Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cross compliance standards for all subsidy paymentsApart from the Swiss Ecological Compensation Areas scheme (considered in another section), we found no studies comparing the effects of cross compliance standards with other means of implementing agri-environmental measures, or that considered the effects of cross compliance by monitoring farmland bird populations before and after it was implemented.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F173https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F173Sun, 27 May 2012 14:49:45 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cull bats infected with white-nose syndrome We found no studies that evaluated the effects of culling bats infected with white-nose syndrome on bat populations. ‘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%2F1012https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1012Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:47:23 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crop production: Use reduced tillage in arable fieldsCrop yield (25 studies) Cereals (16 studies): Nine replicated, controlled studies from Egypt, France, Spain, and Turkey found higher cereal yields in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some or all comparisons. Three of these studies also found lower cereal yields in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons. Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Lebanon and Spain found lower cereal yields in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Four replicated, controlled studies from Italy, Spain, and the USA found similar cereal yields in plots with reduced tillage or conventional tillage, in all comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found that crops failed in plots with conventional tillage, but not in plots with reduced tillage, in one of three comparisons. Fruits and vegetables (7 studies): Five replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy and the USA found higher fruit or vegetable yields in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons. Two of these studies also found lower fruit or vegetable yields in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons. Two replicated, controlled studies from Italy and the USA found similar fruit yields in plots with reduced tillage or conventional tillage, in all comparisons. All fruit or vegetable plots were irrigated, in contrast to most cereal or legume plots. Legumes (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found lower legume yields in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in one of four comparisons. Two replicated, controlled studies from Italy and Lebanon found similar legume yields in plots with reduced tillage or conventional tillage, in all comparisons. No studies found higher legume yields in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Oilseeds (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found higher rapeseed yields in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Crop residues (6 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Lebanon and Spain found lower straw yields in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found higher straw yields in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons. Two replicated, controlled studies from Italy and Spain found similar straw yields in plots with reduced tillage or conventional tillage, in all comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found higher cover crop biomass in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Crop quality (7 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found that sunflower seeds had more oil, more monounsaturated fatty acid, and less polyunsaturated fatty acid in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. One replicated, controlled study from Italy found that wheat had a lower protein content in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Two replicated, controlled studies from Italy and Turkey found similar seed weights in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found that lettuce or broccoli plants were larger in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons, but they were smaller in other comparisons. Implementation options (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Egypt found higher wheat yields in plots that were tilled at slower speeds. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Turkey found higher wheat yields, but lower vetch yields, in plots with one type of reduced tillage (rototilling and disking), compared to another type (double disking).Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1359https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1359Fri, 05 May 2017 12:03:43 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cut strips of shrubland vegetation to reduce the spread of fire We found no studies that evaluated the effects of cutting strips of vegetation to reduce the spread of fire on shrublands. '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%2F1624https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1624Sun, 22 Oct 2017 10:47:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cut trees One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the UK found that cutting birch trees increased density of heather seedlings but not that of mature common heather plants. One replicated, controlled study in South Africa found that cutting non-native trees increased herbaceous plant cover but did not increase cover of native woody plants. One site comparison study in South Africa found that cutting non-native Acacia trees reduced shrub and tree cover. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1630https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1630Sun, 22 Oct 2017 11:44:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cut trees and remove leaf litter One before-and-after trial in the Netherlands found that cutting trees and removing the litter layer increased the cover of two heather species and of three grass species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1631https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1631Sun, 22 Oct 2017 11:46:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cut trees and remove tree seedlings A controlled, before-and-after study in South Africa found that cutting orange wattle trees and removing seedlings of the same species increased plant diversity and shrub cover. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1632https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1632Sun, 22 Oct 2017 11:51:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cut trees and increase livestock numbers We found no studies that evaluated the effects of controlling tree species by cutting and increasing grazing intensity of livestock on shrublands. '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%2F1635https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1635Sun, 22 Oct 2017 12:01:36 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cut trees and apply herbicide One controlled study in the UK found that cutting trees and applying herbicide increased the abundance of heather seedlings. However, one replicated, controlled study in the UK found that cutting silver birch trees and applying herbicide did not alter cover of common heather when compared to cutting alone. Two controlled studies (one of which was a before-and-after study) in South Africa  found that cutting of trees and applying herbicide did not increase shrub cover. Two controlled studies in South Africa found that cutting trees and applying herbicide increased the total number of plant species and plant diversity. One replicated, controlled study in the UK found that cutting and applying herbicide reduced cover of silver birch trees. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1636https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1636Sun, 22 Oct 2017 12:04:01 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cut trees and use prescribed burning One replicated, before-and-after trial in the USA found that cutting western juniper trees and using prescribed burning increased the cover of herbaceous plants. One replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after trial in the USA found that cutting western juniper trees and using prescribed burning increased cover of herbaceous plants but had no effect on the cover of most shrubs. One controlled study in South Africa found that cutting followed by prescribed burning reduced the cover of woody plants but did not alter herbaceous cover. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1637https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1637Sun, 22 Oct 2017 12:07:21 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cut to control bracken One randomized, controlled, before-and-after trial in Norway and one randomized, controlled study in the UK found that cutting bracken increased the cover or biomass of heather. However, two randomized, replicated, controlled studies in the UK found that cutting bracken did not increase heather cover or abundance of heather seedlings. One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the UK found that cutting to control bracken increased the species richness of heathland plant species. However, another randomized, replicated, controlled study in the UK found that cutting to control bracken did not alter species richness but did increase species diversity. One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the UK found that cutting bracken increased cover of wavy hair-grass and sheep’s fescue. One controlled study in the UK found that cutting bracken did not increase the abundance of gorse or common cow-wheat. One randomized, controlled, before-and-after trial in Norway and two randomized, controlled studies in the UK found that cutting bracken reduced bracken cover or biomass. One randomized, replicated, controlled, paired study the UK found that cutting had mixed effects on bracken cover. However, one controlled study in the UK found that cutting bracken did not decrease the abundance of bracken. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1653https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1653Sun, 22 Oct 2017 14:36:13 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cut and apply herbicide to control bracken One randomized, controlled study in the UK found that cutting and applying herbicide to control bracken did not alter heather biomass. One randomized, controlled, before-and-after trial in Norway found that cutting and applying herbicide increased heather cover. One randomized, replicated, controlled, paired study in the UK found that cutting and using herbicide had no significant effect on the cover of seven plant species. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found that cutting bracken followed by applying herbicide increased plant species richness when compared with applying herbicide followed by cutting. Three randomized, controlled studies (one also a before-and-after trial, and one of which was a paired study) in the UK and Norway found that cutting and applying herbicide reduced bracken biomass or cover. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1654https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1654Sun, 22 Oct 2017 14:42:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cut and burn bracken We found no studies that evaluated the effects of cutting and burning bracken on shrublands. '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%2F1655https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1655Sun, 22 Oct 2017 14:47:54 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cut bracken and rotovate One controlled study in the UK found that cutting followed by rotovating to control bracken did not increase total plant biomass or biomass of heather. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1656https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1656Sun, 22 Oct 2017 14:50:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cut and use prescribed burning to control grass One randomized, replicated, controlled, paired, before-and-after study in the UK found that burning and cutting to reduce the cover of purple moor grass reduced cover of common heather but did not reduce cover of purple moor grass. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1724https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1724Wed, 22 Nov 2017 16:30:40 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cut large trees/shrubs to maintain or restore disturbance Two studies evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of cutting large trees/shrubs to maintain or restore disturbance. One study was in a forested fen and one was in an open fen. N.B. Cutting large trees/shrubs in peatlands with no history of disturbance is considered as a separate action. Plant community composition (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in a fen in Poland found that in an area where shrubs were removed (along with other interventions), the plant community composition became more like a target fen meadow. Characteristic plants (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in a fen in Poland found that in an area where shrubs were removed (along with other interventions), the abundance of fen meadow plant species increased. Vegetation cover (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in forested fen in the USA found that cutting and removing trees increased herb cover, but had no effect on shrub cover. Vegetation structure (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in a peat swamp in the USA found that cutting and removing trees increased herb biomass and height. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1761https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1761Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:36:20 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cull disease-infected animals One study evaluated the effects on mammals of culling disease-infected animals. This study was in Tasmania. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Condition (1 study): A before-and-after, site comparison study in Tasmania found that culling disease-infected Tasmanian devils resulted in fewer animals with large tumours associated with late stages of the disease. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2586https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2586Wed, 10 Jun 2020 16:02:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cut large trees/shrubs to maintain or restore disturbance: freshwater marshes Four studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of cutting large trees/shrubs to maintain or restore disturbance in freshwater marshes. Three studies were in the USA. One was in Germany. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Community types (1 study): One study of a riparian wet meadow in Germany reported changes in the area of plant community types over four years after cutting trees/shrubs (along with grazing). Community composition (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study aiming to restore freshwater marshes in the USA found that cutting trees (along with other interventions) significantly affected the overall plant community composition over the following five years. Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One study of a riparian wet meadow in Germany reported that plant species richness increased over four years after cutting trees/shrubs (along with grazing). VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (2 studies): Of two replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after studies in the USA, one found that cutting and removing woody plants from a degraded wet prairie had no significant effect on overall vegetation cover three years later. The other study was in wet patches of a pine forest and found that understory vegetation cover increased more, over one year, where trees were thinned than where they were not thinned. Characteristic plant abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study of overgrown freshwater marshes in the USA reported that of 26 plant taxa that became more frequent after cutting trees (along with other interventions), 16 were obligate wetland taxa. Herb abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in wet patches of a pine forest in the USA found that cover of sedges Carex increased more, over one year, where trees were thinned than where they were not thinned. Tree/shrub abundance (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after study of a wet prairie in the USA found that woody plant cover declined, over three years, in plots where trees/shrubs were cut – but increased in plots where trees/shrubs were not cut. One study of a riparian wet meadow in Germany simply reported that some trees/shrubs regrew over four years after cutting trees/shrubs (along with grazing). Individual species abundance (1 study): One study quantified the effect of this action on the abundance of individual plant species. The replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after study of a wet prairie in the USA found, for example, that cutting trees and shrubs had no significant effect on cover of the dominant herbaceous plant, tussock grass Deschampsia cespitosa, three years later. VEGETATION STRUCTURE Height (1 study): One site comparison study of a riparian wet meadow in Germany reported that an area in which trees/shrubs were cut back (along with reinstating cattle grazing) contained shorter vegetation than an adjacent unmanaged area. OTHER Survival (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in a wet prairie in the USA found that cutting woody plants did not significantly affect their survival in the following year. One study of a riparian wet meadow in Germany simply reported that 20% of black alder Alder glutinosa trees were still alive after being cut back and grazed for four years. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3046https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3046Thu, 01 Apr 2021 19:06:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cut large trees/shrubs to maintain or restore disturbance: brackish/salt marshesWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of cutting large trees/shrubs to maintain or restore disturbance in brackish/salt marshes.   ‘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%2F3047https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3047Thu, 01 Apr 2021 19:10:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cut large trees/shrubs to maintain or restore disturbance: freshwater swamps One study evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of cutting large trees/shrubs to maintain or restore disturbance in freshwater swamps. The study was in the USA. VEGETATION COMMUNITY   VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Herb abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after, site comparison study of freshwater swamps in the USA found that cutting woody vegetation (and applying herbicide) had no significant effect on herbaceous ground cover one year later: there were similar changes in treated and untreated swamps. VEGETATION STRUCTURE Basal area (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after, site comparison study of freshwater swamps in the USA found that cutting woody vegetation (and applying herbicide) had no significant effect on the basal area of woody vegetation one year later: there were similar changes in treated and untreated swamps. Canopy cover (1 study): The same study found that cutting woody vegetation (and applying herbicide) reduced canopy cover – to similar levels as in high-quality swamps after one year. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3048https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3048Thu, 01 Apr 2021 19:10:54 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cut large trees/shrubs to maintain or restore disturbance: brackish/saline swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of cutting large trees/shrubs to maintain or restore disturbance in brackish/saline swamps.   ‘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%2F3049https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3049Thu, 01 Apr 2021 19:11:08 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cut or burn oil-contaminated vegetation: freshwater marshesWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of cutting or burning oil-contaminated vegetation in freshwater marshes.   ‘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%2F3174https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3174Tue, 06 Apr 2021 13:40:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cut or burn oil-contaminated vegetation: brackish/salt marshes Two studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of cutting or burning oil-contaminated vegetation in brackish/salt marshes. One study reviewed multiple cases from the UK and the USA. The other study was in Brazil. VEGETATION COMMUNITY   VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (1 study): One review of studies in oil-contaminated salt marshes in the UK and the USA reported that in eight of eight cases with quantitative comparisons between cut and uncut areas, cutting had no clear benefit for vegetation abundance (density, biomass or cover) over 8–29 months of recovery. Individual species abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled, site comparison study in oil-contaminated brackish/salt marshes in Brazil found that smooth cordgrass Spartina alterniflora density and biomass were never greater in cut than uncut plots (and typically similar under each treatment), over nine months after cutting. VEGETATION STRUCTURE Height (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled, site comparison study in oil-contaminated brackish/saline marshes in Brazil found that smooth cordgrass Spartina alterniflora was never taller in cut than uncut plots (typically similar height under each treatment) over nine months after cutting. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3175https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3175Tue, 06 Apr 2021 13:41:15 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cut or burn oil-contaminated vegetation: freshwater swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of cutting or burning oil-contaminated vegetation in freshwater swamps.   ‘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%2F3176https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3176Tue, 06 Apr 2021 13:41:35 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cut or burn oil-contaminated vegetation: brackish/saline swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of cutting or burning oil-contaminated vegetation in brackish/saline swamps.   ‘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%2F3177https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3177Tue, 06 Apr 2021 13:41:47 +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