Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Practise wildlife gardening A site comparison study in one city in the UK found more species of bumblebee in domestic city gardens with lower intensity of management, a measure reflecting the tidiness of the garden and the use of garden pesticides. Solitary bees were not affected by this measure. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2Tue, 18 May 2010 07:40:30 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide artificial nest sites for bumblebees We have captured 11 replicated trials of bumblebee nest boxes. Several different types of nest box have been shown to be acceptable to bumblebees, including wooden or brick and tile boxes at the ground surface, underground tin, wooden or terracotta boxes and boxes attached to trees. Three replicated trials since 1989 in the UK have shown very low uptake rates (0-2.5%) of various nest box designs (not including underground nest boxes), while seven trials in previous decades in the UK, USA or Canada, and one recent trial in the USA, showed overall uptake rates between 10% and 48%. Wooden surface or above ground nest boxes of the kind currently marketed for wildlife gardening are not the most effective design. Eight studies test this type of nest box. Five (pre-1978, USA or Canada) find 10-40% occupancy. Three (post-1989, UK) find very low occupancy of 0-1.5%. The four replicated trials that have directly compared wooden surface nest boxes with other types all report that underground, false underground or aerial boxes are more readily occupied. Nest boxes entirely buried 5-10 cm underground, with a 30-80 cm long entrance pipe, are generally the most effective. Seven replicated trials in the USA, Canada or the UK have tested underground nest boxes and found between 6% and 58% occupancy. We have captured no evidence for the effects of providing nest boxes on bumblebee populations. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F48https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F48Thu, 20 May 2010 02:19:20 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce management intensity on permanent grasslands (several interventions at once) A total of 32 individual studies from the Czech Republic, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Switzerland and the UK looked at the effects on farmland wildlife of reducing management intensity on permanent grasslands. Twenty-two studies found benefits to some or all wildlife groups studied. Eleven studies (including four replicated site comparisons and three reviews) found reduced management intensity on permanent grassland benefited plants. Sixteen studies (including eight site comparisons of which four paired and three reviews) found benefits to some or all invertebrates. Five studies (including two replicated site comparisons, of which one paired, and a review) found positive effects on some or all birds. Twenty-one studies from six European countries found no clear effects of reducing management intensity on some or all plants, invertebrates or birds. Seven studies (including two replicated paired site comparisons and a review) found no clear effect on plants. Ten studies (including four site comparisons and one paired site comparison) found mixed or no effects on some or all invertebrates. Two studies (one review, one site comparison) found invertebrate communities on less intensively managed grasslands were distinct from those on intensively managed grasslands. Four studies (including three site comparisons, of which one paired and two replicated) found no clear effects on bird numbers or species richness. Five studies from four European countries found negative effects of reducing management intensity on plants, invertebrates or birds. Two studies (one review, one replicated trial) found some plant species were lost under extensive management. Two studies (one paired site comparison) found more invertebrates in grasslands with intensive management. One paired site comparison found fewer wading birds on grasslands with reduced management intensity than on conventionally managed grassland. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F69https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F69Mon, 24 Oct 2011 19:11:58 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide short grass for birds A replicated UK study found that common starlings and northern lapwing spent more time foraging on short grass, compared to longer grass, and that starlings captured more prey in short grass. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F115https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F115Mon, 24 Oct 2011 22:15:43 +0100Collected 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: Raise water levels in ditches or grassland Seven studies from Denmark, the Netherlands and the UK (two replicated controlled studies and two before-and-after studies) found that raising water levels in ditches or grassland was associated with increased bird numbers, breeding bird numbers, plant species that favour wet conditions, and invertebrate numbers or biomass in agricultural landscapes. Two replicated studies from the Netherlands and the UK found that raising water levels resulted in a net loss of plant species and did not affect lapwing foraging rate. A review found three studies reporting that re-wetting soils on old arable fields is not an effective method of reducing nutrient levels and restoring species-rich grassland. A replicated study from the UK found that unflooded pastures contained a high biomass of soil macroinvertebrates of importance to breeding wading birds. A controlled, randomized study from the Netherlands found that raising the water level resulted in a more rapid establishment of species typical of wet grassland, than vegetation management. A review of agri-environment schemes from the UK found studies that suggested more expensive agri-environment scheme options for wetland habitats, such as controlling water levels, were more effective at providing good habitat for wading birds than easier-to-implement options. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F121https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F121Tue, 01 Nov 2011 21:14:13 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce tillage A total of 42 individual studies (including seven replicated, controlled and randomized studies and six reviews) from Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Slovakia, Switzerland and the UK investigated the effects of reducing tillage on farmland wildlife. Thirty-four studies (of which 21 were replicated and controlled and seven also randomized, and five reviews) from nine European countries found some positive effects on earthworms, some invertebrates (other than earthworms), weeds or farmland birds, of reducing tillage compared to conventional management. Positive effects included increased biomass, species richness or abundance of earthworms, greater abundance of some invertebrates other than earthworms, increased numbers of some weeds and/or weed species, higher Eurasian skylark nest density, earlier laying date and shorter foraging distances on reduced tillage fields, and greater abundance of some birds - including Eurasian skylark, seed-eating songbirds and gamebirds in late winter on non-inversion or conservation tillage. A review found tillage had negative effects on invertebrate numbers and no-till systems had more invertebrate bird food resources. Twenty-six studies (of which 13 replicated and controlled and three also randomized, and five reviews) from nine European countries found reducing tillage had either negative, no effect or no consistent effects on abundance, biomass, or species richness of some invertebrates (other than earthworms), earthworm abundance, biomass, or species richness, number of different plant species found as seeds, number of some weed species, mammal abundance, some bird species, and one study found bird preferences for conservation tillage fields decreased over time. Two studies found that crop type affected the number of weeds under different tillage regimes. One small replicated trial in the UK compared bird numbers under two different forms of reduced tillage, and found more birds from species that make up the ‘Farmland Bird Index’ on broadcast than non-inversion tillage fields. Two studies looked at the long-term effects of reduced tillage on earthworms (after ten years). One study found higher earthworm biomass under reduced tillage, the other study found earthworm abundance was the same between conventional and reduced tillage plots. Three of the studies mentioned above did not distinguish between the effects of reducing tillage and reduced pesticide and/or fertilizer inputs. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F126https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F126Mon, 14 Nov 2011 18:00:22 +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: Raise mowing height on grasslands to benefit farmland wildlife A replicated controlled study and a review from the UK found that raised mowing heights provided benefits to Eurasian skylark including increased productivity. A review found raised cutting heights were less damaging to amphibians and invertebrates. A randomized, replicated, controlled trial from the UK found that raising mowing height on grasslands had no effect on numbers of foraging birds or invertebrates. One replicated controlled study found no difference in invertebrate abundance. One replicated study from the UK found that northern lapwing and common starling chicks had greater foraging success in shorter grass. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F138https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F138Fri, 18 Nov 2011 15:43:43 +0000Collected 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: 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: Provide or retain set-aside areas in farmland We found 34 studies comparing use of set-aside areas with control farmed fields. Two were reviews, none were randomized, replicated, controlled trials. Of these, 20 (from Austria, Finland, Germany and the UK) showed benefits to or higher use by all wildlife groups considered. Twelve (from Finland, Germany, Ireland, Sweden and the UK) found some species or groups used set-aside more than crops, others did not. Two studies (all from the UK) found no effect, one found an adverse effect of set-aside. Three of the studies, all looking at skylarks, went beyond counting animal or plant numbers and measured reproductive success. Two from the UK found higher nest survival or productivity on set-aside than control fields. One from the UK found lower nest survival on set-aside. Fifteen studies (from Belgium, Germany, Sweden and the UK) monitored wildlife on set-aside fields, or in landscapes with set-aside, without directly comparing with control fields or landscapes. Three looked at set-aside age and found more plants or insects on set-aside more than a year old. Two compared use of different non-crop habitats and found neither insects nor small mammals preferred set-aside. Two showed increased bird numbers on a landscape scale after set-aside was introduced, amongst other interventions. Eight looked at effects of set-aside management such as use of fertilizer and sowing or cutting regimes. A systematic review from the UK found significantly higher densities of farmland birds on fields removed from production and under set-aside designation than on conventionally farmed fields in both winter and summer. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F156https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F156Thu, 29 Mar 2012 19:03:54 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce management intensity on permanent grasslands for birds Four replicated trials and a review, of seven studies in total, found that some or all birds monitored were more abundant or foraged more on grasslands with lower management intensity than on conventionally managed agricultural grasslands. Four analyses from three replicated trials, of seven studies in total, found that some or all birds monitored were less or similarly abundant on grasslands with lower management intensity than on conventionally managed agricultural grasslands. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F219https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F219Tue, 17 Jul 2012 12:37:47 +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: Provide short grass for wadersA replicated UK study found that common starlings and northern lapwings spent more time foraging on short swards, compared to longer grass, and that starlings captured more prey in short grass. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F221https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F221Tue, 17 Jul 2012 14:03:36 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant cereals for whole crop silageA replicated, controlled trial in the UK found that seed-eating birds used CBWCS fields, especially those planted with barley, more than other crops in both summer and winter. Insect-eating species used other crops and grassland more. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F225https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F225Tue, 17 Jul 2012 15:12:29 +0100Collected 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: Reduce inter-specific competition for food by removing or controlling competitor species Two controlled before-and-after studies from the UK found that six species of wildfowl showed significant increases following the removal of fish from lakes. Three other species did not show increases. A study from France found that grey partridges Perdix perdix increased at a site with several interventions, including the control of competitor species. A before-and-after study from Spain found no change in the rate of kleptoparasitic attacks on herons after the culling of gulls at a colony. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F428https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F428Fri, 17 Aug 2012 17:54:16 +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: Provide supplementary food for songbirds to increase reproductive success Two studies from the USA found evidence for higher population densities of magpies and American blackbirds in areas provided with supplementary food, whilst two studies from the UK and Canada found that population densities did not appear to be affected by feeding. Twelve studies from across the world found that breeding productivity was higher for fed birds than controls. The increases were through higher hatching or fledging rates, or higher chick survival or recruitment rates. One study from the USA found that these increases were only found in dry years. Eleven studies from Europe and the USA found that fed birds had no higher, or even lower breeding productivity or chick survival than control birds. Nine studies from Europe and North America found that the eggs of fed birds were larger or heavier, or that the chicks of fed birds were in better physical condition: being larger, heavier, faster growing, more symmetrical or having a better immune response. In one study this was only true in a heavily polluted site. However, eight studies from across the world found no evidence for better condition or increased size in the eggs or chicks of fed birds. Six studies from across the world found that food-supplemented pairs laid larger clutches than unfed birds, whilst 14 studies from Europe and North America found that fed birds did not lay larger clutches, or even laid smaller ones. Fifteen studies from across the world found that birds supplied with supplementary food began nesting or laying earlier than controls, although in two studies this was only true for young females or in one of two habitats. In one study, a high fat, high protein diet had a greater effect on laying date than a high fat, low protein diet. One study found that fed birds had shorter incubations than controls whilst another found that fed birds re-nested quicker than controls and had shorter second incubations. Four studies from the USA and Europe found that fed birds did not lay any earlier than controls. Seven studies from across the world found that fed parent birds showed positive behavioural responses to feeding, such as being more likely to re-nest, less likely to be parasitized or showing better anti-predator responses, spending more time incubating or building larger nests. Three studies from across the world found neutral or negative responses to feeding, including being more likely to be invaded by conspecifics, making no more breeding attempts or showing no preference for fed nest boxes compared to controls. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F537https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F537Sun, 09 Sep 2012 19:58:27 +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: Provide supplementary food through the establishment of food populations One pre-1950 study in the USA found that waterfowl fed on specially-planted rye grass. Three studies from North America and Sweden found that attempts to support populations by establishing prey did not succeed. Whooping cranes Grus americana in the USA preferentially fed on scattered grains, over planted crops; attempts in Sweden to boost macroinvertebrate numbers were not successful and great horned owls Bubo virginianus in Canada did not respond to induced increases in prey populations. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F555https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F555Sat, 22 Sep 2012 20:40:45 +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: Reduce chemical inputs in grassland management A total of 16 studies (including five reviews) investigated the effects of reducing inputs in permanent grasslands. Six studies from the Netherlands, Switzerland and the UK (including one review and four replicated studies of which one was also controlled and one a randomized and controlled before-and-after trial) found that stopping fertilizer inputs in permanent grassland resulted in an increase in plant species richness, reduced the rate of plant species loss and attracted a higher abundance or species richness of some or all invertebrates studied. One review from the Netherlands found that low fertilizer input grasslands favour common meadow bird species. One review found a study showing that densities of some invertebrates were higher in unfertilized plots compared with those receiving nitrogen inputs. Two replicated, controlled trials from the Czech Republic and the UK (one randomized) found that applying fertilizer to permanent grasslands reduced plant species richness or diversity and that the effects on plant communities were still apparent 16 years after the cessation of fertilizer application. Four studies from Ireland, the Netherlands and the UK (including two replicated trials of which one randomized and one controlled and a review) found that reducing fertilizer inputs on grassland had no clear or rapid effect on plant species richness. A review found no clear effect of reducing fertilizer inputs on the density of soil-dwelling invertebrates. One replicated study found that fertilizer treatment only affected seed production of a small number of meadow plants. One replicated study from the UK found lower invertebrate abundance on plots with reduced fertilizer inputs but the differences were not significant. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F694https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F694Sat, 01 Dec 2012 17:52:25 +0000Collected 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: 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: Remove or control mammals One controlled study in New Zealand found that controlling rats had no significant effect on numbers of Hochstetter’s frog. One controlled study in New Zealand found that survival of Maud Island frogs was significantly higher in a predator-proof enclosure than in the wild. One study in New Zealand found that at 58% of translocated Hamilton's frogs survived the first year within a predator-proof enclosure. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F839https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F839Thu, 29 Aug 2013 15:39:17 +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: Primates: Provide live invertebrates One before-and-after study in the UK found that when provided with live insect prey inactivity reduced and foraging increased in captive loris to levels seen in wild loris. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1333https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1333Thu, 13 Oct 2016 08:35:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pest regulation: Plant flowersPest regulation (3 studies): Three replicated studies from Italy and the USA found greater pest reduction or higher proportions of parasitized pests in fields and farms with planted flower strips. Crop damage (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Italy found more damage by caterpillars, but not by aphids, in tomatoes next to planted flower strips, compared to tomatoes next to bare ground. One replicated, paired, controlled study from Italy found that planted flower strips had inconsistent effects on crop damage by pests. Pest numbers (2 studies): One replicated, paired, controlled study from Italy found more pests on tomatoes next to planted flower strips, compared to tomatoes next to unplanted field margins. One replicated before-and-after study from the USA found more aphids in fields after flower strips were made available. Natural enemy numbers (4 studies): Two replicated studies from the USA found more natural enemies in fields with planted flower strips, compared to fields without planted flower strips, in some comparisons. Two replicated, controlled studies from Italy found more natural enemies in planted flower strips than on bare ground, and one of these studies also found more species of natural enemies. Implementation options (4 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies from the USA and Spain found that some flower species were more attractive to natural enemies than others. Two replicated, controlled studies from Italy found that planting more species of flowers, compared to fewer, had inconsistent effects on pests and pest species, but one of these found less crop damage next to flower strips with more species, compared to fewer, in some comparisons. This study also found more species of natural enemies in flower strips, over time, but did not find more individuals.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1400https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1400Fri, 19 May 2017 09:13:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pest regulation: Plant hedgerowsPest regulation (1 study): One replicated, paired, site comparison from the USA found that a higher proportion of pest eggs were parasitized in tomato fields with hedgerows, compared to fields with weedy edges, but only up to 100 m into the crop. Crop damage (1 study): One replicated, paired, site comparison from the USA found that pest damage to tomatoes was no different in fields with hedgerows than it was in fields with weedy edges. Ratio of natural enemies to pests (2 studies): Of two replicated site comparisons from the USA, one paired study found a greater ratio of natural enemies to pests in hedgerows, compared to weedy edges, but one unpaired study did not. The unpaired study also found no difference in the ratio of natural enemies to pests between fields with hedgerows and fields with weedy edges. Pest numbers (1 study): One replicated, paired, site comparison from the USA found fewer pests in fields or field edges with hedgerows, compared to fields or field edges without hedgerows. Natural enemy numbers (1 study): One replicated, paired, site comparison from the USA found more natural enemies in fields with hedgerows, compared to fields with weedy edges, and in hedgerows themselves, compared to weedy edges, in some comparisons.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1401https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1401Fri, 19 May 2017 09:15:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pollination: Plant flowersPollination (0 studies) Crop visitation (1 study): One replicated, controlled study from Spain found more pollinators on coriander flowers next to planted flower strips, compared to coriander flowers next to unplanted field margins. Pollinator numbers (1 study): One replicated, controlled study from the USA found more wild bee species and individuals in planted flower strips, compared to unplanted strips, in some comparisons, but found no differences for syrphid flies. Implementation options (8 studies): Five replicated studies from Spain and the USA found that some planted flower species were more attractive to pollinators than others. Four replicated studies from Italy and Spain found more pollinators where more flower species had been planted, in some comparisons, but in other comparisons found fewer pollinators where more flower species had been planted. One replicated, controlled study from Italy found that bee numbers increased over time in areas planted with three or six flower species, but decreased over time in areas planted with nine flower species.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1406https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1406Fri, 19 May 2017 09:31:02 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Other biodiversity: Add compost to the soilAmphibians (0 studies) Birds (0 studies) Invertebrates (1 study): One replicated, controlled study from the USA, found no differences in invertebrate biodiversity between plots with or without added compost. Mammals (0 studies) Plants (4 studies): Four replicated, controlled studies (three randomized) from Italy, Spain, and the USA found more plant biomass in plots with added compost, compared to plots without added compost. One of these studies also found more plant cover and faster tree growth in plots with added compost. Another one also found sixteen species of rare plants only in plots with added compost. Another one found more plants in plots with added compost, compared to plots without added compost, in one of two years, but found similar numbers of plant species in plots with or without added compost. Reptiles (0 studies) Implementation options (0 studies)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1409https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1409Fri, 19 May 2017 09:39:36 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Other biodiversity: Add manure to the soilAmphibians (0 studies) Birds (0 studies) Invertebrates (0 studies) Mammals (0 studies) Plants (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found more plant species in plots with added manure, compared to plots without added manure, in one of three comparisons. Reptiles (0 studies) Implementation options (0 studies) Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1410https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1410Fri, 19 May 2017 09:42:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Other biodiversity: Add sewage sludge to the soilAmphibians (0 studies) Birds (0 studies) Invertebrates (0 studies) Mammals (0 studies) Plants (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies from Spain found greater plant cover and faster tree growth in plots with added sewage sludge, compared to plots without it, in some or all comparisons. One of these studies found similar numbers of plant species in plots with or without added sewage sludge. The other one found more plant biomass in plots with added sewage sludge. Reptiles (0 studies) Implementation options (1 study): One study from Spain found faster tree growth in plots with composted or thermally dried sewage sludge, but not with digested sewage sludge, compared to plots without sewage sludge. Another one found no differences in pasture cover, tree growth, or numbers of species between plots with different types of sewage sludge.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1411https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1411Fri, 19 May 2017 09:44:35 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Other biodiversity: Use organic fertilizer instead of inorganicAmphibians (0 studies) Birds (0 studies) Invertebrates (0 studies) Mammals (0 studies) Plants (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Italy found more plants and plant biomass, but similar numbers of plant species, in plots with organic fertilizer, compared to plots with inorganic fertilizer. Reptiles (0 studies) Implementation options (0 studies)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1412https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1412Fri, 19 May 2017 09:46:03 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Other biodiversity: Plant or maintain ground cover in orchards or vineyardsAmphibians (0 studies) Birds (1 study): One site comparison from Spain found more birds and higher bird diversity in a vineyard with resident vegetation (without tillage), compared to a vineyard with bare soil (with conventional tillage), between the vine rows. Invertebrates (0 studies) Fungi (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Portugal found more mushrooms and mushroom species in plots with cover crops (without tillage), compared to plots without cover crops (with conventional tillage). Mammals (0 studies) Plants (0 studies) Reptiles (0 studies) Implementation options (3 studies): One site comparison from Spain found more birds and higher bird diversity in a vineyard with mown resident vegetation, compared to a vineyard with herbicide-treated resident vegetation, between the vine rows. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Portugal found fewer mushrooms and fewer mushroom species, but similar mushroom diversity, in plots with seeded cover crops, compared to resident vegetation. One replicated site comparison from Greece found more flowering plant species, and higher flowering plant cover, in managed orchards, compared to abandoned orchards.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1413https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1413Fri, 19 May 2017 09:47:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Other biodiversity: Plant flowersAmphibians (0 studies) Birds (0 studies) Invertebrates (0 studies) Mammals (0 studies) Plants (2 studies): One replicated, paired, controlled study from Italy found similar numbers of plant species in planted flower strips and unplanted field margins, but found higher plant diversity in unplanted margins. One replicated study from the USA found that most flower species persisted for at least two years after planting. Reptiles (0 studies) Implementation options (2 studies): One replicated study from the USA found that more plant species persisted in flower strips when twice as many seeds were sown, but there was no further increase in persistence at higher seeding rates. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found that tillage had inconsistent effects on the emergence of planted flowers.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1414https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1414Fri, 19 May 2017 09:50:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Other biodiversity: Plant hedgerowsAmphibians (0 studies) Birds (0 studies) Invertebrates (0 studies) Mammals (0 studies) Plants (1 study): One replicated, paired site comparison from the USA found no difference in the number of flower species in hedgerows, compared to weedy field edges. Reptiles (0 studies) Implementation options (2 studies): One replicated site comparison from the USA found more plant species in narrow hedgerows, compared to wide hedgerows, and higher plant cover in younger hedgerows, compared to older hedgerows. One replicated site comparison from the USA found higher cover of exotic plants, compared to native plants, in young hedgerows, but not in old hedgerows.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1415https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1415Fri, 19 May 2017 09:51:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Other biodiversity: Restore habitat along watercoursesAmphibians (1 study): One replicated site comparison from the USA found similar numbers of amphibian species in restored and remnant sites. Birds (8 studies): Two replicated site comparisons from Spain and the USA found similar numbers of bird species in restored and remnant sites. Two replicated site comparisons from the USA found fewer bird species in restored riparian sites, compared to remnant sites. One replicated site comparison from Spain found similar numbers of birds and bird species in restored contaminated sites and uncontaminated sites. One replicated site comparison from the USA found that an endangered bird nested in restored sites, and had similar nesting success in restored and remnant sites. One replicated site comparison from the USA found that bird populations increased with the area of restored habitat in the landscape, in some comparisons. One replicated site comparison from the USA found similar levels of nest parasitism in restored and remnant sites. Fish (1 study): One before-and-after site comparison from the USA found differences in fish communities, before and after changing river flow. Invertebrates (3 studies): One replicated site comparison from the USA found fewer native ants, but similar numbers of invasive ants, in restored sites, compared to remnant sites. One before-and-after site comparison from the USA found similar numbers of freshwater invertebrates in restored and reference sites, after restoration. One replicated, before-and-after study from the USA found more invertebrates and invertebrate species in plots with added gravel, compared to plots without added gravel, in some comparisons. One replicated before-and-after study from France found relatively more alien species after restoring river flow. Mammals (2 studies): Two replicated site comparisons from the USA found similar numbers of mammal species in restored and remnant sites. Plants (11 studies) Abundance (6 studies): Four replicated site comparisons from Spain and the USA found lower plant cover in restored sites, compared to remnant sites. One of these studies also found higher cover of exotic plants, but another one did not. One replicated, paired site comparison from the USA found similar numbers of flowers in restored and remnant sites. One replicated site comparison from the USA found more seeds, but fewer native seed, in orchards next to restored riparian habitats, compared to orchards next to remnant habitats. One replicated site comparison from the USA found similar exotic plant cover in remnant and restored forests. Diversity (6 studies): Two replicated studies from the USA found fewer native plant species in restored forests, compared to remnant forests. One of these studies also found more exotic species, but another one did not. One replicated site comparison from the USA found more plant species in restored sites, compared to remnant sites. One replicated, paired site comparison from the USA found similar numbers of flower species in restored and remnant sites. One replicated site comparison from the USA found fewer seed species and native seed species in orchards next to restored riparian habitats, compared to remnant riparian habitats. One controlled study from the USA found different plant communities in restored and unrestored habitats. Survival (2 studies): One replicated study from the USA found that about one-third of planted willows survived for one year. One site comparison from the USA found that some species survived after planting, as part of riparian restoration, but others did not. Habitat suitability (1 study): One replicated site comparison from the USA found that vegetation at one of five sites met the criteria for Bell’s Vireo nesting habitat. Size (1 study): One replicated site comparison from the USA found smaller elderberry plants in restored sites. Reptiles (1 study): One replicated site comparison from the USA found similar numbers of reptile species in remnant and restored sites. Implementation options (7 studies) Plants (3 studies): One study from the USA found more tree, shrub, vine, and perennial species, higher canopy cover, and higher native tree cover, in older restored plots, compared to younger restored plots, but this study also found fewer annual plant species, lower vegetation cover, lower annual forb cover, and lower grass cover. One study from the USA found an increase in native species and overstorey cover in restored sites, over time, but it found similar numbers of species and overstorey cover in sites planted at different densities. One study from the USA found that willow cuttings planted on the stream bottom had a higher survival rate than those planted on the streambank or terrace. Birds (3 studies): Three studies from the USA found more birds or bird species in older restored plots, compared to younger restored plots. One of these studies also found that the populations of some bird species increased with tree-planting density. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1416https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1416Fri, 19 May 2017 09:54:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Other biodiversity: Exclude grazersAmphibians (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in wet grasslands in the USA found no difference in the abundance of Yosemite toads between areas with cattle excluded and grazed areas. Birds (2 studies): One replicated site comparison in desert in the USA found more bird species, and more species that were nesting, in areas with sheep excluded, compared to grazed areas. Two replicated site comparisons in desert and wetlands found higher abundances of some or all species of birds in areas with cattle or sheep excluded, compared to grazed areas. The wetland study also found lower abundances, in some comparisons. Fish (2 studies): One replicated site comparison in grasslands in the USA found higher biomass and abundance of golden trout in areas with cattle excluded, compared to grazed areas. Another one found fewer trout nests in part of a stream with a livestock exclosure, compared to part without a livestock exclosure. Invertebrates (5 studies): Two replicated studies (one randomized and controlled) in wetlands and grasslands in the USA found more species or families of invertebrates in areas with cattle excluded, compared to grazed areas, for some or all groups. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in grasslands in the USA found fewer aquatic invertebrate species in areas with cattle excluded, compared to grazed areas, in some comparisons. Two replicated studies (one randomized and controlled) in grasslands in the USA found no difference in invertebrate abundance between ungrazed and cattle-grazed plots. One replicated, before-and-after site comparison in grasslands in the USA found that populations of a threatened, endemic butterfly declined in sites with cattle excluded, but also declined in cattle-grazed sites. Mammals (4 studies): Two replicated site comparisons in deserts and grasslands in Spain and the USA found more mammal species in areas with cattle or sheep excluded, compared to grazed areas. One of these studies also found higher mammal diversity, and both studies found higher mammal abundance, in areas with grazers excluded, compared to grazed areas, in some or all comparisons. One replicated site comparison in desert in the USA found lower abundances of black-tailed hares in ungrazed sites, compared to grazed sites, and one replicated, randomized, controlled study in wooded grassland in the USA found no difference in ground squirrel abundance between ungrazed plots and cattle-grazed plots. Plants (41 studies) Abundance (38 studies): Thirty-two studies (13 replicated, randomized, and controlled) in grasslands, shrublands, wetlands, deserts, and mixed habitats in the USA, Israel, Chile, Spain, and Australia found higher biomass, cover, or abundance of some or all plant groups (or lower cover of non-native species), in areas with cattle, sheep, goats, or alpacas excluded, compared to grazed areas, in some or all comparisons. Fourteen studies (four replicated, randomized and controlled) from the USA, Israel, Spain, and Australia found lower biomass, cover, or abundance of some or all plant groups (or higher cover of non-native species), in areas with grazers excluded, compared to grazed areas, in some comparisons. Five replicated, controlled studies (four randomized) in grasslands in the USA found no difference in the cover of plants (and/or non-native plants) between ungrazed and grazed areas. Diversity (19 studies): Five studies (three replicated) in forests, shrublands, and grasslands in Israel, Spain, and the USA found more species, or fewer non-native species, in areas with cattle or sheep excluded, compared to grazed areas, in some or all comparisons. Nine studies in grasslands and shrublands in Australia, Israel, Spain, and the USA found fewer species or native species, larger decreases in the number of species, or smaller increases in the number of species, in areas with cattle, sheep, or alpacas excluded, compared to grazed areas, in some or all comparisons. Six studies in grasslands, wetlands, and deserts in the USA found no differences in the number of species between areas grazed by cattle, sheep, or alpacas, and ungrazed areas. Four studies in shrublands, grasslands, and wetlands in the USA and Israel found higher plant diversity, or different community composition, in plots with cattle excluded, compared to grazed plots, in some comparisons. Three studies in wetlands and grasslands in the USA found lower plant diversity in plots with cattle excluded, compared to grazed plots, in some comparisons. Three studies in deserts and shrublands in the USA and Israel found no difference in plant diversity between plots with cattle or sheep excluded and grazed plots. Survival (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study along creeks in the USA found that similar percentages of planted willows survived in pastures with or without cattle excluded. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in grasslands in the USA found higher plant survival in plots with cattle excluded, compared to grazed plots, in some comparisons. Reptiles (1 study): One replicated site comparison in desert in the USA found lower abundances of reptiles, and of some reptile species, in areas with sheep excluded, compared to grazed areas, in some comparisons. Implementation options (1 study): One site comparison in the USA found that more plant species were found in historically cultivated sites that were ungrazed, compared to grazed, but similar numbers of plant species were found in historically uncultivated sites that were ungrazed or grazed.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1417https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1417Fri, 19 May 2017 11:18:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Other biodiversity: Use fewer grazersAmphibians (0 studies) Birds (0 studies) Invertebrates (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in wet grasslands in the USA found more families of insects in streams in areas grazed by cattle at lower, compared to higher, intensities. Mammals (0 studies) Plants (11 studies) Abundance (11 studies): Six studies (four replicated, randomized, and controlled) in grasslands or wood pasture in the USA, Chile, and Israel found higher cover of some species of plants, herbaceous plants, or native plants in areas grazed by cattle or sheep at lower, compared to higher, intensities. One controlled study in forest in Israel found higher cover of woody vegetation in areas with lower grazing intensity. Four of these studies also found lower cover or biomass of some groups of plants in sites with lower grazing intensity. Four studies in grasslands in the USA and Israel found no effect of grazing intensity on biomass, cover, or abundance of plants. Diversity (6 studies): Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies in grasslands and wet grasslands in the USA and Israel found no differences in plant diversity between sites with different cattle-grazing intensities, in some or all comparisons. One of these also found higher diversity in some comparisons and lower diversity in others. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in wet grasslands in the USA found that plant community composition differed in sites with different cattle-grazing intensities, in some comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in grasslands and wet grasslands in Israel and the USA found no differences in the number of plant species between sites with different cattle grazing intensities, in some or all comparisons. One of these studies also found more species in some comparisons and fewer species in others. One controlled study in wood pasture in Chile found fewer native species and more non-native species in paddocks with lower sheep-grazing intensities. Survival (3 studies): Three controlled studies (two replicated and randomized) in grasslands in the USA and forests in Israel found no difference in native grass, tree, or shrub survival in areas grazed by cows at lower, compared to higher, intensities. Reptiles (0 studies) Implementation options (0 studies)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1418https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1418Fri, 19 May 2017 11:23:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Other biodiversity: Use grazers to manage vegetationAmphibians (0 studies) Birds (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in grasslands in the USA found higher densities of dabbling duck nests, but similar nesting success, in cattle-grazed plots, compared to ungrazed plots. Invertebrates (4 studies): Two replicated studies (one controlled, one site comparison) in grasslands in the USA and Spain found more invertebrates in sheep-, goat-, or cattle-grazed plots, compared to ungrazed plots, in some or all comparisons. One before-and-after study in grassland in the USA found that a threatened, endemic butterfly species did not recolonize a site after grazing was reintroduced. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in grasslands in the USA found fewer invertebrates in plots with simulated grazing, compared to ungrazed plots, but found similar numbers of invertebrate species. One replicated site comparison in forested grasslands in Spain found higher beetle diversity in grazed plots, compared to ungrazed plots, in one of two beetle groups. Two replicated studies (one randomized and controlled) in grasslands in the USA and Spain found different invertebrate communities in grazed and ungrazed plots. Mammals (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies (one randomized before-and-after study) in grasslands in the USA found that abundances of some or all rodents were higher, or increased more, on sheep- or cow-grazed plots, compared to ungrazed plots. However, they also found that some species were less abundant or monthly survival was lower on grazed plots. Plants (15 studies) Abundance (14 studies): Eight studies (two meta-analyses; two replicated, randomized, and controlled) from grasslands, shrublands, and forests in the USA, Spain, and France found higher cover or higher abundance of some groups of plants (or lower cover of undesirable plants), on cattle-, sheep-, or goat-grazed plots, compared to ungrazed plots. Six studies (five replicated; one randomized and controlled) from grasslands in Spain and the USA found lower cover or lower abundance of some groups of plants on cattle-, sheep-, or goat-grazed plots, compared to ungrazed plots (or after grazers were reintroduced). Three replicated, controlled studies (two randomized) from grasslands in the USA found similar cover or biomass on grazed or ungrazed plots. Diversity (7 studies): Three studies (one meta-analysis; two replicated site comparisons) from grasslands in the USA found more plant species on grazed plots, compared to ungrazed plots, in some or all comparisons. One of these studies also found fewer species of some plant groups on grazed plots, and two of these stuides also found more non-native species on grazed plots, compared to ungrazed plots. Two replicated, controlled studies (one randomized) in grasslands in the USA and France found no difference in the number of plant species between cattle- or sheep-grazed plots and ungrazed plots. Two replicated controlled studies (one randomized) from grasslands in the USA and France found no difference in plant diversity between cattle- or sheep-grazed plots and ungrazed plots. One replicated, randomized, controlled study grasslands and woodlands in the USA found that plant community composition varied between cattle-grazed and ungrazed plots. Survival (3 studies): Of two studies on purple needlegrass mortality from grasslands in the USA, one replicated, randomized, controlled study found lower mortality on sheep-grazed plots, compared to ungrazed plots, in some comparisons, but found higher mortality in other comparisons, and one replicated, controlled study found no difference in mortality between cattle-grazed plots and ungrazed plots. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from grasslands in the USA found lower germination rates in purple needlegrass seeds from sheep-grazed plots, compared to ungrazed plots, in some comparisons. Reptiles (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in grasslands in the USA found that the abundance of some lizard species increased at a greater rate on cattle-grazed plots, compared to ungrazed plots. Implementation options (1 study): One study from the USA found more invertebrates on plots with simulated grazing, compared to ungrazed plots, when these plots were planted with non-native plants. One study in shrublands in Spain found lower gorse cover in plots grazed by goats, compared to sheep, as well as other differences in plant biomass and cover.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1419https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1419Fri, 19 May 2017 11:26:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Other biodiversity: Use rotational grazingAmphibians (0 studies) Birds (0 studies) Invertebrates (0 studies) Mammals (0 studies) Plants (2 studies): One before-and-after study in grasslands in the USA found a higher cover of native plants after the adoption of rotational grazing. One replicated, controlled study in grasslands in the USA found that the density and mortality of a native plant species did not differ between plots with rotational or continuous grazing, but plants had more reproductive stems in plots with rotational grazing, in two of three years. This study also found that plants were larger under rotational grazing, in some comparisons, but smaller in other comparisons. Reptiles (0 studies) Implementation options (0 studies)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1420https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1420Fri, 19 May 2017 11:31:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Other biodiversity: Use seasonal grazingAmphibians (0 studies) Birds (0 studies) Invertebrates (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled before-and-after study in wet grasslands in the USA found more aquatic invertebrate species in continuously grazed plots, compared to seasonally grazed plots, in some comparisons. Mammals (0 studies) Plants (8 studies) Abundance (7 studies): Five studies (one meta-analysis; four replicated, randomized, and controlled studies) in grasslands in Israel and the USA found that the cover of native or non-native plants, or the abundance of plants, differed between sites grazed at different times, in some comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from forested pastures in the USA and former farmland in Spain found no difference in plant cover between areas grazed at different times. Diversity (2 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in grasslands in Israel and the USA found differences in the number and/or diversity of plant species between plots that were grazed at different times, in some comparisons. Survival (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in grasslands in the USA found differences in tree survival between plots grazed at different times. Another one found no difference in bunchgrass survival between plots grazed at different times. Reptiles (0 studies) Implementation options (0 studies)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1421https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1421Fri, 19 May 2017 11:33:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove pipelines and infrastructure following decommissioning We found no studies that evaluated the effects of removing pipelines and infrastructure in place following 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%2F2060https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2060Mon, 21 Oct 2019 13:42:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove drill cuttings after decommissioning We found no studies that evaluated the effects of removing drill cuttings 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%2F2064https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2064Mon, 21 Oct 2019 13:47:04 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Recycle or repurpose fluids used in the drilling process We found no studies that evaluated the effects of recycling or repurposing fluids used in the drilling process 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%2F2069https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2069Mon, 21 Oct 2019 13:51:26 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove discarded sediment material from the seabed following cessation of aggregate extraction We found no studies that evaluated the effects of removing discarded sediment material from the seabed following cessation of aggregate extraction 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%2F2074https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2074Mon, 21 Oct 2019 14:36:08 +0100Collected 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: Provide additional moorings to reduce anchoring We found no studies that evaluated the effects of providing additional moorings to reduce anchoring 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%2F2091https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2091Mon, 21 Oct 2019 15:21:08 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Periodically move and relocate moorings We found no studies that evaluated the effects of periodically moving and relocating moorings 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%2F2093https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2093Mon, 21 Oct 2019 15:22:28 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce ships/boats/vessels speed limits We found no studies that evaluated the effects of reducing ships/boats/vessels speed limits 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%2F2095https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2095Mon, 21 Oct 2019 15:24:31 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Purchase fishing permits and/or vessels from fishers We found no studies that evaluated the effects of purchasing fishing permits and/or vessels from fishers 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%2F2114https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2114Tue, 22 Oct 2019 09:44:16 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify trawl doors to reduce sediment penetration We found no studies that evaluated the effects of modifying trawl doors to reduce sediment penetration 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%2F2128https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2128Tue, 22 Oct 2019 10:24:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Outfit trawls with a raised footrope We found no studies that evaluated the effects of outfitting trawls with a raised footrope 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%2F2129https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2129Tue, 22 Oct 2019 10:25:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify the design/attachments of a shrimp/prawn W-trawl net One study examined the effects of modifying the design/attachments of a W-trawl net used in shrimp/prawn fisheries on unwanted catch of subtidal benthic invertebrate. The study was in Moreton Bay (Australia). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Unwanted catch overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in Moreton Bay found that four designs of W-trawl nets used in shrimp/prawn fisheries caught less non-commercial unwanted catch of crustaceans compared to a traditional Florida Flyer trawl net. OTHERS (1 STUDY) Commercial catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in Moreton Bay found that four designs of W-trawl nets used in shrimp/prawn fisheries caught lower amounts of the commercially targeted prawn species compared to a traditional Florida Flyer trawl net. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2139https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2139Tue, 22 Oct 2019 11:00:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce the number or modify the arrangement of tickler chains/chain mats on trawl nets Three studies examined the effects of reducing the number or modifying the arrangement of tickler chains/chain mats on subtidal benthic invertebrates. All studies were in the North Sea (Germany and Netherlands). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in the North Sea found that using a beam trawl with a chain mat caused lower mortality of benthic invertebrates in the trawl tracks compared to using a beam trawl with tickler chains. Unwanted catch abundance (2 studies): One of two replicated, paired, controlled studies in the North Sea found that all three modified parallel tickler chain arrangements reduced the combined amount of non-commercial unwanted invertebrate and fish catch compared to unmodified trawl nets, but the other found that none of three modified parabolic tickler chain arrangements reduced it. OTHER (2 STUDIES) Commercial catch abundance (2 studies): One of two replicated, paired, controlled studies in the North Sea found that three modified parabolic tickler chain arrangements caught similar amounts of commercial species to unmodified nets, but the other found that three modified parallel tickler chain arrangements caught lower amounts. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2140https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2140Tue, 22 Oct 2019 11:02:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify the position of traps Two studies examined the effects of modifying the position of traps on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. One study was in the Varangerfjord (Norway), the other in the North Atlantic Ocean (Spain). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Unwanted catch species richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the North Atlantic found that semi-floating traps caught fewer unwanted catch species compared to standard bottom traps. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Unwanted catch abundance (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies in the Varangerfjord and the North Atlantic found that floating or semi-floating traps caught fewer unwanted invertebrates compared to standard bottom traps. OTHER (2 STUDIES) Commercial catch abundance (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies in the Varangerfjord and the North Atlantic found that floating or semi-floating traps caught similar amounts (abundance and biomass) of commercially targeted species as standard bottom traps. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2144https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2144Tue, 22 Oct 2019 11:14:51 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Release live unwanted catch first before handling commercial species We found no studies that evaluated the effects of releasing live unwanted catch first before handling commercial species 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%2F2150https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2150Tue, 22 Oct 2019 11:21:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce and/or eradicate aquaculture escapees in the wild We found no studies that evaluated the effects of reducing and/or eradicating aquaculture escapees in the wild 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%2F2161https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2161Tue, 22 Oct 2019 12:12:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Prevent the attachment of biofouling organisms/species in aquaculture We found no studies that evaluated the effects of preventing the attachment of biofouling organisms/species in aquaculture 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%2F2162https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2162Tue, 22 Oct 2019 12:12:52 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove biofouling organisms/species in aquaculture We found no studies that evaluated the effects of removing biofouling organisms/species in aquaculture 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%2F2163https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2163Tue, 22 Oct 2019 12:13:36 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or capture non-native, invasive or other problematic species One study examined the effects of removing or capturing non-native, invasive or other problematic species on subtidal benthic invertebrates. The study was in the South Atlantic Ocean (Brazil). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Cnidarian abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the southwest Atlantic found that, regardless of the method used, removing invasive corals reduced the cover of native zoanthids. Sponge abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the southwest Atlantic found that the effect of removing invasive corals on the cover of native sponges varied with the removal method used. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2173https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2173Tue, 22 Oct 2019 12:23:21 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or clean-up oil pollution following a spill One study examined the effects of removing and cleaning-up oil pollution following a spill on subtidal benthic invertebrates. The study was in the Baltic Proper (Sweden). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Mollusc condition (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the Baltic Proper found that after cleaning-up spilled oil using high pressure hot water, crude oil content increased in mussels and did not naturally decrease over time, and was higher than in mussels from an uncleaned contaminated and a non-contaminated site. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2183https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2183Tue, 22 Oct 2019 12:43:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce aquaculture stocking densities We found no studies that evaluated the effects of reducing aquaculture stocking densities 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%2F2186https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2186Tue, 22 Oct 2019 12:55:51 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Moor aquaculture cages so they move in response to changing current direction We found no studies that evaluated the effects of mooring aquaculture cages so they move in response to changing current direction 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%2F2190https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2190Tue, 22 Oct 2019 12:58:46 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce the amount of pesticides used in aquaculture systems We found no studies that evaluated the effects of reducing the amount of pesticides used in aquaculture systems 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%2F2193https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2193Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:05:17 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce the amount of antibiotics used in aquaculture systems We found no studies that evaluated the effects of reducing the amount of antibiotics used in aquaculture systems 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%2F2194https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2194Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:06:02 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Regulate the use, dosage and disposal of agrichemicals We found no studies that evaluated the effects of regulating the use, dosage and disposal of agrichemicals 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%2F2198https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2198Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:09:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove litter from the marine environment We found no studies that evaluated the effects of removing litter from the marine environment 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%2F2204https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2204Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:15:13 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Recover lost fishing gear We found no studies that evaluated the effects of recovering lost fishing gear 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%2F2206https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2206Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:16:34 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce underwater noise (other than sonar) We found no studies that evaluated the effects of reducing underwater noise 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%2F2209https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2209Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:20:54 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove and clean-up shoreline waste disposal sites One study examined the effects of removing and cleaning-up shoreline waste disposal sites on subtidal benthic invertebrates. The study was in the Southern Ocean (Antarctica). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall community composition (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the Southern Ocean found that after removing and cleaning-up a disused waste disposal site, invertebrate community composition changed, and no further negative impacts were detected, but communities remained different to natural sites. Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the Southern Ocean found that after removing and cleaning-up a disused waste disposal site, invertebrate species richness did not change over time and remained different to that of natural sites, but no further negative impacts were detected. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2215https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2215Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:32:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Promote natural carbon sequestration species and/or habitats We found no studies that evaluated the effects of promoting natural carbon sequestration species and/or habitats 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%2F2221https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2221Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:38:01 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Refill disused borrow pits One study examined the effects of refilling disused borrow pits on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. The study was in Barnegat Bay estuary (USA). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in Barnegat Bay estuary found that overall invertebrate species richness and diversity increased at a disused borrow pit after being refilled with sediments but remained lower than at a natural non-dredged site. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall abundance (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in Barnegat Bay estuary found that overall invertebrate abundance increased at a disused borrow pit after being refilled with sediments but remained lower than at a natural non-dredged site. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2251https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2251Wed, 23 Oct 2019 09:51:36 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide artificial shelters Five studies examined the effects of providing artificial shelters on subtidal benthic invertebrates. Three studies were in the Caribbean Sea (Mexico); one in Florida Bay and one in the Florida Keys (USA). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Lobster abundance (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled, before-and-after studies in the Caribbean Sea found that abundance of lobsters either increased in plots with artificial shelters but not in plots without, or increased in all plots but more so in plots with artificial shelters than those without. Lobster condition (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the Caribbean Sea found that lobsters in plots with artificial shelters were bigger than in plots without. BEHAVIOUR (3 STUDIES) Use (3 studies): Three replicated studies (two controlled) in Florida Bay, the Florida Keys, and the Caribbean Sea, found that artificial shelters were occupied by lobsters and molluscs, that occupancy by lobsters varied with artificial shelter designs, that lobsters occupied artificial shelters more than natural ones (crevices), and that lobsters occupying artificial shelters were larger, had greater nutritional condition, and had similar sex ratio and survival rate, compared to lobsters occupying natural shelters. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2257https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2257Wed, 23 Oct 2019 10:13:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Place anthropogenic installations (e.g: windfarms) in an area such that they create artificial habitat and reduce the level of fishing activity We found no studies that evaluated the effects of placing anthropogenic installations in an area such that they reduce the level of fishing activity 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%2F2261https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2261Wed, 23 Oct 2019 10:51:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Repurpose obsolete offshore structures to act as artificial reefs One study examined the effects of repurposing obsolete offshore structures on subtidal benthic invertebrates. The study was of a sunken oil rig in the Mediterranean Sea (Italy). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall species richness/diversity (1 study): One study in the Mediterranean Sea recorded at least 53 invertebrate species having colonised a sunken oil rig after 30 years. Species included 14 species of molluscs, 14 species of worms, and 11 species of crustaceans. POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2262https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2262Wed, 23 Oct 2019 10:57:16 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pay monetary compensation for habitat damage remediation We found no studies that evaluated the effects of paying monetary compensation for habitat damage remediation 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%2F2263https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2263Wed, 23 Oct 2019 10:58:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove and relocate habitat-forming (biogenic) species before onset of impactful activities One study examined the effects of removing and relocating habitat-forming species before onset of impactful activities on subtidal benthic invertebrates. The study was in the Fal Estuary (UK). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall community composition (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in the Fal Estuary found that invertebrate community composition was different in plots where maërl bed habitat had been removed and relayed compared to undisturbed maërl after five weeks, but similar after 44 weeks. Overall species richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in the Fal Estuary found that invertebrate species richness was lower in plots where maërl bed habitat had been removed and relayed compared to undisturbed maërl after five weeks, but similar after 44 weeks. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in the Fal Estuary found that invertebrate abundance was different in plots where maërl bed habitat had been removed and relayed compared to undisturbed maërl after five weeks, but similar after 44 weeks. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2264https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2264Wed, 23 Oct 2019 11:00:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Offset habitat loss from human activity by restoring or creating habitats elsewhere Two studies examined the effects of offsetting habitat loss from human activity by restoring or creating habitats elsewhere on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. One study was in the Delaware Bay (USA), the other in the Persian Gulf (Kuwait). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One study in the Persian Gulf found that an area of low ecological value restored to offset habitat lost to land reclamation was colonized by over 198 invertebrate species. POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Biological production (1 study): One study in Delaware Bay found that an artificial reef built to offset lost soft-sediment habitat had higher annual secondary production/unit area from sessile invertebrates, but lower total annual secondary production, compared to habitat similar to that lost. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2265https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2265Wed, 23 Oct 2019 11:03:46 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide artificial shelters following release We found no studies that evaluated the effects of providing artificial shelters following the release of species on their 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%2F2272https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2272Wed, 23 Oct 2019 12:48:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove and relocate invertebrate species before onset of impactful activities We found no studies that evaluated the effects of removing and relocating invertebrate species before onset of impactful activities on their 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%2F2280https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2280Wed, 23 Oct 2019 13:36:46 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide educational or other training programmes about the marine environment to improve behaviours towards marine invertebrates One study examined the effects of providing educational or other training programmes about the marine environment on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. The study took place in Hong Kong. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after survey study in Hong Kong found that a conservation education programme on the Asian horseshoe crab in secondary schools significantly increased the students’ behaviour towards Asian horseshoe crab conservation. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2281https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2281Wed, 23 Oct 2019 13:38:47 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Organise educational marine wildlife tours to improve behaviours towards marine invertebrates We found no studies that evaluated the effects of organising educational marine wildlife tours to induce behavioural changes and increase engagement in marine conservation on human behaviour and/or 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%2F2282https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2282Wed, 23 Oct 2019 13:39:32 +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: Modify the design or configuration of trawl gear (mixed measures) Nineteen studies examined the effects of modifying the design or configuration of trawl gear on marine fish populations. Seven studies were in the Clarence River estuary (Australia), three studies were in each of the Mediterranean Sea (Turkey) and North Sea (UK), two studies were in the North Pacific Ocean (USA), and one study was in each of the South Pacific Ocean, the Skagerrak and Baltic Sea (Denmark/Sweden), the Atlantic Ocean (USA) and the Coral Sea (Australia). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (19 STUDIES) Reduce unwanted catch (16 studies): Twelve of 16 replicated studies (seven paired and controlled, five controlled, and two paired) in the Clarence River estuary, South Pacific Ocean, North Pacific Ocean, Mediterranean Sea, Skagerrak and Baltic Sea, Atlantic Ocean, North Sea and the Coral Sea, found that various modifications to trawl gear, including changes to the trawl wires, number of nets, codend number, footrope configuration, front trawl body panels, codend netting layers, spreading mechanism, method of weaving, knot orientation or using a new overall trawl design, resulted in reduced unwanted catches of non-target and/or discarded fish species or sizes, and of all sizes of four of seven commercial species, compared to standard unmodified trawl gear or other trawl designs. One of these also found increased catch rate of one commercial species and for another two species the effect varied with fish size. Two studies found that modified trawl gear reduced the unwanted catch of only a small proportion of the number of individual fish species caught compared to other trawl configurations, and also that unwanted fish catches varied between day/night. One study found that different trawl configurations had mixed effects on the numbers and sizes of non-target fish catch. The other study found no reduction in catches of discarded finfish between a modified and standard trawl codend. Improved size-selectivity of fishing gear (5 studies): Five replicated, controlled studies in the North Sea and Mediterranean Sea found that various modifications to trawl gear, including changes to the length of the extension piece, the codend strengthening bag, the method of weaving, the number of codend layers and overall design improved the size-selectivity for unwanted (non-target/discarded) fish species or sizes, and annular seabream in one of two cases, compared to unmodified standard trawl gear or other design configurations. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2704https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2704Thu, 17 Dec 2020 11:29:15 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify the design or configuration of trawl doors Three studies examined the effects of modifying the design or configuration of trawl doors on marine fish populations. One study was in the Tasman Sea, one in the Clarence Estuary and one in Lake Wooloweyah (all in Australia). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (3 STUDIES) Reduction in unwanted catch (3 studies): Three replicated, controlled studies (one paired) in the Tasman Sea, the Clarence Estuary and Lake Wooloweyah found that modified or different designs of trawl doors caught similar amounts of unwanted fish overall, compared to conventional door types. However, one study found fewer of one of five individual unwanted fish species were caught with modified doors. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2707https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2707Mon, 28 Dec 2020 15:41:41 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce the slope of intertidal artificial structures Two studies examined the effects of reducing the slope of intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. The studies were in an estuary in southeast Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One before-and-after study in Australia reported that reducing the slope of an intertidal artificial structure, along with creating rock pools, increased the combined macroalgae, invertebrate and fish species richness on the structure. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Algal abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Australia found that reducing the slope of an intertidal artificial structure did not increase the macroalgal abundance on structure surfaces. Invertebrate abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Australia found that reducing the slope of an intertidal artificial structure did not increase the oyster or mobile invertebrate abundance on structure surfaces. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3461https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3461Tue, 14 Sep 2021 12:39:58 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Release reptiles outside of their native range Seven studies evaluated the effects of releasing reptiles outside of their native range on their populations. Three studies were in the US Virgin Islands and one was in each of the USA, Mauritius, the Galápagos and New Zealand. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (7 STUDIES) Abundance (1 study): One replicated study in the US Virgin Islands found that following a translocation of St. Croix ground lizards to a new island, the population grew over a 10-year period. Occupancy/range (2 studies): One replicated, randomized study in the US Virgin Islands found that following a release outside of their native range, St. Croix ground lizards were still present five years later. One randomized study in the US Virgin Islands found that following a release outside of their native range, the area occupied by a population of St. Croix ground lizards increased from the 5th to 7th year following release. Reproductive success (3 studies): Three studies (including two replicated studies) in Maritius, the US Virgin Islands and New Zealand found that following releases outside of their native ranges, there was evidence of reproduction in released populations of Aldabra giant tortoises and Madagascar radiated tortoises, St. Croix ground lizards and Otago skinks after 11 months and 5–7 years. Survival (3 studies): Two studies (including one replicated, before-and-after study) in the Galápagos and New Zealand found that following releases outside of their native ranges, 77% of sterilized Galápagos giant tortoises and 63% of Otago skinks survived for 11 months or one year. One study in the USA found that annual survival of a second group of gopher tortoises translocated to an island was lower for newly released tortoises compared to established individuals from a previous release when the island had been outside of the native range. Condition (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after study in the Galápagos found that sterilized Galápagos giant tortoises translocated outside of their native range as part of an ecological replacement gained weight during the first year following their release as. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3738https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3738Tue, 14 Dec 2021 10:06:29 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Release captive-bred reptiles into the wild: Tortoises, terrapins, side-necked & softshell turtles Fourteen studies evaluated the effects of releasing captive-bred tortoises terrapins, side-necked & softshell turtles into the wild. Five studies were in the USA, three were in Italy, two were in the Seychelles, and one was in each of Madagascar, Australia and Spain and Minorca and one was global. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (13 STUDIES) Abundance (1 study): One global review found that when using recruitment to the adult population as a measure of success, 32% of reptile translocations/releases (releases of captive individuals were 7% of total projects) were successful. Occupancy/range (1 study): One review in Australia found that two of three releases of captive-bred Western swamp tortoises were classified as successful. Reproductive success (2 studies): Two studies (including one replicated study) in Italy reported evidence of a gravid female and successful reproduction following release of captive-bred European pond turtles. Survival (11 studies): Six of nine studies (including two replicated, controlled studies) in Madagascar, the Seychelles, the USA and Italy reported that 66–100% of 5–80 captive-bred tortoises and turtles released into the wild survived over monitoring periods of six months to two years. Two studies reported that 16–20% of 5 and 246 individuals survived over two years. The other study reported that some of over 250 individuals (number not given) were recaptured over a year of monitoring. One study also found captive-bred alligator snapping turtles that were older at their time of release had higher survival than younger turtles. One replicated study in Italy found that annual survival of released captive-bred European pond turtles was 67–91%. One replicated study in Spain and Minorca found that survival of captive-bred Hermann’s tortoises was higher after three years after release into the wild compared to 1–2 years after release. The study also found that after three years, survival of released tortoises was similar to that of wild tortoises in one population, but lower in a second population. Condition (2 studies): One of two controlled studies (including one replicated study) in the USA found that released captive-bred juvenile alligator snapping turtles grew at a similar rate and achieved higher body condition than juveniles that remained in captivity. The other study found that released alligator snapping turtles had similar body conditions compared to individuals that remained in captivity. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): One randomized study in the USA found that captive-bred Blanding’s turtles released into open water habitat had larger home ranges than those released into places dominated by cattail or willows. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3770https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3770Wed, 15 Dec 2021 11:07:11 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Relocate nests/eggs to a nearby natural setting (not including hatcheries): Tortoises, terrapins, side-necked & softshell turtles Four studies evaluated the effects of relocating nests/eggs to a nearby natural setting on tortoise, terrapin, side-necked & softshell turtle One study was in each of Venezuela, Columbia, Canada and the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Reproductive success (4 studies): Two of four replicated, controlled studies in Venezuela, Columbia, Canada and the USA found that relocated Arrau turtle and Magdalena river turtle nests had similar hatching success compared to natural nests. One of the studies found that painted turtle and snapping turtle nests relocated to artificial nest mounds had higher hatching success than natural nests. The other study found that relocating diamondback terrapin nests to artificial nest mounds had mixed effects on hatching success compared to natural nests. Survival (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Venezuela found that Arrau turtle hatchlings from relocated nests had lower survival during their first year compared to hatchlings from natural nests. Condition (2 studies): One replicated, controlled study in Venezuela found that Arrau turtle hatchlings from relocated nests had more physical abnormalities compared to hatchlings from natural nests. One replicated, controlled study in Columbia found that a similar number of eggs were infested by invertebrates and fungi in relocated and natural nests. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3782https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3782Wed, 15 Dec 2021 15:14:03 +0000Collected 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: Plant wild bird seed or cover mixture Seven studies evaluated the effects of planting wild bird seed or cover mixture on butterflies and moths. All seven were in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (4 studies): Two of three replicated, controlled studies (including two randomized and one paired study) in the UK found that plots sown with wild bird seed mixture had a greater species richness of butterflies than wheat crop or extensively or conventionally managed grassland. The other study found that land managed under an agri-environment scheme, including wild bird seed plots, had a similar species richness of butterflies to conventional farmland. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found that plots sown with lucerne had a greater species richness of butterflies than plots sown with borage, chicory, sainfoin and fodder radish. POPULATION RESPONSE (7 STUDIES) Abundance (7 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies (including one randomized study) in the UK found that plots sown with wild bird seed had a higher abundance of butterflies than wheat crop or extensively or conventionally managed grassland, but that caterpillar abundance was lower in wild bird seed plots than either grassland. Two replicated, site comparison studies in the UK found that the abundance of butterfly and moth caterpillars in wild bird seed plots was similar to a range of other cropped and non-cropped farm habitats. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies (including one paired study) in the UK found that farms with wild bird seed plots (along with other agri-environment scheme options) had a higher abundance of some butterflies and micro-moths, a similar abundance of macro-moths, but a lower abundance of other butterflies, than farms without agri-environment scheme management. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found that plots sown with lucerne and red clover had a higher abundance of butterflies than plots sown with borage, chicory and sainfoin. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3930https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3930Thu, 11 Aug 2022 19:22:03 +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 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide or retain set‐aside areas in farmland Nine studies evaluated the effects of providing or retaining set-aside areas in farmland on butterflies and moths. Three studies were in the UK, and one was in each of Germany, Ireland, Switzerland, Hungary, Finland and the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Community composition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Germany found that butterfly communities in older set-aside fields included species which were less migratory, spent longer as caterpillars, and had fewer generations/year than species found in newer set-aside fields. Richness/diversity (5 studies): Three of four replicated studies (including one randomized, controlled study and three site comparison studies) in Germany, Ireland, Hungary and Finland found that sown or naturally regenerating set-aside had a greater species richness of butterflies and day-flying moths than cereal fields or pasture, especially when the set-aside was sown with less competitive grasses. One of these studies found a higher species richness of butterflies and day-flying moths in second-year set-aside than in first-year set-aside, but another found no difference in butterfly species richness between 1–3-year-old set-aside. The other study found that set-aside fields had a similar species richness of butterflies and moths to arable and pasture fields. One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that set-aside fields had a similar species richness of butterflies to native prairies. POPULATION RESPONSE (8 STUDIES) Abundance (8 studies): Two of five replicated studies (including one randomized, controlled study and four site comparison studies) in the UK, Ireland, Hungary and Finland found that the abundance of butterflies and day-flying moths in sown set-aside was higher than in cereal fields, especially when the set-aside was sown with less competitive grasses. One of these studies found a higher abundance of butterflies and day-flying moths in second-year set-aside than in first-year set-aside, but another found no difference in butterfly abundance between 1–3-year-old set-aside. The other three studies found that fallow and stubble set-aside had a similar abundance of adult butterflies and butterfly and moth caterpillars to arable fields and pasture. Two site comparison studies (including one replicated study) in the UK and Switzerland found that set-aside fields had a similar abundance of butterfly and moth adults and caterpillars to uncultivated field boundaries and extensively farmed land. One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that set-aside fields had a similar abundance of butterflies to native prairies in their first year, but a lower abundance of butterflies thereafter. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3980https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3980Thu, 18 Aug 2022 10:53:43 +0100

What Works in Conservation

The Conservation Evidence Journal

Discover more on our blog

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

For a full list of, and information about, our champions:

About our champions, why and how to become one:

What Works in Conservation

The Conservation Evidence Journal

Discover more on our blog

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

For a full list of, and information about, our champions:

About our champions, why and how to become one:

This website uses Cookies

1 Select a category

2 Refine category

3 View actions