Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Establish wild flower areas on farmland Four studies evaluated the effects of establishing wild flower areas on farmland on small mammals. Two studies were in Switzerland, one in the UK and one in Germany. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Abundance (4 studies): Three of four site comparison studies (including three replicated studies), in Switzerland, the UK and Germany, found that sown wildflower areas contained more wood mice, small mammals and common hamsters compared to grass and clover set-aside, grasslands, crop and uncultivated margins, agricultural areas and crop fields. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2359https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2359Tue, 26 May 2020 14:55:47 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create uncultivated margins around intensive arable or pasture fields Nine studies evaluated the effect of creating uncultivated margins around intensive arable, cropped grass or pasture fields on mammals. Six studies were in the UK, two were in Switzerland and one was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the UK found more small mammal species in uncultivated field margins than in blocks of set-aside. POPULATION RESPONSE (9 STUDIES) Abundance (9 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found more small mammals in uncultivated and unmown field margins than in frequently mown margins. Three of seven replicated, site comparison studies (one randomized), in the UK and Switzerland, found that uncultivated field margins had higher numbers of small mammals, bank voles and brown hares relative to crops (including grassland) and set-aside. The other four studies reported mixed or no effects on bank voles, wood mice and common shrews, small mammals and brown hares. One site comparison study in the UK found that brown hares used grassy field margins more than expected based on their availability. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2365https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2365Tue, 26 May 2020 15:55:26 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide or retain set-aside areas on farmland Four studies evaluated the effects on mammals of providing or retaining set-aside areas on farmland. Three studies were in the UK and one was in Switzerland. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): Three replicated studies (including two site comparison studies), in the UK and Switzerland, found that set-aside did not enhance small mammal numbers relative to cropland or to uncultivated field margins and farm woodland, or brown hare numbers relative to numbers on farms without set-aside areas. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): A before-and-after study in the UK found that use of uncut set-aside areas by wood mice increased after crop harvesting. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2377https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2377Wed, 27 May 2020 08:48:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain/restore/create habitat connectivity on farmland We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of maintaining, restoring or creating habitat connectivity on farmland. ‘We found no studies' means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2381https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2381Wed, 27 May 2020 14:29:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage hedgerows to benefit wildlife on farmland We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of managing hedgerows to benefit wildlife on farmland. ‘We found no studies' means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2382https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2382Wed, 27 May 2020 14:33:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant new or maintain existing hedgerows on farmland Three studies evaluated the effects on mammals of planting new or maintaining existing hedgerows on farmland. Two studies were in the UK and one was in Switzerland. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): One of two replicated, site comparison studies, in the UK and Switzerland, found that retaining and enhancing hedgerows along with other field boundary features was associated with higher brown hare density in arable sites but not in grassland sites while the other study found that Irish hare numbers did not increase. A replicated, site comparison study in the UK found that establishing hedgerows alongside arable land increased small mammal abundance. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2383https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2383Wed, 27 May 2020 14:36:44 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant trees on farmland Four studies evaluated the effects on mammals of planting trees on farmland. Two studies were in the UK, one was in Italy and one was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): Two replicated studies (including one controlled, and one site comparison study), in the UK, found that farm woodland supported a higher small mammal abundance than on arable land or similar abundance compared to uncultivated field margins and set-aside. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): A study in Italy found that tree stands were used more by European hares compared to the wider farmed landscape. A replicated study in Australia found that trees planted on farmland were used by koalas. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2386https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2386Wed, 27 May 2020 15:47:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pay farmers to cover the costs of conservation measures Three studies evaluated the effects on mammals of paying farmers to cover the costs of conservation measures. The three studies were in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): A replicated, controlled study, in the UK found that agri-environment scheme enrolment was associated with increased brown hare density in one of two regions studied. A replicated, site comparison study in Northern Ireland, UK found that agri-environment scheme enrolment did not increase numbers of Irish hares. A replicated, controlled study in the UK found that in field margins created through enrolment in an agri-environment scheme, small mammal abundance in spring increased, whereas it remained stable in conventionally managed margins. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2387https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2387Thu, 28 May 2020 08:38:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide refuges during crop harvesting or mowing We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of providing refuges during crop harvesting or mowing. ‘We found no studies' means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2389https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2389Thu, 28 May 2020 09:02:08 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use repellent on slug pellets to reduce non-target poisoning One study evaluated the effects on mammals of using repellent on slug pellets to reduce non-target poisoning. This study was in the UK. KEY COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): A replicated, controlled study in the UK found that, at some concentrations, food treated with a bitter substance was consumed less by wood mice but not by bank voles or common shrews. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2390https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2390Thu, 28 May 2020 09:09:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restrict use of rodent poisons on farmland with high secondary poisoning risk We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of restricting use of rodent poisons on farmland that have secondary poisoning risks. ‘We found no studies' means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2391https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2391Thu, 28 May 2020 09:34:01 +0100