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Italy found more soil moisture in plots with buffers, compared to plots without buffers, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found that similar amounts of water were lost as runoff from plots with or without buffers. Pathogens and pesticides (1 study): One replicated study from the USA found that grass buffer strips decreased the amount of Cryptosporidium parvum (a protozoan pathogen) in runoff, after bovine manure was applied to slopes. Nutrients (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found less nitrate in runoff from irrigated pastures with buffer strips, but another one found no differences in nitrate or phosphorus in runoff from pastures with or without buffer strips. Sediments (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies (one randomized) from the USA found less sediment in runoff from irrigated fields or pastures with buffers, compared to those without buffers, in some or all comparisons. Implementation options (3 studies): One replicated study from the USA found less C. parvum (a protozoan pathogen) in runoff from flatter buffer strips, compared to steeper. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Italy found more soil moisture in plots with narrower buffer strips, in one of two comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found that buffers trapped more runoff in the four weeks after fertilizer application, compared to the next 10 weeks.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1387https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1387Mon, 15 May 2017 16:00:45 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water: Restore habitat along watercoursesWater use (0 studies) Water availability (1 study): One replicated site comparison in the USA found similar amounts of water, in soils, in restored and remnant riparian habitats. Pathogens and pesticides (0 studies) Nutrients (0 studies) Sediments (0 studies)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1388https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1388Mon, 15 May 2017 16:02:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water: Exclude grazersWater use (0 studies) Water availability (4 studies): Four studies (three replicated, randomized, and controlled) in grasslands and shrublands in the USA and Spain found less water in areas with cattle and sheep excluded, compared to grazed areas, in some or all comparisons. Pathogens and pesticides (0 studies) Nutrients (2 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in wet grasslands in the USA found inconsistent differences in nitrogen, phosphorus, and pH in surface water in areas with cattle excluded, compared to grazed areas. One of these studies found more nitrate in stream water in ungrazed areas, compared to grazed areas, in one of two experiments. Sediments (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in wet grasslands in the USA found no difference in surface water turbidity between areas with cattle excluded and grazed areas.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1389https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1389Mon, 15 May 2017 16:04:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water: Use fewer grazersWater use (0 studies) Water availability (0 studies) Pathogens and pesticides (0 studies) Nutrients (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in wet grasslands in the USA found no differences in nitrate and pH levels in surface water between areas grazed by cattle at low or moderate intensities. Sediments (0 studies)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1390https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1390Mon, 15 May 2017 16:07:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water: Use seasonal grazingWater use (0 studies) Water availability (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in wet grasslands in the USA found that pools were wet for longer in continuously, compared to seasonally, grazed plots. Pathogens and pesticides (0 studies) Nutrients (0 studies) Sediments (0 studies)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1391https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1391Mon, 15 May 2017 16:09:39 +0100Collected 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: Use organic fertilizer instead of inorganicPest regulation (0 studies) Crop damage (0 studies) Ratio of natural enemies to pests (0 studies) Pest numbers (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found more aphids in plots with organic fertilizer, compared to inorganic fertilizer, in some comparisons, but another one found similar numbers of aphids in the same study system. Natural enemy numbers (0 studies)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1393https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1393Mon, 15 May 2017 16:14:56 +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 or maintain ground cover in orchards or vineyardsPest regulation (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found that more leafhopper eggs were parasitized in plots with cover crops, compared to bare fallows, in one of six comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from the USA found inconsistent differences or no differences in the parasitism of leafhopper eggs between plots with or without ground cover. Crop damage (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found that more grapes were damaged by pests in plots with cover crops, compared to bare fallows, in some comparisons. Ratio of natural enemies to pests (0 studies) Pest numbers (12 studies) Weeds (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in an olive orchard in Spain found fewer weeds in plots with cover crops, compared to bare soil, in one of two comparisons. One replicated, controlled study from a vineyard in the USA found more weeds in plots with cover crops, compared to bare soil, in one of nine comparisons. Implementation options (4 studies): Three studies from vineyards in the USA found different numbers of weeds or weed species in plots with different types of ground cover, in some or all comparisons. One study from the USA found similar numbers of weeds in vine rows with or without cover crops. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found that plant diversity decreased over time in plots without tillage, but increased in plots with tillage. This study found that tillage had no effects on the number of plant species and had inconsistent effects on plant biomass. Insects (5 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies (one randomized) from the USA found fewer leafhoppers in plots with cover crops, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found more leafhoppers, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found similar numbers of leafhoppers. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found more navel orangeworm moths in plots with resident vegetation, compared to tilled soil, in one of two comparisons. Implementation options (2 studies): Two studies from the USA found fewer pests in plots with mown ground cover, compared to unmown ground cover or ground cover before mowing. Mammals (1 study) Implementation options (1 study): One study from the USA found more gophers in plots with clover, compared to other cover crops. Natural enemy numbers (6 studies): Four replicated, controlled studies (three randomized) from Spain and the USA found more natural enemies in plots with ground cover, compared to plots without ground cover, in some or all comparisons. One replicated, controlled study from the USA found fewer parasitoids in plots with ground cover, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found inconsistent differences in the numbers of spiders between plots with or without ground cover. One of these studies found no difference in the number of spider species between plots with or without ground cover, and another one found no difference in the composition of spider communities. Implementation options (1 study): One study from the USA found more natural enemies in plots with mown cover crops, one week after mowing, compared to before mowing. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1395https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1395Mon, 15 May 2017 16:22:21 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pest regulation: Use crop rotationsPest regulation (0 studies) Crop damage (0 studies) Ratio of natural enemies to pests (0 studies) Pest numbers (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Australia found less weed biomass in plots with a canola-wheat sequence, compared to a wheat-wheat sequence. Natural enemy numbers (0 studies) Implementation options (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found similar amounts of weed biomass in plots with four-year or two-year crop rotations.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1396https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1396Fri, 19 May 2017 08:56:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pest regulation: Use no tillage in arable fieldsPest regulation (0 studies) Crop damage (1 study): One replicated, controlled study from Syria found no differences in most diseases between plots with no tillage or conventional tillage, but found a higher incidence of Aschochyta blight in plots with no tillage. Ratio of natural enemies to pests (0 studies) Pest numbers (9 studies) Weeds (8 studies): Three replicated, controlled studies (two randomized) from Italy and Spain found more weeds in plots with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons. Four replicated, controlled studies (three randomized) from Italy, Spain, and the USA found inconsistent differences in weeds (sometimes more weeds in plots with no tillage, sometimes fewer). One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Lebanon found similar numbers of weeds in plots with or without tillage. Weed species (4 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Italy found more weed species in plots with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Three replicated, controlled studies (two randomized) from Italy and Spain found similar numbers of weed species in plots with or without tillage. Other pests (1 study): One replicated, controlled study from Italy found fewer parasitic plants (broomrapes) in plots with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Natural enemy numbers (1 study): One replicated, controlled study from the USA found similar numbers of predatory mites in plots with or without tillage.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1397https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1397Fri, 19 May 2017 09:00:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pest regulation: Use no tillage instead of reduced tillagePest regulation (0 studies) Crop damage (0 studies) Ratio of natural enemies to pests (0 studies) Pest numbers (6 studies) Weeds (6 studies): Four replicated, controlled studies from Italy, Lebanon, and Spain found fewer weeds in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage, in some or all comparisons. Two of these studies also found more weeds in some comparisons. One replicated, controlled studies from Australia found more weeds in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found similar amounts of weeds in plots with no tillage or reduced tillage. Weed species (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found fewer weed species in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage. Two replicated, controlled studies from Italy and Spain found similar numbers of weed species in plots with no tillage or reduced tillage. Natural enemy numbers (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found similar numbers of predatory mites in soils with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1398https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1398Fri, 19 May 2017 09:05:46 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pest regulation: Use reduced tillage in arable fieldsPest regulation (0 studies) Crop damage (0 studies) Ratio of natural enemies to pests (0 studies) Pest numbers (9 studies) Weeds (8 studies): Seven replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy, Lebanon, Spain, Turkey, and the USA found more weeds in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some or all comparisons. One of these studies also found fewer weeds in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Italy found similar numbers of weeds in plots with reduced tillage or conventional tillage, in all comparisons. Weed species (3 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain and Turkey found similar numbers of weed species in plots with reduced tillage or conventional tillage. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found that weed communities had different compositions in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Diseases and pest insects (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found similar numbers of diseases and pest insects in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Natural enemy numbers (1 study): One replicated, controlled study from the USA found similar numbers of predatory mites in soils with reduced tillage or conventional tillage.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1399https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1399Fri, 19 May 2017 09:10:54 +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: Restore habitat along watercoursesPest regulation (0 studies) Crop damage (0 studies) Ratio of natural enemies to pests (0 studies) Pest numbers (1 study): One replicated site comparison from the USA found more weeds in orchards next to restored riparian habitats, compared to remnant habitats. Natural enemy numbers (0 studies) Implementation options (1 study): One replicated, site comparison from the USA found more weeds in orchards next to older restored sites, compared to younger restored sites.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1402https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1402Fri, 19 May 2017 09:17:29 +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: Pollination: Plant or maintain ground cover in orchards or vineyardsPollination (0 studies) Crop visitation (0 studies) Pollinator numbers (0 studies) Implementation options (1 study): One replicated site comparison from Greece found more bee species and more deposited pollen grains in managed olive orchards, compared to abandoned olive orchards, which differed in ground cover.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1404https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1404Fri, 19 May 2017 09:24:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pollination: Use no tillage in arable fieldsPollination (0 studies) Crop visitation (0 studies) Pollinator numbers (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found more pollinators in plots with no tillage, compared to deep tillage. Implementation options (0 studies)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1405https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1405Fri, 19 May 2017 09:27:47 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pollination: Plant flowersPollination (0 studies) Crop visitation (1 study): One replicated, controlled study from Spain found more pollinators on coriander flowers next to planted flower strips, compared to coriander flowers next to unplanted field margins. Pollinator numbers (1 study): One replicated, controlled study from the USA found more wild bee species and individuals in planted flower strips, compared to unplanted strips, in some comparisons, but found no differences for syrphid flies. Implementation options (8 studies): Five replicated studies from Spain and the USA found that some planted flower species were more attractive to pollinators than others. Four replicated studies from Italy and Spain found more pollinators where more flower species had been planted, in some comparisons, but in other comparisons found fewer pollinators where more flower species had been planted. One replicated, controlled study from Italy found that bee numbers increased over time in areas planted with three or six flower species, but decreased over time in areas planted with nine flower species.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1406https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1406Fri, 19 May 2017 09:31:02 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pollination: Plant hedgerowsPollination (1 study): One replicated, paired site comparison from the USA found higher seed-set in canola plants due to flower visitation by native bees in fields next to planted hedgerows, compared to fields next to unplanted edges. However, this study found no difference in seed-set due to flower visitation by honey bees or syrphid flies. Crop visitation (2 studies): One replicated, paired, site comparison from the USA found higher crop visitation rates by native bees, but not by honey bees or syrphid flies, in fields next to planted hedgerows, compared to fields next to unplanted edges. Another replicated, paired, site comparison from the USA found no difference in flower visitation rates by bees in fields next to planted edges. Pollinator numbers (6 studies): Five replicated studies from the USA found more bee species in fields with hedgerows, or in hedgerows themselves, compared to fields or field edges without hedgerows. Three of these studies found more syrphid fly species in hedgerows, compared to field edges without hedgerows. One of these studies found similar numbers of syrphid fly species in fields with or without hedgerows. Two of these studies found more native bee and hoverfly individuals or more specialist bees in hedgerows, compared to field edges without hedgerows. One replicated site comparison from the USA found fewer ground-nesting bees, but similar numbers of bee species and flower-visiting bees, in planted hedgerows, compared to unplanted edges. Implementation options (3 studies): Two replicated site comparisons from the USA found more bee species in old hedgerows, compared to young hedgerows, and one of these studies also found more syrphid fly species. One replicated site comparison from the USA found more bee species on native plants, compared to non-native plants, in old hedgerows, but not in young hedgerows.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1407https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1407Fri, 19 May 2017 09:34:29 +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