Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create corn bunting plots We have captured no evidence for the effects of creating corn bunting plots on farmland wildlife. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F88https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F88Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:29:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create corn bunting plots We have found no evidence investigating the impact of corn bunting plots on corn bunting Miliaria calandra or other bird populations. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action    Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F215https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F215Tue, 17 Jul 2012 11:53:54 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create beetle banks A small UK study found that a site with beetle banks had increasing populations of rare or declining species, although several other interventions were used on this site. A literature review from the UK found that grey partridge Perdix perdix populations were far larger on sites with beetle banks and other interventions than on other farms. Two replicated studies from the UK also investigated population-level effects: one found that no bird species were strongly associated with beetle banks; the second found no relationship between beetle banks and grey partridge population density trends. A UK literature review found that two bird species nested in beetle banks and that some species were more likely to forage in them than others. A study in the UK found that one of two species used beetle banks more than expected. The other used them less than other agri-environment options.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F217https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F217Tue, 17 Jul 2012 12:04:26 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create beetle banks Fourteen reports from eight studies out of a total 24 reports from 12 individual studies (including eight replicated studies of which three controlled and four literature reviews) from Denmark and the UK found that beetle banks provide some benefits to farmland biodiversity. Sixteen reports from eight individual studies looked at invertebrates and beetle banks. Five reports from two replicated studies (of which one controlled) and a review found positive effects on invertebrate densities/numbers, distribution, or higher ground beetle density and species diversity in spring and summer but not winter. Six reports from three replicated studies (of which one randomized and controlled) found that invertebrate numbers varied between specific grass species sown on beetle banks. Two replicated studies (one paired and controlled) found that the effect of beetle banks varied between invertebrate groups or families. Five replicated studies (of which two controlled) found lower or no difference in invertebrate densities or numbers on beetle banks relative to other habitats. One review found lesser marsh grasshopper did not forage on two plant species commonly sown in beetle banks. Six studies looked at birds and beetle banks. Two reviews and one replicated controlled trial found positive effects on bird numbers (in combination with other farmland conservation measures) or evidence that birds used beetle banks. Two studies (one replicated site comparison) found mixed effects on birds. One replicated study found no farmland bird species were associated with beetle banks. One replicated, paired, controlled study and a review looked at the effects of beetle banks on plants and found either lower plant species richness on beetle banks in summer, or that grass margins including beetle banks were generally beneficial to plants but these effects were not pronounced on beetle banks. One controlled study and a review found beetle banks acted as nest sites for harvest mice. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F651https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F651Tue, 23 Oct 2012 16:24:44 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create beetle banksNatural enemies in fields: Six studies from Canada, the UK and USA (three replicated, controlled, of which two were also randomised) examined the effects on predator numbers in adjacent crops. A review found that predators increased in adjacent crops, but one study found effects varied with time and another found no effect. Two studies found small or slow movements of predators from banks to crops. One study found greater beetle activity in fields but this did not improve pest predation. Natural enemies on banks: Four studies and a review found more invertebrate predators on beetle banks than in surrounding crops, but one of these found that effects varied with time. Eight studies from the UK and USA (including two randomised, replicated, controlled trials and two reviews) compared numbers of predatory invertebrates on beetle banks with other refuge habitats. Two studies found more natural enemies on beetle banks, but one of these found only seasonal effects. One review found similar or higher numbers of predators on beetle banks and four studies found similar or lower numbers. Pests: A replicated, randomised study and a review found the largest pest reductions in areas closest to a beetle bank or on the beetle bank itself. One review found fewer pests in fields with than without a beetle bank. Economics: One replicated, randomised, controlled trial and a review showed that beetle banks could make economic savings if they prevented pests from reaching a spray threshold or causing 5% yield loss. Beetle bank design: Two studies from the UK found certain grass species held higher numbers of predatory invertebrates than others. Crops studied were barley, field bean, maize, oats, pea, radish, rapeseed, soybean, wheat and pasture.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F729https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F729Thu, 30 May 2013 14:45:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create artificial hibernacula or aestivation sites One replicated, before-and-after study in the UK found that providing artificial hibernacula, along with other terrestrial habitat management, maintained populations of great crested newts. One replicated study in the UK found that created hibernacula were used by common frog and smooth newts, but not great crested newts. One replicated study in the UK found four amphibian species close to hibernacula at two of three sites.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F759https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F759Wed, 14 Aug 2013 15:19:25 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create artificial water sources Five studies evaluated the effects of creating artificial water sources for bats on bat populations. One study was in each of the USA, Germany, South Africa, Israel and Mexico. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, paired sites study in South Africa found a similar number of bat species over farm ponds and in grassland/crops, trees, vineyards or orchards. POPULATION RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Abundance (5 studies): Five replicated studies (including four site comparisons and one paired sites study) in Israel, the USA, Germany, South Africa and Mexico found that bat activity (relative abundance) was similar or higher over reservoirs and waste water treatment pools, heliponds and drainage ditches, retention ponds and farm/cattle ponds compared to over natural wetlands, nearby vineyards, surrounding forest or grassland/crops, trees and orchards. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F959https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F959Fri, 20 Dec 2013 10:14:31 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create buffer zones around protected primate habitat We found no evidence for the effects of creating buffer zones around protected primate habitat on primate populations. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1577https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1577Fri, 20 Oct 2017 12:45:06 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create buffer zones beside roads and other transportation corridors We found no studies that evaluated the effects of creating buffer zones beside roads and other transportation corridors on shrublands. 'We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1618https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1618Sun, 22 Oct 2017 10:33:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create artificial hollows and cracks in trees for roosting bats One study evaluated the effects of creating artificial hollows and cracks in trees for roosting bats. The study was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)      Use (1 study): One replicated study in Australia found that eight of 16 artificial hollows cut into trees for bats, birds and marsupials with two different entrance designs were used by roosting long-eared bats. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2047https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2047Fri, 07 Dec 2018 12:36:39 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create artificial caves or hibernacula for bats Four studies evaluated the effects of creating artificial caves or hibernacula for bats on bat populations. Two studies were in the UK and two were in Germany. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (4 STUDIES) Uptake (1 study): One study in the UK found that the number of bats using an artificial hibernaculum increased in each of nine years after it was built. Use (4 studies): One study in the UK found that an artificial cave was used by a small number of brown long-eared bats. Three studies in Germany and the UK found that artificial hibernacula were used by up to four bat species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2049https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2049Fri, 07 Dec 2018 12:41:38 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create artificial wetlands to reduce the amount of pollutants reaching the sea We found no studies that evaluated the effects of creating artificial wetlands to reduce the amount of pollutants reaching the sea on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations.   ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.    Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2201https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2201Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:12:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create artificial reefs Twelve studies examined the effects of creating artificial reefs on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. Three studies were in the Mediterranean Sea (Italy); three were in the North Atlantic Ocean (USA, Portugal, France); one in the Firth of Lorn (UK); two in the North Pacific Ocean (USA); one in the English Channel (UK), one in the Gulf of Mexico (USA); and one in the Yellow Sea (China).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (8 STUDIES) Overall community composition (3 studies): Two site comparison studies (one replicated) in the English Channel and North Atlantic Ocean found that invertebrate communities growing on artificial reefs were different to that of natural reefs. One replicated study the North Pacific Ocean found that invertebrate community composition changed over time on an artificial reef. Overall richness/diversity (6 studies): Two site comparison studies (one replicated) in the Mediterranean Sea and North Atlantic Ocean found that invertebrate species richness and/or diversity on the artificial reef or in the sediments inside and adjacent to the reef area were lower compared to on natural reefs or in nearby natural sediments. One replicated, site comparison study in the Gulf of Mexico found that artificial breakwaters had more species of nekton compared to adjacent mudflats. One site comparison study in English Channel recorded 263 taxa on the artificial reef, including at least nine not recorded on nearby natural reefs but excluding at least 39 recorded on natural reefs. One replicated study in the North Pacific Ocean found a 49% increase in species richness over five years on an artificial reef. One study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that artificial reefs hosted at least five species of large mobile invertebrates. Mollusc richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the Mediterranean Sea found that mollusc species richness and diversity were lower on artificial reefs compared to natural reefs. Worm community composition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the North Pacific Ocean found that polychaete worm community composition was similar at one of two artificial reefs compared to a natural reef. Worm richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the North Pacific Ocean found that polychaete worm species richness and diversity were similar at one of two artificial reefs compared to a natural reef, but lower at the second artificial reef. POPULATION RESPONSE (12 STUDIES) Overall abundance (10 studies): One of two site comparison studies (one replicated) in the Mediterranean Sea found that abundance of invertebrates in the sediment was lower at the reef sites than in nearby natural sediments, but increased in the sediments directly adjacent to the reefs, while the other study found that abundance was similar in the sediments inside and directly adjacent to the artificial reef area, but lower than in nearby natural sediments. Of five site comparison studies (four replicated) in the North Pacific Ocean, the North Atlantic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico and the Yellow Sea, one found that invertebrate biomass was higher on the artificial reef than in adjacent natural sediments, two that invertebrate abundance and biomass and nekton abundance were similar on artificial reefs and natural habitats (reef; mudflat), and two found mixed effects on abundances of invertebrates. One site comparison study in the English Channel reported that the abundances of some species were lower on the artificial reef compared to natural reefs. One replicated study in the North Pacific Ocean reported an 86% increase in invertebrate abundance growing on an artificial reef over five years. One study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that two of five species at one artificial reef, and three of seven at another, were recorded during >50% of dives. Overall condition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the Yellow Sea found mixed effects of creating an artificial reef on the sizes of mobile invertebrates. Mollusc abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the Mediterranean Sea found that mollusc abundance was lower on artificial reefs compared to natural reefs. Crustacean abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison in the Firth of Lorn found that abundances of edible crabs and velvet swimming crabs were typically higher on artificial than natural reefs. OTHER (1 STUDY) Biological production (1 study): One site comparison study in North Atlantic Ocean found that secondary production was higher from invertebrates growing on an artificial reef than from invertebrates in adjacent natural sediments. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2258https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2258Wed, 23 Oct 2019 10:26:30 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create artificial reefs of different 3-D structure and material used Eight studies examined the effects of creating artificial reefs of different typology on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. One study was in the English Channel (UK), three in the Mediterranean Sea (Israel, Italy), one in the North Atlantic Ocean (USA), one in the Firth of Lorn (UK), one in the North Pacific Ocean (USA), and one in the Gulf of Mexico (USA).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (6 STUDIES) Overall community composition (3 studies): One controlled study in the English Channel found that artificial reef modules made of scrap tyres developed a similar sessile invertebrate community composition as traditional artificial concrete modules. Two controlled studies (one replicated) in the Mediterranean Sea found that pyramids reefs made of “sea-friendly” concrete developed different invertebrate community compositions compared to reefs of either traditional concrete plinth-pole structures or bundles of traditional concrete tubes. Overall richness/diversity (5 studies): Four controlled studies (three replicated) in the Mediterranean Sea, the North Pacific Ocean, and the Gulf of Mexico found no differences in overall invertebrate richness/diversity or combined mobile invertebrate and fish richness between reef structure and/or material. One controlled study in the Mediterranean Sea found that invertebrate species richness was lower on “sea-friendly” pyramid reefs compared to bundle reefs of traditional concrete. POPULATION RESPONSE (7 STUDIES) Overall abundance (5 studies): Four controlled studies (three replicated) in the English Channel, the Mediterranean Sea, the North Pacific Ocean, and the Gulf of Mexico found no differences in overall invertebrate abundances or combined mobile invertebrate and fish abundance between reef structure and/or material. One controlled study in the Mediterranean Sea found that “sea-friendly” concrete pyramids had lower abundance compared to plinth-pole structures after two years, but higher after three. Crustacean abundance (2 studies): One replicated, controlled study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that artificial reefs made of limestone boulders, gravel concrete aggregate, or tyre-concrete aggregate had similar abundance of spiny lobsters. One replicated, controlled study in the Firth of Lorn found that the complexity of artificial reef modules had mixed effects on the abundance of edible crab and velvet swimming crab. Mollusc abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the Gulf of Mexico found that breakwaters made of bags of oyster shells recruited more oysters and ribbed mussels compared to “ReefBall” breakwaters. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2259https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2259Wed, 23 Oct 2019 10:39:51 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create beetle banks on farmland One study evaluated the effects on mammals of creating beetle banks on farmland. This study was in the UK. KEY COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated study in the UK found that beetle banks had higher densities of harvest mouse nests than did field margins. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2393https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2393Thu, 28 May 2020 09:40:32 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create designated areas or access points for recreational activities We found no studies that evaluated the effects of creating designated areas or access points for recreational activities on marine and freshwater mammal populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2842https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2842Fri, 05 Feb 2021 16:22:19 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create artificial wetlands to reduce the amount of pollutants reaching rivers and the sea We found no studies that evaluated the effects of creating artificial wetlands to reduce effluent reaching rivers and the sea on marine and freshwater mammal populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2881https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2881Mon, 08 Feb 2021 11:45:37 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create artificial habitat for marine and freshwater mammals We found no studies that evaluated the effects of creating artificial habitat for marine and freshwater mammals. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2921https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2921Mon, 08 Feb 2021 16:36:58 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create crevice habitats (>50 mm) on intertidal artificial structures We found no studies that evaluated the effects of creating crevice habitats on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. This means we did not find any studies that directly evaluated this intervention during our literature searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3437https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3437Tue, 17 Aug 2021 15:42:35 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create crevice habitats (>50 mm) on subtidal artificial structures We found no studies that evaluated the effects of creating crevice habitats on subtidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. This means we did not find any studies that directly evaluated this intervention during our literature searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3454https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3454Fri, 10 Sep 2021 10:22:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create groove habitats (1–50 mm) on intertidal artificial structures Fourteen studies examined the effects of creating groove habitats on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. Seven studies were in estuaries in southeast Australia, the UK and Hong Kong, four were on open coastlines in the UK and the Netherlands, two were on island coastlines in the Singapore Strait, and one was in a port in the Netherlands. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (11 STUDIES) Overall community composition (3 studies): Two of three replicated, controlled studies (including one randomized and two before-and-after studies) in Australia and the UK found that creating groove habitats on intertidal artificial structures did not alter the combined macroalgae and invertebrate community composition on structure surfaces. However, one of these studies reported that grooves supported macroalgae, mobile and non-mobile invertebrate species that were absent from structure surfaces without grooves. One study found that creating grooves did alter the community composition. Fish community composition (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Singapore found that groove habitats created on an intertidal artificial structure, along with pits, altered the fish community composition on and around structure surfaces, and supported species that were absent from surfaces without grooves and pits. Overall richness/diversity (8 studies): Three of six replicated, controlled studies (including two randomized and two before-and-after studies) in the UK and Singapore found that creating groove habitats on intertidal artificial structures, along with pits in one study, increased the combined macroalgae and invertebrate species richness and/or diversity on structure surfaces. Two studies found that creating grooves did not increase their species richness. One found that creating grooves, along with pits, had mixed effects on species richness depending on the site. One of the studies found that increasing the density and fragmentation of grooves, along with pits, had mixed effects on species richness. Two replicated studies (including one randomized, paired sites study) in Hong Kong and Australia found that grooves supported higher species richness than small ridges or ledges created in between them, but one found that species diversity in grooves vs ridges varied depending on the groove depth. Algal richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in Australia found that creating groove habitats on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the macroalgal species richness on structure surfaces. Invertebrate richness/diversity (3 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies (including one randomized and one paired sites study) in Australia found that creating groove habitats on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the species richness of mobile or non-mobile invertebrates or limpets on structure surfaces. One replicated study in Australia found that grooves supported higher mobile invertebrate species richness than small ledges created in between them. Fish richness/diversity (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Singapore found that creating groove habitats on an intertidal artificial structure, along with pits, increased the fish species richness on and around structure surfaces. One replicated study in Australia found that grooves supported similar fish species richness to small ledges created in between them. POPULATION RESPONSE (9 STUDIES) Overall abundance (4 studies): Two of three replicated, controlled studies (including one randomized and two before-and-after studies) in the UK and Singapore found that creating groove habitats on intertidal artificial structures, along with pits in one study, increased the combined macroalgae and invertebrate abundance on structure surfaces. One found that creating grooves did not increase their abundance. One replicated study in Australia found that grooves supported similar abundances to small ledges created in between them. Algal abundance (2 studies): Two replicated, paired sites, controlled studies in the Netherlands reported that creating groove habitats on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the macroalgal abundance on structure surfaces. Invertebrate abundance (6 studies): Three of four replicated, controlled studies (including two randomized and two paired sites studies) in Australia, the Netherlands and the UK found that creating groove habitats on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the invertebrate, limpet or chiton abundances on structure surfaces. One study found that creating grooves, along with pits, had mixed effects on mobile invertebrate and barnacle abundances, depending on the site. One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in Australia reported that grooves supported non-mobile invertebrates more frequently than structure surfaces without grooves, but not mobile invertebrates. One replicated study in Australia found that grooves supported higher mobile invertebrate and oyster abundances than small ledges created in between them. Fish abundance (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Singapore found that creating groove habitats on an intertidal artificial structure, along with pits, increased the fish abundance on and around structure surfaces. One replicated study in Australia found that grooves supported similar fish abundance to small ledges created in between them. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (1 study): One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in the Netherlands reported that groove habitats created on an intertidal artificial structure were used by mussels and periwinkles. Fish behaviour change (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Singapore found that creating groove habitats on an intertidal artificial structure, along with pits, increased the number of bites fishes took from structure surfaces. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3473https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3473Mon, 20 Sep 2021 10:03:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create fire breaks One study evaluated the effects of creating fire breaks on reptile populations. This study was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in Australia found that in areas with fire suppression measures combined with fences to exclude predators, reptile abundance increased over time. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3658https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3658Fri, 10 Dec 2021 10:45:04 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create artificial refuges, hibernacula and aestivation sites Eleven studies evaluated the effects of creating artificial refuges, hibernacula and aestivation sites on reptile populations. Three studies were in each of the UK and Australia, two were in New Zealand and one was in each of the USA, Spain and Italy. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One controlled, before-and-after study in Spain found that areas with refuge logs had higher reptile species richness than areas without refuges. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (1 study): One controlled, before-and-after study in Spain found that areas with refuge logs had a higher abundance of reptiles than areas without refuges. Reproductive success (1 study): One study in the UK found that after translocating adders to an artificial hibernaculum, there was evidence of successful reproduction. Survival (1 study): One randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in New Zealand found that in areas with artificial refuges, survival of McCann’s skinks was similar to areas without refuges. BEHAVIOUR (9 STUDIES) Use (9 studies): Nine studies (including one replicated, controlled study and one randomized, controlled study) in the USA, the UK, Australia, New Zealand and Italy found that artificial refuges were used by reptiles, common lizards, adders, common geckos, species of skinks, and by an ocellated lizard to lay a clutch of eggs. Four of the studies also found that some reptiles showed a preference for refuges with certain designs or construction materials. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3720https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3720Mon, 13 Dec 2021 16:36:45 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create artificial nests or nesting sites Nine studies evaluated the effects of creating artificial nests or nesting sites on reptile populations. Three studies were in the USA and one study was in each of the Galápagos, Spain, China, Reunion Island, Canada and Jamaica. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (6 STUDIES) Reproductive success (6 studies): Two studies (including one before-and-after study) on Reunion Island and Jamaica found that the number of Reunion day gecko eggs and Jamaican iguana hatchlings at artificial nesting sites increased over time. One of two replicated, controlled studies in Canada and the USA found that hatching success of eggs from four species of freshwater turtle moved to artificial nest sites was higher than for eggs left in natural sites. The other study found that hatching success of diamondback terrapin nests in artificial nest sites compared to natural sites varied depending on the substrate used. One study in Spain found that eggs laid in an artificial nest by an Iberian wall lizard hatched and those placed in artificial nests had high hatching success. One replicated study in the USA found that fewer diamondback terrapin nests were predated in artificial nesting mounds protected with an electric wire than in mounds with no wire. BEHAVIOUR (8 STUDIES) Use (8 studies): Four of seven studies (including one replicated, controlled study) in the Galápagos, Spain, Reunion Island, Canada, the USA and Jamaica found that artificial nest sites were used by captive Galápagos giant tortoises, Iberian wall lizards, four species of freshwater turtle and diamondback terrapins. Two studies found that use of artificial nest sites increased over time for Reunion day geckos and Jamaican iguanas. The other study found that artificial nest sites were used infrequently by northern map turtles. One study in China found that artificial nesting materials were used by some Chinese alligators. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3802https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3802Mon, 20 Dec 2021 10:04:37 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create beetle banks Four studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of creating raised beetle banks in arable fields. All four were in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (2 studies): One replicated, paired, site comparison study in the UK found that beetle banks and field margins managed under agri-environment schemes had a higher species richness of micro-moths, and a similar species richness of macro-moths, than conventionally managed field margins. One replicated, paired, site comparison study in the UK found that the species richness of butterflies on beetle banks was lower than along hedgerows. POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Abundance (4 studies): Three replicated, site comparison studies (including one paired study) in the UK found that beetle banks had a similar abundance of caterpillars to field margins, crop fields and a range of other field-edge farmland habitats. One of these studies also found that the abundance of adult butterflies was lower on beetle banks than along hedgerows. One replicated, paired, site comparison study in the UK found that beetle banks and field margins managed under agri-environment schemes had a higher abundance of micro-moths, and a similar abundance of macro-moths, than conventionally managed field margins. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3927https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3927Thu, 11 Aug 2022 17:12:17 +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