Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove/treat ectoparasites to increase survival or reproductive success We found no evidence on the effects of removing/treating ectoparasites to increase survival or reproductive success. '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%2F436https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F436Wed, 22 Aug 2012 15:22:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove/control adult brood parasites All 11 studies from across the world that investigated parasitism rates found that they were lower following cowbird Molothrus spp. control. One study from Ecuador found an increase in host species population after cowbird control, but two American studies found no such effect. Five studies from the Americas found higher productivities or success rates of host nests when cowbirds were removed, five found that at least some measures of productivity did not change with cowbird control. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F441https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F441Thu, 23 Aug 2012 14:28:02 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove vegetation to create nesting areas Two out of six studies found that the number of waders and terns nesting in an area increased following the removal of vegetation, and another found that a tern colony moved to an area prepared by removing vegetation. Two of these studies used multiple interventions at once. One study found a decrease in colony size after several interventions, including vegetation control. A study from the UK found that gulls and terns nested in an area cleared of vegetation and a controlled study from Puerto Rico found that although no terns nested in plots cleared completely of vegetation, more nested in partially-cleared plots than in uncleared plots. A before-and-after study from Canada found that tern nesting success was higher after plots were cleared of vegetation and other interventions were used. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F505https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F505Thu, 06 Sep 2012 14:00:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove woody debris after timber harvest One of six studies (including two replicated, randomized, controlled studies) in the USA and France found that woody debris removal increased understory vegetation cover. Three studies found no effect or mixed effects on cover. Four of the studies found no effect or mixed effects on understory vegetation species richness and diversity and two found no effect of woody debris removal on coverand species diversity of trees. Six studies (including two replicated, randomized, controlled studies) in Canada, Ethiopia, Spain and the USA examined the effect of woody debris removal on young trees. One study found that debris removal increased young tree density, another study found that it decreased young tree density, and three studies found mixed effects or no effect on young tree density. One found no effect of woody-debris removal on young tree survival. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1213https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1213Fri, 20 May 2016 13:32:58 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove upper layer of peat/soil (without planting) Ten studies evaluated the effects of removing the upper layer of peat or soil (without planting afterwards) on peatland vegetation. Nine studies were in fens or fen meadows and one was in an unspecified peatland. Plant community composition (6 studies): Five studies (including one replicated, randomized, paired, controlled) in a peatland in the USA and fens or fen meadows in the Netherlands and Poland reported that plots stripped of topsoil developed plant communities with a different composition to those in unstripped peatlands. In one study, the effect of stripping was not separated from the effect of rewetting. Two studies in fen meadows in Germany and Poland reported that the depth of soil stripping affected plant community development. Characteristic plants (5 studies): Four studies in fen meadows in Germany and the Netherlands, and a peatland in the USA, reported that stripping soil increased cover of wetland-characteristic or peatland-characteristic plants plants after 4–13 years. In the Netherlands, the effect of stripping was not separated from the effect of rewetting. One replicated site comparison study in fens in Belgium and the Netherlands found that stripping soil increased fen-characteristic plant richness. Herb cover (4 studies): Three studies (including one replicated, paired, controlled) in fens or fen meadows in Germany, the UK and Poland found that stripping soil increased cover of rushes, reeds or sedges after 2–6 years. However, one controlled study in a fen meadow in the Netherlands reported that stripping soil had no effect on sedge or bentgrass cover after five years. Two controlled studies in a fen meadow in the Netherlands and a fen in the UK found that stripping soil reduced purple moor grass cover for 2–5 years. Vegetation structure (3 studies): Two studies in fens or fen meadows in the Netherlands and Belgium found that stripping soil reduced vegetation biomass (total or herbs) for up to 18 years. One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in a peatland in the USA found that stripping soil had no effect on vegetation biomass after four years. Overall plant richness/diversity (6 studies): Three studies (including one replicated, paired, controlled) in fens or fen meadows in the UK, Belgium and the Netherlands reported that stripping soil increased total plant species richness over 2–18 years. In one study, the effect of stripping was not separated from the effect of rewetting. One replicated, controlled study in a fen in Poland found that stripping soil had no effect on plant species richness after three years. One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in a peatland in the USA found that stripping soil increased plant species richness and diversity, after four years, in one field but decreased it in another. One replicated study in a fen meadow in Poland reported that plant species richness increased over time, after stripping soil. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1809https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1809Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:31:06 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove upper layer of peat/soil (before planting) We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of removing the upper layer of peat or soil before planting peatland plants. ‘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%2F1835https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1835Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:54:13 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove vegetation that could compete with planted peatland vegetation One study evaluated the effects of removing competing plants to aid planted peatland vegetation. The study was in a bog. Survival (1 study): One controlled study in a bog in the UK reported that some Sphagnum moss survived when sown (in gel beads) into a plot where purple moor grass had previously been cut, but no moss survived in a plot where grass had not been cut. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1840https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1840Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:55:34 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove utility and service lines after decommissioning We found no studies that evaluated the effects of removing utility and service lines after decommissioning 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%2F2084https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2084Mon, 21 Oct 2019 14:50:30 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove understorey vegetation in forest Three studies evaluated the effects on mammals of removing understorey vegetation in forest. All three studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies (two also before-and-after), in the USA, found that compared to prescribed burning, mechanically removing understorey vegetation growth in forests did not increase abundances of white-footed mice, shrews or four rodent species. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2482https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2482Thu, 04 Jun 2020 11:27:40 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove/control non-native amphibians (e.g. cane toads) We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of removing or controlling non-native amphibians. '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%2F2498https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2498Thu, 04 Jun 2020 15:38:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove/control non-native invertebrates One study evaluated the effects on mammals of removing or controlling non-native invertebrates. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study the USA found that after the control of red imported fire ants, capture rates of northern pygmy mice increased. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2501https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2501Thu, 04 Jun 2020 15:42:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove/control non-native mammals Twenty-five studies evaluated the effects on non-controlled mammals of removing or controlling non-native mammals. Twenty-one studies were in Australia, and one was in each of France, the UK, Equador and the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (24 STUDIES) Abundance (21 studies): Ten of 18 controlled, before-and-after or site comparison studies, in Australia, found that after controlling red foxes, abundances, densities or trapping frequencies increased for rock-wallaby spp., eastern grey kangaroo, woylie,, brush-tail possum, tammar wallaby, chuditch and quenda. Seven studies found mixed results with increases in some species but not others, increases followed by declines or increases only where cats as well as foxes were controlled. The other study found no increase in bush rat numbers with fox control. One of three replicated, before-and-after studies (including two controlled studies), in Australia, France and Ecuador, found that control of invasive rodents increased numbers of lesser white-toothed shrews and greater white-toothed shrews. One study found that Santiago rice rat abundance declined less with rodent control and one found mixed results, with increased numbers of short-tailed mice at one out of four study sites. Survival (1 study): A replicated, controlled study in Australia found that controlling red foxes increased survival of juvenile eastern grey kangaroos. Occupancy/range (3 studies): Three studies (two before-and-after, one controlled), in the UK and Australia, found that after controlling non-native American mink, red foxes and European rabbits, there were increases in ranges or proportions of sites occupied by water vole, common brushtail possum, long-nosed potoroo and southern brown bandicoot and four native small mammal species. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): A before-and-after study in the USA found that following removal of feral cats, vertebrate prey increased as a proportion of the diet of island foxes. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2504https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2504Thu, 04 Jun 2020 15:58:03 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove/control non-native mammals within a fenced area One study evaluated the effects on native mammals of removing or controlling non-native mammals within a fenced area. This study was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): A site comparison study in Australia found that in a fenced area where invasive cats, red foxes and European rabbits were removed, native mammal species richness was higher than outside the fenced area. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): A site comparison study in Australia found that in a fenced area where invasive cats, red foxes and European rabbits were removed, native mammals overall and two out of four small mammal species were more abundant than outside the fenced area. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2528https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2528Mon, 08 Jun 2020 14:51:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove/control non-native plants Two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of removing or controlling non-native invasive plants. Both studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): A replicated study in the USA found that control of introduced saltcedar did not change small mammal species richness. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): A site comparison study in the USA found that partial removal of velvet mesquite did not increase abundances of six mammal species. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2529https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2529Mon, 08 Jun 2020 15:23:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove/control non-native species that could interbreed with native species We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of removing or controlling non-native species that could interbreed with native species. '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%2F2534https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2534Mon, 08 Jun 2020 16:26:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove vegetation by hand/machine Twenty studies evaluated the effects on mammals of removing vegetation by hand or machine. Eleven studies were in the USA, and one each was in Canada, South Africa, Israel, Norway, Portugal, France, Spain, the Netherlands and Thailand. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): A site comparison study in the USA found that mechanically clearing trees within woodland reduced small mammal diversity. POPULATION RESPONSE (12 STUDIES) Abundance (11 studies): Eight of 11 site comparison or controlled studies (nine of which were replicated), in the USA, Israel, Portugal, Spain and the Netherlands, found that clearing woody vegetation or herbaceous and grassland vegetation benefitted target mammals. Population or density increases were recorded for small mammals, European rabbits and Stephens’ kangaroo rat while black-tailed prairie dog and California ground squirrel colonies were larger or denser and Utah prairie dog colonies established better than in uncleared areas. Two studies found mixed results of clearing woody vegetation, with hazel dormouse abundance declining, then increasing and small mammal abundance increasing, then declining in both cleared and uncleared plots alike. One study found no effect of scrub clearance from sand dunes on habitat specialist small mammals. Survival (1 study): A replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that mechanical disturbance of woody vegetation within forest (combined with reseeding, follow-up herbicide application and further seeding) increased overwinter survival of mule deer fawns. BEHAVIOUR (8 STUDIES) Use (8 studies): Four of seven studies (of which six were site comparisons or controlled), in the USA, Canada, Norway, France and Thailand, found that areas cleared of woody vegetation or herbaceous and grassland vegetation were utilized more by mule deer, reindeer, mouflon and gaur. One study found that clearing woody vegetation promoted increased use by white-tailed deer in some but not all plots, one found that it did not increase use by mule deer and one found that carrying out a second clearance on previously cleared plots did not increase use by white-tailed deer. A before-and-after study in South Africa found that clearing woody vegetation from shrubland increased wildebeest and zebra abundance following subsequent burning but not when carried out without burning whilst other mammals did not show consistent responses. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2550https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2550Tue, 09 Jun 2020 10:10:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove vegetation using herbicides Six studies evaluated the effects on mammals of removing vegetation using herbicides. All six studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): Two controlled studies (one replicated) in the USA found that applying herbicide did not increase numbers of translocated Utah prairie dogs or alter mule deer densities in areas of tree clearance. Survival (1 study): A replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that applying herbicide, along with mechanical disturbance and seeding, increased overwinter survival of mule deer fawns. Condition (1 study): A replicated, controlled study in the USA found that applying herbicide did not reduce bot fly infestation rates of rodents and cottontail rabbits. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies in the USA found that applying herbicide increased forest use by female, but not male, white-tailed deer and increased pasture use by cottontail rabbits in some, but not all, sampling seasons. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2565https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2565Tue, 09 Jun 2020 14:27:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove vegetation that could compete with planted non-woody plants: freshwater wetlands Three studies evaluated the effects, on emergent non-woody vegetation planted in freshwater wetlands, of removing competing plants. All three studies were in the USA. Two studies used the same experimental wet basins but planted different species. VEGETATION COMMUNITY VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Herb abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in wet meadows in the USA found removing an invasive species with herbicide before sowing mixed grass and forb seeds increased the total biomass of sown species after 1–2 growing seasons, but that burning to remove the invasive species had no significant effect on sown species biomass. Individual species abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in wet basins in the USA found that the effect of weeding to remove competitors on lake sedge Carex lacustris biomass and density, in the three years after planting, depended on the year and water level. VEGETATION STRUCTURE Height (2 studies): Two replicated, paired, controlled studies in wet basins in the USA examined the effect of weeding to remove competitors on the height of planted sedges. One of the studies found that weeding had no significant effect on the height of planted tussock sedge Carex stricta in three of three years. The other study found that weeding reduced the average height of lake sedge Carex lacustris in the first year after planting, but had no significant effect in the following two years. OTHER Survival (2 studies): Two replicated, paired, controlled studies in wet basins in the USA examined the effect of weeding to remove competitors on the survival of planted sedges Carex spp. Both studies found that weeding had no significant effect on sedge survival in at least two of three years. One of the studies found that weeding affected tussock sedge Carex stricta survival in the second year after planting, but that the direction of the effect depended on plot elevation. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3332https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3332Sun, 11 Apr 2021 14:05:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove vegetation that could compete with planted non-woody plants: brackish/saline wetlands One study evaluated the effects, on emergent non-woody vegetation planted in brackish/saline wetlands, of removing competing plants. The study was in the USA. VEGETATION COMMUNITY VEGETATION ABUNDANCE VEGETATION STRUCTURE OTHER Germination/emergence (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in an estuarine salt marsh in the USA found that thinning cover of the dominant plant before sowing dwarf saltwort Salicornia bigelovii seeds had no significant effect on saltwort seedling density, over the following two months. Survival (1 study): The same study found that thinning the dominant plant increased the survival rate of dwarf saltwort Salicornia bigelovii transplants over the first six months after planting. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3333https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3333Sun, 11 Apr 2021 14:08:52 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove vegetation that could compete with planted trees/shrubs: freshwater wetlands Five studies evaluated the effects, on trees/shrubs planted in freshwater wetlands, of removing competing plants. Four studies were in the USA. Two of these took place in the same swamp, but with different experimental set-ups. One study was in Australia. VEGETATION COMMUNITY VEGETATION ABUNDANCE VEGETATION STRUCTURE Height (3 studies): Three replicated, controlled studies (two also randomized, two also paired) in a wet meadow in Australia and a degraded swamp in the USA found that clearing vegetation before planting tree/shrub seedlings typically had no clear or significant effect on their height, after 1–4 growing seasons. However, one of the studies in the USA found that planted baldcypress Taxodium distichum seedlings were taller, after three growing seasons, when planted amongst cut woody vegetation than below an uncleared canopy. Diameter/perimeter/area (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in a wet meadow in Australia found that clearing vegetation, before planting tree/shrub seedlings, typically had no significant effect on the diameter of these seedlings nine months later. OTHER Germination/emergence (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in a wet meadow in Australia found that there were more seedlings in plots that had been cleared of vegetation before sowing tree/shrub seeds, than in plots that had not been cleared before sowing. Seedlings were counted two months after sowing. Survival (4 studies): Three replicated, controlled studies (two also randomized, two also paired) in a wet meadow in Australia and a degraded swamp in the USA found that clearing vegetation before planting tree/shrub seedlings typically had no clear or significant effect on their survival, after 1–4 growing seasons. However, one of the studies in the USA found that planted baldcypress Taxodium distichum seedlings had a lower survival rate, after three growing seasons, when planted amongst cut woody vegetation than below an uncleared canopy. One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in degraded swamps in the USA found that removing reed canarygrass Phalaris arundinacea before planting tree/shrub seedlings never significantly reduced their survival rate over 1–2 growing seasons, and often increased it. Growth (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that baldcypress Taxodium distichum seedlings planted into a marsh grew more in diameter, but less in height, when planted into plots cleared of vines than when planted into uncleared plots. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3334https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3334Sun, 11 Apr 2021 14:09:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove vegetation that could compete with planted trees/shrubs: brackish/saline wetlandsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on trees/shrubs planted in brackish/saline wetlands, of removing competing plants. ‘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%2F3335https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3335Sun, 11 Apr 2021 14:09:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove vegetation before seeding/planting Two studies examined the effects of removing vegetation before seeding/planting on grassland vegetation. One study was in each of the UK and Belgium. VEGETATION COMMUNITY (0 STUDIES) VEGETATION ABUNDANCE (0 STUDIES) VEGETATION STRUCTURE (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Germination/Emergence (2 studies): One of two replicated, controlled studies in the UK and Belgium found that removing vegetation before sowing seeds increased the germination rate of sown species. The other study found that removing vegetation, along with removing leaf litter, before sowing seeds increased the number of seedlings for one of three species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3416https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3416Fri, 25 Jun 2021 16:14:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove, control or exclude invertebrate herbivores One study evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of removing, controlling or excluding invertebrate herbivores. The study was in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the UK found that at sites fenced to exclude grazing animals there was a higher density of pearl-bordered fritillary butterflies than at unfenced sites. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3885https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3885Tue, 26 Jul 2022 18:24:30 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove, control or exclude native predators Five studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of removing, controlling or excluding native predators. Two studies were in each of the UK and the USA and one was in Kenya. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Survival (5 studies): Three of five replicated studies (including one randomized, paired, controlled study and three paired, controlled studies) in the UK, Kenya and the USA found that using mesh cages, net sleeves and sticky resin to exclude predators (including birds and mammals and spiders and ants) increased the survival of large copper caterpillars, Boisduval silkworm eggs and caterpillars and Appalachian brown eggs and juveniles. The other two studies found that using cages or water and chemicals to exclude vertebrate or terrestrial predators (mainly ants) did not increase the survival of monarch caterpillars. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3889https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3889Tue, 26 Jul 2022 18:30:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove, control or exclude vertebrate herbivores Ten studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of removing, controlling or excluding vertebrate herbivores. Three studies were in the USA, two were in the UK, one was in each of Mauritius, the Netherlands, Canada and Japan, and one was a global systematic review. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (6 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (6 studies): Two of four replicated studies (including three controlled studies and one site comparison study) in the USA, Mauritius and Canada found that forest plots fenced to exclude, or reduce the density of, non-native pigs and deer (in one case along with weeding of invasive plants) had a greater species richness of butterflies and macro-moths than unfenced plots. The other two studies found that forest plots fenced to exclude elk had mixed effects on the species richness of butterflies and arthropods including moths depending on fire intensity and year. One of these studies also found that grassland plots fenced to exclude elk had a similar species richness of butterflies to unfenced plots in all years. One global systematic review found that reducing or removing grazing or browsing by wild or domestic herbivores in temperate and boreal forests did not affect the species richness of butterflies and moths. POPULATION RESPONSE (10 STUDIES) Abundance (9 studies): Five of eight studies (including five controlled studies, one before-and-after study, and two site comparison studies) in the UK, the USA, Mauritius, Canada and Japan found that forest and grassland plots fenced to exclude, or reduce the density of, deer, sheep, pigs and large herbivores (in one case along with weeding of invasive plants) had a higher abundance of butterflies, moths, caterpillars, rare macro-moths and New Forest burnet moths than unfenced plots. One of these studies also found that the total abundance of macro-moths was similar in fenced and unfenced plots. Two studies found that forest plots fenced to exclude elk had mixed effects on the abundance of butterflies and arthropods including moths depending on fire intensity and year. One of these studies also found that grassland plots fenced to exclude elk had a similar abundance of butterflies to unfenced plots in all years. The eighth study found that a forest fenced to exclude sika deer had a similar abundance of all moths, but a lower abundance of tree-feeding moths, than unfenced forest. One global systematic review found that reducing or removing grazing or browsing by wild or domestic herbivores in temperate and boreal forests increased the abundance of butterflies and moths. Survival (1 study): One paired, controlled study in the Netherlands reported that all Glanville fritillary caterpillar nests survived in grassland fenced to exclude sheep, compared to 88% in a grazed area. Condition (1 study): One paired, controlled study in the Netherlands found that fewer Glanville fritillary caterpillar nests were damaged in grassland fenced to exclude sheep than in a grazed area. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3891https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3891Tue, 09 Aug 2022 11:49:20 +0100