Collected 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: Reintroduce laboratory-reared bumblebee colonies to the wildSeven replicated trials have monitored the success of laboratory-reared colonies of bumblebees introduced to the environment. In four of the trials (three in the UK, one in Canada) colonies were left to develop until new queens were produced or the founding queen died. In two of these (both in the UK), the numbers of queens/colony were very low or zero. In two trials, good numbers of new queens were produced. Rates of social parasitism by cuckoo bees Bombus [Psithyrus] spp. in colonies released to the wild are variable. Two replicated trials in Canada and the UK found high rates (25-66% and 79% respectively). The UK trial showed that parasitism was reduced by placing colonies in landscapes with intermediate rather than very high nectar and pollen availability, late, rather than early in the season. Five other replicated trials reported no social parasites. We have not found evidence to compare rates of parasitism in artificial nest boxes with the rate in natural nests. Two replicated trials examined the effects of supplementary feeding for bumblebee colonies placed in the field. One, in Canada, found supplementary feeding improved the reproductive success of captive-reared colonies, but did not reduce their parasite load. The other trial, in the USA, found supplementary feeding did not increase colony productivity. One small scale trial in Norway showed that colonies of the buff-tailed bumblebee B. terrestris prefer to forage more than 100 m from their nest sites.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F52https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F52Thu, 20 May 2010 02:59:51 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore species-rich grassland vegetationOne replicated controlled trial in Scotland showed that species-rich grassland managed under agri-environment schemes attracted more nest-searching queen bumblebees but fewer foraging queens in the spring than unmanaged grassland. Three small trials, two in the UK and one in Germany, found that restored species-rich grasslands had similar flower-visiting insect communities (dominated by bees and/or flies) to paired ancient species-rich grasslands.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F8https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F8Thu, 20 May 2010 07:08:34 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Sow uncropped arable field margins with a native wild flower seed mixFive replicated trials in the UK showed that uncropped field margins sown with wild flowers and subsequently mown support a higher abundance (and in three trials higher species richness) of foraging bumblebees than cropped field edges (all five trials), grassy margins (four trials) or naturally regenerated uncropped margins (three trials). One small trial recorded the same number of bee species on wildflower sown and naturally regenerated strips. Two trials demonstrated that perennial leguminous herbs in the seed mixtures are important forage sources for bumblebees, particularly for long-tongued species. One small replicated trial showed that common long-tongued bumblebee species (Bombus pascuorum and B. hortorum) strongly preferred plots of perennial wildflower seed mix over a mix of annual forage plants. We have captured no evidence on the effects of field margin management on solitary bees.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F19https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F19Thu, 20 May 2010 07:11:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide artificial nest sites for solitary beesWe have captured 30 replicated trials of nest boxes for solitary bees in 10 countries, including Europe, North and South America and Asia. Twenty-nine of these trials showed occupancy by bees. Many species of solitary bee readily nest in the boxes, including some species considered endangered in a study on farmland in Germany, oil-collecting species of the genus Centris in South America and a recently discovered species in lowland tropical forest in Costa Rica. One trial in temperate forest in Canada recorded no bees using nest boxes. A set of replicated experiments in Germany estimated that four medium to large European species of solitary bee have a foraging range of 150 to 600 m, so nest boxes must be within this distance of foraging resources. Twenty-three replicated trials have shown nest boxes of cut hollow stems or tubes being occupied by solitary bees. Eleven trials demonstrated occupation of blocks of wood drilled with holes. Two trials in Neotropical secondary forest (one in Brazil, one in Mexico) showed that particular solitary bee species will nest in wooden boxes, without stems or confining walls inside. Two replicated trials have compared reproductive success in different nest box designs. One showed that reed stem and wooden grooved-board nest boxes produced more bees/nest than four other types. Nest boxes with plastic-lined holes, or plastic or paper tubes were much less productive, due to parasitism or mould. The other, a small trial, found nests of the oil-collecting bee Centris analis in Brazil were more productive in cardboard straws placed in drilled wooden holes than in grooved wooden boards stacked together. Three trials on agricultural land, one on a carpenter bee in India, one on a range of species in Germany and one on species of Osmia in the USA, have shown that the number of occupied solitary bee nests can double over three years with repeated nest box provision at a given site. One small replicated trial compared populations of solitary bees in blueberry fields in the USA with and without nest boxes over three years. The estimated number of foraging Osmia bees had increased in fields with nest boxes, compared to fields without nest boxes. Eleven replicated trials have recorded solitary bees in nest boxes being attacked by parasites or predators. Rates of mortality and parasitism have been measured in 10 studies. Mortality rates range from 13% mortality for cavity-nesting bees and wasps combined in Germany (2% were successfully parasitized), or 2% of bee brood cells attacked in shade coffee and cacao plantations in central Sulawesi, Indonesia, to 36% parasitism and 20% other mortality (56% mortality overall) for the subtropical carpenter bee Xylocopa fenestrata in India. Two replicated trials of the use of drilled wooden nest boxes by bees in California, USA, showed that introduced European earwigs Forficula auricularia and introduced European leafcutter bee species use the boxes. In one trial, these introduced species more commonly occupied the boxes than native bees. A small trial tested three soil-filled nest boxes for the mining bee Andrena flavipes in the UK, but they were not occupied.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F47https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F47Thu, 20 May 2010 07:16:20 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce grazing intensity on pasturesOne replicated trial has shown that reducing the intensity of summer cattle grazing can increase the abundance, but not the species richness of cavity-nesting bees and wasps.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F23https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F23Thu, 20 May 2010 12:44:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Leave arable field margins uncropped with natural regenerationFour replicated trials in the UK have found more bumblebees (and more bee species in two trials) foraging on uncropped field margins than on cropped margins. One small unreplicated trial found similar bee species richness on a naturally regenerated margin as on margins sown with wildflowers. A small replicated trial found that neither abundance nor diversity of bumblebees were higher on naturally regenerated margins than on cropped margins. Two trials note that the value of naturally regenerated uncropped field margins is based on thistle species considered to be pernicious weeds requiring control. Two trials found that the value of naturally regenerated uncropped field margins for bees was not consistent from year to year. We have captured no evidence on the effects of field margin management on solitary bees.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F20https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F20Thu, 20 May 2010 16:57:57 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Rear and manage populations of solitary beesSeveral species of solitary bee in the family Megachilidae are reared and managed commercially as pollinators, mostly for the forage crop alfalfa, or fruit trees. These species readily nest in drilled wooden blocks, or stacked grooved boards of wood or polystyrene. Parasites and pathogens can be problematic and a number of control methods have been developed. Rearing methods have been investigated for two other species not yet commercially managed and one replicated trial shows that temperature regimes are important to survival. If rearing for conservation purposes is to be attempted, we would recommend a systematic review of these methods. Three management trials with megachilids not commercially managed in the USA or Poland, and a review of studies of managed species, found that local populations can increase up to six-fold in one year under management if conditions are good and plentiful floral resources are provided. Two replicated trials have reared solitary bees on artificial diets. One found high larval mortality in Osmia cornuta reared on artificial pollen-based diets, including honey bee-collected pollen. The other found Megachile rotundata could be reared on an artificial diet based on honey bee-collected pollen, but bees reared on synthetic pollen substitutes either died or had low pre-pupal weight.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F54https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F54Thu, 20 May 2010 18:24:45 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Sow uncropped arable field margins with an agricultural nectar and pollen mixFive replicated trials in Europe (three controlled) have documented bumblebees foraging on field margins sown with an agricultural nectar and pollen seed mix. Four replicated trials showed that field margins sown with perennial leguminous flowering plants attract significantly more foraging bumblebees than naturally regenerated (two trials), grassy (four trials) or cropped (three trials) field margins. Three replicated trials showed that a mix of agricultural forage plants including legumes (all annual plants in one trial) attracts greater numbers of bumblebees than a perennial wildflower mix, at least in the first year. Three trials in the UK found evidence that margins sown with agricultural legume plants degrade in their value to bumblebees and would need to be re-sown every few years. We have captured no evidence on the effects of field margin management on solitary bees.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F18https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F18Thu, 20 May 2010 20:59:45 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage hedges to benefit beesOne replicated controlled trial showed that hedges managed under the Scottish Rural Stewardship scheme do not attract more nest-searching or foraging queen bumblebees in spring than conventionally managed hedgerows.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F15https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F15Thu, 20 May 2010 21:16:02 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant in-field trees (not farm woodland)We have captured no evidence for the effects of planting in-field trees on farmland wildlife. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F76https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F76Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:08:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide nest boxes for bees (solitary bees or bumblebees) Ten studies (nine replicated trials and a review of studies) from Germany, Poland and the UK of solitary bee nest boxes all showed the nest boxes were readily used by bees. Two replicated studies found the local population size or number of emerging red mason bees increased when nest boxes were provided. One replicated trial in Germany showed that the number of occupied solitary bee nests almost doubled over three years with repeated nest box provision at a given site. Two replicated trials tested bumblebee nest boxes and both found very low uptake, 2% or less. Occupancy rates of solitary bee nest boxes, where reported (two replicated studies), were between 1 and 26% of available cavities. Five studies (four replicated trials and a review of studies) report the number of bee species found in the nest boxes – between 4.6 and 33 species. One replicated study from Germany found nest boxes should be placed 150-600 m from forage resources (Gathmann & Tscharntke 2002). A replicated study from Poland found the highest production of red mason bees per nest was from nesting materials of reed stems or wood. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F80https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F80Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:15:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use mixed stocking A replicated, controlled study in the UK found more spiders, harvestmen and pseudoscorpions on sheep-grazed grassland than on mixed livestock-grazed grassland when suction sampling, but not when pitfall-trapping.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F93https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F93Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:35:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control mink A systematic review found seven studies demonstrating that trapping appears to be an effective method of reducing American mink populations, but firm conclusions could not be made due to limitations in experimental design. A large-scale trapping programme in the UK demonstrated that American mink have been successfully eradicated over a large area and this may have been associated with some localized water vole expansions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F107https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F107Mon, 24 Oct 2011 22:02:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide training for land managers, farmers and farm advisers One study from the UK found farmers who were trained in how to implement agri-environment schemes created better quality wildlife habitat over five years. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F113https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F113Mon, 24 Oct 2011 22:13:06 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide other resources for birds (water, sand for bathing) A small study in France found that grey partridge density was higher in areas where a combination of supplementary food, water, shelter and sand for bathing were provided.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F117https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F117Tue, 01 Nov 2011 20:37:30 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore or create traditional water meadows Of three studies from Sweden and the UK (two before-and-after trials) looking at bird numbers or densities following water meadow restoration, one study found increases, one study found increases and decreases and one found northern lapwing populations did not increase despite an increase in the area of managed water meadows. Seventeen studies from France, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, Switzerland and the UK (seven replicated controlled studies of which two were also randomized and two reviews) found one or more management techniques that were successful in restoring wet meadow plant communities. The techniques were topsoil removal, introduction of target plant species, raising water levels, grazing, mowing or a combination of removing topsoil and introducing target plant species, plus livestock exclusion. Three studies (one replicated controlled study and two reviews) from the Netherlands, Sweden, Germany and the UK found restoration of wet meadow plant communities had reduced or limited success. Thirteen studies (five replicated and controlled of which two randomized) from France, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland and the UK monitored the effects of methods to restore or create wet meadow plant communities over a relatively short time period after restoration, and found some positive effects within five years. Three replicated studies (one controlled, one a site comparison) from the Netherlands and Germany found restoration was not complete five, nine or 20 years later. A replicated controlled site comparison from Sweden found plant species richness increased with time since restoration. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F119https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F119Tue, 01 Nov 2011 20:58:31 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control weeds without damaging other plants in conservation areas Two studies looked at the effects of controlling weeds on the surrounding vegetation. One study from the UK found that new populations of rare arable plants established following the control of perennial weeds in a nature conservation area. A replicated, controlled and randomized study in the UK found that using grass-specific herbicide reduced grass diversity and resulted in increases in broadleaved plants. Eleven studies investigated different methods of controlling plants. A review found that specific management regimes can reduce the abundance of pernicious weeds in nature conservation areas. Four replicated controlled studies (one also randomized) from Denmark and Germany found cutting and infection with fungal pathogens were effective methods for controlling creeping thistle and one replicated, randomized, controlled trial from the UK found long-term control was achieved by lenient grazing. A replicated, controlled and randomized study in Germany found weevils could be used to infect creeping thistle with systemic rust. One study found a non-native beetle was unsuitable for controlling creeping thistle because it had poor survival in the UK climate. A replicated controlled study found that spraying a high concentration of herbicide killed less than half of broad-leaved dock plants. A replicated, controlled, randomized study found black grass was eliminated with a December treatment of grass-specific herbicide. A small replicated study found that Hebridean sheep grazed more purple moor grass than Swaledale sheep. Two replicated controlled laboratory and grassland studies found negative impacts of the herbicide asulam on green dock beetles.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F123https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F123Tue, 01 Nov 2011 21:27:23 +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: Implement 'mosaic management', a Dutch agri-environment option A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study from the Netherlands found that northern lapwing population trends changed from decreases to increases following the introduction of mosaic management. Three other species of wading bird did not show such a response and Eurasian oystercatcher populations did less well under mosaic management than other management types. A replicated, paired sites study in the Netherlands that black-tailed godwit had higher productivity under mosaic management than other management types due to higher nest survival, and nests were less likely to be trampled by livestock or destroyed by mowing under mosaic management.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F130https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F130Mon, 14 Nov 2011 22:01:50 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Leave uncut strips of rye grass on silage fields Two reviews and two replicated controlled trials from the UK found that leaving uncut strips of rye grass on silage fields resulted in benefits to birds including increased numbers. One of these studies found that whilst seed-eating birds preferred rye grass cut once only, birds that fed on different food resources such as insect-eaters showed more variable results with some preferring plots cut two or more times. One replicated controlled randomized study from the UK found no difference in ground beetle abundance and diversity between cut and uncut silage field headlands in the first two years of the experiment, but higher species diversity in uncut plots in the third year.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F132https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F132Mon, 14 Nov 2011 22:28:34 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Undersow spring cereals, with clover for example A total of fifteen studies from the UK, Austria, Denmark, Finland and Switzerland (including four replicated, controlled and randomised studies and two reviews) looked at the effects of undersowing spring cereals on biodiversity. Eleven studies (including seven replicated trials, of which one controlled and three randomized and controlled, and one review) found that undersowing spring cereals benefited some birds, plants, insects, spiders and earthworms. These benefits to farmland wildlife included increases in barnacle goose abundance, densities of singing Eurasian skylark and nesting dunnock, arthropod abundance and species richness, and bumblebee, butterfly, earthworm, ground beetle, spider or springtail abundances. Five studies from Austria, Finland and the UK (including three replicated studies of which one was also controlled and randomized, and a review) found that undersowing spring cereals did not benefit invertebrates, plants, grey partridge population indicators, or nesting densities of two out of three farmland bird species. One replicated study from the UK found only one out of five bird species was found more frequently on undersown wheat stubbles than conventionally managed barley.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F136https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F136Fri, 18 Nov 2011 15:24:58 +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: Provide refuges during harvest or mowing Three studies examined the effect of providing refuges for birds during harvest or mowing in France and the UK. One replicated study in France found evidence that providing refuges during mowing reduced contact between mowing machinery and unfledged quail and corncrakes. However one replicated controlled study and a review from the UK found that Eurasian skylark did not use nesting refuges more than other areas.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F147https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F147Sat, 14 Jan 2012 14:49:58 +0000
What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 21

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust
For a full list of, and information about, our champions:
All Evidence Champions
About our champions, why and how to become one:
Become an Evidence Champion

This website uses Cookies

We use limited Cookies to run the site and to analyse our traffic (none for site vendors). By using this site, you will be providing your consent to our use of Cookies.

Accept & continue