Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crop production: Add compost to the soilCrop yield (8 studies): Three replicated, controlled studies (two randomized) from Italy, Spain, and the USA found higher crop yields in plots with added compost, compared to plots without added compost, in some comparisons or all comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy and the USA found inconsistent differences in crop yields (sometimes higher, sometimes lower) between plots with or without added compost. Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain and the USA found similar crop yields in plots with or without added compost. Of two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain, one study found higher yields of barley straw in plots with added compost, compared to plots without added compost, and one study did not. Crop quality (0 studies) Implementation options (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found similar crop yields in plots with added compost that did or did not also have added fertilizer.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1346https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1346Thu, 09 Mar 2017 17:05:03 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crop production: Add manure to the soilCrop yield (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Greece found higher maize yields in plots with added manure, compared to plots without added manure, in two of three comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Italy found similar nectarine yields in plots with or without added manure. Crop quality (0 studies)  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1347https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1347Mon, 20 Mar 2017 10:57:28 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crop production: Add sewage sludge to the soilCrop yield (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found higher barley yields in plots with added sewage sludge, compared to plots without it. Crop quality (0 studies) Implementation options (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found higher barley yields in plots with low amounts of added sewage sludge, but not high amounts, compared to plots without added sewage sludge.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1348https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1348Mon, 20 Mar 2017 11:58:57 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crop production: Add slurry to the soilCrop yield (6 studies): Six replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found higher crop yields in plots with added pig slurry, compared to plots without it, in some comparisons. Crop quality (0 studies) Implementation options (4 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found similar crop yields in plots with digested pig slurry, compared to untreated pig slurry. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found lower crop yields in plots with less pig slurry, compared to more, but another found similar crop yields with different amounts of pig slurry.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1349https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1349Mon, 20 Mar 2017 12:04:53 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crop production: Use organic fertilizer instead of inorganicCrop yield (11 studies) Food crops (10 studies): Four replicated studies (three controlled, two randomized; one site comparison) from Italy and Spain found higher yields in plots with organic fertilizer, compared to inorganic fertilizer, in some comparisons. Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain and the USA found lower yields in plots with organic fertilizer, compared to inorganic fertilizer, in some or all comparisons. Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Greece and Spain found similar yields in plots with organic or inorganic fertilizer. Forage crops (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found higher alfalfa yields in plots with organic fertilizer, compared to inorganic, in one of two comparisons. Crop quality (0 studies)  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1350https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1350Mon, 20 Mar 2017 16:57:26 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crop production: Grow cover crops in arable fieldsCrop yield (24 studies): Six replicated, controlled studies (five randomized) from Spain and the USA found lower cash crop yields in plots with winter cover crops, compared to plots without them, in some comparisons. Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy and the USA found higher cash crop yields in plots with winter cover crops, compared to plots without them, in some comparisons. Eight replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy and the USA found inconsistent differences in cash crop yields (sometimes higher, sometimes lower) between plots with or without cover crops. Seven controlled studies (six replicated, four randomized) from France, Israel, Spain, and the USA found no differences in cash crop yields between plots with or without cover crops. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found inconsistent differences in cash crop yields between plots with or without summer cover crops. Crop quality (6 studies): Three replicated, controlled studies (two randomized) from Italy, Spain, and the USA found no differences in cash crop quality between plots with or without winter cover crops. Two controlled studies (one replicated and randomized) from the USA found some differences in tomato quality between plots with winter cover crops or fallows. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found inconsistent differences in cash crop quality between plots with or without winter cover crops. Implementation options (9 studies): Eight studies from Italy, Spain, and the USA found higher cash crop yields in plots that had legumes as winter cover crops, compared to non-legumes. One study from the USA found higher cash crop yields in plots that had a mixture of legumes and grasses, compared to legumes alone.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1351https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1351Tue, 21 Mar 2017 11:54:49 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crop production: Plant or maintain ground cover in orchards or vineyardsCrop yield (11 studies) Grapes (8 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from France and the USA found lower grape yields in plots that were seeded with grass between the vine rows, compared to plots with bare soil between the vine rows, in some or all comparisons. Six replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy, Portugal, Spain, and the USA found similar grape yields in plots with or without ground cover between the vine rows. Other crops (3 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Portugal found higher chestnut yields in plots with resident vegetation, compared to plots without ground cover, but found no difference in chestnut yields between plots with seeded cover crops and plots without ground cover. One of these studies also found higher mushroom yields in plots with resident vegetation, compared to plots without ground cover. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Chile found lower avocado yields in plots that were seeded with grasses and legumes, compared to plots with bare soil.   Crop quality (8 studies) Grapes (6 studies): Five replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy, Portugal, and the USA found similar sugar contents in grapes with or without ground cover between the vine rows. Three of these studies found similar pH levels, and two of these studies found no differences in titratable acidity, but two of these studies found lower titratable acidity in grapes with ground cover between the vine rows. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found heavier grapes with ground cover between the vine rows, but two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy and Spain did not. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Portugal and Spain found other differences in grape quality with ground cover between the vine rows. Other crops (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Portugal found larger chestnuts in plots with ground cover, compared to plots without ground cover. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Chile found no difference in avocado quality in plots with or without ground cover.   Implementation options (6 studies) Ground cover (5 studies) Grapes (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found similar grape yields in plots with different types of ground cover. However, this study found lighter-weight clusters of grapes in plots with seeded cover crops, compared to resident vegetation, in one of three years, and found inconsistent differences in cluster weights between plots with different types of seeded cover crops. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain and the USA found other differences in grape quality between plots with different types of ground cover. Other crops (2 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Portugal found lower chestnut yields in plots with seeded cover crops, compared to resident vegetation. One of these studies also found smaller chestnuts and lower mushroom yields. Tillage (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found higher grape yields, and heavier grape clusters, in plots without tillage between the vine rows, in one of six comparisons. Another replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found similar grape yields, with or without tillage between the vine rows. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1352https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1352Thu, 23 Mar 2017 09:24:58 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crop production: Use crop rotationsCrop yield (8 studies): Four replicated, controlled studies (three randomized) from Italy, Spain, and Turkey found higher crop yields in plots with rotations, compared to monocultures, in some comparisons. Four replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Australia, Portugal, and Spain found similar crop yields in plots with or without rotations. Crop quality (1 study): One replicated, controlled study from Italy found more protein in wheat that was grown in rotation, compared to continuously-grown wheat. Implementation options (2 studies): One study from the USA found higher tomato yields in four-year rotations, compared to two-year rotations. One study from Italy found higher wheat yields in rotations with beans, compared to clover.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1354https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1354Tue, 18 Apr 2017 13:02:25 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crop production: Use no tillage in arable fieldsCrop yield (23 studies) Crops (22 studies): Eight replicated, controlled studies (seven randomized) from Italy and Spain found higher crop yields in plots with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some or all comparisons. Seven replicated, controlled studies (six randomized) from Italy, Lebanon, Spain, and the USA found lower crop yields in plots with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some or all comparisons. Four replicated, randomized controlled studies from Italy and Spain found inconsistent differences in crop yields (sometimes higher with no tillage, sometimes lower). Three replicated, controlled studies (two randomized) from Italy, Portugal, and Spain found similar crop yields in plots with or without tillage. Crop residues (5 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Lebanon and Spain found higher straw yields in plots with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found inconsistent straw yields (sometimes higher with no tillage, sometimes lower). Two replicated, controlled studies (one randomized) from Italy and Spain found similar straw yields in plots with or without tillage. Crop quality (6 studies): One replicated, controlled study from Italy found less protein in wheat grains from plots with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found heavier cereal grains in plots with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found other differences in crop quality, but two replicated, controlled studies from Italy and the USA did not.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1355https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1355Tue, 18 Apr 2017 14:10:16 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crop production: Use no tillage instead of reduced tillageCrop yield (15 studies) Cereals (7 studies): Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found higher cereal yields in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage. One of these studies also found lower cereal yields in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found lower cereal yields in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage, in some comparisons. Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Australia, Lebanon, and Spain found similar cereal yields in plots with no tillage or reduced tillage, in all comparisons. Fruits and vegetables (3 studies): Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy found lower fruit or vegetable yields in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage, in some comparisons. Two of these studies also found higher yields, in some comparisons. Legumes (3 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies from Italy and Spain found higher legume yields in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage, in some or all comparisons. One replicated, controlled study from Lebanon found similar legume yields in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage. Oilseeds (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found lower sunflower seed yields in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage, in some comparisons. Crop residues (6 studies): Three replicated, controlled studies from Lebanon and Spain found higher straw yields in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage, in some or all comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found lower straw yields in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage. Two replicated, controlled studies from Italy and Spain found similar straw yields in plots with no tillage or reduced tillage. Crop quality (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found larger peas, and more peas in a pod, in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage, in one of four comparisons. One replicated, controlled study from Italy found similarly sized faba beans, and similar numbers of beans in a pod, in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found differences in the nutritional values of sunflower seeds in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage. · Crop yield (15 studies) o Cereals (7 studies): Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain2,4,13 found higher cereal yields in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage. One of these studies10410417Angás, P.Lampurlanés, J.Cantero-Martínez, C.Tillage and N fertilization: Effects on N dynamics and Barley yield under semiarid Mediterranean conditionsSoil and Tillage ResearchSoil and Tillage Research59-71871Conservation tillageNitrogen fertilizationN fertilizer efficiencyPhysiological N use efficiency20065//0167-1987http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167198705000991http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2005.02.0362 also found lower cereal yields in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain868617López-Garrido, R.Madejón, E.León-Camacho, M.Girón, I.Moreno, F.Murillo, J. M.Reduced tillage as an alternative to no-tillage under Mediterranean conditions: A case studySoil and Tillage ResearchSoil and Tillage Research40-47140Tillage systemsSoil conditionsCrop performanceSeed qualitySunflower20147//0167-1987http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167198714000300http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2014.02.00811 found lower cereal yields in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage, in some comparisons. Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Australia19119117Manalil, SudheeshFlower, KenSoil water conservation and nitrous oxide emissions from different crop sequences and fallow under Mediterranean conditionsSoil and Tillage ResearchSoil and Tillage Research123-129143AustraliaDroughtFallowNitrous oxide201411//0167-1987http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167198714001214http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2014.06.00612, Lebanon777717Yau, S. K.Sidahmed, M.Haidar, M.Conservation versus Conventional Tillage on Performance of Three Different CropsAgronomy JournalAgronomy Journal269-2761022010Madison, WIAmerican Society of Agronomyhttp://dx.doi.org/10.2134/agronj2009.024210.2134/agronj2009.0242English3, and Spain848417Hernanz, J. L.López, R.Navarrete, L.Sánchez-Girón, V.Long-term effects of tillage systems and rotations on soil structural stability and organic carbon stratification in semiarid central SpainSoil and Tillage ResearchSoil and Tillage Research129-141662Long-term effectTillageCrop rotationAggregate stabilitySoil organic carbonSemiarid conditions20027//0167-1987http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167198702000211http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-1987(02)00021-11 found similar cereal yields in plots with no tillage or reduced tillage, in all comparisons. o Fruits and vegetables (3 studies): Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy9,10,15 found lower fruit or vegetable yields in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage, in some comparisons. Two of these studies9,15 also found higher yields, in some comparisons. o Legumes (3 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies from Italy10710717Giambalvo, DarioRuisi, PaoloSaia, SergioDi Miceli, GiuseppeFrenda, Alfonso SalvatoreAmato, GaetanoFaba bean grain yield, N2 fixation, and weed infestation in a long-term tillage experiment under rainfed Mediterranean conditionsPlant and SoilPlant and Soil215-227360120122012//1573-5036http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11104-012-1224-510.1007/s11104-012-1224-57 and Spain838317Santín-Montanyá, M. I.Zambrana, E.Fernández-Getino, A. P.Tenorio, J. L.Dry pea (Pisum sativum L.) yielding and weed infestation response, under different tillage conditionsCrop ProtectionCrop Protection122-12865DiversityLegume-cropsSemi-arid conditionsYieldWeeds201411//0261-2194http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261219414002373http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2014.07.017 Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1358https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1358Fri, 05 May 2017 11:33:13 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crop production: Use reduced tillage in arable fieldsCrop yield (25 studies) Cereals (16 studies): Nine replicated, controlled studies from Egypt, France, Spain, and Turkey found higher cereal yields in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some or all comparisons. Three of these studies also found lower cereal yields in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons. Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Lebanon and Spain found lower cereal yields in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Four replicated, controlled studies from Italy, Spain, and the USA found similar cereal yields in plots with reduced tillage or conventional tillage, in all comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found that crops failed in plots with conventional tillage, but not in plots with reduced tillage, in one of three comparisons. Fruits and vegetables (7 studies): Five replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy and the USA found higher fruit or vegetable yields in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons. Two of these studies also found lower fruit or vegetable yields in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons. Two replicated, controlled studies from Italy and the USA found similar fruit yields in plots with reduced tillage or conventional tillage, in all comparisons. All fruit or vegetable plots were irrigated, in contrast to most cereal or legume plots. Legumes (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found lower legume yields in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in one of four comparisons. Two replicated, controlled studies from Italy and Lebanon found similar legume yields in plots with reduced tillage or conventional tillage, in all comparisons. No studies found higher legume yields in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Oilseeds (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found higher rapeseed yields in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Crop residues (6 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Lebanon and Spain found lower straw yields in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found higher straw yields in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons. Two replicated, controlled studies from Italy and Spain found similar straw yields in plots with reduced tillage or conventional tillage, in all comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found higher cover crop biomass in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Crop quality (7 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found that sunflower seeds had more oil, more monounsaturated fatty acid, and less polyunsaturated fatty acid in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. One replicated, controlled study from Italy found that wheat had a lower protein content in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Two replicated, controlled studies from Italy and Turkey found similar seed weights in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found that lettuce or broccoli plants were larger in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons, but they were smaller in other comparisons. Implementation options (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Egypt found higher wheat yields in plots that were tilled at slower speeds. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Turkey found higher wheat yields, but lower vetch yields, in plots with one type of reduced tillage (rototilling and disking), compared to another type (double disking).Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1359https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1359Fri, 05 May 2017 12:03:43 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crop production: Plant flowersCrop yield (2 studies): One replicated, controlled study from Spain found higher crop yields in coriander plants next to planted flower strips, compared to coriander plants next to unplanted field margins. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Italy found higher crop yields in tomatoes next to planted flower strips, compared to tomatoes next to bare ground, in some comparisons. Crop quality (0 studies) Implementation options (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found smaller lettuces in fields planted with flowers, in five out of six configurations. One replicated, controlled study from Spain found higher coriander yields next to field margins planted with more flower species, compared to fewer flower species. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Italy found lower crop yields in tomatoes next to field margins planted with more flower species, compared to fewer flower species, in some comparisons.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1360https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1360Fri, 05 May 2017 15:10:52 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crop production: Plant hedgerowsCrop yield (1 study): One replicated, paired site comparison from the USA found similar crop yields in fields with hedgerows and fields with bare/weedy edges. Crop quality (0 studies)  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1361https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1361Fri, 05 May 2017 15:41:01 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Other biodiversity: Add compost to the soilAmphibians (0 studies) Birds (0 studies) Invertebrates (1 study): One replicated, controlled study from the USA, found no differences in invertebrate biodiversity between plots with or without added compost. Mammals (0 studies) Plants (4 studies): Four replicated, controlled studies (three randomized) from Italy, Spain, and the USA found more plant biomass in plots with added compost, compared to plots without added compost. One of these studies also found more plant cover and faster tree growth in plots with added compost. Another one also found sixteen species of rare plants only in plots with added compost. Another one found more plants in plots with added compost, compared to plots without added compost, in one of two years, but found similar numbers of plant species in plots with or without added compost. Reptiles (0 studies) Implementation options (0 studies)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1409https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1409Fri, 19 May 2017 09:39:36 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Other biodiversity: Add manure to the soilAmphibians (0 studies) Birds (0 studies) Invertebrates (0 studies) Mammals (0 studies) Plants (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found more plant species in plots with added manure, compared to plots without added manure, in one of three comparisons. Reptiles (0 studies) Implementation options (0 studies)  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1410https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1410Fri, 19 May 2017 09:42:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Other biodiversity: Add sewage sludge to the soilAmphibians (0 studies) Birds (0 studies) Invertebrates (0 studies) Mammals (0 studies) Plants (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies from Spain found greater plant cover and faster tree growth in plots with added sewage sludge, compared to plots without it, in some or all comparisons. One of these studies found similar numbers of plant species in plots with or without added sewage sludge. The other one found more plant biomass in plots with added sewage sludge. Reptiles (0 studies) Implementation options (1 study): One study from Spain found faster tree growth in plots with composted or thermally dried sewage sludge, but not with digested sewage sludge, compared to plots without sewage sludge. Another one found no differences in pasture cover, tree growth, or numbers of species between plots with different types of sewage sludge.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1411https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1411Fri, 19 May 2017 09:44:35 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Other biodiversity: Use organic fertilizer instead of inorganicAmphibians (0 studies) Birds (0 studies) Invertebrates (0 studies) Mammals (0 studies) Plants (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Italy found more plants and plant biomass, but similar numbers of plant species, in plots with organic fertilizer, compared to plots with inorganic fertilizer. Reptiles (0 studies) Implementation options (0 studies)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1412https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1412Fri, 19 May 2017 09:46:03 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Other biodiversity: Plant or maintain ground cover in orchards or vineyardsAmphibians (0 studies) Birds (1 study): One site comparison from Spain found more birds and higher bird diversity in a vineyard with resident vegetation (without tillage), compared to a vineyard with bare soil (with conventional tillage), between the vine rows. Invertebrates (0 studies) Fungi (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Portugal found more mushrooms and mushroom species in plots with cover crops (without tillage), compared to plots without cover crops (with conventional tillage). Mammals (0 studies) Plants (0 studies) Reptiles (0 studies) Implementation options (3 studies): One site comparison from Spain found more birds and higher bird diversity in a vineyard with mown resident vegetation, compared to a vineyard with herbicide-treated resident vegetation, between the vine rows. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Portugal found fewer mushrooms and fewer mushroom species, but similar mushroom diversity, in plots with seeded cover crops, compared to resident vegetation. One replicated site comparison from Greece found more flowering plant species, and higher flowering plant cover, in managed orchards, compared to abandoned orchards.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1413https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1413Fri, 19 May 2017 09:47:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Other biodiversity: Plant flowersAmphibians (0 studies) Birds (0 studies) Invertebrates (0 studies) Mammals (0 studies) Plants (2 studies): One replicated, paired, controlled study from Italy found similar numbers of plant species in planted flower strips and unplanted field margins, but found higher plant diversity in unplanted margins. One replicated study from the USA found that most flower species persisted for at least two years after planting. Reptiles (0 studies) Implementation options (2 studies): One replicated study from the USA found that more plant species persisted in flower strips when twice as many seeds were sown, but there was no further increase in persistence at higher seeding rates. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found that tillage had inconsistent effects on the emergence of planted flowers.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1414https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1414Fri, 19 May 2017 09:50:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Other biodiversity: Plant hedgerowsAmphibians (0 studies) Birds (0 studies) Invertebrates (0 studies) Mammals (0 studies) Plants (1 study): One replicated, paired site comparison from the USA found no difference in the number of flower species in hedgerows, compared to weedy field edges. Reptiles (0 studies) Implementation options (2 studies): One replicated site comparison from the USA found more plant species in narrow hedgerows, compared to wide hedgerows, and higher plant cover in younger hedgerows, compared to older hedgerows. One replicated site comparison from the USA found higher cover of exotic plants, compared to native plants, in young hedgerows, but not in old hedgerows.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1415https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1415Fri, 19 May 2017 09:51:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Other biodiversity: Restore habitat along watercoursesAmphibians (1 study): One replicated site comparison from the USA found similar numbers of amphibian species in restored and remnant sites. Birds (8 studies): Two replicated site comparisons from Spain and the USA found similar numbers of bird species in restored and remnant sites. Two replicated site comparisons from the USA found fewer bird species in restored riparian sites, compared to remnant sites. One replicated site comparison from Spain found similar numbers of birds and bird species in restored contaminated sites and uncontaminated sites. One replicated site comparison from the USA found that an endangered bird nested in restored sites, and had similar nesting success in restored and remnant sites. One replicated site comparison from the USA found that bird populations increased with the area of restored habitat in the landscape, in some comparisons. One replicated site comparison from the USA found similar levels of nest parasitism in restored and remnant sites. Fish (1 study): One before-and-after site comparison from the USA found differences in fish communities, before and after changing river flow. Invertebrates (3 studies): One replicated site comparison from the USA found fewer native ants, but similar numbers of invasive ants, in restored sites, compared to remnant sites. One before-and-after site comparison from the USA found similar numbers of freshwater invertebrates in restored and reference sites, after restoration. One replicated, before-and-after study from the USA found more invertebrates and invertebrate species in plots with added gravel, compared to plots without added gravel, in some comparisons. One replicated before-and-after study from France found relatively more alien species after restoring river flow. Mammals (2 studies): Two replicated site comparisons from the USA found similar numbers of mammal species in restored and remnant sites. Plants (11 studies) Abundance (6 studies): Four replicated site comparisons from Spain and the USA found lower plant cover in restored sites, compared to remnant sites. One of these studies also found higher cover of exotic plants, but another one did not. One replicated, paired site comparison from the USA found similar numbers of flowers in restored and remnant sites. One replicated site comparison from the USA found more seeds, but fewer native seed, in orchards next to restored riparian habitats, compared to orchards next to remnant habitats. One replicated site comparison from the USA found similar exotic plant cover in remnant and restored forests. Diversity (6 studies): Two replicated studies from the USA found fewer native plant species in restored forests, compared to remnant forests. One of these studies also found more exotic species, but another one did not. One replicated site comparison from the USA found more plant species in restored sites, compared to remnant sites. One replicated, paired site comparison from the USA found similar numbers of flower species in restored and remnant sites. One replicated site comparison from the USA found fewer seed species and native seed species in orchards next to restored riparian habitats, compared to remnant riparian habitats. One controlled study from the USA found different plant communities in restored and unrestored habitats. Survival (2 studies): One replicated study from the USA found that about one-third of planted willows survived for one year. One site comparison from the USA found that some species survived after planting, as part of riparian restoration, but others did not. Habitat suitability (1 study): One replicated site comparison from the USA found that vegetation at one of five sites met the criteria for Bell’s Vireo nesting habitat. Size (1 study): One replicated site comparison from the USA found smaller elderberry plants in restored sites. Reptiles (1 study): One replicated site comparison from the USA found similar numbers of reptile species in remnant and restored sites. Implementation options (7 studies) Plants (3 studies): One study from the USA found more tree, shrub, vine, and perennial species, higher canopy cover, and higher native tree cover, in older restored plots, compared to younger restored plots, but this study also found fewer annual plant species, lower vegetation cover, lower annual forb cover, and lower grass cover. One study from the USA found an increase in native species and overstorey cover in restored sites, over time, but it found similar numbers of species and overstorey cover in sites planted at different densities. One study from the USA found that willow cuttings planted on the stream bottom had a higher survival rate than those planted on the streambank or terrace. Birds (3 studies): Three studies from the USA found more birds or bird species in older restored plots, compared to younger restored plots. One of these studies also found that the populations of some bird species increased with tree-planting density. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1416https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1416Fri, 19 May 2017 09:54:10 +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: Other biodiversity: Use fewer grazersAmphibians (0 studies) Birds (0 studies) Invertebrates (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in wet grasslands in the USA found more families of insects in streams in areas grazed by cattle at lower, compared to higher, intensities. Mammals (0 studies) Plants (11 studies) Abundance (11 studies): Six studies (four replicated, randomized, and controlled) in grasslands or wood pasture in the USA, Chile, and Israel found higher cover of some species of plants, herbaceous plants, or native plants in areas grazed by cattle or sheep at lower, compared to higher, intensities. One controlled study in forest in Israel found higher cover of woody vegetation in areas with lower grazing intensity. Four of these studies also found lower cover or biomass of some groups of plants in sites with lower grazing intensity. Four studies in grasslands in the USA and Israel found no effect of grazing intensity on biomass, cover, or abundance of plants. Diversity (6 studies): Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies in grasslands and wet grasslands in the USA and Israel found no differences in plant diversity between sites with different cattle-grazing intensities, in some or all comparisons. One of these also found higher diversity in some comparisons and lower diversity in others. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in wet grasslands in the USA found that plant community composition differed in sites with different cattle-grazing intensities, in some comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in grasslands and wet grasslands in Israel and the USA found no differences in the number of plant species between sites with different cattle grazing intensities, in some or all comparisons. One of these studies also found more species in some comparisons and fewer species in others. One controlled study in wood pasture in Chile found fewer native species and more non-native species in paddocks with lower sheep-grazing intensities. Survival (3 studies): Three controlled studies (two replicated and randomized) in grasslands in the USA and forests in Israel found no difference in native grass, tree, or shrub survival in areas grazed by cows at lower, compared to higher, intensities. Reptiles (0 studies) Implementation options (0 studies)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1418https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1418Fri, 19 May 2017 11:23:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Other biodiversity: Use grazers to manage vegetationAmphibians (0 studies) Birds (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in grasslands in the USA found higher densities of dabbling duck nests, but similar nesting success, in cattle-grazed plots, compared to ungrazed plots. Invertebrates (4 studies): Two replicated studies (one controlled, one site comparison) in grasslands in the USA and Spain found more invertebrates in sheep-, goat-, or cattle-grazed plots, compared to ungrazed plots, in some or all comparisons. One before-and-after study in grassland in the USA found that a threatened, endemic butterfly species did not recolonize a site after grazing was reintroduced. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in grasslands in the USA found fewer invertebrates in plots with simulated grazing, compared to ungrazed plots, but found similar numbers of invertebrate species. One replicated site comparison in forested grasslands in Spain found higher beetle diversity in grazed plots, compared to ungrazed plots, in one of two beetle groups. Two replicated studies (one randomized and controlled) in grasslands in the USA and Spain found different invertebrate communities in grazed and ungrazed plots. Mammals (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies (one randomized before-and-after study) in grasslands in the USA found that abundances of some or all rodents were higher, or increased more, on sheep- or cow-grazed plots, compared to ungrazed plots. However, they also found that some species were less abundant or monthly survival was lower on grazed plots. Plants (15 studies) Abundance (14 studies): Eight studies (two meta-analyses; two replicated, randomized, and controlled) from grasslands, shrublands, and forests in the USA, Spain, and France found higher cover or higher abundance of some groups of plants (or lower cover of undesirable plants), on cattle-, sheep-, or goat-grazed plots, compared to ungrazed plots. Six studies (five replicated; one randomized and controlled) from grasslands in Spain and the USA found lower cover or lower abundance of some groups of plants on cattle-, sheep-, or goat-grazed plots, compared to ungrazed plots (or after grazers were reintroduced). Three replicated, controlled studies (two randomized) from grasslands in the USA found similar cover or biomass on grazed or ungrazed plots. Diversity (7 studies): Three studies (one meta-analysis; two replicated site comparisons) from grasslands in the USA found more plant species on grazed plots, compared to ungrazed plots, in some or all comparisons. One of these studies also found fewer species of some plant groups on grazed plots, and two of these stuides also found more non-native species on grazed plots, compared to ungrazed plots. Two replicated, controlled studies (one randomized) in grasslands in the USA and France found no difference in the number of plant species between cattle- or sheep-grazed plots and ungrazed plots. Two replicated controlled studies (one randomized) from grasslands in the USA and France found no difference in plant diversity between cattle- or sheep-grazed plots and ungrazed plots. One replicated, randomized, controlled study grasslands and woodlands in the USA found that plant community composition varied between cattle-grazed and ungrazed plots. Survival (3 studies): Of two studies on purple needlegrass mortality from grasslands in the USA, one replicated, randomized, controlled study found lower mortality on sheep-grazed plots, compared to ungrazed plots, in some comparisons, but found higher mortality in other comparisons, and one replicated, controlled study found no difference in mortality between cattle-grazed plots and ungrazed plots. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from grasslands in the USA found lower germination rates in purple needlegrass seeds from sheep-grazed plots, compared to ungrazed plots, in some comparisons. Reptiles (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in grasslands in the USA found that the abundance of some lizard species increased at a greater rate on cattle-grazed plots, compared to ungrazed plots. Implementation options (1 study): One study from the USA found more invertebrates on plots with simulated grazing, compared to ungrazed plots, when these plots were planted with non-native plants. One study in shrublands in Spain found lower gorse cover in plots grazed by goats, compared to sheep, as well as other differences in plant biomass and cover.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1419https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1419Fri, 19 May 2017 11:26:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Other biodiversity: Use rotational grazingAmphibians (0 studies) Birds (0 studies) Invertebrates (0 studies) Mammals (0 studies) Plants (2 studies): One before-and-after study in grasslands in the USA found a higher cover of native plants after the adoption of rotational grazing. One replicated, controlled study in grasslands in the USA found that the density and mortality of a native plant species did not differ between plots with rotational or continuous grazing, but plants had more reproductive stems in plots with rotational grazing, in two of three years. This study also found that plants were larger under rotational grazing, in some comparisons, but smaller in other comparisons. Reptiles (0 studies) Implementation options (0 studies)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1420https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1420Fri, 19 May 2017 11:31:10 +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