Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create uncultivated margins around intensive arable or pasture fields Thirty-nine studies (including 13 replicated controlled trials of which three also randomized and four reviews) from eight European countries compared wildlife on uncultivated margins with other margin options. Twenty-four found benefits to some wildlife groups (including 11 replicated controlled trials of which one also randomised, and four reviews). Nineteen studies (including one randomized, replicated, controlled trial) from Germany, Ireland, Lithuania, Norway, the Netherlands and the UK found uncultivated margins support more invertebrates (including bees) and/or higher plant diversity or species richness than conventionally managed field margins or other field margin options. One replicated, controlled study showed that uncultivated margins supported more small mammal species than meadows and farmed grasslands. Four studies (two replicated UK studies, two reviews) reported positive associations between birds and field margins including food provision. A review from the UK found grass margins (including naturally regenerated margins) benefited plants and some invertebrates. Fifteen studies (including one randomized, replicated, controlled trial) from Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and the UK found that invertebrate and/or plant species richness or abundance were lower in naturally regenerated than conventionally managed fields or sown margins. Six studies (including one randomized, replicated, controlled trial) from Belgium, Germany and the UK found uncultivated margins did not have more plant or invertebrate species or individuals than cropped or sown margins. A review found grass margins (including naturally regenerated margins) did not benefit ground beetles. Five studies (including three replicated controlled trials) from Ireland and the UK reported declines in plant species richness and invertebrate numbers in naturally regenerated margins over time. One replicated trial found that older naturally regenerated margins (6-years old) had more invertebrate predators (mainly spiders) than newly established (1-year old) naturally regenerated margins. Five studies (including one replicated, randomized trial) from the Netherlands and the UK found that cutting margins had a negative impact on invertebrates or no impact on plant species. One replicated controlled study found cut margins were used more frequently by yellowhammers when surrounding vegetation was >60 cm tall. Seven studies (including four replicated controlled trials and a review) from Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway and the UK reported increased abundance or biomass of weed species in naturally regenerated margins. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F63https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F63Tue, 04 Oct 2011 14:51:45 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create uncultivated margins around intensive arable or pasture fields for birds A replicated, controlled study from the USA found that three sparrow species found on uncultivated margins were not found on mown field edges. A replicated study from Canada found fewer species in uncultivated margins than in hedges or in trees planted as windbreaks. Three replicated studies from the USA and UK, one controlled, found that some birds were associated with uncultivated margins, or that birds were more abundant on margins than on other habitats. One study found that these effects were very weak. Four replicated studies (two of the same experiment) from the UK, two controlled, found that uncultivated margins contained similar numbers of birds in winter, or that several species studied did not show associations with margins. A replicated, controlled study from the UK found that yellowhammers Emberiza citrinella used uncultivated margins more than crops in early summer, but use fell in uncut margins in late summer. Cut margins however, were used more than other habitat types late in summer. A replicated study from the UK found high rates of survival for grey partridge Perdix perdix released in margins.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F190https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F190Sat, 16 Jun 2012 19:47:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create walls or barriers to exclude pollutants One controlled study in Mexico found that installing filters across canals to improve water quality and exclude fish increased weight gain in axolotls.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F771https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F771Tue, 20 Aug 2013 15:11:46 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create wetland Fifteen studies investigated the effectiveness of creating wetlands for amphibians. Five site comparison studies (including four replicated studies) in the USA compared created to natural wetlands and found that created wetlands had similar numbers of amphibian species, amphibian abundance or communities depending on depth as natural wetlands. Two of the studies found that created wetlands had fewer amphibian species or lower abundance and different communities compared to natural wetlands. One site comparison study in the USA found that created wetlands had similar numbers of species to adjacent forest. One global review and two site comparison studies (including one replicated study) in the USA combined created and restored wetlands and compared them to natural wetlands and found that numbers of amphibian species and abundance was higher or similar, or higher in 54% of studies and similar in 35% of studies reviewed compared to natural wetlands. Three site comparison studies (including one replicated study) in the USA found that certain amphibian species were only found in created or natural wetlands. One before-and-after study in Australia found that captive-bred green and golden bell frog tadpoles released into a created wetland did not establish a self-sustaining population. Five studies (including two replicated studies) in Kenya and the USA that investigated colonization of created wetlands found that four to 15 amphibian species used or colonized the wetlands. One global review and three studies (including two replicated studies) in the USA found that numbers of amphibian species and amphibian abundance in created wetlands were affected by wetland design, vegetation, water levels, surrounding habitat, fish presence and distance to source wetlands.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F880https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F880Fri, 13 Sep 2013 11:16:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create tree plantations on agricultural land Three studies evaluated the effects of creating tree plantations on agricultural land on bat populations. The three studies were in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (3 studies): Three replicated, site comparison studies in Australia found no difference in the number of bat species in agricultural areas with and without plantations of native trees. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): Two of three replicated, site comparison studies in Australia found no difference in bat activity (relative abundance) in agricultural areas with and without plantations of native trees. The other study found higher bat activity in plantations next to remnant native vegetation than in isolated plantations or over grazing land. In all three studies, bat activity was lower in plantations compared to original forest and woodland remnants. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F958https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F958Fri, 20 Dec 2013 10:09:11 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crop production: Add compost to the soilCrop yield (8 studies): Three replicated, controlled studies (two randomized) from Italy, Spain, and the USA found higher crop yields in plots with added compost, compared to plots without added compost, in some comparisons or all comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy and the USA found inconsistent differences in crop yields (sometimes higher, sometimes lower) between plots with or without added compost. Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain and the USA found similar crop yields in plots with or without added compost. Of two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain, one study found higher yields of barley straw in plots with added compost, compared to plots without added compost, and one study did not. Crop quality (0 studies) Implementation options (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found similar crop yields in plots with added compost that did or did not also have added fertilizer.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1346https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1346Thu, 09 Mar 2017 17:05:03 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crop production: Add manure to the soilCrop yield (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Greece found higher maize yields in plots with added manure, compared to plots without added manure, in two of three comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Italy found similar nectarine yields in plots with or without added manure. Crop quality (0 studies)  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1347https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1347Mon, 20 Mar 2017 10:57:28 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crop production: Add sewage sludge to the soilCrop yield (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found higher barley yields in plots with added sewage sludge, compared to plots without it. Crop quality (0 studies) Implementation options (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found higher barley yields in plots with low amounts of added sewage sludge, but not high amounts, compared to plots without added sewage sludge.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1348https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1348Mon, 20 Mar 2017 11:58:57 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crop production: Add slurry to the soilCrop yield (6 studies): Six replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found higher crop yields in plots with added pig slurry, compared to plots without it, in some comparisons. Crop quality (0 studies) Implementation options (4 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found similar crop yields in plots with digested pig slurry, compared to untreated pig slurry. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found lower crop yields in plots with less pig slurry, compared to more, but another found similar crop yields with different amounts of pig slurry.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1349https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1349Mon, 20 Mar 2017 12:04:53 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crop production: Use organic fertilizer instead of inorganicCrop yield (11 studies) Food crops (10 studies): Four replicated studies (three controlled, two randomized; one site comparison) from Italy and Spain found higher yields in plots with organic fertilizer, compared to inorganic fertilizer, in some comparisons. Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain and the USA found lower yields in plots with organic fertilizer, compared to inorganic fertilizer, in some or all comparisons. Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Greece and Spain found similar yields in plots with organic or inorganic fertilizer. Forage crops (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found higher alfalfa yields in plots with organic fertilizer, compared to inorganic, in one of two comparisons. Crop quality (0 studies)  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1350https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1350Mon, 20 Mar 2017 16:57:26 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crop production: Grow cover crops in arable fieldsCrop yield (24 studies): Six replicated, controlled studies (five randomized) from Spain and the USA found lower cash crop yields in plots with winter cover crops, compared to plots without them, in some comparisons. Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy and the USA found higher cash crop yields in plots with winter cover crops, compared to plots without them, in some comparisons. Eight replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy and the USA found inconsistent differences in cash crop yields (sometimes higher, sometimes lower) between plots with or without cover crops. Seven controlled studies (six replicated, four randomized) from France, Israel, Spain, and the USA found no differences in cash crop yields between plots with or without cover crops. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found inconsistent differences in cash crop yields between plots with or without summer cover crops. Crop quality (6 studies): Three replicated, controlled studies (two randomized) from Italy, Spain, and the USA found no differences in cash crop quality between plots with or without winter cover crops. Two controlled studies (one replicated and randomized) from the USA found some differences in tomato quality between plots with winter cover crops or fallows. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found inconsistent differences in cash crop quality between plots with or without winter cover crops. Implementation options (9 studies): Eight studies from Italy, Spain, and the USA found higher cash crop yields in plots that had legumes as winter cover crops, compared to non-legumes. One study from the USA found higher cash crop yields in plots that had a mixture of legumes and grasses, compared to legumes alone.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1351https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1351Tue, 21 Mar 2017 11:54:49 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crop production: Plant or maintain ground cover in orchards or vineyardsCrop yield (11 studies) Grapes (8 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from France and the USA found lower grape yields in plots that were seeded with grass between the vine rows, compared to plots with bare soil between the vine rows, in some or all comparisons. Six replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy, Portugal, Spain, and the USA found similar grape yields in plots with or without ground cover between the vine rows. Other crops (3 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Portugal found higher chestnut yields in plots with resident vegetation, compared to plots without ground cover, but found no difference in chestnut yields between plots with seeded cover crops and plots without ground cover. One of these studies also found higher mushroom yields in plots with resident vegetation, compared to plots without ground cover. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Chile found lower avocado yields in plots that were seeded with grasses and legumes, compared to plots with bare soil.   Crop quality (8 studies) Grapes (6 studies): Five replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy, Portugal, and the USA found similar sugar contents in grapes with or without ground cover between the vine rows. Three of these studies found similar pH levels, and two of these studies found no differences in titratable acidity, but two of these studies found lower titratable acidity in grapes with ground cover between the vine rows. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found heavier grapes with ground cover between the vine rows, but two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy and Spain did not. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Portugal and Spain found other differences in grape quality with ground cover between the vine rows. Other crops (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Portugal found larger chestnuts in plots with ground cover, compared to plots without ground cover. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Chile found no difference in avocado quality in plots with or without ground cover.   Implementation options (6 studies) Ground cover (5 studies) Grapes (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found similar grape yields in plots with different types of ground cover. However, this study found lighter-weight clusters of grapes in plots with seeded cover crops, compared to resident vegetation, in one of three years, and found inconsistent differences in cluster weights between plots with different types of seeded cover crops. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain and the USA found other differences in grape quality between plots with different types of ground cover. Other crops (2 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Portugal found lower chestnut yields in plots with seeded cover crops, compared to resident vegetation. One of these studies also found smaller chestnuts and lower mushroom yields. Tillage (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found higher grape yields, and heavier grape clusters, in plots without tillage between the vine rows, in one of six comparisons. Another replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found similar grape yields, with or without tillage between the vine rows. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1352https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1352Thu, 23 Mar 2017 09:24:58 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crop production: Use crop rotationsCrop yield (8 studies): Four replicated, controlled studies (three randomized) from Italy, Spain, and Turkey found higher crop yields in plots with rotations, compared to monocultures, in some comparisons. Four replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Australia, Portugal, and Spain found similar crop yields in plots with or without rotations. Crop quality (1 study): One replicated, controlled study from Italy found more protein in wheat that was grown in rotation, compared to continuously-grown wheat. Implementation options (2 studies): One study from the USA found higher tomato yields in four-year rotations, compared to two-year rotations. One study from Italy found higher wheat yields in rotations with beans, compared to clover.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1354https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1354Tue, 18 Apr 2017 13:02:25 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crop production: Use no tillage in arable fieldsCrop yield (23 studies) Crops (22 studies): Eight replicated, controlled studies (seven randomized) from Italy and Spain found higher crop yields in plots with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some or all comparisons. Seven replicated, controlled studies (six randomized) from Italy, Lebanon, Spain, and the USA found lower crop yields in plots with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some or all comparisons. Four replicated, randomized controlled studies from Italy and Spain found inconsistent differences in crop yields (sometimes higher with no tillage, sometimes lower). Three replicated, controlled studies (two randomized) from Italy, Portugal, and Spain found similar crop yields in plots with or without tillage. Crop residues (5 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Lebanon and Spain found higher straw yields in plots with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found inconsistent straw yields (sometimes higher with no tillage, sometimes lower). Two replicated, controlled studies (one randomized) from Italy and Spain found similar straw yields in plots with or without tillage. Crop quality (6 studies): One replicated, controlled study from Italy found less protein in wheat grains from plots with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found heavier cereal grains in plots with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found other differences in crop quality, but two replicated, controlled studies from Italy and the USA did not.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1355https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1355Tue, 18 Apr 2017 14:10:16 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crop production: Use no tillage instead of reduced tillageCrop yield (15 studies) Cereals (7 studies): Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found higher cereal yields in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage. One of these studies also found lower cereal yields in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found lower cereal yields in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage, in some comparisons. Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Australia, Lebanon, and Spain found similar cereal yields in plots with no tillage or reduced tillage, in all comparisons. Fruits and vegetables (3 studies): Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy found lower fruit or vegetable yields in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage, in some comparisons. Two of these studies also found higher yields, in some comparisons. Legumes (3 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies from Italy and Spain found higher legume yields in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage, in some or all comparisons. One replicated, controlled study from Lebanon found similar legume yields in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage. Oilseeds (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found lower sunflower seed yields in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage, in some comparisons. Crop residues (6 studies): Three replicated, controlled studies from Lebanon and Spain found higher straw yields in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage, in some or all comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found lower straw yields in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage. Two replicated, controlled studies from Italy and Spain found similar straw yields in plots with no tillage or reduced tillage. Crop quality (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found larger peas, and more peas in a pod, in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage, in one of four comparisons. One replicated, controlled study from Italy found similarly sized faba beans, and similar numbers of beans in a pod, in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found differences in the nutritional values of sunflower seeds in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage. · Crop yield (15 studies) o Cereals (7 studies): Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain2,4,13 found higher cereal yields in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage. One of these studies10410417Angás, P.Lampurlanés, J.Cantero-Martínez, C.Tillage and N fertilization: Effects on N dynamics and Barley yield under semiarid Mediterranean conditionsSoil and Tillage ResearchSoil and Tillage Research59-71871Conservation tillageNitrogen fertilizationN fertilizer efficiencyPhysiological N use efficiency20065//0167-1987http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167198705000991http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2005.02.0362 also found lower cereal yields in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain868617López-Garrido, R.Madejón, E.León-Camacho, M.Girón, I.Moreno, F.Murillo, J. M.Reduced tillage as an alternative to no-tillage under Mediterranean conditions: A case studySoil and Tillage ResearchSoil and Tillage Research40-47140Tillage systemsSoil conditionsCrop performanceSeed qualitySunflower20147//0167-1987http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167198714000300http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2014.02.00811 found lower cereal yields in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage, in some comparisons. Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Australia19119117Manalil, SudheeshFlower, KenSoil water conservation and nitrous oxide emissions from different crop sequences and fallow under Mediterranean conditionsSoil and Tillage ResearchSoil and Tillage Research123-129143AustraliaDroughtFallowNitrous oxide201411//0167-1987http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167198714001214http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2014.06.00612, Lebanon777717Yau, S. K.Sidahmed, M.Haidar, M.Conservation versus Conventional Tillage on Performance of Three Different CropsAgronomy JournalAgronomy Journal269-2761022010Madison, WIAmerican Society of Agronomyhttp://dx.doi.org/10.2134/agronj2009.024210.2134/agronj2009.0242English3, and Spain848417Hernanz, J. L.López, R.Navarrete, L.Sánchez-Girón, V.Long-term effects of tillage systems and rotations on soil structural stability and organic carbon stratification in semiarid central SpainSoil and Tillage ResearchSoil and Tillage Research129-141662Long-term effectTillageCrop rotationAggregate stabilitySoil organic carbonSemiarid conditions20027//0167-1987http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167198702000211http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-1987(02)00021-11 found similar cereal yields in plots with no tillage or reduced tillage, in all comparisons. o Fruits and vegetables (3 studies): Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy9,10,15 found lower fruit or vegetable yields in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage, in some comparisons. Two of these studies9,15 also found higher yields, in some comparisons. o Legumes (3 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies from Italy10710717Giambalvo, DarioRuisi, PaoloSaia, SergioDi Miceli, GiuseppeFrenda, Alfonso SalvatoreAmato, GaetanoFaba bean grain yield, N2 fixation, and weed infestation in a long-term tillage experiment under rainfed Mediterranean conditionsPlant and SoilPlant and Soil215-227360120122012//1573-5036http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11104-012-1224-510.1007/s11104-012-1224-57 and Spain838317Santín-Montanyá, M. I.Zambrana, E.Fernández-Getino, A. P.Tenorio, J. L.Dry pea (Pisum sativum L.) yielding and weed infestation response, under different tillage conditionsCrop ProtectionCrop Protection122-12865DiversityLegume-cropsSemi-arid conditionsYieldWeeds201411//0261-2194http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261219414002373http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2014.07.017 Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1358https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1358Fri, 05 May 2017 11:33:13 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crop production: Plant flowersCrop yield (2 studies): One replicated, controlled study from Spain found higher crop yields in coriander plants next to planted flower strips, compared to coriander plants next to unplanted field margins. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Italy found higher crop yields in tomatoes next to planted flower strips, compared to tomatoes next to bare ground, in some comparisons. Crop quality (0 studies) Implementation options (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found smaller lettuces in fields planted with flowers, in five out of six configurations. One replicated, controlled study from Spain found higher coriander yields next to field margins planted with more flower species, compared to fewer flower species. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Italy found lower crop yields in tomatoes next to field margins planted with more flower species, compared to fewer flower species, in some comparisons.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1360https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1360Fri, 05 May 2017 15:10:52 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crop production: Plant hedgerowsCrop yield (1 study): One replicated, paired site comparison from the USA found similar crop yields in fields with hedgerows and fields with bare/weedy edges. Crop quality (0 studies)  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1361https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1361Fri, 05 May 2017 15:41:01 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create/preserve primate habitat on islands before dam construction We found no evidence for the effects of creating/preserving primate habitat on islands before dam construction on primate populations. '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%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1455https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1455Tue, 17 Oct 2017 13:04:15 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create/protect habitat corridors One before-and-after study in Belize found that black howler monkey numbers increased by 138% over 13 years after the protection of a forest corridor, alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1580https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1580Fri, 20 Oct 2017 12:58:51 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create/protect forest patches in highly fragmented landscapes One before-and-after study in Belize found that black howler monkey numbers increased by 138% over 13 years after the protection of forest along property boundaries and across cleared areas, alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1581https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1581Fri, 20 Oct 2017 13:01:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create uncultivated margins around intensive arable or pasture fields Nine studies evaluated the effect of creating uncultivated margins around intensive arable, cropped grass or pasture fields on mammals. Six studies were in the UK, two were in Switzerland and one was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the UK found more small mammal species in uncultivated field margins than in blocks of set-aside. POPULATION RESPONSE (9 STUDIES) Abundance (9 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found more small mammals in uncultivated and unmown field margins than in frequently mown margins. Three of seven replicated, site comparison studies (one randomized), in the UK and Switzerland, found that uncultivated field margins had higher numbers of small mammals, bank voles and brown hares relative to crops (including grassland) and set-aside. The other four studies reported mixed or no effects on bank voles, wood mice and common shrews, small mammals and brown hares. One site comparison study in the UK found that brown hares used grassy field margins more than expected based on their availability. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2365https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2365Tue, 26 May 2020 15:55:26 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create uncultivated margins around arable or pasture fields Two studies evaluated the effects of creating uncultivated margins around arable or pasture fields on reptile populations. One study was in Australia and one was in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Australia found that revegetated linear strips had similar reptile species richness compared to cleared and remnant strips. The study also found that revegetated strips and patches had similar reptile species richness. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Australia found that revegetated linear strips had similar reptile abundance compared to cleared and remnant strips. The study also found that revegetated strips and patches had similar reptile abundance. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One replicated study in the UK found that uncultivated field margins were used by slow worms, common lizards and grass snakes, but not by adders. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3518https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3518Tue, 07 Dec 2021 14:37:16 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create walls or barriers to exclude pollutants We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of creating walls or barriers to exclude pollutants. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated 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%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3570https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3570Wed, 08 Dec 2021 15:12:06 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create young plantations within mature woodland One study evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of creating young plantations within mature woodland. This study was in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)   POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the UK found that pearl-bordered fritillary and small pearl-bordered fritillary populations were more likely to persist for up to 20 years in woodlands with larger areas of young plantations (or coppicing) than in mature coniferous (both species) or deciduous (pearl-bordered fritillary only) woodland. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3941https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3941Sat, 13 Aug 2022 14:57:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create uncultivated margins around intensive arable or pasture fields Ten studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of creating uncultivated margins around intensive arable or pasture fields. Six studies were in the UK, two were in Sweden, and one was in each of Finland and Germany. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (9 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (9 studies): Two of five studies (including four replicated, one randomized, one paired, two controlled and two site comparison studies) in Sweden, the UK and Finland, found that uncultivated margins had a lower species richness or diversity of butterflies than margins sown with grasses and non-woody broadleaved plants (forbs) or wildflowers. One other study found that the species richness of butterflies and day-flying moths was higher in permanent uncultivated margins than in sown fallow plots, and the other two found that the species richness of butterflies and moths was similar in uncultivated and sown margins. Three replicated studies (including one randomized, controlled study and two site comparison studies) in the UK and Germany found that uncultivated margins which were not grazed or cut, or were only cut in spring or autumn, had a higher species richness of butterflies than margins which were cut in summer. Two site comparison studies (including one replicated study) in the UK and Germany found that the species richness of butterflies was higher in longer or wider uncultivated margins than in shorter, narrower or conventional width margins. One of two replicated studies (including one controlled study and one site comparison study) in the UK and Finland found that uncultivated margins had a higher species richness of butterflies and day-flying moths than cereal fields, but the other found that the species richness of butterflies was similar between regenerating margins and cropped field edges. One replicated, paired, site comparison study in Sweden found that uncultivated margins had a higher species richness of butterflies and burnet moths if they were located closer to existing grassland. POPULATION RESPONSE (9 STUDIES) Abundance (9 studies): Six of seven studies (including six replicated, two randomized, four controlled and three site comparison studies) in Sweden, the UK and Finland found that the abundance of butterflies and moths, and of adult but not caterpillar meadow brown, was lower in uncultivated margins than in margins sown with grasses, or grasses and non-woody broadleaved plants (forbs) or wildflowers, or a mixture of grasses and wildflowers. However, one of these studies found that uncultivated margins had similar abundance of butterflies to margins sown with grasses or cereal crop. The other study found that the abundance of butterflies and day-flying moths was higher in permanent uncultivated margins than in sown fallow plots. Two of three replicated, site comparison studies (including two randomized studies) in the UK found that uncultivated margins which were not cut, or were only cut in spring and autumn, had a higher abundance of butterflies, and adult but not caterpillar meadow brown, than margins cut in summer. The other study found that margins which were not cut and grazed had a similar abundance of butterflies to margins which were cut and grazed. Two replicated studies (including one controlled study and one site comparison study) in the UK and Finland found that uncultivated margins had a higher abundance of butterflies and day-flying moths than cereal fields or cropped field edges. One site comparison study in the UK found that the abundance of butterflies in wide uncultivated margins was higher than in conventional margins. One replicated, paired, site comparison study in Sweden found that uncultivated margins had a higher abundance of butterflies and burnet moths if they were located closer to existing grassland. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3981https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3981Thu, 18 Aug 2022 11:06:18 +0100
What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 21

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust
For a full list of, and information about, our champions:
All Evidence Champions
About our champions, why and how to become one:
Become an Evidence Champion

This website uses Cookies

We use limited Cookies to run the site and to analyse our traffic (none for site vendors). By using this site, you will be providing your consent to our use of Cookies.

Accept & continue