Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected 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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F97https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F98https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F99https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F100https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F101https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F102https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F103https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F104https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F105https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F106https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F107https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F108https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F109https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F109Mon, 24 Oct 2011 22:06:13 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove coarse fish We have captured no evidence for the effects of removing coarse fish 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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F110https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F110Mon, 24 Oct 2011 22:08:13 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage wild deer numbers We have captured no evidence for the effects of managing wild deer numbers 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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F111https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F111Mon, 24 Oct 2011 22:10:17 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide medicated grit for grouse A controlled study in England found that red grouse had higher productivity in areas where medicated grit was provided. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F112https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F112Mon, 24 Oct 2011 22:12:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide training for land managers, farmers and farm advisers One study from the UK found farmers who were trained in how to implement agri-environment schemes created better quality wildlife habitat over five years. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F113https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F113Mon, 24 Oct 2011 22:13:06 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide specialist advice, assistance preparing conservation plans We have captured no evidence for the effects of providing specialist advice and/or assistance in preparing conservation plans 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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F114https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F114Mon, 24 Oct 2011 22:14:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide short grass for birds A replicated UK study found that common starlings and northern lapwing spent more time foraging on short grass, compared to longer grass, and that starlings captured more prey in short grass. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F115https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F115Mon, 24 Oct 2011 22:15:43 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage hedgerows to benefit wildlife (includes no spray, gap-filling and laying) Ten studies from Switzerland and the UK (three replicated and controlled studies of which one was randomized) found that managing hedges for wildlife resulted in increased berry yields, species diversity or richness of plants and invertebrates and diversity or abundance of farmland birds. Five studies from the UK (including one replicated, controlled and randomized study) found that hedge management did not affect plant species richness, numbers of bumblebee queens or farmland birds. Two replicated studies have shown mixed or adverse effects, with hedge management having mixed effects on invertebrates or leading to reduced hawthorn berry yield. A replicated site comparison in the UK found hedges cut every two years had more suitable nesting habitat for grey partridge than other management regimes. A replicated study from the UK found that hawthorn berry yield was reduced when management involved removing fruit-bearing wood. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F116https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F116Tue, 01 Nov 2011 20:32:06 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide other resources for birds (water, sand for bathing) A small study in France found that grey partridge density was higher in areas where a combination of supplementary food, water, shelter and sand for bathing were provided. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F117https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F117Tue, 01 Nov 2011 20:37:30 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant nettle strips A small study from Belgium found that planting nettle strips in the margins of three arable fields resulted in a higher number of aphid predator species. The number of aphid predators on a natural patch of nettles was higher than on crops, however there were fewer predators on nettle strips than on crops. Three insect families, including green lacewings, were only found on nettles. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F118https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F118Tue, 01 Nov 2011 20:40:45 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore or create traditional water meadows Of three studies from Sweden and the UK (two before-and-after trials) looking at bird numbers or densities following water meadow restoration, one study found increases, one study found increases and decreases and one found northern lapwing populations did not increase despite an increase in the area of managed water meadows. Seventeen studies from France, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, Switzerland and the UK (seven replicated controlled studies of which two were also randomized and two reviews) found one or more management techniques that were successful in restoring wet meadow plant communities. The techniques were topsoil removal, introduction of target plant species, raising water levels, grazing, mowing or a combination of removing topsoil and introducing target plant species, plus livestock exclusion. Three studies (one replicated controlled study and two reviews) from the Netherlands, Sweden, Germany and the UK found restoration of wet meadow plant communities had reduced or limited success. Thirteen studies (five replicated and controlled of which two randomized) from France, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland and the UK monitored the effects of methods to restore or create wet meadow plant communities over a relatively short time period after restoration, and found some positive effects within five years. Three replicated studies (one controlled, one a site comparison) from the Netherlands and Germany found restoration was not complete five, nine or 20 years later. A replicated controlled site comparison from Sweden found plant species richness increased with time since restoration. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F119https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F119Tue, 01 Nov 2011 20:58:31 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide buffer strips alongside water courses (rivers and streams) Three studies (including one replicated site comparison) from the Netherlands and the UK reported that the provision of riparian buffer strips had a positive influence on plant, invertebrate and bird diversity or abundance, and supported vegetation associated with habitats preferred by water voles. Two replicated site comparison studies from France and Ireland found that the provision of riparian buffer strips on farms did not result in an increase in the number of plant species when compared to farms without buffer strips. One replicated site comparison study found ground beetle diversity was higher in grazed riparian zones and narrow fenced strips than in wide riparian buffer strips. However the ground beetle assemblages in wide riparian buffer strips were more distinct from the adjacent pasture field assemblages than either the grazed riparian zones or narrow fenced strips. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F120https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F120Tue, 01 Nov 2011 21:03:36 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise water levels in ditches or grassland Seven studies from Denmark, the Netherlands and the UK (two replicated controlled studies and two before-and-after studies) found that raising water levels in ditches or grassland was associated with increased bird numbers, breeding bird numbers, plant species that favour wet conditions, and invertebrate numbers or biomass in agricultural landscapes. Two replicated studies from the Netherlands and the UK found that raising water levels resulted in a net loss of plant species and did not affect lapwing foraging rate. A review found three studies reporting that re-wetting soils on old arable fields is not an effective method of reducing nutrient levels and restoring species-rich grassland. A replicated study from the UK found that unflooded pastures contained a high biomass of soil macroinvertebrates of importance to breeding wading birds. A controlled, randomized study from the Netherlands found that raising the water level resulted in a more rapid establishment of species typical of wet grassland, than vegetation management. A review of agri-environment schemes from the UK found studies that suggested more expensive agri-environment scheme options for wetland habitats, such as controlling water levels, were more effective at providing good habitat for wading birds than easier-to-implement options. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F121https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F121Tue, 01 Nov 2011 21:14:13 +0000