Collected 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: Apply 'cross compliance' environmental standards linked to all subsidy payments We have captured no evidence for the effects of applying 'cross compliance' environmental standards for all subsidy payments 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%2F70https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F70Mon, 24 Oct 2011 20:59:15 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Implement food labelling schemes relating to biodiversity-friendly farming (organic, LEAF marque) We have captured no evidence for the effects of implementing food labelling schemes relating to biodiversity-friendly farming (organic, LEAF marque) 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%2F71https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F71Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:01:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce field size (or maintain small fields) We have captured no evidence for the effects of reducing field size (or maintaining small fields) 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%2F72https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F72Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:03:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage stone-faced hedge banks to benefit wildlife We have captured no evidence for the effects of managing stone-faced hedge banks to benefit wildlife 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%2F73https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F73Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:04:36 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore or maintain dry stone walls We have captured no evidence for the effects of restoring or maintaining dry stone walls 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%2F74https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F74Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:05:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect in-field trees (includes management such as pollarding and surgery) We have captured no evidence for the effects of protecting in-field trees 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%2F75https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F75Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:07:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant in-field trees (not farm woodland)We have captured no evidence for the effects of planting in-field trees 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%2F76https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F76Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:08:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain in-field elements such as field islands and rockpiles We have captured no evidence for the effects of maintaining in-field elements such as field islands and rockpiles, 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%2F77https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F77Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:09:32 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide foraging perches (eg. for shrikes) We have captured no evidence for the effects of providing foraging perches (eg. for shrikes) 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%2F79https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F79Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:12:45 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide nest boxes for bees (solitary bees or bumblebees) Ten studies (nine replicated trials and a review of studies) from Germany, Poland and the UK of solitary bee nest boxes all showed the nest boxes were readily used by bees. Two replicated studies found the local population size or number of emerging red mason bees increased when nest boxes were provided. One replicated trial in Germany showed that the number of occupied solitary bee nests almost doubled over three years with repeated nest box provision at a given site. Two replicated trials tested bumblebee nest boxes and both found very low uptake, 2% or less. Occupancy rates of solitary bee nest boxes, where reported (two replicated studies), were between 1 and 26% of available cavities. Five studies (four replicated trials and a review of studies) report the number of bee species found in the nest boxes – between 4.6 and 33 species. One replicated study from Germany found nest boxes should be placed 150-600 m from forage resources (Gathmann & Tscharntke 2002). A replicated study from Poland found the highest production of red mason bees per nest was from nesting materials of reed stems or wood. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F80https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F80Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:15:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Introduce nest boxes stocked with solitary bees We have captured no evidence for the effects of introducing nest boxes stocked with solitary bees 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%2F81https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F81Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:17:25 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide red squirrel feeders We have captured no evidence for the effects of providing red squirrel feeders 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%2F82https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F82Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:21:16 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide otter holts We have captured no evidence for the effects of providing otter holts 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%2F83https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F83Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:22:28 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide badger gates We have captured no evidence for the effects of providing badger gates 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%2F84https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F84Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:23:17 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage hedgerows to benefit wildlife (includes no spray, gap-filling and laying) Ten studies from Switzerland and the UK (three replicated and controlled studies of which one was randomized) found that managing hedges for wildlife resulted in increased berry yields, species diversity or richness of plants and invertebrates and diversity or abundance of farmland birds. Five studies from the UK (including one replicated, controlled and randomized study) found that hedge management did not affect plant species richness, numbers of bumblebee queens or farmland birds. Two replicated studies have shown mixed or adverse effects, with hedge management having mixed effects on invertebrates or leading to reduced hawthorn berry yield. A replicated site comparison in the UK found hedges cut every two years had more suitable nesting habitat for grey partridge than other management regimes. A replicated study from the UK found that hawthorn berry yield was reduced when management involved removing fruit-bearing wood.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F116https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F116Tue, 01 Nov 2011 20:32:06 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide other resources for birds (water, sand for bathing) A small study in France found that grey partridge density was higher in areas where a combination of supplementary food, water, shelter and sand for bathing were provided.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F117https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F117Tue, 01 Nov 2011 20:37:30 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage ditches to benefit wildlife Five out of a total eight studies from the Netherlands and the UK (including one replicated, controlled paired study and three replicated site comparisons) looking at the effects of managing ditches on biodiversity, found that this intervention resulted in increased invertebrate biomass or abundance, plant species richness, emergent plant cover, amphibian diversity and abundance, bird visit rates and higher numbers of some bird species or positive impacts on some birds in plots with ditches managed under agri-environment schemes. One replicated controlled and paired study from the Netherlands found higher plant diversity on ditch banks along unsprayed edges of winter wheat compared to those sprayed with pesticides. Three studies from the Netherlands and the UK (including two replicated site comparisons) found that ditch management had negative or no clear effects on some farmland bird species or plants.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F135https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F135Thu, 17 Nov 2011 21:35:00 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage woodland edges to benefit widlife We have captured no evidence for the effects of managing woodland edges to benefit wildlife 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%2F140https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F140Fri, 02 Dec 2011 11:19:56 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Support or maintain low intensity agricultural systems We have captured no evidence for the effects of supporting or maintaining low intensity agricultural systems 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%2F141https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F141Sat, 14 Jan 2012 13:23:08 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Increase the proportion of semi-natural habitat in the farmed landscapeFive studies monitored the effects of the Swiss Ecological Compensation Areas scheme at a landscape scale, including three replicated site comparisons. Of these, one found an increase in numbers of birds of some species. Two found no effect on the number of bird species or population densities of farmland birds. Three studies found mixed effects, with some species or groups of species increasing and others decreasing.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F145https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F145Sat, 14 Jan 2012 13:48:09 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Make direct payments per clutch for farmland birds Two replicated and controlled studies from the Netherlands found limited evidence for increased wading bird populations on farms with per-clutch payments. One study found no population effects over three years. The second found slightly higher breeding densities of wading birds, but not higher overall numbers. A replicated and controlled study found higher hatching success of northern lapwing and black-tailed godwit on farms with payment schemes than control farms. A replicated site comparison from the Netherlands that looked at the effects of per-clutch payments in combination with postponed agricultural activities found more birds bred on 12.5 ha plots under the per-clutch payment and postponed agricultural activities scheme but found no differences at the field-scale.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F146https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F146Sat, 14 Jan 2012 14:46:56 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide refuges during harvest or mowing Three studies examined the effect of providing refuges for birds during harvest or mowing in France and the UK. One replicated study in France found evidence that providing refuges during mowing reduced contact between mowing machinery and unfledged quail and corncrakes. However one replicated controlled study and a review from the UK found that Eurasian skylark did not use nesting refuges more than other areas.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F147https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F147Sat, 14 Jan 2012 14:49:58 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Mark bird nests during harvest or mowing One replicated study from the Netherlands found that marked northern lapwing nests were less likely to fail as a result of farming operations than unmarked nests.    Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F148https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F148Sat, 14 Jan 2012 14:52:47 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide nest boxes for birds Two studies (including one before and after study) from the Netherlands and the UK found that following the provision of nest boxes there was an increase in the number of Eurasian kestrel clutches and breeding tree sparrows. One replicated study from Switzerland found the number of Eurasian wryneck broods in nest boxes declined over five years whilst the number of Eurasian hoopoe broods increased. Eight studies from Finland, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK (six were replicated) found that nest boxes in agricultural habitats were occupied by Eurasian kestrel, long-eared owl, common starling, tits Parus spp., tree sparrow, stock dove and jackdaw, and Eurasian wryneck and Eurasian hoopoe. Whilst two studies from the UK (a replicated, paired site study and a controlled study) found that carrion crows did not nest in artificial trees and tree sparrows showed a preference for nest boxes in wetland habitat, compared to those in farmland sites. Two replicated studies from Sweden found that nest success within boxes was related to the amount of pasture available and nest boxes positioned higher above the ground had higher occupancy, numbers of eggs and numbers of hatched young.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F155https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F155Sat, 14 Jan 2012 15:49:39 +0000
What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 21

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust
For a full list of, and information about, our champions:
All Evidence Champions
About our champions, why and how to become one:
Become an Evidence Champion

This website uses Cookies

We use limited Cookies to run the site and to analyse our traffic (none for site vendors). By using this site, you will be providing your consent to our use of Cookies.

Accept & continue