Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Employ areas of semi-natural habitat for rough grazing We found no evidence for the effects of employing areas of semi-natural habitat for rough grazing. '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%2F234https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F234Tue, 17 Jul 2012 15:56:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Employ local people as ‘biomonitors’A single replicated study in Venezuela found that poaching of parrot nestlings was significantly lower following the employment of five young men as ‘biomonitors’.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F275https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F275Fri, 20 Jul 2012 12:15:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Employ grazing in natural grasslands Five of 12 studies from the USA and Canada, four replicated, found that some species studied were found at higher densities on grazed than ungrazed sites. Eight studies from the USA, Canada and France, six replicated, found that some or all species studied were found at lower densities on grazed sites compared to ungrazed sites or those under other management, or that there were no differences. Two controlled studies from the USA and Canada, one replicated, found that duck nesting success was higher on grazed than ungrazed sites. Two studies from the USA found that songbird nesting success was lower on grazed than ungrazed sites. Three replicated and controlled (one randomised) studies from the USA and Canada found that grazing had little or no effect on nesting success in a variety of species.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F348https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F348Sun, 29 Jul 2012 14:35:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Employ grazing in artificial grasslands/pastures Of ten studies captured, one replicated, controlled study from the USA found lower species richness in grazed areas than ungrazed. Another replicated, controlled study from the USA found no consistent differences in community composition between grazed and ungrazed areas. A small study from Canada found an increase in duck populations following the start of grazing amongst other interventions. Five studies from the UK and USA, four replicated, found higher use of, or higher nesting densities in, grazed areas compared to ungrazed. Seven studies from the UK, Canada and the USA, five replicated, found no differences in use or nesting densities, or lower abundances of birds on grazed, compared with ungrazed areas. One found that several species appeared to be excluded by grazing. Three studies from the UK, USA and Canada, two replicated, found that nesting success or productivity was similar, or lower, on grazed sites compared with ungrazed.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F349https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F349Sun, 29 Jul 2012 14:59:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Employ grazing in non-grassland habitats One of eight studies, a replicated, controlled study on savannas in Kenya found more bird species on grazed site, compared with unmanaged sites. These differences were not present during drought years. A before-and-after study from the Netherlands found the number of species in a mixed habitat wetland site declined after the number of grazing animals increased. Three studies (two replicated) from a variety of habitats in Sweden, the Netherlands and Kenya found that the overall number of birds, or the densities of some species were higher in grazed than ungrazed sites, or increased after the introduction of grazing. The Kenyan study found differences were not present in drought years. Four studies from several habitats in Europe and Kenya found that some species were found at lower densities, or not found at all, on grazed sites compared to ungrazed sites or those under different management. Five studies from several habitats from across the world found no differences in the abundances or densities of some or all species between grazed sites and those that were ungrazed or under different management. Two replicated studies from the UK found that productivity of northern lapwing and grey partridge was lower in grazed sites compared to ungrazed. One study examined several interventions at the same time. A replicated study from the UK found that songbirds and invertebrate-eating species were more common on rough-grazed habitats than intensive pasture, but that crows were less so.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F350https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F350Sun, 29 Jul 2012 15:22:08 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Employ areas of semi-natural habitat for rough grazing (includes salt marsh, lowland heath, bog, fen) A series of site comparison studies from the UK found that areas of heathland that had been re-seeded with grass to improve livestock grazing were avoided by nesting whimbrels but were the main early spring feeding areas for them. There was no difference in whimbrel chick survival between areas of heathland re-seeded with grass and those that had not. Two replicated studies from the UK found higher butterfly abundance and species richness and a higher frequency of occurrence of songbirds and invertebrate-feeding birds on areas of grazed semi-natural upland grassland than grazed improved pasture. However members of the crow family showed the opposite trend. A review found excluding cattle from fenland reduced the number of plant species, and that low-medium grazing levels could have positive effects on fenland biodiversity but may need to be accompanied by additional management such as mowing. One study from the UK found northern lapwing nest survival and clutch size were greater on ungrazed than grazed marshes. A replicated site comparison from the UK found the proportion of young grey partridges was negatively associated with rough grazing (in combination with several other interventions). Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F697https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F697Fri, 07 Dec 2012 15:57:06 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Encourage foraging waterfowlOne controlled, replicated experiment from the USA found increased straw decomposition when ducks were allowed to forage. SOIL TYPE COVERED: Silty clay  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F711https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F711Wed, 29 May 2013 09:20:41 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Encourage aquatic plant growth as refuge against fish predation We found no evidence for the effects of encouraging aquatic plant growth as refuge against fish predation on amphibian 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%2F796https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F796Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:40:25 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Educate the public to improve perception of bats to improve behaviour towards bats We found no studies that evaluated the effects of educating the public to improve the perception of bats to improve behaviour towards bats. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1000https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1000Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:09:30 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Employ hunters in the conservation sector to reduce their impact We found no evidence for the effects of employing hunters in the conservation sector to reduce their impact on primate populations. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1484https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1484Tue, 17 Oct 2017 19:18:04 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Educate local communities about primates and sustainable use One before-and-after study in Cameroon found that numbers of drills increased after the implementation of an education programme, alongside one other intervention. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1563https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1563Fri, 20 Oct 2017 10:07:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Encapsulate planted moss fragments in beads/gel We found no studies that evaluated the effects of encapsulating moss fragments on their performance, relative to loose moss fragments, when introduced to peatlands. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1838https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1838Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:55:04 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Educate homeowners about building and planning laws relating to bats to reduce disturbance to bat roosts We found no studies that evaluated the effects of educating homeowners and planning authorities about building and planning laws relating to bats to reduce disturbance to bat roosts. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1931https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1931Fri, 30 Nov 2018 14:34:44 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Educate pest controllers and homeowners/tenants to reduce the illegal use of pesticides in bat roosts We found no studies that evaluated the effects of educating pest controllers and homeowners/tenants to reduce the illegal use of pesticides in bat roosts on bat populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2043https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2043Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:40:13 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Eliminate fisheries subsidies that encourage overfishing We found no studies that evaluated the effects of eliminating fisheries subsidies that encourage overfishing on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations.   ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2115https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2115Tue, 22 Oct 2019 09:46:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Encourage community-based participation in land management Two studies evaluated the effects of encouraging community-based participation in management of mammals to reduce mammal persecution. One study was in Pakistan and one was in India. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): A study in Pakistan found that involving local communities with park management was associated with an increasing population of Himalayan brown bears. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Human behaviour change (1 study): A study in Namibia found that fewer farmers who engaged in community-based management of land, through membership of a conservancy, removed large carnivores from their land than did non-conservancy members. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2395https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2395Thu, 28 May 2020 10:25:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Encourage habitat protection of privately-owned land We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of encouraging habitat protection of privately-owned land. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2560https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2560Tue, 09 Jun 2020 12:36:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Eliminate highly virulent diseases early in an epidemic by culling all individuals (healthy and infected) in a defined area We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of eliminating highly virulent diseases early in an epidemic by culling all individuals (healthy and infected) in a defined area. 'We found no studies' means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2585https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2585Wed, 10 Jun 2020 15:54:32 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Eliminate flags of convenience We found no studies that evaluated the effects of eliminating flags of convenience on marine fish populations.  ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2769https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2769Wed, 03 Feb 2021 10:27:16 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Educate local communities and fishers on mammal protection laws to reduce killing of marine and freshwater mammals We found no studies that evaluated the effects of educating local communities and fishers on mammal protection laws to reduce killing of marine and freshwater mammals. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2788https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2788Thu, 04 Feb 2021 16:26:07 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Educate the public to reduce consumer demand for fisheries that threaten mammals We found no studies that evaluated the effects of educating the public to reduce consumer demand for fisheries that threaten mammals on marine and freshwater mammal populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2837https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2837Fri, 05 Feb 2021 16:10:27 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Educate the public to improve behaviour towards marine and freshwater mammals Three studies evaluated the effects of educating the public to improve behaviour towards marine and freshwater mammals. One study was in each of the North Atlantic Ocean (USA), the Sundarbans mangroves (Bangladesh) and the South Pacific Ocean (Peru). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (3 STUDIES) Change in human behaviour (3 studies): Three before-and-after studies in the North Atlantic Ocean, the Sundarbans mangroves and the South Pacific Ocean found that after educational whale-watching tours or an educational exhibition, participants were more willing to change their behaviour to support marine conservation, to donate money to marine conservation, or to cut their fishing nets to save entangled dolphins. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2935https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2935Tue, 09 Feb 2021 11:41:45 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Eliminate fisheries subsidies that encourage overfishing We found no studies that evaluated the effects of eliminating fisheries subsidies that encourage overfishing on marine fish populations.   ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3820https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3820Fri, 27 May 2022 08:47:44 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Employ adaptive management methods to achieve long-term goals We found no studies that evaluated the effects of employing adaptive management methods to achieve long-term goals on marine fish populations.   ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3827https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3827Fri, 27 May 2022 09:41:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Employ areas of semi-natural habitat for rough grazing (includes salt marsh, lowland heath, bog, fen) Nine studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of employing areas of semi-natural habitat for rough grazing. Three studies were in Germany, two were in each of the UK and the Netherlands, and one was in each of China and Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Community composition (1 study): One controlled study in Germany found that after 16–18 years of sheep grazing, lightly grazed and ungrazed saltmarshes had a different community of micro-moths to heavily grazed saltmarsh. Richness/diversity (4 studies): Two replicated, site comparison studies (including one paired study) in the Netherlands and Canada found that calcareous coastal dunes and shrubsteppe managed by cattle or pony grazing for 4–13 or 6–40 years had a similar species richness of butterflies (in one case combined with all pollinators) to unmanaged land or dunes managed by cutting. One controlled study in Germany found that saltmarsh managed by light sheep grazing for 15–18 years had a greater species richness of micro-moths than moderately or heavily grazed marsh, but a similar species richness to ungrazed marsh. One replicated, site comparison study in the UK found that upland rough grassland managed by livestock grazing had a greater species richness of butterflies than permanently or partially grazed improved grassland. POPULATION RESPONSE (7 STUDIES) Abundance (7 studies): Two of four studies (including two controlled studies, one before-and-after study and two site comparison studies) in the UK, the Netherlands, China and Canada found that fenland and calcareous coastal dunes managed by cattle or pony grazing for two or 4–13 years had a higher abundance of large copper eggs and four of 13 species of butterfly than unmanaged land or dunes managed by cutting. One study found that meadow steppe grazed by cattle, goats or sheep for 1–5 years had a lower abundance of butterflies and moths than ungrazed steppe. The fourth study found that shrubsteppe grazed by cattle for 6–40 years had a similar abundance of pollinators (including butterflies) to ungrazed shrubsteppe. Two controlled studies (including one replicated, paired study) in Germany found that saltmarsh managed by light sheep grazing for 15–18 or 19–22 years had a higher total abundance of micro-moths, and of two out of seven caterpillars, than moderately or heavily grazed, or ungrazed marsh. However, one of these studies also reported that the abundance of four other caterpillars was lower in lightly or heavily grazed marsh than in ungrazed marsh. One replicated, site comparison study in the UK found that upland rough grassland managed by livestock grazing had a higher abundance of butterflies than permanently or partially grazed improved grassland. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): Two replicated, site comparison studies in the Netherlands found that calcareous coastal dunes and heathland managed by cattle or pony, or year-round horse and sheep, grazing for five or 4–13 years were more likely to be occupied by brown argus and Alcon large blue than unmanaged land or habitat managed by cutting, grazing and sod cutting, or summer-only cattle and sheep grazing. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3944https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3944Sat, 13 Aug 2022 14:58:18 +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