Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Practice integrated farm management We found no intervention-based evidence on the effects of practicing integrated farm management on 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%2F169https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F169Sun, 20 May 2012 13:06:40 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pay farmers to cover the costs of bird conservation measures Three reviews from the UK of three studies captured reported population increases of three species after the introduction of specially-designed agri-environment schemes. These species were cirl buntings, corncrakes and Eurasian thick-knees. One of these found that many other species continued to decline. Twenty-two of 25 studies all from Europe, including a systematic review, examining local population levels or densities found that at least some birds studied were at higher densities, had higher population levels or more positive population trends on sites with agri-environment schemes, compared to non-agri-environment scheme sites. Some studies found that differences were present in all seasons, others in either summer or winter. Fifteen studies from Europe, including a systematic review, found that some or all species were not found at higher densities, had similar or lower population levels, showed similar population trends on sites with agri-environment schemes, compared with non-agri-environment scheme sites, or showed negative population trends. A study from the Netherlands found that many agri-environment scheme farms were sited in areas where they were unlikely to be effective. One small study from the UK found no differences between winter densities of seed-eating birds on UK Higher Levels Stewardship sites, compared with those under Entry Level Stewardship. A replicated study from the UK found that grey partridge survival was higher on agri-environment scheme sites than non-scheme sites. This difference was not significant every year. Two of three studies investigating reproductive productivity, including one replicated study, found that productivity was higher on farms under agri-environment schemes. One replicated study from the UK found no effect of agri-environment schemes on productivity. A review (Vickery et al. 2010) found that the amount of land entering an agri-environment scheme was on target, but that some options were not being used at high enough rates to help many species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F172https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F172Sun, 20 May 2012 14:06:41 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage hedges to benefit birds The one study of six that investigated species richness found no difference in species richness between a UK site with wildlife-friendly hedge management and three control sites. Seven studies from the UK and Switzerland, five replicated, found that some species studied increased in relation to managed hedges or were more likely to be found in managed hedges, compared to other habitats. Two investigated several interventions at once. One replicated study found that species that showed positive responses to hedge management in some regions showed weak or negative responses in other parts of the UK. Four studies from the UK found that some species declined or showed no response to wildlife-friendly management of hedges. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F177https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F177Wed, 30 May 2012 13:46:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant new hedgesA small study from the USA found that the population of northern bobwhites increased following several interventions including the planting of new hedges.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F178https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F178Wed, 30 May 2012 14:09:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage stone-faced hedge banks to benefit birds We found no evidence for the effects of managing stone-faced hedge banks on 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%2F179https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F179Wed, 30 May 2012 14:13:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage ditches to benefit wildlife Three out of four replicated studies from the UK found that some farmland birds responded positively to the presence of ditches managed for wildlife. All three also found that some species did not respond positively or responded negatively to management. A replicated, controlled and paired sites study from the UK found that bunded ditches were visited by more birds than non-bunded ditches. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F180https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F180Wed, 30 May 2012 14:17:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect in-field trees We found no evidence for the effects of protecting in-field trees on 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%2F184https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F184Sun, 10 Jun 2012 12:59:35 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant in-field trees We found no evidence for the effects of planting in-field trees on 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%2F185https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F185Sun, 10 Jun 2012 13:00:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant wild bird seed or cover mixture All seven studies (based on five replicated experiments and a review) that investigated species richness or diversity were from the UK and found that fields or farms with wild bird cover had higher bird diversity than those without, or that more species were found in wild bird cover than in surrounding habitats. Thirty-two studies out of 33 from the UK and North America that examined abundance and population data, found that bird densities, abundances, nesting densities or use of wild bird cover was higher than in other habitats or management regimes, or that sites with wild bird cover had higher populations than those without. These studies included a systematic review and seven randomised, replicated and controlled studies. Some studies found that this was the case across all species or all species studied, while others found that only a subset showed a preference. Four studies investigated other interventions at the same time. Thirteen of the 33 studies (all replicated and from Europe and the USA), found that bird populations or densities were similar on wild bird cover and other habitats, that some species were not associated with wild bird cover or that birds rarely used wild bird cover. Three studies from the UK and Canada, two replicated, found higher productivities for some or all species monitored on wild bird cover, compared to other habitats. Two replicated and controlled studies from Canada and France found no differences in reproductive success between wild bird cover and other habitats for some or all species studied. Three studies from Europe and the USA investigated survival, with two finding higher survival of grey partridge Perdix perdix released on wild bird cover or of artificial nests in some cover crops. The third found that survival of grey partridge was lower on farms with wild bird cover, possibly due to high predation. Five studies from the UK, three replicated, found that some wild bird cover crops were preferred to others. A randomised, replicated and controlled study and a review from the UK found that the landscape surrounding wild bird cover and their configuration within it affected use by birds. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F187https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F187Sun, 10 Jun 2012 13:10:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant nectar flower mixture/wildflower strips for birds Two replicated and controlled studies from the UK (one randomised) and a European review out of seven studies captured found that more birds used nectar/wildflower strips than crops or land under other management. Two studies of a replicated and controlled experiment in the UK found that no more birds used nectar/wildflower strips in winter than used land under other management. A replicated, controlled study from Switzerland found that Eurasian skylarks Alauda arvensis were more likely to nest in patches of fields sown with annual weeds than in crops, and were less likely to abandon nests in these patches. A randomised, replicated and controlled study from the UK found that field margin management affected their use by birds more than the seed mix used on them. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F189https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F189Sat, 16 Jun 2012 19:33:52 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant grass buffer strips/margins around arable or pasture fields for birds One replicated controlled study from the USA found that there were more species in fields bordered by margins than unbordered fields. Two replicated studies from the UK, one with paired sites, found no effect of field margins on species richness. A replicated, controlled study from the UK found that more birds and more species used sown strips in fields than the fields themselves, but even more used field margins. Nine studies from the UK and USA, seven replicated, two controlled, found more positive population trends, higher populations or strong habitat associations for some or all species for sites with grass margins to fields. One study investigated multiple interventions. Three replicated studies from the UK found that grass field margins did not have a positive effect on populations of some or all bird species investigated. Both studies that examined habitat use (one replicated, both from the UK) found that species used margins more than other habitats. A randomised, replicated and controlled study from the UK found that birds used cut margins more than uncut margins during winter but less than other management regimes during summer. The authors argue that management type is more important than the seed mix used to sow the margins. A replicated study from the UK found that grey partridge Perdix perdix had smaller broods in grass margins than other habitat types. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F191https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F191Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:39:04 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Mark nests during harvestA replicated study from the Netherlands found that northern lapwing Vanellus vanellus nests were less likely to be destroyed when they were marked, compared to when they were not. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F194https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F194Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:39:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Offer per clutch payment for farmland birds One of two replicated and controlled studies from the Netherlands found that farms with per clutch payments held slightly higher breeding densities of waders, but not higher overall numbers than control farms. One study found no population effects over three years. A replicated and controlled study found higher hatching success on farms with payment schemes than control farms. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F196https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F196Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:50:57 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant nettle strips We found no evidence for the effects of planting nettle strips on 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%2F205https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F205Sun, 15 Jul 2012 17:08:57 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant more than one crop per field (intercropping)A study from the USA found that 35 species of bird used fields with intercropping, with four nesting, but that productivity from the fields was very low. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F209https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F209Sun, 15 Jul 2012 17:42:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant cereals in wide-spaced rows A replicated and controlled study from the UK found that planting cereals in wide-spaced rows “offered benefits over conventional wheat for Eurasian skylarks, but details were not given. Another replicated and controlled study from the UK found that fields with wide-spaced rows had fewer skylark nests than control or skylark plot fields. A replicated and controlled study from the UK found that the faecal content (and therefore diet) of skylark nestlings was similar between control fields and those with wide-spaced rows. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F216https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F216Tue, 17 Jul 2012 11:58:51 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain species-rich, semi-natural grassland A before-and-after study from the UK found five species of conservation concern increased after the implementation of management designed to maintain unimproved grasslands. A replicated study from Switzerland found that wetland birds appeared to preferentially choose managed hay meadows; birds of open farmland avoided it. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F218https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F218Tue, 17 Jul 2012 12:27:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant cereals for whole crop silageA replicated, controlled trial in the UK found that seed-eating birds used CBWCS fields, especially those planted with barley, more than other crops in both summer and winter. Insect-eating species used other crops and grassland more. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F225https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F225Tue, 17 Jul 2012 15:12:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain traditional water meadows A replicated study from the UK found that northern lapwing and common redshank populations increased on nature reserves managed to maintain water meadows. Two replicated studies from the Netherlands found that there were more waders or birds overall on specially managed meadows or 12.5 ha plots including several management interventions than on conventional fields, but one study found that these differences were present before the management scheme was introduced and the other found no differences between individual fields under different management. A replicated study from the UK found that common snipe decreased on nature reserves managed to maintain water meadows and a replicated before-and-after study from the Netherlands found that wader population trends on specially managed meadows were no different to those on conventionally-managed meadows. A replicated study from the UK found that lapwing populations on three of four water meadow sites managed for conservation did not have high enough productivity to maintain population levels. All three sites were judged deficient in at least one management category. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F229https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F229Tue, 17 Jul 2012 15:37:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain upland heath/moorA literature review from the UK found that agri-environment guidelines on moorland grazing were leading to increased bird populations in one region. There were localised problems with overgrazing, burning and scrub encroachment. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F230https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F230Tue, 17 Jul 2012 15:50:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant Brassica fodder crops We found no evidence on the effects of planting brassicas on 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%2F231https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F231Tue, 17 Jul 2012 15:51:01 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain wood pasture and parkland We found no intervention-based evidence on the effects of maintaining wood pasture and parkland on 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%2F235https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F235Tue, 17 Jul 2012 15:57:02 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Mark fences to reduce bird collision mortalityA randomised, replicated and controlled study from the UK found that fewer birds collided with deer fence marked with orange netting than with unmarked sections. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F238https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F238Wed, 18 Jul 2012 10:34:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain traditional orchardsTwo site comparison studies from the UK and Switzerland found that traditional orchards did not benefit many birds. In Switzerland, one species was associated with orchards; in the UK, the focal species was negatively related to the presence of orchards. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F240https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F240Wed, 18 Jul 2012 10:42:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage perennial bioenergy crops to benefit wildlife We found no evidence for the effects of managing bioenergy crops for wildlife on 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 actionCollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F242https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F242Wed, 18 Jul 2012 10:44:51 +0100