Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Undersow spring cereals, with clover for example A total of fifteen studies from the UK, Austria, Denmark, Finland and Switzerland (including four replicated, controlled and randomised studies and two reviews) looked at the effects of undersowing spring cereals on biodiversity. Eleven studies (including seven replicated trials, of which one controlled and three randomized and controlled, and one review) found that undersowing spring cereals benefited some birds, plants, insects, spiders and earthworms. These benefits to farmland wildlife included increases in barnacle goose abundance, densities of singing Eurasian skylark and nesting dunnock, arthropod abundance and species richness, and bumblebee, butterfly, earthworm, ground beetle, spider or springtail abundances. Five studies from Austria, Finland and the UK (including three replicated studies of which one was also controlled and randomized, and a review) found that undersowing spring cereals did not benefit invertebrates, plants, grey partridge population indicators, or nesting densities of two out of three farmland bird species. One replicated study from the UK found only one out of five bird species was found more frequently on undersown wheat stubbles than conventionally managed barley.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F136https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F136Fri, 18 Nov 2011 15:24:58 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Tree pollarding and tree surgery We found no evidence for the effects of tree pollarding and tree surgery on bird populations. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.    Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F186https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F186Sun, 10 Jun 2012 13:01:16 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Undersow spring cereals, with clover for example Three studies from the UK, two replicated, found that there were higher densities of some study species on undersown fields or margins, compared with other fields, or that use of fields increased after they were undersown. One of these (reported in two places) found that not all species nested at higher densities. One replicated study from the UK found that various measures of grey partridge population health declined as the amount of undersown cereal on sites increased. A replicated study from the UK found no relationship between the amount of undersown cereals on a site and the productivity of grey partridge on that site.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F208https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F208Sun, 15 Jul 2012 17:28:25 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Turn deck lights off during night-time setting of longlines to reduce bycatchA single replicated and controlled study in the South Atlantic found significantly lower bycatch rates when deck lights were turned off during line setting at night.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F284https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F284Tue, 24 Jul 2012 14:11:52 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Treat wetlands with herbicideThree of four studies, one replicated and controlled, found that numbers of terns, American coot and waders were found at higher densities on wetland areas sprayed with herbicide, compared to unsprayed areas. However, one study found that wader numbers were not as high as on ploughed areas. One replicated and controlled study found that songbird densities were lower on sprayed than unsprayed areas.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F347https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F347Sun, 29 Jul 2012 14:26:26 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use ‘cat curfews’ to reduce predation We found no evidence for the effects of ‘cat curfews’ on bird populations. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F412https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F412Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:18:08 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Turn off lights to reduce mortality from artificial lightsA before-and-after study from the UK found that fewer seabirds (Manx shearwaters Puffinus puffinus, European storm petrels Hydrobates pelagicus and Leach’s storm petrels Oceanodroma leucorhoa) were attracted to artificial lighting and downed when lighting was reduced at night, compared to when normal lighting was in place.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F467https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F467Wed, 29 Aug 2012 16:24:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use ‘anti-predator training’ to improve survival after release A review from Pakistan and a small trial from Saudi Arabia found that pheasants and bustards had higher survival after release, when given pre-release predator training, compared to birds without training, many of which were predated. The Saudi Arabian study found that introducing a model fox (as opposed to a live predator) to cages did not increase post-release survival. Introducing a live fox to the cage increased post-release survival more than other techniques used.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F637https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F637Sun, 14 Oct 2012 23:49:41 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use ‘flying training’ before releaseA replicated study from the Dominican Republic found that captive-reared Hispaniolan parrots Amazona ventralis had higher initial survival if they were given pre-release predator training, although this difference was not present a year after release.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F638https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F638Sun, 14 Oct 2012 23:51:20 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use 'set-aside' areas of natural habitat for primate protection within mining area We found no evidence for the effects of using ‘set-aside’ areas of natural habitat for primate protection within mining areas on primate populations. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1453https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1453Tue, 17 Oct 2017 12:59:36 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use 'set-asides' for primate protection within logging area We found no evidence for the effects of using 'set-asides' for primate protection within logging area on primate populations. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1497https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1497Tue, 17 Oct 2017 19:50:45 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Treat sick/injured animals Two before-and-after studies in Brazil found that most reintroduced golden lion tamarins died despite being treated when sick or injured, alongside other interventions. One study in Brazil found that one out of four reintroduced black lion tamarins died after being release despite receiving treatment, alongside other interventions. One review on reintroduced lar gibbons in Thailand found that their population declined by 6% seventeen months after release despite having medical treatment available when sick or injured, alongside other interventions. One study in Malaysia found that 98% of translocated orangutans, some of which received treatment for injuries along with other interventions, survived capture and subsequent release. One controlled study, also in Malaysia, found that a population of reintroduced orangutans decreased by 33% over 33 years despite receiving treatment when sick or injured, alongside other interventions. Four studies, including two before-and-after studies, in Liberia, the Republic of Congo and The Gambia found that most reintroduced chimpanzees that were treated when sick, alongside other interventions, survived for at least 1-5 years and in one case the population increased. One study in Senegal found that a young chimpanzee was reunited with its mother after being treated for injuries, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in Uganda found that treatment for mange, alongside other interventions, cured some infected mountain gorillas. One study in Rwanda, Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo and one before-and-after, site comparison study in the Republic of Congo and Gabon found that most western lowland gorillas treated when sick or injured, alongside other interventions, survived over 4–41 years. Two before-and-after studies in South Africa and Indonesia found that most reintroduced or translocated primates that were treated when sick, alongside other interventions, survived over six months. However, two before-and-after studies in Madagascar and Kenya found that most reintroduced or translocated primates did not survived over five years or their population size decreased despite treated when sick, alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1550https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1550Thu, 19 Oct 2017 18:35:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use ‘bracken bruiser’ to control bracken One randomized, replicated, controlled, before-and-after, paired study in the UK found that bracken bruising increased bracken cover, though bracken cover also increased in areas where bracken bruising was not done.There was no effect on the number of plant species or plant diversity. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1726https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1726Wed, 22 Nov 2017 17:04:59 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use 'warm white' rather than 'cool' LED lights We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using ‘warm white’ LED lights rather than ‘cool’ LED lights on bat populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2020https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2020Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:01:53 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Treat wastewater from intensive livestock holdings We found no studies that evaluated the effects of treating wastewater from intensive livestock holdings 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%2F2199https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2199Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:10:46 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use ‘mammal-safe’ nets to capture and release mammals trapped in fishing structures One study evaluated the effects on marine mammals of using ‘mammal-safe’ nets to capture and release mammals trapped in fishing structures. The study was in the Bay of Fundy (Canada). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One controlled study in the Bay of Fundy found that using ‘marine mammal nets’ with a larger mesh size to release harbour porpoises from herring weirs resulted in lower porpoise mortality compared to using conventional herring nets. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2828https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2828Fri, 05 Feb 2021 16:00:21 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use ‘bioremediating’ organisms to remove or neutralize pollutants We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using ‘bioremediating’ organisms to remove or neutralize pollutants 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%2F2863https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2863Mon, 08 Feb 2021 11:24:46 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Treat wastewater from intensive livestock holdings We found no studies that evaluated the effects of treating wastewater from intensive livestock holdings 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%2F2880https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2880Mon, 08 Feb 2021 11:44:53 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Treat seeds of non-woody plants with chemicals before sowing: freshwater wetlands Six studies evaluated the effects – on emergent, non-woody plants typical of freshwater wetlands – of treating their seeds with chemicals before sowing. All six studies were in greenhouses or laboratories in the USA. VEGETATION COMMUNITY   VEGETATION ABUNDANCE   VEGETATION STRUCTURE   OTHER Germination/emergence (6 studies): Of six replicated, controlled studies in greenhouses or laboratories in the USA, five identified chemicals that sometimes increased, and did not significantly reduce, the germination rate of herb seeds: potassium nitrate, nitric acid and bleach. The effect of these chemicals depended on factors such as the age of the seeds, the species and other pre-sowing treatments. Two of the studies identified chemicals that never had a significant effect on the germination rate of herb seeds: a plant hormone and sulfuric acid. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3380https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3380Mon, 12 Apr 2021 08:30:30 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Treat seeds of non-woody plants with chemicals before sowing: brackish/saline wetlandsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects – on emergent, non-woody plants typical of brackish/saline wetlands – of treating their seeds with chemicals before sowing.   ‘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%2F3381https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3381Mon, 12 Apr 2021 08:30:40 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Treat tree/shrub seeds with chemicals before sowing: freshwater wetlands Two studies evaluated the effects – on trees/shrubs typical of freshwater wetlands – of treating their seeds with chemicals before sowing. Both studies were in one laboratory in the USA. VEGETATION COMMUNITY   VEGETATION ABUNDANCE   VEGETATION STRUCTURE          OTHER Germination/emergence (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies in a laboratory in the USA found that soaking baldcypress Taxodium distichum seeds in weak sodium hydroxide increased their germination rate. One of the studies found that soaking in ethyl alcohol and/or hydrochloric acid reduced the germination rate. One of the studies found that soaking in stronger sodium hydroxide, or hydrogen peroxide and ethyl alcohol, had no significant effect on the germination rate. Growth (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in a laboratory in the USA found that soaking baldcypress Taxodium distichum seeds in chemicals before sowing typically had no significant effect on the height of surviving seedlings, 30 days after germination. Soaking in ethyl alcohol, however, reduced seedling height. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3382https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3382Mon, 12 Apr 2021 08:30:47 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Treat tree/shrub seeds with chemicals before sowing: brackish/saline wetlandsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects – on trees/shrubs typical of brackish/saline wetlands – of treating their seeds with chemicals before sowing.   ‘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%2F3383https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3383Mon, 12 Apr 2021 08:31:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use ‘bioremediating’ organisms to remove or neutralize pollutants We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of using ‘bioremediating’ organisms to remove or neutralize pollutants. ‘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%2F3561https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3561Wed, 08 Dec 2021 14:47:42 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Treat wastewater from intensive livestock holdings We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of treating wastewater from intensive livestock holdings. ‘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%2F3588https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3588Wed, 08 Dec 2021 15:53:47 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Undersow spring cereals, with clover for example Two studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of undersowing spring cereals. One study was in the UK and one was in Switzerland. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found that spring barley undersown with a mix of grasses and legumes had a higher species richness of butterflies than extensively or conventionally managed grassland. One replicated, site comparison study in Switzerland found that farms with a larger area of in-field agri-environment scheme options, including undersown cereals, had a similar species richness of butterflies to farms with a smaller area of in-field agri-environment scheme POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found that spring barley undersown with a mix of grasses and legumes had a higher abundance of butterflies, but a lower abundance of caterpillars, than extensively or conventionally managed grassland. One replicated, site comparison study in Switzerland found that farms with a larger area of in-field agri-environment scheme options, including undersown cereals, had a similar abundance of butterflies to farms with a smaller area of in-field agri-environment scheme BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3926https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3926Thu, 11 Aug 2022 17:09:12 +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