Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide artificial nest sites for solitary beesWe have captured 30 replicated trials of nest boxes for solitary bees in 10 countries, including Europe, North and South America and Asia. Twenty-nine of these trials showed occupancy by bees. Many species of solitary bee readily nest in the boxes, including some species considered endangered in a study on farmland in Germany, oil-collecting species of the genus Centris in South America and a recently discovered species in lowland tropical forest in Costa Rica. One trial in temperate forest in Canada recorded no bees using nest boxes. A set of replicated experiments in Germany estimated that four medium to large European species of solitary bee have a foraging range of 150 to 600 m, so nest boxes must be within this distance of foraging resources. Twenty-three replicated trials have shown nest boxes of cut hollow stems or tubes being occupied by solitary bees. Eleven trials demonstrated occupation of blocks of wood drilled with holes. Two trials in Neotropical secondary forest (one in Brazil, one in Mexico) showed that particular solitary bee species will nest in wooden boxes, without stems or confining walls inside. Two replicated trials have compared reproductive success in different nest box designs. One showed that reed stem and wooden grooved-board nest boxes produced more bees/nest than four other types. Nest boxes with plastic-lined holes, or plastic or paper tubes were much less productive, due to parasitism or mould. The other, a small trial, found nests of the oil-collecting bee Centris analis in Brazil were more productive in cardboard straws placed in drilled wooden holes than in grooved wooden boards stacked together. Three trials on agricultural land, one on a carpenter bee in India, one on a range of species in Germany and one on species of Osmia in the USA, have shown that the number of occupied solitary bee nests can double over three years with repeated nest box provision at a given site. One small replicated trial compared populations of solitary bees in blueberry fields in the USA with and without nest boxes over three years. The estimated number of foraging Osmia bees had increased in fields with nest boxes, compared to fields without nest boxes. Eleven replicated trials have recorded solitary bees in nest boxes being attacked by parasites or predators. Rates of mortality and parasitism have been measured in 10 studies. Mortality rates range from 13% mortality for cavity-nesting bees and wasps combined in Germany (2% were successfully parasitized), or 2% of bee brood cells attacked in shade coffee and cacao plantations in central Sulawesi, Indonesia, to 36% parasitism and 20% other mortality (56% mortality overall) for the subtropical carpenter bee Xylocopa fenestrata in India. Two replicated trials of the use of drilled wooden nest boxes by bees in California, USA, showed that introduced European earwigs Forficula auricularia and introduced European leafcutter bee species use the boxes. In one trial, these introduced species more commonly occupied the boxes than native bees. A small trial tested three soil-filled nest boxes for the mining bee Andrena flavipes in the UK, but they were not occupied.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F47https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F47Thu, 20 May 2010 07:16:20 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create uncultivated margins around intensive arable or pasture fields Thirty-nine studies (including 13 replicated controlled trials of which three also randomized and four reviews) from eight European countries compared wildlife on uncultivated margins with other margin options. Twenty-four found benefits to some wildlife groups (including 11 replicated controlled trials of which one also randomised, and four reviews). Nineteen studies (including one randomized, replicated, controlled trial) from Germany, Ireland, Lithuania, Norway, the Netherlands and the UK found uncultivated margins support more invertebrates (including bees) and/or higher plant diversity or species richness than conventionally managed field margins or other field margin options. One replicated, controlled study showed that uncultivated margins supported more small mammal species than meadows and farmed grasslands. Four studies (two replicated UK studies, two reviews) reported positive associations between birds and field margins including food provision. A review from the UK found grass margins (including naturally regenerated margins) benefited plants and some invertebrates. Fifteen studies (including one randomized, replicated, controlled trial) from Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and the UK found that invertebrate and/or plant species richness or abundance were lower in naturally regenerated than conventionally managed fields or sown margins. Six studies (including one randomized, replicated, controlled trial) from Belgium, Germany and the UK found uncultivated margins did not have more plant or invertebrate species or individuals than cropped or sown margins. A review found grass margins (including naturally regenerated margins) did not benefit ground beetles. Five studies (including three replicated controlled trials) from Ireland and the UK reported declines in plant species richness and invertebrate numbers in naturally regenerated margins over time. One replicated trial found that older naturally regenerated margins (6-years old) had more invertebrate predators (mainly spiders) than newly established (1-year old) naturally regenerated margins. Five studies (including one replicated, randomized trial) from the Netherlands and the UK found that cutting margins had a negative impact on invertebrates or no impact on plant species. One replicated controlled study found cut margins were used more frequently by yellowhammers when surrounding vegetation was >60 cm tall. Seven studies (including four replicated controlled trials and a review) from Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway and the UK reported increased abundance or biomass of weed species in naturally regenerated margins. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F63https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F63Tue, 04 Oct 2011 14:51:45 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce management intensity on permanent grasslands (several interventions at once) A total of 32 individual studies from the Czech Republic, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Switzerland and the UK looked at the effects on farmland wildlife of reducing management intensity on permanent grasslands. Twenty-two studies found benefits to some or all wildlife groups studied. Eleven studies (including four replicated site comparisons and three reviews) found reduced management intensity on permanent grassland benefited plants. Sixteen studies (including eight site comparisons of which four paired and three reviews) found benefits to some or all invertebrates. Five studies (including two replicated site comparisons, of which one paired, and a review) found positive effects on some or all birds. Twenty-one studies from six European countries found no clear effects of reducing management intensity on some or all plants, invertebrates or birds. Seven studies (including two replicated paired site comparisons and a review) found no clear effect on plants. Ten studies (including four site comparisons and one paired site comparison) found mixed or no effects on some or all invertebrates. Two studies (one review, one site comparison) found invertebrate communities on less intensively managed grasslands were distinct from those on intensively managed grasslands. Four studies (including three site comparisons, of which one paired and two replicated) found no clear effects on bird numbers or species richness. Five studies from four European countries found negative effects of reducing management intensity on plants, invertebrates or birds. Two studies (one review, one replicated trial) found some plant species were lost under extensive management. Two studies (one paired site comparison) found more invertebrates in grasslands with intensive management. One paired site comparison found fewer wading birds on grasslands with reduced management intensity than on conventionally managed grassland.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F69https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F69Mon, 24 Oct 2011 19:11:58 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce tillage A total of 42 individual studies (including seven replicated, controlled and randomized studies and six reviews) from Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Slovakia, Switzerland and the UK investigated the effects of reducing tillage on farmland wildlife. Thirty-four studies (of which 21 were replicated and controlled and seven also randomized, and five reviews) from nine European countries found some positive effects on earthworms, some invertebrates (other than earthworms), weeds or farmland birds, of reducing tillage compared to conventional management. Positive effects included increased biomass, species richness or abundance of earthworms, greater abundance of some invertebrates other than earthworms, increased numbers of some weeds and/or weed species, higher Eurasian skylark nest density, earlier laying date and shorter foraging distances on reduced tillage fields, and greater abundance of some birds - including Eurasian skylark, seed-eating songbirds and gamebirds in late winter on non-inversion or conservation tillage. A review found tillage had negative effects on invertebrate numbers and no-till systems had more invertebrate bird food resources. Twenty-six studies (of which 13 replicated and controlled and three also randomized, and five reviews) from nine European countries found reducing tillage had either negative, no effect or no consistent effects on abundance, biomass, or species richness of some invertebrates (other than earthworms), earthworm abundance, biomass, or species richness, number of different plant species found as seeds, number of some weed species, mammal abundance, some bird species, and one study found bird preferences for conservation tillage fields decreased over time. Two studies found that crop type affected the number of weeds under different tillage regimes. One small replicated trial in the UK compared bird numbers under two different forms of reduced tillage, and found more birds from species that make up the ‘Farmland Bird Index’ on broadcast than non-inversion tillage fields. Two studies looked at the long-term effects of reduced tillage on earthworms (after ten years). One study found higher earthworm biomass under reduced tillage, the other study found earthworm abundance was the same between conventional and reduced tillage plots. Three of the studies mentioned above did not distinguish between the effects of reducing tillage and reduced pesticide and/or fertilizer inputs.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F126https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F126Mon, 14 Nov 2011 18:00:22 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore/create species-rich, semi-natural grassland Twenty-eight studies monitored the effects on wildlife of restoring species-rich grassland. Of these, 20 from Finland, Germany, Lithuania, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK (15 replicated of which eight controlled and three also randomized) found restoring species-rich grassland resulted in higher ground beetle abundance, increased plant species richness, farmland bird abundance, pollinating insect density and diversity and earthworm abundance than other types of grassland, or that restored grasslands had similar abundance and species richness of insects to old traditionally managed sites. Seven studies from Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK (five replicated and controlled, two also randomized) found that efforts to restore species-rich grassland had no clear effect on the species richness or abundance of plants, beetles, or the abundance of butterflies and moths. Three replicated studies from Sweden and the UK (one also controlled and two site comparisons) found that restored grassland had a lower diversity and frequency of certain plant species, and attracted fewer foraging queen bumblebees than continuously grazed or unmanaged grasslands. We captured 40 studies (including 19 replicated and controlled studies of which six were also randomized, and six reviews) from nine European countries that found ten different techniques used alone or in combinations were effective for restoring species-rich grassland. Effective techniques included: grazing, introducing plant species, hay spreading and mowing. We found 22 studies from seven European countries that included information on the length of time taken to restore grassland communities (including 16 replicated trials of which nine also controlled and three reviews). Six studies saw positive signs of restoration in less than five years, 11 studies within 10 years and two studies found restoration took more than 10 years. Six studies found limited or slow changes in plant communities following restoration. Two studies from Germany and the UK (one replicated controlled trial) found differences in vegetation between restored and existing species-rich grasslands nine or 60 years after restoration. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F133https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F133Tue, 15 Nov 2011 18:41:52 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce fertilizer, pesticide or herbicide use generally Of 38 individual studies from Austria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK investigating the effects of reducing fertilizers, pesticides or herbicides, 34 studies (23 replicated, of which six also controlled and randomized, one review and one systematic review) found benefits to some invertebrates, plants, or farmland birds. Twenty-five studies (16 replicated, of which seven also randomized and controlled and one review) found negative, mixed, minimal or no effects on some invertebrates, farmland birds or plants. Ten studies (six replicated, controlled studies of which two randomized) from three countries found positive effects of reducing or stopping pesticide applications on invertebrates, plants, or birds. Eight studies (two replicated controlled and randomized, one paired before-and-after trial) from four countries found inconsistent or no effects on some invertebrates or birds. Ten studies (nine replicated, five also controlled and a European systematic review) from four countries found positive effects of reducing or stopping herbicide use on plants, invertebrates, and birds. Five replicated studies (two also controlled and randomized) from three countries found no or mixed effects on birds, invertebrates and plants. Five studies (three replicated controlled of which two randomized) from four countries found positive effects of reducing or stopping fertilizer applications on invertebrates, Eurasian skylark, or plants. Four studies (three replicated, controlled and randomized) from two countries found reducing or stopping fertilizer inputs had no, or no consistent effects on some invertebrates and farmland birds. Two studies from the UK (one replicated) found plots where fertilizer inputs were not reduced tended to have higher earthworm biomass or abundance. Fifteen studies (three replicated controlled of which one also randomized, five site comparisons and one review) from seven countries looked at the effects of reducing or stopping applications of two or more inputs: pesticides, herbicides, or fertilizers. Thirteen studies found positive effects of reducing two or more inputs on some or all invertebrates, plants, soil organisms, and birds studied. Seven studies found negative or no effects of reducing combinations of inputs on some invertebrates, plants or birds.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F139https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F139Fri, 18 Nov 2011 20:06:45 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide or retain set-aside areas in farmland We found 34 studies comparing use of set-aside areas with control farmed fields. Two were reviews, none were randomized, replicated, controlled trials. Of these, 20 (from Austria, Finland, Germany and the UK) showed benefits to or higher use by all wildlife groups considered. Twelve (from Finland, Germany, Ireland, Sweden and the UK) found some species or groups used set-aside more than crops, others did not. Two studies (all from the UK) found no effect, one found an adverse effect of set-aside. Three of the studies, all looking at skylarks, went beyond counting animal or plant numbers and measured reproductive success. Two from the UK found higher nest survival or productivity on set-aside than control fields. One from the UK found lower nest survival on set-aside. Fifteen studies (from Belgium, Germany, Sweden and the UK) monitored wildlife on set-aside fields, or in landscapes with set-aside, without directly comparing with control fields or landscapes. Three looked at set-aside age and found more plants or insects on set-aside more than a year old. Two compared use of different non-crop habitats and found neither insects nor small mammals preferred set-aside. Two showed increased bird numbers on a landscape scale after set-aside was introduced, amongst other interventions. Eight looked at effects of set-aside management such as use of fertilizer and sowing or cutting regimes. A systematic review from the UK found significantly higher densities of farmland birds on fields removed from production and under set-aside designation than on conventionally farmed fields in both winter and summer. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F156https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F156Thu, 29 Mar 2012 19:03:54 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant wild bird seed or cover mixture All seven studies (based on five replicated experiments and a review) that investigated species richness or diversity were from the UK and found that fields or farms with wild bird cover had higher bird diversity than those without, or that more species were found in wild bird cover than in surrounding habitats. Thirty-two studies out of 33 from the UK and North America that examined abundance and population data, found that bird densities, abundances, nesting densities or use of wild bird cover was higher than in other habitats or management regimes, or that sites with wild bird cover had higher populations than those without. These studies included a systematic review and seven randomised, replicated and controlled studies. Some studies found that this was the case across all species or all species studied, while others found that only a subset showed a preference. Four studies investigated other interventions at the same time. Thirteen of the 33 studies (all replicated and from Europe and the USA), found that bird populations or densities were similar on wild bird cover and other habitats, that some species were not associated with wild bird cover or that birds rarely used wild bird cover. Three studies from the UK and Canada, two replicated, found higher productivities for some or all species monitored on wild bird cover, compared to other habitats. Two replicated and controlled studies from Canada and France found no differences in reproductive success between wild bird cover and other habitats for some or all species studied. Three studies from Europe and the USA investigated survival, with two finding higher survival of grey partridge Perdix perdix released on wild bird cover or of artificial nests in some cover crops. The third found that survival of grey partridge was lower on farms with wild bird cover, possibly due to high predation. Five studies from the UK, three replicated, found that some wild bird cover crops were preferred to others. A randomised, replicated and controlled study and a review from the UK found that the landscape surrounding wild bird cover and their configuration within it affected use by birds.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F187https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F187Sun, 10 Jun 2012 13:10:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant grass buffer strips/margins around arable or pasture fields Nineteen studies from Finland, the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK (including seven replicated controlled studies of which two were randomized, and three reviews), found that planting grass buffer strips (some margins floristically-enhanced) increased arthropod abundance, species richness and diversity. A review found grass margins benefited bumblebees and some other invertebrates but did not distinguish between the effects of several different margin types. Nine studies from the UK (including seven replicated studies of which two were controlled, and two reviews) found that planting grass buffer strips (some margins floristically-enhanced) benefits birds, resulting in increased numbers, densities, species richness and foraging time. Seven studies from the Netherlands and the UK (all replicated of which four were controlled and two randomized), found that planting grass buffer strips (some margins floristically-enhanced) increased the cover and species richness of plants. A review found grass margins benefited plants but did not distinguish between the effects of several different margin types. Five studies from Finland and the UK (including two replicated, controlled trials and a review), found that planting grass buffer strips benefits small mammals: including increased activity and numbers. Six studies from the Netherlands and the UK (including three replicated, controlled trials) found that planting grass buffer strips had no clear effect on insect numbers, bird numbers or invertebrate pest populations. A replicated site comparison found sown grassy margins were not the best option for conservation of rare arable plants. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F246https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F246Wed, 18 Jul 2012 11:47:21 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant nectar flower mixture/wildflower strips A total of 80 individual studies have in some way investigated the effects of flowering strips on biodiversity. Sixty-four individual studies show some benefits to one or more wildlife groups. Sixty-five individual studies reported the effects of flower strips on invertebrates. Of these, fifty reported positive effects. Forty-one studies from eight European countries (including five reviews and twenty-three replicated controlled studies, of which one randomized and two site comparisons) found evidence that flower strips had a positive influence on invertebrate numbers with increased abundance, species richness/diversity, or both. Ten studies (nine replicated of which two controlled) found invertebrates visited or foraged on flower strips but did not specify increases/decreases in numbers. Two studies found effects on ground beetles other than changes in numbers. One replicated controlled study showed that ground beetles were more active or had enhanced feeding/reproductive conditions in flower strips. A review found flower strips supported ground beetle species that were rarely found in crops. Fifteen studies reported mixed or negative effects of flower strips on invertebrates. Six studies found no significant effects. Twenty-one studies looked at the effects of flower strips on plants. Sixteen studies from seven European countries (including ten replicated controlled studies of which one randomized) found evidence that flower strips had higher plant cover, number of flowers, diversity, and species richness. One review found flower strips benefited plants but did not specify how. Four studies found negative or no effects of flower strips on the number or diversity of plant species. Five studies described the effects of different margin establishment or management techniques on plants. Seven studies investigated birds and wildflower strips. Four replicated, controlled studies from Switzerland and the UK (two of which were randomized) and one review of European studies found evidence that plots sown with a wildflower or legume seed mix had a positive influence on birds. Flower strips attracted more birds or bird species and the number of birds using flower strips increased over time. Eurasian skylarks preferentially foraged in, and nested in or near, sown weed patches and were less likely to abandon their territories when they included sown weed patches. However one replicated trial in Switzerland found barn owls avoided sown wildflower areas. Two winter recording periods of the same replicated, controlled study in the UK found there were not more bird species or individuals on wildflower plots compared to control margins. All five studies investigating the effects of wildflower strips on small mammals (four replicated studies from Switzerland and one review of studies from north-western Europe) found evidence that small mammals benefit from strips sown with wildflowers or flowers rich in pollen and nectar, with increases in abundance, density and species richness. One replicated study from Switzerland reported that most common vole home ranges and core regions of their territories were found within a wildflower strip. Nineteen studies (of which eight replicated, controlled) reported positive effects on biodiversity of sowing specific plant species including phacelia, and/or other plant species such as borage and red clover. Three replicated studies (two also controlled) found negative impacts or no effects on biodiversity of sowing phacelia. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F442https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F442Thu, 23 Aug 2012 15:37:16 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide artificial nesting sites for songbirds Only three studies out of 66 from across the world found low rates of nest box occupancy, although this may be partially the result of publishing biases. Thrushes, crows, swallows and New World warblers were the target species with low rates of use. Thrushes, crows, finches, swallows, wrens, tits, Old World and tyrant flycatchers, New World blackbirds, sparrows, waxbills, starlings and ovenbirds all used nest boxes. One study from the USA found that wrens used nest boxes more frequently than natural cavities. Five studies from across the world found higher population densities or population growth rates in areas with nest boxes, whilst one study from the USA found higher species richness in areas with nest boxes. One study from Chile found that breeding populations (but not non-breeding populations) were higher for two species when next boxes were provided. Twelve studies from across the world found that productivity of birds in nest boxes was higher or similar to those in natural nests. One study found there were more nesting attempts in areas with more nest boxes, although a study from Canada found no differences in behaviour or productivity between areas with high or low densities of nest boxes. Two studies from Europe found lower predation of some species using nest boxes. However, three studies from the USA found low production in nest boxes, either in absolute terms or relative to natural nests. Thirteen studies from across the world founds that use, productivity or usurpation varied with nest box design, whilst seven found no difference in occupation rates or success with different designs. Similarly, fourteen studies found different occupation or success rates depending on the position or orientation of artificial nest sites. Two studies found no difference in success with different positions.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F498https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F498Tue, 04 Sep 2012 13:52:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant wild bird seed or cover mixture Thirty individual studies investigated the effects on birds of sowing wild bird seed or cover mixture, 21 studies found positive effects. Fourteen studies from the UK (including one systematic review and nine replicated controlled trials of which four randomized, and three reviews) found that fields sown with wild bird cover mix had higher abundance, density, species diversity and species richness of birds than other farmland habitats. Six studies from the UK (including one review and two replicated studies) found that birds showed a preference for wild bird cover and used it significantly more than other habitats. One review found the grey partridge population increased substantially on farms where conservation measures including cover crops were in place. Nine replicated studies from France and the UK reported mixed or negative effects of wild bird cover on birds compared to other farmland habitats. Six studies found that mixtures including kale or a mixture of kale and/or other species attracted the largest number of bird species or highest bird abundance. Twelve studies from the UK looked at the effects of wild bird cover strips on invertebrates. Seven studies from the UK (including one review and four replicated controlled studies of which two were also randomized) found positive effects. Farmland habitats sown with wild bird cover mix were used more by butterflies, and had a higher abundance or species richness of butterflies and/or bees than other farmland habitats. One review found wild bird cover benefited invertebrates. Four studies (including one review and two replicated trials) reported mixed or negative effects of wild bird cover on invertebrate numbers compared with other farmland habitats. One study found that bees and butterflies showed preferences for particular plant species. Eight studies from the UK looked at plants and wild bird cover. Six studies (including two reviews and two replicated controlled trials) found that planting wild bird cover mix was one of the three best options for conservation of annual herbaceous plant communities, benefited plants and resulted in increased plant diversity and species richness. However two replicated studies (of which one a site comparison) found mixed/negative effects for plant species richness. One replicated trial from the UK found that small mammal activity was higher in wild bird cover than in the crop in winter but not in summer.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F594https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F594Fri, 12 Oct 2012 14:56:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Leave headlands in fields unsprayed (conservation headlands) Twenty-two studies from 14 replicated, controlled experiments (of which two randomized) including two reviews, from a total of 32 studies from 20 experiments (of which 17 replicated, controlled) including three reviews from Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK that investigated species richness and diversity of farmland wildlife found that conservation headlands contained higher species richness or diversity of invertebrates or plants than other habitat types. Twelve studies (including a review) from ten replicated experiments (of which eight controlled and three controlled and randomized) found that some or all invertebrates or plants investigated did not have higher species richness or diversity on conservation headlands compared to other habitat types. This included both replicated, controlled studies investigating bee diversity. Two replicated studies from the UK found that unfertilized conservation headlands had more plant species than fertilized conservation headlands. Positive effects of conservation headlands on abundances or behaviours of some or all species investigated were found by 27 studies from 15 replicated experiments (of which 13 controlled) including five reviews out of a total of 36 studies from 20 experiments (17 replicated, controlled) including five reviews from Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK that investigated birds (some studies looked at number of visits), mammals (some studies looked at number of visits), invertebrates and plant abundance/cover. One review from the UK found a positive effect on grey partridge populations but did not separate the effects of several other interventions including conservation headlands. Nineteen studies from 13 replicated (12 controlled) experiments and a review from Finland, Germany, the Netherlands and the UK found that some or all species of birds, invertebrates or plants investigated were at similar, or lower, abundances on conservation headlands compared to other management. One review from the UK and a study in Germany found conservation headlands had a positive effect on plants and some, but not all invertebrates, or rare arable weeds but did not specify how. All eight studies from the UK and Sweden that investigated species’ productivity, from three replicated (two controlled) experiments including two reviews found that grey partridge productivity or survival was higher in conservation headlands (or in sites with conservation headlands), compared to other management. One replicated study from the UK found that conservation headlands did not increase the proportion of young grey partridges in the population. A before-and-after study from the UK found that some invertebrates in conservation headlands survived pesticide applications to neighbouring fields. A review found crop margins reduce the effects of spray drift on butterflies. A replicated study from Germany and a review found that conservation headlands appeared to prevent or reduce the establishment and spread of pernicious weeds. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F652https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F652Wed, 31 Oct 2012 09:36:44 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pay farmers to cover the cost of conservation measures (as in agri-environment schemes) Twenty-six studies from four European countries (including one UK systematic review and three European reviews) looked at the effects of agri-environment schemes on birds. Twenty-four studies (including one systematic review, six site comparisons and nine reviews) found increases in population size, density or more favourable population trends of some or all birds studied on sites with agri-environment schemes compared to non-scheme sites (some of these differences were seasonal). Eleven studies (including one systematic review and four reviews) found negative or no effects. One UK study found higher numbers of some birds where higher tier management was in place, another UK study found no difference between Entry Level or Higher Level Stewardship Scheme fields. One study from the Netherlands found that not all agri-environment scheme agreements were sited in ideal locations for black-tailed godwit. Eleven studies from five European countries (including three replicated paired site comparisons and two reviews) looked at the effects of agri-environment schemes on plants. Seven studies (including three replicated paired site comparisons and one European review) found agri-environment schemes maintained or had little or no effect on plants, plant diversity or species richness. Three studies found increases in plant species richness in areas with agri-environment schemes, two found decreases. A replicated site comparison study from Estonia found higher flower abundance on farms with agri-environment schemes in two out of four areas. A review found Environmentally Sensitive Areas in England had contributed to halting the loss of semi-natural grassland habitats but were less effective at enhancing or restoring grassland biodiversity. Ten studies from three European countries (including two replicated paired site comparisons and a review) looked at the effects of agri-environment schemes on invertebrates. Six studies (including two replicated site comparisons) showed agri-environment schemes maintained or had little or no effect on some invertebrates in terms of diversity, abundance, species richness or bee colony growth. Five studies found increases in abundance or species richness of some invertebrates. A UK study found agri-environment scheme prescriptions had a local but not a landscape-scale effect on bee numbers. Four studies (including two replicated site comparisons and a review) from the UK looked at the effects of agri-environment schemes on mammals. One study found positive effects, three studies found mixed effects in different regions or for different species. Three of the studies above found higher numbers of wildlife on land before agri-environment schemes were introduced. However two studies collecting baseline data found no difference in the overall number of birds or earthworms and soil microorganisms between areas with and without agri-environment schemes. A review found two out of three agri-environment schemes in Europe benefited wildlife. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F700https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F700Fri, 21 Dec 2012 14:38:13 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Change tillage practicesBiodiversity loss: Eleven studies from Canada, Europe, Mexico, or the USA measured effects of reduced tillage on soil animals or microbes. Of these, four (including three replicated trials (three also randomized and one also controlled)) found more microbes, more species of earthworm, or higher microbe activity under reduced tillage. One replicated trial found increased numbers of soil animals and earthworms under reduced tillage. One controlled, replicated trial found mixed effects on microbe diversity depending on time of sampling. Two, (including one controlled, replicated trial) found no effect of reduced tillage on earthworm activity or microbe activity. Compaction: Five studies from Australia, Canada, and Europe measured the effect of controlled traffic and reduced tillage on compacted soils. Of these, two (including one before-and-after trial and one replicated trial) found reduced compaction and subsequent effects (reduced water runoff, for example) under controlled traffic, and one also found that crop yields increased under no-tillage. Three replicated trials, including one site comparison study, found higher compaction under reduced tillage. Drought: Three replicated trials from Europe and India (one also randomized) found the size of soil cracks decreased, and ability of soil to absorb water and soil water content increased with conventional ploughing and sub-soiling. Erosion: Nine replicated trials from Brazil, Europe, India, Nigeria and the USA, and one review showed mixed results of tillage on soil erosion. Seven trials (one also controlled and randomized) showed reduced soil loss and runoff under reduced tillage compared to conventional ploughing. One trial showed no differences between tillage systems, but demonstrated that across-slope cultivation reduced soil loss compared to up-and-downslope cultivation. Two trials showed that no-tillage increased soil loss in the absence of crop cover. Soil organic carbon: Twelve studies from Australia, Canada, China, Europe, Japan and the USA compared the effect of no-tillage and conventionally tilled systems on soil organic carbon. All (including two randomized, five replicated, two randomized, replicated, and one controlled, randomized, replicated) found higher soil organic carbon in soils under a no-tillage or reduced tillage system compared to conventionally tilled soil. One review showed that no-tillage with cover cropping and manure application increases soil organic carbon. One randomized, replicated trial from Spain found greater soil organic carbon in conventionally tilled soil. One replicated trial from Canada found no effect of tillage on soil carbon. Soil organic matter: Fifteen studies from Canada, China, Europe, Morocco, and the USA measured effects of reduced tillage on soil organic matter content and nutrient retention. Of these, eight studies (including four replicated (two also randomized), two site comparisons (one also replicated) and one controlled) found maintained or increased soil organic matter and improved soil structure under reduced tillage. Four trials (including two replicated and two site comparison studies) found higher nutrient retention under reduced tillage. One controlled, replicated trial found less carbon and nitrate in no-till compared to conventionally tilled soil, but conventionally tilled soil lost more carbon and nitrate. One controlled, randomized, replicated trial and one replicated trial found mixed effects of reduced tillage on soil nitrogen levels. Yield: One replicated study from Canada found lower yields under minimum or no-tillage compared to conventional tillage, and one controlled, randomized, replicated study from the USA found higher yields when subsoiling was done. One randomized, replicated study from Portugal found no effect of tillage treatment on yield.   SOIL TYPES COVERED: anthrosol, calcareous silt loam, chalky, clay, clay loam, fine sandy loam, loam, loamy-clay, loam - sandy loam, loam – silt-loam, loamy sand, loamy silt, non-chalky clay, sandy, sandy clay loam, sandy loam, sandy silt-loam, silt loam, silty, silty-clay, silty clay loam, silty loam.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F906https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F906Wed, 02 Oct 2013 11:37:18 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide bat boxes for roosting bats Forty-four studies evaluated the effects of providing bat boxes for roosting bats on bat populations. Twenty-seven studies were in Europe, nine studies were in North America, four studies were in Australia, two studies were in South America, and one study was a worldwide review. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (44 STUDIES) Uptake (9 studies): Nine replicated studies in Europe and the USA found that the number of bats using bat boxes increased by 2–10 times up to 10 years after installation. Use (43 studies): Forty-one of 43 studies (including 34 replicated studies and two reviews) in Europe, the USA, South America, and Australia found that bats used bat boxes installed in forest or woodland, forestry plantations, farmland, pasture, wetlands, urban areas and buildings, bridges, underpasses or unknown habitats. The other two studies in the USA and UK found that bats displaced from buildings did not use any of 43 bat houses of four different designs or 12 heated bat boxes of one design. One review of 109 studies across Europe, North America and Asia found that 72 bat species used bat boxes, although only 18 species commonly used them, and 31 species used them as maternity roosts. Twenty-two studies (including 17 replicated studies, one before-and-after study and two reviews) found bats occupying less than half of bat boxes provided (0–49%). Nine replicated studies found bats occupying more than half of bat boxes provided (54–100%). OTHER (23 STUDIES) Bat box design (16 studies): Three studies in Germany, Portugal and Australia found that bats used black bat boxes more than grey, white or wooden boxes. One of two studies in Spain and the USA found higher occupancy rates in larger bat boxes. One study in the USA found that bats used both resin and wood cylindrical bat boxes, but another study in the USA found that resin bat boxes became occupied more quickly than wood boxes. One study in the UK found higher occupancy rates in concrete than wooden bat boxes. One study in the USA found that Indiana bats used rocket boxes more than wooden bat boxes or bark-mimic roosts. One study in Spain found that more bats occupied bat boxes that had two compartments than one compartment in the breeding season. One study in Lithuania found that bat breeding colonies occupied standard and four/five chamber bat boxes and individuals occupied flat bat boxes. Four studies in the USA, UK, Spain and Australia found bats selecting four of nine, three of five, three of four and one of five bat box designs. One study in the UK found that different bat box designs were used by different species. One study in Costa Rica found that bat boxes simulating tree trunks were used by 100% of bats and in group sizes similar to natural roosts. Bat box position (11 studies): Three studies in Germany, Spain and the USA found that bat box orientation and/or the amount of exposure to sunlight affected bat occupancy, and one study in Spain found that orientation did not have a significant effect on occupancy. Two studies in the UK and Italy found that bat box height affected occupancy, and two studies in Spain and the USA found no effect of height. Two studies in the USA and Spain found higher occupancy of bat boxes on buildings than on trees. One study in Australia found that bat boxes were occupied more often in farm forestry sites than in native forest, one study in Poland found higher occupancy in pine relative to mixed deciduous stands, and one study in Costa Rica found higher occupancy in forest fragments than in pasture. One study in the USA found higher occupancy rates in areas where bats were known to roost prior to installing bat boxes. One review in the UK found that bat boxes were more likely to be occupied when a greater number of bat boxes were installed across a site. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1024https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1024Fri, 20 Dec 2013 18:17:59 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Soil: Use no tillage in arable fieldsOrganic matter (20 studies): One meta-analysis of studies from Mediterranean countries found more organic matter in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage. Fourteen replicated studies (eleven randomized and controlled, one controlled, one site comparison) from Italy, Spain, and the USA found more organic matter in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage, in some or all comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Portugal found less organic matter in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain sometimes found more organic matter, and sometimes found less, in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage. Three replicated, controlled studies (two randomized) from Italy and Spain found similar amounts of organic matter in soils with or without tillage. Nutrients (19 studies) Nitrogen (18 studies): Six replicated studies (five randomized and controlled, one site comparison) from Italy, Spain, and the USA found more nitrogen in soils without tillage, compared soil with tillage, in some or all comparisons. Six replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found less nitrogen in soils without tillage, in some or all comparisons. Two replicated, controlled studies from Spain and the USA sometimes found more nitrogen and sometimes found less nitrogen in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage. Four replicated, controlled studies (three randomized) from Italy, Portugal, Spain, and the USA found similar amounts of nitrogen in soils with or without tillage. Phosphorus (5 studies): Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain and the USA found more phosphorus in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage, in some or all comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Portugal found less phosphorus in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found similar amounts of phosphorus in soils with or without tillage. Potassium (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found more potassium in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA sometimes found more potassium and sometimes found less potassium in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found similar amounts of potassium in soils with or without tillage. pH (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Portugal found lower pH levels in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found similar pH levels in soils with or without tillage. Soil organisms (18 studies) Microbial biomass (13 studies): Five replicated, controlled studies (four randomized) from Italy and Spain found more microbial biomass in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage, in some or all comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain sometimes found more microbial biomass, and sometimes found less, in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage. Six replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain and the USA found similar amounts of microbial biomass in soils with or without tillage. Earthworms (2 studies): Two replicated studies (one controlled, one site comparison) from the USA found more earthworms in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage. Nematodes (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies (one randomized) from the USA found similar numbers of nematodes in soils with or without tillage. However, one of these studies found different communities of nematodes in soils with or without tillage. Mites (1 study): One replicated, controlled study from the USA found different communities of mites, but similar numbers of mites, in soils with or without tillage. Other soil organisms (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found similar amounts of denitrifying bacteria in soils with or without tillage. Another replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found more microorganisms in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Portugal found more fungus in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage. Soil erosion and aggregation (9 studies): Seven replicated studies (six randomized and controlled, one site comparison) from Spain and the USA found that soils without tillage were more stable than tilled soils, in some or all comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found that soils without tillage were sometimes more stable, and were sometimes less stable, than tilled soils. Greenhouse gases (10 studies) Carbon dioxide (7 studies): Three replicated, controlled studies (two randomized) from Italy and Spain found more carbon dioxide in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found less carbon dioxide in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage, in some comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain sometimes found more carbon dioxide, and sometimes found less, in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found similar amounts of carbon dioxide in soils with or without tillage. Nitrous oxide (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain sometimes found more nitrous oxide, and sometimes found less, in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found similar amounts of nitrous oxide in soils with or without tillage. Methane (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found less methane in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain sometimes found more methane, and sometimes found less, in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found similar amounts of methane in soils with or without tillage. Implementation options (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found more organic matter in soils that had not been tilled for a long time, compared to a short time, in one comparison. This study also found greater stability in soils that had not been tilled for a long time, in some comparisons.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1369https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1369Mon, 15 May 2017 14:26:17 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Soil: Use reduced tillage in arable fieldsOrganic matter (14 studies): One meta-analysis from multiple Mediterranean countries found more organic matter in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Eleven replicated studies (ten randomized and controlled, one site comparison) from Italy, Spain, Syria, and the USA found more organic matter in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some or all comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain and the USA found similar amounts of organic matter in soils with reduced tillage or conventional tillage, in all comparisons. No studies found less organic matter in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Nutrients (15 studies) Nitrogen (14 studies): Seven replicated studies (five randomized and controlled, one site comparison) from Italy, Spain, and the USA found more nitrogen in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons. Three of these studies also found less nitrogen in some comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found less nitrogen in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some or all comparisons. Five replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain, Syria, and the USA found similar amounts of nitrogen in soils with reduced tillage or conventional tillage, in all comparisons. Phosphorus (6 studies): Five replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy, Spain, and the USA found more phosphorus in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some or all comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found similar amounts of phosphorus in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in all comparisons. Potassium (3 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found more potassium in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found similar amounts of potassium in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in all comparisons. pH (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found similar pH levels in soils with reduced tillage or conventional tillage. Soil organisms (16 studies) Microbial biomass (15 studies): Eleven replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy, Spain, and the USA found more microbial biomass in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain and Syria found less microbial biomass in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found similar amounts of microbial biomass in soils with reduced tillage or conventional tillage, in all comparisons. Bacteria (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found more denitrifying bacteria in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Other soil organisms (2 studies): One replicated, controlled study from the USA found similar numbers of mites and nematodes, but differences in mite and nematode communities, in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. One replicated site comparison from the USA found more earthworms in fields with fewer passes of the plough, in one of three comparisons. Soil erosion and aggregation (9 studies) Soil aggregation (8 studies): Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found that soil aggregates had higher water-stability in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons. One of these studies also found that soil aggregates had lower water-stability in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found that water-stability was similar in plots with reduced tillage or conventional tillage. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found more large aggregates in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in one of two comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found smaller aggregates in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain and the USA found similar amounts of aggregation in soils with reduced tillage or conventional tillage. Soil erosion (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Egypt found less erosion with less tillage (one pass with the tractor, compared to two), but found more erosion with shallower tillage, compared to deeper. Greenhouse gases (11 studies) Carbon dioxide (9 studies): Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found more carbon dioxide in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some or all comparisons. Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain and the USA found less carbon dioxide in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some or all comparisons. Three controlled studies from Italy, Spain, and the USA found similar amounts of carbon dioxide in soils with reduced tillage or conventional tillage, in all comparisons. Nitrous oxide (3 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain and the USA found more nitrous oxide in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some or all comparisons. One controlled study from the USA found similar amounts of nitrous oxide in soils with reduced tillage or conventional tillage, in all comparisons. Methane (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found similar amounts of methane in soils with reduced tillage or conventional tillage. Implementation options (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Egypt found that less soil was lost in runoff water from plots that were tilled at slower tractor speeds. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1371https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1371Mon, 15 May 2017 14:50:31 +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: Translocate to re-establish or boost populations in native range Sixty-four studies evaluated the effects of translocating mammals to re-establish or boost populations in their native range. Twenty studies were in the USA, eight in Italy, four in Canada and South Africa, three in the Netherlands and Spain, two in each of the USA and Canada, Zimbabwe, Sweden, Australia and the USA and Mexico and one in each of Uganda, the UK, Brazil, France, Portugal, Africa, Europe, North America, Botswana, Nepal, Chile, Slovakia, Ukraine, Slovakia and Poland and one global study. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (62 STUDIES) Abundance (22 studies): Two studies (incuding one controlled and one before-and-after, site comparison study) in Spain and Canada found that translocating animals increased European rabbit abundance or American badger population growth rate at release sites. Fourteen studies (one replicated) in South Africa, the USA, the Netherlands, Italy, France and Spain found that following translocation, populations of warthogs, Eurasian beavers, red squirrels, roe deer, Alpine ibex, Iberian ibex, Cape mountain zebra, 22 species of grazing mammals, black bears, brown bear, bobcats and most populations of river otters increased. Two reviews in South Africa and Australia found that reintroductions (mainly through translocations) led to increasing populations for four of six species of large carnivores and that over half of translocations were classified as successful. One replicated study in the USA and Mexico found that translocating desert bighorn sheep did not increase the population size. Two studies (one replicated) and a review in USA and Canada, the USA and Australia found that translocated American martens, and sea otters at four of seven sites, established populations and that translocated and released captive-bred macropod species established populations in 44 of 72 cases. A study in Italy found that following the translocation of red deer, the density of Apennine chamois in the area almost halved. A worldwide review found that translocating ungulates was more successful when larger numbers were released, and small populations grew faster if they contained more mature individuals and had an equal ratio of males and females. Reproductive success (16 studies): A controlled study in Italy found that wild-caught translocated Apennine chamois reproduced in similar numbers to released captive-bred chamois. Fourteen studies (four replicated) in Canada, the USA, Zimbabwe, South Africa, the UK, Italy, the Netherlands and Slovakia found that translocated black and white rhinoceroses, warthogs, common dormice, European ground squirrels, cougars, bobcats, brown bears, sea otters, river otters and some Eurasian otters reproduced. A study in the Netherlands found that translocated beavers were slow to breed. Survival (39 studies): Four of five studies (including three controlled, two replicated and one before-and-after, site comparison study) in the USA, Canada and Chile found that wild-born translocated long-haired field mice, female elk, cougars and American badgers had lower survival rates than non-translocated resident animals. One found that translocated Lower Keys marsh rabbits had similar survival rates to non-translocated resident animals. Five of four studies (two replicated, four controlled) and two reviews in Canada, Canada and the USA, the USA, Italy, Sweden and Africa, Europe, and North America found that wild-born translocated swift foxes, European otters, black-footed ferret kits and a mix of carnivores had higher survival rates than released captive-bred animals. One study found that wild-born translocated Apennine chamois had a similar survival rate to released captive-bred animals. Twenty of twenty-one studies (including two replicated and one before-and-after study) and a review in Nepal, France, Italy, Portugal, Ukraine, Slovakia and Poland, Canada, USA, Brazil, Uganda, South Africa, Zimbabwe and Botswana found that following translocation, populations of or individual mammals survived between two months and at least 25 years. The other two studies found that two of 10 translocated white rhinoceroses died within three days of release and an American marten population did not persist. A review in Australia found that over half of translocations, for which the outcome could be determined, were classified as successful. Two of three studies (one replicated) and one review in Sweden, the UK, the Netherlands and the USA and Mexico found that following release of wild-caught translocated and captive-bred animals, European otters and common dormice survived three months to seven years. The review found that most black-footed ferret releases were unsuccessful at maintaining a population. A replicated study in the USA found that following translocation of bighorn sheep, 48–98% of their offspring survived into their first winter. Condition (3 studies): Three studies (including one replicated, controlled study) in the USA and Italy found that following translocation, populations of elk had similar levels of genetic diversity to non-translocated populations, descendants of translocated swift fox had genetic diversity at least as high as that of the translocated animals and brown bear genetic diversity declined over time. BEHAVIOUR (9 STUDIES) Use (7 studies): A study in Italy found that following translocation, Alpine ibex used similar habitats to resident animals. Two of four studies (including one randomized, controlled study) in the USA, Netherlands and Botswana found that following translocation (and in one case release of some captive-bred animals), most Eurasian otters settled and all three female grizzly bears established ranges at their release site. The other two studies found that most nine-banded armadillos and some white rhinoceroses (when released into areas already occupied by released animals) dispersed from their release site. Two studies (one replicated) in Spain found that following translocation, Iberian ibex expanded their range and roe deer increased their distribution six-fold. Behaviour change (2 studies): A replicated controlled study in Chile found that following translocation, long-haired field mice travelled two- to four-times further than non-translocated mice. A controlled study in Italy found that wild-caught translocated Apennine chamois moved further from the release site than released captive-bred animals. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2397https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2397Thu, 28 May 2020 10:46:18 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install barrier fencing and underpasses along roads Fifty-five studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing barrier fencing and underpasses along roads. Twenty-seven were in the USA, nine were in Canada, seven were in Australia, two each were in Spain, Portugal, the UK and Sweden, one each was in Denmark, Germany and Croatia and one was a review covering Australia, Europe and North America. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (15 STUDIES) Survival (15 studies): Eleven of 15 studies (including 12 before-and-after studies and two site comparisons), in the USA, Australia, Sweden and Canada, found that installing underpasses and associated roadside barrier fencing reduced collisions between vehicles and mammals. Three studies found that the roadkill rate was not reduced and one study found that vehicle-mammal collisions continued to occur after installation. BEHAVIOUR (52 STUDIES) Use (52 studies): Seventeen of 18 studies (including 10 before-and-after studies) in the USA, Canada and Sweden, which reported exclusively on ungulates, found that underpasses installed along with roadside barrier fencing were used by a range of ungulate species. These were mule deer, mountain goat, pronghorn, white-tailed deer, elk, moose and Florida Key deer. The other study found that underpasses were not used by moose whilst one of the studies that did report use by ungulates further reported that they were not used by white-tailed deer. Further observations from these studies included that elk preferred more open, shorter underpasses to those that were enclosed or longer, underpass use was not affected by traffic levels and that mule deer used underpasses less than they used overpasses. Thirty-four studies (including four before-and-after studies, seven replicated studies, three site comparisons and two reviews), in the USA, Canada, Australia, Spain, Portugal, the UK, Denmark, Germany, Croatia and across multiple continents, that either studied mammals other than ungulates or multiple species including ungulates, found that underpasses in areas with roadside fencing were used by mammals. Among these studies, one found that small culverts were used by mice and voles more than were larger underpasses, one found that bandicoots used underpasses less after they were lengthened and one found that culverts were used by grizzly bears less often than were overpasses. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2571https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2571Wed, 10 Jun 2020 08:35:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit all types of fishing in a marine protected area Seventy-nine studies examined the effects of ceasing or prohibiting all types of fishing in a marine protected area on fish populations. Fifteen studies were in the Indian Ocean (Kenya, Tanzania, South Africa, Mozambique, Madagascar, multiple African countries, Australia). Twelve studies were in the Mediterranean Sea (Spain, France, Italy). Ten studies were in the Pacific Ocean (New Zealand, USA, Hawaii, New Caledonia, Costa Rica, Tonga, Vanuatu, Solomon Islands). Seven studies were in each of the Coral Sea (Australia, Vanuatu), the Tasman Sea (New Zealand, Australia) and the Atlantic Ocean (Brazil, USA, Puerto Rico, Argentina, South Africa, UK, Canary Islands, Portugal, Turks and Caicos Islands). Four studies were in the Philippine Sea (Philippines). Three studies were in the Caribbean Sea (Belize, Puerto Rico). One study was in each of the Gulf of Mexico (USA), the Java Sea (Indonesia), the Pacific and Indian Oceans (multiple countries), the Sulu Sea (Malaysia) and the North Sea (Norway). Six studies were reviews of marine reserves (New Zealand, Latin America/Caribbean, regions unspecified and across the world).  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (26 STUDIES)  Community composition (7 studies): Seven site comparison studies (two replicated, and one before-and-after) in the Mediterranean Sea, Indian Ocean, Philippine Sea and the Atlantic Ocean found that protected areas where all fishing had been prohibited for between three and 16 years, had a different fish community composition, compared to fished areas.  Richness/diversity (22 studies): Fourteen of 20 site comparison studies (eight replicated, one replicated and paired, and one before-and-after) in the Indian Ocean, Mediterranean Sea, Philippine Sea, Tasman Sea, Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea, Coral Sea and the Pacific Ocean, found that marine protected areas that had prohibited all fishing for between one to more than 25 years, had higher fish species/richness compared to fished areas. Six studies found similar fish species/richness between one and 20 years after all fishing was banned in protected areas, compared to fished areas. One systematic review in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans found no difference in species richness between unfished protected areas and fished areas. One replicated, site comparison study in the Indian Ocean found that the effects of prohibiting all fishing on fish species richness/diversity after 15 years varied with the sampling method used. POPULATION RESPONSE (66 STUDIES) Abundance (64 studies): Thirty of 54 site comparison studies (18 replicated, eight replicated and paired, two before-and-after, one paired and before-and-after, and one replicated and before-and-after) in the Indian Ocean, Atlantic Ocean, Mediterranean Sea, Pacific Ocean, Tasman Sea, Coral Sea, Philippine Sea, Caribbean Sea, Gulf of Mexico, and the Sulu Sea, found that marine protected areas that had been prohibiting all fishing for up to 25 years or more, had higher abundances (density and/or biomass) of all fish (total fish biomass, total fish density), fishery targeted fish species, non-fishery targeted fish species and all or most of the individual fish species/groups monitored, except fish densities (all or most) and non-fishery targeted species, compared to unprotected fished areas and/or partly-fished protected areas. The studies also found that in some cases where the total fish biomass or densities were higher in no-fished areas, the effect varied between individual groups of fish based on species family and/or position in the food chain, commercial target and non-target species, fish sizes, depth and habitat types. Eight studies found that inside protected areas prohibiting all fishing there were similar abundances of all fish, and all or most of the individual fish species/groups monitored, compared to fished areas between one and 20 years after implementation. The other sixteen studies found that the effect of prohibiting fishing in protected areas for three to 20 years on fish abundance varied between fish species or groups and on their fished status (fishery target or non-target) and/or position in the food chain. One also found that the effect varied with size or age of the protected areas. Five of six reviews (three systematic) across the world, in the Pacific and/or Atlantic Oceans and in unreported regions found that non-fished marine reserves with one to 27 years of protection had higher abundances of all fish, all fish and invertebrates combined and blue cod compared to fished areas, but there were differences between species/groups and fishing intensity outside reserves. The other review found that fish abundance varied between species in no-take marine reserves between one and 25 years old, and was affected by food chain position, level of exploitation and duration of protection. One replicated study in the Pacific Ocean found a long-term decline in the abundance/presence of eight of 12 shark and ray species inside an established (>15 years) no-fishing protected area, however enforcement was poor. One before-and after, site comparison study in the Pacific Ocean, found no differences in overall fish abundance between a marine reserve closed permanently to fishing for five years and a closed area that was harvested for two years during the same period. One site comparison study in the Coral Sea found that in a no-take zone of an area protected for at least 10 years, fish abundance of four of six fish groups were similar to no-entry and fished zones, but two had lower abundance than the no-entry zone. One replicated, paired, site comparison study in the Tasman Sea found that in a non-fished marine park zone abundance of commercially targeted fish was higher than partly fished zones but lower than unprotected areas after four to eight years. Reproductive success (1 study): One site comparison study in the Mediterranean Sea found more eggs of four commercially targeted fish species inside a non-fished marine reserve enforced for three years than in fished areas outside the reserve. Survival (1 study): One site comparison study in the Atlantic Ocean found that prohibiting all fishing in a marine protected area for three years resulted in similar survival of red hind grouper, compared to fished areas. Condition (20 studies): Two global review studies (one systematic) and two systematic reviews in the Pacific Ocean and the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans found that prohibiting all fishing in marine protected areas for one to 27 years resulted in larger fish overall and larger blue cod compared to fished areas, but there were differences between individual fish families or species. Eight of 11 site comparison studies (four replicated, one before-and-after, one paired, and one replicated and paired) in the Tasman Sea, Pacific Ocean, Indian Ocean, Mediterranean Sea, Atlantic Ocean, Java Sea and the Philippine Sea, found that non-fished protected areas had larger fish overall and larger individuals of all or most of the fish species/groups monitored, compared to fished areas, after one to 22 years. The other three studies found similar fish sizes of all or all but one species, compared to fished areas one to 16 years after all fishing was prohibited. Three site comparison studies (one replicated) in the Coral Sea, Caribbean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean found that fish size in protected areas that had not been fished for six to more than 20 years, varied between fish species or food chain groups. One site comparison study in the Atlantic Ocean found that red hind grouper were larger, but had similar growth, in an area protected from fishing for three years compared to fished areas. One site comparison study in the Atlantic Ocean found that young lemon sharks in areas protected from fishing for 20 years had similar growth rates, but lower condition, than sharks in unprotected fished areas. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES)  Behaviour change (2 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in the Pacific and Indian Oceans found that surgeonfish and parrotfish inside established protected areas where fishing was prohibited, showed a similar avoidance response to fishing gears as in fished areas, and this increased with increasing fishing intensity outside the protected areas. One replicated, site comparison study in the Indian Ocean found that in non-fished areas protected for one and 24 years, fish grazing rates were higher compared to fished areas.  OTHER (15 STUDIES) Use (7 studies): Four of six site comparison studies in the Pacific Ocean, Atlantic Ocean and the Tasman Sea found that marine protected areas where all fishing had been prohibited for at least five to 15 years, were used for a large proportion of time by shark and ray species and commercially important reef fish species, compared to fished areas, thus were provided protection from fishing. Two other studies found that time spent inside areas closed to all fishing for 20 years and over 30 years, varied between species and with size for three shark species and with size for giant trevally. One replicated study in the Indian Ocean found that most individuals of five fish species remained inside a marine reserve zone closed to fishing over a nine-year period. Catch abundance (2 studies): One of two site comparison studies in the Mediterranean Sea and Pacific Ocean found that commercial fish catch rates in small-scale traditional fisheries were highest closest to a marine reserve closed to all fishing for 22 years, and decreased with increasing distance from the reserve. The other study found that there was no increase in fish catch rates in commercially landed catch in the five years after a no-fishing zone was implemented in a co-managed protected area. Stock biomass (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the Indian Ocean found that the stock biomass (the harvested portion of the population) of reef fish species was highest in enforced protected areas closed to all fishing, compared to various other area management regimes.  Fishing mortality (2 studies): Two site comparison studies in the North Sea and Pacific Ocean found that prohibiting fishing in protected areas resulted in reduced commercial fishing mortality of corkwing wrasse tagged inside non-fished marine reserves compared to fished areas, and that the overall fishing mortality of grey reef sharks tagged inside protected areas was low.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2682https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2682Sat, 28 Nov 2020 14:35:06 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use a larger mesh size Forty-two studies examined the effects of using a larger mesh size of fishing net on marine fish populations. Ten studies, and one review, were in the Atlantic Ocean (UK, Portugal, USA). Eight studies were in the Aegean Sea (Greece, Turkey). Five studies were in the North Sea (UK, Netherlands, France, North Europe) and three were in the Tasman Sea (Australia). Two studies were in each of the Mediterranean Sea (Italy, Turkey), the Pacific Ocean (USA, Chile), the Skagerrak and Kattegat (Northern Europe) and the Gulf of Mexico (Mexico). One study was in each of the English Channel (UK), the Bering Sea (USA), the Baltic Sea (Finland), the Caribbean Sea (Barbados), the Persian Gulf (Kuwait), the Bristol Channel (UK), the Barents Sea (Norway) and the Arabian Sea (India).  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Survival (3 studies): One of three controlled studies (one replicated and paired, and one replicated) in the Atlantic Ocean, Baltic Sea and Bristol Channel found that larger mesh sizes improved the post-capture survival of skates and rays compared to smaller meshes. The other two found similar post-capture survival in haddock, whiting and small herring between trawl nets with larger mesh and nets of smaller mesh size. Condition (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in the Bristol Channel reported that the condition of skates and rays at capture was better with a larger trawl codend mesh size compared to a smaller mesh. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (41 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (21 studies): Fifteen of 20 replicated studies (five controlled, two paired, eight paired and controlled, one randomized and one randomized and controlled) in the North Sea, Skagerrak/Kattegat, Aegean Sea, Caribbean Sea, Mediterranean Sea, Atlantic Ocean, Tasman Sea, Gulf of Mexico, Pacific Ocean, Bering Sea and the Bristol Channel found that using a larger mesh size in a fishing net (various trawls, gillnets, seines and trammel nets) reduced the catches of unwanted (small/undersized, non-commercial, discarded) fish or fish and invertebrates combined, compared to nets with standard/smaller mesh sizes. One study found that amounts of unwanted fish were reduced with larger mesh at smaller catch sizes but were similar between large and small meshes at larger catch sizes, and one found that increasing a trawl codend mesh size reduced the unwanted catch of one of two fish species compared to a standard mesh. Three found that larger mesh sized fishing nets did not typically reduce the unwanted fish catch compared to nets of smaller mesh sizes. One study found that increasing both the mesh size and minimum size limit reduced catches of the youngest fish. Improved size-selectivity of fishing gear (23 studies): Nineteen of 21 replicated studies (eight controlled, four paired and controlled, three randomized and controlled, and one paired) and one review, in the North Sea, Aegean Sea, Baltic Sea, Pacific Ocean, Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, Tasman Sea, Arabian Sea, Persian Gulf, Barents Sea and the Mediterranean Sea found that larger mesh sizes (both diamond and square) of the netting of various gear types improved the size-selectivity for all fish species assessed and in one, for two of three fish species, compared to smaller mesh sizes. One study found that size-selectivity for fish was not improved with larger mesh size in the netting of fish traps. The other found that increasing the codend mesh size of trawls fitted with size-sorting escape grids resulted in similar size-selectivity of the codend for fish compared to smaller codend mesh sizes. One controlled study in the English Channel found that a trawl net codend with a larger size of square mesh had similar size-selectivity for Atlantic mackerel as a smaller diamond mesh codend. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2697https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2697Thu, 03 Dec 2020 19:56:32 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Directly plant trees/shrubs: brackish/saline wetlands Forty-seven studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of directly planting trees/shrubs in brackish/saline wetlands. Forty-four studies involved planting mangroves or other coastal swamp trees: 20 in Asia, seven in Central America, six in Africa, four in North America, four in South America, two in Oceania and one globally. Three studies involved planting shrubs in the USA or Spain. There was overlap in the sites used in two studies. One systematic review included several of the other summarized studies. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Overall extent (3 studies): Two before-and-after studies in India and South Africa reported that the area of mangrove forest was greater 6–42 years after planting mangrove trees (sometimes along with other interventions) than in the years before. One study in Sri Lanka simply quantified the area of mangrove vegetation present 8–10 years after planting seedlings (and propagules). Tree/shrub richness/diversity (6 studies): Three site comparison studies in the USA, Mexico and Brazil reported that where mangrove forests developed after planting trees (sometimes along with other interventions), they contained a similar number of tree species to mature and/or naturally regenerating forests after 10–30 years. One site comparison study in Vietnam reported that after 14–34 years, a planted mangrove forest contained more tree species than a (slightly older) naturally regenerated forest. One replicated, paired, before-and-after, site comparison study in Kenya reported that planted mangrove forest contained fewer adult tree species than mature natural forest after five years, but more species of seedling. One study in a former shrimp pond in Thailand simply reported the number of unplanted tree species that had colonized six years after planting (along with other interventions). VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Tree/shrub abundance (9 studies): Three replicated, site comparison studies of coastal sites in the Philippines, the USA and Brazil reported that where mangrove forests developed after planting trees (sometimes along with other interventions), woody vegetation was typically more dense than in mature natural forests and/or naturally regenerating forests. Two site comparison studies in Kenya and Vietnam found that tree abundance (density and biomass) was similar in planted and natural mangroves after 5–34 years. One site comparison study in Mexico reported that a planted mangrove forest contained fewer trees than pristine natural forests after 12 years. Two site comparison studies in the Philippines reported mixed results according to time since planting and site. One study in Thailand simply quantified the abundance of mangrove trees six years after planting (along with other interventions). Algae/phytoplankton abundance (1 study): One site comparison study in Kenya found that mangrove forests restored by planting contained a similar algal biomass, after eight years, to mature natural forests. However, mangrove forests created by planting into bare sediment contained less algal biomass than mature natural forests. Individual species abundance (7 studies): Seven studies quantified the effect of this action on the abundance of individual plant species. Four of the studies compared the abundance of woody vegetation or algae in planted mangrove forests and mature natural forests – and sometimes naturally regenerating forests (see original papers for data). One replicated, paired, controlled study in a brackish wetland in the USA reported that there were fewer common reed Phragmites australis stems in plots planted with wetland shrubs (and herbs) than in unplanted plots, after 1–3 years. One before-and-after study of an intertidal site in the USA reported greater abundance of red mangrove Rhizophora mangle over five years after planting (along with other interventions) than before. VEGETATION STRUCTURE Overall structure (3 studies): Three replicated, site comparison studies of coastal sites in the Kenya, the USA and the Philippines reported that where mangrove forests developed after planting trees (sometimes along with other interventions), their overall structure differed from mature natural forests for up to 50 years. Height (18 studies): Four site comparison studies (three replicated, three paired) of coastal sites in Kenya, the USA, Brazil and the Philippines reported that where mangrove forests developed after planting trees (sometimes along with other interventions), the vegetation was shorter than in mature and naturally regenerating forests after 5–30 years. One site comparison study in Mexico reported that planted mangrove forests contained taller trees than pristine natural forests after 12 years. Fourteen studies (four replicated) in Asia, Central/South America, Africa and North America simply quantified the height of mangrove trees for up to six years after they were planted; in 13 of these studies, the average height increased over time. Diameter (7 studies): Two site comparison studies in Mexio and Vietnam reported that tree diameters were similar in planted and natural mangroves after 12–34 years. In contrast, two site comparison studies in Brazil and the Philippines reported that planted mangroves contained thinner tree stems than mature natural mangroves after 7–12 years. The study in Brazil also reported that stem diameters were thinner than in naturally regenerating areas. Three studies in India and Nigeria simply quantified the diameter of mangrove trees for up to three years after they were planted; in all three studies, the average stem diameter increased over time. Basal area (3 studies): Two site comparison studies (one also replicated, paired, before-and-after) in Kenya and Mexico reported that planted mangrove forests had a smaller basal area than mature natural forests after 5–12 years. One replicated, site comparison study in the USA reported that where mangrove forests developed after planting trees (along with other interventions), their basal area was similar to mature natural forests after 17–30 years. OTHER Survival (37 studies): Thirty-six studies (including one review and one systematic review) quantified survival rates of individual trees/shrubs planted in brackish/saline wetlands. Survival rates ranged from 0% to 100% after 15 days to 21 years. The studies were of mangroves in North America, Central/South America, Asia, Africa, Oceania or globally, and of shrubs in the USA or Spain. Six studies reported 100% survival in some cases. Eleven studies reported 0% survival or absence of planted species in some cases. In six studies, survival of planted seedlings was not distinguished from survival of seeds or propagules. Proposed factors affecting survival included elevation/water levels, exposure to wind/waves, soil properties, sediment deposition, oyster/barnacle colonization, salinity, use of guidance and post-planting care. Growth (9 studies): Nine studies monitored true growth of individual trees/shrubs (rather than changes in average height of survivors). The nine studies, in Colombia, the USA, the Philippines, Brazil and China, reported that planted trees/shrubs typically grew, over periods from 40 days to 50 years. One replicated study in the USA reported that planted seedlings grew less quickly than naturally colonizing seedlings. One replicated, site comparison study in the Philippines found that growth rates of trees in planted mangroves became more similar to those in mature natural mangroves over time. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3259https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3259Sat, 10 Apr 2021 13:27:43 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Sow native grass and forbs Fifty studies examined the effects of sowing native grass and forb seeds on grassland vegetation. Thirty-six studies were in Europe, twelve studies were in North America and one study was in New Zealand. One review included studies from Europe, North America and Africa. VEGETATION COMMUNITY (42 STUDIES) Community composition (11 studies): Five of 11 studies (10 of which were replicated and/or controlled, and three of which were site comparisons) in the UK, the Czech Republic, Norway and Germany found that sowing native grass and forb seeds increased the similarity of plant community composition to that of target communities. Three studies found no increase in community similarity to target communities. Two studies found that over time communities became more similar to those of intact grasslands. One study found that over time areas sown with native grass and forb seeds became more similar to areas that were not sown with seeds. Overall richness/diversity (28 studies): Sixteen of 28 studies (24 of which were controlled and four of which were site comparisons) in Europe, North America and New Zealand found that sowing native grass and forb seeds increased overall plant species richness. Seven studies found that there was no change in plant species richness or mixed effects on plant species richness and plant diversity. Three studies found that sowing native grass and forb seeds increased plant species richness during the first year, but after 3–13 years, species richness did not differ between sown and unsown areas or was lower in sown areas. One study found that after one year, sowing did not alter plant species richness but after eight years, species richness was higher than in unsown areas. Three studies found that species richness was lower in sown areas than in nearby intact grasslands. Characteristic plant richness/diversity (9 studies): Six of nine studies (eight of which were replicated and/or controlled, and two of which were site comparisons) in Europe found that sowing native grass and forb seeds increased the species richness of characteristic grassland plants. Two studies found no change in the species richness of characteristic grassland plants. One study found that sowing native grass and forb seeds increased the species richness of target forbs but not target grasses. Sown/planted species richness/diversity (3 studies): Three replicated, paired, controlled studies in the UK and the Czech Republic found that sowing native grass and forb seeds increased sown species richness. Grass richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in the UK found that sowing native grass and forb seeds increased grass species richness in 54% of cases. Forb richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in the UK found that sowing native grass and forb seeds increased forb species richness in 71% of cases. Native/non-target richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the USA found that sowing native grass and forb seeds increased the species richness of native plants. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE (24 STUDIES) Overall abundance (8 studies): Three of eight replicated, controlled studies (four of which were randomized and paired) in Europe and North America found that sowing native grass and forb seeds increased overall vegetation cover, biomass or density. One study found that sowing native grass and forb seeds increased plant species richness during the first 2–7 years, but after eight years, species richness did not differ between sown and unsown areas. Four studies found that there was no change in overall vegetation abundance in all or most cases. Characteristic plant abundance (5 studies): Three of five replicated studies (four of which were controlled, and one of which was a site comparison) in Europe found that sowing native grass and forb seeds did not alter the cover of characteristic grassland species. The other two studies found an increase in the cover of characteristic or target grassland species. Sown/planted species abundance (6 studies): Five of six studies (four of which were replicated and controlled, and two of which were reviews) in Europe, North America, Africa and New Zealand found that sowing native grass and forb seeds increased the abundance of sown species in all or most cases. The other study found mixed effects on sown species abundance. Grass abundance (3 studies): Two of three replicated, randomized, controlled studies (two of which were paired) in the Czech Republic and the USA found that sowing native grass and forb seeds increased the cover of grass species. The other study found no change in the cover of grass species. Forb abundance (4 studies): Three of four replicated, randomized, controlled studies (three of which were paired) in the Czech Republic and the USA found that sowing native grass and forb seeds increased the cover or density of forb species. The other study found that one year after sowing, the cover of forb species increased, but after 10 years it did not differ between sown and unsown areas. Native/non-target species abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the USA found that sowing native grass and forb seeds increased the cover of native plant species. Individual plant species abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in the UK found that sowing native grass and forb seeds did not alter yellow rattle abundance. VEGETATION STRUCTURE (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Germination/Emergence (2 studies): One of two replicated, controlled studies (one of which was paired) in the USA and Germany found that sowing native grass and forb seeds increased the number of seedlings that emerged. The other study found no change in seedling number. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3432https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3432Mon, 28 Jun 2021 13:42:06 +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