Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Bury or isolate power lines to reduce incidental bird mortalityA single before-and-after trial in Spain showed a dramatic increase in the survival of juvenile Spanish imperial eagles Aquila adalberti following the burial or isolation of power lines.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F262https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F262Thu, 19 Jul 2012 13:31:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove earth wires to reduce incidental bird mortalityA before-and-after study and a literature review describe significant reductions in collision mortalities of cranes Grus spp. and grouse Lagopus spp. following the removal of earth wires.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F263https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F263Thu, 19 Jul 2012 13:41:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Thicken earth wire to reduce incidental bird mortalityA literature review found no evidence that thickening the earth wire had any impact on collision mortality of cranes Grus spp.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F264https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F264Thu, 19 Jul 2012 13:48:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Mark power lines to reduce incidental bird mortality A total of eight studies and two literature reviews from across the world found that marking power lines led to significant reductions in collision rates or dangerous flight behaviour (i.e. approaching close to power lines) in cranes Grus spp., mute swans Cygnus olor and other bird species. All markers except thin, black plastic strips or neoprene crosses were effective, with no differences in effectiveness between Bird Flight Diverters (BFDs: brightly coloured plastic spirals) and static fibreglass plates and only a small possible difference between BFDs and ‘flappers’ (moving markers).  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F265https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F265Thu, 19 Jul 2012 14:03:03 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use raptor models to deter birds and so reduce incidental mortalityA single paired sites study in Spain found no evidence that raptor models were effective in deterring birds from crossing power lines and may even have attracted some species to the area.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F266https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F266Thu, 19 Jul 2012 14:53:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add perches to electricity pylons to reduce electrocutionA single before-and-after study in Spain found that adding perches did not reduce electrocutions of Spanish imperial eagles Aquila adalberti.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F267https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F267Thu, 19 Jul 2012 16:08:34 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Insulate power pylons to prevent electrocutionA single before-and-after study in the USA found the insulating power pylons significantly reduced the number of Harris’s hawks Parabuteo unicinctus electrocuted.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F268https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F268Thu, 19 Jul 2012 16:10:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use perch-deterrents to stop raptors perching on pylonsA single controlled study from the USA found significantly lower raptor activity close to perch-deterrent power lines, compared to control lines. No data were provided on electrocution rates.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F269https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F269Thu, 19 Jul 2012 16:21:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce electrocutions by using plastic, not aluminium, leg rings to mark birdsA replicated and controlled study in the USA found no evidence for lower electrocution rates for raptors marked with plastic leg rings, compared to metal ones.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F270https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F270Thu, 19 Jul 2012 16:27:10 +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