Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide otter holts We have captured no evidence for the effects of providing otter holts 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%2F83https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F83Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:22:28 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide badger gates We have captured no evidence for the effects of providing badger gates on farmland wildlife. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F84https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F84Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:23:17 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use 1% barley in wheat crops for corn buntings We have found no evidence for the effects of adding 1% barley into wheat crop for corn buntings. '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%2F87https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F87Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:27:58 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create corn bunting plots We have captured no evidence for the effects of creating corn bunting plots 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%2F88https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F88Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:29:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use new crop types to benefit wildlife (such as perennial cereal crops) We have captured no evidence for the effects of using new crop types to benefit wildlife (such as perennial cereal crops) 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%2F89https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F89Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:31:28 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage short-rotation coppice to benefit wildlife (includes 8 m rides) We have captured no evidence for the effects of managing short-rotation coppice to benefit wildlife (including 8 m rides) on farmland wildlife. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F90https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F90Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:32:35 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain rush pastures We have captured no evidence for the effects of maintaining rush pastures 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%2F91https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F91Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:34:08 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant brassica fodder crops (grazed in situ) We have captured no evidence for the effects of planting brassica fodder crops (grazed in situ) on farmland wildlife. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F92https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F92Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:35:04 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: 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: Maintain traditional farm buildings We have captured no evidence for the effects of maintaining traditional farm buildings 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%2F94https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F94Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:37:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide bat boxes, bat grilles, improvements to roosts We have captured no evidence for the effects of providing bat boxes, bat grilles or improvements to roosts on farmland wildlife. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F95https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F95Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:39:48 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Buffer in-field ponds We have captured no evidence for the effects of buffering in-field ponds 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%2F97https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F97Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:48:25 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Make selective use of spring herbicidesA replicated, controlled, randomized study in the UK found that spring herbicides had some benefits for beneficial weeds and arthropods.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F98https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F98Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:50:21 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage land under power lines to benefit wildlife We have captured no evidence for the effects of managing land under power lines to benefit wildlife on farmland wildlife. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F99https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F99Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:51:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Avoid use of lead shot We have captured no evidence for the effects of avoiding the use of lead shot 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%2F100https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F100Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:52:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Enforce legislation to protect birds against persecution Two before-and-after studies have evaluated effects of legislative protection on bird species in Europe. Both found that legislation protects bird populations. One found increased population levels of raptors in Scotland, following protective legislation. One found increased survival of kestrels in Denmark stricter protection, but not necessarily population-level responses. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F101https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F101Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:55:47 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use alerts to reduce grey partridge by-catch during shoots We have captured no evidence for the effects of using alerts to reduce grey partridge by-catch during shoots 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%2F102https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F102Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:57:01 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Re-wet moorland We have captured no evidence for the effects of re-wetting moorland 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%2F103https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F103Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:57:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control invasive non-native plants on farmland (such as Himalayan Balsam, Japanese knotweed) Two randomized, replicated, controlled trials in the Czech Republic found that removing all flower heads of giant hogweed plants at peak flowering time dramatically reduced seed production in giant hogweed.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F104https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F104Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:59:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control bracken One systematic review found that the herbicide asulam reduced bracken abundance if applied repeatedly, but cutting may be equally effective. A replicated laboratory trial in the UK found that the herbicide asulam inhibited the growth of three common moss species that commonly grow in association with bracken, when exposed over three weeks, but not if only exposed for 24 hours.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F105https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F105Mon, 24 Oct 2011 22:00:36 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control grey squirrels We have captured no evidence for the effects of controlling grey squirrels 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%2F106https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F106Mon, 24 Oct 2011 22:01:22 +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: Protect individual nests of ground-nesting birds Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Sweden found providing nest exclosures offered some benefits to ground-nesting birds. One study found that protected nests had higher average daily survival rates than unprotected nests for both common redshank and northern lapwing, however, this study also reported higher predation of adult redshank on protected nests. One study found that the average hatching rate for southern dunlin was higher for protected rather than unprotected nests. This study also found no difference in the number of fledglings, breeding adults or new recruits during two periods with and without nest protection.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F108https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F108Mon, 24 Oct 2011 22:04:47 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Erect predator-proof fencing around important breeding sites for waders We have captured no evidence for the effects of erecting predator-proof fencing around important breeding sites for waders 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%2F109https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F109Mon, 24 Oct 2011 22:06:13 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage the agricultural landscape to enhance floral resources One large replicated controlled trial showed that the average abundance of long-tongued bumblebees on field margins was positively correlated with the number of ‘pollen and nectar’ agri-environment agreements in a 10 km grid square. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F362https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F362Fri, 03 Aug 2012 12:08:24 +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