Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce grazing intensity on pasturesOne replicated trial has shown that reducing the intensity of summer cattle grazing can increase the abundance, but not the species richness of cavity-nesting bees and wasps. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F23https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F23Thu, 20 May 2010 12:44:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce grazing intensity Nine studies from the USA and the UK, one replicated and controlled, found increases in populations of some species on fields with reduced grazing, or increased use of such fields by birds. Three of the studies used multiple interventions at once. Five studies from Europe, four replicated and controlled, found that some or all species were no more numerous on fields with reduced grazing, compared to intensively-grazed fields. One paired sites study from the UK found that black grouse Tetrao tetrix populations increased at reduced grazing sites (and declined elsewhere), but that large areas of reduced grazing had lower densities of female grouse. A before-and-after study from the USA found that the number of species on plots with reduced grazing increased over time. A replicated, controlled study from four countries in Europe found no differences in the number of species on sites with low-intensity or high-intensity grazing. One replicated trial in the UK found that some bird groups preferred grassland short in winter (grazing effect simulated by mowing), and others preferred it long (unmown to simulate removal of livestock). Frequency and timing of the simulated grazing did not alter this preference. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F220https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F220Tue, 17 Jul 2012 13:28:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce gillnet deployment time to reduce seabird bycatch We found no evidence for the effects on seabird bycatch rates of reducing gill net deployment time. '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%2F304https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F304Tue, 24 Jul 2012 18:11:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce incidental mortality from birds being attracted to artificial lights We found no evidence for reduced incidental mortality from birds being attracted to artificial lights. '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%2F466https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F466Wed, 29 Aug 2012 16:14:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce grazing intensity on grassland (including seasonal removal of livestock) Of 27 individual studies (including 10 replicated, controlled trials, four reviews and one systematic review) from France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands and the UK, 15 (including three randomized, replicated, controlled trials) from four countries found benefits to birds, plants or invertebrates in response to reducing grazing intensity on permanent grassland (including seasonal removal of livestock). Of these 15 studies, six (including one randomized, replicated, controlled trial) found that reducing grazing intensity throughout the year increased the abundance and diversity of plants (Tallowin et al. 2005, Marriott et al. 2009), frequency of certain plant species, invertebrate diversity, usage by geese and the number of northern lapwing and common redshank. Six studies (including three replicated controlled trials of which two randomized) found that excluding or delaying summer grazing increased plant species diversity, invertebrate abundance and benefited breeding Eurasian skylark. A review found a study that showed that removing autumn grazing after a silage cut increased the winter abundance of seed-eating birds. A review and a replicated controlled study from the UK found that reduced grazing intensity or seasonal removal of livestock increased the number of invertebrates, plant seed heads and foraging skylark, and that some bird species preferred plots with seasonal removal of livestock. Three studies (including one randomized, replicated, controlled trial) from the Netherlands and the UK found no benefit to plants or invertebrates from reduced grazing intensity. One randomized, replicated controlled trial excluded grazing in autumn/winter and another study excluded grazing in the summer. A further study found that reducing grazing intensity throughout the year did not increase plant diversity. Nine studies from France, Germany and the UK reported mixed results for some or all species or wildlife groups considered (including one randomized, replicated, controlled trial and two reviews and a systematic review). Of these, eight studies found that reduced grazing intensity throughout the year benefited some species but not others, one found that the impact depended on the type of vegetation grazed, and one found benefits to bee and wasp abundance but not species richness. One study found that the response of birds to removal of summer grazing varied between functional groups and depended on time of year. A UK review found that reduced grazing benefited invertebrates, plants, rodents and some but not all birds. A systematic review of the effects of grazing intensity on meadow pasture concluded that intermediate levels of grazing are usually optimal for plants, invertebrates and birds but that trade-offs are likely to exist between the requirements of different taxa. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F704https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F704Tue, 29 Jan 2013 17:33:20 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce impact of amphibian trade One review found that reducing trade in two frog species through legislation allowed populations to recover from over-exploitation. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F824https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F824Fri, 23 Aug 2013 11:17:43 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce grazing intensityCompaction: One replicated study from Australia found compacted soils recovered when sheep were excluded for 2.5 years. Erosion: Two replicated studies from New Zealand and Syria (one also controlled) measured the effect of grazing animals on soil nutrient and sediment loss. Of these, one trial found increased soil carbon and nitrogen when grazing animals were excluded. One trial found higher soil phosphate levels, and less sediment erosion when grazing time in forage crops was reduced. SOIL TYPES COVERED: clay, clay-loamy, loamy, silt loam. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F901https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F901Tue, 01 Oct 2013 14:12:26 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce garbage/solid waste to avoid primate injuries We found no evidence for the effects of reducing garbage/solid waste to avoid primate injuries 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%2F1560https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1560Fri, 20 Oct 2017 10:02:57 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce herbicide use on nearby agricultural/forestry land We found no studies that evaluated the effects of reducing herbicide use on nearby agricultural/forestry land 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%2F1667https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1667Sun, 22 Oct 2017 15:13:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce intensity of livestock grazing One study evaluated the effects on peatland vegetation of reducing livestock grazing intensity. This study was in bogs. Vegetation cover (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in bogs in the UK found that total vegetation and shrub cover were greater where grazing intensity was lower. Cottongrass cover was greater where grazing intensity was lower (one species) or unaffected by grazing intensity (one species). Vegetation structure (1 study): The same study found that vegetation biomass was higher where grazing intensity was lower. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1735https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1735Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:21:21 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce intensity of harvest (of wild biological resources) One study evaluated the effects on peatland vegetation of reducing harvest intensity (of wild biological resources). The study was in a bog. Moss cover (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in a bog in New Zealand reported that Sphagnum moss cover was higher, three years after harvesting, when some Sphagnum was left in plots than when it was completely harvested. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1744https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1744Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:27:08 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce intensity of grazing by domestic livestock Thirteen studies evaluated the effects on mammals of reducing the intensity of grazing by domestic livestock. Six studies were in the USA, six were in Europe and one was in China. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (3 studies): Two of three site comparison or controlled studies, in the USA and Norway, found that reduced livestock grazing intensity was associated with increased species richness of small mammals whilst one study did not find an increase in species richness. POPULATION RESPONSE (13 STUDIES) Abundance (13 studies): Six of nine site comparison or controlled studies (including seven replicated studies), in the USA, Denmark, the UK, China, Netherlands and Norway, found that reductions in livestock grazing intensity were associated with increases in abundances (or proxies of abundances) of small mammals, whilst two studies showed no significant impact of reducing grazing intensity and one study showed mixed results for different species. Two replicated studies (including one controlled and one site comparison study), in the UK and in a range of European countries, found that reducing grazing intensity did not increase numbers of Irish hares or European hares. A controlled, before-and-after study, in the USA found that exclusion of cattle grazing was associated with higher numbers of elk and mule deer. A replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that an absence of cattle grazing was associated with higher numbers of North American beavers. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2408https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2408Fri, 29 May 2020 08:14:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce hammer energy during pile driving We found no studies that evaluated the effects of reducing hammer energy during pile driving 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%2F2900https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2900Mon, 08 Feb 2021 16:10:51 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce intensity of livestock grazing: freshwater marshes Three studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of reducing livestock grazing intensity in freshwater marshes (without stopping grazing entirely). Two studies were in the USA and the other was in Ireland. In all three studies, livestock were cattle. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Community composition (1 study): One site comparison study in Ireland found that lightly and heavily grazed wet meadows contained a similar overall mix of plant species. Relative abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in the USA found that seasonally and continuously grazed ephemeral pools had similar cover of grasses relative to forbs. Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One site comparison study in Ireland found that lightly and heavily grazed wet meadows had similar overall plant species richness. Native plant richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in the USA found that seasonally and continuously grazed ephemeral pools experienced similar changes in native plant species richness over three years. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (1 study): One site comparison study in Ireland reported that lightly and heavily grazed wet meadows had similar overall vegetation cover. Herb abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that lightly and moderately grazed springs/creeks had similar herb cover. Individual species abundance (1 study): One study quantified the effect of this action on the abundance of individual plant species. The site comparison study in Ireland reported, for example, that lightly grazed wet meadows had greater cover of black sedge Carex nigra, and lower cover of creeping bent Agrostis stolonifera, than more heavily grazed wet meadows. VEGETATION STRUCTURE Height (1 study): One site comparison study in Ireland found that lightly grazed wet meadows contained taller vegetation than heavily grazed wet meadows. Vegetation was measured in the summer, during the grazing season. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2970https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2970Thu, 25 Mar 2021 14:15:51 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce intensity of livestock grazing: brackish/salt marshes Nine studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of reducing livestock grazing intensity in brackish/salt marshes (without stopping grazing entirely). Five studies were in Germany. Four studies were in the Netherlands. Livestock were cattle, sheep or horses. There was overlap in the sites used in two of the German studies and three of the Dutch studies. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Overall extent (1 study): One controlled study of a salt marsh in Germany reported that the total vegetated area was slightly larger in plots grazed at a lower intensity, for eight years, than plots grazed at a higher intensity. Community types (4 studies): Two controlled studies of salt marshes in Germany and the Netherlands reported similar coverage, or similar change in coverage, of plant community types under different grazing intensities. Two studies of brackish and salt marshes in the Netherlands and Germany reported that reducing grazing intensity (along with other interventions) affected coverage of plant community types. In one study, the precise effect varied with environmental conditions. Community composition (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, before-and-after study on a salt marsh in the Netherlands found that plots grazed under different grazing intensities experienced a similar turnover of plant species over six years, and had a similar overall plant community composition after six years. Overall richness/diversity (5 studies): Three replicated, paired, controlled studies on salt marshes in Germany and the Netherlands found that plots grazed at lower intensities never had greater plant species richness, after 1–22 years, than plots grazed at higher intensities. One controlled study on a salt marsh in Germany found that paddocks grazed at low intensity had greater plant species richness, after 16–18 years, than paddocks grazed at higher intensities. Two studies of salt marshes in the Netherlands found that plant species richness increased over 6–14 years of reduced grazing intensity (sometimes along with other interventions). VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (1 study): One controlled study on a salt marsh in Germany reported that overall vegetation cover was greater in lightly and moderately grazed paddocks than in a heavily grazed paddock – with the highest cover of all in the moderately grazed paddock. Individual species abundance (6 studies): Six studies quantified the effect of this action on the abundance of individual plant species. For example, three studies (including two controlled) on salt marshes in Germany and the Netherlands reported that plots under different grazing intensities supported a similar abundance (frequency or cover) of saltmarsh grass Puccinellia maritima – but with a tendency for greater abundance under lower intensities. VEGETATION STRUCTURE Height (6 studies): Six controlled studies (three also replicated and paired) in salt marshes in Germany and the Netherlands reported that vegetation was taller on average (or contained taller vegetation patches) in areas that had been grazed at lower intensities. However, in one of the studies, this was only true for canopy height: understory grasses were a similar height under all grazing intensities. One of the replicated, paired, controlled studies found that, after two summers, variation in vegetation height between patches was similar under all grazing intensities. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2971https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2971Thu, 25 Mar 2021 14:16:01 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce intensity of livestock grazing: freshwater swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of reducing livestock grazing intensity in freshwater swamps (without stopping grazing entirely). ‘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%2F2972https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2972Thu, 25 Mar 2021 14:16:10 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce intensity of livestock grazing: brackish/saline swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of reducing livestock grazing intensity in brackish/saline swamps (without stopping grazing entirely). ‘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%2F2973https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2973Thu, 25 Mar 2021 14:16:22 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce frequency of vegetation harvest: freshwater marshes Three studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of reducing the frequency of harvest in freshwater marshes (or harvesting at different frequencies). There was one study in each of the USA, Belgium and Italy. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in wet grasslands in Belgium reported that overall plant species richness was similar in plots harvested once or twice/year. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in wet grasslands in Belgium reported that the effect of harvesting twice/year (in July and October) on total above-ground biomass was intermediate between the effects of harvesting once/year in July or October. Individual species abundance (3 studies): All three studies quantified the effect of this action on the abundance of individual plant species. For example, one replicated, paired, controlled study in freshwater marshes in the USA reported that cattail Typha biomass was greater, nine months after the last harvest, in plots harvested every six weeks than in plots harvested every three weeks. One paired, controlled, before-and-after study in reedbeds in Italy found that the common reed Phragmites australis biomass was similar in plots harvested once or twice/year, when measured at least five months after the last harvest. VEGETATION STRUCTURECollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2997https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2997Wed, 31 Mar 2021 13:15:36 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce frequency of vegetation harvest: brackish/salt marshesWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of reducing the frequency of harvest in brackish/salt marshes (or harvesting at different frequencies). ‘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%2F2998https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2998Wed, 31 Mar 2021 13:16:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce frequency of vegetation harvest: freshwater swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of reducing the frequency of harvest in freshwater swamps (or harvesting at different frequencies). ‘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%2F2999https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2999Wed, 31 Mar 2021 13:16:35 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce frequency of vegetation harvest: brackish/saline swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of reducing the frequency of harvest in brackish/saline swamps (or harvesting at different frequencies). ‘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%2F3000https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3000Wed, 31 Mar 2021 13:16:57 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce intensity of hunting/collecting animalsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of reducing the intensity of hunting/collecting animals in marshes or swamps. ‘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%2F3016https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3016Wed, 31 Mar 2021 14:24:32 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce intensity of cutting/mowingWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of reducing the intensity of cutting/mowing in marshes or swamps (or cutting/mowing them at different intensities). ‘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%2F3068https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3068Fri, 02 Apr 2021 13:29:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce grazing intensity on grassland by reducing stocking density Fourteen studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of reducing grazing intensity on grassland by reducing stocking density. Four studies were in the UK, two were in each of Sweden and Germany, one was in each of the USA, Belgium and the Netherlands, Europe and Switzerland. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (8 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (8 studies): Five of eight replicated studies (including two randomized, controlled studies and six site comparison studies) in the UK, Sweden, Germany, the USA and Switzerland found that grasslands grazed with lower stocking densities of sheep, cattle or a mix of sheep, cattle and horses had a greater species richness of adult butterflies, all moths and burnet moths than grassland grazed at higher stocking densities. However, one of these studies also found that butterfly and burnet moth caterpillar species richness was similar at sites with low and high stocking densities. Two of the other studies found that grasslands grazed with lower stocking densities of cattle and horses or unspecified grazing animals had a similar species richness of butterflies and burnet moths to grassland grazed at higher stocking densities. The other study found that, in one of two study years, grasslands grazed with cattle at a low density had lower species richness than grasslands grazed at moderate density. POPULATION RESPONSE (12 STUDIES) Abundance (11 studies): Eight replicated studies (including four controlled studies and four site comparison studies) in the UK, Germany, the USA and Sweden found that grasslands grazed with lower stocking densities of sheep, cattle or both (in one case combined with a later start to grazing) had a greater abundance of all butterflies, butterflies with grass host plants, all moths, burnet moths, their caterpillars or specific species (in two cases as part of combined invertebrate counts) than grasslands grazed at higher stocking densities. The three studies on caterpillars only found a higher abundance at two out of three sites or in earlier or later sampling periods, and one of the studies found that sites with low and high intensity grazing had a similar abundance of butterfly and burnet moth caterpillars. Two replicated, site comparison studies in Sweden and Switzerland found that grasslands grazed with lower stocking densities of cattle and horses or unspecified grazing animals had a similar abundance of butterflies and burnet moths to grassland grazed at higher stocking densities. One review of studies in Europe reported that reducing grazing intensity benefitted 41 out of 67 butterfly species of conservation concern, but did not distinguish between reducing stocking density and seasonal removal of livestock. Survival (1 study): One site comparison study in Belgium and the Netherlands reported that the survival of Glanville fritillary caterpillar nests was similar between grasslands with low and high stocking density of sheep. Condition (1 study): One site comparison study in Belgium and the Netherlands found that after 6–10 days of sheep grazing, fewer Glanville fritillary caterpillar nests were damaged in a grassland with lower stocking density than in a grassland with higher stocking density, but there was no difference after two months. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3959https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3959Sun, 14 Aug 2022 10:37:16 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce grazing intensity on grassland by seasonal removal of livestock Seven studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of reducing grazing intensity on grassland by seasonal removal of livestock. Five studies were in the UK, one was in France and one was a review across Europe. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (3 studies): Two of three replicated, controlled studies (including one randomized, paired study and one randomized study) in the UK found that upland pasture where cattle were removed in the summer, and silage fields where cattle were not grazed in September, had a similar species richness of butterflies to pasture grazed throughout the growing season and silage fields grazed in September. The other study found that grasslands where cattle were removed in the summer had a greater species richness of butterflies (and other pollinators) than grasslands grazed throughout the summer. POPULATION RESPONSE (7 STUDIES) Abundance (7 studies): Three controlled studies (including two replicated, randomized studies) in the UK found that grasslands where cattle or cattle and sheep were removed in the summer, or sheep were removed in the winter, had a higher abundance of butterflies (and other pollinators) and caterpillars than grasslands grazed throughout the summer or all year. Three replicated, controlled studies (including one randomized study and one paired study) in the UK and France found that upland pasture where cattle were removed in the summer, silage fields where cattle were not grazed in September, and semi-natural grasslands where sheep were removed during the peak flowering period, had a similar abundance of butterflies, burnet moths and caterpillars to pasture grazed throughout the growing season, silage fields grazed in September, and rotationally grazed grassland. One review of studies in Europe reported that reducing grazing intensity benefitted 41 out of 67 butterfly species of conservation concern, but did not distinguish between the seasonal removal of livestock and reducing stocking density. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3960https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3960Sun, 14 Aug 2022 10:37:27 +0100