Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crop production: Add compost to the soilCrop yield (8 studies): Three replicated, controlled studies (two randomized) from Italy, Spain, and the USA found higher crop yields in plots with added compost, compared to plots without added compost, in some comparisons or all comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy and the USA found inconsistent differences in crop yields (sometimes higher, sometimes lower) between plots with or without added compost. Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain and the USA found similar crop yields in plots with or without added compost. Of two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain, one study found higher yields of barley straw in plots with added compost, compared to plots without added compost, and one study did not. Crop quality (0 studies) Implementation options (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found similar crop yields in plots with added compost that did or did not also have added fertilizer.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1346https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1346Thu, 09 Mar 2017 17:05:03 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crop production: Add slurry to the soilCrop yield (6 studies): Six replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found higher crop yields in plots with added pig slurry, compared to plots without it, in some comparisons. Crop quality (0 studies) Implementation options (4 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found similar crop yields in plots with digested pig slurry, compared to untreated pig slurry. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found lower crop yields in plots with less pig slurry, compared to more, but another found similar crop yields with different amounts of pig slurry.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1349https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1349Mon, 20 Mar 2017 12:04:53 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crop production: Use organic fertilizer instead of inorganicCrop yield (11 studies) Food crops (10 studies): Four replicated studies (three controlled, two randomized; one site comparison) from Italy and Spain found higher yields in plots with organic fertilizer, compared to inorganic fertilizer, in some comparisons. Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain and the USA found lower yields in plots with organic fertilizer, compared to inorganic fertilizer, in some or all comparisons. Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Greece and Spain found similar yields in plots with organic or inorganic fertilizer. Forage crops (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found higher alfalfa yields in plots with organic fertilizer, compared to inorganic, in one of two comparisons. Crop quality (0 studies)  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1350https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1350Mon, 20 Mar 2017 16:57:26 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crop production: Use crop rotationsCrop yield (8 studies): Four replicated, controlled studies (three randomized) from Italy, Spain, and Turkey found higher crop yields in plots with rotations, compared to monocultures, in some comparisons. Four replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Australia, Portugal, and Spain found similar crop yields in plots with or without rotations. Crop quality (1 study): One replicated, controlled study from Italy found more protein in wheat that was grown in rotation, compared to continuously-grown wheat. Implementation options (2 studies): One study from the USA found higher tomato yields in four-year rotations, compared to two-year rotations. One study from Italy found higher wheat yields in rotations with beans, compared to clover.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1354https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1354Tue, 18 Apr 2017 13:02:25 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crop production: Plant flowersCrop yield (2 studies): One replicated, controlled study from Spain found higher crop yields in coriander plants next to planted flower strips, compared to coriander plants next to unplanted field margins. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Italy found higher crop yields in tomatoes next to planted flower strips, compared to tomatoes next to bare ground, in some comparisons. Crop quality (0 studies) Implementation options (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found smaller lettuces in fields planted with flowers, in five out of six configurations. One replicated, controlled study from Spain found higher coriander yields next to field margins planted with more flower species, compared to fewer flower species. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Italy found lower crop yields in tomatoes next to field margins planted with more flower species, compared to fewer flower species, in some comparisons.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1360https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1360Fri, 05 May 2017 15:10:52 +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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1363https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1364https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1364Tue, 09 May 2017 14:12:57 +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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1375https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1375Mon, 15 May 2017 15:11:34 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water: Add compost to the soilWater use (0 studies) Water availability (4 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Turkey and the USA found more water in soil with added compost, compared to soil without added compost, in some or all comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found similar amounts of water in soil with or without added compost. One replicated, controlled study from Spain found that less water was lost as runoff from soil with added compost, compared to soil without added compost. Pathogens and pesticides (0 studies) Nutrients (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found more nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium in runoff from plots with added compost, compared to plots without added compost. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Portugal found that more nitrate was leached from plots with added compost, compared to plots without added compost, in one of four comparisons. Sediments (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found more organic matter in runoff from plots with added compost, compared to plots without added compost. Implementation options (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Portugal found that similar amounts of nitrate were leached from plots with or without added compost, if the compost was split into two small applications, compared to one large application.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1377https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1377Mon, 15 May 2017 15:18:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water: Add manure to the soilWater use (0 studies) Water availability (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Turkey found more water in soils with added manure, compared to soils without added manure. Two replicated, controlled studies (one randomized) from Greece and the USA found similar amounts of water in soils with or without added manure. Pathogens and pesticides (0 studies) Nutrients (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found more dissolved organic carbon, but similar amounts of nitrate, in runoff from plots with added manure, compared to plots without added manure. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found that more nitrate, ammonium, phosphorus, potassium, and organic matter was leached from soils with added manure, compared to soils without added manure. Sediments (0 studies)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1378https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1378Mon, 15 May 2017 15:21:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water: Add sewage sludge to the soilWater use (0 studies) Water availability (2 studies): One replicated, controlled study from Spain found less runoff from plots with added sewage sludge, compared to plots without it, in one of four comparisons. One replicated, controlled study from the USA found similar amounts of water in soils with or without added sewage sludge. Pathogens and pesticides (0 studies) Nutrients (1 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Portugal found that more nitrate was leached from soils with added sewage sludge, compared to soils without it, in some comparisons. Sediments (0 studies) Implementation options (1 study): One replicated, controlled study from Portugal found that more nitrate was leached from plots with a split application of sewage sludge, but not with a single application, compared to plots without added sewage sludge.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1379https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1379Mon, 15 May 2017 15:23:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water: Add slurry to the soilWater use (0 studies) Water availability (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found similar amounts of water in soils with or without added slurry, and another one found similar amounts of water-filled pore space. Pathogens and pesticides (0 studies) Nutrients (5 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found that more nitrate was leached from plots with added slurry, compared to plots without it. One of these studies also found that more nitrate was lost in runoff from plots with added slurry, in some comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Portugal and Spain found that similar amounts of nitrate were leached from plots with or without added slurry. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found more dissolved organic matter in soils, or leached from soils, with added slurry. Sediments (0 studies) Implementation options (3 studies): One study from Spain found that less nitrate was leached from plots with surface application, compared to injection, of slurry. One study from Spain found that less nitrate was lost through runoff and leaching from plots with less added slurry, compared to more. One study from Spain found similar amounts of water-filled pore space in soils with digested or untreated pig slurry, and another found similar amounts of water-filled pore space in plots with less or more added slurry.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1380https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1380Mon, 15 May 2017 15:25:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water: Use organic fertilizer instead of inorganicWater use (0 studies) Water availability (5 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found similar amounts of water-filled pore space in plots with organic or inorganic fertilizer. Two replicated studies (one randomized and controlled, one site comparison) from France and Turkey found more water in plots with organic fertilizer, compared to inorganic fertilizer. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found less water in plots with organic fertilizer, compared to inorganic fertilizer, in one of two comparisons. Pathogens and pesticides (0 studies) Nutrients (6 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy and Spain found that less nitrate was lost from plots with organic fertilizer, compared to inorganic fertilizer, in some comparisons. One of these studies also found that more dissolved organic matter was lost, in one of two comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found more nitrate in runoff from plots with organic fertilizer, compared to inorganic fertilizer. Three replicated, controlled studies (two randomized) from Portugal and Spain found that similar amounts of nitrogen were lost from plots with organic or inorganic fertilizer. Sediments (0 studies) Implementation options (1 study): One study from Spain found that less nitrate, but more organic matter, was leached from plots that were fertilized with manure, compared to slurry.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1381https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1381Mon, 15 May 2017 15:31:47 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water: Use crop rotationsWater use (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Turkey found higher water-use efficiency in plots with crop rotations, compared to continuous wheat, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found lower water-use efficiency in plots with crop rotations, compared to continuous wheat, in some comparisons. Water availability (3 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Australia found similar amounts of water in soils with crop rotations or continuous crops. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Turkey found inconsistent differences in water storage in soils with or without crop rotations. Pathogens and pesticides (0 studies) Nutrients (0 studies) Sediments (0 studies) Implementation options (1 study): One study from Spain found no difference in water-use efficiency between plots with different crop rotations.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1383https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1383Mon, 15 May 2017 15:45:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water: Use no tillage instead of reduced tillageWater use (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found that crops used water more efficiently in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage, in one of four comparisons. Water availability (9 studies): Six controlled studies from Spain (five of which were replicated and randomized) found more water in soils with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage, in some or all comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found less water in soils with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage, in one of fifteen comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Australia and Lebanon found similar amounts of water in soils with no tillage or reduced tillage. Pathogens and pesticides (0 studies) Nutrients (0 studies) Sediments (0 studies)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1385https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1385Mon, 15 May 2017 15:53:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water: Plant buffer stripsWater use (0 studies) Water availability (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Italy found more soil moisture in plots with buffers, compared to plots without buffers, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found that similar amounts of water were lost as runoff from plots with or without buffers. Pathogens and pesticides (1 study): One replicated study from the USA found that grass buffer strips decreased the amount of Cryptosporidium parvum (a protozoan pathogen) in runoff, after bovine manure was applied to slopes. Nutrients (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found less nitrate in runoff from irrigated pastures with buffer strips, but another one found no differences in nitrate or phosphorus in runoff from pastures with or without buffer strips. Sediments (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies (one randomized) from the USA found less sediment in runoff from irrigated fields or pastures with buffers, compared to those without buffers, in some or all comparisons. Implementation options (3 studies): One replicated study from the USA found less C. parvum (a protozoan pathogen) in runoff from flatter buffer strips, compared to steeper. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Italy found more soil moisture in plots with narrower buffer strips, in one of two comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found that buffers trapped more runoff in the four weeks after fertilizer application, compared to the next 10 weeks.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1387https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1387Mon, 15 May 2017 16:00:45 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water: Exclude grazersWater use (0 studies) Water availability (4 studies): Four studies (three replicated, randomized, and controlled) in grasslands and shrublands in the USA and Spain found less water in areas with cattle and sheep excluded, compared to grazed areas, in some or all comparisons. Pathogens and pesticides (0 studies) Nutrients (2 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in wet grasslands in the USA found inconsistent differences in nitrogen, phosphorus, and pH in surface water in areas with cattle excluded, compared to grazed areas. One of these studies found more nitrate in stream water in ungrazed areas, compared to grazed areas, in one of two experiments. Sediments (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in wet grasslands in the USA found no difference in surface water turbidity between areas with cattle excluded and grazed areas.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1389https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1389Mon, 15 May 2017 16:04:29 +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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1392https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1392Mon, 15 May 2017 16:13:04 +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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1398https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1399https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1400https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1400Fri, 19 May 2017 09:13:29 +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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1406https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1407https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1407Fri, 19 May 2017 09:34:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Other biodiversity: Add compost to the soilAmphibians (0 studies) Birds (0 studies) Invertebrates (1 study): One replicated, controlled study from the USA, found no differences in invertebrate biodiversity between plots with or without added compost. Mammals (0 studies) Plants (4 studies): Four replicated, controlled studies (three randomized) from Italy, Spain, and the USA found more plant biomass in plots with added compost, compared to plots without added compost. One of these studies also found more plant cover and faster tree growth in plots with added compost. Another one also found sixteen species of rare plants only in plots with added compost. Another one found more plants in plots with added compost, compared to plots without added compost, in one of two years, but found similar numbers of plant species in plots with or without added compost. Reptiles (0 studies) Implementation options (0 studies)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1409https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1409Fri, 19 May 2017 09:39:36 +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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1421https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.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