Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage ditches to benefit wildlife Five out of a total eight studies from the Netherlands and the UK (including one replicated, controlled paired study and three replicated site comparisons) looking at the effects of managing ditches on biodiversity, found that this intervention resulted in increased invertebrate biomass or abundance, plant species richness, emergent plant cover, amphibian diversity and abundance, bird visit rates and higher numbers of some bird species or positive impacts on some birds in plots with ditches managed under agri-environment schemes. One replicated controlled and paired study from the Netherlands found higher plant diversity on ditch banks along unsprayed edges of winter wheat compared to those sprayed with pesticides. Three studies from the Netherlands and the UK (including two replicated site comparisons) found that ditch management had negative or no clear effects on some farmland bird species or plants. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F135https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F135Thu, 17 Nov 2011 21:35:00 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide artificial nesting sites for ground and tree-nesting seabirds Three studies from the UK and the Azores found increases in gull and tern populations following the provision of rafts/islands or providing nest boxes alongside other interventions. A controlled, replicated study from the USA found that terns had higher nesting success on nesting rafts in one of two years monitored and a before-and-after study from Japan found that nesting success increased after the provision of nesting substrate. Five studies from Canada and Europe found that terns used re-profiled or artificial islands or nesting rafts, but pelicans did not. A small study from Hawaii found that red-footed boobies Sula sula preferentially nested in an artificial ‘tree-style’ nesting structure, compared to other designs. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F480https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F480Thu, 30 Aug 2012 14:40:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide artificial nesting sites for woodpeckers Four studies from the USA found local increases in red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis populations or the successful colonisation of new areas following the installation of ‘cavity inserts’ (described above). One study also found that the productivity of birds using the inserts was significantly higher than the regional average. Two studies from the USA found that red-cockaded woodpeckers Picoides borealis used cavity inserts, in one case more frequently than making their own holes or using natural cavities. One study from the USA found that woodpeckers roosted, but did not nest, frequently in nest boxes. Five studies from the USA found that some woodpeckers excavated holes in artificial snags but only ever roosted in excavated holes or in nest boxes provided. A small study in the USA found that modifying artificial nests to allow easy access did not alter the behaviour of birds using them. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F496https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F496Tue, 04 Sep 2012 12:45:28 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide artificial nesting sites for parrots A before-and-after study from Costa Rica found that the local population of scarlet macaws Ara macao increased following the installation of nest boxes along with several other interventions. Five studies from South and Central America and Mauritius that nest boxes were used by several species of parrots, with one finding an increase in use over time until the majority of the population used them. One replicated study from Peru found that blue-and-yellow macaws Ara ararauna only used modified palms, not ‘boxes’, whilst another replicated study found that scarlet macaws Ara macao used both PVC and wooden boxes, but that PVC lasted much longer. Four studies from Venezuela and Columbia found that several species very rarely, if ever, used nest boxes. Six studies from Central and South America found that parrots nested successfully in nest boxes, with two species showing higher levels of recruitment into the population following nest box erection and another finding that success rates for artificial nests were similar to natural nests. Three studies from South America found that artificial nests had low success rates, in two cases due to poaching. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F497https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F497Tue, 04 Sep 2012 13:10:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Foster eggs or chicks of raptors with wild conspecifics Ten out of 11 studies from across the world found that fostering raptor chicks to wild conspecifics had high success rates. A single study from the USA found that only one of six eggs fostered to wild bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus nests were hatched and raised. The authors suggest that the other eggs may have been infertile. A replicated study from Spain found that Spanish imperial eagle Aquila adalberti chicks were no more likely to survive to fledging if they were transferred to foster nests from three chick broods (at high risk from siblicide), compared to chicks left in three-chick broods. A replicated study from Spain found that young (15–20 years old) Montagu's harrier Circus pygargus chicks were successfully adopted, but three older (27–29 day old) chicks were rejected. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F510https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F510Thu, 06 Sep 2012 14:42:31 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create skylark plots All four studies from the UK and Switzerland (two replicated and controlled, and one review) investigating the effect of skylark plots on Eurasian skylarks, found a positive effect, reporting increases in skylark population size, breeding density, duration or success or a lower likelihood of skylarks abandoning their territory relative to fields without plots. A replicated study from Denmark found that skylarks used undrilled patches within cereal fields more than expected by an even distribution across the landscape. Four studies reported the effect of undrilled patches on wildlife other than skylarks. Three studies from the UK (including two replicated studies, of which one also controlled and a review) found benefits to plants and invertebrates. Whilst two studies (both replicated, one also controlled) from the UK found no significant differences in the number of some invertebrates or seed-eating songbirds between skylark plots and conventional crop fields. One replicated study from the UK investigated different skylark plot establishment techniques. Plots that were undrilled had greater vegetation cover and height than plots established by spraying out with herbicide. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F540https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F540Tue, 11 Sep 2012 16:08:32 +0100Collected 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: Delay mowing or first grazing date on pasture or grasslandNatural enemy abundance: One replicated, randomised, controlled study found fewer predatory spiders with delayed cutting. Three studies from the UK (two of them replicated, randomised and controlled) found no change in insect predator numbers and one replicated study from Sweden found mixed effects between different predator groups. Natural enemy diversity: One replicated study from Sweden found a decrease in ant diversity with delayed cutting and one replicated, randomised, controlled study from the UK found no effect on spider and beetle diversity. Pests: One of two replicated, randomised, controlled studies from the UK and USA found more pest insects in late-cut plots and one found no effect. Insects in general: Four replicated, randomised, controlled studies measured the abundance of insect groups without classifying them as pests or natural enemies. One UK study found lower numbers in late-cut plots, while two found effects varied between groups. Two studies from the UK and USA found no effect on insect numbers. Crops studied were barley, bird’s-foot trefoil, clovers, fescues, rapeseed, ryegrass, other grasses and wheat.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F727https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F727Thu, 30 May 2013 13:34:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Release captive-bred frogs Four of five studies (including one replicated study and one review) in Europe, Hong Kong and the USA found that captive-bred frogs released as tadpoles, juveniles or adults established populations or stable breeding populations at 88-100% of sites, and in some cases colonized new sites. One study found that stable breeding populations were not established. One before-and-after study in Spain found that released captive-bred, captive-reared and translocated frogs established breeding populations at 79% of sites. Three replicated studies in Australia and the USA found that a high proportion of captive-bred frogs released as eggs survived to metamorphosis, some released as tadpoles survived at least the first few months or few released as froglets survived. Three studies (including two replicated studies) in Australia, Italy and the UK and a review in the USA found that captive-bred frogs reproduced at all or 31–33% of release sites, or that there was very limited breeding by released frogs. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F870https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F870Wed, 11 Sep 2013 14:52:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add mulch to cropsBiodiversity: Three replicated trials from Canada, Poland and Spain (including one also controlled, one also randomized and one also controlled and randomized) showed that adding mulch to crops (whether shredded paper, municipal compost or straw) increased soil animal and fungal numbers, diversity and activity. Of these, one trial also showed that mulch improved soil structure and increased soil organic matter. Nutrient loss: One replicated study from Nigeria found higher nutrient levels in continually cropped soil. Erosion: Five studies from India, France, Nigeria and the UK (including one controlled, randomized, replicated trial, one randomized, replicated trial, two replicated (one also controlled), and one controlled trial) found that mulches increased soil stability, and reduced soil erosion and runoff. One trial found that some mulches are more effective than others. Drought: Two replicated trials from India found that adding mulch to crops increased soil moisture. Yield: Two replicated trials from India found that yields increased when either a live mulch or vegetation barrier combined with mulch was used. SOIL TYPES COVERED: clay, fine loam, gravelly sandy loam, sandy, sandy-clay, sandy loam, sandy silt-loam, silty, silty loam. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F887https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F887Fri, 27 Sep 2013 08:43:03 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Amend the soil using a mix of organic and inorganic amendmentsBiodiversity: Five controlled trials from China and India (four also randomized and replicated), and one study from Japan found higher microbial biomass and activity in soils with a mix of manure and inorganic fertilizers. Manure alone also increased microbial biomass. One trial found increased microbial diversity. Erosion: One controlled, replicated trial from India found that mixed amendments were more effective at reducing the size of cracks in dry soil than inorganic fertilizers alone or no fertilizer. SOC loss: Four controlled, randomized, replicated trials and one controlled trial from China and India found more organic carbon in soils with mixed fertilizers. Manure alone also increased organic carbon. One trial also found more carbon in soil amended with inorganic fertilizers and lime. SOM loss: Two controlled, randomized, replicated trials from China and India found more nutrients in soils with manure and inorganic fertilizers. One controlled, randomized, replicated trial from China found inconsistent effects of using mixed manure and inorganic fertilizers. Yield: Two controlled, randomized, replicated trials from China found increased maize Zea mays yield in soils with mixed manure and inorganic fertilizer amendments. SOIL TYPES COVERED: clay, clay loam, sandy-loam, silt clay loam, silty-loam. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F902https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F902Tue, 01 Oct 2013 14:46:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use an alternative protein source: plant-based Six studies (four replicated, controlled) in Norway, Scotland and the USA found that inclusion of plant-based proteins within feed led to decreased growth rates in salmon. Three replicated and/or controlled studies from Norway, Canada and Scotland found similar growth rates in salmon fed either plant-based or fish meal diets. Four replicated, controlled studies (three randomised) from Norway and Scotland found reduced final body weights in salmon fed plant-based protein diets compared to fish meal-based diets. Two controlled studies (one replicated) from Norway found similar final body weights in salmon fed either plant-based or fish meal diets. Two replicated, controlled studies (one randomised) from Norway found lowered levels of feeding efficiency, whereas a replicated study in Norway found increased levels of feeding efficiency in salmon fed plant-based protein diets compared to fish meal diets. Two replicated studies (one controlled) in Canada and Scotland study found similar levels of feeding efficiency across both diet types. Digestibility of feed components by salmon was found to be lower in two replicated, controlled studies when the diets contained plant proteins compared to fish meal. Similar levels of digestibility across both diet types were identified by two randomised, replicated, controlled studies in Scotland and Norway. Two of the studies found that survival rates and appetite were not affected by plant- or fish meal-based protein diets. However morphology of the distal intestine was altered in two randomised, replicated, controlled studies where salmon were fed diets containing plant-based proteins. Condition of the salmon was increased in plant-based protein diets in one randomised, replicated, controlled study but reduced in two other replicated studies. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F924https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F924Fri, 25 Oct 2013 13:26:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create alternative bat roosts within developments Eleven studies evaluated the effects of creating alternative bat roosts within developments on bat populations. Nine studies were in Europe and two were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (11 STUDIES) Use: (11 studies): Two replicated studies in the USA and UK found that bats did not use any of the alternative roosts provided in bat houses or a purpose-built bat wall after exclusion from buildings. Three studies (two replicated) in the USA and UK and one review in the UK found that bat boxes or bat lofts/barns were used by bats at 13–74% of development sites, and bat lofts/barns were used by maternity colonies at one of 19 development sites. Three of five before-and-after studies in Portugal, Ireland, Spain and the UK found that bat colonies used purpose-built roosts in higher or similar numbers after the original roosts were destroyed. The other two studies found that bats used purpose-built roosts in lower numbers than the original roost. One review in the UK found that new bat boxes/lofts built to replace destroyed roosts were four times less likely to be used by returning bats than roosts retained during development. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F949https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F949Fri, 20 Dec 2013 09:21:55 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Thin trees within forest and woodland Eleven studies evaluated the effects of thinning trees within forest and woodland on bat populations. Six studies were in the USA, four were in Australia and one was in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (2 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in Australia recorded the same bat species in thinned and unthinned forest, except for the chocolate wattled bat, which was not recorded in forests with unthinned regrowth. One replicated, site comparison study in Australia found that forest thinned up to 20 years previously had higher bat diversity than unthinned forest, but sites thinned more than 20 years previously did not differ. POPULATION RESPONSE (11 STUDIES) Abundance (11 studies): Five of six replicated, site comparison studies (including two paired sites studies and one controlled study) in the USA and Australia found higher overall bat activity (relative abundance) in thinned or thinned and burned forest than unthinned forest. The other study found similar overall bat activity in thinned and unthinned stands. One replicated, randomized, site comparison study in the USA found higher overall bat activity for three of four types of thinning and burning treatments. One replicated, site comparison study in Australia found that forest thinned up to eight years previously or more than 20 years previously had higher bat activity than unthinned forest, but sites thinned 8–20 years previously did not differ. Three replicated, controlled studies (including one site comparison and one before-and-after study) in Canada and Australia found that thinning increased the activity of some bat species but not others. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F991https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F991Fri, 20 Dec 2013 15:31:59 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install and maintain cave gates to restrict public access Eleven studies evaluated the effects of installing cave gates on bat populations. Six studies were in the USA and five studies were in Europe. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (7 STUDIES) Abundance (7 studies): Three of four before-and-after studies (including one replicated study and one controlled study) in the Netherlands, the USA, Spain and Turkey found more or similar numbers of bats in caves and a bunker after gates were installed to restrict public access. The other study found fewer bats in caves after gates were installed. Two before-and-after studies in the USA and Spain found more bats within two caves after the size of the gated entrances were increased. One replicated, before-and-after study in the USA found that installing cave gates resulted in population increases or decreased rates of decline for 13 of 20 colonies of Indiana bat. One replicated, site comparison study in Spain found no difference in the population growth rates of bats roosting in caves with and without cave gates. Condition (1 study): One site comparison study in the USA found that bats hibernating in a cave with a wall and gate over the entrance lost more body mass than bats in a nearby unmodified cave. BEHAVIOUR (5 STUDIES) Use (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Spain found no difference in the occupancy rates of bats roosting in caves with and without cave gates. Behaviour change (4 studies): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after and site comparison study in the USA found that bats at cave entrances circled more and entered caves less after gates were installed. One replicated study in the USA found that bats flew through gates with a funnel design more frequently than gates with a round bar or angle iron design. One randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in the UK found that fewer bats flew through cave gates when the spacing between horizontal bars was reduced. One before-and-after study in the USA found that significantly fewer bats emerged from a cave with a gate installed compared with a cave with a fence. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F999https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F999Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:07:52 +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: 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: 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: Cut/remove/thin forest plantations and rewet peat Eleven studies evaluated the effects of cutting/removing trees and rewetting peat (in combination): six in fens, two in bogs, and three in both fens and bogs. In four of the studies, the peatlands naturally contained some trees. Three studies were based on one experimental set-up, and two studies were based on another. Plant community composition (5 studies): Of three replicated studies in fens, two in Finland found that removing trees/rewetting had no effect on the overall plant community composition whilst one in Sweden reported only a small effect. Two site comparison studies in bogs and fens in Finland found that removing trees/rewetting changed the overall plant community composition. It became less like sites that remained drained and forested. Characteristic plants (2 studies): Two before-and-after studies (one site comparison, one controlled) in bogs and fens in Finland and Sweden reported that removing trees/rewetting increased the abundance of wetland-characteristic plants. Moss cover (6 studies): Of five studies that examined the effect of removing trees/rewetting on Sphagnum moss, two replicated, paired studies in bogs and fens in Sweden and Finland found that the intervention increased Sphagnum cover. One replicated, before-and-after, site comparison study in forested fens in Finland found no effect. Two before-and-after studies in a bog in Finland and a fen in Sweden found mixed effects depending on site or species. Additionally, three studies (two replicated and paired) in peatlands in the UK and Finland found that removing trees/rewetting reduced cover of non-Sphagnum or forest-characteristic mosses. However, one replicated, before-and-after, site comparison study in forested fens in Finland found no effect of thinning trees/rewetting on forest mosses. Herb cover (7 studies): Seven studies (including two replicated, paired, controlled) in bogs and fens in the UK, Finland and Sweden reported that removing trees/rewetting increased cover of at least one group of herbs, including cottongrasses and sedges. However, one of these studies reported loss of cottongrass from a fen where it was rare before intervention, along with reduced purple moor grass cover. Vegetation structure (4 studies): One replicated site comparison study in a bog in the UK found that removing trees/rewetting increased ground vegetation height. One replicated, paired, controlled study in a fen in Sweden reported that removing trees/rewetting had no effect on canopy height after eight years. Two replicated, paired, site comparison studies in bogs and fens in Finland found that thinning trees/rewetting reduced the number of tall trees present for 1–3 years (although not to the level of natural peatlands). Overall plant richness/diversity (4 studies): Two replicated, paired, controlled studies in rich fens in Sweden reported that removing trees/rewetting increased plant species richness. However, two replicated studies in fens in Finland found that removing trees/rewetting had no effect on total plant species richness or diversity. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1732https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1732Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:16:46 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Directly plant peatland trees/shrubs Eleven studies evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of planting trees/shrubs to restore or create forested/shrubby peatland. Seven studies were in tropical peat swamps, three in bogs and one in a fen. Survival (10 studies): Eight studies (seven replicated) in peat swamp forests in Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia and bogs in Canada reported that the majority of planted trees/shrubs survived over periods between 10 weeks and 13 years. Species with <50% survival included Dacryodes, poplar and katok. One replicated study in a fen in the USA reported that most planted willow cuttings died within two years. One study in a peat swamp forest in Indonesia reported <5% survival of planted trees after five months, following unusually deep flooding. Growth (5 studies): Four studies (including two replicated, before-and-after) in peat swamp forests in Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia reported that planted trees grew. One replicated before-and-after study in bogs in Canada reported that planted shrubs grew. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1820https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1820Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:45:21 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Translocate problem mammals away from residential areas (e.g. habituated bears) to reduce human-wildlife conflict Eleven studies evaluated the effects of translocating problem mammals (such as bears) away from residential areas to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Six studies were in the USA, two were in Canada, one was Russia, one was in India and one was in Romania. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (6 STUDIES) Survival (6 studies): A controlled study in the USA found that grizzly bears translocated away from conflict situations had lower survival rates than did non-translocated bears. A replicated study study in the USA found that fewer than half of black bears translocated from conflict situations survived after one year. Two of three studies (two controlled), in the USA, found that after translocation away from urban sites, white-tailed deer survival was lower than that of non-translocated deer. The third study found that short-term survival was lower but long-term survival was higher than that of non-translocated deer. A study in Russia found that most Amur tigers translocated after attacking dogs or people did not survive for a year after release. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (6 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (6 studies): Five studies (including one controlled and two replicated studies), in the USA and Canada, of brown/grizzly or black bears translocated away from residential areas or human-related facilities, found that at least some returned to their original capture location and/or continued to cause nuisance. In two of the studies, most returned to their capture area and one black bear returned six times following translocation. A before-and-after study in India found that leopards translocated away from human-dominated areas, attacked more humans and livestock than before-translocation. A controlled study in Romania found that translocated brown bears occurred less frequently inside high potential conflict areas than outside, the opposite to bears that had not been translocated. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2336https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2336Thu, 21 May 2020 14:09:47 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install electric fencing to reduce predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict Eleven studies evaluated the effects of installing electric fencing to reduce predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Six studies were in the USA (and a further one was presumed to be in the USA) and one each was in Canada, South Africa, Brazil and Spain. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (11 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (11 studies): Six out of 10 randomized and/or controlled or before-and-after studies (including eight replicated studies), in the USA (and a further one presumed to be in the USA), Canada, Brazil and Spain, found that electric fences reduced or prevented entry to livestock enclosures or predation of livestock by carnivores. Two studies found that some designs of electric fencing prevented coyotes from entering enclosures and killing or wounding lambs. The other two studies found electric fencing did not reduce livestock predation or prevent fence crossings by carnivores. A before-and-after study in South Africa found that electrifying a fence reduced digging of burrows under the fence that black-backed jackals could pass through. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2417https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2417Mon, 01 Jun 2020 10:09:18 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Translocate predators away from livestock to reduce human-wildlife conflict Eleven studies evaluated the effects on mammals of translocating predators away from livestock to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Four studies were in the USA two were in Botswana, one each was in Canada, Zimbabwe and Namibia, one was in Venezuela and Brazil and one covered multiple locations in North and Central America and Africa. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (8 STUDIES) Reproductive success (2 studies): Two studies, in Zimbabwe and Namibia, found that predators translocated away from livestock bred in the wild after release. Survival (8 studies): Four of eight studies (including three replicated studies and a systematic review), in the USA, Canada, Zimbabwe, South America, Botswana and Namibia, found that translocating predators reduced their survival or that most did not survive more than 6–12 months after release. Three studies found that translocated predators had similar survival to that of established animals or persisted in the wild and one study could not determine the effect of translocation on survival. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (6 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (6 studies): Four of six studies (including a review and a systematic review), in the USA, South America and in North and Central America and Africa, found that some translocated predators continued to predate livestock or returned to their capture sites. One study found that translocated predators were not subsequently involved in livestock predation and one study could not determine the effect of translocation on livestock predation. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2436https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2436Tue, 02 Jun 2020 09:18:02 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use circle hooks instead of J-hooks Eleven studies evaluated the effects of using circle hooks instead of J-hooks on reptile populations. Five studies were in the Atlantic, three were in the Pacific and one study was in each of the Mediterranean, the Atlantic and North Pacific and the western North Atlantic, Azores, Gulf of Mexico and Ecuador. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Survival (3 studies): Two studies (including one replicated, controlled, paired study) off the coast of Hawaii and in the north-east Atlantic Ocean found that survival of loggerhead and leatherback turtles and leatherback and hard-shell sea turtles caught by circle hooks or J-hooks was similar. One review of studies in five pelagic longline fisheries found that fewer sea turtles died when circle hooks were used compared to J-hooks in four of five fisheries. Condition (3 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies in the Mediterranean Sea and south-western Atlantic Ocean found that fewer immature loggerhead turtles and loggerhead turtles swallowed circle hooks compared to J-hooks. One before-and-after study off the coast of Hawaii found that a lower percentage of loggerhead and leatherback turtles were deeply hooked by circle hooks compared to J-hooks. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (11 STUDIES) Unwanted catch (11 studies): Seven of 10 studies (including six replicated, controlled studies) in the Pacific, Atlantic, Atlantic and North Pacific and Mediterranean and one review of studies in five pelagic longline fisheries found that circle hooks or circle hooks and tuna hooks caught fewer sea turtles than J-hooks, or that non-offset G-style circle hooks caught fewer leatherback and hard-shell sea turtles that offset J-Hooks. One of these studies also found that circle hooks caught slightly larger loggerhead turtles than J-hooks, and one also found that offset Gt-style circle hooks caught a similar number of leatherback and hard-shell sea turtles compared to offset J-hooks. One study found that circle hooks caught a similar number of leatherback, green and olive ridley turtles compared to J-hooks. One study found that fish-baited circle hooks caught fewer loggerhead and leatherback turtles than squid-baited J-hooks. The review found mixed effects of using circle hooks compared to J-hooks on unwanted catch of sea turtles depending on the fishery. The other study found mixed effects of using circle hooks or J-hooks in combination with squid or fish bait on the number of loggerhead and leatherback turtles that were caught. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3559https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3559Wed, 08 Dec 2021 14:21:43 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create artificial refuges, hibernacula and aestivation sites Eleven studies evaluated the effects of creating artificial refuges, hibernacula and aestivation sites on reptile populations. Three studies were in each of the UK and Australia, two were in New Zealand and one was in each of the USA, Spain and Italy. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One controlled, before-and-after study in Spain found that areas with refuge logs had higher reptile species richness than areas without refuges. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (1 study): One controlled, before-and-after study in Spain found that areas with refuge logs had a higher abundance of reptiles than areas without refuges. Reproductive success (1 study): One study in the UK found that after translocating adders to an artificial hibernaculum, there was evidence of successful reproduction. Survival (1 study): One randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in New Zealand found that in areas with artificial refuges, survival of McCann’s skinks was similar to areas without refuges. BEHAVIOUR (9 STUDIES) Use (9 studies): Nine studies (including one replicated, controlled study and one randomized, controlled study) in the USA, the UK, Australia, New Zealand and Italy found that artificial refuges were used by reptiles, common lizards, adders, common geckos, species of skinks, and by an ocellated lizard to lay a clutch of eggs. Four of the studies also found that some reptiles showed a preference for refuges with certain designs or construction materials. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3720https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3720Mon, 13 Dec 2021 16:36:45 +0000