Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore heathlandOne small trial of early-stage lowland heath restoration activity did not have an adverse effect on bumblebee diversity at one site in southeast England. Two replicated trials in Dorset indicated that long-term restoration of dry lowland heath can restore a bee community similar to that on ancient heaths. One of these studies showed that the community of conopid flies parasitizing bumblebees remained impoverished 15 years after heathland restoration began. We found no evidence on interventions to conserve bees on upland heath or moorland. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F9https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F9Thu, 20 May 2010 03:20:44 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore habitat connectivity One before-and-after study in Italy found that restoring connectivity between two wetlands by raising a road on a viaduct, significantly decreased deaths of migrating amphibians. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F840https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F840Thu, 29 Aug 2013 15:48:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore and maintain microclimate in modified caves We found no studies that evaluated the effects of restoring and maintaining the microclimate in modified caves for roosting bats 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%2F1001https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1001Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:14:49 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Resettle illegal human communities (i.e. in a protected area) to another location One review on mountain gorillas in Uganda found that no more gorillas were killed after illegal settlers were relocated from the area, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in the Republic of Congo found that most reintroduced chimpanzees survived over five years after human communities were resettled, from the protected area alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1515https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1515Thu, 19 Oct 2017 09:12:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore habitat corridors We found no evidence for the effects of restoring habitat corridors 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%2F1583https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1583Fri, 20 Oct 2017 13:06:15 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore habitat in area predicted to have suitable climate for shrubland species in the future We found no studies that evaluated the effects of restoring habitat in areas predicted to have a suitable climate for shrubland species in the future on shrublands. '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%2F1672https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1672Sun, 22 Oct 2017 15:19:16 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore habitats and/or habitat-forming (biogenic) species following extreme events We found no studies that evaluated the effects of restoring habitats and/or habitat-forming species following extreme events 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%2F2216https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2216Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:34:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore biogenic habitats (other methods) - Restore mussel beds Two studies examined the effects of restoring mussel beds (not by transplanting or translocating mussels) on mussels and mussel bed-associated subtidal benthic invertebrates. Both were in Strangford Lough (UK). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall community composition (2 studies): One replicated, controlled study in Strangford Lough found that after restoring beds of horse mussels by adding scallop shells to the seabed, overall invertebrate community composition in restored plots was different to that of unrestored plots. One replicated, controlled study in the same area found that after restoring beds of horse mussels by adding scallop shells to the seabed and translocating horse mussels, overall invertebrate community composition in plots restored with shells and mussels was different to plots restored without mussels (shells only), and both were different to unrestored plots and to nearby natural horse mussel beds. Overall species richness/diversity (2 studies): One replicated, controlled study in Strangford Lough found that after restoring beds of horse mussels by adding scallop shells to the seabed, overall invertebrate species diversity was lower in restored plots compared to unrestored plots, but species richness was similar. One replicated, controlled study in the same area found that after restoring beds of horse mussels by adding scallop shells to the seabed and translocating horse mussels, species richness and diversity were higher in restored plots with mussels and shells compared to plots with shells only, and similar to nearby natural horse mussel beds. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Strangford Lough found that after restoring beds of horse mussels by adding scallop shells to the seabed, overall invertebrate abundance was higher in restored plots compared to unrestored plots. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2247https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2247Wed, 23 Oct 2019 09:33:18 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore biogenic habitats (other methods) - Restore oyster reefs Eight studies examined the effects of restoring oyster reefs (not by transplanting or translocating oysters) on oysters and oyster reef-associated subtidal benthic invertebrates. Two were in the Gulf of Mexico (USA), one was a global review, four were in the North Pacific Ocean (USA), and one was in the Mission-Aransas estuary (USA). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Overall community composition (2 studies): One of two replicated, controlled studies in the Gulf of Mexico and the Mission-Aransas estuary found that after restoring eastern oyster reefs, the community composition of combined mobile decapod invertebrates and fish was similar on all types of restoration material used, but the other found that composition varied with the material used. Overall species richness/diversity (3 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in the Gulf of Mexico found that diversity of reef-associated invertebrates was similar in reefs restored by laying rocks regardless of age, in young reefs restored by laying oyster shells, and in natural reefs, but lower in old shell-restored reefs. One replicated, controlled study in the Gulf of Mexico found that diversity of reef-associated invertebrates was higher in all restored reefs than on unrestored sediment, but that diversity varied between the restoration materials used. One replicated, controlled study in the Mission-Aransas estuary found that diversity of fish, crabs and shrimps varied with the restoration material used. POPULATION RESPONSE (7 STUDIES) Overall abundance (2 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in the Gulf of Mexico found that the effect of restoring eastern oyster reefs on the abundance of reef-associated invertebrates depended on the material used for restoration and the age of the reef. One replicated, controlled study in the Gulf of Mexico found that abundance of combined reef-associated mobile decapod invertebrate and fish was similar on all restored reefs regardless of the restoration material used, and higher than on unrestored sediment. Crustacean abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the Mission-Aransas estuary found that after restoring eastern oyster reefs, crab abundance, but not biomass, and shrimp biomass, but not abundance, varied with the restoration material used. Oyster abundance (6 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in the Gulf of Mexico found that oyster reefs restored by laying rocks had similar oyster abundance to natural reefs, and higher than reefs restored by laying oyster shells. One replicated, controlled study in the Mission-Aransas estuary found that oyster cover and abundance varied with the restoration material used. One replicated, controlled study in the Gulf of Mexico found that oyster spat abundance was similar on all types of restoration material used, and higher than on unrestored sediment. Three replicated, controlled studies in the North Pacific Ocean found that restoring oyster reefs by placing lines of clam shells below Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) led to higher cover of clam shells by oysters than when placing the lines above MLLW, that for those placed below MLLW, keeping them there led to similar cover compared to moving them above MLLW halfway through the study, and that placing the lines on cobbly seabed led to similar cover compared to placing them on muddy seabed. Oyster reproductive success (3 studies): Three replicated, controlled studies in the North Pacific Ocean found that restoring oyster reefs by placing lines of clam shells below Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) led to higher recruitment of oyster spat on clam shells than by lacing lines above MLLW, that recruitment was higher on lines placed on cobbly seabed than on muddy seabed, and that recruitment was similar on lines placed near or far from the nearest adult oyster populations. Oyster survival (5 studies): One global systematic review found that two of nine restoration techniques (restoring oyster reef by transplanting juveniles, and by creating no-harvest sanctuaries) assessed resulted in over 85% survival of restored oysters. Four replicated, controlled studies in the North Pacific Ocean found that restoring oyster reefs by placing lines of clam shells below Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) led to similar survival of oysters than when placing the lines above MLLW, but that for those placed below MLLW, moving them above MLLW halfway through the study led to higher survival than keeping then below, that survival was similar on lines placed on cobbly seabed or muddy seabed, and that survival was similar on lines placed near or far from the nearest adult oyster populations. Oyster condition (5 studies): One replicated, controlled study in the Gulf of Mexico found that the effect of restoring eastern oyster reefs on average spat size varied with the restoration material used. One replicated, controlled study in the North Pacific Ocean found that restoring oyster reefs by placing lines of clam shells below Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) led to similar growth of oysters on the shells than placing lines above MLLW. Four replicated, controlled studies in the North Pacific Ocean found that restoring oyster reefs by placing lines of clam shells below Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) led to higher cover of clam shells by non-native species than placing lines above MLLW, but that for those placed below MLLW, moving them above MLLW halfway through the study led to lower cover than keeping then below, that cover was similar on lines placed on cobbly seabed or muddy seabed, and that cover of clam shells by non-native species was higher on lines placed near compared to far from the nearest adult oyster populations. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2248https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2248Wed, 23 Oct 2019 09:37:47 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore biogenic habitats (other methods) - Restore seagrass beds/meadows Three studies examined the effects of restoring seagrass beds (not by transplanting or translocating seagrass) on seagrass bed-associated subtidal benthic invertebrates. One was in the North Atlantic Ocean (USA), one in the Indian Ocean (Kenya), and one in the Florida Keys (USA). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall community composition (1 study): One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the Florida Keys found that restoring seagrass beds by fertilizing the seabed had no effect on overall invertebrate community composition, but adding sand led to communities different from both unrestored and natural sites. Overall species richness/diversity (2 studies): One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the Florida Keys found that after restoring seagrass beds by fertilizing the seabed and adding sand, overall invertebrate species richness was similar at restored, unrestored, and natural sites. One replicated, controlled study in the Indian Ocean found that transplanting plastic seagrass mimics into bare sites, previously-restored seagrass sites, and natural seagrass sites, resulted in similar invertebrate diversity on mimic leaves and in the surrounding sediment, and similar species richness on mimic leaves at all restored sites as on natural seagrass leaves. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Overall abundance (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that after restoring seagrass beds, the abundance of mobile invertebrates had increased and was higher in restored than unrestored plots, but the abundance of sessile invertebrates had not increased. One replicated, controlled study in the Indian Ocean found that transplanting plastic seagrass mimics into bare sites, previously-restored seagrass sites, and natural seagrass sites, resulted in similar abundance of invertebrate in the surrounding sediment across sites, and resulted in different abundance of invertebrates on mimic leaves between sites although all had lower abundances than on natural seagrass leaves. One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the Florida Keys found that after restoring seagrass beds by fertilizing the seabed or adding sand, overall invertebrate abundance was not different at restored sites compared to both unrestored and natural sites. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2249https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2249Wed, 23 Oct 2019 09:45:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore coastal lagoons Three studies examined the effects restoring coastal lagoons on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. One study was in the Chilika lagoon (India), and two in East Harbor lagoon (USA). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Crustacean richness/diversity (1 study): One before-and-after study in Chilika lagoon found that following hydrological restoration total crustacean species richness decreased, but changes varied with species groups (decreases in prawn and crab species; increases in lobster species). The lagoon also hosted new species not found before. Mollusc richness/diversity (2 studies): Two studies in East Harbor lagoon found that following hydrological restoration molluscs recolonised the lagoon and their species richness increased in the first three years but later decreased over the following six. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Crustacean abundance (1 study): One before-and-after study in Chilika lagoon found that following hydrological restoration abundances of prawns and crabs increased. Mollusc abundance (2 studies): Two studies in East Harbor lagoon found that following hydrological restoration molluscs recolonised the lagoon and their total abundance increased in the first three years, but later decreased over the following six. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2250https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2250Wed, 23 Oct 2019 09:48:44 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Repurpose obsolete offshore structures to act as artificial reefs One study examined the effects of repurposing obsolete offshore structures on subtidal benthic invertebrates. The study was of a sunken oil rig in the Mediterranean Sea (Italy). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall species richness/diversity (1 study): One study in the Mediterranean Sea recorded at least 53 invertebrate species having colonised a sunken oil rig after 30 years. Species included 14 species of molluscs, 14 species of worms, and 11 species of crustaceans. POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2262https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2262Wed, 23 Oct 2019 10:57:16 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore and manage abandoned orchards for bats We found no studies that evaluated the effects of restoring and managing abandoned orchards for bats on bat 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%2F2285https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2285Tue, 19 Nov 2019 18:23:58 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore bat foraging habitat at ex-quarry sites One study evaluated the effects of restoring bat foraging habitat at ex-quarry sites on bat populations. The study was in France. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in France found that gravel-sand pits had higher overall bat activity (relative abundance) 10 years after restoration than gravel-sand pit sites before or during quarrying. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2286https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2286Wed, 20 Nov 2019 11:35:38 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore former mining sites Twelve studies evaluated the effects of restoring former mining sites on mammals. Eleven studies were in Australia and one was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (8 STUDIES) Species richness (8 studies): A review in Australia found that seven of 11 studies indicated that rehabilitated areas had lower mammal species richness compared to unmined areas. Four of five replicated, site comparison studies, in Australia, found that mammal species richness was similar in restored mine areas compared to unmined areas or higher in restored areas (but similar when considering only native species). One study found that species richness was lower in restored compared to in unmined areas. A replicated, controlled study in Australia found that thinning trees and burning vegetation as part of mine restoration did not increase small mammal species richness. A replicated, site comparison study in Australia found that restored mine areas were recolonized by a range of mammal species within 10 years. POPULATION RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Abundance (5 studies): A review of rehabilitated mine sites in Australia found that only two of eight studies indicated that rehabilitated areas had equal or higher mammal densities compared to those in unmined areas. One of three replicated, site comparison studies, in the USA and Australia, found that small mammal density was similar on restored mines compared to on unmined land. One study found that for three of four species (including all three native species studied) abundance was lower in restored compared to unmined sites and one study found mixed results, including that abundances of two out of three focal native species were lower in restored compared to unmined sites. A replicated, controlled study in Australia found that thinning trees and burning vegetation as part of mine restoration did not increase small mammal abundance. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): A replicated, site comparison study in Australia found that most restored former mine areas were not used by koalas while another replicated site comparison study in Australia found quokka activity to be similar in revegetated mined sites compared to in unmined forest. OTHER (1 STUDY) Genetic diversity (1 study): A site comparison study in Australia found that in forest on restored mine areas, genetic diversity of yellow-footed antechinus was similar to that in unmined forest. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2490https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2490Thu, 04 Jun 2020 14:08:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore habitat for marine and freshwater mammals One study evaluated the effects of restoring habitat for marine mammals. The study was in the Kattegat sea (Denmark). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One before-and-after study in the Kattegat sea found that harbour porpoise activity increased at a stony reef after it was restored with boulders and fishing was prohibited. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2920https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2920Mon, 08 Feb 2021 16:36:03 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Rescue and release stranded or trapped marine and freshwater mammals Eleven studies evaluated the effects of rescuing and releasing stranded or trapped marine and freshwater mammals. Five studies were in the North Atlantic Ocean (USA), two studies were in the Indian Ocean (Tasmania, South Africa), and one study was in each of the South Atlantic Ocean (Brazil), the Cachoeira River estuary (Brazil), the North Pacific Ocean (USA) and the Shannon Estuary (Ireland). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (11 STUDIES) Reproductive success (2 studies): One review in the North Pacific Ocean found that after rescuing and releasing stranded or trapped Hawaiian monk seals, along with at least seven other interventions to enhance survival, more than a quarter of the seals reproduced. One study in the Shannon Estuary found that a stranded common bottlenose dolphin that was rescued and released was observed with a calf a year later. Survival (11 studies): Seven studies (including one review) in the North Atlantic Ocean, Indian Ocean and the Shannon Estuary found that 17–100% of rescued and released Atlantic white-sided dolphins, short-beaked common dolphins, common bottlenose dolphins, long-finned pilot whales, short-finned pilot whales, and Cape fur seals survived during post-release monitoring periods, which ranged in length from three weeks to three years. Three studies in the South Atlantic Ocean, the Cachoeira estuary and the Indian Ocean found that a trapped rough-toothed dolphin, two stranded tucuxi dolphins and seven stranded sperm whales were successfully rescued and released, although long-term survival was not reported. One review in the North Pacific Ocean found that rescuing and releasing stranded or trapped Hawaiian monk seals, along with at least seven other interventions to enhance survival, resulted in more than a quarter of the seals surviving. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2924https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2924Mon, 08 Feb 2021 16:51:49 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reprofile/relandscape: freshwater swamps Two studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of reprofiling or relandscaping to restore or create freshwater swamps. Both studies were in the USA. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Community composition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that swamps created by reprofiling uplands (along with planting trees/shrubs) contained a similar proportion of tree species in different plant groups, after 7–11 years, to nearby swamps recovering naturally from logging. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that swamps created by reprofiling uplands (along with planting trees/shrubs) had similar ground and canopy cover, after 7–11 years, to nearby swamps recovering naturally from logging. Herb abundance (1 study): One study in a former firing range in the USA simply quantified herb cover approximately 1–2 years after reprofiling the site (and planting trees/shrubs). Tree/shrub abundance (1 study): One study in a former firing range in the USA simply quantified woody plant cover approximately 1–2 years after reprofiling the site (and planting trees/shrubs). VEGETATION STRUCTURE Visual obstruction (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that swamps created by reprofiling uplands (along with planting trees/shrubs) had less horizontal vegetation cover, after 7–11 years, than nearby swamps recovering naturally from logging. Height (1 study): The same study found that swamps created by reprofiling uplands (along with planting trees/shrubs) contained shorter woody vegetation, after 7–11 years, than nearby swamps recovering naturally from logging. Herbaceous vegetation, however, was of similar height in both created and naturally recovering swamps. Basal area (1 study): The same study found that swamps created by reprofiling uplands (along with planting trees/shrubs) had a lower vegetation basal area, after 7–11 years, than nearby swamps recovering naturally from logging. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3215https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3215Fri, 09 Apr 2021 09:10:34 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Require mitigation of impacts to marshes or swamps Nine studies evaluated the overall effects – on vegetation or human behaviour – of requiring mitigation of impacts to marshes or swamps. All nine studies were in the USA. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Overall extent (6 studies): Four studies in the USA reported that requiring mitigation of impacts to wetlands did not prevent loss of wetland area: the total area restored/created was less than the area destroyed. One study in the USA reported that the total area of wetlands restored/created for mitigation was greater than the area destroyed. However, the area restored/created was smaller in most individual projects. Two of the studies reported that fewer individual wetlands were restored/created than destroyed. One before-and-after study in the USA found that wetland area declined after legislation to offset impacts came into force, but at a slower rate than before the legislation applied. Four of the studies reported discrepancies between the area of specific vegetation types restored/created vs destroyed. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE VEGETATION STRUCTURE OTHER Compliance (8 studies): Eight studies, all in the USA, provided information about compliance with required mitigation. Five of the studies reported that the total area of wetlands conserved was less than the area required in permits. Three of the studies reported that most mitigation projects failed to meet targets stipulated in permits. One of the studies reported that only one of seven vegetation targets was met in all mitigation sites. One of the studies reported that 64–74% of assessed mitigation areas met success criteria stipulated in permits. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3386https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3386Mon, 12 Apr 2021 11:47:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore former mining or energy production sites Thirteen studies evaluated the effects of restoring former mining or energy production sites on reptile populations. Nine studies were in Australia, two were in the USA, one was in Spain and one was on Reunion Island. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (8 STUDIES) Community composition (4 studies): Two of four site comparison studies (including two replicated studies) in Austalia and Spain found that restored mining areas hosted different reptile communities than unmined areas. One study found that reptile communities in the oldest restored areas were most similar to unmined areas. The other study found that restored mining areas that were seeded or received topsoil had similar community composition compared to surrounding unmined forests. Richness/diversity (5 studies): Two replicated, site comparison studies and one review in Australia found that restored mining sites had lower reptile species richness than unmined sites. One replicated, before-and-after, site comparison study in Spain found that after restoration, reptile species richness increased steadily over a six-year period. One replicated, site comparison study in Australia found that restored areas supported most of typical reptile species found in the wider habitat. POPULATION RESPONSE (8 STUDIES) Abundance (7 studies): Five of six replicated, site comparison studies and one review in Australia found that in restored mining areas reptiles tended to be less abundant than in unmined areas. The other study found mixed effects of restoration on reptile abundance. One replicated, controlled study in Australia found that restored areas that were thinned and burned 10–18 years after restoration began had higher reptile abundance than restored areas that were not thinned and burned. Reproductive success (2 studies): One review in Australia found that one study reported reptiles breeding in restored mining areas. One study on Reunion Island found that four of 34 and eight of 40 artificial egg laying sites in restored mining areas were used by Reunion day geckos nine months and two years after installation respectively. Condition (1 study): One review of restoration of mining sites in Australia found that three of three studies indicated that reptile size or condition was similar in restored mines and undisturbed areas. BEHAVIOUR (5 STUDIES) Use (4 studies): Three studies (including one replicated, site comparison study) in Australia and the USA found that restored mining areas were occupied by up to 14 snake, five turtle and one lizard species, or that generalist reptile species colonized restoration sites more quickly than did specialist species. One replicated, controlled study in Australia found that Napoleon’s skinks reintroduced to a restored mining site all moved to an unmined forest within one week of release. Behaviour change (1 studies): One review of restoration of mining sites in Australia reported that one of one studies indicated that there were changes in behaviour of lizards between restored mines and undisturbed areas. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3497https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3497Mon, 06 Dec 2021 12:43:42 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reseed logged forest One study evaluated the effects of reseeding logged forest on reptile populations. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Community composition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that reptile communities in areas that were reseeded were not more similar to mature forest stands than those left to regenerate naturally. Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that areas that were reseeded had similar reptile species richness and diversity compared to areas left to regenerate naturally. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that areas that were reseeded had similar reptile abundance compared to areas left to regenerate naturally. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3638https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3638Thu, 09 Dec 2021 15:04:16 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore island ecosystems Three studies evaluated the effects of restoring island ecosystems on reptile populations. One study was in each of the Seychelles, the USA and the US Virgin Islands. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Occupancy/range (1 study): One study in the US Virgin Islands found that following translocation to a restored island, St. Croix ground lizards expanded their range during the fifth to seventh year after release. Reproductive success (2 studies): One study in the Seychelles found that following a range of interventions carried out to restore an island ecosystem, the number of hawksbill and green turtle nests increased. One replicated study in the USA found that during and after an island was rebuilt, diamondback terrapins continued to nest on the island. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3736https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3736Tue, 14 Dec 2021 10:00:08 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore beaches One study evaluated the effects of restoring beaches on reptile populations. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Reproductive success (1 study): One controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that removing beach debris from one section of beach did not increase nesting success in that section. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that after the removal of beach debris from one of three beach sections, a higher percentage of both the total nests laid and failed nesting attempts occurred in that section. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3752https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3752Tue, 14 Dec 2021 13:30:25 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Require developers to complete Environmental Impact Assessments when submitting planning applications We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of requiring developers to complete Environmental Impact Assessment when submitting planning applications. ‘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%2F3840https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3840Mon, 04 Jul 2022 15:41:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore arable land to permanent grassland Ten studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of restoring arable land to permanent grassland. Six studies were in the UK, two were in Finland, and one was in each of Switzerland and Taiwan. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (9 STUDIES) Community composition (2 studies): One of two replicated, site comparison studies in the UK and Finland found that grasslands restored from bare soil by seeding developed butterfly communities that were increasingly similar to existing high-quality grasslands over the first 10 years after establishment. The other study found that older grasslands established by sowing with competitive seed mixes had a greater proportion of specialist butterflies than newer grasslands sown with less competitive species which required re-seeding every 4–5 years. Richness/diversity (8 studies): Three replicated, site comparison studies (including two paired studies) in Switzerland, the UK and Taiwan found that 4–5-year-old created grasslands and abandoned cropland had a greater species richness of butterflies, burnet moths and all moths than conventionally managed grassland or cultivated farms. Two of three replicated studies (including one randomized, paired, controlled study and two site comparison studies) in the UK and Finland found that grasslands established by sowing grasses, legumes and other non-woody, broadleaved plants (forbs), or perennial grass mixes, had a higher species richness of butterflies (in one case including other pollinators) than grasslands established with grass-only mixes or less competitive species. The third study found that grasslands established by sowing complex or simple seed mixes, or by natural regeneration, all had a similar species richness of butterflies and day-flying moths, but species richness was higher on grasslands created <10 years ago than on grasslands created >20 years ago. One before-and-after study in the UK found that after the adoption of an Environmentally Sensitive Areas scheme, including reverting arable land to permanent grassland, the species richness of large moths on a farm increased. One replicated, site comparison study in the UK found that over 10 years after restoration, the number of species of butterfly on seeded grassland remained similar each year. POPULATION RESPONSE (7 STUDIES) Abundance (7 studies): Two of three replicated, paired, site comparison studies in the UK and Taiwan found that restored grassland had a higher abundance of moths than conventional grassland or unrestored crop fields, and a similar abundance to semi-natural grasslands, but abundance did not increase with time since restoration. The third study found that abandoned cropland had a similar abundance of butterflies to cultivated farms. Two of three replicated studies (including one randomized, paired, controlled study and two site comparison studies) in the UK and Finland found that grasslands established by sowing grasses, legumes and other non-woody, broadleaved plants (forbs), or perennial grass mixes, had a higher abundance of butterflies (in one case including other pollinators) than grasslands established with grass-only mixes or less competitive species. The third study found that grasslands restored by sowing complex or simple seed mixes, or by natural regeneration, all had a similar abundance of caterpillars. One before-and-after study in the UK found that after the adoption of an Environmentally Sensitive Areas scheme on a farm, including reverting arable land to permanent grassland, the abundance of large moths and five species of butterfly increased, but the abundance of two species of butterfly decreased. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3929https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3929Thu, 11 Aug 2022 18:15:43 +0100