Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Offer per clutch payment for farmland birds One of two replicated and controlled studies from the Netherlands found that farms with per clutch payments held slightly higher breeding densities of waders, but not higher overall numbers than control farms. One study found no population effects over three years. A replicated and controlled study found higher hatching success on farms with payment schemes than control farms.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F196https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F196Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:50:57 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Mowing roadside vergesA single replicated, controlled study in the USA found that more ducks nested on unmown roadside verges, but that over four years, nesting success on unmown verges fell to below that on mown verges.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F259https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F259Thu, 19 Jul 2012 13:19:48 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Move fish-eating birds to reduce conflict with fishermenA single before-and-after study in the USA found that Caspian tern Sterna caspia chicks had a lower proportion of commercial fish in their diet following the movement of the colony away from an important fishery.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F281https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F281Tue, 24 Jul 2012 12:58:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Mow or cut natural grasslands Of six studies, two replicated and controlled studies from the USA found higher densities of birds or nests on mown grasslands, compared to unmanaged or burned areas. Two controlled studies from the USA, one replicated, found lower nesting or population densities of some species, on mown grasslands compared to unmown areas. Two replicated and controlled studies found no significant differences in nesting densities or community composition between mown and unmown areas. One study from the USA found that grasshopper sparrow nesting success was higher on mown areas than grazed areas of grassland. A replicated controlled study from the USA found that ducks had similar nesting success on cut and uncut areas.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F338https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F338Sat, 28 Jul 2012 15:41:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Mow or cut semi-natural grasslands/pastures Of four studies captured, one, a before-and-after study from the UK, found that local wader populations increased following the annual cutting semi-natural grasslands. A replicated, controlled study from the UK found that ducks grazed at higher densities on cut areas, a second replicated study from the UK found that goose grazing densities were unaffected by cutting frequency. A replicated study from the USA found that Henslow's sparrows were more likely to be recaptured on unmown, compared with mown grasslands.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F339https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F339Sat, 28 Jul 2012 15:49:03 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Mow or cut reedbeds Of three studies captured, one controlled study from the Netherlands found that warblers nested at lower densities in cut areas of reeds. Productivity and success did not vary between treatments. An unreplicated study from Denmark found that geese grazed at the highest densities on reedbeds cut 5–12 years previously. One replicated study investigated changing water levels in addition to cutting reeds in the UK and found that management did not affect great bittern breeding productivity but did appear to delay territory establishment.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F340https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F340Sat, 28 Jul 2012 20:15:58 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Other biodiversity: Add compost to the soilAmphibians (0 studies) Birds (0 studies) Invertebrates (1 study): One replicated, controlled study from the USA, found no differences in invertebrate biodiversity between plots with or without added compost. Mammals (0 studies) Plants (4 studies): Four replicated, controlled studies (three randomized) from Italy, Spain, and the USA found more plant biomass in plots with added compost, compared to plots without added compost. One of these studies also found more plant cover and faster tree growth in plots with added compost. Another one also found sixteen species of rare plants only in plots with added compost. Another one found more plants in plots with added compost, compared to plots without added compost, in one of two years, but found similar numbers of plant species in plots with or without added compost. Reptiles (0 studies) Implementation options (0 studies)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1409https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1409Fri, 19 May 2017 09:39:36 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Other biodiversity: Add manure to the soilAmphibians (0 studies) Birds (0 studies) Invertebrates (0 studies) Mammals (0 studies) Plants (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found more plant species in plots with added manure, compared to plots without added manure, in one of three comparisons. Reptiles (0 studies) Implementation options (0 studies)  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1410https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1410Fri, 19 May 2017 09:42:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Other biodiversity: Add sewage sludge to the soilAmphibians (0 studies) Birds (0 studies) Invertebrates (0 studies) Mammals (0 studies) Plants (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies from Spain found greater plant cover and faster tree growth in plots with added sewage sludge, compared to plots without it, in some or all comparisons. One of these studies found similar numbers of plant species in plots with or without added sewage sludge. The other one found more plant biomass in plots with added sewage sludge. Reptiles (0 studies) Implementation options (1 study): One study from Spain found faster tree growth in plots with composted or thermally dried sewage sludge, but not with digested sewage sludge, compared to plots without sewage sludge. Another one found no differences in pasture cover, tree growth, or numbers of species between plots with different types of sewage sludge.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1411https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1411Fri, 19 May 2017 09:44:35 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Other biodiversity: Plant or maintain ground cover in orchards or vineyardsAmphibians (0 studies) Birds (1 study): One site comparison from Spain found more birds and higher bird diversity in a vineyard with resident vegetation (without tillage), compared to a vineyard with bare soil (with conventional tillage), between the vine rows. Invertebrates (0 studies) Fungi (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Portugal found more mushrooms and mushroom species in plots with cover crops (without tillage), compared to plots without cover crops (with conventional tillage). Mammals (0 studies) Plants (0 studies) Reptiles (0 studies) Implementation options (3 studies): One site comparison from Spain found more birds and higher bird diversity in a vineyard with mown resident vegetation, compared to a vineyard with herbicide-treated resident vegetation, between the vine rows. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Portugal found fewer mushrooms and fewer mushroom species, but similar mushroom diversity, in plots with seeded cover crops, compared to resident vegetation. One replicated site comparison from Greece found more flowering plant species, and higher flowering plant cover, in managed orchards, compared to abandoned orchards.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1413https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1413Fri, 19 May 2017 09:47:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Other biodiversity: Plant flowersAmphibians (0 studies) Birds (0 studies) Invertebrates (0 studies) Mammals (0 studies) Plants (2 studies): One replicated, paired, controlled study from Italy found similar numbers of plant species in planted flower strips and unplanted field margins, but found higher plant diversity in unplanted margins. One replicated study from the USA found that most flower species persisted for at least two years after planting. Reptiles (0 studies) Implementation options (2 studies): One replicated study from the USA found that more plant species persisted in flower strips when twice as many seeds were sown, but there was no further increase in persistence at higher seeding rates. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found that tillage had inconsistent effects on the emergence of planted flowers.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1414https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1414Fri, 19 May 2017 09:50:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Other biodiversity: Plant hedgerowsAmphibians (0 studies) Birds (0 studies) Invertebrates (0 studies) Mammals (0 studies) Plants (1 study): One replicated, paired site comparison from the USA found no difference in the number of flower species in hedgerows, compared to weedy field edges. Reptiles (0 studies) Implementation options (2 studies): One replicated site comparison from the USA found more plant species in narrow hedgerows, compared to wide hedgerows, and higher plant cover in younger hedgerows, compared to older hedgerows. One replicated site comparison from the USA found higher cover of exotic plants, compared to native plants, in young hedgerows, but not in old hedgerows.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1415https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1415Fri, 19 May 2017 09:51:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Other biodiversity: Restore habitat along watercoursesAmphibians (1 study): One replicated site comparison from the USA found similar numbers of amphibian species in restored and remnant sites. Birds (8 studies): Two replicated site comparisons from Spain and the USA found similar numbers of bird species in restored and remnant sites. Two replicated site comparisons from the USA found fewer bird species in restored riparian sites, compared to remnant sites. One replicated site comparison from Spain found similar numbers of birds and bird species in restored contaminated sites and uncontaminated sites. One replicated site comparison from the USA found that an endangered bird nested in restored sites, and had similar nesting success in restored and remnant sites. One replicated site comparison from the USA found that bird populations increased with the area of restored habitat in the landscape, in some comparisons. One replicated site comparison from the USA found similar levels of nest parasitism in restored and remnant sites. Fish (1 study): One before-and-after site comparison from the USA found differences in fish communities, before and after changing river flow. Invertebrates (3 studies): One replicated site comparison from the USA found fewer native ants, but similar numbers of invasive ants, in restored sites, compared to remnant sites. One before-and-after site comparison from the USA found similar numbers of freshwater invertebrates in restored and reference sites, after restoration. One replicated, before-and-after study from the USA found more invertebrates and invertebrate species in plots with added gravel, compared to plots without added gravel, in some comparisons. One replicated before-and-after study from France found relatively more alien species after restoring river flow. Mammals (2 studies): Two replicated site comparisons from the USA found similar numbers of mammal species in restored and remnant sites. Plants (11 studies) Abundance (6 studies): Four replicated site comparisons from Spain and the USA found lower plant cover in restored sites, compared to remnant sites. One of these studies also found higher cover of exotic plants, but another one did not. One replicated, paired site comparison from the USA found similar numbers of flowers in restored and remnant sites. One replicated site comparison from the USA found more seeds, but fewer native seed, in orchards next to restored riparian habitats, compared to orchards next to remnant habitats. One replicated site comparison from the USA found similar exotic plant cover in remnant and restored forests. Diversity (6 studies): Two replicated studies from the USA found fewer native plant species in restored forests, compared to remnant forests. One of these studies also found more exotic species, but another one did not. One replicated site comparison from the USA found more plant species in restored sites, compared to remnant sites. One replicated, paired site comparison from the USA found similar numbers of flower species in restored and remnant sites. One replicated site comparison from the USA found fewer seed species and native seed species in orchards next to restored riparian habitats, compared to remnant riparian habitats. One controlled study from the USA found different plant communities in restored and unrestored habitats. Survival (2 studies): One replicated study from the USA found that about one-third of planted willows survived for one year. One site comparison from the USA found that some species survived after planting, as part of riparian restoration, but others did not. Habitat suitability (1 study): One replicated site comparison from the USA found that vegetation at one of five sites met the criteria for Bell’s Vireo nesting habitat. Size (1 study): One replicated site comparison from the USA found smaller elderberry plants in restored sites. Reptiles (1 study): One replicated site comparison from the USA found similar numbers of reptile species in remnant and restored sites. Implementation options (7 studies) Plants (3 studies): One study from the USA found more tree, shrub, vine, and perennial species, higher canopy cover, and higher native tree cover, in older restored plots, compared to younger restored plots, but this study also found fewer annual plant species, lower vegetation cover, lower annual forb cover, and lower grass cover. One study from the USA found an increase in native species and overstorey cover in restored sites, over time, but it found similar numbers of species and overstorey cover in sites planted at different densities. One study from the USA found that willow cuttings planted on the stream bottom had a higher survival rate than those planted on the streambank or terrace. Birds (3 studies): Three studies from the USA found more birds or bird species in older restored plots, compared to younger restored plots. One of these studies also found that the populations of some bird species increased with tree-planting density. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1416https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1416Fri, 19 May 2017 09:54:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Other biodiversity: Exclude grazersAmphibians (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in wet grasslands in the USA found no difference in the abundance of Yosemite toads between areas with cattle excluded and grazed areas. Birds (2 studies): One replicated site comparison in desert in the USA found more bird species, and more species that were nesting, in areas with sheep excluded, compared to grazed areas. Two replicated site comparisons in desert and wetlands found higher abundances of some or all species of birds in areas with cattle or sheep excluded, compared to grazed areas. The wetland study also found lower abundances, in some comparisons. Fish (2 studies): One replicated site comparison in grasslands in the USA found higher biomass and abundance of golden trout in areas with cattle excluded, compared to grazed areas. Another one found fewer trout nests in part of a stream with a livestock exclosure, compared to part without a livestock exclosure. Invertebrates (5 studies): Two replicated studies (one randomized and controlled) in wetlands and grasslands in the USA found more species or families of invertebrates in areas with cattle excluded, compared to grazed areas, for some or all groups. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in grasslands in the USA found fewer aquatic invertebrate species in areas with cattle excluded, compared to grazed areas, in some comparisons. Two replicated studies (one randomized and controlled) in grasslands in the USA found no difference in invertebrate abundance between ungrazed and cattle-grazed plots. One replicated, before-and-after site comparison in grasslands in the USA found that populations of a threatened, endemic butterfly declined in sites with cattle excluded, but also declined in cattle-grazed sites. Mammals (4 studies): Two replicated site comparisons in deserts and grasslands in Spain and the USA found more mammal species in areas with cattle or sheep excluded, compared to grazed areas. One of these studies also found higher mammal diversity, and both studies found higher mammal abundance, in areas with grazers excluded, compared to grazed areas, in some or all comparisons. One replicated site comparison in desert in the USA found lower abundances of black-tailed hares in ungrazed sites, compared to grazed sites, and one replicated, randomized, controlled study in wooded grassland in the USA found no difference in ground squirrel abundance between ungrazed plots and cattle-grazed plots. Plants (41 studies) Abundance (38 studies): Thirty-two studies (13 replicated, randomized, and controlled) in grasslands, shrublands, wetlands, deserts, and mixed habitats in the USA, Israel, Chile, Spain, and Australia found higher biomass, cover, or abundance of some or all plant groups (or lower cover of non-native species), in areas with cattle, sheep, goats, or alpacas excluded, compared to grazed areas, in some or all comparisons. Fourteen studies (four replicated, randomized and controlled) from the USA, Israel, Spain, and Australia found lower biomass, cover, or abundance of some or all plant groups (or higher cover of non-native species), in areas with grazers excluded, compared to grazed areas, in some comparisons. Five replicated, controlled studies (four randomized) in grasslands in the USA found no difference in the cover of plants (and/or non-native plants) between ungrazed and grazed areas. Diversity (19 studies): Five studies (three replicated) in forests, shrublands, and grasslands in Israel, Spain, and the USA found more species, or fewer non-native species, in areas with cattle or sheep excluded, compared to grazed areas, in some or all comparisons. Nine studies in grasslands and shrublands in Australia, Israel, Spain, and the USA found fewer species or native species, larger decreases in the number of species, or smaller increases in the number of species, in areas with cattle, sheep, or alpacas excluded, compared to grazed areas, in some or all comparisons. Six studies in grasslands, wetlands, and deserts in the USA found no differences in the number of species between areas grazed by cattle, sheep, or alpacas, and ungrazed areas. Four studies in shrublands, grasslands, and wetlands in the USA and Israel found higher plant diversity, or different community composition, in plots with cattle excluded, compared to grazed plots, in some comparisons. Three studies in wetlands and grasslands in the USA found lower plant diversity in plots with cattle excluded, compared to grazed plots, in some comparisons. Three studies in deserts and shrublands in the USA and Israel found no difference in plant diversity between plots with cattle or sheep excluded and grazed plots. Survival (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study along creeks in the USA found that similar percentages of planted willows survived in pastures with or without cattle excluded. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in grasslands in the USA found higher plant survival in plots with cattle excluded, compared to grazed plots, in some comparisons. Reptiles (1 study): One replicated site comparison in desert in the USA found lower abundances of reptiles, and of some reptile species, in areas with sheep excluded, compared to grazed areas, in some comparisons. Implementation options (1 study): One site comparison in the USA found that more plant species were found in historically cultivated sites that were ungrazed, compared to grazed, but similar numbers of plant species were found in historically uncultivated sites that were ungrazed or grazed.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1417https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1417Fri, 19 May 2017 11:18:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Mow shrubland to reduce impacts of pollutants One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the UK found that mowing to reduce the impact of nitrogen deposition did not alter shoot length of common heather or the number of purple moor grass seedlings. One controlled study in the UK found that mowing a heathland affected by nitrogen pollution did not alter the cover or shoot length of heather compared to areas where prescribed burning was used. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1669https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1669Sun, 22 Oct 2017 15:15:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Moor aquaculture cages so they move in response to changing current direction We found no studies that evaluated the effects of mooring aquaculture cages so they move in response to changing current direction on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations.   ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2190https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2190Tue, 22 Oct 2019 12:58:46 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Offset habitat loss from human activity by restoring or creating habitats elsewhere Two studies examined the effects of offsetting habitat loss from human activity by restoring or creating habitats elsewhere on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. One study was in the Delaware Bay (USA), the other in the Persian Gulf (Kuwait).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One study in the Persian Gulf found that an area of low ecological value restored to offset habitat lost to land reclamation was colonized by over 198 invertebrate species. POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Biological production (1 study): One study in Delaware Bay found that an artificial reef built to offset lost soft-sediment habitat had higher annual secondary production/unit area from sessile invertebrates, but lower total annual secondary production, compared to habitat similar to that lost. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2265https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2265Wed, 23 Oct 2019 11:03:46 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Organise educational marine wildlife tours to improve behaviours towards marine invertebrates We found no studies that evaluated the effects of organising educational marine wildlife tours to induce behavioural changes and increase engagement in marine conservation on human behaviour and/or subtidal benthic invertebrate populations.   ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2282https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2282Wed, 23 Oct 2019 13:39:32 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Organise vessel monitoring systems We found no studies that evaluated the effects of organising monitoring systems on marine fish populations.  ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2739https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2739Tue, 02 Feb 2021 15:11:19 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify vessels to reduce risk of physical injury to mammals We found no studies that evaluated the effects of modifying vessels to reduce risk of physical injury to mammals. ‘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%2F2762https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2762Tue, 02 Feb 2021 17:06:48 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Offer incentives to fishers for recovering, reusing or recycling fishing gear We found no studies that evaluated the effects of offering incentives to fishers for recovering, reusing or recycling fishing gear on marine and freshwater mammal 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%2F2887https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2887Mon, 08 Feb 2021 11:49:52 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify vessels to reduce noise disturbance We found no studies that evaluated the effects of modifying vessels to reduce noise disturbance on marine and freshwater mammal 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%2F2904https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2904Mon, 08 Feb 2021 16:15:34 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Mow before or after seeding/planting Ten studies examined the effects of mowing before or after seeding/planting on grassland vegetation. Nine studies were in Europe and one was in China. VEGETATION COMMUNITY (5 STUDIES) Community composition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Hungary found that annual mowing after sowing seeds increased plant community similarity to that of natural grassland. Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the UK found that cutting vegetation yearly after sowing seeds increased plant species richness compared to grazing with livestock. Characteristic plant richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Germany found that cutting vegetation three times/year after sowing seeds increased the richness of characteristic grassland species compared to cutting once/year. Sown/planted species richness/diversity (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in the UK found that mowing after sowing seeds increased the richness of sown species. One replicated study in the UK found that cutting sown plots each year and removing cut vegetation increased sown grass and forb species richness compared to cutting and not removing cut vegetation. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE (4 STUDIES) Sown/planted species abundance (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in the UK found that mowing after sowing seeds increased the abundance of sown forb species. One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in Germany found that mowing more frequently after sowing seeds increased the abundance of five of seven sown forb species. One replicated study in the UK found that cutting sown plots each year and removing cut vegetation reduced the cover of sown grass and forb species compared to cutting and not removing cut vegetation. Individual plant species abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Germany found that mowing after planting increased the biomass of transplanted ragged robin and birdsfoot trefoil plants at 2–3 of seven sites. VEGETATION STRUCTURE (0 STUDIES) OTHER (4 STUDIES) Germination/Emergence (3 studies): One of three replicated, controlled studies (including two randomized and one paired study) in the UK, Germany and China found that mowing after sowing seeds increased the germination of four grassland plant species. One study found that mowing after sowing seeds increased the number of ragged robin and birdsfoot trefoil seedlings at 1–2 of seven sites. One study found that cutting grass after sowing seeds did not alter the emergence rate or density of seedlings. Survival (2 studies): One of two replicated, randomized, paired, controlled studies in Germany and China found that cutting grass after sowing seeds did not alter seedling survival. The other study found that cutting grass after sowing seeds did not alter seedling survival. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3419https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3419Fri, 25 Jun 2021 16:29:54 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify vessels to reduce or prevent injuries to reptiles from collisions Two studies evaluated the effects on reptile populations of modifying vessels to reduce or prevent injuries to reptiles from collisions. Both studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (2 studies): One controlled study found that using a horizontal-fin propeller guard or a cage propeller guard did not reduce catastrophic injuries to artificial loggerhead turtle shells compared to using no guard, but that the types of injuries sustained were different. One controlled study found that using a jet drive outboard motor reduced catastrophic injuries to artificial loggerhead turtle shells compared to using a standard outboard motor. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3537https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3537Tue, 07 Dec 2021 16:07:29 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Offer reptile-related eco-tourism to improve behaviour towards reptiles Two studies evaluated the effects on reptile populations of offering reptile-related eco-tourism to improve behaviour towards reptiles. One study was in the USA and one was in St Kitts and Nevis. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Human behaviour change (1 study): One study in the USA reported that 32% of respondents to a survey said they would have gone to look for a nesting turtle if they had not been able to join a supervised turtle watch. One study in St Kitts and Nevis found that people who attended a leatherback turtle tour reported that they would be more conscientious of how their behaviours on the beach affected sea turtles. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3680https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3680Fri, 10 Dec 2021 14:01:25 +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