Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage heather, gorse or grass by burning A long-term replicated controlled trial in Switzerland found that annual spring burning of calcareous grassland did not increase plant species richness relative to abandoned plots, after 15 years. A replicated controlled trial in Northern Ireland found that heather moorland subject to a single burn had more plant species eight years after the management, than control unburned plots.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F152https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F152Sat, 14 Jan 2012 15:22:28 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create scrapes and pools Three studies from Sweden and the UK (including two site comparisons one of which was replicated) found that the creation of scrapes and pools provided habitat for a range of plant, invertebrate or bird species and resulted in increased aquatic macroinvertebrate diversity. One of these studies found constructed pools supported locally or nationally scarce species of plant and water beetle. A study in Sweden found that a combination of large surface area, high shoreline complexity and shallow depth resulted in increased bird, bottom-dwelling invertebrate and aquatic plant diversity. However there were fewer fish species than in natural wetlands. Two replicated studies from Ireland and the UK (one controlled paired study and a site comparison) found that bird visit rates were higher but invertebrate numbers varied in ditch-fed paired ponds compared with dry controls and total macroinvertebrate and beetle richness did not differ between artificial and natural ponds, although communities did differ.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F153https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F153Sat, 14 Jan 2012 15:30:46 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide owl nest boxes (Tawny owl, Barn owl) Two studies from the UK (a before-and-after study and a controlled study) found that the provision of owl nest boxes in farm buildings maintained barn owl nesting and roosting activity and resulted in an increase in population density. A study from the Netherlands found that the barn owl population increased with increased availability of nest boxes. A replicated, controlled study in Hungary found that juvenile barn owls fledged from nest boxes were significantly less likely to be recovered alive than those reared in church towers. A replicated study from the UK investigating barn owl nest site use, found that the number of occupied nest sites and the proportion breeding decreased from 2001 to 2009, but were unaffected by the number of boxes.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F154https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F154Sat, 14 Jan 2012 15:38:54 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide nest boxes for birds Two studies (including one before and after study) from the Netherlands and the UK found that following the provision of nest boxes there was an increase in the number of Eurasian kestrel clutches and breeding tree sparrows. One replicated study from Switzerland found the number of Eurasian wryneck broods in nest boxes declined over five years whilst the number of Eurasian hoopoe broods increased. Eight studies from Finland, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK (six were replicated) found that nest boxes in agricultural habitats were occupied by Eurasian kestrel, long-eared owl, common starling, tits Parus spp., tree sparrow, stock dove and jackdaw, and Eurasian wryneck and Eurasian hoopoe. Whilst two studies from the UK (a replicated, paired site study and a controlled study) found that carrion crows did not nest in artificial trees and tree sparrows showed a preference for nest boxes in wetland habitat, compared to those in farmland sites. Two replicated studies from Sweden found that nest success within boxes was related to the amount of pasture available and nest boxes positioned higher above the ground had higher occupancy, numbers of eggs and numbers of hatched young.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F155https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F155Sat, 14 Jan 2012 15:49:39 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide or retain set-aside areas in farmland We found 34 studies comparing use of set-aside areas with control farmed fields. Two were reviews, none were randomized, replicated, controlled trials. Of these, 20 (from Austria, Finland, Germany and the UK) showed benefits to or higher use by all wildlife groups considered. Twelve (from Finland, Germany, Ireland, Sweden and the UK) found some species or groups used set-aside more than crops, others did not. Two studies (all from the UK) found no effect, one found an adverse effect of set-aside. Three of the studies, all looking at skylarks, went beyond counting animal or plant numbers and measured reproductive success. Two from the UK found higher nest survival or productivity on set-aside than control fields. One from the UK found lower nest survival on set-aside. Fifteen studies (from Belgium, Germany, Sweden and the UK) monitored wildlife on set-aside fields, or in landscapes with set-aside, without directly comparing with control fields or landscapes. Three looked at set-aside age and found more plants or insects on set-aside more than a year old. Two compared use of different non-crop habitats and found neither insects nor small mammals preferred set-aside. Two showed increased bird numbers on a landscape scale after set-aside was introduced, amongst other interventions. Eight looked at effects of set-aside management such as use of fertilizer and sowing or cutting regimes. A systematic review from the UK found significantly higher densities of farmland birds on fields removed from production and under set-aside designation than on conventionally farmed fields in both winter and summer. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F156https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F156Thu, 29 Mar 2012 19:03:54 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant grass buffer strips/margins around arable or pasture fields Nineteen studies from Finland, the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK (including seven replicated controlled studies of which two were randomized, and three reviews), found that planting grass buffer strips (some margins floristically-enhanced) increased arthropod abundance, species richness and diversity. A review found grass margins benefited bumblebees and some other invertebrates but did not distinguish between the effects of several different margin types. Nine studies from the UK (including seven replicated studies of which two were controlled, and two reviews) found that planting grass buffer strips (some margins floristically-enhanced) benefits birds, resulting in increased numbers, densities, species richness and foraging time. Seven studies from the Netherlands and the UK (all replicated of which four were controlled and two randomized), found that planting grass buffer strips (some margins floristically-enhanced) increased the cover and species richness of plants. A review found grass margins benefited plants but did not distinguish between the effects of several different margin types. Five studies from Finland and the UK (including two replicated, controlled trials and a review), found that planting grass buffer strips benefits small mammals: including increased activity and numbers. Six studies from the Netherlands and the UK (including three replicated, controlled trials) found that planting grass buffer strips had no clear effect on insect numbers, bird numbers or invertebrate pest populations. A replicated site comparison found sown grassy margins were not the best option for conservation of rare arable plants. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F246https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F246Wed, 18 Jul 2012 11:47:21 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant nectar flower mixture/wildflower strips A total of 80 individual studies have in some way investigated the effects of flowering strips on biodiversity. Sixty-four individual studies show some benefits to one or more wildlife groups. Sixty-five individual studies reported the effects of flower strips on invertebrates. Of these, fifty reported positive effects. Forty-one studies from eight European countries (including five reviews and twenty-three replicated controlled studies, of which one randomized and two site comparisons) found evidence that flower strips had a positive influence on invertebrate numbers with increased abundance, species richness/diversity, or both. Ten studies (nine replicated of which two controlled) found invertebrates visited or foraged on flower strips but did not specify increases/decreases in numbers. Two studies found effects on ground beetles other than changes in numbers. One replicated controlled study showed that ground beetles were more active or had enhanced feeding/reproductive conditions in flower strips. A review found flower strips supported ground beetle species that were rarely found in crops. Fifteen studies reported mixed or negative effects of flower strips on invertebrates. Six studies found no significant effects. Twenty-one studies looked at the effects of flower strips on plants. Sixteen studies from seven European countries (including ten replicated controlled studies of which one randomized) found evidence that flower strips had higher plant cover, number of flowers, diversity, and species richness. One review found flower strips benefited plants but did not specify how. Four studies found negative or no effects of flower strips on the number or diversity of plant species. Five studies described the effects of different margin establishment or management techniques on plants. Seven studies investigated birds and wildflower strips. Four replicated, controlled studies from Switzerland and the UK (two of which were randomized) and one review of European studies found evidence that plots sown with a wildflower or legume seed mix had a positive influence on birds. Flower strips attracted more birds or bird species and the number of birds using flower strips increased over time. Eurasian skylarks preferentially foraged in, and nested in or near, sown weed patches and were less likely to abandon their territories when they included sown weed patches. However one replicated trial in Switzerland found barn owls avoided sown wildflower areas. Two winter recording periods of the same replicated, controlled study in the UK found there were not more bird species or individuals on wildflower plots compared to control margins. All five studies investigating the effects of wildflower strips on small mammals (four replicated studies from Switzerland and one review of studies from north-western Europe) found evidence that small mammals benefit from strips sown with wildflowers or flowers rich in pollen and nectar, with increases in abundance, density and species richness. One replicated study from Switzerland reported that most common vole home ranges and core regions of their territories were found within a wildflower strip. Nineteen studies (of which eight replicated, controlled) reported positive effects on biodiversity of sowing specific plant species including phacelia, and/or other plant species such as borage and red clover. Three replicated studies (two also controlled) found negative impacts or no effects on biodiversity of sowing phacelia. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F442https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F442Thu, 23 Aug 2012 15:37:16 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce chemical inputs in grassland management A total of 16 studies (including five reviews) investigated the effects of reducing inputs in permanent grasslands. Six studies from the Netherlands, Switzerland and the UK (including one review and four replicated studies of which one was also controlled and one a randomized and controlled before-and-after trial) found that stopping fertilizer inputs in permanent grassland resulted in an increase in plant species richness, reduced the rate of plant species loss and attracted a higher abundance or species richness of some or all invertebrates studied. One review from the Netherlands found that low fertilizer input grasslands favour common meadow bird species. One review found a study showing that densities of some invertebrates were higher in unfertilized plots compared with those receiving nitrogen inputs. Two replicated, controlled trials from the Czech Republic and the UK (one randomized) found that applying fertilizer to permanent grasslands reduced plant species richness or diversity and that the effects on plant communities were still apparent 16 years after the cessation of fertilizer application. Four studies from Ireland, the Netherlands and the UK (including two replicated trials of which one randomized and one controlled and a review) found that reducing fertilizer inputs on grassland had no clear or rapid effect on plant species richness. A review found no clear effect of reducing fertilizer inputs on the density of soil-dwelling invertebrates. One replicated study found that fertilizer treatment only affected seed production of a small number of meadow plants. One replicated study from the UK found lower invertebrate abundance on plots with reduced fertilizer inputs but the differences were not significant.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F694https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F694Sat, 01 Dec 2012 17:52:25 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Leave overwinter stubbles Eighteen studies (including four reviews and one systematic review) investigated the effects of overwinter stubbles on farmland wildlife. Thirteen studies from Finland, Switzerland and the UK (six replicated trials, including two site comparisons, four reviews and a systematic review) found evidence that leaving overwinter stubbles provides some benefits to plants, insects, spiders, mammals and farmland birds. These benefits include higher densities of farmland birds in winter, increased grey partridge productivity, and increased cirl bunting population size (in combination with several other conservation measures) and territory density. One replicated site comparison study from the UK found evidence that leaving overwinter stubbles had inconsistent or no effects on farmland bird numbers. Three studies found only certain bird species showed positive associations with overwinter stubbles. Two replicated studies (of which one also randomized and controlled) found that only Eurasian skylark or both Eurasian skylark and Eurasian linnet benefited, out of a total 23 and 12 farmland bird species tested respectively. One study found that only grey partridge and tree sparrow showed positive population responses to areas with overwinter stubbles. Two studies from the UK (one randomized, one replicated and controlled) found that different farmland bird species benefited from different stubble heights. One replicated site comparison found mixed effects between different stubble management options on seed-eating bird abundance.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F695https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F695Sun, 02 Dec 2012 12:01:18 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain traditional water meadows (includes management for breeding and/or wintering waders/waterfowl) Four studies from Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands and the UK (including two site comparisons of which one also replicated) found that maintaining traditional water meadows resulted in an increased population size or number of territories of northern lapwing, common redshank and black-tailed godwit and increased plant species richness. However one of these studies also found common snipe declined on all sites under management to maintain traditional water meadows, and another of the studies found that differences in numbers of birds were present before meadow bird management. Two studies (a replicated study and a review of European studies) found that managing traditional water meadows by grazing had mixed impacts on wildlife and that the productivity of northern lapwings was too low to sustain populations on three of the four water meadows managed for waders. A randomized, replicated, controlled trial in the Netherlands found that cutting in June maintained relatively stable vegetation and a review found mowing could be used to maintain water meadows but had variable effects on plant species richness. One replicated site comparison from the Netherlands found more birds bred on 12.5 ha plots with management for wading birds (in combination with per-clutch payments), however at the field scale there was no difference in bird abundance or species richness between conventionally managed fields and those managed for birds.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F696https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F696Fri, 07 Dec 2012 09:05:54 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Employ areas of semi-natural habitat for rough grazing (includes salt marsh, lowland heath, bog, fen) A series of site comparison studies from the UK found that areas of heathland that had been re-seeded with grass to improve livestock grazing were avoided by nesting whimbrels but were the main early spring feeding areas for them. There was no difference in whimbrel chick survival between areas of heathland re-seeded with grass and those that had not. Two replicated studies from the UK found higher butterfly abundance and species richness and a higher frequency of occurrence of songbirds and invertebrate-feeding birds on areas of grazed semi-natural upland grassland than grazed improved pasture. However members of the crow family showed the opposite trend. A review found excluding cattle from fenland reduced the number of plant species, and that low-medium grazing levels could have positive effects on fenland biodiversity but may need to be accompanied by additional management such as mowing. One study from the UK found northern lapwing nest survival and clutch size were greater on ungrazed than grazed marshes. A replicated site comparison from the UK found the proportion of young grey partridges was negatively associated with rough grazing (in combination with several other interventions). Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F697https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F697Fri, 07 Dec 2012 15:57:06 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use mowing techniques to reduce mortality Eight studies investigated the effects of different mowing techniques on wildlife. Seven studies (including four replicated trials of which one randomized, and one controlled and three reviews) from Germany, Ireland, Switzerland and the UK found that using specific mowing techniques can reduce mortality or injury in birds, mammals, amphibians or invertebrates. A review found the UK corncrake population increased around the same period that Corncrake Friendly Mowing schemes were introduced. One replicated trial found that changing the mowing pattern reduced the number of corncrake chicks killed. Sixty-eight percent of chicks escaped mowing when fields were mown from the centre outwards, compared to 45% during conventional mowing from the field edge inwards. Six studies looked at the effects of using different mowing machinery. Two studies (one review, one randomized, replicated trial) found bar mowers and one report found double chop mowers caused less damage or lower mortality among amphibians and/or invertebrates than other types of mowing machinery. A review found evidence that twice as many small mammals were killed by rotary disc mowers with conditioners compared to double blade mowers. Two studies found that using a mechanical processor or conditioner killed or injured more invertebrates than without a conditioner, however one replicated controlled study found mower-conditioners resulted in higher Eurasian skylark nest survival than using a tedder. A review of studies found that skylark chick survival was four times higher when wider mowing machinery was used, whilst a replicated controlled trial found skylark nest survival was highest when swather mowers and forage harvesters were used.    Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F698https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F698Sun, 09 Dec 2012 10:30:37 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control predatory mammals and birds (foxes, crows, stoats and weasels) A total of nine individual studies from France and the UK (including five replicated controlled studies and a systematic review) looked at the effects of removing predators on birds. Three studies found controlling predatory mammals or birds (sometimes alongside other interventions) increased the abundance or population size of some birds. One of these studies from the UK found numbers of nationally declining songbirds increased on a site where predators were controlled, but there was no overall difference in bird abundance, species richness or diversity between predator control and no-control sites. Five studies (two replicated and controlled, two before-and-after trials) from the UK found some evidence for increased productivity, nest or reproductive success or survival of birds following bird or mammal predator control (sometimes alongside other interventions). A randomized, replicated, controlled study found hen harrier breeding success was no different between areas with and without hooded crow removal. A global systematic review including evidence from European farmland found that reproductive success of birds increased with predator removal.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F699https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F699Thu, 20 Dec 2012 13:08:22 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pay farmers to cover the cost of conservation measures (as in agri-environment schemes) Twenty-six studies from four European countries (including one UK systematic review and three European reviews) looked at the effects of agri-environment schemes on birds. Twenty-four studies (including one systematic review, six site comparisons and nine reviews) found increases in population size, density or more favourable population trends of some or all birds studied on sites with agri-environment schemes compared to non-scheme sites (some of these differences were seasonal). Eleven studies (including one systematic review and four reviews) found negative or no effects. One UK study found higher numbers of some birds where higher tier management was in place, another UK study found no difference between Entry Level or Higher Level Stewardship Scheme fields. One study from the Netherlands found that not all agri-environment scheme agreements were sited in ideal locations for black-tailed godwit. Eleven studies from five European countries (including three replicated paired site comparisons and two reviews) looked at the effects of agri-environment schemes on plants. Seven studies (including three replicated paired site comparisons and one European review) found agri-environment schemes maintained or had little or no effect on plants, plant diversity or species richness. Three studies found increases in plant species richness in areas with agri-environment schemes, two found decreases. A replicated site comparison study from Estonia found higher flower abundance on farms with agri-environment schemes in two out of four areas. A review found Environmentally Sensitive Areas in England had contributed to halting the loss of semi-natural grassland habitats but were less effective at enhancing or restoring grassland biodiversity. Ten studies from three European countries (including two replicated paired site comparisons and a review) looked at the effects of agri-environment schemes on invertebrates. Six studies (including two replicated site comparisons) showed agri-environment schemes maintained or had little or no effect on some invertebrates in terms of diversity, abundance, species richness or bee colony growth. Five studies found increases in abundance or species richness of some invertebrates. A UK study found agri-environment scheme prescriptions had a local but not a landscape-scale effect on bee numbers. Four studies (including two replicated site comparisons and a review) from the UK looked at the effects of agri-environment schemes on mammals. One study found positive effects, three studies found mixed effects in different regions or for different species. Three of the studies above found higher numbers of wildlife on land before agri-environment schemes were introduced. However two studies collecting baseline data found no difference in the overall number of birds or earthworms and soil microorganisms between areas with and without agri-environment schemes. A review found two out of three agri-environment schemes in Europe benefited wildlife. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F700https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F700Fri, 21 Dec 2012 14:38:13 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore or create traditional orchards We have captured no evidence for the effects of restoring or creating traditional orchards 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%2F701https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F701Mon, 07 Jan 2013 13:15:28 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain species-rich, semi-natural grassland Of 22 studies (including eleven replicated trials, three reviews and a systematic review) from the Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Russia, Slovenia, Switzerland and the UK, 13 identified management regimes that maintained species-rich grassland. Four of these studies were replicated, controlled trials (including two randomized). Nine studies (including two randomized, replicated before-and-after trials) from Switzerland and the UK examined the effectiveness of existing or historical agri-environment schemes: seven testing the effectiveness of the Environmentally Sensitive Areas scheme in England and two testing the effectiveness of the Ecological Compensation Areas scheme in Switzerland. All except one reported mixed results, with the schemes broadly maintaining plant species richness, but being less effective, for example, in enhancing species richness, preserving the highest quality sites, or overcoming the effects of past intensive management. One study found six Environmentally Sensitive Areas were of ‘outstanding’ significance for their lowland grassland, containing >40% of the English resource of a grassland type. A replicated site comparison study found that on average 86% of Swiss Ecological Compensation Area litter meadows were of ‘good ecological quality’ compared with only 20% of hay meadow Ecological Compensation Areas. Twelve studies (including a systematic review, six replicated trials of which two also controlled and randomized, and three reviews) from the Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Slovenia, Switzerland and the UK tested the effects of management treatments on species richness or vegetation quality usually involving combinations of mowing, grazing or no fertilizer but some also tested the effectiveness of mulching or burning. All of these studies identified management treatments which benefited or maintained species richness or vegetation quality. One site comparison from Finland and northwest Russia found that butterfly species richness, diversity and total abundance did not differ significantly between mown meadows and grazed pastures and that grassland age and origin had a greater impact on butterfly communities than present management. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F702https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F702Mon, 28 Jan 2013 11:44:12 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain traditional orchards Two replicated site comparisons from Germany and Switzerland found that, on average, 12% of traditional orchards in Swiss Ecological Compensation Areas were of ‘good ecological quality’, and traditional orchards under a German agri-environment scheme did not have more plant species than paired control sites. Traditional orchards in Ecological Compensation Areas appeared to offer little benefit to birds. A replicated, controlled site comparison study in Germany found that plant species richness was higher on mown orchards than grazed or abandoned ones, but numbers of species and brood cells of bees and wasps did not differ.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F703https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F703Tue, 29 Jan 2013 13:17:09 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce grazing intensity on grassland (including seasonal removal of livestock) Of 27 individual studies (including 10 replicated, controlled trials, four reviews and one systematic review) from France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands and the UK, 15 (including three randomized, replicated, controlled trials) from four countries found benefits to birds, plants or invertebrates in response to reducing grazing intensity on permanent grassland (including seasonal removal of livestock). Of these 15 studies, six (including one randomized, replicated, controlled trial) found that reducing grazing intensity throughout the year increased the abundance and diversity of plants (Tallowin et al. 2005, Marriott et al. 2009), frequency of certain plant species, invertebrate diversity, usage by geese and the number of northern lapwing and common redshank. Six studies (including three replicated controlled trials of which two randomized) found that excluding or delaying summer grazing increased plant species diversity, invertebrate abundance and benefited breeding Eurasian skylark. A review found a study that showed that removing autumn grazing after a silage cut increased the winter abundance of seed-eating birds. A review and a replicated controlled study from the UK found that reduced grazing intensity or seasonal removal of livestock increased the number of invertebrates, plant seed heads and foraging skylark, and that some bird species preferred plots with seasonal removal of livestock. Three studies (including one randomized, replicated, controlled trial) from the Netherlands and the UK found no benefit to plants or invertebrates from reduced grazing intensity. One randomized, replicated controlled trial excluded grazing in autumn/winter and another study excluded grazing in the summer. A further study found that reducing grazing intensity throughout the year did not increase plant diversity. Nine studies from France, Germany and the UK reported mixed results for some or all species or wildlife groups considered (including one randomized, replicated, controlled trial and two reviews and a systematic review). Of these, eight studies found that reduced grazing intensity throughout the year benefited some species but not others, one found that the impact depended on the type of vegetation grazed, and one found benefits to bee and wasp abundance but not species richness. One study found that the response of birds to removal of summer grazing varied between functional groups and depended on time of year. A UK review found that reduced grazing benefited invertebrates, plants, rodents and some but not all birds. A systematic review of the effects of grazing intensity on meadow pasture concluded that intermediate levels of grazing are usually optimal for plants, invertebrates and birds but that trade-offs are likely to exist between the requirements of different taxa.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F704https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F704Tue, 29 Jan 2013 17:33:20 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Mark fencing to avoid bird mortality We have captured no evidence for the effects of marking fencing to avoid bird mortality 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%2F706https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F706Mon, 11 Feb 2013 09:51:33 +0000
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