Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage stone-faced hedge banks to benefit wildlife We have captured no evidence for the effects of managing stone-faced hedge banks to benefit wildlife 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%2F73https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F73Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:04:36 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect in-field trees (includes management such as pollarding and surgery) We have captured no evidence for the effects of protecting in-field trees 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%2F75https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F75Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:07:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant in-field trees (not farm woodland)We have captured no evidence for the effects of planting in-field trees 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%2F76https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F76Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:08:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide badger gates We have captured no evidence for the effects of providing badger gates 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%2F84https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F84Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:23:17 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage short-rotation coppice to benefit wildlife (includes 8 m rides) We have captured no evidence for the effects of managing short-rotation coppice to benefit wildlife (including 8 m rides) 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%2F90https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F90Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:32:35 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant brassica fodder crops (grazed in situ) We have captured no evidence for the effects of planting brassica fodder crops (grazed in situ) 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%2F92https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F92Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:35:04 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide bat boxes, bat grilles, improvements to roosts We have captured no evidence for the effects of providing bat boxes, bat grilles or improvements to roosts 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%2F95https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F95Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:39:48 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect individual nests of ground-nesting birds Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Sweden found providing nest exclosures offered some benefits to ground-nesting birds. One study found that protected nests had higher average daily survival rates than unprotected nests for both common redshank and northern lapwing, however, this study also reported higher predation of adult redshank on protected nests. One study found that the average hatching rate for southern dunlin was higher for protected rather than unprotected nests. This study also found no difference in the number of fledglings, breeding adults or new recruits during two periods with and without nest protection. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F108https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F108Mon, 24 Oct 2011 22:04:47 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage wild deer numbers We have captured no evidence for the effects of managing wild deer numbers 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%2F111https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F111Mon, 24 Oct 2011 22:10:17 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant nettle strips A small study from Belgium found that planting nettle strips in the margins of three arable fields resulted in a higher number of aphid predator species. The number of aphid predators on a natural patch of nettles was higher than on crops, however there were fewer predators on nettle strips than on crops. Three insect families, including green lacewings, were only found on nettles. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F118https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F118Tue, 01 Nov 2011 20:40:45 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide buffer strips alongside water courses (rivers and streams) Three studies (including one replicated site comparison) from the Netherlands and the UK reported that the provision of riparian buffer strips had a positive influence on plant, invertebrate and bird diversity or abundance, and supported vegetation associated with habitats preferred by water voles. Two replicated site comparison studies from France and Ireland found that the provision of riparian buffer strips on farms did not result in an increase in the number of plant species when compared to farms without buffer strips. One replicated site comparison study found ground beetle diversity was higher in grazed riparian zones and narrow fenced strips than in wide riparian buffer strips. However the ground beetle assemblages in wide riparian buffer strips were more distinct from the adjacent pasture field assemblages than either the grazed riparian zones or narrow fenced strips. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F120https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F120Tue, 01 Nov 2011 21:03:36 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant more than one crop per field (intercropping) Three replicated, controlled and randomized studies from the Netherlands, Poland and the UK found that intercropping cabbage with French beans or clover resulted in increased ground beetle abundance. A trial from Switzerland found increased earthworm abundance in a maize plot immediately followed by a rye grass crop. A review found ground beetle numbers were enhanced by intercropping relative to single crops. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F124https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F124Tue, 01 Nov 2011 21:30:53 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant crops in spring rather than autumn A total of nine studies from Denmark, Sweden and the UK looked at the effects of sowing crops in spring or autumn on farmland wildlife. Five studies (including one replicated controlled trial, and a review) found that planting crops in spring rather than autumn resulted in higher numbers of farmland birds, weed diversity or weed density and one arable weed species produced more fruit on spring-sown crops. A review found one study from the UK showing that four out of five species of arable weed produced more fruits on autumn-sown crops. A second review found one study showing that there were more invertebrates in winter wheat than spring wheat. A replicated study from the UK found that winter and spring sown crops were used for different broods by Eurasian skylarks. A replicated site comparison found arthropod abundance was higher in autumn barley in early summer and spring barley in late summer. A replicated, controlled study in Sweden, found that northern lapwings nested on spring-sown crops more than expected based on their availability, but hatching success on spring crops was lower than on autumn crops. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F137https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F137Fri, 18 Nov 2011 15:36:26 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage woodland edges to benefit widlife We have captured no evidence for the effects of managing woodland edges to benefit wildlife 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%2F140https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F140Fri, 02 Dec 2011 11:19:56 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Mark bird nests during harvest or mowing One replicated study from the Netherlands found that marked northern lapwing nests were less likely to fail as a result of farming operations than unmarked nests. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F148https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F148Sat, 14 Jan 2012 14:52:47 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant cereals for whole crop silage Two studies (one review, one replicated trial) from the UK investigated the effects of cereal-based whole crop silage. One replicated study found that cereal-based whole crop silage fields were used more by farmland birds and supported a higher abundance of seed-eating songbirds, swallows and martins than other crop types. The same study also found that important bird food plants were more abundant in cereals than other crop types and more invertebrates were found in wheat, barley and grass silage fields compared to maize. A review found one study in which cereal-based whole crop silage fields were avoided by seed-eating birds during winter, but used as much as a control during summer. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F149https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F149Sat, 14 Jan 2012 14:59:01 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant grass buffer strips/margins around arable or pasture fields Nineteen studies from Finland, the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK (including seven replicated controlled studies of which two were randomized, and three reviews), found that planting grass buffer strips (some margins floristically-enhanced) increased arthropod abundance, species richness and diversity. A review found grass margins benefited bumblebees and some other invertebrates but did not distinguish between the effects of several different margin types. Nine studies from the UK (including seven replicated studies of which two were controlled, and two reviews) found that planting grass buffer strips (some margins floristically-enhanced) benefits birds, resulting in increased numbers, densities, species richness and foraging time. Seven studies from the Netherlands and the UK (all replicated of which four were controlled and two randomized), found that planting grass buffer strips (some margins floristically-enhanced) increased the cover and species richness of plants. A review found grass margins benefited plants but did not distinguish between the effects of several different margin types. Five studies from Finland and the UK (including two replicated, controlled trials and a review), found that planting grass buffer strips benefits small mammals: including increased activity and numbers. Six studies from the Netherlands and the UK (including three replicated, controlled trials) found that planting grass buffer strips had no clear effect on insect numbers, bird numbers or invertebrate pest populations. A replicated site comparison found sown grassy margins were not the best option for conservation of rare arable plants. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F246https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F246Wed, 18 Jul 2012 11:47:21 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage the agricultural landscape to enhance floral resources One large replicated controlled trial showed that the average abundance of long-tongued bumblebees on field margins was positively correlated with the number of ‘pollen and nectar’ agri-environment agreements in a 10 km grid square. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F362https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F362Fri, 03 Aug 2012 12:08:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant nectar flower mixture/wildflower strips A total of 80 individual studies have in some way investigated the effects of flowering strips on biodiversity. Sixty-four individual studies show some benefits to one or more wildlife groups. Sixty-five individual studies reported the effects of flower strips on invertebrates. Of these, fifty reported positive effects. Forty-one studies from eight European countries (including five reviews and twenty-three replicated controlled studies, of which one randomized and two site comparisons) found evidence that flower strips had a positive influence on invertebrate numbers with increased abundance, species richness/diversity, or both. Ten studies (nine replicated of which two controlled) found invertebrates visited or foraged on flower strips but did not specify increases/decreases in numbers. Two studies found effects on ground beetles other than changes in numbers. One replicated controlled study showed that ground beetles were more active or had enhanced feeding/reproductive conditions in flower strips. A review found flower strips supported ground beetle species that were rarely found in crops. Fifteen studies reported mixed or negative effects of flower strips on invertebrates. Six studies found no significant effects. Twenty-one studies looked at the effects of flower strips on plants. Sixteen studies from seven European countries (including ten replicated controlled studies of which one randomized) found evidence that flower strips had higher plant cover, number of flowers, diversity, and species richness. One review found flower strips benefited plants but did not specify how. Four studies found negative or no effects of flower strips on the number or diversity of plant species. Five studies described the effects of different margin establishment or management techniques on plants. Seven studies investigated birds and wildflower strips. Four replicated, controlled studies from Switzerland and the UK (two of which were randomized) and one review of European studies found evidence that plots sown with a wildflower or legume seed mix had a positive influence on birds. Flower strips attracted more birds or bird species and the number of birds using flower strips increased over time. Eurasian skylarks preferentially foraged in, and nested in or near, sown weed patches and were less likely to abandon their territories when they included sown weed patches. However one replicated trial in Switzerland found barn owls avoided sown wildflower areas. Two winter recording periods of the same replicated, controlled study in the UK found there were not more bird species or individuals on wildflower plots compared to control margins. All five studies investigating the effects of wildflower strips on small mammals (four replicated studies from Switzerland and one review of studies from north-western Europe) found evidence that small mammals benefit from strips sown with wildflowers or flowers rich in pollen and nectar, with increases in abundance, density and species richness. One replicated study from Switzerland reported that most common vole home ranges and core regions of their territories were found within a wildflower strip. Nineteen studies (of which eight replicated, controlled) reported positive effects on biodiversity of sowing specific plant species including phacelia, and/or other plant species such as borage and red clover. Three replicated studies (two also controlled) found negative impacts or no effects on biodiversity of sowing phacelia. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F442https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F442Thu, 23 Aug 2012 15:37:16 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant new hedges Two studies from France and the UK compared newly planted hedges with control areas. Both (including one replicated trial) found newly planted hedges had higher abundance, species richness or diversity of beetles or spiders than crop fields or field margins. The replicated study also found vascular plant species diversity and grass species richness were higher in newly planted hedges than recently established grass field margins. A review found newly established hedges supported more ground beetles than older hedges. A small-scale study from the UK found that local hawthorn plants exhibited better growth and were more stock proof than those of eight other provenances. A literature review found lower pest outbreaks in areas with new hedges. A replicated study in the UK found that the diversity of arthropods supported by newly planted hedges varied between seven different plant species An unreplicated site comparison study in Germany found that two out of 85 ground beetle species used newly planted hedges as stepping stones for dispersal. Results from the same study found that invertebrates that moved passively (attached to mammals and birds), such as snails, benefited most from the hedge-islands compared to actively moving ground beetles and harvestmen. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F538https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F538Tue, 11 Sep 2012 15:38:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant cereals in wide-spaced rows One replicated, controlled randomized study and four reports from the same replicated, controlled study in the UK investigated the effects of planting cereals in wide-spaced rows on birds, invertebrates and plants. Both studies found no or inconsistent differences in plant and invertebrate abundance and/or species richness between wide-spaced row and control fields. The replicated controlled study found higher undesirable weed cover, and one study found no significant difference in weed cover in fields with wide-spaced rows compared to control fields. One study found significantly lower invertebrate abundances and fewer Eurasian skylark nests in wide-spaced row fields than control fields or fields with undrilled patches. However it also found an increase in the body condition of nestlings over the breeding season in wide-spaced row fields compared with control fields. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F564https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F564Wed, 26 Sep 2012 16:47:40 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant wild bird seed or cover mixture Thirty individual studies investigated the effects on birds of sowing wild bird seed or cover mixture, 21 studies found positive effects. Fourteen studies from the UK (including one systematic review and nine replicated controlled trials of which four randomized, and three reviews) found that fields sown with wild bird cover mix had higher abundance, density, species diversity and species richness of birds than other farmland habitats. Six studies from the UK (including one review and two replicated studies) found that birds showed a preference for wild bird cover and used it significantly more than other habitats. One review found the grey partridge population increased substantially on farms where conservation measures including cover crops were in place. Nine replicated studies from France and the UK reported mixed or negative effects of wild bird cover on birds compared to other farmland habitats. Six studies found that mixtures including kale or a mixture of kale and/or other species attracted the largest number of bird species or highest bird abundance. Twelve studies from the UK looked at the effects of wild bird cover strips on invertebrates. Seven studies from the UK (including one review and four replicated controlled studies of which two were also randomized) found positive effects. Farmland habitats sown with wild bird cover mix were used more by butterflies, and had a higher abundance or species richness of butterflies and/or bees than other farmland habitats. One review found wild bird cover benefited invertebrates. Four studies (including one review and two replicated trials) reported mixed or negative effects of wild bird cover on invertebrate numbers compared with other farmland habitats. One study found that bees and butterflies showed preferences for particular plant species. Eight studies from the UK looked at plants and wild bird cover. Six studies (including two reviews and two replicated controlled trials) found that planting wild bird cover mix was one of the three best options for conservation of annual herbaceous plant communities, benefited plants and resulted in increased plant diversity and species richness. However two replicated studies (of which one a site comparison) found mixed/negative effects for plant species richness. One replicated trial from the UK found that small mammal activity was higher in wild bird cover than in the crop in winter but not in summer. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F594https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F594Fri, 12 Oct 2012 14:56:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide 'sacrificial' grasslands to reduce the impact of wild geese on crops All six studies from the UK (including four replicated, controlled trials) found that managing grasslands for geese increased the number grazing there. Two replicated, controlled studies found that fertilized and cut areas were grazed by more white-fronted geese or brent geese than control areas. A replicated, controlled trial found that re-seeded and fertilized wet pasture fields were used by more barnacle geese than control fields, and that fertilized areas were used less than re-seeded ones. A replicated, controlled study found that spring fertilizer application increased the use of grassland fields by pink-footed geese. A replicated study found that plots sown with white clover were preferred by dark-bellied brent geese compared to plots sown with grasses. However, four of the studies found that the birds were moving within a relatively small area (i.e. within the study site) and therefore the grasslands may not reduce conflict with farmers. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F641https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F641Mon, 15 Oct 2012 16:28:48 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pay farmers to cover the cost of conservation measures (as in agri-environment schemes) Twenty-six studies from four European countries (including one UK systematic review and three European reviews) looked at the effects of agri-environment schemes on birds. Twenty-four studies (including one systematic review, six site comparisons and nine reviews) found increases in population size, density or more favourable population trends of some or all birds studied on sites with agri-environment schemes compared to non-scheme sites (some of these differences were seasonal). Eleven studies (including one systematic review and four reviews) found negative or no effects. One UK study found higher numbers of some birds where higher tier management was in place, another UK study found no difference between Entry Level or Higher Level Stewardship Scheme fields. One study from the Netherlands found that not all agri-environment scheme agreements were sited in ideal locations for black-tailed godwit. Eleven studies from five European countries (including three replicated paired site comparisons and two reviews) looked at the effects of agri-environment schemes on plants. Seven studies (including three replicated paired site comparisons and one European review) found agri-environment schemes maintained or had little or no effect on plants, plant diversity or species richness. Three studies found increases in plant species richness in areas with agri-environment schemes, two found decreases. A replicated site comparison study from Estonia found higher flower abundance on farms with agri-environment schemes in two out of four areas. A review found Environmentally Sensitive Areas in England had contributed to halting the loss of semi-natural grassland habitats but were less effective at enhancing or restoring grassland biodiversity. Ten studies from three European countries (including two replicated paired site comparisons and a review) looked at the effects of agri-environment schemes on invertebrates. Six studies (including two replicated site comparisons) showed agri-environment schemes maintained or had little or no effect on some invertebrates in terms of diversity, abundance, species richness or bee colony growth. Five studies found increases in abundance or species richness of some invertebrates. A UK study found agri-environment scheme prescriptions had a local but not a landscape-scale effect on bee numbers. Four studies (including two replicated site comparisons and a review) from the UK looked at the effects of agri-environment schemes on mammals. One study found positive effects, three studies found mixed effects in different regions or for different species. Three of the studies above found higher numbers of wildlife on land before agri-environment schemes were introduced. However two studies collecting baseline data found no difference in the overall number of birds or earthworms and soil microorganisms between areas with and without agri-environment schemes. A review found two out of three agri-environment schemes in Europe benefited wildlife. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F700https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F700Fri, 21 Dec 2012 14:38:13 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Mark fencing to avoid bird mortality We have captured no evidence for the effects of marking fencing to avoid bird mortality 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%2F706https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F706Mon, 11 Feb 2013 09:51:33 +0000