Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce fertilizer run-off into marginsWe have captured no evidence on the effects of specific interventions to reduce fertilizer run off into field margins. '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%2F28https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F28Thu, 20 May 2010 17:48:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce field size (or maintain small fields) We have captured no evidence for the effects of reducing field size (or maintaining small fields) on farmland wildlife. '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%2F72https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F72Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:03:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce fertilizer, pesticide or herbicide use generally Of 38 individual studies from Austria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK investigating the effects of reducing fertilizers, pesticides or herbicides, 34 studies (23 replicated, of which six also controlled and randomized, one review and one systematic review) found benefits to some invertebrates, plants, or farmland birds. Twenty-five studies (16 replicated, of which seven also randomized and controlled and one review) found negative, mixed, minimal or no effects on some invertebrates, farmland birds or plants. Ten studies (six replicated, controlled studies of which two randomized) from three countries found positive effects of reducing or stopping pesticide applications on invertebrates, plants, or birds. Eight studies (two replicated controlled and randomized, one paired before-and-after trial) from four countries found inconsistent or no effects on some invertebrates or birds. Ten studies (nine replicated, five also controlled and a European systematic review) from four countries found positive effects of reducing or stopping herbicide use on plants, invertebrates, and birds. Five replicated studies (two also controlled and randomized) from three countries found no or mixed effects on birds, invertebrates and plants. Five studies (three replicated controlled of which two randomized) from four countries found positive effects of reducing or stopping fertilizer applications on invertebrates, Eurasian skylark, or plants. Four studies (three replicated, controlled and randomized) from two countries found reducing or stopping fertilizer inputs had no, or no consistent effects on some invertebrates and farmland birds. Two studies from the UK (one replicated) found plots where fertilizer inputs were not reduced tended to have higher earthworm biomass or abundance. Fifteen studies (three replicated controlled of which one also randomized, five site comparisons and one review) from seven countries looked at the effects of reducing or stopping applications of two or more inputs: pesticides, herbicides, or fertilizers. Thirteen studies found positive effects of reducing two or more inputs on some or all invertebrates, plants, soil organisms, and birds studied. Seven studies found negative or no effects of reducing combinations of inputs on some invertebrates, plants or birds. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F139https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F139Fri, 18 Nov 2011 20:06:45 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce field size (or maintain small fields) We found no intervention-based evidence on the effects of reducing field sizes on bird populations. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F174https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F174Sun, 27 May 2012 14:51:15 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce electrocutions by using plastic, not aluminium, leg rings to mark birdsA replicated and controlled study in the USA found no evidence for lower electrocution rates for raptors marked with plastic leg rings, compared to metal ones. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F270https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F270Thu, 19 Jul 2012 16:27:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce fertilizer, pesticide or herbicide use generallyBiodiversity: Two site comparison studies from Italy and Pakistan (one also replicated) found a higher diversity of soil invertebrates and microorganisms in low-input systems. Nutrient loss: One study from Canada found lower nutrient levels and yields in low-input systems. SOIL TYPES COVERED: coarse sandy, loam, sandy-loam, and silt. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F904https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F904Wed, 02 Oct 2013 09:36:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce fish meal in diet Two replicated studies in Norway found similar final weights in salmon that were fed diets containing low, medium or high levels of fish meal. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F915https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F915Fri, 25 Oct 2013 12:26:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce erosion to increase seedling survival We found no evidence for the effect of reducing erosion on planted trees. '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%2F1155https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1155Wed, 18 May 2016 15:25:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce fertilizer use on nearby agricultural/forestry land We found no studies that evaluated the effects of reducing fertilizer 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%2F1668https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1668Sun, 22 Oct 2017 15:14:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce frequency of harvest (of wild biological resources) We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of reducing harvest frequency (of wild biological resources). ‘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%2F1743https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1743Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:25:51 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce fertilizer or herbicide use near peatlands We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of reducing fertilizer or herbicide use in adjacent areas. ‘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%2F1783https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1783Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:15:38 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce field size (or maintain small fields) One study evaluated the effects of maintaining small fields on bat populations. The study was in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Canada found that agricultural landscapes with smaller fields had higher activity (relative abundance) of six of seven bat species than landscapes with larger fields. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1939https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1939Mon, 03 Dec 2018 13:19:32 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce duration of fishing gear deployments Four studies examined the effects of reducing the duration of time that fishing gear is deployed in the water on marine fish populations. Two studies were in the North Sea. One study was in the Atlantic Ocean (USA) and one was in both the Barents Sea and Atlantic Ocean (Norway/USA). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies in the North Sea found that survival of unwanted plaice and/or sole released after capture in beam or pulse trawls was higher after shorter duration trawl deployments, but that the opposite was true for plaice captured in otter trawls, over tow durations of between one and two hours. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (1 study): One of two replicated studies (one paired and controlled) in the Barents Sea/Atlantic Ocean and the Atlantic Ocean found that catch rates of unwanted sharks caught in longline gear decreased with decreasing time the gear was deployed in the water, over durations of up to 10 hours. The other study found that shorter tow durations caught similar amounts of small haddock, but more small cod, than longer durations, in bottom trawls fished for between five minutes and one hour. Improved size-selectivity of fishing gear (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in the Barents Sea/Atlantic Ocean found that varying bottom trawl fishing durations between five minutes and two hours had no effect on the size-selectivity of Atlantic cod, haddock or long rough dab. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2686https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2686Mon, 30 Nov 2020 17:00:02 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce duration of time fishing gear is in the water We found no studies that evaluated the effects of reducing the duration of time fishing gear is in the water 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%2F2796https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2796Thu, 04 Feb 2021 16:38:40 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce frequency of hunting/collecting animalsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of reducing the frequency 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%2F3015https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3015Wed, 31 Mar 2021 14:23:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce frequency of cutting/mowing: freshwater marshes Four studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of reducing the frequency of cutting/mowing in freshwater marshes (or cutting/mowing them at different frequencies). There was one study in each of USA, the Netherlands, Belgium and Italy. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Community composition (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study of farmland ditches in the Netherlands found that marshy areas cut once, twice or three times/year had a similar overall plant community composition, when surveyed in July. Overall richness/diversity (2 studies): Two replicated, paired, controlled studies in farmland ditches in the Netherlands and wet grasslands in Belgium reported that overall plant species richness was similar in plots cut once or twice/year (and three times/year in the Netherlands). VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in wet grasslands in Belgium reported that the effect of cutting twice/year (in July and October) on total above-ground biomass was intermediate between the effects of cutting once/year in July or October. Individual species abundance (4 studies): All four 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 spp. biomass was greater, nine months after the last cut, in plots cut every six weeks than in plots cut every three weeks. One paired, controlled, before-and-after study in reedbeds in Italy found that common reed Phragmites australis biomass was similar in plots mown once or twice/year, when measured at least five months after the last cut. VEGETATION STRUCTURECollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3066https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3066Fri, 02 Apr 2021 13:14:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce frequency of cutting/mowing: brackish/salt marshesWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of reducing the frequency of cutting/mowing in brackish/salt marshes (or cutting/mowing them 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%2F3067https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3067Fri, 02 Apr 2021 13:17:06 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce frequency of prescribed burningWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of reducing the frequency of prescribed burning in marshes or swamps (or burning them 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%2F3072https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3072Fri, 02 Apr 2021 14:40:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce fertilizer or herbicide use: freshwater marshes One study evaluated the effects, on vegetation in freshwater marshes, of reducing the amount of fertilizer or herbicide used in the marshes or adjacent areas. The study was in Brazil. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Community composition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study of rice fields in Brazil found that the overall plant community composition (excluding rice) was similar in organically farmed fields and conventionally farmed fields, but different from the community in nearby natural marshes. Overall richness/diversity (1 study): The same study found that organically farmed rice fields contained a similar average richness and diversity of wetland plants (at any single point in time) to conventionally farmed rice fields, although more species were recorded in the organic fields over the year of the study. Organically farmed rice fields had lower wetland plant richness and diversity than nearby natural marshes. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study of rice fields in Brazil found that organically farmed fields contained more wetland plant biomass than conventionally farmed fields over the year of the study, but less wetland plant biomass than nearby natural marshes. VEGETATION STRUCTURECollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3152https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3152Mon, 05 Apr 2021 15:48:02 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce fertilizer or herbicide use: brackish/salt marshesWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation in brackish/salt marshes, of reducing the amount of fertilizer or herbicide used in the marshes or adjacent areas. ‘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%2F3153https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3153Mon, 05 Apr 2021 15:48:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce fertilizer or herbicide use: freshwater swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation in freshwater swamps, of reducing the amount of fertilizer or herbicide used in the swamps or adjacent areas. ‘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%2F3154https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3154Mon, 05 Apr 2021 15:48:47 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce fertilizer or herbicide use: brackish/saline swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation in brackish/saline swamps, of reducing the amount of fertilizer or herbicide used in the swamps or adjacent areas. ‘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%2F3155https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3155Mon, 05 Apr 2021 15:48:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce duration of time fishing gear is in the water Two studies evaluated the effects on reptile populations of reducing the duration of time fishing gear is in the water. One study was in the Gulf of Gabès (Tunisia) and one was in the Atlantic and North Pacific. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One randomized study in the Gulf of Gabès found that retrieving longlines immediately resulted in fewer loggerhead turtles dying compared to when line retrieval was delayed. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Unwanted catch (2 studies): One randomized study in the Gulf of Gabès and one replicated study in the Atlantic and North Pacific found that the amount of time that longlines were in the water for did not affect the number of loggerhead turtles or leatherback and loggerhead turtles caught. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3552https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3552Wed, 08 Dec 2021 12:18:02 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce fertilizer, pesticide or herbicide use generally Eleven studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of reducing fertilizer, pesticide or herbicide use generally. Three studies were in the UK, two were in each of the USA and Germany, one was in each of Spain, Mexico and Switzerland, and one was a systematic review across Europe. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (10 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (10 studies): Eight studies (including one replicated study, two controlled studies, one randomized study, five site comparison studies, and one systematic review) in the USA, Europe, the UK, Spain, Mexico and Switzerland found that orchards, crop edges, farms, vineyards, replanted Douglas fir stands, coffee plantations and agricultural landscapes managed with less frequent, reduced or no pesticide, herbicide, fertilizer or unspecified chemical input (sometimes along with other agri-environment scheme options or less intensive management) had a greater species richness of adult butterflies and moths, or caterpillars (in one case along with other leaf-eating arthropods), than areas with more frequent or conventional chemical applications. However, one of these studies found that species richness was not affected by the number of pesticide applications in the year of study, only in the previous three years, and another of the studies also found that vineyards managed with reduced insecticide and herbicide application had a similar species richness of moths to conventionally managed vineyards. Two replicated studies (including one randomized, controlled study and one site comparison study) in the UK and Germany found that unfertilized grassland had a similar species richness of butterflies and moths, but greater species richness of specialist moths, to fertilized grassland. POPULATION RESPONSE (9 STUDIES) Abundance (9 studies): Six studies (including one replicated study, one controlled study, one randomized study, four site comparison studies, and one systematic review) in Europe, the UK, Germany, Mexico and Switzerland found that crop edges, farms, a hay meadow, coffee plantations and agricultural landscapes managed with less frequent, reduced or no pesticide, insecticide, fungicide, herbicide, fertilizer or unspecified chemical input (sometimes along with other agri-environment scheme options or less intensive management) had a higher abundance of adult butterflies and moths, or caterpillars, than areas with more frequent or conventional chemical applications. However, one of these studies found that abundance was not affected by the number of pesticide applications in the year of study, only in the previous three years, and another of these studies also found that a hay meadow with no herbicide applications had a similar abundance of caterpillars to a meadow where herbicide was used, and a meadow with no fertilizer applications had a lower abundance of caterpillars than a meadow where fertilizer was applied in one of two sampling sessions. Three replicated studies (including two randomized, controlled studies and one site comparison study) in the UK, Germany and the USA found that unfertilized grassland and replanted Douglas fir stands with limited or no herbicide applications had a similar abundance of adult butterflies and caterpillars, and adult moths, to fertilized grassland and stands with more herbicide applications. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Germany found that unfertilized or lightly fertilized grasslands were preferred to heavily fertilized grasslands by 7 out of 58 species of moth, but 12 of 58 species preferred more heavily fertilized grasslands. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3897https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3897Tue, 09 Aug 2022 13:43:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce field size (or maintain small fields) Five studies evaluated the effects of reducing field size on butterflies and moths. Two studies were in Switzerland, and one was in each of Germany, Sweden and the Czech Republic and Poland. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (5 studies): Two of four replicated, site comparison studies in Sweden, the Czech Republic and Poland and Switzerland found that arable farms (in more diverse landscapes) and landscapes with smaller fields had a higher species richness of butterflies and burnet moths than areas with larger fields. The other two studies found that mixed farms and landscapes with smaller fields had a similar species richness of butterflies to areas with larger fields. One before-and-after study in Germany found that after reducing field size by increasing the length of field edges on a farm, along with increasing the area of meadows and field margins, the species richness of butterflies and burnet moths increased. POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Abundance (4 studies): Four replicated, site comparison studies in Sweden, the Czech Republic and Poland and Switzerland found that arable and mixed farms and landscapes with smaller fields had a higher abundance of butterflies and burnet moths than areas with larger fields. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3974https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3974Thu, 18 Aug 2022 09:04:31 +0100