Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Soil: Grow cover crops in arable fieldsOrganic matter (12 studies): One meta-analysis of studies from Mediterranean-type climates and ten replicated, controlled studies (nine randomized, two before-and-after) from Italy, Spain, and the USA found more organic matter (mostly measured as carbon) in soils with winter cover crops, compared to soils without them, in some or all comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study from Italy found inconsistent differences in organic matter in soils with or without winter cover crops (sometimes more, sometimes less). Nutrients (22 studies) Nitrogen (21 studies): Ten replicated, randomized, controlled studies (two before-and-after) from Italy, Spain, and the USA found more nitrogen in soils with winter cover crops, compared to soils without them, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found less nitrogen in soils with winter cover crops, compared to soils without them. Ten replicated, controlled studies (nine randomized, two before-and-after) from Italy, Spain, and the USA found inconsistent differences in nitrogen (sometimes more, sometimes less) between soils with or without winter cover crops (but see the paragraphs, below, for distinctions between different forms of nitrogen). Phosphorus (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found similar amounts of phosphorus in soils with or without winter cover crops. Potassium (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study from the USA found an increase in potassium in soils with winter cover crops, and no increase in soils without them. Soil organisms (12 studies) Microbial biomass (6 studies): Five replicated, randomized, controlled studies from the USA found more microbial biomass in soils with cover crops, compared to soils without them, in some or all comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study from Italy found inconsistent differences in microbial biomass (sometimes more, sometimes less) between soils with or without winter cover crops. Nematodes (2 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from the USA found more nematodes in soils with cover crops, compared to soils without them, in some comparisons. One of these studies also found a higher ratio of bacteria-feeding nematodes to fungus-feeding nematodes in soils with cover crops, compared to soils without them. Earthworms (2 studies): One replicated, controlled study from the USA found more earthworms in soils with winter cover crops, compared to soils without them. One replicated site comparison from the USA found similar numbers of earthworms in soils with or without winter cover crops. Bacteria and fungi (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found more bacteria and fungi in soils with winter cover crops, compared to soils without them, in some comparisons. One replicated, controlled study from Italy found more spores and species of beneficial fungi (mycorrhizae) in soils with winter cover crops, compared to soils without them, in some comparisons. Soil erosion and aggregation (4 studies) Soil erosion (2 studies): Two controlled studies (one replicated and randomized) from Israel and the USA found less erosion of soils with cover crops, compared to soils with fallows or bare soils. Soil aggregation (2 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain and the USA found more water-stable soil aggregates in plots with winter cover crops, compared to plots without them, in some or all comparisons. Greenhouse gases (5 studies) Carbon dioxide (5 studies): Three controlled studies (two replicated and randomized) from Italy and the USA found similar amounts of carbon dioxide in soils with or without cover crops. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from the USA found more carbon dioxide in soils with cover crops, compared to soils without them, in some comparisons. Carbon storage (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Italy found more carbon accumulation in soils with cover crops, compared to soils without them, in some comparisons. Nitrous oxide (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found more nitrous oxide in soils with cover crops, compared to soils without them, in some comparisons. One controlled study from the USA found similar amounts of nitrous oxide in soils with cover crops or fallows. Implementation options (9 studies): Five studies from Italy, Spain, and the USA found more nitrogen in soils that were cover cropped with legumes, compared to non-legumes. One study from the USA found inconsistent differences in nitrogen (sometimes more, sometimes less) between soils with different cover crops. One study from the USA found no differences in phosphorus or microbial biomass between soils with different cover crops. One study from Italy found differences in beneficial fungi (mycorrhizae) between plots with different cover crops. One study from Spain found higher soil quality in plots with long-term cover crops, compared to short-term. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1345https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1345Wed, 08 Mar 2017 15:10:16 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Soil: Add compost to the soilOrganic matter (12 studies): Twelve replicated, controlled studies (ten randomized) from Italy, Spain, Syria, Turkey, and the USA found more organic matter in soils with added compost, compared to soils without added compost, in some or all comparisons. Nutrients (10 studies): Six replicated, controlled studies (five randomized) from Italy, Portugal, Spain, and Syria found more nutrients in soils with added compost, compared to soils without added compost, in some or all comparisons. Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy and the USA found inconsistent differences in nitrogen between soils with or without added compost. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found no differences in phosphorus between soils with or without added compost. Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy and Spain found similar pH levels in soils with or without added compost. Soil organisms (10 studies): Six replicated, controlled studies (five randomized) from Italy, Spain, and the USA found more microbial biomass in soils with added compost, compared to soils without added compost, in some or all comparisons. Two replicated, controlled studies from Italy and the USA found similar amounts of microbial biomass in soils with or without added compost. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Italy found inconsistent differences in bacterial abundance between plots with or without added compost. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy and Spain found differences in bacteria communities, in some comparisons. Soil erosion and aggregation (5 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies (one randomized) from Spain found less erosion of soils with added compost, compared to soils without added compost, in some or all comparisons. Four replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain and Turkey found that soils with added compost were more stable than soils without added compost, in some or all comparisons. Greenhouse gases (10 studies): Six replicated, controlled studies (five randomized) from Italy, Spain, and the USA found more greenhouse gas in soils with added compost, compared to soils without added compost, in some or all comparisons. Four replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found no differences in greenhouse gas between soils with or without added compost. Implementation options (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Syria found more nitrogen in soils with compost added every two years, compared to soils with compost added every four years. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Italy found inconsistent differences in bacteria abundance between soils with different amounts of added compost.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1362https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1362Mon, 08 May 2017 13:08:46 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Soil: Add manure to the soilOrganic matter (8 studies): Five replicated, controlled studies (two randomized) from Italy, Tunisia, Turkey, and the USA found more organic matter in soils with added manure, compared to soils without it. Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy, Spain, and Greece found similar amounts of organic matter in plots with or without added manure. Nutrients (5 studies) Nitrogen (5 studies): Three replicated, controlled, studies (one randomized) from Italy and Tunisia found more nitrogen in soils with added manure, compared to soils without it, in some comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Greece and Italy found similar amounts of nitrogen in soils with or without added manure. Phosphorus (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Greece found more phosphorus in soils with added manure, compared to soils without it. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Italy found similar amounts of phosphorus in soils with or without added manure. One replicated, controlled study from Italy found inconsistent differences in phosphorus between soils with or without added manure. Potassium (2 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy and Greece found more potassium in soils with added manure, compared to soils without it. pH (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Tunisia found lower pH levels in soils with added manure, compared to soils without it. One replicated, controlled study from Italy found higher pH levels in soils with added manure. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Italy found similar pH level in soils with or without added manure. Soil organisms (3 studies) Microbial biomass (2 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy and Spain found similar amounts of microbial biomass in soils with or without added manure. Nematodes (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Greece found similar numbers of nematodes in soils with or without added manure. Soil erosion and aggregation (4 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found less erosion in plots with added manure, compared to plots without added manure. Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain and Turkey found higher soil stability in plots with added manure, compared to plots without added manure, in some or all comparisons. One replicated, controlled study from the USA found similar soil stability in plots with or without added manure. Greenhouse gases (2 studies): One replicated, controlled study from the USA found higher carbon dioxide emissions in plots with added manure, compared to plots without added manure. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found higher nitrous oxide emissions in plots with added manure, compared to plots without added manure. Implementation options (1 study): One study from Tunisia found no differences in organic matter or pH between soils with different amounts of added manure, but found less nitrate in soils with less added fertilizer.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1363https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1363Tue, 09 May 2017 10:32:58 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Soil: Add sewage sludge to the soilOrganic matter (1 study): One replicated, controlled study from the USA found more organic matter in soils with added sewage sludge, compared to soils without it. Nutrients (2 studies): One replicated, controlled study from Spain found more nitrate in soils with added sewage sludge, compared to soils without it. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Portugal found similar amounts of nitrate in soils with or without added sewage sludge. Soil organisms (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies (one randomized) from Spain found similar amounts of microbial biomass in soils with or without added sewage sludge. Soil erosion and aggregation (2 studies): One replicated, controlled study from Spain found less erosion in plots with added sewage sludge, compared to plots without it. One replicated, controlled study from the USA found no difference in stability between soils with or without added sewage sludge. Greenhouse gases (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies from Spain and the USA found higher carbon dioxide emissions from soils with added sewage sludge, compared to soils without it. Implementation options (1 study): One replicated, controlled study from Spain found more nitrate in soils with digested sewage sludge, compared to composted or thermally dried sewage sludge.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1364https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1364Tue, 09 May 2017 14:12:57 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Soil: Add slurry to the soilOrganic matter (4 studies): Three studies (two replicated, randomized, controlled; one meta-analysis) from Spain and multiple Mediterranean countries found similar amounts of organic matter in soils with or without added slurry. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found more organic matter in soils with added slurry, compared to soils without it, in some comparisons. Nutrients (4 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found more nitrate in soils with added slurry, compared to soils without it. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Portugal and Spain found similar amounts of nitrate in soils with or without added slurry. One of these studies also found more ammonium, but another one did not. Soil organisms (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found more microbial biomass in soils with added slurry, compared to soils without it, but another one did not. Soil erosion and aggregation (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found more stable soils in plots with added slurry, compared to plots without it, in some comparisons. Greenhouse gases (8 studies) Carbon dioxide (3 studies): Of three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain, two studies found higher carbon dioxide emissions in soils with added slurry, compared to soils without it, but one study did not. Methane (4 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found that less methane was absorbed by soils with added slurry, compared to soils without it. Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found similar methane fluxes in soils with or without added slurry. Nitrous oxide (6 studies): Five replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found higher nitrous oxide emissions in soils with added slurry, compared to soils without it, in some or all comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found similar nitrous oxide emissions in soils with or without added slurry. Implementation options (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found no differences in organic matter or greenhouse-gas emissions between plots with different amounts of slurry. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found similar amounts of nitrogen in soils with or without added slurry. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found similar nitrous oxide emissions in soils with digested or untreated pig slurry. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found similar carbon dioxide and methane emissions in soils with digested or untreated slurry.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1365https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1365Tue, 09 May 2017 14:27:06 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Soil: Plant buffer stripsOrganic matter (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Italy found more organic matter in plots with buffers. Nutrients (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Italy found more nitrogen in plots with buffers. Soil organisms (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Italy found more microbial biomass in plots with buffers. Soil erosion and aggregation (0 studies) Greenhouse gases (0 studies) Implementation options (1 study): One study from Italy found some differences between buffers of different widths, and other differences between buffers with different numbers of trees.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1372https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1372Mon, 15 May 2017 15:01:03 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Soil: Exclude grazersOrganic matter (1 study): One replicated site comparison in shrublands in Spain found less carbon in soils at ungrazed sites, compared to cow-and-sheep-grazed sites. Nutrients (3 studies): Three replicated studies (one controlled, two site comparisons) from the USA and Spain found less nitrogen in soils in ungrazed areas, compared to sheep- or cattle-grazed areas, in some or all comparisons. One of these studies found more phosphorus in soils at ungrazed sites, compared to grazed sites. Soil organisms (1 study): One controlled study on a streambank in the USA found more nematodes and more diverse nematode communities in an area with goats and sheep excluded. Soil erosion and aggregation (0 studies) Greenhouse gases (3 studies): One replicated site comparison in shrublands in Spain found more carbon dioxide in soils (soil respiration) in ungrazed plots, compared to sheep- or cattle-grazed plots. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in grassland in the USA found similar amounts of carbon dioxide in soils (soil respiration) in ungrazed and cattle-grazed sites. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in wet grasslands in the USA found less methane in soils in ungrazed plots, compared to cattle-grazed plots. Implementation options (1 study): One replicated site comparison in shrubland in Spain found less carbon and nitrogen in untilled soils that were grazed, compared to ungrazed, but found no differences in tilled soils that were grazed or ungrazed.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1375https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1375Mon, 15 May 2017 15:11:34 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pest regulation: Add compost to the soilPest regulation (2 studies): Of two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from the USA and an unspecified Mediterranean country, one study found less disease in crops grown in soils with added compost, compared to soils without it, in some comparisons, but one study found no differences in most crop diseases. One replicated, controlled study from the USA found similar amounts of Escherichia coli bacteria in plots with or without added compost. This study also found that similar percentages of pests were consumed by natural enemies in plots with or without added compost. Crop damage (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study found fewer dead tomato plants in soil with added compost, compared to soil without added compost, in some comparisons. Ratio of natural enemies to pests (1 study): One replicated, controlled study from the USA found similar ratios of natural enemies to pests (mostly aphids) in plots with or without added compost. Pest numbers (1 study): One replicated, controlled study from the USA found similar pest numbers in plots with or without added compost. Natural enemy numbers (0 studies)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1392https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1392Mon, 15 May 2017 16:13:04 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pest regulation: Use organic fertilizer instead of inorganicPest regulation (0 studies) Crop damage (0 studies) Ratio of natural enemies to pests (0 studies) Pest numbers (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found more aphids in plots with organic fertilizer, compared to inorganic fertilizer, in some comparisons, but another one found similar numbers of aphids in the same study system. Natural enemy numbers (0 studies)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1393https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1393Mon, 15 May 2017 16:14:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pest regulation: Grow cover crops in arable fieldsPest regulation (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found that fewer aphids were parasitized in plots with cover crops (living mulches) between broccoli plants, compared to plots without cover crops, in some comparisons. Crop damage (6 studies): Three controlled studies (two replicated and randomized) from the USA found similar numbers of diseased broccoli seedlings or tomato plants in plots with or without winter cover crops. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from the USA found less-severely diseased lettuces in plots with winter cover crops, compared to winter fallows, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found inconsistent differences in tomato damage between plots with cover crops or fallows. Ratio of natural enemies to pests (0 studies) Pest numbers (14 studies) Weeds (8 studies): Four replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Israel and Italy found fewer weeds in plots with cover crops, compared to plots without them, in some or all comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found more weeds in plots with winter cover crops, compared to plots without them, in some comparisons. Two replicated, controlled studies (one randomized) from Italy and the USA found that winter cover crops had inconsistent effects on weeds (sometimes more, sometimes fewer, compared to plots without winter cover crops). One controlled study from the USA found similar amounts of weeds in plots with winter cover crops or fallows. Weed species (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Italy found fewer weed species in plots with winter cover crops, compared to plots without them, in one of three comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found different weed communities in plots with or without winter cover crops. Other pests (6 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from the USA found fewer aphids in plots with cover crops (living mulches) between broccoli plants, compared to plots without cover crops, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found more mites (in some comparisons), but similar numbers of centipedes and springtails, in plots with winter cover crops, compared to plots without them. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found similar numbers of leafminers in plots with or without winter cover crops. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found similar amounts of fungus in soils with or without winter cover crops. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found inconsistent differences in nematode numbers between soils with cover crops or fallows. Natural enemy numbers (0 studies) Implementation options (13 studies): Nine studies from Israel, Italy, and the USA found that different cover crops had different effects on crop damage or pest numbers. Two studies from the USA found that different cover crops (living mulches) did not have different effects on pest regulation or pest numbers. Two studies from the USA found that different methods of seeding cover crops had different effects on pest numbers.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1394https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1394Mon, 15 May 2017 16:19:52 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pest regulation: Plant or maintain ground cover in orchards or vineyardsPest regulation (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found that more leafhopper eggs were parasitized in plots with cover crops, compared to bare fallows, in one of six comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from the USA found inconsistent differences or no differences in the parasitism of leafhopper eggs between plots with or without ground cover. Crop damage (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found that more grapes were damaged by pests in plots with cover crops, compared to bare fallows, in some comparisons. Ratio of natural enemies to pests (0 studies) Pest numbers (12 studies) Weeds (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in an olive orchard in Spain found fewer weeds in plots with cover crops, compared to bare soil, in one of two comparisons. One replicated, controlled study from a vineyard in the USA found more weeds in plots with cover crops, compared to bare soil, in one of nine comparisons. Implementation options (4 studies): Three studies from vineyards in the USA found different numbers of weeds or weed species in plots with different types of ground cover, in some or all comparisons. One study from the USA found similar numbers of weeds in vine rows with or without cover crops. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found that plant diversity decreased over time in plots without tillage, but increased in plots with tillage. This study found that tillage had no effects on the number of plant species and had inconsistent effects on plant biomass. Insects (5 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies (one randomized) from the USA found fewer leafhoppers in plots with cover crops, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found more leafhoppers, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found similar numbers of leafhoppers. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found more navel orangeworm moths in plots with resident vegetation, compared to tilled soil, in one of two comparisons. Implementation options (2 studies): Two studies from the USA found fewer pests in plots with mown ground cover, compared to unmown ground cover or ground cover before mowing. Mammals (1 study) Implementation options (1 study): One study from the USA found more gophers in plots with clover, compared to other cover crops. Natural enemy numbers (6 studies): Four replicated, controlled studies (three randomized) from Spain and the USA found more natural enemies in plots with ground cover, compared to plots without ground cover, in some or all comparisons. One replicated, controlled study from the USA found fewer parasitoids in plots with ground cover, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found inconsistent differences in the numbers of spiders between plots with or without ground cover. One of these studies found no difference in the number of spider species between plots with or without ground cover, and another one found no difference in the composition of spider communities. Implementation options (1 study): One study from the USA found more natural enemies in plots with mown cover crops, one week after mowing, compared to before mowing. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1395https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1395Mon, 15 May 2017 16:22:21 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pest regulation: Use crop rotationsPest regulation (0 studies) Crop damage (0 studies) Ratio of natural enemies to pests (0 studies) Pest numbers (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Australia found less weed biomass in plots with a canola-wheat sequence, compared to a wheat-wheat sequence. Natural enemy numbers (0 studies) Implementation options (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found similar amounts of weed biomass in plots with four-year or two-year crop rotations.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1396https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1396Fri, 19 May 2017 08:56:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pest regulation: Use no tillage in arable fieldsPest regulation (0 studies) Crop damage (1 study): One replicated, controlled study from Syria found no differences in most diseases between plots with no tillage or conventional tillage, but found a higher incidence of Aschochyta blight in plots with no tillage. Ratio of natural enemies to pests (0 studies) Pest numbers (9 studies) Weeds (8 studies): Three replicated, controlled studies (two randomized) from Italy and Spain found more weeds in plots with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons. Four replicated, controlled studies (three randomized) from Italy, Spain, and the USA found inconsistent differences in weeds (sometimes more weeds in plots with no tillage, sometimes fewer). One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Lebanon found similar numbers of weeds in plots with or without tillage. Weed species (4 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Italy found more weed species in plots with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Three replicated, controlled studies (two randomized) from Italy and Spain found similar numbers of weed species in plots with or without tillage. Other pests (1 study): One replicated, controlled study from Italy found fewer parasitic plants (broomrapes) in plots with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Natural enemy numbers (1 study): One replicated, controlled study from the USA found similar numbers of predatory mites in plots with or without tillage.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1397https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1397Fri, 19 May 2017 09:00:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pest regulation: Use no tillage instead of reduced tillagePest regulation (0 studies) Crop damage (0 studies) Ratio of natural enemies to pests (0 studies) Pest numbers (6 studies) Weeds (6 studies): Four replicated, controlled studies from Italy, Lebanon, and Spain found fewer weeds in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage, in some or all comparisons. Two of these studies also found more weeds in some comparisons. One replicated, controlled studies from Australia found more weeds in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found similar amounts of weeds in plots with no tillage or reduced tillage. Weed species (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found fewer weed species in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage. Two replicated, controlled studies from Italy and Spain found similar numbers of weed species in plots with no tillage or reduced tillage. Natural enemy numbers (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found similar numbers of predatory mites in soils with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1398https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1398Fri, 19 May 2017 09:05:46 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pest regulation: Use reduced tillage in arable fieldsPest regulation (0 studies) Crop damage (0 studies) Ratio of natural enemies to pests (0 studies) Pest numbers (9 studies) Weeds (8 studies): Seven replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy, Lebanon, Spain, Turkey, and the USA found more weeds in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some or all comparisons. One of these studies also found fewer weeds in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Italy found similar numbers of weeds in plots with reduced tillage or conventional tillage, in all comparisons. Weed species (3 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain and Turkey found similar numbers of weed species in plots with reduced tillage or conventional tillage. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found that weed communities had different compositions in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Diseases and pest insects (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found similar numbers of diseases and pest insects in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Natural enemy numbers (1 study): One replicated, controlled study from the USA found similar numbers of predatory mites in soils with reduced tillage or conventional tillage.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1399https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1399Fri, 19 May 2017 09:10:54 +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: Pest regulation: Restore habitat along watercoursesPest regulation (0 studies) Crop damage (0 studies) Ratio of natural enemies to pests (0 studies) Pest numbers (1 study): One replicated site comparison from the USA found more weeds in orchards next to restored riparian habitats, compared to remnant habitats. Natural enemy numbers (0 studies) Implementation options (1 study): One replicated, site comparison from the USA found more weeds in orchards next to older restored sites, compared to younger restored sites.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1402https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1402Fri, 19 May 2017 09:17:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pest regulation: Exclude grazersPest regulation (0 studies) Pest damage (1 study): One site comparison in grassland in the USA found no relationship between plant numbers and gopher numbers in ungrazed sites, but found fewer plant species in grazed sites with more gophers. Ratio of natural enemies to pests (0 studies) Pest numbers (1 study): One site comparison in grassland in the USA found more signs of gopher activity in ungrazed sites, compared to grazed sites. Natural enemy numbers (0 studies)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1403https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1403Fri, 19 May 2017 09:21:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pollination: Plant or maintain ground cover in orchards or vineyardsPollination (0 studies) Crop visitation (0 studies) Pollinator numbers (0 studies) Implementation options (1 study): One replicated site comparison from Greece found more bee species and more deposited pollen grains in managed olive orchards, compared to abandoned olive orchards, which differed in ground cover.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1404https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1404Fri, 19 May 2017 09:24:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pollination: Use no tillage in arable fieldsPollination (0 studies) Crop visitation (0 studies) Pollinator numbers (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found more pollinators in plots with no tillage, compared to deep tillage. Implementation options (0 studies)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1405https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1405Fri, 19 May 2017 09:27:47 +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: Pollination: Plant hedgerowsPollination (1 study): One replicated, paired site comparison from the USA found higher seed-set in canola plants due to flower visitation by native bees in fields next to planted hedgerows, compared to fields next to unplanted edges. However, this study found no difference in seed-set due to flower visitation by honey bees or syrphid flies. Crop visitation (2 studies): One replicated, paired, site comparison from the USA found higher crop visitation rates by native bees, but not by honey bees or syrphid flies, in fields next to planted hedgerows, compared to fields next to unplanted edges. Another replicated, paired, site comparison from the USA found no difference in flower visitation rates by bees in fields next to planted edges. Pollinator numbers (6 studies): Five replicated studies from the USA found more bee species in fields with hedgerows, or in hedgerows themselves, compared to fields or field edges without hedgerows. Three of these studies found more syrphid fly species in hedgerows, compared to field edges without hedgerows. One of these studies found similar numbers of syrphid fly species in fields with or without hedgerows. Two of these studies found more native bee and hoverfly individuals or more specialist bees in hedgerows, compared to field edges without hedgerows. One replicated site comparison from the USA found fewer ground-nesting bees, but similar numbers of bee species and flower-visiting bees, in planted hedgerows, compared to unplanted edges. Implementation options (3 studies): Two replicated site comparisons from the USA found more bee species in old hedgerows, compared to young hedgerows, and one of these studies also found more syrphid fly species. One replicated site comparison from the USA found more bee species on native plants, compared to non-native plants, in old hedgerows, but not in young hedgerows.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1407https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1407Fri, 19 May 2017 09:34:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pollination: Restore habitat along watercoursesPollination (0 studies) Flower visitation (1 study): One replicated, paired site comparison from the USA found that bee visitation rates to native flowers did not differ between restored and remnant sites, but there were different plant-insect interactions. Pollinator numbers (1 study): One replicated, paired site comparison from the USA found similar numbers of bees and bee species, but different bee communities, in restored and remnant sites. Implementation options (0 studies)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1408https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1408Fri, 19 May 2017 09:36:25 +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 +0100
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