Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore or maintain dry stone walls We have captured no evidence for the effects of restoring or maintaining dry stone walls 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%2F74https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F74Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:05:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use 1% barley in wheat crops for corn buntings We have found no evidence for the effects of adding 1% barley into wheat crop for corn buntings. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F87https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F87Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:27:58 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use new crop types to benefit wildlife (such as perennial cereal crops) We have captured no evidence for the effects of using new crop types to benefit wildlife (such as perennial cereal crops) on farmland wildlife. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F89https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F89Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:31:28 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use mixed stocking A replicated, controlled study in the UK found more spiders, harvestmen and pseudoscorpions on sheep-grazed grassland than on mixed livestock-grazed grassland when suction sampling, but not when pitfall-trapping. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F93https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F93Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:35:59 +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: 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: Take field corners out of management A replicated site comparison study in the UK found that taking field corners out of management was positively correlated with grey partridge overwinter survival. However it had no effect on grey partridge brood size, the ratio of young to old birds or year-on-year density changes. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F128https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F128Mon, 14 Nov 2011 21:53:16 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore/create species-rich, semi-natural grassland Twenty-eight studies monitored the effects on wildlife of restoring species-rich grassland. Of these, 20 from Finland, Germany, Lithuania, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK (15 replicated of which eight controlled and three also randomized) found restoring species-rich grassland resulted in higher ground beetle abundance, increased plant species richness, farmland bird abundance, pollinating insect density and diversity and earthworm abundance than other types of grassland, or that restored grasslands had similar abundance and species richness of insects to old traditionally managed sites. Seven studies from Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK (five replicated and controlled, two also randomized) found that efforts to restore species-rich grassland had no clear effect on the species richness or abundance of plants, beetles, or the abundance of butterflies and moths. Three replicated studies from Sweden and the UK (one also controlled and two site comparisons) found that restored grassland had a lower diversity and frequency of certain plant species, and attracted fewer foraging queen bumblebees than continuously grazed or unmanaged grasslands. We captured 40 studies (including 19 replicated and controlled studies of which six were also randomized, and six reviews) from nine European countries that found ten different techniques used alone or in combinations were effective for restoring species-rich grassland. Effective techniques included: grazing, introducing plant species, hay spreading and mowing. We found 22 studies from seven European countries that included information on the length of time taken to restore grassland communities (including 16 replicated trials of which nine also controlled and three reviews). Six studies saw positive signs of restoration in less than five years, 11 studies within 10 years and two studies found restoration took more than 10 years. Six studies found limited or slow changes in plant communities following restoration. Two studies from Germany and the UK (one replicated controlled trial) found differences in vegetation between restored and existing species-rich grasslands nine or 60 years after restoration. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F133https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F133Tue, 15 Nov 2011 18:41:52 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use organic rather than mineral fertilizers Seventeen studies (including three reviews) from Austria, Belgium, Germany, Ireland, Switzerland and the UK looked at the effects of using organic rather than mineral fertilizers. Fourteen studies (including two reviews and seven replicated and controlled studies, of which four also randomized) from Austria, Belgium, Germany, Ireland, Switzerland and the UK found that areas treated with organic rather than mineral fertilizers supported higher plant diversity and cover or species richness, increased earthworm abundance or diversity, biomass and density and increased abundance and/or species richness of some or all invertebrates investigated. A literature review found organic fertilizers without pesticides produced highest earthworm biomass. A small trial in Belgium found more predatory beetles on an arable field two years after organic fertilizer application than on a control plot. One randomized, replicated, controlled trial in the UK found that using organic rather than mineral fertilizers did not affect the abundance of three weed species. A replicated study from Ireland found that the application of farmyard manure had no long-term effect on invertebrates, whilst two studies from the UK found the increase in arthropod predators and springtails was only seen at a local not a field scale. A review found one study from the UK reporting that heavy applications of slurry can be toxic to common earthworms. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F134https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F134Thu, 17 Nov 2011 21:20:02 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Undersow spring cereals, with clover for example A total of fifteen studies from the UK, Austria, Denmark, Finland and Switzerland (including four replicated, controlled and randomised studies and two reviews) looked at the effects of undersowing spring cereals on biodiversity. Eleven studies (including seven replicated trials, of which one controlled and three randomized and controlled, and one review) found that undersowing spring cereals benefited some birds, plants, insects, spiders and earthworms. These benefits to farmland wildlife included increases in barnacle goose abundance, densities of singing Eurasian skylark and nesting dunnock, arthropod abundance and species richness, and bumblebee, butterfly, earthworm, ground beetle, spider or springtail abundances. Five studies from Austria, Finland and the UK (including three replicated studies of which one was also controlled and randomized, and a review) found that undersowing spring cereals did not benefit invertebrates, plants, grey partridge population indicators, or nesting densities of two out of three farmland bird species. One replicated study from the UK found only one out of five bird species was found more frequently on undersown wheat stubbles than conventionally managed barley. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F136https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F136Fri, 18 Nov 2011 15:24:58 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Support or maintain low intensity agricultural systems We have captured no evidence for the effects of supporting or maintaining low intensity agricultural systems 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%2F141https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F141Sat, 14 Jan 2012 13:23:08 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use traditional breeds of livestock Two UK studies (one replicated) and a review reported differences in quantities of plant species grazed, vegetation structure and invertebrate assemblages between areas grazed with different breeds of sheep or cattle. A small, replicated study found that Hebridean sheep grazed more purple moor grass than Swaledale sheep, but the resulting density of purple moor grass and heather did not differ. A UK study found that at reduced grazing pressure, traditional and commercial cattle breeds created different sward structures and associated invertebrate assemblages. One replicated trial from France, Germany and the UK found grazing by traditional rather than commercial livestock breeds had no clear effect on the number of plant species or the abundance of butterflies, grasshoppers, birds, hares, or ground-dwelling arthropods in general. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F539https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F539Tue, 11 Sep 2012 15:57:52 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restrict certain pesticides A small scale study in the UK found that using the fungicides Propiconazole and Triadimefon reduced chick food insect abundance less than using Pyrazophos. A replicated, controlled trial in Switzerland found that applying metaldehyde slug pellets in a 50 cm band along the field edge adjacent to wildflower strips provided equivalent crop protection to broadcasting the pellets across the whole field. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F565https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F565Fri, 28 Sep 2012 15:37:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Sow rare or declining arable weeds Two studies from the UK (both replicated, controlled and randomized) found that the establishment of rare or declining arable weeds depended upon cover crop, cultivation, timing of cut and year or a combination of cultivation in autumn and herbicide treatment. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F642https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F642Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:52:39 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore or create wood pasture One replicated controlled trial in Belgium found that protection from grazing enhanced the survival and growth of tree seedlings planted in pasture. One replicated study in Switzerland found that cattle browsing increased the mortality of tree saplings of four species, and reduced average shoot production and total above-ground biomass. Browsing frequency decreased with increasing height of the surrounding vegetation. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F644https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F644Wed, 17 Oct 2012 15:01:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use scaring devices (eg. gas guns) and other deterrents to reduce persecution of native species One replicated, controlled trial in Germany found phosphorescent tape was more effective than normal yellow tape at deterring deer from an area, but had no effect on wild boar or European hare. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F645https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F645Wed, 17 Oct 2012 17:00:06 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore or create upland heath/moorland A small unreplicated trial of heather moorland restoration in northern England found that mowing and flail cutting along with grazing could be used to control the dominance of purple moor grass. The same study found moorland restoration benefited one bird species, with one or two pairs of northern lapwing found to breed in the area of restored moorland, where none had bred prior to restoration. A review from the UK concluded that vegetation changes took place very slowly following the removal of grazing to restore upland grassland to heather moorland. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F650https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F650Tue, 23 Oct 2012 13:03:29 +0100Collected 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: 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 +0000