What Works in

Conservation

2020

EDITED BY
WILLIAM J. SUTHERLAND, LYNN V. DICKS,
SILVIU O. PETROVAN AND REBECCA K. SMITH
WHAT WORKS IN
CONSERVATION
What Works in Conservation
2020

Edited by
William J. Sutherland, Lynn V. Dicks,
Silviu O. Petrovan and Rebecca K. Smith
 http://www.openbookpublishers.com

© 2020 William J. Sutherland

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC
BY 4.0). This license allows you to share, copy, distribute and transmit the work; to adapt the
work and to make commercial use of the work providing attribution is made to the authors
(but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). Attribution
should include the following information:

Sutherland, W.J., Dicks, L.V., Petrovan, S.O., and Smith, R.K. What Works in Conservation 2020.
Cambridge, UK: Open Book Publishers, 2020. https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0191
In order to access detailed and updated information on the license, please visit
https://www.openbookpublishers.com/product/1096#copyright
Further details about CC BY licenses are available at
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
All links were active at the time of publication unless otherwise stated.

Digital material and resources associated with this volume are available at
https://www.openbookpublishers.com/product/1096#resources and
http://www.conservationevidence.com

What Works in Conservation Series | ISSN: 2059-4232 (Print); 2059-4240 (Online)

ISBN Paperback: 978-1-78374-833-4

ISBN Hardback: 978-1-78374-834-1
ISBN Digital (PDF): 978-1-78374-835-8
ISBN Digital ebook (epub): 978-1-78374-836-5
ISBN Digital ebook (mobi): 978-1-78374-837-2
ISBN Digital (XML): 978-1-78374-838-9
DOI: 10.11647/OBP.0191

Funded by Arcadia, DEFRA, ESRC, MAVA Foundation, NERC, Natural England, Robert
Bosch Stiftung, Synchronicity Earth, South West Water and Waitrose Ltd.

Cover image: A close up shot of the underside of a Dwarf Cavendish (Musa acuminata) by
Ben Clough, CC BY-SA 3.0. Wikimedia http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dwarf_
cavendish_leaf_2.jpg. Cover design: Heidi Coburn
 Contents

Introduction 1
Who is What Works in Conservation for? 1
The Conservation Evidence project 1
Which conservation interventions are included? 2
How we review the literature 3
What does What Works in Conservation include? 4
Expert assessment of the evidence 4
Categorization of interventions 6
How to use What Works in Conservation 6

1. AMPHIBIAN CONSERVATION 9
1.1 Threat: Residential and commercial development 11
Legal protection of species 11
Protect brownfield or ex-industrial sites 12
Restrict herbicide, fungicide and pesticide use on and around ponds on
golf courses 12
1.2 Threat: Agriculture 13
1.2.1 Engage farmers and other volunteers 13
Engage landowners and other volunteers to manage land for amphibians 13
Pay farmers to cover the costs of conservation measures 14
1.2.2 Terrestrial habitat management 14
Manage silviculture practices in plantations 14
Manage cutting regime 14
Manage grazing regime 15
Maintain or restore hedges 15
Plant new hedges 15
Reduced tillage 15
1.2.3 Aquatic habitat management 15
Manage ditches 15
Exclude domestic animals or wild hogs from ponds by fencing 16
1.3 Threat: Energy production and mining 17
Artificially mist habitat to keep it damp 17
1.4 Threat: Transportation and service corridors 18
Close roads during seasonal amphibian migration 18
Modify gully pots and kerbs 19
Install barrier fencing along roads 19
Install culverts or tunnels as road crossings 19
Use signage to warn motorists 20
Use humans to assist migrating amphibians across roads 20
1.5 Threat: Biological resource use 21
1.5.1 Hunting and collecting terrestrial animals 21
Reduce impact of amphibian trade 21
Use legislative regulation to protect wild populations 22
Commercially breed amphibians for the pet trade 22
Use amphibians sustainably 22
1.5.2 Logging and wood harvesting 22
Retain riparian buffer strips during timber harvest 23
Use shelterwood harvesting instead of clearcutting 23
Leave coarse woody debris in forests 23
Use patch retention harvesting instead of clearcutting 24
Leave standing deadwood/snags in forests 24
Use leave-tree harvesting instead of clearcutting 24
Harvest groups of trees instead of clearcutting 25
Thin trees within forests 25
1.6 Threat: Human intrusions and disturbance 26
Use signs and access restrictions to reduce disturbance 26
1.7 Threat: Natural system modifications 27
Regulate water levels 27
Mechanically remove mid-storey or ground vegetation 28
Use herbicides to control mid-storey or ground vegetation 28
Use prescribed fire or modifications to burning regime (forests) 28
Use prescribed fire or modifications to burning regime (grassland) 29
1.8 Threat: Invasive and other problematic species 30
1.8.1 Reduce predation by other species 30
Remove or control fish by drying out ponds 30
Remove or control fish population by catching 31
Remove or control invasive bullfrogs 31
Remove or control invasive viperine snake 31
Remove or control mammals 31
Remove or control fish using Rotenone 32
Exclude fish with barriers 32
Encourage aquatic plant growth as refuge against fish predation 32
Remove or control non-native crayfish  32
1.8.2 Reduce competition with other species 32
Reduce competition from native amphibians 33
Remove or control invasive Cuban tree frogs 33
Remove or control invasive cane toads  33
1.8.3 Reduce adverse habitat alteration by other species 33
Control invasive plants 33
Prevent heavy usage/exclude wildfowl from aquatic habitat  34
1.8.4 Reduce parasitism and disease – chytridiomycosis 34
Use temperature treatment to reduce infection 35
Use antifungal treatment to reduce infection 35
Add salt to ponds 35
Immunize amphibians against infection 36
Remove the chytrid fungus from ponds 36
Sterilize equipment when moving between amphibian sites 36
Treating amphibians in the wild or pre-release 36
Use gloves to handle amphibians 36
Use antibacterial treatment to reduce infection 37
Use antifungal skin bacteria or peptides to reduce infection 37
Use zooplankton to remove zoospores 37
1.8.5 Reduce parasitism and disease – ranaviruses 38
Sterilize equipment to prevent ranaviruses  38
1.9 Threat: Pollution 39
1.9.1 Agricultural pollution 39
Create walls or barriers to exclude pollutants 39
Plant riparian buffer strips 39
Reduce pesticide, herbicide or fertilizer use 40
Prevent pollution from agricultural lands or sewage treatment facilities
entering watercourses 40
1.9.2 Industrial pollution 40
Add limestone to water bodies to reduce acidification 40
Augment ponds with ground water to reduce acidification  41
1.10 Threat: Climate change and severe weather 42
Deepen ponds to prevent desiccation 43
Use irrigation systems for amphibian sites 43
Artificially shade ponds to prevent desiccation 43
Protect habitat along elevational gradients 43
Provide shelter habitat  43
1.11 Habitat protection 44
Retain buffer zones around core habitat 44
Protect habitats for amphibians 45
Retain connectivity between habitat patches 45
1.12 Habitat restoration and creation 46
1.12.1 Terrestrial habitat 46
Replant vegetation 46
Clear vegetation 47
Create artificial hibernacula or aestivation sites 47
Create refuges 47
Restore habitat connectivity 48
Change mowing regime 48
Create habitat connectivity  48
1.12.2 Aquatic habitat 48
Create ponds (amphibians in general) 49
Create ponds (frogs) 50
Create ponds (natterjack toads) 50
Create ponds (salamanders including newts) 50
Create wetlands 50
Deepen, de-silt or re-profile ponds 51
Restore wetlands 51
Create ponds (great crested newts) 51
Create ponds (green toads) 52
Create ponds (toads) 52
Remove specific aquatic plants 52
Restore ponds 52
Remove tree canopy to reduce pond shading 53
Add nutrients to new ponds as larvae food source 53
Add specific plants to aquatic habitats 53
Add woody debris to ponds 53
Create refuge areas in aquatic habitats  53
1.13 Species management 54
1.13.1 Translocate amphibians 54
Translocate amphibians (amphibians in general) 54
Translocate amphibians (great crested newts) 55
Translocate amphibians (natterjack toads) 55
Translocate amphibians (salamanders including newts) 55
Translocate amphibians (toads) 56
Translocate amphibians (wood frogs) 56
Translocate amphibians (frogs) 56
1.13.2 Captive breeding, rearing and releases 57
Release captive-bred individuals (amphibians in general) 58
Release captive-bred individuals (frogs) 58
Breed amphibians in captivity (frogs) 58
Breed amphibians in captivity (harlequin toads) 59
Breed amphibians in captivity (Mallorcan midwife toad) 59
Breed amphibians in captivity (salamanders including newts) 59
Breed amphibians in captivity (toads) 59
Head-start amphibians for release 60
Release captive-bred individuals (Mallorcan midwife toad) 60
Release captive-bred individuals (toads) 60
Use artificial fertilization in captive breeding 61
Use hormone treatment to induce sperm and egg release 61
Release captive-bred individuals (salamanders including newts) 61
Freeze sperm or eggs for future use 62
Release captive-bred individuals (green and golden bell frogs) 62
1.14 Education and awareness raising 63
Engage volunteers to collect amphibian data (citizen science) 63
Provide education programmes about amphibians 63
Raise awareness amongst the general public through campaigns and
public information 64
2. BAT CONSERVATION 65
2.1 Threat: Residential and commercial development 67
Change timing of building work 68
Create alternative bat roosts within developments 68
Create or restore bat foraging habitat in urban areas 69
Exclude bats from roosts during building work 69
Legally protect bats during development 69
Protect brownfield or ex-industrial sites 70
Relocate access points to bat roosts within developments 70
Retain existing bat roosts and access points within developments 71
Educate homeowners about building and planning laws relating to bats
to reduce disturbance to bat roosts 71
Encourage homeowners to increase semi-natural habitat within gardens 71
Encourage homeowners to plant gardens with night-scented flowers 71
Install sound-proofing insulation between bat roosts and areas occupied
by humans within developments 71
Protect greenfield sites or undeveloped land in urban areas  71
2.2 Threat: Agriculture 72
2.2.1 All farming systems 72
Retain or plant native trees and shrubs amongst crops (agroforestry) 73
Use organic farming instead of conventional farming 74
Create tree plantations on agricultural land to provide roosting and
foraging habitat for bats 74
Engage farmers and landowners to manage land for bats 75
Introduce agri-environment schemes 75
Manage hedges to benefit bats 76
Reduce field size (or maintain small fields) 76
Retain riparian buffers on agricultural land 76
Retain unmown field margins 77
Increase the proportion of semi-natural habitat in the farmed landscape 77
Manage ditches to benefit bats 77
Plant field margins with a diverse mix of plant species 77
Plant in-field trees 77
Plant new hedges 77
Provide or retain set-aside areas in farmland 77
Retain existing in-field trees 77
Retain remnant forest or woodland on agricultural land  77
2.2.2 Livestock farming 78
Remove livestock modifications from water troughs 78
Avoid the use of antiparasitic drugs for livestock 78
Manage grazing regimes to increase invertebrate prey 78
Replace culling of bats with non-lethal methods of preventing vampire
bats from spreading rabies to livestock  79
2.2.3 Perennial, non-timber crops 79
Introduce certification for bat-friendly crop harvesting regimes 79
Prevent culling of bats around fruit orchards 79
 Replace netting with non-lethal measures to prevent bats from accessing
fruit in orchards 79
Restore and manage abandoned orchards for bats  79
2.3 Threat: Energy production 80
2.3.1 Wind turbines 80
Increase the wind speed at which turbines become operational (‘cut-in
speed’) to reduce bat fatalities 81
Automatically reduce turbine blade rotation when bat activity is high 81
Deter bats from turbines using ultrasound 82
Prevent turbine blades from turning at low wind speeds to reduce bat
fatalities 82
Apply textured coating to turbines 82
Close off potential access points on turbines to prevent roosting bats 83
Deter bats from turbines using low-level ultraviolet light 83
Deter bats from turbines using radar 83
Modify turbine placement to reduce bat fatalities 83
Paint turbines to reduce insect attraction 83
Reduce rotor diameter 83
Reduce turbine height 83
Remove turbine lighting to reduce bat and insect attraction 83
Retain a buffer between turbines and habitat features used by bats  83
2.3.2 Mining 83
Install and maintain gates at mine entrances to restrict public access 83
Maintain microclimate in closed/abandoned mines 84
Restore bat foraging habitat at ex-quarry sites 85
Exclude bats from roosts prior to mine reclamation 85
Provide artificial subterranean bat roosts to replace roosts in reclaimed mines 85
Relocate bats from reclaimed mines to alternative subterranean roost sites 85
Reopen entrances to closed mines and make suitable for roosting bats 85
Retain access points for bats following mine closures  85
2.4 Threat: Transportation and service corridors 86
2.4.1 Roads 86
Install overpasses as road crossing structures for bats 87
Install underpasses or culverts as road crossing structures for bats 87
Divert bats to safe crossing points with plantings or fencing 88
Install green bridges as road crossing structures for bats 88
Maintain bat roosts in road bridges and culverts 88
Install bat gantries or bat bridges as road crossing structures for bats 89
Avoid planting fruit trees alongside roads in areas with fruit bats 89
Create spaces for roosting bats in road bridges and culverts 89
Deter bats from roads using lighting 89
Deter bats from roads using ultrasound 89
Install hop-overs as road crossing structures for bats 89
Minimize road lighting to reduce insect attraction 89
Replace or improve habitat for bats around roads  89
2.5 Threat: Biological resource use 90
2.5.1 Hunting 90
Inform local communities about disease risks from hunting and eating
bat meat to reduce killing of bats 91
Inform local communities about the negative impacts of bat hunting to
reduce killing of bats 91
Encourage online vendors to remove bat specimens for sale 91
Enforce regulations to prevent trafficking and trade of bats 91
Introduce alternative treatments to reduce the use of bats in traditional
medicine 91
Introduce and enforce legislation to control hunting of bats 92
Introduce other food sources to replace bat meat 92
Introduce other income sources to replace bat trade 92
Replace culling of bats with non-lethal methods of preventing vampire
bats from spreading rabies to humans 92
Restrict the collection of bat specimens for research 92
Strengthen cultural traditions that discourage bat harvesting  92
2.5.2 Guano harvesting 92
Introduce and enforce legislation to regulate harvesting of bat guano  92
2.5.3 Logging and wood harvesting 92
Retain forested corridors in logged areas 93
Thin trees within forest and woodland 94
Use selective or reduced impact logging instead of conventional logging 94
Manage forest and woodland to encourage understorey growth 95
Retain residual tree patches in logged areas 96
Use shelterwood cutting instead of clearcutting 96
Change timing of forestry operations 96
Coppice woodland 97
Encourage natural regeneration in former plantations 97
Maintain forest and woodland edges for foraging bats 97
Protect roost trees during forest operations 97
Replant native trees in logged areas 97
Retain buffers around roost trees in logged areas 97
Retain riparian buffers in logged areas 97
Strengthen cultural traditions such as sacred groves that prevent timber
harvesting 97
Train arborists and forestry operatives to identify potential bat roosts  97
2.6 Threat: Human intrusions and disturbance 98
2.6.1 Caving and tourism 98
Impose restrictions on cave visits 99
Install and maintain cave gates to restrict public access 99
Install fencing around cave entrances to restrict public access 100
Minimize noise levels within caves 101
Restrict artificial lighting in caves and around cave entrances 101
Inform the public of ways to reduce disturbance to bats in caves 102
Introduce guidelines for sustainable cave development and use 102
 Minimize alterations to caves for tourism 102
Provide artificial subterranean bat roosts to replace roosts in disturbed caves 102
Restore and maintain microclimate in modified caves 102
Retain bat access points to caves 102
Train tourist guides to minimize disturbance and promote bat conservation  102
2.7 Threat: Natural system modifications 103
2.7.1 Fire or fire suppression 103
Use prescribed burning 103
2.7.2 Dams and water management/use 105
Create or maintain small dams to provide foraging and drinking habitat
for bats 105
Relocate bat colonies roosting inside dams 105
2.8 Threat: Invasive or problematic species and disease 106
2.8.1 Invasive species 106
Control invasive predators 106
Control invasive plant species 107
Control harmful invasive bat prey species 107
Control invasive non-predatory competitors 107
Exclude domestic and feral cats from bat roosts and roost entrances 107
Keep domestic cats indoors at night 107
Use collar-mounted devices on cats to reduce predation of bats  107
2.8.2 White-nose syndrome 108
Modify bat hibernacula environments to increase bat survival 108
Treat bats for infection with white-nose syndrome 109
Breed bats in captivity to supplement wild populations affected by
white-nose syndrome 109
Cull infected bats 109
Decontaminate clothing and equipment after entering caves 109
Restrict human access to bat caves to prevent spread of disease 109
Treat bat hibernacula environments to reduce pathogen reservoir 109
Vaccinate bats against the white-nose syndrome pathogen  109
2.8.3 Disease 110
Carry out surveillance of bats for early treatment/action to reduce
disease/viruses  110
2.8.4 Problematic native species 110
Modify bats roosts to reduce negative impacts of one bat species on another 110
Protect bats within roosts from disturbance or predation by native species  110
2.9 Threat: Pollution 111
2.9.1 Domestic and urban waste water 111
Change effluent treatments of domestic and urban waste water 111
Prevent pollution from sewage treatment facilities from entering
watercourses 112
Reduce or prevent the use of septic systems near caves  112
2.9.2 Agricultural and forestry effluents 112
Reduce pesticide, herbicide or fertiliser use 112
Change effluent treatments used in agriculture and forestry 113
Introduce legislation to control the use of hazardous substances 113
Plant riparian buffer strips 113
Prevent pollution from agricultural land or forestry from entering
watercourses 113
Use organic pest control instead of synthetic pesticides  113
2.9.3 Light pollution 113
Avoid illumination of bat commuting routes 114
Leave bat roosts and roost entrances unlit 115
Use low intensity lighting 115
Use red lighting rather than other lighting colours 116
Avoid illumination of bat foraging, drinking and swarming sites 116
Restrict timing of lighting 117
Use UV filters on lights 117
Direct lighting away from bat access points or habitats 117
Use 'warm white' rather than 'cool' LED lights 117
Use glazing treatments to reduce light spill from inside lit buildings  117
2.9.4 Timber treatments 118
Restrict timing of timber treatment application 118
Use mammal-safe timber treatments in roof spaces  118
2.9.5 Industrial effluents 119
Introduce or enforce legislation to prevent ponds and streams from
being contaminated by toxins  119
2.9.6 Noise pollution 119
Impose noise limits in proximity to bat roosts and habitats 119
Install sound barriers in proximity to bat roosts and habitats  119
2.10 Threat: Climate change and severe weather 120
Adapt bat roost structures to buffer against temperature extremes 120
Enhance natural habitat features to improve landscape connectivity to
allow for range shifts of bats 120
Manage natural water bodies in arid areas to prevent desiccation 120
Provide suitable bat foraging and roosting habitat at expanding range fronts 120
2.11 Habitat protection 121
Legally protect bat habitats 121
Conserve roosting sites for bats in old structures or buildings 122
Retain buffer zones around core bat habitat 123
Retain connectivity between habitat patches 123
Retain existing bat commuting routes 123
Retain native forest and woodland 123
Retain remnant habitat patches 123
Retain veteran and standing dead trees as roosting sites for bats 123
Retain wetlands  123
 2.12 Habitat restoration and creation 124
Create artificial water sources 124
Restore or create wetlands 125
Create artificial caves or hibernacula for bats 125
Create artificial hollows and cracks in trees for roosting bats 126
Reinstate bat roosts in felled tree trunks 126
Restore or create forest or woodland 126
Restore or create grassland 127
Create new unlit commuting routes using planting 127
Restore or create linear habitat features/green corridors  127
2.13 Species management 128
2.13.1 Species management 128
Manage microclimate of artificial bat roosts 128
Provide bat boxes for roosting bats 129
Legally protect bat species 130
Regularly clean bat boxes to increase occupancy 130
Release captive-bred bats  130
2.13.2 Ex-situ conservation 131
Rehabilitate injured/orphaned bats to maintain wild bat populations 131
Breed bats in captivity 132
2.13.3 Translocation 132
Translocate bats 132
2.14 Education and awareness raising 134
Educate farmers, land managers and local communities about the
benefits of bats to improve management of bat habitats 135
Educate farmers, local communities and pest controllers to reduce
indiscriminate culling of vampire bats 135
Educate pest controllers and homeowners/tenants to reduce the illegal
use of pesticides in bat roosts 135
Educate the public to improve perception of bats to improve behaviour
towards bats 135
Engage policymakers to make policy changes beneficial to bats 135
Promote careful bat-related eco-tourism to improve behaviour towards bats 135
Provide training to conservationists, land managers, and the building
and development sector on bat ecology and conservation to reduce bat
roost disturbance  135

3. BIRD CONSERVATION 137

3.1 Habitat protection 139
Legally protect habitats for birds 139
Provide or retain un-harvested buffer strips 140
Ensure connectivity between habitat patches 140
3.2 Education and awareness raising 141
Raise awareness amongst the general public through campaigns and
public information 141
 Provide bird feeding materials to families with young children 142
Enhance bird taxonomy skills through higher education and training 142
Provide training to conservationists and land managers on bird ecology
and conservation 142
3.3 Threat: Residential and commercial development 143
Angle windows to reduce bird collisions 143
Mark windows to reduce bird collisions 143
3.4 Threat: Agriculture 144
3.4.1 All farming systems 144
Plant wild bird seed or cover mixture 145
Provide (or retain) set-aside areas in farmland 146
Create uncultivated margins around intensive arable or pasture fields 146
Increase the proportion of natural/semi-natural habitat in the farmed
landscape 147
Manage ditches to benefit wildlife 147
Pay farmers to cover the costs of conservation measures 147
Plant grass buffer strips/margins around arable or pasture fields 148
Plant nectar flower mixture/wildflower strips 148
Leave refuges in fields during harvest 148
Reduce conflict by deterring birds from taking crops (using bird scarers) 149
Relocate nests at harvest time to reduce nestling mortality 149
Use mowing techniques to reduce mortality 149
Control scrub on farmland 149
Offer per clutch payment for farmland birds 150
Manage hedges to benefit wildlife 150
Plant new hedges 150
Reduce conflict by deterring birds from taking crops (using repellents) 150
Take field corners out of management 151
Mark bird nests during harvest or mowing 151
Cross compliance standards for all subsidy payments 151
Food labelling schemes relating to biodiversity-friendly farming 151
Manage stone-faced hedge banks to benefit birds 151
Plant in-field trees 151
Protect in-field trees 151
Reduce field size (or maintain small fields) 151
Support or maintain low-intensity agricultural systems 151
Tree pollarding, tree surgery 151
3.4.2 Arable farming 152
Create ‘skylark plots’ (undrilled patches in cereal fields) 152
Leave overwinter stubbles 153
Leave uncropped cultivated margins or fallow land (includes lapwing
and stone curlew plots) 153
Sow crops in spring rather than autumn 154
Undersow spring cereals, with clover for example 154
Reduce tillage 154
Implement mosaic management 155
 Increase crop diversity to benefit birds 155
Plant more than one crop per field (intercropping) 155
Create beetle banks 155
Plant cereals in wide-spaced rows 156
Revert arable land to permanent grassland 156
Add 1% barley into wheat crop for corn buntings 156
Create corn bunting plots 156
Leave unharvested cereal headlands within arable fields 156
Plant nettle strips 156
3.4.3 Livestock farming 157
Delay mowing date on grasslands 157
Leave uncut rye grass in silage fields 158
Maintain species-rich, semi-natural grassland 158
Maintain traditional water meadows 158
Mark fencing to avoid bird mortality 159
Plant cereals for whole crop silage 159
Reduce grazing intensity 159
Reduce management intensity of permanent grasslands 160
Exclude livestock from semi-natural habitat 160
Create open patches or strips in permanent grassland 160
Maintain upland heath/moor 160
Protect nests from livestock to reduce trampling 161
Provide short grass for waders 161
Raise mowing height on grasslands 161
Use traditional breeds of livestock 161
Maintain lowland heathland 162
Maintain rush pastures 162
Maintain wood pasture and parkland 162
Plant Brassica fodder crops 162
Use mixed stocking 162
3.4.4 Perennial, non-timber crops 162
Maintain traditional orchards 162
Manage perennial bioenergy crops to benefit wildlife 162
3.4.5 Aquaculture 163
Deter birds from landing on shellfish culture gear 163
Disturb birds at roosts 164
Provide refuges for fish within ponds 164
Use electric fencing to exclude fish-eating birds 164
Use ‘mussel socks’ to prevent birds from attacking shellfish 164
Use netting to exclude fish-eating birds 164
Increase water turbidity to reduce fish predation by birds 165
Translocate birds away from fish farms 165
Use in-water devices to reduce fish loss from ponds 165
Disturb birds using foot patrols 165
Spray water to deter birds from ponds 165
Scare birds from fish farms 166
3.5 Threat: Energy production and mining 167
Paint wind turbines to increase their visibility 167
3.6 Threat: Transportation and service corridors 168
3.6.1 Verges and airports 168
Scare or otherwise deter birds from airports 168
Mow roadside verges 169
Sow roadside verges 169
3.6.2 Power lines and electricity pylons 169
Mark power lines 170
Bury or isolate power lines 170
Insulate electricity pylons 170
Remove earth wires from power lines 170
Use perch-deterrents to stop raptors perching on pylons 170
Thicken earth wires 171
Add perches to electricity pylons 171
Reduce electrocutions by using plastic, not metal, leg rings to mark birds 171
Use raptor models to deter birds from power lines 171
3.7 Threat: Biological resource use 172
3.7.1 Reducing exploitation and conflict 172
Use legislative regulation to protect wild populations 173
Use wildlife refuges to reduce hunting disturbance 173
Employ local people as ‘biomonitors’ 173
Increase ‘on-the-ground’ protection to reduce unsustainable levels of
exploitation 173
Introduce voluntary ‘maximum shoot distances’ 174
Mark eggs to reduce their appeal to collectors 174
Move fish-eating birds to reduce conflict with fishermen 174
Promote sustainable alternative livelihoods 174
Provide ‘sacrificial grasslands’ to reduce conflict with farmers 174
Relocate nestlings to reduce poaching 175
Use education programmes and local engagement to help reduce
persecution or exploitation of species 175
Use alerts during shoots to reduce mortality of non-target species 175
3.7.2 Reducing fisheries bycatch 176
Use streamer lines to reduce seabird bycatch on longlines 177
Mark trawler warp cables to reduce seabird collisions 177
Reduce seabird bycatch by releasing offal overboard when setting longlines 177
Weight baits or lines to reduce longline bycatch of seabirds 178
Set lines underwater to reduce seabird bycatch 178
Set longlines at night to reduce seabird bycatch 178
Dye baits to reduce seabird bycatch 178
Thaw bait before setting lines to reduce seabird bycatch 179
Turn deck lights off during night-time setting of longlines to reduce bycatch 179
Use a sonic scarer when setting longlines to reduce seabird bycatch 179
Use acoustic alerts on gillnets to reduce seabird bycatch 179
Use bait throwers to reduce seabird bycatch 179
 Use bird exclusion devices such as ‘Brickle curtains’ to reduce seabird
mortality when hauling longlines 180
Use high visibility mesh on gillnets to reduce seabird bycatch 180
Use shark liver oil to deter birds when setting lines 180
Use a line shooter to reduce seabird bycatch 180
Reduce bycatch through seasonal or area closures 181
Reduce ‘ghost fishing’ by lost/discarded gear 181
Reduce gillnet deployment time to reduce seabird bycatch 181
Set longlines at the side of the boat to reduce seabird bycatch 181
Tow buoys behind longlining boats to reduce seabird bycatch 181
Use a water cannon when setting longlines to reduce seabird bycatch 181
Use high-visibility longlines to reduce seabird bycatch 181
Use larger hooks to reduce seabird bycatch on longlines 181
3.8 Threat: Human intrusions and disturbance 182
Provide paths to limit disturbance 182
Start educational programmes for personal watercraft owners 183
Use signs and access restrictions to reduce disturbance at nest sites 183
Use voluntary agreements with local people to reduce disturbance 183
Habituate birds to human visitors 183
Use nest covers to reduce the impact of research on predation of ground-
nesting seabirds 184
Reduce visitor group sizes 184
Set minimum distances for approaching birds (buffer zones) 184
3.9 Threat: Natural system modifications 185
Create scrapes and pools in wetlands and wet grasslands 187
Provide deadwood/snags in forests (use ring-barking, cutting or silvicides) 187
Use patch retention harvesting instead of clearcutting 187
Clear or open patches in forests 187
Employ grazing in artificial grasslands/pastures 188
Employ grazing in natural grasslands 188
Employ grazing in non-grassland habitats 188
Manage water level in wetlands 189
Manually control or remove midstorey and ground-level vegetation
(including mowing, chaining, cutting etc.) in forests 189
Mow or cut natural grasslands 190
Mow or cut semi-natural grasslands/pastures 190
Manually control or remove midstorey and ground-level vegetation
(including mowing, chaining, cutting etc.) in shrublands 190
Raise water levels in ditches or grassland 191
Thin trees within forests 191
Use prescribed burning: grasslands 191
Use prescribed burning: pine forests 192
Use prescribed burning: savannahs 192
Use prescribed burning: shrublands 192
Use selective harvesting/logging instead of clearcutting 193
Clearcut and re-seed forests 193
Coppice trees 193
Fertilise grasslands 194
 Manage woodland edges for birds 194
Manually control or remove midstorey and ground-level vegetation
(including mowing, chaining, cutting etc.) (reedbeds) 194
Manually control or remove midstorey and ground-level vegetation
(including mowing, chaining, cutting etc.) (savannahs) 195
Plant trees to act as windbreaks 195
Plough habitats 195
Provide deadwood/snags in forests (adding woody debris to forests) 195
Remove coarse woody debris from forests 195
Replace non-native species of tree/shrub 196
Re-seed grasslands 196
Use environmentally sensitive flood management 196
Use fire suppression/control 196
Use greentree reservoir management 197
Use prescribed burning (Australian sclerophyll forest) 197
Use shelterwood cutting instead of clearcutting 197
Use variable retention management during forestry operations 197
Apply herbicide to mid- and understorey vegetation 197
Treat wetlands with herbicides 198
Use prescribed burning (coastal habitats) 198
Use prescribed burning (deciduous forests) 198
Protect nest trees before burning 199
3.10 Habitat restoration and creation 200
Restore or create forests 200
Restore or create wetlands and marine habitats (inland wetlands) 201
Restore or create grassland 201
Restore or create traditional water meadows 202
Restore or create wetlands and marine habitats (coastal and intertidal
wetlands) 202
Restore or create shrubland 202
Restore or create wetlands and marine habitats (kelp forests) 203
Restore or create wetlands and marine habitats (lagoons) 203
Restore or create savannahs 203
Revegetate gravel pits 203
3.11 Threat: Invasive alien and other problematic species 204
3.11.1 Reduce predation by other species 204
Control mammalian predators on islands 205
Remove or control predators to enhance bird populations and communities 205
Control avian predators on islands 205
Control invasive ants on islands 206
Reduce predation by translocating predators 206
Control predators not on islands 206
3.11.2 Reduce incidental mortality during predator eradication or
control 207
Distribute poison bait using dispensers 207
Use coloured baits to reduce accidental mortality during predator control 207
Use repellents on baits 207
 Do birds take bait designed for pest control? 208
3.11.3 Reduce nest predation by excluding predators from nests or
nesting areas 208
Physically protect nests from predators using non-electric fencing 209
Physically protect nests with individual exclosures/barriers or provide
shelters for chicks 209
Protect bird nests using electric fencing 209
Use artificial nests that discourage predation 210
Guard nests to prevent predation 210
Plant nesting cover to reduce nest predation 210
Protect nests from ants 210
Use multiple barriers to protect nests 210
Use naphthalene to deter mammalian predators 211
Use snakeskin to deter mammalian nest predators 211
Play spoken-word radio programmes to deter predators 211
Use ‘cat curfews’ to reduce predation 211
Use lion dung to deter domestic cats 211
Use mirrors to deter nest predators 211
Use ultrasonic devices to deter cats 211
Can nest protection increase nest abandonment? 211
Can nest protection increase predation of adults and chicks? 212
3.11.4 Reduce mortality by reducing hunting ability or changing
predator behaviour 212
Reduce predation by translocating nest boxes 212
Use collar-mounted devices to reduce predation 213
Use supplementary feeding to reduce predation 213
Use aversive conditioning to reduce nest predation 213
3.11.5 Reduce competition with other species for food and nest sites 214
Reduce inter-specific competition for food by removing or controlling
competitor species 214
Protect nest sites from competitors 215
Reduce competition between species by providing nest boxes 215
Reduce inter-specific competition for nest sites by modifying habitats to
exclude competitor species 215
Reduce inter-specific competition for nest sites by removing competitor
species (ground nesting seabirds) 215
Reduce inter-specific competition for nest sites by removing competitor
species (songbirds) 216
Reduce inter-specific competition for nest sites by removing competitor
species (woodpeckers) 216
3.11.6 Reduce adverse habitat alteration by other species 217
Control or remove habitat-altering mammals 217
Reduce adverse habitat alterations by excluding problematic species
(terrestrial species) 217
Reduce adverse habitat alterations by excluding problematic species
(aquatic species) 218
Remove problematic vegetation 218
 Use buffer zones to reduce the impact of invasive plant control 218
3.11.7 Reduce parasitism and disease 219
Remove/control adult brood parasites 219
Remove/treat endoparasites and diseases 220
Alter artificial nest sites to discourage brood parasitism 220
Exclude or control ‘reservoir species’ to reduce parasite burdens 220
Remove brood parasite eggs from target species’ nests 220
Remove/treat ectoparasites to increase survival or reproductive success
(provide beneficial nesting material) 221
Remove/treat ectoparasites to increase survival or reproductive success
(remove ectoparasites from feathers) 221
Use false brood parasite eggs to discourage brood parasitism 221
Remove/treat ectoparasites to increase survival or reproductive success
(remove ectoparasites from nests) 221
3.11.8 Reduce detrimental impacts of other problematic species 222
Use copper strips to exclude snails from nests 222
3.12 Threat: Pollution 223
3.12.1 Industrial pollution 223
Use visual and acoustic ‘scarers’ to deter birds from landing on pools
polluted by mining or sewage 223
Relocate birds following oil spills 224
Use repellents to deter birds from landing on pools polluted by mining 224
Clean birds after oil spills 224
3.12.2 Agricultural pollution 225
Leave headlands in fields unsprayed (conservation headlands) 225
Provide food for vultures to reduce mortality from diclofenac 226
Reduce pesticide, herbicide and fertiliser use generally 226
Reduce chemical inputs in permanent grassland management 226
Restrict certain pesticides or other agricultural chemicals 226
Make selective use of spring herbicides 227
Provide buffer strips along rivers and streams 227
Provide unfertilised cereal headlands in arable fields 227
Use buffer strips around in-field ponds 227
Use organic rather than mineral fertilisers 227
3.12.3 Air-borne pollutants 227
Use lime to reduce acidification in lakes 227
3.12.4 Excess energy 228
Shield lights to reduce mortality from artificial lights 228
Turning off lights to reduce mortality from artificial lights 228
Use flashing lights to reduce mortality from artificial lights 229
Use lights low in spectral red to reduce mortality from artificial lights 229
Reduce the intensity of lighthouse beams 229
Using volunteers to collect and rehabilitate downed birds 229
3.13 Threat: Climate change, extreme weather and geological events 230
Replace nesting habitats when they are washed away by storms 230
Water nesting mounds to increase incubation success in malleefowl 231
3.14 General responses to small/declining populations 232
3.14.1 Inducing breeding, rehabilitation and egg removal 232
Rehabilitate injured birds 232
Remove eggs from wild nests to increase reproductive output 232
Use artificial visual and auditory stimuli to induce breeding in wild
populations 233
3.14.2 Provide artificial nesting sites 233
Provide artificial nests (falcons) 234
Provide artificial nests (owls) 235
Provide artificial nests (songbirds) 235
Provide artificial nests (wildfowl) 236
Clean artificial nests to increase occupancy or reproductive success 236
Provide artificial nests (burrow-nesting seabirds) 237
Provide artificial nests (divers/loons) 237
Provide artificial nests (ground- and tree-nesting seabirds) 237
Provide artificial nests (oilbirds) 237
Provide artificial nests (raptors) 238
Provide artificial nests (wildfowl — artificial/floating islands) 238
Artificially incubate eggs or warm nests 238
Guard nests 238
Provide artificial nests (gamebirds) 239
Provide artificial nests (grebes) 239
Provide artificial nests (ibises and flamingos) 239
Provide artificial nests (parrots) 239
Provide artificial nests (pigeons) 240
Provide artificial nests (rails) 240
Provide artificial nests (rollers) 240
Provide artificial nests (swifts) 240
Provide artificial nests (trogons) 240
Provide artificial nests (waders) 240
Provide artificial nests (woodpeckers) 241
Provide nesting habitat for birds that is safe from extreme weather 241
Provide nesting material for wild birds 241
Remove vegetation to create nesting areas 241
Repair/support nests to support breeding 242
Use differently-coloured artificial nests 242
3.14.3 Foster chicks in the wild 242
Foster eggs or chicks with wild conspecifics (raptors) 243
Foster eggs or chicks with wild non-conspecifics (cross-fostering) (songbirds)243
Foster eggs or chicks with wild conspecifics (bustards) 244
Foster eggs or chicks with wild conspecifics (cranes) 244
Foster eggs or chicks with wild conspecifics (gannets and boobies) 244
Foster eggs or chicks with wild conspecifics (owls) 244
Foster eggs or chicks with wild conspecifics (parrots) 244
Foster eggs or chicks with wild conspecifics (vultures) 245
Foster eggs or chicks with wild conspecifics (waders) 245
Foster eggs or chicks with wild conspecifics (woodpeckers) 245
Foster eggs or chicks with wild non-conspecifics (cross-fostering) (cranes) 245
 Foster eggs or chicks with wild non-conspecifics (cross-fostering) (ibises) 245
Foster eggs or chicks with wild non-conspecifics (cross-fostering) (petrels
and shearwaters) 246
Foster eggs or chicks with wild non-conspecifics (cross-fostering) (waders) 246
3.14.4 Provide supplementary food 246
Provide supplementary food to increase adult survival (songbirds) 248
Place feeders close to windows to reduce collisions 249
Provide calcium supplements to increase survival or reproductive success 249
Provide supplementary food to increase adult survival (cranes) 249
Provide supplementary food to increase reproductive success (gulls,
terns and skuas) 249
Provide supplementary food to increase reproductive success (owls) 250
Provide supplementary food to increase reproductive success (raptors) 250
Provide supplementary food to increase reproductive success (songbirds) 250
Provide perches to improve foraging success 251
Provide supplementary food through the establishment of food populations 251
Provide supplementary food to allow the rescue of a second chick 252
Provide supplementary food to increase adult survival (gamebirds) 252
Provide supplementary food to increase adult survival (gulls, terns and
skuas) 252
Provide supplementary food to increase adult survival (hummingbirds) 252
Provide supplementary food to increase adult survival (nectar-feeding
songbirds) 253
Provide supplementary food to increase adult survival (pigeons) 253
Provide supplementary food to increase adult survival (raptors) 254
Provide supplementary food to increase adult survival (vultures) 254
Provide supplementary food to increase adult survival (waders) 254
Provide supplementary food to increase adult survival (wildfowl) 254
Provide supplementary food to increase adult survival (woodpeckers) 255
Provide supplementary food to increase reproductive success (auks) 255
Provide supplementary food to increase reproductive success (gamebirds) 255
Provide supplementary food to increase reproductive success (gannets
and boobies) 255
Provide supplementary food to increase reproductive success (ibises) 256
Provide supplementary food to increase reproductive success (kingfishers) 256
Provide supplementary food to increase reproductive success (parrots) 256
Provide supplementary food to increase reproductive success (petrels) 256
Provide supplementary food to increase reproductive success (pigeons) 257
Provide supplementary food to increase reproductive success (rails and
coots) 257
Provide supplementary food to increase reproductive success (vultures) 257
Provide supplementary food to increase reproductive success (waders) 258
Provide supplementary food to increase reproductive success (wildfowl) 258
Provide supplementary water to increase survival or reproductive success 258
3.14.5 Translocations 258
Translocate birds to re-establish populations or increase genetic variation
(birds in general) 260
Translocate birds to re-establish populations or increase genetic variation
(raptors) 260
 Translocate birds to re-establish populations or increase genetic variation
(parrots) 260
Translocate birds to re-establish populations or increase genetic variation
(pelicans) 260
Translocate birds to re-establish populations or increase genetic variation
(petrels and shearwaters) 261
Translocate birds to re-establish populations or increase genetic variation
(rails) 261
Translocate birds to re-establish populations or increase genetic variation
(songbirds) 261
Translocate birds to re-establish populations or increase genetic variation
(wildfowl) 261
Translocate birds to re-establish populations or increase genetic variation
(woodpeckers) 262
Use decoys to attract birds to new sites 262
Use techniques to increase the survival of species after capture 262
Use vocalisations to attract birds to new sites 262
Translocate birds to re-establish populations or increase genetic variation
(gamebirds) 263
Alter habitats to encourage birds to leave 263
Ensure translocated birds are familiar with each other before release 263
Translocate birds to re-establish populations or increase genetic variation
(auks) 263
Translocate birds to re-establish populations or increase genetic variation
(herons, storks and ibises) 264
Translocate birds to re-establish populations or increase genetic variation
(megapodes) 264
Translocate birds to re-establish populations or increase genetic variation
(owls) 264
Translocate nests to avoid disturbance 264
Ensure genetic variation to increase translocation success  264
3.15 Captive breeding, rearing and releases (ex situ conservation) 265
3.15.1 Captive breeding 265
Artificially incubate and hand-rear birds in captivity (raptors) 266
Artificially incubate and hand-rear birds in captivity (seabirds) 267
Artificially incubate and hand-rear birds in captivity (songbirds) 267
Artificially incubate and hand-rear birds in captivity (waders) 267
Use captive breeding to increase or maintain populations (raptors) 268
Artificially incubate and hand-rear birds in captivity (bustards) 268
Artificially incubate and hand-rear birds in captivity (cranes) 268
Artificially incubate and hand-rear birds in captivity (gamebirds) 269
Artificially incubate and hand-rear birds in captivity (parrots) 269
Artificially incubate and hand-rear birds in captivity (penguins) 269
Artificially incubate and hand-rear birds in captivity (rails) 269
Artificially incubate and hand-rear birds in captivity (storks and ibises) 270
Artificially incubate and hand-rear birds in captivity (vultures) 270
Artificially incubate and hand-rear birds in captivity (wildfowl) 270
Freeze semen for artificial insemination 270
 Use artificial insemination in captive breeding 271
Use captive breeding to increase or maintain populations (bustards) 271
Use captive breeding to increase or maintain populations (cranes) 271
Use captive breeding to increase or maintain populations (pigeons) 271
Use captive breeding to increase or maintain populations (rails) 272
Use captive breeding to increase or maintain populations (seabirds) 272
Use captive breeding to increase or maintain populations (songbirds) 272
Use captive breeding to increase or maintain populations (storks and ibises) 272
Use captive breeding to increase or maintain populations (tinamous) 273
Use puppets to increase the success of hand-rearing 273
Wash contaminated semen and use it for artificial insemination 273
Can captive breeding have deleterious effects? 273
3.15.2 Release captive-bred individuals 274
Provide supplementary food after release 275
Release captive-bred individuals into the wild to restore or augment
wild populations (cranes) 275
Release captive-bred individuals into the wild to restore or augment
wild populations (raptors) 275
Release captive-bred individuals into the wild to restore or augment
wild populations (songbirds) 276
Release captive-bred individuals into the wild to restore or augment
wild populations (vultures) 276
Clip birds’ wings on release 276
Release birds as adults or sub-adults not juveniles 277
Release birds in groups 277
Release captive-bred individuals into the wild to restore or augment
wild populations (bustards) 277
Release captive-bred individuals into the wild to restore or augment
wild populations (gamebirds) 277
Release captive-bred individuals into the wild to restore or augment
wild populations (owls) 278
Release captive-bred individuals into the wild to restore or augment
wild populations (parrots) 278
Release captive-bred individuals into the wild to restore or augment
wild populations (pigeons) 278
Release captive-bred individuals into the wild to restore or augment
wild populations (rails) 278
Release captive-bred individuals into the wild to restore or augment
wild populations (storks and ibises) 279
Release captive-bred individuals into the wild to restore or augment
wild populations (waders) 279
Release captive-bred individuals into the wild to restore or augment
wild populations (wildfowl) 279
Release chicks and adults in ‘coveys’ 280
Use ‘anti-predator training’ to improve survival after release 280
Use appropriate populations to source released populations 280
Use ‘flying training’ before release 280
Use holding pens at release sites 280
Use microlites to help birds migrate 281
4. FARMLAND CONSERVATION 283
4.1 All farming systems 285
Create uncultivated margins around intensive arable or pasture fields 286
Plant grass buffer strips/margins around arable or pasture fields 287
Plant nectar flower mixture/wildflower strips 287
Plant wild bird seed or cover mixture 287
Provide or retain set-aside areas in farmland 288
Manage ditches to benefit wildlife 288
Manage hedgerows to benefit wildlife (includes no spray, gap-filling and
laying) 288
Pay farmers to cover the cost of conservation measures (as in agri-
environment schemes) 289
Provide supplementary food for birds or mammals 289
Connect areas of natural or semi-natural habitat 289
Increase the proportion of semi-natural habitat in the farmed landscape 290
Make direct payments per clutch for farmland birds 290
Manage the agricultural landscape to enhance floral resources 290
Mark bird nests during harvest or mowing 290
Plant new hedges 291
Provide nest boxes for bees (solitary bees or bumblebees) 291
Provide nest boxes for birds 291
Provide other resources for birds (water, sand for bathing) 292
Provide refuges during harvest or mowing 292
Apply ‘cross compliance’ environmental standards linked to all subsidy
payments 292
Implement food labelling schemes relating to biodiversity-friendly
farming (organic, LEAF marque) 292
Introduce nest boxes stocked with solitary bees 292
Maintain in-field elements such as field islands and rockpiles 292
Manage stone-faced hedge banks to benefit wildlife 292
Manage woodland edges to benefit wildlife 292
Plant in-field trees (not farm woodland) 292
Protect in-field trees (includes management such as pollarding and surgery) 292
Provide badger gates 292
Provide foraging perches (e.g. for shrikes) 292
Provide otter holts 292
Provide red squirrel feeders 292
Reduce field size (or maintain small fields) 292
Restore or maintain dry stone walls 292
Support or maintain low intensity agricultural systems 292
4.2 Arable farming 293
Create skylark plots 294
Leave cultivated, uncropped margins or plots (includes ‘lapwing plots’) 294
Create beetle banks 294
Leave overwinter stubbles 295
Reduce tillage 295
Undersow spring cereals, with clover for example 295
Convert or revert arable land to permanent grassland 296
 Create rotational grass or clover leys 296
Increase crop diversity 296
Plant cereals in wide-spaced rows 296
Plant crops in spring rather than autumn 296
Plant nettle strips 297
Sow rare or declining arable weeds 297
Add 1% barley into wheat crop for corn buntings 297
Create corn bunting plots 297
Leave unharvested cereal headlands in arable fields 297
Use new crop types to benefit wildlife (such as perennial cereal crops) 297
Implement ‘mosaic management’, a Dutch agri-environment option 297
Plant more than one crop per field (intercropping) 298
Take field corners out of management 298
4.3 Perennial (non-timber) crops 299
Maintain traditional orchards 299
Manage short-rotation coppice to benefit wildlife (includes 8 m rides) 299
Restore or create traditional orchards 299
4.4 Livestock farming 300
Restore or create species-rich, semi-natural grassland 301
Use mowing techniques to reduce mortality 301
Delay mowing or first grazing date on grasslands 302
Leave uncut strips of rye grass on silage fields 302
Maintain species-rich, semi-natural grassland 302
Maintain traditional water meadows (includes management for breeding
and/or wintering waders/waterfowl) 302
Maintain upland heath/moorland 303
Reduce management intensity on permanent grasslands (several
interventions at once) 303
Restore or create traditional water meadows 304
Add yellow rattle seed Rhinanthus minor to hay meadows 304
Employ areas of semi-natural habitat for rough grazing (includes salt
marsh, lowland heath, bog, fen) 304
Exclude livestock from semi-natural habitat (including woodland) 304
Maintain wood pasture and parkland 305
Plant cereals for whole crop silage 305
Raise mowing height on grasslands 305
Restore or create upland heath/moorland 305
Restore or create wood pasture 306
Use traditional breeds of livestock 306
Reduce grazing intensity on grassland (including seasonal removal of
livestock) 306
Maintain rush pastures 307
Mark fencing to avoid bird mortality 307
Plant brassica fodder crops (grazed in situ) 307
Create open patches or strips in permanent grassland 307
Provide short grass for birds 307
Use mixed stocking 307
4.5 Threat: Residential and commercial development 308
Provide owl nest boxes (tawny owl, barn owl) 308
Maintain traditional farm buildings 308
Provide bat boxes, bat grilles, improvements to roosts 308
4.6 Threat: Agri-chemicals 309
Leave headlands in fields unsprayed (conservation headlands) 309
Reduce fertilizer, pesticide or herbicide use generally 310
Use organic rather than mineral fertilizers 310
Reduce chemical inputs in grassland management 310
Provide buffer strips alongside water courses (rivers and streams) 311
Restrict certain pesticides 311
Buffer in-field ponds 311
Make selective use of spring herbicides 311
4.7 Threat: Transport and service corridors 312
Manage land under power lines to benefit wildlife 312
4.8 Threat: Hunting and trapping (for pest control, food or sport) 313
Enforce legislation to protect birds against persecution 313
Provide ‘sacrificial’ grasslands to reduce the impact of wild geese on crops 314
Avoid use of lead shot 314
Use alerts to reduce grey partridge by-catch during shoots 314
Use scaring devices (e.g. gas guns) and other deterrents to reduce
persecution of native species 314
4.9 Threat: Natural system modification 315
Raise water levels in ditches or grassland 315
Create scrapes and pools 316
Manage heather by swiping to simulate burning 316
Manage heather, gorse or grass by burning 316
Remove flood defence banks to allow inundation 316
Re-wet moorland 317
4.10 Threat: Invasive and other problematic species 318
Control predatory mammals and birds (foxes, crows, stoats and weasels) 319
Control scrub 319
Control weeds without damaging other plants in conservation areas 319
Protect individual nests of ground-nesting birds 319
Control grey squirrels 320
Erect predator-proof fencing around important breeding sites for waders 320
Manage wild deer numbers 320
Remove coarse fish 320
Control bracken 320
Control invasive non-native plants on farmland (such as Himalayan
balsam, Japanese knotweed) 320
Control mink 320
Provide medicated grit for grouse 320
4.11 Threat: Education and awareness 321
Provide specialist advice, assistance preparing conservation plans 321
Provide training for land managers, farmers and farm advisers 321
5. FOREST CONSERVATION 323
5.1 Threat: Residential and commercial development 325
5.1.1 Housing and urban areas 325
Compensate for woodland removal with compensatory planting 325
Incorporate existing trees or woods into the landscape of new developments 325
Provide legal protection of forests from development 325
5.1.2 Tourism and recreation areas 326
Adopt ecotourism 326
Create managed paths/signs to contain disturbance 326
Re-route paths, control access or close paths 326
Use warning signs to prevent fire  326
5.2 Threat: Agriculture 327
5.2.1 Livestock farming 327
Use wire fences within grazing areas to exclude livestock from specific
forest sections 327
Prevent livestock grazing in forests 328
Reduce the intensity of livestock grazing in forests 328
Shorten livestock grazing period or control grazing season in forests 328
Provide financial incentives not to graze  329
5.3 Threat: Transport and service corridors 330
Maintain/create habitat corridors  330
5.4 Threat: Biological resource use 331
5.4.1 Thinning and wood harvesting 331
Log/remove trees within forests: effects on understory plants 332
Thin trees within forests: effects on understory plants 332
Thin trees within forests: effects on young trees 332
Use shelterwood harvest instead of clearcutting 332
Thin trees within forests: effects on mature trees 333
Log/remove trees within forests: effects on young trees  333
Use partial retention harvesting instead of clearcutting  333
Use summer instead of winter harvesting 333
Remove woody debris after timber harvest  334
Log/remove trees within forests: effect on mature trees  334
Log/remove trees within forests: effect on effects on non-vascular plants 334
Thin trees within forests: effects on non-vascular plants 335
Adopt continuous cover forestry 335
Use brash mats during harvesting to avoid soil compaction 335
5.4.2 Harvest forest products 335
Adopt certification 335
Sustainable management of non-timber products  336
5.4.3 Firewood 336
Provide fuel efficient stoves 336
Provide paraffin stoves  336
5.5 Habitat protection 337
5.5.1 Changing fire frequency 337
Use prescribed fire: effect on understory plants 337
Use prescribed fire: effect on young trees 338
Use prescribed fire: effect on mature trees 338
Mechanically remove understory vegetation to reduce wildfires 338
Use herbicides to remove understory vegetation to reduce wildfires 338
5.5.2 Water management 339
Construct water detention areas to slow water flow and restore riparian
forests 339
Introduce beavers to impede water flow in forest watercourses 339
Recharge groundwater to restore wetland forest 339
5.5.3 Changing disturbance regime 339
Use clearcutting to increase understory diversity 340
Use group-selection harvesting 340
Use shelterwood harvesting 341
Thin trees by girdling (cutting rings around tree trunks) 341
Use herbicides to thin trees 341
Use thinning followed by prescribed fire 341
Adopt conservation grazing of woodland 342
Coppice trees 342
Halo ancient trees 342
Imitate natural disturbances by pushing over trees 342
Pollard trees (top cutting or top pruning) 342
Reintroduce large herbivores 342
Retain fallen trees  342
5.6 Threat: Invasive and other problematic species 343
5.6.1 Invasive plants 343
Manually/mechanically remove invasive plants 343
Use herbicides to remove invasive plant species 343
Use grazing to remove invasive plant species 344
Use prescribed fire to remove invasive plant species 344
5.6.2 Native plants 344
Manually/mechanically remove native plants 344
5.6.3 Herbivores 344
Use wire fences to exclude large native herbivores 345
Use electric fencing to exclude large native herbivores 345
Control large herbivore populations 345
Control medium-sized herbivores 345
Use fencing to enclose large herbivores (e.g. deer) 345
5.6.4 Rodents 346
Control rodents 346
5.6.5 Birds 346
Control birds 346
5.7 Threat: Pollution 347
Maintain/create buffer zones 347
Remove nitrogen and phosphorus using harvested products  347
5.8 Threat: Climate change and severe weather 348
Prevent damage from strong winds  348
5.9 Habitat protection 349
Adopt community-based management to protect forests 349
Legal protection of forests 349
Adopt Protected Species legislation (impact on forest management)  350
5.10 Habitat restoration and creation 351
5.10.1 Restoration after wildfire 351
Thin trees after wildfire 351
Remove burned trees 352
Sow tree seeds after wildfire 352
Plant trees after wildfire 352
5.10.2 Restoration after agriculture 352
Restore wood pasture (e.g. introduce grazing) 353
5.10.3 Manipulate habitat to increase planted tree survival during
restoration 353
Apply herbicides after restoration planting 353
Cover the ground using techniques other than plastic mats after
restoration planting 354
Cover the ground with plastic mats after restoration planting 354
Use selective thinning after restoration planting 354
5.10.4 Restore forest community 354
Build bird-perches to enhance natural seed dispersal 355
Plant a mixture of tree species to enhance diversity 355
Sow tree seeds 355
Water plants to preserve dry tropical forest species 355
Restore woodland herbaceous plants using transplants and nursery plugs 355
Use rotational grazing to restore oak savannas 355
5.10.5 Prevent/encourage leaf litter accumulation 356
Remove or disturb leaf litter to enhance germination 356
Encourage leaf litter development in new planting 356
5.10.6 Increase soil fertility 356
Use vegetation removal together with mechanical disturbance to the soil 357
Add organic matter 357
Use fertilizer 358
Use soil scarification or ploughing to enhance germination 358
Add lime to the soil to increase fertility 358
Use soil disturbance to enhance germination (excluding scarification or
ploughing) 359
Enhance soil compaction 359
 5.11 Actions to improve survival and growth rate of planted trees 360
Prepare the ground before tree planting 361
Use mechanical thinning before or after planting 361
Fence to prevent grazing after tree planting 362
Use herbicide after tree planting 362
Use prescribed fire after tree planting 362
Apply insecticide to protect seedlings from invertebrates 362
Add lime to the soil after tree planting 363
Add organic matter after tree planting 363
Cover the ground with straw after tree planting 363
Improve soil quality after tree planting (excluding applying fertilizer) 363
Manage woody debris before tree planting  363
Use shading for planted trees 364
Use tree guards or shelters to protect planted trees 364
Use weed mats to protect planted trees 364
Water seedlings 364
Mechanically remove understory vegetation after tree planting 364
Use different planting or seeding methods 365
Use fertilizer after tree planting 365
Apply fungicide to protect seedlings from fungal diseases 365
Infect tree seedlings with mycorrhizae 365
Introduce leaf litter to forest stands 365
Plant a mixture of tree species to enhance the survival and growth of
planted trees 365
Reduce erosion to increase seedling survival 365
Transplant trees 365
Use pioneer plants or crops as nurse-plants  365
5.12 Education and awareness raising 366
Provide education programmes about forests 366
Raise awareness amongst the general public through campaigns and
public information  366

6. PEATLAND CONSERVATION 367

6.1 Threat: Residential and commercial development 369
Remove residential or commercial development from peatlands 369
Retain/create habitat corridors in developed areas  369
6.2 Threat: Agriculture and aquaculture 370
6.2.1 Multiple farming systems 370
Retain/create habitat corridors in farmed areas 370
Implement ‘mosaic management’ of agriculture  371
6.2.2 Wood and pulp plantations 371
Cut/remove/thin forest plantations 371
Cut/remove/thin forest plantations and rewet peat 372
6.2.3 Livestock farming and ranching 373
Exclude or remove livestock from degraded peatlands 373
Reduce intensity of livestock grazing 374
Use barriers to keep livestock off ungrazed peatlands 375
 Change type of livestock 375
Change season/timing of livestock grazing  375
6.3 Threat: Energy production and mining 376
Replace blocks of vegetation after mining or peat extraction 376
Retain/create habitat corridors in areas of energy production or mining  377
6.4 Threat: Transportation and service corridors 378
Maintain/restore water flow across service corridors 378
Backfill trenches dug for pipelines 378
Retain/create habitat corridors across service corridors  378
6.5 Threat: Biological resource use 379
Reduce intensity of harvest  379
Reduce frequency of harvest 380
Use low impact harvesting techniques 380
Use low impact vehicles for harvesting 380
Implement ‘mosaic management’ when harvesting wild biological resources 380
Provide new technologies to reduce pressure on wild biological resources  380
6.6 Threat: Human intrusions and disturbance 381
Physically exclude vehicles from peatlands 381
Restrict vehicle use on peatlands 382
Restrict pedestrian access to peatlands 382
Physically exclude pedestrians from peatlands 382
Install boardwalks/paths to prevent trampling 382
Wear snowshoes to prevent trampling 382
Adopt ecotourism principles/create an ecotourism site  382
6.7 Threat: Natural system modifications 383
6.7.1 Modified water management 383
Rewet peatland (raise water table)  383
Irrigate peatland 386
Reduce water level of flooded peatlands 386
Restore natural water level fluctuations  386
6.7.2 Modified vegetation management 386
Cut/mow herbaceous plants to maintain or restore disturbance 387
Cut large trees/shrubs to maintain or restore disturbance 388
Use grazing to maintain or restore disturbance 389
Remove plant litter to maintain or restore disturbance 390
Use prescribed fire to maintain or restore disturbance 391
6.7.3 Modified wild fire regime 391
Thin vegetation to prevent wild fires 392
Rewet peat to prevent wild fires 392
Build fire breaks 392
Adopt zero burning policies near peatlands  392
6.8 Threat: Invasive and other problematic species 393
6.8.1 All problematic species 393
Implement biosecurity measures to prevent introductions of problematic
species  393
6.8.2 Problematic plants 393
Use prescribed fire to control problematic plants 394
Physically remove problematic plants 395
Use cutting/mowing to control problematic herbaceous plants 396
Change season/timing of cutting/mowing 396
Use cutting to control problematic large trees/shrubs 397
Use herbicide to control problematic plants 398
Introduce an organism to control problematic plants 398
Physically damage problematic plants 398
Use grazing to control problematic plants 398
Use covers/barriers to control problematic plants  398
6.8.3 Problematic animals 399
Exclude wild herbivores using physical barriers 399
Control populations of wild herbivores  399
6.9 Threat: Pollution 400
6.9.1 Multiple sources of pollution 400
Divert/replace polluted water source(s) 400
Clean waste water before it enters the environment 401
Slow down input water to allow more time for pollutants to be removed 401
Retain or create buffer zones between pollution sources and peatlands 402
Use artificial barriers to prevent pollution entering peatlands 402
Reduce fertilizer or herbicide use near peatlands 402
Manage fertilizer or herbicide application near peatlands  402
6.9.2 Agricultural and aquacultural effluents 402
Convert to organic agriculture or aquaculture near peatlands 402
Limit the density of livestock on farmland near peatlands 402
Use biodegradable oil in farming machinery  402
6.9.3 Industrial and military effluents 402
Remove oil from contaminated peatlands  403
6.9.4 Airborne pollutants 403
Remove pollutants from waste gases before they enter the environment 403
Add lime to reduce acidity and/or increase fertility 403
Drain/replace acidic water 404
6.10 Threat: Climate change and severe weather 405
Add water to peatlands to compensate for drought 405
Plant shelter belts to protect peatlands from wind 405
Build barriers to protect peatlands from the sea 405
Restore/create peatlands in areas that will be climatically suitable in the
future  405
6.11 Habitat creation and restoration 406
6.11.1 General habitat creation and restoration 406
Restore/create peatland vegetation (multiple interventions) 406
Restore/create peatland vegetation using the moss layer transfer technique 407
6.11.2 Modify physical habitat only 408
Fill/block ditches to create conditions suitable for peatland plants 409
Remove upper layer of peat/soil 409
Excavate pools 410
Reprofile/relandscape peatland 411
Disturb peatland surface to encourage growth of desirable plants 411
Add inorganic fertilizer 412
Cover peatland with organic mulch 412
Cover peatland with something other than mulch 413
Stabilize peatland surface to help plants colonize 413
Build artificial bird perches to encourage seed dispersal 413
Roughen peat surface to create microclimates 414
Bury upper layer of peat/soil 414
Introduce nurse plants  414
6.11.3 Introduce peatland vegetation 414
Add mosses to peatland surface 414
Add mixed vegetation to peatland surface 415
Directly plant peatland mosses 416
Directly plant peatland herbs 416
Directly plant peatland trees/shrubs 417
Introduce seeds of peatland herbs 417
Introduce seeds of peatland trees/shrubs 418
6.12 Actions to complement planting 420
Cover peatland with organic mulch (after planting) 421
Cover peatland with something other than mulch (after planting) 421
Reprofile/relandscape peatland (before planting) 422
Add inorganic fertilizer (before/after planting) 423
Introduce nurse plants (to aid focal peatland plants) 424
Irrigate peatland (before/after planting) 424
Create mounds or hollows (before planting) 424
Add fresh peat to peatland (before planting) 425
Remove vegetation that could compete with planted peatland vegetation 425
Add root-associated fungi to plants (before planting) 425
Add lime (before/after planting) 426
Add organic fertilizer (before/after planting) 426
Rewet peatland (before/after planting) 426
Remove upper layer of peat/soil (before planting) 426
Bury upper layer of peat/soil (before planting) 426
Encapsulate planted moss fragments in beads/gel 426
Use fences or barriers to protect planted vegetation 426
Protect or prepare vegetation before planting (other interventions)  426
6.13 Habitat protection 427
Legally protect peatlands 427
Pay landowners to protect peatlands 428
Increase ‘on the ground’ protection (e.g. rangers) 428
Create legislation for ‘no net loss’ of wetlands 428
Adopt voluntary agreements to protect peatlands 428
Allow sustainable use of peatlands  428
 6.14 Education and awareness 429
Raise awareness amongst the public (general) 429
Provide education or training programmes about peatlands or peatland
management 430
Lobby, campaign or demonstrate to protect peatlands 430
Raise awareness amongst the public (wild fire) 430
Raise awareness amongst the public (problematic species) 430
Raise awareness through engaging volunteers in peatland management
or monitoring  430

7. PRIMATE CONSERVATION 431

7.1 Threat: Residential and commercial development 433
Remove and relocate ‘problem’ animals 433
Relocate primates to non-residential areas 434
Discourage the planting of fruit trees and vegetable gardens on the
urban edge biodiversity-friendly farming  434
7.2 Threat: Agriculture 435
Humans chase primates using random loud noise 436
Prohibit (livestock) farmers from entering protected areas 437
Use nets to keep primates out of fruit trees 437
Create natural habitat islands within agricultural land 437
Use fences as biological corridors for primates 437
Provide sacrificial rows of crops on outer side of fields 437
Compensate farmers for produce loss caused by primates 437
Pay farmers to cover the costs of non-harmful strategies to deter primates 437
Retain nesting trees/shelter for primates within agricultural fields 437
Plant nesting trees/shelter for primates within agricultural fields 437
Regularly remove traps and snares around agricultural fields 437
Certify farms and market their products as ‘primate friendly’ 437
Farm more intensively and effectively in selected areas and spare more
natural land 437
Install mechanical barriers to deter primates (e.g. fences, ditches) 438
Use of natural hedges to deter primates 438
Use of unpalatable buffer crops 438
Change of crop (i.e. to a crop less palatable to primates) 438
Plant crops favoured by primates away from primate areas 438
Destroy habitat within buffer zones to make them unusable for primates 438
Use GPS and/or VHF tracking devices on individuals of problem troops
to provide farmers with early warning of crop raiding 438
Chase crop-raiding primates using dogs 438
Train langur monkeys to deter rhesus macaques 438
Use loud-speakers to broadcast sounds of potential threats (e.g. barking
dogs, explosions, gunshots) 438
Use loud-speakers to broadcast primate alarm calls 438
Strategically lay out the scent of a primate predator (e.g. leopard, lion) 438
Humans chase primates using bright light  438
7.3 Threat: Energy production and mining 439
Minimize ground vibrations caused by open cast mining activities 439
 Establish no-mining zones in/near watersheds so as to preserve water
levels and water quality 439
Use ‘set-aside’ areas of natural habitat for primate protection within
mining area 439
Certify mines and market their products as ‘primate friendly’ (e.g. ape-
friendly cellular phones) 439
Create/preserve primate habitat on islands before dam construction  439
7.4 Threat: Transportation and service corridors 440
Install rope or pole (canopy) bridges 441
Install green bridges (overpasses) 441
Implement speed limits in particular areas (e.g. with high primate
densities) to reduce vehicle collisions with primates 441
Reduce road widths 441
Impose fines for breaking the speed limit or colliding with primates 441
Avoid building roads in key habitat or migration routes 441
Implement a minimum number of roads (and minimize secondary
roads) needed to reach mining extraction sites 441
Re-use old roads rather than building new roads 441
Re-route vehicles around protected areas 441
Install speed bumps to reduce vehicle collisions with primates 441
Provide adequate signage of presence of primates on or near roads  441
7.5 Threat: Biological resource use 442
7.5.1 Hunting 442
Conduct regular anti-poaching patrols 443
Regularly de-activate/remove ground snares 443
Provide better equipment (e.g. guns) to anti-poaching ranger patrols 443
Implement local no-hunting community policies/traditional hunting ban 444
Implement community control of patrolling, banning hunting and
removing snares 444
Strengthen/support/re-install traditions/taboos that forbid the killing of
primates 444
Implement monitoring surveillance strategies (e.g. SMART) or use
monitoring data to improve effectiveness of wildlife law enforcement patrols445
Provide training to anti-poaching ranger patrols 445
Implement no-hunting seasons for primates 445
Implement sustainable harvesting of primates (e.g. with permits,
resource access agreements) 445
Encourage use of traditional hunting methods rather than using guns 445
Implement road blocks to inspect cars for illegal primate bushmeat 445
Provide medicine to local communities to control killing of primates for
medicinal purposes 445
Introduce ammunition tax 445
Inspect bushmeat markets for illegal primate species 445
Inform hunters of the dangers (e.g., disease transmission) of wild
primate meat  445
7.5.2 Substitution 446
Use selective logging instead of clear-cutting 447
 Avoid/minimize logging of important food tree species for primates 447
Use patch retention harvesting instead of clear-cutting 447
Implement small and dispersed logging compartments 447
Use shelter wood cutting instead of clear-cutting 447
Leave hollow trees in areas of selective logging for sleeping sites 447
Clear open patches in the forest 447
Thin trees within forests 447
Coppice trees 447
Manually control or remove secondary mid-storey and ground-level
vegetation  447
Avoid slashing climbers/lianas, trees housing them, hemi-epiphytic figs,
and ground vegetation 447
Incorporate forested corridors or buffers into logged areas 447
Close non-essential roads as soon as logging operations are complete 447
Use ‘set-asides’ for primate protection within logging area 447
Work inward from barriers or boundaries (e.g. river) to avoid pushing
primates toward an impassable barrier or inhospitable habitat 448
Reduce the size of forestry teams to include employees only (not family
members) 448
Certify forest concessions and market their products as ‘primate friendly’ 448
Provide domestic meat to workers of the logging company to reduce
hunting  448
7.6 Threat: Human intrusions and disturbance 449
Implement a ‘no-feeding of wild primates’ policy 449
Put up signs to warn people about not feeding primates 450
Resettle illegal human communities (i.e. in a protected area) to another
location  450
Build fences to keep humans out 450
Restrict number of people that are allowed access to the site 450
Install ‘primate-proof’ garbage bins 450
Do not allow people to consume food within natural areas where
primates can view them  450
7.7 Threat: Natural system modifications 451
Use prescribed burning within the context of home range size and use 451
Protect important food/nest trees before burning  451
7.8 Threat: Invasive and other problematic species and genes 452
7.8.1 Problematic animal/plant species and genes 452
Reduce primate predation by non-primate species through exclusion
(e.g. fences) or translocation 453
Reduce primate predation by other primate species through exclusion
(e.g. fences) or translocation 453
Control habitat-altering mammals (e.g. elephants) through exclusion
(e.g. fences) or translocation 453
Control inter-specific competition for food through exclusion (e.g.
fences) or translocation 453
Remove alien invasive vegetation where the latter has a clear negative
effect on the primate species in question 453
 Prevent gene contamination by alien primate species introduced by
humans, through exclusion (e.g. fences) or translocation  453
7.8.2 Disease transmission 453
Preventative vaccination of habituated or wild primates  454
Wear face-masks to avoid transmission of viral and bacterial diseases to
primates  455
Keep safety distance to habituated animals 455
Limit time that researchers/tourists are allowed to spend with habituated
animals 455
Implement quarantine for primates before reintroduction/translocation 456
Ensure that researchers/tourists are up-to-date with vaccinations and healthy456
Regularly disinfect clothes, boots etc  456
Treat sick/injured animals 456
Remove/treat external/internal parasites to increase reproductive
success/survival 457
Conduct veterinary screens of animals before reintroducing/
translocating them 457
Implement continuous health monitoring with permanent vet on site 458
Detect and report dead primates and clinically determine their cause of
death to avoid disease transmission 458
Implement quarantine for people arriving at, and leaving the site 458
Wear gloves when handling primate food, tool items, etc  458
Control ‘reservoir’ species to reduce parasite burdens/pathogen sources 458
Avoid contact between wild primates and human-raised primates 458
Implement a health programme for local communities  458
7.9 Threat: Pollution 459
7.9.1 Garbage/solid waste 459
Reduce garbage/solid waste to avoid primate injuries 459
Remove human food waste that may potentially serve as food sources
for primates to avoid disease transmission and conflict with humans  459
7.9.2 Excess energy 460
Reduce noise pollution by restricting development activities to certain
times of the day/night  460
7.10 Education and Awareness 461
Educate local communities about primates and sustainable use 461
Involve local community in primate research and conservation management 462
Regularly play TV and radio announcements to raise primate
conservation awareness  462
Implement multimedia campaigns using theatre, film, print media, and
discussions 462
Install billboards to raise primate conservation awareness 463
Integrate local religion/taboos into conservation education  463
7.11 Habitat protection 464
7.11.1 Habitat protection 464
Create/protect habitat corridors 464
Legally protect primate habitat 465
 Establish areas for conservation which are not protected by national or
international legislation (e.g. private sector standards and codes) 465
Create/protect forest patches in highly fragmented landscapes 465
Create buffer zones around protected primate habitat 466
Demarcate and enforce boundaries of protected areas  466
7.11.2 Habitat creation or restoration 466
Plant indigenous trees to re-establish natural tree communities in clear-
cut areas 466
Restore habitat corridors 467
Plant indigenous fast-growing trees (will not necessarily resemble
original community) in clear-cut areas 467
Use weeding to promote regeneration of indigenous tree communities  467
7.12 Species management 468
7.12.1 Species management 468
Guard habituated primate groups to ensure their safety/well-being 468
Habituate primates to human presence to reduce stress from tourists/
researchers etc  469
Implement legal protection for primate species under threat 469
Implement birth control to stabilize primate community/population size  469
7.12.2 Species recovery 470
Regularly and continuously provide supplementary food to primates 470
Regularly provide supplementary food to primates during resource
scarce periods only 470
Provide supplementary food for a certain period of time only 471
Provide additional sleeping platforms/nesting sites for primates 471
Provide artificial water sources 471
Provide salt licks for primates 472
Provide supplementary food to primates through the establishment of
prey populations  472
7.12.3 Species reintroduction 472
Reintroduce primates into habitat where the species is absent 473
Translocate (capture and release) wild primates from development sites
to natural habitat elsewhere 473
Translocate (capture and release) wild primates from abundant
population areas to non-inhabited environments 473
Allow primates to adapt to local habitat conditions for some time before
introduction to the wild 474
Reintroduce primates in groups 474
Reintroduce primates as single/multiple individuals 475
Reintroduce primates into habitat where the species is present 475
Reintroduce primates into habitat with predators 475
Reintroduce primates into habitat without predators 476
7.12.4 Ex-situ conservation 476
Captive breeding and reintroduction of primates into the wild: born and
reared in cages 476
Captive breeding and reintroduction of primates into the wild: limited
free-ranging experience 477
 Captive breeding and reintroduction of primates into the wild: born and
raised in a free-ranging environment 477
Rehabilitate injured/orphaned primates 477
Fostering appropriate behaviour to facilitate rehabilitation 478
7.13 Livelihood; economic and other incentives 479
7.13.1 Provide benefits to local communities for sustainably managing
their forest and its wildlife 479
Provide monetary benefits to local communities for sustainably
managing their forest and its wildlife (e.g. REDD, employment) 479
Provide non-monetary benefits to local communities for sustainably
managing their forest and its wildlife (e.g. better education,
infrastructure development) 480
7.13.2 Long-term presence of research/tourism project 480
Run research project and ensure permanent human presence at site 481
Run tourism project and ensure permanent human presence at site 481
Permanent presence of staff/managers 482

8. SHRUBLAND AND HEATHLAND CONSERVATION 483

8.1 Threat: Residential and commercial development 485
Remove residential or commercial development 485
Maintain/create habitat corridors in developed areas  485
8.2 Threat: Agriculture and aquaculture 486
Reduce number of livestock 486
Use fences to exclude livestock from shrublands 487
Change type of livestock 488
Shorten the period during which livestock can graze 488
8.3 Threat: Energy production and mining 489
Maintain/create habitat corridors in areas of energy production or mining  489
8.4 Threat: Biological resource use 490
Legally protect plant species affected by gathering 490
Place signs to deter gathering of shrubland species 490
Reduce the frequency of prescribed burning  490
8.5 Threat: Transportation and service corridors 491
Maintain habitat corridors over or under roads and other transportation
corridors 491
Create buffer zones besides roads and other transportation corridors  491
8.6 Threat: Human intrusions and disturbance 492
Re-route paths to reduce habitat disturbance 492
Use signs and access restrictions to reduce disturbance 492
Plant spiny shrubs to act as barriers to people  492
8.7 Threat: Natural system modifications 493
8.7.1 Modified fire regime 493
Use prescribed burning to mimic natural fire cycle 493
Use prescribed burning to reduce the potential for large wild fires 493
 Cut strips of vegetation to reduce the spread of fire  493
8.7.2 Modified vegetation management 493
Reinstate the use of traditional burning practices 494
Use cutting/mowing to mimic grazing 494
Increase number of livestock 494
8.8 Threat: Invasive and other problematic species 496
8.8.1 Problematic tree species 496
Apply herbicide to trees 496
Cut trees 497
Cut trees and remove leaf litter 497
Cut trees and remove seedlings 497
Use prescribed burning to control trees 497
Use grazing to control trees 498
Cut trees and apply herbicide 498
Cut trees and use prescribed burning 498
Increase number of livestock and use prescribed burning to control trees 498
Cut/mow shrubland to control trees 499
Cut trees and increase livestock numbers  499
8.8.2 Problematic grass species 499
Cut/mow to control grass 500
Cut/mow to control grass and sow seed of shrubland plants 500
Rake to control grass 500
Cut/mow and rotovate to control grass 501
Apply herbicide and sow seeds of shrubland plants to control grass 501
Apply herbicide and remove plants to control grass 501
Use grazing to control grass 502
Use precribed burning to control grass 502
Cut and use prescribed burning to control grass 502
Use herbicide and prescribed burning to control grass 502
Strip turf to control grass 502
Rotovate to control grass 503
Add mulch to control grass 503
Add mulch to control grass and sow seed 503
Cut/mow, rotovate and sow seeds to control grass 503
Use herbicide to control grass 504
8.8.3 Bracken 505
Use herbicide to control bracken 505
Cut to control bracken 506
Cut and apply herbicide to control bracken 506
Cut bracken and rotovate 507
Use ‘bracken bruiser’ to control bracken 507
Use herbicide and remove leaf litter to control bracken 507
Cut and burn bracken 507
Use herbicide and sow seed of shrubland plants to control bracken 507
Increase grazing intensity to control bracken 508
Use herbicide and increase livestock numbers to control bracken  508
8.8.4 Problematic animals 508
Use fences to exclude large herbivores 508
Reduce numbers of large herbivores 508
Use biological control to reduce the number of problematic invertebrates  508
8.9 Threat: Pollution 509
Mow shrubland to reduce impact of pollutants 509
Burn shrublands to reduce impacts of pollutants 510
Plant vegetation to act as a buffer to exclude vegetation 510
Reduce pesticide use on nearby agricultural/forestry land 510
Reduce herbicide use on nearby agricultural/forestry land 510
Reduce fertilizer use on nearby agricultural/forestry land 510
Add lime to shrubland to reduce the impacts of sulphur dioxide pollution  510
8.10 Threat: Climate change and severe weather 511
Restore habitat in area predicted to have suitable habitat for shrubland
species in the future 511
Improve connectivity between areas of shrubland to allow species
movements and habitat shifts in response to climate change  511
8.11 Threat: Habitat protection 512
Legally protect shrubland 512
Legally protect habitat around shrubland  512
8.12 Habitat restoration and creation 513
8.12.1 General restoration 513
Allow shrubland to regenerate without active management 513
Restore/create connectivity between shrublands.  514
8.12.2 Modify physical habitat 514
Add topsoil 515
Disturb vegetation 515
Strip topsoil 516
Remove leaf litter 516
Add sulphur to soil 516
Use erosion blankets/mats to aid plant establishment 516
Add mulch and fertilizer to soil 517
Add manure to soil 517
Irrigate degraded shrublands 517
Remove trees/crops to restore shrubland structure 517
Remove trees, leaf litter and topsoil 517
Add peat to soil 517
Burn leaf litter  517
8.12.3 Introduce vegetation or seeds 517
Sow seeds 518
Plant individual plants 519
Sow seeds and plant individual plants 519
Spread clippings 519
Build bird perches to encourage colonization by plants 520
Plant turf 520
 8.13 Actions to benefit introduced vegetation 521
Add fertilizer to soil (alongside planting/seeding) 521
Add peat to soil (alongside planting/seeding) 522
Add mulch and fertilizer to soil (alongside planting/seeding) 522
Add gypsum to soil (alongside planting/seeding) 522
Add sulphur to soil (alongside planting/seeding) 522
Strip/disturb topsoil (alongside planting/seeding) 523
Add topsoil (alongside planting/seeding) 523
Plant seed balls 523
Plant/sow seeds of nurse plants alongside focal plants 523
Plant/seed under established vegetation 524
Plant shrubs in clusters 524
Add root associated bacteria/fungi to introduced plants 524
8.14 Education and awareness 525
Raise awareness amongst the general public 525
Provide education programmes about shrublands  525

9. MANAGEMENT OF CAPTIVE ANIMALS 527

9.1 Ex-situ conservation – breeding amphibians 529
9.1.1 Refining techniques using less threatened species 529
Identify and breed a similar species to refine husbandry techniques prior
to working with target species 529
9.1.2 Changing environmental conditions/microclimate 530
Vary enclosure temperature to simulate seasonal changes in the wild 530
Vary quality or quantity (UV% or gradients) of enclosure lighting to
simulate seasonal changes in the wild 531
Provide artificial aquifers for species which breed in upwelling springs 531
Vary artificial rainfall to simulate seasonal changes in the wild 531
Vary enclosure humidity to simulate seasonal changes in the wild using
humidifiers, foggers/misters or artificial rain 531
Vary duration of enclosure lighting to simulate seasonal changes in the wild 532
Simulate rainfall using sound recordings of rain and/or thunderstorms 532
Allow temperate amphibians to hibernate 532
Allow amphibians from highly seasonal environments to have a period
of dormancy 532
Vary water flow/speed of artificial streams in enclosures for torrent
breeding species 532
9.1.3 Changing enclosure design for spawning or egg laying sites 532
Provide multiple egg laying sites within an enclosure 532
Provide natural substrate for species which do not breed in water (e.g.
burrowing/tunnel breeders) 533
Provide particular plants as breeding areas or egg laying sites 533
9.1.4 Manipulate social conditions 533
Manipulate sex ratio within the enclosure 533
Separate sexes in non-breeding periods 534
Play recordings of breeding calls to simulate breeding season in the wild 534
 Allow female mate choice 534
Provide visual barriers for territorial species 535
Manipulate adult density within the enclosure  535
9.1.5 Changing the diet of adults 535
Supplement diets with carotenoids (including for colouration)  535
Increase caloric intake of females in preparation for breeding 536
Vary food provision to reflect seasonal availability in the wild 536
Formulate adult diet to reflect nutritional composition of wild foods 536
Supplement diets with vitamins/calcium fed to prey (e.g. prey gut loading) 536
Supplement diets with vitamins/calcium applied to food (e.g. dusting prey).  536
9.1.6 Manipulate rearing conditions for young 536
Manipulate temperature of enclosure to improve development or
survival to adulthood  537
Formulate larval diets to improve development or survival to adulthood  537
Manipulate larval density within the enclosure 537
Leave infertile eggs at spawn site as food for egg-eating larvae  538
Manipulate humidity to improve development or survival to adulthood  538
Manipulate quality and quantity of enclosure lighting to improve
development or survival to adulthood  538
Allow adults to attend their eggs  538
9.1.7 Artificial reproduction 538
Use artificial cloning from frozen or fresh tissue 538
9.2 Promoting health and welfare in captive carnivores (felids, canids
and ursids) through feeding practices 539
9.2.1 Diet and food type 539
Provide bones, hides or partial carcasses 540
Feed whole carcasses (with or without organs/gastrointestinal tract) 540
Feed commercially prepared diets 540
Feed plant-derived protein 541
Supplement meat-based diets with prebiotic plant material to facilitate
digestion 541
Supplement meat-based diet with amino acid 541
Supplement meat-based diet with vitamins or minerals  541
Supplement meat-based diet with fatty acids  541
Increase variety of food items  541
9.2.2 Food presentation and enrichment 542
Hide food around enclosure 542
Present food frozen in ice  542
Present food inside objects (e.g. Boomer balls)  543
Provide devices to simulate live prey, including sounds, lures, pulleys
and bungees 543
Change location of food around enclosure 543
Scatter food around enclosure 544
Provide live vertebrate prey 544
Provide live invertebrate prey  544
Present food in/on water  544
Use food as a reward in animal training  544
9.2.3 Feeding schedule 544
Provide food on a random temporal schedule 545
Allocate fast days  545
Alter food abundance or type seasonally 545
Provide food during natural active periods 546
Use automated feeders 546
Alter feeding schedule according to visitor activity 546
Provide food during visitor experiences  546
9.2.4 Social feeding 546
Feed individuals separately  546
Feed individuals within a social group 546
Hand-feed  546
9.3 Promoting natural feeding behaviours in primates in captivity 547
9.3.1 Food Presentation 547
Scatter food throughout enclosure 548
Hide food in containers (including boxes and bags) 548
Present food frozen in ice 548
Present food items whole instead of processed 548
Present feeds at different crowd levels 548
Maximise both vertical and horizontal presentation locations 549
Present food in puzzle feeders  549
Present food in water (including dishes and ponds) 549
Present food dipped in food colouring 549
Provide live vegetation in planters for foraging 549
Present food which required the use (or modification) of tools 550
Paint gum solutions on rough bark 550
Add gum solutions to drilled hollow feeders  550
9.3.2 Diet manipulation 550
Formulate diet to reflect nutritional composition of wild foods (including
removal of domestic fruits) 550
Provide cut branches (browse) 551
Provide live invertebrates 551
Provide fresh produce 551
Provide gum (including artificial gum) 551
Provide nectar (including artificial nectar) 551
Provide herbs or other plants for self-medication 551
Modify ingredients/nutrient composition seasonally (not daily) to reflect
natural variability  552
9.3.3 Feeding Schedule 552
Change feeding times 552
Change the number of feeds per day 552
Provide food at natural (wild) feeding times 553
Provide access to food at all times (day and night) 553
Use of automated feeders  553
 9.3.4 Social group manipulation 553
Feed individuals in social groups  553
Feed individuals separately 553
Feed individuals in subgroups  553

10. SOME ASPECTS OF CONTROL OF FRESHWATER INVASIVE

SPECIES555
10.1 Threat: Invasive plants  557
10.1.1 Parrot’s feather Myriophyllum aquaticum 557
Chemical control using the herbicide 2,4-D 558
Chemical control using the herbicide carfentrazone-ethyl 558
Chemical control using the herbicide triclopyr 558
Chemical control using the herbicide diquat 558
Chemical control using the herbicide endohall 559
Chemical control using other herbicides 559
Reduction of trade through legislation and codes of conduct 559
Biological control using herbivores 560
Water level drawdown 560
Biological control using plant pathogens 560
Mechanical harvesting or cutting 560
Mechanical excavation 561
Removal using water jets 561
Suction dredging and diver-assisted suction removal 561
Manual harvesting (hand-weeding) 561
Use of lightproof barriers 561
Dye application 561
Biological control using fungal-based herbicides 561
Use of salt 561
Decontamination / preventing further spread 561
Public education 561
Multiple integrated measures 561
10.1.2 Floating pennywort Hydrocotyle ranunculoides 561
Chemical control using herbicides  562
Flame treatment 562
Physical removal 562
Combination treatment using herbicides and physical removal 562
Biological control using co-evolved, host-specific herbivores 563
Use of hydrogen peroxide 563
Biological control using fungal-based herbicides 563
Biological control using native herbivores 563
Environmental control (e.g. shading, reduced flow, reduction of rooting
depth, or dredging) 563
Excavation of banks 563
Public education 563
Use of liquid nitrogen  563
10.1.3 Water primrose Ludwigia spp  563
Biological control using co-evolved, host specific herbivores 564
Chemical control using herbicides 564
Combination treatment using herbicides and physical removal 565
Physical removal 565
Biological control using fungal-based herbicides 565
Biological control using native herbivores 565
Environmental control (e.g. shading, reduced flow, reduction of rooting
depth, or dredging) 565
Excavation of banks 565
Public education 565
Use of a tarpaulin 565
Use of flame treatment 565
Use of hydrogen peroxide 565
Use of liquid nitrogen 565
Use of mats placed on the bottom of the waterbody  565
10.1.4 Skunk cabbage Lysichiton americanus 566
Chemical control using herbicides  566
Physical removal 566
Biological control using co-evolved, host-specific herbivores 567
Biological control using fungal-based herbicides 567
Biological control using native herbivores 567
Combination treatment using herbicides and physical removal 567
Environmental control (e.g. shading, or promotion of native plants) 567
Public education 567
Use of a tarpaulin 567
Use of flame treatment 567
Use of hydrogen peroxide 567
Use of liquid nitrogen  567
10.1.5 New Zealand pigmyweed Crassula helmsii 567
Chemical control using herbicides 568
Decontamination to prevent further spread 568
Use lightproof barriers to control plants 569
Use salt water to kill plants 569
Use a combination of control methods 569
Use dyes to reduce light levels 569
Use grazing to control plants 569
Use hot foam to control plants 570
Use hydrogen peroxide to control plants 570
Alter environmental conditions to control plants (e.g. shading by
succession, increasing turbidity, re-profiling or dredging) 570
Biological control using fungal-based herbicides 570
Biological control using herbivores 570
Bury plants 570
Dry out waterbodies 570
Physical control using manual/mechanical control or dredging 570
Plant other species to suppress growth 570
Public education 570
Surround with wire mesh 570
 Use flame throwers 570
Use hot water 570
Use of liquid nitrogen  570
10.2 Threat: Invasive molluscs 571
10.2.1 Asian clams 571
Add chemicals to the water 571
Change salinity of water 572
Mechanical removal 572
Change temperature of water 572
Clean equipment 572
Use of gas-impermeable barriers 573
Reduce oxygen in water 573
Change pH of water 573
Drain the invaded waterbody 573
Exposure to disease-causing organisms 573
Exposure to parasites 573
Hand removal 573
Public awareness and education.  573
10.3 Threat: Invasive crustaceans 574
10.3.1 Ponto-Caspian gammarids 574
Change salinity of the water 574
Change water temperature 575
Dewatering (drying out) habitat 575
Exposure to parasites 575
Add chemicals to water 575
Change water pH 576
Control movement of gammarids 576
Biological control using predatory fish 576
Cleaning equipment 576
Exchange ballast water 576
Exposure to disease-causing organisms  576
10.3.2 Procambarus spp. crayfish 576
Add chemicals to the water 577
Sterilization of males 577
Trapping and removal 577
Trapping combined with encouragement of predators 577
Create barriers 578
Encouraging predators 578
Draining the waterway 578
Food source removal 578
Relocate vulnerable crayfish 578
Remove the crayfish by electrofishing  578
10.4 Threat: Invasive fish 579
10.4.1 Brown and black bullheads 579
Application of a biocide  580
Netting 580
Biological control of beneficial species 580
 Biological control using native predators 580
Changing salinity 580
Changing pH 580
Draining invaded waterbodies 580
Electrofishing 580
Habitat manipulation 580
Increasing carbon dioxide concentrations 580
Public education 580
Trapping using sound or pheromonal lures 580
Using a combination of netting and electrofishing 580
UV radiation  580
10.4.2 Ponto-Caspian gobies 581
Changing salinity 581
Use of barriers to prevent migration 582
Application of a biocide 582
Biological control of beneficial species 582
Biological control using native predators 582
Changing pH 582
Draining invaded waterbodies 582
Electrofishing 582
Habitat manipulation 582
Increasing carbon dioxide concentrations 582
Netting 582
Public education 582
Trapping using visual, sound and pheromonal lures 582
Using a combination of netting and electrofishing 582
UV radiation  582
10.5 Threat: Invasive reptiles 583
10.5.1 Red-eared terrapin Trachemys scripta 583
Direct removal of adults 583
Application of a biocide 584
Biological control using native predators 584
Draining invaded waterbodies 584
Public education 584
Search and removal using sniffer dogs  584
10.6 Threat: Invasive amphibians 585
10.6.1 American bullfrog Lithobates catesbeiana 585
Biological control using native predators 585
Direct removal of adults 586
Direct removal of juveniles 586
Application of a biocide 586
Biological control of co-occurring beneficial species 587
Collection of egg clutches 587
Draining ponds 587
Fencing 587
Habitat modification 587
Pond destruction 587
Public education  587
11. SOME ASPECTS OF ENHANCING NATURAL PEST CONTROL 589
11.1 Reducing agricultural pollution 591
Alter the timing of insecticide use 591
Delay herbicide use 592
Incorporate parasitism rates when setting thresholds for insecticide use 593
Use pesticides only when pests or crop damage reach threshold levels 593
Convert to organic farming 594
11.2 All farming systems 596
Grow non-crop plants that produce chemicals that attract natural enemies 596
Use chemicals to attract natural enemies 597
Leave part of the crop or pasture unharvested or uncut 598
Plant new hedges 599
Use alley cropping 599
Use mass-emergence devices to increase natural enemy populations 600
11.3 Arable farming 601
Combine trap and repellent crops in a push-pull system 601
Use crop rotation in potato farming systems 602
Create beetle banks 603
Incorporate plant remains into the soil that produce weed-controlling
chemicals 604
11.4 Perennial farming 606
Exclude ants that protect pests 606
Allow natural regeneration of ground cover beneath perennial crops 607
Isolate colonies of beneficial ants 608
11.5 Livestock farming and pasture 609
Grow plants that compete with damaging weeds 609
Delay mowing or first grazing date on pasture or grassland 610
Use grazing instead of cutting for pasture or grassland management 611
Use mixed pasture 611

12. ENHANCING SOIL FERTILITY 613

12.1 Reducing agricultural pollution 615
Change the timing of manure application 615
Reduce fertilizer, pesticide or herbicide use generally 616
12.2 All farming systems 617
Control traffic and traffic timing 617
Change tillage practices 618
Convert to organic farming 620
Plant new hedges 620
Change the timing of ploughing 621
12.3 Arable farming 622
Amend the soil using a mix of organic and inorganic amendments 623
Grow cover crops when the field is empty 623
Use crop rotation 624
 Amend the soil with formulated chemical compounds 625
Grow cover crops beneath the main crop (living mulches) or between
crop rows 626
Add mulch to crops 626
Amend the soil with fresh plant material or crop remains 627
Amend the soil with manures and agricultural composts 628
Amend the soil with municipal wastes or their composts 629
Incorporate leys into crop rotation 629
Retain crop residues 629
Amend the soil with bacteria or fungi 630
Amend the soil with composts not otherwise specified 630
Amend the soil with crops grown as green manures 631
Amend the soil with non-chemical minerals and mineral wastes 631
Amend the soil with organic processing wastes or their composts 631
Encourage foraging waterfowl 632
Use alley cropping 632
12.4 Livestock and pasture farming 633
Reduce grazing intensity 633
Restore or create low input grasslands 634

13. SUBTIDAL BENTHIC INVERTEBRATE CONSERVATION 635

13.1 Threat: Energy production and mining 637
13.1.1 Oil and gas drilling 637
Bury drill cuttings in the seabed rather than leaving them on the seabed
surface 637
Cease or prohibit oil and gas drilling 637
Cease or prohibit the deposit of drill cuttings on the seabed 637
Dispose of drill cuttings on land rather than on the seabed 638
Limit the thickness of drill cuttings 638
Recycle or repurpose fluids used in the drilling process 638
Remove drill cuttings after decommissioning 638
Set limits for change in sediment particle size during aggregate extraction 638
Use water-based muds instead of oil-based muds (drilling fluids) in the
drilling process  638
13.1.2 General 638
Bury pipelines instead of surface laying and rock dumping 638
Leave pipelines and infrastructure in place following decommissioning 638
Limit the amount of stabilisation material used 638
Remove pipelines and infrastructure following decommissioning 638
Set limits for change in sediment particle size during rock dumping 638
Use stabilisation material that can be more easily recovered at
decommissioning stage  638
13.1.3 Mining, quarrying, and aggregate extraction 639
Cease or prohibit aggregate extraction 639
Cease or prohibit marine mining 640
Extract aggregates from a vessel that is moving rather than static 641
 Leave mining waste (tailings) in place following cessation of disposal
operations 641
Cease or prohibit mining waste (tailings) disposal at sea 642
Limit, cease, or prohibit sediment discard during aggregate extraction 642
Remove discarded sediment material from the seabed following
cessation of aggregate extraction  642
13.1.4 Renewable energy 643
Co-locate aquaculture systems with other activities and other
infrastructures (such as wind farms) to maximise use of marine space 643
Limit the number and/or extent of, or prohibit additional, renewable
energy installations in an area  643
13.2 Threat: Transportation and service corridors 644
13.2.1 Utility and service lines 644
Bury cables and pipelines in the seabed rather than laying them on the
seabed 644
Leave utility and service lines in place after decommissioning 644
Remove utility and service lines after decommissioning 644
Set limits on the area that can be covered by utility and service lines at
one location 644
Use a different technique when laying and burying cables and pipelines 645
Use cables and pipelines of smaller width  645
13.2.2 Shipping lanes 645
Cease or prohibit shipping 645
Divert shipping routes 646
Limit, cease or prohibit anchoring from ships/boats/vessels 646
Limit, cease or prohibit recreational boating 646
Periodically move and relocate moorings 646
Provide additional moorings to reduce anchoring 646
Reduce ships/boats/vessels speed limits 646
Set limits on hull depth 646
Use a different type of anchor 646
Use moorings which reduce or avoid contact with the seabed (eco-
moorings)  646
13.3 Threat: Biological resource use 647
13.3.1 Spatial and Temporal Management 647
Cease or prohibit all towed (mobile) fishing gear 647
Cease or prohibit all types of fishing 649
Cease or prohibit bottom trawling 650
Cease or prohibit dredging 650
Cease or prohibit commercial fishing 651
Establish temporary fisheries closures 652
Cease or prohibit midwater/semi-pelagic trawling 654
Cease or prohibit static fishing gear  654
13.3.2 Effort and Capacity Reduction 654
Establish territorial user rights for fisheries 654
Install physical barriers to prevent trawling 655
 Eliminate fisheries subsidies that encourage overfishing 655
Introduce catch shares 655
Limit the density of traps 655
Limit the number of fishing days 656
Limit the number of fishing vessels 656
Limit the number of traps per fishing vessels 656
Purchase fishing permits and/or vessels from fishers 656
Set commercial catch quotas 656
Set commercial catch quotas and habitat credits systems 656
Set habitat credits systems  656
13.3.3 Reduce Unwanted catch, Discards and Impacts on seabed
communities 656
Fit one or more mesh escape panels/windows to trawl nets 658
Fit one or more soft, semi-rigid, or rigid grids or frames to trawl nets 659
Modify the design of dredges 659
Modify the position of traps 660
Use a larger codend mesh size on trawl nets 661
Use a midwater/semi-pelagic trawl instead of bottom/demersal trawl 661
Fit a funnel (such as a sievenet) or other escape devices on shrimp/prawn
trawl nets 662
Fit one or more mesh escape panels/windows and one or more soft, rigid
or semi-rigid grids or frames to trawl nets 662
Fit one or more mesh escape panels/windows to trawl nets and use a
square mesh instead of a diamond mesh codend 663
Fit one or more soft, semi-rigid, or rigid grids or frames and increase the
mesh size of pots and traps 663
Fit one or more soft, semi-rigid, or rigid grids or frames on pots and traps 664
Fit one or more soft, semi-rigid, or rigid grids or frames to trawl nets and
use square mesh instead of a diamond mesh at the codend 664
Hand harvest instead of using a dredge 665
Increase the mesh size of pots and traps 665
Modify the design of traps 666
Modify the design/attachments of a shrimp/prawn W-trawl net 666
Reduce the number or modify the arrangement of tickler chains/chain
mats on trawl nets 667
Use a larger mesh size on trammel nets 667
Use a pulse trawl instead of a beam trawl 668
Use a smaller beam trawl 668
Use a square mesh instead of a diamond mesh codend on trawl nets 669
Use an otter trawl instead of a beam trawl 669
Use an otter trawl instead of a dredge 669
Use different bait species in traps 670
Use traps instead of fishing nets 670
Fit one or more mesh escape panels/windows on pots and traps 671
Limit the maximum weight and/or size of bobbins on the footrope 671
Modify harvest methods of macroalgae 671
Modify trawl doors to reduce sediment penetration 671
Outfit trawls with a raised footrope 671
 Release live unwanted catch first before handling commercial species 671
Set unwanted catch quotas 671
Use alternative means of getting mussel seeds rather than dredging from
natural mussel beds 671
Use hook and line fishing instead of other fishing methods 671
Use lower water pressure during hydraulic dredging 671
Use more than one net on otter trawls  671
13.4 Threat: Human intrusions and disturbances 672
13.4.1 Recreational Activities 672
Limit, cease or prohibit access for recreational purposes 672
Limit, cease or prohibit recreational diving 672
Limit, cease or prohibit recreational fishing and/or harvesting  672
13.5 Threat: Invasive and other problematic species, genes and diseases
 673
13.5.1 Aquaculture 673
Implement quarantine to avoid accidental introduction of disease, non-
native or problem species 674
Implement regular inspections to avoid accidental introduction of
disease or non-native or problem species 674
Import spat and/or eggs to aquaculture facilities rather than juveniles
and adults to reduce the risk of introducing hitchhiking species 674
Prevent the attachment of biofouling organisms/species in aquaculture 674
Reduce and/or eradicate aquaculture escapees in the wild 674
Remove biofouling organisms/species in aquaculture 674
Source spat and juveniles from areas or hatcheries not infested with
diseases or non-native or problematic species 674
Use native species instead of non-native species in aquaculture systems 674
Use sterile individuals in aquaculture systems using non-native species  674
13.5.2 Shipping, transportation and anthropogenic structures 674
Clean anthropogenic platforms, structures or equipment 675
Clean the hull, anchor and chain of commercial and recreational vessels 675
Limit, cease or prohibit ballast water exchange in specific areas 675
Treat ballast water before exchange 675
Use antifouling coatings on the surfaces of vessels and anthropogenic
structures  675
13.5.3 Other 675
Remove or capture non-native, invasive or other problematic species 675
Limit, cease or prohibit the sale and/or transportation of commercial
non-native species 676
Use biocides or other chemicals to control non-native, invasive or other
problematic species 676
Use biological control to manage non-native, invasive or other
problematic species populations 676
Use of non-native, invasive or other problematic species from
populations established in the wild for recreational or commercial purposes  676
13.6 Threat: Pollution 677
13.6.1 General 677
Add chemicals or minerals to sediments to remove or neutralise pollutants 677
Establish pollution emergency plans 678
Transplant/translocate ‘bioremediating’ species  678
13.6.2 Domestic and urban wastewater 678
Limit, cease or prohibit the dumping of sewage sludge 678
Set or improve minimum sewage treatment standards 679
Limit the amount of storm wastewater overflow 680
Limit, cease or prohibit the dumping of untreated sewage  680
13.6.3 Industrial and military effluents 680
Remove or clean-up oil pollution following a spill 680
Set regulatory ban on marine burial of nuclear waste 681
Use double hulls to prevent oil spills  681
13.6.4 Aquaculture effluents 681
Cease or prohibit aquaculture activity 682
Leave a fallow period during fish/shellfish farming 682
Improve fish food and pellets to reduce aquaculture waste production 683
Locate aquaculture systems in areas with fast currents 683
Locate aquaculture systems in already impacted areas 683
Locate aquaculture systems in vegetated areas 683
Locate artificial reefs near aquaculture systems (and vice versa) to act as
biofilters 683
Moor aquaculture cages so they move in response to changing current
direction 683
Reduce aquaculture stocking densities 683
Reduce the amount of antibiotics used in aquaculture systems 683
Reduce the amount of pesticides used in aquaculture systems 683
Use other bioremediation methods in aquaculture 683
Use species from more than one level of a food web in aquaculture systems  683
13.6.5 Agricultural and forestry effluents 684
Create artificial wetlands to reduce the amount of pollutants reaching the sea684
Establish aquaculture to extract the nutrients from run-offs 684
Regulate the use, dosage and disposal of agrichemicals 684
Treat wastewater from intensive livestock holdings  684
13.6.6 Garbage and solid waste 684
Bury electricity cables to reduce electromagnetic fields 685
Install stormwater traps or grids 685
Limit, cease or prohibit discharge of solid waste overboard from vessels 685
Recover lost fishing gear 685
Remove litter from the marine environment 685
Use biodegradable panels in fishing pots  685
13.6.7 Excess energy 685
Limit, cease or prohibit industrial and urban lighting at night 685
Limit, cease or prohibit the discharge of cooling effluents from power
stations 685
 Limit, cease or prohibit the use of sonars 685
Reduce underwater noise (other than sonar)  685
13.6.8 Other pollution 686
Restrict the use of tributyltin or other toxic antifouling coatings 686
Remove and clean-up shoreline waste disposal sites 687
Limit, cease or prohibit the discharge of waste effluents overboard from
vessels 687
Use non-toxic antifouling coatings on surfaces  687
13.7 Threat: Climate change and severe weather 688
Create a Marine Protected Area or set levels of legal protection where
natural climate refugia occur to further promote the persistence and
recovery of species facing climate change 689
Limit, cease or prohibit the degradation and/or removal of carbon
sequestering species and/or habitats 689
Manage climate-driven range extensions of problematic species 689
Promote natural carbon sequestration species and/or habitats 689
Restore habitats and/or habitat-forming (biogenic) species following
extreme events 689
Transplant captive-bred or hatchery-reared individuals of habitat-
forming (biogenic) species that are resistant to climate change 689
Transplant/release climate change-resistant captive-bred or hatchery-
reared individuals to re-establish or boost native populations  689
13.8 Habitat protection 690
Designate a Marine Protected Area and introduce some fishing
restrictions (types unspecified) 691
Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit all types of fishing 692
Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit the harvesting of sea urchins696
Designate a Marine Protected Area with a zonation system of activity
restrictions 696
Designate a Marine Protected Area and install physical barriers to
prevent trawling 699
Designate a Marine Protected Area and only allow hook and line fishing 699
Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit all towed (mobile)
fishing gear 700
Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit aquaculture activity 701
Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit bottom trawling 701
Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit commercial fishing 702
Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit dredging 703
Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit the harvesting of conch 704
Establish community-based fisheries management 704
Designate a Marine Protected Area and limit the density of traps 705
Designate a Marine Protected Area and limit the number of fishing vessels 705
Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit static fishing gear 705
Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit the harvesting of scallops 705
Designate a Marine Protected Area and set a no-anchoring zone 705
Designate a Marine Protected Area without setting management
measures, usage restrictions, or enforcement 705
 Designate a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area (PSSA) to regulate impactful
maritime activities 705
Engage with stakeholders when designing Marine Protected Areas  705
13.9 Habitat restoration and creation 706
13.9.1 Natural habitat restoration 706
Restore biogenic habitats (other methods) - Restore oyster reefs 707
Translocate habitat-forming (biogenic) species - Translocate reef-forming
corals 709
Install a pump on or above the seabed in docks, ports, harbour, or other
coastal areas to increase oxygen concentration 710
Refill disused borrow pits 710
Restore biogenic habitats (other methods) - Restore mussel beds 711
Restore biogenic habitats (other methods) - Restore seagrass beds/meadows 711
Restore coastal lagoons 712
Translocate habitat-forming (biogenic) species - Translocate reef- or bed-
forming molluscs 713
Transplant captive-bred or hatchery-reared habitat-forming (biogenic)
species  714
13.9.2 Habitat enhancement 714
Provide artificial shelters 715
Landscape or artificially enhance the seabed (natural habitats) 715
Use green engineering techniques on artificial structures - Cover subsea
cables with artificial reefs 716
Use green engineering techniques on artificial structures - Cover subsea
cables with materials that encourage the accumulation of natural sediments 716
Use green engineering techniques on artificial structures - Modify rock
dump to make it more similar to natural substrate  716
13.9.3 Artificial habitat creation 717
Create artificial reefs 717
Create artificial reefs of different 3-D structure and material used 719
Locate artificial reefs near aquaculture systems to benefit from nutrient
run-offs 720
Repurpose obsolete offshore structures to act as artificial reefs 721
Place anthropogenic installations (e.g. windfarms) in an area such that
they create artificial habitat and reduce the level of fishing activity  721
13.9.4 Other habitat restoration and creation interventions 721
Offset habitat loss from human activity by restoring or creating habitats
elsewhere 722
Remove and relocate habitat-forming (biogenic) species before onset of
impactful activities 722
Pay monetary compensation for habitat damage remediation  723
13.10 Species management 724
Translocate species - Translocate molluscs 725
Transplant/release captive-bred or hatchery-reared species - Transplant/
release crustaceans 726
 Transplant/release captive-bred or hatchery-reared species - Transplant/
release molluscs 727
Cease or prohibit the harvesting of scallops 728
Tag species to prevent illegal fishing or harvesting 728
Translocate species - Translocate crustaceans 729
Translocate species - Translocate worms 729
Transplant/release captive-bred or hatchery-reared species in predator
exclusion cages 730
Cease or prohibit the harvest of conch 730
Cease or prohibit the harvest of sea urchins 730
Establish size limitations for the capture of recreational species 730
Provide artificial shelters following release 730
Remove and relocate invertebrate species before onset of impactful activities 730
Set recreational catch quotas  730
13.11 Education and awareness 731
Provide educational or other training programmes about the marine
environment to improve behaviours towards marine invertebrates 731
Organise educational marine wildlife tours to improve behaviours
towards marine invertebrates  732
 Introduction

This book has been created to help you make decisions about practical
conservation management by providing an assessment, from the available
scientific evidence, of what works and what does not work in conservation.
It also tells you if no evidence has been found about whether or not a
conservation intervention is effective. This is the 2020 edition of What Works
in Conservation, which was first published in 2015 and is updated annually.

Who is What Works in Conservation for?

This book is for people who have to make decisions about how best to support
or conserve biodiversity. These include land managers, conservationists in
the public or private sector, farmers, campaigners, advisors or consultants,
policymakers, researchers or people taking action to protect local wildlife.
What Works in Conservation and the associated synopses summarize scientific
evidence relevant to conservation objectives and the actions that could be
taken to achieve them. What Works in Conservation also provides an assessment
of the effectiveness of interventions based on available evidence.
We do not aim to make decisions for people, but to support decision-
making by providing what evidence there is (or is not) about the effects that
your planned actions could have. It is important that you read the full details
of the evidence, freely available online at www.conservationevidence.com,
before making any decisions about implementing an intervention.

The Conservation Evidence project

The Conservation Evidence project has four parts, all of which are available
from our website conservationevidence.com:
1. A
 n ever-expanding searchable database of over 6,600 summaries
of previously published scientific papers, reports, reviews or
systematic reviews that document the effects of interventions.

© W. Sutherland et al., CC BY 4.0 https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0191.14

What Works in Conservation 2019

2. Synopses of the evidence captured in part 1) relating to particular

species groups, habitats or conservation issues. Synopses bring
together the evidence for all possible interventions. Synopses
are also available to purchase in printed book form, or can be
downloaded for free as electronic material.
3. What Works in Conservation provides an assessment of the
effectiveness of interventions based on available evidence. It
contains both the key messages from the evidence for each
conservation intervention from the relevant synopses, and an
assessment of the effectiveness of each intervention by expert
panels.
4. An online, open access journal, the Conservation Evidence Journal
that publishes new pieces of research on the effects of conservation
management interventions. All our papers are written by, or in
conjunction with, those who carried out the conservation work
and include some monitoring of its effects.

Alongside this project, the Centre for Evidence-Based Conservation

(http://www.cebc.bangor.ac.uk) and the Collaboration for Environmental
Evidence (http://www.environmentalevidence.org) carry out and
compile systematic reviews of evidence on the effectiveness of particular
conservation interventions. We recommend carrying out a systematic
review, which is more comprehensive than our summaries of evidence,
when decisions have to be made with particularly important consequences.
Systematic reviews are included in the Conservation Evidence database.

Which conservation interventions are included?

Lists of interventions for each synopsis are developed and agreed in
partnership with an advisory board made up of international conservationists
and academics with expertise in the subject. We aim to include all actions
that have been carried out or advised for the conservation of the specific
group of species or habitat or for the specific conservation issue.
The lists of interventions are organized into categories based on the
International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) classifications
of direct threats and conservation actions (https://www.iucnredlist.org/
resources/classification-schemes). Interventions are primarily grouped
according to the relevant direct threats. However, some interventions

2
 Introduction

can be used in response to many different threats and so these have been
grouped according to conservation action.

How we review the literature

We gather evidence by searching relevant scientific journals from volume
one through to the most recent volume. Thirty general conservation journals
are regularly searched by Conservation Evidence. Specialist journals are also
searched for each synopsis (300 have been searched so far) as well as over
300 non-English journals. We also search reports, unpublished literature
and evidence provided by our advisory boards. Two of the synopses used
systematic mapping exercises undertaken by, or in partnership with, other
institutions. Systematic mapping uses a rigorous search protocol (involving
an array of specified search terms) to retrieve studies from several scientific
databases. Evidence published in languages other than English is included
when it is identified. Evidence from all around the world is included in
synopses. One exception is farmland conservation, which only covers
northern Europe (all European countries west of Russia, but not those south
of France, Switzerland, Austria, Hungary and Romania). Any apparent
bias towards evidence from some regions in a particular synopsis reflects
the current biases in published research papers available to Conservation
Evidence.
The criteria for inclusion of studies in the Conservation Evidence
database are as follows:
• A conservation intervention must have been carried out.
• The effects of the intervention must have been monitored
quantitatively.
These criteria exclude studies examining the effects of specific interventions
without actually doing them. For example, predictive modelling studies
and studies looking at species distributions in areas with long-standing
management histories (correlative studies) are excluded. Such studies can
suggest that an intervention could be effective, but do not provide direct
evidence of a causal relationship between the intervention and the observed
biodiversity pattern.
For each study we summarise the results that are relevant to each
intervention. Unless specifically stated, results reflect statistical tests
performed on the data within the papers.

 3
What Works in Conservation 2019

What does What Works in Conservation include?

What Works in Conservation includes only the key messages from each
synopsis, which provide a rapid overview of the evidence. These
messages are condensed from the summary text for each intervention
within each synopsis. For the full text and references see www.
conservationevidence.com
Panels of experts have assessed the collated evidence for each
intervention to determine effectiveness, certainty of the evidence and, in
most cases, whether there are negative side-effects (harms). Using these
assessments, interventions are categorized based on a combination of
effectiveness (the size of benefit or harm) and certainty (the strength of
the evidence). The following categories are used: Beneficial, Likely to be
beneficial, Trade-off between benefit and harms, Unknown effectiveness,
Unlikely to be beneficial, Likely to be ineffective or harmful (for more
details see below).

Expert assessment of the evidence

The average of several experts’ opinions has been shown to be a more
reliable and accurate assessment than the opinion of a single expert. We
therefore ask a panel of experts to use their judgement to assess whether
evidence within the synopsis indicates that an intervention is effective or
not. They are also asked to assess how certain they are of the effectiveness
given the quality of evidence available for that intervention (certainty of the
evidence). Negative side-effects described in the collated evidence are also
assessed (harms). They base their assessment solely on the evidence in the
synopsis. We use a modified Delphi method to quantify the effectiveness
and certainty of evidence of each intervention, based on the summarized
evidence. The Delphi method is a structured process that involves asking
a panel of experts to state their individual opinion on a subject by scoring
anonymously. They can then revise their own scores after seeing a
summary of scores and comments from the rest of the panel. Final scores
are then collated. Scores and comments are kept anonymous throughout
the process so that participants are not overly influenced by any single
member of the panel.
For each intervention, experts are asked to read the summarized
evidence in the synopsis and then score to indicate their assessment of the
following:

4
 Introduction

Effectiveness: 0 = no effect, 100% = always effective.

The score uses an assessment by independent experts of the effectiveness of
this action based on the summarized evidence (0% = not effective, 100% =
highly effective). This score is based on the direction and size of the effects
reported in each study. Actions with high scores typically have large,
desirable effects on the target species/habitat in each study. There is some
variation between actions, e.g. 100% effectiveness in adding underpasses
under roads for bat conservation will likely have different impacts to 100%
effectiveness in restoring marsh habitat. The effectiveness score does not
consider the quantity or quality of studies; a single, poorly designed study
could generate a high effectiveness score. The effectiveness score is combined
with the certainty and harms scores to determine the overall effectiveness
category (for more details see https://www.conservationevidence.com/
content/page/79)
Certainty of the evidence: 0 = no evidence, 100% = high quality evidence;
complete certainty. This is certainty of effectiveness of intervention, not of
harms.
An assessment by independent experts of the certainty of the evidence for
this action based on the summarized evidence (0% = no evidence, 100%
= high quality evidence). How certain can we be that the effectiveness
score applies to all targets of the intervention (e.g. all birds for an action
in the bird synopsis)? This score is based on the number, quality and
coverage (species, habitats, geographical locations) of studies. Actions with
high scores are supported by lots of well-designed studies with a broad
coverage relative to the scope of the intervention. However, the definition
of “lots” and “well-designed” will vary between interventions and
synopses depending on the breadth of the subject. The certainty score is
combined with the effectiveness and harms scores to determine the overall
effectiveness category.
Harms: 0 = none, 100% = major negative side-effects to the group of species/
habitat of concern.
An assessment by independent experts of the harms of this action to
the target group of species/habitat, based on the summarized evidence
(0% = none, 100% = major undesirable effects). Undesirable effects on other
groups of species/habitats are not considered in this score. The harms score
is combined with the effectiveness and certainty scores to determine the
overall effectiveness category.

 5
What Works in Conservation 2019

Categorization of interventions
After one or two rounds of initial scoring, interventions are categorized by
their effectiveness, as assessed by the expert panel. The median score from
all the experts’ assessments is calculated for the effectiveness, certainty and
harms for each intervention. Categorization is based on these median values
i.e. on a combination of the size of the benefit and harm and the strength
of the evidence. The table and figure overleaf show how interventions are
categorized using the median scores. There is an important distinction
between lack of benefit and lack of evidence of benefit.
Once interventions are categorized, experts are given the chance to
object if they believe an intervention has been categorized incorrectly.
Interventions that receive a specified number (depending on the size of the
panel) of strong objections from experts are re-scored by the expert panel
and re-categorized accordingly. Experts did not see the categories for the
farmland synopsis or for the ‘Reduce predation by other species’ section of
the bird synopsis and so those categories are based on the second round of
scoring.

How to use What Works in Conservation

Please remember that the categories provided in this book are meant as a
guide and a starting point in assessing the effectiveness of conservation
interventions. The assessments are based on the available evidence for the
target group of species for each intervention and may therefore refer to
different species or habitat to the one(s) you are considering. Before making
any decisions about implementing interventions it is vital that you read the
more detailed accounts of the evidence, in order to assess their relevance to
your species or system. Full details of the evidence are available at www.
conservationevidence.com.
There may also be significant negative side-effects on the target groups
or other species or communities that have not been identified in our
assessment. A lack of evidence means that we have been unable to assess
whether or not an intervention is effective or has any harmful impacts.

6
 Introduction

Table of categories of effectiveness

Category Description General criteria Thresholds

Beneficial Effectiveness has been High median benefit Effectiveness: >60%
demonstrated by clear score Certainty: >60%
evidence. Expectation High median certainty Harm: <20%
of harms is small score
compared with the Low median harm
benefits score
Likely to be Effectiveness is less High benefit score Effectiveness: >60%
beneficial well established than Lower certainty score Certainty: 40–60%
for those listed under Low harm score Harm: <20%
‘beneficial’ OR OR
OR Medium benefit score Effectiveness: 40–60%
There is clear High certainty score Certainty: ≥40%
evidence of medium Low harm score Harm: <20%
effectiveness
Trade-off Interventions for Medium benefit and Effectiveness: ≥40%
between which practitioners medium harm scores Certainty: ≥40%
benefit and must weigh up the OR Harm: ≥20%
harms beneficial and harmful High benefit and high
effects according harm scores
to individual High certainty score
circumstances and
priorities
Unknown Currently insufficient Low certainty score Effectiveness: Any
effectiveness data, or data of Certainty: <40%
(limited inadequate quality Harm: Any
evidence)
Unlikely to Lack of effectiveness Low benefit score Effectiveness: <40%
be beneficial is less well established Medium certainty Certainty: 40–60%
than for those listed score and/or some Harm: <20%
under ‘likely to be variation between
ineffective or harmful’ experts
Likely to be Ineffectiveness or Low benefit score Effectiveness: <40%
ineffective or harmfulness has been High certainty score Certainty: >60%
harmful demonstrated by clear (regardless of harms) Harm: Any
evidence OR OR
Low benefit score Effectiveness: <40%
High harm score Certainty: ≥ 40%
(regardless of Harm: ≥20%
certainty of
effectiveness)

 7
Categories of effectiveness based on a combination of effectiveness (the size
of the benefit and harm) and certainty (the strength of the evidence). The
top graph refers to interventions with harms <20% and the bottom graph to
interventions with harms ≥20%.
1. AMPHIBIAN CONSERVATION
Rebecca K. Smith, Helen Meredith & William J. Sutherland

Expert assessors
Ariadne Angulo, Co-Chair of the Amphibian Specialist Group, Peru
Robert Brodman, Saint Joseph’s College, Indiana, USA
Andrew Cunningham, Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London, UK
Jeff Dawson, Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust, UK
Rob Gandola, University of Southampton, UK
Jaime García Moreno, International Union for Conservation of Nature, The Netherlands
Trent Garner, Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London, UK
Richard Griffiths, Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology, UK
Sergei Kuzmin, Russian Academy of Sciences
Michael Lanoo, Indiana University, USA
Michael Lau, WWF-Hong Kong
James Lewis, Amphibian Survival Alliance/Global Wildlife Conservation, USA
An Martel, Ghent University, Belgium
LeGrand Nono Gonwouo, Cameroon Herpetology-Conservation Biology Foundation
Deanna Olson, US Forest Service
Timo Paasikunnas, Curator of Conservation at Helsinki Zoo, Finland
Frank Pasmans, Ghent University, Belgium
Silviu Petrovan, Froglife, UK
Carlos Martínez Rivera, Philadelphia Zoo, USA
Gonçalo Rosa, Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London, UK
David Sewell, Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology, UK
Rebecca K. Smith, University of Cambridge, UK
Ben Tapley, Herpetology Department, Zoological Society of London, UK
Jeanne Tarrant, Endangered Wildlife Trust, South Africa
Karthikeyan Vasudevan, Wildlife Institute of India
Victor Wasonga, National Museums of Kenya
Ché Weldon, North-West University, South Africa
Sally Wren, Amphibian Specialist Group Programme Officer, New Zealand

Scope of assessment: for native wild amphibian species across the world.
Assessed: 2014.
Effectiveness measure is the median % score for effectiveness.
Certainty measure is the median % certainty of evidence for effectiveness,
determined by the quantity and quality of the evidence in the synopsis.
Harm measure is the median % score for negative side-effects to the group
of species of concern.

© W. Sutherland et al., CC BY 4.0 https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0191.01

This book is meant as a guide to the evidence available for different
conservation interventions and as a starting point in assessing their
effectiveness. The assessments are based on the available evidence for the
target group of species for each intervention. The assessment may therefore
refer to different species or habitat to the one(s) you are considering.
Before making any decisions about implementing interventions it is vital
that you read the more detailed accounts of the evidence in order to assess
their relevance for your study species or system.

Full details of the evidence are available at

www.conservationevidence.com

There may also be significant negative side-effects on the target groups

or other species or communities that have not been identified in this
assessment.

A lack of evidence means that we have been unable to assess whether or

not an intervention is effective or has any harmful impacts.

10
 1.1 Threat: Residential and
commercial development

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of

the effectiveness of interventions for residential and commercial
development?
Unknown • Legal protection of species
effectiveness
(limited evidence)
No evidence found • Protect brownfield or ex-industrial sites
(no assessment) • Restrict herbicide, fungicide and pesticide use
on and around ponds on golf courses

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Legal protection of species

Three reviews, including one systematic review, in the Netherlands and UK
found that legal protection of amphibians was not effective at protecting
populations during development. Two reviews found that the number of
great crested newt mitigation licences issued in England and Wales increased
over 10 years. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness
10%; certainty 35%; harms 7%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/779

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 11

Amphibian Conservation

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Protect brownfield or ex-industrial sites
• Restrict herbicide, fungicide and pesticide use on and around ponds
on golf courses

12
 1.2 Threat: Agriculture

1.2.1 Engage farmers and other volunteers

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of

the effectiveness of interventions for engaging farmers and other
volunteers?
Likely to be • Engage landowners and other volunteers to
beneficial manage land for amphibians
• Pay farmers to cover the costs of conservation
measures

Likely to be beneficial

 ngage landowners and other volunteers to manage land

E
for amphibians
Three studies, including one replicated and one controlled study, in Estonia,
Mexico and Taiwan found that engaging landowners and other volunteers in
habitat management increased amphibian populations and axolotl weight.
Six studies in Estonia, the USA and UK found that up to 41,000 volunteers
were engaged in habitat restoration programmes for amphibians and restored
up to 1,023 ponds or 11,500 km2 of habitat. Assessment: likely to be beneficial
(effectiveness 70%; certainty 55%; harms 5%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/777

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 13

Amphibian Conservation

Pay farmers to cover the costs of conservation measures

Four of five studies, including two replicated studies, in Denmark, Sweden
and Taiwan found that payments to farmers increased amphibian populations,
numbers of species or breeding habitat. One found that amphibian habitat
was not maintained. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 70%; certainty
53%; harms 10%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/818

1.2.2 Terrestrial habitat management

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for terrestrial habitat management in
agricultural systems?
Unknown • Manage cutting regime
effectiveness • Manage grazing regime
(limited evidence)
No evidence found • Maintain or restore hedges
(no assessment) • Plant new hedges
• Reduced tillage

Manage silviculture practices in plantations

Studies investigating the effects of silviculture practices are discussed in
‘Threat: Biological resource use — Logging and wood harvesting’.

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Manage cutting regime

One before-and-after study in Australia found that restoration that included
reduced mowing increased numbers of frog species. Assessment for ‘Change
mowing regime’ from ‘Habitat restoration and creation’ section: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 50%; certainty 30%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/788

14
 1.2 Threat: Agriculture

Manage grazing regime

Two studies, including one replicated, controlled study, in the UK and USA
found that grazed plots had lower numbers of toads than ungrazed plots
and that grazing, along with burning, decreased numbers of amphibian
species. Five studies, including four replicated studies, in Denmark, Estonia
and the UK found that habitat management that included reintroduction
of grazing maintained or increased toad populations. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 45%; certainty 39%; harms 10%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/780

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Maintain or restore hedges
• Plant new hedges
• Reduced tillage

1.2.3 Aquatic habitat management

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of

the effectiveness of interventions for aquatic habitat management in
agricultural systems?
Likely to be • Manage ditches
beneficial
Likely to be • Exclude domestic animals or wild hogs from
ineffective or ponds by fencing
harmful

Likely to be beneficial

Manage ditches
One controlled, before-and-after study in the UK found that managing
ditches increased toad numbers. One replicated, site comparison study in

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 15

Amphibian Conservation

the Netherlands found that numbers of amphibians and species were higher
in ditches managed under agri-environment schemes compared to those
managed conventionally. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 71%;
certainty 60%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/749

Likely to be ineffective or harmful

 xclude domestic animals or wild hogs from ponds by

E
fencing
Four replicated studies, including one randomized, controlled, before-
and-after study, in the USA found that excluding livestock from streams
or ponds did not increase overall numbers of amphibians, species, eggs or
larval survival, but did increase larval and metamorph abundance. One
before-and-after study in the UK found that pond restoration that included
livestock exclusion increased pond use by breeding toads. Assessment: likely
to be ineffective or harmful (effectiveness 31%; certainty 50%; harms 25%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/746

16
 1.3 Threat: Energy
production and mining

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for energy production and mining?
Unknown • Artificially mist habitat to keep it damp
effectiveness
(limited evidence)

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Artificially mist habitat to keep it damp

One before-and-after study in Tanzania found that installing a sprinkler system
to mitigate against a reduction of river flow did not maintain a population
of Kihansi spray toads. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence
(effectiveness 24%; certainty 20%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/755

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 17

 1.4 Threat: Transportation
and service corridors

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for transportation and service corridors?
Likely to be • Close roads during seasonal amphibian migration
beneficial • Modify gully pots and kerbs
Trade-off between • Install barrier fencing along roads
benefit and harms • Install culverts or tunnels as road crossings
Unknown • Use signage to warn motorists
effectiveness
(limited evidence)
Unlikely to be • Use humans to assist migrating amphibians
beneficial across roads

Likely to be beneficial

Close roads during seasonal amphibian migration

Two studies, including one replicated study, in Germany found that road
closure sites protected large numbers of amphibians from mortality during
breeding migrations. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 85%;
certainty 50%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/842

18
 1.4 Threat: Transportation and service corridors

Modify gully pots and kerbs

One before-and-after study in the UK found that moving gully pots 10 cm
away from the kerb decreased the number of great crested newts that fell
in by 80%. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 80%; certainty 40%;
harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/782

Trade-off between benefit and harms

Install barrier fencing along roads

Seven of eight studies, including one replicated and two controlled studies,
in Germany, Canada and the USA found that barrier fencing with culverts
decreased amphibian road deaths, in three cases depending on fence design.
One study found that few amphibians were diverted by barriers. Assessment:
trade-offs between benefits and harms (effectiveness 65%; certainty 68%; harms 23%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/756

Install culverts or tunnels as road crossings

Thirty-two studies investigated the effectiveness of installing culverts or
tunnels as road crossings for amphibians. Six of seven studies, including
three replicated studies, in Canada, Europe and the USA found that installing
culverts or tunnels decreased amphibian road deaths. One found no effect on
road deaths. Fifteen of 24 studies, including one review, in Australia, Canada,
Europe and the USA found that tunnels were used by amphibians. Four
found mixed effects depending on species, site or culvert type. Five found
that culverts were not used or were used by less than 10% of amphibians.
Six studies, including one replicated, controlled study, in Canada, Europe
and the USA investigated the use of culverts with flowing water. Two found
that they were used by amphibians. Three found that they were rarely or not
used. Certain culvert designs were found not to be suitable for amphibians.
Assessment: trade-offs between benefits and harms (effectiveness 60%; certainty
75%; harms 25%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/884

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 19

Amphibian Conservation

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Use signage to warn motorists

One study in the UK found that despite warning signs and human assistance
across roads, some toads were still killed on roads. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 10%; certainty 10%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/841

Unlikely to be beneficial

Use humans to assist migrating amphibians across roads

Three studies, including one replicated study, in Italy and the UK found
that despite assisting toads across roads during breeding migrations, toads
were still killed on roads and 64–70% of populations declined. Five studies
in Germany, Italy and the UK found that large numbers of amphibians were
moved across roads by up to 400 patrols. Assessment: unlikely to be beneficial
(effectiveness 35%; certainty 40%; harms 3%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/784

20
 1.5 Threat: Biological resource use

1.5.1 Hunting and collecting terrestrial animals

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for hunting and collecting terrestrial
animals?
Likely to be • Reduce impact of amphibian trade
beneficial
Unknown • Use legislative regulation to protect wild
effectiveness populations
(limited evidence)
No evidence found • Commercially breed amphibians for the pet trade
(no assessment) • Use amphibians sustainably

Likely to be beneficial

Reduce impact of amphibian trade

One review found that reducing trade through legislation allowed frog
populations to recover from over-exploitation. Assessment: likely to be beneficial
(effectiveness 76%; certainty 40%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/824

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 21

Amphibian Conservation

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Use legislative regulation to protect wild populations

One review found that legislation to reduce trade resulted in the recovery of
frog populations. One study in South Africa found that the number of permits
issued for scientific and educational use of amphibians increased from 1987
to 1990. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 60%;
certainty 30%; harms 5%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/785

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Commercially breed amphibians for the pet trade
• Use amphibians sustainably

1.5.2 Logging and wood harvesting

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for logging and wood harvest?
Likely to be • Retain riparian buffer strips during timber
beneficial harvest
• Use shelterwood harvesting instead of
clearcutting
Trade-off between • Leave coarse woody debris in forests
benefit and harms
Unknown • Use patch retention harvesting instead of
effectiveness clearcutting
(limited evidence)
Unlikely to be • Leave standing deadwood/snags in forests
beneficial • Use leave-tree harvesting instead of clearcutting
Likely to be • Harvest groups of trees instead of clearcutting
ineffective or • Thin trees within forests
harmful

22
 1.5 Threat: Biological resource use

Likely to be beneficial

Retain riparian buffer strips during timber harvest

Six replicated and/or controlled studies in Canada and the USA compared
amphibian numbers following clearcutting with or without riparian buffer
strips. Five found mixed effects and one found that abundance was higher with
riparian buffers. Two of four replicated studies, including one randomized,
controlled, before-and-after study, in Canada and the USA found that numbers
of species and abundance were greater in wider buffer strips. Two found
no effect of buffer width. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 50%;
certainty 61%; harms 10%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/747

Use shelterwood harvesting instead of clearcutting

Three studies, including two randomized, replicated, controlled, before-and-
after studies, in the USA found that compared to clearcutting, shelterwood
harvesting resulted in higher or similar salamander abundance. One meta-
analysis of studies in North America found that partial harvest, which
included shelterwood harvesting, resulted in smaller reductions in salamander
populations than clearcutting. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness
40%; certainty 57%; harms 10%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/851

Trade-off between benefit and harms

Leave coarse woody debris in forests

Two replicated, controlled studies in the USA found that abundance was
similar in clearcuts with woody debris retained or removed for eight of nine
amphibian species, but that the overall response of amphibians was more
negative where woody debris was retained. Two replicated, controlled studies
in the USA and Indonesia found that the removal of coarse woody debris
from standing forest did not affect amphibian diversity or overall amphibian
abundance, but did reduce species richness. One replicated, controlled study
in the USA found that migrating amphibians used clearcuts where woody
debris was retained more than where it was removed. One replicated, site
comparison study in the USA found that within clearcut forest, survival of

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 23

Amphibian Conservation

juvenile amphibians was significantly higher within piles of woody debris

than in open areas. Assessment: trade-offs between benefits and harms (effectiveness
40%; certainty 60%; harms 26%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/843

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Use patch retention harvesting instead of clearcutting

We found no evidence for the effect of retaining patches of trees rather than
clearcutting on amphibian populations. One replicated study in Canada found
that although released red-legged frogs did not move towards retained tree
patches, large patches were selected more and moved out of less than small
patches. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 20%;
certainty 25%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/847

Unlikely to be beneficial

Leave standing deadwood/snags in forests

One randomized, replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA
found that compared to total clearcutting, leaving dead and wildlife trees did
not result in higher abundances of salamanders. One randomized, replicated,
controlled study in the USA found that numbers of amphibians and species
were similar with removal or creation of dead trees within forest. Assessment:
unlikely to be beneficial (effectiveness 5%; certainty 58%; harms 2%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/845

Use leave-tree harvesting instead of clearcutting

Two studies, including one randomized, replicated, controlled, before-and-
after study, in the USA found that compared to clearcutting, leaving a low
density of trees during harvest did not result in higher salamander abundance.
Assessment: unlikely to be beneficial (effectiveness 10%; certainty 48%; harms 11%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/846

24
 1.5 Threat: Biological resource use

Likely to be ineffective or harmful

Harvest groups of trees instead of clearcutting

Three studies, including two randomized, replicated, controlled, before-
and-after studies, in the USA found that harvesting trees in small groups
resulted in similar amphibian abundance to clearcutting. One meta-analysis
and one randomized, replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in North
America and the USA found that harvesting, which included harvesting
groups of trees, resulted in smaller reductions in salamander populations
than clearcutting. Assessment: likely to be ineffective or harmful (effectiveness
33%; certainty 60%; harms 23%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/844

Thin trees within forests

Six studies, including five replicated and/or controlled studies, in the USA
compared amphibians in thinned to unharvested forest. Three found that
thinning had mixed effects and one found no effect on abundance. One
found that amphibian abundance increased following thinning but the body
condition of ensatina salamanders decreased. One found a negative overall
response of amphibians. Four studies, including two replicated, controlled
studies, in the USA compared amphibians in thinned to clearcut forest. Two
found that thinning had mixed effects on abundance and two found higher
amphibian abundance or a less negative overall response of amphibians
following thinning. One meta-analysis of studies in North America found that
partial harvest, which included thinning, decreased salamander populations,
but resulted in smaller reductions than clearcutting. Assessment: likely to be
ineffective or harmful (effectiveness 35%; certainty 60%; harms 40%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/852

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 25

 1.6 Threat: Human intrusions
and disturbance

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for human intrusions and disturbance?
No evidence found • Use signs and access restrictions to reduce
(no assessment) disturbance

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following intervention:

• Use signs and access restrictions to reduce disturbance

26
 1.7 Threat: Natural system
modifications

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for natural system modifications?
Beneficial • Regulate water levels
Unknown • Mechanically remove mid-storey or ground
effectiveness vegetation
(limited evidence)
Likely to be • Use herbicides to control mid-storey or ground
ineffective or vegetation
harmful • Use prescribed fire or modifications to burning
regime: forests
• Use prescribed fire or modifications to burning
regime: grassland

Beneficial

Regulate water levels

Three studies, including one replicated, site comparison study, in the UK and
USA found that maintaining pond water levels, in two cases with other habitat
management, increased or maintained amphibian populations or increased
breeding success. One replicated, controlled study in Brazil found that
keeping rice fields flooded after harvest did not change amphibian abundance
or numbers of species, but changed species composition. One replicated,
controlled study in the USA found that draining ponds increased abundance

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 27

Amphibian Conservation

and numbers of amphibian species. Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness 70%;

certainty 65%; harms 10%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/833

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Mechanically remove mid-storey or ground vegetation

One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the USA found that mechanical
understory reduction increased numbers of amphibian species, but not
amphibian abundance. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence
(effectiveness 40%; certainty 30%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/781

Likely to be ineffective or harmful

 se herbicides to control mid-storey or ground

U
vegetation
Three studies, including two randomized, replicated, controlled studies, in
the USA found that understory removal using herbicide had no effect or
negative effects on amphibian abundance. One replicated, site comparison
study in Canada found that following logging, abundance was similar or
lower in stands with herbicide treatment and planting compared to those left
to regenerate naturally. Assessment: likely to be ineffective or harmful (effectiveness
10%; certainty 50%; harms 50%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/778

 se prescribed fire or modifications to burning regime

U
(forests)
Eight of 15 studies, including three randomized, replicated, controlled studies,
in Australia, North America and the USA found no effect of prescribed forest
fires on amphibian abundance or numbers of species. Four found that fires
had mixed effects on abundance. Four found that abundance, numbers of
species or hatching success increased and one that abundance decreased.
Assessment: likely to be ineffective or harmful (effectiveness 30%; certainty 58%;
harms 40%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/877

28
 1.7 Threat: Natural system modifications

 se prescribed fire or modifications to burning regime

U
(grassland)
Two of three studies, including one replicated, before-and-after study, in
the USA and Argentina found that prescribed fires in grassland decreased
amphibian abundance or numbers of species. One found that spring, but
not autumn or winter burns in grassland, decreased abundance. Assessment:
likely to be ineffective or harmful (effectiveness 10%; certainty 40%; harms 70%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/862

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 29

 1.8 Threat: Invasive and other
problematic species

1.8.1 Reduce predation by other species

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for reducing predation by other species?
Beneficial • Remove or control fish by drying out ponds
Likely to be • Remove or control fish population by catching
beneficial • Remove or control invasive bullfrogs
• Remove or control invasive viperine snake
• Remove or control mammals
Trade-off between • Remove or control fish using Rotenone
benefit and harms
Unknown • Exclude fish with barriers
effectiveness
(limited evidence)
No evidence found • Encourage aquatic plant growth as refuge
(no assessment) against fish predation
• Remove or control non-native crayfish

Beneficial

Remove or control fish by drying out ponds

One before-and-after study in the USA found that draining ponds to eliminate
fish increased numbers of amphibian species. Four studies, including one
review, in Estonia, the UK and USA found that pond drying to eliminate fish,

30
 1.8 Threat: Invasive and other problematic species

along with other management activities, increased amphibian abundance,

numbers of species and breeding success. Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness
80%; certainty 66%; harms 3%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/826

Likely to be beneficial

Remove or control fish population by catching

Four of six studies, including two replicated, controlled studies, in Sweden,
the USA and UK found that removing fish by catching them increased
amphibian abundance, survival and recruitment. Two found no significant
effect on newt populations or toad breeding success. Assessment: likely to be
beneficial (effectiveness 50%; certainty 52%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/827

Remove or control invasive bullfrogs

Two studies, including one replicated, before-and-after study, in the USA
and Mexico found that removing American bullfrogs increased the size and
range of frog populations. One replicated, before-and-after study in the USA
found that following bullfrog removal, frogs were found out in the open more.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 79%; certainty 60%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/825

Remove or control invasive viperine snake

One before-and-after study in Mallorca found that numbers of Mallorcan
midwife toad larvae increased after intensive, but not less intensive, removal
of viperine snakes. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 50%; certainty
40%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/830

Remove or control mammals

One controlled study in New Zealand found that controlling rats had no
significant effect on numbers of Hochstetter’s frog. Two studies, one of
which was controlled, in New Zealand found that predator-proof enclosures
enabled or increased survival of frog species. Assessment: likely to be beneficial
(effectiveness 50%; certainty 40%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/839

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 31

Amphibian Conservation

Trade-off between benefit and harms

Remove or control fish using Rotenone

Three studies, including one replicated study, in Sweden, the UK and USA
found that eliminating fish using rotenone increased numbers of amphibians,
amphibian species and recruitment. One review in Australia, the UK and
USA found that fish control that included using rotenone increased breeding
success. Two replicated studies in Pakistan and the UK found that rotenone
use resulted in frog deaths and negative effects on newts. Assessment: trade-
offs between benefits and harms (effectiveness 65%; certainty 60%; harms 52%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/828

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Exclude fish with barriers

One controlled study in Mexico found that excluding fish using a barrier
increased weight gain of axolotls. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited
evidence (effectiveness 30%; certainty 20%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/829

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Encourage aquatic plant growth as refuge against fish predation
• Remove or control non-native crayfish.

1.8.2 Reduce competition with other species

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for reducing competition with other
species?
Unknown • Reduce competition from native amphibians
effectiveness • Remove or control invasive Cuban tree frogs
(limited evidence)
No evidence found • Remove or control invasive cane toads
(no assessment)

32
 1.8 Threat: Invasive and other problematic species

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Reduce competition from native amphibians

One replicated, site comparison study in the UK found that common toad
control did not increase natterjack toad populations. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 10%; certainty 23%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/821

Remove or control invasive Cuban tree frogs

One before-and-after study in the USA found that removal of invasive
Cuban tree frogs increased numbers of native frogs. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 65%; certainty 30%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/822

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Remove or control invasive cane toads.

1.8.3 Reduce adverse habitat alteration by other

species

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for reducing adverse habitat alteration
by other species?
Likely to be • Control invasive plants
beneficial
No evidence found • Prevent heavy usage/exclude wildfowl from
(no assessment) aquatic habitat

Likely to be beneficial

Control invasive plants

One before-and-after study in the UK found that habitat and species
management that included controlling swamp stonecrop, increased a

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 33

Amphibian Conservation

population of natterjack toads. One replicated, controlled study in the USA

found that more Oregon spotted frogs laid eggs in areas where invasive reed
canarygrass was mown. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 60%;
certainty 47%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/823

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following intervention:

• Prevent heavy usage/exclude wildfowl from aquatic habitat.

1.8.4 Reduce parasitism and disease – chytridiomycosis

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for reducing chytridiomycosis?
Likely to be • Use temperature treatment to reduce infection
beneficial
Trade-off between • Use antifungal treatment to reduce infection
benefit and harms
Unknown • Add salt to ponds
effectiveness • Immunize amphibians against infection
(limited evidence)
• Remove the chytrid fungus from ponds
• Sterilize equipment when moving between
amphibian sites
• Treating amphibians in the wild or pre-release
• Use gloves to handle amphibians
Unlikely to be • Use antibacterial treatment to reduce infection
beneficial • Use antifungal skin bacteria or peptides to
reduce infection
No evidence found • Use zooplankton to remove zoospores
(no assessment)

34
 1.8 Threat: Invasive and other problematic species

Likely to be beneficial

Use temperature treatment to reduce infection

Four of five studies, including four replicated, controlled studies, in Australia,
Switzerland and the USA found that increasing enclosure or water temperature
to 30–37°C for over 16 hours cured amphibians of chytridiomycosis. One
found that treatment did not cure frogs. Assessment: likely to be beneficial
(effectiveness 60%; certainty 70%; harms 10%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/770

Trade-off between benefit and harms

Use antifungal treatment to reduce infection

Twelve of 16 studies, including four randomized, replicated, controlled studies,
in Europe, Australia, Tasmania, Japan and the USA found that antifungal
treatment cured or increased survival of amphibians with chytridiomycosis.
Four studies found that treatments did not cure chytridiomycosis, but
did reduce infection levels or had mixed results. Six of the eight studies
testing treatment with itraconazole found that it was effective at curing
chytridiomycosis. One found that it reduced infection levels and one found
mixed effects. Six studies found that specific fungicides caused death or other
negative side effects in amphibians. Assessment: trade-offs between benefits and
harms (effectiveness 71%; certainty 70%; harms 50%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/882

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Add salt to ponds

One study in Australia found that following addition of salt to a pond
containing the chytrid fungus, a population of green and golden bell frogs
remained free of chytridiomycosis for over six months. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 41%; certainty 25%; harms 50%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/762

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 35

Amphibian Conservation

Immunize amphibians against infection

One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the USA found that vaccinating
mountain yellow-legged frogs with formalin-killed chytrid fungus did not
significantly reduce chytridiomycosis infection rate or mortality. Assessment:
unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 0%; certainty 25%; harms
0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/765

Remove the chytrid fungus from ponds

One before-and-after study in Mallorca found that drying out a pond and
treating resident midwife toads with fungicide reduced levels of infection but
did not eradicate chytridiomycosis. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited
evidence (effectiveness 25%; certainty 25%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/766

 terilize equipment when moving between amphibian

S
sites
We found no evidence for the effects of sterilizing equipment when moving
between amphibian sites on the spread of disease between amphibian
populations or individuals. Two randomized, replicated, controlled study
in Switzerland and Sweden found that Virkon S disinfectant did not affect
survival, mass or behaviour of eggs, tadpoles or hatchlings. However, one
of the studies found that bleach significantly reduced tadpole survival.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 10%; certainty
30%; harms 40%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/768

Treating amphibians in the wild or pre-release

One before-and-after study in Mallorca found that treating wild toads
with fungicide and drying out the pond reduced infection levels but did
not eradicate chytridiomycosis. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited
evidence (effectiveness 27%; certainty 30%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/767

Use gloves to handle amphibians

We found no evidence for the effects of using gloves on the spread of disease
between amphibian populations or individuals. A review for Canada and

36
 1.8 Threat: Invasive and other problematic species

the USA found that there were no adverse effects of handling 22 amphibian
species using disposable gloves. However, three replicated studies in
Australia and Austria found that deaths of tadpoles were caused by latex,
vinyl and nitrile gloves for 60–100% of species tested. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 9%; certainty 35%; harms 65%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/769

Unlikely to be beneficial

Use antibacterial treatment to reduce infection

Two studies, including one randomized, replicated, controlled study, in New
Zealand and Australia found that treatment with chloramphenicol antibiotic,
with other interventions in some cases, cured frogs of chytridiomycosis.
One replicated, controlled study found that treatment with trimethoprim-
sulfadiazine increased survival time but did not cure infected frogs. Assessment:
unlikely to be beneficial (effectiveness 38%; certainty 45%; harms 10%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/763

 se antifungal skin bacteria or peptides to reduce

U
infection
Three of four randomized, replicated, controlled studies in the USA found that
introducing antifungal bacteria to the skin of chytrid infected amphibians did
not reduce infection rate or deaths. One found that it prevented infection and
death. One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the USA found that
adding antifungal skin bacteria to soil significantly reduced chytridiomycosis
infection rate in salamanders. One randomized, replicated, controlled study
in Switzerland found that treatment with antimicrobial skin peptides before
or after infection with chytridiomycosis did not increase toad survival.
Assessment: unlikely to be beneficial (effectiveness 29%; certainty 50%; harms 10%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/764

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following intervention:

• Use zooplankton to remove zoospores

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 37

Amphibian Conservation

1.8.5 Reduce parasitism and disease – ranaviruses

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for reducing ranaviruses?
No evidence found • Sterilize equipment to prevent ranaviruses
(no assessment)

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following intervention:

• Sterilize equipment to prevent ranaviruses.

38
 1.9 Threat: Pollution

1.9.1 Agricultural pollution

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for agricultural pollution?
Unknown • Create walls or barriers to exclude pollutants
effectiveness • Plant riparian buffer strips
(limited evidence)
• Reduce pesticide, herbicide or fertilizer use
No evidence found • Prevent pollution from agricultural lands or
(no assessment) sewage treatment facilities entering watercourses

Unknown effectiveness (limited 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.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 35%; certainty
29%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/771

Plant riparian buffer strips

One replicated, controlled study in the USA found that planting buffer
strips along streams did not increase amphibian abundance or numbers of
species. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 0%;
certainty 30%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/819

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 39

Amphibian Conservation

Reduce pesticide, herbicide or fertilizer use

One study in Taiwan found that halting pesticide use, along with habitat
management, increased a population of frogs. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 71%; certainty 26%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/832

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following intervention:

• Prevent pollution from agricultural lands or sewage treatment
facilities entering watercourses

1.9.2 Industrial pollution

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for industrial pollution?
Trade-off between • Add limestone to water bodies to reduce
benefit and harms acidification
No evidence found • Augment ponds with ground water to reduce
(no assessment) acidification

Trade-off between benefit and harms

A
 dd limestone to water bodies to reduce acidification
Five before-and-after studies, including one controlled, replicated study, in
the Netherlands and UK found that adding limestone to ponds resulted in
establishment of one of three translocated amphibian populations, a temporary
increase in breeding and metamorphosis by natterjack toads and increased
egg and larval survival of frogs. One replicated, site comparison study in
the UK found that habitat management that included adding limestone to
ponds increased natterjack toad populations. However, two before-and-
after studies, including one controlled study, in the UK found that adding
limestone to ponds resulted in increased numbers of abnormal eggs, high

40
 1.9 Threat: Pollution

tadpole mortality and pond abandonment. Assessment: trade-offs between

benefits and harms (effectiveness 47%; certainty 50%; harms 50%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/748

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following intervention:

• Augment ponds with ground water to reduce acidification.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 41

 1.10 Threat: Climate change
and severe weather

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for climate change and severe weather?
Beneficial • Deepen ponds to prevent desiccation (deepen,
de-silt or re-profile)
Unknown • Use irrigation systems for amphibian sites
effectiveness (artificially mist habitat)
(limited evidence)
No evidence found • Artificially shade ponds to prevent desiccation
(no assessment) • Protect habitat along elevational gradients
• Provide shelter habitat

Create microclimate and microhabitat refuges

Studies investigating the effects of creating refuges are discussed in ‘Habitat
restoration and creation’ and ‘Threat: Biological resource use — Leave coarse
woody debris in forests’.

Maintain ephemeral ponds

Studies investigating the effects of regulating water levels and deepening
ponds are discussed in ‘Threat: Natural system modifications — Regulate
water levels’ and ‘Habitat restoration and creation — Deepen, de-silt or re-
profile ponds’.

42
 1.10 Threat: Climate change and severe weather

Beneficial

Deepen ponds to prevent desiccation

Four studies, including one replicated, controlled study, in France, Denmark
and the UK found that pond deepening and enlarging or re-profiling resulted
in establishment or increased populations of amphibians. Four before-and-
after studies in Denmark and the UK found that pond deepening, along
with other interventions, maintained newt or increased toad populations.
Assessment for ‘Deepen, de-silt or re-profie ponds’ from ‘Habitat restoration and
creation’ section: beneficial (effectiveness 71%; certainty 65%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/806

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Use irrigation systems for amphibian sites

One before-and-after study in Tanzania found that installing a sprinkler system
to mitigate against a reduction of river flow did not maintain a population of
Kihansi spray toads. Assessment for ‘Artificially mist habitat to keep it damp’ from
‘Threat: Energy production and mining’ section: unknown effectiveness — limited
evidence (effectiveness 24%; certainty 20%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/804

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Artificially shade ponds to prevent desiccation
• Protect habitat along elevational gradients
• Provide shelter habitat.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 43

 1.11 Habitat protection

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for habitat protection?
Trade-off between • Retain buffer zones around core habitat
benefit and harms
Unknown • Protect habitats for amphibians
effectiveness • Retain connectivity between habitat patches
(limited evidence)

Trade-off between benefit and harms

Retain buffer zones around core habitat

Two studies, including one replicated, controlled study, in Australia and the
USA found that retaining unmown buffers around ponds increased numbers
of frog species, but had mixed effects on tadpole mass and survival. One
replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that retaining buffers
along ridge tops within harvested forest increased salamander abundance,
body condition and genetic diversity. However, one replicated study in the
USA found that 30 m buffer zones around wetlands were not sufficient to
protect marbled salamanders. Assessment: trade-offs between benefits and harms
(effectiveness 50%; certainty 50%; harms 25%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/850

44
 1.11 Habitat protection

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Protect habitats for amphibians

One replicated, site comparison study in the UK found that statutory level
habitat protection helped protect natterjack toad populations. One before-
and-after study in the UK found that protecting a pond during development
had mixed effects on populations of amphibians. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 51%; certainty 31%; harms 9%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/820

Retain connectivity between habitat patches

One before-and-after study in Australia found that retaining native vegetation
corridors maintained populations of frogs over 20 years. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 60%; certainty 31%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/853

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 45

 1.12 Habitat restoration and
creation

1.12.1 Terrestrial habitat

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for terrestrial habitat restoration and
creation?
Beneficial • Replant vegetation
Likely to be • Clear vegetation
beneficial • Create artificial hibernacula or aestivation sites
• Create refuges
• Restore habitat connectivity
Unknown • Change mowing regime
effectiveness
(limited evidence)
No evidence found • Create habitat connectivity
(no assessment)

Beneficial

Replant vegetation
Four studies, including one replicated study, in Australia, Spain and the USA
found that amphibians colonized replanted forest, reseeded grassland and
seeded and transplanted upland habitat. Three of four studies, including
two replicated studies, in Australia, Canada, Spain and the USA found

46
 1.12 Habitat restoration and creation

that areas planted with trees or grass had similar amphibian abundance
or community composition to natural sites and one found similar or lower
abundance compared to naturally regenerated forest. One found that
wetlands within reseeded grasslands were used less than those in natural
grasslands. One before-and-after study in Australia found that numbers of
frog species increased following restoration that included planting shrubs
and trees. Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness 70%; certainty 63%; harms 3%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/849

Likely to be beneficial

Clear vegetation
Seven studies, including four replicated studies, in Australia, Estonia and the
UK found that vegetation clearance, along with other habitat management
and in some cases release of amphibians, increased or maintained amphibian
populations or increased numbers of frog species. However, great crested newt
populations were only maintained for six years, but not in the longer term.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 60%; certainty 54%; harms 10%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/761

Create artificial hibernacula or aestivation sites

Two replicated studies in the UK found that artificial hibernacula were used
by two of three amphibian species and along with other terrestrial habitat
management maintained populations of great crested newts. Assessment:
likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 50%; certainty 44%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/759

Create refuges
Two replicated, controlled studies, one of which was randomized, in the USA
and Indonesia found that adding coarse woody debris to forest floors had
no effect on the number of amphibian species or overall abundance, but had
mixed effects on abundance of individual species. One before-and-after study
in Australia found that restoration that included reintroducing coarse woody
debris to the forest floor increased frog species. Three studies, including two
replicated studies, in New Zealand, the UK and USA found that artificial
refugia were used by amphibians and, along with other interventions,

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 47

Amphibian Conservation

maintained newt populations. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness

45%; certainty 55%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/772

Restore habitat connectivity

One before-and-after study in Italy found that restoring habitat connectivity
by raising a road on a viaduct significantly decreased amphibian deaths.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 75%; certainty 40%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/840

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Change mowing regime

One before-and-after study in Australia found that restoration that included
reduced mowing increased numbers of frog species. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 50%; certainty 30%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/783

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following intervention:

• Create habitat connectivity.

1.12.2 Aquatic habitat

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of

the effectiveness of interventions for aquatic habitat restoration and
creation?
Beneficial • Create ponds (amphibians in general)
• Create ponds: frogs
• Create ponds: natterjack toads
• Create ponds: salamanders (including newts)
• Create wetlands
• Deepen, de-silt or re-profile ponds
• Restore wetlands

48
 1.12 Habitat restoration and creation

Likely to be • Create ponds: great crested newts

beneficial • Create ponds: green toads
• Create ponds: toads
• Remove specific aquatic plants (invasive species)
• Restore ponds
Unknown • Remove tree canopy to reduce pond shading
effectiveness
(limited evidence)
No evidence found • Add nutrients to new ponds as larvae food
(no assessment) source
• Add specific plants to aquatic habitats
• Add woody debris to ponds
• Create refuge areas in aquatic habitats

Beneficial

Create ponds (amphibians in general)

Twenty-eight studies investigated the colonization of created ponds by
amphibians in general, all of which found that amphibians used all or some
of the created ponds. Five of nine studies in Australia, Canada, Spain, the UK
and USA found that numbers of species were similar or higher in created
compared to natural ponds. Nine studies in Europe and the USA found that
amphibians established stable populations, used or reproduced in created
ponds. Four found that species composition differed, and abundance,
juvenile productivity or size in created ponds depended on species. One
study found that numbers of species were similar or lower in created ponds.
Sixteen studies in Europe and the USA found that created ponds were used
or colonized by up to 15 naturally colonizing species, up to 10 species that
reproduced or by captive-bred amphibians. Five studies in Europe and the
USA found that pond creation, with restoration in three cases, maintained and
increased populations or increased species. Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness
80%; certainty 80%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/869

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 49

Amphibian Conservation

Create ponds (frogs)

Six of nine studies in Australia, Italy, Spain, the UK and USA found that
frogs established breeding populations or reproduced in created ponds. One
study in Denmark found that frogs colonized created ponds. One study in
the Netherlands found that pond creation, along with vegetation clearance,
increased frog populations. One study in the USA found that survival
increased with age of created ponds. Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness 75%;
certainty 70%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/865

Create ponds (natterjack toads)

Five studies in the UK and Denmark found that pond creation, along with
other interventions, maintained or increased populations at 75–100% of sites.
One study in the UK found that compared to natural ponds, created ponds
had lower tadpole mortality from desiccation, but higher mortality from
predation by invertebrates. Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness 75%; certainty
70%; harms 10%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/866

Create ponds (salamanders including newts)

Three studies in France, Germany and the USA found that alpine newts,
captive-bred smooth newts and translocated spotted salamanders established
stable breeding populations in 20–100% of created ponds. Three studies in
France, China and the USA found that alpine newts, Chinhai salamanders and
translocated spotted salamanders, but not tiger salamanders, reproduced in
created ponds. Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness 70%; certainty 65%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/867

Create wetlands
Fifteen studies, including one review and seven replicated studies, in Australia,
Kenya and the USA, investigated the effectiveness of creating wetlands for
amphibians. Six studies found that created wetlands had similar amphibian
abundance, numbers of species or communities as natural wetlands or in one
case adjacent forest. Two of those studies found that created wetlands had
fewer amphibians, amphibian species and different communities compared to
natural wetlands. One global review and two other studies combined created
and restored wetlands and found that amphibian abundance and numbers
of species were similar or higher compared to natural wetlands. Five of the

50
 1.12 Habitat restoration and creation

studies found that up to 15 amphibian species used created wetlands. One

study found that captive-bred frogs did not establish in a created wetland.
Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness 75%; certainty 70%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/880

Deepen, de-silt or re-profile ponds

Four studies, including one replicated, controlled study, in France, Denmark
and the UK found that pond deepening and enlarging or re-profiling resulted
in establishment or increased populations of amphibians. Four before-and-
after studies in Denmark and the UK found that pond deepening, along
with other interventions, maintained newt or increased toad populations.
Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness 71%; certainty 65%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/817

Restore wetlands
Seventeen studies, including one review and 11 replicated studies, in Canada,
Taiwan and the USA, investigated the effectiveness of wetland restoration for
amphibians. Seven of ten studies found that amphibian abundance, numbers
of species and species composition were similar in restored and natural
wetlands. Two found that abundance or numbers of species were lower and
species composition different to natural wetlands. One found mixed results.
One global review found that in 89% of cases, restored and created wetlands
had similar or higher amphibian abundance or numbers of species to natural
wetlands. Seven of nine studies found that wetland restoration increased
numbers of amphibian species, with breeding populations establishing in
some cases, and maintained or increased abundance of individual species.
Three found that amphibian abundance or numbers of species did not increase
with restoration. Three of the studies found that restored wetlands were
colonized by up to eight amphibian species. Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness
80%; certainty 73%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/879

Likely to be beneficial

Create ponds (great crested newts)

Three studies in Germany and the UK found that great crested newts
established breeding populations in created ponds. One systematic review
in the UK found that there was no conclusive evidence that mitigation,

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 51

Amphibian Conservation

which often included pond creation, resulted in self-sustaining populations.

Four studies in the UK found that great crested newts colonized up to 88%
of, or reproduced in 38% of created ponds. Assessment: likely to be beneficial
(effectiveness 60%; certainty 61%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/863

Create ponds (green toads)

Two studies in Denmark found that pond creation, along with other
interventions, significantly increased green toad populations. One study in
Sweden found that green toads used or reproduced in 41–59% of created ponds.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 73%; certainty 59%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/864

Create ponds (toads)

Five studies in Germany, Switzerland, the UK and USA found that toads
established breeding populations or reproduced in 16–100% of created ponds.
Two studies in Denmark and Switzerland found that wild but not captive-bred
toads colonized 29–100% of created ponds. One study in Denmark found that
creating ponds, along with other interventions, increased toad populations.
Assessments: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 70%; certainty 60%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/868

Remove specific aquatic plants

One before-and-after study in the UK found that habitat and species
management that included controlling swamp stonecrop, increased a
population of natterjack toads. One replicated, controlled study in the USA
found that more Oregon spotted frogs laid eggs in areas where invasive reed
canarygrass was mown. Assessment for ‘Control invasive plants’ from ‘Threat:
Invasive alien and other problematic species’: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness
60%; certainty 47%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/815

Restore ponds
Fifteen studies investigated the effectiveness of pond restoration for amphibians.
Three studies, including one replicated, controlled, before-and-after study
in Denmark, the UK and USA found that pond restoration did not increase
or had mixed effects on population numbers and hatching success. One
replicated, before-and-after study in the UK found that restoration increased

52
 1.12 Habitat restoration and creation

pond use. One replicated study in Sweden found that only 10% of restored
ponds were used for breeding. Three before-and-after studies, including
one replicated, controlled study, in Denmark and Italy found that restored
and created ponds were colonized by up to seven species. Eight of nine
studies, including one systematic review, in Denmark, Estonia, Italy and
the UK found that pond restoration, along with other habitat management,
maintained or increased populations, or increased pond occupancy, ponds
with breeding success or numbers of amphibian species. One found that
numbers of species did not increase and one found that great crested newt
populations did not establish. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness
60%; certainty 63%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/878

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Remove tree canopy to reduce pond shading

One before-and-after study in the USA found that canopy removal did not
increase hatching success of spotted salamanders. One before-and-after study
in Denmark found that following pond restoration that included canopy
removal, translocated toads established breeding populations. Assessment:
unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 30%; certainty 25%;
harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/758

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Add nutrients to new ponds as larvae food source
• Add specific plants to aquatic habitats
• Add woody debris to ponds
• Create refuge areas in aquatic habitats.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 53

 1.13 Species management

Strict protocols should be followed when carrying out these interventions

to minimise potential spread of disease-causing agents such as chytrid
fungi and Ranavirus.

1.13.1 Translocate amphibians

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of translocations?
Likely to be • Translocate amphibians (amphibians in general)
beneficial • Translocate amphibians (great crested newts)
• Translocate amphibians (natterjack toads)
• Translocate amphibians (salamanders including
newts)
• Translocate amphibians (toads)
• Translocate amphibians (wood frogs)
Trade-off between • Translocate amphibians (frogs)
benefit and harms

Likely to be beneficial

Translocate amphibians (amphibians in general)

Overall, three global reviews and one study in the USA found that 65% of
amphibian translocations that could be assessed resulted in established
breeding populations or substantial recruitment to the adult population. A
further two translocations resulted in breeding and one in survival following

54
 1.13 Species management

release. One review found that translocations of over 1,000 animals were
more successful, but that success was not related to the source of animals
(wild or captive), life-stage, continent or reason for translocation. Assessment:
likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 60%; certainty 60%; harms 19%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/854

Translocate amphibians (great crested newts)

Four of six studies in the UK found that translocated great crested newts
maintained or established breeding populations. One found that populations
survived at least one year in 37% of cases, but one found that within three
years breeding failed in 48% of ponds. A systematic review of 31 studies found
no conclusive evidence that mitigation that included translocations resulted
in self-sustaining populations. One review found that newts reproduced
following 56% of translocations, in some cases along with other interventions.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 50%; certainty 50%; harms 10%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/858

Translocate amphibians (natterjack toads)

Three studies in France and the UK found that translocated natterjack toad
eggs, tadpoles, juveniles or adults established breeding populations at some
sites, although head-started or captive-bred animals were also released at
some sites. Re-establishing toads on dune or saltmarsh habitat was more
successful than on heathland. One study in the UK found that repeated
translocations of wild rather than captive-bred toads were more successful.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 60%; certainty 56%; harms 10%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/859

Translocate amphibians (salamanders including newts)

Four studies in the UK and USA found that translocated eggs or adults
established breeding populations of salamanders or smooth newts. One
study in the USA found that one of two salamander species reproduced
following translocation of eggs, tadpoles and metamorphs. One study in
the USA found that translocated salamander eggs hatched and tadpoles
had similar survival rates as in donor ponds. Assessment: likely to be beneficial
(effectiveness 70%; certainty 55%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/860

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 55

Amphibian Conservation

Translocate amphibians (toads)

Two of four studies in Denmark, Germany, the UK and USA found that
translocating eggs and/or adults established common toad breeding
populations. One found populations of garlic toads established at two
of four sites and one that breeding populations of boreal toads were not
established. One study in Denmark found that translocating green toad
eggs to existing populations, along with habitat management, increased
population numbers. Four studies in Germany, Italy, South Africa and the
USA found that translocated adult toads reproduced, survived up to six or
23 years, or some metamorphs survived over winter. Assessment: likely to be
beneficial (effectiveness 60%; certainty 56%; harms 10%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/855

Translocate amphibians (wood frogs)

Two studies in the USA found that following translocation of wood frog
eggs, breeding populations were established in 25–50% of created ponds.
One study in the USA found that translocated eggs hatched and up to 57%
survived as tadpoles in pond enclosures. Assessment: likely to be beneficial
(effectiveness 40%; certainty 50%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/856

Trade-off between benefit and harms

Translocate amphibians (frogs)

Eight of ten studies in New Zealand, Spain, Sweden, the UK and USA
found that translocating frog eggs, juveniles or adults established breeding
populations. Two found that breeding populations went extinct within
five years or did not establish. Five studies in Canada, New Zealand and
the USA found that translocations of eggs, juveniles or adults resulted in
little or no breeding at some sites. Five studies in Italy, New Zealand and
the USA found that translocated juveniles or adults survived the winter or
up to eight years. One study in the USA found that survival was lower for
Oregon spotted frogs translocated as adults compared to eggs. Two studies
in the USA found that 60–100% of translocated frogs left the release site and
35–73% returned to their original pond within 32 days. Two studies in found

56
 1.13 Species management

that frogs either lost or gained weight after translocation. Assessment: trade-
offs between benefits and harms (effectiveness 58%; certainty 65%; harms 20%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/861

1.13.2 Captive breeding, rearing and releases

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of captive breeding, rearing and releases?
Likely to be • Release captive-bred individuals (amphibians in
beneficial general)
• Release captive-bred individuals: frogs
Trade-off between • Breed amphibians in captivity: frogs
benefit and harms • Breed amphibians in captivity: harlequin toads
• Breed amphibians in captivity: Mallorcan
midwife toad
• Breed amphibians in captivity: salamanders
(including newts)
• Breed amphibians in captivity: toads
• Head-start amphibians for release
• Release captive-bred individuals: Mallorcan
midwife toads
• Release captive-bred individuals: toads
• Use artificial fertilization in captive breeding
• Use hormone treatment to induce sperm and egg
release
Unknown • Release captive-bred individuals: salamanders
effectiveness (including newts)
(limited evidence)
Unlikely to be • Freeze sperm or eggs for future use
beneficial
Likely to be • Release captive-bred individuals: green and
ineffective or golden bell frogs
harmful

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 57

Amphibian Conservation

Likely to be beneficial

Release captive-bred individuals (amphibians in general)

One review found that 41% of release programmes of captive-bred or head-
started amphibians showed evidence of breeding in the wild for multiple
generations, 29% showed some evidence of breeding and 12% evidence of
survival following release. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 55%;
certainty 50%; harms 10%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/871

Release captive-bred individuals (frogs)

Five of six studies in Europe, Hong Kong and the USA found that captive-
bred frogs released as tadpoles, juveniles or adults established breeding
populations and in some cases colonized new sites. Three studies in Australia
and the USA found that a high proportion of frogs released as eggs survived
to metamorphosis, some released tadpoles survived the first few months, but
few released froglets survived. Four studies in Australia, Italy, the UK and
USA found that captive-bred frogs reproduced at 31–100% of release sites,
or that breeding was limited. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness
60%; certainty 60%; harms 15%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/870

Trade-off between benefit and harms

Breed amphibians in captivity (frogs)

Twenty-three of 33 studies across the world found that amphibians produced
eggs in captivity. Seven found mixed results, with some species or populations
reproducing successfully, but with other species difficult to maintain or
raise to adults. Two found that frogs did not breed successfully or died in
captivity. Seventeen of the studies found that captive-bred frogs were raised
successfully to hatching, tadpoles, froglets or adults in captivity. Four studies
in Canada, Fiji, Hong Kong and Italy found that 30–88% of eggs hatched,
or survival to metamorphosis was 75%, as froglets was 17–51% or to adults
was 50–90%. Assessment: trade-offs between benefits and harms (effectiveness 60%;
certainty 68%; harms 30%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/835

58
 1.13 Species management

Breed amphibians in captivity (harlequin toads)

Four of five studies in Colombia, Ecuador, Germany and the USA found
that harlequin toads reproduced in captivity. One found that eggs were
only produced by simulating a dry and wet season and one found that
breeding was difficult. One found that captive-bred harlequin toads were
raised successfully to metamorphosis in captivity and two found that most
toads died before or after hatching. Assessment: trade-offs between benefits and
harms (effectiveness 44%; certainty 50%; harms 28%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/836

Breed amphibians in captivity (Mallorcan midwife toad)

Two studies in the UK found that Mallorcan midwife toads produced eggs
that were raised to metamorphs or toadlets in captivity. However, clutches
dropped by males were not successfully maintained artificially. One study in
the UK found that toads bred in captivity for nine or more generations had
slower development, reduced genetic diversity and predator defence traits.
Assessment: trade-offs between benefits and harms (effectiveness 69%; certainty
55%; harms 40%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/837

 reed amphibians in captivity (salamanders including

B
newts)
Four of six studies in Japan, Germany, the UK and USA found that eggs were
produced successfully in captivity. Captive-bred salamanders were raised
to yearlings, larvae or adults. One review found that four of five salamander
species bred successfully in captivity. Four studies in Germany, Mexico and
the USA found that egg production, larval development, body condition
and survival were affected by water temperature, density or enclosure type.
Assessment: trade-offs between benefits and harms (effectiveness 60%; certainty
50%; harms 25%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/838

Breed amphibians in captivity (toads)

Ten studies in Germany, Italy, Spain, the UK and USA found that toads
produced eggs in captivity. Eight found that toads were raised successfully
to tadpoles, toadlets or adults in captivity. Two found that most died after
hatching or metamorphosis. Two reviews found mixed results with four

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 59

Amphibian Conservation

species of toad or 21% of captive populations of Puerto Rican crested toads

breeding successfully. Four studies in Germany, Spain and the USA found
that reproductive success was affected by tank location and humidity.
Assessment: trade-offs between benefits and harms (effectiveness 65%; certainty
60%; harms 25%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/848

Head-start amphibians for release

Twenty-two studies head-started amphibians from eggs and monitored them
after release. A global review and six of 10 studies in Europe and the USA
found that released head-started tadpoles, metamorphs or juveniles established
breeding populations or increased existing populations. Two found mixed
results with breeding populations established in 71% of studies reviewed
or at 50% of sites. Two found that head-started metamorphs or adults did
not establish a breeding population or prevent a population decline. An
additional 10 studies in Australia, Canada, Europe and the USA measured
aspects of survival or breeding success of released head-started amphibians
and found mixed results. Three studies in the USA only provided results
for head-starting in captivity. Two of those found that eggs could be reared
to tadpoles, but only one successfully reared adults. Assessment: trade-offs
between benefits and harms (effectiveness 60%; certainty 60%; harms 25%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/881

 elease captive-bred individuals (Mallorcan midwife

R
toad)
Three studies in Mallorca found that captive-bred midwife toads released as
tadpoles, toadlets or adults established breeding populations at 38–100% of
sites. One study in the UK found that predator defences were maintained,
but genetic diversity was reduced in a captive-bred population. Assessment:
trade-offs between benefits and harms (effectiveness 68%; certainty 58%; harms 20%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/873

Release captive-bred individuals (toads)

Two of three studies in Denmark, Sweden and the USA found that captive-
bred toads released as tadpoles, juveniles or metamorphs established
populations. The other found that populations were not established. Two
studies in Puerto Rico found that survival of released captive-bred Puerto

60
 1.13 Species management

Rican crested toads was low. Assessment: trade-offs between benefits and harms
(effectiveness 40%; certainty 50%; harms 20%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/875

Use artificial fertilization in captive breeding

Three replicated studies, including two randomized studies, in Australia
and the USA found that the success of artificial fertilization depended on the
type and number of doses of hormones used to stimulate egg production.
One replicated study in Australia found that 55% of eggs were fertilized
artificially, but soon died. Assessment: trade-offs between benefits and harms
(effectiveness 40%; certainty 40%; harms 20%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/834

Use hormone treatment to induce sperm and egg release

One review and nine of 10 replicated studies, including two randomized,
controlled studies, in Austria, Australia, China, Latvia, Russia and the USA
found that hormone treatment of male amphibians stimulated or increased
sperm production, or resulted in successful breeding. One found that hormone
treatment of males and females did not result in breeding. One review and
nine of 14 replicated studies, including six randomized and/ or controlled
studies, in Australia, Canada, China, Ecuador, Latvia and the USA found
that hormone treatment of female amphibians had mixed results, with
30–71% of females producing viable eggs following treatment, or with egg
production depending on the combination, amount or number of doses of
hormones. Three found that hormone treatment stimulated egg production or
successful breeding. Two found that treatment did not stimulate or increase
egg production. Assessment: trade-offs between benefits and harms (effectiveness
50%; certainty 65%; harms 30%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/883

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

 elease captive-bred individuals (salamanders including

R
newts)
One study in Germany found that captive-bred great crested newts and
smooth newts released as larvae, juveniles and adults established stable

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 61

Amphibian Conservation

breeding populations. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence

(effectiveness 70%; certainty 30%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/874

Unlikely to be beneficial

Freeze sperm or eggs for future use

Ten replicated studies, including three controlled studies, in Austria, Australia,
Russia, the UK and USA found that following freezing, viability of amphibian
sperm, and in one case eggs, depended on species, cryoprotectant used,
storage temperature or method and freezing or thawing rate. One found that
sperm could be frozen for up to 58 weeks. Assessment: unlikely to be beneficial
(effectiveness 35%; certainty 50%; harms 10%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/876

Likely to be ineffective or harmful

 elease captive-bred individuals (green and golden bell

R
frogs)
Three studies in Australia found that captive-bred green and golden bell
frogs released mainly as tadpoles did not established breeding populations,
or only established breeding populations in 25% of release programmes.
One study in Australia found that some frogs released as tadpoles survived
at least 13 months. Assessment: likely to be ineffective or harmful (effectiveness
20%; certainty 50%; harms 20%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/872

62
 1.14 Education and
awareness raising

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for education and awareness raising?
Likely to be • Engage volunteers to collect amphibian data (citizen
beneficial science)
• Provide education programmes about amphibians
• Raise awareness amongst the general public through
campaigns and public information

Likely to be beneficial

 ngage volunteers to collect amphibian data (citizen

E
science)
Five studies in Canada, the UK and USA found that amphibian data collection
projects engaged up to 10,506 volunteers and were active in 16–17 states in
the USA. Five studies in the UK and USA found that volunteers surveyed up
to 7,872 sites, swabbed almost 6,000 amphibians and submitted thousands
of amphibian records. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 66%;
certainty 60%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/760

Provide education programmes about amphibians

One study in Taiwan found that education programmes about wetlands
and amphibians, along with other interventions, doubled a population of
Taipei frogs. Four studies, including one replicated study, in Germany,

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 63

Amphibian Conservation

Mexico, Slovenia, Zimbabwe and the USA found that education programmes
increased the amphibian knowledge of students. Assessment: likely to be
beneficial (effectiveness 58%; certainty 55%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/776

 aise awareness amongst the general public through

R
campaigns and public information
Two studies, including one replicated, before-and-after study, in Estonia and
the UK found that raising public awareness, along with other interventions,
increased amphibian breeding habitat and numbers of toads. One before-and-
after study in Mexico found that raising awareness in tourists increased their
knowledge of axolotls. However, one study in Taiwan found that holding
press conferences had no effect on a frog conservation project. Assessment:
likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 60%; certainty 51%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/831

64
2. BAT CONSERVATION
Anna Berthinussen, Olivia C. Richardson O.C. and John D. Altringham

Expert assessors
Silviu Petrovan, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom
Guido Reiter, Austrian Coordination Centre for Bat Conservation & Research, Austria
Jasja Dekker, Jasja Dekker Dierecologie, Netherlands
Johnny De Jong, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden
Alice Hughes, Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden, China, P.R.
Danilo Russo, Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II, Italy
Winifred Frick, Bat Conservation International, United States
Kirsty Park, University of Stirling, United Kingdom
Neil Furey, Harrison Institute, Cambodia
Anita Glover, Vincent Wildlife Trust, United Kingdom
Luisa Rodrigues, Institute for Nature Conservation and Forests, Portugal

Scope of assessment: for native wild bat species across the world.

Assessed: 2020. For previous assessments and expert panels please check
What Works in Conservation 2019.

Effectiveness measure is the median % score for effectiveness.

Certainty measure is the median % certainty of evidence for effectiveness,

determined by the quantity and quality of the evidence in the synopsis.

Harm measure is the median % score for negative side-effects to the group
of species of concern.

© W. Sutherland et al., CC BY 4.0 https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0191.02

This book is meant as a guide to the evidence available for different
conservation interventions and as a starting point in assessing their
effectiveness. The assessments are based on the available evidence
for the target group of species for each intervention. The assessment
may therefore refer to different species or habitat to the one(s) you
are considering. Before making any decisions about implementing
interventions it is vital that you read the more detailed accounts of
the evidence in order to assess their relevance for your study species
or system.

Full details of the evidence are available at

www.conservationevidence.com

There may also be significant negative side-effects on the target

groups or other species or communities that have not been identified
in this assessment.

A lack of evidence means that we have been unable to assess whether

or not an intervention is effective or has any harmful impacts.
 2.1 Threat: Residential and
commercial development

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of

the effectiveness of interventions for residential and commercial
development?
Unknown • Change timing of building work
effectiveness • Create alternative bat roosts within developments
• Create or restore bat foraging habitat in urban
areas
• Exclude bats from roosts during building work
• Legally protect bats during development
• Protect brownfield or ex-industrial sites
• Relocate access points to bat roosts within
developments
• Retain existing bat roosts and access points
within developments
No evidence • Educate homeowners about building and
found (no planning laws relating to bats to reduce
assessment) disturbance to bat roosts
• Encourage homeowners to increase semi-natural
habitat within gardens
• Encourage homeowners to plant gardens with
night-scented flowers
• Install sound-proofing insulation between bat
roosts and areas occupied by humans within
developments
• Protect greenfield sites or undeveloped land in
urban areas

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 67

Bat Conservation

Unknown effectiveness

● Change timing of building work

One study evaluated the effects of changing the timing of building work on
bat populations. The study was in Ireland.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)
Use (1 study): One before-and-after study in Ireland found that carrying
out roofing work outside of the bat maternity season, along with retaining
bat access points, resulted in a similar number of brown long-eared bats
continuing to use a roost within an attic.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 50%; certainty 12%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/950

● Create alternative bat roosts within developments

Eleven studies evaluated the effects of creating alternative bat roosts within
developments on bat populations. Two studies were in the USA, and nine
studies were in Europe.
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.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 45%; certainty 35%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/949

68
 2.1 Threat: Residential and commercial development

● Create or restore bat foraging habitat in urban areas

Three studies evaluated the effects of creating or restoring bat foraging habitat
in urban areas on bat populations. One study in the USA evaluated restored
forest fragments, and two studies in the UK and USA evaluated green roofs.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, controlled, site comparison
study in the USA found no difference in species richness over green roofs
and conventional unvegetated roofs.
POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES)
Abundance (3 studies): One site comparison study in the USA found higher
bat activity (relative abundance) in two of seven restored forest fragments
in urban areas than in two unrestored forest fragments. One replicated,
controlled, site comparison study in the UK found significantly greater bat
activity over ‘biodiverse’ green roofs than conventional unvegetated roofs,
but not over ‘sedum’ green roofs. One replicated, controlled, site comparison
study in the USA found greater bat activity for three of five bat species over
green roofs than over conventional unvegetated roofs.
BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 60%; certainty 36%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/954

● Exclude bats from roosts during building work

One study evaluated the effects of excluding bats from roosts during building
work on bat populations. The study was in the UK.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)
Behaviour change (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after study in the
UK found that excluding bats from roosts within buildings did not change
roost switching frequency, core foraging areas or foraging preferences of
soprano pipistrelle colonies.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 45%; certainty 23%; harms 17%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1930

● Legally protect bats during development

Three studies evaluated the effects of legally protecting bats by issuing licences
during development on bat populations. The three studies were in the UK.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 69

Bat Conservation

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES)
Change in human behaviour (2 studies): One review in the UK found that
the number of development licences for bats more than doubled over three
years in Scotland. One review in the UK found that 81% of licensees did
not carry out post-development monitoring to assess whether bats used the
roost structures installed.
OTHER (2 STUDIES)
Impact on bat roost sites (2 studies): One review in the UK found that licenced
activities during building developments had a negative impact on bat roosts,
with 68% of roosts being destroyed. One replicated, before-and-after study
in the UK found that five of 28 compensation roosts provided under licence
were used, and two by similar or greater numbers of bats after development.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 18%; certainty 15%; harms 2%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1935

● Protect brownfield or ex-industrial sites

One study evaluated the effects of protecting brownfield or ex-industrial
sites on bat populations. The study was in the USA.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Richness/diversity (1 study): One study in the USA found that five bat species
were recorded within a protected urban wildlife refuge on an abandoned
manufacturing site.
POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 40%; certainty 20%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/953

● Relocate access points to bat roosts within developments

Two studies evaluated the effects of relocating access points to bat roosts
within building developments on bat populations. One study was in Ireland
and one in the UK.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES)
Use (2 studies): One before-and-after study in Ireland found that fewer
brown long-eared bats used a roost after the access points were relocated,

70
 2.1 Threat: Residential and commercial development

and no bats were observed flying through them. One before-and-after study
in the UK found that few lesser horseshoe bats used an alternative access
point with a ‘bend’ design to re-enter a roost in a building development,
but the number of bats using the roost increased after an access point with
a ‘straight’ design was installed.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 45%; certainty 32%; harms 10%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/946

● Retain existing bat roosts and access points within

developments
Two studies evaluated the effects of retaining existing bat roosts and access
points within developments on bat populations. One study was in Ireland
and one in the UK.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES)
Use (2 studies): One before-and-after study in Ireland found similar numbers
of brown long-eared bats roosting within an attic after existing access points
were retained during renovations. One replicated, before-and-after study
in the UK found that four of nine bat roosts retained within developments
were used as maternity colonies, in two cases by similar or greater numbers
of bats after development had taken place.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 67%; certainty 27%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/947

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Educate homeowners about building and planning laws relating to
bats to reduce disturbance to bat roosts
• Encourage homeowners to increase semi-natural habitat within
gardens
• Encourage homeowners to plant gardens with night-scented flowers
• Install sound-proofing insulation between bat roosts and areas
occupied by humans within developments
• Protect greenfield sites or undeveloped land in urban areas.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 71

 2.2 Threat: Agriculture

2.2.1 All farming systems

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for all farming systems?
Likely to be • Retain or plant native trees and shrubs amongst
beneficial crops (agroforestry)
• Use organic farming instead of conventional
farming
Unknown • Create tree plantations on agricultural land to
effectiveness provide roosting and foraging habitat for bats
• Engage farmers and landowners to manage land
for bats
• Introduce agri-environment schemes
• Manage hedges to benefit bats
• Reduce field size (or maintain small fields)
• Retain riparian buffers on agricultural land
• Retain unmown field margins
No evidence • Increase the proportion of semi-natural habitat in
found (no the farmed landscape
assessment) • Manage ditches to benefit bats
• Plant field margins with a diverse mix of plant
species
• Plant in-field trees
• Plant new hedges
• Provide or retain set-aside areas in farmland
• Retain existing in-field trees
• Retain remnant forest or woodland on
agricultural land

72
 2.2 Threat: Agriculture

Likely to be beneficial

● Retain or plant native trees and shrubs amongst crops

(agroforestry)
Seven studies evaluated the effects of retaining or planting native trees
and shrubs amongst crops on bat populations. Two studies were in South
America, four were in Mexico, and one was in Tanzania.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (7 STUDIES)
Community composition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study
in Tanzania found different compositions of bat species in coffee plantations
with different amounts and types of shade cover.
Richness/diversity (7 studies): Four of six replicated, site comparison studies
in Colombia, Mexico and Costa Rica found a similar number of bat species
in shaded and unshaded coffee plantations, and in coffee plantations with
different amounts and types of shade cover. The two other studies found more
bat species and higher bat diversity in coffee, cacao and banana plantations
with varied shade cover, than in plantations with a single shade species or
no shade. One replicated, site comparison study in Tanzania found more bat
species in shaded coffee plantations than in traditional mixed agroforestry
systems with natural forest vegetation.
POPULATION RESPONSE (5 STUDIES)
Abundance (5 studies): Two replicated, site comparison studies in Mexico
captured more bats in coffee plantations with varied shade cover than in
plantations with a single shade species. One replicated, site comparison study
in Mexico found higher activity (relative abundance) of forest bat species
in plantations with a varied shade cover than in plantations with a single
shade species, but the opposite was true for open habitat bat species. One
replicated, site comparison study in Costa Rica found no difference in the
number of bats captured between cacao and banana shade plantations and
unshaded monocultures. One replicated, site comparison study in Tanzania
found greater bat occurrence in shaded coffee plantations than in traditional
mixed agroforestry systems with natural forest vegetation.
BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 55%; certainty 50%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/963

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 73

Bat Conservation

● Use organic farming instead of conventional farming

Twelve studies evaluated the effects of using organic farming instead of
conventional farming on bat populations. Eight studies were in Europe, two
in the USA, one in Canada and one in Chile.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (7 STUDIES)
Community composition (1 study): One replicated, paired sites study in
the USA found that the composition of bat species did not differ between
organic and non-organic farms.
Richness/diversity (7 studies): Five of seven replicated, paired sites or site
comparison studies in Europe, the USA, Canada and Chile found that the
number of bat species did not differ between organic and non-organic farms.
The other two studies found more bat species on organic farms than non-
organic farms.
POPULATION RESPONSE (12 STUDIES)
Abundance (12 studies): Five of nine replicated, paired sites or site comparison
studies in Europe, the USA, Canada and Chile found that overall bat activity
(relative abundance) and common pipistrelle activity did not differ between
organic and non-organic farms. The other four studies found higher overall
bat activity, bat feeding activity, Brazilian free-tailed bat activity, and activity
of four of seven bat species on organic farms than non-organic farms. Two
replicated, paired sites and site comparison studies in the UK found higher
activity of Myotis species over water and rivers on organic farms than non-
organic farms, but no differences were found for other species or habitats.
One replicated, site comparison study in France found higher activity
for two of three bat species over organic fields than two of three types of
conventionally managed fields.
BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 60%; certainty 60%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/961

Unknown effectiveness

● Create tree plantations on agricultural land to provide

roosting and foraging habitat for bats
Three studies evaluated the effects of creating tree plantations on agricultural
land to provide roosting and foraging habitat for bats on bat populations.
The three studies were in Australia.

74
 2.2 Threat: Agriculture

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)
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 30%; certainty 30%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/958

● Engage farmers and landowners to manage land for bats

One study evaluated the effects of engaging farmers and landowners to
manage land for bats on bat populations. The study was in the UK.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Abundance (1 study): One study in the UK found that during a five-year
project to engage farmers and landowners to manage land for bats, the
overall population of greater horseshoe bats at four maternity roosts in the
area increased (but see summary below).
BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)
Change in human behaviour (1 study): One study in the UK found that
a landowner engagement project resulted in 77 bat-related management
agreements covering approximately 6,536 ha of land.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 55%; certainty 20%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1936

● Introduce agri-environment schemes

Three studies evaluated the effects of agri-environment schemes on bat
populations. The three studies were in the UK.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES)
Abundance (3 studies): Two of three replicated, paired sites study in the
UK found that total bat activity (relative abundance) and the activity of six

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 75

Bat Conservation

bat species did not differ significantly between farms managed under agri-
environment schemes and those managed conventionally. The other study
found significantly lower overall bat activity and activity of pipistrelle species
on agri-environment scheme farms than conventional farms.
BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 35%; certainty 30%; harms 10%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/962

● Manage hedges to benefit bats

One study evaluated the effects of managing hedges to benefit bat populations.
The study was in the UK.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired sites study in the UK found
that pipistrelle activity (relative abundance) did not differ between hedges
managed for wildlife on agri-environment scheme farms and hedges on
conventional farms.
BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 0%; certainty 20%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1943

● Reduce field size (or maintain small fields)

One study evaluated the effects of maintaining small fields on bat populations.
The study was in Canada.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Abundance (1 study): One study in Canada found that agricultural landscapes
with smaller fields had higher activity (relative abundance) of six of seven
bat species than landscapes with larger fields.
BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 60%; certainty 30%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1939

● Retain riparian buffers on agricultural land

One study evaluated the effects of retaining riparian buffers on agricultural
land on bat populations. The study was in the UK.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

76
 2.2 Threat: Agriculture

Abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired sites study in the UK found

that pipistrelle activity (relative abundance) did not differ along waterways
with buffers of vegetation on agri-environment scheme farms and waterways
on conventional farms.
BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 40%; certainty 20%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2284

● Retain unmown field margins

One study evaluated the effects of retaining unmown field margins on bats
populations. The study was in the UK.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired sites study in the UK found
that pipistrelle activity (relative abundance) did not differ between unmown
field margins managed for wildlife on agri-environment scheme farms and
field margins on conventional farms.
BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 0%; certainty 10%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1940

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Increase the proportion of semi-natural habitat in the farmed
landscape
• Manage ditches to benefit bats
• Plant field margins with a diverse mix of plant species
• Plant in-field trees
• Plant new hedges
• Provide or retain set-aside areas in farmland
• Retain existing in-field trees
• Retain remnant forest or woodland on agricultural land.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 77

Bat Conservation

2.2.2 Livestock farming

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for livestock farming?
Unknown • Remove livestock modifications from water
effectiveness troughs
No evidence • Avoid the use of antiparasitic drugs for livestock
found (no • Manage grazing regimes to increase invertebrate
assessment) prey
• Replace culling of bats with non-lethal methods
of preventing vampire bats from spreading
rabies to livestock

Unknown effectiveness

● Remove livestock modifications from water troughs

One study evaluated the effects of removing livestock modifications from
water troughs on bat populations. The study was in the USA.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)
Use (1 study): One replicated, paired sites study in the USA found that
removing livestock modifications from water troughs resulted in bats drinking
from them more frequently.
Behaviour change (1 study): One replicated, paired sites study in the USA
found that when livestock modifications were removed from water troughs,
bats approached troughs fewer times before successfully drinking from them.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 60%; certainty 30%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1951

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Avoid the use of antiparasitic drugs for livestock
• Manage grazing regimes to increase invertebrate prey

78
 2.2 Threat: Agriculture

• Replace culling of bats with non-lethal methods of preventing

vampire bats from spreading rabies to livestock.

2.2.3 Perennial, non-timber crops

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for perennial, non-timber crops?
No evidence • Introduce certification for bat-friendly crop
found (no harvesting regimes
assessment) • Prevent culling of bats around fruit orchards
• Replace netting with non-lethal measures to
prevent bats from accessing fruit in orchards
• Restore and manage abandoned orchards for
bats

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Introduce certification for bat-friendly crop harvesting regimes
• Prevent culling of bats around fruit orchards
• Replace netting with non-lethal measures to prevent bats from
accessing fruit in orchards
• Restore and manage abandoned orchards for bats.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 79

 2.3 Threat: Energy production

2.3.1 Wind turbines

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for wind turbines?
Beneficial • Increase the wind speed at which turbines
become operational (‘cut-in speed’) to reduce bat
fatalities
Likely to be • Automatically reduce turbine blade rotation
beneficial when bat activity is high
• Deter bats from turbines using ultrasound
• Prevent turbine blades from turning at low wind
speeds to reduce bat fatalities
No evidence • Apply textured coating to turbines
found (no • Close off potential access points on turbines to
assessment) prevent roosting bats
• Deter bats from turbines using low-level
ultraviolet light
• Deter bats from turbines using radar
• Modify turbine placement to reduce bat fatalities
• Paint turbines to reduce insect attraction
• Reduce rotor diameter
• Reduce turbine height
• Remove turbine lighting to reduce bat and insect
attraction
• Retain a buffer between turbines and habitat
features used by bats

80
 2.3 Threat: Energy production

Beneficial

● Increase the wind speed at which turbines become

operational (‘cut-in speed’) to reduce bat fatalities
Four studies evaluated the effects of increasing the wind speed at which
turbines become operational (‘cut-in speed’) on bat populations. One study
was in Canada and three studies were in the USA.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES)
Survival (4 studies): Three randomized, replicated, controlled studies
(including one before-and-after study) in Canada and the USA, and one
review in the USA found that bat fatalities were significantly reduced when
the wind speed at which turbines became operational (‘cut-in speed’) was
increased.
BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)
Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness 80%; certainty 70%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1960

Likely to be beneficial

● Automatically reduce turbine blade rotation when bat

activity is high
Two studies evaluated the effects of automatically reducing turbine blade
rotation when bat activity is high on bat populations. One study was in
Germany, and one in the USA.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)
Survival (2 studies): Two replicated studies (one randomized, controlled and
one paired sites study) in Germany and the USA found that automatically
reducing the rotation speed of wind turbine blades when bat activity is
predicted to be high resulted in significantly fewer bat fatalities for all bat
species combined and for little brown bats.
BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 80%; certainty 55%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/971

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 81

Bat Conservation

● Deter bats from turbines using ultrasound

Two studies evaluated the effects of deterring bats from wind turbines using
ultrasound on bat populations. The two studies were in the USA.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Survival (1 study): One randomized, replicated, controlled study with a
before-and-after trial in the second year in the USA found mixed results. In
the first year of the study, 21-51% fewer bats were killed at turbines with an
ultrasonic deterrent fitted than at control turbines, but in the second year,
from 2% more to 64% fewer bats were killed at turbines with ultrasonic
deterrents fitted.
BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)
Behaviour change (1 study): One paired sites study in the USA found
significantly fewer bats flying near one of two wind turbines with an ultrasonic
deterrent compared to turbines without.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 40%; certainty 45%; harms 7%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/968

● Prevent turbine blades from turning at low wind speeds

to reduce bat fatalities
Three studies evaluated the effects of preventing turbine blades from turning
at low wind speeds on bat populations. Two studies were in Canada and
one review was in the USA.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES)
Survival (3 studies): Two replicated, controlled before-and-after studies
(including one randomized study) in Canada and one review in the USA
found that bat fatalities were significantly reduced when turbine blades were
prevented from turning at low wind speeds.
BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 80%; certainty 50%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/970

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Apply textured coating to turbines

82
 2.3 Threat: Energy production

• Close off potential access points on turbines to prevent roosting bats

• Deter bats from turbines using low-level ultraviolet light
• Deter bats from turbines using radar
• Modify turbine placement to reduce bat fatalities
• Paint turbines to reduce insect attraction
• Reduce rotor diameter
• Reduce turbine height
• Remove turbine lighting to reduce bat and insect attraction
• Retain a buffer between turbines and habitat features used by bats.

2.3.2 Mining

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for mining?
Trade-off between • Install and maintain gates at mine entrances to
benefit and harms restrict public access
Unknown • Maintain microclimate in closed/abandoned mines
effectiveness • Restore bat foraging habitat at ex-quarry sites
No evidence found • Exclude bats from roosts prior to mine reclamation
(no assessment) • Provide artificial subterranean bat roosts to
replace roosts in reclaimed mines
• Relocate bats from reclaimed mines to alternative
subterranean roost sites
• Reopen entrances to closed mines and make
suitable for roosting bats
• Retain access points for bats following mine
closures

Trade-off between benefit and harms

● Install and maintain gates at mine entrances to restrict

public access
Nine studies evaluated the effects of installing gates at mine entrances on
bat populations. Eight studies were in the USA and one in Australia.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 83

Bat Conservation

Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after study in the

USA found that fewer bat species entered mines after gates were installed.
POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES)
Abundance (3 studies): Two replicated, site comparison or before-and-after
studies in the USA and Australia found fewer bats in mines or at mine entrances
after gates were installed. One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study
in the USA found that bat activity (relative abundance) remained stable or
increased at five of seven gated mines, and decreased at two gated mines.
BEHAVIOUR (6 STUDIES)
Use (2 studies): One before-and-after study in the USA found that 43 of 47
mines continued to be used 12 years after gates were installed, however bats
abandoned four mines with ‘ladder’ design gates. One replicated study in
the USA found that gate design and time since gate installation had varied
effects on the presence of four bat species.
Behaviour change (4 studies): Four replicated, before-and-after or site
comparison studies in the USA and Australia found that bats at mine entrances
circled more and entered mines less after gates were installed.
OTHER (2 STUDIES)
Collisions with gates (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after
study in the USA found that up to 7% of bats at mine entrances collided
with mine gates.
Assessment: trade-off between benefit and harms (effectiveness 50%; certainty 50%;
harms 46%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1963

Unknown effectiveness

● Maintain microclimate in closed/abandoned mines

One study evaluated the effects of maintaining the microclimate in an
abandoned mine on bat populations. The study was in the USA.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Abundance (1 study): One before-and-after study in the USA found that
modifying the microclimate of an abandoned mine by closing a man-made
entrance resulted in a greater number of bats hibernating within the mine.
BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 45%; certainty 20%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1964

84
 2.3 Threat: Energy production

● Restore bat foraging habitat at ex-quarry sites

One study evaluated the effects of restoring bat foraging habitat at ex-quarry
sites on bat populations. The study was in France.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in France found
that gravel-sand pits had higher overall bat activity (relative abundance) 10
years after restoration than gravel-sand pit sites before or during quarrying.
BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 50%; certainty 35%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2286

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Exclude bats from roosts prior to mine reclamation
• Provide artificial subterranean bat roosts to replace roosts in
reclaimed mines
• Relocate bats from reclaimed mines to alternative subterranean
roost sites
• Reopen entrances to closed mines and make suitable for
roosting bats
• Retain access points for bats following mine closures.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 85

 2.4 Threat: Transportation
and service corridors

2.4.1 Roads

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for roads?
Likely to be • Install overpasses as road crossing structures for
beneficial bats
• Install underpasses or culverts as road crossing
structures for bats
Unknown • Divert bats to safe crossing points with plantings
effectiveness or fencing
• Install green bridges as road crossing structures
for bats
• Maintain bat roosts in road bridges and culverts
Unlikely to be • Install bat gantries or bat bridges as road crossing
beneficial structures for bats
No evidence • Avoid planting fruit trees alongside roads in
found (no areas with fruit bats
assessment) • Create spaces for roosting bats in road bridges
and culverts
• Deter bats from roads using lighting
• Deter bats from roads using ultrasound
• Install hop-overs as road crossing structures for
bats
• Minimize road lighting to reduce insect
attraction
• Replace or improve habitat for bats around roads

86
 2.4 Threat: Transportation and service corridors

Likely to be beneficial

● Install overpasses as road crossing structures for bats

Three studies evaluated the effects of installing overpasses as road crossing
structures for bats. Two studies were in Europe and one in Australia.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Richness/diversity (1 study): One site comparison study in Australia found
that the same number of bat species were recorded at an overpass and in
nearby forest and bushland.
POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES)
Use (2 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in Ireland found that
three bat species used overpasses but up to three-quarters of bats crossed
the road below at traffic height. One study in the UK found that an overpass
with planters was used by two-thirds of crossing bats, and an unvegetated
overpass with a paved road over it was not used by crossing bats.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 45%; certainty 42%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/977

● Install underpasses or culverts as road crossing structures

for bats
Six studies evaluated the effects of installing underpasses or culverts as road
crossing structures for bats. Five studies were in Europe and one in Australia.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
BEHAVIOUR (6 STUDIES)
Use (6 studies): Six studies (including four replicated studies) in Germany,
Ireland, the UK and Australia found that bats used underpasses below
roads, and crossed over the roads above them, in varying proportions. One
replicated, site comparison study in Australia found that bat species adapted
to cluttered habitats used small culverts and underpasses more than bat
species adapted to open or edge habitats.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 52%; certainty 50%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/976

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 87

Bat Conservation

Unknown effectiveness

● Divert bats to safe crossing points with plantings or

fencing
One study evaluated the effects of diverting bats using an artificial hedgerow
on bat populations. The study was in Switzerland.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)
Use (1 study): One controlled, before-and-after study in Switzerland found
that up to one fifth of lesser horseshoe bats within a colony flew along an
artificial hedgerow to commute.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 10%; certainty 10%; harms 5%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/981

● Install green bridges as road crossing structures for bats

One study evaluated the effects of installing green bridges as road crossing
structures for bats. The study was in the UK.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)
Use (1 study): One study in the UK found that a green bridge was used by
97% of bats crossing a road.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 70%; certainty 27%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/979

● Maintain bat roosts in road bridges and culverts

One study evaluated the effects of maintaining bat roosts within a bridge
on bat populations. The study was in Ireland.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)
Use (1 study): One before-and-after study in Ireland found that a maternity
colony of Daubenton’s bats continued to roost in a road bridge over a river
in similar numbers after crevices were retained during repair work.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 55%; certainty 20%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1966

88
 2.4 Threat: Transportation and service corridors

Unlikely to be beneficial

● Install bat gantries or bat bridges as road crossing

structures for bats
Two studies evaluated the effects of installing bat gantries as road crossing
structures for bats. Both studies were in the UK.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES)
Use (2 studies): Two replicated studies (including one site comparison) in
the UK found that fewer bats used bat gantries than crossed the road below
at traffic height, and one bat gantry was not used at all.
Assessment: unlikely to be beneficial (effectiveness 2%; certainty 40%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/978

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Avoid planting fruit trees alongside roads in areas with fruit bats
• Create spaces for roosting bats in road bridges and culverts
• Deter bats from roads using lighting
• Deter bats from roads using ultrasound
• Install hop-overs as road crossing structures for bats
• Minimize road lighting to reduce insect attraction
• Replace or improve habitat for bats around roads.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 89

 2.5 Threat: Biological resource use

2.5.1 Hunting

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for hunting?
Unknown • Inform local communities about disease risks
effectiveness from hunting and eating bat meat to reduce
killing of bats
• Inform local communities about the negative
impacts of bat hunting to reduce killing of bats
No evidence • Encourage online vendors to remove bat
found (no specimens for sale
assessment) • Enforce regulations to prevent trafficking and
trade of bats
• Introduce alternative treatments to reduce the
use of bats in traditional medicine
• Introduce and enforce legislation to control
hunting of bats
• Introduce other food sources to replace bat meat
• Introduce other income sources to replace bat
trade
• Replace culling of bats with non-lethal methods
of preventing vampire bats from spreading
rabies to humans
• Restrict the collection of bat specimens for
research
• Strengthen cultural traditions that discourage bat
harvesting

90
 2.5 Threat: Biological resource use

Unknown effectiveness

● Inform local communities about disease risks from

hunting and eating bat meat to reduce killing of bats
One study evaluated the effects of informing local communities about
disease risks from hunting and eating bat meat to reduce killing of bats on
bat populations. The study was in Ghana.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)
Behaviour change (1 study): One before-and-after study in Ghana found
that fewer hunters intended to hunt bats in future after they were provided
with education about the risks of diseases carried by bats.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 50%; certainty 25%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1974

● Inform local communities about the negative impacts of

bat hunting to reduce killing of bats
One study evaluated the effects of informing local communities about the
negative impacts of bat hunting to reduce killing of bats on bat populations.
The study was in Ghana.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)
Behaviour change (1 study): One before-and-after study in Ghana found that
after providing education about the ecological roles of bats fewer hunters
intended to hunt bats in the future.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 50%; certainty 20%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1973

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Encourage online vendors to remove bat specimens for sale
• Enforce regulations to prevent trafficking and trade of bats
• Introduce alternative treatments to reduce the use of bats in
traditional medicine

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 91

Bat Conservation

• Introduce and enforce legislation to control hunting of bats

• Introduce other food sources to replace bat meat
• Introduce other income sources to replace bat trade
• Replace culling of bats with non-lethal methods of preventing
vampire bats from spreading rabies to humans
• Restrict the collection of bat specimens for research
• Strengthen cultural traditions that discourage bat harvesting.

2.5.2 Guano harvesting

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for guano harvesting?
No evidence • Introduce and enforce legislation to regulate
found (no harvesting of bat guano
assessment)

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Introduce and enforce legislation to regulate harvesting of bat guano.

2.5.3 Logging and wood harvesting

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for logging and wood harvesting?
Likely to be • Retain forested corridors in logged areas
beneficial • Thin trees within forest and woodland
• Use selective or reduced impact logging instead
of conventional logging
Unknown • Manage forest and woodland to encourage
effectiveness understorey growth
• Retain residual tree patches in logged areas
• Use shelterwood cutting instead of clearcutting

92
 2.5 Threat: Biological resource use

No evidence • Change timing of forestry operations

found (no • Coppice woodland
assessment)
• Encourage natural regeneration in former
plantations
• Maintain forest and woodland edges for foraging
bats
• Protect roost trees during forest operations
• Replant native trees in logged areas
• Retain buffers around roost trees in logged areas
• Retain riparian buffers in logged areas
• Strengthen cultural traditions such as sacred
groves that prevent timber harvesting
• Train arborists and forestry operatives to identify
potential bat roosts

Likely to be beneficial

● Retain forested corridors in logged areas

Three studies evaluated the effects of retaining forested corridors in logged
areas on bat populations. The three studies were in the USA.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Abundance (1 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in the USA
found that bat activity (relative abundance) was significantly higher along
the edges of forested corridors than in corridor interiors or in adjacent logged
stands, which had similar activity levels.
BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES)
Use (2 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found more
Seminole bats roosting in forested corridors than logged stands or mature
forest. One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found more male but
fewer female evening bats roosting in forested corridors than logged stands.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 55%; certainty 40%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/996

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 93

Bat Conservation

● 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, one study was
in Canada, and four were in Australia.
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)
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 60%; certainty 60%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/991

● Use selective or reduced impact logging instead of

conventional logging
Four studies evaluated the effects of using selective or reduced impact logging
instead of conventional logging on bat populations. Two studies were in the
Neotropics, one study was in Italy, and one in Germany.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

94
 2.5 Threat: Biological resource use

Community composition (1 study): One replicated, controlled, site comparison

study in Trinidad found that the composition of bat species differed between
selectively logged and conventionally logged forest.
Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in
Germany found similar bat diversity in selectively logged and conventionally
logged forest.
POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES)
Abundance (3 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in Germany
found similar overall bat activity (relative abundance) in selectively logged
and conventionally logged forest. A review of 41 studies in the Neotropics
found that reduced impact logging had a smaller effect on bat abundance
than conventional logging. One replicated, site comparison study in Italy
found greater bat activity at two of three sites that used selective logging
techniques to open up the forest canopy rather than leaving the canopy intact.
BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 50%; certainty 40%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/989

Unknown effectiveness

● Manage forest and woodland to encourage understorey

growth
One study evaluated the effects of managing forest and woodland to encourage
understorey growth on bat populations. The study was in Germany.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Richness/diversity (1 study): One paired sites study in Germany found
more bat species and higher bat diversity in a forest managed to encourage
understorey growth than in a managed forest without understorey growth.
POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Abundance (1 study): One paired sites study in Germany found higher
overall bat activity (relative abundance) in a forest managed to encourage
understorey growth than in a managed forest without understorey growth.
BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 60%; certainty 20%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1986

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 95

Bat Conservation

● Retain residual tree patches in logged areas

Three studies evaluated the effects of retaining residual tree patches in logged
areas on bat populations. The three studies were in Canada.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES)
Abundance (3 studies): Two replicated, site comparison studies in Canada
found no difference in bat activity (relative abundance) along the edges of
residual tree patches and the edges of clearcut blocks. One replicated, site
comparison study in Canada found that the activity of smaller bat species was
higher along the edge of residual tree patches than in the centre of clearcut
blocks, but the activity of larger bat species did not differ. One replicated,
controlled study in Canada found that residual tree patches had similar
activity of little brown bats and northern long-eared bats and lower activity
of silver-haired bats compared to clearcut forest patches.
BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 30%; certainty 35%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/995

● Use shelterwood cutting instead of clearcutting

One study evaluated the effects of using shelterwood cutting instead of ‘gap
release’ cutting on bat populations. The study was in Australia. We found no
studies that evaluated the effects of shelterwood cutting instead of clearcutting.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)
Use (1 study): One site comparison study in Australia found more Gould’s
long-eared bats roosting in remnant trees within forests that had been
shelterwood harvested than in forests harvested using gap release methods.
Comparisons were not made with clearcutting.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 15%; certainty 10%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/990

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Change timing of forestry operations

96
 2.5 Threat: Biological resource use

• Coppice woodland
• Encourage natural regeneration in former plantations
• Maintain forest and woodland edges for foraging bats
• Protect roost trees during forest operations
• Replant native trees in logged areas
• Retain buffers around roost trees in logged areas
• Retain riparian buffers in logged areas
• Strengthen cultural traditions such as sacred groves that prevent
timber harvesting
• Train arborists and forestry operatives to identify potential bat
roosts.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 97

 2.6 Threat: Human
intrusions and disturbance

2.6.1 Caving and tourism

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for caving and tourism?
Likely to be • Impose restrictions on cave visits
beneficial
Trade-off • Install and maintain cave gates to restrict public
between benefit access
and harms
Unknown • Install fencing around cave entrances to restrict
effectiveness public access
• Minimize noise levels within caves
• Restrict artificial lighting in caves and around
cave entrances
No evidence • Inform the public of ways to reduce disturbance
found (no to bats in caves
assessment) • Introduce guidelines for sustainable cave
development and use
• Minimize alterations to caves for tourism
• Provide artificial subterranean bat roosts to
replace roosts in disturbed caves
• Restore and maintain microclimate in modified
caves
• Retain bat access points to caves
• Train tourist guides to minimize disturbance and
promote bat conservation

98
 2.6 Threat: Human intrusions and disturbance

Likely to be beneficial

● Impose restrictions on cave visits

Three studies evaluated the effects of imposing restrictions on cave visits on
bat populations. One study was in the USA, one in Canada and one in Turkey.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)
Abundance (2 studies): Two before-and-after studies in Canada and Turkey
found that bat populations within caves increased after restrictions on cave
visitors were imposed.
BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)
Behaviour change (1 study): One study in the USA found that reducing the
number of people within cave tour groups did not have a significant effect
on the number of take-offs, landings or overall activity (bat movements) of
a cave myotis colony roosting within the cave.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 64%; certainty 45%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1002

Trade-off between benefit and harms

● Install and maintain cave gates to restrict public access

Eleven studies evaluated the effects of installing cave gates on bat populations.
Five studies were in Europe and six studies were in the USA.
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.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 99

Bat Conservation

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 USA4 found that significantly
fewer bats emerged from a cave with a gate installed compared with a cave
with a fence.
Assessment: trade-off between benefit and harms (effectiveness 70%; certainty 50%;
harms 20%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/999

Unknown effectiveness

● Install fencing around cave entrances to restrict public

access
Two studies evaluated the effects of installing fencing around cave entrances
on bat populations. One study was in the USA and one study was in Spain.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Spain found
no difference in the population growth rates of bats roosting in caves with
and without fencing or gates installed.
BEHAVIOUR (2 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
fencing or gates installed.

100
 2.6 Threat: Human intrusions and disturbance

Behaviour change (1 study): One controlled, before-and-after study in the

USA found that significantly more southeastern myotis bats and gray myotis
bats emerged from a cave after a steel gate was replaced with a fence.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 40%; certainty 20%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1991

● Minimize noise levels within caves

One study evaluated the effects of minimizing noise levels within caves on
bat populations. The study was in the USA.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)
Behaviour change (1 study): One controlled study in the USA found that
experimental cave tours with groups that did not talk resulted in fewer bat
flights than when groups did talk, but talking did not have an effect on the
number of bat movements.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 40%; certainty 21%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1995

● Restrict artificial lighting in caves and around cave

entrances
One study evaluated the effects of restricting artificial lighting in caves on
bat populations. The study was in the USA.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)
Behaviour change (1 study): One controlled study in the USA found that
using low intensity white lights or red lights in caves resulted in fewer bat
flights than with full white lighting, but the number of bat movements was
similar between all three light treatments.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 15%; certainty 12%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1994

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 101

Bat Conservation

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Inform the public of ways to reduce disturbance to bats in caves
• Introduce guidelines for sustainable cave development and use
• Minimize alterations to caves for tourism
• Provide artificial subterranean bat roosts to replace roosts in
disturbed caves
• Restore and maintain microclimate in modified caves
• Retain bat access points to caves
• Train tourist guides to minimize disturbance and promote bat
conservation.

102
 2.7 Threat: Natural system
modifications

2.7.1 Fire or fire suppression

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for fire or fire suppression?
Likely to be • Use prescribed burning
beneficial

Likely to be beneficial

● Use prescribed burning

Twelve studies evaluated the effects of prescribed burning on bat populations.
Eleven studies were in the USA and one study was in Australia.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Community composition (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-
after, paired sites study in Australia found that the composition of bat species
differed between burned and unburned woodland sites.
POPULATION RESPONSE (8 STUDIES)
Abundance (8 studies): Two replicated, site comparison studies (including
one controlled study) in the USA found that the activity (relative abundance)
of open habitat bat species and evening bats increased with the number of
prescribed fires, but there was no effect on other bat species, including cluttered
habitat bat species. Three replicated, before-and-after or site comparison

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 103

Bat Conservation

studies (including two controlled studies) in the USA and Australia found
that prescribed burning or prescribed burning along with thinning resulted
in higher overall bat activity or activity of Florida bonneted bats. One site
comparison study in the USA found that two of seven sites that had been
burned alongside other restoration practices had higher bat activity than
unrestored sites. One replicated, randomized, site comparison study in the
USA found that three of four burning and thinning treatments resulted
in higher overall bat activity. One replicated, controlled, site comparison
study in the USA found similar activity of three bat species in burned and
unburned tree stands.
BEHAVIOUR (4 STUDIES)
Use (4 studies): One replicated, controlled before-and-after study in the
USA found that more female northern myotis bats roosted in burned than
unburned forest. Two replicated, controlled, site comparison studies in the
USA found that fewer female northern myotis bats and male Indiana bats
roosted in burned than unburned forest. One replicated study in the USA
found that evening bats roosted in burned but not unburned forest.
Behaviour change (3studies): Two replicated, controlled, site comparison
studies in the USA found no difference in roost switching frequency or
the distance between roost trees for female northern myotis bats and male
Indiana bats in burned and unburned forests. One replicated, controlled,
before-and-after study in the USA found that female northern myotis home
ranges and core areas did not differ in size between burned and unburned
forests, but home ranges were closer to burned forest than unburned forest.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 60%; certainty 50%; harms 18%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1006

104
 2.7 Threat: Natural system modifications

2.7.2 Dams and water management/use

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for dams and water management/use?
Unknown • Create or maintain small dams to provide
effectiveness foraging and drinking habitat for bats
• Relocate bat colonies roosting inside dams

Unknown effectiveness

● Create or maintain small dams to provide foraging and

drinking habitat for bats
One study evaluated the effects of maintaining small dams as foraging and
drinking habitat for bats on bat populations. The study was in Portugal.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Portugal
found that reservoirs created using small dams had greater activity (relative
abundance) of four bat species than the streams feeding into them.
BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 51%; certainty 20%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1997

● Relocate bat colonies roosting inside dams

One study evaluated the effects of relocating bat colonies inside dams on
bat populations. The study was in Argentina.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Abundance (1 study): One study in Argentina found that almost two-thirds
of a large colony of Brazilian free-tailed bats relocated to a different dam
compartment five months after being displaced from six compartments
where the colony originally roosted.
BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 5%; certainty 5%; harms 5%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1998

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 105

 2.8 Threat: Invasive or
problematic species and disease

2.8.1 Invasive species

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for invasive species?
Likely to be • Control invasive predators
beneficial
Unknown • Control invasive plant species
effectiveness
No evidence • Control harmful invasive bat prey species
found (no • Control invasive non-predatory competitors
assessment)
• Exclude domestic and feral cats from bat roosts
and roost entrances
• Keep domestic cats indoors at night
• Use collar-mounted devices on cats to reduce
predation of bats

Likely to be beneficial

● Control invasive predators

One study evaluated the effects of controlling invasive predators on bat
populations. The study was in New Zealand.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Survival (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after study in New Zealand
found that controlling ship rats resulted in increased survival probabilities
for female long-tailed bats.

106
 2.8 Threat: Invasive or problematic species and disease

BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 80%; certainty 40%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1007

Unknown effectiveness

● Control invasive plant species

One study evaluated the effects of controlling invasive plant species on bat
populations. The study was in the USA.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Abundance (1 study): One site comparison study in the USA found that two
of seven forest fragments where invasive plant species had been removed
alongside other restoration practices had significantly higher bat activity
(relative abundance) than two unrestored forest fragments.
BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 20%; certainty 10%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1008

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Control harmful invasive bat prey species
• Control invasive non-predatory competitors
• Exclude domestic and feral cats from bat roosts and roost entrances
• Keep domestic cats indoors at night
• Use collar-mounted devices on cats to reduce predation of bats.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 107

Bat Conservation

2.8.2 White-nose syndrome

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for white-nose syndrome?
Unknown • Modify bat hibernacula environments to increase
effectiveness bat survival
• Treat bats for infection with white-nose syndrome
No evidence • Breed bats in captivity to supplement wild
found (no populations affected by white-nose syndrome
assessment) • Cull infected bats
• Decontaminate clothing and equipment after
entering caves
• Restrict human access to bat caves to prevent
spread of disease
• Treat bat hibernacula environments to reduce
pathogen reservoir
• Vaccinate bats against the white-nose syndrome
pathogen

Unknown effectiveness

● Modify bat hibernacula environments to increase bat

survival
One study evaluated the effects of modifying hibernacula environments to
increase bat survival. The study was in the USA.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Survival (1 study): One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the USA
found that a greater number of little brown bats infected with the white-
nose syndrome fungus survived in hibernation chambers at 4°C than at 10°
BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)
Behaviour change (1 study): One randomized, replicated, controlled study in
the USA found that little brown bats infected with the white-nose syndrome
fungus stayed in hibernation for longer in hibernation chambers at 4°C than
at 10°.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 50%; certainty 30%; harms 10%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1013

108
 2.8 Threat: Invasive or problematic species and disease

● Treat bats for infection with white-nose syndrome

One study evaluated the effects of treating bats with a probiotic bacterium
to reduce white-nose syndrome infection. The study was in Canada.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Survival (1 study): One randomized, replicated, controlled study in Canada
found that treating little brown bats with a probiotic bacterium at the time
of infection with white-nose syndrome increased survival, but treating bats
21 days prior to infection had no effect.
Condition (1 study): One randomized, replicated, controlled study in Canada
found that treating little brown bats with a probiotic bacterium at the time of
infection with white-nose syndrome reduced the symptoms of the disease,
but treating bats 21 days prior to infection made symptoms worse.
BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 30%; certainty 25%; harms 10%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2008

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Breed bats in captivity to supplement wild populations affected by
white-nose syndrome
• Cull infected bats
• Decontaminate clothing and equipment after entering caves
• Restrict human access to bat caves to prevent spread of disease
• Treat bat hibernacula environments to reduce pathogen reservoir
• Vaccinate bats against the white-nose syndrome pathogen.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 109

Bat Conservation

2.8.3 Disease

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for disease?
No evidence • Carry out surveillance of bats for early
found (no treatment/action to reduce disease/viruses
assessment)

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Carry out surveillance of bats for early treatment/action to reduce
disease/viruses.

2.8.4 Problematic native species

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for problematic native species?
No evidence • Modify bats roosts to reduce negative impacts of
found (no one bat species on another
assessment) • Protect bats within roosts from disturbance or
predation by native species

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Modify bats roosts to reduce negative impacts of one bat species on
another
• Protect bats within roosts from disturbance or predation by native
species.

110
 2.9 Threat: Pollution

2.9.1 Domestic and urban waste water

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for domestic and urban waste water?
Unknown • Change effluent treatments of domestic and
effectiveness urban waste water
No evidence • Prevent pollution from sewage treatment
found (no facilities from entering watercourses
assessment) • Reduce or prevent the use of septic systems near
caves

Unknown effectiveness

● Change effluent treatments of domestic and urban waste

water
One study evaluated the effects of different sewage treatments on the activity
of foraging bats. The study was in the UK. We found no studies that evaluated
the effects of changing effluent treatments of domestic and urban waste water
discharged into rivers on bat populations.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the UK found
higher activity (relative abundance) of foraging bats over filter bed sewage
treatment works than over active sludge systems.
BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 25%; certainty 20%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1014

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 111

Bat Conservation

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Prevent pollution from sewage treatment facilities from entering
watercourses
• Reduce or prevent the use of septic systems near caves.

2.9.2 Agricultural and forestry effluents

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for agricultural and forestry effluents?
Likely to be • Reduce pesticide, herbicide or fertiliser use
beneficial
No evidence • Change effluent treatments used in agriculture
found (no and forestry
assessment) • Introduce legislation to control the use of
hazardous substances
• Plant riparian buffer strips
• Prevent pollution from agricultural land or
forestry from entering watercourses
• Use organic pest control instead of synthetic
pesticides

Likely to be beneficial

● Reduce pesticide, herbicide or fertiliser use

Three studies evaluated the effects of reducing pesticide, herbicide and
fertiliser use on bat populations. One study was in Mexico, one was in
Portugal, and one in Germany.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES)
Community composition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study
in Portugal found that farms using few or no chemicals had different
compositions of bat species to farms using high chemical inputs.

112
 2.9 Threat: Pollution

Richness/diversity (2 studies): One site comparison study in Mexico found

that coffee agroforestry plantations using few or no chemicals had a higher
diversity of insect-eating bat species than plantations with high chemical
inputs, but the diversity of fruit and nectar-eating bat species did not differ.
One paired sites study in Germany recorded more bat species over grassland
with moderate or no fertiliser applications than grassland with high fertiliser
applications.
POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)
Abundance (2 studies): Two site comparison or paired sites studies (one
replicated) in Portugal and Germany found that farms or grasslands with
few or no chemical inputs had higher overall bat activity (relative abundance)
than those using high chemical inputs.
BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 72%; certainty 50%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2013

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Change effluent treatments used in agriculture and forestry
• Introduce legislation to control the use of hazardous substances
• Plant riparian buffer strips
• Prevent pollution from agricultural land or forestry from entering
watercourses
• Use organic pest control instead of synthetic pesticides.

2.9.3 Light pollution

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for light pollution?
Likely to be • Avoid illumination of bat commuting routes
beneficial • Leave bat roosts and roost entrances unlit
• Use low intensity lighting
• Use red lighting rather than other lighting colours

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 113

Bat Conservation

Unknown • Avoid illumination of bat foraging, drinking and

effectiveness swarming sites
• Restrict timing of lighting
• Use UV filters on lights
No evidence • Direct lighting away from bat access points or
found (no habitats
assessment) • Use 'warm white' rather than 'cool' LED lights
• Use glazing treatments to reduce light spill from
inside lit buildings

Likely to be beneficial

● Avoid illumination of bat commuting routes

Three studies evaluated the effects of avoiding the illumination of bat
commuting routes on bat populations. One study was in the Netherlands
and two in the UK.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES)
Abundance (2 studies): One replicated, before-and-after study in the
Netherlands found similar numbers of pond bats flying along unlit canals
and canals illuminated with lamps. Two replicated, controlled studies in the
UK found greater activity (relative abundance) of lesser horseshoe bats and
myotis bats along unlit hedges than along hedges illuminated with street
lights, but activity was similar for common and soprano pipistrelles and
Nyctalus/Eptesicus species along unlit and illuminated hedges.
BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES)
Behaviour change (2 studies): One replicated, before-and-after study in the
Netherlands found that 28–96% of pond bats changed their flight paths along
canals to avoid light spill from lamps. One replicated, controlled study in the
UK found that lesser horseshoe bats were active earlier along unlit hedges
than along those illuminated with street lights.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 70%; certainty 50%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2017

114
 2.9 Threat: Pollution

● Leave bat roosts and roost entrances unlit

Three studies evaluated the effects of leaving bat roosts and roost entrances
unlit on bat populations. One study was in the UK, one in Hungary and one
in Sweden.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Condition (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Hungary found that
juvenile bats had a higher body mass and greater forearm length at unlit
roosts than at roosts with artificial lighting.
BEHAVIOUR (3 STUDIES)
Use (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after study in Sweden found that all
of 13 unlit churches continued to be used by brown long-eared bat colonies
over 25 years, but bat colonies abandoned their roosts at 14 of 23 churches
that were either partly or fully lit with floodlights.
Behaviour change (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies in the UK
and Hungary found that more bats emerged, and bats emerged earlier and
foraged for shorter periods, when roosts were left unlit than when they had
artificial lighting.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 80%; certainty 46%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1017

● Use low intensity lighting

Three studies evaluated the effects of using low intensity lighting on bat
populations. The three studies were in the UK.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)
Abundance (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study
in the UK found that activity (relative abundance) of lesser horseshoe
bats, but not myotis bats, was higher along hedges with medium or low
intensity lighting than hedges with high intensity lighting. One replicated,
randomized, controlled study in the UK found that activity of myotis bats,
but not common pipistrelles, was higher along treelined roads with street
lights dimmed to an intensity of 25% than roads with streetlights dimmed
to 50% or left undimmed.
BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 115

Bat Conservation

Behaviour change (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the UK found

that more soprano pipistrelles emerged from two roosts when the intensity
of red lights was reduced by placing filters over them.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 65%; certainty 50%; harms 5%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1018

● Use red lighting rather than other lighting colours

Three studies evaluated the effects of red lighting on bat populations. One
study was in the UK, and two studies were in the Netherlands.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)
Abundance (2 studies): One replicated, controlled, site comparison study in
the Netherlands found that red lighting resulted in higher activity (relative
abundance) for one of three bat species groups than white or green lighting.
One site comparison study in the Netherlands found that culverts illuminated
with red light had similar activity of commuting Daubenton’s bats as culverts
illuminated with white or green light.
BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)
Behaviour (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the UK found that
more soprano pipistrelles emerged from a roost when lit with red light
than when lit with white light, but no difference was found between red
and blue lights.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 50%; certainty 50%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2021

Unknown effectiveness

● Avoid illumination of bat foraging, drinking and

swarming sites
One study evaluated the effects of avoiding the illumination of key bat
habitats on bat populations. The study was in Italy.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, before-and-after study in
Italy found that unlit water troughs had greater activity (relative abundance)
of five of six bat species/species groups than troughs illuminated with
artificial light.

116
 2.9 Threat: Pollution

BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 72%; certainty 35%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2018

● Restrict timing of lighting

One study evaluated the effects of restricting the timing of lighting on bat
populations. The study was in France.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired sites study in France found
that turning off streetlights for part of the night resulted in mixed results
for activity (relative abundance), depending on bat species, when compared
with leaving streetlights switched on all night.
BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 38%; certainty 20%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1019

● Use UV filters on lights

One study evaluated the effects of using ultraviolet filters on lights on bat
populations. The study was in the UK.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Abundance (1 study): One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the
UK found that hedges lit with ultraviolet filtered lights had higher soprano
pipistrelle, but not common pipistrelle activity (relative abundance) than
hedges lit with unfiltered light.
BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 45%; certainty 22%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1020

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Direct lighting away from bat access points or habitats
• Use 'warm white' rather than 'cool' LED lights
• Use glazing treatments to reduce light spill from inside lit buildings.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 117

Bat Conservation

2.9.4 Timber treatments

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for timber treatments?
Likely to be • Restrict timing of timber treatment application
ineffective or harmful
No evidence found • Use mammal-safe timber treatments in roof
(no assessment) spaces

Likely to be ineffective or harmful

● Restrict timing of timber treatment application

One study evaluated the effects of restricting the timing of timber treatment
application on bat populations. The study was in the UK.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Survival (1 study): One replicated, controlled laboratory study in the UK
found that treating timber with lindane and pentachlorophenol 14 months
prior to exposure by bats increased survival but did not prevent death.
BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)
Assessment: likely to be ineffective or harmful (effectiveness 5%; certainty 55%;
harms 50%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1023

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Use mammal-safe timber treatments in roof spaces.

118
 2.9 Threat: Pollution

2.9.5 Industrial effluents

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for industrial effluents?
No evidence • Introduce or enforce legislation to prevent ponds
found (no and streams from being contaminated by toxins
assessment)

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Introduce or enforce legislation to prevent ponds and streams from
being contaminated by toxins.

2.9.6 Noise pollution

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for noise pollution?
No evidence • Impose noise limits in proximity to bat roosts
found (no and habitats
assessment) • Install sound barriers in proximity to bat roosts
and habitats

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Impose noise limits in proximity to bat roosts and habitats
• Install sound barriers in proximity to bat roosts and habitats.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 119

 2.10 Threat: Climate change
and severe weather

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for climate change and severe weather?
No evidence • Adapt bat roost structures to buffer against
found (no temperature extremes
assessment) • Enhance natural habitat features to improve
landscape connectivity to allow for range shifts
of bats
• Manage natural water bodies in arid areas to
prevent desiccation
• Provide suitable bat foraging and roosting
habitat at expanding range fronts

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Adapt bat roost structures to buffer against temperature extremes
• Enhance natural habitat features to improve landscape connectivity
to allow for range shifts of bats
• Manage natural water bodies in arid areas to prevent desiccation
• Provide suitable bat foraging and roosting habitat at expanding
range fronts.

120
 2.11 Habitat protection

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for habitat protection?
Likely to be • Legally protect bat habitats
beneficial
Unknown • Conserve roosting sites for bats in old structures
effectiveness or buildings
No evidence • Retain buffer zones around core bat habitat
found (no • Retain connectivity between habitat patches
assessment)
• Retain existing bat commuting routes
• Retain native forest and woodland
• Retain remnant habitat patches
• Retain veteran and standing dead trees as
roosting sites for bats
• Retain wetlands

Likely to be beneficial

● Legally protect bat habitats

Five studies evaluated the effects of legally protecting bat habitats on bat
populations. Four studies were in Europe, and one in India.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)
Community composition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study
in India found that the composition of bat species was similar in protected
forest and unprotected forest fragments.
Richness/diversity (2 studies): Two replicated, site comparison or paired
sites studies in Europe and India found that the number of bat species did

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 121

Bat Conservation

not differ between protected and unprotected forests or forest fragments.

One replicated, site comparison study in France found that protected sites
had a greater number of bat species than unprotected sites.
POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES)
Abundance (4 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in the UK
found that the activity (relative abundance) of Daubenton’s bats was higher
over rivers on farms in protected areas than in unprotected areas. One
replicated, paired sites study in Europe found that the activity of common
noctule bats was higher in protected forests than unprotected forests, but
bat activity overall did not differ. Two replicated, site comparison studies in
France and India found higher overall bat activity, higher activity of three
of six bat species/species groups and a greater number of bats in protected
sites and forests than unprotected sites and forests.
BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)
Use (1 study): One study in Spain found that the distributions of 10 of 11
bat species overlapped with areas designated to protect them significantly
more than by chance.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 50%; certainty 41%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2045

Unknown effectiveness

● Conserve roosting sites for bats in old structures or

buildings
Two studies evaluated the effects of conserving roosting sites for bats in old
structures or buildings on bat populations. Both studies were in the UK.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Abundance (1 study): One before-and-after study in the UK found that a
greater number of bats hibernated in a railway tunnel after walls with access
grilles were installed at the tunnel entrances and wood was attached to the
tunnel walls.
BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)
Use (1 study): One before-and-after study in the UK found that Natterer’s
bats used a roost that was ‘boxed-in’ within a church, but the number of bats
using the roost was reduced by half.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 50%; certainty 20%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2046

122
 2.11 Habitat protection

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Retain buffer zones around core bat habitat
• Retain connectivity between habitat patches
• Retain existing bat commuting routes
• Retain native forest and woodland
• Retain remnant habitat patches
• Retain veteran and standing dead trees as roosting sites for bats
• Retain wetlands.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 123

 2.12 Habitat restoration
and creation

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for habitat restoration and creation?
Likely to be • Create artificial water sources
beneficial • Restore or create wetlands
Unknown • Create artificial caves or hibernacula for bats
effectiveness • Create artificial hollows and cracks in trees for
roosting bats
• Reinstate bat roosts in felled tree trunks
• Restore or create forest or woodland
• Restore or create grassland
No evidence • Create new unlit commuting routes using
found (no planting
assessment) • Restore or create linear habitat features/green
corridors

Likely to be beneficial

● Create artificial water sources

Five studies evaluated the effects of creating artificial water sources for bats
on bat populations. One study was in the USA, one in Germany, one in South
Africa, one in Israel, and one in Mexico.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

124
 2.12 Habitat restoration and creation

Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, paired sites study in South Africa

found a similar number of bat species over farm ponds and in grassland/
crops, trees, vineyards or orchards.
POPULATION RESPONSE (5 STUDIES)
Abundance (5 studies): Five replicated studies (including four site comparisons
and one paired sites study) in Israel, the USA, Germany, South Africa and
Mexico found that bat activity (relative abundance) was similar or higher
over reservoirs and waste water treatment pools, heliponds and drainage
ditches, retention ponds and farm/cattle ponds compared to over natural
wetlands, nearby vineyards, surrounding forest or grassland/crops, trees
and orchards.
BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 70%; certainty 55%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/959

● Restore or create wetlands

One study evaluated the effects of restoring wetlands on bat populations.
The study was in the USA.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in
the USA found that restoring wetlands increased overall bat activity (relative
abundance), and restored wetlands had similar bat activity to undisturbed
wetlands.
BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 62%; certainty 40%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2036

Unknown effectiveness

● Create artificial caves or hibernacula for bats

Two studies evaluated the effects of creating artificial caves or hibernacula
for bats on bat populations. Both studies were in the UK.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES)
Uptake (1 study): One study in the UK found that the number of bats using
an artificial hibernaculum increased in each of nine years after it was built.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 125

Bat Conservation

Use (2 studies): One study in the UK found that an artificial cave was used
by a small number of brown long-eared bats. One study in the UK found
that an artificial hibernaculum was used by four bat species.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 55%; certainty 22%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2049

● Create artificial hollows and cracks in trees for roosting

bats
One study evaluated the effects of creating artificial hollows and cracks in
trees for roosting bats. The study was in Australia.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)
Use (1 study): One replicated study in Australia found that eight of 16 artificial
hollows cut into trees for bats, birds and marsupials with two different
entrance designs were used by roosting long-eared bats.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 50%; certainty 23%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2047

● Reinstate bat roosts in felled tree trunks

One study evaluated the effects of reinstating a bat roost within a felled tree
trunk on bat populations. The study was in the UK.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)
Use (1 study): One before-and-after study in the UK found that a roost
reinstated by attaching the felled tree trunk to a nearby tree continued to be
used by common noctule bats as a maternity roost.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 35%; certainty 10%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2048

● Restore or create forest or woodland

Two studies evaluated the effects of restoring forests on bat populations.
One study was in Brazil and one in Australia.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Richness/diversity (1 study): One site comparison study in Brazil found that
a reforested area had significantly lower bat diversity than a native forest
fragment.

126
 2.12 Habitat restoration and creation

POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

Abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled, site comparison study in
Australia found that forests restored after mining had significantly higher
or similar bat activity (relative abundance) as unmined forests for five of
seven bat species.
BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 40%; certainty 15%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2050

● Restore or create grassland

One study evaluated the effects of creating grassland on bat populations.
The study was in the UK.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired sites study in the UK found that
pipistrelle activity (relative abundance) did not differ between species-rich
grassland created on agri-environment scheme farms and improved pasture
or crop fields on conventional farms.
BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 2%; certainty 10%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2051

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Create new unlit commuting routes using planting
• Restore or create linear habitat features/green corridors.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 127

 2.13 Species management

2.13.1 Species management

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for species management?
Unknown • Manage microclimate of artificial bat roosts
effectiveness • Provide bat boxes for roosting bats
No evidence • Legally protect bat species
found (no • Regularly clean bat boxes to increase occupancy
assessment)
• Release captive-bred bats

Unknown effectiveness

● Manage microclimate of artificial bat roosts

Three studies evaluated the effects of managing the microclimate of artificial
bat roosts on bat populations. Two studies were in the UK, and one in Spain.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Abundance (1 study): One before-and-after study in Spain found more bats in
two artificial roosts within buildings after they had been modified to reduce
internal roost temperatures.
BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES)
Use (2 studies): One replicated, before-and-after study in the UK found that
heated bat boxes were used by common pipistrelle bats at one of seven sites,
but none were used by maternity colonies. One replicated study in the UK

128
 2.13 Species management

found that none of the 12 heated bat boxes installed within churches were
used by displaced Natterer’s bats.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 40%; certainty 30%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2052

● Provide bat boxes for roosting bats

Forty-two studies evaluated the effects of providing bat boxes for roosting
bats on bat populations. Twenty-six studies were in Europe, nine studies
were in North America, four studies were in Australia, two studies were in
South America, and one study was a worldwide review.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
BEHAVIOUR (42 STUDIES)
Uptake (9 studies): Nine replicated studies in Europe and the USA found
that the number of bats using bat boxes increased by 2–10 times up to 10
years after installation.
Use (42 studies): Thirty-six of 41 studies (including 33 replicated studies
and two reviews) in Europe, the USA, South America, and Australia found
that bats used bat boxes installed under bridges and in forest or woodland,
forestry plantations, farmland, pasture, wetlands, urban areas or unknown
habitats. The other two studies in the USA and UK found that bats displaced
from buildings did not use any of 43 bat houses of four different designs or
12 heated bat boxes of one design. One review of 109 studies across Europe,
North America and Asia found that 72 bat species used bat boxes, although
only 18 species commonly used them, and 31 species used them as maternity
roosts. Twenty-one studies (including sixteen replicated studies, one before-
and-after study and two reviews) found bats occupying less than half of bat
boxes provided (0–49%). Nine replicated studies found bats occupying more
than half of bat boxes provided (54–100%).
OTHER (21 STUDIES)
Bat box design (15 studies): Two studies in Germany and Portugal found that
bats used black bat boxes more than grey or white boxes. One of two studies
in Spain and the USA found higher occupancy rates in larger bat boxes.
One study in the USA found that bats used both resin and wood cylindrical
bat boxes, but another study in the USA found that resin bat boxes became
occupied more quickly than wood boxes. One study in the UK found higher
occupancy rates in concrete than wooden bat boxes. One study in the USA

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 129

Bat Conservation

found that Indiana bats used rocket boxes more than wooden bat boxes or
bark-mimic roosts. One study in Spain found that more bats occupied bat
boxes that had two compartments than one compartment in the breeding
season. One study in Lithuania found that bat breeding colonies occupied
standard and four/five chamber bat boxes and individuals occupied flat bat
boxes. Three studies in the USA, UK and Spain found bats selecting four of
nine, three of five and three of four bat box designs. One study in the UK
found that different bat box designs were used by different species. One
study in Costa Rica found that bat boxes simulating tree trunks were used
by 100% of bats and in group sizes similar to natural roosts.
Bat box position (11 studies): Three studies in Germany, Spain and the USA
found that bat box orientation and/or the amount of exposure to sunlight
affected bat occupancy, and one study in Spain found that orientation did
not have a significant effect on occupancy. Two studies in the UK and Italy
found that bat box height affected occupancy, and two studies in Spain and
the USA found no effect of height. Two studies in the USA and Spain found
higher occupancy of bat boxes on buildings than on trees. One study in
Australia found that bat boxes were occupied more often in farm forestry
sites than in native forest, one study in Poland found higher occupancy in
pine relative to mixed deciduous stands, and one study in Costa Rica found
higher occupancy in forest fragments than in pasture. One study in the USA
found higher occupancy rates in areas where bats were known to roost prior
to installing bat boxes.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 30%; certainty 20%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1024

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Legally protect bat species
• Regularly clean bat boxes to increase occupancy
• Release captive-bred bats.

130
 2.13 Species management

2.13.2 Ex-situ conservation

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for ex-situ conservation?
Unknown • Rehabilitate injured/orphaned bats to maintain
effectiveness wild bat populations
Unlikely to be • Breed bats in captivity
beneficial

Unknown effectiveness

● Rehabilitate injured/orphaned bats to maintain wild bat

populations
Four studies evaluated the effects of rehabilitating injured/orphaned bats
on bat populations. Two studies were in the UK, one was in Italy and one
in Brazil.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES)
Survival (4 studies): One study in Brazil found that two hand-reared orphaned
greater spear-nosed bats survived for over three months in captivity. Two
studies in the UK and Italy found that 70–90% of hand-reared pipistrelle
bats survived for at least 4–14 days after release into the wild, and six of 21
bats joined wild bat colonies. One study in the UK found that pipistrelle
bats that flew in a large flight cage for long periods before release survived
for longer and were more active than bats that flew for short periods or in a
small enclosure. One study in the UK found that 13% of ringed hand-reared
pipstrelle bats were found alive in bat boxes 38 days to almost four years
after release into the wild.
Condition (1 study): One study in Brazil found that two orphaned greater
spear-nosed bats increased in body weight and size after being hand-reared,
and reached a normal size for the species after 60 days.
BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 47%; certainty 27%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2054

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 131

Bat Conservation

Unlikely to be beneficial

● Breed bats in captivity

Six studies evaluated the effects of breeding bats in captivity on bat populations.
Three studies were in the USA, two in the UK and one in Brazil.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (6 STUDIES)
Reproductive success (5 studies): Five studies in the USA, UK and Brazil
found that 6–100% of female bats captured in the wild successfully conceived,
gave birth and reared young in captivity. Two studies in the UK and Brazil
found that two of five and two of three bats born in captivity successfully
gave birth to live young.
Survival (6 studies): Six studies in the USA, UK and Brazil found that 20–86%
of bat pups born in captivity survived from between 10 days to adulthood.
BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)
Assessment: unlikely to be beneficial (effectiveness 30%; certainty 40%; harms 18%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2053

2.13.3 Translocation

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for translocation?
Likely to be • Translocate bats
ineffective or
harmful

Likely to be ineffective or harmful

● Translocate bats
Two studies evaluated the effects of translocating bats on bat populations.
One study was in New Zealand and one study was in Switzerland.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)

132
 2.13 Species management

Reproductive success (1 study): One study in Switzerland found that a female

greater horseshoe bat that settled at a release site after translocation had a
failed pregnancy.
Survival (1 study): One study in Switzerland found that four of 18 bats died
after translocation.
Condition (1 study): One study in New Zealand found that lesser short-tailed
bats captured at release sites eight months after translocation were balding
and had damaged, infected ears.
BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES)
Uptake (2 studies): Two studies in New Zealand and Switzerland found that
low numbers of bats remained at release sites after translocation.
Behaviour change (1 study): One study in Switzerland found that bats homed
after release at translocation sites less than 20 km from their original roosts.
Assessment: likely to be ineffective or harmful (effectiveness 5%; certainty 40%;
harms 80%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1009

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 133

 2.14 Education and
awareness raising

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for education and awareness raising?
No evidence • Educate farmers, land managers and local
found (no communities about the benefits of bats to
assessment) improve management of bat habitats
• Educate farmers, local communities and pest
controllers to reduce indiscriminate culling of
vampire bats
• Educate pest controllers and homeowners/
tenants to reduce the illegal use of pesticides in
bat roosts
• Educate the public to improve perception of bats
to improve behaviour towards bats
• Engage policymakers to make policy changes
beneficial to bats
• Promote careful bat-related eco-tourism to
improve behaviour towards bats
• Provide training to conservationists, land
managers, and the building and development
sector on bat ecology and conservation to reduce
bat roost disturbance

134
 2.14 Education and awareness raising

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Educate farmers, land managers and local communities about the
benefits of bats to improve management of bat habitats
• Educate farmers, local communities and pest controllers to reduce
indiscriminate culling of vampire bats
• Educate pest controllers and homeowners/tenants to reduce the
illegal use of pesticides in bat roosts
• Educate the public to improve perception of bats to improve
behaviour towards bats
• Engage policymakers to make policy changes beneficial to bats
• Promote careful bat-related eco-tourism to improve behaviour
towards bats
• Provide training to conservationists, land managers, and the
building and development sector on bat ecology and conservation to
reduce bat roost disturbance.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 135

3. BIRD CONSERVATION
David R. Williams, Matthew F. Child, Lynn V. Dicks, Nancy Ockendon,
Robert G. Pople, David A. Showler, Jessica C. Walsh, Erasmus K. H. J.
zu Ermgassen & William J. Sutherland

Expert assessors
Tatsuya Amano, University of Cambridge, UK
Andy Brown, Natural England, UK
Fiona Burns, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, UK
Yohay Carmel, Israel Institute of Technology
Mick Clout, University of Auckland, New Zealand
Geoff Hilton, Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust, UK
Nancy Ockendon, University of Cambridge, UK
James Pearce-Higgins, British Trust for Ornithology, UK
Sugoto Roy, Food and Environment Research Agency, DEFRA, UK
Rebecca K. Smith, University of Cambridge, UK
William J. Sutherland, University of Cambridge, UK
Judit Szabo, Charles Darwin University, Australia
Bernie Tershy, University of California, USA
Des Thomson, Scottish Natural Heritage, UK
Stuart Warrington, National Trust, UK
David Williams, University of Cambridge, UK

Scope of assessment: for native wild bird species across the world.

Assessed: 2015.

Effectiveness measure is the median % score.

Certainty measure is the median % certainty of evidence, determined by

the quantity and quality of the evidence in the synopsis.

Harm measure is the median % score for negative side-effects to the group
of species of concern. This was not scored for section 3.11 on invasive
species.

© W. Sutherland et al., CC BY 4.0 https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0191.03

This book is meant as a guide to the evidence available for different
conservation interventions and as a starting point in assessing their
effectiveness. The assessments are based on the available evidence for the
target group of species for each intervention. The assessment may therefore
refer to different species or habitat to the one(s) you are considering.
Before making any decisions about implementing interventions it is vital
that you read the more detailed accounts of the evidence in order to assess
their relevance for your study species or system.

Full details of the evidence are available at

www.conservationevidence.com

There may also be significant negative side-effects on the target groups

or other species or communities that have not been identified in this
assessment.

A lack of evidence means that we have been unable to assess whether or

not an intervention is effective or has any harmful impacts.

138
 3.1 Habitat protection

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for habitat protection?
Likely to be • Legally protect habitats
beneficial
Trade-offs between • Provide or retain un-harvested buffer strips
benefit and harms
Unknown • Ensure connectivity between habitat patches
effectiveness
(limited evidence)

Likely to be beneficial

Legally protect habitats for birds

Four studies from Europe found that populations increased after habitat
protection and a review from China found high use of protected habitats
by cranes. A replicated, randomised and controlled study from Argentina
found that some, but not all bird groups had higher species richness or were
at higher densities in protected habitats. Assessment: likely to be beneficial
(effectiveness 50%; certainty 52%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/158

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 139

Bird Conservation

Trade-off between benefit and harms

Provide or retain un-harvested buffer strips

Three replicated studies from the USA found that species richness or
abundances were higher in narrow (<100 m) strips of forest, but five replicated
studies from North America found that wider strips retained a community
more similar to that of uncut forest than narrow strips. Tw replicated studies
from the USA found no differences in productivity between wide and narrow
buffers, but that predation of artificial nests was higher in buffers than in
continuous forest. Assessment: trade-offs between benefits and harms (effectiveness
60%; certainty 55%; harms 20%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/161

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Ensure connectivity between habitat patches

Two studies of a replicated, controlled experiment in Canadian forests found
that some species (not forest specialists) were found at higher densities in
forest patches connected to continuous forest, compared to isolated patches
and that some species used corridors more than clearcuts between patches.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 38%; certainty
38%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/160

140
 3.2 Education and awareness
raising

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for education and awareness raising?
Likely to be • Raise awareness amongst the general public
beneficial through campaigns and public information
Unknown • Provide bird feeding materials to families with
effectiveness young children
(limited evidence)
No evidence found • Enhance bird taxonomy skills through higher
(no assessment) education and training
• Provide training to conservationists and land
managers on bird ecology and conservation

Likely to be beneficial

 aise awareness amongst the general public through

R
campaigns and public information
A literature review from North America found that education was not
sufficient to change behaviour, but that it was necessary for the success of
economic incentives and law enforcement. Assessment: likely to be beneficial
(effectiveness 45%; certainty 48%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/162

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 141

Bird Conservation

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

 rovide bird feeding materials to families with young

P
children
A single replicated, paired study from the USA found that most children
involved in a programme providing families with bird food increased their
knowledge of birds, but did not significantly change their environmental
attitudes. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness
42%; certainty 20%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/163

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Enhance bird taxonomy skills through higher education and training
• Provide training to conservationists and land managers on bird
ecology and conservation

142
 3.3 Threat: Residential and
commercial development

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of

the effectiveness of interventions for residential and commercial
development?
Unknown • Angle windows to reduce bird collisions
effectiveness • Mark windows to reduce bird collisions
(limited evidence)

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Angle windows to reduce bird collisions

A single randomised, replicated and controlled experiment in the USA
found that fewer birds collided with windows angled away from the vertical.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 60%; certainty
20%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/166

Mark windows to reduce bird collisions

Two randomised, replicated and controlled studies found that marking
windows did not appear to reduce bird collisions. However, when windows
were largely covered with white cloth, or tinted, fewer birds flew towards
or collided with them. A third randomised, replicated and controlled study
found that fewer birds collided with tinted windows than with un-tinted
ones, although the authors noted that the poor reflective quality of the glass
could have influenced the results. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited
evidence (effectiveness 20%; certainty 20%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/167

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 143

 3.4 Threat: Agriculture

3.4.1 All farming systems

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for all farming systems?
Beneficial • Plant wild bird seed or cover mixture
• Provide (or retain) set-aside areas in farmland
Likely to be • Create uncultivated margins around intensive
beneficial arable or pasture fields
• Increase the proportion of natural/semi-natural
habitat in the farmed landscape
• Manage ditches to benefit wildlife
• Pay farmers to cover the costs of conservation
measures
• Plant grass buffer strips/margins around arable
or pasture fields
• Plant nectar flower mixture/wildflower strips
• Leave refuges in fields during harvest
• Reduce conflict by deterring birds from taking
crops: use bird scarers
• Relocate nests at harvest time to reduce nestling
mortality
• Use mowing techniques to reduce mortality
Unknown • Control scrub on farmland
effectiveness • Offer per clutch payment for farmland birds
(limited evidence)
• Manage hedges to benefit wildlife
• Plant new hedges
• Reduce conflict by deterring birds from taking
crops: use repellents
• Take field corners out of management
144
 3.4 Threat: Agriculture

Likely to be • Mark bird nests during harvest or mowing

ineffective or
harmful
No evidence found • Cross compliance standards for all subsidy
(no assessment) payments
• Food labelling schemes relating to biodiversity-
friendly farming
• Manage stone-faced hedge banks to benefit birds
• Plant in-field trees
• Protect in-field trees
• Reduce field size (or maintain small fields)
• Support or maintain low-intensity agricultural
systems
• Tree pollarding, tree surgery

Beneficial

Plant wild bird seed or cover mixture

Seven of 41 studies found that fields or farms with wild bird cover had higher
diversity than other sites, or that wild bird cover held more species than
other habitats. Thirty-two studies found that populations, or abundances
of some or all species were higher on wild bird cover than other habitats, or
that wild bird cover was used more than other habitats. Four of these studies
investigated several interventions at once. Thirteen studies found that bird
populations or densities were similar on wild bird cover and other habitats
that some species were not associated with wild bird cover, or that birds
rarely used wild bird cover. Three studies found higher productivities of
birds on wild bird cover than other habitats. Two found no differences for
some or all species studied. Two studies found that survival of grey partridge
or artificial nests increased on wild bird cover; one found lower partridge
survival in farms with wild bird cover than other farms. Five studies from
the UK found that some wild bird cover crops were used more than others.
A study and a review found that the arrangement of wild bird cover in the
landscape affected its use by birds. Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness 81%;
certainty 81%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/187

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 145

Bird Conservation

Provide (or retain) set-aside areas in farmland

Four out of 23 studies from Europe and North America found more species
on set-aside than on crops. One study found fewer. Twenty-one studies found
that some species were at higher densities on set-aside than other habitats, or
that they used set-aside more often. Four found that some species were found
at lower densities on set-aside than other habitats. Three studies found that
waders and Eurasian skylarks had higher productivities on set-aside than
other crops. One study found that skylarks on set-aside had lower similar
or lower productivities than on crops. One study from the UK found that
rotational set-aside was used more than non-rotational set-aside, another
found no difference. A review from North America and Europe found that
naturally regenerated set-aside held more birds and more species than sown
set-aside. Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness 70%; certainty 75%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/175

Likely to be beneficial

 reate uncultivated margins around intensive arable or

C
pasture fields
One of eight studies found that three sparrow species found on uncultivated
margins on a site in the USA were not found on mown field edges. A replicated
study from Canada found fewer species in uncultivated margins than in
hedges or trees. Three studies found that some bird species were associated
with uncultivated margins, or that birds were more abundant on margins
than other habitats. One study found that these effects were very weak and
four studies of three experiments found that uncultivated margins contained
similar numbers of birds as other habitats in winter, or that several species
studied did not show associations with margins. A study from the UK found
that yellowhammers used uncultivated margins more than crops in early
summer. Use fell in uncut margins later in the year. A study from the UK
found that grey partridge released on uncultivated margins had high survival.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 45%; certainty 55%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/190

146
 3.4 Threat: Agriculture

I ncrease the proportion of natural/semi-natural habitat in

the farmed landscape
Two studies from Switzerland and Australia, of the five we captured, found
that areas with plantings of native species, or areas under a scheme designed
to increase semi-natural habitats (the Swiss Ecological Compensation Areas
scheme), held more bird species than other areas. One study from Switzerland
found that populations of three bird species increased in areas under the
Ecological Compensation Areas scheme. A third Swiss study found that
some habitats near Ecological Compensation Areas held more birds than
habitats further away, but the overall amount of Ecological Compensation
Area had no effect on bird populations. A study from the UK found no effect
of habitat-creation on grey partridge populations. Assessment: likely to be
beneficial (effectiveness 45%; certainty 44%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/171

Manage ditches to benefit wildlife

One study of four from the UK found that bunded ditches were visited more
often by birds than non-bunded ditches. Three studies found that some birds
responded positively to ditches managed for wildlife, but that other species
did not respond to management, or responded negatively. Assessment: likely
to be beneficial (effectiveness 40%; certainty 49%; harms 14%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/180

Pay farmers to cover the costs of conservation measures

Three out of 31 studies found national population increases in three species
after payment schemes targeted at their conservation. One found that many
other species continued declining. Twenty-two studies found that at least
some species were found at higher densities on sites with agri-environment
schemes; some differences were present only in summer or only in winter.
Fifteen studies found some species at similar densities on agri-environment
schemes and non-agri-environment scheme sites or appeared to respond
negatively to agri-environment schemes. One study found that grey partridge
survival was higher in some years on agri-environment scheme sites. Two
studies found higher productivity on agri-environment scheme sites for some
species, one found no effect of agri-environment schemes. A review found
that some agri-environment schemes options were not being used enough
to benefit many species of bird. A study from the UK found that there was
no difference in the densities of seed-eating birds in winter between two

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 147

Bird Conservation

agri-environment scheme designations. Assessment: likely to be beneficial

(effectiveness 56%; certainty 80%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/172

 lant grass buffer strips/margins around arable or

P
pasture fields
One of 15 studies found more bird species in fields in the USA that were
bordered by grass margins than in unbordered fields. Two studies from the
UK found no effect of margins on species richness. One study found that
more birds used grass strips in fields than used crops. Even more used grass
margins. Nine studies from the USA and UK found that sites with grass
margins had more positive population trends or higher populations for some
birds, or that some species showed strong habitat associations with grass
margins. Three studies found no such effect for some or all species. Two
studies found that species used margins more than other habitats and one
found that birds used cut margins more than uncut during winter, but less
than other habitats during summer. A study from the UK found that grey
partridge broods were smaller on grass margins than other habitat types.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 47%; certainty 54%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/191

Plant nectar flower mixture/wildflower strips

Three of seven studies found that birds used wildflower strips more than
other habitats; two found strips were not used more than other habitats. A
study from Switzerland found that Eurasian skylarks were more likely to
nest in patches sown with annual weeds than in crops and were less likely
to abandon nests. A study from the UK found that management of field
margins affected their use more than the seed mix used. Assessment: likely
to be beneficial (effectiveness 55%; certainty 45%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/189

Leave refuges in fields during harvest

One study found that fewer gamebirds came into contact with mowing
machinery when refuges were left in fields. A study from the UK found that
Eurasian skylarks did not nest at higher densities in uncut refuges than in
the rest of the field. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 50%; certainty
41%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/193

148
 3.4 Threat: Agriculture

 educe conflict by deterring birds from taking crops

R
(using bird scarers)
A controlled paired study in the USA found reduced levels of damage to
almond orchards when American crow distress calls were broadcast. A study
in Pakistan found that four pest species were less abundant when reflector
ribbons were hung above crops compared to where ribbons were not used.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 66%; certainty 44%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/199

 elocate nests at harvest time to reduce nestling

R
mortality
A study from Spain found that Montagu’s harrier clutches had higher hatching
and fledging rates when they were temporarily moved during harvest than
control nests that were not moved. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness
55%; certainty 42%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/195

Use mowing techniques to reduce mortality

One of three studies from the UK found a large increase in the national
population of corncrakes after a scheme to delay mowing and promote
corncrake-friendly mowing techniques. Two studies found lower levels of
corncrake and Eurasian skylark mortality when wildlife-friendly mowing
techniques were used. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 85%;
certainty 50%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/192

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Control scrub on farmland

A study from the UK found farms with a combined intervention that
included scrub control had lower numbers of young grey partridge per
adult. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 7%;
certainty 9%; harms 1%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/197

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 149

Bird Conservation

Offer per clutch payment for farmland birds

One of two studies from the Netherlands found slightly higher breeding
densities of waders on farms with per clutch payment schemes but this and
another study found no higher numbers overall. One study found higher
hatching success on farms with payment schemes. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 43%; certainty 35%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/196

Manage hedges to benefit wildlife

One of seven studies found no differences in the number of species in a UK
site with wildlife-friendly hedge management and sites without. Seven studies
found that some species increased in managed hedges or were more likely to
be found in them than other habitats. One investigated several interventions
at the same time. Four studies found that some species responded negatively
or not at all to hedge management or that effects varied across regions of
the UK. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 39%;
certainty 38%; harms 3%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/177

Plant new hedges

A study from the USA found that populations of northern bobwhites
increased following several interventions including the planting of new
hedges. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 23%;
certainty 19%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/178

 educe conflict by deterring birds from taking crops

R
(using repellents)
A replicated, randomised and controlled ex situ study in the USA found that
dickcissels consumed less rice if it was treated with two repellents compared
to controls. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness
29%; certainty 27%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/200

150
 3.4 Threat: Agriculture

Take field corners out of management

A study from the UK found that overwinter survival of grey partridge was
positively correlated with taking field corners out of management, but
this relationship was only significant in one of three winters. There was
no relationship with measures of productivity (brood size, young: adult).
Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 30%; certainty
15%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/198

Likely to be ineffective or harmful

Mark bird nests during harvest or mowing

A study from the Netherlands found that fewer northern lapwing nests
were destroyed when they were marked with bamboo poles than when they
were unmarked. Assessment: likely to be ineffective or harmful (effectiveness 30%;
certainty 45%; harms 20%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/148

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Cross compliance standards for all subsidy payments
• Food labelling schemes relating to biodiversity-friendly farming
• Manage stone-faced hedge banks to benefit birds
• Plant in-field trees
• Protect in-field trees
• Reduce field size (or maintain small fields)
• Support or maintain low-intensity agricultural systems
• Tree pollarding, tree surgery

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 151

Bird Conservation

3.4.2 Arable farming

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for arable farming systems?
Likely to be • Create ‘skylark plots’
beneficial • Leave overwinter stubbles
• Leave uncropped cultivated margins or fallow
land (includes lapwing and stone curlew plots)
• Sow crops in spring rather than autumn
• Undersow spring cereals, with clover for
example
Trade-off between • Reduce tillage
benefit and harms
Unknown • Implement mosaic management
effectiveness • Increase crop diversity to benefit birds
(limited evidence)
• Plant more than one crop per field
(intercropping)
Unlikely to be • Create beetle banks
beneficial
Likely to be • Plant cereals in wide-spaced rows
ineffective or • Revert arable land to permanent grassland
harmful
No evidence found • Add 1% barley into wheat crop for corn buntings
(no assessment) • Create corn bunting plots
• Leave unharvested cereal headlands within
arable fields
• Plant nettle strips

Likely to be beneficial

Create ‘skylark plots’ (undrilled patches in cereal fields)

One study of seven found that the Eurasian skylark population on a farm
increased after skylark plots were provided. Another found higher skylark
densities on fields with plots in. Two studies from the UK found that skylark

152
 3.4 Threat: Agriculture

productivity was higher for birds with skylark plots in their territories, a
study from Switzerland found no differences. Two studies from Denmark
and Switzerland found that skylarks used plots more than expected, but a
study from the UK found that seed-eating songbirds did not. Assessment:
likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 65%; certainty 60%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/214

Leave overwinter stubbles

Three of fourteen studies report positive population-level changes in two
species after winter stubble provision. All investigated several interventions
at once. Eight studies found that some farmland birds were found on
stubbles or were positively associated with them, three investigated several
interventions and one found no more positive associations than expected by
chance. A study from the UK found that most species did not preferentially
use stubble, compared to cover crops and another found that a greater area
of stubble in a site meant lower grey partridge brood size. Five studies from
the UK found that management of stubbles influenced their use by birds.
One study found that only one species was more common on stubbles under
agri-environment schemes. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 40%;
certainty 60%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/203

 eave uncropped cultivated margins or fallow land

L
(includes lapwing and stone curlew plots)
Three of nine studies report that the UK population of Eurasian thick-
knees increased following a scheme to promote lapwing plots (and other
interventions). A study from the UK found that plots did not appear to
influence grey partridge populations. Four studies from the UK found that
at least one species was associated with lapwing plots, or used them for
foraging or nesting. One study found that 11 species were not associated
with plots, another that fewer used plots than used crops in two regions
of the UK. Two studies found that nesting success was higher on lapwing
plots and fallow than in crops. A third found fewer grey partridge chicks
per adult on sites with lots of lapwing plots. Assessment: likely to be beneficial
(effectiveness 59%; certainty 55%; harms 15%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/213

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 153

Bird Conservation

Sow crops in spring rather than autumn

One study from Sweden, of three examining the effects of spring-sown crops,
found that more birds were found on areas with spring, rather than autumn-
sown crops. A study from the UK found that several species used the study
site for the first time after spring-sowing was started. All three studies found
that some populations increased after the start of spring sowing. A study
from the UK found that some species declined as well. A study from Sweden
found that hatching success of songbirds and northern lapwing was lower
on spring-sown, compared with autumn-sown crops. Assessment: likely to be
beneficial (effectiveness 55%; certainty 67%; harms 10%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/207

Undersow spring cereals, with clover for example

Four of five studies from the UK found that bird densities were higher on
undersown fields or margins than other fields, or that use of fields increased
if they were undersown. Two studies of the same experiment found that not
all species nested at higher densities in undersown habitats. A study from
the UK found that grey partridge populations were lower on sites with large
amounts of undersown cereal. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness
60%; certainty 45%; harms 10%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/208

Trade-off between benefit and harms

Reduce tillage
Six of ten studies found that some or all bird groups had higher species
richness or diversity on reduced-tillage fields, compared to conventional
fields in some areas. Two studies found that some groups had lower diversity
on reduced-tillage sites, or that there was no difference between treatments.
Nine studies found that some species were found at higher densities on
reduced tillage fields, six found that some species were at similar or lower
densities. Three studies found evidence for higher productivities on reduced-
tillage fields. One found that not all measures of productivity were higher.
Assessment: trade-offs between benefits and harms (effectiveness 50%; certainty
48%; harms 51%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/211

154
 3.4 Threat: Agriculture

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Implement mosaic management

One of two studies from the Netherlands found that northern lapwing
population trends, but not those of three other waders, became more positive
following the introduction of mosaic management. The other found that
black-tailed godwit productivity was higher under mosaic management
than other management types. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited
evidence (effectiveness 20%; certainty 33%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/130

Increase crop diversity to benefit birds

A study from the UK found that more barnacle geese used a site after the
amount of land under cereals was decreased and several other interventions
were used. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness
20%; certainty 19%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/201

Plant more than one crop per field (intercropping)

A study from the USA found that 35 species of bird used fields with
intercropping, with four nesting, but that productivity from the fields was
very low. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness
30%; certainty 36%; harms 18%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/209

Unlikely to be beneficial

Create beetle banks

Two of six studies from the UK found that some bird populations were
higher on sites with beetle banks. Both investigated several interventions at
once. Two studies found no relationships between bird species abundances
or populations and beetle banks. Two studies (including a review) from the
UK found that three bird species used beetle banks more than expected, one
used them less than expected. Assessment: unlikely to be beneficial (effectiveness
30%; certainty 41%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/217

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 155

Bird Conservation

Likely to be ineffective or harmful

Plant cereals in wide-spaced rows

One of three studies from the UK found that fields with wide-spaced rows
held more Eurasian skylark nests than control fields. One study found that
fields with wide-spaced rows held fewer nests. Both found that fields with
wide-spaced rows held fewer nests than fields with skylark plots. A study
from the UK found that skylark chicks in fields with wide-spaced rows had
similar diets to those in control fields. Assessment: likely to be ineffective or
harmful (effectiveness 20%; certainty 44%; harms 20%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/216

Revert arable land to permanent grassland

All five studies looking at the effects of reverting arable land to grassland
found no clear benefit to birds. The studies monitored birds in winter or
grey partridges in the UK and wading birds in Denmark. They included
three replicated controlled trials. Assessment: likely to be ineffective or harmful
(effectiveness 0%; certainty 64%; harms 10%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/210

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Add 1% barley into wheat crop for corn buntings
• Create corn bunting plots
• Leave unharvested cereal headlands within arable fields
• Plant nettle strips

156
 3.4 Threat: Agriculture

3.4.3 Livestock farming

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for livestock farming systems?
Likely to be • Delay mowing date on grasslands
beneficial • Leave uncut rye grass in silage fields
• Maintain species-rich, semi-natural grassland
• Maintain traditional water meadows
• Mark fencing to avoid bird mortality
• Plant cereals for whole crop silage
• Reduce grazing intensity
• Reduce management intensity of permanent
grasslands
Trade-off between • Exclude livestock from semi-natural habitat
benefit and harms
Unknown • Create open patches or strips in permanent
effectiveness grassland
(limited evidence) • Maintain upland heath/moor
• Protect nests from livestock to reduce trampling
• Provide short grass for waders
• Raise mowing height on grasslands
Unlikely to be • Use traditional breeds of livestock
beneficial
No evidence found • Maintain lowland heathland
(no assessment) • Maintain rush pastures
• Maintain wood pasture and parkland
• Plant Brassica fodder crops
• Use mixed stocking

Likely to be beneficial

Delay mowing date on grasslands

Two of five studies (both reviews) found that the UK corncrake populations
increased following two schemes to encourage farmers to delay mowing. A

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 157

Bird Conservation

study from the Netherlands found no evidence that waders and other birds
were more abundant in fields with delayed mowing. Another study from
the Netherlands found that fields with delayed mowing held more birds
than other fields, but differences were present before the scheme began
and population trends did not differ between treatments. A study from the
USA found that fewer nests were destroyed by machinery in late-cut fields,
compared with early-cut fields. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness
45%; certainty 52%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/223

Leave uncut rye grass in silage fields

All four studies from the UK (including two reviews) found that seed-eating
birds were benefited by leaving uncut (or once-cut) rye grass in fields, or
that seed-eating species were more abundant on uncut plots. Three studies
found that seed-eating birds were more abundant on uncut and ungrazed
plots than on uncut and grazed plots. A study from the UK found that the
responses of non-seed-eating birds were less certain than seed-eating species,
with some species avoiding uncut rye grass. Assessment: likely to be beneficial
(effectiveness 67%; certainty 56%; harms 8%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/224

Maintain species-rich, semi-natural grassland

One of two studies found that the populations of five species increased
in an area of the UK after the start of management designed to maintain
unimproved grasslands. A study from Switzerland found that wetland
birds nested at greater densities on managed hay meadows than expected,
but birds of open farmland used hay meadows less. Assessment: likely to be
beneficial (effectiveness 41%; certainty 44%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/218

Maintain traditional water meadows

One of four studies (from the UK) found that the populations of two waders
increased on reserves managed as water meadows. Two studies from the
Netherlands found that there were more waders or birds overall on specially
managed meadows or 12.5 ha plots, but one found that these differences were
present before management began, the other found no differences between
individual fields under different management. Two studies from the UK

158
 3.4 Threat: Agriculture

and Netherlands found that wader populations were no different between

specially and conventionally managed meadows, or that wader populations
decreased on specially-managed meadows. A study from the UK found that
northern lapwing productivity was not high enough to maintain populations
on three of four sites managed for waders. Assessment: likely to be beneficial
(effectiveness 50%; certainty 52%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/229

Mark fencing to avoid bird mortality

A study from the UK found that fewer birds collided with marked sections of
deer fences, compared to unmarked sections. Assessment: likely to be beneficial
(effectiveness 65%; certainty 46%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/238

Plant cereals for whole crop silage

Three studies of one experiment found that seed-eating birds used cereal-
based wholecrop silage crops more than other crops in summer and winter.
Insect-eating species used other crops and grassland more often. Assessment:
likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 55%; certainty 43%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/225

Reduce grazing intensity

Nine of eleven studies from the UK and USA found that the populations of
some species were higher on fields with reduced grazing intensity, compared
to conventionally-grazed fields, or found that birds used these fields more.
Three studies investigated several interventions at once. Five studies from
Europe found that some or all species were no more numerous, or were less
abundant on fields with reduced grazing. A study from the UK found that
black grouse populations increased at reduced grazing sites (whilst they
declined elsewhere). However, large areas with reduced grazing had low
female densities. A study from the USA found that the number of species on
plots with reduced grazing increased over time. A study from four European
countries found no differences in the number of species on sites with low-
or high-intensity grazing. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 46%;
certainty 55%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/220

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 159

Bird Conservation

Reduce management intensity of permanent grasslands

Seven of eight European studies found that some or all birds studied were
more abundant on grasslands with reduced management intensity, or used
them more than other habitats for foraging. Five studies of four experiments
found that some or all species were found at lower or similar abundances
on reduced-management grasslands, compared to intensively-managed
grasslands. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 65%; certainty 46%;
harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/219

Trade-off between benefit and harms

Exclude livestock from semi-natural habitat

Two studies from the USA, out of 11 overall, found higher species richness
on sites with grazers excluded. A study from Argentina found lower species
richness and one from the USA found no difference. Seven studies from the
USA found that overall bird abundance, or the abundances of some species
were higher in sites with grazers excluded. Seven studies from the USA and
Argentina found that overall abundance or the abundance of some species
were lower on sites without grazers, or did not differ. Three studies found
that productivities were higher on sites with grazers excluded. In one, the
difference was only found consistently in comparison with improved pastures,
not unimproved. Assessment: trade-offs between benefits and harms (effectiveness
50%; certainty 57%; harms 30%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/236

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Create open patches or strips in permanent grassland

A study from the UK found that Eurasian skylarks used fields with open
strips in, but that variations in skylark numbers were too great to draw
conclusions from this finding. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited
evidence (effectiveness 20%; certainty 19%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/239

Maintain upland heath/moor

A study from the UK found that bird populations in one region were
increasing with agri-environment guidelines on moor management. There

160
 3.4 Threat: Agriculture

were some problems with overgrazing, burning and scrub encroachment.

Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 30%; certainty
15%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/230

Protect nests from livestock to reduce trampling

One of two studies found that a population of Chatham Island oystercatchers
increased following several interventions including the erection of fencing
around individual nests. A study from Sweden found that no southern dunlin
nests were trampled when protected by cages; some unprotected nests were
destroyed. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness
56%; certainty 19%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/237

Provide short grass for waders

A study from the UK found that common starlings and northern lapwing
spent more time foraging on areas with short swards, compared to longer
swards. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 41%;
certainty 32%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/221

Raise mowing height on grasslands

One of two studies from the UK found that no more foraging birds were attracted
to plots with raised mowing heights, compared to plots with shorter grass.
A review from the UK found that Eurasian skylarks had higher productivity
on sites with raised mowing heights, but this increase was not enough to
maintain local populations. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence
(effectiveness 20%; certainty 36%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/222

Unlikely to be beneficial

Use traditional breeds of livestock

A study from four countries in Europe found no differences in bird abundances
in areas grazed with traditional or commercial breeds. Assessment: unlikely
to be beneficial (effectiveness 0%; certainty 44%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/233

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 161

Bird Conservation

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Maintain lowland heathland
• Maintain rush pastures
• Maintain wood pasture and parkland
• Plant Brassica fodder crops
• Use mixed stocking

3.4.4 Perennial, non-timber crops

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for perennial, non-timber crops?
Unknown • Maintain traditional orchards
effectiveness
(limited evidence)
No evidence found • Manage perennial bioenergy crops to benefit
(no assessment) wildlife

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Maintain traditional orchards

Two site comparison studies from the UK and Switzerland found that
traditional orchards offer little benefit to birds. In Switzerland only one
breeding bird species was associated with traditional orchards. In the UK,
the population density of cirl bunting was negatively related to the presence
of orchards. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness
10%; certainty 24%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/240

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Manage perennial bioenergy crops to benefit wildlife

162
 3.4 Threat: Agriculture

3.4.5 Aquaculture

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for aquaculture?
Likely to be • Deter birds from landing on shellfish culture
beneficial gear
• Disturb birds at roosts
• Provide refuges for fish within ponds
• Use electric fencing to exclude fish-eating birds
• Use ‘mussel socks’ to prevent birds from
attacking shellfish
• Use netting to exclude fish-eating birds
Unknown • Increase water turbidity to reduce fish predation
effectiveness by birds
(limited evidence) • Translocate birds away from fish farms
• Use in-water devices to reduce fish loss from
ponds
Unlikely to be • Disturb birds using foot patrols
beneficial • Spray water to deter birds from ponds
Likely to be • Scare birds from fish farms
ineffective or
harmful

Likely to be beneficial

Deter birds from landing on shellfish culture gear

A study from Canada found that fewer birds landed on oyster cages fitted
with spikes than control cages. The same study found that fewer birds landed
on oyster bags suspended 6 cm, but not 3 cm, underwater, compared to bags
on the surface. Assessment for using spikes on oyster cages: likely to be beneficial
(effectiveness 60%; certainty 43%; harms 0%). Assessment for suspending oyster bags
under water: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 55%; certainty 43%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/257
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/256

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 163

Bird Conservation

Disturb birds at roosts

One study from the USA found reduced fish predation after fish-eating birds
were disturbed at roosts. Five studies from the USA and Israel found that
birds foraged less near disturbed roosts, or left the area after being disturbed.
One found the effects were only temporary. Assessment: likely to be beneficial
(effectiveness 67%; certainty 45%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/245

Provide refuges for fish within ponds

A study from the UK found that cormorants caught fewer fish in a pond with
fish refuges in, compared to a control pond. Assessment: likely to be beneficial
(effectiveness 65%; certainty 43%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/253

Use electric fencing to exclude fish-eating birds

Two before-and-after trials from the USA found lower use of fish ponds by
herons after electric fencing was installed. Assessment: likely to be beneficial
(effectiveness 60%; certainty 49%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/247

 se ‘mussel socks’ to prevent birds from attacking

U
shellfish
A study from Canada found that mussel socks with protective sleeves lost
fewer medium-sized mussels (but not small or large mussels), compared to
unprotected mussel socks. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 50%;
certainty 41%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/250

Use netting to exclude fish-eating birds

Two studies from Germany and the USA, and a review, found that netting
over ponds reduced the loss of fish to predatory birds. Two studies from
the USA and the Netherlands found that birds still landed on ponds with
netting, but that they altered their behaviour, compared to open ponds. Two
studies from Germany and Israel found that some birds became entangled
in netting over ponds. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 60%;
certainty 59%; harms 15%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/248

164
 3.4 Threat: Agriculture

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Increase water turbidity to reduce fish predation by birds

An ex situ study from France found that egret foraging efficiency was reduced
in more turbid water. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence
(effectiveness 50%; certainty 23%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/252

Translocate birds away from fish farms

A study from the USA found that translocating birds appeared to reduce
bird numbers at a fish farm. A study from Belgium found that it did not.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 20%; certainty
33%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/251

Use in-water devices to reduce fish loss from ponds

A study from the USA found that fewer cormorants used two ponds
after underwater ropes were installed; a study from Australia found that
no fewer cormorants used ponds with gill nets in. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 34%; certainty 35%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/254

Unlikely to be beneficial

Disturb birds using foot patrols

Two replicated studies from Belgium and Australia found that using foot
patrols to disturb birds from fish farms did not reduce the number of birds
present or fish consumption. Assessment: unlikely to be beneficial (effectiveness
0%; certainty 45%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/249

Spray water to deter birds from ponds

A study from Sweden found that spraying water deterred birds from fish
ponds, but that some birds became habituated to the spray. Assessment:
unlikely to be beneficial (effectiveness 31%; certainty 43%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/255

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 165

Bird Conservation

Likely to be ineffective or harmful

Scare birds from fish farms

One study from Israel found a population increase in fish-eating birds after
efforts to scare them from fish farms, possibly due to lower persecution. One
of two studies found evidence for reduced loss of fish when birds were scared
from farms. Two studies from Australia and Belgium found that disturbing
birds using foot patrols was not effective. Ten of 11 studies from across
the world found some effects for acoustic deterrents, five of seven found
that visual deterrents were effective. In both cases some studies found that
results were temporary, birds became habituated or that some deterrents
were effective, whilst others were not. One study found that trained raptors
were effective, one found little evidence for the effectiveness of helicopters
or light aircraft. Assessment: likely to be ineffective or harmful (effectiveness 36%;
certainty 64%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/244

166
 3.5 Threat: Energy
production and mining

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for energy production and mining?
Unknown • Paint wind turbines to increase their visibility
effectiveness
(limited evidence)

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Paint wind turbines to increase their visibility

A single, controlled ex situ experiment found that thick black stripes running
across a wind turbine’s blades made them more conspicuous to an American
kestrel Falco sparverius than control (unpatterned) blades. Other designs
were less visible or indistinguishable from controls. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 16%; certainty 10%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/258

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 167

 3.6 Threat: Transportation
and service corridors

3.6.1 Verges and airports

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for verges and airports?
Likely to be • Scare or otherwise deter birds from airports
beneficial
Unknown • Mow roadside verges
effectiveness
(limited evidence)
No evidence found • Sow roadside verges
(no assessment)

Likely to be beneficial

Scare or otherwise deter birds from airports

Two replicated studies in the UK and USA found that fewer birds used
areas of long grass at airports, but no data were provided on the effect of
long grass on strike rates or bird mortality. Assessment: likely to be beneficial
(effectiveness 50%; certainty 44%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/261

168
 3.6 Threat: Transportation and service corridors

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Mow roadside verges

A single replicated, controlled trial in the USA found that mowed roadside
verges were less attractive to ducks as nesting sites, but had higher nesting
success after four years. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence
(effectiveness 30%; certainty 30%; harms 9%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/259

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following intervention:

• Sow roadside verges

3.6.2 Power lines and electricity pylons

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for power lines and electricity pylons?
Beneficial • Mark power lines
Likely to be • Bury or isolate power lines
beneficial • Insulate electricity pylons
• Remove earth wires from power lines
• Use perch-deterrents to stop raptors perching on
pylons
Unknown • Thicken earth wires
effectiveness
(limited evidence)
Unlikely to be • Add perches to electricity pylons
beneficial • Reduce electrocutions by using plastic, not metal,
leg rings to mark birds
• Use raptor models to deter birds from power lines

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 169

Bird Conservation

Beneficial

Mark power lines

A total of eight studies and two literature reviews from across the world
found that marking power lines led to significant reductions in bird collision
mortalities. Different markers had different impacts. Assessment: beneficial
(effectiveness 81%; certainty 85%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/265

Likely to be beneficial

Bury or isolate power lines

A single before-and-after study in Spain found a dramatic increase in juvenile
eagle survival following the burial or isolation of dangerous power lines.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 60%; certainty 44%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/262

Insulate electricity pylons

A single before-and-after study in the USA found that insulating power
pylons significantly reduced the number of Harris’s hawks electrocuted.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 60%; certainty 45%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/268

Remove earth wires from power lines

Two before-and-after studies from Norway and the USA describe significant
reductions in bird collision mortalities after earth wires were removed from
sections of power lines. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 90%;
certainty 60%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/263

Use perch-deterrents to stop raptors perching on pylons

A single controlled study in the USA found that significantly fewer raptors were
found near perch-deterrent lines, compared to controls, but no information
on electrocutions was provided. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness
50%; certainty 45%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/269

170
 3.6 Threat: Transportation and service corridors

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Thicken earth wires

A single paired sites trial in the USA found no reduction in crane species
collision rates in a wire span with an earth wire three times thicker than
normal. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 0%;
certainty 25%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/264

Unlikely to be beneficial

A
 dd perches to electricity pylons
A single before-and-after study in Spain found that adding perches to
electricity pylons did not reduce electrocutions of Spanish imperial eagles.
Assessment: unlikely to be beneficial (effectiveness 0%; certainty 42%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/267

 educe electrocutions by using plastic, not metal, leg

R
rings to mark birds
A single replicated and controlled study in the USA found no evidence that
using plastic leg rings resulted in fewer raptors being electrocuted. Assessment:
unlikely to be beneficial (effectiveness 0%; certainty 42%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/270

Use raptor models to deter birds from power lines

A single paired sites trial in Spain found that installing raptor models near
power lines had no impact on bird collision mortalities. Assessment: unlikely
to be beneficial (effectiveness 0%; certainty 43%; harms 0%)
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/266

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 171

 3.7 Threat: Biological resource use

3.7.1 Reducing exploitation and conflict

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for reducing exploitation and conflict?
Beneficial • Use legislative regulation to protect wild
populations
Likely to be • Use wildlife refuges to reduce hunting
beneficial disturbance
Unknown • Employ local people as ‘biomonitors’
effectiveness • Increase ‘on-the-ground’ protection to reduce
(limited evidence) unsustainable levels of exploitation
• Introduce voluntary ‘maximum shoot distances’
• Mark eggs to reduce their appeal to collectors
• Move fish-eating birds to reduce conflict with
fishermen
• Promote sustainable alternative livelihoods
• Provide ‘sacrificial grasslands’ to reduce conflict
with farmers
• Relocate nestlings to reduce poaching
• Use education programmes and local
engagement to help reduce persecution or
exploitation of species
No evidence found • Use alerts during shoots to reduce mortality of
(no assessment) non-target species

Scare fish-eating birds from areas to reduce conflict

Studies investigating scaring fish from fishing areas are discussed in ‘Threat:
Agriculture — Aquaculture’.

172
 3.7 Threat: Biological resource use

Beneficial

Use legislative regulation to protect wild populations

Five out of six studies from Europe, Asia, North America and across the
world, found evidence that stricter legislative protection was correlated
with increased survival, lower harvests or increased populations. The sixth,
a before-and-after study from Australia, found that legislative protection
did not reduce harvest rates. Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness 65%; certainty
65%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/271

Likely to be beneficial

Use wildlife refuges to reduce hunting disturbance

Three studies from the USA and Europe found that more birds used refuges
where hunting was not allowed, compared to areas with hunting, and more
used the refuges during the open season. However, no studies examined the
population-level effects of refuges. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness
45%; certainty 45%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/278

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Employ local people as ‘biomonitors’

A single replicated study in Venezuela found that poaching of parrot nestlings
was significantly lower in years following the employment of five local
people as ‘biomonitors’. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence
(effectiveness 50%; certainty 19%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/275

I ncrease ‘on-the-ground’ protection to reduce

unsustainable levels of exploitation
Two before-and-after studies from Europe and Central America found
increases in bird populations and recruitment following stricter anti-poaching
methods or the stationing of a warden on the island in question. However,
the increases in Central America were only short-term, and were lost when

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 173

Bird Conservation

the intensive effort was reduced. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited

evidence (effectiveness 50%; certainty 25%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/272

Introduce voluntary ‘maximum shoot distances’

A single study from Denmark found a significant reduction in the injury
rates of pink-footed geese following the implementation of a voluntary
maximum shooting distance. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited
evidence (effectiveness 40%; certainty 20%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/279

Mark eggs to reduce their appeal to collectors

A single before-and-after study in Australia found increased fledging success
of raptor eggs in a year they were marked with a permanent pen. Assessment:
unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 50%; certainty 35%;
harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/276

Move fish-eating birds to reduce conflict with fishermen

A single before-and-after study in the USA found that Caspian tern chicks
had a lower proportion of commercial fish in their diet following the
movement of the colony away from an important fishery. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 32%; certainty 24%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/281

Promote sustainable alternative livelihoods

A single before-and-after study in Costa Rica found that a scarlet macaw
population increased following several interventions including the
promotion of sustainable, macaw-based livelihoods. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 30%; certainty 19%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/273

 rovide ‘sacrificial grasslands’ to reduce conflict with

P
farmers
Two UK studies found that more geese used areas of grassland managed for
them, but that this did not appear to attract geese from outside the study site

174
 3.7 Threat: Biological resource use

and therefore was unlikely to reduce conflict with farmers. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 18%; certainty 20%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/280

Relocate nestlings to reduce poaching

A single replicated study in Venezuela found a significant reduction in poaching
rates and an increase in fledging rates of yellow-shouldered amazons when
nestlings were moved into police premises overnight. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 50%; certainty 30%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/277

 se education programmes and local engagement to help

U
reduce persecution or exploitation of species
Six out of seven studies from across the world found increases in bird
populations or decreases in mortality following education programmes,
whilst one study from Venezuela found no evidence that poaching decreased
following an educational programme. In all but one study reporting successes,
other interventions were also used, and a literature review from the USA
and Canada argues that education was not sufficient to change behaviour,
although a Canadian study found that there was a significant shift in local
peoples’ attitudes to conservation and exploited species following educational
programmes. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness
50%; certainty 30%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/274

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Use alerts during shoots to reduce mortality of non-target species

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 175

Bird Conservation

3.7.2 Reducing fisheries bycatch

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for reducing fisheries bycatch?
Beneficial • Use streamer lines to reduce seabird bycatch on
longlines
Likely to be • Mark trawler warp cables to reduce seabird
beneficial collisions
• Reduce seabird bycatch by releasing offal
overboard when setting longlines
• Weight baits or lines to reduce longline bycatch of
seabirds
Trade-off between • Set lines underwater to reduce seabird bycatch
benefit and harms • Set longlines at night to reduce seabird bycatch

Unknown • Dye baits to reduce seabird bycatch

effectiveness • Thaw bait before setting lines to reduce seabird
(limited evidence) bycatch
• Turn deck lights off during night-time setting of
longlines to reduce bycatch
• Use a sonic scarer when setting longlines to reduce
seabird bycatch
• Use acoustic alerts on gillnets to reduce seabird
bycatch
• Use bait throwers to reduce seabird bycatch
• Use bird exclusion devices such as ‘Brickle curtains’
to reduce seabird mortality when hauling longlines
• Use high visibility mesh on gillnets to reduce
seabird bycatch
• Use shark liver oil to deter birds when setting lines
Likely to be • Use a line shooter to reduce seabird bycatch
ineffective or
harmful
No evidence found • Reduce bycatch through seasonal or area closures
(no assessment) • Reduce ‘ghost fishing’ by lost/discarded gear
• Reduce gillnet deployment time to reduce seabird
bycatch
• Set longlines at the side of the boat to reduce
seabird bycatch

176
 3.7 Threat: Biological resource use

• Tow buoys behind longlining boats to reduce

seabird bycatch
• Use a water cannon when setting longlines to
reduce seabird bycatch
• Use high-visibility longlines to reduce seabird
bycatch
• Use larger hooks to reduce seabird bycatch on
longlines

Beneficial

Use streamer lines to reduce seabird bycatch on longlines

Ten studies from coastal and pelagic fisheries across the globe found strong
evidence for reductions in bycatch when streamer lines were used. Five
studies from the South Atlantic, New Zealand and Australia were inconclusive,
uncontrolled or had weak evidence for reductions. One study from the sub-
Antarctic Indian Ocean found no evidence for reductions. Three studies from
around the world found that bycatch rates were lower when two streamers
were used compared to one, and one study found rates were lower still
with three streamers. Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness 65%; certainty 75%;
harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/285

Likely to be beneficial

Mark trawler warp cables to reduce seabird collisions

A single replicated and controlled study in Argentina found lower seabird
mortality (from colliding with warp cables) when warp cables were marked
with orange traffic cones. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 54%;
certainty 40%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/305

 educe seabird bycatch by releasing offal overboard

R
when setting longlines
Two replicated and controlled studies in the South Atlantic and sub-Antarctic
Indian Ocean found significantly lower seabird bycatch rates when offal was

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 177

Bird Conservation

released overboard as lines were being set. Assessment: likely to be beneficial

(effectiveness 51%; certainty 50%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/299

 eight baits or lines to reduce longline bycatch of

W
seabirds
Three replicated and controlled studies from the Pacific found lower bycatch
rates of some seabird species on weighted longlines. An uncontrolled study
found low bycatch rates with weighted lines but that weights only increased
sink rates in small sections of the line. Some species were found to attack
weighted lines more than control lines. Assessment: likely to be beneficial
(effectiveness 46%; certainty 45%; harms 15%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/296

Trade-off between benefit and harms

Set lines underwater to reduce seabird bycatch

Five studies in Norway, South Africa and the North Pacific found lower
seabird bycatch rates on longlines set underwater. However, results were
species-specific, with shearwaters and possibly albatrosses continuing to
take baits set underwater. Assessment: trade-offs between benefits and harms
(effectiveness 61%; certainty 50%; harms 24%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/288

Set longlines at night to reduce seabird bycatch

Six out of eight studies from around the world found lower bycatch rates
when longlines were set at night, but the remaining two found higher bycatch
rates (of northern fulmar in the North Pacific and white-chinned petrels in
the South Atlantic, respectively). Knowing whether bycatch species are night-
or day-feeding is therefore important in reducing bycatch rates. Assessment:
trade-offs between benefits and harms (effectiveness 60%; certainty 70%; harms 48%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/283

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Dye baits to reduce seabird bycatch

A single randomised, replicated and controlled trial in Hawaii, USA, found
that albatrosses attacked baits at significantly lower rates when baits were

178
 3.7 Threat: Biological resource use

dyed blue. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness

50%; certainty 20%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/293

Thaw bait before setting lines to reduce seabird bycatch

A study from Australia found that longlines set using thawed baits
caught significantly fewer seabirds than controls. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 50%; certainty 30%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/298

 urn deck lights off during night-time setting of

T
longlines to reduce bycatch
A single replicated and controlled study in the South Atlantic found lower
seabird bycatch rates on night-set longlines when deck lights were turned
off. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 51%;
certainty 21%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/284

 se a sonic scarer when setting longlines to reduce

U
seabird bycatch
A single study from the South Atlantic found that seabirds only temporarily
changed behaviour when a sonic scarer was used, and seabird bycatch rates
did not appear to be lower on lines set with a scarer. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 2%; certainty 10%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/295

Use acoustic alerts on gillnets to reduce seabird bycatch

A randomised, replicated and controlled trial in a coastal fishery in the
USA found that fewer guillemots (common murres) but not rhinoceros
auklets were caught in gillnets fitted with sonic alerts. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 44%; certainty 21%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/301

Use bait throwers to reduce seabird bycatch

A single analysis found significantly lower seabird bycatch on Australian
longliners when a bait thrower was used to set lines. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 46%; certainty 30%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/291

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 179

Bird Conservation

 se bird exclusion devices such as ‘Brickle curtains’ to

U
reduce seabird mortality when hauling longlines
A single replicated study found that Brickle curtains reduced the number
of seabirds caught, when compared to an exclusion device using only a
single boom. Using purse seine buoys as well as the curtain appeared to
be even more effective, but sample sizes did not allow useful comparisons.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 48%; certainty
30%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/302

 se high visibility mesh on gillnets to reduce seabird

U
bycatch
A single randomised, replicated and controlled trial in a coastal fishery in
the USA found that fewer guillemots (common murres) and rhinoceros
auklets were caught in gillnets with higher percentages of brightly coloured
netting. However, such netting also reduced the catch of the target salmon.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 60%; certainty
30%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/303

Use shark liver oil to deter birds when setting lines

Two out of three replicated and controlled trials in New Zealand found that
fewer birds followed boats or dived for baits when non-commercial shark oil
was dripped off the back of the boat. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited
evidence (effectiveness 30%; certainty 25%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/297

Likely to be ineffective or harmful

Use a line shooter to reduce seabird bycatch

Two randomised, replicated and controlled trials found that seabird bycatch
rates were higher (in the North Pacific) or the same (in Norway) on longlines
set using line shooters, compared to those set without a shooter. Assessment:
likely to be ineffective or harmful (effectiveness 0%; certainty 50%; harms 40%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/290

180
 3.7 Threat: Biological resource use

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Reduce bycatch through seasonal or area closures
• Reduce ‘ghost fishing’ by lost/discarded gear
• Reduce gillnet deployment time to reduce seabird bycatch
• Set longlines at the side of the boat to reduce seabird bycatch
• Tow buoys behind longlining boats to reduce seabird bycatch
• Use a water cannon when setting longlines to reduce seabird bycatch
• Use high-visibility longlines to reduce seabird bycatch
• Use larger hooks to reduce seabird bycatch on longlines

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 181

 3.8 Threat: Human
intrusions and disturbance

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for human intrusions and disturbance?
Likely to be • Provide paths to limit disturbance
beneficial • Start educational programmes for personal
watercraft owners
• Use signs and access restrictions to reduce
disturbance at nest sites
• Use voluntary agreements with local people to
reduce disturbance
Unknown • Habituate birds to human visitors
effectiveness • Use nest covers to reduce the impact of research
(limited evidence) on predation of ground-nesting seabirds
No evidence found • Reduce visitor group sizes
(no assessment) • Set minimum distances for approaching birds
(buffer zones)

Likely to be beneficial

Provide paths to limit disturbance

A study from the UK found that two waders nested closer to a path, or at
higher densities near the path, following resurfacing, which resulted in far
fewer people leaving the path. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness
50%; certainty 40%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/311

182
 3.8 Threat: Human intrusions and disturbance

 tart educational programmes for personal watercraft

S
owners
A before-and-after study in the USA found that common tern reproduction
increased, and rates of disturbance decreased, following a series of educational
programmes aimed at recreational boat users. Assessment: likely to be beneficial
(effectiveness 40%; certainty 40%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/314

 se signs and access restrictions to reduce disturbance at

U
nest sites
Six studies from across the world found increased numbers of breeders,
higher reproductive success or lower levels of disturbance in waders and terns
following the start of access restrictions or the erection of signs near nesting
areas. Two studies from Europe and Antarctica found no effect of access
restrictions on reproductive success in eagles and penguins, respectively.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 59%; certainty 55%; harms 10%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/309

 se voluntary agreements with local people to reduce

U
disturbance
A before-and-after trial in the USA found significantly lower rates of waterfowl
disturbance following the establishment of a voluntary waterfowl avoidance
area, despite an overall increase in boat traffic. Assessment: likely to be beneficial
(effectiveness 50%; certainty 40%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/313

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Habituate birds to human visitors

A study from Australia found that bridled terns from heavily disturbed sites
had similar or higher reproductive success compared with less-disturbed
sites, possibly suggesting that habituation had occurred. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 20%; certainty 10%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/315

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 183

Bird Conservation

 se nest covers to reduce the impact of research on

U
predation of ground-nesting seabirds
A before-and-after study from Canada found that hatching success of
Caspian terns was significantly higher when researchers protected nests
after disturbing adults from them. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited
evidence (effectiveness 41%; certainty 35%; harms 19%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/316

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Reduce visitor group sizes
• Set minimum distances for approaching birds (buffer zones)

184
 3.9 Threat: Natural system
modifications

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for natural system modifications?
Likely to be • Create scrapes and pools in wetlands and wet
beneficial grasslands
• Provide deadwood/snags in forests: use ring-
barking, cutting or silvicides
• Use patch retention harvesting instead of
clearcutting
Trade-off between • Clear or open patches in forests
benefit and harms • Employ grazing in artificial grassland/pastures
• Employ grazing in natural grasslands
• Employ grazing in non-grassland habitats
• Manage water level in wetlands
• Manually control or remove midstorey and
ground-level vegetation (including mowing,
chaining, cutting etc) in forests
• Mow or cut natural grasslands
• Mow or cut semi-natural grasslands/pastures
• Manually control or remove midstorey and
ground-level vegetation (including mowing,
chaining, cutting etc) in shrubland
• Raise water levels in ditches or grassland
• Thin trees within forests

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 185

Bird Conservation

• Use prescribed burning: grasslands

• Use prescribed burning: pine forests
• Use prescribed burning: savannahs
• Use prescribed burning: shrublands
• Use selective harvesting/logging instead of
clearcutting
Unknown • Clearcut and re-seed forests
effectiveness • Coppice trees
(limited evidence)
• Fertilise grasslands
• Manage woodland edges for birds
• Manually control or remove midstorey and
ground-level vegetation: reedbeds
• Manually control or remove midstorey and
ground-level vegetation: savannahs
• Plant trees to act as windbreaks
• Plough habitats
• Provide deadwood/snags in forests: add woody
debris to forests
• Remove coarse woody debris from forests
• Replace non-native species of tree/shrub
• Re-seed grasslands
• Use environmentally sensitive flood management
• Use fire suppression/control
• Use greentree reservoir management
• Use prescribed burning: Australian sclerophyll
forest
• Use shelterwood cutting instead of clearcutting
• Use variable retention management during
forestry operations
Likely to be • Apply herbicide to mid- and understorey
ineffective or vegetation
harmful • Treat wetlands with herbicides
• Use prescribed burning: coastal habitats
• Use prescribed burning: deciduous forests
No evidence found • Protect nest trees before burning
(no assessment)

186
 3.9 Threat: Natural system modifications

Likely to be beneficial

Create scrapes and pools in wetlands and wet grasslands

Four out of six studies from the UK and North America found that more
bird used sites, or breeding populations on sites increased, after ponds or
scrapes were created. A study from the USA found that some duck species
used newly created ponds and others used older ponds. A study from the UK
found that northern lapwing chicks foraged in newly created features and
that chick condition was higher in sites with a large number of footdrains.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 75%; certainty 60%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/359

 rovide deadwood/snags in forests (use ring-barking,

P
cutting or silvicides)
One of five studies found that forest plots provided with snags had higher
bird diversity and abundance than plots without snags. Three of four studies
from the USA and UK found that species used artificially-created snags for
nesting and foraging. One study from the USA found that use increased with
how long a snag had been dead. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness
45%; certainty 50%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/343

Use patch retention harvesting instead of clearcutting

One of two studies (from the USA) found that areas under patch retention
harvesting contained more birds of more species than clearcut areas, retaining
similar numbers to unharvested areas. Two studies found that forest specialist
species were found more frequently in patch retention plots than under other
management. Habitat generalists declined on patch retention sites compared
to other managements. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 70%;
certainty 46%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/330

Trade-off between benefit and harms

Clear or open patches in forests

Seven out of nine studies from the UK and USA found that early-successional
species increased in clearcut areas of forests, compared to other management.
Two studies found that mature-forest species declined. One study found

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 187

Bird Conservation

no differences in species richness between treatments, another found no

consistent differences. A study from the USA found that a mosaic of cut
and uncut areas supported a variety of species. Assessment: trade-offs between
benefits and harms (effectiveness 55%; certainty 60%; harms 30%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/326

Employ grazing in artificial grasslands/pastures

Five studies from the UK and USA found use or nesting densities were
higher in grazed compared to ungrazed areas. A study from Canada found
an increase in duck populations following the start of grazing along with
other interventions. Eight studies from the UK, Canada and the USA found
species richness, community composition, abundances, use, nesting densities,
nesting success or productivity were similar or lower on grazed compared
with ungrazed areas. One found that several species were excluded by
grazing. Assessment: trade-offs between benefits and harms (effectiveness 43%;
certainty 65%; harms 45%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/349

Employ grazing in natural grasslands

Five of 12 studies from the USA and Canada found that densities of some
species were higher on grazed than ungrazed sites. Eight studies from the
USA, Canada and France found that some or all species studied were found
at similar or lower densities on grazed compared to ungrazed sites or those
under other management. Two controlled studies from the USA and Canada
found that nesting success was higher on grazed than ungrazed sites. Five
studies from the USA and Canada found that nesting success was similar
or lower on grazed sites. Assessment: trade-offs between benefits and harms
(effectiveness 40%; certainty 60%; harms 50%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/348

Employ grazing in non-grassland habitats

One of eight studies found more bird species on grazed than unmanaged
sites, apart from in drought years. A study from the Netherlands found the
number of species in a mixed habitat wetland site declined with increased
grazing. Three studies in Sweden, the Netherlands and Kenya found that the
overall abundance or densities of some species were higher in grazed than
ungrazed sites. Four studies in Europe and Kenya found that some species
were absent or at lower densities on grazed compared to ungrazed sites or

188
 3.9 Threat: Natural system modifications

those under different management. Five studies from across the world found
no differences in abundances or densities of some or all species between
grazed sites and those that were ungrazed or under different management.
Two studies from the UK found that productivity was lower in grazed than
ungrazed sites. A study from the UK found that songbirds and invertebrate-
eating species, but not crows were more common on rough-grazed habitats
than intensive pasture. Assessment: trade-offs between benefits and harms
(effectiveness 40%; certainty 67%; harms 40%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/350

Manage water level in wetlands

Three studies (of six) from the USA, UK and Canada found that different
species were more abundant at different water heights. One found that
diversity levels also changed. One study found that great bitterns in the UK
established territories earlier when deep water levels were maintained, but
productivity did not vary. A study from Spain found that water management
successfully retained water near a greater flamingo nesting area, but did not
measure the effects on productivity or survival. Assessment: trade-offs between
benefits and harms (effectiveness 40%; certainty 41%; harms 35%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/355

 anually control or remove midstorey and ground-level

M
vegetation (including mowing, chaining, cutting etc.) in
forests
Seven studies from Europe and the USA found that species richness, total
density or densities of some species were higher in areas with mid- or
understorey management compared to areas without management. Four
studies also used other interventions. Seven studies from the USA and Canada
found that species richness, densities, survival or competition for nest sites
were similar or lower in areas with mid- or understorey control. Two studies
investigated several interventions at once. Two studies from Canada found
higher nest survival in forests with removal of deciduous trees compared to
controls. One study found that chicks foraging success was higher in areas
with cleared understorey vegetation compared to burned areas, but lower
than under other managements. Assessment: trade-offs between benefits and
harms (effectiveness 40%; certainty 75%; harms 40%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/335

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 189

Bird Conservation

Mow or cut natural grasslands

Two of six studies found higher densities of birds or nests on mown grasslands
compared to unmanaged or burned areas. Two studies found lower densities
or nests of some species and two found no differences in nesting densities or
community composition on mown compared to unmown areas. One study
from the USA found that grasshopper sparrow nesting success was higher on
mown than grazed areas. One study from the USA found that duck nesting
success was similar on cut and uncut areas. Assessment: trade-offs between
benefits and harms (effectiveness 40%; certainty 50%; harms 39%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/338

Mow or cut semi-natural grasslands/pastures

One of four studies found that wader populations increased following
annual cutting of semi-natural grasslands. One study from the UK found
that ducks grazed at higher densities on cut areas. Another study in the UK
found that goose grazing densities were unaffected by cutting frequency.
One study from the USA found that Henslow’s sparrows were more likely
to be recaptured on unmown than mown grasslands. Assessment: trade-offs
between benefits and harms (effectiveness 40%; certainty 40%; harms 20%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/339

 anually control or remove midstorey and ground-level

M
vegetation (including mowing, chaining, cutting etc.) in
shrublands
One of seven studies found that overall bird diversity and bird density was
similar between chained areas, burned areas and controls. One found that
overall diversity and abundance was lower on mown sites than controls, but
that grassland-specialist species were present on managed sites. Five studies
from the USA and Europe found than some species were at greater densities
or abundances on sites with mechanical vegetation control than on sites with
burning or no management. Three studies from the USA found that some
species were less abundant on sites with mechanical vegetation removal.
One study from the USA found no differences between areas cut in winter
and summer. Assessment: trade-offs between benefits and harms (effectiveness
43%; certainty 54%; harms 30%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/337

190
 3.9 Threat: Natural system modifications

Raise water levels in ditches or grassland

One of seven studies found that three waders were found to have recolonised
a UK site or be found at very high densities after water levels were raised.
Three studies from Europe found that raising water levels on grassland
provided habitat for waders. A study from Denmark found that oystercatchers
did not nest at higher densities on sites with raised water levels. A study
from the UK found that birds visited sites with raised water levels more
frequently than other fields, but another UK study found that feeding rates
did not differ between sites with raised water levels and those without. A
study from the USA found that predation rates on seaside sparrow nests
increased as water levels were raised. Assessment: trade-offs between benefits
and harms (effectiveness 65%; certainty 55%; harms 25%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/354

Thin trees within forests

One study of 14 (from the USA) found higher bird species richness in sites
with tree thinning and several other interventions, compared to unmanaged
sites. Three studies from the UK and USA found no such differences. Seven
studies (four investigating multiple interventions) found that overall bird
abundance or the abundance of some species was higher in thinned plots,
compared to those under different management. Five studies found that found
that abundances were similar, or that some species were less abundant in
areas with thinning. Two studies from the USA found no effect of thinning
on wood thrushes, a species thought to be sensitive to it. A study from the
USA found that a higher proportion of nests were in nest boxes in a thinned
site, compared to a control. A study from the USA found no differences
in bird abundances between burned sites with high-retention thinning,
compared to low-retention sites. Assessment: trade-offs between benefits and
harms (effectiveness 50%; certainty 60%; harms 30%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/328

Use prescribed burning: grasslands

Four of 21 studies found that overall species richness and community
composition did not vary between burned and unburned sites. Nine studies
from across the world found that at least some species were more abundant
or at higher densities in burned than unburned areas or areas under different
management. Fourteen studies found that at least one species was at similar
or lower abundances on burned areas. Responses varied depending on how

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 191

Bird Conservation

soon after fires monitoring occurred. One study from the USA found that
Florida grasshopper sparrow had significantly higher reproductive success
soon after burns, whilst another found that dickcissel reproductive success
was higher in patch-burned than burned and grazed areas. Assessment: trade-
offs between benefits and harms (effectiveness 45%; certainty 60%; harms 40%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/322

Use prescribed burning: pine forests

Four of 28 studies in the USA found higher species richness, densities or
abundances in sites with prescribed burning, tree thinning and in one case
mid- or understorey control compared to controls. Fourteen studies found
that some species were more abundant, or had higher productivities or
survival in burned or burned and thinned areas than control areas. One
study found that effects varied with geography and habitat. Fifteen studies
found no differences in species richness or densities, community composition,
productivity, behaviour or survival between sites with prescribed burning
or burning and thinning, and controls or sites with other management. One
study found that foraging success of chicks was lower in burned areas. Three
studies found effects did not vary with burn season. Assessment: trade-offs
between benefits and harms (effectiveness 50%; certainty 77%; harms 35%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/318

Use prescribed burning: savannahs

One of five studies found that burned areas of savannah tended to have more
birds and species than control or grazed areas, although burned sites showed
significant annual variation unlike grazed sites. A study from Australia found
that effects on bird abundances depended on burn season and habitat type.
Two studies in the USA found that some open country species were more
common in burned areas than unburned. A study from the USA found that
two eastern bluebirds successfully raised chicks after a local prescribed burn.
Assessment: trade-offs between benefits and harms (effectiveness 40%; certainty
50%; harms 35%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/320

Use prescribed burning: shrublands

One of eight studies found that overall bird densities were similar between
burned and unburned areas, whilst another found that species numbers and

192
 3.9 Threat: Natural system modifications

densities did not vary between areas burned in summer or winter. Three
studies found that some species were more abundant on areas that were
burned. Four found that species densities were similar or lower on burned
compared to control areas or those under different management. One study
found that sage sparrows chose different nest sites before and after burning.
Another found no differences in greater sage grouse movement between
burned and unburned areas. Assessment: trade-offs between benefits and harms
(effectiveness 43%; certainty 50%; harms 45%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/321

Use selective harvesting/logging instead of clearcutting

Six of seven studies from the USA and Canada found that some species were
more, and other less, abundant in selectively logged forests compared to
unlogged stands, or those under other management. One study found that
differences between treatments were not consistent. A study from the USA
found that species richness of cavity-nesting birds was lower in selectively
logged forests than in clearcuts. One study from the USA found that brood
parasitism was higher in selectively logged forests for two species and lower
for two others, compared to control stands. Assessment: trade-offs between
benefits and harms (effectiveness 65%; certainty 60%; harms 30%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/331

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Clearcut and re-seed forests

One of two studies from the USA found that stands of pines replanted
with native species held more species typical of scrub habitats than stands
under different management. The other study found similar bird densities
in clearcut and re-seeded sites and those under different management.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 30%; certainty
35%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/327

Coppice trees
One of three studies found a population increase in European nightjars on
a UK site after the introduction of coppicing and other interventions. Two
studies from the UK and USA found that the use of coppices by some bird

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 193

Bird Conservation

species declined over time. A UK study found that species richness decreased
with the age of a coppice, but that some species were more abundant in older
stands. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 34%;
certainty 30%; harms 30%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/329

Fertilise grasslands
All four studies captured (all from the UK) found that more geese grazed
on fertilised areas of grass more than control areas. Two investigated cutting
and fertilizing at the same time. One study found that fertilised areas were
used less than re-seeded areas. One study found that fertilisation had an
effect at applications of 50 kg N/ha, but not at 18 kg N/ha. Another found
that the effects of fertilisation did not increase at applications over 80 kg N/
ha. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 60%;
certainty 35%; harms 7%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/353

Manage woodland edges for birds

One of three studies found that a local population of European nightjars
increased at a UK site following the start of a management regime that
included the management of woodland edges for birds. Two studies of an
experiment in the USA found that bird abundance (but not species richness
or nesting success) was higher in woodland edges managed for wildlife
than unmanaged edges. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence
(effectiveness 55%; certainty 39%; harms 30%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/334

 anually control or remove midstorey and ground-level

M
vegetation (including mowing, chaining, cutting etc.)
(reedbeds)
One of three studies found that warblers nested at lower densities in cut areas
of reeds. Productivity and success did not vary between treatments. A study
from Denmark found that geese grazed at the highest densities on reedbeds
cut 5–12 years previously. One study in the UK found that cutting reeds and
changing water levels did not affect great bittern breeding productivity, but
did delay territory establishment. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited
evidence (effectiveness 15%; certainty 36%; harms 14%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/340

194
 3.9 Threat: Natural system modifications

 anually control or remove midstorey and ground-level

M
vegetation (including mowing, chaining, cutting etc.)
(savannahs)
A study in Argentina found that in summer, but not overall, bird abundance
and species richness was lower in an area where shrubs were removed
compared to a control. Community composition also differed between
treatments. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness
30%; certainty 10%; harms 30%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/336

Plant trees to act as windbreaks

One of two studies found that a population of European nightjars increased
at a UK site after multiple interventions including the planting of windbreak
trees. A study from the USA found that such trees appeared to disrupt lekking
behaviour in greater prairie chickens. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited
evidence (effectiveness 12%; certainty 25%; harms 20%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/351

Plough habitats
One of four studies found that bird densities were higher on ploughed wetlands
in the USA than unploughed ones. Three studies of one experiment in the
UK found that few whimbrels nested on areas of heathland ploughed and
re-seeded, but that they were used for foraging in early spring. There were no
differences in chick survival between birds that used ploughed and re-seeded
heathland and those that did not. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited
evidence (effectiveness 25%; certainty 36%; harms 10%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/358

 rovide deadwood/snags in forests (adding woody

P
debris to forests)
One study from Australia found that brown treecreeper numbers were higher
in plots with large amounts of dead wood added compared to plots with
less or no debris added. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence
(effectiveness 50%; certainty 29%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/344

Remove coarse woody debris from forests

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 195

Bird Conservation

Two studies from the USA found that some species increased in sites with
woody debris removal. One found that overall breeding bird abundance
and diversity were lower in removal plots; the other that survival of black-
chinned hummingbird nests was lower. Assessment: unknown effectiveness
— limited evidence (effectiveness 10%; certainty 33%; harms 60%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/345

Replace non-native species of tree/shrub

A study from the USA found that the number of black-chinned hummingbird
nests increased after fuel reduction and the planting of native species, but that
the increase was smaller than at sites without planting. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 5%; certainty 18%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/341

Re-seed grasslands
One of two studies from the UK found that geese grazed at higher densities
on re-seeded grasslands than on control or fertilised grasslands. Another
study from the UK found that geese grazed at higher densities on areas sown
with clover, rather than grass seed. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited
evidence (effectiveness 35%; certainty 19%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/352

Use environmentally sensitive flood management

One of two studies found more bird territories on a stretch of river in the UK
with flood beams, compared to a channelized river. The other found that 13 out
of 20 species of bird increased at sites in the USA where a river’s hydrological
dynamics were restored. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence
(effectiveness 41%; certainty 26%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/356

Use fire suppression/control

All three studies we captured, from the USA, UK and Australia, found that some
bird species increased after fire suppression, and in one case that woodland
species appeared in a site. Two studies (from the UK and USA) found that
some species declined following fire suppression. The USA study identified
open country species as being negatively affected. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 35%; certainty 34%; harms 30%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/324

196
 3.9 Threat: Natural system modifications

Use greentree reservoir management

A study from the USA found that fewer mid- and under-storey birds were
found at a greentree reservoir site than at a control site. Canopy-nesting
species were not affected. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence
(effectiveness 0%; certainty 10%; harms 40%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/357

Use prescribed burning (Australian sclerophyll forest)

Two of three studies from Australia found no differences in bird species richness
in burned sites compared to unburned areas. All three found differences in
species assemblages, with some species lost and others gained from areas
after fire. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness
30%; certainty 31%; harms 30%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/319

Use shelterwood cutting instead of clearcutting

A study from the USA found that bird community composition differed
between shelterwood stands and those under other forestry practices:
some species were more abundant, others less so. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 40%; certainty 20%; harms 40%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/333

 se variable retention management during forestry

U
operations
A study from the USA found that nine species were more abundant and
five less so in stands under variable retention management, compared to
unmanaged stands. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence
(effectiveness 45%; certainty 20%; harms 25%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/332

Likely to be ineffective or harmful

A
 pply herbicide to mid- and understorey vegetation
One of seven studies from North America found that bird species richness
in a forest declined after deciduous trees were treated with herbicide. Three
studies found increases in total bird densities, or those of some species, after

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 197

Bird Conservation

herbicide treatment, although one found no differences between treatment

and control areas. One study found that densities of one species decreased
and another remained steady after treatment. Three studies found that nest
survival was lower in herbicide-treated areas and one found lower nesting
densities. One study found that northern bobwhite chicks higher had
foraging success in forest areas treated with herbicide compared to under
other managements. Assessment: likely to be ineffective or harmful (effectiveness
20%; certainty 50%; harms 60%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/346

Treat wetlands with herbicides

All four studies from the USA found higher densities of birds in wetlands
sprayed with herbicide, compared with unsprayed areas. Two found that some
species were at lower densities compared to unsprayed areas or those under
other management. Assessment: likely to be ineffective or harmful (effectiveness
30%; certainty 42%; harms 40%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/347

Use prescribed burning (coastal habitats)

One study from the USA found that breeding seaside sparrow numbers
decreased the year a site was burned, but were higher than on an unburned
site the following year. One study in Argentina found that tall-grass specialist
species were lost from burned areas in the year of burning, but that some
habitats recovered by the following year. One study from the USA found no
differences in nest predation rates between burned and unburned areas for
two years after burning. Assessment: likely to be ineffective or harmful (effectiveness
20%; certainty 40%; harms 30%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/323

Use prescribed burning (deciduous forests)

One of four studies found that bird species richness was similar in burned
and unburned aspen forests, although relative abundances of some species
changed. A study in the USA found no changes in community composition
in oak and hickory forests following burning. One study in the USA found
no differences in wood thrush nest survival in burned and unburned areas.

198
 3.9 Threat: Natural system modifications

Another study in the USA found a reduction in black-chinned hummingbird

nests following fuel reduction treatments including burning. Assessments:
likely to be ineffective or harmful (effectiveness 32%; certainty 60%; harms 30%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/317

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Protect nest trees before burning

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 199

 3.10 Habitat restoration and
creation

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for habitat restoration and creation?
Beneficial • Restore or create forests
• Restore or create wetlands and marine habitats:
restore or create inland wetlands
Likely to be • Restore or create grassland
beneficial • Restore or create traditional water meadows
• Restore or create wetlands and marine habitats:
restore or create coastal and intertidal wetlands
Unknown • Restore or create shrubland
effectiveness • Restore or create wetlands and marine habitats:
(limited evidence) restore or create kelp forests
• Restore or create wetlands and marine habitats:
restore or create lagoons
No evidence found • Restore or create savannahs
(no assessment) • Revegetate gravel pits

Beneficial

Restore or create forests

Thirteen of 15 studies from across the world found that restored forests were
similar to in-tact forests, that species returned to restored sites, that species
recovered significantly better at restored than unrestored sites or that bird

200
 3.10 Habitat restoration and creation

species richness, diversity or abundances in restored forest sites increased

over time. One study also found that restoration techniques themselves
improved over time. Nine studies found that some species did not return
to restored forests or were less common and a study found that territory
densities decreased over time. A study from the USA found that no more
birds were found in restored sites, compared with unrestored. One study
investigated productivity and found it was similar between restored and
intact forests. A study from the USA found that planting fast-growing species
appeared to provide better habitat than slower-growing trees. Assessment:
beneficial (effectiveness 65%; certainty 76%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/360

 estore or create wetlands and marine habitats (inland

R
wetlands)
All eleven studies from the USA and Canada found that birds used restored
or created wetlands. Two found that rates of use and species richness were
similar or higher than on natural wetlands. One found that use was higher
than on unrestored wetlands. Three studies from the USA and Puerto Rico
found that restored wetlands held lower densities and fewer species or had
similar productivity compared to natural wetlands. Two studies in the USA
found that semi-permanent restored and larger wetlands were used more
than temporary or seasonal or smaller ones. Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness
70%; certainty 65%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/366

Likely to be beneficial

Restore or create grassland

Three of 23 studies found that species richness on restored grasslands was
higher than unrestored habitats, or similar to remnant grassland, and three
found that target species used restored grassland. Two studies from the USA
found that diversity or species richness fell after restoration or was lower
than unrestored sites. Seven studies from the USA and UK found high use
of restored sites, or that such sites held a disproportionate proportion of the
local population of birds. Two studies found that densities or abundances
were lower on restored than unrestored sites, potentially due to drought
conditions in one case. Five studies found that at least some bird species had

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 201

Bird Conservation

higher productivities in restored sites compared to unrestored; had similar or

higher productivities than natural habitats; or had high enough productivities
to sustain populations. Three studies found that productivities were lower
in restored than unrestored areas, or that productivities on restored sites
were too low to sustain populations. A study from the USA found that older
restored fields held more nests, but fewer species than young fields. Three
studies found no differences between restoration techniques; two found that
sowing certain species increased the use of sites by birds. Assessment: likely
to be beneficial (effectiveness 45%; certainty 70%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/361

Restore or create traditional water meadows

Four out of five studies found that the number of waders or wildfowl on
UK sites increased after the restoration of traditional water meadows. One
study from Sweden found an increase in northern lapwing population
after an increase in meadow management. One study found that lapwing
productivity was higher on meadows than some habitats, but not others.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 65%; certainty 50%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/363

 estore or create wetlands and marine habitats (coastal

R
and intertidal wetlands)
All six studies from the USA and UK found that bird species used restored
or created wetlands. Two found that numbers and/or diversity were similar
to in natural wetlands and one that numbers were higher than in unrestored
sites. Three found that bird numbers on wetlands increased over time. Two
studies from the UK found that songbirds and waders decreased following
wetland restoration, whilst a study from the USA found that songbirds were
more common on unrestored sites than restored wetlands. Assessment: likely
to be beneficial (effectiveness 65%; certainty 55%; harms 3%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/367

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Restore or create shrubland

Three studies from the UK, USA and the Azores found local bird population
increases after shrubland restoration. Two studies investigated multiple
interventions and one found an increase from no birds to one or two pairs.

202
 3.10 Habitat restoration and creation

One study from the UK found that several interventions, including shrubland
restoration, were negatively related to the number of young grey partridges
per adult bird on sites. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence
(effectiveness 25%; certainty 20%; harms 3%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/364

 estore or create wetlands and marine habitats (kelp

R
forests)
One study in the USA found that the densities of five of the nine bird
species increased following kelp forest restoration. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 60%; certainty 15%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/368

Restore or create wetlands and marine habitats (lagoons)

One study in the UK found that large numbers of bird species used and
bred in a newly-created lagoon. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited
evidence (effectiveness 61%; certainty 20%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/369

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Restore or create savannahs
• Revegetate gravel pits

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 203

 3.11 Threat: Invasive alien and
other problematic species

This assessment method for this chapter is described in Walsh, J. C., Dicks, L.
V. & Sutherland, W. J. (2015) The effect of scientific evidence on conservation
practitioners’ management decisions. Conservation Biology, 29: 88–98. No
harms were assessed for sections 3.11.1, 3.11.2, 3.11,3 and 3.11.4.

3.11.1 Reduce predation by other species

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for reducing predation by other species?
Beneficial • Control mammalian predators on islands
• Remove or control predators to enhance bird
populations and communities
Likely to be • Control avian predators on islands
beneficial
Unknown • Control invasive ants on islands
effectiveness • Reduce predation by translocating predators
(limited evidence)
Evidence not • Control predators not on islands
assessed

204
 3.11 Threat: Invasive alien and other problematic species

Beneficial

Control mammalian predators on islands

Of the 33 studies from across the world, 16 described population increases
or recolonisations in at least some of the sites studied and 18 found higher
reproductive success or lower mortality (on artificial nests in one case). Two
studies that investigated population changes found only partial increases,
in black oystercatchers Haematopus bachmani and two gamebird species,
respectively. Eighteen of the studies investigated rodent control; 12 cat Felis
catus control and 6 various other predators including pigs Sus scrofa and red
foxes Vulpes. The two that found only partial increases examined cat, fox
and other larger mammal removal. Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness 81%;
certainty 78%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/373

 emove or control predators to enhance bird populations

R
and communities
Both a meta-analysis and a systematic review (both global) found that bird
reproductive success increased with predator control and that either post-
breeding or breeding-season populations increased. The systematic review
found that post-breeding success increased with predator control on mainland,
but not islands. Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness 66%; certainty 71%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/371

Likely to be beneficial

Control avian predators on islands

Seven out of ten studies from North America, Australia and Europe found
that controlling avian predators led to increased population sizes, reduced
mortality, increased reproductive success or successful translocation of
seabirds on islands. Two controlled studies on European islands found little
effect of controlling crows on reproductive success in raptors or gamebirds.
One study in the UK found that numbers of terns and small gulls on gravel
islands declined despite the attempted control of large gulls. Assessment:
likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 50%; certainty 45%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/372

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 205

Bird Conservation

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Control invasive ants on islands

A single study in the USA found that controlling the invasive tropical fire
ant Solenopsis geminata, but not the big-headed ant Pheidole megacephala, led to
lower rates of injuries and temporarily higher fledging success than on islands
without ant control. The authors note that very few chicks were injured by P.
megacephala on either experimental or control islands. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 10%; certainty 15%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/383

Reduce predation by translocating predators

Two studies from France and the USA found local population increases or
reduced predation following the translocation of predators away from an
area. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 27%;
certainty 20%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/393

Evidence not assessed

Control predators not on islands

A study from the UK found higher bird community breeding densities
and fledging success rates in plots with red fox Vulpes vulpes and carrion
crow Corvus corone control. Of the 25 taxa-specific studies, only five found
evidence for population increases with predator control, whilst one found
a population decrease (with other interventions also used); one found lower
or similar survival, probably because birds took bait. Nineteen studies found
some evidence for increased reproductive success or decreased predation
with predator control, with three studies (including a meta-analysis) finding
no evidence for higher reproductive success or predation with predator
control or translocation from the study site. One other study found evidence
for increases in only three of six species studied. Most studies studied the
removal of a number of different mammals, although several also removed
bird predators, mostly carrion crows and gulls Larus spp. Assessment: this
intervention has not been assessed.
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/384

206
 3.11 Threat: Invasive alien and other problematic species

3.11.2 Reduce incidental mortality during predator

eradication or control

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for reducing incidental mortality during
predator eradication or control predation
Unknown • Distribute poison bait using dispensers
effectiveness • Use coloured baits to reduce accidental
(limited evidence) mortality during predator control
• Use repellents on baits
Evidence not • Do birds take bait designed for pest control?
assessed

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Distribute poison bait using dispensers

A study from New Zealand found that South Island robin survival was higher
when bait for rats and mice was dispensed from feeders, compared to being
scattered. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness
40%; certainty 25%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/157

 se coloured baits to reduce accidental mortality during

U
predator control
Two out of three studies found that dyed baits were consumed at lower
rates by songbirds and kestrels. An ex situ study from Australia found that
dyeing food did not reduce its consumption by bush thick-knees. Assessment:
unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 20%; certainty 30%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/182

Use repellents on baits

A study in New Zealand found that repellents reduced the rate of pecking at
baits by North Island robins. A study from the USA found that treating bait
with repellents did not reduce consumption by American kestrels. Assessment:
unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 10%; certainty 10%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/159

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 207

Bird Conservation

Evidence not assessed

Do birds take bait designed for pest control?

Two studies from New Zealand and Australia, one ex situ, found no evidence
that birds took bait meant for pest control. Assessment: this intervention has
not been assessed.
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/395

3.11.3 Reduce nest predation by excluding predators

from nests or nesting areas

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for reducing nest predation by excluding
predators from nests or nesting areas
Likely to be • Physically protect nests from predators using
beneficial non-electric fencing
• Physically protect nests with individual
exclosures/barriers or provide shelters for chicks
• Protect bird nests using electric fencing
• Use artificial nests that discourage predation
Unknown • Guard nests to prevent predation
effectiveness • Plant nesting cover to reduce nest predation
(limited evidence)
• Protect nests from ants
• Use multiple barriers to protect nests
• Use naphthalene to deter mammalian predators
• Use snakeskin to deter mammalian nest predators
No evidence found • Play spoken-word radio programs to deter
(no assessment) predators
• Use ‘cat curfews’ to reduce predation
• Use lion dung to deter domestic cats
• Use mirrors to deter nest predators
• Use ultrasonic devices to deter cats
Evidence not • Can nest protection increase nest abandonment?
assessed • Can nest protection increase predation of adults
and chicks?

208
 3.11 Threat: Invasive alien and other problematic species

Likely to be beneficial

 hysically protect nests from predators using non-electric

P
fencing
Two of four studies from the UK and the USA found that fewer nests failed
or were predated when predator exclusion fences were erected. Two studies
found that nesting and fledging success was no higher when fences were
used, one found that hatching success was higher. Assessment: likely to be
beneficial (effectiveness 45%; certainty 48%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/183

 hysically protect nests with individual exclosures/

P
barriers or provide shelters for chicks
Nine of 23 studies found that fledging rates or productivity were higher
for nests protected by individual barriers than for unprotected nests. Two
found no higher productivity. Fourteen studies found that hatching rates
or survival were higher, or that predation was lower for protected nests.
Two found no differences between protected and unprotected nests and
one found that adults were harassed by predators at protected nests. One
study found that chick shelters were not used much and a review found that
some exclosure designs were more effective than others. Assessment: likely to
be beneficial (effectiveness 50%; certainty 50%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/397
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/398
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/399
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/400

Protect bird nests using electric fencing

Two of six studies found increased numbers of terns or tern nests following
the erection of an electric fence around colonies. Five studies found higher
survival or productivity of waders or seabirds when electric fences were
used and one found lower predation by mammals inside electric fences.
One study found that predation by birds was higher inside electric fences.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 60%; certainty 59%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/188

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 209

Bird Conservation

Use artificial nests that discourage predation

Three out of five studies from North America found lower predation rates or
higher nesting success for wildfowl in artificial nests, compared with natural
nests. An ex situ study found that some nest box designs prevented raccoons
from entering. A study found that wood ducks avoided anti-predator nest
boxes but only if given the choice of unaltered nest boxes. Assessment: likely
to be beneficial (effectiveness 59%; certainty 54%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/402

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Guard nests to prevent predation

Nest guarding can be used as a response to a range of threats and is therefore
discussed in ‘General responses to small/declining populations — Guard
nests’. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 50%;
certainty 30%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/411

Plant nesting cover to reduce nest predation

Studies relevant to this intervention are discussed in ‘Threat: Agriculture’.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 28%; certainty
30%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/405

Protect nests from ants

A study from the USA found that vireo nests protected from ants with
a physical barrier and a chemical repellent had higher fledging success
than unprotected nests. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence
(effectiveness 45%; certainty 17%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/410

Use multiple barriers to protect nests

One of two studies found that plover fledging success in the USA was no
higher when an electric fence was erected around individual nest exclosures,
compared to when just the exclosures were present. A study from the USA
found that predation on chicks was lower when one of two barriers around

210
 3.11 Threat: Invasive alien and other problematic species

nests was removed early, compared to when it was left for three more days.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 7%; certainty
17%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/404

Use naphthalene to deter mammalian predators

A study from the USA found that predation rates on artificial nests did not
differ when naphthalene moth balls were scattered around them. Assessment:
unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 0%; certainty 10%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/408

Use snakeskin to deter mammalian nest predators

A study from the USA found that flycatcher nests were predated less
frequently if they had a snakeskin wrapped around them. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 33%; certainty 15%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/406

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Play spoken-word radio programmes to deter predators
• Use ‘cat curfews’ to reduce predation
• Use lion dung to deter domestic cats
• Use mirrors to deter nest predators
• Use ultrasonic devices to deter cats

Evidence not assessed

Can nest protection increase nest abandonment?

One of four studies (from the USA) found an increase in abandonment after
nest exclosures were used. Two studies from the USA and Sweden found no
increases in abandonment when exclosures were used and a review from
the USA found that some designs were more likely to cause abandonment
than others. Assessment: this intervention has not been assessed.
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/401

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 211

Bird Conservation

 an nest protection increase predation of adults and

C
chicks?
Four of five studies from the USA and Sweden found that predation on
chicks and adults was higher when exclosures were used. One of these found
that adults were harassed when exclosures were installed and the chicks
rapidly predated when they were removed. One study from Sweden found
that predation was no higher when exclosures were used. Assessment: this
intervention has not been assessed.
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/403

3.11.4 Reduce mortality by reducing hunting ability

or changing predator behaviour

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of

the effectiveness of interventions for reducing mortality by reducing
hunting ability or changing predator behaviour
Unknown • Reduce predation by translocating nest boxes
effectiveness • Use collar-mounted devices to reduce predation
(limited evidence)
• Use supplementary feeding of predators to
reduce predation
Unlikely to be • Use aversive conditioning to reduce nest
beneficial predation

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Reduce predation by translocating nest boxes

Two European studies found that predation rates were lower for translocated
nest boxes than for controls. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited
evidence (effectiveness 48%; certainty 25%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/420

212
 3.11 Threat: Invasive alien and other problematic species

Use collar-mounted devices to reduce predation

Two replicated randomised and controlled studies in the UK and Australia
found that fewer birds were returned by cats wearing collars with anti-
hunting devices, compared to cats with control collars. No differences were
found between different devices. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited
evidence (effectiveness 48%; certainty 35%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/416

Use supplementary feeding to reduce predation

One of three studies found that fewer grouse chicks were taken to harrier
nests when supplementary food was provided to the harriers, but no effect
on grouse adult survival or productivity was found. One study from the USA
found reduced predation on artificial nests when supplementary food was
provided. Another study from the USA found no such effect. Assessment:
unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 13%; certainty 20%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/417

Unlikely to be beneficial

Use aversive conditioning to reduce nest predation

Nine out of 12 studies found no evidence for aversive conditioning or reduced
nest predation after aversive conditioning treatment stopped. Ten studies
found reduced consumption of food when it was treated with repellent
chemicals, i.e. during the treatment. Three, all studying avian predators,
found some evidence for reduced consumption after treatment but these
were short-lived trials or the effect disappeared within a year. Assessment:
unlikely to be beneficial (effectiveness 9%; certainty 60%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/418
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/419

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 213

Bird Conservation

3.11.5 Reduce competition with other species for

food and nest sites

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for reducing competition with other
species for food and nest sites?
Likely to be • Reduce inter-specific competition for food by
beneficial removing or controlling competitor species
Unknown • Protect nest sites from competitors
effectiveness • Reduce competition between species by
(limited evidence) providing nest boxes
• Reduce inter-specific competition for nest sites by
modifying habitats to exclude competitor species
• Reduce inter-specific competition for nest sites
by removing competitor species: ground nesting
seabirds
• Reduce inter-specific competition for nest sites by
removing competitor species: songbirds
• Reduce inter-specific competition for nest sites by
removing competitor species: woodpeckers

Likely to be beneficial

 educe inter-specific competition for food by removing

R
or controlling competitor species
Three out of four studies found that at least some of the target species increased
following the removal or control of competitor species. Two studies found
that some or all target species did not increase, or that there was no change
in kleptoparasitic behaviour of competitor species after control efforts.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 44%; certainty 40%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/428

214
 3.11 Threat: Invasive alien and other problematic species

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Protect nest sites from competitors

Two studies from the USA found that red-cockaded woodpecker populations
increased after the installation of ‘restrictor plates’ around nest holes to prevent
larger woodpeckers for enlarging them. Several other interventions were
used at the same time. A study from Puerto Rico found lower competition
between species after nest boxes were altered. A study from the USA found
weak evidence that exclusion devices prevented house sparrows from using
nest boxes and another study from the USA found that fitting restrictor plates
to red-cockaded woodpecker holes reduced the number that were enlarged
by other woodpeckers. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence
(effectiveness 39%; certainty 24%; harms 5%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/426

 educe competition between species by providing nest

R
boxes
A study from the USA found that providing extra nest boxes did not reduce
the rate at which common starlings usurped northern flickers from nests.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 0%; certainty
16%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/427

 educe inter-specific competition for nest sites by

R
modifying habitats to exclude competitor species
A study from the USA found that clearing midstorey vegetation did not reduce
the occupancy of red-cockaded woodpecker nesting holes by southern flying
squirrels. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness
0%; certainty 12%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/425

 educe inter-specific competition for nest sites by

R
removing competitor species (ground nesting seabirds)
Four studies from Canada and the UK found increased tern populations
following the control or exclusion of gulls, and in two cases with many
additional interventions. Two studies from the UK and Canada found that
controlling large gulls had no impact on smaller species. Two studies from the
USA and UK found that exclusion devices successfully reduced the numbers

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 215

Bird Conservation

of gulls at sites, although one found that they were only effective at small
colonies and the other found that methods varied in their effectiveness and
practicality. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness
41%; certainty 31%; harms 14%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/422

 educe inter-specific competition for nest sites by

R
removing competitor species (songbirds)
Two studies from Australia found increases in bird populations and species
richness after control of noisy miners. A study from Italy found that blue tits
nested in more nest boxes when hazel dormice were excluded from boxes
over winter. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness
50%; certainty 22%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/424

 educe inter-specific competition for nest sites by

R
removing competitor species (woodpeckers)
Two studies in the USA found red-cockaded woodpecker populations
increased following the removal of southern flying squirrels, in one case
along with other interventions. A third found that red-cockaded woodpecker
reintroductions were successful when squirrels were controlled. One study
found fewer holes were occupied by squirrels following control efforts, but
that occupancy by red-cockaded woodpeckers was no higher. Assessment:
unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 34%; certainty 28%;
harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/423

216
 3.11 Threat: Invasive alien and other problematic species

3.11.6 Reduce adverse habitat alteration by other

species

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for reducing adverse habitat alteration
by other species?
Likely to be • Control or remove habitat-altering mammals
beneficial • Reduce adverse habitat alterations by excluding
problematic species (terrestrial species)
Unknown • Reduce adverse habitat alterations by excluding
effectiveness problematic species (aquatic species)
(limited evidence) • Remove problematic vegetation
• Use buffer zones to reduce the impact of invasive
plant control

Likely to be beneficial

Control or remove habitat-altering mammals

Four out of five studies from islands in the Azores and Australia found that
seabird populations increased after rabbits or other species were removed,
although three studied several interventions at the same time. Two studies
from Australia and Madeira found that seabird productivity increased
after rabbit and house mouse eradication. Assessment: likely to be beneficial
(effectiveness 61%; certainty 41%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/431

 educe adverse habitat alterations by excluding

R
problematic species (terrestrial species)
Three studies from the USA and the UK found higher numbers of certain
songbird species and higher species richness in these groups when deer
were excluded from forests. Intermediate canopy-nesting species in the USA
and common nightingales in the UK were the species to benefit. A study
from Hawaii found mixed effects of grazer exclusion. Assessment: likely to be
beneficial (effectiveness 48%; certainty 40%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/429

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 217

Bird Conservation

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

 educe adverse habitat alterations by excluding

R
problematic species (aquatic species)
A study in the USA found that waterbirds preferentially used wetland plots
from which grass carp were excluded but moved as these became depleted
over the winter. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness
30%; certainty 14%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/430

Remove problematic vegetation

One of four studies (from Japan) found an increase in a bird population
following the removal of an invasive plant. One study from the USA found
lower bird densities in areas where a problematic native species was removed.
One study from Australia found the Gould’s petrel productivity was higher
following the removal of native bird-lime trees, and a study from New Zealand
found that Chatham Island oystercatchers could nest in preferable areas of
beaches after invasive marram grass was removed. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 43%; certainty 23%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/432

 se buffer zones to reduce the impact of invasive plant

U
control
A study from the USA found that no snail kite nests (built above water in
cattail and bulrush) were lost during herbicide spraying when buffer zones
were established around nests. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited
evidence (effectiveness 40%; certainty 10%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/433

218
 3.11 Threat: Invasive alien and other problematic species

3.11.7 Reduce parasitism and disease

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the
effectiveness of interventions for reducing parasitism and disease?
Likely to be • Remove/control adult brood parasites
beneficial
Trade-off between • Remove/treat endoparasites and diseases
benefit and harms
Unknown • Alter artificial nest sites to discourage brood
effectiveness parasitism
(limited evidence) • Exclude or control ‘reservoir species’ to reduce
parasite burdens
• Remove brood parasite eggs from target species’
nests
• Remove/treat ectoparasites to increase survival or
reproductive success: reduce nest ectoparasites by
providing beneficial nesting material
• Remove/treat ectoparasites to increase survival or
reproductive success: remove ectoparasites from
feathers
• Use false brood parasite eggs to discourage brood
parasitism
Unlikely to be • Remove/treat ectoparasites to increase survival or
beneficial reproductive success: remove ectoparasites from
nests

Likely to be beneficial

Remove/control adult brood parasites

One of 12 studies, all from the Americas, found that a host species population
increased after control of the parasitic cowbird, two studies found no effect.
Five studies found higher productivities or success rates when cowbirds
were removed, five found that some or all measures of productivity were no
different. Eleven studies found that brood parasitism rates were lower after
cowbird control. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 48%; certainty
61%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/441

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 219

Bird Conservation

Trade-off between benefit and harms

Remove/treat endoparasites and diseases

Two out of five studies found that removing endoparasites increased survival
in birds and one study found higher productivity in treated birds. Two
studies found no evidence, or uncertain evidence, for increases in survival
with treatment and one study found lower parasite burdens, but also lower
survival in birds treated with antihelmintic drugs. Assessment: trade-offs
between benefits and harms (effectiveness 48%; certainty 51%; harms 37%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/434

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

A
 lter artificial nest sites to discourage brood parasitism
A replicated trial from Puerto Rico found that brood parasitism levels were
extremely high across all nest box designs tested. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 0%; certainty 13%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/446

 xclude or control ‘reservoir species’ to reduce parasite

E
burdens
One of two studies found increased chick production in grouse when hares
(carries of louping ill virus) were culled in the area, although a comment
on the paper disputes this finding. A literature review found no compelling
evidence for the effects of hare culling on grouse populations. Assessment:
unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 13%; certainty 20%;
harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/435

Remove brood parasite eggs from target species’ nests

One of two studies found lower rates of parasitism when cowbird eggs were
removed from host nests. One study found that nests from which cowbird eggs
were removed had lower success than parasitised nests. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 24%; certainty 20%; harms 21%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/443

220
 3.11 Threat: Invasive alien and other problematic species

 emove/treat ectoparasites to increase survival or

R
reproductive success (provide beneficial nesting
material)
A study in Canada found lower numbers of some, but not all, parasites in
nests provided with beneficial nesting material, but that there was no effect on
fledging rates or chick condition. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited
evidence (effectiveness 15%; certainty 13%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/439

 emove/treat ectoparasites to increase survival or

R
reproductive success (remove ectoparasites from feathers)
A study in the UK found that red grouse treated with spot applications had
lower tick and disease burdens and higher survival than controls, whilst
birds with impregnated tags had lower tick burdens only. A study in Hawaii
found that CO2 was the most effective way to remove lice from feathers,
although lice were not killed. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited
evidence (effectiveness 42%; certainty 16%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/437

 se false brood parasite eggs to discourage brood

U
parasitism
A study from the USA found that parasitism rates were lower for red-winged
blackbird nests with false or real cowbird eggs placed in them, than for control
nests. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 35%;
certainty 19%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/444

Unlikely to be beneficial

 emove/treat ectoparasites to increase survival or

R
reproductive success (remove ectoparasites from nests)
Six of the seven studies found lower infestation rates in nests treated
for ectoparasites, one (that used microwaves to treat nests) did not find
fewer parasites. Two studies from the USA found higher survival or lower
abandonment in nests treated for ectoparasites, whilst seven studies from
across the world found no differences in survival, fledging rates or productivity

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 221

Bird Conservation

between nests treated for ectoparasites and controls. Two of six studies found
that chicks from nests treated for ectoparasites were in better condition than
those from control nests. Assessment: unlikely to be beneficial (effectiveness 25%;
certainty 58%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/438

3.11.8 Reduce detrimental impacts of other

problematic species

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for reducing detrimental impacts of
other problematic species?
Unknown • Use copper strips to exclude snails from nests
effectiveness
(limited evidence)

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Use copper strips to exclude snails from nests

A study from Mauritius found no mortality from snails invading echo
parakeet nests after the installation of copper strips around nest trees.
Before installation, four chicks were killed by snails. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 47%; certainty 15%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/447

222
 3.12 Threat: Pollution

3.12.1 Industrial pollution

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for industrial pollution?
Likely to be • Use visual and acoustic ‘scarers’ to deter birds
beneficial from landing on pools polluted by mining or
sewage
Unknown • Relocate birds following oil spills
effectiveness • Use repellents to deter birds from landing on
(limited evidence) pools polluted by mining
Unlikely to be • Clean birds after oil spills
beneficial

Likely to be beneficial

 se visual and acoustic ‘scarers’ to deter birds from

U
landing on pools polluted by mining or sewage
Two studies from Australia and the USA found that deterrent systems
reduced bird mortality on toxic pools. Four of five studies from the USA
and Canada found that fewer birds landed on pools when deterrents were
used, one found no effect. Two studies found that radar-activated systems
were more effective than randomly-activated systems. One study found that
loud noises were more effective than raptor models. Assessment: likely to be
beneficial (effectiveness 50%; certainty 46%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/452

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 223

Bird Conservation

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Relocate birds following oil spills

A study from South Africa found that a high percentage of penguins
relocated following an oil spill returned to and bred at their old colony.
More relocated birds bred than oiled-and-cleaned birds. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 39%; certainty 10%; harms 5%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/449

 se repellents to deter birds from landing on pools

U
polluted by mining
An ex situ study from the USA found that fewer common starlings consumed
contaminated water laced with chemicals, compared to untreated water.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 51%; certainty
10%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/453

Unlikely to be beneficial

Clean birds after oil spills

Three studies from South Africa and Australia found high survival of oiled-
and-cleaned penguins and plovers, but a large study from the USA found
low survival of cleaned common guillemots. Two studies found that cleaned
birds bred and had similar success to un-oiled birds. After a second spill,
one study found that cleaned birds were less likely to breed. Two studies
found that cleaned birds had lower breeding success than un-oiled birds.
Assessment: unlikely to be beneficial (effectiveness 30%; certainty 45%; harms 5%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/448

224
 3.12 Threat: Pollution

3.12.2 Agricultural pollution

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the
effectiveness of interventions for agricultural pollution?
Likely to be • Leave headlands in fields unsprayed
beneficial (conservation headlands)
• Provide food for vultures to reduce mortality
from diclofenac
• Reduce pesticide, herbicide and fertiliser use
generally
Unknown • Reduce chemical inputs in permanent grassland
effectiveness management
(limited evidence) • Restrict certain pesticides or other agricultural
chemicals
No evidence found • Make selective use of spring herbicides
(no assessment) • Provide buffer strips along rivers and streams
• Provide unfertilised cereal headlands in arable
fields
• Use buffer strips around in-field ponds
• Use organic rather than mineral fertilisers

Likely to be beneficial

 eave headlands in fields unsprayed (conservation

L
headlands)
Three studies from Europe found that several species were strongly associated
with conservation headlands; two of these found that other species were not
associated with them. A review from the UK found larger grey partridge
populations on sites with conservation headlands. Three studies found higher
grey partridge adult or chick survival on sites with conservation headlands,
one found survival did not differ. Four studies found higher grey partridge
productivity on sites with conservation headlands, two found similar
productivities and one found a negative relationship between conservation
headlands and the number of chicks per adult partridge. Assessment: likely
to be beneficial (effectiveness 70%; certainty 50%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/461

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 225

Bird Conservation

 rovide food for vultures to reduce mortality from

P
diclofenac
A before-and-after trial in Pakistan found that oriental white-backed vulture
mortality rates were significantly lower when supplementary food was
provided, compared to when it was not. Assessment: likely to be beneficial
(effectiveness 60%; certainty 40%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/456

Reduce pesticide, herbicide and fertiliser use generally

One of nine studies found that the populations of some species increased
when pesticide use was reduced and other interventions used. Three studies
found that some or all species were found at higher densities on reduced-
input sites. Five found that some of all species were not at higher densities.
A study from the UK found that grey partridge chicks had higher survival
on sites with reduced pesticide input. Another found that partridge broods
were smaller on such sites and there was no relationship between reduced
inputs and survival or the ratio of young to old birds. Assessment: likely to be
beneficial (effectiveness 55%; certainty 55%; harms 3%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/454

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

 educe chemical inputs in permanent grassland

R
management
A study from the UK found that no more foraging birds were attracted to
pasture plots with no fertiliser, compared to control plots. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 0%; certainty 10%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/459

Restrict certain pesticides or other agricultural chemicals

A before-and-study from Spain found an increase in the regional griffon
vulture population following the banning of strychnine, amongst several
other interventions. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence
(effectiveness 20%; certainty 10%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/455

226
 3.12 Threat: Pollution

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Make selective use of spring herbicides
• Provide buffer strips along rivers and streams
• Provide unfertilised cereal headlands in arable fields
• Use buffer strips around in-field ponds
• Use organic rather than mineral fertilisers

3.12.3 Air-borne pollutants

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for air-borne pollutants?
Unknown • Use lime to reduce acidification in lakes
effectiveness
(limited evidence)

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Use lime to reduce acidification in lakes

A study from Sweden found no difference in osprey productivity during a
period of extensive liming of acidified lakes compared to two periods without
liming. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 0%;
certainty 10%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/465

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 227

Bird Conservation

3.12.4 Excess energy

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for excess energy?
Unknown • Shield lights to reduce mortality from artificial
effectiveness lights
(limited evidence) • Turning off lights to reduce mortality from
artificial lights
• Use flashing lights to reduce mortality from
artificial lights
• Use lights low in spectral red to reduce mortality
from artificial lights
No evidence found • Reduce the intensity of lighthouse beams
(no assessment) • Using volunteers to collect and rehabilitate
downed birds

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Shield lights to reduce mortality from artificial lights

A study from the USA found that fewer shearwaters were downed when
security lights were shielded, compared to nights with unshielded lights.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 50%; certainty
15%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/469

 urning off lights to reduce mortality from artificial

T
lights
A study from the UK found that fewer seabirds were downed when artificial
(indoor and outdoor) lighting was reduced at night, compared to nights
with normal lighting. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence
(effectiveness 49%; certainty 10%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/467

228
 3.12 Threat: Pollution

 se flashing lights to reduce mortality from artificial

U
lights
A study from the USA found that fewer dead birds were found beneath
aviation control towers with only flashing lights, compared to those with both
flashing and continuous lights. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited
evidence (effectiveness 54%; certainty 15%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/470

 se lights low in spectral red to reduce mortality from

U
artificial lights
Two studies from Europe found that fewer birds were attracted to low-
red lights (including green and blue lights), compared with the number
expected, or the number attracted to white or red lights. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 56%; certainty 15%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/471

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Reduce the intensity of lighthouse beams
• Using volunteers to collect and rehabilitate downed birds

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 229

 3.13 Threat: Climate change,
extreme weather and
geological events

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for climate change, extreme weather and
geological events?
Unknown • Replace nesting habitats when they are washed
effectiveness away by storms
(limited evidence) • Water nesting mounds to increase incubation
success in malleefowl

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

 eplace nesting habitats when they are washed away by

R
storms
A before-and-after study found that a common tern colony increased
following the replacement of nesting habitats, whilst a second found that
a colony decreased. In both cases, several other interventions were used at
the same time, making it hard to examine the effect of habitat provision.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 8%; certainty
10%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/474

230
 3.13 Threat: Climate change, extreme weather and geological events

 ater nesting mounds to increase incubation success in

W
malleefowl
A single small trial in Australia found that watering malleefowl nests
increased their internal temperature but that a single application of water
did not prevent the nests drying out and being abandoned during a drought.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 9%; certainty
10%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/473

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 231

 3.14 General responses to
small/declining populations

3.14.1 Inducing breeding, rehabilitation and egg removal

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for inducing breeding, rehabilitation
and egg removal?
Unknown • Rehabilitate injured birds
effectiveness • Remove eggs from wild nests to increase
(limited evidence) reproductive output
• Use artificial visual and auditory stimuli to
induce breeding in wild populations

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Rehabilitate injured birds

Two studies of four studies from the UK and USA found that 25–40% of
injured birds taken in by centres were rehabilitated and released. Three
studies from the USA found that rehabilitated birds appeared to have high
survival. One found that mortality rates were higher for owls than raptors.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 36%; certainty
30%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/476

 emove eggs from wild nests to increase reproductive

R
output

232
 3.14 General responses to small/declining populations

A study from Canada found that whooping crane reproductive success was
higher for nests with one or two eggs removed than for controls. A study
from the USA found that removing bald eagle eggs did not appear to affect
the wild population and a replicated study from Mauritius found that
removing entire Mauritius kestrel clutches appeared to increase productivity
more than removing individual eggs as they were laid. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 24%; certainty 25%; harms 5%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/477

 se artificial visual and auditory stimuli to induce

U
breeding in wild populations
A small study from the British Virgin Islands found an increase in breeding
behaviour after the introduction of visual and auditory stimulants. Assessment:
unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 19%; certainty 11%;
harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/475

3.14.2 Provide artificial nesting sites

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the
effectiveness of interventions for providing artificial nesting sites?
Beneficial • Provide artificial nests: falcons
• Provide artificial nests: owls
• Provide artificial nests: songbirds
• Provide artificial nests: wildfowl
Likely to be • Clean artificial nests to increase occupancy or
beneficial reproductive success
• Provide artificial nests: burrow-nesting seabirds
• Provide artificial nests: divers/loons
• Provide artificial nests: ground- and tree-nesting
seabirds
• Provide artificial nests: oilbirds
• Provide artificial nests: raptors
• Provide artificial nests: wildfowl — artificial/
floating islands

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 233

Bird Conservation

Unknown • Artificially incubate eggs or warm nests

effectiveness • Guard nests
(limited evidence)
• Provide artificial nests: gamebirds
• Provide artificial nests: grebes
• Provide artificial nests: ibises and flamingos
• Provide artificial nests: parrots
• Provide artificial nests: pigeons
• Provide artificial nests: rails
• Provide artificial nests: rollers
• Provide artificial nests: swifts
• Provide artificial nests: trogons
• Provide artificial nests: waders
• Provide artificial nests: woodpeckers
• Provide nesting habitat for birds that is safe from
extreme weather
• Provide nesting material for wild birds
• Remove vegetation to create nesting areas
• Repair/support nests to support breeding
• Use differently-coloured artificial nests

Beneficial

Provide artificial nests (falcons)

Four studies from the USA and Europe found that local populations of
falcons increased following the installation of artificial nesting sites. However,
a study from Canada found no increase in the local population of falcons
following the erection of nest boxes. Eight studies from across the world
found that the success and productivity of falcons in nest boxes was higher
than or equal to those in natural nests. Four studies from across the world
found that productivity in nest boxes was lower than in natural nests, or that
some falcons were evicted from their nests by owls. Four studies from across
the world found no differences in productivity between nest box designs or
positions, whilst two from Spain and Israel found that productivity in boxes
varied between designs and habitats. Twenty-one studies from across the
world found nest boxes were used by falcons, with one in the UK finding

234
 3.14 General responses to small/declining populations

that nest boxes were not used at all. Seven studies found that position or
design affected use, whilst three found no differences between design or
positioning. Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness 65%; certainty 65%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/489

Provide artificial nests (owls)

Three studies from the UK appeared to show increases in local populations
of owls following the installation of artificial nests. Another UK study
found that providing nesting sites when renovating buildings maintained
owl populations, whilst they declined at sites without nests. Four studies
from the USA and the UK found high levels of breeding success in artificial
nests. Two studies from the USA and Hungary found lower productivity or
fledgling survival from breeding attempts in artificial nests, whilst a study
from Finland found that artificial nests were only successful in the absence of
larger owls. Four studies from the USA and Europe found that artificial nests
were used as frequently as natural sites. Five studies from across the world
found that owls used artificial nests. Seven studies found that nest position
or design affected occupancy or productivity. However four studies found
occupancy and/or productivity did not differ between different designs of
nest box. Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness 65%; certainty 66%; harms 5%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/490

Provide artificial nests (songbirds)

Only three out of 66 studies from across the world found low rates of nest
box occupancy in songbirds. Low rates of use were seen in thrushes, crows,
swallows and New World warblers. Thrushes, crows, finches, swallows,
wrens, tits, Old World and tyrant flycatchers, New World blackbirds,
sparrows, waxbills, starlings and ovenbirds all used nest boxes. Five studies
from across the world found higher population densities or growth rates,
and one study from the USA found higher species richness, in areas with
nest boxes. Twelve studies from across the world found that productivity
in nest boxes was higher than or similar to natural nests. One study found
there were more nesting attempts in areas with more nest boxes, although
a study from Canada found no differences in productivity between areas
with different nest box densities. Two studies from Europe found lower
predation of species using nest boxes but three studies from the USA found
low production in nest boxes. Thirteen studies from across the world found

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 235

Bird Conservation

that use, productivity or usurpation rate varied with nest box design, whilst
seven found no difference in occupation rates or success between different
designs. Similarly, fourteen studies found different occupation or success
rates depending on the position of artificial nest sites but two studies found
no such differences. Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness 67%; certainty 85%;
harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/498

Provide artificial nests (wildfowl)

Six studies from North America and Europe found that wildfowl populations
increased with the provision of artificial nests, although one study from
Finland found no increase in productivity in areas with nest boxes. Nine out
of twelve studies from North America found that productivity was high in
artificial nests. Two studies found that success for some species in nest boxes
was lower than for natural nests. Nineteen studies from across the world
found that occupancy rates varied from no use to 100% occupancy. Two
studies found that occupancy rates were affected by design or positioning.
Three studies from North America found that nest boxes could have other
impacts on reproduction and behaviour. Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness
62%; certainty 76%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/482

Likely to be beneficial

 lean artificial nests to increase occupancy or

C
reproductive success
Five out of ten studies from North America and Europe found that songbirds
preferentially nested in cleaned nest boxes or those sterilised using microwaves,
compared to used nest boxes. One study found that the preference was not
strong enough for birds to switch nest boxes after they were settled. One study
found that birds avoided heavily-soiled nest boxes. Two studies birds had a
preference for used nest boxes and one found no preference for cleaned or
uncleaned boxes. None of the five studies that examined it found any effect
of nest box cleanliness on nesting success or parasitism levels. Assessment:
likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 40%; certainty 40%; harms 15%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/499

236
 3.14 General responses to small/declining populations

Provide artificial nests (burrow-nesting seabirds)

Four studies from across the world found population increases or population
establishment following the provision of nest boxes. In two cases this was
combined with other interventions. Six studies from across the world found
high occupancy rates for artificial burros by seabirds but three studies from
across the world found very low occupancy rates for artificial burrows used
by petrels. Eight studies from across the world found that the productivity
of birds in artificial burrows was high although two studies from the USA
and the Galapagos found low productivity in petrels. Assessment: likely to be
beneficial (effectiveness 60%; certainty 71%; harms 5%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/481

Provide artificial nests (divers/loons)

Three studies from the UK and the USA found increases in loon productivity
on lakes provided with nesting rafts. A study in the UK found that usage of
nesting rafts varied between sites. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness
50%; certainty 50%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/478

 rovide artificial nests (ground- and tree-nesting

P
seabirds)
Three studies from the UK and the Azores found increases in gull and tern
populations following the provision of rafts/islands or nest boxes alongside
other interventions. Five studies from Canada and Europe found that terns
used artificial nesting sites. A study from the USA found that terns had
higher nesting success on artificial rafts in some years and a study from Japan
found increased nesting success after provision of nesting substrate. Design
of nesting structure should be considered. Assessment: likely to be beneficial
(effectiveness 60%; certainty 49%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/480

Provide artificial nests (oilbirds)

A study in Trinidad and Tobago found an increase in the size of an oilbird
colony after the creation of artificial nesting lodges. Assessment: likely to be
beneficial (effectiveness 50%; certainty 45%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/491

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 237

Bird Conservation

Provide artificial nests (raptors)

Nine studies from North America and Spain found that raptors used artificial
nesting platforms. Two studies from the USA found increases in populations
or densities following the installation of platforms. Three studies describe
successful use of platforms but three found lower productivity or failed
nesting attempts, although these studies only describe a single nesting attempt.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 55%; certainty 55%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/488

 rovide artificial nests (wildfowl — artificial/floating

P
islands)
Two studies from North America found that wildfowl used artificial islands
and floating rafts and had high nesting success. A study in the UK found
that wildfowl preferentially nested on vegetated rather than bare islands.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 45%; certainty 45%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/483

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

A
 rtificially incubate eggs or warm nests
One of two studies found that no kakapo chicks or eggs died of cold when
they were artificially warmed when females left the nest. A study from the
UK found that great tits were less likely to interrupt their laying sequence
if their nest boxes were warmed, but there was no effect on egg or clutch
size. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 26%;
certainty 16%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/503

Guard nests
We captured four studies describing the effects of guarding nests. One,
from Costa Rica, found an increase in scarlet macaw population after nest
monitoring and several other interventions. Two studies from Puerto Rico
and New Zealand found that nest success was higher, or mortality lower,
when nests were monitored. A study from New Zealand found that nest
success was high overall when nests were monitored. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 41%; certainty 24%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/506

238
 3.14 General responses to small/declining populations

Provide artificial nests (gamebirds)

A study in China found that approximately 40% of the local population
of Cabot’s tragopans used nesting platforms. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 40%; certainty 13%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/484

Provide artificial nests (grebes)

A study from the UK found that grebes used nesting rafts in some areas but
not others. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness
10%; certainty 9%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/479

Provide artificial nests (ibises and flamingos)

A study from Turkey found that ibises moved to a site with artificial breeding
ledges. A study from Spain and France found that large numbers of flamingos
used artificial nesting islands. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited
evidence (effectiveness 42%; certainty 31%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/487

Provide artificial nests (parrots)

A study from Costa Rica found that the local population of scarlet macaws
increased following the installation of nest boxes along with several other
interventions. Five studies from South and Central America and Mauritius
found that nest boxes were used by several species of parrots. One study
from Peru found that blue-and-yellow macaws only used modified palms,
not ‘boxes’, whilst another study found that scarlet macaws used both PVC
and wooden boxes. Four studies from Venezuela and Columbia found that
several species 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.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 25%; certainty
38%; harms 11%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/497

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 239

Bird Conservation

Provide artificial nests (pigeons)

Two studies from the USA and the Netherlands found high use rates and
high nesting success of pigeons and doves using artificial nests. Assessment:
unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 30%; certainty 16%;
harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/492

Provide artificial nests (rails)

A study from the UK found that common moorhens and common coot readily
used artificial nesting islands. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited
evidence (effectiveness 30%; certainty 11%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/485

Provide artificial nests (rollers)

A study from Spain found that the use of nest boxes by rollers increased
over time and varied between habitats. Another study from Spain found
no difference in success rates between new and old nest boxes. Assessment:
unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 20%; certainty 20%;
harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/494

Provide artificial nests (swifts)

A study from the USA found that Vaux’s swifts successfully used nest boxes
provided. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness
25%; certainty 16%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/495

Provide artificial nests (trogons)

A small study from Guatemala found that at least one resplendent quetzal
nested in nest boxes provided. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited
evidence (effectiveness 19%; certainty 11%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/493

Provide artificial nests (waders)

Two studies from the USA and the UK found that waders used artificial
islands and nesting sites. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence
(effectiveness 25%; certainty 20%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/486

240
 3.14 General responses to small/declining populations

Provide artificial nests (woodpeckers)

Four studies from the USA found local increases in red-cockaded woodpecker
populations or the successful colonisation of new areas following the
installation of ‘cavity inserts’. One study also found that the productivity
of birds using the inserts was higher than the regional average. Two studies
from the USA found that red-cockaded woodpeckers 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, in nest boxes. Five studies from the USA found that some woodpeckers
excavated holes in artificial snags but only roosted in excavated holes or nest
boxes. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 35%;
certainty 39%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/496

 rovide nesting habitat for birds that is safe from

P
extreme weather
Two of three studies found that nesting success of waders and terns was
no higher on raised areas of nesting substrate, with one finding that similar
numbers were lost to flooding. The third study found that Chatham Island
oystercatchers used raised nest platforms, but did not report on nesting
success. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 28%;
certainty 23%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/504

Provide nesting material for wild birds

One of two studies found that wild birds took nesting material provided;
the other found only very low rates of use. Assessment: unknown effectiveness
— limited evidence (effectiveness 11%; certainty 9%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/501

Remove vegetation to create nesting areas

Two out of six studies found increases in population sizes at seabird and
wader colonies after vegetation was cleared and a third found that an entire
colony moved to a new site that was cleared of vegetation. Two of these
studies found that several interventions were used at once. Two studies found
that gulls and terns used plots cleared of vegetation, one of these found that
nesting densities were higher on partially-cleared plots than totally cleared,
or uncleared, plots. One study found that tern nesting success was higher

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 241

Bird Conservation

on plots after they were cleared of vegetation and other interventions were
used. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 45%;
certainty 28%; harms 10%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/505

Repair/support nests to support breeding

A study from Puerto Rico found that no chicks died from chilling after
nine nests were repaired to prevent water getting in. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 20%; certainty 10%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/502

Use differently-coloured artificial nests

A study from the USA found that two bird species (a thrush and a pigeon)
both showed colour preferences for artificial nests, but that these preferences
differed between species. In each case, clutches in the preferred colour nest
were less successful than those in the other colour. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 3%; certainty 9%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/500

3.14.3 Foster chicks in the wild

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for fostering chicks in the wild?
Likely to be • Foster eggs or chicks with wild conspecifics: raptors
beneficial • Foster eggs or chicks with wild non-conspecifics
(cross-fostering): songbirds
Unknown • Foster eggs or chicks with wild conspecifics:
effectiveness bustards
(limited evidence) • Foster eggs or chicks with wild conspecifics: cranes
• Foster eggs or chicks with wild conspecifics: gannets
and boobies
• Foster eggs or chicks with wild conspecifics: owls
• Foster eggs or chicks with wild conspecifics: parrots
• Foster eggs or chicks with wild conspecifics: vultures
• Foster eggs or chicks with wild conspecifics: waders

242
 3.14 General responses to small/declining populations

• Foster eggs or chicks with wild conspecifics:

woodpeckers
• Foster eggs or chicks with wild non-conspecifics
(cross-fostering): cranes
• Foster eggs or chicks with wild non-conspecifics
(cross-fostering): ibises
• Foster eggs or chicks with wild non-conspecifics
(cross-fostering): petrels and shearwaters
• Foster eggs or chicks with wild non-conspecifics
(cross-fostering): waders

Likely to be beneficial

Foster eggs or chicks with wild conspecifics (raptors)

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 eagle nests hatched and was
raised. A study from Spain found that Spanish imperial eagle 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). A study from Spain
found that young (15–20 day old) Montagu’s harrier chicks were successfully
adopted, but three older (27–29 day old) chicks were rejected. Assessment:
likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 70%; certainty 60%; harms 10%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/510

 oster eggs or chicks with wild non-conspecifics (cross-

F
fostering) (songbirds)
A study from the USA found that the survival of cross-fostered yellow warbler
chicks was lower than previously-published rates for the species. A study
from Norway found that the success of cross-fostering small songbirds varied
depending on the species of chick and foster birds but recruitment was the
same or higher than control chicks. The pairing success of cross-fostered
chicks varied depending on species of chick and foster birds. Assessment:
likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 45%; certainty 45%; harms 10%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/520

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 243

Bird Conservation

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Foster eggs or chicks with wild conspecifics (bustards)

A small study in Saudi Arabia found that a captive-bred egg was successfully
fostered to a female in the wild. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited
evidence (effectiveness 20%; certainty 5%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/513

Foster eggs or chicks with wild conspecifics (cranes)

A small study in Canada found high rates of fledging for whooping crane
eggs fostered to first time breeders. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited
evidence (effectiveness 26%; certainty 11%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/512

 oster eggs or chicks with wild conspecifics (gannets and

F
boobies)
A small study in Australia found that gannet chicks were lighter, and hatching
and fledging success lower in nests which had an extra egg or chick added.
However, overall productivity was non-significantly higher in experimental
nests. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 9%;
certainty 11%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/507

Foster eggs or chicks with wild conspecifics (owls)

A study in the USA found high fledging rates for barn owl chicks fostered
to wild pairs. A study from Canada found that captive-reared burrowing
owl chicks fostered to wild nests did not have lower survival or growth
rates than wild chicks. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence
(effectiveness 35%; certainty 21%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/511

Foster eggs or chicks with wild conspecifics (parrots)

A study from Venezuela found that yellow-shouldered Amazon chicks had
high fledging rates when fostered to conspecific nests in the wild. A second
study from Venezuela found lower poaching rates of yellow-shouldered
Amazons when chicks were moved to foster nests closer to a field base.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 30%; certainty
14%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/515
244
 3.14 General responses to small/declining populations

Foster eggs or chicks with wild conspecifics (vultures)

Two small studies in Italy and the USA found that single chicks were
successfully adopted by foster conspecifics, although in one case this
led to the death of one of the foster parents’ chicks. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 30%; certainty 15%; harms 41%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/509

Foster eggs or chicks with wild conspecifics (waders)

Two small trials in North America found that piping plovers accepted
chicks introduced into their broods, although in one case the chick died.
A study from New Zealand found that survival of fostered black stilts was
higher for birds fostered to conspecifics rather than a closely related species.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 29%; certainty
9%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/508

 oster eggs or chicks with wild conspecifics

F
(woodpeckers)
Three studies from the USA found that red-cockaded woodpecker chicks
fostered to conspecifics had high fledging rates. One small study found that
fostered chicks survived better than chicks translocated with their parents.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 41%; certainty
29%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/514

 oster eggs or chicks with wild non-conspecifics (cross-

F
fostering) (cranes)
Two studies from the USA found low fledging success for cranes fostered to
non-conspecifics’ nests. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence
(effectiveness 14%; certainty 35%; harms 10%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/519

 oster eggs or chicks with wild non-conspecifics (cross-

F
fostering) (ibises)
A 2007 literature review describes attempting to foster northern bald ibis chicks
with cattle egrets as unsuccessful. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited
evidence (effectiveness 0%; certainty 10%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/518

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 245

Bird Conservation

 oster eggs or chicks with wild non-conspecifics (cross-

F
fostering) (petrels and shearwaters)
A study from Hawaii found that Newell’s shearwater eggs fostered to
wedge-tailed shearwater nests had high fledging rates. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 45%; certainty 6%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/516

 oster eggs or chicks with wild non-conspecifics (cross-

F
fostering) (waders)
A study from the USA found that killdeer eggs incubated and raised by
spotted sandpipers had similar fledging rates to parent-reared birds. A
study from New Zealand found that cross-fostering black stilt chicks to
black-winged stilt nests increased nest success, but cross-fostered chicks had
lower success than chicks fostered to conspecifics’ nests. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 35%; certainty 30%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/517

3.14.4 Provide supplementary food

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for providing supplementary food?
Beneficial • Provide supplementary food to increase adult
survival: songbirds
Likely to be • Place feeders close to windows to reduce collisions
beneficial • Provide calcium supplements to increase survival
or reproductive success
• Provide supplementary food to increase adult
survival: cranes
• Provide supplementary food to increase
reproductive success: gulls, terns and skuas
• Provide supplementary food to increase
reproductive success: owls
• Provide supplementary food to increase
reproductive success: raptors
• Provide supplementary food to increase
reproductive success: songbirds

246
 3.14 General responses to small/declining populations

Unknown • Provide perches to improve foraging success

effectiveness • Provide supplementary food through the
(limited evidence) establishment of food populations
• Provide supplementary food to allow the rescue of
a second chick
• Provide supplementary food to increase adult
survival: gamebirds
• Provide supplementary food to increase adult
survival: gulls, terns and skuas
• Provide supplementary food to increase adult
survival: hummingbirds
• Provide supplementary food to increase adult
survival: nectar-feeding songbirds
• Provide supplementary food to increase adult
survival: pigeons
• Provide supplementary food to increase adult
survival: raptors
• Provide supplementary food to increase adult
survival: vultures
• Provide supplementary food to increase adult
survival: waders
• Provide supplementary food to increase adult
survival: wildfowl
• Provide supplementary food to increase adult
survival: woodpeckers
• Provide supplementary food to increase
reproductive success: auks
• Provide supplementary food to increase
reproductive success: gamebirds
• Provide supplementary food to increase
reproductive success: gannets and boobies
• Provide supplementary food to increase
reproductive success: ibises
• Provide supplementary food to increase
reproductive success: kingfishers
• Provide supplementary food to increase
reproductive success: parrots
• Provide supplementary food to increase
reproductive success: petrels

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 247

Bird Conservation

• Provide supplementary food to increase

reproductive success: pigeons
• Provide supplementary food to increase
reproductive success: rails and coots
• Provide supplementary food to increase
reproductive success: vultures
• Provide supplementary food to increase
reproductive success: waders
• Provide supplementary food to increase
reproductive success: wildfowl
• Provide supplementary water to increase survival
or reproductive success

Beneficial

 rovide supplementary food to increase adult survival

P
(songbirds)
Seven studies from Europe and the USA found higher densities or larger
populations of songbird species in areas close to supplementary food. Six
studies from Europe, Canada and Japan found that population trends or
densities were no different between fed and unfed areas. Four studies from
around the world found that birds had higher survival when supplied with
supplementary food. However, in two studies this was only apparent in some
individuals or species and one study from the USA found that birds with
feeding stations in their territories had lower survival. Six studies from Europe
and the USA found that birds supplied with supplementary food were in
better physical condition than unfed birds. However, in four studies this was
only true for some individuals, species or seasons. Two studies investigated
the effect of feeding on behaviours: one in the USA found that male birds
spent more time singing when supplied with food and one in Sweden found
no behavioural differences between fed and unfed birds. Thirteen studies
from the UK, Canada and the USA investigated use of feeders. Four studies
from the USA and the UK found high use of supplementary food, with up to
21% of birds’ daily energy needs coming from feeders. However, another UK
study found very low use of food. The timing of peak feeder use varied. Two
trials from the UK found that the use of feeders increased with distance to
houses and decreased with distance to cover. Two studies in Canada and the

248
 3.14 General responses to small/declining populations

UK, found that preferences for feeder locations and positions varies between
species. Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness 65%; certainty 75%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/552

Likely to be beneficial

Place feeders close to windows to reduce collisions

A randomised, replicated and controlled study in the USA found that fewer
birds hit windows, and fewer were killed, when feeders were placed close
to windows, compared to when they were placed further away. Assessment:
likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 44%; certainty 43%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/557

 rovide calcium supplements to increase survival or

P
reproductive success
Eight of 13 studies (including a literature review) from across the world
found some positive effects of calcium provisioning on birds’ productivites
(six studies) or health (two studies). Six studies (including the review) found
no evidence for positive effects on some of the species studied. One study
from Europe found that birds at polluted sites took more calcium supplement
than those at cleaner sites. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 55%;
certainty 50%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/559

 rovide supplementary food to increase adult survival

P
(cranes)
A study from Japan and a global literature review found that local crane
populations increased after the provision of supplementary food. Assessment:
likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 40%; certainty 40%; harms 15%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/547

 rovide supplementary food to increase reproductive

P
success (gulls, terns and skuas)
Four studies of three experiments from Europe and Alaska found that
providing supplementary food increased fledging success or chick survival
in two gull species, although a study from the UK found that this was only
true for one of two islands. One study from the Antarctic found no effect of
feeding parent skuas on productivity. One study from Alaska found increased

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 249

Bird Conservation

chick growth when parents were fed but a study from the Antarctic found
no such increase. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 42%; certainty
41%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/525

 rovide supplementary food to increase reproductive

P
success (owls)
Two replicated, controlled trials from Europe and the USA found that owls
supplied with supplementary food had higher hatching and fledging rates.
The European study, but not the American, also found that fed pairs laid
earlier and had larger clutches. The study in the USA also found that owls
were no more likely to colonise nest boxes provided with supplementary food.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 50%; certainty 42%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/533

 rovide supplementary food to increase reproductive

P
success (raptors)
A small study in Italy described a small increase in local kite populations
following the installation of a feeding station. Four European studies found
that kestrels and Eurasian sparrowhawks laid earlier than control birds
when supplied with supplementary food. Three studies from the USA and
Europe found higher chick survival or condition when parents were supplied
with food, whilst three from Europe found fed birds laid larger clutches
and another found that fed male hen harriers bred with more females than
control birds. Four studies from across the world found no evidence that
feeding increased breeding frequency, clutch size, laying date, eggs size or
hatching or fledging success. A study from Mauritius found uncertain effects
of feeding on Mauritius kestrel reproduction. There was some evidence that
the impact of feeding was lower in years with peak numbers of prey species.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 55%; certainty 52%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/532

 rovide supplementary food to increase reproductive

P
success (songbirds)
Two studies from the USA found evidence for higher population densities
of magpies and American blackbirds in areas provided with supplementary
food, whilst two studies from the UK and Canada found that population
densities were not affected by feeding. Twelve studies from across the world

250
 3.14 General responses to small/declining populations

found that productivity was higher for fed birds than controls. Eleven studies
from Europe and the USA found that fed birds had the same, or even lower,
productivity or chick survival than control birds. Nine studies from Europe
and North America found that the eggs of fed birds were larger or heavier,
or that the chicks of fed birds were in better physical condition. However,
eight studies from across the world found no evidence for better condition
or increased size in the eggs or chicks of fed birds. Six studies from across
the world found that food-supplemented pairs laid larger clutches, whilst
14 studies from Europe and North America found that fed birds did not
lay larger clutches. Fifteen studies from across the world found that birds
supplied with supplementary food began nesting earlier than controls,
although in two cases only certain individuals, or those in particular habitats,
laid earlier. One study found that fed birds had shorter incubations than
controls whilst another found that fed birds re-nested quicker and had shorter
second incubations. Four studies from the USA and Europe found that fed
birds did not lay any earlier than controls. Seven studies from across the
world found that fed parent birds showed positive behavioural responses
to feeding. However, three studies from across the world found neutral or
negative responses to feeding. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness
51%; certainty 85%; harms 6%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/537

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Provide perches to improve foraging success

One of four studies, from Sweden, found that raptors used clearcuts provided
with perches more than clearcuts without perches. Two studies found that
birds used perches provided, but a controlled study from the USA found
that shrikes did not alter foraging behaviour when perches were present.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 45%; certainty
30%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/556

 rovide supplementary food through the establishment

P
of food populations
One of four studies that established prey populations found that wildfowl
fed on specially-planted rye grass. Two studies found that cranes in the USA
and owls in Canada did not respond to established prey populations. A study

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 251

Bird Conservation

from Sweden found that attempts to increase macroinvertebrate numbers

for wildfowl did not succeed. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited
evidence (effectiveness 9%; certainty 26%; harms 0%)..
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/555

 rovide supplementary food to allow the rescue of a

P
second chick
A study from Spain found that second chicks from lammergeier nests survived
longer if nests were provided with food, in one case allowing a chick to be
rescued. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness
15%; certainty 14%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/541

 rovide supplementary food to increase adult survival

P
(gamebirds)
Two European studies found increased numbers of birds in fed areas, compared
to unfed areas. There was only an increase in the overall population in the
study area in one of these studies. Of four studies in the USA on northern
bobwhites, one found that birds had higher overwinter survival in fed areas,
one found lower survival, one found fed birds had higher body fat percentages
and a literature review found no overall effect of feeding. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 49%; certainty 38%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/544

 rovide supplementary food to increase adult survival

P
(gulls, terns and skuas)
A study in the Antarctic found that fed female south polar skuas lost
more weight whilst feeding two chicks than unfed birds. There was no
difference for birds with single chicks, or male birds. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 0%; certainty 20%; harms 10%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/548

 rovide supplementary food to increase adult survival

P
(hummingbirds)
Four studies from the USA found that three species of hummingbird
preferred higher concentrations of sucrose, consuming more and visiting
feeders more frequently. A study from the USA found that hummingbirds

252
 3.14 General responses to small/declining populations

preferentially fed on sugar solutions over artificial sweeteners, and that the
viscosity of these solutions did not affect their consumption. Two studies
from Mexico and Argentina found that four species showed preferences for
sucrose over fructose or glucose and sucrose over a sucrose-glucose mix,
but no preference for sucrose over a glucose-fructose mix. A study from the
USA found that birds showed a preference for red-dyed sugar solutions over
five other colours. A study from the USA found that rufous hummingbirds
preferentially fed on feeders that were placed higher. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 10%; certainty 24%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/550

 rovide supplementary food to increase adult survival

P
(nectar-feeding songbirds)
Two studies from Australia and New Zealand found that ten species of
honeyeaters and stitchbirds readily used feeders supplying sugar solutions,
with seasonal variations varying between species. A series of ex situ trials using
southern African birds found that most species preferred sucrose solutions
over glucose or fructose. One study found that sunbirds and sugarbirds only
showed such a preference at low concentrations. Two studies found that
two species showed preferences for sucrose when comparing 20% solutions,
although a third species did not show this preference. All species rejected
solutions with xylose added. A final study found that sucrose preferences
were only apparent at equicalorific concentrations high enough for birds to
subsist on. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness
10%; certainty 23%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/553

 rovide supplementary food to increase adult survival

P
(pigeons)
The first of two studies of a recently-released pink pigeon population on
Mauritius found that fewer than half the birds took supplementary food.
However, the later study found that almost all birds used supplementary
feeders. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 10%;
certainty 19%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/549

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 253

Bird Conservation

 rovide supplementary food to increase adult survival

P
(raptors)
Two studies in the USA found that nesting northern goshawks were significantly
heavier in territories supplied with supplementary food, compared with those
from unfed territories. Assessment: unknown effectiveness— limited evidence
(effectiveness 30%; certainty 23%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/546

 rovide supplementary food to increase adult survival

P
(vultures)
A study from Spain found a large increase in griffon vulture population in
the study area following multiple interventions including supplementary
feeding. Two studies from the USA and Israel found that vultures fed on the
carcasses provided for them. In the study in Israel vultures were sometimes
dominated by larger species at a feeding station supplied twice a month, but
not at one supplied every day. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited
evidence (effectiveness 18%; certainty 18%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/545

 rovide supplementary food to increase adult survival

P
(waders)
A study in Northern Ireland found that waders fed on millet seed when
provided, but were dominated by other ducks when larger seeds were
provided. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness
22%; certainty 9%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/543

 rovide supplementary food to increase adult survival

P
(wildfowl)
Two studies from Canada and Northern Ireland found that five species of
wildfowl readily consumed supplementary grains and seeds. The Canadian
study found that fed birds were heavier and had larger hearts or flight muscles
or more body fat than controls. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited
evidence (effectiveness 14%; certainty 15%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/542

254
 3.14 General responses to small/declining populations

 rovide supplementary food to increase adult survival

P
(woodpeckers)
One replicated, controlled study from the USA found that 12 downy
woodpeckers supplied with supplementary food had higher nutritional
statuses than unfed birds. However, two analyses of a replicated, controlled
study of 378 downy woodpeckers from the USA found that they did not have
higher survival rates or nutritional statuses than unfed birds. Assessment:
unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 10%; certainty 30%;
harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/551

 rovide supplementary food to increase reproductive

P
success (auks)
Two replicated studies from the UK found that Atlantic puffin chicks
provided with supplementary food were significantly heavier than control
chicks, but fed chicks fledged at the same time as controls. A randomised,
replicated and controlled study from Canada found that tufted puffin chicks
supplied with supplementary food fledged later than controls and that fed
chicks had faster growth by some, but not all, metrics. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 30%; certainty 38%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/524

 rovide supplementary food to increase reproductive

P
success (gamebirds)
A controlled study in Tibet found that Tibetan eared pheasants fed
supplementary food laid significantly larger eggs and clutches than control
birds. Nesting success and laying dates were not affected. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 23%; certainty 10%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/527

 rovide supplementary food to increase reproductive

P
success (gannets and boobies)
A small controlled study in Australia found that Australasian gannet chicks
were significantly heavier if they were supplied with supplementary food,
but only in one of two years. Fledging success of fed nests was also higher,
but not significantly so. A randomised replicated and controlled study in the

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 255

Bird Conservation

Galapagos Islands found that fed female Nazca boobies were more likely to
produce two-egg clutches, and that second eggs were significantly heavier.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 33%; certainty
25%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/523

 rovide supplementary food to increase reproductive

P
success (ibises)
A study from China found that breeding success of crested ibis was correlated
with the amount of supplementary food provided, although no comparison
was made with unfed nests. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited
evidence (effectiveness 25%; certainty 11%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/530

 rovide supplementary food to increase reproductive

P
success (kingfishers)
A controlled study in the USA found that belted kingfishers supplied
with food had heavier nestlings and were more likely to renest. There was
mixed evidence for the effect of feeding on laying date. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 33%; certainty 13%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/534

 rovide supplementary food to increase reproductive

P
success (parrots)
Two studies from New Zealand found evidence that providing supplementary
food for kakapos increased the number of breeding attempts made, whilst
a third study found that birds provided with specially-formulated pellets
appeared to have larger clutches than those fed on nuts. One study found
no evidence that providing food increased the number of nesting attempts.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 33%; certainty
11%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/536

 rovide supplementary food to increase reproductive

P
success (petrels)
A replicated controlled study in Australia found that Gould’s petrel chicks
provided with supplementary food had similar fledging rates to both

256
 3.14 General responses to small/declining populations

control and hand-reared birds, but were significantly heavier than other
birds. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 19%;
certainty 14%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/522

 rovide supplementary food to increase reproductive

P
success (pigeons)
A study in the UK found no differences in reproductive parameters of
European turtle doves between years when food was supplied and those when
it was not. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness
0%; certainty 21%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/535

 rovide supplementary food to increase reproductive

P
success (rails and coots)
A small trial in the USA found that fed American coots laid heavier eggs,
but not larger clutches, than controls. However, a randomised, replicated
and controlled study in Canada found that clutch size, but not egg size,
was larger in fed American coot territories. The Canadian study also found
that coots laid earlier when fed, whilst a replicated trial from the UK found
there was a shorter interval between common moorhens clutches in fed
territories, but that fed birds were no more likely to produce second broods.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 33%; certainty
26%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/528

 rovide supplementary food to increase reproductive

P
success (vultures)
Two studies from the USA and Greece found that there were local increases
in two vulture populations following the provision of food in the area. A
study from Israel found that a small, regularly supplied feeding station could
provide sufficient food for breeding Egyptian vultures. A study from Italy
found that a small population of Egyptian vultures declined following the
provision of food, and only a single vulture was seen at the feeding station.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 30%; certainty
24%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/531

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 257

Bird Conservation

 rovide supplementary food to increase reproductive

P
success (waders)
A small controlled trial from the Netherlands found that Eurasian oystercatchers
did not produce larger replacement eggs if provided with supplementary
food. Instead their eggs were smaller than the first clutch, whereas control
females laid larger replacement eggs. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited
evidence (effectiveness 0%; certainty 10%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/529

 rovide supplementary food to increase reproductive

P
success (wildfowl)
A small randomised controlled ex situ study from Canada found faster growth
and higher weights for fed greater snow goose chicks than unfed ones, but
no differences in mortality rates. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited
evidence (effectiveness 30%; certainty 10%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/526

 rovide supplementary water to increase survival or

P
reproductive success
A controlled study from Morocco found that northern bald ibises provided
with supplementary water had higher reproductive success than those a long
way from water sources. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence
(effectiveness 43%; certainty 14%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/558

3.14.5 Translocations

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for translocations?
Beneficial • Translocate birds to re-establish populations or
increase genetic variation (birds in general)
• Translocate birds to re-establish populations or
increase genetic variation: raptors

258
 3.14 General responses to small/declining populations

Likely to be • Translocate birds to re-establish populations or

beneficial increase genetic variation: parrots
• Translocate birds to re-establish populations or
increase genetic variation: pelicans
• Translocate birds to re-establish populations
or increase genetic variation: petrels and
shearwaters
• Translocate birds to re-establish populations or
increase genetic variation: rails
• Translocate birds to re-establish populations or
increase genetic variation: songbirds
• Translocate birds to re-establish populations or
increase genetic variation: wildfowl
• Translocate birds to re-establish populations or
increase genetic variation: woodpeckers
• Use decoys to attract birds to new sites
• Use techniques to increase the survival of species
after capture
• Use vocalisations to attract birds to new sites
Trade-off between • Translocate birds to re-establish populations or
benefit and harms increase genetic variation: gamebirds
Unknown • Alter habitats to encourage birds to leave
effectiveness • Ensure translocated birds are familiar with each
(limited evidence) other before release
• Translocate birds to re-establish populations or
increase genetic variation: auks
• Translocate birds to re-establish populations or
increase genetic variation: herons, storks and
ibises
• Translocate birds to re-establish populations or
increase genetic variation: megapodes
• Translocate birds to re-establish populations or
increase genetic variation: owls
• Translocate nests to avoid disturbance
No evidence found • Ensure genetic variation to increase translocation
(no assessment) success

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 259

Bird Conservation

Beneficial

 ranslocate birds to re-establish populations or increase

T
genetic variation (birds in general)
A review of 239 bird translocation programmes found 63–67% resulted in
establishment of a self-sustaining population. Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness
64%; certainty 65%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/566

 ranslocate birds to re-establish populations or increase

T
genetic variation (raptors)
Six studies of three translocation programmes in the UK and the USA
found that all successfully established populations of white-tailed eagles,
red kites and ospreys. A study in Spain found high survival of translocated
Montagu’s harrier fledglings. Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness 65%; certainty
66%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/574

Likely to be beneficial

 ranslocate birds to re-establish populations or increase

T
genetic variation (parrots)
Three studies of two translocation programmes from the Pacific and New
Zealand found that populations of parrots successfully established on islands
after translocation. Survival of translocated birds ranged from 41% to 98%
globally. Despite high survival, translocated kakapos in New Zealand had
very low reproductive output. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness
50%; certainty 60%; harms 10%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/578

 ranslocate birds to re-establish populations or increase

T
genetic variation (pelicans)
Two reviews of a pelican translocation programme in the USA found high
survival of translocated nestlings and rapid target population growth. Some
growth may have been due to additional immigration from the source
populations. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 55%; certainty 49%;
harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/569

260
 3.14 General responses to small/declining populations

 ranslocate birds to re-establish populations or increase

T
genetic variation (petrels and shearwaters)
Three studies from Australia and New Zealand found that colonies of burrow-
nesting petrels and shearwaters were successfully established following the
translocation and hand-rearing of chicks. Assessment: likely to be beneficial
(effectiveness 60%; certainty 50%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/568

 ranslocate birds to re-establish populations or increase

T
genetic variation (rails)
Three studies of two translocation programmes in the Seychelles and New
Zealand found high survival rates among translocated rail. All three studies
round that the birds bred successfully. Assessment: likely to be beneficial
(effectiveness 54%; certainty 44%; harms 14%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/573

 ranslocate birds to re-establish populations or increase

T
genetic variation (songbirds)
Nine studies from across the world, including a review of 31 translocation
attempts, found that translocations led to the establishment of songbird
populations. Eight studies were on islands. Three studies reported on
translocations that failed to establish populations. One study found nesting
success decreased as the latitudinal difference between source area and
release site increased. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 50%;
certainty 68%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/580

 ranslocate birds to re-establish populations or increase

T
genetic variation (wildfowl)
Three studies of two duck translocation programmes in New Zealand and
Hawaii found high survival, breeding and successful establishment of new
populations. However a study in the USA found that no ducks stayed at
the release site and there was high mortality after release. A study in the
USA found wing-clipping prevented female ducks from abandoning their
ducklings. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 42%; certainty 50%;
harms 19%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/571

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 261

Bird Conservation

 ranslocate birds to re-establish populations or increase

T
genetic variation (woodpeckers)
Six studies of four programmes found that >50% translocated birds remained
at their new sites, and two studies reported large population increases. Birds
from four programmes were reported as forming pairs or breeding and one
study round translocated nestlings fledged at similar rates to native chicks. All
studies were of red-cockaded woodpeckers. Assessment: likely to be beneficial
(effectiveness 51%; certainty 42%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/577

Use decoys to attract birds to new sites

Ten studies found that birds nested in areas where decoys were placed or
that more birds landed in areas with decoys than control areas. Six studies
used multiple interventions at once. One study found that three-dimensional
models appeared more effective than two-dimensional ones, and that plastic
models were more effective than rag decoys. Assessment: likely to be beneficial
(effectiveness 51%; certainty 45%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/586

 se techniques to increase the survival of species after

U
capture
A study from the USA found that providing dark, quiet environments with
readily-available food and water increased the survival of small songbirds after
capture and the probability that they would adapt to captivity. A study from
the USA found that keeping birds warm during transit increased survival.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 49%; certainty 41%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/581

Use vocalisations to attract birds to new sites

Seven out of ten studies from around the world found that seabirds were
more likely to nest or land to areas where vocalisations were played, or
moved to new nesting areas after vocalisations were played. Four of these
studied multiple interventions at once. Three studies found that birds were
no more likely to nest or land in areas where vocalisations were played.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 45%; certainty 50%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/585

262
 3.14 General responses to small/declining populations

Trade-off between benefit and harms

 ranslocate birds to re-establish populations or increase

T
genetic variation (gamebirds)
Three studies from the USA found that translocation of gamebirds led to
population establishment or growth or an increase in lekking sites. Four
studies from the USA found that translocated birds had high survival, but
two found high mortality in translocated birds. Four studies from the USA
found breeding rates among translocated birds were high or similar to
resident birds. Assessment: trade-offs between benefits and harms (effectiveness
50%; certainty 47%; harms 35%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/572

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

A
 lter habitats to encourage birds to leave
A study from Canada found that an entire Caspian tern population moved
after habitat was altered at the old colony site, alongside several other
interventions. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness
20%; certainty 10%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/587

 nsure translocated birds are familiar with each other

E
before release
Two studies from New Zealand found no evidence that ensuring birds were
familiar with each other increased translocation success. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 0%; certainty 33%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/582

 ranslocate birds to re-establish populations or increase

T
genetic variation (auks)
A study in the USA and Canada found that 20% of translocated Atlantic puffins
remained in or near the release site, with up to 7% breeding. Assessment:
unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 36%; certainty 38%;
harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/570

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 263

Bird Conservation

 ranslocate birds to re-establish populations or increase

T
genetic variation (herons, storks and ibises)
A study in the USA found that a colony of black-crowned night herons was
successfully translocated and bred the year after translocation. Assessment:
unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 44%; certainty 3%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/575

 ranslocate birds to re-establish populations or increase

T
genetic variation (megapodes)
A study from Indonesia found that up to 78% maleo eggs hatched after
translocation. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness
49%; certainty 29%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/567

 ranslocate birds to re-establish populations or increase

T
genetic variation (owls)
A small study from New Zealand found that translocating two male boobooks
allowed the establishment of a population when they interbred with a
Norfolk Island boobook. A study in the USA found high survival amongst
burrowing owls translocated as juveniles, although birds were not seen after
release. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 20%;
certainty 19%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/576

Translocate nests to avoid disturbance

All five studies captured found some success in relocating nests while
they were in use, but one found that fewer than half of the burrowing owls
studied were moved successfully; a study found that repeated disturbance
caused American kestrels to abandon their nest and a study found that one
barn swallow abandoned its nest after it was moved. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 24%; certainty 39%; harms 30%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/584

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Ensure genetic variation to increase translocation success.

264
 3.15 Captive breeding, rearing and
releases (ex situ conservation)

3.15.1 Captive breeding

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for captive breeding?
Likely to be • Artificially incubate and hand-rear birds in
beneficial captivity: raptors
• Artificially incubate and hand-rear birds in
captivity: seabirds
• Artificially incubate and hand-rear birds in
captivity: songbirds
• Artificially incubate and hand-rear birds in
captivity: waders
• Use captive breeding to increase or maintain
populations: raptors
Unknown • Artificially incubate and hand-rear birds in
effectiveness captivity: bustards
(limited evidence) • Artificially incubate and hand-rear birds in
captivity: cranes
• Artificially incubate and hand-rear birds in
captivity: gamebirds
• Artificially incubate and hand-rear birds in
captivity: parrots
• Artificially incubate and hand-rear birds in
captivity: penguins
• Artificially incubate and hand-rear birds in
captivity: rails
• Artificially incubate and hand-rear birds in
captivity: storks and ibises

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 265

Bird Conservation

• Artificially incubate and hand-rear birds in

captivity: vultures
• Artificially incubate and hand-rear birds in
captivity: wildfowl
• Freeze semen for artificial insemination
• Use artificial insemination in captive breeding
• Use captive breeding to increase or maintain
populations: bustards
• Use captive breeding to increase or maintain
populations: cranes
• Use captive breeding to increase or maintain
populations: pigeons
• Use captive breeding to increase or maintain
populations: rails
• Use captive breeding to increase or maintain
populations: seabirds
• Use captive breeding to increase or maintain
populations: songbirds
• Use captive breeding to increase or maintain
populations: storks and ibises
• Use captive breeding to increase or maintain
populations: tinamous
• Use puppets to increase the success of
hand-rearing
• Wash contaminated semen and use it for
artificial insemination
Evidence not • Can captive breeding have deleterious effects
assessed on individual fitness?

Likely to be beneficial

A
 rtificially incubate and hand-rear birds in captivity
(raptors)
Six studies from across the world found high success rates for artificial
incubation and hand-rearing of raptors. A replicated and controlled study
from France found that artificially incubated raptor eggs had lower hatching
success than parent-incubated eggs but fledging success for hand-reared

266
 3.15 Captive breeding, rearing and releases (ex situ conservation)

chicks was similar to wild chicks. A study from Canada found that hand-
reared chicks had slower growth and attained a lower weight than parent-
reared birds. A replicated study from Mauritius found that hand-rearing of
wild eggs had higher success than hand-rearing captive-bred chicks. Three
studies that provided methodological comparisons reported that incubation
temperature affected hatching success and adding saline to the diet of falcon
chicks increased their weight gain. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness
60%; certainty 52%; harms 5%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/614

A
 rtificially incubate and hand-rear birds in captivity
(seabirds)
Five studies from across the world found evidence for the success of hand-
rearing seabirds. One small study in Spain found that one of five hand-reared
Audouin’s gulls successfully bred in the wild. Four studies found that various
petrel species successfully fledged after hand-rearing. One controlled study
found that fledging rates of hand-reared birds was similar to parent-reared
birds, although a study on a single bird found that the chick fledged at a
lower weight and later than parent-reared chicks. Assessment: likely to be
beneficial (effectiveness 67%; certainty 45%; harms 2%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/604

A
 rtificially incubate and hand-rear birds in captivity
(songbirds)
Four studies from the USA found high rates of success for artificial incubation
and hand-rearing of songbirds. One study found that crow chicks fed more
food had higher growth rates, but these rates never matched those of wild
birds. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 51%; certainty 44%; harms
1%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/616

A
 rtificially incubate and hand-rear birds in captivity
(waders)
Three out of four replicated and controlled studies from the USA and New
Zealand found that artificially incubated and/or hand-reared waders had
higher hatching and fledging success than controls. One study from New
Zealand found that hatching success of black stilt was lower for artificially-

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 267

Bird Conservation

incubated eggs. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 64%; certainty

41%; harms 4%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/611

 se captive breeding to increase or maintain populations

U
(raptors)
Three small studies and a review from around the world found that raptors
bred successfully in captivity. Two of these studies found that wild-caught
birds bred in captivity after a few years, with one pair of brown goshawks
producing 15 young over four years, whilst a study on bald eagle captive
breeding found low fertility in captive-bred eggs, but that birds still produced
chicks after a year. A review of Mauritius kestrel captive breeding found that
139 independent young were raised over 12 years from 30 eggs and chicks
taken from the wild. An update of the same programme found that hand-
reared Mauritius kestrels were less successful if they came from captive-bred
eggs compared to wild ‘harvested’ eggs. Assessment: likely to be beneficial
(effectiveness 50%; certainty 41%; harms 10%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/596

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

A
 rtificially incubate and hand-rear birds in captivity
(bustards)
Two reviews of a houbara bustard captive breeding programme in Saudi Arabia
found no difference in survival between artificially and parentally incubated
eggs, and that removing eggs from clutches as they were laid increased the
number laid by females. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence
(effectiveness 31%; certainty 10%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/610

A
 rtificially incubate and hand-rear birds in captivity
(cranes)
Two studies from the USA found that hand-reared birds showed normal
reproductive behaviour and higher survival than parent-reared birds.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 76%; certainty
31%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/609

268
 3.15 Captive breeding, rearing and releases (ex situ conservation)

A
 rtificially incubate and hand-rear birds in captivity
(gamebirds)
A study in Finland found that hand-reared grey partridges did not take
off to fly as effectively as wild-caught birds, potentially making them more
vulnerable to predation. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence
(effectiveness 11%; certainty 10%; harms 50%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/607

A
 rtificially incubate and hand-rear birds in captivity
(parrots)
Two studies from South America describe the successful hand-rearing of
parrot chicks. A review of the kakapo management programme found that
chicks could be successfully raised and released, but that eggs incubated
from a young age had low success. A study from the USA found that all
hand-reared thick-billed parrots died within a month of release: significantly
lower survival than for wild-caught birds translocated to the release site.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 19%; certainty
30%; harms 11%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/615

A
 rtificially incubate and hand-rear birds in captivity
(penguins)
Two replicated and controlled studies from South Africa found that hand-
reared and released African penguins had similar survival and breeding success
as birds which were not hand-reared. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited
evidence (effectiveness 41%; certainty 15%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/605

A
 rtificially incubate and hand-rear birds in captivity
(rails)
A controlled study from New Zealand found that post-release survival of
hand-reared takahe was as high as wild-reared birds and that six of ten
released females raised chicks. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited
evidence (effectiveness 64%; certainty 13%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/608

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 269

Bird Conservation

A
 rtificially incubate and hand-rear birds in captivity
(storks and ibises)
A small study in the USA describes the successful artificial incubation and
hand-rearing of two Abdim’s stork chicks, whilst a review of northern bald
ibis conservation found that only very intensive rearing of a small number
of chicks appeared to allow strong bonds, thought to be important for the
successful release of birds into the wild, to form between chicks. Assessment:
unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 18%; certainty 10%;
harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/612

A
 rtificially incubate and hand-rear birds in captivity
(vultures)
A study in Peru found that hand-reared Andean condors had similar survival
to parent-reared birds after release into the wild. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 30%; certainty 10%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/613

A
 rtificially incubate and hand-rear birds in captivity
(wildfowl)
Two studies in Canada and India found high success rates for hand-rearing
buffleheads and bar-headed geese in captivity. Eggs were artificially
incubated or incubated under foster parents. A replicated, controlled study
in England found that Hawaiian geese (nene) chicks showed less well-adapted
behaviours if they were raised without parental contact. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 50%; certainty 20%; harms 10%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/606

Freeze semen for artificial insemination

Two small trials from the USA found that using thawed frozen semen for
artificial insemination resulted in low fertility rates. A small trial from the
USA found that a cryprotectant increased fertility rates achieved using frozen
semen. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 10%;
certainty 10%; harms 45%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/602

270
 3.15 Captive breeding, rearing and releases (ex situ conservation)

Use artificial insemination in captive breeding

A replicated study from Saudi Arabia found that artificial insemination
could increase fertility in houbara bustards. A study of the same programme
and a review found that repeated inseminations increased fertility, with the
review arguing that artificial insemination had the potential to be a useful
technique. Two studies from the USA found that artificially-inseminated
raptors had either zero fertility, or approximately 50%. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 33%; certainty 21%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/601

 se captive breeding to increase or maintain populations

U
(bustards)
Four studies of a captive breeding programme in Saudi Arabia reported that
the houbara bustard chicks were successfully raised in captivity, with 285
chicks hatched in the 7th year of the project after 232 birds were used to start
the captive population. Captive birds bred earlier and appeared to lay more
eggs than wild birds. Forty-six percent of captive eggs hatched and 43% of
chicks survived to ten years old. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited
evidence (effectiveness 41%; certainty 16%; harms 5%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/592

 se captive breeding to increase or maintain populations

U
(cranes)
A study from Canada over 32 years found that whooping cranes successfully
bred in captivity eight years after the first eggs were removed from the wild.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 51%; certainty
17%; harms 6%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/591

 se captive breeding to increase or maintain populations

U
(pigeons)
A review of a captive-breeding programme on Mauritius and in the UK found
that 42 pink pigeons were successfully bred in captivity. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 69%; certainty 21%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/597

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 271

Bird Conservation

 se captive breeding to increase or maintain populations

U
(rails)
A study from Australia found that three pairs of Lord Howe Islandwoodhens
successfully bred in captivity, with 66 chicks being produced over four
years. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 26%;
certainty 11%; harms 5%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/590

 se captive breeding to increase or maintain populations

U
(seabirds)
A study from Spain found that a single pair of Audouin’s gulls successfully bred
in captivity. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness
20%; certainty 4%; harms 5%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/589

 se captive breeding to increase or maintain populations

U
(songbirds)
Three studies from Australia and the USA found that three species of
songbird bred successfully in captivity. Four out of five pairs of wild-bred,
hand-reared puaiohi formed pairs and laid a total of 39 eggs and a breeding
population of helmeted honeyeaters was successfully established through
a breeding programme. Only one pair of loggerhead shrikes formed pairs
from eight wild birds caught and their first clutch died. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 77%; certainty 31%; harms 5%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/598

 se captive breeding to increase or maintain populations

U
(storks and ibises)
We captured a small study and a review both from the USA describing the
captive breeding of storks. The study found that a pair bred; the review found
that only seven of 19 species had been successfully bred in captivity. A review
of bald ibis conservation found that 1,150 birds had been produced in captivity
from 150 founders over 20 years. However, some projects had failed, and
a study from Turkey found that captive birds had lower productivity than
wild birds. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness
31%; certainty 30%; harms 8%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/595

272
 3.15 Captive breeding, rearing and releases (ex situ conservation)

 se captive breeding to increase or maintain populations

U
(tinamous)
A replicated study from Costa Rica found that great tinamous successfully
bred in captivity, with similar reproductive success to wild birds. Assessment:
unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 51%; certainty 15%;
harms 5%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/588

Use puppets to increase the success of hand-rearing

Three studies from the USA and Saudi Arabia found that crows and bustards
raised using puppets did not have higher survival, dispersal or growth than
chicks hand-reared conventionally. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited
evidence (effectiveness 4%; certainty 20%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/617

 ash contaminated semen and use it for artificial

W
insemination
A replicated, controlled study from Spain found that washed, contaminated
semen could be used to successfully inseminate raptors. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 31%; certainty 15%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/603

Evidence not assessed

Can captive breeding have deleterious effects?

We captured no studies investigating the effects of captive-breeding on fitness.
Three studies using wild and captive populations or museum specimens
found physiological or genetic changes in populations that had been bred in
captivity. One found that changes were more likely to be caused by extremely
low population levels than by captivity.
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/599

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 273

Bird Conservation

3.15.2 Release captive-bred individuals

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for captive breeding?
Likely to be • Provide supplementary food after release
beneficial • Release captive-bred individuals into the wild to
restore or augment wild populations: cranes
• Release captive-bred individuals into the wild to
restore or augment wild populations: raptors
• Release captive-bred individuals into the wild to
restore or augment wild populations: songbirds
• Release captive-bred individuals into the wild to
restore or augment wild populations: vultures
Unknown • Clip birds’ wings on release
effectiveness • Release birds as adults or sub-adults not juveniles
(limited evidence)
• Release birds in groups
• Release captive-bred individuals into the wild to
restore or augment wild populations: bustards
• Release captive-bred individuals into the wild to
restore or augment wild populations: gamebirds
• Release captive-bred individuals into the wild to
restore or augment wild populations: owls
• Release captive-bred individuals into the wild
restore or augment wild populations: parrots
• Release captive-bred individuals into the wild to
restore or augment wild populations: pigeons
• Release captive-bred individuals into the wild to
restore or augment wild populations: rails
• Release captive-bred individuals into the wild to
restore or augment wild populations: storks and
ibises
• Release captive-bred individuals into the wild to
restore or augment wild populations: waders
• Release captive-bred individuals into the wild to
restore or augment wild populations: wildfowl
• Release chicks and adults in ‘coveys’
• Use ‘anti-predator training’ to improve survival
after release

274
 3.15 Captive breeding, rearing and releases (ex situ conservation)

• Use appropriate populations to source released

populations
• Use ‘flying training’ before release
• Use holding pens at release sites
• Use microlites to help birds migrate

Likely to be beneficial

Provide supplementary food after release

All three studies captured found that released birds used supplementary food
provided. One study from Australia found that malleefowl had higher survival
when provided with food and a study from Peru found that supplementary
food could be used to increase the foraging ranges of Andean condors after
release. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 45%; certainty 48%;
harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/639

 elease captive-bred individuals into the wild to restore

R
or augment wild populations (cranes)
Four studies of five release programmes from the USA and Russia found
that released cranes had high survival or bred in the wild. Two studies from
two release programmes in the USA found low survival of captive-bred eggs
fostered to wild birds compared with wild eggs, or a failure to increase the
wild flock size. A worldwide review found that releases of migratory species
were more successful if birds were released into existing flocks, and for non-
migratory populations. One study from the USA found that birds released
as sub-adults had higher survival than birds cross-fostered to wild birds.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 55%; certainty 50%; harms 5%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/621

 elease captive-bred individuals into the wild to restore

R
or augment wild populations (raptors)
Five studies of three release programmes from across the world found
the establishment or increase of wild populations of falcons. Five studies
from the USA found high survival of released raptors although one study
from Australia found that a wedge-tailed eagle had to be taken back into

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 275

Bird Conservation

captivity after acting aggressively towards humans, and another Australian

study found that only one of 15 brown goshawks released was recovered.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 69%; certainty 56%; harms 10%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/626

 elease captive-bred individuals into the wild to restore

R
or augment wild populations (songbirds)
A study in Mauritius describes the establishment of a population of Mauritius
fody following the release of captive-bred individuals. Four studies of three
release programmes on Hawaii found high survival of all three species released,
with two thrush species successfully breeding. A replicated, controlled
study from the USA found that shrike pairs with captive-bred females had
lower reproductive success than pairs where both parents were wild-bred.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 42%; certainty 40%; harms 5%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/630

 elease captive-bred individuals into the wild to restore

R
or augment wild populations (vultures)
Four studies of two release programmes found that release programmes led
to large population increases in Andean condors in Colombia and griffon
vultures in France. A small study in Peru found high survival of released
Andean condors over 18 months, with all fatalities occurring in the first
six months after release. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 73%;
certainty 54%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/625

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Clip birds’ wings on release

Two of four studies found that bustards and geese had lower survival when
released into holding pens with clipped wings compared to birds released
without clipped wings. One study found no differences in survival for clipped
or unclipped northern bald ibis. One study found that adult geese released
with clipped wings survived better than geese released before they were
able to fly. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness
10%; certainty 30%; harms 5%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/633

276
 3.15 Captive breeding, rearing and releases (ex situ conservation)

Release birds as adults or sub-adults not juveniles

Three out of nine studies from across the world found that birds released as
sub-adults had higher survival than those released as juveniles. Two studies
found lower survival of wing-clipped sub-adult geese and bustards, compared
with juveniles and one study found lower survival of all birds released as
sub-adults, compared to those released as juveniles. Three studies found no
differences in survival for birds released at different ages, although one found
higher reproduction in birds released at greater ages. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 35%; certainty 15%; harms 19%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/636

Release birds in groups

A study from New Zealand found that released stilts were more likely to
move long distances after release if they were released in larger groups.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 32%; certainty
26%; harms 2%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/634

 elease captive-bred individuals into the wild to restore

R
or augment wild populations (bustards)
Three reviews of a release programme for houbara bustard in Saudi Arabia
found low initial survival of released birds, but the establishment of a breeding
population and an overall success rate of 41%. The programme tested many
different release techniques, the most successful of which was release of sub-
adults, which were able to fly, into a large exclosure. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 34%; certainty 26%; harms 5%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/622

 elease captive-bred individuals into the wild to restore

R
or augment wild populations (gamebirds)
One of five studies from across the world found that releasing gamebirds
established a population or bolstered an existing population. A review of
a reintroduction programme in Pakistan found some breeding success in
released cheer pheasants, but habitat change at the release site then excluded
released birds. Three studies from Europe and the USA found that released
birds had low survival, low reproductive success and no impact on the wild

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 277

Bird Conservation

population. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness

5%; certainty 35%; harms 1%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/619

 elease captive-bred individuals into the wild to restore

R
or augment wild populations (owls)
A study in the USA found that a barn owl population was established
following the release of 157 birds in the area over three years. A replicated,
controlled study in Canada found that released burrowing owls had similar
reproductive output but higher mortality than wild birds. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 24%; certainty 15%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/627

 elease captive-bred individuals into the wild to restore

R
or augment wild populations (parrots)
A study from Venezuela found that the population of yellow-shouldered
amazons increased significantly following the release of captive-bred birds
along with other interventions. A study in Costa Rica and Peru found high
survival and some breeding of scarlet macaw after release. Three replicated
studies in the USA, Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico found low survival
in released birds, although the Puerto Rican study also found that released
birds bred successfully. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence
(effectiveness 50%; certainty 30%; harms 3%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/629

 elease captive-bred individuals into the wild to restore

R
or augment wild populations (pigeons)
A single review of a captive-release programme in Mauritius found that that
released pink pigeons had a first year survival of 36%. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 20%; certainty 5%; harms 1%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/628

 elease captive-bred individuals into the wild to restore

R
or augment wild populations (rails)
One study from Australia found that released Lord Howe Island woodhens
successfully bred in the wild, re-establishing a wild population and a study
from the UK found high survival of released corncrake in the first summer

278
 3.15 Captive breeding, rearing and releases (ex situ conservation)

after release. A replicated study in New Zealand found very low survival of
North Island weka following release, mainly due to predation. Assessment:
unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 26%; certainty 16%;
harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/620

 elease captive-bred individuals into the wild to restore

R
or augment wild populations (storks and ibises)
A replicated study and a review of northern bald ibis release programmes
in Europe and the Middle East found that only one of four resulted in a
wild population being established or supported, with many birds dying
or dispersing, rather than forming stable colonies. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 20%; certainty 20%; harms 2%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/624

 elease captive-bred individuals into the wild to restore

R
or augment wild populations (waders)
A review of black stilt releases in New Zealand found that birds had low
survival (13–20%) and many moved away from their release sites. Assessment:
unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 10%; certainty 5%; harms
15%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/623

 elease captive-bred individuals into the wild to restore

R
or augment wild populations (wildfowl)
Two studies of reintroduction programmes of ducks in New Zealand found
high survival of released birds and population establishment. A study from
Alaska found low survival of released cackling geese, but the population
recovered from 1,000 to 6,000 birds after releases and the control of mammalian
predators. A review of a reintroduction programme from Hawaii found that
the release of Hawaiian geese (nene) did not result in the establishment of a
self-sustaining population. Two studies from Canada found very low return
rates for released ducks with one finding no evidence for survival of released
birds over two years, although there was some evidence that breeding
success was higher for released birds than wild ones. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 30%; certainty 24%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/618

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 279

Bird Conservation

Release chicks and adults in ‘coveys’

Two out of three studies found that geese and partridges released in coveys
had higher survival than young birds released on their own or adults released
in pairs. A study from Saudi Arabia found that bustard chicks had low
survival when released in coveys with flightless females. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 40%; certainty 36%; harms 6%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/635

 se ‘anti-predator training’ to improve survival after

U
release
Both studies captured found higher survival for birds given predator training
before release, compared with un-trained birds. One found that using a live fox,
but not a model, for training increased survival in bustards, but that several
birds were injured during training. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited
evidence (effectiveness 50%; certainty 20%; harms 9%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/637

 se appropriate populations to source released

U
populations
Two studies from Europe found that birds from populations near release sites
adapted better and in one case had higher reproductive productivity than
those from more distant populations. Assessment: unknown effectiveness —
limited evidence (effectiveness 53%; certainty 31%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/631

Use ‘flying training’ before release

A study from the Dominican Republic found that parrots had higher first-year
survival if they were given pre-release flying training. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 30%; certainty 10%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/638

Use holding pens at release sites

Three of four studies from North America and Saudi Arabia found that birds
released into holding pens were more likely to form pairs or had higher
survival than birds released into the open. One study found that parrots
released into pens had lower survival than those released without preparation.
A review of northern bald ibis releases found that holding pens could be

280
 3.15 Captive breeding, rearing and releases (ex situ conservation)

used to prevent birds from migrating from the release site and so increase
survival. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness
51%; certainty 36%; harms 2%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/632

Use microlites to help birds migrate

A study from Europe found that northern bald ibises followed a microlite
south in the winter but failed to make the return journey the next year.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 3%; certainty
5%; harms 5%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/640

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 281

4. FARMLAND CONSERVATION
Lynn V. Dicks, Joscelyne E. Ashpole, Juliana Dänhardt, Katy James,
Annelie Jönsson, Nicola Randall, David A. Showler, Rebecca K. Smith,
Susan Turpie, David R. Williams & William J. Sutherland

Expert assessors
Lynn V. Dicks, University of Cambridge, UK
Ian Hodge, University of Cambridge, UK
Clunie Keenleyside, Institute for European Environmental Policy, UK
Will Peach, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, UK
Nicola Randall, Harper Adams University, UK
Jörn Scharlemann, United Nations Environment Programme — World Conservation
Monitoring Centre, UK
Gavin Siriwardena, British Trust for Ornithology, UK
Henrik Smith, Lund University, Sweden
Rebecca K. Smith, University of Cambridge, UK
William J. Sutherland, University of Cambridge, UK

Scope of assessment: for native farmland wildlife in northern and western

Europe (European countries west of Russia, but not south of France,
Switzerland, Austria, Hungary and Romania).

Assessed: 2014.

Effectiveness measure is the % of experts that answered yes to the question:

based on the evidence presented does this intervention benefit wildlife?
(Yes, no or don’t know).

Certainty measure is the median % score for the question: how much do
we understand the extent to which this intervention benefits wildlife on
farmland? (0 = no evidence, 100% = certainty).

Harm measure was not scored for this synopsis.

© W. Sutherland et al., CC BY 4.0 https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0191.04

This book is meant as a guide to the evidence available for different
conservation interventions and as a starting point in assessing their
effectiveness. The assessments are based on the available evidence for the
target group of species for each intervention. The assessment may therefore
refer to different species or habitat to the one(s) you are considering. Before
making any decisions about implementing interventions it is vital that you
read the more detailed accounts of the evidence in order to assess their
relevance for your study species or system.

Full details of the evidence are available at

www.conservationevidence.com

There may also be significant negative side-effects on the target groups

or other species or communities that have not been identified in this
assessment.

A lack of evidence means that we have been unable to assess whether or

not an intervention is effective or has any harmful impacts.

284
 4.1 All farming systems

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for all farming systems?
Beneficial • Create uncultivated margins around intensive
arable or pasture fields
• Plant grass buffer strips/margins around arable or
pasture fields
• Plant nectar flower mixture/wildflower strips
• Plant wild bird seed or cover mixture
• Provide or retain set-aside areas in farmland
Likely to be • Manage ditches to benefit wildlife
beneficial • Manage hedgerows to benefit wildlife (includes no
spray, gap-filling and laying)
• Pay farmers to cover the costs of conservation
measures
• Provide supplementary food for birds or mammals
Unknown • Connect areas of natural or semi-natural habitat
effectiveness • Increase the proportion of natural or semi-natural
(limited evidence) habitat in the farmed landscape
• Make direct payments per clutch for farmland birds
• Manage the agricultural landscape to enhance floral
resources
• Mark bird nests during harvest or mowing
• Plant new hedges
• Provide nest boxes for bees (solitary bees or
bumblebees)
• Provide nest boxes for birds
• Provide other resources for birds (water, sand for
bathing)
• Provide refuges during harvest or mowing

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 285

Farmland Conservation

No evidence • Apply ‘cross compliance’ environmental standards

found (no linked to all subsidy payments
assessment) • Implement food labelling schemes relating to
biodiversity-friendly farming (organic, LEAF
marque)
• Introduce nest boxes stocked with solitary bees
• Maintain in-field elements such as field islands and
rockpiles
• Manage stone-faced hedge banks to benefit
wildlife
• Manage woodland edges to benefit wildlife
• Plant in-field trees (not farm woodland)
• Protect in-field trees (includes management such as
pollarding and surgery)
• Provide badger gates
• Provide foraging perches (e.g. for shrikes)
• Provide otter holts
• Provide red squirrel feeders
• Reduce field size (or maintain small fields)
• Restore or maintain dry stone walls
• Support or maintain low-intensity agricultural
systems

Beneficial

 reate uncultivated margins around intensive arable or

C
pasture fields
Twenty studies (including one randomized, replicated, controlled trial) from
seven countries found uncultivated margins support more invertebrates, small
mammal species or higher plant diversity than other habitats. Four studies
(including two replicated studies from the UK) found positive associations
between birds and uncultivated margins. Fifteen studies (including one
randomized, replicated, controlled trial) from four countries found naturally
regenerated margins had lower invertebrate or plant abundance or diversity
than conventional fields or sown margins. Six studies (one randomized,
replicated, controlled) from three countries found uncultivated margins did

286
 4.1 All farming systems

not have higher plant or invertebrate abundance or diversity than cropped

or sown margins. Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness 100%; certainty 63%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/63

 lant grass buffer strips/margins around arable or

P
pasture fields
Twenty studies (including two randomized, replicated, controlled studies)
from four countries found grass margins benefited invertebrates, including
increases in abundance or diversity. Nine studies (including two replicated,
controlled trials) from the UK found grass buffer strips benefit birds, with
increased numbers, diversity or use. Seven replicated studies (four controlled,
two randomized) from two countries found grass buffer strips increased
plant cover and species richness, a review found benefits to plants. Five
studies (two replicated, controlled) from two countries found benefits to
small mammals. Six (including three replicated, controlled trials) from two
countries found no clear effect on invertebrate or bird numbers. Assessment:
beneficial (effectiveness 90%; certainty 65%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/246

Plant nectar flower mixture/wildflower strips

Forty-one studies (including one randomized, replicated, controlled trial)
from eight countries found flower strips increased invertebrate numbers
or diversity. Ten studies (two replicated, controlled) found invertebrates
visited flower strips. Fifteen studies (two randomized, replicated, controlled)
found mixed or negative effects on invertebrates. Seventeen studies (one
randomized, replicated, controlled) from seven countries found more plants
or plant species on flower strips, four did not. Five studies (two randomized,
replicated, controlled) from two countries found bird numbers, diversity or use
increased in flower strips, two studies did not. Five studies (four replicated)
found increases in small mammal abundance or diversity in flower strips.
Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness 100%; certainty 75%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/442

Plant wild bird seed or cover mixture

Fifteen studies (including a systematic review) from the UK found fields
sown with wild bird cover mix had more birds or bird species than other
farmland habitats. Six studies (including two replicated trials) from the UK
found birds used wild bird cover more than other habitats. Nine replicated

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 287

Farmland Conservation

studies from France and the UK found mixed or negative effects on birds.
Eight studies (including two randomized, replicated, controlled studies) from
the UK found wild bird cover had more invertebrates, four (including two
replicated trials) found mixed or negative effects on invertebrate numbers. Six
studies (including two replicated, controlled trials) from the UK found wild
bird cover mix benefited plants, two replicated studies did not. Assessment:
beneficial (effectiveness 100%; certainty 65%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/594

Provide or retain set-aside areas in farmland

Thirty-seven studies (one systematic review, no randomized, replicated,
controlled trials) compared use of set-aside areas with control farmed fields.
Twenty-one (including the systematic review) showed benefits to, or higher
use by, all wildlife groups considered. Thirteen studies found some species
or groups used set-aside more than crops; others did not. Two found higher
Eurasian skylark reproductive success and one study found lower success
on set-aside than control fields. Four studies found set-aside had no effect
on wildlife, one found an adverse effect. Two studies found neither insects
nor small mammals preferred set-aside. Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness
90%; certainty 70%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/156

Likely to be beneficial

Manage ditches to benefit wildlife

Five studies (including one replicated, controlled study) from the UK and
the Netherlands found ditch management had positive effects on numbers,
diversity or biomass of some or all invertebrates, amphibians, birds or plants
studied. Three studies from the Netherlands and the UK (including two
replicated site comparisons) found negative or no clear effects on plants or
some birds. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 40%; certainty 45%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/135

 anage hedgerows to benefit wildlife (includes no

M
spray, gap-filling and laying)
Ten studies from the UK and Switzerland (including one randomized,
replicated, controlled trial) found managing hedges for wildlife increased
berry yields, diversity or abundance of plants, invertebrates or birds. Five

288
 4.1 All farming systems

UK studies (including one randomized, replicated, controlled trial) found

plants, bees and farmland birds were unaffected by hedge management.
Two replicated studies found hedge management had mixed effects on
invertebrates or reduced hawthorn berry yield. Assessment: likely to be beneficial
(effectiveness 70%; certainty 50%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/116

 ay farmers to cover the cost of conservation measures

P
(as in agri-environment schemes)
For birds, twenty-four studies (including one systematic review) found
increases or more favourable trends in bird populations, while eleven
studies (including one systematic review) found negative or no effects
of agri-environment schemes. For plants, three studies found more plant
species, two found fewer plant species and seven found little or no effect of
agri-environment schemes. For invertebrates, five studies found increases
in abundance or species richness, while six studies found little or no effect
of agri-environment schemes. For mammals, one replicated study found
positive effects of agri-environment schemes and three studies found mixed
effects in different regions or for different species. Assessment: likely to be
beneficial (effectiveness 60%; certainty 50%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/700

Provide supplementary food for birds or mammals

Nine studies (two randomized, replicated, controlled) from France, Sweden
and the UK found providing supplementary food increased abundance,
overwinter survival or productivity of some birds. Two of the studies did
not separate the effects of several interventions. Four studies (one replicated,
controlled and one randomized, replicated) from Finland and the UK found
some birds or mammals used supplementary food. Six replicated studies
(three controlled) from Sweden and the UK found no clear effect on some
birds or plants. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 90%; certainty 50%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/648

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Connect areas of natural or semi-natural habitat

All four studies (including two replicated trials) from the Czech Republic,
Germany and the Netherlands investigating the effects of linking patches

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 289

Farmland Conservation

of natural or semi-natural habitat found some colonization by invertebrates

or mammals. Colonization by invertebrates was slow or its extent varied
between taxa. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness
0%; certainty 15%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/579

I ncrease the proportion of semi-natural habitat in the

farmed landscape
Of five studies monitoring the effects of the Swiss Ecological Compensation
Areas scheme at a landscape scale (including three replicated site comparisons),
one found an increase in numbers of birds of some species, two found no
effect on birds and three found some species or groups increasing and others
decreasing. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness
20%; certainty 20%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/145

Make direct payments per clutch for farmland birds

Two replicated, controlled studies from the Netherlands found per clutch
payments did not increase overall bird numbers. A replicated site comparison
from the Netherlands found more birds bred on 12.5 ha plots under
management including per-clutch payments but there were no differences at
the field-scale. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness
0%; certainty 20%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/146

 anage the agricultural landscape to enhance floral

M
resources
A large replicated, controlled study from the UK found the number of
long-tongued bumblebees on field margins was positively correlated with
the number of ‘pollen and nectar’ agri-environment agreements in a 10 km
square. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 40%;
certainty 10%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/362

Mark bird nests during harvest or mowing

A replicated study from the Netherlands found that marked northern lapwing
nests were less likely to fail as a result of farming operations than unmarked

290
 4.1 All farming systems

nests. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 20%;

certainty 15%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/148

Plant new hedges

Two studies (including one replicated trial) from France and the UK found
new hedges had more invertebrates or plant species than fields or field
margins. A review found new hedges had more ground beetles than older
hedges. However, an unreplicated site comparison from Germany found only
two out of 85 ground beetle species dispersed along new hedges. A review
found lower pest outbreaks in areas with new hedges. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 60%; certainty 25%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/538

Provide nest boxes for bees (solitary bees or bumblebees)

Ten studies (nine replicated) from Germany, Poland and the UK found solitary
bee nest boxes were used by bees. Two replicated trials from the UK found
bumblebee nest boxes had very low uptake. Two replicated studies found
the local population size or number of emerging red mason bees increased
when nest boxes were provided. A replicated trial in Germany found the
number of occupied solitary bee nests almost doubled over three years with
repeated nest box provision. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited
evidence (effectiveness 90%; certainty 38%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/80

Provide nest boxes for birds

Two studies (including one before-and-after trial) from the Netherlands
and the UK found providing nest boxes increased the number of clutches
or breeding adults of two bird species. A replicated study from Switzerland
found nest boxes had mixed effects on the number of broods produced by two
species. Eight studies (six replicated) from five countries found nest boxes
were used by birds. A controlled study from the UK found one species did
not use artificial nest sites. Three replicated studies (one paired) from the UK
and Sweden found box location influenced use or nesting success. Assessment:
unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 30%; certainty 23%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/155

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 291

Farmland Conservation

 rovide other resources for birds (water, sand for

P
bathing)
A small study in France found grey partridge density was higher in areas
where water, shelter, sand and food were provided. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 0%; certainty 1%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/117

Provide refuges during harvest or mowing

A replicated study from France found mowing refuges reduced contact
between mowing machinery and unfledged quails and corncrakes. A
replicated controlled study and a review from the UK found Eurasian skylark
did not use nesting refuges more than other areas. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 20%; certainty 11%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/147

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Apply ‘cross compliance’ environmental standards linked to all
subsidy payments
• Implement food labelling schemes relating to biodiversity-friendly
farming (organic, LEAF marque)
• Introduce nest boxes stocked with solitary bees
• Maintain in-field elements such as field islands and rockpiles
• Manage stone-faced hedge banks to benefit wildlife
• Manage woodland edges to benefit wildlife
• Plant in-field trees (not farm woodland)
• Protect in-field trees (includes management such as pollarding and
surgery)
• Provide badger gates
• Provide foraging perches (e.g. for shrikes)
• Provide otter holts
• Provide red squirrel feeders
• Reduce field size (or maintain small fields)
• Restore or maintain dry stone walls
• Support or maintain low intensity agricultural systems

292
 4.2 Arable farming

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for arable farming systems?
Beneficial • Create skylark plots
• Leave cultivated, uncropped margins or plots
(includes ‘lapwing plots’)
Likely to be • Create beetle banks
beneficial • Leave overwinter stubbles
• Reduce tillage
• Undersow spring cereals, with clover for example
Unknown • Convert or revert arable land to permanent
effectiveness grassland
(limited evidence) • Create rotational grass or clover leys
• Increase crop diversity
• Plant cereals in wide-spaced rows
• Plant crops in spring rather than autumn
• Plant nettle strips
• Sow rare or declining arable weeds
No evidence found • Add 1% barley into wheat crop for corn buntings
(no assessment) • Create corn bunting plots
• Leave unharvested cereal headlands within
arable fields
• Use new crop types to benefit wildlife (such as
perennial cereal crops)
Evidence not • Implement ‘mosaic management’, a Dutch agri-
assessed environment option
• Plant more than one crop per field (intercropping)
• Take field corners out of management

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 293

Farmland Conservation

Beneficial

Create skylark plots

All four studies (two replicated, controlled trials) from Switzerland and
the UK investigating the effect of skylark plots on Eurasian skylarks found
positive effects, including increases in population size. A replicated study
from Denmark found skylarks used undrilled patches in cereal fields. Three
studies (one replicated, controlled) from the UK found benefits to plants and
invertebrates. Two replicated studies (one controlled) from the UK found no
significant differences in numbers of invertebrates or seed-eating songbirds.
Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness 100%; certainty 80%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/540

 eave cultivated, uncropped margins or plots (includes

L
‘lapwing plots’)
Seventeen of nineteen individual studies looking at uncropped, cultivated
margins or plots (including one replicated, randomized, controlled trial)
primarily from the UK found benefits to some or all target farmland bird
species, plants, invertebrates or mammals. Two studies (one replicated)
from the UK found no effect on ground beetles or most farmland birds.
Two replicated site comparisons from the UK found cultivated, uncropped
margins were associated with lower numbers of some bird species or age
groups in some areas. Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness 100%; certainty 65%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/562

Likely to be beneficial

Create beetle banks

Five reports from two replicated studies (one controlled) and a review from
Denmark and the UK found beetle banks had positive effects on invertebrate
numbers, diversity or distributions. Five replicated studies (two controlled)
found lower or no difference in invertebrate numbers. Three studies (including
a replicated, controlled trial) from the UK found beetle banks, alongside
other management, had positive effects on bird numbers or usage. Three
studies (one replicated site comparison) from the UK found mixed or no
effects on birds, two found negative on no clear effects on plants. Two studies

294
 4.2 Arable farming

(one controlled) from the UK found harvest mice nested on beetle banks.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 80%; certainty 60%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/651

Leave overwinter stubbles

Eighteen studies investigated the effects of overwinter stubbles. Thirteen
studies (including two replicated site comparisons and a systematic review)
from Finland, Switzerland and the UK found leaving overwinter stubbles
benefits some plants, invertebrates, mammals or birds. Three UK studies
(one randomized, replicated, controlled) found only certain birds were
positively associated with overwinter stubbles. Assessment: likely to be beneficial
(effectiveness 90%; certainty 50%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/695

Reduce tillage
Thirty-four studies (including seven randomized, replicated, controlled
trials) from nine countries found reducing tillage had some positive effects
on invertebrates, weeds or birds. Twenty-seven studies (including three
randomized, replicated, controlled trials) from nine countries found reducing
tillage had negative or no clear effects on some invertebrates, plants, mammals
or birds. Three of the studies did not distinguish between the effects of
reducing tillage and reducing chemical inputs. Assessment: likely to be beneficial
(effectiveness 60%; certainty 60%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/126

Undersow spring cereals, with clover for example

Eleven studies (including three randomized, replicated, controlled trials)
from Denmark, Finland, Switzerland and the UK found undersowing spring
cereals benefited some birds, plants or invertebrates, including increases
in numbers or species richness. Five studies (including one replicated,
randomized, controlled trial) from Austria, Finland and the UK found no
benefits to invertebrates, plants or some birds. Assessment: likely to be beneficial
(effectiveness 60%; certainty 43%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/136

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 295

Farmland Conservation

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Convert or revert arable land to permanent grassland

All seven individual studies (including two replicated, controlled trials)
from the Czech Republic, Denmark and the UK looking at the effects of
reverting arable land to grassland found no clear benefits to birds, mammals
or plants. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness
0%; certainty 20%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/561

Create rotational grass or clover leys

A controlled study from Finland found more spiders and fewer pest insects
in clover leys than the crop. A replicated study from the UK found grass
leys had fewer plant species than other conservation habitats. A UK study
found newer leys had lower earthworm abundance and species richness than
older leys. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness
0%; certainty 10%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/643

Increase crop diversity

Four studies (including one replicated, controlled trial) from Belgium,
Germany and Hungary found more ground beetle or plant species or
individuals in fields with crop rotations or on farms with more crops in
rotation than monoculture fields. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited
evidence (effectiveness 0%; certainty 9%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/560

Plant cereals in wide-spaced rows

Two studies (one randomized, replicated, controlled) from the UK found
planting cereals in wide-spaced rows had inconsistent, negative or no effects
on plant and invertebrate abundance or species richness. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 0%; certainty 18%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/564

Plant crops in spring rather than autumn

Seven studies (including two replicated, controlled trials) from Denmark,
Sweden and the UK found sowing crops in spring had positive effects on

296
 4.2 Arable farming

farmland bird numbers or nesting rates, invertebrate numbers or weed

diversity or density. Three of the studies found the effects were seasonal. A
review of European studies found fewer invertebrates in spring wheat than
winter wheat. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness
40%; certainty 35%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/137

Plant nettle strips

A small study from Belgium found nettle strips in field margins had more
predatory invertebrate species than the crop, but fewer individuals than
the crop or natural nettle stands. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited
evidence (effectiveness 50%; certainty 10%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/118

Sow rare or declining arable weeds

Two randomized, replicated, controlled studies from the UK identified
factors important in establishing rare or declining arable weeds, including
type of cover crop, cultivation and herbicide treatment. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 40%; certainty 15%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/642

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Add 1% barley into wheat crop for corn buntings
• Create corn bunting plots
• Leave unharvested cereal headlands in arable fields
• Use new crop types to benefit wildlife (such as perennial cereal
crops)

Evidence not assessed

I mplement ‘mosaic management’, a Dutch agri-

environment option
A replicated, controlled before-and-after study from the Netherlands found
mosaic management had mixed effects on population trends of wading bird
species. A replicated, paired sites study from the Netherlands found one bird

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 297

Farmland Conservation

species had higher productivity under mosaic management. Assessment: this

intervention has not been assessed.
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/130

Plant more than one crop per field (intercropping)

All five studies (including three randomized, replicated, controlled trials)
from the Netherlands, Poland, Switzerland and the UK looking at the effects
of planting more than one crop per field found increases in the number of
earthworms or ground beetles. Assessment: this intervention has not been assessed.
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/124

Take field corners out of management

A replicated site comparison from the UK found a positive correlation
between grey partridge overwinter survival and taking field corners out of
management. Brood size, ratio of young to old birds and density changes
were unaffected. Assessment: this intervention has not been assessed.
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/128

298
 4.3 Perennial (non-timber) crops

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for perennial (non-timber) crops?
Unknown effectiveness • Maintain traditional orchards
(limited evidence)

No evidence found (no • Manage short-rotation coppice to benefit

assessment) wildlife (includes 8m rides)
• Restore or create traditional orchards

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Maintain traditional orchards

A replicated, controlled site comparison from Germany found more plant
species in mown orchards than grazed or abandoned ones, but found no
effects on wasps or bees. Two replicated site comparisons from Germany and
Switzerland found traditional orchards managed under agri-environment
schemes either did not have more plant species than controls or offered no
clear benefits to birds. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence
(effectiveness 10%; certainty 15%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/703

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Manage short-rotation coppice to benefit wildlife (includes 8 m rides)
• Restore or create traditional orchards

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 299

 4.4 Livestock farming

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for livestock farming?
Beneficial • Restore or create species-rich semi-natural
grassland
• Use mowing techniques to reduce mortality
Likely to be • Delay mowing or first grazing date on grasslands
beneficial • Leave uncut strips of rye grass on silage fields
• Maintain species-rich, semi-natural grassland
• Maintain traditional water meadows (includes
management for breeding and/or wintering
waders/waterfowl)
• Maintain upland heath/moorland
• Reduce management intensity on permanent
grasslands (several interventions at once)
• Restore or create traditional water meadows
Unknown • Add yellow rattle seed Rhinanthus minor to hay
effectiveness meadows
(limited evidence) • Employ areas of semi-natural habitat for rough
grazing (includes salt marsh, lowland heath, bog,
fen)
• Exclude livestock from semi-natural habitat
(including woodland)
• Maintain wood pasture and parkland
• Plant cereals for whole crop silage
• Raise mowing height on grasslands
• Restore or create upland heath/moorland
• Restore or create wood pasture
• Use traditional breeds of livestock

300
 4.4 Livestock farming

Likely to be • Reduce grazing intensity on grassland (including

ineffective or seasonal removal of livestock)
harmful
No evidence found • Maintain rush pastures
(no assessment) • Mark fencing to avoid bird mortality
• Plant Brassica fodder crops (grazed in situ)
Evidence not • Create open patches or strips in permanent
assessed grassland
• Provide short grass for birds
• Use mixed stocking

Beneficial

Restore or create species-rich, semi-natural grassland

Twenty studies (including three randomized, replicated, controlled trials) from
six countries found restored species-rich, semi-natural grasslands had similar
invertebrate, plant or bird diversity or abundance to other grasslands. Seven
studies (two randomized, replicated, controlled trials) from five countries
found no clear effect on plant or invertebrate numbers, three replicated
studies (of which two site comparisons) from two countries found negative
effects. Forty studies (including six randomized, replicated, controlled trials)
from nine countries identified effective techniques for restoring species-rich
grassland. Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness 100%; certainty 73%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/133

Use mowing techniques to reduce mortality

Seven studies (including two replicated trials, one controlled and one
randomized) from Germany, Ireland, Switzerland and the UK found mowing
techniques that reduced mortality or injury in amphibians, birds, invertebrates
or mammals. A review found the UK corncrake population increased around
the same time that Corncrake Friendly Mowing was introduced and a replicated
trial found mowing from the field centre outwards reduced corncrake chick
mortality. Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness 100%; certainty 78%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/698

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 301

Farmland Conservation

Likely to be beneficial

Delay mowing or first grazing date on grasslands

Eight studies (including a European systematic review) from the Netherlands,
Sweden and the UK found delaying mowing or grazing benefited some
or all plants, invertebrates or birds, including increases in numbers or
productivity. Three reviews found the UK corncrake population increased
following management that included delayed mowing. Six studies (including
a European systematic review) from five countries found no clear effect on
some plants, invertebrates or birds. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness
60%; certainty 45%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/131

Leave uncut strips of rye grass on silage fields

Four studies (including two replicated, controlled trials) from the UK found
uncut strips of rye grass benefited some birds, with increased numbers. A
randomized, replicated, controlled study from the UK found higher ground
beetle diversity on uncut silage plots, but only in the third study year.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 80%; certainty 49%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/132

Maintain species-rich, semi-natural grassland

Nine studies (including two randomized, replicated before-and-after trials)
from Switzerland and the UK looked at the effectiveness of agri-environment
schemes in maintaining species-rich grassland and all except one found
mixed results. All twelve studies (including a systematic review) from six
countries looking at grassland management options found techniques that
improved or maintained vegetation quality. A site comparison from Finland
and Russia found butterfly communities were more affected by grassland
age and origin than present management. Assessment: likely to be beneficial
(effectiveness 80%; certainty 60%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/702

 aintain traditional water meadows (includes

M
management for breeding and/or wintering waders/
waterfowl)
Four studies (including a replicated site comparison) from Belgium, Germany,
the Netherlands and the UK found maintaining traditional water meadows

302
 4.4 Livestock farming

increased numbers of some birds or plant diversity. One bird species declined.
Two studies (including a replicated site comparison from the Netherlands)
found mixed or inconclusive effects on birds, plants or wildlife generally.
A replicated study from the UK found productivity of one wading bird was
too low to sustain populations in some areas of wet grassland managed for
wildlife. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 56%; certainty 50%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/696

Maintain upland heath/moorland

Eight studies (including one randomized, replicated, controlled trial) from
the UK found management, including reducing grazing, can help to maintain
the conservation value of upland heath or moorland. Benefits included
increased numbers of plants or invertebrates. Three studies (including a
before-and-after trial) from the UK found management to maintain upland
heath or moorland had mixed effects on some wildlife groups. Four studies
(including a controlled site comparison) from the UK found reducing grazing
had negative impacts on soil organisms, but a randomized, replicated before-
and-after study found heather cover declined where grazing intensity had
increased. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 90%; certainty 50%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/647

 educe management intensity on permanent grasslands

R
(several interventions at once)
Eleven studies (including four replicated site comparisons) from three countries
found reducing management intensity benefited plants. Sixteen studies
(including four paired site comparisons) from four countries found benefits
to some or all invertebrates. Five studies (including one paired, replicated
site comparison) from four countries found positive effects on some or all
birds. Twenty-one studies (including two randomized, replicated, controlled
trials) from six countries found no clear effects of reducing management
intensity on some or all plants, invertebrates or birds. Five studies (including
two paired site comparisons) from four countries found negative effects on
plants, invertebrates or birds. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness
100%; certainty 60%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/69

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 303

Farmland Conservation

Restore or create traditional water meadows

Three studies (two before-and-after trials) from Sweden and the UK looked
at bird numbers following water meadow restoration, one found increases,
one found increases and decreases, one found no increases. Seventeen studies
(two randomized, replicated, controlled) from six countries found successful
techniques for restoring wet meadow plant communities. Three studies (one
replicated, controlled) from four countries found restoration of wet meadow
plant communities had reduced or limited success. Assessment: likely to be
beneficial (effectiveness 100%; certainty 50%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/119

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

A
 dd yellow rattle seed Rhinanthus minor to hay
meadows
A review from the UK reported that hay meadows had more plant species
when yellow rattle was present. A randomized, replicated controlled trial in
the UK found yellow rattle could be established by ‘slot seeding’. Assessment:
unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 70%; certainty 20%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/129

 mploy areas of semi-natural habitat for rough grazing

E
(includes salt marsh, lowland heath, bog, fen)
Three studies (two replicated) from the UK and unspecified European
countries found grazing had positive effects on birds, butterflies or biodiversity
generally. A series of site comparisons from the UK found one bird species
used heathland managed for grazing as feeding but not nesting sites. Two
studies (one replicated site comparison) from the UK found grazing had
negative effects on two bird species. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited
evidence (effectiveness 20%; certainty 10%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/697

 xclude livestock from semi-natural habitat (including

E
woodland)
Three studies (including one randomized, replicated, controlled trial) from
Ireland and the UK found excluding livestock from semi-natural habitats

304
 4.4 Livestock farming

benefited plants and invertebrates. Three studies (one replicated, controlled

and one replicated paired sites comparison) from Ireland and the UK did not
find benefits to plants or birds. Two studies (one replicated, controlled and a
review) from Poland and the UK found limited or mixed effects. Assessment:
unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 20%; certainty 15%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/150

Maintain wood pasture and parkland

A randomized, replicated, controlled trial in Sweden found annual mowing
on wood pasture maintained the highest number of plant species. Assessment:
unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 40%; certainty 10%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/649

Plant cereals for whole crop silage

A replicated study from the UK found cereal-based whole crop silage had
higher numbers of some birds than other crops. A review from the UK
reported that seed-eating birds avoided cereal-based whole crop silage in
winter, but used it as much as spring barley in summer. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 80%; certainty 28%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/149

Raise mowing height on grasslands

Three studies (including one replicated, controlled trial) from the UK or
unspecified European countries found raised mowing heights caused less
damage to amphibians and invertebrates or increased Eurasian skylark
productivity. Two studies (one randomized, replicated, controlled) from the
UK found no effect on bird or invertebrate numbers and a replicated study
from the UK found young birds had greater foraging success in shorter
grass. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 0%;
certainty 35%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/138

Restore or create upland heath/moorland

A small trial in northern England found moorland restoration increased
the number of breeding northern lapwing. A UK review concluded that
vegetation changes were slow during the restoration of heather moorland

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 305

Farmland Conservation

from upland grassland. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence

(effectiveness 78%; certainty 20%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/650

Restore or create wood pasture

A replicated, controlled trial in Belgium found survival and growth of tree
seedlings planted in pasture was enhanced when they were protected from
grazing. A replicated study in Switzerland found cattle browsing had negative
effects on tree saplings. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence
(effectiveness 40%; certainty 5%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/644

Use traditional breeds of livestock

Three studies (one replicated) from the UK found the breed of livestock
affected vegetation structure, invertebrate communities and the amount of
plants grazed. A replicated trial from France, Germany and the UK found
no difference in the number of plant species or the abundance of birds,
invertebrates or mammals between areas grazed by traditional or commercial
livestock. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness
0%; certainty 20%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/539

Likely to be ineffective or harmful

 educe grazing intensity on grassland (including

R
seasonal removal of livestock)
Fifteen studies (including three randomized, replicated, controlled trials) from
four countries found reducing grazing intensity benefited birds, invertebrates
or plants. Three studies (including one randomized, replicated, controlled trial)
from the Netherlands and the UK found no benefit to plants or invertebrates.
Nine studies (including a systematic review) from France, Germany and
the UK found mixed effects for some or all wildlife groups. The systematic
review concluded that intermediate grazing levels are usually optimal but
different wildlife groups are likely to have different grazing requirements.
Assessment: likely to be ineffective (effectiveness 30%; certainty 70%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/704

306
 4.4 Livestock farming

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Maintain rush pastures
• Mark fencing to avoid bird mortality
• Plant brassica fodder crops (grazed in situ)

Evidence not assessed

Create open patches or strips in permanent grassland

A randomized, replicated, controlled study from the UK found more
Eurasian skylarks used fields containing open strips, but numbers varied.
A randomized, replicated, controlled study from the UK found insect
numbers on grassy headlands initially dropped when strips were cleared.
Assessment:this intervention has not been assessed.
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/563

Provide short grass for birds

A replicated UK study found two bird species spent more time foraging on
short grass than longer grass. Assessment: this intervention has not been assessed.
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/115

Use mixed stocking

A replicated, controlled study in the UK found more spiders, harvestmen and
pseudoscorpions in grassland grazed by sheep-only than grassland grazed
by sheep and cattle. Differences were only found when suction sampling not
pitfall-trapping. Assessment: this intervention has not been assessed.
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/93

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 307

 4.5 Threat: Residential and
commercial development

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of

the effectiveness of interventions for residential and commercial
development?
Unknown • Provide owl nest boxes (tawny owl, barn owl)
effectiveness
(limited evidence)
No evidence found • Maintain traditional farm buildings
(no assessment) • Provide bat boxes, bat grilles, improvements to
roosts

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Provide owl nest boxes (tawny owl, barn owl)

Two studies (one before-and-after study) from the Netherlands and the UK
found providing nest boxes increased barn owl populations. A replicated
study from the UK found a decrease in the proportion of breeding barn
owls was not associated with the number of nest boxes. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 100%; certainty 33%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/154

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Maintain traditional farm buildings
• Provide bat boxes, bat grilles, improvements to roosts

308
 4.6 Threat: Agri-chemicals

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for agri-chemicals?
Beneficial • Leave headlands in fields unsprayed
(conservation headlands)
• Reduce fertilizer, pesticide or herbicide use
generally
• Use organic rather than mineral fertilisers
Likely to be • Reduce chemical inputs in grassland
beneficial management
Unknown • Provide buffer strips alongside water courses
effectiveness (rivers and streams)
(limited evidence) • Restrict certain pesticides
No evidence found • Buffer in-field ponds
(no assessment)
Evidence not • Make selective use of spring herbicides
assessed

Beneficial

 eave headlands in fields unsprayed (conservation

L
headlands)
Twenty-two studies from 14 experiments (including two randomized,
replicated, controlled) from five countries found conservation headlands
had higher invertebrate or plant diversity than other habitats, twelve studies
from ten experiments (three randomized, replicated, controlled) did not.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 309

Farmland Conservation

Twenty-seven studies from 15 experiments (of which 13 replicated, controlled)

from five countries found positive effects on abundance or behaviour of
some wildlife groups. Nineteen studies from 13 experiments (12 replicated,
controlled) from four countries found similar, or lower, numbers of birds,
invertebrates or plants on conservation headlands than other habitats.
Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness 90%; certainty 75%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/652

Reduce fertilizer, pesticide or herbicide use generally

Thirty-four studies (including a systematic review) from 10 countries found
reducing fertilizer, pesticide or herbicide inputs benefited some invertebrates,
plants or birds. Twenty-five studies (including seven randomized, replicated,
controlled trials) from eight countries found negative or no clear effects on
some invertebrates, plants or birds. Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness 100%;
certainty 70%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/139

Use organic rather than mineral fertilizers

Fourteen studies (including four randomized, replicated, controlled trials)
from six countries found areas treated with organic rather than mineral
fertilizers had more plants or invertebrates or higher diversity. A randomized,
replicated, controlled trial from the UK found no effect on weed numbers.
Two studies (including a small trial from Belgium) found organic fertilizers
benefited invertebrates, a UK review found that in large quantities they did
not. Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness 100%; certainty 70%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/134

Likely to be beneficial

Reduce chemical inputs in grassland management

Six studies (including a randomized, replicated, controlled before-and-after
trial) from three countries found stopping fertilizer inputs on grassland
improved plant or invertebrate species richness or abundance. Two reviews
from the Netherlands and the UK found no or low fertilizer input grasslands
favour some birds and invertebrates. Five studies (two replicated trials of
which one randomized and one replicated) from three countries found

310
 4.6 Threat: Agri-chemicals

no clear effects on invertebrates or plants. Assessment: likely to be beneficial

(effectiveness 90%; certainty 60%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/694

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

 rovide buffer strips alongside water courses (rivers and

P
streams)
Three studies (including one replicated site comparison) from the Netherlands
and the UK found riparian buffer strips increased diversity or abundance
of plants, invertebrates or birds and supported vegetation associated with
water vole habitats. Two replicated site comparisons from France and Ireland
found farms with buffer strips did not have more plant species than farms
without strips. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness
10%; certainty 15%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/120

Restrict certain pesticides

A small UK study found two fungicides that reduced insect abundance
less than an alternative. A replicated, controlled trial in Switzerland found
applying slug pellets in a band at the field edge was as effective as spreading
the pellets across the field. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence
(effectiveness 50%; certainty 5%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/565

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following intervention:

• Buffer in-field ponds

Evidence not assessed

Make selective use of spring herbicides

A randomized, replicated, controlled study from the UK found spring
herbicides had some benefits for beneficial weeds and arthropods. Assessment:
this intervention has not been assessed.
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/98

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 311

 4.7 Threat: Transport and
service corridors

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for transport and service corridors?
No evidence found • Manage land under power lines to benefit
(no assessment) wildlife

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following intervention:

• Manage land under power lines to benefit wildlife

312
 4.8 Threat: Hunting and trapping
(for pest control, food or sport)

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of

the effectiveness of interventions for hunting and trapping (for pest
control, food or sport)?
Unknown • Enforce legislation to protect birds against
effectiveness persecution
(limited evidence) • Provide ‘sacrificial’ grasslands to reduce the
impact of wild geese on crops
No evidence found • Avoid use of lead shot
(no assessment) • Use alerts to reduce grey partridge by-catch
during shoots
Evidence not • Use scaring devices (e.g. gas guns) and other
assessed deterrents to reduce persecution of native species

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Enforce legislation to protect birds against persecution

Two before-and-after studies from Denmark and the UK found increased
numbers or survival of raptors under legislative protection. Assessment:
unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 90%; certainty 18%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/101

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 313

Farmland Conservation

 rovide ‘sacrificial’ grasslands to reduce the impact of

P
wild geese on crops
All six studies from the UK (including four replicated, controlled trials)
found that managing grasslands for geese increased the number of geese
using these areas. Four of these studies found geese were moving within the
study sites. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness
20%; certainty 5%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/641

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Avoid use of lead shot
• Use alerts to reduce grey partridge by-catch during shoots

Evidence not assessed

 se scaring devices (e.g. gas guns) and other deterrents to

U
reduce persecution of native species
A replicated, controlled trial in Germany found phosphorescent tape was
more effective than normal yellow tape at deterring one of three mammal
species. Assessment: this intervention has not been assessed.
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/645

314
 4.9 Threat: Natural system
modification

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for natural system modification?
Likely to be • Raise water levels in ditches or grassland
beneficial
Unknown • Create scrapes and pools
effectiveness • Manage heather by swiping to simulate burning
(limited evidence)
• Mange heather, gorse or grass by burning
• Remove flood defence banks to allow inundation
No evidence found • Re-wet moorland
(no assessment)

Likely to be beneficial

Raise water levels in ditches or grassland

Eight studies (including two replicated, controlled trials) from Denmark,
the Netherlands and the UK found raising water levels increased numbers
of birds, invertebrates or plants or allowed wet grassland plant species to
establish more rapidly. Three studies (two replicated) from the Netherlands
and the UK found raising water levels had negative, limited or no effects on
plants or birds. A replicated study from the UK found unflooded pastures
had a greater weight of soil invertebrates than flooded pastures. Assessment:
likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 100%; certainty 55%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/121

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 315

Farmland Conservation

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Create scrapes and pools

Five studies (including a replicated, controlled, paired trial) from Sweden
and the UK found creating scrapes and pools provided habitat for birds,
invertebrates or plants or increased invertebrate diversity. Two replicated
studies (one controlled, paired) from Ireland and the UK found mixed or no
differences in invertebrate numbers between created ponds and controls or
natural ponds. A study in Sweden found fewer fish species in constructed
than natural wetlands. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence
(effectiveness 100%; certainty 28%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/153

Manage heather by swiping to simulate burning

A replicated, controlled trial from the UK found heather moorland subject
to flailing had fewer plant species than burned plots but more species than
unflailed plots. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness
40%; certainty 9%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/151

Manage heather, gorse or grass by burning

A long-term replicated, controlled trial in Switzerland found burning of chalk
grassland did not increase the number of plant species. A replicated, controlled
trial in the UK found more plant species on burned than unburned heather
moorland. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness
10%; certainty 5%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/152

Remove flood defence banks to allow inundation

A controlled before-and-after study from the UK found a stretch of river that
was allowed to flood had more bird species and territories than a channelized
section. A study from Belgium found flooding and mowing increased plant
species richness in meadow plots. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited
evidence (effectiveness 80%; certainty 10%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/122

316
 4.9 Threat: Natural system modification

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following intervention:

• Re-wet moorland

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 317

 4.10 Threat: Invasive and
other problematic species

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of

the effectiveness of interventions for invasive and other problematic
species?
Likely to be • Control predatory mammals and birds (foxes,
beneficial crows, stoats and weasels)
Unknown • Control scrub
effectiveness • Control weeds without damaging other plants in
(limited evidence) conservation areas
• Protect individual nests of ground-nesting birds
No evidence found • Control grey squirrels
(no assessment) • Erect predator-proof fencing around important
breeding sites for waders
• Manage wild deer numbers
• Remove coarse fish
Evidence not • Control bracken
assessed • Control invasive non-native plants on farmland
(such as Himalayan balsam, Japanese knotweed)
• Control mink
• Provide medicated grit for grouse

318
 4.10 Threat: Invasive and other problematic species

Likely to be beneficial

 ontrol predatory mammals and birds (foxes, crows,

C
stoats and weasels)
Eight studies (including a systematic review) from France and the UK found
predator control (sometimes alongside other interventions) increased the
abundance, population size or productivity of some birds. A randomized,
replicated, controlled study from the UK did not. Assessment: likely to be
beneficial (effectiveness 90%; certainty 60%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/699

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Control scrub
A replicated site comparison from the UK found the number of young
grey partridge per adult was negatively associated with management that
included scrub control. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence
(effectiveness 0%; certainty 2%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/127

 ontrol weeds without damaging other plants in

C
conservation areas
Two studies (one randomized, replicated, controlled) from the UK found
that after specific plants were controlled, new plants established or diversity
increased. A replicated, controlled laboratory and grassland study found a
specific herbicide had negative impacts on one beetle species. Eleven studies
investigated different methods of controlling plants. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 90%; certainty 28%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/123

Protect individual nests of ground-nesting birds

Two randomized, replicated, controlled studies from Sweden found nest
exclosures increased measures of ground-nesting bird productivity, however
both found bird numbers or adult predation rates were unaffected or negatively
affected by exclosures. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence
(effectiveness 30%; certainty 13%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/108

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 319

Farmland Conservation

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Control grey squirrels
• Erect predator-proof fencing around important breeding sites for
waders
• Manage wild deer numbers
• Remove coarse fish

Evidence not assessed

Control bracken
A systematic review found repeated herbicide applications reduced bracken
abundance but cutting may be equally effective. A laboratory trial found the
same herbicide could inhibit the growth of mosses under certain conditions.
Assessment: this intervention has not been assessed.
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/105

 ontrol invasive non-native plants on farmland (such as

C
Himalayan balsam, Japanese knotweed)
Two randomized, replicated, controlled trials in the Czech Republic found
removing all giant hogweed flower heads at peak flowering time reduced
seed production. Assessment: this intervention has not been assessed.
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/104

Control mink
A systematic review found trapping may be an effective method of reducing
American mink populations. A study in the UK found mink were successfully
eradicated from a large area by systematic trapping. Assessment: this intervention
has not been assessed.
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/107

Provide medicated grit for grouse

A controlled study from the UK found higher red grouse productivity where
medicated grit was provided. Assessment: this intervention has not been assessed.
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/112

320
 4.11 Threat: Education and
awareness

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for education and awareness?
No evidence found • Provide specialist advice, assistance preparing
(no assessment) conservation plans
Evidence not • Provide training for land managers, farmers and
assessed farm advisers

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following intervention:

• Provide specialist advice, assistance preparing conservation plans

Evidence not assessed

 rovide training for land managers, farmers and farm

P
advisers
A study from the UK found farmers who were trained in how to implement
agri-environment schemes created better quality wildlife habitat over five
years. Assessment: this intervention has not been assessed.
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/113

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 321

5. FOREST CONSERVATION
Har’el Agra, Simon Schowanek, Yohay Carmel, Rebecca K. Smith &
Gidi Ne’eman

Expert assessors
Rhett Harrison, Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, Zambia
Keith Kirby, University of Oxford, UK
Gillian Petrokofsky, Biodiversity Institute Oxford, UK
Rebecca K. Smith, University of Cambridge, UK
William J. Sutherland, University of Cambridge, UK
Tom Swinfield, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, UK

Scope of assessment: for the conservation of forest habitat (not specific

species within forests), including tropical forests, temperate forests,
woodland, scrubland, shrubland and dry forests.

Assessed: 2016.

Effectiveness measure is the median % score.

Certainty measure is the median % certainty of evidence, determined by

the quantity and quality of the evidence in the synopsis.

Harm measure is the median % score for negative side-effects on the forest
habitat of concern.

© W. Sutherland et al., CC BY 4.0 https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0191.05

This book is meant as a guide to the evidence available for different
conservation interventions and as a starting point in assessing their
effectiveness. The assessments are based on the available evidence for the
target habitat for each intervention. The assessment may therefore refer
to different habitat to the one(s) you are considering. Before making any
decisions about implementing interventions it is vital that you read the
more detailed accounts of the evidence in order to assess their relevance
for your study species or system.

Full details of the evidence are available at

www.conservationevidence.com

There may also be significant negative side-effects on the target habitats

or other species or communities that have not been identified in this
assessment.

A lack of evidence means that we have been unable to assess whether or

not an intervention is effective or has any harmful impacts.
 5.1 Threat: Residential and
commercial development

5.1.1 Housing and urban areas

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of

the effectiveness of interventions for residential and commercial
development in housing and urban areas?
No evidence found • Compensate for woodland removal with
(no assessment) compensatory planting
• Incorporate existing trees or woods into the
landscape of new developments
• Provide legal protection of forests from
development

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Compensate for woodland removal with compensatory planting
• Incorporate existing trees or woods into the landscape of new
developments
• Provide legal protection of forests from development

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 325

Forest Conservation

5.1.2 Tourism and recreation areas

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of

the effectiveness of interventions for residential and commercial
development in tourism and recreation areas?
No evidence found • Adopt ecotourism
(no assessment) • Create managed paths/signs to contain
disturbance
• Re-route paths, control access or close paths
• Use warning signs to prevent fire

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Adopt ecotourism
• Create managed paths/signs to contain disturbance
• Re-route paths, control access or close paths
• Use warning signs to prevent fire.

326
 5.2 Threat: Agriculture

5.2.1 Livestock farming

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for livestock farming?
Likely to be • Use wire fences within grazing areas to exclude
beneficial livestock from specific forest sections
Trade-off between • Prevent livestock grazing in forests
benefit and harms
Unknown • Reduce the intensity of livestock grazing in
effectiveness forests
(limited evidence) • Shorten livestock grazing period or control
grazing season in forests
No evidence found • Provide financial incentives not to graze
(no assessment)

Likely to be beneficial

 se wire fences within grazing areas to exclude livestock

U
from specific forest sections
Three of four studies, including one replicated, randomized, controlled study
in Kenya, Israel, Mexico and Panama found that excluding livestock using
wire fences increased the size, density or number of regenerating trees. One
study found no effect on tree size and decreased tree density. Four of eight
studies, including two replicated, randomized, controlled studies across

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 327

Forest Conservation

the world found that excluding livestock using increased biomass, species
richness, density or cover of understory plants. Four studies found mixed or
no effects on understory plants. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness
58%; certainty 63%; harms 18%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1205

Trade-off between benefit and harms

Prevent livestock grazing in forests

One site comparison study in Israel found that preventing cattle grazing
increased the density of seedlings and saplings. Two of three studies, including
one replicated, controlled study, in Brazil, Costa Rica and the UK found that
preventing livestock grazing increased survival, species richness or diversity
of understory plants. One study found mixed effects. Assessment: trade-offs
between benefits and harms (effectiveness 69%; certainty 45%; harms 20%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1206

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Reduce the intensity of livestock grazing in forests

Two studies, including one replicated, randomized, controlled study, in the
UK and Greece found that reducing grazing intensity increased the number
of tree saplings or understory total weight. Assessment: unknown effectiveness
(effectiveness 78%; certainty 34%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1207

 horten livestock grazing period or control grazing

S
season in forests
One of two studies, including one replicated, controlled study, in Spain and
Australia found that shortening the grazing period increased the abundance
and size of regenerating trees. One found no effect native plant species richness.
One replicated study in the UK found that numbers of tree seedlings were
higher following summer compared to winter grazing. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness (effectiveness 58%; certainty 33%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1208

328
 5.2 Threat: Agriculture

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Provide financial incentives not to graze.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 329

 5.3 Threat: Transport and
service corridors

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for transport and service corridors?
No evidence found • Maintain/create habitat corridors
(no assessment)

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Maintain/create habitat corridors.

330
 5.4 Threat: Biological resource use

5.4.1 Thinning and wood harvesting

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for thinning and wood harvesting?
Beneficial • Log/remove trees within forests: effect on
understory plants
Likely to be • Thin trees within forests: effects on understory
beneficial plants
• Thin trees within forests: effects on young trees
• Use shelterwood harvest instead of clearcutting
Trade-off between • Thin trees within forests: effects on mature trees
benefit and harms
Unknown • Log/remove trees within forests: effects on young
effectiveness trees
(limited evidence) • Use partial retention harvesting instead of
clearcutting
• Use summer instead of winter harvesting
Unlikely to be • Remove woody debris after timber harvest
beneficial
Likely to be • Log/remove trees within forests: effect on mature
ineffective or trees
harmful • Log/remove trees within forests: effect on non-
vascular plants
• Thin trees within forests: effect on non-vascular
plants
No evidence found • Adopt continuous cover forestry
(no assessment) • Use brash mats during harvesting to avoid soil
compaction

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 331

Forest Conservation

Beneficial

 og/remove trees within forests: effects on understory

L
plants
Eight of 12 studies, including four replicated, randomized, controlled studies,
in India, Australia, Bolivia, Canada and the USA found that logging increased
the density and cover or species richness and diversity of understory plants.
Two studies found mixed and three found no effect. Assessment: beneficial
(effectiveness 65%; certainty 65%; harms 10%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1273

Likely to be beneficial

Thin trees within forests: effects on understory plants

Twenty five of 38 studies, including 12 replicated, randomized, controlled
studies, across the world found that thinning trees increased the density and
cover or species richness and diversity of understory plants. Nine studies
found mixed and two no effects, and one found a decrease the abundance
of herbaceous species. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 58%;
certainty 73%; harms 13%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1211

Thin trees within forests: effects on young trees

Six of 12 studies, including two replicated, randomized, controlled studies,
in Japan and the USA found that thinning increased the density of young
trees and a study in Peru found it increased the growth rate of young trees.
One study found thinning decreased the density and five found mixed or no
effect on young trees. One replicated, controlled study in the USA found no
effect on the density of oak acorns. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness
60%; certainty 65%; harms 15%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1210

Use shelterwood harvest instead of clearcutting

Three replicated, controlled studies in Sweden and the USA found that
shelterwood harvesting increased density of trees or plant diversity, or
decreased grass cover compared with clearcutting. Assessment: likely to be
beneficial (effectiveness 75%; certainty 55%; harms 15%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1214

332
 5.4 Threat: Biological resource use

Trade-off between benefit and harms

Thin trees within forests: effects on mature trees

Eleven of 12 studies, including two replicated, randomized, controlled studies,
in Brazil, Canada, and the USA found that thinning trees decreased the
density and cover of mature trees and in one case tree species diversity. Five
of six studies, including one replicated, controlled, before-and-after study,
in Australia, Sweden and the USA found that thinning increased mature
tree size, the other found mixed effects. One of three studies, including two
replicated controlled studies, in the USA found that thinning reduced the
number of trees killed by beetles. Assessment: trade-offs between benefits and
harms (effectiveness 47%; certainty 55%; harms 35%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1209

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Log/remove trees within forests: effects on young trees

One of two replicated controlled studies in Canada and Costa Rica found that
logging increased the density of young trees, the other found mixed effects.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 50%; certainty 18%; harms 10%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1272

Use partial retention harvesting instead of clearcutting

Three studies, including one replicated, randomized, controlled study, in
Canada found that using partial retention harvesting instead of clearcutting
decreased the density of young trees. Assessment: unknown effectiveness
(effectiveness 5%; certainty 35%; harms 45%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1215

Use summer instead of winter harvesting

One replicated study in the USA found no effect of logging season on plant
species richness and diversity. Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness
0%; certainty 13%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1216

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 333

Forest Conservation

Unlikely to be beneficial

Remove woody debris after timber harvest

Two studies, including one replicated, randomized, controlled study, in
France and the USA found no effect of woody debris removal on cover
or species diversity of trees. One of six studies, including two replicated,
randomized, controlled studies, in Ethiopia, Spain, Canada and the USA
found that woody debris removal increased young tree density. One found
that it decreased young tree density and three found mixed or no effect on
density or survival. One of six studies, including two replicated, randomized,
controlled studies, in the USA and France found that woody debris removal
increased understory vegetation cover. Five studies found mixed or no effects
on understory vegetation cover or species richness and diversity. Assessment:
unlikely to be beneficial (effectiveness 23%; certainty 50%; harms 10%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1213

Likely to be ineffective or harmful

Log/remove trees within forests: effect on mature trees

Three of seven studies, including two replicated, controlled studies, across
the world found that logging trees decreased the density and cover of mature
trees. Two found it increased tree density and two found no effect. Four of
nine studies, including one replicated, randomized, controlled study, across
the world found that logging increased mature tree size or diversity. Four
found it decreased tree size or species richness and diversity, and two found
no effect on mature tree size or diversity. One replicated, controlled study in
Canada found that logging increased mature tree mortality rate. Assessment:
likely to be ineffective or harmful (effectiveness 35%; certainty 50%; harms 30%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1271

 og/remove trees within forests: effect on effects on non-

L
vascular plants
Two of three studies, including one replicated, paired sites study, in Australia,
Norway and Sweden found that logging decreased epiphytic plant abundance
and fern fertility. One found mixed effects depending on species. Assessment:
likely to be ineffective or harmful (effectiveness 18%; certainty 40%; harms 50%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1270

334
 5.4 Threat: Biological resource use

Thin trees within forests: effects on non-vascular plants

Three of four studies, including one replicated, randomized, controlled study,
in Canada, Finland and Sweden found that thinning decreased epiphytic
plant abundance and species richness. Three found mixed effects depending
on thinning method and species. Assessment: likely to be ineffective or harmful
(effectiveness 20%; certainty 48%; harms 50%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1212

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Adopt continuous cover forestry
• Use brash mats during harvesting to avoid soil compaction

5.4.2 Harvest forest products

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for harvesting forest products?
Unknown • Adopt certification
effectiveness
(limited evidence)
No evidence found • Sustainable management of non-timber products
(no assessment)

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

A
 dopt certification
One replicated, site comparison study in Ethiopia found that deforestation
risk was lower in certified than uncertified forests. One controlled, before-
and-after trial in Gabon found that, when corrected for logging intensity,
although tree damage did not differ, changes in above-ground biomass
were smaller in certified than in uncertified forests. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness (effectiveness 50%; certainty 20%; harms 3%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1150

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 335

Forest Conservation

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Sustainable management of non-timber products

5.4.3 Firewood

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for firewood?
No evidence found • Provide fuel efficient stoves
(no assessment) • Provide paraffin stoves

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Provide fuel efficient stoves
• Provide paraffin stoves.

336
 5.5 Habitat protection

5.5.1 Changing fire frequency

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for changing fire frequency?
Trade-off between • Use prescribed fire: effect on understory plants
benefit and harms • Use prescribed fire: effect on young trees
Likely to be • Use prescribed fire: effect on mature trees
ineffective or
harmful
No evidence found • Mechanically remove understory vegetation to
(no assessment) reduce wildfires
• Use herbicides to remove understory vegetation
to reduce wildfires

Trade-off between benefit and harms

Use prescribed fire: effect on understory plants

Eight of 22 studies, including seven replicated, randomized, controlled studies,
in Australia, Canada and the USA found that prescribed fire increased the
cover, density or biomass of understory plants. Six found it decreased plant
cover and eight found mixed or no effect on cover or density. Fourteen of 24
studies, including 10 replicated, randomized, controlled studies, in Australia,
France, West Africa and the USA found that fire increased species richness

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 337

Forest Conservation

and diversity of understory plants. One found it decreased species richness

and nine found mixed or no effect on understory plants. Assessment: trade-
offs between benefits and harms (effectiveness 55%; certainty 70%; harms 25%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1221

Use prescribed fire: effect on young trees

Five of 15 studies, including four replicated, randomized, controlled studies,
in France, Canada and the USA found that prescribed fire increased the
density and biomass of young trees. Two found that fire decreased young
tree density. Eight found mixed or no effect on density and two found mixed
effects on species diversity of young trees. Two replicated, controlled studies
in the USA found mixed effects of prescribed fire on young tree survival.
Assessment: trade-offs between benefits and harms (effectiveness 45%; certainty
55%; harms 23%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1220

Likely to be ineffective or harmful

Use prescribed fire: effect on mature trees

Four of nine studies, including two replicated, randomized, controlled
studies, in the USA found that prescribed fire decreased mature tree cover,
density or diversity. Two studies found it increased tree cover or size, and
four found mixed or no effect. Seven studies, including one replicated,
randomized, controlled study, in the USA found that fire increased mature
tree mortality. Assessment: likely to be ineffective or harmful (effectiveness 25%;
certainty 50%; harms 50%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1217

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Mechanically remove understory vegetation to reduce wildfires
• Use herbicides to remove understory vegetation to reduce wildfires

338
 5.5 Habitat protection

5.5.2 Water management

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for water management?
No evidence found • Construct water detention areas to slow water flow
(no assessment) and restore riparian forests
• Introduce beavers to impede water flow in forest
watercourses
• Recharge groundwater to restore wetland forest

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Construct water detention areas to slow water flow and restore
riparian forests
• Introduce beavers to impede water flow in forest watercourses
• Recharge groundwater to restore wetland forest

5.5.3 Changing disturbance regime

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for changing the disturbance regime?
Trade-off between • Use clearcutting to increase understory diversity
benefit and harms • Use group-selection harvesting
• Use shelterwood harvesting
Unknown • Thin trees by girdling (cutting rings around tree
effectiveness trunks)
(limited evidence) • Use herbicides to thin trees
Unlikely to be • Use thinning followed by prescribed fire
beneficial

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 339

Forest Conservation

No evidence found • Adopt conservation grazing of woodland

(no assessment) • Coppice trees
• Halo ancient trees
• Imitate natural disturbances by pushing over trees
• Pollard trees (top cutting or top pruning)
• Reintroduce large herbivores
• Retain fallen trees

Trade-off between benefit and harms

Use clearcutting to increase understory diversity

Three of nine studies, including four replicated, randomized, controlled
studies, in Australia, Japan, Brazil, Canada and the USA found that clearcutting
decreased density, species richness or diversity of mature trees. One study
found it increased trees species richness and six found mixed or no effect or
mixed effect on density, size, species richness or diversity. One replicated,
randomized, controlled study in Finland found that clearcutting decreased
total forest biomass, particularly of evergreen shrubs. Three of six studies,
including five replicated, randomized, controlled studies, in Brazil, Canada
and Spain found that clearcutting increased the density and species richness
of young trees. One found it decreased young tree density and two found
mixed or no effect. Eight of 12 studies, including three replicated, randomized,
controlled studies, across the world found that clearcutting increased the
cover or species richness of understory plants. Two found it decreased density
or species richness, and two found mixed or no effect. Assessment: trade-offs
between benefits and harms (effectiveness 63%; certainty 65%; harms 30%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1222

Use group-selection harvesting

Four of eight studies, including one replicated, controlled study, in Australia,
Canada, Costa Rica and the USA found that group-selection harvesting
increased cover or diversity of understory plants, or the density of young
trees. Two studies found it decreased understory species richness or and
biomass. Three studies found no effect on understory species richness or

340
 5.5 Habitat protection

diversity or tree density or growth-rate. Assessment: trade-offs between benefits

and harms (effectiveness 50%; certainty 58%; harms 30%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1224

Use shelterwood harvesting

Six of seven studies, including five replicated, controlled studies, in Australia,
Iran, Nepal and the USA found that shelterwood harvesting increased
abundance, species richness or diversity or understory plants, as well as
the growth and survival rate of young trees. One study found shelterwood
harvesting decreased plant species richness and abundance and one found
no effect on abundance. One replicated, controlled study in Canada found
no effect on oak acorn production. Assessment: trade-offs between benefits and
harms (effectiveness 78%; certainty 70%; harms 28%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1223

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Thin trees by girdling (cutting rings around tree trunks)

One before-and-after study in Canada found that thinning trees by girdling
increased understory plant species richness, diversity and cover. Assessment:
unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 58%; certainty 13%;
harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1226

Use herbicides to thin trees

One replicated, controlled study in Canada found no effect of using
herbicide to thin trees on total plant species richness. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 5%; certainty 13%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1225

Unlikely to be beneficial

Use thinning followed by prescribed fire

Three of six studies, including one replicated, randomized, controlled study,
in the USA found that thinning followed by prescribed fire increased cover or
abundance of understory plants, and density of deciduous trees. One study

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 341

Forest Conservation

found it decreased tree density and species richness. Three studies found
mixed or no effect or mixed effect on tree growth rate or density of young
trees. One replicated, controlled study Australia found no effect of thinning
then burning on the genetic diversity of black ash. Assessment: unlikely to be
beneficial (effectiveness 35%; certainty 40%; harms 15%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1227

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Adopt conservation grazing of woodland
• Coppice trees
• Halo ancient trees
• Imitate natural disturbances by pushing over trees
• Pollard trees (top cutting or top pruning)
• Reintroduce large herbivores
• Retain fallen trees.

342
 5.6 Threat: Invasive and
other problematic species

5.6.1 Invasive plants

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for invasive plants?
Unknown • Manually/mechanically remove invasive plants
effectiveness • Use herbicides to remove invasive plant species
(limited evidence)
No evidence found • Use grazing to remove invasive plant species
(no assessment) • Use prescribed fire to remove invasive plant
species

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Manually/mechanically remove invasive plants

Two replicated, controlled studies in Hawaii and Ghana found that removing
invasive grass or weed species increased understory plant biomass or tree
seedling height. Two replicated, controlled studies in the USA and Hawaii found
no effect of removing invasive shrubs or plants on understory plant diversity
or growth rate of native species. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited
evidence (effectiveness 40%; certainty 33%; harms 15%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1228

Use herbicides to remove invasive plant species

One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found no effect of
controlling invasive plants using herbicide on native plant species richness.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 343

Forest Conservation

Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 5%; certainty

10%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1229

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Use grazing to remove invasive plant species
• Use prescribed fire to remove invasive plant species

5.6.2 Native plants

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for native plants?
No evidence found • Manually/mechanically remove native plants
(no assessment)

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Manually/mechanically remove native plants

5.6.3 Herbivores

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for herbivores?
Likely to be • Use wire fences to exclude large native herbivores
beneficial
Unknown • Use electric fencing to exclude large native
effectiveness herbivores
(limited evidence)

344
 5.6 Threat: Invasive and other problematic species

No evidence found • Control large herbivore populations

(no assessment) • Control medium-sized herbivores
• Use fencing to enclose large herbivores (e.g. deer)

Likely to be beneficial

Use wire fences to exclude large native herbivores

Two replicated, controlled studies in the USA found that excluding large
herbivores increased tree density. One of three studies, including two
replicated, paired-sites, before-and-after studies, in Canada, Bhutan and
Ireland found that excluding large herbivores increased the biomass of young
trees. One found it decreased the density of young trees and one found mixed
effects on species. Five of 10 studies, including two replicated, randomized,
controlled studies, across the world found that excluding large herbivores
increased the cover or and size of understory plants. Six found no effect on
the cover, seed density, species richness or diversity of understory plants.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 50%; certainty 65%; harms 10%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1230

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Use electric fencing to exclude large native herbivores

One controlled study in South Africa found that using electric fencing to
exclude elephants and nyalas increased tree density. Assessment: Unknown
effectiveness (effectiveness 65%; certainty 10%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1231

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Control large herbivore populations
• Control medium-sized herbivores
• Use fencing to enclose large herbivores (e.g. deer)

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 345

Forest Conservation

5.6.4 Rodents

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for rodents?
Unknown • Control rodents
effectiveness
(limited evidence)

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Control rodents
One controlled study in New Zealand found that rodent control decreased
native plant species richness and had no effect on total plant species richness.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 10%; certainty
10%; harms 50%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1232

5.6.5 Birds

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for birds?
Unknown • Control birds
effectiveness
(limited evidence)

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Control birds
One controlled study in Australia found that removing birds did not improve
the health of the trees in a narrow-leaved peppermint forest. Assessment:
unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 0%; certainty 15%; harms
0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1151

346
 5.7 Threat: Pollution

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for pollution?
Unknown • Maintain/create buffer zones
effectiveness
(limited evidence)
No evidence found • Remove nitrogen and phosphorus using
(no assessment) harvested products

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Maintain/create buffer zones

One site comparison study in Australia found that a forest edge protected by
a planted buffer strip had higher canopy cover and lower stem density, but
similar understory species richness to an unbuffered forest edge. Assessment:
unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 50%; certainty 10%;
harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1168

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Remove nitrogen and phosphorus using harvested products.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 347

 5.8 Threat: Climate change
and severe weather

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for climate change and severe weather?
No evidence found • Prevent damage from strong winds
(no assessment)

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Prevent damage from strong winds.

348
 5.9 Habitat protection

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for habitat protection?
Unknown • Adopt community-based management to protect
effectiveness forests
(limited evidence) • Legal protection of forests
No evidence found • Adopt Protected Species legislation (impact on
(no assessment) forest management)

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

A
 dopt community-based management to protect forests
Two studies, including one replicated, before-and-after, site comparison, in
Ethiopia and Nepal found that forest cover increased more in community-
managed forests than in forests not managed by local communities. However,
one replicated, site comparison study in Colombia found that deforestation
rates in community-managed forests did not differ from deforestation rates
in unmanaged forests. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence
(effectiveness 60%; certainty 35%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1152

Legal protection of forests

Two site comparison studies in Nigeria and Iran found that legal protection
of forest increased tree species richness and diversity or the density of young
trees. One replicated, paired site study in Mexico found no effect of forest

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 349

Forest Conservation

protection on seed density and diversity of trees and shrubs. Assessment:

unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 50%; certainty 20%;
harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1233

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Adopt Protected Species legislation (impact on forest management).

350
 5.10 Habitat restoration and
creation

5.10.1 Restoration after wildfire

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for restoration after wildfire?
Trade-off between • Thin trees after wildfire
benefit and harms
Unknown • Remove burned trees
effectiveness
(limited evidence)
Likely to be • Sow tree seeds after wildfire
ineffective or
harmful
No evidence found • Plant trees after wildfire
(no assessment)

Trade-off between benefit and harms

Thin trees after wildfire

Four of five replicated, controlled studies in Spain, Israel, Cananda and the
USA found that thinning trees in burnt forest areas increased plant species
richness, cover or survival of saplings. One study found thinning decreased
plant biomass. One paired-site study in Canada found that logging after
wildfire decreased species richness and diversity of mosses. Assessment: trade-
offs between benefits and harms (effectiveness 50%; certainty 50%; harms 38%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1234

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 351

Forest Conservation

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Remove burned trees

Two replicated, controlled studies in Israel and Spain found that removing
burned trees increased total plant species richness or the cover and species
richness of some plant species. Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness
60%; certainty 20%; harms 25%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1237

Likely to be ineffective or harmful

Sow tree seeds after wildfire

Three studies, including one replicated, randomized, controlled study, in
the USA found that sowing herbaceous plant seeds in burnt forest areas
decreased the density of tree seedlings or the number and cover of native
species. All three found no effect of seeding on total plant cover or species
richness. Assessment: likely to be ineffective or harmful (effectiveness 0%; certainty
43%; harms 40%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1236

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Plant trees after wildfire

5.10.2 Restoration after agriculture

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for restoration after agriculture?
Unknown • Restore wood pasture (e.g. introduce grazing)
effectiveness
(limited evidence)

352
 5.10 Habitat restoration and creation

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Restore wood pasture (e.g. introduce grazing)

One replicated paired study in Sweden found that partial harvesting in
abandoned wood pastures increased tree seedling density, survival and
growth. Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 65%; certainty 25%;
harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1164

5.10.3 Manipulate habitat to increase planted tree

survival during restoration

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for manipulating habitat to increase
planted tree survival during restoration?

Unknown • Apply herbicides after restoration planting

effectiveness • Cover the ground using techniques other than
(limited evidence) plastic mats after restoration planting
• Cover the ground with plastic mats after
restoration planting
• Use selective thinning after restoration planting

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

A
 pply herbicides after restoration planting
One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that controlling
vegetation using herbicides after restoration planting decreased plant species
richness and diversity. Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 45%;
certainty 25%; harms 40%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1241

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 353

Forest Conservation

 over the ground using techniques other than plastic

C
mats after restoration planting
One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that covering
the ground with mulch after planting increased total plant cover. Assessment:
unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 30%; certainty 15%; harms 10%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1240

 over the ground with plastic mats after restoration

C
planting
One replicated study in Canada found that covering the ground with plastic
mats after restoration planting decreased the cover of herbecous plants and
grasses. Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 40%; certainty 20%;
harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1239

Use selective thinning after restoration planting

One replicated, paired sites study in Canada found that selective thinning
after restoration planting conifers increased the abundance of herbaceous
species. Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 43%; certainty 18%;
harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1238

5.10.4 Restore forest community

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for restoring a forest community?
Unknown • Build bird-perches to enhance natural seed
effectiveness dispersal
(limited evidence) • Plant a mixture of tree species to enhance diversity
• Sow tree seeds
• Water plants to preserve dry tropical forest species
No evidence found • Restore woodland herbaceous plants using
(no assessment) transplants and nursery plugs
• Use rotational grazing to restore oak savannas

354
 5.10 Habitat restoration and creation

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Build bird-perches to enhance natural seed dispersal

One replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in Brazil
found that sowing tree seeds increased the density and species richness of
new trees. Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 50%; certainty 13%;
harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1245

Plant a mixture of tree species to enhance diversity

One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Brazil found that planting
various tree species increased species richness, but had no effect on the density
of new trees. One replicated, controlled study in Greece found that planting
native tree species increased total plant species richness, diversity and cover.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 50%; certainty 28%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1243

Sow tree seeds

One replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in Brazil
found that sowing tree seeds increased the density and species richness of
new trees. Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 60%; certainty 13%;
harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1244

Water plants to preserve dry tropical forest species

One replicated, controlled study in Hawaii found that watering plants
increased the abundance and biomass of forest plants. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness (effectiveness 65%; certainty 18%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1242

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Restore woodland herbaceous plants using transplants and nursery
plugs
• Use rotational grazing to restore oak savannas

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 355

Forest Conservation

5.10.5 Prevent/encourage leaf litter accumulation

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for preventing/encouraging leaf litter
accumulation?

Unknown • Remove or disturb leaf litter to enhance

effectiveness germination
(limited evidence)
No evidence found • Encourage leaf litter development in new
(no assessment) planting

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Remove or disturb leaf litter to enhance germination

One of two replicated, controlled studies in Poland and Costa Rica found
that removing leaf litter increased understory plant species richness. The
two studies found that removal decreased understory plant cover or the
density of new tree seedlings. Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness
40%; certainty 25%; harms 23%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1246

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Encourage leaf litter development in new planting

5.10.6 Increase soil fertility

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for increasing soil fertility?
Likely to be • Use vegetation removal together with
beneficial mechanical disturbance to the soil

356
 5.10 Habitat restoration and creation

Trade-off between • Add organic matter

benefit and harms • Use fertilizer
• Use soil scarification or ploughing to enhance
germination
Unknown • Add lime to the soil to increase fertility
effectiveness • Use soil disturbance to enhance germination
(limited evidence) (excluding scarification or ploughing)
Likely to be • Enhance soil compaction
ineffective or
harmful

Likely to be beneficial

 se vegetation removal together with mechanical

U
disturbance to the soil
Three studies, including one replicated, randomized, controlled study, in
Portugal and France found that vegetation removal together with mechanical
disturbance of the soil increased the cover or diversity of understory plants,
or density of young trees. One of the studies found it decreased understory
shrub cover. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 61%; certainty 40%;
harms 15%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1274

Trade-off between benefit and harms

A
 dd organic matter
One of two studies, including one replicated, randomized, controlled study, in
Brazil and Costa Rica found that adding leaf litter increased species richness
of young trees. One found it decreased young tree density in artificial forest
gaps and both found no effect on the density of tree regenerations under
intact forest canopy. One of two replicated, controlled study in Portugal and
the USA found that adding plant material increased total plant cover. One
found mixed effects on cover depending on plant group. Assessment: trade-
offs between benefits and harms (effectiveness 45%; certainty 43%; harms 28%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1250

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 357

Forest Conservation

Use fertilizer
Six of eight studies, including five replicated, randomized, controlled, in
Europe, Brazil, Australia and the USA found that applying fertilizer increased
total plant cover, understory plant biomass, size of young trees, biomass of
grasses or cover of artificially seeded plant species. Five of the studies found
no effect on plant biomass, cover, seedling abundance, tree growth or tree
seedling diversity. Assessment: trade-offs between benefits and harms (effectiveness
55%; certainty 65%; harms 25%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1248

 se soil scarification or ploughing to enhance

U
germination
Two studies, including one replicated, randomized, controlled study, in
Portugal and the USA found that ploughing increased the cover or diversity of
understory plants. Two of five studies, including two replicated, randomized,
controlled, in Canada, Brazil, Ethiopia and Sweden found that ploughing
increased the density of young trees. One found a decrease in density and
two found mixed effects depending on tree species. One replicated, before-
and-after trial in Finland found that ploughing decreased the cover of
plants living on wood surface. One replicated, controlled study in the USA
found that ploughing did not decrease the spreading distance and density
of invasive grass seedlings. Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness
60%; certainty 50%; harms 25%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1251

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

A
 dd lime to the soil to increase fertility
One replicated, randomized controlled study in the USA found that adding
lime increased vegetation cover. Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness
80%; certainty 18%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1249

358
 5.10 Habitat restoration and creation

 se soil disturbance to enhance germination (excluding

U
scarification or ploughing)
Two replicated, controlled studies in Canada and Finland found that
disturbance of the forest floor decreased understory vegetation cover.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 30%; certainty 35%; harms 40%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1252

Likely to be ineffective or harmful

Enhance soil compaction

Two of three studies, including two replicated, randomized, controlled studies
in Canada and the USA found that soil compaction increased understory
plant cover and density. Two found it decreased tree regeneration height or
density and understory plant species richness. Assessment: likely to be ineffective
or harmful (effectiveness 28%; certainty 40%; harms 45%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1253

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 359

 5.11 Actions to improve
survival and growth rate of
planted trees

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions to improve the survival and growth rate
of planted trees?
Beneficial • Prepare the ground before tree planting
• Use mechanical thinning before or after planting
Likely to be • Fence to prevent grazing after tree planting
beneficial • Use herbicide after tree planting
Trade-off between • Use prescribed fire after tree planting
benefit and harms
Unknown • Apply insecticide to protect seedlings from
effectiveness invertebrates
(limited evidence) • Add lime to the soil after tree planting
• Add organic matter after tree planting
• Cover the ground with straw after tree planting
• Improve soil quality after tree planting
(excluding applying fertilizer)
• Manage woody debris before tree planting
• Use shading for planted trees
• Use tree guards or shelters to protect planted
trees
• Use weed mats to protect planted trees
• Water seedlings

360
 5.11 Actions to improve survival and growth rate of planted trees

Unlikely to be • Mechanically remove understory vegetation

beneficial after tree planting
• Use different planting or seeding methods
• Use fertilizer after tree planting
No evidence found • Apply fungicide to protect seedlings from fungal
(no assessment) diseases
• Infect tree seedlings with mycorrhizae
• Introduce leaf litter to forest stands
• Plant a mixture of tree species to enhance the
survival and growth of planted trees
• Reduce erosion to increase seedling survival
• Transplant trees
• Use pioneer plants or crops as nurse-plants

Beneficial

Prepare the ground before tree planting

Six of seven studies, including five replicated, randomized, controlled studies,
in Canada and Sweden found that ground preparation increased the survival
or growth rate of planted trees. One study found no effect of creating mounds
on frost damage to seedlings. Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness 78%; certainty
73%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1263

Use mechanical thinning before or after planting

Five of six studies, including two replicated, randomized, controlled studies,
in Brazil, Canada, Finland, France and the USA found that thinning trees
after planting increased survival or size of planted trees. One study found
mixed effects on survival and size and one found it decreased their density.
One replicated study in the USA found that seedling survival rate increased
with the size of the thinned area. Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness 75%;
certainty 63%; harms 10%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1261

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 361

Forest Conservation

Likely to be beneficial

Fence to prevent grazing after tree planting

Four of five studies, including two replicated, randomized, controlled studies,
in Finland, Australia, Canada and the USA found that using fences to exclude
grazing increased the survival, size or cover of planted trees. Two studies
found no effect on survival rate and one found mixed effects on planted tree
size. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 70%; certainty 50%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1254

Use herbicide after tree planting

Two of three studies, including two replicated, randomized, controlled
studies, in Sweden and the USA found that using herbicide increased the
size of planted trees. One study found no effect. One replicated, randomized,
controlled study in Sweden found no effect of using herbicide on frost
damage to seedlings. Assessment: unlikely to be beneficial (effectiveness 58%;
certainty 45%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1262

Trade-off between benefit and harms

Use prescribed fire after tree planting

Two of four studies, including one replicated, randomized, controlled study,
in Finland, France and the USA found that using prescribed fire after planting
increased the survival and sprouting rate of planted trees. One study found
fire decreased planted tree size and one found no effect on the size and
survival rate. Assessment: trade-offs between benefits and harms (effectiveness
50%; certainty 43%; harms 20%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1255

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

A
 pply insecticide to protect seedlings from invertebrates
One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the USA found that applying
insecticide increased tree seedling emergence and survival. Assessment:
unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 70%; certainty 13%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1149

362
 5.11 Actions to improve survival and growth rate of planted trees

A
 dd lime to the soil after tree planting
One of two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in the USA found
that adding lime before restoration planting decreased the survival of pine
seedlings. One found no effect on seedling growth. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness (effectiveness 0%; certainty 30%; harms 50%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1259

A
 dd organic matter after tree planting
Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in the USA found that adding
organic matter before restoration planting increased seedling biomass, but
decreased seedling emergence or survival. Assessment: unknown effectiveness
(effectiveness 20%; certainty 25%; harms 50%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1258

Cover the ground with straw after tree planting

One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the Czech Republic found
that covering the ground with straw, but not bark or fleece, increased the
growth rate of planted trees and shrubs. Assessment: unknown effectiveness
(effectiveness 75%; certainty 20%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1266

I mprove soil quality after tree planting (excluding

applying fertilizer)
Two randomized, replicated, controlled studies in Australia found that
different soil enhancers had mixed or no effects on tree seedling survival and
height, and no effect on diameter or health. Assessment: unknown effectiveness
(effectiveness 25%; certainty 23%; harms 13%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1153

Manage woody debris before tree planting

One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Canada found that removing
woody debris increased the survival rate of planted trees. One replicated,
controlled study in the USA found mixed effects on the size of planted trees.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 40%; certainty 25%; harms 13%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1257

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 363

Forest Conservation

Use shading for planted trees

One replicated, controlled study in Panama found that shading increased the
survival rate of planted native tree seedlings. Assessment: unknown effectiveness
(effectiveness 85%; certainty 23%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1269

Use tree guards or shelters to protect planted trees

One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that using
light but not dark coloured plastic tree shelters increased the survival rate of
planted tree seedlings. One replicated, controlled study in Hong Kong found
that tree guards increased tree height after 37 but not 44 months. Assessment:
unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 60%; certainty 28%; harms 20%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1268

Use weed mats to protect planted trees

One replicated, controlled study in Hong Kong found no effect of using weed
mats on seedling height. Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 0%;
certainty 18%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1267

Water seedlings
One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Spain found that watering
seedlings increased or had no effect on seedling emergence and survival,
depending on habitat and water availability. Assessment: unknown effectiveness
(effectiveness 45%; certainty 20%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1154

Unlikely to be beneficial

 echanically remove understory vegetation after tree

M
planting
Four of five studies, including three replicated, randomized, controlled
studies in France, Sweden, Panama, Canada and the USA found no effect
of controlling understory vegetation on the emergence, survival, growth
rate or frost damage of planted seedlings. One found that removing shrubs
increased the growth rate and height of planted seedlings, and another that

364
 5.11 Actions to improve survival and growth rate of planted trees

removing competing herbs increased seedling biomass. Assessment: unlikely

to be beneficial (effectiveness 20%; certainty 50%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1256

Use different planting or seeding methods

Four studies, including one replicated, randomized study, in Australia, Brazil,
Costa Rica and Mexico found no effect of planting or seeding methods on
the size and survival rate of seedlings. One replicated, controlled study in
Brazil found that planting early succession pioneer tree species decreased the
height of other planted species. Assessment: unlikely to be beneficial (effectiveness
0%; certainty 43%; harms 13%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1264

Use fertilizer after tree planting

Two of five studies, including two randomized, replicated, controlled studies,
in Canada, Australia, France and Portugal found that applying fertilizer
after planting increased the size of the planted trees. Three studies found no
effect on the size, survival rate or health of planted trees. One randomized,
replicated, controlled study in Australia found that soil enhancers including
fertilizer had mixed effects on seedling survival and height. Assessment:
unlikely to be beneficial (effectiveness 38%; certainty 45%; harms 3%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1260

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Apply fungicide to protect seedlings from fungal diseases
• Infect tree seedlings with mycorrhizae
• Introduce leaf litter to forest stands
• Plant a mixture of tree species to enhance the survival and growth of
planted trees
• Reduce erosion to increase seedling survival
• Transplant trees
• Use pioneer plants or crops as nurse-plants.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 365

 5.12 Education and
awareness raising

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions to improve education and awareness
raising?
No evidence found • Provide education programmes about forests
(no assessment) • Raise awareness amongst the general public
through campaigns and public information

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Provide education programmes about forests
• Raise awareness amongst the general public through campaigns and
public information.

366
6. PEATLAND CONSERVATION
Nigel G. Taylor, Patrick Grillas & William J. Sutherland

Global evidence for the effects of interventions to conserve peatland vegetation

Expert assessors
Stephanie Boudreau, Canadian Sphagnum Peat Moss Association, Canada
Emma Goodyer, IUCN UK Peatlands Programme, UK
Laura Graham, Borneo Orangutan Survival Foundation, Indonesia
Richard Lindsay, University of East London, UK
Edgar Karofeld, University of Tartu, Estonia
David Locky, MacEwan University, Canada
Nancy Ockendon, University of Cambridge, UK
Anabel Rial, Independent Consultant & IUCN Species Survival Commission, Colombia
Sarah Ross, Penny Anderson Associates, UK
Nigel Taylor, Tour du Valat, France
Tim Thom, Yorkshire Peat Partnership, UK
Jennie Whinam, University of Tasmania, Australia

Scope of assessment: for the conservation of vegetation in wet peatlands,

including bogs, fens, fen meadows and tropical peat swamps. The focus
is on overall communities and habitat-defining species, rather than rare
species.
Assessed: 2018.
Effectiveness measure is the median % score. How effective is the
intervention at conserving peatland vegetation in the collated evidence?
Certainty measure is the median % certainty for the effectiveness score
across all peatlands that are appropriate targets of the intervention,
determined by the quantity and quality of the evidence in the synopsis.
Harm measure is the median % score. Are there any negative side effects of
the intervention, on peatland vegetation, in the collated evidence?
Each effectiveness category assumes that the aims of the intervention
match your management goals. For example, planting trees/shrubs is
likely to be beneficial assuming that you want to create forested/shrubby
peatland. This might not be a desirable outcome on all peatland types or in
all locations.

© W. Sutherland et al., CC BY 4.0 https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0191.06

This book is meant as a guide to the evidence available for different
conservation interventions and as a starting point in assessing their
effectiveness. The assessments are based on the available evidence for the
target habitat for each intervention. The assessment may therefore refer
to different habitat to the one(s) you are considering. Before making any
decisions about implementing interventions it is vital that you read the
more detailed accounts of the evidence in order to assess their relevance
for your study species or system.

Full details of the evidence are available at

www.conservationevidence.com

There may also be significant negative side-effects on the target habitats

or other species or communities that have not been identified in this
assessment.

A lack of evidence means that we have been unable to assess whether or

not an intervention is effective or has any harmful impacts.

368
 6.1 Threat: Residential and
commercial development

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for residential/commercial development?
No evidence found • Remove residential or commercial development
(no assessment) from peatlands
• Retain/create habitat corridors in developed
areas

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Remove residential or commercial development from peatlands
• Retain/create habitat corridors in developed areas.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 369

 6.2 Threat: Agriculture and
aquaculture

6.2.1 Multiple farming systems

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for multiple farming systems?
Unknown • Retain/create habitat corridors in farmed areas
effectiveness
(limited evidence)
No evidence found • Implement ‘mosaic management’ of agriculture
(no assessment)

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Retain/create habitat corridors in farmed areas

• Vegetation structure: One study in Indonesia found that a peat swamp
forest corridor contained 5,819 trees/ha: 331 large trees, 1,360 saplings
and 4,128 seedlings.
• Overall plant richness/diversity: The same study recorded 18–29 tree
species (depending on size class) in the peat swamp forest corridor.
• Assessment: unknown effectiveness – limited evidence (effectiveness 45%;
certainty 15%; harms 4%). Based on evidence from: tropical peat swamps
(one study).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1730

370
 6.2 Threat: Agriculture and aquaculture

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following intervention:

• Implement ‘mosaic management’ of agriculture.

6.2.2 Wood and pulp plantations

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for wood and pulp plantations?
Likely to be • Cut/remove/thin forest plantations
beneficial • Cut/remove/thin forest plantations and rewet peat

Likely to be beneficial

Cut/remove/thin forest plantations

• Herb cover: Three replicated studies (two also paired and controlled)
in bogs in the UK and fens in Sweden reported that tree removal
increased cover of some herbs, including cottongrasses Eriophorum
spp. and sedges overall. One of the studies reported no effect on
other herb species, including purple moor grass Molinia caerulea.
• Moss cover: Two replicated studies, in bogs in the UK and a drained
rich fen in Sweden, reported that tree removal reduced moss cover
after 3–5 years (specifically fen-characteristic mosses or Sphagnum
moss). However, one replicated, paired, controlled study in partly
rewetted rich fens in Sweden reported that tree removal increased
Sphagnum moss cover after eight years.
• Overall plant richness/diversity: Two replicated, paired, controlled
studies in rich fens in Sweden reported that tree removal increased
total plant species richness, especially in rewetted plots.
• Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 60%; certainty 50%; harms
10%). Based on evidence from: fens (three studies); bogs (one study).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1731

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 371

Peatland Conservation

Cut/remove/thin forest plantations and rewet peat

• Plant community composition: Of three replicated studies in fens in
Finland and Sweden, two found that removing trees/rewetting did
not affect the overall plant community composition. One reported
only a small effect. Two site comparison studies, in bogs and fens
in Finland, found that removing trees/rewetting changed the
community composition: it became less like forested/drained sites.
• Characteristic plants: 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: Five studies (four replicated, three site comparisons) in
Sweden and Finland examined the effect of removing trees/rewetting
on Sphagnum moss cover. Of these, two studies in bogs and fens
found that removing trees/rewetting increased Sphagnum cover. One
study in forested fens found no effect. Two studies in a bog and a
fen found mixed effects amongst sites or species. Four studies (three
replicated, two paired) in the UK and Finland examined the effect of
removing trees/rewetting on other moss cover. Of these, three found
that removing trees/rewetting reduced moss cover, but one study in
forested fens found no effect.
• Herb cover: Seven studies (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. This
included cottongrasses Eriophorum spp. in four of five studies and
other/total sedges in three of three studies. One study reported that
tree removal/rewetting reduced cover of cottongrass (where it was
rare before intervention) and purple moor grass Molinia caerulea.
• Vegetation structure: One replicated study in a bog in the UK found that
removing trees/rewetting increased ground vegetation height, but
another in a fen in Sweden reported no effect on canopy height after
eight years. Two replicated, paired, site comparison studies in bogs
and fens in Finland reported that thinning trees/rewetting reduced
the number of tall trees present for 1–3 years after intervention (but
not to the level of natural peatlands).
• Overall plant richness/diversity: Of four replicated studies in fens in
Sweden and Finland, two (also paired and controlled) reported that

372
 6.2 Threat: Agriculture and aquaculture

removing trees/rewetting increased plant species richness. The other

two studies found that removing trees/rewetting had no effect on
plant species richness or diversity.
• Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 60%; certainty 60%; harms
10%). Based on evidence from: fens (six studies); bogs (two studies); mixed
peatlands (three studies).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1732

6.2.3 Livestock farming and ranching

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for livestock farming and ranching?
Likely to be • Exclude or remove livestock from degraded
beneficial peatlands
Unknown • Reduce intensity of livestock grazing
effectiveness
(limited evidence)
No evidence found • Use barriers to keep livestock off ungrazed
(no assessment) peatlands
• Change type of livestock
• Change season/timing of livestock grazing

Likely to be beneficial

Exclude or remove livestock from degraded peatlands

• Plant community composition: Of two replicated, paired, controlled
studies in bogs in the UK, one found that excluding sheep had no
effect on the plant community. The other found that excluding sheep
only affected the community in drier areas of the bog, favouring
plants typically found on dry moorlands.
• Herb cover: Seven studies (six replicated, paired, controlled) in bogs
and fens in the UK, Australia and the USA found that excluding/
removing livestock did not affect cover of key herb groups:
cottongrasses Eriophorum spp. in five of five studies and true sedges

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 373

Peatland Conservation

Carex spp. in two of two studies. However, one before-and-after study

in a poor fen in Spain reported that rush cover increased after cattle
were excluded (along with rewetting). One site comparison study in
Chile found that excluding livestock, along with other interventions,
increased overall herb cover but one replicated, paired, controlled
study in bogs in Australia found that excluding livestock had no
effect on herb cover.
• Moss cover: Five replicated, paired, controlled studies in bogs in the
UK and Australia found that excluding livestock typically had no
effect on Sphagnum moss cover. Three of the studies in the UK also
found no effect on cover of other mosses. One before-and-after study
in a poor fen in Spain reported that Sphagnum moss appeared after
excluding cattle (along with rewetting).
• Tree/shrub cover: Five replicated, paired, controlled studies in bogs
in the UK and Australia found that excluding livestock typically
had no effect on shrub cover (specifically heather Calluna vulgaris or
heathland plants). However, one of these studies found that heather
cover increased in drier areas. Three studies (two site comparisons)
in bogs in the UK, fens in the USA and a peatland in Chile found that
excluding/removing livestock increased shrub cover.
• Vegetation structure: One replicated, paired, controlled study in a bog
in the UK found that excluding sheep increased total vegetation,
shrub and bryophyte biomass, but had no effect on grass-like plants.
• Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 40%; certainty 50%; harms
12%). Based on evidence from: bogs (seven studies); fens (two studies);
unspecified peatlands (one study).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1734

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Reduce intensity of livestock grazing

• Vegetation cover: One replicated, paired, controlled study in bogs in
the UK found greater cover of total vegetation, shrubs and sheathed
cottongrass Eriophorum vaginatum under lower grazing intensities.
• Vegetation structure: The same study found that vascular plant
biomass was higher under lower grazing intensities.

374
 6.2 Threat: Agriculture and aquaculture

• Assessment: unknown effectiveness – limited evidence (effectiveness 60%;

certainty 25%; harms 1%). Based on evidence from: bogs (one study).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1735

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Use barriers to keep livestock off ungrazed peatlands
• Change type of livestock
• Change season/timing of livestock grazing.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 375

 6.3 Threat: Energy
production and mining

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for energy production and mining?
Unknown • Replace blocks of vegetation after mining or peat
effectiveness extraction
(limited evidence)
No evidence found • Retain/create habitat corridors in areas of energy
(no assessment) production or mining

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

 eplace blocks of vegetation after mining or peat

R
extraction
• Plant community composition: Two studies, in a bog in the UK and a fen
in Canada, reported that transplanted blocks of peatland vegetation
retained their overall community composition: over time in the UK,
or relative to an undisturbed fen in Canada.
• Vegetation cover: One before-and-after study in the UK reported that
bare peat next to translocated bog vegetation developed vegetation
cover (mainly grasses/rushes). Sphagnum moss cover declined in the
translocated blocks. One site comparison study in a fen in Canada
reported that replaced vegetation blocks retained similar Sphagnum
and shrub cover to an undisturbed fen.

376
 6.3 Threat: Energy production and mining

• Assessment: unknown effectiveness – limited evidence (effectiveness 60%;

certainty 35%; harms 10%). Based on evidence from: bogs (one study); fens
(one study).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1738

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following intervention:

• Retain/create habitat corridors in areas of energy production or
mining.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 377

 6.4 Threat: Transportation
and service corridors

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for transportation and service corridors?
Unknown • Maintain/restore water flow across service
effectiveness corridors
(limited evidence)
No evidence found • Backfill trenches dug for pipelines
(no assessment) • Retain/create habitat corridors across service
corridors

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Maintain/restore water flow across service corridors

• Characteristic plants: One before-and-after study in a fen in the USA
found that after restoring water inflow across a road, along with
general rewetting, cover of wet peatland sedges increased whilst
cover of grasses preferring drier conditions decreased.
• Assessment: unknown effectiveness – limited evidence (effectiveness 60%;
certainty 20%; harms 1%). Based on evidence from: fens (one study).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1741

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Backfill trenches dug for pipelines
• Retain/create habitat corridors across service corridors.

378
 6.5 Threat: Biological
resource use

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for biological resource use?
Unknown • Reduce intensity of harvest
effectiveness
(limited evidence)
No evidence found • Reduce frequency of harvest
(no assessment) • Use low impact harvesting techniques
• Use low impact vehicles for harvesting
• Implement ‘mosaic management’ when
harvesting wild biological resources
• Provide new technologies to reduce pressure on
wild biological resources

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Reduce intensity of harvest

• Moss cover: One replicated, controlled study in a bog in New Zealand
reported that Sphagnum moss cover was higher, three years after
harvesting, when some Sphagnum was left in plots than when it was
completely harvested.
• Assessment: unknown effectiveness – limited evidence (effectiveness 70%;
certainty 25%; harms 0%). Based on evidence from: bogs (one study).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1744

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 379

Peatland Conservation

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Reduce frequency of harvest
• Use low impact harvesting techniques
• Use low impact vehicles for harvesting
• Implement ‘mosaic management’ when harvesting wild biological
resources
• Provide new technologies to reduce pressure on wild biological
resources.

380
 6.6 Threat: Human intrusions
and disturbance

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for human intrusions and disturbance?
Unknown • Physically exclude vehicles from peatlands
effectiveness
(limited evidence)
No evidence found • Restrict vehicle use on peatlands
(no assessment) • Restrict pedestrian access to peatlands
• Physically exclude pedestrians from peatlands
• Install boardwalks/paths to prevent trampling
• Wear snowshoes to prevent trampling
• Adopt ecotourism principles/create an
ecotourism site

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Physically exclude vehicles from peatlands

• Vegetation structure: One replicated, paired, controlled, site
comparison study in a floating fen in the USA reported that fencing
off airboat trails allowed total and non-woody vegetation biomass
to increase, up to levels recorded in undisturbed fen. Woody plant
biomass did not recover.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 381

Peatland Conservation

• Overall plant richness/diversity: The same study reported that

fencing off airboat trails allowed overall plant diversity to increase,
recovering to levels recorded in undisturbed fen.
• Assessment: unknown effectiveness – limited evidence (effectiveness 70%;
certainty 35%; harms 0%). Based on evidence from: fens (one study).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1750

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Restrict vehicle use on peatlands
• Restrict pedestrian access to peatlands
• Physically exclude pedestrians from peatlands
• Install boardwalks/paths to prevent trampling
• Wear snowshoes to prevent trampling
• Adopt ecotourism principles/create an ecotourism site.

382
 6.7 Threat: Natural system
modifications

6.7.1 Modified water management

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for modified water management?
Beneficial • Rewet peatland (raise water table)
Unknown • Irrigate peatland
effectiveness
(limited evidence)
No evidence found • Reduce water level of flooded peatlands
(no assessment) • Restore natural water level fluctuations

Beneficial

Rewet peatland (raise water table)

• Plant community composition: Ten of thirteen studies reported that
rewetting affected the overall plant community composition. Six
before-and-after studies (four also replicated) in peatlands in Finland,
Hungary, Sweden, Poland and Germany reported development
of wetland- or peatland-characteristic communities following
rewetting. One replicated, paired, controlled study in the Czech
Republic found differences between rewetted and drained parts of a
bog. Three site comparison studies in Finland and Canada reported

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 383

Peatland Conservation

differences between rewetted and natural peatlands. In contrast,

three replicated studies in peatlands in the UK and fens in Germany
reported that rewetting typically had no effect, or insignificant
effects, on the plant community.
• Characteristic plants: Five studies (including one replicated site
comparison) in peatlands in Canada, the UK, China and Poland
reported that rewetting, sometimes along with other interventions,
increased the abundance of wetland- or peatland-characteristic
plants. Two replicated site comparison studies, in fens and fen
meadows in Europe, found that rewetting reduced the number
of fen-characteristic plant species. Two studies (one replicated,
paired, controlled, before-and-after) in fens in Sweden reported that
rewetting had no effect on cover of fen-characteristic plants.
• Moss cover: Twelve studies (two replicated, paired, controlled) in
peatlands in Europe and Canada reported that rewetting, sometimes
along with other interventions, increased Sphagnum moss cover
or abundance. However two replicated studies, in bogs in Latvia
and forested fens in Finland, reported that rewetting did not affect
Sphagnum cover. Five studies (one paired, controlled, before-and-
after) in bogs and fens in Finland, Sweden and Canada reported
that rewetting did not affect cover of non-Sphagnum mosses/lichens.
However two controlled studies, in bogs in Ireland and the UK,
reported that rewetting reduced cover of non-Sphagnum bryophytes.
One study in Finland reported similar moss cover in rewetted and
natural peatlands, but one study in Canada reported that a rewetted
bog had lower moss cover than target peatlands.
• Herb cover: Twenty-one studies (four replicated, paired, controlled)
reported that rewetting, sometimes along with other interventions,
increased cover of at least one group of herbs: reeds/rushes in five of
seven studies, cottongrasses Eriophorum spp. in eight of nine studies,
and other/total sedges in 13 of 15 studies. The studies were in bogs,
fens or other peatlands in Europe, North America and China. Of four
before-and-after studies in peatlands in the UK and Sweden, three
reported that rewetting reduced cover of purple moor grass Molinia
caerulea but one reported no effect. One replicated site comparison
study, in forested fens in Finland, reported that rewetting had no

384
 6.7 Threat: Natural system modifications

effect on total herb cover. Two site comparison studies in Europe

reported that rewetted peatlands had greater herb cover (total or
sedges/rushes) than natural peatlands.
• Tree/shrub cover: Ten studies (two paired and controlled) in peatlands
in Finland, the UK, Germany, Latvia and Canada reported that
rewetting typically reduced or had no effect on tree and/or shrub
cover. Two before-and-after studies in fens in Sweden and Germany
reported that tree/shrub cover increased following rewetting. One
before-and-after study in a bog in the UK reported mixed effects of
rewetting on different tree/shrub species.
• Overall vegetation cover: Of four before-and-after studies (including
three controlled), two in bogs in Ireland and Sweden reported that
rewetting increased overall vegetation cover. One study in a fen in
New Zealand reported that rewetting reduced vegetation cover. One
study in a peatland in Finland reported no effect.
• Overall plant richness/diversity: Six studies (including one replicated,
paired, controlled, before-and-after) in Sweden, Germany and the
UK reported that rewetting increased total plant species richness or
diversity in peatlands. However, five studies found no effect: in bogs
in the Czech Republic and Latvia, fens in Sweden and Germany, and
forested fens in Finland. One study in fen meadows in the Netherlands
found scale-dependent effects. One paired, controlled, before-and-
after study in a peatland in Finland reported that rewetting reduced
plant diversity. Of four studies that compared rewetted and natural
peatlands, two in Finland and Germany reported lower species
richness in rewetted peatlands, one in Sweden found higher species
richness in rewetted fens, and one in Europe found similar richness
in rewetted and natural fens.
• Growth: One replicated site comparison study, in forested fens in
Finland, found that rewetting increased Sphagnum moss growth to
natural levels.
• Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness 80%; certainty 80%; harms 10%).
Based on evidence from: bogs (fifteen studies); fens (fourteen studies); fen
meadows (one study); mixed or unspecified peatlands (six studies).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1756

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 385

Peatland Conservation

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Irrigate peatland
• Vegetation cover: One replicated, paired, controlled, before-and-after
study in a bog in Canada found that irrigation increased the number
of Sphagnum moss shoots present after one growing season, but had
no effect after two. One before-and-after study in Germany reported
that an irrigated fen was colonized by wetland- and fen-characteristic
herbs, whilst cover of dryland grasses decreased.
• Assessment: unknown effectiveness – limited evidence (effectiveness 55%;
certainty 30%; harms 1%). Based on evidence from: bogs (one study); fens
(one study).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1859

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Reduce water level of flooded peatlands
• Restore natural water level fluctuations.

6.7.2 Modified vegetation management

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for modified vegetation management?
Likely to be • Cut/mow herbaceous plants to maintain or
beneficial restore disturbance
• Cut large trees/shrubs to maintain or restore
disturbance
Trade-off between • Use grazing to maintain or restore disturbance
benefit and harms
Unknown • Remove plant litter to maintain or restore
effectiveness disturbance
(limited evidence) • Use prescribed fire to maintain or restore
disturbance

386
 6.7 Threat: Natural system modifications

Likely to be beneficial

 ut/mow herbaceous plants to maintain or restore

C
disturbance
• Plant community composition: Six replicated studies in fens and fen
meadows in the UK, Belgium, Germany and the Czech Republic
reported that mowing altered the overall plant community
composition (vs no mowing, before mowing or grazing). One site
comparison study in Poland reported that mowing a degraded fen,
along with other interventions, made the plant community more
similar to target fen meadow vegetation.
• Characteristic plants: Four studies (including one replicated,
paired, controlled, before-and-after) in fens and fen meadows in
Switzerland, Germany, the Czech Republic and Poland found that
cutting/mowing increased cover of fen meadow- or wet meadow-
characteristic plants. One replicated before-and-after study, in fens
in the UK, found that a single mow typically did not affect cover of
fen-characteristic plants. In Poland and the UK, the effect of mowing
was not separated from the effects of other interventions.
• Moss cover: Four replicated, paired studies (three also controlled)
in fens and fen meadows in Belgium, Switzerland and the Czech
Republic found that mowing increased total moss or bryophyte
cover. Two replicated studies (one also controlled) in fens in Poland
and the UK found that a single mow typically had no effect on
bryophyte cover (total or hollow-adapted mosses).
• Herb cover: Six replicated studies (three also randomized and
controlled) in fens and fen meadows in Belgium, Germany, Poland
and the UK found that mowing reduced cover or abundance of at
least one group of herbs (including bindweed Calystegia sepium,
purple moor grass Molinia caerulea, reeds, sedges, and grass-like
plants overall). One before-and-after study in a fen in Poland found
that mowing, along with other interventions, increased sedge
cover. One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in fen
meadows in Switzerland found that mowing had no effect on overall
herb cover.
• Tree/shrub cover: Of three replicated studies in fens, two in the UK
found that a single mow, sometimes along with other interventions,

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 387

Peatland Conservation

reduced overall shrub cover. The other study, in Poland, found that
a single mow had no effect on overall shrub cover.
• Vegetation structure: In the following studies, vegetation structure
was measured 6–12 months after the most recent cut/mow. Three
replicated studies in fens in Poland and the UK reported that a
single mow, sometimes along with other interventions, had no (or
no consistent) effect on vegetation height. One replicated, paired,
site comparison study in fen meadows in Switzerland found that
mowing reduced vegetation height. Three studies in fen meadows
in Switzerland, Poland and Italy found mixed effects of mowing
on vegetation biomass (total, moss, sedge/rush, or common reed
Phragmites australis). One replicated, paired, site comparison study
in Germany reported that vegetation structure was similar in mown
and grazed fen meadows.
• Overall plant richness/diversity: Eight studies in fens and fen meadows
in the UK, Belgium, Switzerland, Germany, the Czech Republic
and Poland found that mowing/cutting increased plant species
richness (vs no mowing, before mowing or grazing). Three studies
(two replicated, randomized, paired, controlled) in fens in Poland
and the UK found that a single mow, sometimes along with other
interventions, typically did not affect plant richness/diversity.
• Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 70%; certainty 60%; harms
10%). Based on evidence from: fens (seven studies); fen meadows (seven
studies).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1759

Cut large trees/shrubs to maintain or restore disturbance

• Plant community composition: One study in a fen in Poland found that
where shrubs were removed, along with other interventions, the
plant community became more like a target fen meadow over time.
• Characteristic plants: One study in a fen in Poland found that where
shrubs were removed, along with other interventions, the abundance
of fen meadow plant species increased over time.
• Vegetation cover: One replicated, paired, controlled study in a forested
fen in the USA found that cutting and removing trees increased herb
cover, but did not affect shrub cover.

388
 6.7 Threat: Natural system modifications

• Vegetation structure: One replicated, paired, controlled study in

a forested fen in the USA found that cutting and removing trees
increased herb biomass and height.
• Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 60%; certainty 45%; harms
5%). Based on evidence from: fens (two studies).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1761

Trade-off between benefit and harms

Use grazing to maintain or restore disturbance

• Plant community composition: One replicated, paired, site comparison
study in Germany found that the overall plant community
composition differed between grazed and mown fen meadows.
• Characteristic plants: One replicated, paired, controlled study in
Germany reported that the abundance of bog/fen-characteristic plants
was similar in grazed and ungrazed fen meadows. One replicated
before-and-after study, in a fen in the UK, reported that cover of fen-
characteristic mosses did not change after grazers were introduced.
One replicated, paired, site comparison study in Germany found
that grazed fen meadows contained fewer fen-characteristic plant
species than mown meadows.
• Herb cover: Two before-and-after studies in fens in the UK reported
that grazing increased cover of some herb species/groups (common
cottongrass Eriophorum angustifolium, carnation sedge Carex panicea
or grass-like plants overall). One of the studies found that grazing
reduced cover of purple moor grass Molinia caerulea, but the other
found that grazing typically had no effect on this species.
• Moss cover: One replicated before-and-after study, in a fen in the UK,
reported that cover of fen-characteristic mosses did not change after
grazers were introduced. One controlled, before-and-after study in
a fen in the UK found that grazing reduced Sphagnum moss cover.
• Tree/shrub cover: Of two before-and-after studies in fens in the UK,
one found that grazing reduced overall shrub cover but the other
found that grazing typically had no effect on overall shrub cover.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 389

Peatland Conservation

• Overall plant richness/diversity: Of two before-and-after studies in fens

in the UK, one (also controlled) reported that grazing increased plant
species richness but the other (also replicated) found that grazing had
no effect. One replicated, paired, site comparison study in Germany
found that grazed fen meadows contained fewer plant species than
mown meadows.
• Assessment: trade-off between benefit and harms (effectiveness 40%;
certainty 40%; harms 25%). Based on evidence from: fens (two studies); fen
meadows (two studies).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1762

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Remove plant litter to maintain or restore disturbance

• Plant community composition: Two studies (including one replicated,
paired, controlled, before-and-after) in a fen meadow in Germany
and a fen in Czech Republic found that removing plant litter did not
affect plant community composition.
• Vegetation cover: One replicated, paired, controlled, before-and-after
study in a fen in the Czech Republic found that removing plant
litter did not affect cover of bryophytes or tall moor grass Molinia
arundinacea.
• Overall plant richness/diversity: Of two replicated, controlled studies,
one (also randomized) in a fen meadow in Germany reported that
removing plant litter increased plant species richness and diversity.
The other study (also paired and before-and-after) in a fen in the
Czech Republic found that removing litter did not affect vascular
plant diversity.
• Assessment: unknown effectiveness – limited evidence (effectiveness 35%;
certainty 38%; harms 7%). Based on evidence from: fens (one study); fen
meadows (one study).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1760

390
 6.7 Threat: Natural system modifications

Use prescribed fire to maintain or restore disturbance

• Characteristic plants: One replicated before-and-after study in a fen
in the UK reported that burning, along with other interventions, did
not affect cover of fen-characteristic mosses or herbs.
• Herb cover: One replicated, controlled study in a fen in the USA
reported that burning reduced forb cover and increased sedge/rush
cover, but had no effect on grass cover. One replicated before-and-
after study in a fen in the UK reported that burning, along with other
interventions, reduced grass/sedge/rush cover.
• Tree/shrub cover: Two replicated studies in fens in the USA and the
UK reported that burning, sometimes along with other interventions,
reduced overall tree/shrub cover.
• Overall plant richness/diversity: Two replicated, controlled studies
in a fen in the USA and a bog in New Zealand found that burning
increased plant species richness or diversity. However, one
replicated before-and-after study in a fen in the UK reported that
burning, along with other interventions, typically had no effect on
plant species richness and diversity.
• Assessment: unknown effectiveness – limited evidence (effectiveness 40%;
certainty 35%; harms 20%). Based on evidence from: fens (two studies);
bogs (one study).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1763

6.7.3 Modified wild fire regime

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for modified wild fire regime?
No evidence found • Thin vegetation to prevent wild fires
(no assessment) • Rewet peat to prevent wild fires
• Build fire breaks
• Adopt zero burning policies near peatlands

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 391

Peatland Conservation

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Thin vegetation to prevent wild fires
• Rewet peat to prevent wild fires
• Build fire breaks
• Adopt zero burning policies near peatlands.

392
 6.8 Threat: Invasive and other
problematic species

This section includes evidence for the effects of interventions on peatland vegetation
overall. Studies that only report effects on the target problematic species are, or will
be, summarized in separate chapters (like Chapter 10).

6.8.1 All problematic species

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for all problematic species?
No evidence found • Implement biosecurity measures to prevent
(no assessment) introductions of problematic species

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following intervention:

• Implement biosecurity measures to prevent introductions of
problematic species.

6.8.2 Problematic plants

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for problematic plants?
Trade-off between • Use prescribed fire to control problematic plants
benefit and harms

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 393

Peatland Conservation

Unknown • Physically remove problematic plants

effectiveness • Use cutting/mowing to control problematic
(limited evidence) herbaceous plants
• Change season/timing of cutting/mowing
• Use cutting to control problematic large trees/
shrubs
• Use herbicide to control problematic plants
• Introduce an organism to control problematic
plants
No evidence found • Physically damage problematic plants
(no assessment) • Use grazing to control problematic plants
• Use covers/barriers to control problematic plants

Trade-off between benefit and harms

Use prescribed fire to control problematic plants

• Plant community composition: One replicated, paired, site comparison
study in Germany found that the overall plant community
composition differed between grazed and mown fen meadows.
• Moss cover: One replicated, paired, controlled study in bogs in
Germany found that burning increased moss/lichen/bare ground
cover in the short term (2–7 months after burning). Three replicated,
paired studies in one bog in the UK found that moss cover (including
Sphagnum) was higher in plots burned more often.
• Herb cover: Four replicated, paired studies (two also controlled) in
bogs in Germany and the UK examined the effect of prescribed fire
on cottongrass Eriophorum spp. cover. One found that burning had
no effect on cottongrass cover after 2–7 months. One found that
burning increased cottongrass cover after 8–18 years. Two reported
that cottongrass cover was similar in plots burned every 10 or 20
years. The study in Germany also found that burning reduced cover
of purple moor grass Molinia caerulea after 2–7 months but had mixed
effects, amongst sites, on cover of other grass-like plants and forbs.
• Tree/shrub cover: Four replicated, paired studies (two also controlled)
in bogs in Germany and the UK found that burning, or burning

394
 6.8 Threat: Invasive and other problematic species

more often, reduced heather Calluna vulgaris cover. Two replicated,

controlled studies in the bogs in Germany and fens in the USA found
that burning, sometimes along with other interventions, had no
effect on cover of other woody plants.
• Vegetation structure: One replicated, paired, controlled study in a
bog in the UK found that plots burned more frequently contained
more biomass of grass-like plants than plots burned less often, but
contained less total vegetation, shrub and bryophyte biomass.
• Overall plant richness/diversity: Two replicated, controlled studies in
fens in the USA and a bog in the UK found that burning reduced or
limited plant species richness. In the USA, burning was carried out
along with other interventions.
• Assessment: trade-off between benefit and harms (effectiveness 45%;
certainty 40%; harms 20%). Based on evidence from: bogs (five studies);
fens (one study).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1774

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Physically remove problematic plants

• Characteristic plants: One replicated, randomized, controlled study
in a fen in Ireland reported that cover of fen-characteristic plants
increased after mossy vegetation was removed.
• Herb cover: Three replicated, controlled studies in fens in the
Netherlands and Ireland reported mixed effects of moss removal on
herb cover after 2–5 years. Results varied between species or between
sites, and sometimes depended on other treatments applied to plots.
• Moss cover: One replicated, randomized, controlled study in a fen
in Ireland reported that removing the moss carpet reduced total
bryophyte and Sphagnum moss cover for three years. Two replicated,
controlled, before-and-after studies in fens in the Netherlands
reported that removing the moss carpet had no effect on moss cover
2–5 years later in wet plots, but reduced total moss and Sphagnum
cover in drained plots.
• Overall plant richness/diversity: One replicated, controlled, before-
and-after study in a fen in the Netherlands reported that removing

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 395

Peatland Conservation

moss from a drained area increased plant species richness, but that
there was no effect in a wetter area.
• Assessment: unknown effectiveness – limited evidence (effectiveness 48%;
certainty 35%; harms 12%). Based on evidence from: fens (three studies).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1768

 se cutting/mowing to control problematic herbaceous

U
plants
• Plant community composition: Two replicated, randomized, paired,
controlled, before-and-after studies in rich fens in Sweden found that
mowing typically did not affect plant community composition. One
controlled study in a fen meadow in the UK reported that mown
plots developed different communities to unmown plots.
• Characteristic plants: One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled,
before-and-after study in a fen in Sweden found that mown plots
contained more fen-characteristic plant species than unmown plots,
although their overall cover did not differ significantly between
treatments.
• Vegetation cover: Of two replicated, randomized, paired, controlled,
before-and-after studies in rich fens in Sweden, one found that
mowing had no effect on vascular plant or bryophyte cover over
five years. The other study reported that mowing typically increased
cover of Sphagnum moss and reduced cover of purple moor grass
Molinia caerulea, but had mixed effects on cover of other plant species.
• Growth: One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in a bog
in Estonia found that clipping competing vegetation did not affect
Sphagnum moss growth.
• Assessment: unknown effectiveness – limited evidence (effectiveness 40%;
certainty 35%; harms 10%). Based on evidence from: fens (two studies); fen
meadows (one study); bogs (one study).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1770

Change season/timing of cutting/mowing

• Plant community composition: One replicated, randomized, paired,
before-and after study in a fen meadow in the UK reported that

396
 6.8 Threat: Invasive and other problematic species

changes in plant community composition over time were similar in

spring-, summer- and autumn-mown plots. One study in a peatland
in the Netherlands reported that summer- and winter-mown areas
developed different plant community types.
• Overall plant richness/diversity: One replicated, randomized, paired,
before-and after study in a fen meadow in the UK found that plant
species richness increased more, over two years, in summer-mown
plots than spring- or autumn-mown plots.
• Assessment: unknown effectiveness – limited evidence (effectiveness 50%;
certainty 25%; harms 10%). Based on evidence from: fen meadows (one
study); mixed peatlands (one study).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1771

Use cutting to control problematic large trees/shrubs

• Plant community composition: Two studies (one replicated, controlled,
before-and-after) in fens in the USA and Sweden reported that the
plant community composition changed after removing trees/shrubs
to less like unmanaged fens or more like undegraded, open fen.
• Characteristic plants: One study in a fen in Sweden found that species
richness and cover of fen-characteristic plants increased after trees/
shrubs were removed.
• Vegetation cover: One study in a fen in Sweden found that bryophyte
and vascular plant cover increased after trees/shrubs were removed.
One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in fens in the USA
found that removing shrubs, along with other interventions, could
not prevent increases in total woody plant cover over time.
• Overall plant richness/diversity: One study in a fen in Sweden found
that moss and vascular plant species richness increased after trees/
shrubs were removed. However, one replicated, controlled, before-
and-after study in fens in the USA found that removing shrubs,
along with other interventions, prevented increases in total plant
species richness.
• Assessment: unknown effectiveness – limited evidence (effectiveness 60%;
certainty 30%; harms 15%). Based on evidence from: fens (two studies).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1772

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 397

Peatland Conservation

Use herbicide to control problematic plants

• Plant community composition: One replicated, controlled, before-
and-after study in fens in the USA found that applying herbicide
to shrubs, along with other interventions, changed the overall plant
community composition.
• Tree/shrub cover: The same study found that applying herbicide to
shrubs, along with other interventions, could not prevent increases
in total woody plant cover over time.
• Overall plant richness/diversity: The same study found that applying
herbicide to shrubs, along with other interventions, prevented
increases in plant species richness.
• Assessment: unknown effectiveness – limited evidence (effectiveness 20%;
certainty 20%; harms 30%). Based on evidence from: fens (one study).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1776

Introduce an organism to control problematic plants

• Plant community composition: One controlled, before-and-after study
in a fen meadow in Belgium found that introducing a parasitic plant
altered the plant community composition.
• Vegetation cover: The same study found that introducing a parasitic
plant reduced cover of the dominant sedge Carex acuta but increased
moss cover.
• Overall plant richness/diversity: The same study found that introducing
a parasitic plant increased overall plant species richness.
• Assessment: unknown effectiveness – limited evidence (effectiveness 40%;
certainty 20%; harms 15%). Based on evidence from: fen meadows (one
study).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1777

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Physically damage problematic plants
• Use grazing to control problematic plants
• Use covers/barriers to control problematic plants.

398
 6.8 Threat: Invasive and other problematic species

6.8.3 Problematic animals

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for problematic animals?
Unknown • Exclude wild herbivores using physical barriers
effectiveness
(limited evidence)
No evidence found • Control populations of wild herbivores
(no assessment)

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Exclude wild herbivores using physical barriers

• Vegetation cover: One replicated, paired, controlled study in a fen
meadow in Poland reported that the effect of boar- and deer exclusion
on vascular plant and moss cover depended on other treatments
applied to plots.
• Vegetation structure: The same study reported that the effect of boar-
and deer exclusion on total vegetation biomass depended on other
treatments applied to plots.
• Overall plant richness/diversity: The same study reported that the effect
of boar- and deer exclusion on plant species richness depended on
other treatments applied to plots.
• Assessment: unknown effectiveness – limited evidence (effectiveness 30%;
certainty 25%; harms 10%). Based on evidence from: fen meadows (one
study).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1860

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following intervention:

• Control populations of wild herbivores.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 399

 6.9 Threat: Pollution

6.9.1 Multiple sources of pollution

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for multiple sources of pollution?
Likely to be • Divert/replace polluted water source(s)
beneficial
Unknown • Clean waste water before it enters the
effectiveness environment
(limited evidence) • Slow down input water to allow more time for
pollutants to be removed
No evidence found • Retain or create buffer zones between pollution
(no assessment) sources and peatlands
• Use artificial barriers to prevent pollution
entering peatlands
• Reduce fertilizer or herbicide use near peatlands
• Manage fertilizer or herbicide application near
peatlands

Likely to be beneficial

Divert/replace polluted water source(s)

• Characteristic plants: One study in a fen in the Netherlands found that
after a nutrient-enriched water source was replaced, along with other
interventions to reduce pollution, cover of mosses characteristic of
low nutrient levels increased.

400
 6.9 Threat: Pollution

• Vegetation cover: Two studies in bogs in the UK and Japan reported

that after polluting water sources were diverted, sometimes along
with other interventions, Sphagnum moss cover increased. Both
studies reported mixed effects on different species of herbs.
• Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 70%; certainty 50%; harms
10%). Based on evidence from: bogs (two studies); fens (one study).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1779

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Clean waste water before it enters the environment

• Characteristic plants: One study in the Netherlands found that
cleaning water entering a floating fen, along with other interventions
to reduce pollution, allowed cover of mosses characteristic of low
nutrient levels to increase.
• Vegetation structure: The same study found that after the input
water began to be cleaned, along with other interventions to reduce
pollution, vascular plant biomass decreased.
• Assessment: unknown effectiveness – limited evidence (effectiveness 60%;
certainty 25%; harms 0%). Based on evidence from: fens (one study).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1778

 low down input water to allow more time for pollutants

S
to be removed
• Characteristic plants: One before-and-after study in a floating fen
in the Netherlands found that after input water was rerouted on
a longer path, along with other interventions to reduce pollution,
cover of mosses characteristic of low nutrient levels increased.
• Vegetation structure: The same study found that after the input water
was rerouted on a longer path, along with other interventions to
reduce pollution, vascular plant biomass decreased.
• Assessment: unknown effectiveness – limited evidence (effectiveness 50%;
certainty 20%; harms 5%). Based on evidence from: fens (one study).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1780

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 401

Peatland Conservation

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Retain or create buffer zones between pollution sources and
peatlands
• Use artificial barriers to prevent pollution entering peatlands
• Reduce fertilizer or herbicide use near peatlands
• Manage fertilizer or herbicide application near peatlands.

6.9.2 Agricultural and aquacultural effluents

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for agricultural/aquacultural effluents?
No evidence found • Convert to organic agriculture or aquaculture
(no assessment) near peatlands
• Limit the density of livestock on farmland near
peatlands
• Use biodegradable oil in farming machinery

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Convert to organic agriculture or aquaculture near peatlands
• Limit the density of livestock on farmland near peatlands
• Use biodegradable oil in farming machinery.

6.9.3 Industrial and military effluents

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for industrial and military effluents?
No evidence found • Remove oil from contaminated peatlands
(no assessment)

402
 6.9 Threat: Pollution

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following intervention:

• Remove oil from contaminated peatlands.

6.9.4 Airborne pollutants

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for airborne pollutants?
Unknown • Remove pollutants from waste gases before they
effectiveness enter the environment
(limited evidence) • Add lime to reduce acidity and/or increase
fertility
• Drain/replace acidic water

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

 emove pollutants from waste gases before they enter

R
the environment
• Plant richness/diversity: One study in bogs in Estonia reported that
after dust filters were installed in industrial plants, along with a
general reduction in emissions, the number of Sphagnum moss
species increased but the total number of plant species decreased.
• Assessment: unknown effectiveness – limited evidence (effectiveness 50%;
certainty 20%; harms 0%). Based on evidence from: bogs (one study).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1789

A
 dd lime to reduce acidity and/or increase fertility
• Vegetation structure: One replicated, controlled study in a fen meadow
in the Netherlands found that liming increased overall vegetation
biomass (mostly velvety bentgrass Agrostis canina).
• Assessment: unknown effectiveness – limited evidence (effectiveness 50%;
certainty 15%; harms 20%). Based on evidence from: fen meadows (one study).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1790

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 403

Peatland Conservation

Drain/replace acidic water

• Vegetation cover: Two controlled studies in fens in the Netherlands
reported that draining acidic water had mixed effects on cover of
Sphagnum moss and herbs after 4–5 years, depending on the species
and whether moss was also removed.
• Overall plant richness/diversity: One controlled, before-and-after study
in a fen in the Netherlands reported that draining and replacing
acidic water increased plant species richness.
• Assessment: unknown effectiveness – limited evidence (effectiveness 40%;
certainty 35%; harms 10%). Based on evidence from: fens (two studies).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1791

404
 6.10 Threat: Climate change
and severe weather

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for climate change and severe weather?
No evidence • Add water to peatlands to compensate for drought
found (no • Plant shelter belts to protect peatlands from wind
assessment)
• Build barriers to protect peatlands from the sea
• Restore/create peatlands in areas that will be
climatically suitable in the future

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Add water to peatlands to compensate for drought
• Plant shelter belts to protect peatlands from wind
• Build barriers to protect peatlands from the sea
• Restore/create peatlands in areas that will be climatically suitable in
the future.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 405

 6.11 Habitat creation and
restoration

Remember, the effectiveness category for each intervention assumes that the aims of
the intervention match your management goals. You should consider whether each
intervention is necessary and appropriate in your focal peatland.

6.11.1 General habitat creation and restoration

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of general habitat creation and restoration interventions?
Likely to be • Restore/create peatland vegetation (multiple
beneficial interventions)
• Restore/create peatland vegetation using the
moss layer transfer technique

Likely to be beneficial

 estore/create peatland vegetation (multiple

R
interventions)
• Plant community composition: One replicated, controlled, before-and-
after study in the UK reported that the overall plant community
composition differed between restored and unrestored bogs. One
replicated, controlled, site comparison study in Estonia found that
restored and natural bogs contained more similar plant communities
than unrestored and natural bogs. However, one site comparison

406
 6.11 Habitat creation and restoration

study in Canada reported that after five years, bogs being restored
as fens contained a different plant community to natural fens.
• Characteristic plants: One controlled study, in a fen in France, reported
that restoration interventions increased cover of fen-characteristic
plants.
• Moss cover: Five studies (one replicated, paired, controlled, before-
and-after) in bogs or other peatlands in the UK, Estonia and
Canada found that restoration interventions increased total moss
or bryophyte cover. Two studies (one replicated and controlled) in
bogs in the Czech Republic and Estonia reported that restoration
interventions increased Sphagnum moss cover, but one replicated
before-and-after study in bogs in the UK reported no change in
Sphagnum cover following intervention. Two site comparison studies
in Canada reported that after 1–15 years, restored areas had lower
moss cover than natural fens.
• Herb cover: Five studies (one replicated, paired, controlled, before-
and-after) in peatlands in the Czech Republic, the UK, Estonia and
Canada reported that restoration interventions increased cover of
herbs, including cottongrasses Eriophorum spp. and other grass-like
plants.
• Overall vegetation cover: Three studies (one replicated, controlled,
before-and-after) in bogs in the UK and France reported that
restoration interventions increased overall vegetation cover.
• Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 75%; certainty 60%; harms
5%). Based on evidence from: bogs (six studies); fens (one study); mixed or
unspecified peatlands (two studies).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1803

 estore/create peatland vegetation using the moss layer

R
transfer technique
• Plant community composition: One replicated study in bogs in Canada
reported that the majority of restored areas developed a community
of bog-characteristic plant species within eleven years. One
controlled, before-and-after study in a bog in Canada reported that
a restored area (included in the previous study) developed a more

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 407

Peatland Conservation

peatland-characteristic plant community over time, and relative to

an unrestored area.
• Vegetation cover: Two controlled studies in one bog in Canada
reported that after 4–8 years, a restored area had greater cover than
an unrestored area of mosses and bryophytes (including Sphagnum
spp.) and herbs (including cottongrasses Eriophorum spp.), but less
cover of shrubs. One of the studies reported that vegetation in the
restored area became more similar to local natural bogs.
• Overall plant richness/diversity: One controlled, before-and-after study
in a bog in Canada reported that after eight years, a restored area
contained more plant species than an unrestored area.
• Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 70%; certainty 60%; harms
1%). Based on evidence from: bogs (four studies).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1804

6.11.2 Modify physical habitat only

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions that modify the physical habitat only?
Likely to be • Fill/block ditches to create conditions suitable for
beneficial peatland plants
• Remove upper layer of peat/soil
Unknown • Excavate pools
effectiveness • Reprofile/relandscape peatland
(limited evidence)
• Disturb peatland surface to encourage growth of
desirable plants
• Add inorganic fertilizer
• Cover peatland with organic mulch
• Cover peatland with something other than
mulch
• Stabilize peatland surface to help plants colonize
• Build artificial bird perches to encourage seed
dispersal
No evidence found • Roughen peat surface to create microclimates
(no assessment) • Bury upper layer of peat/soil
• Introduce nurse plants
408
 6.11 Habitat creation and restoration

Likely to be beneficial

 ill/block ditches to create conditions suitable for

F
peatland plants
• Vegetation cover: Two studies, in a bog in the UK and a fen in the
USA, reported that blocked or filled ditches were colonized by
peatland vegetation within 2–3 years. In the USA, vegetation cover
was restored to natural, undisturbed levels. One replicated study
in bogs in the UK reported that plants had not colonized blocked
gullies after six months.
• Overall plant richness/diversity: One site comparison study in a fen in
the USA found that after two years, a filled ditch contained more
plant species than adjacent undisturbed fen.
• Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 60%; certainty 50%; harms
0%). Based on evidence from: bogs (two studies); fens (one study).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1805

Remove upper layer of peat/soil

• Plant community composition: Five studies (one replicated, randomized,
paired, controlled) in a peatland in the USA and fens or fen meadows
in the Netherlands and Poland reported that plots stripped of topsoil
developed different plant communities to unstripped peatlands. In
one study, the effect of stripping was not separated from the effect
of rewetting. Two studies in fen meadows in Germany and Poland
reported that the depth of soil stripping affected plant community
development.
• Characteristic plants: Four studies (one replicated, randomized,
paired, controlled) in fen meadows in Germany and the Netherlands,
and a peatland in the USA, reported that stripping soil increased
cover of wetland- or peatland-characteristic plants after 4–13 years.
In the Netherlands, the effect of stripping was not separated from
the effect of rewetting. One replicated site comparison study in fens
in Belgium and the Netherlands found that stripping soil increased
fen-characteristic plant richness.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 409

Peatland Conservation

• Herb cover: Three studies (one replicated, paired, controlled) in

fens or fen meadows in Germany, the UK and Poland found that
stripping soil increased rush, reed or sedge cover after 2–6 years.
One controlled study in a fen meadow in the Netherlands reported
that stripping soil had no effect on cover of true sedges Carex spp.
or velvety bentgrass Agrostis canina after five years. Two controlled
studies, in fens or fen meadows in the Netherlands and the UK,
found that stripping soil reduced cover of purple moor grass Molinia
caerulea for 2–5 years.
• Vegetation structure: Two studies, in fens or fen meadows in the
Netherlands and Belgium, found that stripping soil reduced
vegetation biomass (total or herbs) for up to 18 years. One replicated,
randomized, paired, controlled study in a peatland in the USA found
that stripping soil did not affect vegetation biomass after four years.
• Overall plant richness/diversity: Three studies (one replicated, paired,
controlled) in fens or fen meadows in the UK, Belgium and the
Netherlands reported that stripping soil increased total plant species
richness over 2–18 years. In one study, the effect of stripping was
not separated from the effect of rewetting. One replicated, controlled
study in a fen in Poland found that stripping soil had no effect on
plant species richness after three years. One replicated, randomized,
paired, controlled study in a peatland in the USA found that stripping
soil increased plant species richness and diversity, after four years,
in one field but decreased it in another. One replicated study in a
fen meadow in Poland reported that plant species richness increased
after soil was stripped.
• Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 55%; certainty 50%;
harms 10%). Based on evidence from: fen meadows (six studies); fens (three
studies); unspecified peatlands (one study).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1809

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Excavate pools
• Plant community composition: One replicated, before-and-after, site
comparison study in bogs in Canada reported that excavated pools
were colonized by some peatland vegetation over 4–6 years, but

410
 6.11 Habitat creation and restoration

contained different plant communities to natural pools. In particular,

cattail Typha latifolia was more common in created pools.
• Vegetation cover: One replicated, before-and-after, site comparison
study in bogs in Canada reported that after four years, created pools
had less cover than natural pools of Sphagnum moss, herbs and
shrubs.
• Overall plant richness/diversity: One replicated, before-and-after, site
comparison study in bogs in Canada reported that after six years,
created pools contained a similar number of plant species to natural
pools.
• Assessment: unknown effectiveness – limited evidence (effectiveness 45%;
certainty 38%; harms 5%). Based on evidence from: bogs (two studies).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1806

Reprofile/relandscape peatland
• Plant community composition: One site comparison study in Canada
reported that after five years, reprofiled and rewetted bogs (being
restored as fens) contained a different plant community to nearby
natural fens.
• Vegetation cover: The same study reported that after five years,
reprofiled and rewetted bogs (being restored as fens) had lower
vegetation cover than nearby natural fens (specifically Sphagnum
moss, other moss and vascular plants).
• Assessment: unknown effectiveness – limited evidence (effectiveness 40%;
certainty 20%; harms 10%). Based on evidence from: bogs (one study).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1807

 isturb peatland surface to encourage growth of

D
desirable plants
• Plant community composition: Two replicated, paired, controlled,
before-and-after studies (one also randomized) in fens in Germany
and Sweden reported that soil disturbance affected development of
the plant community over 2–3 years. In Germany, disturbed plots
developed greater cover of weedy species from the seed bank than
undisturbed plots. In Sweden, the community in disturbed and
undisturbed plots became less similar over time.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 411

Peatland Conservation

• Characteristic plants: The same two studies reported that wetland- or

fen-characteristic plants colonized plots that had been disturbed
(along with other interventions). The study in Germany noted that
no peat-forming species colonized the fen.
• Assessment: unknown effectiveness – limited evidence (effectiveness 45%;
certainty 30%; harms 20%). Based on evidence from: fens (two studies).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1811

A
 dd inorganic fertilizer
• Vegetation cover: One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled,
before-and-after study in a bog in New Zealand reported that
fertilizing typically increased total vegetation cover.
• Vegetation structure: One replicated, paired, controlled study in a fen
meadow in the Netherlands found that fertilizing with phosphorous
typically increased total above-ground vegetation biomass, but other
chemicals typically had no effect.
• Overall plant richness/diversity: One replicated, randomized, paired,
controlled, before-and-after study in a bog in New Zealand reported
that fertilizing typically increased plant species richness.
• Growth: One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in a bog in
Germany found that fertilizing with phosphorous typically increased
herb and shrub growth rate, but other chemicals had no effect.
• Other: Three replicated, controlled studies in a fen meadow in
Germany and bogs in Germany and New Zealand reported that
effects of fertilizer on peatland vegetation were more common when
phosphorous was added, than when nitrogen or potassium were
added.
• Assessment: unknown effectiveness – limited evidence (effectiveness 50%;
certainty 30%; harms 15%). Based on evidence from: bogs (two studies);
fen meadows (one study).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1812

Cover peatland with organic mulch

• Vegetation cover: One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled,
before-and-after study in a bog (being restored as a fen) in Canada
found that mulching bare peat did not affect cover of fen-characteristic

412
 6.11 Habitat creation and restoration

plants. One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in a bog

in Australia reported that plots mulched with straw had similar
Sphagnum moss cover to unmulched plots.
• Characteristic plants: One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled,
before-and-after study in a bog (being restored as a fen) in Canada
found that covering bare peat with straw mulch increased the
number of fen characteristic plants, but not their overall cover.
• Assessment: unknown effectiveness – limited evidence (effectiveness 40%;
certainty 30%; harms 5%). Based on evidence from: bogs (two studies).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1813

Cover peatland with something other than mulch

• Vegetation cover: One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in
a bog in Germany reported that covering bare peat with fleece or
fibre mats did not affect the number of seedlings of five herb/shrub
species. One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in bogs
in Australia reported that recently-burned plots shaded with plastic
mesh developed greater cover of native plants, forbs and Sphagnum
moss than unshaded plots.
• Assessment: unknown effectiveness – limited evidence (effectiveness 40%;
certainty 30%; harms 5%). Based on evidence from: bogs (two studies).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1814

Stabilize peatland surface to help plants colonize

• Vegetation cover: One controlled, before-and-after study in a bog in
the UK found that pegging coconut fibre rolls onto almost-bare peat
did not affect the development of vegetation cover (total, mosses,
shrubs or common cottongrass Eriophorum angustifolium).
• Assessment: unknown effectiveness – limited evidence (effectiveness 20%;
certainty 20%; harms 5%). Based on evidence from: bogs (one study).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1815

Build artificial bird perches to encourage seed dispersal

• Vegetation cover: One replicated, paired, controlled study in a peat
swamp forest in Indonesia found that artificial bird perches had no
significant effect on tree seedling abundance.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 413

Peatland Conservation

• Assessment: unknown effectiveness – limited evidence (effectiveness 20%;

certainty 20%; harms 1%). Based on evidence from: tropical peat swamps
(one study).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1817

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Roughen peat surface to create microclimates
• Bury upper layer of peat/soil
• Introduce nurse plants.

6.11.3 Introduce peatland vegetation

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions that introduce peatland vegetation?
Beneficial • Add mosses to peatland surface
• Add mixed vegetation to peatland surface
Likely to be • Directly plant peatland mosses
beneficial • Directly plant peatland herbs
• Directly plant peatland trees/shrubs
• Introduce seeds of peatland herbs
• Introduce seeds of peatland trees/shrubs

Beneficial

A
 dd mosses to peatland surface
• Sphagnum moss cover: Eleven studies in bogs in the UK, Canada,
Finland and Germany and fens in the USA reported that Sphagnum
moss was present, after 1–4 growing seasons, in at least some plots
sown with Sphagnum. Cover ranged from negligible to >90%. Six
of these studies were controlled and found that there was more
Sphagnum in sown than unsown plots. One additional study in

414
 6.11 Habitat creation and restoration

Canada found that adding Sphagnum to bog pools did not affect
Sphagnum cover.
• Other moss cover: Four studies (including one replicated, randomized,
paired, controlled, before-and-after) in bogs in Canada and fens in
Sweden and the USA reported that mosses other than Sphagnum
were present, after 2–3 growing seasons, in at least some plots sown
with moss fragments. Cover ranged from negligible to 76%. In the
fens in Sweden and the USA, moss cover was low (<1%) unless the
plots were mulched, shaded or limed.
• Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness 78%; certainty 70%; harms 1%).
Based on evidence from: bogs (eleven studies); fens (two studies).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1821

A
 dd mixed vegetation to peatland surface
• Characteristic plants: One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled,
before-and-after study in a degraded bog (being restored as a fen) in
Canada found that adding fen vegetation increased the number and
cover of fen-characteristic plant species.
• Sphagnum moss cover: Seventeen replicated studies (five also
randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after) in bogs in Canada,
the USA and Estonia reported that Sphagnum moss was present, after
1–6 growing seasons, in at least some plots sown with vegetation
containing Sphagnum. Cover ranged from <1 to 73%. Six of the studies
were controlled and found that Sphagnum cover was higher in sown
than unsown plots. Five of the studies reported that Sphagnum cover
was very low (<1%) unless plots were mulched after spreading
fragments.
• Other moss cover: Eight replicated studies (seven before-and-after, one
controlled) in bogs in Canada, the USA and Estonia reported that
mosses or bryophytes other than Sphagnum were present, after 1–6
growing seasons, in at least some plots sown with mixed peatland
vegetation. Cover ranged from <1 to 65%.
• Vascular plant cover: Ten replicated studies in Canada, the USA and
Estonia reported that vascular plants appeared following addition
of mixed vegetation fragments to bogs. Two of the studies were
controlled: one found that vascular plant cover was significantly

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 415

Peatland Conservation

higher in sown than unsown plots, but one found that sowing
peatland vegetation did not affect herb cover.
• Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness 78%; certainty 68%; harms 1%).
Based on evidence from: bogs (eighteen studies).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1822

Likely to be beneficial

Directly plant peatland mosses

• Survival: One study in Lithuania reported that 47 of 50 Sphagnum-
dominated sods planted into a rewetted bog survived for one year.
• Growth: Two before-and-after studies, in a fen in the Netherlands
and bog pools in the UK, reported that mosses grew after planting.
• Moss cover: Five before-and-after studies in a fen in the Netherlands
and bogs in Germany, Ireland, Estonia and Australia reported that
after planting mosses, the area covered by moss increased in at
least some cases. The study in the Netherlands reported spread of
planted moss beyond the introduction site. The study in Australia
was controlled and reported that planted plots developed greater
Sphagnum moss cover than unplanted plots.
• Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 75%; certainty 60%; harms
0%). Based on evidence from: bogs (six studies); fens (one study).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1818

Directly plant peatland herbs

• Survival: Three replicated studies, in a fen meadow in the Netherlands
and fens in the USA, reported that planted herbs survived over 2–3
years. However, for six of nine species only a minority of individuals
survived.
• Growth: Two replicated before-and-after studies, in a bog in Germany
and fens in the USA, reported that planted herbs grew.
• Vegetation cover: One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in
Canada found that planting herbs had no effect on moss, herb or
shrub cover in created bog pools relative to natural colonization.

416
 6.11 Habitat creation and restoration

• Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 50%; certainty 40%; harms

0%). Based on evidence from: bogs (two studies); fens (two studies); fen
meadows (one study).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1819

Directly plant peatland trees/shrubs

• Survival: 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. One study in a peat swamp forest in Indonesia
reported <5% survival of planted trees after five months, following
unusually deep flooding. One replicated study in a fen in the USA
reported that most planted willow Salix spp. cuttings died within
two years.
• Growth: 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.
• Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 70%; certainty 50%; harms
0%). Based on evidence from: tropical peat swamps (seven studies); bogs
(three studies); fens (one study).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1820

Introduce seeds of peatland herbs

• Germination: Two replicated studies (one also controlled, before-and-
after) reported that some planted herb seeds germinated. In a bog in
Germany three of four species germinated, but in a fen in the USA
only one of seven species germinated.
• Characteristic plants: Three studies (two controlled) in fen meadows
in Germany and a peatland in China reported that wetland-
characteristic or peatland-characteristic plants colonized plots where
herb seeds were sown (sometimes along with other interventions).
• Herb cover: Three before-and-after studies (one also replicated,
randomized, paired, controlled) in a bog in New Zealand, fen
meadows in Switzerland and a peatland in China reported that plots
sown with herb seeds developed cover of the sown herbs (and, in

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 417

Peatland Conservation

New Zealand, greater cover than unsown plots). In China, the effect
of sowing was not separated from the effects of other interventions.
One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in a fen in the
USA found that plots sown with herb (and shrub) seeds developed
similar herb cover to plots that were not sown.
• Overall vegetation cover: Of three replicated, controlled studies, one in
a fen in the USA found that sowing herb (and shrub) seeds increased
total vegetation cover. One study in a bog in New Zealand found
that sowing herb seeds had no effect on total vegetation cover. One
study in a fen meadow in Poland found that the effect of adding
seed-rich hay depended on other treatments applied to plots.
• Overall plant richness/diversity: Two replicated, controlled studies in
fens in the USA and Poland found that sowing herb seeds had no
effect on plant species richness (total or vascular). Two replicated,
controlled, before-and-after studies in a bog in New Zealand and
a fen meadow in Poland each reported inconsistent effects of herb
sowing on total plant species richness.
• Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 50%; certainty 50%;
harms 0%). Based on evidence from: fen meadows (four studies); fens (three
studies); bogs (two studies); unspecified peatlands (one study).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1823

Introduce seeds of peatland trees/shrubs

• Germination: Two replicated studies in a bog in Germany and a fen in
the USA reported germination of heather Calluna vulgaris and hoary
willow Salix candida seeds, respectively, in at least some sown plots.
• Survival: The study in the bog Germany reported survival of some
heather seedlings over two years. The study in the fen in the USA
reported that all germinated willow seedlings died within one
month.
• Shrub cover: Two studies (one replicated, randomized, paired,
controlled) in bogs in New Zealand and Estonia reported that plots
sown with shrub seeds, sometimes along with other interventions,
developed greater cover of some shrubs than plots that were not
sown: sown manuka Leptospermum scoparium or naturally colonizing
heather Calluna vulgaris (but not sown cranberry Oxycoccus palustris).

418
 6.11 Habitat creation and restoration

One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in a fen in the

USA found that plots sown with shrub (and herb) seeds developed
similar overall shrub cover to unsown plots within two years.
• Overall vegetation cover: Two replicated, randomized, paired,
controlled studies in a bog in New Zealand and a fen in the USA
reported that plots sown with shrub (and herb) seeds developed
greater total vegetation cover than unsown plots after two years. One
site comparison study in bogs in Estonia reported that sowing shrub
seeds, along with fertilization, had no effect on total vegetation cover
after 25 years.
• Overall plant richness/diversity: One site comparison study in bogs in
Estonia reported that sowing shrub seeds, along with fertilization,
increased plant species richness. However, one replicated,
randomized, paired, controlled study in a bog in New Zealand
reported that plots sown with shrub seeds typically contained
fewer plant species than plots that were not sown. One replicated,
randomized, paired, controlled study in a fen in the USA found
that sowing shrub (and herb) seeds had no effect on plant species
richness.
• Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 45%; certainty 40%; harms
5%). Based on evidence from: bogs (three studies); fens (two studies).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1824

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 419

6.12 Actions to complement planting

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of actions to complement planting peatland vegetation?
Likely to be • Cover peatland with organic mulch (after
beneficial planting)
• Cover peatland with something other than
mulch (after planting)
• Reprofile/relandscape peatland (before planting)
Trade-off between • Add inorganic fertilizer (before/after planting)
benefit and harms
Unknown • Introduce nurse plants (to aid focal peatland
effectiveness plants)
(limited evidence) • Irrigate peatland (before/after planting)
• Create mounds or hollows (before planting)
• Add fresh peat to peatland (before planting)
• Remove vegetation that could compete with
planted peatland vegetation
• Add root-associated fungi to plants (before
planting)
Likely to be • Add lime (before/after planting)
ineffective or
harmful
No evidence found • Add organic fertilizer (before/after planting)
(no assessment) • Rewet peatland (before/after planting)
• Remove upper layer of peat/soil (before planting)
• Bury upper layer of peat/soil (before planting)
• Encapsulate planted moss fragments in beads/gel
• Use fences or barriers to protect planted
vegetation
• Protect or prepare vegetation before planting
(other interventions)

420
 6.12 Actions to complement planting

Likely to be beneficial

Cover peatland with organic mulch (after planting)

• Germination: One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in a
bog in Germany found that mulching after sowing seeds increased
germination of two species (a grass and a shrub), but had no effect
on three other herb species.
• Survival: Two replicated, paired, controlled studies in a fen in Sweden
and a bog in the USA reported that mulching increased survival
of planted vegetation (mosses or sedges). One replicated, paired,
controlled study in Indonesia reported that mulching with oil palm
fruits reduced survival of planted peat swamp tree seedlings.
• Growth: One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-
after study in a fen in the USA reported that mulching increased
growth of transplanted water sedge Carex aquatilis.
• Cover: Six studies (including four replicated, randomized, paired,
controlled, before-and-after) in bogs in Canada and the USA, and
a fen in Sweden, found that mulching after planting increased
vegetation cover (specifically total vegetation, total mosses/
bryophytes, Sphagnum mosses or vascular plants after 1–3 growing
seasons). Three replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-
and-after studies in bogs in Canada found that mulching after
planting had no effect on vegetation cover (Sphagnum mosses or fen-
characteristic plants).
• Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 60%; certainty 60%; harms
10%). Based on evidence from: bogs (nine studies); fens (two studies);
tropical peat swamps (one study).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1828

 over peatland with something other than mulch (after

C
planting)
• Germination: One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in
a bog in Germany reported mixed effects of fleece and fibre mats
on germination of sown herb and shrub seeds (positive or no effect,
depending on species).

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 421

Peatland Conservation

• Survival: Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies examined

the effect, on plant survival, of covering planted areas. One study in
a fen in Sweden reported that shading increased survival of planted
mosses. One study in a nursery in Indonesia reported that shading
did not affect survival of most studied peat swamp tree species, but
increased survival of some.
• Growth: Three replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after
studies examined the effect, on plant growth, of covering planted
areas. One study in a greenhouse in Switzerland found that covers,
either transparent plastic or shading mesh, increased growth of
planted Sphagnum moss. One study in a fen in Sweden found that
shading with plastic mesh reduced growth of planted fen mosses.
One study in a nursery in Indonesia reported that seedlings shaded
with plastic mesh grew taller and thinner than unshaded seedlings.
• Cover: Two replicated and paired studies, in a fen in Sweden and
a bog in Australia, reported that shading plots with plastic mesh
increased planted moss cover. One study in a bog in Canada found
that covering sown plots with plastic mesh, but not transparent
sheets, increased Sphagnum moss abundance. Another study in a bog
in Canada reported that shading sown plots with plastic mesh did
not affect cover of vegetation overall, vascular plants or mosses.
• Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 50%; certainty 50%;
harms 10%). Based on evidence from: bogs (five studies); fens (two studies);
tropical peat swamps (one study).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1829

Reprofile/relandscape peatland (before planting)

• Survival: One replicated, paired, controlled study in a bog in Canada
found that over one growing season, survival of sown Sphagnum
mosses was higher in reprofiled basins than on raised plots.
• Cover: Two replicated, controlled, before-and-after studies in bogs
in Canada found that reprofiled basins had higher Sphagnum cover
than raised plots, 3–4 growing seasons after sowing Sphagnum-
dominated vegetation fragments. One controlled study in a bog
in Estonia reported that reprofiled and raised plots had similar
Sphagnum cover, 1–2 years after sowing. All three studies found that

422
 6.12 Actions to complement planting

reprofiled and raised plots developed similar cover of other mosses/

bryophytes and vascular plants.
• Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 60%; certainty 40%; harms
5%). Based on evidence from: bogs (four studies).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1833

Trade-off between benefit and harms

A
 dd inorganic fertilizer (before/after planting)
• Survival: Two replicated, randomized, paired, controlled studies in
bogs in Canada examined the effect, on plant survival, of adding
inorganic fertilizer to areas planted with peatland plants. One study
reported that fertilizer increased survival of two planted tree species.
The other study found that fertilizer had no effect on three planted
tree species and reduced survival of one.
• Growth: Five studies (three replicated, randomized, paired,
controlled) in bogs in the UK, Germany and Canada found that
fertilizer typically increased growth of planted mosses, herbs or
trees. However, for some species or in some conditions, fertilizer
had no effect on growth. One replicated, randomized, controlled,
before-and-after study in a nursery in Indonesia found that fertilizer
typically had no effect on growth of peat swamp tree seedlings.
• Cover: Three replicated, randomized, paired, controlled studies in
bogs examined the effect, on vegetation cover, of adding inorganic
fertilizer to areas planted with peatland plants. One study in Canada
found that fertilizer increased total vegetation, vascular plant and
bryophyte cover. Another study in Canada found that fertilizer
increased cover of true sedges Carex spp. but had no effect on other
vegetation. One study in New Zealand reported that fertilizer
typically increased cover of a sown shrub and rush, but this depended
on the chemical used and preparation of the peat.
• Assessment: trade-off between benefit and harms (effectiveness 45%;
certainty 40%; harms 20%). Based on evidence from: bogs (eight studies);
tropical peat swamps (one study).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1826

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 423

Peatland Conservation

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Introduce nurse plants (to aid focal peatland plants)

• Survival: One replicated, paired, controlled study in Malaysia
reported that planting nurse trees did not affect survival of planted
peat swamp tree seedlings (averaged across six species).
• Cover: Two replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-
after studies in bogs in the USA and Canada found that planting
nurse herbs had no effect on cover, after 2–3 years, of other planted
vegetation (mosses/bryophytes, vascular plants or total cover).
• Assessment: unknown effectiveness – limited evidence (effectiveness 30%;
certainty 38%; harms 1%). Based on evidence from: bogs (two studies);
tropical peat swamps (one study).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1830

Irrigate peatland (before/after planting)

• Cover: One replicated, paired, controlled, before-and-after study
in a bog in Canada found that irrigation increased the number of
Sphagnum moss shoots present 1–2 growing seasons after sowing
Sphagnum fragments.
• Assessment: unknown effectiveness – limited evidence (effectiveness 60%;
certainty 20%; harms 5%). Based on evidence from: bogs (one study).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1832

Create mounds or hollows (before planting)

• Growth: One controlled study, in a peat swamp in Thailand, reported
that trees planted into mounds of peat grew thicker stems than trees
planted at ground level.
• Cover: Two replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-
after studies in bogs in Canada found that roughening the peat
surface (e.g. by harrowing or adding peat blocks) did not significantly
affect cover of planted Sphagnum moss, after 1–3 growing seasons.
• Assessment: unknown effectiveness – limited evidence (effectiveness 30%;
certainty 38%; harms 5%). Based on evidence from: bogs (two studies);
tropical peat swamps (one study).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1834

424
 6.12 Actions to complement planting

A
 dd fresh peat to peatland (before planting)
• Cover: One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in New
Zealand reported that plots amended with fine peat supported
higher cover of two sown plant species than the original (tilled) bog
surface.
• Assessment: unknown effectiveness – limited evidence (effectiveness 45%;
certainty 25%; harms 5%). Based on evidence from: bogs (one study).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1837

 emove vegetation that could compete with planted

R
peatland vegetation
• Survival: One controlled study in a bog the UK reported that some
Sphagnum moss survived when sown, in gel beads, into a plot where
purple moor grass Molinia caerulea had previously been cut. No moss
survived in a plot where grass had not been cut.
• Assessment: unknown effectiveness – limited evidence (effectiveness 60%;
certainty 20%; harms 2%). Based on evidence from: bogs (one study).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1840

A
 dd root-associated fungi to plants (before planting)
• Survival: Two controlled studies (one also replicated, paired, before-
and-after) in peat swamps in Indonesia found that adding root fungi
did not affect survival of planted red balau Shorea balangeran or
jelutong Dyera polyphylla in all or most cases. However, one fungal
treatment increased red balau survival.
• Growth: Two replicated, controlled, before-and-after studies of peat
swamp trees in Indonesia found that adding root fungi to seedlings,
before planting, typically had no effect on their growth. However,
one controlled study in Indonesia found that adding root fungi
increased growth of red balau seedlings.
• Assessment: unknown effectiveness – limited evidence (effectiveness 30%;
certainty 35%; harms 0%). Based on evidence from: tropical peat swamps
(three studies).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1841

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 425

Peatland Conservation

Likely to be ineffective or harmful

A
 dd lime (before/after planting)
• Survival: One replicated, controlled study in the Netherlands
reported that liming reduced survival of planted fen herbs after two
growing seasons. One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled
study in Sweden found that liming increased survival of planted fen
mosses over one season.
• Growth: Two controlled, before-and-after studies found that liming
did not increase growth of planted peatland vegetation: for two
Sphagnum moss species in bog pools in the UK, and for most species
of peat swamp tree in a nursery in Indonesia. One replicated,
controlled, before-and-after study in Sweden found that liming
increased growth of planted fen mosses.
• Cover: Of two replicated, randomized, paired, controlled studies, one
in a fen in Sweden found that liming increased cover of sown mosses.
The other, in a bog in Canada, found that liming plots sown with
mixed fen vegetation did not affect vegetation cover (total, vascular
plants or bryophytes).
• Assessment: likely to be ineffective or harmful (effectiveness 35%; certainty
40%; harms 20%). Based on evidence from: bogs (two studies); fens (two
studies); fen meadows (one study); tropical peat swamps (one study).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1825

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Add organic fertilizer (before/after planting)
• Rewet peatland (before/after planting)
• Remove upper layer of peat/soil (before planting)
• Bury upper layer of peat/soil (before planting)
• Encapsulate planted moss fragments in beads/gel
• Use fences or barriers to protect planted vegetation
• Protect or prepare vegetation before planting (other interventions).

426
 6.13 Habitat protection

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of actions to protect peatland habitats?
Likely to be • Legally protect peatlands
beneficial
Unknown • Pay landowners to protect peatlands
effectiveness • Increase ‘on-the-ground’ protection (e.g. rangers)
(limited evidence)
No evidence found • Create legislation for ‘no net loss’ of wetlands
(no assessment) • Adopt voluntary agreements to protect
peatlands
• Allow sustainable use of peatlands

Likely to be beneficial

Legally protect peatlands

• Peatland habitat: Two studies in Indonesia reported that peat swamp
forest was lost from within the boundaries of national parks.
However, one of these studies reported that forest loss was greater
outside the national park. One before-and-after study in China
reported that peatland area initially decreased following legal
protection, but increased in the longer term.
• Plant community composition: One before-and-after study in a bog in
Denmark reported that the plant community composition changed
over 161 years of protection. Woody plants became more abundant.
• Vegetation cover: One site comparison study in Chile found that
protected peatland had greater vegetation cover (total, herbs and
shrubs) than adjacent grazed and moss-harvested peatland.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 427

Peatland Conservation

• Overall plant richness/diversity: One before-and-after study in

Denmark reported that the number of plant species in a protected bog
fluctuated over time, with no clear trend. One site comparison study
in Chile found that protected peatland had lower plant richness and
diversity, but also fewer non-native species, than adjacent grazed
and harvested peatland.
• Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 60%; certainty 40%; harms
1%). Based on evidence from: tropical peat swamps (two studies); bogs (one
study); unspecified peatlands (two studies).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1796

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Pay landowners to protect peatlands

• Peatland habitat: One review reported that agri-environment schemes
in the UK had mixed effects on bogs, protecting the area of bog
habitat in three of six cases.
• Assessment: unknown effectiveness – limited evidence (effectiveness 50%;
certainty 20%; harms 10%). Based on evidence from: bogs (one study).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1799

Increase ‘on the ground’ protection (e.g. rangers)

• Behaviour change: One before-and-after study in a peat swamp forest
in Indonesia reported that the number of illegal sawmills decreased
over two years of anti-logging patrols.
• Assessment: unknown effectiveness – limited evidence (effectiveness 60%;
certainty 20%; harms 0%). Based on evidence from: tropical peat swamps
(one study).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1800

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Create legislation for ‘no net loss’ of wetlands
• Adopt voluntary agreements to protect peatlands
• Allow sustainable use of peatlands.

428
 6.14 Education and awareness

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of actions to educate/raise awareness about peatlands?
Unknown • Raise awareness amongst the public (general)
effectiveness • Provide education or training programmes about
(limited evidence) peatlands or peatland management
• Lobby, campaign or demonstrate to protect
peatlands
No evidence found • Raise awareness amongst the public (wild fire)
(no assessment) • Raise awareness amongst the public (problematic
species)
• Raise awareness through engaging volunteers in
peatland management or monitoring

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Raise awareness amongst the public (general)

• Behaviour change: One before-and-after study in the UK reported
that following awareness-raising activities (e.g. publishing reports,
organizing seminars and using education volunteers in garden
centres), the percentage of the public buying peat-free compost
increased.
• Assessment: unknown effectiveness – limited evidence (effectiveness 60%;
certainty 25%; harms 0%). Based on evidence from: unspecified peatlands
(one study).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1844

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 429

Peatland Conservation

 rovide education or training programmes about

P
peatlands or peatland management
• Behaviour change: One study in peat swamps in Indonesia reported
that over 3,500 households adopted sustainable farming practices
following workshops about sustainable farming. One before-and-
after study in peat swamps in Indonesia reported that a training
course increased the quality of rubber produced by local farmers.
• Assessment: unknown effectiveness – limited evidence (effectiveness 60%;
certainty 30%; harms 0%). Based on evidence from: tropical peat swamps
(two studies).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1848

Lobby, campaign or demonstrate to protect peatlands

• Peatland protection: Two studies in the UK reported that the area of
protected peatland increased following pressure from a campaign
group (including business meetings, parliamentary debates,
publishing reports and public engagement).
• Behaviour change: One study in the UK reported that following
pressure from the same campaign group, major retailers stopped
buying compost containing peat from important peatland areas and
horticultural companies began marketing peat-free compost.
• Attitudes/awareness: One study in the UK reported that following
pressure from the same campaign group, garden centres and local
governments signed voluntary peatland conservation agreements.
• Assessment: unknown effectiveness – limited evidence (effectiveness 60%;
certainty 35%; harms 0%). Based on evidence from: unspecified peatlands
(two studies).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1849

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Raise awareness amongst the public (wild fire)
• Raise awareness amongst the public (problematic species)
• Raise awareness through engaging volunteers in peatland
management or monitoring.

430
7. PRIMATE CONSERVATION
Jessica Junker, Hjalmar S. Kühl, Lisa Orth, Rebecca K. Smith,
Silviu O. Petrovan & William J. Sutherland

Expert assessors
Graham L. Banes, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA
Sergio Marrocoli, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Germany
Sarah Papworth, Royal Holloway University of London, UK
Silviu O. Petrovan, University of Cambridge, UK
Andrew J. Plumptre, Wildlife Conservation Society, Uganda
Ricardo Rocha, University of Cambridge, UK
Joanna M. Setchell, Durham University, UK
Kathy Slater, Operation Wallacea, UK
Erin Wessling, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Germany
Liz Williamson, University of Stirling, UK

Scope of assessment: for wild primate species across the world.

Assessed: 2017.

Effectiveness measure is the median % score for effectiveness.

Certainty measure is the median % certainty of evidence for effectiveness,

determined by the quantity and quality of the evidence in the synopsis.

Harm measure is the median % score for negative side-effects to the group
of species of concern.

© W. Sutherland et al., CC BY 4.0 https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0191.07

This book is meant as a guide to the evidence available for different
conservation interventions and as a starting point in assessing their
effectiveness. The assessments are based on the available evidence for the
target group of species for each intervention. The assessment may therefore
refer to different species or habitat to the one(s) you are considering.
Before making any decisions about implementing interventions it is vital
that you read the more detailed accounts of the evidence in order to assess
their relevance for your study species or system.

Full details of the evidence are available at

www.conservationevidence.com

There may also be significant negative side-effects on the target groups

or other species or communities that have not been identified in this
assessment.

A lack of evidence means that we have been unable to assess whether or

not an intervention is effective or has any harmful impacts.

432
 7.1 Threat: Residential and
commercial development

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of

the effectiveness of interventions for residential and commercial
development?
Likely to be • Remove and relocate ‘problem’ animals
beneficial
No evidence found • Relocate primates to non-residential areas
(no assessment) • Discourage the planting of fruit trees and
vegetable gardens on the urban edge

Likely to be beneficial

Remove and relocate ‘problem’ animals

Three studies, including one replicated, before-and-after trial, in India, Kenya,
the Republic of Congo and Gabon found that most primates survived the
translocation. One study found that all translocated rhesus monkeys remained
at the release site for at least four years. Another study showed that after 16
years, 66% of olive baboons survived and survival rate was similar to wild
study groups. The third study showed that 84% of gorillas released in the
Republic of Congo and Gabon survived for at least four years. Assessment:
likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 60%; certainty 50%; harms 10%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1422

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 433

Primate Conservation

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Relocate primates to non-residential areas
• Discourage the planting of fruit trees and vegetable gardens on the
urban edge biodiversity-friendly farming.

434
 7.2 Threat: Agriculture

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for agriculture?
Likely to be • Humans chase primates using random loud
beneficial noises
Unknown • Prohibit (livestock) farmers from entering
effectiveness protected areas
(limited evidence) • Use nets to keep primates out of fruit trees
No evidence found • Create natural habitat islands within agricultural
(no assessment) land
• Use fences as biological corridors for primates
• Provide sacrificial rows of crops on outer side of
fields
• Compensate farmers for produce loss caused by
primates
• Pay farmers to cover the costs of non-harmful
strategies to deter primates
• Retain nesting trees/shelter for primates within
agricultural fields
• Plant nesting trees/shelter for primates within
agricultural fields
• Regularly remove traps and snares around
agricultural fields
• Certify farms and market their products as
‘primate friendly’
• Farm more intensively and effectively in selected
areas and spare more natural land
• Install mechanical barriers to deter primates (e.g.
fences, ditches)

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 435

Primate Conservation

• Use of natural hedges to deter primates

• Use of unpalatable buffer crops
• Change of crop (i.e. to a crop less palatable to
primates)
• Plant crops favoured by primates away from
primate areas
• Destroy habitat within buffer zones to make
them unusable for primates
• Use GPS and/or VHF tracking devices on
individuals of problem troops to provide farmers
with early warning of crop raiding
• Chase crop-raiding primates using dogs
• Train langur monkeys to deter rhesus macaques
• Use loud-speakers to broadcast sounds of
potential threats (e.g. barking dogs, explosions,
gunshots)
• Use loud-speakers to broadcast primate alarm
calls
• Strategically lay out the scent of a primate
predator (e.g. leopard, lion)
• Humans chase primates using bright light

Likely to be beneficial

Humans chase primates using random loud noise

One controlled, replicated, before-and-after study in Indonesia found that in
areas where noise deterrents were used, along with tree nets, crop raiding
by orangutans was reduced. One study in the Democratic Republic Congo
found that chasing gorillas and using random noise resulted in the return of
gorillas from plantation to areas close to protected forest. Assessment: likely
to be beneficial (effectiveness 50%; certainty 40%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1449

436
 7.2 Threat: Agriculture

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Prohibit (livestock) farmers from entering protected areas

One before-and-after site comparison study in Rwanda found that numbers
of young gorillas increased after removal of cattle from a protected area,
alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in Rwanda,
Uganda, and the Democratic Republic of Congo found that gorilla numbers
declined following the removal of livestock, alongside other interventions.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 50%; certainty
30%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1432

Use nets to keep primates out of fruit trees

A controlled, replicated, before-and-after study in Indonesia found that areas
where nets were used to protect crop trees, crop-raiding by orangutans was
reduced. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness
40%; certainty 30%; harms 20%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1442

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Create natural habitat islands within agricultural land
• Use fences as biological corridors for primates
• Provide sacrificial rows of crops on outer side of fields
• Compensate farmers for produce loss caused by primates
• Pay farmers to cover the costs of non-harmful strategies to deter
primates
• Retain nesting trees/shelter for primates within agricultural fields
• Plant nesting trees/shelter for primates within agricultural fields
• Regularly remove traps and snares around agricultural fields
• Certify farms and market their products as ‘primate friendly’
• Farm more intensively and effectively in selected areas and spare
more natural land

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 437

Primate Conservation

• Install mechanical barriers to deter primates (e.g. fences, ditches)

• Use of natural hedges to deter primates
• Use of unpalatable buffer crops
• Change of crop (i.e. to a crop less palatable to primates)
• Plant crops favoured by primates away from primate areas
• Destroy habitat within buffer zones to make them unusable for
primates
• Use GPS and/or VHF tracking devices on individuals of problem
troops to provide farmers with early warning of crop raiding
• Chase crop-raiding primates using dogs
• Train langur monkeys to deter rhesus macaques
• Use loud-speakers to broadcast sounds of potential threats (e.g.
barking dogs, explosions, gunshots)
• Use loud-speakers to broadcast primate alarm calls
• Strategically lay out the scent of a primate predator (e.g. leopard,
lion)
• Humans chase primates using bright light.

438
 7.3 Threat: Energy
production and mining

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for energy and production mining?
No evidence found • Minimize ground vibrations caused by open cast
(no assessment) mining activities
• Establish no-mining zones in/near watersheds so
as to preserve water levels and water quality
• Use ‘set-aside’ areas of natural habitat for
primate protection within mining area
• Certify mines and market their products as
‘primate friendly’ (e.g. ape-friendly cellular
phones)
• Create/preserve primate habitat on islands before
dam construction

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Minimize ground vibrations caused by open cast mining activities
• Establish no-mining zones in/near watersheds so as to preserve
water levels and water quality
• Use ‘set-aside’ areas of natural habitat for primate protection within
mining area
• Certify mines and market their products as ‘primate friendly’ (e.g.
ape-friendly cellular phones)
• Create/preserve primate habitat on islands before dam construction.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 439

 7.4 Threat: Transportation
and service corridors

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for transportation and service corridors?
Likely to be • Install rope or pole (canopy) bridges
beneficial
No evidence found • Install green bridges (overpasses)
(no assessment) • Implement speed limits in particular areas (e.g.
with high primate densities) to reduce vehicle
collisions with primates
• Reduce road widths
• Impose fines for breaking the speed limit or
colliding with primates
• Avoid building roads in key habitat or migration
routes
• Implement a minimum number of roads (and
minimize secondary roads) needed to reach
mining extraction sites
• Re-use old roads rather than building new roads
• Re-route vehicles around protected areas
• Install speed bumps to reduce vehicle collisions
with primates
• Provide adequate signage of presence of
primates on or near roads

440
 7.4 Threat: Transportation and service corridors

Likely to be beneficial

Install rope or pole (canopy) bridges

One before-and-after study in Belize study found that howler monkey numbers
increased after pole bridges were constructed over man-made gaps. Two
studies in Brazil and Madagascar found that primates used pole bridges to
cross roads and pipelines. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 50%;
certainty 50%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1457

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Install green bridges (overpasses)
• Implement speed limits in particular areas (e.g. with high primate
densities) to reduce vehicle collisions with primates
• Reduce road widths
• Impose fines for breaking the speed limit or colliding with primates
• Avoid building roads in key habitat or migration routes
• Implement a minimum number of roads (and minimize secondary
roads) needed to reach mining extraction sites
• Re-use old roads rather than building new roads
• Re-route vehicles around protected areas
• Install speed bumps to reduce vehicle collisions with primates
• Provide adequate signage of presence of primates on or near roads.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 441

 7.5 Threat: Biological
resource use

7.5.1 Hunting

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for hunting?
Likely to be • Conduct regular anti-poaching patrols
beneficial • Regularly de-activate/remove ground snares
• Provide better equipment (e.g. guns) to anti-
poaching ranger patrols
• Implement local no-hunting community policies/
traditional hunting ban
• Implement community control of patrolling,
banning hunting and removing snares

Unknown • Strengthen/support/re-install traditions/taboos

effectiveness that forbid the killing of primates
(limited evidence) • Implement monitoring surveillance strategies
(e.g. SMART) or use monitoring data to improve
effectiveness of wildlife law enforcement patrols
• Provide training to anti-poaching ranger patrols
No evidence found • Implement no-hunting seasons for primates
(no assessment) • Implement sustainable harvesting of primates
(e.g. with permits, resource access agreements)
• Encourage use of traditional hunting methods
rather than using guns
• Implement road blocks to inspect cars for illegal
primate bushmeat

442
 7.5 Threat: Biological resource use

• Provide medicine to local communities to control

killing of primates for medicinal purposes
• Introduce ammunition tax
• Inspect bushmeat markets for illegal primate
species
• Inform hunters of the dangers (e.g., disease
transmission) of wild primate meat

Likely to be beneficial

Conduct regular anti-poaching patrols

Two of three studies found that gorilla populations increased after regular
anti-poaching patrols were conducted, alongside other interventions. One
study in Ghana found a decline in gorilla populations. One review on
gorillas in Uganda found that no gorillas were killed after an increase in
anti-poaching patrols. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 70%;
certainty 50%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1471

Regularly de-activate/remove ground snares

One of two studies found that the number of gorillas increased in an area
patrolled for removing snares, alongside other interventions. One study in
the Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, and Uganda found that gorilla
populations declined despite snare removal. Assessment: likely to be beneficial
(effectiveness 60%; certainty 40%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1475

 rovide better equipment (e.g. guns) to anti-poaching

P
ranger patrols
Two studies in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda found that
gorilla populations increased after providing anti-poaching guards with better
equipment, alongside other interventions. One study in Uganda found that
no gorillas were killed after providing game guards with better equipment.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 50%; certainty 40%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1476

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 443

Primate Conservation

I mplement local no-hunting community policies/

traditional hunting ban
Four studies, one of which had multiple interventions, in the Democratic
Republic of Congo, Belize, Cameroon and Nigeria found that primate
populations increased in areas where there were bans on hunting or where
hunting was reduced due to local taboos. One study found that very few
primates were killed in a sacred site in China where it is forbidden to kill
wildlife. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 60%; certainty 40%;
harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1478

I mplement community control of patrolling, banning

hunting and removing snares
Two site comparison studies found that there were more gorillas and
chimpanzees in an area managed by a community conservation organisation
than in areas not managed by local communities and community control
was more effective at reducing illegal primate hunting compared to the
nearby national park. A before-and-after study in Cameroon found that no
incidents of gorilla poaching occurred over three years after implementation
of community control and monitoring of illegal activities. Assessment: likely
to be beneficial (effectiveness 70%; certainty 50%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1482

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

 trengthen/support/re-install traditions/taboos that

S
forbid the killing of primates
One site comparison study in Laos found that Laotian black crested gibbons
occurred at higher densities in areas where they were protected by a local
hunting taboo compared to sites were there was no taboo. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 60%; certainty 10%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1479

444
 7.5 Threat: Biological resource use

I mplement monitoring surveillance strategies (e.g.

SMART) or use monitoring data to improve effectiveness
of wildlife law enforcement patrols
One before-and-after study in Nigeria found that more gorillas and
chimpanzees were observed after the implementation of law enforcement
and a monitoring system. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence
(effectiveness 60%; certainty 30%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1481

Provide training to anti-poaching ranger patrols

Two before-and-after studies in Rwanda and India found that primate
populations increased in areas where anti-poaching staff received training,
alongside other interventions. Two studies in Uganda and Cameroon found
that no poaching occurred following training of anti-poaching rangers,
alongside other interventions. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited
evidence (effectiveness 70%; certainty 30%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1477

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Implement no-hunting seasons for primates
• Implement sustainable harvesting of primates (e.g. with permits,
resource access agreements)
• Encourage use of traditional hunting methods rather than using
guns
• Implement road blocks to inspect cars for illegal primate bushmeat
• Provide medicine to local communities to control killing of primates
for medicinal purposes
• Introduce ammunition tax
• Inspect bushmeat markets for illegal primate species
• Inform hunters of the dangers (e.g., disease transmission) of wild
primate meat.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 445

Primate Conservation

7.5.2 Substitution

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for substitution?
Unknown • Use selective logging instead of clear-cutting
effectiveness • Avoid/minimize logging of important food tree
(limited evidence) species for primates
No evidence found • Use patch retention harvesting instead of
(no assessment) clear-cutting
• Implement small and dispersed logging
compartments
• Use shelter wood cutting instead of clear-cutting
• Leave hollow trees in areas of selective logging
for sleeping sites
• Clear open patches in the forest
• Thin trees within forests
• Coppice trees
• Manually control or remove secondary mid-
storey and ground-level vegetation
• Avoid slashing climbers/lianas, trees housing
them, hemi-epiphytic figs, and ground
vegetation
• Incorporate forested corridors or buffers into
logged areas
• Close non-essential roads as soon as logging
operations are complete
• Use ‘set-asides’ for primate protection within
logging area
• Work inward from barriers or boundaries (e.g.
river) to avoid pushing primates toward an
impassable barrier or inhospitable habitat
• Reduce the size of forestry teams to include
employees only (not family members)
• Certify forest concessions and market their
products as ‘primate friendly’
• Provide domestic meat to workers of the logging
company to reduce hunting

446
 7.5 Threat: Biological resource use

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Use selective logging instead of clear-cutting

One of two site comparison studies in Africa found that primate abundance
was higher in forests that had been logged at low intensity compared to
forest logged at high intensity. One study in Uganda found that primate
abundances were similar in lightly and heavily logged forests. One study in
Madagascar found that the number of lemurs increased following selective
logging. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 60%;
certainty 35%; harms 30%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1485

A
 void/minimize logging of important food tree species
for primates
One before-and-after study in Belize found that black howler monkey
numbers increased over a 13 year period after trees important for food for the
species were preserved, alongside other interventions. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 60%; certainty 20%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1494

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Use patch retention harvesting instead of clear-cutting
• Implement small and dispersed logging compartments
• Use shelter wood cutting instead of clear-cutting
• Leave hollow trees in areas of selective logging for sleeping sites
• Clear open patches in the forest
• Thin trees within forests
• Coppice trees
• Manually control or remove secondary mid-storey and ground-level
vegetation.
• Avoid slashing climbers/lianas, trees housing them, hemi-epiphytic
figs, and ground vegetation
• Incorporate forested corridors or buffers into logged areas
• Close non-essential roads as soon as logging operations are complete
• Use ‘set-asides’ for primate protection within logging area

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 447

Primate Conservation

• Work inward from barriers or boundaries (e.g. river) to avoid

pushing primates toward an impassable barrier or inhospitable
habitat
• Reduce the size of forestry teams to include employees only (not
family members)
• Certify forest concessions and market their products as ‘primate
friendly’
• Provide domestic meat to workers of the logging company to reduce
hunting.

448
 7.6 Threat: Human
intrusions and disturbance

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for human intrusions and disturbance?
Unknown • Implement a ‘no-feeding of wild primates’ policy
effectiveness • Put up signs to warn people about not feeding
(limited evidence) primates
• Resettle illegal human communities (i.e. in a
protected area) to another location
No evidence found • Build fences to keep humans out
(no assessment) • Restrict number of people that are allowed access
to the site
• Install ‘primate-proof’ garbage bins
• Do not allow people to consume food within
natural areas where primates can view them

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Implement a ‘no-feeding of wild primates’ policy

A controlled before-and-after study in Japan found that reducing food
provisioning of macaques progressively reduced productivity and reversed
population increases and crop and forest damage. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 40%; certainty 20%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1502

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 449

Primate Conservation

Put up signs to warn people about not feeding primates

One review study in Japan found that after macaque feeding by tourists
was banned and advertised, the number of aggressive incidents between
people and macaques decreased as well as the number of road collisions with
macaques that used to be fed from cars. Assessment: unknown effectiveness —
limited evidence (effectiveness 30%; certainty 10%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1507

 esettle illegal human communities (i.e. in a protected

R
area) to another location
One review on gorillas in Uganda found that no more gorillas were killed
after human settlers were relocated outside the protected area, alongside other
interventions. One before-and-after study in the Republic of Congo found
that most reintroduced chimpanzees survived over five years after human
communities were resettled, alongside other interventions. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 65%; certainty 15%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1515

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Build fences to keep humans out
• Restrict number of people that are allowed access to the site
• Install ‘primate-proof’ garbage bins
• Do not allow people to consume food within natural areas where
primates can view them.

450
 7.7 Threat: Natural system
modifications

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for natural system modifications?
No evidence found • Use prescribed burning within the context of
(no assessment) home range size and use
• Protect important food/nest trees before burning

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Use prescribed burning within the context of home range size and
use
• Protect important food/nest trees before burning.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 451

 7.8 Threat: Invasive and
other problematic species
and genes

7.8.1 Problematic animal/plant species and genes

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for problematic animal/plant species
and genes?
No evidence found • Reduce primate predation by non-primate
(no assessment) species through exclusion (e.g. fences) or
translocation
• Reduce primate predation by other primate
species through exclusion (e.g. fences) or
translocation
• Control habitat-altering mammals (e.g.
elephants) through exclusion (e.g. fences) or
translocation
• Control inter-specific competition for food
through exclusion (e.g. fences) or translocation
• Remove alien invasive vegetation where the
latter has a clear negative effect on the primate
species in question
• Prevent gene contamination by alien primate
species introduced by humans, through
exclusion (e.g. fences) or translocation

452
 7.8 Threat: Invasive and other problematic species and genes

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Reduce primate predation by non-primate species through exclusion
(e.g. fences) or translocation
• Reduce primate predation by other primate species through
exclusion (e.g. fences) or translocation
• Control habitat-altering mammals (e.g. elephants) through exclusion
(e.g. fences) or translocation
• Control inter-specific competition for food through exclusion (e.g.
fences) or translocation
• Remove alien invasive vegetation where the latter has a clear
negative effect on the primate species in question
• Prevent gene contamination by alien primate species introduced by
humans, through exclusion (e.g. fences) or translocation.

7.8.2 Disease transmission

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for disease transmission?
Trade-off between • Preventative vaccination of habituated or wild
benefit and harms primates
Unknown • Wear face-masks to avoid transmission of viral
effectiveness and bacterial diseases to primates
(limited evidence) • Keep safety distance to habituated animals
• Limit time that researchers/tourists are allowed
to spend with habituated animals
• Implement quarantine for primates before
reintroduction/translocation
• Ensure that researchers/tourists are up-to-date
with vaccinations and healthy
• Regularly disinfect clothes, boots etc.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 453

Primate Conservation

• Treat sick/injured animals

• Remove/treat external/internal parasites to
increase reproductive success/survival
• Conduct veterinary screens of animals before
reintroducing/translocating them
• Implement continuous health monitoring with
permanent vet on site
• Detect and report dead primates and clinically
determine their cause of death to avoid disease
transmission
No evidence found • Implement quarantine for people arriving at, and
(no assessment) leaving the site
• Wear gloves when handling primate food, tool
items, etc.
• Control ‘reservoir’ species to reduce parasite
burdens/pathogen sources
• Avoid contact between wild primates and
human-raised primates
• Implement a health programme for local
communities

Trade-off between benefit and harms

Preventative vaccination of habituated or wild primates

Three before-and-after studies in the Republic of Congo and Gabon, two
focusing on chimpanzees and one on gorillas, found that most reintroduced
individuals survived over 3.5-10 years after being vaccinated, alongside
other interventions. One before-and-after study in Puerto Rico found that
annual mortality of introduced rhesus macaques decreased after a preventive
tetanus vaccine campaign, alongside other interventions. Assessment: trade-
offs between benefits and harms (effectiveness 70%; certainty 40%; harms 30%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1549

454
 7.8 Threat: Invasive and other problematic species and genes

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

 ear face-masks to avoid transmission of viral and

W
bacterial diseases to primates
One before-and-after study in Rwanda, Uganda and the Democratic Republic
of Congo found that gorilla numbers increased while being visited by
researchers and visitors wearing face-masks, alongside other interventions.
One study in Uganda found that a confiscated chimpanzee was successfully
reunited with his mother after being handled by caretakers wearing face-
masks, alongside other interventions. Assessment: unknown effectiveness —
limited evidence (effectiveness 50%; certainty 5%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1537

Keep safety distance to habituated animals

One before-and-after study in the Republic of Congo found that most
reintroduced chimpanzees survived over five years while being routinely
followed from a safety distance, alongside other interventions. One before-
and-after study in Rwanda, Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo
found that gorilla numbers increased while being routinely visited from
a safety distance, alongside other interventions. However, one study in
Malaysia found that orangutan numbers declined while being routinely
visited from a safety distance. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited
evidence (effectiveness 40%; certainty 10%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1538

 imit time that researchers/tourists are allowed to spend

L
with habituated animals
One before-and-after study in Rwanda, Uganda and the Democratic Republic
of Congo found that gorilla numbers increased while being routinely visited
during limited time, alongside other interventions. One controlled study in
Indonesia found that the behaviour of orangutans that spent limited time
with caretakers was more similar to the behaviour of wild orangutans than
that of individuals that spent more time with caretakers. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 40%; certainty 10%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1539

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 455

Primate Conservation

I mplement quarantine for primates before

reintroduction/translocation
Six studies, including four before-and-after studies, in Brazil, Madagascar,
Malaysia and Indonesia have found that most reintroduced primates did
not survive or their population size decreased over periods ranging from
months up to seven years post-release, despite being quarantined before
release, alongside other interventions. However, two before-and-after studies
in Indonesia, the Republic of Congo and Gabon found that most orangutans
and gorillas that underwent quarantine survived over a period ranging from
three months to 10 years. One before-and-after study in Uganda found that
one reintroduced chimpanzee repeatedly returned to human settlements after
being quarantined before release alongside other interventions. Assessment:
unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 50%; certainty 10%;
harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1541

 nsure that researchers/tourists are up-to-date with

E
vaccinations and healthy
One before-and-after study in Rwanda, Uganda and the Republic of Congo
found that gorilla numbers increased while being visited by healthy researchers
and visitors, alongside other interventions. However, one controlled study in
Malaysia found that orangutan numbers decreased despite being visited by
healthy researchers and visitors, alongside other interventions. Assessment:
unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 30%; certainty 10%;
harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1546

Regularly disinfect clothes, boots etc.

One controlled, before-and-after study in Rwanda, Uganda and the Democratic
Republic of Congo found that gorilla numbers increased while being regularly
visited by researchers and visitors whose clothes were disinfected, alongside
other interventions. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence
(effectiveness 50%; certainty 10%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1547

Treat sick/injured animals

Eight studies, including four before-and-after studies, in Brazil, Malaysia,
Liberia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, The Gambia and South Africa

456
 7.8 Threat: Invasive and other problematic species and genes

found that most reintroduced or translocated primates that were treated

when sick or injured, alongside other interventions, survived being released
and up to at least five years. However, five studies, including one review and
four before-and-after studies, in Brazil, Thailand, Malaysia and Madagascar
found that most reintroduced or translocated primates did not survive or
their numbers declined despite being treated when sick or injured, alongside
other interventions. One study in Uganda found that several infected
gorillas were medically treated after receiving treatment, alongside other
interventions. One study in Senegal found that one chimpanzee was reunited
with his mother after being treated for injuries, alongside other interventions.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 50%; certainty
20%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1550

 emove/treat external/internal parasites to increase

R
reproductive success/survival
Five studies, including four before-and-after studies, in the Republic of Congo,
The Gambia and Gabon found that most reintroduced or translocated primates
that were treated for parasites, alongside other interventions, survived periods
of at least five years. However, four studies, including one before-and-after
study, in Brazil, Gabon and Vietnam found that most reintroduced primates
did not survive or their numbers declined after being treated for parasites,
alongside other interventions. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited
evidence (effectiveness 40%; certainty 5%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1551

 onduct veterinary screens of animals before

C
reintroducing/translocating them
Twelve studies, including seven before-and-after studies, in Brazil, Malaysia,
Indonesia, Liberia, the Republic of Congo, Guinea, Belize, French Guiana
and Madagascar found that most reintroduced or translocated primates that
underwent pre-release veterinary screens, alongside other interventions,
survived, in some situations, up to at least five years or increased in population
size. However, 10 studies, including six before-and-after studies, in Brazil,
Malaysia, French Guiana, Madagascar, Kenya, South Africa and Vietnam
found that most reintroduced or translocated primates did not survive or their
numbers declined after undergoing pre-release veterinary screens, alongside
other interventions. One before-and-after study in Uganda, found that one

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 457

Primate Conservation

reintroduced chimpanzee repeatedly returned to human settlements after

undergoing pre-release veterinary screens, alongside other interventions. One
controlled study in Indonesia found that gibbons that underwent pre-release
veterinary screens, alongside other interventions, behaved similarly to wild
gibbons. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 50%;
certainty 10%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1553

I mplement continuous health monitoring with

permanent vet on site
One controlled, before-and-after study in Rwanda, Uganda and the Republic
of Congo found that numbers of gorillas that were continuously monitored
by vets, alongside other interventions, increased over 41 years. Assessment:
unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 60%; certainty 20%;
harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1554

 etect and report dead primates and clinically determine

D
their cause of death to avoid disease transmission
One controlled, before-and-after study in Rwanda, Uganda and the Republic
of Congo found that numbers of gorillas that were continuously monitored
by vets, alongside other interventions, increased over 41 years. Assessment:
unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 40%; certainty 10%;
harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1556

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Implement quarantine for people arriving at, and leaving the site
• Wear gloves when handling primate food, tool items, etc.
• Control ‘reservoir’ species to reduce parasite burdens/pathogen
sources
• Avoid contact between wild primates and human-raised primates
• Implement a health programme for local communities.

458
 7.9 Threat: Pollution

7.9.1 Garbage/solid waste

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for garbage and solid waste?
No evidence found • Reduce garbage/solid waste to avoid primate
(no assessment) injuries
• Remove human food waste that may potentially
serve as food sources for primates to avoid
disease transmission and conflict with humans

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Reduce garbage/solid waste to avoid primate injuries
• Remove human food waste that may potentially serve as food
sources for primates to avoid disease transmission and conflict with
humans.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 459

Primate Conservation

7.9.2 Excess energy

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for excess energy?

No evidence found • Reduce noise pollution by restricting

(no assessment) development activities to certain times of the
day/night

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Reduce noise pollution by restricting development activities to
certain times of the day/night.

460
 7.10 Education and
Awareness

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for education and awareness?

Unknown • Educate local communities about primates and

effectiveness sustainable use
(limited evidence) • Involve local community in primate research and
conservation management
• Regularly play TV and radio announcements to
raise primate conservation awareness
• Implement multimedia campaigns using theatre,
film, print media, discussions
No evidence found • Install billboards to raise primate conservation
(no assessment) awareness
• Integrate local religion/taboos into conservation
education

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

 ducate local communities about primates and

E
sustainable use
One before-and-after study in Cameroon found that numbers of drills
increased after the implementation of an education programme, alongside
one other intervention. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence
(effectiveness 50%; certainty 0%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1563

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 461

Primate Conservation

I nvolve local community in primate research and

conservation management
One before-and-after study in Rwanda, Uganda and the Democratic Republic
of Congo found that gorilla numbers decreased despite the implementation
of an environmental education programme, alongside other interventions.
However, one before-and-after study in Cameroon found that gorilla poaching
stopped after the implementation of a community-based monitoring scheme,
alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in Belize found
that numbers of howler monkeys increased while local communities were
involved in the management of the sanctuary, alongside other interventions.
One before-and-after study in Uganda found that a reintroduced chimpanzee
repeatedly returned to human settlements despite the involvement of local
communities in the reintroduction project, alongside other interventions.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 50%; certainty
20%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1565

 egularly play TV and radio announcements to raise

R
primate conservation awareness
One before-and-after study in Congo found that most reintroduced chimpanzees
whose release was covered by media, alongside other interventions, survived
over five years. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness
50%; certainty 5%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1569

I mplement multimedia campaigns using theatre, film,

print media, and discussions
Three before-and-after studies in Belize and India found that primate numbers
increased after the implementation of education programs, alongside other
interventions. Three before-and-after studies found that the knowledge about
primates increased after the implementation of education programmes. One
before-and-after study in Madagascar found that lemur poaching appeared
to have ceased after the distribution of conservation books in schools. One
study in four African countries found that large numbers of people were
informed about gorillas through multimedia campaigns using theatre and
film. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 40%;
certainty 10%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1571

462
 7.10 Education and Awareness

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Install billboards to raise primate conservation awareness
• Integrate local religion/taboos into conservation education.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 463

 7.11 Habitat protection

7.11.1 Habitat protection

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for habitat protection?
Likely to be • Create/protect habitat corridors
beneficial
Unknown • Legally protect primate habitat
effectiveness • Establish areas for conservation which are not
(limited evidence) protected by national or international legislation
(e.g. private sector standards and codes)
• Create/protect forest patches in highly
fragmented landscapes
No evidence found • Create buffer zones around protected primate
(no assessment) habitat
• Demarcate and enforce boundaries of protected
areas

Likely to be beneficial

Create/protect habitat corridors

One before-and-after study in Belize found that howler monkey numbers
increased after the protection of a forest corridor, alongside other interventions.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 65%; certainty 41%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1580

464
 7.11 Habitat protection

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Legally protect primate habitat

Two reviews and a before-and-after study in China found that primate
numbers increased or their killing was halted after their habitat became legally
protected, alongside other interventions. However, one before-and-after study
in Kenya found that colobus and mangabey numbers decreased despite the area
being declared legally protected, alongside other interventions. Two before-
and-after studies found that most chimpanzees and gorillas reintroduced to
areas that received legal protection, alongside other interventions, survived
over 4–5 years. However, one before-and-after study in Brazil found that
most golden lion tamarins did not survive over seven years despite being
reintroduced to a legally protected area, alongside other interventions, yet
produced offspring that partly compensated the mortality. One controlled,
site comparison study in Mexico found that howler monkeys in protected
areas had lower stress levels than individuals living in unprotected forest
fragments. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness
60%; certainty 30%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1578

 stablish areas for conservation which are not protected

E
by national or international legislation (e.g. private sector
standards and codes)
Two before-and-after studies in Rwanda, Republic of Congo and Belize found
that gorilla and howler monkey numbers increased after the implementation
of a conservation project funded by a consortium of organizations or
after being protected by local communities, alongside other interventions.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 60%; certainty
10%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1579

 reate/protect forest patches in highly fragmented

C
landscapes
One before-and-after study in Belize found that howler monkey numbers
increased after the protection of forest along property boundaries and across

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 465

Primate Conservation

cleared areas, alongside other interventions. Assessment: unknown effectiveness

— limited evidence (effectiveness 40%; certainty 10%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1581

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Create buffer zones around protected primate habitat
• Demarcate and enforce boundaries of protected areas.

7.11.2 Habitat creation or restoration

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for habitat creation or restoration?

Unknown • Plant indigenous trees to re-establish natural tree

effectiveness communities in clear-cut areas
(limited evidence)

No evidence found • Restore habitat corridors

(no assessment) • Plant indigenous fast-growing trees (will not
necessarily resemble original community) in
clear-cut areas
• Use weeding to promote regeneration of
indigenous tree communities

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

 lant indigenous trees to re-establish natural tree

P
communities in clear-cut areas
One site comparison study in Kenya found that group densities of two out
of three primate species were lower in planted forests than in natural forests.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 30%; certainty
5%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1584

466
 7.11 Habitat protection

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Restore habitat corridors
• Plant indigenous fast-growing trees (will not necessarily resemble
original community) in clear-cut areas
• Use weeding to promote regeneration of indigenous tree
communities.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 467

 7.12 Species management

7.12.1 Species management

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for species management?
Likely to be • Guard habituated primate groups to ensure their
beneficial safety/well-being
Unknown • Habituate primates to human presence to reduce
effectiveness stress from tourists/researchers etc.
(limited evidence) • Implement legal protection for primate species
under threat
No evidence found • Implement birth control to stabilize primate
(no assessment) community/population size

Likely to be beneficial

 uard habituated primate groups to ensure their safety/

G
well-being
One study in Rwanda, Uganda and the Congo found that a population of
mountain gorillas increased after being guarded against poachers, alongside
other interventions. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 60%; certainty
40%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1523

468
 7.12 Species management

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

 abituate primates to human presence to reduce stress

H
from tourists/researchers etc.
Two studies in Central Africa and Madagascar found that primate populations
increased or were stable following habituation to human presence, alongside
other interventions. One study in Brazil found that golden lion tamarin
populations declined following habituation to human presence, alongside
other interventions. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence
(effectiveness 40%; certainty 20%; harms 10%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1519

I mplement legal protection for primate species under

threat
Three of four studies in India, South East Asia, and West Africa found
that primate populations declined after the respective species were legally
protected, alongside other interventions. One of four studies in India
found that following a ban on export of rhesus macaques, their population
increased. One study in Malaysia found that a minority of introduced gibbons
survived after implementing legal protection, along with other interventions.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 40%; certainty
30%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1524

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Implement birth control to stabilize primate community/population
size.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 469

Primate Conservation

7.12.2 Species recovery

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for species recovery?

Unknown • Regularly and continuously provide

effectiveness supplementary food to primates
(limited evidence) • Regularly provide supplementary food to
primates during resource scarce periods only
• Provide supplementary food for a certain period
of time only
• Provide additional sleeping platforms/nesting
sites for primates
• Provide artificial water sources
No evidence found • Provide salt licks for primates
(no assessment) • Provide supplementary food to primates through
the establishment of prey populations

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

 egularly and continuously provide supplementary food

R
to primates
Two of four studies found that primate populations increased after regularly
providing supplementary food, alongside other interventions, while two of
four studies found that populations declined. Four of four studies found that
the majority of primates survived after regularly providing supplementary
food, alongside other interventions. One study found that introduced
lemurs had different diets to wild primates after regularly being providing
supplementary food, along with other interventions. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 50%; certainty 30%; harms 60%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1526

 egularly provide supplementary food to primates

R
during resource scarce periods only
Two studies found that the majority of primates survived after supplementary
feeding in resource scarce periods, alongside other interventions. One study

470
 7.12 Species management

in Madagascar found that the diet of introduced lemurs was similar to that
of wild lemurs after supplementary feeding in resource scarce periods,
alongside other interventions. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited
evidence (effectiveness 40%; certainty 10%; harms 10%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1527

 rovide supplementary food for a certain period of time

P
only
Six of eleven studies found that a majority of primates survived after
supplementary feeding, alongside other interventions. Five of eleven studies
found that a minority of primates survived. One of two studies found that a
reintroduced population of primates increased after supplementary feeding for
two months immediately after reintroduction, alongside other interventions.
One study found that a reintroduced population declined. Two studies found
that abandoned primates rejoined wild groups after supplementary feeding,
alongside other interventions. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited
evidence (effectiveness 40%; certainty 0%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1528

 rovide additional sleeping platforms/nesting sites for

P
primates
One study found that a translocated golden lion tamarin population declined
despite providing artificial nest boxes, alongside other interventions. One of
two studies found that the majority of gorillas survived for at least seven years
after nesting platforms were provided, alongside other interventions. One
of two studies found that a minority of tamarins survived for at least seven
years after artificial nest boxes were provided, alongside other interventions.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 20%; certainty
0%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1530

Provide artificial water sources

Three of five studies found that a minority of primates survived for between
10 months and seven years when provided with supplementary water,
alongside other interventions. Two of five studies found that a majority of
primates survived for between nine and ten months, when provided with

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 471

Primate Conservation

supplementary water, alongside other interventions. Assessment: unknown

effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 20%; certainty 10%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1531

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Provide salt licks for primates
• Provide supplementary food to primates through the establishment
of prey populations.

7.12.3 Species reintroduction

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for species reintroduction?
Likely to be • Reintroduce primates into habitat where the
beneficial species is absent
Unknown • Translocate (capture and release) wild primates
effectiveness from development sites to natural habitat
(limited evidence) elsewhere
• Translocate (capture and release) wild primates
from abundant population areas to non-
inhabited environments
• Allow primates to adapt to local habitat
conditions for some time before introduction to
the wild
• Reintroduce primates in groups
• Reintroduce primates as single/multiple
individuals
• Reintroduce primates into habitat where the
species is present
• Reintroduce primates into habitat with predators
• Reintroduce primates into habitat without
predators

472
 7.12 Species management

Likely to be beneficial

 eintroduce primates into habitat where the species is

R
absent
One of two studies found that primate populations increased after
reintroduction into habitat where the species was absent, alongside other
interventions. One study in Thailand found that lar gibbon populations
declined post-reintroduction. One study in Indonesia found that a orangutan
population persisted for at least four years after reintroduction. Eight of
ten studies found that a majority of primates survived after reintroduction
into habitat where the species was absent, alongside other interventions.
Two studies in Malaysia and Vietnam found that a minority of primates
survived after reintroduction into habitat where the species was absent,
alongside other interventions. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness
60%; certainty 40%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1590

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

 ranslocate (capture and release) wild primates from

T
development sites to natural habitat elsewhere
Four studies found that the majority of primates survived following
translocation from a development site to natural habitat, alongside other
interventions. One study in French Guyana found that a minority of primates
survived for at least 18 months. One study in India found that rhesus
macaques remained at sites where they were released following translocation
from a development site to natural habitat, alongside other interventions.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 60%; certainty
30%; harms 10%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1558

 ranslocate (capture and release) wild primates

T
from abundant population areas to non-inhabited
environments
One study in Belize found that he majority of howler monkeys survived
for at least 10 months after translocation from abundant population areas

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 473

Primate Conservation

to an uninhabited site, along with other interventions. Assessment: unknown

effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 50%; certainty 20%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1559

A
 llow primates to adapt to local habitat conditions for
some time before introduction to the wild
Two of three studies found that primate populations declined despite allowing
individuals to adapt to local habitat conditions before introduction into the
wild, along with other interventions. One study in Belize found an increase
in introduced howler monkey populations. Ten of 17 studies found that a
majority of primates survived after allowing them to adapt to local habitat
conditions before introduction into the wild, along with other interventions.
Six studies found that a minority of primates survived and one study
found that half of primates survived. One study found that a reintroduced
chimpanzee repeatedly returned to human settlements after allowing it to
adapt to local habitat conditions before introduction into the wild, along
with other interventions. One study found that after allowing time to adapt
to local habitat conditions, a pair of reintroduced Bornean agile gibbons had
a similar diet to wild gibbons. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited
evidence (effectiveness 50%; certainty 10%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1564

Reintroduce primates in groups

Two of four studies found that populations of introduced primates declined
after reintroduction in groups, alongside other interventions, while two
studies recorded increases in populations. Two studies found that primate
populations persisted for at least five to 55 years after reintroduction in
groups, alongside other interventions. Seven of fourteen studies found that a
majority of primates survived after reintroduction in groups, alongside other
interventions. Seven of fourteen studies found that a minority of primates
survived after reintroduction in groups, alongside other interventions. One
study found that introduced primates had a similar diet to a wild population.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 50%; certainty
20%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1567

474
 7.12 Species management

Reintroduce primates as single/multiple individuals

Three of four studies found that populations of reintroduced primates
declined after reintroduction as single/multiple individuals, alongside other
interventions. One study in Tanzania found that the introduced chimpanzee
population increased in size. Three of five studies found that a minority
of primates survived after reintroduction as single/multiple individuals,
alongside other interventions. One study found that a majority of primates
survived and one study found that half of primates survived. Two of two
studies in Brazil and Senegal found that abandoned primates were successfully
reunited with their mothers after reintroduction as single/multiple individuals,
alongside other interventions. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited
evidence (effectiveness 20%; certainty 10%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1589

 eintroduce primates into habitat where the species is

R
present
One of two studies found that primate populations increased after
reintroduction into habitat where the species was absent, alongside other
interventions. One study in Malaysia found that an introduced orangutan
population declined post-reintroduction. One study found that a primate
population persisted for at least four years after reintroduction. Eight of
ten studies found that a majority of primates survived after reintroduction
into habitat where the species was absent, alongside other interventions.
Two studies found that a minority of primates survived after reintroduction
into habitat where the species was present, alongside other interventions.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 50%; certainty
30%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1591

Reintroduce primates into habitat with predators

Eight of fourteen studies found that a majority of reintroduced primates
survived after reintroduction into habitat with predators, alongside other
interventions. Six studies found that a minority of primates survived.
One study found that an introduced primate population increased after
reintroduction into habitat with predators, alongside other interventions.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 50%; certainty
10%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1593

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 475

Primate Conservation

Reintroduce primates into habitat without predators

One study in Tanzania found that a population of reintroduced chimpanzees
increased over 16 years following reintroduction into habitat without
predators. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness
50%; certainty 5%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1592

7.12.4 Ex-situ conservation

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for ex-situ conservation?
Unknown • Captive breeding and reintroduction of primates
effectiveness into the wild: born and reared in cages
(limited evidence) • Captive breeding and reintroduction of primates
into the wild: limited free-ranging experience
• Captive breeding and reintroduction of primates
into the wild: born and raised in a free-ranging
environment
• Rehabilitate injured/orphaned primates
• Fostering appropriate behaviour to facilitate
rehabilitation

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

 aptive breeding and reintroduction of primates into the

C
wild: born and reared in cages
One study in Brazil found that the majority of reintroduced golden lion
tamarins which were born and reared in cages, alongside other interventions,
did not survive over seven years.
Two of two studies in Brazil and French Guiana found that more reintroduced
primates that were born and reared in cages, alongside other interventions,
died post-reintroduction compared to wild-born monkeys. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 0%; certainty 15%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1594

476
 7.12 Species management

 aptive breeding and reintroduction of primates into the

C
wild: limited free-ranging experience
One of three studies found that the majority of captive-bred primates, with
limited free-ranging experience and which were reintroduced in the wild,
alongside other interventions, had survived. One study in Madagascar
found that a minority of captive-bred lemurs survived reintroduction over
five years. One study found that reintroduced lemurs with limited free-
ranging experience had a similar diet to wild primates. Reintroduction was
undertaken alongside other interventions. Assessment: unknown effectiveness
— limited evidence (effectiveness 30%; certainty 10%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1595

 aptive breeding and reintroduction of primates into the

C
wild: born and raised in a free-ranging environment
One study in Brazil found that the majority of golden lion tamarins survived
for at least four months after being raised in a free-ranging environment,
alongside other interventions. One study found that the diet of lemurs
that were born and raised in a free-ranging environment alongside other
interventions, overlapped with that of wild primates. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 40%; certainty 10%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1596

Rehabilitate injured/orphaned primates

Six of eight studies found that the majority of introduced primates survived
after rehabilitation of injured or orphaned individuals, alongside other
interventions. One study found that a minority of introduced primates
survived, and one study found that half of primates survived. One of two
studies found that an introduced chimpanzee population increased in size
after rehabilitation of injured or orphaned individuals, alongside other
interventions. One study found that an introduced rehabilitated or injured
primate population declined. One review found that primates living in
sanctuaries had a low reproduction rate. One study found that introduced
primates had similar behaviour to wild primates after rehabilitation of injured
or orphaned individuals, alongside other interventions. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 50%; certainty 10%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1597

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 477

Primate Conservation

 ostering appropriate behaviour to facilitate

F
rehabilitation
Three of five studies found that a minority of primates survived after they
were fostered to encourage behaviour appropriate to facilitate rehabilitation,
alongside other interventions. Two studies found that the majority of
reintroduced primates fostered to facilitate rehabilitation along other
interventions survived. Three studies found that despite fostering to encourage
behaviour appropriate to facilitate rehabilitation, alongside other interventions,
primates differed in their behaviour to wild primates. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 10%; certainty 10%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1600

478
 7.13 Livelihood; economic
and other incentives

7.13.1 Provide benefits to local communities for

sustainably managing their forest and its wildlife

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of

the effectiveness of interventions for providing benefits to local
communities for sustainably managing their forest and its wildlife?
Unknown • Provide monetary benefits to local communities
effectiveness for sustainably managing their forest and its
(limited evidence) wildlife (e.g. REDD, employment)
• Provide non-monetary benefits to local
communities for sustainably managing their
forest and its wildlife (e.g. better education,
infrastructure development)

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

 rovide monetary benefits to local communities for

P
sustainably managing their forest and its wildlife (e.g.
REDD, employment)
One before-and-after study in Belize found that howler monkey numbers
increased after the provision of monetary benefits to local communities
alongside other interventions. However, one before-and-after study in

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 479

Primate Conservation

Rwanda, Uganda and the Congo found that gorilla numbers decreased
despite the implementation of development projects in nearby communities,
alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in Congo found
that most chimpanzees reintroduced to an area where local communities
received monetary benefits, alongside other interventions, survived over
five years. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness
50%; certainty 25%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1509

 rovide non-monetary benefits to local communities for

P
sustainably managing their forest and its wildlife (e.g.
better education, infrastructure development)
One before-and-after study India found that numbers of gibbons increased
in areas were local communities were provided alternative income, alongside
other interventions. One before-and-after study in Congo found that most
chimpanzees reintroduced survived over seven years in areas where
local communities were provided non-monetary benefits, alongside other
interventions. Assessment: unknown effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness
40%; certainty 10%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1510

7.13.2 Long-term presence of research/tourism

project

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for the long-term presence of research-/
tourism project?
Likely to be • Run research project and ensure permanent
beneficial human presence at site
Trade-off between • Run tourism project and ensure permanent
benefit and harms human presence at site
Unknown • Permanent presence of staff/managers
effectiveness
(limited evidence)

480
 7.13 Livelihood; economic and other incentives

Likely to be beneficial

 un research project and ensure permanent human

R
presence at site
Three before-and-after studies, in Rwanda, Uganda, Congo and Belize found
that numbers of gorillas and howler monkeys increased while populations
were continuously monitored by researchers, alongside other interventions.
One before-and-after study in Kenya found that troops of translocated
baboons survived over 16 years post-translocation while being continuously
monitored by researchers, alongside other interventions. One before-and-
after study in the Congo found that most reintroduced chimpanzees survived
over 3.5 years while being continuously monitored by researchers, alongside
other interventions. However, one before-and-after study in Brazil found
that most reintroduced tamarins did not survive over 7 years, despite being
continuously monitored by researchers, alongside other interventions; but
tamarins reproduced successfully. One review on gorillas in Uganda found
that no individuals were killed while gorillas were continuously being
monitored by researchers, alongside other interventions. Assessment: likely
to be beneficial (effectiveness 61%; certainty 40%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1511

Trade-off between benefit and harms

 un tourism project and ensure permanent human

R
presence at site
Six studies, including four before-and-after studies, in Rwanda, Uganda, Congo
and Belize found that numbers of gorillas and howler monkeys increased after
local tourism projects were initiated, alongside other interventions. However,
two before-and-after studies in Kenya and Madagascar found that numbers
of colobus and mangabeys and two of three lemur species decreased after
implementing tourism projects, alongside other interventions. One before-
and-after study in China found that exposing macaques to intense tourism
practices, especially through range restrictions to increase visibility for tourists,
had increased stress levels and increased infant mortality, peaking at 100%
in some years. Assessment: trade-off between benefit and harms (effectiveness 40%;
certainty 40%; harms 40%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1512

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 481

Primate Conservation

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Permanent presence of staff/managers

Two before-and-after studies in the Congo and Gabon found that most
reintroduced chimpanzees and gorillas survived over a period of between
nine months to five years while having permanent presence of reserve
staff. One before-and-after study in Belize found that numbers of howler
monkeys increased after permanent presence of reserve staff, alongside
other interventions. However, one before-and-after study in Kenya found
that numbers of colobus and mangabeys decreased despite permanent
presence of reserve staff, alongside other interventions. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness — limited evidence (effectiveness 40%; certainty 30%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1517

482
8. SHRUBLAND AND
HEATHLAND CONSERVATION
Philip A. Martin, Ricardo Rocha, Rebecca K. Smith &
William J. Sutherland

Expert assessors
Andrew Bennet, La Trobe University, Australia
Brian van Wilgen, Stellenbosch University, South Africa
Rob Marrs, University of Liverpool, UK
Chris Diek, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, UK
G. Matt Davies, Ohio State University, USA
David Le Maitre, CSIR, UK
Giles Groome, Consultant Ecologist, UK
Isabel Barrio, University of Iceland, Iceland
James Adler, Surrey Wildlife Trust, UK
Jon Keeley, US Geological Survey, Western Ecological Research Center and Department
of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, USA
Jonty Denton, Consultant Ecologist, UK
Penny Anderson, Penny Anderson Associates Limited, UK

Scope of assessment: for the conservation of shrubland and heathland

habitats (not specific species within these habitats).

Assessed: 2017.

Effectiveness measure is the median % score for effectiveness.

Certainty measure is the median % certainty of evidence, determined by

the quantity and quality of the evidence in the synopsis.

Harm measure is the median % score for negative side-effects on the

shrubland and heathland habitats of concern.

© W. Sutherland et al., CC BY 4.0 https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0191.08

This book is meant as a guide to the evidence available for different
conservation interventions and as a starting point in assessing their
effectiveness. The assessments are based on the available evidence for the
target habitat for each intervention. The assessment may therefore refer
to different habitat to the one(s) you are considering. Before making any
decisions about implementing interventions it is vital that you read the
more detailed accounts of the evidence in order to assess their relevance
for your study species or system.

Full details of the evidence are available at

www.conservationevidence.com

There may also be significant negative side-effects on the target habitats

or other species or communities that have not been identified in this
assessment.

A lack of evidence means that we have been unable to assess whether or

not an intervention is effective or has any harmful impacts.

484
 8.1 Threat: Residential and
commercial development

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for managing the impacts of residential
and commercial development in shrublands and heathlands?
No evidence found • Remove residential or commercial development
(no assessment) • Maintain/create habitat corridors in developed
areas

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Remove residential or commercial development
• Maintain/create habitat corridors in developed areas.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 485

 8.2 Threat: Agriculture and
aquaculture

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for managing the impacts of agriculture
and aquaculture in shrublands and heathlands?
Beneficial • Reduce number of livestock
Likely to be • Use fences to exclude livestock from shrublands
beneficial
Unknown • Change type of livestock
effectiveness • Shorten the period in which livestock can graze
(limited evidence)

Beneficial

Reduce number of livestock

Two before-and-after trials in the UK and South Africa and one replicated,
controlled study in the UK found that reducing or stopping grazing increased
the abundance or cover of shrubs. Two site comparison studies in the UK
found that cover of common heather declined in sites with high livestock
density, but increased in sites with low livestock density. One site comparison
study in the Netherlands found that dwarf shrub cover was higher in
ungrazed sites. One replicated, randomized, before-and-after study in
Spain found that reducing grazing increased the cover of western gorse.
One randomized, controlled trial and one before-and-after trial in the USA
found that stopping grazing did not increase shrub abundance. One site
comparison study in France found that ungrazed sites had higher cover of
ericaceous shrubs, but lower cover of non-ericaceous shrubs than grazed

486
 8.2 Threat: Agriculture and aquaculture

sites. One site comparison study in the UK found that reducing grazing
had mixed effects on shrub cover. One replicated, randomized, controlled
study in the UK found that reducing grazing increased vegetation height.
However, one replicated, controlled, paired, site comparison study in the
UK found that reducing grazing led to a reduction in the height of heather
plants. Two site comparison studies in France and the Netherlands found
that ungrazed sites had a lower number of plant species than grazed sites.
One replicated, controlled, paired, site comparison study in Namibia and
South Africa found that reducing livestock numbers increased plant cover
and the number of plant species. One controlled study in Israel found that
reducing grazing increased plant biomass. However, one randomized, site
comparison on the island of Gomera, Spain found that reducing grazing did
not increase plant cover and one replicated, controlled study in the UK found
that the number of plant species did not change . One replicated, controlled
study in the UK found no change in the cover of rush or herbaceous species
as a result of a reduction in grazing. Two site comparison studies in France
and the Netherlands found that grass cover and sedge cover were lower in
ungrazed sites than in grazed sites. One randomized, controlled study in the
USA found a mixed effect of reducing grazing on grass cover. Assessment:
Beneficial (effectiveness 65%, certainty 70%, harms 10%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1607

Likely to be beneficial

Use fences to exclude livestock from shrublands

Two replicated, controlled, randomized studies (one of which was also
a before-and-after trial) and one controlled before-and-after trial in the
UK found that using fences to exclude livestock increased shrub cover or
abundance. Two replicated, controlled, randomized studies in Germany and
the UK found that using fences increased shrub biomass or the biomass and
height of individual heather plants. Two controlled studies (one of which
was a before-and-after study) in Denmark and the UK found that heather
presence or cover was higher in fenced areas that in areas that were not
fenced. However, one site comparison study in the USA found that using
fences led to decreased cover of woody plants. Three replicated, controlled
studies (one of which was a before and after study) in the USA and the UK
found that fencing either had a mixed effect on shrub cover or did not alter
shrub cover. One randomized, replicated, controlled, paired study in the

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 487

Shrubland and Heathland Conservation

UK found that using fences to exclude livestock did not alter the number of
plant species, but did increase vegetation height and biomass. One controlled,
before-and-after study in the UK found that fenced areas had lower species
richness than unfenced areas. One randomized, replicated, controlled,
before-and-after trial in the UK and one site comparison study in the USA
found that using fences to exclude livestock led to a decline in grass cover.
However, four controlled studies (one of which a before-and-after trial) in
the USA, the UK, and Finland found that using fences did not alter cover
of grass species. One site comparison study in the USA and one replicated,
controlled study in the UK recorded an increase in grass cover. One controlled
study in Finland found that using fences to exclude livestock did not alter
the abundance of herb species and one site comparison in the USA found no
difference in forb cover between fenced and unfenced areas. One replicated,
controlled study in the USA found fencing had a mixed effect on herb cover.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 51%; certainty 60%; harms 10%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1545

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Change type of livestock

Two replicated, before-and-after studies and one controlled study in Spain
and the UK found changing the type of livestock led to mixed effects on
shrub cover. However, in two of these studies changing the type of livestock
reduced the cover of herbaceous species. One replicated, controlled, before-
and-after study in the UK found that grazing with both cattle and sheep,
as opposed to grazing with sheep, reduced cover of purple moor grass, but
had no effect on four other plant species. Assessment: unknown effectiveness
(effectiveness 40%; certainty 29%; harms 5%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1608

Shorten the period during which livestock can graze

One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the UK found that
shortening the period in which livestock can graze had mixed effects on
heather, bilberry, crowberry, and grass cover. One replicated, randomized,
controlled study in the UK found that grazing in only winter or summer
did not affect the heather or grass height compared to year-round grazing.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 32%; certainty 20%; harms 2%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1609

488
 8.3 Threat: Energy
production and mining

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for managing the impacts of energy
production and mining in shrublands and heathlands?
No evidence found • Maintain/create habitat corridors in areas of
(no assessment) energy production or mining

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Maintain/create habitat corridors in areas of energy production or
mining.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 489

 8.4 Threat: Biological
resource use

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for managing the impacts of biological
resource use in shrublands and heathlands?
No evidence found • Legally protect plant species affected by
(no assessment) gathering
• Place signs to deter gathering of shrubland
species
• Reduce frequency of prescribed burning

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Legally protect plant species affected by gathering
• Place signs to deter gathering of shrubland species
• Reduce the frequency of prescribed burning.

490
 8.5 Threat: Transportation
and service corridors

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment

of the effectiveness of interventions for managing the impacts of
transportation and service corridors in shrublands and heathlands?
No evidence found • Maintain habitat corridors over or under roads
(no assessment) and other transportation corridors
• Create buffer zones besides roads and other
transportation corridors

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Maintain habitat corridors over or under roads and other
transportation corridors
• Create buffer zones besides roads and other transportation corridors.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 491

 8.6 Threat: Human intrusions
and disturbance

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for managing the impacts of human
intrusions and disturbance in shrublands and heathlands?
Unknown • Re-route paths to reduce habitat disturbance
effectiveness
(limited evidence)
No evidence found • Use signs and access restrictions to reduce
(no assessment) disturbance
• Plant spiny shrubs to act as barriers to people

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Re-route paths to reduce habitat disturbance

One before-and-after trial in Australia found that closing paths did not
alter shrub cover, but did increase the number of plant species in an alpine
shrubland. Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 30%; certainty 10%;
harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1619

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Use signs and access restrictions to reduce disturbance
• Plant spiny shrubs to act as barriers to people.

492
 8.7 Threat: Natural system
modifications

8.7.1 Modified fire regime

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for managing the impacts of a modified
fire regime in shrublands and heathlands?
No evidence • Use prescribed burning to mimic natural fire cycle
found (no • Use prescribed burning to reduce the potential for
assessment) large wild fires
• Cut strips of vegetation to reduce the spread of fire

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Use prescribed burning to mimic natural fire cycle
• Use prescribed burning to reduce the potential for large wild fires
• Cut strips of vegetation to reduce the spread of fire.

8.7.2 Modified vegetation management

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for managing the impacts of a modified
vegetation management in shrublands and heathlands?
Unknown • Reinstate the use of traditional burning practices
effectiveness • Use cutting/mowing to mimic grazing
(limited evidence)
• Increase number of livestock

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 493

Shrubland and Heathland Conservation

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Reinstate the use of traditional burning practices

One before and after study in the UK found that prescribed burning initially
decreased the cover of most plant species, but that their cover subsequently
increased. A systematic review of five studies from the UK found that
prescribed burning did not alter species diversity. A replicated, controlled
study in the UK found that regeneration of heather was similar in cut and
burned areas. A systematic review of five studies, from Europe found
that prescribed burning did not alter grass cover relative to heather cover.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 40%; certainty 30%; harms 12%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1625

Use cutting/mowing to mimic grazing

One systematic review of three studies in lowland heathland in North Western
Europe found that mowing did not alter heather abundance relative to grass
abundance. A site comparison in Italy found that mowing increased heather
cover. Two replicated, randomized, before-and-after trials in Spain (one of
which was controlled) found that using cutting to mimic grazing reduced
heather cover. One replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after trial
in Spain found that cutting increased the number of plant species. However, a
replicated, randomized, before-and-after trial found that the number of plant
species only increased in a minority of cases. One replicated, randomized,
before-and-after trial in Spain found that cutting to mimic grazing increased
grass cover. A site comparison in Italy found that mowing increased grass
cover. One site comparison study in Italy found a reduction in tree cover.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 30%; certainty 25%; harms 10%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1627

Increase number of livestock

Two site comparison studies in the UK found that cover of common heather
declined in sites with a high density of livestock. One site comparison in the
Netherlands found that dwarf shrub cover was lower in grazed areas than in
ungrazed areas. One before-and-after study in Belgium found that grazing
increased cover of heather. One site comparison in France found that areas
grazed by cattle had higher cover of non-ericaceous shrubs, but lower cover

494
 8.7 Threat: Natural system modifications

of ericaceous shrubs. One before-and-after study in the Netherlands found

that increasing the number of livestock resulted in an increase in the number
of common heather and cross-leaved heath seedlings. One randomized,
replicated, paired, controlled study in the USA found that increasing the
number of livestock did not alter shrub cover. One replicated, site comparison
study and one before-and-after study in the UK and Netherlands found that
increasing grazing had mixed effects on shrub and heather cover. Three site
comparisons in France, the Netherlands and Greece found that grazed areas
had a higher number of plant species than ungrazed areas. One before-and-
after study in Belgium found that the number of plant species did not change
after the introduction of grazing. One replicated, before-and-after study
in the Netherlands found a decrease in the number of plant species. One
before-and-after study in the Netherlands found that increasing the number
of livestock resulted in a decrease in vegetation height. One replicated,
before-and-after trial in France found that grazing to control native woody
species increased vegetation cover in one of five sites but did not increase
vegetation cover in four of five sites. A systematic review of four studies
in North Western Europe found that increased grazing intensity increased
the cover of grass species, relative to heather species. One before-and-after
study and two site comparisons in the Netherlands and France found areas
with high livestock density had higher grass and sedge cover than ungrazed
areas. One randomized, replicated, paired, controlled study in the USA found
that increasing the number of livestock reduced grass and herb cover. One
before-and-after study in Spain found that increasing the number of ponies
in a heathland site reduced grass height. One replicated, site comparison in
the UK and one replicated before-and-after study in the Netherlands found
that increasing cattle had mixed effects on grass and herbaceous species.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 30%; certainty 30%; harms 20%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1628

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 495

 8.8 Threat: Invasive and other
problematic species

8.8.1 Problematic tree species

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for managing the impacts of invasive
and other problematic tree species in shrublands and heathlands?
Unknown • Apply herbicide to trees
effectiveness • Cut trees
(limited evidence)
• Cut trees and remove leaf litter
• Cut trees and remove tree seedlings
• Use prescribed burning to control trees
• Use grazing to control trees
• Cut trees and apply herbicide
• Cut trees and use prescribed burning
• Increase number of livestock and use prescribed
burning to control trees
No evidence found • Mow/cut shrubland to control trees
(no assessment) • Cut trees and increase livestock numbers

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

A
 pply herbicide to trees
One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in South Africa found
that using herbicide to control trees increased plant diversity but did not
increase shrub cover. One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the

496
 8.8 Threat: Invasive and other problematic species

UK found that herbicide treatment of trees increased the abundance of

common heather seedlings. Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness
40%; certainty 35%; harms 10%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1629

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. Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 37%; certainty
30%; harms 3%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1630

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. Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 45%;
certainty 10%; harms 3%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1631

Cut trees and remove 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. Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness
62%; certainty 20%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1632

Use prescribed burning to control trees

One randomized, replicated, controlled, before-and-after trial in the USA
found that burning to control trees did not change cover of two of three grass
species. One randomized, controlled study in Italy found that prescribed
burning to control trees reduced cover of common heather, increased cover
of purple moor grass, and had mixed effects on the basal area of trees.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 10%; certainty 20%; harms 22%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1721

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 497

Shrubland and Heathland Conservation

Use grazing to control trees

One randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in Italy found that grazing
to reduce tree cover reduced cover of common heather and the basal area
of trees, but did not alter cover of purple moor grass. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness (effectiveness 20%; certainty 10%; harms 5%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1634

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. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness (effectiveness 45%; certainty 35%; harms 3%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1636

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. Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 40%; certainty
35%; harms 5%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1637

I ncrease number of livestock and use prescribed burning

to control trees
One randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in Italy found that using
prescribed burning and grazing to reduce tree cover reduced the cover of
common heather and the basal area of trees. However, it did not alter the

498
 8.8 Threat: Invasive and other problematic species

cover of purple moor grass. Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness

2%; certainty 12%; harms 12%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1722

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Cut/mow shrubland to control trees
• Cut trees and increase livestock numbers.

8.8.2 Problematic grass species

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for managing the impacts of invasive
and other problematic grass species in shrublands and heathlands?
Unknown • Cut/mow to control grass
effectiveness • Cut/mow to control grass and sow seed of
(limited evidence) shrubland plants
• Rake to control grass
• Cut/mow and rotovate to control grass
• Apply herbicide and sow seeds of shrubland
plants to control grass
• Apply herbicide and remove plants to control
grass
• Use grazing to control grass
• Use prescribed burning to control grass
• Cut and use prescribed burning to control grass
• Use herbicide and prescribed burning to control
grass
• Strip turf to control grass
• Rotovate to control grass
• Add mulch to control grass
• Add mulch to control grass and sow seed
• Cut/mow, rotovate and sow seed to control grass
Unlikely to be • Use herbicide to control grass
beneficial

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 499

Shrubland and Heathland Conservation

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Cut/mow to control grass

One controlled study in the UK found that mowing increased the number of
heathland plants in one of two sites. The same study found that the presence
of a small minority of heathland plants increased, but the presence of non-
heathland plants did not change. Three replicated, controlled studies in the
UK and the USA found that cutting to control grass did not alter cover of
common heather or shrub seedling abundance. One replicated, controlled
study in the UK found that cutting to control purple moor grass reduced
vegetation height, had mixed effects on purple moor grass cover and the
number of plant species, and did not alter cover of common heather. Two
randomized, controlled studies in the USA found that mowing did not
increase the cover of native forb species. Both studies found that mowing
reduced grass cover but in one of these studies grass cover recovered over
time. One replicated, controlled study in the UK found that mowing did not
alter the abundance of wavy hair grass relative to rotovating or cutting turf.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 22%; certainty 35%; harms 5%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1638

 ut/mow to control grass and sow seed of shrubland

C
plants
One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the USA found that the
biomass of sagebrush plants in areas where grass was cut and seeds sown
did not differ from areas where grass was not cut, but seeds were sown.
One randomized controlled study in the USA found that cutting grass and
sowing seeds increased shrub seedling abundance and reduced grass cover
One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the USA found that sowing
seeds and mowing did not change the cover of non-native plants or the
number of native plant species. Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness
31%; certainty 20%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1639

Rake to control grass

A randomized, replicated, controlled, paired study in the USA found that cover
of both invasive and native grasses, as well as forbs was lower in areas that
were raked than in areas that were not raked, but that the number of annual

500
 8.8 Threat: Invasive and other problematic species

plants species did not differ. Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness

30%; certainty 20%; harms 12%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1640

Cut/mow and rotovate to control grass

One controlled study in the UK found that mowing followed by rotovating
increased the number of heathland plant species in one of two sites. The
same study found that the presence of a minority of heathland and non-
heathland species increased. Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness
22%; certainty 15%; harms 7%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1641

A
 pply herbicide and sow seeds of shrubland plants to
control grass
One randomized, controlled study in the USA found that areas where
herbicide was sprayed and seeds of shrubland species were sown had more
shrub seedlings than areas that were not sprayed or sown with seeds. One
randomized, replicated, controlled study in the USA found that spraying
with herbicide and sowing seeds of shrubland species did not increase the
cover of native plant species, but did increase the number of native plant
species. One of two studies in the USA found that spraying with herbicide
and sowing seeds of shrubland species reduced non-native grass cover.
One study in the USA found that applying herbicide and sowing seeds of
shrubland species did not reduce the cover of non-native grasses. Assessment:
unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 35%; certainty 30%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1644

A
 pply herbicide and remove plants to control grass
One randomized, replicated, controlled, paired study in the USA found
that areas sprayed with herbicide and weeded to control non-native grass
cover had higher cover of native grasses and forbs than areas that were
not sprayed or weeded, but not a higher number of native plant species.
The same study found that spraying with herbicide and weeding reduced
non-native grass cover. Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 42%;
certainty 20%; harms 2%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1645

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 501

Shrubland and Heathland Conservation

Use grazing to control grass

One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the Netherlands found
that grazing to reduce grass cover had mixed effects on cover of common
heather and cross-leaved heath. One replicated, controlled, before-and-after
study in the Netherlands found that cover of wavy-hair grass increased
and one before-and-after study in Spain found a reduction in grass height.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 32%; certainty 17%; harms 10%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1646

Use precribed burning to control grass

One replicated controlled, paired, before-and-after study in the UK found that
prescribed burning to reduce the cover of purple moor grass, did not reduce
its cover but did reduce the cover of common heather. One randomized,
replicated, controlled study in the UK found that prescribed burning initially
reduced vegetation height, but this recovered over time. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness (effectiveness 0%; certainty 20%; harms 15%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1723

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. Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 0%; certainty 10%;
harms 10%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1724

Use herbicide and prescribed burning to control grass

One randomized, replicated, controlled, paired, before-and-after study in
the UK found that burning and applying herbicide to reduce the cover of
purple moor grass reduced cover of common heather but did not reduce
cover of purple moor grass. Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness
0%; certainty 10%; harms 20%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1725

Strip turf to control grass

One controlled study in the UK found that cutting and removing turf increased
the number of heathland plants. The same study found that the presence of a

502
 8.8 Threat: Invasive and other problematic species

small number of heathland plants increased, and that the presence of a small
number of non-heathland plants decreased. One replicated, controlled study
in the UK found that presence of heather was similar in areas where turf
was cut and areas that were mown or rotovated. One replicated, controlled
study in the UK found that the presence of wavy hair grass was similar in
areas where turf was cut and those that were mown or rotovated. Assessment:
unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 32%; certainty 25%; harms 2%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1647

Rotovate to control grass

One replicated, controlled study in the UK found that rotovating did not
alter the presence of heather compared to mowing or cutting. The same
study found that wavy hair grass presence was not altered by rotovating,
relative to areas that were mown or cut. Assessment: unknown effectiveness
(effectiveness 0%; certainty 5%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1648

A
 dd mulch to control grass
One randomized, controlled study in the USA found that areas where mulch
was used to control grass cover had a similar number of shrub seedlings
to areas where mulch was not applied. The same study found that mulch
application did not reduce grass cover. Assessment: unknown effectiveness
(effectiveness 0%; certainty 10%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1649

A
 dd mulch to control grass and sow seed
One randomized, controlled study in the USA found that adding mulch,
followed by seeding with shrub seeds, increased the seedling abundance
of one of seven shrub species but did not reduce grass cover. Assessment:
unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 5%; certainty 7%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1650

Cut/mow, rotovate and sow seeds to control grass

One replicated, controlled study in the UK found that rotovating did not
alter the presence of heather compared to mowing or cutting. The same
study found that wavy hair grass presence was not altered by rotovating,

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 503

Shrubland and Heathland Conservation

relative to areas that were mown or cut. Assessment: unknown effectiveness

(effectiveness 50%; certainty 12%; harms 1%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1651

Unlikely to be beneficial

Use herbicide to control grass

Two randomized, controlled studies in the UK and the USA found that
spraying with herbicide did not affect the number of shrub or heathland
plant seedlings. One of these studies found that applying herbicide increased
the abundance of one of four heathland plants, but reduced the abundance
of one heathland species. However, one randomized, controlled study in
the UK found that applying herbicide increased cover of heathland species.
One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the UK reported no effect
on the cover of common heather. One randomized, replicated study in
the UK reported mixed effects of herbicide application on shrub cover.
Two randomized, controlled studies in the USA and the UK found that
herbicide application did not change the cover of forb species. However, one
randomized, controlled, study in the USA found that herbicide application
increased native forb cover. Four of five controlled studies (two of which
were replicated) in the USA found that grass cover or non-native grass cover
were lower in areas where herbicides were used to control grass than areas
were herbicide was not used. Two randomized, replicated, controlled studies
in the UK found that herbicide reduced cover of purple moor grass, but not
cover of three grass/reed species. Two randomized, controlled studies in the
UK found that herbicide application did not reduce grass cover. Assessment:
unlikely to be beneficial (effectiveness 32%; certainty 40%; harms 7%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1643

504
 8.8 Threat: Invasive and other problematic species

8.8.3 Bracken

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for managing the impacts of bracken in
shrublands and heathlands?
Unknown • Use herbicide to control bracken
effectiveness • Cut to control bracken
(limited evidence)
• Cut and apply herbicide to control bracken
• Cut bracken and rotovate
• Use ‘bracken bruiser’ to control bracken
• Use herbicide and remove leaf litter to control
bracken
No evidence found • Cut and burn bracken
(no assessment) • Use herbicide and sow seed of shrubland plants
to control bracken
• Increase grazing intensity to control bracken
• Use herbicide and increase livestock numbers to
control bracken

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Use herbicide to control bracken

One controlled, before-and-after trial in the UK found that applying herbicide
to control bracken increased the number of heather seedlings. However,
two randomized, controlled studies in the UK found that spraying with
herbicide did not increase heather cover. One randomized, controlled study
in the UK found that applying herbicide to control bracken increased heather
biomass. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found
that the application of herbicide increased the number of plant species in a
heathland site. However, one replicated, randomized, controlled study in
the UK found that spraying bracken with herbicide had no effect on species
richness or diversity. One randomized, controlled study in the UK found
that applying herbicide to control bracken increased the cover of wavy
hair-grass and sheep’s fescue. One controlled study in the UK found that
applying herbicide to control bracken increased the cover of gorse and the

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 505

Shrubland and Heathland Conservation

abundance of common cow-wheat. One controlled, before-and-after trial in

the UK found that the application of herbicide reduced the abundance of
bracken but increased the number of silver birch seedlings. Three randomized,
controlled studies in the UK found that the application of herbicide reduced
the biomass or cover of bracken. However, one controlled study in the UK
found that applying herbicide did not change the abundance of bracken.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 50%; certainty 35%; harms 10%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1652

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. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness (effectiveness 50%; certainty 35%; harms 2%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1653

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,

506
 8.8 Threat: Invasive and other problematic species

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. Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 30%; certainty
30%; harms 4%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1654

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.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 0%; certainty 10%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1656

Use ‘bracken bruiser’ to control bracken

One randomized, replicated, controlled, before-and-after, paired study in the
UK found that bracken bruising increased bracken cover, though bracken
cover also increased in areas where bracken bruising was not done .There
was no effect on the number of plant species or plant diversity. Assessment:
unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 0%; certainty 10%; harms 7%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1726

Use herbicide and remove leaf litter to control bracken

One randomized, controlled study in the UK found that using herbicide and
removing leaf litter did not increase total plant biomass after eight years. The
same study found that for three of six years, heather biomass was higher
in areas where herbicide was sprayed and leaf litter was removed than in
areas that were sprayed with herbicide. Assessment: unknown effectiveness
(effectiveness 27%; certainty 12%; harms 2%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1660

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Cut and burn bracken
• Use herbicide and sow seed of shrubland plants to control bracken

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 507

Shrubland and Heathland Conservation

• Increase grazing intensity to control bracken

• Use herbicide and increase livestock numbers to control bracken.

8.8.4 Problematic animals

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for managing the impacts of problematic
animals in shrublands and heathlands?
Unknown effectiveness • Use fences to exclude large herbivores
(limited evidence) • Reduce numbers of large herbivores
No evidence found (no • Use biological control to reduce the number
assessment) of problematic invertebrates

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Use fences to exclude large herbivores

One controlled study in the USA found that using fences to exclude deer
increased the height of shrubs, but not shrub cover. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness (effectiveness 7%; certainty 10%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1662

Reduce numbers of large herbivores

One before-and-after trial in the USA found that removing feral sheep, cattle
and horses increased shrub cover and reduced grass cover. One replicated
study in the UK found that reducing grazing pressure by red deer increased
the cover and height of common heather. Assessment: unknown effectiveness
(effectiveness 70%; certainty 30%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1663

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Use biological control to reduce the number of problematic
invertebrates.

508
 8.9 Threat: Pollution

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for managing the impacts of pollution in
shrublands and heathlands?
Unknown • Mow shrubland to reduce impacts of pollutants
effectiveness • Burn shrublands to reduce impacts of pollutants
(limited evidence)
No evidence found • Plant vegetation to act as a buffer to exclude
(no assessment) vegetation
• Reduce pesticide use on nearby agricultural/
forestry land
• Reduce herbicide use on nearby agricultural/
forestry land
• Reduce fertilizer use on nearby agricultural/
forestry land
• Add lime to shrubland to reduce the impacts of
sulphur dioxide pollution

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Mow shrubland to reduce impact of pollutants

One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the UK found that mowing to
reduce the impact of nitrogen deposition did not alter shoot length of common
heather or the number of purple moor grass seedlings. One controlled study
in the UK found that mowing a heathland affected by nitrogen pollution
did not alter the cover or shoot length of heather compared to areas where
prescribed burning was used. Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness
0%; certainty 17%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1669

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 509

Shrubland and Heathland Conservation

Burn shrublands to reduce impacts of pollutants

One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the UK found that prescribed
burning to reduce the impact of nitrogen deposition did not alter the shoot
length of common heather or the number of purple moor grass seedlings
compared to mowing. A controlled study in the UK found that burning to
reduce the concentration of pollutants in a heathland affected by nitrogen
pollution did not alter the cover or shoot length of heather relative to areas
that were mowed. Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 0%; certainty
17%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1670

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Plant vegetation to act as a buffer to exclude vegetation
• Reduce pesticide use on nearby agricultural/forestry land
• Reduce herbicide use on nearby agricultural/forestry land
• Reduce fertilizer use on nearby agricultural/forestry land
• Add lime to shrubland to reduce the impacts of sulphur dioxide
pollution.

510
 8.10 Threat: Climate change
and severe weather

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for managing the impacts of climate
change and severe weather in shrublands and heathlands?
No evidence found • Restore habitat in area predicted to have suitable
(no assessment) habitat for shrubland species in the future
• Improve connectivity between areas of
shrubland to allow species movements and
habitat shifts in response to climate change

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Restore habitat in area predicted to have suitable habitat for
shrubland species in the future
• Improve connectivity between areas of shrubland to allow species
movements and habitat shifts in response to climate change.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 511

 8.11 Threat: Habitat protection

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for habitat protection in shrublands and
heathlands?
No evidence found • Legally protect shrubland
(no assessment) • Legally protect habitat around shrubland

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Legally protect shrubland
• Legally protect habitat around shrubland.

512
 8.12 Habitat restoration
and creation

8.12.1 General restoration

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for general restoration of shrubland and
heathland habitats?
Likely to be • Allow shrubland to regenerate without active
beneficial management
No evidence found • Restore/create connectivity between shrublands
(no assessment)

Likely to be beneficial

A
 llow shrubland to regenerate without active
management
Five before-and-after trials (two of which were replicated) in the USA, UK,
and Norway, found that allowing shrubland to recover after fire without
any active management increased shrub cover or biomass. One replicated,
paired, site comparison in the USA found that sites that were allowed to
recover without active restoration had similar shrub cover to unburned areas.
One controlled, before-and-after trial in the USA found no increase in shrub
cover. One before-and-after trial in Norway found an increase in heather
height. One before-and-after trial in Spain found that there was an increase
in seedlings for one of three shrub species. Two replicated, randomized,
controlled, before-and-after trials in Spain and Portugal found that there
was an increase in the cover of woody plant species. One before-and-after

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 513

Shrubland and Heathland Conservation

study in Spain found that cover of woody plants increased, but the number
of woody plant species did not. One replicated, before-and-after study in
South Africa found that the height of three protea species increased after
recovery from fire. One before-and-after trial in South Africa found that there
was an increase in vegetation cover, but not in the number of plant species.
One before-and-after trial in South Africa found an increase in a minority
of plant species. Two before-and-after trials in the USA and UK found that
allowing shrubland to recover after fire without active management resulted
in a decrease in grass cover or biomass. One controlled, before-and-after
trial in the USA found an increase in the cover of a minority of grass species.
One before-and-after study in Spain found that cover of herbaceous species
declined. One replicated, before-and-after study in the UK found mixed
effects on cover of wavy hair grass. One controlled, before-and-after trial
in the USA found no increase in forb cover. One replicated, randomized,
controlled before-and-after trial in Spain found that herb cover declined after
allowing recovery of shrubland after fire. Assessment: likely to be beneficial
(effectiveness 62%; certainty 60%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1679

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Restore/create connectivity between shrublands.

8.12.2 Modify physical habitat

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for restoring shrubland and heathland
habitats by modifying the physical habitat?
Likely to be • Add topsoil
beneficial
Unknown • Disturb vegetation
effectiveness • Strip topsoil
(limited evidence)
• Remove leaf litter
• Add sulphur to soil

514
 8.12 Habitat restoration and creation

• Use erosion blankets/mats to aid plant

establishment
• Add mulch and fertilizer to soil
• Add manure to soil
• Irrigate degraded shrublands
No evidence found • Remove trees/crops to restore shrubland
(no assessment) structure
• Remove trees, leaf litter and topsoil
• Add peat to soil
• Burn leaf litter

Likely to be beneficial

A
 dd topsoil
Two randomized, controlled studies in the UK found that the addition of
topsoil increased the cover or abundance of heathland plant species. One
replicated, site comparison in Spain found an increase in the abundance
of woody plants. One randomized, controlled study in the UK found an
increase in the number of seedlings for a majority of heathland plants. One
controlled study in Namibia found that addition of topsoil increased plant
cover and the number of plant species, but that these were lower than at a
nearby undisturbed site. One randomized, controlled study in the UK found
an increase in the cover of forbs but a reduction in the cover of grasses.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 67%; certainty 45%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1686

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Disturb vegetation
One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the UK found that vegetation
disturbance did not increase the abundance or species richness of specialist
plants but increased the abundance of generalist plants. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness (effectiveness 0%; certainty 10%; harms 7%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1727

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 515

Shrubland and Heathland Conservation

Strip topsoil
Two randomized, replicated, controlled studies in the UK found that removal
of topsoil did not increase heather cover or cover of heathland species.
However, one controlled study in the UK found an increase in heather
cover. One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the UK found that
removing topsoil increased the cover of both specialist and generalist plant
species, but did not increase species richness. One randomized, replicated,
paired, controlled study in the UK found that removal of topsoil increased
cover of annual grasses but led to a decrease in the cover of perennial grasses.
One controlled study in the UK found that removal of turf reduced cover
of wavy hair grass. One controlled, before-and-after trial in the UK found
that stripping surface layers of soil increased the cover of gorse and sheep’s
sorrel as well as the number of plant species. Assessment: unknown effectiveness
(effectiveness 30%; certainty 25%; harms 3%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1685

Remove leaf litter

One randomized, controlled study in the UK found that removing leaf
litter did not alter the presence of heather. Assessment: unknown effectiveness
(effectiveness 0%; certainty 10%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1688

A
 dd sulphur to soil
One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the UK found that adding
sulphur to the soil of a former agricultural field did not increase the number
of heather seedlings in five of six cases. Assessment: unknown effectiveness
(effectiveness 2%; certainty 10%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1691

Use erosion blankets/mats to aid plant establishment

One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that using
an erosion control blanket increased the height of two shrub species. One
replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA did not find an increase
in the number of shrub species, but one controlled study in China did find
an increase in plant diversity following the use of erosion control blankets.
The same study found an increase in plant biomass and cover. Assessment:
unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 30%; certainty 20%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1692

516
 8.12 Habitat restoration and creation

A
 dd mulch and fertilizer to soil
One randomized, controlled study in the USA found that adding mulch and
fertilizer did not increase the seedling abundance of seven shrub species.
The same study also reported no change in grass cover. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness (effectiveness 0%; certainty 10%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1694

A
 dd manure to soil
One replicated, randomized, controlled study in South Africa found that
adding manure increased plant cover and the number of plant species.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 30%; certainty 10%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1695

Irrigate degraded shrublands

One replicated, randomized, controlled study at two sites in USA found that
temporary irrigation increased shrub cover. Assessment: unknown effectiveness
(effectiveness 30%; certainty 10%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1696

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Remove trees/crops to restore shrubland structure
• Remove trees, leaf litter and topsoil
• Add peat to soil
• Burn leaf litter.

8.12.3 Introduce vegetation or seeds

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for restoring shrubland and heathland
habitats by introducing vegetation or seeds?
Beneficial • Sow seeds
Unknown • Plant individual plants
effectiveness • Sow seeds and plant individual plants
(limited evidence)

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 517

Shrubland and Heathland Conservation

• Spread clippings
• Build bird perches to encourage colonization by
plants
• Plant turf

Beneficial

Sow seeds
Five of six studies (including three replicated, randomized, controlled studies,
one site comparison study and one controlled study) in the UK, South Africa,
and the USA found that sowing seeds of shrubland species increased shrub
cover. One of six studies in the UK found no increase in shrub cover. One
replicated site comparison in the USA found in sites where seed containing
Wyoming big sagebrush was sown the abundance of the plant was higher
than in sites where it was not sown. One replicated, randomized, controlled
study in the USA found that shrub seedling abundance increased after seeds
were sown. One study in the USA found very low germination of hackberry
seeds when they were sown. One replicated, randomized, controlled study
in the USA found that the community composition of shrublands where
seeds were sown was similar to that found in undisturbed shrublands. One
randomized, controlled study in the UK found an increase in the cover
of heathland plants when seeds were sown. One replicated, randomized,
controlled study in South Africa found that sowing seeds increased plant
cover. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that
areas where seeds were sown did not differ significantly in native cover
compared to areas where shrubland plants had been planted. One controlled
study in the USA found higher plant diversity in areas where seeds were
sown by hand than in areas where they were sown using a seed drill. Two of
three studies (one of which was a replicated, randomized, controlled study)
in the USA found that sowing seeds of shrubland species resulted in an
increase in grass cover. One randomized, controlled study in the UK found
no changes in the cover of grasses or forbs. Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness
70%; certainty 60%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1698

518
 8.12 Habitat restoration and creation

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Plant individual plants

One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that planting
California sagebrush plants did not increase the cover of native plant species
compared to sowing of seeds or a combination of planting and sowing seeds.
One replicated, randomized, controlled study in South Africa found that
planting Brownanthus pseudoschlichtianus plants increased plant cover, but
not the number of plant species. One study in the USA found that a majority
of planted plants survived after one year. Assessment: unknown effectiveness
(effectiveness 40%; certainty 20%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1697

Sow seeds and plant individual plants

One replicated, controlled study in the USA found that planting California
sagebrush and sowing of seeds did not increase cover of native plant species
compared to sowing of seeds, or planting alone. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness (effectiveness 10%; certainty 10%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1700

Spread clippings
One randomized, controlled study in the UK found that the addition of
shoots and seeds of heathland plants did not increase the abundance of
mature plants for half of plant species. One randomized, controlled study
in the UK found that the frequency of heather plants was not significantly
different in areas where heather clippings had been spread and areas where
they were not spread. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the
UK found an increase in the number of heather seedlings, but not of other
heathland species. One randomized, controlled study in the UK found that
the addition of shoots and seeds increased the number of seedlings for a
minority of species. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in South
Africa found that plant cover and the number of plant species did not differ
significantly between areas where branches had been spread and those where
branches had not been spread. Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness
30%; certainty 32%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1701

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 519

Shrubland and Heathland Conservation

Build bird perches to encourage colonization by plants

One replicated, controlled study in South Africa found that building artificial
bird perches increased the number of seeds at two sites, but no shrubs
became established at either of these sites. Assessment: unknown effectiveness
(effectiveness 10%; certainty 10%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1702

Plant turf
Two randomized, controlled studies in the UK found that planting turf from
intact heathland sites increased the abundance or cover of heathland species.
One of these studies also found that planting turf increased the seedling
abundance for a majority of heathland plant species. One randomized,
controlled study in the UK found that planting turf increased forb cover,
and reduced grass cover. One randomized, replicated, controlled study in
Iceland found that planting large turves from intact heathland sites increased
the number of plant species, but smaller turves did not. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness (effectiveness 62%; certainty 30%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1703

520
 8.13 Actions to benefit
introduced vegetation

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions to benefit introduced vegetation in
shrubland heathland habitats?
Unknown • Add fertilizer to soil (alongside planting/
effectiveness seeding)
(limited evidence) • Add peat to soil (alongside planting/seeding)
• Add mulch and fertilizer to soil (alongside
planting/seeding)
• Add gypsum to soil (alongside planting/seeding)
• Add sulphur to soil (alongside planting/seeding)
• Strip/disturb topsoil (alongside planting/seeding)
• Add topsoil (alongside planting/seeding)
• Plant seed balls
• Plant/sow seeds of nurse plants alongside focal
plants
• Plant/seed under established vegetation
• Plant shrubs in clusters
• Add root associated bacteria/fungi to introduced
plants

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

A
 dd fertilizer to soil (alongside planting/seeding)
A replicated, controlled study in Iceland found that adding fertilizer and
sowing seeds increased cover of shrubs and trees in a majority of cases. The
same study showed an increase in vegetation cover in two of three cases.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 521

Shrubland and Heathland Conservation

One controlled study in the USA found that adding fertilizer increased the
biomass of four-wing saltbush in a majority of cases. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness (effectiveness 45%; certainty 25%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1704

A
 dd peat to soil (alongside planting/seeding)
One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found that adding
peat to soil and sowing seed increased the cover of common heather in the
majority of cases, compared to seeding alone. One replicated, randomized,
controlled study in the UK found that adding peat to soil and sowing seed
increased the density of heather seedlings, and led to larger heather plants
than seeding alone, but that no seedlings survived after two years. Assessment:
unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 42%; certainty 20%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1705

A
 dd mulch and fertilizer to soil (alongside planting/
seeding)
A randomized, controlled study in the USA found that adding mulch and
fertilizer, followed by sowing of seeds increased the abundance of seedlings
for a minority of shrub species. The same study found that adding mulch and
fertilizer, followed by sowing seeds had no significant effect on grass cover.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 35%; certainty 15%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1707

A
 dd gypsum to soil (alongside planting/seeding)
One randomized, controlled study in South Africa found that adding gypsum
to soils and sowing seeds increased survival of seedlings for one of two species.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 30%; certainty 10%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1708

A
 dd sulphur to soil (alongside planting/seeding)
A randomized, replicated, controlled study in the UK found that adding
sulphur to soil alongside sowing seeds did not increase heather cover in
a majority of cases. One replicated, controlled study in the UK found that
adding sulphur and spreading heathland clippings had mixed effects on
cover of common heather, perennial rye-grass, and common bent. One
randomized, controlled study in the UK found that adding sulphur to soil
alongside planting of heather seedlings increased their survival, though

522
 8.13 Actions to benefit introduced vegetation

after two years survival was very low. Assessment: unknown effectiveness
(effectiveness 20%; certainty 30%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1710

Strip/disturb topsoil (alongside planting/seeding)

Two replicated, controlled studies in the UK found that removal of topsoil
and addition seed/clippings increased cover of heathland plants or cover of
heather and gorse. One controlled study in the UK found that soil disturbance
using a rotovator and spreading clippings of heathland plants (alongside
mowing) increased the number of heathland plants. One replicated, controlled
study in the UK found that stripping the surface layers of soil and adding
seed reduced the cover of perennial rye-grass. One randomized, replicated,
paired, and controlled study in the UK found that removal of topsoil and
addition of the clippings of heathland plants did not alter the cover of annual
grasses but led to a decrease in cover of perennial grasses. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness (effectiveness 60%; certainty 35%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1711

A
 dd topsoil (alongside planting/seeding)
One randomized, replicated, paired, controlled study in the USA found that
addition of topsoil alongside sowing of seed increased the biomass of grasses
but reduced the biomass of forbs in comparison to addition of topsoil alone.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 0%; certainty 10%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1857

Plant seed balls

A randomized, replicated, controlled study in the USA found that planting
seed balls resulted in lower seedling numbers than sowing seed. Assessment:
unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 0%; certainty 10%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1712

Plant/sow seeds of nurse plants alongside focal plants

A randomized, replicated, controlled study in the UK found that sowing
seeds of nurse plants and heathland plants did not increase the cover of
common heather. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA
found that sowing seeds of nurse plants and California sagebrush seeds
together reduced survival of shrubs in more than half of cases. The same
study found that California sagebrush biomass was also reduced when its

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 523

Shrubland and Heathland Conservation

seeds were sown with those of nurse plants. Assessment: unknown effectiveness
(effectiveness 0%; certainty 20%; harms 10%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1713

Plant/seed under established vegetation

A replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that sowing
seed under established shrubs had mixed effects on blackbrush seedling
emergence. Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 20%; certainty
10%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1714

Plant shrubs in clusters

A randomized, controlled study in South Africa found that when shrubs were
planted in clumps more of them died than when they were planted alone.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 0%; certainty 15%; harms 1%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1715

A
 dd root associated bacteria/fungi to introduced plants
Two controlled studies (one of which was randomized) in Spain found
that adding rhizobacteria to soil increased the biomass of shrubs. One of
these studies also found an increase in shrub height. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness (effectiveness 60%; certainty 15%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1716

524
 8.14 Education and
awareness

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of

the effectiveness of interventions for education and awareness of
shrubland and heathland habitats?
No evidence found • Raise awareness amongst the general public
(no assessment) • Provide education programmes about
shrublands

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Raise awareness amongst the general public
• Provide education programmes about shrublands.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 525

9. MANAGEMENT OF CAPTIVE
ANIMALS
Coral S. Jonas, Lydia T. Timbrell, Fey Young, Silviu O. Petrovan,
Andrew E. Bowkett & Rebecca K. Smith

Husbandry interventions for captive breeding amphibians

Expert assessors
Kay Bradfield, Perth Zoo, Australia
Jeff Dawson, Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust, UK
Devin Edmonds, Association Mitsinjo, Madagascar
Jonathan Kolby, Honduras Amphibian Rescue and Conservation Center, Honduras
Stephanie Jayson, Veterinary Department, Zoological Society of London, UK
Daniel Nicholson, Queen Mary University of London, UK
Silviu O. Petrovan, Cambridge University, UK and Froglife Trust, UK
Jay Redbond, Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust, UK
Rebecca K. Smith, Cambridge University, UK
Benjamin Tapley, Herpetology Section, Zoological Society of London, UK

Scope of assessment: for husbandry interventions for captive breeding

amphibians.
Assessed: 2017.

Promoting health and welfare in captive carnivores (felids, canids and ursids)
through feeding practices
Expert assessors
Kathy Baker, Whitley Wildlife Conservation Trust, Newquay Zoo, UK
Marcus Clauss, University of Zurich, Switzerland
Ellen Dierenfeld, Independent comparative nutrition consultant, USA
Thomas Quirke, University College Cork, Republic of Ireland
Joanna Newbolt, Whitley Wildlife Conservation Trust, Paignton Zoo, and University of
Plymouth, UK
Simon Marsh, Yorkshire Wildlife Wildlife Park, UK
Amy Plowman, Whitley Wildlife Conservation Trust, Paignton Zoo, UK
Katherine Whitehouse-Tedd, Nottingham Trent University, UK
Gwen Wirobski, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Austria

Scope of assessment: for promoting health and welfare in captive

carnivores (felids, canids and ursids) through feeding practices.
Assessed: 2018.

© W. Sutherland et al., CC BY 4.0 https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0191.09

Promoting natural feeding behaviours in primates in captivity
Expert assessors
Francis Cabana, Wildlife Reserves Singapore, Singapore
Po-Han Chou, Taipei Zoo, Taiwan
Ellen Dierenfeld, Independent comparative nutrition consultant, USA
Mike Downman, Dartmoor Zoo, UK
Craig Gilchrist, Paignton Zoo, UK
Amy Plowman, Whitley Wildlife Conservation Trust, Paignton Zoo, UK

Scope of assessment: for promoting natural feeding behaviours in captive

primates.
Assessed: 2017.
Effectiveness measure is the median % score for effectiveness.
Certainty measure is the median % certainty of evidence for effectiveness,
determined by the quantity and quality of the evidence in the synopsis.
Harm measure is the median % score for negative side-effects on the species
included.

This book is meant as a guide to the evidence available for different

conservation interventions and as a starting point in assessing their
effectiveness. The assessments are based on the available evidence for the
target group of species for each intervention. The assessment may therefore
refer to different species or habitat to the one(s) you are considering.
Before making any decisions about implementing interventions it is vital
that you read the more detailed accounts of the evidence in order to assess
their relevance for your study species or system.

Full details of the evidence are available at

www.conservationevidence.com

There may also be significant negative side-effects on the target groups

or other species or communities that have not been identified in this
assessment.

A lack of evidence means that we have been unable to assess whether or

not an intervention is effective or has any harmful impacts.

528
 9.1 Ex-situ conservation –
breeding amphibians

9.1.1 Refining techniques using less threatened

species

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of

the effectiveness of interventions for refining techniques using less
threatened species?
Unknown • Identify and breed a similar species to refine
effectiveness husbandry techniques prior to working with
(limited evidence) target species

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

I dentify and breed a similar species to refine husbandry

techniques prior to working with target species
Two small, replicated interlinked studies in Brazil found that working
with a less threatened surrogate species of frog first to establish husbandry
interventions promoted successful breeding of a critically endangered
species of frog. Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 68%; certainty
30%; harms 15%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1862

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 529

Management of Captive Animals

9.1.2 Changing environmental

conditions/microclimate

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for changing environmental conditions/
microclimate?
Unknown • Vary enclosure temperature to simulate seasonal
effectiveness changes in the wild
(limited evidence) • Vary quality or quantity (UV% or gradients) of
enclosure lighting to simulate seasonal changes
in the wild
• Provide artificial aquifers for species which
breed in upwelling springs
• Vary artificial rainfall to simulate seasonal
changes in the wild
No evidence found • Vary enclosure humidity to simulate seasonal
(no assessment) changes in the wild using humidifiers, foggers/
misters or artificial rain
• Vary duration of enclosure lighting to simulate
seasonal changes in the wild
• Simulate rainfall using sound recordings of rain
and/or thunderstorms
• Allow temperate amphibians to hibernate
• Allow amphibians from highly seasonal
environments to have a period of dormancy
during a simulated drought period
• Vary water flow/speed of artificial streams in
enclosures for torrent breeding species

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

 ary enclosure temperature to simulate seasonal changes

V
in the wild
One small, replicated study in Italy found that one of six females bred
following a drop in temperature from 20-24 to 17°C, and filling of an egg
laying pond. One replicated, before-and-after study in 2006-2012 in Australia
found that providing a pre-breeding cooling period, alongside allowing

530
 9.1 Ex-situ conservation – breeding amphibians

females to gain weight before the breeding period, along with separating
sexes during the non-breeding period, providing mate choice for females
and playing recorded mating calls, increased breeding success. Assessment:
unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 50%; certainty 35%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1864

 ary quality or quantity (UV% or gradients) of enclosure

V
lighting to simulate seasonal changes in the wild
One replicated study in the UK found that there was no difference in clutch
size between frogs given an ultraviolet (UV) boost compared with those
that only received background levels. However, frogs given the UV boost
had a significantly greater fungal load than frogs that were not UV-boosted.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 0%; certainty 33%; harms 20%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1865

 rovide artificial aquifers for species which breed in

P
upwelling springs
One small study in the USA found that salamanders bred in an aquarium
fitted with an artificial aquifer. Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness
50%; certainty 15%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1871

 ary artificial rainfall to simulate seasonal changes in the

V
wild
Two replicated, before-and-after studies in Germany and Austria found that
simulating a wet and dry season, as well as being moved to an enclosure
with more egg laying sites and flowing water in Austria, stimulated breeding
and egg deposition. In Germany, no toadlets survived past 142 days old.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 78%; certainty 33%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1872

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Vary enclosure humidity to simulate seasonal changes in the wild
using humidifiers, foggers/misters or artificial rain

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 531

Management of Captive Animals

• Vary duration of enclosure lighting to simulate seasonal changes in

the wild
• Simulate rainfall using sound recordings of rain and/or
thunderstorms
• Allow temperate amphibians to hibernate
• Allow amphibians from highly seasonal environments to have a
period of dormancy
• Vary water flow/speed of artificial streams in enclosures for torrent
breeding species

9.1.3 Changing enclosure design for spawning or egg

laying sites

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of

the effectiveness of interventions for changing enclosure design for
spawning or egg laying sites?
Unknown • Provide multiple egg laying sites within an
effectiveness enclosure
(limited evidence) • Provide natural substrate for species which
do not breed in water (e.g. burrowing/tunnel
breeders)
• Provide particular plants as breeding areas or
egg laying sites

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Provide multiple egg laying sites within an enclosure

One replicated study in Australia found that frogs only bred once moved
into an indoor enclosure which had various types of organic substrate,
allowed temporary flooding, and enabled sex ratios to be manipulated along
with playing recorded mating calls. One small, replicated, before-and-after
study in Fiji found that adding rotting logs and hollow bamboo pipes to an
enclosure, as well as a variety of substrates, promoted egg laying in frogs.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 50%; certainty 25%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1873

532
 9.1 Ex-situ conservation – breeding amphibians

 rovide natural substrate for species which do not breed

P
in water (e.g. burrowing/tunnel breeders)
Two replicated studies in Australia and Fiji found that adding a variety of
substrates to an enclosure, as well as rotting logs and hollow bamboo pipes in
one case, promoted egg laying of frogs. The Australian study also temporarily
flooded enclosures, manipulated sex ratios and played recorded mating calls.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 50%; certainty 20%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1874

 rovide particular plants as breeding areas or egg laying

P
sites
One small, controlled study in the USA found that salamanders bred in an
aquarium heavily planted with java moss and swamp-weed. Assessment:
unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 75%; certainty 20%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1875

9.1.4 Manipulate social conditions

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for manipulating social conditions?

Unknown • Manipulate sex ratio within the enclosure

effectiveness • Separate sexes in non-breeding periods
(limited evidence)
• Play recordings of breeding calls to simulate
breeding season in the wild
• Allow female mate choice
No evidence found • Provide visual barriers for territorial species
(no assessment) • Manipulate adult density within the enclosure

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Manipulate sex ratio within the enclosure

One replicated study in Australia found that frogs only bred once sex ratios
were manipulated, along with playing recorded mating calls and moving

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 533

Management of Captive Animals

frogs into an indoor enclosure which allowed temporary flooding, and

had various types of organic substrate. Assessment: unknown effectiveness
(effectiveness 35%; certainty 15%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1879

Separate sexes in non-breeding periods

One replicated, before-and-after study in Australia found that clutch size
of frogs increased when sexes were separated in the non-breeding periods,
alongside providing female mate choice, playing recorded mating calls and
allowing females to increase in weight before breeding. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness (effectiveness 65%; certainty 30%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1880

 lay recordings of breeding calls to simulate breeding

P
season in the wild
One replicated study in Australia found that frogs only bred when recorded
mating calls were played, as well as manipulating the sex ratio after frogs
were moved into an indoor enclosure that allowed temporary flooding and
had various types of organic substrates. One replicated, before-and-after
study in Australia found that clutch size of frogs increased when playing
recorded mating calls, along with the sexes being separated in the non-breeding
periods, providing female mate choice, and allowing females to increase in
weight before breeding. Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 35%;
certainty 28%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1881

A
 llow female mate choice
One replicated study in Australia found that frogs only bred after females
carrying eggs were introduced to males, sex ratios were manipulated, recorded
mating calls were played, and after being moved to an indoor enclosure which
allowed temporary flooding and had various types of organic substrates.
One replicated, before-and-after study in Australia found that clutch size of
frogs increased when female mate choice was provided, alongside playing
recorded mating calls, sexes being separated in the non-breeding periods,
and allowing females to increase in weight before breeding. Assessment:
unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 50%; certainty 20%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1882

534
 9.1 Ex-situ conservation – breeding amphibians

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Provide visual barriers for territorial species
• Manipulate adult density within the enclosure.

9.1.5 Changing the diet of adults

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for changing the diet of adults?

Unknown • Supplement diets with carotenoids (including for

effectiveness colouration)
(limited evidence) • Increase caloric intake of females in preparation
for breeding
No evidence found • Vary food provision to reflect seasonal
(no assessment) availability in the wild
• Formulate adult diet to reflect nutritional
composition of wild foods
• Supplement diets with vitamins/calcium fed to
prey (e.g. prey gut loading)
• Supplement diets with vitamins/calcium applied
to food (e.g. dusting prey)

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

 upplement diets with carotenoids (including for

S
colouration)
One study in the USA found that adding carotenoids to fruit flies fed to frogs
reduced the number of clutches, but increased the number of tadpoles and
successful metamorphs. Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 70%;
certainty 28%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1887

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 535

Management of Captive Animals

I ncrease caloric intake of females in preparation for

breeding
One replicated, before-and-after study in Australia found that clutch size of
frogs increased when females increased in weight before breeding, as well as
having mate choice, recorded mating calls, and sexes being separated during
the non-breeding periods. Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 60%;
certainty 23%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1888

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Vary food provision to reflect seasonal availability in the wild
• Formulate adult diet to reflect nutritional composition of wild foods
• Supplement diets with vitamins/calcium fed to prey (e.g. prey gut
loading)
• Supplement diets with vitamins/calcium applied to food (e.g.
dusting prey).

9.1.6 Manipulate rearing conditions for young

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for manipulating rearing conditions for
the young
Trade-off between • Manipulate temperature of enclosure to improve
benefit and harms development or survival to adulthood
Unknown • Formulate larval diets to improve development
effectiveness or survival to adulthood
(limited evidence) • Manipulate larval density within the enclosure
No evidence found • Leave infertile eggs at spawn site as food for
(no assessment) egg-eating larvae
• Manipulate humidity to improve development
or survival to adulthood
• Manipulate quality and quantity of enclosure
lighting to improve development or survival to
adulthood
• Allow adults to attend their eggs

536
 9.1 Ex-situ conservation – breeding amphibians

Trade-off between benefit and harms

 anipulate temperature of enclosure to improve

M
development or survival to adulthood
One replicated study in Spain found that salamander larvae had higher
survival rates when reared at lower temperatures. One replicated study in
Germany found that the growth rate and development stage reached by
harlequin toad tadpoles was faster at a higher constant temperature rather
than a lower and varied water temperature. One replicated study in Australia
found that frog tadpoles took longer to reach metamorphosis when reared
at lower temperatures. One replicated, controlled study in Iran found that
developing eggs reared within a temperature range of 12-25°C had higher
survival rates, higher growth rates and lower abnormalities than those
raised outside of that range. Assessment: trade-offs between benefits and harms
(effectiveness 80%; certainty 58%; harms 20%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1893

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

 ormulate larval diets to improve development or

F
survival to adulthood
One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the USA found that tadpoles
had higher body mass and reached a more advanced developmental stage
when fed a control diet (rabbit chow and fish food) or freshwater algae,
compared to those fed pine or oak pollen. One randomized, replicated study
in Portugal found that tadpoles reared on a diet containing 46% protein had
higher growth rates, survival and body weights at metamorphosis compared
to diets containing less protein. Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness
65%; certainty 35%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1889

Manipulate larval density within the enclosure

One randomized study in the USA found that decreasing larval density of
salamanders increased larvae survival and body mass. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness (effectiveness 88%; certainty 28%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1894

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 537

Management of Captive Animals

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Leave infertile eggs at spawn site as food for egg-eating larvae
• Manipulate humidity to improve development or survival to
adulthood
• Manipulate quality and quantity of enclosure lighting to improve
development or survival to adulthood
• Allow adults to attend their eggs.

9.1.7 Artificial reproduction

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for artificial reproduction?
No evidence found • Use artificial cloning from frozen or fresh tissue
(no assessment)

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Use artificial cloning from frozen or fresh tissue

For summarised evidence for

Use hormone treatment to induce sperm and egg release
Use artificial fertilization in captive breeding
See Smith, R.K. and Sutherland, W.J. (2014) Amphibian Conservation: Global
Evidence for the Effects of Interventions. Exeter, Pelagic Publishing.
Key messages and summaries are available here:
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/834
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/883

538
 9.2 Promoting health and
welfare in captive carnivores
(felids, canids and ursids)
through feeding practices

9.2.1 Diet and food type

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for diet and food type?
Likely to be • Provide bones, hides or partial carcasses
beneficial
Trade-off between • Feed whole carcasses (with or without organs/
benefit and harms gastrointestinal tract)
Unknown • Feed commercially prepared diets
effectiveness • Feed plant-derived protein
(limited evidence)
• Supplement meat-based diets with prebiotic
plant material to facilitate digestion
• Supplement meat-based diet with amino acids
No evidence found • Supplement meat-based diet with vitamins or
(no assessment) minerals
• Supplement meat-based diet with fatty acids
• Increase variety of food items

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 539

Management of Captive Animals

Likely to be beneficial

Provide bones, hides or partial carcasses

One replicated, before-and-after study in the USA and one replicated,
controlled study in Finland found that the provision of bones decreased the
frequency of stereotypic behaviours in lions, tigers and Arctic foxes. Two
replicated, before-and-after studies of felids and red foxes in the USA and
Norway found that the provision of bones increased activity and manipulation
time. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 80%; certainty 60%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1902

Trade-off between benefit and harms

 eed whole carcasses (with or without organs/

F
gastrointestinal tract)
Two replicated, before-and-after studies in the USA found that feeding whole
carcasses reduced pacing levels in lions, leopards, snow leopards and cougars.
However, it increased pacing in tigers. One replicated, randomized, controlled
study in Denmark found that when fed whole rabbit, cheetahs had lower
blood protein urea, zinc and vitamin A levels compared to supplemented
beef. One replicated before-and-after study in Denmark found that feeding
whole rabbit showed lower levels of inflammatory bowel indicators in
cheetahs. One replicated, randomized study and one controlled study in
the USA found that when fed whole 1 to 3 day old chickens, ocelots had
lower digestible energy and fat compared to a commercial diet and African
wildcats had had lower organic matter digestibility compared to a ground-
chicken diet. Assessment: trade-offs between benefits and harms (effectiveness 80%;
certainty 70%; harms 25%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1901

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Feed commercially prepared diets

One replicated, before-and-after study in the USA found that providing
a commercial diet to maned wolves led to similar dry matter intake and
digestibility despite having a lower protein content. One replicated, controlled
study in South Africa found that cheetahs fed a commercial diet had a similar
likelihood of developing gastritis as those fed horse meat, lower levels of

540
 9.2 Promoting health and welfare in captive carnivores

blood protein urea but higher levels of creatine. One study in USA found
that cheetahs fed a commercial meat diet or whole chicken carcasses had
plasma a-tocopherol, retinol and taurine concentrations within the ranges
recommended for domestic cats. Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness
40%; certainty 35%; harms 50%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1900

Feed plant-derived protein

One replicated, randomized, controlled study and one replicated, controlled
study in the USA found that a plant-derived protein diet increased digestible
energy and dry matter digestibility but decreased mineral retention and
plasma taurine levels in maned wolves compared to a (supplemented)
animal-based protein diet. Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness
10%; certainty 25%; harms 70%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1903

 upplement meat-based diets with prebiotic plant

S
material to facilitate digestion
One replicated, before-and-after study in India found that providing Jerusalem
artichoke as a supplement increased two types of gut microbiota, faecal scores
and faecal moisture content in leopards. Assessment: unknown effectiveness
(effectiveness 50%; certainty 25%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1905

Supplement meat-based diet with amino acid

One replicated, before-and-after study in the USA found that supplementing
an animal-protein diet with taurine, increased plasma taurine levels in
maned wolves. Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 90%; certainty
25%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1908

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Supplement meat-based diet with vitamins or minerals
• Supplement meat-based diet with fatty acids
• Increase variety of food items.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 541

Management of Captive Animals

9.2.2 Food presentation and enrichment

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for food presentation and enrichment?
Beneficial • Hide food around enclosure
Likely to be • Present food frozen in ice
beneficial • Present food inside objects (e.g. Boomer balls)
Trade-off between • Provide devices to simulate live prey, including
benefit and harms sounds, lures, pulleys and bungees
Unknown • Change location of food around enclosure
effectiveness • Scatter food around enclosure
(limited evidence)
• Provide live vertebrate prey
• Provide live invertebrate prey
No evidence found • Present food in/on water
(no assessment) • Use food as a reward in animal training

Beneficial

Hide food around enclosure

Four replicated, before-and-after studies in the USA, UK and Germany and
one before-and-after study of a black bear, leopard cats, bush dogs, maned
wolves and Malayan sun bears found that hiding food increased exploring
and foraging behaviours. One replicated, before-and-after study and one
before-and-after study in the USA found a decrease in stereotypical pacing
in leopard cats and black bear. One before-and-after study in the USA found
that hiding food reduced the time Canadian lynx spent sleeping during the
day. Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness 90%; certainty 70%; harms 10%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1915

Likely to be beneficial

Present food frozen in ice

Two replicated, before-and-after studies in the USA found that when presented
with food frozen in ice, abnormal or stereotypic behaviours decreased and
activity levels increased in bears and felids. One replicated, before-and-after

542
 9.2 Promoting health and welfare in captive carnivores

study in the USA found that manipulation behaviours increased in lions,

whereas a replicated study in the USA found that manipulation behaviours
decreased in grizzly bears. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 70%;
certainty 52%; harms 10%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1923

Present food inside objects (e.g. Boomer balls)

Two before-and-after studies in Germany and India found that exploratory
and foraging behaviours increased and stereotypic behaviours decreased in
sloth bears and spectacled bears when presented with food inside objects. One
before-and-after study in the USA found that exploring/foraging behaviours
decreased in a sloth bear when presented with food inside objects. One
replicated study in the USA found that grizzly bears spent a similar time
manipulating food in a box and freely available food. Assessment: likely to be
beneficial (effectiveness 60%; certainty 70%; harms 10%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1924

Trade-off between benefit and harms

 rovide devices to simulate live prey, including sounds,

P
lures, pulleys and bungees
Two before-and-after studies in the USA and the UK found that activity
levels and behavioural diversity increased in felids when presented with
a lure or pulley system. One replicated, before-and-after study in the USA
found that pacing behaviour decreased and walking increased in cougars,
but pacing initially increased in tigers, when provided with a carcass on a
bungee. Assessment: trade-offs between benefits and harms (effectiveness 60%;
certainty 50%; harms 25%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1927

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Change location of food around enclosure

One replicated, before-and-after study in Ireland found that altering the
location of food decreased pacing behaviours in cheetahs. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness (effectiveness 90%; certainty 30%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1918

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 543

Management of Captive Animals

Scatter food around enclosure

One replicated, before-and-after study in Brazil found that scattered feeding
increased locomotion in maned wolves. One replicated study in Brazil found
that maned wolves spent more time in the section of their enclosure with
scattered food than in a section with food on a tray. Assessment: unknown
effectiveness (effectiveness 70%; certainty 30%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1921

Provide live vertebrate prey

One small before-and-after study in the USA found that hunting behaviour
increased and sleeping decreased when a fishing cat was provided with
live fish. One replicated, before-and-after study in the USA found that there
was no change in the occurrence of stereotypical behaviours in tigers when
provided with live fish. Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 50%;
certainty 30%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1925

Provide live invertebrate prey

One replicated study in the USA found that provision of live prey increased
explorative behaviours in fennec foxes compared to other types of enrichment.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 80%; certainty 20%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1926

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Present food in/on water
• Use food as a reward in animal training.

9.2.3 Feeding schedule

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for feeding schedule?
Trade-off between • Provide food on a random temporal schedule
benefit and harms

544
 9.2 Promoting health and welfare in captive carnivores

Unknown • Allocate fast days

effectiveness
(limited evidence)
No evidence found • Alter food abundance or type seasonally
(no assessment) • Provide food during natural active periods
• Use automated feeders
• Alter feeding schedule according to visitor
activity
• Provide food during visitor experiences

Trade-off between benefit and harms

Provide food on a random temporal schedule

Three replicated, before-and-after studies and one replicated, controlled
study found that an unpredictable feeding schedule reduced the frequency
of stereotypic pacing behaviours in tigers and cheetahs. One replicated,
before-and-after controlled study in the USA found that an unpredictable
feeding schedule increased territorial behaviour in coyotes but did not affect
travelling or foraging. One before-and-after study in Switzerland found
that an unpredictable feeding schedule increased behavioural diversity in
red foxes. Assessment: trade-offs between benefits and harms (effectiveness 100%;
certainty 80%; harms 20%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1904

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

A
 llocate fast days
One replicated, before-and-after study in the UK found that large felids fed
once every three days paced more frequently on non-feeding days. Assessment:
unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 6%; certainty 25%; harms 50%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1906

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Alter food abundance or type seasonally

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 545

Management of Captive Animals

• Provide food during natural active periods

• Use automated feeders
• Alter feeding schedule according to visitor activity
• Provide food during visitor experiences.

9.2.4 Social feeding

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for social feeding?
No evidence found • Feed individuals separately
(no assessment) • Feed individuals within a social group
• Hand-feed

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Feed individuals separately
• Feed individuals within a social group
• Hand-feed.

546
 9.3 Promoting natural feeding
behaviours in primates in captivity

9.3.1 Food Presentation

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for food presentation?
Beneficial • Scatter food throughout enclosure
Likely to be • Hide food in containers (including boxes and
beneficial bags)
• Present food frozen in ice
• Present food items whole instead of processed
• Present feeds at different crowd levels
• Maximise both vertical and horizontal
presentation locations
Trade-off between • Present food in puzzle feeders
benefit and harms
Unknown • Present food in water (including dishes and
effectiveness ponds)
(limited evidence) • Present food dipped in food colouring
• Provide live vegetation in planters for foraging
No evidence found • Present food which required the use (or
(no assessment) modification) of tools
• Paint gum solutions on rough bark
• Add gum solutions to drilled hollow feeders

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 547

Management of Captive Animals

Beneficial

Scatter food throughout enclosure

Four studies, including one replicated study, in the USA, found that scattering
food throughout enclosures increased overall activity, feeding and exploration
and decreased abnormal behaviours and aggression. Assessment: beneficial
(effectiveness 80%; certainty 80%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1315

Likely to be beneficial

Hide food in containers (including boxes and bags)

Three studies including two before-and-after studies in the USA and Ireland
found that the addition of food in boxes, baskets or tubes increased activity
levels in lemurs and foraging levels in gibbons. Assessment: likely to be beneficial
(effectiveness 75%; certainty 50%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1316

Present food frozen in ice

Two studies in the USA and Ireland found that when frozen food was
presented, feeding time increased and inactivity decreased. Assessment: likely
to be beneficial (effectiveness 60%; certainty 50%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1321

Present food items whole instead of processed

One before-and-after study in the USA found that when food items were
presented whole instead of chopped, the amount of food consumed and
feeding time increased in macaques. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness
80%; certainty 50%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1323

Present feeds at different crowd levels

One before-and-after study in the USA found that when smaller crowds were
present foraging and object use in chimpanzees increased. Assessment: likely
to be beneficial (effectiveness 60%; certainty 40%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1324

548
 9.3 Promoting natural feeding behaviours in primates in captivity

 aximise both vertical and horizontal presentation

M
locations
One controlled study in the UK and Madagascar found that less time was
spent feeding on provisioned food in the indoor enclosure when food was
hung in trees in an outdoor enclosure. One replicated, before-and-after study
in the UK reported that when vertical and horizontal food locations were
increased feeding time increased. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness
65%; certainty 50%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1328

Trade-off between benefit and harms

Present food in puzzle feeders

Three studies including two before-and-after studies in the USA and UK
found that presenting food in puzzle feeders, increased foraging behaviour,
time spent feeding and tool use but also aggression. Assessment: trade-offs
between benefits and harms (effectiveness 55%; certainty 80%; harms 60%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1318

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Present food in water (including dishes and ponds)

One replicated, before-and-after study in the USA found that when exposed
to water filled troughs, rhesus monkeys were more active and increased
their use of tools. Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 60%; certainty
30%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1320

Present food dipped in food colouring

One before-and-after study in the USA found that when food was presented
after being dipped in food colouring, orangutans ate more and spent less
time feeding. Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 50%; certainty
20%; harms 20%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1322

Provide live vegetation in planters for foraging

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 549

Management of Captive Animals

One replicated, before-and-after study in the USA reported that chimpanzees

spent more time foraging when provided with planted rye grass and scattered
sunflower seeds compared to browse and grass added to the enclosure with
their normal diet. Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 80%; certainty
30%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1327

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Present food which required the use (or modification) of tools
• Paint gum solutions on rough bark
• Add gum solutions to drilled hollow feeders.

9.3.2 Diet manipulation

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for diet manipulation?
Likely to be • Formulate diet to reflect nutritional composition
beneficial of wild foods (including removal of domestic
fruits)
• Provide cut branches (browse)
• Provide live invertebrates
• Provide fresh produce
No evidence found • Provide gum (including artificial gum)
(no assessment) • Provide nectar (including artificial nectar)
• Provide herbs or other plants for self-medication
• Modify ingredients/nutrient composition
seasonally (not daily) to reflect natural variability

Likely to be beneficial

 ormulate diet to reflect nutritional composition of wild

F
foods (including removal of domestic fruits)

550
 9.3 Promoting natural feeding behaviours in primates in captivity

Two replicated, before-and-after studies in the USA and UK found that when
changing the diet of captive primates to reflect nutritional compositions of
wild foods, there was a decrease in regurgitation and reingestion, aggression
and self-directed behaviours. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness
70%; certainty 60%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1329

Provide cut branches (browse)

One replicated, before-and-after study in the Netherlands and Germany
found that captive gorillas when presented with stinging nettles use the same
processing skills as wild gorillas to forage. Assessment: likely to be beneficial
(effectiveness 70%; certainty 50%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1332

Provide live invertebrates

One before-and-after study in the UK found that providing live invertebrates
to captive lorises increased foraging levels and reduced inactivity. Assessment:
likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 85%; certainty 50%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1333

Provide fresh produce

One replicated, before-and-after study in the USA found that when fresh
produce was offered feeding time increased and inactivity decreased in
rhesus macaques. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 60%; certainty
40%; harms 1%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1335

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Provide gum (including artificial gum)
• Provide nectar (including artificial nectar)
• Provide herbs or other plants for self-medication

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 551

Management of Captive Animals

• Modify ingredients/nutrient composition seasonally (not daily) to

reflect natural variability.

9.3.3 Feeding Schedule

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for feeding schedule?

Likely to be • Change feeding times

beneficial
Trade-off between • Change the number of feeds per day
benefit and harms
No evidence found • Provide food at natural (wild) feeding times
(no assessment) • Provide access to food at all times (day and night)
• Use of automated feeders

Likely to be beneficial

Change feeding times

One controlled study in the USA found that changing feeding times decreased
inactivity and abnormal behaviours in chimpanzees. Assessment: likely to be
beneficial (effectiveness 70%; certainty 50%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1338

Trade-off between benefit and harms

Change the number of feeds per day

Two before-and-after studies in Japan and the USA found that changing the
number of feeds per day increased time spent feeding in chimpanzees but
also increased hair eating in baboons. Assessment: trade-offs between benefits
and harms (effectiveness 70%; certainty 50%; harms 50%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1337

No evidence found (no assessment)

552
 9.3 Promoting natural feeding behaviours in primates in captivity

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Provide food at natural (wild) feeding times
• Provide access to food at all times (day and night)
• Use of automated feeders.

9.3.4 Social group manipulation

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for social group manipulation?
Trade-off between • Feed individuals in social groups
benefit and harms
No evidence found • Feed individuals separately
(no assessment) • Feed individuals in subgroups

Trade-off between benefit and harms

Feed individuals in social groups

One replicated, controlled study in the USA found that an enrichment task
took less time to complete when monkeys were in social groups than when
feeding alone. One before-and-after study in Italy found that in the presence
of their groupmates monkeys ate more unfamiliar foods during the first
encounter. Assessment: trade-offs between benefits and harms (effectiveness 60%;
certainty 50%; harms 25%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1343

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Feed individuals separately
• Feed individuals in subgroups.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 553

10. SOME ASPECTS OF CONTROL OF
FRESHWATER INVASIVE SPECIES
David Aldridge, Nancy Ockendon, Ricardo Rocha, Rebecca K. Smith &
William J. Sutherland

Expert assessors
David Aldridge, University of Cambridge, UK
Olaf Booy, Animal and Plant Health Agency, UK
Manuel A. Duenas, Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, UK
Alison Dunn, University of Leeds, UK
Robert Francis, King’s College London, UK
Belinda Gallardo, Pyrenean Institute of Ecology, Spain
Nancy Ockendon, University of Cambridge, UK
Trevor Renals, Environment Agency, UK
Emmanuelle Sarat, International Union for Conservation of Nature, France
Sonal Varia, The Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International, UK
Alexandra Zieritz, University of Nottingham, UK
Ana L. Nunes, The Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International, UK
Deborah Hofstra, National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
Jonathan Newman, Waterland Management Ltd, UK
Johan van Valkenburg, National Plant Protection Organization, The Netherlands
Ryan Wersal, Lonza Water Care, Alpharetta, Georgia, US
Ricardo Rocha, University of Cambridge, UK

Scope of assessment: for the control of 12 invasive freshwater species.

Assessed: American bullfrog and Procambarus spp. crayfish 2015; parrot’s

feather 2017; all other species 2016.

Effectiveness measure is the median % score for effectiveness.

Certainty measure is the median % certainty of evidence for effectiveness,

determined by the quantity and quality of the evidence in the synopsis.

Harm measure is the median % score for negative side-effects to non-target

native species. This was not assessed for some species in this chapter.

Potential impacts on non-target species should be considered carefully before

implementing any control action.

© W. Sutherland et al., CC BY 4.0 https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0191.10

This book is meant as a guide to the evidence available for different
conservation interventions and as a starting point in assessing their
effectiveness. The assessments are based on the available evidence for the
target group of species for each intervention. The assessment may therefore
refer to different species or habitat to the one(s) you are considering.
Before making any decisions about implementing interventions it is vital
that you read the more detailed accounts of the evidence in order to assess
their relevance for your study species or system.

Full details of the evidence are available at

www.conservationevidence.com

There may also be significant negative side-effects on the target groups

or other species or communities that have not been identified in this
assessment.

A lack of evidence means that we have been unable to assess whether or

not an intervention is effective or has any harmful impacts.
 10.1 Threat: Invasive plants

10.1.1 Parrot’s feather Myriophyllum aquaticum

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for controlling parrot’s feather?
Beneficial • Chemical control using the herbicide 2,4-D
Likely to be • Chemical control using the herbicide
beneficial carfentrazone-ethyl
• Chemical control using the herbicide triclopyr
• Chemical control using the herbicide diquat
• Chemical control using the herbicide endohall
• Chemical control using other herbicides
• Reduction of trade through legislation and codes
of conduct
Trade-offs between • Biological control using herbivores
benefit and harms
Unknown • Water level drawdown
effectiveness • Biological control using plant pathogens
(limited evidence)
No evidence found • Mechanical harvesting or cutting
(no assessment) • Mechanical excavation
• Removal using water jets
• Suction dredging and diver-assisted suction
removal
• Manual harvesting (hand-weeding)
• Use of lightproof barriers
• Dye application
• Biological control using fungal-based herbicides
• Use of salt

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 557

Some Aspects of Control of Freshwater Invasive Species

• Decontamination / preventing further spread

• Public education
• Multiple integrated measures

Beneficial

Chemical control using the herbicide 2,4-D

Five laboratory studies (three replicated, controlled and two randomized,
controlled) in the USA and Brazil and two replicated, randomized, field
studies in Portugal reported that treatment with 2,4-D reduced growth,
biomass or cover of parrot’s feather. Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness 80%;
certainty 80%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1606

Likely to be beneficial

Chemical control using the herbicide carfentrazone-ethyl

Five laboratory studies (one replicated, controlled, before-and-after, three
replicated, controlled and one randomized, controlled) in the USA reported
that treatment with carfentrazone-ethyl reduced growth. Assessment: likely
to be beneficial (effectiveness 50%; certainty 40%; harms 5%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1676

Chemical control using the herbicide triclopyr

Three replicated, controlled laboratory studies in the USA and New Zealand
reported that treatment with triclopyr reduced growth or that cover was
lower than that of plants treated with glyphosate. One replicated, controlled
field study and one replicated, before-and-after field study in New Zealand
reported that cover was reduced after treatment with triclopyr but one of
these studies reported that cover later increased to near pre-treatment levels.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 60%; certainty 55%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1689

Chemical control using the herbicide diquat

Two replicated, controlled laboratory studies in the USA reported reduced
growth after exposure to diquat. However, one replicated, randomized,

558
 10.1 Threat: Invasive plants

controlled field study in Portugal reported no reduction in biomass following

treatment with diquat. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 60%;
certainty 40%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1680

Chemical control using the herbicide endohall

Two replicated, controlled laboratory studies in the USA and New Zealand
reported a reduction in biomass after treatment with endothall. However,
one replicated, controlled field study in New Zealand found that cover
declined after treatment with endothall but later cover increased close
to pre-treatment levels. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 50%;
certainty 40%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1681

Chemical control using other herbicides

One replicated, randomized, controlled field study in Portugal and one
replicated, controlled, laboratory study in the USA reported reduced growth or
vegetation cover after treatment with glyphosate. Two replicated, randomized,
controlled laboratory studies (one of which was randomized) in the USA
have found that the herbicide imazapyr reduced growth. Four replicated,
controlled (one of which was randomized) laboratory studies in the USA and
New Zealand reported reduced growth after treatment with the herbicides
imazamox, flumioxazin, dichlobenil and florpyrauxifen-benzyl. Two replicated,
controlled (one of which was randomized) field studies in Portugal and
New Zealand reported a decrease in cover after treatment with dichlobenil
followed by recovery. One replicated, randomized, controlled field study
in Portugal reported reduced biomass after treatment with gluphosinate-
ammonium. Three replicated, controlled laboratory studies in New Zealand
and the USA found no reduction in growth after treatment with clopyralid,
copper chelate or fluridone. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 50%;
certainty 40%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1699

 eduction of trade through legislation and codes of

R
conduct
One randomized, before-and-after trial in the Netherlands reported that the
implementation of a code of conduct reduced the trade of invasive aquatic
plants banned from sale. One study in the USA found that despite a state-

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 559

Some Aspects of Control of Freshwater Invasive Species

wide trade ban on parrot’s feather plants, these could still be purchased in
some stores. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 60%; certainty 45%;
harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1604

Trade-off between benefit and harms

Biological control using herbivores

Two replicated, randomized studies in Argentina and the USA found that
stocking with grass carp reduced the biomass or abundance of parrot’s
feather. However, one controlled laboratory study in Portugal found that
grass carp did not reduce biomass or cover of parrot’s feather. One field
study in South Africa found that one Lysathia beetle species retarded the
growth of parrot’s feather. Assessment: trade-offs between benefits and harms
(effectiveness 50%; certainty 40%; harms 20%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1599

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Water level drawdown

One replicated, randomized, controlled laboratory study in the USA found
that water removal to expose plants to drying during the summer led to
lower survival of parrot’s feather plants than water removal during winter.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 60%; certainty 30%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1585

Biological control using plant pathogens

One study in South Africa found that exposure to a strain of the bacterium
Xanthomonas campestris did not affect the survival of parrot’s feather. Assessment:
unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 5%; certainty 10%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1601

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Mechanical harvesting or cutting

560
 10.1 Threat: Invasive plants

• Mechanical excavation
• Removal using water jets
• Suction dredging and diver-assisted suction removal
• Manual harvesting (hand-weeding)
• Use of lightproof barriers
• Dye application
• Biological control using fungal-based herbicides
• Use of salt
• Decontamination / preventing further spread
• Public education
• Multiple integrated measures

10.1.2 Floating pennywort Hydrocotyle ranunculoides

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for controlling floating pennywort?
Beneficial • Chemical control using herbicides
Likely to be • Flame treatment
beneficial • Physical removal
Unknown • Combination treatment using herbicides and
effectiveness physical removal
(limited evidence)
Unlikely to be • Biological control using co-evolved, host-specific
beneficial herbivores
• Use of hydrogen peroxide
No evidence found • Biological control using fungal-based herbicides
(no assessment) • Biological control using native herbivores
• Environmental control (e.g. shading, reduced
flow, reduction of rooting depth, or dredging)
• Excavation of banks
• Public education
• Use of liquid nitrogen

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 561

Some Aspects of Control of Freshwater Invasive Species

Beneficial

Chemical control using herbicides

A controlled, replicated field study in the UK found that the herbicide 2,4-
D amine achieved almost 100% mortality of floating pennywort, compared
with the herbicide glyphosate (applied without an adjuvant) which achieved
negligible mortality. Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness 80%; certainty 70%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1127

Likely to be beneficial

Flame treatment
A controlled, replicated study in the Netherlands found that floating pennywort
plants were killed by a three second flame treatment with a three second
repeat treatment 11 days later. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness
60%; certainty 50%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1131

Physical removal
Two studies, one in Western Australia and one in the UK, found physical
removal did not completely eradicate floating pennywort. Assessment: likely
to be beneficial (effectiveness 40%; certainty 40%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1126

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

 ombination treatment using herbicides and physical

C
removal
A before-and-after study in Western Australia found that a combination
of cutting followed by a glyphosate chemical treatment, removed floating
pennywort. Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 70%; certainty 35%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1128

562
 10.1 Threat: Invasive plants

Unlikely to be beneficial

 iological control using co-evolved, host-specific

B
herbivores
A replicated laboratory and field study in South America found that the
South American weevil fed on water pennywort but did not reduce the
biomass. Assessment: unlikely to be beneficial (effectiveness 20%; certainty 50%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1123

Use of hydrogen peroxide

A controlled, replicated study in the Netherlands found that hydrogen
peroxide sprayed on potted floating pennywort plants at 30% concentration
resulted in curling and transparency of the leaves but did not kill the plants.
Assessment: unlikely to be beneficial (effectiveness 10%; certainty 60%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1129

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Biological control using fungal-based herbicides
• Biological control using native herbivores
• Environmental control (e.g. shading, reduced flow, reduction of
rooting depth, or dredging)
• Excavation of banks
• Public education
• Use of liquid nitrogen.

10.1.3 Water primrose Ludwigia spp.

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for controlling water primrose?

Likely to be • Biological control using co-evolved, host specific

beneficial herbivores
• Chemical control using herbicides
• Combination treatment using herbicides and
physical removal

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 563

Some Aspects of Control of Freshwater Invasive Species

Unlikely to be • Physical removal

beneficial
No evidence found • Biological control using fungal-based herbicides
(no assessment) • Biological control using native herbivores
• Environmental control (e.g. shading, altered flow,
altered rooting depth, or dredging)
• Excavation of banks
• Public education
• Use of a tarpaulin
• Use of flame treatment
• Use of hydrogen peroxide
• Use of liquid nitrogen
• Use of mats placed on the bottom of the water
body

Likely to be beneficial

 iological control using co-evolved, host specific

B
herbivores
A controlled, replicated study in China, found a flea beetle caused heavy
feeding destruction to the prostrate water primrose. A before-and-after study
in the USA found that the introduction of flea beetles to a pond significantly
reduced the abundance of large-flower primrose-willow. Assessment: likely
to be beneficial (effectiveness 60%; certainty 50%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1135

Chemical control using herbicides

A controlled, replicated laboratory study in the USA found that the herbicide
triclopyr TEA applied at concentrations of 0.25% killed 100% of young
cultivated water primrose within two months. A before-and-after field study
in the UK found that the herbicide glyphosate caused 97% mortality when
mixed with a non-oil based sticking agent and 100% mortality when combined
with TopFilm. A controlled, replicated, randomized study in Venezuela,
found that use of the herbicide halosulfuron-methyl (Sempra) resulted in a
significant reduction in water primrose coverage without apparent toxicity to
rice plants. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 80%; certainty 60%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1139
564
 10.1 Threat: Invasive plants

 ombination treatment using herbicides and physical

C
removal
A study in the USA found that application of glyphosate and a surface active
agent called Cygnet-Plus followed by removal by mechanical means killed
75% of a long-standing population of water primrose. A study in Australia
found that a combination of herbicide application, physical removal, and
other actions such as promotion of native plants and mulching reduced the
cover of Peruvian primrose-willow by 85–90%. Assessment: likely to be beneficial
(effectiveness 70%; certainty 55%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1140

Unlikely to be beneficial

Physical removal
A study in the USA found that hand pulling and raking water primrose failed
to reduce its abundance at one site, whereas hand-pulling from the margins
of a pond eradicated a smaller population of water primrose at a second site.
Assessment: unlikely to be beneficial (effectiveness 30%; certainty 50%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1138

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Biological control using fungal-based herbicides
• Biological control using native herbivores
• Environmental control (e.g. shading, reduced flow, reduction of
rooting depth, or dredging)
• Excavation of banks
• Public education
• Use of a tarpaulin
• Use of flame treatment
• Use of hydrogen peroxide
• Use of liquid nitrogen
• Use of mats placed on the bottom of the waterbody.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 565

Some Aspects of Control of Freshwater Invasive Species

10.1.4 Skunk cabbage Lysichiton americanus

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for controlling skunk cabbage?

Likely to be • Chemical control using herbicides

beneficial • Physical removal
No evidence found • Biological control using co-evolved, host-specific
(no assessment) herbivores
• Biological control using fungal-based herbicides
• Biological control using native herbivores
• Combination treatment using herbicides and
physical removal
• Environmental control (e.g. shading, or
promotion of native plants)
• Public education
• Use of a tarpaulin
• Use of flame treatment
• Use of hydrogen peroxide
• Use of liquid nitrogen

Likely to be beneficial

Chemical control using herbicides

Two studies in the UK found that application of the chemical 2,4-D amine
appeared to be successful in eradicating skunk cabbage stands. One of these
studies also found glyphosate eradicated skunk cabbage. However, a study in
the UK found that glyphosate did not eradicate skunk cabbage, but resulted
in only limited reduced growth of plants. Assessment: likely to be beneficial
(effectiveness 60%; certainty 50%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1102

Physical removal
Two studies in Switzerland and the Netherlands, reported effective removal
of recently established skunk cabbage plants using physical removal, one
reporting removal of the entire stock within five years. A third study in

566
 10.1 Threat: Invasive plants

Germany reported that after four years of a twice yearly full removal
programme, a large number of plants still needed to be removed each year.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 65%; certainty 55%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1101

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Biological control using co-evolved, host-specific herbivores
• Biological control using fungal-based herbicides
• Biological control using native herbivores
• Combination treatment using herbicides and physical removal
• Environmental control (e.g. shading, or promotion of native plants)
• Public education
• Use of a tarpaulin
• Use of flame treatment
• Use of hydrogen peroxide
• Use of liquid nitrogen.

10.1.5 New Zealand pigmyweed Crassula helmsii

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for controlling Crassula helmsii?

Beneficial • Chemical control using herbicides

• Decontamination to prevent further spread
Likely to be • Use lightproof barriers to control plants
beneficial • Use salt water to kill plants
Unknown • Use a combination of control measures
effectiveness
(limited evidence)
Unlikely to be • Use dyes to reduce light levels
beneficial • Use grazing to control plants
• Use hot foam to control plants
• Use hydrogen peroxide to control plants

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 567

Some Aspects of Control of Freshwater Invasive Species

No evidence found • Alter environmental conditions to control plants

(no assessment) (e.g. shading by succession, increasing turbidity,
re-profiling or dredging)
• Biological control using fungal-based herbicides
• Biological control using herbivores
• Bury plants
• Dry out waterbodies
• Physical control using manual/mechanical control
or dredging
• Plant other species to suppress growth
• Public education
• Surround with wire mesh
• Use flame throwers
• Use hot water
• Use of liquid nitrogen

Beneficial

Chemical control using herbicides

Seven studies in the UK, including one replicated, controlled study, found
that applying glyphosate reduced Crassula helmsii. Three out of four studies
in the UK, including one controlled study, found that applying diquat or
diquat alginate reduced or eradicated C. helmsii. One small trial found no
effect of diquat on C. helmsii cover. One replicated, controlled study in the
UK found dichlobenil reduced biomass of submerged C. helmsii but one
small before-and-after study found no effect of dichlobenil on C. helmsii. A
replicated, controlled study found that treatment with terbutryne partially
reduced biomass of submerged C. helmsii and that asulam, 2,4-D amine and
dalapon reduced emergent C. helmsii. Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness 78%;
certainty 75%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1279

Decontamination to prevent further spread

One controlled, replicated container trial in the UK found that submerging
Crassula helmsii fragments in hot water led to higher mortality than drying
out plants or a control. Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness 80%; certainty 70%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1308

568
 10.1 Threat: Invasive plants

Likely to be beneficial

Use lightproof barriers to control plants

Five before-and-after studies in the UK found that covering with black
sheeting or carpet eradicated or severely reduced cover of Crassula helmsii.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 65%; certainty 50%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1294

Use salt water to kill plants

Two replicated, controlled container trials and two before-and-after field
trials in the UK found that seawater eradicated Crassula helmsii. Assessment:
likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 80%; certainty 45%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1288

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Use a combination of control methods

One before-and-after study in the UK found that covering Crassula helmsii
with carpet followed by treatment with glyphosate killed 80% of the plant.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 75%; certainty 30%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1313

Unlikely to be beneficial

Use dyes to reduce light levels

One replicated, controlled study in the UK found that applying aquatic
dye, along with other treatments, did not reduce cover of Crassula helmsii.
Assessment: unlikely to be beneficial (effectiveness 0%; certainty 53%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1293

Use grazing to control plants

One of two replicated, controlled studies in the UK found that excluding
grazing reduce abundance and coverage of Crassula helmsii. The other study
found that ungrazed areas had higher coverage of C. helmsii than grazed
plots. Assessment: unlikely to be beneficial (effectiveness 23%; certainty 43%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1301

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 569

Some Aspects of Control of Freshwater Invasive Species

Use hot foam to control plants

One replicated, controlled study in the UK found that treatment with hot foam,
along with other treatments, did not control Crassula helmsii. A before-and-
after study in the UK found that treatment with hot foam partially destroyed
C. helmsii. Assessment: unlikely to be beneficial (effectiveness 20%; certainty 50%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1286

Use hydrogen peroxide to control plants

One controlled tank trial in the UK found that hydrogen peroxide did not
control Crassula helmsii. Assessment: unlikely to be beneficial (effectiveness 0%;
certainty 50%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1281

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Alter environmental conditions to control plants (e.g. shading by
succession, increasing turbidity, re-profiling or dredging)
• Biological control using fungal-based herbicides
• Biological control using herbivores
• Bury plants
• Dry out waterbodies
• Physical control using manual/mechanical control or dredging
• Plant other species to suppress growth
• Public education
• Surround with wire mesh
• Use flame throwers
• Use hot water
• Use of liquid nitrogen.

570
 10.2 Threat: Invasive molluscs

10.2.1 Asian clams

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for controlling Asian clams?

Beneficial • Add chemicals to the water

• Change salinity of the water
• Mechanical removal
Likely to be • Change temperature of water
beneficial • Clean equipment
• Use of gas-impermeable barriers
Unlikely to be • Reduce oxygen in water
beneficial
No evidence found • Change pH of water
(no assessment) • Drain the invaded waterbody
• Exposure to disease-causing organisms
• Exposure to parasites
• Hand removal
• Public awareness and education

Beneficial

A
 dd chemicals to the water
Two replicated laboratory studies and one controlled, replicated field study
found that chlorine, potassium and copper killed Asian clams. Increasing

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 571

Some Aspects of Control of Freshwater Invasive Species

chemical concentration and water temperature killed more clams in less

time. One controlled field trial achieved 80% and 100% mortality of Asian
clams using encapsulated control agents (SB1000 and SB2000 respectively)
in irrigation systems. Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness 75%; certainty 70%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1118

Change salinity of water

A controlled, replicated laboratory study from the USA found that exposure
to saline water killed all Asian clams. Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness 65%;
certainty 68%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1115

Mechanical removal
A controlled before-and-after study from North America found suction
dredging of sediment reduced an Asian clam population by 96%, and these
effects persisted for a year. A replicated, controlled, before-and-after field
trial in Ireland showed that three types of dredges were effective at removing
between 74% and >95% of the Asian clam biomass. Assessment: beneficial
(effectiveness 80%; certainty 78%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1120

Likely to be beneficial

Change temperature of water

A controlled laboratory study from the USA found that exposure to water
at temperatures of 37°C and 36°C killed all Asian clams within 2 and 4 days,
respectively. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 60%; certainty 55%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1116

Clean equipment
A field study from Portugal found that mechanical removal, followed by
regular cleaning and maintenance of industrial pipes at a power plant
permanently removed an Asian clam population. A field study from Portugal
found that adding a sand filter to a water treatment plant reduced an Asian
clam population. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 75%; certainty
50%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1119

572
 10.2 Threat: Invasive molluscs

Use of gas-impermeable barriers

One controlled study from North America found that placing gas impermeable
fabric barriers on a lake bottom (several small and one large area) reduced
populations of Asian clams. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness
78%; certainty 60%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1117

Unlikely to be beneficial

Reduce oxygen in water

A controlled laboratory study from the USA found that Asian clams were
not susceptible to low oxygen levels in the water. Assessment: unlikely to be
beneficial (effectiveness 10%; certainty 50%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1113

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Change pH of water
• Drain the invaded waterbody
• Exposure to disease-causing organisms
• Exposure to parasites
• Hand removal
• Public awareness and education.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 573

 10.3 Threat: Invasive
crustaceans

10.3.1 Ponto-Caspian gammarids

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of

the effectiveness of interventions for controlling Ponto-Caspian
gammarids?
Likely to be • Change salinity of the water
beneficial • Change water temperature
• Dewatering (drying out) habitat
• Exposure to parasites
Unlikely to be • Add chemicals to water
beneficial • Change water pH
• Control movement of gammarids
No evidence found • Biological control using predatory fish
(no assessment) • Cleaning equipment
• Exchange ballast water
• Exposure to disease-causing organisms

Likely to be beneficial

Change salinity of the water

One of two replicated studies, including one controlled study, in Canada and
the UK found that increasing the salinity level of water killed the majority

574
 10.3 Threat: Invasive crustaceans

of invasive shrimp within five hours. One found that increased salinity did
not kill invasive killer shrimp. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness
40%; certainty 50%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1091

Change water temperature

A controlled laboratory study from the UK found that heating water in
excess of 40°C killed invasive killer shrimps. Assessment: likely to be beneficial
(effectiveness 80%; certainty 50%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1092

Dewatering (drying out) habitat

A replicated, controlled laboratory study from Poland found that lowering
water levels in sand (dewatering) killed three species of invasive freshwater
shrimp, although one species required water content levels of 4% and below
before it was killed. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 60%; certainty
50%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1094

Exposure to parasites
A replicated, controlled experimental study in Canada found that a parasitic
mould reduced populations of freshwater invasive shrimp. Assessment: likely
to be beneficial (effectiveness 50%; certainty 50%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1089

Unlikely to be beneficial

A
 dd chemicals to water
A controlled laboratory study from the UK found that four of nine substances
added to freshwater killed invasive killer shrimp, but were impractical (iodine
solution, acetic acid, Virkon S and sodium hypochlorite). Five substances
did not kill invasive killer shrimp (methanol, citric acid, urea, hydrogen
peroxide and sucrose). Assessment: unlikely to be beneficial (effectiveness 35%;
certainty 60%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1095

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 575

Some Aspects of Control of Freshwater Invasive Species

Change water pH
A controlled laboratory study from the UK found that lowering the pH of
water did not kill invasive killer shrimp. Assessment: unlikely to be beneficial
(effectiveness 0%; certainty 50%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1093

Control movement of gammarids

Two replicated studies, including one controlled study, in the USA and
UK found that movements of invasive freshwater shrimp slowed down or
were stopped when shrimp were placed in water that had been exposed to
predatory fish or was carbonated. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness
20%; certainty 40%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1088

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Biological control using predatory fish
• Cleaning equipment
• Exchange ballast water
• Exposure to disease-causing organisms.

10.3.2 Procambarus spp. crayfish

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for controlling Procambarus spp. crayfish?
Likely to be • Add chemicals to the water
beneficial • Sterilization of males
• Trapping and removal
• Trapping combined with encouragement of
predators
Unknown • Create barriers
effectiveness
(limited evidence)

576
 10.3 Threat: Invasive crustaceans

Unlikely to be • Encouraging predators

beneficial
No evidence found • Draining the waterway
(no assessment) • Food source removal
• Relocate vulnerable crayfish
• Remove the crayfish by electrofishing

Likely to be beneficial

A
 dd chemicals to the water
One replicated study in Italy found that natural pyrethrum at concentrations
of 0.05 mg/l and above was effective at killing red swamp crayfish both in
the laboratory and in a river, but not in drained burrows. Assessment: likely
to be beneficial (effectiveness 80%; certainty 50%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1036

Sterilization of males
One replicated laboratory study from Italy found that exposing male red
swamp crayfish to X-rays reduced the number of offspring they produced.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 50%; certainty 40%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1032

Trapping and removal

One controlled, replicated study from Italy found that food (tinned meat) was
a more effective bait in trapping red swamp crayfish, than using pheromone
treatments or no bait (control). Baiting with food increased trapping success
compared to trapping without bait. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness
40%; certainty 60%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1029

Trapping combined with encouragement of predators

One before-and-after study in Switzerland and a replicated, paired site study
from Italy found that a combination of trapping and predation was more
effective at reducing red swamp crayfish populations than predation alone.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 50%; certainty 50%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1031

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 577

Some Aspects of Control of Freshwater Invasive Species

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Create barriers
One before-and-after study from Italy found that the use of concrete dams
across a stream was effective at containing spread of the population upstream.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 30%; certainty 30%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1037

Unlikely to be beneficial

Encouraging predators
Two replicated, controlled studies in Italy found that eels fed on the red
swamp crayfish and reduced population size. One replicated, controlled
study found that pike predated red swamp crayfish. Assessment: unlikely to
be beneficial (effectiveness 30%; certainty 60%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1030

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Draining the waterway
• Food source removal
• Relocate vulnerable crayfish
• Remove the crayfish by electrofishing.

578
 10.4 Threat: Invasive fish

10.4.1 Brown and black bullheads

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of

the effectiveness of interventions for controlling brown and black
bullheads?
Beneficial • Application of a biocide
Likely to be • Netting
beneficial
No evidence found • Biological control of beneficial species
(no assessment) • Biological control using native predators
• Changing salinity
• Changing pH
• Draining invaded waterbodies
• Electrofishing
• Habitat manipulation
• Increasing carbon dioxide concentrations
• Public education
• Trapping using sound or pheromonal lures
• Using a combination of netting and
electrofishing
• UV radiation

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 579

Some Aspects of Control of Freshwater Invasive Species

Beneficial

A
 pplication of a biocide
Two studies in the UK and USA found that rotenone successfully eradicated
black bullhead. Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness 80%; certainty 80%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1050

Likely to be beneficial

Netting
A replicated study in a nature reserve in Belgium found that double fyke
nets could be used to significantly reduce the population of large brown
bullheads. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 55%; certainty 55%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1051

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Biological control of beneficial species
• Biological control using native predators
• Changing salinity
• Changing pH
• Draining invaded waterbodies
• Electrofishing
• Habitat manipulation
• Increasing carbon dioxide concentrations
• Public education
• Trapping using sound or pheromonal lures
• Using a combination of netting and electrofishing
• UV radiation.

580
 10.4 Threat: Invasive fish

10.4.2 Ponto-Caspian gobies

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for controlling Ponto-Caspian gobies?
Beneficial • Changing salinity
Likely to be • Use of barriers to prevent migration
beneficial
No evidence found • Application of a biocide
(no assessment) • Biological control of beneficial species
• Biological control using native predators
• Changing pH
• Draining invaded waterbodies
• Electrofishing
• Habitat manipulation
• Increasing carbon dioxide concentrations
• Netting
• Public education
• Trapping using visual, sound and pheromonal
lures
• Using a combination of netting and
electrofishing
• UV radiation

Beneficial

Changing salinity
A replicated controlled laboratory study in Canada found 100% mortality of
round gobies within 48 hours of exposure to water of 30% salinity. Assessment:
beneficial (effectiveness 90%; certainty 75%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1072

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 581

Some Aspects of Control of Freshwater Invasive Species

Likely to be beneficial

Use of barriers to prevent migration

A controlled, replicated field study in the USA found that an electrical
barrier prevented movement of round gobies across it, and that increasing
electrical pulse duration and voltage increased the effectiveness of the barrier.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 50%; certainty 45%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1074

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Application of a biocide
• Biological control of beneficial species
• Biological control using native predators
• Changing pH
• Draining invaded waterbodies
• Electrofishing
• Habitat manipulation
• Increasing carbon dioxide concentrations
• Netting
• Public education
• Trapping using visual, sound and pheromonal lures
• Using a combination of netting and electrofishing
• UV radiation.

582
 10.5 Threat: Invasive reptiles

10.5.1 Red-eared terrapin Trachemys scripta

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for controlling red-eared terrapin?
Likely to be • Direct removal of adults
beneficial
Unlikely to be • Application of a biocide
beneficial
No evidence found • Biological control using native predators
(no assessment) • Draining invaded waterbodies
• Public education
• Search and removal using sniffer dogs

Likely to be beneficial

Direct removal of adults

Two studies, a replicated study from Spain using Aranzadi turtle traps,
and an un-replicated study in the British Virgin Islands using sein netting,
successfully captured but did not eradicate red-eared terrapin populations.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 40%; certainty 50%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1055

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 583

Some Aspects of Control of Freshwater Invasive Species

Unlikely to be beneficial

A
 pplication of a biocide
A replicated, controlled laboratory study in the USA, found that application
of glyphosate to the eggs of red-eared terrapins reduced hatching success to
73% but only at the highest experimental concentration of glyphosate and
a surface active agent. Assessment: unlikely to be beneficial (effectiveness 15%;
certainty 50%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1059

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Biological control using native predators
• Draining invaded waterbodies
• Public education
• Search and removal using sniffer dogs.

584
 10.6 Threat: Invasive amphibians

10.6.1 American bullfrog Lithobates catesbeiana

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for controlling American bullfrogs?
Likely to be • Biological control using native predators
beneficial • Direct removal of adults
• Direct removal of juveniles
Unknown • Application of a biocide
effectiveness
(limited evidence)
No evidence found • Biological control of co-occurring beneficial
(no assessment) species
• Collection of egg clutches
• Draining ponds
• Fencing
• Habitat modification
• Pond destruction
• Public education

Likely to be beneficial

Biological control using native predators

One replicated, controlled study conducted in northeast Belgium found the
introduction of the northern pike led to a strong decline in bullfrog tadpole
numbers. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 70%; certainty 40%;
harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1039

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 585

Some Aspects of Control of Freshwater Invasive Species

Direct removal of adults

One replicated study in Belgium found catchability of adult bullfrogs in small
shallow ponds using a double fyke net to be very low. One small study in
the USA found that adult bullfrogs can be captured overnight in a single
trap floating on the water surface. One replicated, controlled study in the
USA found that bullfrog populations rapidly rebounded following intensive
removal of the adults. One study in France found a significant reduction
in the number of recorded adults and juveniles following the shooting of
metamorphosed individuals before reproduction, when carried out as part
of a combination treatment. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 50%;
certainty 70%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1045

Direct removal of juveniles

One replicated study in Belgium found double fyke nets were effective in
catching bullfrog tadpoles in small shallow ponds. One study in France
found a significant reduction in the number of recorded adults and juveniles
following the removal of juveniles by trapping, when carried out as part of
a combination treatment. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 70%;
certainty 60%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1046

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

A
 pplication of a biocide
One replicated, controlled study in the USA reported a number of chemicals
killed American bullfrogs, including caffeine (10% solution), chloroxylenol
(5% solution), and a combined treatment of Permethrin (4.6% solution) and
Rotenone (1% solution). Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 50%;
certainty 20%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1048

586
 10.6 Threat: Invasive amphibians

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Biological control of co-occurring beneficial species
• Collection of egg clutches
• Draining ponds
• Fencing
• Habitat modification
• Pond destruction
• Public education.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 587

11. SOME ASPECTS OF ENHANCING
NATURAL PEST CONTROL
Hugh L. Wright, Joscelyne E. Ashpole, Lynn V. Dicks, James Hutchison,
Caitlin G. McCormack & William J. Sutherland

Expert assessors
Barbara Smith, Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust, UK
Tony Harding, Rothamsted Research, UK
Anthony Goggin, Linking Environment and Farming (LEAF), UK
Felix Wackers, BioBest/University of Lancaster, Belgium/UK
Melvyn Fidgett, Syngenta, UK
Michael Garratt, University of Reading, UK
Michelle Fountain, East Malling Research, UK
Phillip Effingham, Greentech Consultants, UK
Stephanie Williamson, Pesticides Action Network, UK
Toby Bruce, Rothamsted Research, UK
Andrew Wilby, University of Lancaster, UK
Eve Veromann, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Estonia
Mattias Jonsson, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden
Vicky Kindemba, Buglife, UK
Steve Sait, University of Leeds, UK

Scope of assessment: 22 of 92 possible actions to enhance natural

regulation of pests (including animals, plants, fungi, bacteria and viruses)
in agricultural systems across the world.

Assessed: 2014.

Effectiveness measure is the median % score.

Certainty measure is the median % certainty of evidence, determined by

the quantity and quality of the evidence in the synopsis.

Harm measure is the median % score for negative side-effects for the farmer
such as reduced yield and profits or increased costs.

© W. Sutherland et al., CC BY 4.0 https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0191.11

This book is meant as a guide to the evidence available for different
conservation interventions and as a starting point in assessing their
effectiveness. The assessments are based on the available evidence for the
target group of species for each intervention. The assessment may therefore
refer to different species or habitat to the one(s) you are considering. Before
making any decisions about implementing interventions it is vital that you
read the more detailed accounts of the evidence in order to assess their
relevance for your study species or system.

Full details of the evidence are available at

www.conservationevidence.com

There may also be significant negative side-effects on the target groups

or other species or communities that have not been identified in this
assessment.

A lack of evidence means that we have been unable to assess whether or

not an intervention is effective or has any harmful impacts.

590
 11.1 Reducing agricultural
pollution

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions that reduce agricultural pollution for
enhancing natural pest regulation?
Unknown • Alter the timing of insecticide use
effectiveness • Delay herbicide use
(limited evidence)
• Incorporate parasitism rates when setting
thresholds for insecticide use
• Use pesticides only when pests or crop damage
reach threshold levels
Evidence not • Convert to organic farming
assessed

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

A
 lter the timing of insecticide use
• Natural enemies: One controlled study from the UK reported more
natural enemies when insecticides were sprayed earlier rather than
later in the growing season.
• Pests: Two of four studies from Mozambique, the UK and the USA
found fewer pests or less disease damage when insecticides were
applied early rather than late. Effects on a disease-carrying pest
varied with insecticide type. Two studies (including one randomized,
replicated, controlled test) found no effect on pests or pest damage.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 591

Some Aspects of Enhancing Natural Pest Control

• Yield: Four studies (including one randomized, replicated, controlled

test) from Mozambique, the Philippines, the UK and the USA
measured yields. Two studies found mixed effects and one study
found no effect on yield when insecticides were applied early. One
study found higher yields when insecticides were applied at times of
suspected crop susceptibility.
• Profit and costs: One controlled study from the Philippines found
higher profits and similar costs when insecticides were only applied
at times of suspected crop susceptibility.
• Crops studied: aubergine, barley, maize, pear, stringbean.
• Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 40%; certainty 28%;
harms 13%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/723

Delay herbicide use

• Natural enemies: Two randomized, replicated, controlled trials from
Australia and Denmark found more natural enemies when herbicide
treatments were delayed. One of the studies found some but not all
natural enemy groups benefited and fewer groups benefitted early
in the season.
• Weeds: One randomized, replicated, controlled study found more
weeds when herbicide treatments were delayed.
• Insect pests and damage: One of two randomized, replicated, controlled
studies from Canada and Denmark found more insect pests, but
only for some pest groups, and one study found fewer pests in one of
two experiments and for one of two crop varieties. One study found
lower crop damage in some but not all varieties and study years.
• Yield: One randomized, replicated, controlled study found lower
yields.
• Crops studied: beet and oilseed.
• Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 20%; certainty 25%;
harms 50%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/774

592
 11.1 Reducing agricultural pollution

I ncorporate parasitism rates when setting thresholds for

insecticide use
• Pest damage: One controlled study from New Zealand found using
parasitism rates to inform spraying decisions resulted in acceptable
levels of crop damage from pests. Effects on natural enemy
populations were not monitored.
• The crop studied was tomato.
• Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 50%; certainty 10%;
harms 5%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/726

 se pesticides only when pests or crop damage reach

U
threshold levels
• Natural enemies: One randomized, replicated, controlled study from
Finland found that threshold-based spraying regimes increased
numbers of natural enemies in two of three years but effects lasted
for as little as three weeks.
• Pests and disease: Two of four studies from France, Malaysia and
the USA reported that pests were satisfactorily controlled. One
randomized, replicated, controlled study found pest numbers
were similar under threshold-based and conventional spraying
regimes and one study reported that pest control was inadequate.
A randomized, replicated, controlled study found mixed effects on
disease severity.
• Crop damage: Four of five randomized, replicated, controlled studies
from New Zealand, the Philippines and the USA found similar crop
damage under threshold-based and conventional, preventative
spraying regimes, but one study found damage increased. Another
study found slightly less crop damage compared to unsprayed
controls.
• Yield: Two of four randomized, replicated, controlled studies found
similar yields under threshold-based and conventional spraying
regimes. Two studies found mixed effects depending on site, year,
pest stage/type or control treatment.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 593

Some Aspects of Enhancing Natural Pest Control

• Profit: Two of three randomized, replicated, controlled studies found

similar profits using threshold-based and conventional spraying
regimes. One study found effects varied between sites and years.
• Costs: Nine studies found fewer pesticide applications were needed
and three studies found or predicted lower production costs.
• Crops studied: barley, broccoli, cabbages, cauliflower, celery, cocoa,
cotton, grape, peanut, potato, rice, tomato, and wheat.
• Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 39%; certainty 30%;
harms 20%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/750

Evidence not assessed

Convert to organic farming

• Parasitism and mortality (caused by natural enemies): One of five studies
(three replicated, controlled tests and two also randomized) from
Europe, North America, Asia and Australasia found that organic
farming increased parasitism or natural enemy-induced mortality of
pests. Two studies found mixed effects of organic farming and two
randomized, replicated, controlled studies found no effect.
• Natural enemies: Eight of 12 studies (including six randomized,
replicated, controlled tests) from Europe, North America Asia and
Australasia found more natural enemies under organic farming,
although seven of these found effects varied over time or between
natural enemy species or groups and/or crops or management
practices. Three studies (one randomized, replicated, controlled)
found no or inconsistent effects on natural enemies and one study
found a negative effect.
• Pests and diseases: One of eight studies (including five randomized,
replicated, controlled tests) found that organic farming reduced
pests or disease, but two studies found more pests. Three studies
found mixed effects and two studies found no effect.
• Crop damage: One of seven studies (including five randomized,
replicated, controlled tests) found less crop damage in organic fields
but two studies found more. One study found a mixed response and
three studies found no or inconsistent effects.

594
 11.1 Reducing agricultural pollution

• Weed seed predation and weed abundance: One randomized, replicated,

controlled study from the USA found mixed effects of organic
farming on weed seed predation by natural enemies. Two of three
randomized, replicated, controlled studies from the USA found more
weeds in organically farmed fields, but in one of these studies this
effect varied between crops and years. One study found no effect.
• Yield and profit: Six randomized, replicated, controlled studies
measured yields and found one positive effect, one negative effect
and one mixed effect, plus no or inconsistent effects in three studies.
One study found net profit increased if produce received a premium,
but otherwise profit decreased. Another study found a negative or
no effect on profit.
• Crops studied: apple, barley, beans, cabbage, carrot, gourd, maize,
mixed vegetables, pea, pepper, safflower, soybean, tomato and
wheat.
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/717

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 595

 11.2 All farming systems

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions on all farming systems for enhancing
natural pest regulation?
Likely to be • Grow non-crop plants that produce chemicals
beneficial that attract natural enemies
• Use chemicals to attract natural enemies
Trade-offs between • Leave part of the crop or pasture unharvested or
benefit and harms uncut
Unknown • Plant new hedges
effectiveness • Use alley cropping
(limited evidence)
Evidence not • Use mass-emergence devices to increase natural
assessed enemy populations

Likely to be beneficial

 row non-crop plants that produce chemicals that attract

G
natural enemies
• Natural enemies: Four studies from China, Germany, India and Kenya
tested the effects of growing plants that produce chemicals that
attract natural enemies. Three (including one replicated, randomized,
controlled trail) found higher numbers of natural enemies in plots
with plants that produce attractive chemicals, and one also found
that the plant used attracted natural enemies in lab studies. One
found no effect on parasitism but the plant used was found not to be
attractive to natural enemies in lab studies.

596
 11.2 All farming systems

• Pests: All four studies found a decrease in either pest population or

pest damage in plots with plants that produce chemicals that attract
natural enemies.
• Yield: One replicated, randomized, controlled study found an
increase in crop yield in plots with plants that produce attractive
chemicals.
• Crops studied: sorghum, safflower, orange and lettuce.
• Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 68%; certainty 40%; harms
0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/724

Use chemicals to attract natural enemies

• Parasitism and predation (by natural enemies): One review and two
of five studies from Asia, Europe and North America found that
attractive chemicals increased parasitism. Two studies, including one
randomized, replicated, controlled trial, found greater parasitism for
some but not all chemicals, crops, sites or years and one study found
no effect. One study showed that parasites found pests more rapidly.
One study found lower egg predation by natural predators.
• Natural enemies: Five of 13 studies from Africa, Asia, Australasia,
Europe and North America found more natural enemies while eight
(including seven randomized, replicated, controlled trials) found
positive effects varied between enemy groups, sites or study dates.
Four of 13 studies (including a meta-analysis) found more natural
enemies with some but not all test chemicals. Two of four studies
(including a review) found higher chemical doses attracted more
enemies, but one study found lower doses were more effective and
one found no effect.
• Pests: Three of nine studies (seven randomized, replicated, controlled)
from Asia, Australasia, Europe and North America found fewer
pests, although the effect occurred only in the egg stage in one study.
Two studies found more pests and four found no effect.
• Crop damage: One study found reduced damage with some chemicals
but not others, and one study found no effect.
• Yield: One study found higher wheat yields.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 597

Some Aspects of Enhancing Natural Pest Control

• Crops studied: apple, banana, bean, broccoli, Chinese cabbage, cotton,

cowpea, cranberry, grape, grapefruit, hop, maize, oilseed, orange,
tomato, turnip and wheat.
• Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 40%; certainty 50%; harms
15%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/754

Trade-off between benefit and harms

Leave part of the crop or pasture unharvested or uncut

• Natural enemies: We found eight studies from Australia, Germany,
Hungary, New Zealand, Switzerland and the USA that tested leaving
part of the crop or pasture unharvested or unmown. Three (including
one replicated, controlled trial) found an increase in abundance of
predatory insects or spiders in the crop field or pasture that was
partly uncut, while four (including three replicated, controlled
trials), found more predators in the unharvested or unmown area
itself. Two studies (one replicated and controlled) found that the
ratio of predators to pests was higher in partially cut plots and one
replicated, controlled study found the same result in the uncut area.
Two replicated, controlled studies found differing effects between
species or groups of natural enemies.
• Predation and parasitism: One replicated, controlled study from
Australia found an increase in predation and parasitism rates of pest
eggs in unharvested strips.
• Pests: Two studies (including one replicated, controlled study) found
a decrease in pest numbers in partially cut plots, one of them only
for one species out of two. Two studies (one replicated, the other
controlled) found an increase in pest numbers in partially cut plots,
and two studies (including one replicated, controlled study) found
more pests in uncut areas.
• Crops studied: alfalfa and meadow pastures.
• Assessment: trade-offs between benefits and harms (effectiveness 45%;
certainty 50%; harms 25%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/725

598
 11.2 All farming systems

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Plant new hedges

• Natural enemies: One randomized, replicated, controlled study from
China compared plots with and without hedges and found no effect
on spiders in crops. One of two studies from France and China found
more natural enemies in a hedge than in adjacent crops while one
study found this effect varied between crop types, hedge species and
years. Two randomized, replicated, controlled studies from France
and Kenya found natural enemy abundance in hedges was affected
by the type of hedge shrub/ tree planted and one also found this
effect varied between natural enemy groups.
• Pests: One randomized, replicated, controlled study from Kenya
compared fallow plots with and without hedges and found effects
varied between nematode (roundworm) groups.
• Crops studied: barley, beans, maize and wheat.
• Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 20%; certainty 19%;
harms 20%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/752

Use alley cropping

• Parasitism, infection and predation: Two of four studies from Kenya
and the USA (including three randomized, replicated, controlled
trials) found that effects of alley cropping on parasitism varied
between study sites, sampling dates, pest life stages or the width of
crop alleys. Two studies found no effect on parasitism. One study
found mixed effects on fungal infections in pests and one study
found lower egg predation.
• Natural enemies: One randomized, replicated, controlled study from
Kenya found more wasps and spiders but fewer ladybirds. Some
natural enemy groups were affected by the types of trees used in
hedges.
• Pests and crop damage: Two of four replicated, controlled studies (two
also randomized) from Kenya, the Philippines and the UK found
more pests in alley cropped plots. One study found fewer pests and
one study found effects varied with pest group and between years.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 599

Some Aspects of Enhancing Natural Pest Control

One study found more pest damage to crops but another study
found no effect.
• Weeds: One randomized, replicated, controlled study from the
Philippines found mixed effects on weeds, with more grasses in alley
cropped than conventional fields under some soil conditions.
• Yield: One controlled study from the USA found lower yield and one
study from the Philippines reported similar or lower yields.
• Costs and profit: One study from the USA found lower costs but also
lower profit in alley cropped plots.
• Crops studied: alfalfa, barley, cowpea, maize, pea, rice and wheat.
• Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 15%; certainty 35%;
harms 50%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/718

Evidence not assessed

 se mass-emergence devices to increase natural enemy

U
populations
• Parasitism: One randomized, replicated, controlled study in
Switzerland found higher parasitism at one site but no effect at
another site when mass-emergence devices were used in urban areas.
• Pest damage: The same study found no effect on pest damage to horse
chestnut trees.
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/775

600
 11.3 Arable farming

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions on arable farming systems for enhancing
natural pest regulation?
Beneficial • Combine trap and repellent crops in a push-pull
system
Trade-offs between • Use crop rotation in potato farming systems
benefit and harms
Unlikely to be • Create beetle banks
beneficial
Likely to be • Incorporate plant remains into the soil that
ineffective or produce weed-controlling chemicals
harmful

Beneficial

Combine trap and repellent crops in a push-pull system

• Parasitism: Two randomized, replicated, controlled studies from
Kenya found that push-pull cropping systems increased parasitism
of stem borer larvae. One of the studies found no effect on egg
parasitism.
• Natural enemies: Two randomized, replicated, controlled studies from
Kenya and South Africa found push-pull systems had more natural
predators, both in overall totals and the abundance of different
predator groups.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 601

Some Aspects of Enhancing Natural Pest Control

• Pests: Two of three studies (two randomized, replicated, controlled)

in Ethiopia, Kenya and South Africa found fewer pests. One study
found no effect on pest infestation, but pests were scarce throughout.
Two replicated, controlled studies (one also randomized) found
fewer witchweeds.
• Crop damage: Two of three replicated, controlled studies (one
randomized) found less pest damage, but one study (where pest
numbers were low) found effects varied between years and types of
damage symptom.
• Yield: Four of five replicated, controlled studies (two also randomized)
found higher yields and one found no effect.
• Profit and cost: Two studies in Kenya and a review found greater
economic benefits. One study found higher production costs in the
first year, but equal or lower costs in the following five years.
• Crops studied: maize and beans.
• Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness 70%; certainty 68%; harms 5%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/753

Trade-off between benefit and harms

Use crop rotation in potato farming systems

• Pests: Nine studies from Canada and the USA and one review
investigated the effect of crop rotation on pest or pathogen
populations in potato. Three studies (including two replicated
studies of which one randomized and one controlled) and a review
found crop rotation reduced pest populations and crop diseases in
at least one year or at least one site. One paired study found pest
populations increased in crop rotation. Four studies (including
one replicated, randomized, controlled trial) found increases and
decreases in pest populations depending on rotation crops used
and other treatments. One replicated, randomized, controlled study
found no effect.
• Yield: Three out of five studies (all replicated, controlled, two also
randomized) from Canada and the USA, found that crop rotation
increased crop yield in some years or with certain rotation crops.
The two other studies (both replicated, one also randomized and

602
 11.3 Arable farming

one replicated) found yield increases and decreases depending on

rotation crops used.
• Profit: One replicated, controlled study found that crop rotation
increased profit.
• Insecticides: Two studies (one replicated, controlled) found that fewer
insecticide treatments were needed on rotated plots.
• Crops studied: alfalfa, barley, broccoli, brown mustard, buckwheat,
cotton, lupins, maize, oats, pearl millet, peas, potato, rye, sorghum,
soybean, sugar beet, timothy grass, wheat and yellow sweet clover.
• Assessment: trade-offs between benefits and harms (effectiveness 50%;
certainty 50%; harms 25%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/719

Unlikely to be beneficial

Create beetle banks

• Natural enemies in fields: Six studies from Canada, the UK and USA
(three replicated, controlled, of which two were also randomized)
examined the effects on predator numbers in adjacent crops. A
review found that predators increased in adjacent crops, but one
study found effects varied with time and another found no effect.
Two studies found small or slow movements of predators from
banks to crops. One study found greater beetle activity in fields but
this did not improve pest predation.
• Natural enemies on banks: Four studies and a review found more
invertebrate predators on beetle banks than in surrounding crops,
but one of these found that effects varied with time.
• Eight studies from the UK and USA (including two randomized,
replicated, controlled trials and two reviews) compared numbers of
predatory invertebrates on beetle banks with other refuge habitats.
Two studies found more natural enemies on beetle banks, but one
of these found only seasonal effects. One review found similar or
higher numbers of predators on beetle banks and four studies found
similar or lower numbers.
• Pests: A replicated, randomized, controlled study and a review found
the largest pest reductions in areas closest to a beetle bank or on the

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 603

Some Aspects of Enhancing Natural Pest Control

beetle bank itself. One review found fewer pests in fields with than
without a beetle bank.
• Economics: One replicated, randomized, controlled trial and a review
showed that beetle banks could make economic savings if they
prevented pests from reaching a spray threshold or causing 5% yield
loss.
• Beetle bank design: Two studies from the UK found certain grass
species held higher numbers of predatory invertebrates than others.
• Crops studied: barley, field bean, maize, oats, pasture, pea, radish,
rapeseed, soybean and wheat.
• Assessment: unlikely to be beneficial (effectiveness 25%; certainty 60%;
harms 10%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/729

Likely to be ineffective or harmful

I ncorporate plant remains into the soil that produce

weed-controlling chemicals
• Weeds: Six studies (including six randomized, replicated, controlled
tests) from Asia, Europe and North America examined the effect of
allelopathic plant residues on weeds by comparing amended soils
with weeded controls. Three studies found a reduction in weed
growth, and three found effects varied between years, weed groups,
or type of weeding method in controls.
• Four studies from Asia and North America examined the effect
on weeds by comparing amended soils with unweeded controls.
Two studies found a reduction in weed growth, but one found that
residues applied too far in advance of crop planting had the reverse
effect.
• Two studies found that effects varied between trials, weed species or
the type of residue used.
• Weed control: Two studies, including one randomized, replicated,
controlled laboratory study, found that the decrease in weeds did
not last beyond a few days or weeks after residue incorporation.

604
 11.3 Arable farming

• Pests: One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the Philippines

found mixed effects on pests.
• Crop growth: Two of three studies found that crop growth was
inhibited by allelopathic residues, but these effects could be
minimized by changing the timing of application. One study found
effects varied between years.
• Yield: Three randomized, replicated, controlled studies compared
crop yields in amended plots with weeded controls and found
positive, negative and mixed effects. Three studies compared
amended plots with unweeded controls, two found positive effects
on yield and one found mixed effects (depending on crop type).
• Profit: One study found that amending soils increased profit
compared to unweeded controls, but not compared to weeded
controls.
• Crops studied: beans, cotton, maize, rice and wheat.
• Assessment: likely to be ineffective or harmful (effectiveness 39%; certainty
47%; harms 30%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/728

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 605

 11.4 Perennial farming

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of

the effectiveness of interventions on perennial farming systems for
enhancing natural pest regulation?
Likely to be • Exclude ants that protect pests
beneficial
Unknown • Allow natural regeneration of ground cover
effectiveness beneath perennial crops
(limited evidence) • Isolate colonies of beneficial ants

Likely to be beneficial

Exclude ants that protect pests

• Parasitism: One of two replicated, controlled studies (one also
randomized) from Japan and the USA found greater parasitism
of pests by natural enemies when ants were excluded from trees.
The other study found greater parasitism at one site but no effect at
another.
• Natural enemies: Five studies (including four randomized, replicated,
controlled trials) from Japan, Switzerland and the USA found effects
varied between natural enemy species and groups, sampling dates,
sites, crop varieties and ground cover types beneath trees.
• Pests: Three of seven studies (including four randomized, replicated,
controlled trials) found fewer pests and another found fewer pests
at times of peak abundance only. One study found mixed effects
depending on date and other actions taken simultaneously (predator
attractant and ground cover treatments). One study found no effect.

606
 11.4 Perennial farming

• Damage and tree growth: One study found no effect on damage to tree
foliage but one study found greater tree growth.
• Ants: Six studies found that glue or pesticide barriers reduced ant
numbers in tree or vine canopies. One study found that citrus oil
barriers had no effect.
• Crops studied: cherimoyas, cherry, grape, grapefruit, orange, pecan
and satsuma mandarin.
• Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 40%; certainty 50%; harms
12%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/886

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

A
 llow natural regeneration of ground cover beneath
perennial crops
• Natural enemies on crop trees and vines: Five studies (including one
replicated, randomized, controlled test) from Australia, China,
Italy and Portugal compared natural and bare ground covers by
measuring numbers of natural enemies in fruit tree or vine canopies.
Three found effects varied between groups of natural enemies,
two found no difference. Two studies from Australia and France
compared natural to sown ground cover and found no effect on
enemies in crop canopies.
• Natural enemies on the ground: Five studies (including three replicated,
randomized, controlled trials) from Australia, Canada, China,
France, and Spain compared natural and bare ground covers by
measuring natural enemies on the ground. Two studies found more
natural enemies in natural ground cover, but in one the effects were
only short-term for most natural enemy groups. Three studies found
mixed effects, with higher numbers of some natural enemy groups
but not others. Two studies compared natural and sown ground
covers, one study found more natural enemies and one found no
effect.
• Pests and crop damage: Four studies (three controlled, one also
replicated and randomized) from Italy, Australia and China
measured pests and crop damage in regenerated and bare ground

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 607

Some Aspects of Enhancing Natural Pest Control

covers. Two studies found fewer pests, whilst two studies found
effects on pests and crop damage varied for different pest or disease
groups. One study found more pests in natural than in sown ground
covers.
• Crops studied: apple, grape, lemon, olive and pear.
• Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 35%; certainty 29%;
harms 20%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/720

Isolate colonies of beneficial ants

• Natural enemies: One replicated, controlled study from Australia
found predatory ants occupied more cashew trees when colonies
were kept isolated.
• Pest damage and yield: The same study found lower pest damage to
cashews and higher yields.
• The crop studied was cashew.
• Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 60%; certainty 19%;
harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/773

608
 11.5 Livestock farming and
pasture

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of

the effectiveness of interventions on livestock and pasture farming
systems for enhancing natural pest regulation?
Likely to be • Grow plants that compete with damaging weeds
beneficial
Unknown • Delay mowing or first grazing date on pasture or
effectiveness grassland
(limited evidence)
Likely to be • Use grazing instead of cutting for pasture or
ineffective or grassland management
harmful • Use mixed pasture

Likely to be beneficial

Grow plants that compete with damaging weeds

• Weed weight and cover: Nine studies from Australia, Slovakia, the UK
and the USA tested the effects of planting species to compete with
weeds. All (including four replicated, randomized, controlled trials)
found reduced weed plant weight or ground cover, although two
found this only in some years or conditions.
• Weed reproduction and survival: Five studies (including three replicated,
randomized, controlled trials) also found that competition reduced
weed reproduction, survival or both. One of these found an effect
only in one year only.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 609

Some Aspects of Enhancing Natural Pest Control

• Crops studied: clovers, fescues, ryegrass, other grasses and turnip.

• Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 70%; certainty 60%; harms
5%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/722

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

 elay mowing or first grazing date on pasture or

D
grassland
• Natural enemy abundance: One replicated, randomized, controlled
study found fewer predatory spiders with delayed cutting. Three
studies from the UK (two of them replicated, randomized 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,
randomized, controlled study from the UK found no effect on spider
and beetle diversity.
• Pests: One of two replicated, randomized, 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, randomized, 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: barley, bird’s-foot trefoil, clovers, fescues, rapeseed,
ryegrass, other grasses and wheat.
• Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 5%; certainty 20%;
harms 15%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/727

610
 11.5 Livestock farming and pasture

Likely to be ineffective or harmful

 se grazing instead of cutting for pasture or grassland

U
management
• Natural enemies: Two studies (one before-and-after and one replicated
trial) from Australia and the UK found grazing instead of cutting
had mixed effects on natural enemies, with some species and groups
affected on some dates but not others. One replicated study from
New Zealand found no effect.
• Pests and diseases: One of five studies (including three replicated
trials) from Australia, New Zealand, the UK and the USA found more
pests, and two studies found effects varied between pest groups and
sampling dates. Two studies found no effect on pests. One study
found no effect on disease when grazing was used in addition to
cutting.
• Pasture damage and plant survival: One randomized study found more
ryegrass shoots were attacked by pests. One study found lower
survival of alfalfa plants but another found no effect.
• Yield: One of four randomized, replicated studies (one also controlled)
found lower yields and two found no effect. One study found lower
ryegrass and higher clover yields, but no difference between clover
varieties. Another randomized study found more ryegrass shoots.
• Crops studied: alfalfa, cock’s-foot, perennial ryegrass, other grasses
and white clover.
• Assessment: likely to be ineffective or harmful (effectiveness 10%; certainty
45%; harms 40%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/885

Use mixed pasture

• Weeds: Two of two studies (randomized and replicated and one also
controlled) from the USA found weeds were negatively affected by
mixed compared to monoculture pasture.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 611

Some Aspects of Enhancing Natural Pest Control

• Pests: Five studies from North America measured pests including

four randomized, replicated, controlled tests. One study found fewer
pests and two studies found negative or mixed effects depending on
different pests groups or pasture mixes. One study found no effect
ad another found more pests, although the effect was potentially
inseparable from grazing treatments.
• Crop mortality: One randomized, replicated study from the USA
found no effect on forage crop mortality caused by nematodes.
• Yield: Two of five studies (including two randomized, replicated,
controlled tests) from North America found increased forage crop
yields and two studies found mixed effects depending on the crop
type and year. One study found no effect.
• Crops studied: alfalfa, bird’s-foot trefoil, chicory, cicer milkvetch,
clovers, fescues, oats, plantain, ryegrass, other grasses, other
legumes, rapeseed and turnip.
• Assessment: likely to be ineffective or harmful (effectiveness 35%; certainty
45%; harms 20%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/721

612
12. ENHANCING SOIL FERTILITY
Georgina Key, Mike Whitfield, Lynn V. Dicks, William J. Sutherland &
Richard D. Bardgett

Expert assessors
Martin Collison, Collison and Associates Limited, UK
Julia Cooper, Newcastle University, UK
Thanasis Dedousis, PepsiCo Europe
Richard Heathcote, Heineken, S&N UK Ltd
Shamal Mohammed, Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, Cranfield
University, UK
Andrew Molyneux, Huntapac Produce Ltd, UK
Wim van der Putten, Netherlands Institute of Ecology
Brendan Roth, Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, UK
Franciska de Vries, University of Manchester, UK

Scope of assessment: actions to enhance soil fertility for agricultural

systems across the world.

Assessed: 2014.

Effectiveness measure is the median % score.

Certainty measure is the median % certainty of evidence, determined by

the quantity and quality of the evidence in the synopsis.

Harm measure is the median % score for negative side-effects for the farmer
such as reduced yield, crop quality or profits, or increased costs.

© W. Sutherland et al., CC BY 4.0 https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0191.12

This book is meant as a guide to the evidence available for different
conservation interventions and as a starting point in assessing their
effectiveness. The assessments are based on the available evidence for the
target group of species for each intervention. The assessment may therefore
refer to different species or habitat to the one(s) you are considering.
Before making any decisions about implementing interventions it is vital
that you read the more detailed accounts of the evidence in order to assess
their relevance for your study species or system.

Full details of the evidence are available at

www.conservationevidence.com

There may also be significant negative side-effects on the target groups

or other species or communities that have not been identified in this
assessment.

A lack of evidence means that we have been unable to assess whether or

not an intervention is effective or has any harmful impacts.

614
 12.1 Reducing agricultural
pollution

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions to reduce agricultural pollution for
enhancing soil fertility?
Unknown • Change the timing of manure application
effectiveness
(limited evidence)
Likely to be • Reduce fertilizer, pesticide or herbicide use
ineffective or generally
harmful

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Change the timing of manure application

• One controlled, randomized, replicated, site comparison study
from the UK found less nitrate was lost from the soil when manure
application was delayed from autumn until December or January.
• Soil types covered: sandy loam.
• Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 50%; certainty 33%;
harms 24%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/893

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 615

Enhancing Soil Fertility

Likely to be ineffective or harmful

Reduce fertilizer, pesticide or herbicide use generally

• Biodiversity: Two site comparison studies from Italy and Pakistan
(one also replicated) found a higher diversity of soil invertebrates
and microorganisms in low chemical-input systems.
• Nutrient loss: One study from Canada found lower nutrient levels
and yields in low-input systems.
• Soil types covered: course sandy, loam, sandy loam, and silt.
• Assessment: likely to be ineffective or harmful (effectiveness 26%; certainty
40%; harms 48%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/904

616
 12.2 All farming systems

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions on all farming systems for enhancing
soil fertility?
Likely to be • Control traffic and traffic timing
beneficial
Trade-off between • Change tillage practices
benefit and harms • Convert to organic farming
• Plant new hedges
Unknown • Change the timing of ploughing
effectiveness
(limited evidence)

Likely to be beneficial

Control traffic and traffic timing

• Biodiversity: One randomised, replicated study from Poland found
higher numbers and bacterial activity under controlled traffic.
One replicated site comparison study from Denmark found higher
microbial biomass when farm traffic was not controlled.
• Erosion: Five trials from Europe and Australia (including three
replicated trials, one controlled before-and-after trial, and one review)
found a higher number of pores in the soil, less compaction, reduced
runoff and increased water filtration into soil under controlled
traffic. One controlled, replicated trial in India found increased soil
crack width when traffic was not controlled.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 617

Enhancing Soil Fertility

• Yield: One replicated trial from Australia found increased yield under
controlled traffic.
• Soil types covered: clay, loamy silt, sandy loam, silty, silty clay,
silt-loam.
• Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 55%; certainty 62%; harms
18%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/899

Trade-off between benefit and harms

Change tillage practices

• Biodiversity loss: Nine studies from Canada, Europe, Mexico, or the
USA measured effects of reduced tillage on soil animals or microbes.
Of these, six (including three replicated trials (two also randomized
and one also controlled) found more microbes, more species of
earthworm, or higher microbe activity under reduced tillage.
One replicated trial found increased numbers of soil animals and
earthworms under reduced tillage. Two (including one controlled,
replicated trial), found no effect of reduced tillage on earthworm
activity or microbe activity.
• Compaction: Five studies from Australia, Canada, and Europe
measured the effect of controlled traffic and reduced tillage on
compacted soils. Of these, two (including one before-and-after trial
and one replicated trial) found reduced compaction and subsequent
effects (reduced water runoff, for example) under controlled traffic,
and one also found that crop yields increased under no-tillage. Three
replicated trials, including one site comparison study, found higher
compaction under reduced tillage.
• Drought: Three replicated trials from Europe and India (one
randomized) found the size of soil cracks decreased, and ability of soil
to absorb water and soil water content increased with conventional
tillage and sub-soiling.
• Erosion: Ten replicated trials from Brazil, Europe, India, Nigeria and
the USA, and one review showed mixed results of tillage on soil
erosion. Seven trials (one also controlled and randomized) showed

618
 12.2 All farming systems

reduced soil loss and runoff under reduced tillage compared to

conventional ploughing. One trial showed no differences between
tillage systems, but demonstrated that across-slope cultivation
reduced soil loss compared to up-and-downslope cultivation. Two
trials, showed that no-tillage increased soil loss in the absence of
crop cover.
• Soil organic carbon: Twelve studies from Australia, Canada, China,
Europe, Japan and the USA compared the effect of no-tillage and
conventionally tilled systems on soil organic carbon. All (including
two randomized, five replicated, two randomized, replicated, and
one controlled, randomized, replicated) found higher soil organic
carbon in soils under a no-tillage or reduced tillage system compared
to conventionally tilled soil. One review showed that no-tillage
with cover cropping plus manure application increased soil organic
carbon. One randomized, replicated trial from Spain found greater
soil organic carbon in conventionally tilled soil.
• Soil organic matter: Twelve studies from Canada, China, Europe,
Morocco, and the USA measured effects of reduced tillage on soil
organic matter content and nutrient retention. Of these, six studies
(including three replicated, two site comparisons (one also replicated)
and one controlled) found maintained or increased soil organic
matter and improved soil structure under reduced tillage. Four trials
(including two replicated and two site comparison studies) found
higher nutrient retention under reduced tillage. One controlled,
replicated trial from the USA found less carbon and nitrate in no-till
compared to conventionally tilled soil, but conventionally tilled soil
lost more carbon and nitrate.
• Soil types covered: anthrosol, calcareous silt-loam, chalky, clay, clay-
loam, fine sandy loam, loam, loamy clay, loam/sandy loam, loam
silt-loam, loamy silt, non-chalky clay, sandy, sandy clay-loam, sandy
loam, sandy silt-loam, silt-loam, silty, silty clay, silty clay-loam, silty
loam.
• Assessment: trade-offs between benefit and harms (effectiveness 61%;
certainty 72%; harms 46%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/906

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 619

Enhancing Soil Fertility

Convert to organic farming

• Biodiversity: Four studies in Asia, Europe, and the USA (including
two site comparison studies and three replicated trials) found higher
numbers, diversity, functional diversity (see background) or activity
of soil organisms under organic management.
• Soil organic carbon: Two replicated trials in Italy and the USA showed
that organically managed orchards had higher soil carbon levels
compared to conventionally managed orchards. One randomised,
replicated trial in the USA found soil carbon was lower under organic
management compared to alley cropping.
• Soil organic matter: One replicated trial in Canada found that soil
nutrients were lower in organically managed soils.
• Yield: One replicated trial in Canada found lower yields in
organically managed soils. Two replicated trials in the USA (one
also randomised) found that fruit was of a higher quality and more
resistant to disease, though smaller or that organic management had
mixed effects on yield.
• Soil types covered: clay, clay-loam, fine sandy loam, loam, sandy loam,
sandy clay-loam, silt, silty clay, silt-loam.
• Assessment: trade-offs between benefit and harms (effectiveness 55%;
certainty 52%; harms 64%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/895

Plant new hedges

• Five studies in Slovakia, Kenya and Thailand measured the effects of
planting grass or shrub hedgerows on soil animals and soil fertility.
All five found hedgerows to maintain or improve soil fertility and soil
animal activity. Of these, three replicated studies found reduced soil
erosion and higher soil organic matter levels. Another replicated trial
found a higher diversity of soil animals near to the hedgerows. One
of the replicated studies and one review found that adding woody
species to the hedgerows improved many factors contributing to soil
fertility.
• Soil types covered: alluvial, clay, sandy loam.

620
 12.2 All farming systems

• Assessment: trade-offs between benefit and harms (effectiveness 49%;

certainty 45%; harms 20%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/744

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

Change the timing of ploughing

• Nutrient loss: Two replicated site comparison studies from Denmark
and Norway (one also randomised) found reduced erosion soil loss
and nitrate leaching when ploughing was delayed until spring.
• Soil types covered: Sandy, sandy loam, silty clay loam.
• Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 46%; certainty 38%;
harms 33%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/712

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 621

 12.3 Arable farming

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions on arable farming systems for enhancing
soil fertility?
Beneficial • Amend the soil using a mix of organic and
inorganic amendments
• Grow cover crops when the field is empty
• Use crop rotation
Likely to be • Amend the soil with formulated chemical
beneficial compounds
• Grow cover crops beneath the main crop (living
mulches) or between crop rows
Trade-off between • Add mulch to crops
benefit and harms • Amend the soil with fresh plant material or crop
remains
• Amend the soil with manures and agricultural
composts
• Amend the soil with municipal wastes or their
composts
• Incorporate leys into crop rotation
• Retain crop residues
Unknown • Amend the soil with bacteria or fungi
effectiveness • Amend the soil with composts not otherwise
(limited evidence) specified
• Amend the soil with crops grown as green manures
• Amend the soil with non-chemical minerals and
mineral wastes
• Amend the soil with organic processing wastes or
their composts
• Encourage foraging waterfowl
• Use alley cropping

622
 12.3 Arable farming

Beneficial

A
 mend the soil using a mix of organic and inorganic
amendments
• Biodiversity: 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.
• Soil organic carbon loss: Four controlled, randomized, replicated trials
and one controlled trial all 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.
• Soil organic matter loss: Three randomized, replicated trials from
China and India (two also controlled), 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 randomized, replicated trials from China (one also
controlled) found increased maize or rice and wheat yields in soils
with mixed manure and inorganic fertilizer amendments. One study
found lower yields of rice and wheat under mixed fertilizers.
• Soil types covered: clay, clay-loam, sandy loam, silt clay-loam, silty
loam.
• Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness 69%; certainty 64%; harms 15%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/902

Grow cover crops when the field is empty

• Biodiversity: One controlled, randomized, replicated experiment in
Martinique found that growing cover crops resulted in more diverse
nematode communities. One replicated trial from the USA found

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 623

Enhancing Soil Fertility

greater microbial biomass under ryegrass compared to a ryegrass/

vetch cover crop mix.
• Soil structure: Three randomized, replicated studies from Denmark,
Turkey and the UK found that growing cover crops improved soil
structure and nutrient retention. One trial found higher soil porosity,
interconnectivity and one lower resistance in soil under cover crops,
and one found reduced nitrate leaching.
• Soil organic carbon: One replicated study from Denmark and one
review based mainly in Japan found increased soil carbon levels
under cover crops. One study also found soil carbon levels increased
further when legumes were included in cover crops.
• Soil organic matter: Two controlled, randomized, replicated studies
from Australia and the USA found increased carbon and nitrogen
levels under cover crops, with one showing that they increased
regardless of whether those crops were legumes or not. Two studies
from Europe (including one controlled, replicated trial) found no
marked effect on soil organic matter levels.
• Yield: One replicated trial from the USA found higher tomato yield
from soils which had been under a ryegrass cover crop.
• Soil types covered: clay, loam, sandy clay, sandy loam, silty clay, silty
loam.
• Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness 75%; certainty 67%; harms 16%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/898

Use crop rotation

• Biodiversity: Three randomized, replicated trials from Canada and
Zambia measured the effect of including legumes in crop rotations
and found the number of microbes and diversity of different soil
animals increased.
• Erosion: One randomized, replicated trial from Canada found that
including forage crops in crop rotations reduced rainwater runoff and
soil loss, and one replicated trial from Syria showed that including
legumes in rotation increased water infiltration (movement of water
into the soil).
• Soil organic carbon: Three studies from Australia, Canada, and
Denmark (including one controlled replicated trial and one replicated

624
 12.3 Arable farming

site comparison study), found increased soil organic carbon under

crop rotation, particularly when some legumes were included.
• Soil organic matter: Two of four replicated trials from Canada and
Syria (one also controlled and randomized) found increased soil
organic matter, particularly when legumes were included in the
rotation. One study found lower soil organic matter levels when
longer crop rotations were used. One randomized, replicated study
found no effect on soil particle size.
• Soil types covered: clay, clay-loam, fine clay, loam, loam/silt loam,
sandy clay, sandy loam, silty loam.
• Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness 66%; certainty 75%; harms 8%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/857

Likely to be beneficial

A
 mend the soil with formulated chemical compounds
• Nutrient loss: Three of five replicated trials from New Zealand and
the UK measured the effect of applying nitrification inhibitors to
the soil and three found reduced nitrate losses and nitrous oxide
emissions, although one of these found that the method of application
influenced its effect. One trial found no effect on nitrate loss. One
trial found reduced nutrient and soil loss when aluminium sulphate
was applied to the soil.
• Soil organic matter: Four of five studies (including two controlled,
randomised and replicated and one randomised and replicated) in
Australia, China, India, Syria and the UK testing the effects of adding
chemical compounds to the soil showed an increase in soil organic
matter or carbon when nitrogen or phosphorus fertilizer was applied.
One site comparison study showed that a slow-release fertilizer
resulted in higher nutrient retention. One study found higher carbon
levels when NPK fertilizers were applied with straw, than when
applied alone, and one replicated study from France found higher
soil carbon when manure rather than chemical compounds were
applied.
• Yield: One replicated experiment from India showed that maize and
wheat yield increased with increased fertilizer application.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 625

Enhancing Soil Fertility

• Soil types covered: clay, fine loamy, gravelly sandy loam, loam, sandy
loam, silty, silty clay, silt-loam.
• Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 64%; certainty 46%; harms
19%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/909

 row cover crops beneath the main crop (living mulches)

G
or between crop rows
• Biodiversity: One randomized, replicated study from Spain found
that cover crops increased bacterial numbers and activity.
• Erosion: Two studies from France and the USA showed reduced
erosion under cover crops. One controlled study showed that soil
stability was highest under a grass cover, and one randomized
replicated study found that cover crops reduced soil loss.
• Soil organic matter: Two controlled trials from India and South Africa
(one also randomized and replicated) found that soil organic matter
increased under cover crops, and one trial from Germany found no
effect on soil organic matter levels.
• Soil types covered: gravelly sandy loam, sandy loam, sandy, silty loam.
• Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 65%; certainty 54%; harms
19%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/897

Trade-off between benefit and harms

A
 dd mulch to crops
• Biodiversity: Three replicated trials from Canada, Poland and Spain
(including one also controlled, one also randomised and one also
controlled and randomised) 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.

626
 12.3 Arable farming

• Erosion: Five studies from India, France, Nigeria and the UK

(including one controlled, randomised, replicated trial, one
randomised, 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.
• Assessment: trade-offs between benefit and harms (effectiveness 60%;
certainty 64%; harms 23%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/887

Amend the soil with fresh plant material or crop remains

• Biodiversity: One randomized, replicated experiment from Belgium
found increased microbial biomass when crop remains and straw
were added.
• Compaction: One before-and-after trial from the UK found that
incorporating straw residues by discing (reduced tillage) did not
improve anaerobic soils (low oxygen levels) in compacted soils.
• Erosion: Two randomized, replicated studies from Canada and
India measured the effect of incorporating straw on erosion. One
found straw addition reduced soil loss, and one found mixed effects
depending on soil type.
• Nutrient loss: Two replicated studies from Belgium and the UK
(one also controlled and one also randomized) reported higher soil
nitrogen levels when compost or straw was applied, but mixed
results when processed wastes were added.
• Soil organic carbon: Three randomized, replicated studies (two also
controlled) from China and India, and one controlled before-and-
after site comparison study from Denmark found higher carbon
levels when plant material was added. One found higher carbon

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 627

Enhancing Soil Fertility

levels when straw was applied along with NPK fertilizers. One also
found larger soil aggregates.
• Soil types covered: clay, clay-loam, loam/sandy loam, loamy sand,
sandy, sandy clay-loam, sandy loam, silt-loam, silty, silty clay.
• Assessment: trade-offs between benefit and harms (effectiveness 53%;
certainty 53%; harms 34%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/910

A
 mend the soil with manures and agricultural composts
• Biodiversity loss: Three controlled, replicated studies from the UK and
USA found higher microbial biomass when manure or compost was
applied, and higher microbial respiration when poultry manure was
applied.
• Erosion: One controlled, randomized, replicated study from India
found lower soil loss and water runoff with manure application in
combination with other treatments.
• Nutrient management: Two randomized, replicated studies from
Canada and the UK (one also controlled) found lower nitrate loss
or larger soil aggregates (which hold more nutrients) when manure
was applied, compared to broiler (poultry) litter, slurry or synthetic
fertilizers. One study found that treatment in winter was more
effective than in autumn and that farmyard manure was more
effective than broiler (poultry) litter or slurry in reducing nutrient
loss. One controlled, replicated study from Spain found higher
nitrate leaching.
• Soil organic carbon: Three studies (including two controlled, replicated
studies and a review) from India, Japan and the UK found higher
carbon levels when manures were applied.
• Soil organic matter: One controlled, randomized, replicated study
from Turkey found higher organic matter, larger soil aggregations
and a positive effect on soil physical properties when manure and
compost were applied. One study from Germany found no effect of
manure on organic matter levels.
• Yield: Four controlled, replicated studies (including four also
randomized) from India, Spain and Turkey found higher crop yields

628
 12.3 Arable farming

when manures or compost were applied. One study found higher

yields when manure were applied in combination with cover crops.
• Soil types covered: clay-loam, loam, loamy, sandy loam, sandy clay-
loam, silty loam, sandy silt-loam.
• Assessment: trade-offs between benefit and harms (effectiveness 70%;
certainty 59%; harms 26%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/911

A
 mend the soil with municipal wastes or their composts
• Erosion: Two controlled, replicated trials in Spain and the UK
measured the effect of adding wastes to the soil. One trial found that
adding municipal compost to semi-arid soils greatly reduced soil
loss and water runoff. One found mixed results of adding composts
and wastes.
• Soil types covered: coarse loamy, sandy loam.
• Assessment: trade-offs between benefit and harms (effectiveness 45%;
certainty 44%; harms 54%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/890

Incorporate leys into crop rotation

• Nutrient loss: One replicated study from Denmark showed that
reducing the extent of grass pasture in leys reduced the undesirable
uptake of nitrogen by grasses, therefore requiring lower rates of
fertilizer for subsequent crops.
• Soil types covered: sandy loam.
• Assessment: trade-offs between benefit and harms (effectiveness 46%;
certainty 45%; harms 36%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/900

Retain crop residues

• Biodiversity: One replicated study from Mexico found higher
microbial biomass when crop residues were retained.
• Erosion: One review found reduced water runoff, increased water
storage and reduced soil erosion. One replicated site comparison
from Canada found mixed effects on soil physical properties,

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 629

Enhancing Soil Fertility

including penetration resistance and the size of soil aggregates. One

replicated study from the USA found that tillage can have mixed
results on soil erosion when crop remains are removed.
• Soil organic matter: One randomized, replicated trial from Australia
found higher soil organic carbon and nitrogen when residues were
retained, but only when fertilizer was also applied.
• Yield: One randomized, replicated trial from Australia found higher
yields when residues were retained in combination with fertilizer
application and no-tillage.
• Soil types covered: clay, loam, sandy loam, silt-loam.
• Assessment: trade-offs between benefit and harms (effectiveness 63%;
certainty 54%; harms 29%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/907

Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)

A
 mend the soil with bacteria or fungi
• Biodiversity: One randomised, replicated trial from India showed that
adding soil bacteria and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi resulted in
higher microbial diversity.
• Soil organic matter: One controlled, randomised, replicated trial from
Turkey found increased soil organic matter content in soil under
mycorrhizal-inoculated compost applications.
• Yield: Two randomised, replicated trials (including one also
controlled) from India and Turkey found higher crop yields.
• Soil types covered: clay-loam, sandy loam.
• Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 40%; certainty 31%;
harms 17%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/888

A
 mend the soil with composts not otherwise specified
• Soil organic matter: One controlled, randomised, replicated trial
in Italy found that applying a high rate of compost increased soil
organic matter levels, microbial biomass and fruit yield.

630
 12.3 Arable farming

• Soil types covered: silty clay.

• Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 54%; certainty 29%;
harms 19%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/889

A
 mend the soil with crops grown as green manures
• Soil organic matter: Two controlled, randomized, replicated studies
from India and Pakistan found higher soil organic carbon, and one
found increased grain yields when green manures were grown.
• Soil types covered: clay-loam.
• Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 53%; certainty 36%;
harms 16%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/908

A
 mend the soil with non-chemical minerals and mineral
wastes
• Nutrient loss: Two replicated studies from Australia and New Zealand
measured the effects of adding minerals and mineral wastes to the
soil. Both found reduced nutrient loss and one study found reduced
erosion.
• Soil types covered: sandy clay, silt-loam.
• Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 35%; certainty 37%;
harms 23%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/892

A
 mend the soil with organic processing wastes or their
composts
• Nutrient loss: Two controlled, replicated trials from Spain and the UK
(one also randomized) measured the effect of adding composts to
soil. One trial found applying high rates of cotton gin compost and
poultry manure improved soil structure and reduced soil loss, but
increased nutrient loss. One trial found improved nutrient retention
and increased barley Hordeum vulgare yield when molasses were
added.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 631

Enhancing Soil Fertility

• Soil types covered: sandy clay, sandy loam, silty clay.

• Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 58%; certainty 35%;
harms 20%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/891

Encourage foraging waterfowl

• Soil organic matter: One controlled, replicated experiment from
the USA found increased straw decomposition when ducks were
allowed to forage.
• Soil types covered: silty clay.
• Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 14%; certainty 34%;
harms 20%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/711

Use alley cropping

• Biodiversity: A controlled, randomized, replicated study from Canada
found that intercropping with trees resulted in a higher diversity of
arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi.
• Soil types covered: sandy loam.
• Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 36%; certainty 23%;
harms 19%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/903

632
 12.4 Livestock and pasture
farming

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of

the effectiveness of interventions on livestock and pasture farming
systems for enhancing soil fertility?
Likely to be • Reduce grazing intensity
beneficial
Trade-off between • Restore or create low input grasslands
benefit and harms

Likely to be beneficial

Reduce grazing intensity

• Compaction: One replicated study from Australia found compacted
soils recovered when sheep were excluded for 2.5 years.
• Erosion: Two replicated studies from New Zealand, and Syria (one
also controlled) measured the effect of grazing animals on soil
nutrient and sediment loss. Of these, one trial found increased soil
carbon and nitrogen when grazing animals were excluded. One trial
found higher soil phosphate levels, and less sediment erosion when
grazing time in forage crops was reduced.
• Soil types covered: clay, clay-loam, loamy, silt-loam.
• Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 51%; certainty 58%; harms
14%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/901

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 633

Enhancing Soil Fertility

Trade-off between benefit and harms

Restore or create low input grasslands

• Biodiversity: One randomized, replicated trial in the Netherlands
and one controlled trial from France found that restoring grasslands
increased the diversity of soil animals. One trial also found higher
microbial biomass, activity and carbon under grassland.
• Soil types covered: sandy loam, silty.
• Assessment: trade-offs between benefit and harms (effectiveness 53%;
certainty 59%; harms 32%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/905

634
13. SUBTIDAL BENTHIC
INVERTEBRATE CONSERVATION
Anaelle J. Lemasson, Laura R. Pettit, Rebecca K. Smith &
William J. Sutherland

Expert assessors
Silviu Petrovan, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom
Anaelle Lemasson, JNCC, United Kingdom
Ann Thornton, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom
Lucy Shuff, Gardline Limited, United Kingdom
Christopher Barrett, CEFAS, United Kingdom

Scope of assessment: for native wild subtidal species across the world.

Assessed: 2020.

Effectiveness measure is the median % score for effectiveness.

Certainty measure is the median % certainty of evidence for effectiveness,

determined by the quantity and quality of the evidence in the synopsis.

Harm measure is the median % score for negative side-effects to the group
of species of concern.

© W. Sutherland et al., CC BY 4.0 https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0191.13

This book is meant as a guide to the evidence available for different
conservation interventions and as a starting point in assessing their
effectiveness. The assessments are based on the available evidence
for the target group of species for each intervention. The assessment
may therefore refer to different species or habitat to the one(s) you
are considering. Before making any decisions about implementing
interventions it is vital that you read the more detailed accounts of
the evidence in order to assess their relevance for your study species
or system.

Full details of the evidence are available at

www.conservationevidence.com

There may also be significant negative side-effects on the target

groups or other species or communities that have not been identified
in this assessment.

A lack of evidence means that we have been unable to assess whether

or not an intervention is effective or has any harmful impacts.
 13.1 Threat: Energy
production and mining

13.1.1 Oil and gas drilling

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for oil and gas drilling?
No evidence • Bury drill cuttings in the seabed rather than
found (no leaving them on the seabed surface
assessment) • Cease or prohibit oil and gas drilling
• Cease or prohibit the deposit of drill cuttings on
the seabed
• Dispose of drill cuttings on land rather than on
the seabed
• Limit the thickness of drill cuttings
• Recycle or repurpose fluids used in the drilling
process
• Remove drill cuttings after decommissioning
• Set limits for change in sediment particle size
during aggregate extraction
• Use water-based muds instead of oil-based muds
(drilling fluids) in the drilling process

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Bury drill cuttings in the seabed rather than leaving them on the
seabed surface
• Cease or prohibit oil and gas drilling
• Cease or prohibit the deposit of drill cuttings on the seabed

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 637

Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation

• Dispose of drill cuttings on land rather than on the seabed

• Limit the thickness of drill cuttings
• Recycle or repurpose fluids used in the drilling process
• Remove drill cuttings after decommissioning
• Set limits for change in sediment particle size during aggregate
extraction
• Use water-based muds instead of oil-based muds (drilling fluids) in
the drilling process.

13.1.2 General

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for energy production and mining?
No evidence • Bury pipelines instead of surface laying and rock
found (no dumping
assessment) • Leave pipelines and infrastructure in place
following decommissioning
• Limit the amount of stabilisation material used
• Remove pipelines and infrastructure following
decommissioning
• Set limits for change in sediment particle size
during rock dumping
• Use stabilisation material that can be more easily
recovered at decommissioning stage

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Bury pipelines instead of surface laying and rock dumping
• Leave pipelines and infrastructure in place following
decommissioning
• Limit the amount of stabilisation material used
• Remove pipelines and infrastructure following decommissioning
• Set limits for change in sediment particle size during rock dumping
• Use stabilisation material that can be more easily recovered at
decommissioning stage.

638
 13.1 Threat: Energy production and mining

13.1.3 Mining, quarrying, and aggregate extraction

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for mining, quarrying, and aggregate
extraction?
Beneficial • Cease or prohibit aggregate extraction
Unknown • Cease or prohibit marine mining
effectiveness • Extract aggregates from a vessel that is moving
rather than static
• Leave mining waste (tailings) in place following
cessation of disposal operations
No evidence • Cease or prohibit mining waste (tailings)
found (no disposal at sea
assessment) • Limit, cease, or prohibit sediment discard during
aggregate extraction
• Remove discarded sediment material from
the seabed following cessation of aggregate
extraction

Beneficial

● Cease or prohibit aggregate extraction

Seven studies examined the effects of ceasing or prohibiting aggregate
extraction on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. One study was in
the English Channel (France), one in the Mediterranean Sea (Italy), one a
global study, and four in the North Sea (UK, Belgium).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (6 STUDIES)
Overall community composition (4 studies): One global systematic review
found that it took nine months to several decades for overall invertebrate
community composition to recover after ceasing aggregate extraction. One
before-and-after, site comparison study in the Mediterranean Sea and one
of two site comparison studies in the North Sea found that after ceasing
aggregate extraction overall invertebrate community composition became
more similar to pre-extraction and/or natural site communities.
Overall richness/diversity (5 studies): Two before-and-after, site comparison
studies in the English Channel and the Mediterranean Sea and one of two
site comparison studies in the North Sea found that after ceasing aggregate

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 639

Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation

extraction, overall invertebrate species richness and/or diversity became more

similar to that of pre-extraction and/or natural sites. The other site comparison
found that species richness did not change over time and remained different
to that of natural sites. One replicated, site comparison study in the North
Sea found that 21 months after ceasing aggregate extraction, invertebrate
species richness was similar to that of natural sites.
Worm community composition (1 study): One before-and-after study in the
North Sea found that after ceasing aggregate extraction, nematode worm
community composition remained different to the pre-extraction community.
Worm richness/diversity (1 study): One before-and-after study in the North
Sea found that after ceasing aggregate extraction, nematode worm species
richness remained different to pre-extraction richness.
POPULATION RESPONSE (6 STUDIES)
Overall abundance (5 studies): Two before-and-after, site comparison
studies in the English Channel and the Mediterranean Sea and one of two
site comparison studies in the North Sea found that after ceasing aggregate
extraction overall invertebrate abundance and/or biomass became more similar
to that of pre-extraction and/or natural sites. The other site comparison found
that abundance and biomass did not change over time and remained different
to that of natural sites. One replicated, site comparison study in the North
Sea found that 21 months after ceasing aggregate extraction, invertebrate
abundance was similar to that of natural sites.
Worm abundance (1 study): One before-and-after study in the North Sea
found that after ceasing aggregate extraction, nematode worm abundance
remained different to pre-extraction abundance.
Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness 65%; certainty 60%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2070

Unknown effectiveness

● Cease or prohibit marine mining

One study examined the effects of ceasing or prohibiting mining on subtidal
benthic invertebrate populations. The study was in the Bering Sea (USA).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Overall community composition (1 study): One site comparison study in the
Bering Sea found that following cessation of gold mining, overall invertebrate
community composition became similar to that of an unmined site.

640
 13.1 Threat: Energy production and mining

Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One site comparison study in the Bering

Sea found that following cessation of gold mining, overall invertebrate
richness and diversity became similar to that of an unmined site.
POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Overall abundance (1 study): One site comparison study in the Bering Sea
found that following cessation of gold mining, overall invertebrate abundance
and biomass became similar to that of an unmined site.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 70%; certainty 31%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2075

● Extract aggregates from a vessel that is moving rather

than static
One study examined the effects of dredging from a vessel that is moving
rather than static on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. The study
was in the English Channel (UK).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Overall species richness/diversity (1 study): One site comparison study
in the English Channel found that a site where aggregate extraction was
undertaken using a moving trailer suction hopper dredger had similar
invertebrate species richness and lower diversity compared to a site where
extraction occurred using a static suction hopper dredger.
POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Overall abundance (1 study): One site comparison study in the English
Channel found that a site where aggregate extraction was undertaken
using a moving trailer suction hopper dredger had higher abundance of
invertebrates compared to a site where extraction occurred using a static
suction hopper dredger.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 35%; certainty 20%; harms 18%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2071

● Leave mining waste (tailings) in place following

cessation of disposal operations
One study examined the effects of leaving mining waste (tailings) in place
following cessation of disposal operations on subtidal benthic invertebrate
populations. The study was in Auke Bay (USA).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 641

Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation

Overall community composition (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled

study in Auke Bay found that plots where mine tailings were left in place had
similar invertebrate community composition as plots where tailings had been
removed, but both had different communities to plots of natural sediment.
Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study
in Auke Bay found that plots where mine tailings were left in place had similar
invertebrate species richness as plots where tailings had been removed, but
both had lower richness compared to plots of natural sediment.
POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in
Auke Bay found that plots where mine tailings were left in place had similar
invertebrate overall abundance and biomass as plots where tailings had been
removed. While plots with and without tailings had similar abundances to
plots of natural sediment, their biomasses were higher.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 15%; certainty 25%; harms 5%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2077

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Cease or prohibit mining waste (tailings) disposal at sea
• Limit, cease, or prohibit sediment discard during aggregate
extraction
• Remove discarded sediment material from the seabed following
cessation of aggregate extraction.

642
 13.1 Threat: Energy production and mining

13.1.4 Renewable energy

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for renewable energy?
No evidence • Co-locate aquaculture systems with other
found (no activities and other infrastructures (such as wind
assessment) farms) to maximise use of marine space
• Limit the number and/or extent of, or prohibit
additional, renewable energy installations in an
area

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Co-locate aquaculture systems with other activities and other
infrastructures (such as wind farms) to maximise use of marine space
• Limit the number and/or extent of, or prohibit additional, renewable
energy installations in an area.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 643

 13.2 Threat: Transportation
and service corridors

13.2.1 Utility and service lines

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for utility and service lines?
No evidence • Bury cables and pipelines in the seabed rather
found (no than laying them on the seabed
assessment) • Leave utility and service lines in place after
decommissioning
• Remove utility and service lines after
decommissioning
• Set limits on the area that can be covered by
utility and service lines at one location
• Use a different technique when laying and
burying cables and pipelines
• Use cables and pipelines of smaller width

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Bury cables and pipelines in the seabed rather than laying them on
the seabed
• Leave utility and service lines in place after decommissioning
• Remove utility and service lines after decommissioning
• Set limits on the area that can be covered by utility and service lines
at one location

644
 13.2 Threat: Transportation and service corridors

• Use a different technique when laying and burying cables and

pipelines
• Use cables and pipelines of smaller width.

13.2.2 Shipping lanes

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for shipping lanes?
Unknown • Cease or prohibit shipping
effectiveness
No evidence • Divert shipping routes
found (no • Limit, cease or prohibit anchoring from ships/
assessment) boats/vessels
• Limit, cease or prohibit recreational boating
• Periodically move and relocate moorings
• Provide additional moorings to reduce anchoring
• Reduce ships/boats/vessels speed limits
• Set limits on hull depth
• Use a different type of anchor
• Use moorings which reduce or avoid contact
with the seabed (eco- moorings)

Unknown effectiveness

● Cease or prohibit shipping

Three studies examined the effects of ceasing or prohibiting shipping on
subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. All studies were in the North Sea
(Belgium, Germany, Netherlands).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)
Overall community composition (1 study): One site comparison study in the
North Sea found that areas closed to shipping developed different overall
invertebrate community compositions compared to areas where shipping
occurred.
Overall species richness/diversity (1 study): One site comparison study in
the North Sea found that areas closed to shipping did not develop different

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 645

Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation

overall invertebrate species richness and diversity compared to areas where

shipping occurred.
POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)
Overall abundance (2 studies): Two site comparison studies (one before-
and-after) in the North Sea found that areas closed to shipping had similar
overall invertebrate abundance and biomass compared to areas where
shipping occurred.
Overall abundance (2 studies): Two site comparison studies (one before-
and-after) in the North Sea found that areas closed to shipping had similar
overall invertebrate abundance and biomass compared to areas where
shipping occurred.
OTHER (2 STUDIES)
Overall community energy flow (1 study): One before-after, site comparison
study in the North Sea found that after closing an area to shipping, invertebrate
community energy flow did not change, but it increased in nearby areas
where shipping occurred.
Species energy flow (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study
in the North Sea found that closing an area to shipping had mixed effects
on species-level energy flow.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 35%; certainty 30%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2086

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Divert shipping routes
• Limit, cease or prohibit anchoring from ships/boats/vessels
• Limit, cease or prohibit recreational boating
• Periodically move and relocate moorings
• Provide additional moorings to reduce anchoring
• Reduce ships/boats/vessels speed limits
• Set limits on hull depth
• Use a different type of anchor
• Use moorings which reduce or avoid contact with the seabed
(eco- moorings).

646
13.3 Threat: Biological resource use

13.3.1 Spatial and Temporal Management

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for spatial and temporal management?
Beneficial • Cease or prohibit all towed (mobile) fishing gear
Likely to be • Cease or prohibit all types of fishing
beneficial • Cease or prohibit bottom trawling
• Cease or prohibit dredging
Unknown • Cease or prohibit commercial fishing
effectiveness • Establish temporary fisheries closures
No evidence • Cease or prohibit midwater/semi-pelagic
found (no trawling
assessment) • Cease or prohibit static fishing gear

Beneficial

● Cease or prohibit all towed (mobile) fishing gear

Eight studies examined the effects of ceasing or prohibiting all towed fishing
gear on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. One study was in the
Limfjord (Denmark), two in the English Channel (UK), three in Georges
Bank in the North Atlantic Ocean (USA and Canada), one in the Ria Formosa
lagoon (Portugal), and one in the Irish Sea (Isle of Man).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (4 STUDIES)
Overall community composition (3 studies): Two of three replicated, site
comparison studies in the Limfjord and the English Channel, found that
areas excluding towed fishing gear for either an unspecified amount of time

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 647

Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation

or two to 23 years had different overall invertebrate community composition

compared to areas where towed-fishing occurred and one found that ceasing
towed-gear fishing for nine years had mixed effects.
Overall species richness/diversity (3 studies): Two replicated, site comparison
studies in the English Channel reported that areas excluding towed fishing
gear for either an unspecified amount of time or two to 23 years had different
or greater invertebrate species richness and diversity to areas where towed-
fishing occurred. One site comparison study in Georges Bank found no
difference in invertebrate species richness between an area closed to mobile
fishing gear for 10 to 14 years and a fished area.
POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES)
Overall abundance (3 studies): Two site comparison studies (one replicated)
in the English Channel and Georges Bank found that sites excluding towed
gear for either two to 23 years or 10 to 14 years had greater overall invertebrate
biomass compared to sites where towed-gear fishing occurred, but one also
found that abundance was similar in both areas. One replicated, controlled,
before-and-after study in the Ria Formosa lagoon found that ceasing towed
gear for 10 months led to increases in the cover of mobile but not sessile
Mollusc abundance (2 studies): Two site comparison studies (one replicated)
in the Irish Sea and the English Channel found that areas closed to towed
fishing gear for either two to 23 years or 14 years had more scallops compared
to adjacent fished areas.
Mollusc condition (1 study): One site comparison study the Irish Sea found
that an area closed to towed fishing gear for 14 years had higher proportions
of older and larger scallops compared to an adjacent fished area.
Starfish abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in
Georges Bank found more starfish in areas closed to towed fishing gear for
five to nine years compared to adjacent fished areas.
Starfish condition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Georges
Bank found that starfish arm length was similar in areas closed to towed
fishing gear for five to nine years and adjacent fished areas.
OTHER (1 STUDY)
Overall community biological production (1 study): One before-and-after,
site comparison study in Georges Bank found an increase in the biological
production from invertebrate in sites closed to towed fishing gear for
approximately five years compared to adjacent fished sites.
Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness 70%; certainty 70%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2102

648
 13.3 Threat: Biological resource use

Likely to be beneficial

● Cease or prohibit all types of fishing

Five studies examined the effects of ceasing or prohibiting all types of fishing
on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. All studies were in the North
Sea (Belgium, Germany, Netherlands, UK).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)
Overall community composition (2 studies): Two site comparison studies
(one before-and-after) in the North Sea found that areas closed to all fishing
developed different overall invertebrate community compositions compared
to fished areas.
Overall species richness/diversity (2 studies): One of two site comparison
studies (one before-and-after) in the North Sea found that areas closed to all
fishing did not develop different overall invertebrate species richness and
diversity compared to fished areas after three years, but the other found
higher species richness in the closed areas after 20 years.
POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES)
Overall abundance (2 studies): Two site comparison studies (one before-
and-after) in the North Sea found that areas closed to all fishing had similar
overall invertebrate abundance and biomass compared to fished areas after
three and five years.
Crustacean abundance (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison
study in the North Sea found that closing a site to all fishing led to similar
numbers of lobster compared to a fished site after 20 months.
Crustacean condition (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study
in the North Sea found that closing a site to all fishing led to larger sizes of
lobster compared to a fished site after 20 months.
OTHER (1 STUDY)
Overall community energy flow (1 study): One before-after, site comparison
study in the North Sea found that, during the 12–14 months after closing an
area to all fishing, the invertebrate community structure (measured as energy
flow) at sites within the closed area did not change, but that it increased in
nearby fished sites.
Species energy flow (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study
in the North Sea found that closing an area to all fishing for 12–14 months
had mixed effects on species-level energy flow.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 55%; certainty 50%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2096

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 649

Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation

● Cease or prohibit bottom trawling

Four studies examined the effects of ceasing or prohibiting bottom trawling
on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. Two studies were in the Bering
Sea (USA), one in the North Sea, and one in the Mediterranean Sea (Italy).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES)
Overall community composition (2 studies): Two site comparison studies
(one before-and-after, one replicated) in the North Sea and the Mediterranean
Sea found that in areas prohibiting trawling for either 15 or 20 years, overall
invertebrate community composition was different to that of trawled areas.
Overall species richness/diversity (3 studies): Two of three site comparison
studies (one paired, one before-and-after, one replicated) in the Bering Sea,
the North Sea, and the Mediterranean Sea found that invertebrate diversity
was higher in sites closed to trawling compared to trawled sites after either
37 or 15 years, but the other found no differences after 20 years.
POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES)
Overall abundance (2 studies): One of two site comparison studies (one paired,
one replicated) in the Bering Sea and the Mediterranean Sea found that total
invertebrate abundance was higher in sites closed to trawling compared to
trawled sites after 37 years, but the other found no differences after 20 years.
Both found no differences in total invertebrate biomass.
Unwanted catch overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, before-and-
after, site comparison study in the Bering Sea found that during the three
years after closing areas to all bottom trawling, unwanted catch of crabs
appeared to have decreased, while no changes appeared to have occurred
in nearby trawled areas.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 55%; certainty 50%; harms 5%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2099

● Cease or prohibit dredging

Four studies examined the effects of ceasing or prohibiting dredging on
subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. One study was in the North
Atlantic Ocean (Portugal), one in the South Atlantic Ocean (Argentina), one
in the English Channel and one in the Irish Sea (UK).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES)
Overall community composition (3 studies): One of three site comparison
studies (one replicated, one before-and-after) in Atlantic Ocean and the
Irish Sea found that after ceasing dredging, overall invertebrate community
composition was different to that in dredged areas. The other two found that
communities remained similar in dredged and non-dredged areas.
650
 13.3 Threat: Biological resource use

Overall richness/diversity (3 studies): One of three site comparison studies

(one replicated, one before-and-after) in Atlantic Ocean and the Irish Sea
found that after ceasing dredging, large (macro-) invertebrate diversity
was higher but small (meio-) invertebrate diversity was lower compared to
dredged areas. The other two found that overall diversity remained similar
in dredged and non-dredged areas.
POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES)
Overall abundance (3 studies): One of three site comparison studies (one
replicated, one before-and-after) in Atlantic Ocean and the Irish Sea found
that four years after ceasing dredging, large (macro-) and small (meio-)
invertebrate abundance and/or biomass appeared higher to that in dredged
areas. The other two found that abundance and/or biomass remained similar
in dredged and non-dredged areas after either two or six years.
Tunicate abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the
English Channel found that a year after ceasing dredging in three areas,
abundance of ascidians/sea squirts (tunicates) was similar to that in dredged
areas.
Bryozoan abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in
the English Channel found that a year after ceasing dredging in three areas,
abundance of bryozoan was higher than in dredged areas.
Crustacean abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in
the English Channel found that a year after ceasing dredging in three areas,
abundance of spider crabs was higher than in dredged areas, but abundance
of edible crab was similar.
Cnidarian abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in
the English Channel found that a year after ceasing dredging in three areas,
abundance of sea fans was higher than in dredged areas.
Sponge abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the
English Channel found that a year after ceasing dredging in three areas,
abundance of sponges was higher than in dredged areas.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 75%; certainty 55%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2101

Unknown effectiveness

● Cease or prohibit commercial fishing

Three studies examined the effects of ceasing or prohibiting commercial
fishing on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. Two studies were

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 651

Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation

in the Tasman Sea (New Zealand), the third on Gorges Bank in the North
Atlantic Ocean (USA).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)
Overall community composition (1 study): One site comparison study in the
Tasman Sea found that an area closed to commercial trawling and dredging
for 28 years had different overall invertebrate communities than an area
subject to commercial fishing.
Overall species richness/diversity (1 study): One site comparison study on
Georges Bank found no difference in invertebrate species richness between
an area closed to commercial fishing for 10 to 14 years and a fished area.
POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES)
Overall abundance (2 studies): Two site comparison studies in the Tasman
Sea and on Georges Bank found that areas prohibiting commercial fishing
for 10 to 14 years and 28 years had greater overall invertebrate abundance
compared to areas where commercial fishing occurred. One of the studies
also found higher biomass, while the other found similar biomass in closed
and fished areas.
Crustacean abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in
the Tasman Sea found that in commercial fishing exclusion zones lobster
abundance was not different to adjacent fished areas after up to two years.
OTHER (1 STUDY)
Overall community biological production (1 study): One site comparison
study in the Tasman Sea found that an area closed to commercial trawling and
dredging for 28 years had greater biological production from invertebrates
than an area where commercial fishing occurred.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 55%; certainty 34%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2097

● Establish temporary fisheries closures

Six studies examined the effects of establishing temporary fisheries closures
on subtidal benthic invertebrates. One study was in the English Channel
(UK), one in the D’Entrecasteaux Channel (Australia), one in the North
Pacific Ocean (USA), two in the Mozambique Channel (Madagascar), and
one in the North Sea (UK).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)
Overall species richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison
study in the English Channel found that sites seasonally closed to towed-gear
fishing did not have greater invertebrate species richness than sites where
towed-fishing occurred year-round.

652
 13.3 Threat: Biological resource use

Mollusc community composition (1 study): One replicated, before-and after

study in the D’Entrecasteaux Channel found that temporarily reopening an
area previously closed to all fishing for 12 years only to recreational fishing
led to changes in scallop species community composition over four fishing
seasons.
POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the
English Channel found that sites seasonally closed to towed-gear fishing
did not have a greater invertebrate biomass than sites where towed-fishing
occurred year-round.
Crustacean abundance (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison
study in the North Sea found that reopening a site to fishing following
a temporary 20-month closure led to lower total abundance but similar
marketable abundance of European lobsters compared to a continuously-
fished site after a month.
Mollusc abundance (5 studies): One replicated, site comparison study English
Channel found that sites seasonally closed to towed gear did not have higher
abundance of great scallops than sites where towed-fishing occurred year-
round. Two before-and after, site comparison studies (one replicated) in
the Mozambique Channel found that temporarily closing an area to reef
octopus fishing did not increase octopus abundance/biomass compared to
before closure and to continuously fished areas. Two replicated, before-and
after studies in the D’Entrecasteaux Channel and the North Pacific Ocean
found that temporarily reopening an area previously closed to all fishing
to recreational fishing only led to a decline in scallop abundance after four
fishing seasons and in red abalone after three years.
Mollusc condition (3 studies): One replicated, before-and after study in the
North Pacific Ocean found that temporarily reopening an area previously
closed to fishing led to a decline in the size of red abalone after three
years. Two before-and after, site comparison studies (one replicated) in the
Mozambique Channel found that temporarily closing an area to reef octopus
fishing increased the weight of octopus compared to before closure and to
continuously fished areas, but one also found that this effect did not last
once fishing resumed.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 30%; certainty 36%; harms 10%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2098

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 653

Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Cease or prohibit midwater/semi-pelagic trawling
• Cease or prohibit static fishing gear.

13.3.2 Effort and Capacity Reduction

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for effort and capacity reduction?
Unknown • Establish territorial user rights for fisheries
effectiveness • Install physical barriers to prevent trawling
No evidence • Eliminate fisheries subsidies that encourage
found (no overfishing
assessment) • Introduce catch shares
• Limit the density of traps
• Limit the number of fishing days
• Limit the number of fishing vessels
• Limit the number of traps per fishing vessels
• Purchase fishing permits and/or vessels from
fishers
• Set commercial catch quotas
• Set commercial catch quotas and habitat credits
systems
• Set habitat credits systems

Unknown effectiveness

● Establish territorial user rights for fisheries

One study examined the effects of establishing territorial user rights for
fisheries on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. The study was in the
South Pacific Ocean (Chile).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

654
 13.3 Threat: Biological resource use

Mollusc reproductive success (1 study): One site comparison study in South

Pacific Ocean found that an area with territorial user rights for fisheries had
larger-sized and more numerous egg capsules, and more larvae of the Chilean
abalone up to 21 months after establishing fishing restrictions compared to
an open-access area.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 65%; certainty 10%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2104

● Install physical barriers to prevent trawling

One study examined the effects of installing physical barriers to prevent
trawling on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. The study was in the
Bay of Biscay (Spain).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Overall community composition (1 study): One before-and-after study in the
Bay of Biscay found that one to four years after installing artificial reefs as
physical barriers to prevent trawling invertebrate community composition
changed.
POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Overall abundance (1 study): One before-and-after study in the Bay of Biscay
found that one to four years after installing artificial reefs as physical barriers
to prevent trawling overall invertebrate biomass increased.
Echinoderm abundance (1 study): One before-and-after study in the Bay of
Biscay found that one to four years after installing artificial reefs as physical
barriers to prevent trawling the biomass of sea urchins and starfish increased.
Molluscs abundance (1 study): One before-and-after study in the Bay of
Biscay found that one to four years after installing artificial reefs as physical
barriers to prevent trawling the biomass of gastropods (sea snails), of one
species of cuttlefish, and of two species of octopus increased.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 75%; certainty 32%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2112

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Eliminate fisheries subsidies that encourage overfishing
• Introduce catch shares
• Limit the density of traps

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 655

Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation

• Limit the number of fishing days

• Limit the number of fishing vessels
• Limit the number of traps per fishing vessels
• Purchase fishing permits and/or vessels from fishers
• Set commercial catch quotas
• Set commercial catch quotas and habitat credits systems
• Set habitat credits systems.

13.3.3 Reduce Unwanted catch, Discards and

Impacts on seabed communities

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for reduce unwanted catch, discards and
impacts on seabed communities?
Likely to be • Fit one or more mesh escape panels/windows to
beneficial trawl nets
• Fit one or more soft, semi-rigid, or rigid grids or
frames to trawl nets
• Modify the design of dredges
• Modify the position of traps
• Use a larger codend mesh size on trawl nets
• Use a midwater/semi-pelagic trawl instead of
bottom/demersal trawl
Unknown • Fit a funnel (such as a sievenet) or other escape
effectiveness devices on shrimp/prawn trawl nets
• Fit one or more mesh escape panels/windows
and one or more soft, rigid or semi-rigid grids or
frames to trawl nets
• Fit one or more mesh escape panels/windows
to trawl nets and use a square mesh instead of a
diamond mesh codend
• Fit one or more soft, semi-rigid, or rigid grids or
frames and increase the mesh size of pots and
traps
• Fit one or more soft, semi-rigid, or rigid grids or
frames on pots and traps

656
 13.3 Threat: Biological resource use

• Fit one or more soft, semi-rigid, or rigid grids or

frames to trawl nets and use square mesh instead
of a diamond mesh at the codend
• Hand harvest instead of using a dredge
• Increase the mesh size of pots and traps
• Modify the design of traps
• Modify the design/attachments of a shrimp/
prawn W-trawl net
• Reduce the number or modify the arrangement of
tickler chains/chain mats on trawl nets
• Use a larger mesh size on trammel nets
• Use a pulse trawl instead of a beam trawl
• Use a smaller beam trawl
• Use a square mesh instead of a diamond mesh
codend on trawl nets
• Use an otter trawl instead of a beam trawl
• Use an otter trawl instead of a dredge
• Use different bait species in traps
• Use traps instead of fishing nets
No evidence • Fit one or more mesh escape panels/windows on
found (no pots and traps
assessment) • Limit the maximum weight and/or size of
bobbins on the footrope
• Modify harvest methods of macroalgae
• Modify trawl doors to reduce sediment
penetration
• Outfit trawls with a raised footrope
• Release live unwanted catch first before handling
commercial species
• Set unwanted catch quotas
• Use alternative means of getting mussel seeds
rather than dredging from natural mussel beds
• Use hook and line fishing instead of other fishing
methods
• Use lower water pressure during hydraulic
dredging
• Use more than one net on otter trawls

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 657

Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation

Likely to be beneficial

● Fit one or more mesh escape panels/windows to trawl nets

Seven studies examined the effects of adding one or more mesh escape panels/
windows to trawl nets on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. Six were
in the North Sea (Belgium, Netherlands, UK), two in the Thames estuary
(UK), one in the English Channel (UK), and one in the Gulf of Carpentaria
(Australia).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (7 STUDIES)
Overall survival (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in the
English Channel and the North Sea found that fitting nets with either one of
seven designs of square mesh escape panels (varying mesh size and twine
type) led to higher survival rates of invertebrates that escaped the nets
compared to unmodified nets.
Unwanted catch overall abundance (7 studies): Three of seven replicated,
paired, controlled studies in the North Sea, the Thames estuary, the English
Channel and the Gulf of Carpentaria found that trawl nets fitted with one
or more mesh escape panels/windows/zones reduced the unwanted catch
of invertebrates compared to unmodified nets. Two found mixed effects
of fitting escape panels on the unwanted catch of invertebrates and fish
depending on the panel design. Two found that trawl nets fitted with escape
panels caught similar amounts of unwanted invertebrates and fish compared
to unmodified nets.
OTHERS (7 STUDIES)
Commercially targeted catch abundance (7 studies): Three of seven replicated,
paired, controlled studies in the North Sea, the Thames estuary, the English
Channel and the Gulf of Carpentaria, found that trawl nets fitted with one
or more mesh escape panels/windows/zones caught similar amounts of all
or most commercial species to unmodified nets. Three found mixed effects
of fitting escape panels on the catch of all or most commercial species
depending on the species and/or panel design. One found that trawl nets
fitted with escape panels reduced the catch of commercial species compared
to unmodified nets.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 60%; certainty 50%; harms 5%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2132

658
 13.3 Threat: Biological resource use

● Fit one or more soft, semi-rigid, or rigid grids or frames

to trawl nets
Two studies examined the effects of fitting one or more soft, semi-rigid, or rigid
grids or frames to trawl nets on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations.
The studies were in the Gulf of Carpentaria and Spencer Gulf (Australia).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)
Unwanted catch abundance (1 study): Two replicated, paired, controlled
studies in the Gulf of Carpentaria and in Spencer Gulf found that nets fitted
with a ‘downward’-oriented grid but not an ‘upward’-oriented grid reduced
the weight of small unwanted catch and that both grid orientations caught
fewer unwanted large sponges, and that nets fitted with two sizes of grids
reduced the number and biomass of unwanted blue swimmer crabs and
giant cuttlefish caught, compared to unmodified nets.
OTHER (2 STUDIES)
Commercial catch abundance (2 studies): Two replicated, paired, controlled
studies in the Gulf of Carpentaria and Spencer Gulf found that nets fitted
with a ‘downward’-oriented grid or a small grid reduced the catch of
commercially targeted prawns, compared to unmodified nets, but those
fitted with an ‘upward’-oriented grid or a large grid caught similar amounts
to unmodified nets.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 60%; certainty 40%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2133

● Modify the design of dredges

Six studies examined the effects of modifying the design of dredges on
subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. Four were in the North Atlantic
Ocean (Portugal) and two were in the Irish Sea (Isle of Man).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Unwanted catch overall composition (1 study): One replicated, controlled,
study in the Irish Sea found that a new design of scallop dredge caught a
similar species composition of unwanted catch to a traditional dredge.
POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES)
Overall abundance (2 studies): One of two controlled studies in the North
Atlantic Ocean and in the Irish Sea found that a new dredge design damaged
or killed fewer invertebrates left in the sediment tracks following dredging.
The other found no difference in total invertebrate abundance or biomass
living in or on the sediment tracks following fishing with two dredge designs.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 659

Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation

Unwanted catch overall abundance (2 studies): Two controlled studies (one

replicated) in the North Atlantic Ocean and the Irish Sea found that a modified
or a new design of bivalve dredge caught less unwanted catch compared to
traditional unmodified dredges.
Unwanted catch condition (6 studies): Six controlled studies (one replicated
and paired, four replicated) in the North Atlantic Ocean and the Irish Sea found
that new or modified bivalve dredges damaged or killed similar proportions
of unwanted catch (retained and/or escaped) compared to traditional or
unmodified designs, three of which also found that they did not reduce the
proportion of damaged or dead unwanted crabs (retained and/or escaped).
OTHER (1 study)
Commercial catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled, study
in the Irish Sea found that a new dredge design caught a similar amount
of commercially targeted queen scallops compared to a traditional dredge.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 40%; certainty 42%; harms 19%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2119

● Modify the position of traps

Two studies examined the effects of modifying the position of traps on
subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. One study was in the Varangerfjord
(Norway), the other in the North Atlantic Ocean (Spain).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Unwanted catch species richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, controlled
study in the North Atlantic found that semi-floating traps caught fewer
unwanted catch species compared to standard bottom traps.
POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)
Unwanted catch abundance (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies
in the Varangerfjord and the North Atlantic found that floating or semi-
floating traps caught fewer unwanted invertebrates compared to standard
bottom traps.
OTHER (2 STUDIES)
Commercial catch abundance (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies in
the Varangerfjord and the North Atlantic found that floating or semi-floating
traps caught similar amounts (abundance and biomass) of commercially
targeted species as standard bottom traps.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 65%; certainty 40%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2144

660
 13.3 Threat: Biological resource use

● Use a larger codend mesh size on trawl nets

One study examined the effects of using a larger codend mesh size on trawl
nets on unwanted catch of subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. The
study was in the Gulf of Mexico (Mexico).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Unwanted catch species richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, paired,
controlled study in the Gulf of Mexico found that trawl nets fitted with a larger
mesh codend caught fewer combined species of non-commercial unwanted
invertebrates and fish compared to a traditional codend.
POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Unwanted catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled
study in the Gulf of Mexico found that trawl nets fitted with a larger mesh
codend caught lower combined biomass and abundance of non-commercial
unwanted invertebrates and fish compared to a traditional codend.
OTHER (1 STUDY)
Commercial catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled
study in the Gulf of Mexico found that trawl nets fitted with a larger mesh
codend caught less biomass and abundance of commercially targeted shrimps
compared to a traditional codend, but that the biomass ratios of commercially
targeted to discard species was similar for both.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 65%; certainty 42%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2135

● Use a midwater/semi-pelagic trawl instead of bottom/

demersal trawl
One study examined the effects of using a semi-pelagic trawl instead of
a demersal trawl on subtidal benthic invertebrates. The study was in the
Indian Ocean (Australia).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled, study in the Indian
Ocean found that fishing with a semi-pelagic trawl did not reduce the
abundance of large sessile invertebrates, which was similar to non-trawled
plots, but a demersal trawl did.
OTHER (1 STUDY)
Commercial catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled, study
in the Indian Ocean found that fishing with a semi-pelagic trawl reduced

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 661

Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation

the abundance of retained commercially targeted fish compared to fishing

with a demersal trawl.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 70%; certainty 41%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2118

Unknown effectiveness

● Fit a funnel (such as a sievenet) or other escape devices

on shrimp/prawn trawl nets
One study examined the effects of fitting a funnel, sievenet, or other escape
devices on trawl nets on marine subtidal invertebrate. The study was in the
North Sea (UK).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Unwanted catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled
study in the North Sea found that trawl nets fitted with a sievenet appeared
to catch fewer unwanted catch of non-commercial invertebrates compared
to unmodified nets.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 65%; certainty 20%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2131

● Fit one or more mesh escape panels/windows and one or

more soft, rigid or semi-rigid grids or frames to trawl nets
One study examined the effects on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations
of fitting one or more mesh escape panels/windows and one or more soft,
rigid or semi-rigid grids or frames to trawl nets. The study was in the Gulf
of Carpentaria (Australia).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Unwanted catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled
study in Gulf of Carpentaria found that trawl nets fitted with an escape
window and a grid reduced the total weight of small unwanted catch and
caught fewer unwanted large sponges, compared to unmodified nets.
OTHER (1 STUDY)
Commercial catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled
study in Carpentaria found that trawl nets fitted with an escape window

662
 13.3 Threat: Biological resource use

and a grid reduced the catch of commercially targeted prawns, compared

to unmodified nets.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 65%; certainty 32%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2134

● Fit one or more mesh escape panels/windows to trawl

nets and use a square mesh instead of a diamond mesh
codend
One study examined the effects of fitting one or more mesh escape panels
to trawl nets and using a square mesh instead of a diamond mesh codend
on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. The study was in the English
Channel (UK).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Unwanted catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study
in the English Channel found that trawl nets fitted with two large square
mesh release panels and a square mesh codend caught fewer unwanted catch
of non-commercial invertebrates compared to standard trawl nets.
OTHER (1 STUDY)
Commercial catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled
study in the English Channel found that trawl nets fitted with two large square
mesh release panels and a square mesh codend caught fewer commercial
shellfish, and fewer but more valuable commercially important fish, compared
to standard trawl nets.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 65%; certainty 30%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2138

● Fit one or more soft, semi-rigid, or rigid grids or frames

and increase the mesh size of pots and traps
One study examined the effects of fitting one or more soft, semi-rigid, or
rigid grids or frames and increasing the mesh size of pots and traps on
subtidal benthic invertebrates. The study took place in the Corindi River
system (Australia).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Unwanted catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in
the Corindi River system found that traps fitted with escape frames and

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 663

Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation

designed with larger mesh appeared to reduce the proportion of unwanted

undersized mud crabs caught, compared to conventional traps without
escape frames and smaller mesh.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 50%; certainty 20%; harms 10%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2149

● Fit one or more soft, semi-rigid, or rigid grids or frames

on pots and traps
One study examined the effects of fitting one or more soft, semi-rigid, or
rigid grids or frames on pots and traps on subtidal benthic invertebrates.
The study took place in the Corindi River system (Australia).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Unwanted catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the
Corindi River system found that traps fitted with escape frames appeared to
reduce the proportion of unwanted undersized mud crabs caught, compared
to conventional traps without escape frames.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 55%; certainty 20%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2146

● Fit one or more soft, semi-rigid, or rigid grids or frames

to trawl nets and use square mesh instead of a diamond
mesh at the codend
One study examined the effects of fitting one or more soft, semi-rigid, or rigid
grids or frames to trawl nets and using a square mesh codend on subtidal
benthic invertebrates. The study was in the Gulf of St Vincent (Australia).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Unwanted catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled
study in Gulf of St Vincent found that trawl nets fitted with a rigid U-shaped
grid and a square-oriented mesh codend reduced the catch rates of three
dominant groups of unwanted invertebrate catch species, compared to
unmodified nets.
OTHER (1 STUDY)
Commercial catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled
study in the Gulf of St Vincent found that trawl nets fitted with a rigid
U-shaped grid and a square-oriented mesh codend reduced the catch rates

664
 13.3 Threat: Biological resource use

of the commercially targeted western king prawn, due to reduced catch of

less valuable smaller-sized prawns, compared to unmodified nets.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 70%; certainty 20%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2137

● Hand harvest instead of using a dredge

Two studies examined the effects of hand harvesting instead of using a dredge
on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. Both were in San Matías Gulf,
South Atlantic Ocean (Argentina).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)
Unwanted catch community composition (1 study): One replicated, controlled
study in San Matías Gulf found that, when harvesting mussels, the community
composition of the unwanted catch was similar by hand harvesting and by
using a dredge.
Unwanted catch richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, controlled study
in San Matías Gulf found that, when harvesting mussels, hand harvesting
caught fewer species of unwanted catch compared to using a dredge.
POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)
Unwanted catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in San
Matías Gulf found that, when harvesting mussels, hand harvesting caught
fewer unwanted sea urchins and brittle stars compared to using a dredge.
Unwanted catch condition (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in
San Matías Gulf found that, when harvesting mussels, the damage caused
to unwanted sea urchins and brittle stars was similar by hand harvesting
and by using a dredge.
OTHER 1 STUDY)
Commercial catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study
in San Matías Gulf found that more commercially targeted mussels were
caught by hand harvesting than by using a dredge.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 45%; certainty 18%; harms 10%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2121

● Increase the mesh size of pots and traps

One study examined the effects of increasing the mesh size of pots and traps
on subtidal benthic invertebrates. The study took place in the Corindi River
system (Australia).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 665

Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation

Unwanted catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the

Corindi River system found that traps designed with larger mesh appeared to
reduce the proportion of unwanted undersized mud crabs caught, compared
to conventional traps of smaller mesh.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 61%; certainty 29%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2148

● Modify the design of traps

Two studies examined the effects of modifying the design of traps on subtidal
benthic invertebrates. One study took place in the Mediterranean Sea (Spain),
and one in the South Pacific Ocean (New Zealand).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)
Unwanted catch abundance (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies in
the Mediterranean Sea and the South Pacific Ocean found that the amount
of combined unwanted catch of invertebrates and fish varied with the type
of trap design used and the area.
OTHER (1 STUDY)
Commercial catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study
in the Mediterranean Sea found that plastic traps caught some legal-size
commercially targeted lobsters while collapsible traps caught none.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 40%; certainty 21%; harms 20%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2143

● Modify the design/attachments of a shrimp/prawn

W-trawl net
One study examined the effects of modifying the design/attachments of a
W-trawl net used in shrimp/prawn fisheries on unwanted catch of subtidal
benthic invertebrate. The study was in Moreton Bay (Australia).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Unwanted catch overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired,
controlled study in Moreton Bay found that four designs of W-trawl nets
used in shrimp/prawn fisheries caught less non-commercial unwanted catch
of crustaceans compared to a traditional Florida Flyer trawl net.
OTHERS (1 STUDY)
Commercial catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled
study in Moreton Bay found that four designs of W-trawl nets used in shrimp/

666
 13.3 Threat: Biological resource use

prawn fisheries caught lower amounts of the commercially targeted prawn

species compared to a traditional Florida Flyer trawl net.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 61%; certainty 24%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2139

● Reduce the number or modify the arrangement of tickler

chains/chain mats on trawl nets
Three studies examined the effects of reducing the number or modifying the
arrangement of tickler chains/chain mats on subtidal benthic invertebrates.
All studies were in the North Sea (Germany and Netherlands).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES)
Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in
the North Sea found that using a beam trawl with a chain mat caused lower
mortality of benthic invertebrates in the trawl tracks compared to using a
beam trawl with tickler chains.
Unwanted catch abundance (2 studies): One of two replicated, paired,
controlled studies in the North Sea found that all three modified parallel
tickler chain arrangements reduced the combined amount of non-commercial
unwanted invertebrate and fish catch compared to unmodified trawl nets,
but the other found that none of three modified parabolic tickler chain
arrangements reduced it.
OTHER (2 STUDIES)
Commercial catch abundance (2 studies): One of two replicated, paired,
controlled studies in the North Sea found that three modified parabolic
tickler chain arrangements caught similar amounts of commercial species
to unmodified nets, but the other found that three modified parallel tickler
chain arrangements caught lower amounts.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 43%; certainty 32%; harms 10%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2140

● Use a larger mesh size on trammel nets

One study examined the effects of using a larger mesh size on trammel
nets on subtidal benthic invertebrates. The study was in the North Atlantic
Ocean (Portugal).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Unwanted catch community composition (1 study): One replicated, controlled,
study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that using larger mesh sizes in the

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 667

Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation

inner and/or outer panels of trammel nets did not affect the community
composition of unwanted catch of non-commercial invertebrates (discard).
POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Unwanted catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled, study in
the North Atlantic Ocean found that using larger mesh sizes in the inner and/
or outer panels of trammel nets did not reduce the abundance of unwanted
catch of non-commercial invertebrates (discard).
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 20%; certainty 36%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2141

● Use a pulse trawl instead of a beam trawl

One study examined the effects of using a pulse trawl instead of a beam
trawl on subtidal benthic invertebrates. The study was in the North Sea
(Netherlands).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Unwanted catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled, study in
the North Sea found that pulse trawls caught less unwanted invertebrate
catch compared to traditional beam trawls, but the effects varied with species.
OTHER (1 STUDY)
Commercial catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled, study
in the North Sea found that pulse trawls reduced the volume of commercial
catch by 19% compared to beam trawls.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 41%; certainty 34%; harms 15%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2126

● Use a smaller beam trawl

One study examined the effects of using a smaller beam trawl on subtidal
benthic invertebrates. The study was in the North Sea (Germany and
Netherlands).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in
the North Sea found that a smaller beam trawl caused similar mortality of
invertebrates in the trawl tracks compared to a larger beam trawl.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 30%; certainty 35%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2127

668
 13.3 Threat: Biological resource use

● Use a square mesh instead of a diamond mesh codend on

trawl nets
One study examined the effects of using a square mesh instead of a diamond
mesh codend on trawl nets on unwanted catch of subtidal benthic invertebrate
populations. The study was in the English Channel (UK).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Unwanted catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study
in the English Channel found that a trawl net with a square mesh codend
caught less non-commercial unwanted invertebrates in one of two areas,
and similar amounts in the other area, compared to a standard diamond
mesh codend.
OTHER (1 STUDY)
Commercial catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled
study in the English Channel found that a trawl net with a square mesh
codend caught similar amounts of commercially targeted fish species in two
areas, and that in one of two areas it caught more commercially important
shellfish, compared to a standard diamond mesh codend.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 50%; certainty 20%; harms 10%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2136

● Use an otter trawl instead of a beam trawl

One study examined the effects of using an otter trawl instead of a beam
trawl on subtidal benthic invertebrates. The study was in the North Sea
(Germany and Netherlands).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in the
North Sea found that otter trawls caused similar mortality of invertebrates in
the trawl tracks compared to beam trawls in sandy areas but lower mortality
in silty areas.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 50%; certainty 34%; harms 10%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2125

● Use an otter trawl instead of a dredge

One study examined the effects of using an otter trawl instead of a dredge on
subtidal benthic invertebrates. The study was in the Irish Sea (Isle of Man).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 669

Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation

Unwanted catch overall composition (1 study): One replicated, controlled,

study in the Irish Sea found that an otter trawl caught a different species
composition of unwanted invertebrate and fish species (combined) compared
to two scallop dredges.
POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled, study in the Irish
Sea found no difference in total invertebrate abundance and biomass living
in or on the sediment of the trawl tracks following fishing with either an
otter trawl or two scallop dredges.
Unwanted catch overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled,
study in the Irish Sea found that an otter trawl caught fewer unwanted
invertebrates and fish (combined) compared to two scallop dredges.
OTHER (1 STUDY)
Commercial catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled, study in
the Irish Sea found that an otter trawl caught similar number of commercially
targeted queen scallops compared to two scallop dredges.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 45%; certainty 35%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2123

● Use different bait species in traps

One study examined the effects of using different bait species in traps on
subtidal benthic invertebrates. The study took place in the South Pacific
Ocean (New Zealand).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Unwanted catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in
the South Pacific Ocean found that the type of bait used in fishing pots did
not change the amount of unwanted invertebrates caught.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 1%; certainty 37%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2145

● Use traps instead of fishing nets

One study examined the effects of using traps instead of fishing nets on
subtidal benthic invertebrates. The study took place in the Mediterranean
Sea (Spain).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

670
 13.3 Threat: Biological resource use

Unwanted catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in

the Mediterranean Sea found that the combined amount of unwanted catch
of invertebrates and fish appeared lower using plastic traps than trammel
nets, but higher using collapsible traps.
OTHER (1 STUDY)
Commercial catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in
the Mediterranean Sea found that the catch of commercially targeted lobsters
was lower using traps than in trammel nets.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 40%; certainty 32%; harms 20%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2142

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Fit one or more mesh escape panels/windows on pots and traps
• Limit the maximum weight and/or size of bobbins on the footrope
• Modify harvest methods of macroalgae
• Modify trawl doors to reduce sediment penetration
• Outfit trawls with a raised footrope
• Release live unwanted catch first before handling commercial species
• Set unwanted catch quotas
• Use alternative means of getting mussel seeds rather than dredging
from natural mussel beds
• Use hook and line fishing instead of other fishing methods
• Use lower water pressure during hydraulic dredging
• Use more than one net on otter trawls.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 671

 13.4 Threat: Human
intrusions and disturbances

13.4.1 Recreational Activities

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for recreational activities?
No evidence • Limit, cease or prohibit access for recreational
found (no purposes
assessment) • Limit, cease or prohibit recreational diving
• Limit, cease or prohibit recreational fishing and/
or harvesting

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Limit, cease or prohibit access for recreational purposes
• Limit, cease or prohibit recreational diving
• Limit, cease or prohibit recreational fishing and/or harvesting.

672
 13.5 Threat: Invasive and
other problematic species,
genes and diseases

13.5.1 Aquaculture

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for aquaculture?
No evidence • Implement quarantine to avoid accidental
found (no introduction of disease, non-native or problem
assessment) species
• Implement regular inspections to avoid
accidental introduction of disease or non-native
or problem species
• Import spat and/or eggs to aquaculture facilities
rather than juveniles and adults to reduce the
risk of introducing hitchhiking species
• Prevent the attachment of biofouling organisms/
species in aquaculture
• Reduce and/or eradicate aquaculture escapees in
the wild
• Remove biofouling organisms/species in
aquaculture
• Source spat and juveniles from areas or
hatcheries not infested with diseases or non-
native or problematic species
• Use native species instead of non-native species
in aquaculture systems
• Use sterile individuals in aquaculture systems
using non-native species

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 673

Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Implement quarantine to avoid accidental introduction of disease,
non-native or problem species
• Implement regular inspections to avoid accidental introduction of
disease or non-native or problem species
• Import spat and/or eggs to aquaculture facilities rather than juveniles
and adults to reduce the risk of introducing hitchhiking species
• Prevent the attachment of biofouling organisms/species in
aquaculture
• Reduce and/or eradicate aquaculture escapees in the wild
• Remove biofouling organisms/species in aquaculture
• Source spat and juveniles from areas or hatcheries not infested with
diseases or non-native or problematic species
• Use native species instead of non-native species in aquaculture
systems
• Use sterile individuals in aquaculture systems using non-native
species.

13.5.2 Shipping, transportation and anthropogenic

structures

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of

the effectiveness of interventions for Shipping, transportation and
anthropogenic structures?
No evidence • Clean anthropogenic platforms, structures or
found (no equipment
assessment) • Clean the hull, anchor and chain of commercial
and recreational vessels
• Limit, cease or prohibit ballast water exchange in
specific areas
• Treat ballast water before exchange
• Use antifouling coatings on the surfaces of
vessels and anthropogenic structures

674
 13.5 Threat: Invasive and other problematic species, genes and diseases

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Clean anthropogenic platforms, structures or equipment
• Clean the hull, anchor and chain of commercial and recreational
vessels
• Limit, cease or prohibit ballast water exchange in specific areas
• Treat ballast water before exchange
• Use antifouling coatings on the surfaces of vessels and
anthropogenic structures.

13.5.3 Other

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for sources of non-native, invasive or
other problematic species?
Unknown • Remove or capture non-native, invasive or other
effectiveness problematic species
No evidence • Limit, cease or prohibit the sale and/or
found (no transportation of commercial non-native species
assessment) • Use biocides or other chemicals to control non-
native, invasive or other problematic species
• Use biological control to manage non-
native, invasive or other problematic species
populations
• Use of non-native, invasive or other problematic
species from populations established in the wild
for recreational or commercial purposes

Unknown effectiveness

● Remove or capture non-native, invasive or other

problematic species
One study examined the effects of removing or capturing non-native, invasive
or other problematic species on subtidal benthic invertebrates. The study
was in the South Atlantic Ocean (Brazil).

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 675

Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Cnidarian abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after
study in the southwest Atlantic found that, regardless of the method used,
removing invasive corals reduced the cover of native zoanthids.
Sponge abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after
study in the southwest Atlantic found that the effect of removing invasive
corals on the cover of native sponges varied with the removal method used.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 40%; certainty 23%; harms 22%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2173

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Limit, cease or prohibit the sale and/or transportation of commercial
non-native species
• Use biocides or other chemicals to control non-native, invasive or
other problematic species
• Use biological control to manage non-native, invasive or other
problematic species populations
• Use of non-native, invasive or other problematic species from
populations established in the wild for recreational or commercial
purposes.

676
 13.6 Threat: Pollution

13.6.1 General

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for pollution?
Unknown • Add chemicals or minerals to sediments to
effectiveness remove or neutralise pollutants
No evidence • Establish pollution emergency plans
found (no • Transplant/translocate ‘bioremediating’ species
assessment)

Unknown effectiveness

● Add chemicals or minerals to sediments to remove or

neutralise pollutants
Two studies examined the effects of adding chemicals or minerals to sediments
to remove or neutralise pollutants on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations.
Both studies evaluated the use of coal ash in Hiroshima Bay (Japan).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One controlled, before-and-after study
in Hiroshima Bay found that adding coal ash increased invertebrate species
richness in winter but not summer compared to untreated sites.
POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 677

Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation

Overall abundance (2 studies): One controlled, before-and-after study in

Hiroshima Bay found that adding coal ash increased invertebrate abundance
in winter but not summer compared to untreated sites. One controlled study
in Hiroshima Bay found that one of two types of coal ash increased combined
invertebrate and fish abundance, but not biomass.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 40%; certainty 20%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2176

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Establish pollution emergency plans
• Transplant/translocate ‘bioremediating’ species.

13.6.2 Domestic and urban wastewater

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for domestic and urban wastewater?
Likely to be • Limit, cease or prohibit the dumping of sewage
beneficial sludge
Unknown • Set or improve minimum sewage treatment
effectiveness standards
No evidence • Limit the amount of storm wastewater overflow
found (no • Limit, cease or prohibit the dumping of
assessment) untreated sewage

Likely to be beneficial

● Limit, cease or prohibit the dumping of sewage sludge

Two studies examined the effects of ceasing or prohibiting the dumping of
sewage sludge on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. One study was
in the New York Bight (USA), one in the North Sea (UK).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)
Overall community composition (2 studies): One before-and-after, site
comparison study in the New York Bight found that after ceasing sewage

678
 13.6 Threat: Pollution

sludge dumping, overall invertebrate community composition became more

similar to less disturbed sites. One replicated, site comparison study in the
North Sea found that overall invertebrate community composition changed
but remained different to that of natural sites.
POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)
Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in
the North Sea found that after ceasing sewage sludge dumping, overall
invertebrate abundance became similar to that of natural sites.
Worm abundance (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study
in the New York Bight found that after ceasing sewage sludge dumping,
abundance of pollution-indicator polychaete worms decreased and became
similar to that of natural sites.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 70%; certainty 47%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2179

Unknown effectiveness

● Set or improve minimum sewage treatment standards

One study examined the effects of improving minimum sewage treatment
standards on subtidal benthic invertebrates. The study was in the Bay of
Biscay (Spain).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Overall community composition (1 study): One before-and-after, site
comparison study in the Bay of Biscay found that after introducing a secondary
treatment of sewage wastewaters, invertebrate community composition at
an impacted site did not significantly change compared to unimpacted sites.
Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison
study in the Bay of Biscay found that after introducing a secondary treatment
of sewage wastewaters, invertebrate richness and diversity at an impacted
site did not significantly change compared to unimpacted sites.
POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Overall abundance (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study
in the Bay of Biscay found that after introducing a secondary treatment of
sewage wastewaters, total cover of invertebrates significantly increased at
an impacted site at 8 m but not 3 m depth, compared to unimpacted sites.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 23%; certainty 28%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2180

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 679

Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Limit the amount of storm wastewater overflow
• Limit, cease or prohibit the dumping of untreated sewage.

13.6.3 Industrial and military effluents

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for industrial and military effluents?
Unknown • Remove or clean-up oil pollution following a spill
effectiveness
No evidence • Set regulatory ban on marine burial of nuclear
found (no waste
assessment) • Use double hulls to prevent oil spills

Unknown effectiveness

● Remove or clean-up oil pollution following a spill

One study examined the effects of removing and cleaning-up oil pollution
following a spill on subtidal benthic invertebrates. The study was in the
Baltic Proper (Sweden).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Mollusc condition (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after
study in the Baltic Proper found that after cleaning-up spilled oil using
high pressure hot water, crude oil content increased in mussels and did
not naturally decrease over time, and was higher than in mussels from an
uncleaned contaminated and a non-contaminated site.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 20%; certainty 26%; harms 30%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2183

680
 13.6 Threat: Pollution

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Set regulatory ban on marine burial of nuclear waste
• Use double hulls to prevent oil spills.

13.6.4 Aquaculture effluents

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for aquaculture effluents?
Unknown • Cease or prohibit aquaculture activity
effectiveness • Leave a fallow period during fish/shellfish
farming
No evidence • Improve fish food and pellets to reduce
found (no aquaculture waste production
assessment) • Locate aquaculture systems in areas with fast
currents
• Locate aquaculture systems in already impacted
areas
• Locate aquaculture systems in vegetated areas
• Locate artificial reefs near aquaculture systems
(and vice versa) to act as biofilters
• Moor aquaculture cages so they move in response
to changing current direction
• Reduce aquaculture stocking densities
• Reduce the amount of antibiotics used in
aquaculture systems
• Reduce the amount of pesticides used in
aquaculture systems
• Use other bioremediation methods in aquaculture
• Use species from more than one level of a food
web in aquaculture systems

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 681

Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation

Unknown effectiveness

● Cease or prohibit aquaculture activity

Two studies examined the effects of ceasing or prohibiting aquaculture
activity on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. Both studies were in
the Mediterranean Sea (Italy and Spain).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)
Overall community composition (1 study): One before-and-after, site
comparison study in the Mediterranean Sea found that after ceasing aquaculture
activity invertebrate community composition remained different to that of
an unfarmed site.
Worm community composition (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison
study in the Mediterranean Sea found that after ceasing aquaculture activity
worm community composition community composition remained different
to that of an unfarmed site.
POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)
Overall abundance (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in
the Mediterranean Sea found that after ceasing aquaculture activity overall
invertebrate abundance was similar to an unfarmed site.
Worm abundance (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in
the Mediterranean Sea found that after ceasing aquaculture activity abundance
of health-indicating worms increased, and abundance of pollution-indicating
worms decreased.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 25%; certainty 20%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2185

● Leave a fallow period during fish/shellfish farming

Three studies examined the effects of leaving a fallow period during fish
farming on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. Two studies were in
the Tasman Sea (Australia), and one in the North Pacific Ocean (USA).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES)
Overall community composition (2 study): Two replicated, before-and-after,
site comparison study in the Tasman Sea found that after a fallow period
invertebrate community composition became similar to that occurring before
the fish were added but remained different to communities at sites without
fish farms.

682
 13.6 Threat: Pollution

Worm community composition (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after,

site comparison study in the North Pacific Ocean found that after a fallow
period polychaete worm community composition changed but remained
different to communities at sites without fish farms.
Worm richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after, site
comparison study in the North Pacific Ocean found that after a fallow period
polychaete worm diversity did not change and remained lower compared
to sites without fish farms.
POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)
Worm abundance (2 studies): Two replicated, before-and-after, site comparison
studies in the Tasman Sea and the North Pacific Ocean found that following a
fallow period, abundances of pollution-indicator polychaete worms decreased,
but remained higher compared to sites without fish farms.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 40%; certainty 35%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2191

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Improve fish food and pellets to reduce aquaculture waste
production
• Locate aquaculture systems in areas with fast currents
• Locate aquaculture systems in already impacted areas
• Locate aquaculture systems in vegetated areas
• Locate artificial reefs near aquaculture systems (and vice versa) to act
as biofilters
• Moor aquaculture cages so they move in response to changing
current direction
• Reduce aquaculture stocking densities
• Reduce the amount of antibiotics used in aquaculture systems
• Reduce the amount of pesticides used in aquaculture systems
• Use other bioremediation methods in aquaculture
• Use species from more than one level of a food web in aquaculture
systems.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 683

Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation

13.6.5 Agricultural and forestry effluents

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for agricultural and forestry effluents?
No evidence • Create artificial wetlands to reduce the amount
found (no of pollutants reaching the sea
assessment) • Establish aquaculture to extract the nutrients
from run-offs
• Regulate the use, dosage and disposal of
agrichemicals
• Treat wastewater from intensive livestock
holdings

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Create artificial wetlands to reduce the amount of pollutants
reaching the sea
• Establish aquaculture to extract the nutrients from run-offs
• Regulate the use, dosage and disposal of agrichemicals
• Treat wastewater from intensive livestock holdings.

13.6.6 Garbage and solid waste

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for garbage and solid waste?
No evidence • Bury electricity cables to reduce electromagnetic
found (no fields
assessment) • Install stormwater traps or grids
• Limit, cease or prohibit discharge of solid waste
overboard from vessels
• Recover lost fishing gear
• Remove litter from the marine environment
• Use biodegradable panels in fishing pots

684
 13.6 Threat: Pollution

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Bury electricity cables to reduce electromagnetic fields
• Install stormwater traps or grids
• Limit, cease or prohibit discharge of solid waste overboard from
vessels
• Recover lost fishing gear
• Remove litter from the marine environment
• Use biodegradable panels in fishing pots.

13.6.7 Excess energy

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for excess energy?
No evidence • Limit, cease or prohibit industrial and urban
found (no lighting at night
assessment) • Limit, cease or prohibit the discharge of cooling
effluents from power stations
• Limit, cease or prohibit the use of sonars
• Reduce underwater noise (other than sonar)

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Limit, cease or prohibit industrial and urban lighting at night
• Limit, cease or prohibit the discharge of cooling effluents from
power stations
• Limit, cease or prohibit the use of sonars
• Reduce underwater noise (other than sonar).

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 685

Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation

13.6.8 Other pollution

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for other pollution?
Likely to be • Restrict the use of tributyltin or other toxic
beneficial antifouling coatings
Unknown • Remove and clean-up shoreline waste disposal
effectiveness sites
No evidence • Limit, cease or prohibit the discharge of waste
found (no effluents overboard from vessels
assessment) • Use non-toxic antifouling coatings on surfaces

Likely to be beneficial

● Restrict the use of tributyltin or other toxic antifouling

coatings
Four studies examined the effects of restricting the use of tributyltin as an
antifouling coating on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. One study
was located in the English Channel (UK), two in the River Crouch estuary
(UK), and one in Otsuchi Bay (Japan).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)
Overall community composition (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after
study in the River Crouch estuary found that after restricting the use of
tributyltin, invertebrate community composition changed, but that changes
varied with locations.
Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after study
in the River Crouch estuary found that after restricting the use of tributyltin,
overall invertebrate species richness and diversity increased.
POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)
Molluscs condition (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after study in the
English Channel found that after restricting the use of tributyltin, there was
a decrease in its concentration in dogwhelks and the penis length of female
dogwhelks.

686
 13.6 Threat: Pollution

Crustacean condition (1 study): One study in Otsuchi Bay found that after
restricting the use of tributyltin its concentration decreased in skeleton shrimps.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 69%; certainty 45%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2214

Unknown effectiveness

● Remove and clean-up shoreline waste disposal sites

One study examined the effects of removing and cleaning-up shoreline
waste disposal sites on subtidal benthic invertebrates. The study was in the
Southern Ocean (Antarctica).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Overall community composition (1 study): One replicated, controlled,
before-and-after study in the Southern Ocean found that after removing
and cleaning-up a disused waste disposal site, invertebrate community
composition changed, and no further negative impacts were detected, but
communities remained different to natural sites.
Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-
after study in the Southern Ocean found that after removing and cleaning-up
a disused waste disposal site, invertebrate species richness did not change
over time and remained different to that of natural sites, but no further
negative impacts were detected.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 49%; certainty 35%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2215

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Limit, cease or prohibit the discharge of waste effluents overboard
from vessels
• Use non-toxic antifouling coatings on surfaces.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 687

 13.7 Threat: Climate change
and severe weather

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for climate change and severe weather?
No evidence • Create a Marine Protected Area or set levels of
found (no legal protection where natural climate refugia
assessment) occur to further promote the persistence and
recovery of species facing climate change
• Limit, cease or prohibit the degradation and/or
removal of carbon sequestering species and/or
habitats
• Manage climate-driven range extensions of
problematic species
• Promote natural carbon sequestration species
and/or habitats
• Restore habitats and/or habitat-forming
(biogenic) species following extreme events
• Transplant captive-bred or hatchery-reared
individuals of habitat-forming (biogenic) species
that are resistant to climate change
• Transplant/release climate change-resistant
captive-bred or hatchery-reared individuals to
re-establish or boost native populations

688
 13.7 Threat: Climate change and severe weather

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Create a Marine Protected Area or set levels of legal protection where
natural climate refugia occur to further promote the persistence and
recovery of species facing climate change
• Limit, cease or prohibit the degradation and/or removal of carbon
sequestering species and/or habitats
• Manage climate-driven range extensions of problematic species
• Promote natural carbon sequestration species and/or habitats
• Restore habitats and/or habitat-forming (biogenic) species following
extreme events
• Transplant captive-bred or hatchery-reared individuals of habitat-
forming (biogenic) species that are resistant to climate change
• Transplant/release climate change-resistant captive-bred or hatchery-
reared individuals to re-establish or boost native populations.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 689

 13.8 Habitat protection

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for habitat protection?
Likely to be • Designate a Marine Protected Area and introduce
beneficial some fishing restrictions (types unspecified)
• Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit
all types of fishing
• Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit
the harvesting of sea urchins
• Designate a Marine Protected Area with a
zonation system of activity restrictions
Unknown • Designate a Marine Protected Area and install
effectiveness physical barriers to prevent trawling
• Designate a Marine Protected Area and only
allow hook and line fishing
• Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit
all towed (mobile) fishing gear
• Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit
aquaculture activity
• Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit
bottom trawling
• Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit
commercial fishing
• Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit
dredging
• Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit
the harvesting of conch
• Establish community-based fisheries
management

690
 13.8 Habitat protection

No evidence • Designate a Marine Protected Area and limit the

found (no density of traps
assessment) • Designate a Marine Protected Area and limit the
number of fishing vessels
• Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit
static fishing gear
• Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit
the harvesting of scallops
• Designate a Marine Protected Area and set a
no-anchoring zone
• Designate a Marine Protected Area without
setting management measures, usage
restrictions, or enforcement
• Designate a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area
(PSSA) to regulate impactful maritime activities
• Engage with stakeholders when designing
Marine Protected Areas

Likely to be beneficial

● Designate a Marine Protected Area and introduce some

fishing restrictions (types unspecified)
Four studies examined the effects of introducing unspecified types of fishing
restrictions in marine protected areas on subtidal benthic invertebrate
populations. Two studies were in the Indian Ocean (Seychelles), one was
a global systematic review, and one was in the Mediterranean Sea (Italy).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)
Overall community composition (2 studies): One of two site comparison
studies (one replicated) in the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea found
that a marine protected area with unspecified fishing restrictions (year of
designation unspecified) had a different combined invertebrate and algae
community composition, while the other (time since designation unspecified)
found similar compositions compared to fished areas.
POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES)
Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the
Mediterranean Sea found that a marine protected area with unspecified fishing
restrictions had similar invertebrate abundance compared to unprotected
fished areas (time since designation unspecified).

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 691

Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation

Bryozoan abundance (1 study): One site comparison study in the Indian Ocean
found that a marine protected area with unspecified fishing restrictions (year
of designation unspecified) had similar abundance of bryozoans compared
to fished areas.
Crustacean abundance (1 study): One global systematic review found that
marine protected areas with unspecified fishing restrictions had more lobsters
compared to fished areas.
Echinoderm abundance (2 studies): One of two site comparison studies
(one replicated) in the Indian Ocean found that marine protected areas with
unspecified fishing restrictions had more sea cucumbers after more than 20
years but the other found fewer sea lilies (year of designation unspecified)
compared to fished areas.
Hydrozoan abundance (1 study): One site comparison study in the Indian
Ocean found that a marine protected area with unspecified fishing restrictions
(year of designation unspecified) had more hydrozoans compared to fished
areas.
Mollusc abundance (1 study): One global systematic review found that
marine protected areas with unspecified fishing restrictions had more scallops
compared to fished areas.
Sponge abundance (1 study): One site comparison study in the Indian Ocean
found that a marine protected area with unspecified fishing restrictions (year
of designation unspecified) had more sponges compared to fished areas.
Tunicate abundance (1 study): One site comparison study in the Indian
Ocean found that a marine protected area closed to fishing with unspecified
fishing restrictions (year of designation unspecified) had similar abundance
of ascidians/sea squirts (tunicates) compared to fished areas.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 50%; certainty 40%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2239

● Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit all types

of fishing
Thirty studies examined the effects of prohibiting all types of fishing in marine
protected areas on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. Four studies
were systematic reviews of marine reserves (New Zealand and across the
world). Two studies were in the North Atlantic Ocean (Bahamas). Five were
in the South Pacific Ocean (New Zealand, French Polynesia). Three were in
the North Pacific Ocean (USA). Seven were in the Tasman Sea (New Zealand,
Australia). One was in the Florida Keys (USA). One was in the Coral Sea

692
 13.8 Habitat protection

(Australia). Three were in the Mediterranean Sea (Italy, Spain). One was in
the Bristol Channel and the Irish Sea (UK). Two were in the Firth of Clyde
(UK). One was in the Foveaux Straight (New Zealand).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (5 STUDIES)
Overall community composition (3 studies): Three site comparison studies (one
replicated and paired, one replicated, one paired) in the Mediterranean Sea,
the Tasman Sea, and the Firth of Clyde found that marine protected areas that
had been prohibiting all fishing for five to 16 years depending on the study,
had similar combined algae, invertebrate and fish community composition,
similar combined mollusc and echinoderm community composition, and
similar overall community composition of large invertebrates but different
composition of small sessile invertebrates, compared to fished areas.
Overall species richness/diversity (5 studies): One global systematic review,
and three site comparison studies (one replicated and paired, one replicated,
one paired) in the Mediterranean Sea, the Tasman Sea, and the Firth of Clyde
found that marine protected areas that had been prohibiting all fishing for
five to 16 years depending on the study, had similar overall invertebrate
species richness/diversity, similar combined algae, invertebrate and fish
species richness, and similar combined mollusc and echinoderm species
richness, compared to fished areas. One site comparison study in the Tasman
Sea found inside a marine protected area prohibiting all mobile fishing that
macroinvertebrate species richness remained stable over the 15 years after
its designation and enforcement, but decreased at fished sites.
POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)
Overall abundance (4 studies): Two systematic reviews of marine protected
areas across the world prohibiting all fishing found that they had greater
overall invertebrate abundance and biomass compared to fished areas.
Two site comparison studies (one before-and-after, one replicated) in the
Tasman Sea found that inside marine protected areas prohibiting all fishing,
overall invertebrate abundance did not change over the 15 years after their
designation and enforcement and that it did not change in fished areas
either, and that all areas had similar combined mollusc and echinoderm
abundance after 16 years.
Overall condition (1 study): One global systematic review found that in
marine protected areas prohibiting all fishing, invertebrates were bigger
compared to fished areas.
Crustacean abundance (17 studies): Two reviews (one global and systematic,
one of New Zealand areas) found that marine protected areas prohibiting

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 693

Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation

all fishing had more lobsters compared to marine protected areas only
partially prohibiting fishing and unrestricted fished areas. Eleven of 15 site
comparison studies (including replicated, randomized, paired, before-and-
after) in the North Atlantic Ocean, the Bristol Channel and the Irish Sea, the
Firth of Clyde, the Mediterranean Sea, the North Pacific Ocean, the Florida
Keys, the South Pacific Ocean, the Tasman Sea, and the Coral Sea found that
inside marine protected areas prohibiting all fishing, the abundances and/or
biomasses of lobsters and mud crabs were higher compared to areas where
seasonal or unrestricted fishing was allowed, after four to 33 years depending
on the study. Four found that they had mixed effects on the abundances of
lobster, and crab species, after one to seven years depending on the study.
Two found that they had similar abundance of lobsters compared to fished
areas after either five to seven years or after approximately 30 years.
Crustacean reproductive success (4 studies): Two site comparison studies
(one replicated, randomized) in the Florida Keys and the Firth of Clyde
found that marine protected areas prohibiting all fishing and harvesting had
similar population sex ratios of lobsters compared to where seasonal fishing
or all fishing was allowed, after four to seven years depending on the study.
Two replicated, site comparison studies (one randomized) in the Tasman Sea
and the Mediterranean Sea found that marine protected areas prohibiting all
fishing had greater lobster egg production potential compared to commercial
fishing exclusion zones and fully fished areas, after either 15 years or 21 to
25 years. One site comparison study in the Firth of Clyde found that marine
protected areas prohibiting all fishing had more female lobsters with eggs
than fished areas, after four to seven years.
Crustacean condition (8 studies): One review of studies in New Zealand,
and five of seven site comparison studies (four replicated, one replicated and
randomized) in the North Atlantic Ocean, the Bristol Channel and the Irish
Sea, the Firth of Clyde, the Florida Keys, the South Pacific Ocean, the Coral
Sea, and the Tasman Sea, found that marine protected areas prohibiting all
fishing had bigger lobsters and crabs compared to seasonally fished or fully
fished areas, after four to seven years depending on the study. Three found
mixed effects on lobsters and crabs depending on species, sex, and locations,
after one to seven years depending on the study.
Crustacean population structure (2 studies): Two replicated site comparison
studies (one randomized) in the Tasman Sea and the Mediterranean Sea found
that marine protected areas prohibiting all fishing had different population

694
 13.8 Habitat protection

size structures of lobsters compared to commercial fishing exclusion zones

(only for females) and compared to fished areas, after either 15 years or 21
to 25 years.
Echinoderm abundance (3 studies): Two of three site comparison studies (two
replicated, one paired) in the North Pacific Ocean, the South Pacific Ocean,
and the North Pacific Ocean, found that marine protected areas prohibiting
all fishing had similar abundance of Kina sea urchins after more than 10
years, and sea cucumbers after eight years to fished areas, and a third found
higher abundance of red sea urchins after approximately 30 years. One also
found that the effects on abundance of red sea urchins depended on the age
of the protected area and the size of the urchins.
Echinoderm condition (1 study): One paired, site comparison study in
the South Pacific Ocean found that marine protected areas that had been
prohibiting all fishing for over 10 years had heavier Kina sea urchins compared
to fished areas.
Mollusc abundance (10 studies): Four of 10 site comparison studies (including
replicated before-and-after, and site comparison) in the North Atlantic Ocean,
the North Pacific Ocean the South Pacific Ocean, the Tasman Sea, and the
Foveaux Straight found that inside a marine reserve prohibiting all fishing,
abundances/biomass of giant clams, adult queen conch, Cook’s turban snails,
rock scallops and green abalone were higher compared to a fished area, after
eight to 36 years depending on the study. Six found similar abundances of
scallop species, pink abalone, juvenile queen conch, and top shell species,
after five to 36 years depending on the study. Three found lower abundances
of star limpets after 23 to 25 years and blacklip abalone after 15 to 16 years.
One found that the effects of marine protected areas prohibiting all fishing on
the abundance of mussel species compared to a commercial fishing exclusion
zone varied with the age and location of the protected areas.
Mollusc reproductive success (1 study): One site comparison study in the
North Atlantic Ocean found that inside a marine protected area that had been
prohibiting all fishing for 33 to 36 years, abundance of queen conch larvae
was higher compared to an unprotected fished area.
Mollusc condition (1 study): One site comparison study in the North Pacific
Ocean found that in marine protected areas that had been prohibiting all
fishing pink abalone were bigger five to 23 years after their designation,
compared to fished site.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 59%; certainty 60%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2224

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 695

Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation

● Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit the

harvesting of sea urchins
Two studies examined the effects of prohibiting the harvest of sea urchins in
marine protected areas on their populations and/or other subtidal benthic
invertebrates. Both studies were in the North Pacific Ocean (USA).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)
Echinoderm abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study
in the North Pacific Ocean found that marine protected areas prohibiting
the harvest of red sea urchins had higher adult sea urchin biomass six to 33
years after their designations, compared to harvested areas.
Echinoderm reproductive success (1 study): One replicated, site comparison
study in the North Pacific Ocean found that marine protected areas prohibiting
the harvest of red sea urchins had higher urchin population reproductive
biomasses, but similar reproductive indices six to 33 years after their
designations, compared to harvested areas.
Echinoderm condition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in
the North Pacific Ocean found that marine protected areas prohibiting the
harvest of red sea urchins had bigger adult sea urchins six to 33 years after
their designations, compared to harvested areas.
Mollusc abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the
North Pacific Ocean found that marine protected areas prohibiting the harvest
of red sea urchins (year of designation unspecified) had more juvenile red
abalone and juvenile flat abalone compared to harvested areas, and that
juvenile abalone abundance was positively related to sea urchin abundance.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 70%; certainty 41%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2238

● Designate a Marine Protected Area with a zonation

system of activity restrictions
Thirteen studies examined the effects of designating a marine protected area
with a zonation system of activity restrictions on subtidal benthic invertebrate
populations. Four studies were in the Caribbean Sea (Belize, Mexico), three
in the Mediterranean Sea (Italy), one in the Central Pacific Ocean (Ecuador),
three in the Bristol Channel and the Irish Sea (UK), one in the Indian Ocean
(Australia), and one in the North Atlantic Ocean (Portugal).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)

696
 13.8 Habitat protection

Overall community composition (1 study): One site comparison study in

the Mediterranean Sea found that inside a marine protected area with a
zonation system, the combined invertebrate and algae species community
composition was different at a site prohibiting all fishing compared to sites
where some fishing occurs, after six years.
Overall species richness/diversity (1 study): One site comparison study in
the North Atlantic Ocean found that inside a marine protected area with a
zonation system, sites prohibiting nearly all fishing had similar invertebrate
species richness to sites where fishing was mostly allowed, after two years.
POPULATION RESPONSE (13 STUDIES)
Overall abundance (1 study): One site comparison study in the North Atlantic
Ocean found that inside a marine protected area with a zonation system,
abundances of specific invertebrate groups varied between sites prohibiting
nearly all fishing and sites where fishing was mostly allowed, after two years.
Crustacean abundance (7 studies): Three of seven site comparison studies
(two replicated) in the Caribbean Sea, the Central Pacific Ocean, and in the
Bristol Channel and the Irish Sea found that inside a marine protected area
with a zonation system, abundance and/or biomass of spiny lobsters increased
in a zone closed to all/commercial fishing and were greater than in a zone
where fewer fishing restrictions occurred, after four to 20 years depending on
the study. One found that sites closed to all fishing had higher abundances
of spiny lobsters and slipper lobsters after eight to ten years compared to
fished sites. Two found that sites closed to all fishing for six to seven years
had more European lobsters than sites where potting was allowed. And one
found that abundances of European lobsters, velvet crabs, brown crabs and
spider crabs, after one to four years, varied with the levels of protection.
Crustacean condition (4 studies): Three of five site comparison studies (one
replicated) in the Bristol Channel and the Irish Sea, and in the Caribbean
Sea found that, inside a marine protected area with a zonation system,
sites prohibiting all fishing for seven years or commercial fishing (duration
unspecified) had bigger lobsters compared to fished areas. One found that
the sizes of lobsters, velvet crabs, brown crabs and spider crabs varied with
the levels of protection, and one study found that the size of spiny lobsters
decreased similarly in an area prohibiting all fishing and in an area with
fewer restrictions 14 to 20 years after designation of the protected area. Two
studies undertaken in the same area found conflicting effects of prohibiting
all fishing for six to seven years on disease and injury of lobsters.
Echinoderm abundance (2 studies): One of two site comparison studies in the
Mediterranean Sea found that inside a marine protected area with a zonation

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 697

Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation

system, at a site prohibiting all fishing for 17 to 18 years, abundances of two

species of sea urchins were higher than at sites allowing the recreational
fishing of purple sea urchins. The other one found similar abundance of
purple sea urchins inside fully protected sites, sites where some restricted
urchin harvest occurs, and unprotected fished sites outside the protected
area after five years.
Echinoderm condition (2 studies): Two site comparison studies in the
Mediterranean Sea found that inside a marine protected area with a zonation
system, sites prohibiting all fishing had bigger sea urchins compared to sites
where some restricted urchin harvest occurs and compared to unprotected
fished sites outside the protected area, after either four years or 17 to 18 years.
Mollusc abundance (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled
study in the Indian Ocean found that inside a marine protected area with
a zonation system, abundance of blacklip abalone was higher in sites that
had been prohibiting all fishing for five years compared to those prohibiting
commercial fishing only. Two site comparison studies in the Caribbean Sea
found that inside marine protected areas with a zonation system, abundances
of adult queen conch increased over time in a zone closed to all fishing and
were greater than in zones with fewer restrictions, but abundances of juvenile
conch did not differ or vary differently between zones, after either five to
eight years or 14 to 20 years.
Mollusc condition (1 study): One site comparison study in the Caribbean
Sea found that inside a marine protected area with a zonation system, the
size of queen conch decreased similarly in the area prohibiting all fishing
and in the area with fewer restrictions, after 14 to 20 years.
Sponge abundance (1 study): One site comparison study in the Mediterranean
Sea found that inside a marine protected area with a zonation system, the
cover of sponges Cliona was higher at a site prohibiting all fishing for six
years compared to sites where some fishing occurred.
BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)
Crustacean behaviour (1 study): One site comparison study in the Caribbean
Sea found that, inside a marine protected area with a zonation system (year
of designation unspecified), 80% of the lobster population occurring in the
unfished area remained in the protected unfished area, and thus remained
protected.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 60%; certainty 60%; harms 10%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2230

698
 13.8 Habitat protection

Unknown effectiveness

● Designate a Marine Protected Area and install physical

barriers to prevent trawling
One study examined the effects of installing physical barriers to prevent
trawling in a protected area on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations.
The study was in the South China Sea (Hong Kong).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Worm community composition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison
study in the South China Sea found that sites in a protected area where
physical barriers were installed to prevent trawling had a different community
composition of nematode worms compared to nearby unprotected fished
sites, after up to two years.
Worm species richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison
study in the South China Sea found that sites in a protected area where
physical barriers were installed to prevent trawling had similar diversity
and species richness of nematode worms to nearby unprotected fished sites,
after up to two years.
POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the
South China Sea found that sites in a protected area where physical barriers
were installed to prevent trawling had fewer small invertebrates compared
to nearby unprotected fished sites, after up to two years.
Worm abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the
South China Sea found that sites in a protected area where physical barriers
were installed to prevent trawling had fewer nematode worms compared to
nearby unprotected fished sites, after up to two years.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 30%; certainty 30%; harms 10%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2227

● Designate a Marine Protected Area and only allow hook

and line fishing
One study examined the effects of allowing only hook and line fishing in
marine protected areas on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. The
study was in the Skagerrak (Norway).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 699

Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation

Crustacean abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-

after study in the Skagerrak found that sites inside a protected area only
allowing hook and line fishing had greater increases in lobster abundance
over the four years after the area was designated compared to unprotected
fully fished sites.
Crustacean condition (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after
study in the Skagerrak found that sites inside a protected area only allowing
hook and line fishing had greater increases in lobster size over the four years
after the area was designated compared to unprotected fully fished sites.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 75%; certainty 32%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2233

● Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit all

towed (mobile) fishing gear
Two studies examined the effects of prohibiting all towed gear in marine
protected areas on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. One study
was in the Bristol Channel and the Irish Sea (UK), the other in the English
Channel (UK).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Overall community composition (1 study): One before-and-after, site
comparison study in the English Channel found that, over the three years
after closing a marine protected area to all towed gears, the community
composition of reef-indicative invertebrate species became different to that
of unprotected fished sites.
Overall diversity/species richness (1 study): One before-and-after, site
comparison study in the English Channel found that, over the three years
after closing a marine protected area to all towed gears, the number of reef-
indicative invertebrate species remained similar to unprotected fished sites.
POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)
Overall abundance (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in
the English Channel found that, over the three years after closing a marine
protected area to all towed gears, the abundance of reef-indicative invertebrate
species became greater than at unprotected fished sites.
Crustacean abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the
Bristol Channel and the Irish Sea found that a marine protected area closed
to all towed gear (only allowing potting) for 33 to 36 years had mixed effects
on the abundances of lobsters and crabs depending on species.

700
 13.8 Habitat protection

Crustacean condition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the

Bristol Channel and the Irish Sea found that a marine protected area closed
to all towed gear (only allowing potting) for 33 to 36 years had mixed effects
on the sizes of lobsters and crabs depending on species.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 45%; certainty 23%; harms 10%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2229

● Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit

aquaculture activity
One study examined the effects of prohibiting aquaculture activity in a
protected area on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. The study was
in Tapong Bay lagoon (Taiwan).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Crustacean abundance (1 study): One before-and-after study in Tapong Bay
lagoon found that two and a half years after removing oyster aquaculture
in a marine protected area, the biomasses of amphipods and shrimps had
decreased, and that the biomass of crabs had not changed.
Mollusc abundance (1 study): One before-and-after study in Tapong Bay
lagoon found that two and a half years after removing oyster aquaculture
in a marine protected area, the biomasses of gastropods and bivalves had
decreased.
Worm abundance (1 study): One before-and-after study in Tapong Bay lagoon
found that two and a half years after removing oyster aquaculture in a marine
protected area, the biomass of polychaete worms had stayed the same.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 40%; certainty 10%; harms 20%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2240

● Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit bottom

trawling
Three studies examined the effects of prohibiting bottom trawling in marine
protected areas on subtidal benthic invertebrates. Two studies were in the
South Pacific Ocean (Australia) and one in the Coral Sea (Australia).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES)
Overall community composition (2 studies): One of two replicated, site
comparison studies in the South Pacific Ocean found that seamounts within
a protected area closed to trawling had different invertebrate community
composition compared to trawled seamounts and to never-trawled seamounts

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 701

Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation

after four to nine years. The second study found that seamounts within a
protected area closed to trawling had different invertebrate community
composition compared to shallow unprotected seamounts (heavily trawled)
after two years, but not compared to deep unprotected seamounts (lightly
trawled).
Overall diversity/species richness (3 studies): One of two replicated, site
comparison studies in the South Pacific Ocean found that seamounts within
a protected area closed to trawling had similar invertebrate species richness
and diversity to trawled seamounts and never-trawled seamounts after four
to nine years. The second study found that seamounts within a protected
area closed to trawling had more invertebrate species compared to shallow
unprotected seamounts (heavily trawled) after two years, but not compared
to deep unprotected seamounts (lightly trawled). One randomized, replicated,
site comparison study in the Coral Sea found similar combined invertebrate
and fish species richness in areas closed to trawling and adjacent fished areas,
after seven to eight years.
POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES)
Overall abundance (3 studies): One of two replicated, site comparison studies
in the South Pacific Ocean found that seamounts within a protected area
closed to trawling had lower invertebrate biomass compared to trawled
seamounts and never-trawled seamounts after four to nine years. The second
study found that seamounts within a protected area closed to trawling had
higher invertebrate biomass compared to shallow unprotected seamounts
(heavily trawled) after two years, but not compared to deep unprotected
seamounts (lightly trawled). One randomized, replicated, site comparison
study in the Coral Sea found similar invertebrate and fish biomass in areas
closed to trawling and adjacent fished areas, after seven to eight years.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 50%; certainty 22%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2226

● Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit

commercial fishing
Three studies examined the effects of prohibiting commercial fishing in marine
protected areas on subtidal benthic invertebrates. Two studies were in the
South Pacific Ocean (New Zealand), and one in the Caribbean Sea (Mexico).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES)

702
 13.8 Habitat protection

Crustacean abundance (2 studies): Two replicated studies (one before-

and-after, one site comparison) in the South Pacific Ocean found that after
implementing a marine park prohibiting commercial fishing but allowing
the recreational harvest of lobsters, lobster abundance inside the park did
not increase over the 12 years after implementation, and abundance was
similar inside the park and outside where fishing occurred.
Crustacean condition (3 studies): One replicated, before-and-after study in
the South Pacific Ocean found that over the 12 years after implementing a
marine park prohibiting commercial fishing but allowing the recreational
harvest of lobsters, the biomass of legal-size lobsters inside the park did
not increase. One of two site comparison studies (one replicated) in the
South Pacific Ocean and the Caribbean Sea found bigger lobsters in an area
closed to commercial fishing for an unspecified amount of time compared
to a fished area. The second study found that 10 years after implementing
a marine park prohibiting commercial fishing but allowing the recreational
harvest of lobsters, lobster size was similar inside the park and outside where
fishing occurred.
BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)
Crustacean behaviour (1 study): One site comparison study in the Caribbean
Sea found that 80% of the lobster population occurring in a protected area
(year of designation unspecified) where commercial fishing was prohibited
remained in the unfished area, and thus remained protected.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 35%; certainty 30%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2225

● Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit dredging

One study examined the effects of prohibiting dredging in marine protected
areas on subtidal benthic invertebrates. The study was in the Firth of Lorn
(UK).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Overall community composition (1 study): One paired, replicated, site
comparison study in the Firth of Lorn found that sites inside a protected
area that had been prohibiting dredging for approximately 2.5 years had
different combined invertebrate and fish community composition compared
to unprotected dredged sites.
POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 703

Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation

Overall abundance (1 study): One paired, replicated, site comparison

study in the Firth of Lorn found that sites inside a protected area that
had been prohibiting dredging for approximately 2.5 years typically had
greater combined cover of bryozoans and hydroids (combined) compared
to unprotected dredged sites.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 60%; certainty 20%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2228

● Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit the

harvesting of conch
One study examined the effects of prohibiting the harvesting of conch in
marine protected areas on their populations and/or other subtidal benthic
invertebrates. The study was in the North Atlantic Ocean (British Overseas
Territories).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Mollusc abundance (1 study): One site comparison study in the North Atlantic
Ocean found that a marine protected area prohibiting the commercial harvest
of conch had more conch after five years compared to a fished area.
Mollusc condition (1 study): One site comparison study in the North Atlantic
Ocean found that a marine protected area prohibiting the commercial harvest
of conch had smaller adult conch after five years compared to a fished area.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 50%; certainty 22%; harms 12%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2237

● Establish community-based fisheries management

One study examined the effects of establishing community-based fisheries
management on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. The study was
in the Foveaux Straight (New Zealand).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Mollusc abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the
Foveaux Straight found that a customary fisheries area where management was
community-based had more New Zealand scallops compared to a protected
area prohibiting all fishing and an area allowing recreational harvest.
Mollusc condition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the
Foveaux Straight found that a customary fisheries area where management

704
 13.8 Habitat protection

was community-based, tended to have smaller New Zealand scallops

compared to a protected area prohibiting all fishing and an area allowing
recreational harvest.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 45%; certainty 21%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2242

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Designate a Marine Protected Area and limit the density of traps
• Designate a Marine Protected Area and limit the number of fishing
vessels
• Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit static fishing gear
• Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit the harvesting of
scallops
• Designate a Marine Protected Area and set a no-anchoring zone
• Designate a Marine Protected Area without setting management
measures, usage restrictions, or enforcement
• Designate a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area (PSSA) to regulate
impactful maritime activities
• Engage with stakeholders when designing Marine Protected Areas.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 705

 13.9 Habitat restoration and
creation

13.9.1 Natural habitat restoration

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for natural habitat restoration?
Likely to be • Restore biogenic habitats (other methods) -
beneficial Restore oyster reefs
• Translocate habitat-forming (biogenic) species -
Translocate reef-forming corals
Unknown • Install a pump on or above the seabed in docks,
effectiveness ports, harbour, or other coastal areas to increase
oxygen concentration
• Refill disused borrow pits
• Restore biogenic habitats (other methods) -
Restore mussel beds
• Restore biogenic habitats (other methods) -
Restore seagrass beds/meadows
• Restore coastal lagoons
• Translocate habitat-forming (biogenic) species -
Translocate reef- or bed-forming molluscs
No evidence • Transplant captive-bred or hatchery-reared
found (no habitat-forming (biogenic) species
assessment)

706
 13.9 Habitat restoration and creation

Likely to be beneficial

● Restore biogenic habitats (other methods) - Restore

oyster reefs
Eight studies examined the effects of restoring oyster reefs (not by transplanting
or translocating oysters) on oysters and oyster reef-associated subtidal
benthic invertebrates. Two were in the Gulf of Mexico (USA), one was a
global review, four were in the North Pacific Ocean (USA), and one was in
the Mission-Aransas estuary (USA).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES)
Overall community composition (2 studies): One of two replicated, controlled
studies in the Gulf of Mexico and the Mission-Aransas estuary found that
after restoring eastern oyster reefs, the community composition of combined
mobile decapod invertebrates and fish was similar on all types of restoration
material used, but the other found that composition varied with the material
used.
Overall species richness/diversity (3 studies): One replicated, site comparison
study in the Gulf of Mexico found that diversity of reef-associated invertebrates
was similar in reefs restored by laying rocks regardless of age, in young
reefs restored by laying oyster shells, and in natural reefs, but lower in old
shell-restored reefs. One replicated, controlled study in the Gulf of Mexico
found that diversity of reef-associated invertebrates was higher in all restored
reefs than on unrestored sediment, but that diversity varied between the
restoration materials used. One replicated, controlled study in the Mission-
Aransas estuary found that diversity of fish, crabs and shrimps varied with
the restoration material used.
POPULATION RESPONSE (7 STUDIES)
Overall abundance (2 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in the
Gulf of Mexico found that the effect of restoring eastern oyster reefs on the
abundance of reef-associated invertebrates depended on the material used
for restoration and the age of the reef. One replicated, controlled study in the
Gulf of Mexico found that abundance of combined reef-associated mobile
decapod invertebrate and fish was similar on all restored reefs regardless
of the restoration material used, and higher than on unrestored sediment.
Crustacean abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the
Mission-Aransas estuary found that after restoring eastern oyster reefs, crab
abundance, but not biomass, and shrimp biomass, but not abundance, varied
with the restoration material used.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 707

Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation

Oyster abundance (6 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in the

Gulf of Mexico found that oyster reefs restored by laying rocks had similar
oyster abundance to natural reefs, and higher than reefs restored by laying
oyster shells. One replicated, controlled study in the Mission-Aransas estuary
found that oyster cover and abundance varied with the restoration material
used. One replicated, controlled study in the Gulf of Mexico found that oyster
spat abundance was similar on all types of restoration material used, and
higher than on unrestored sediment. Three replicated, controlled studies in
the North Pacific Ocean found that restoring oyster reefs by placing lines
of clam shells below Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) led to higher cover
of clam shells by oysters than when placing the lines above MLLW, that for
those placed below MLLW, keeping them there led to similar cover compared
to moving them above MLLW halfway through the study, and that placing
the lines on cobbly seabed led to similar cover compared to placing them
on muddy seabed.
Oyster reproductive success (3 studies): Three replicated, controlled studies
in the North Pacific Ocean found that restoring oyster reefs by placing
lines of clam shells below Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) led to higher
recruitment of oyster spat on clam shells than by lacing lines above MLLW,
that recruitment was higher on lines placed on cobbly seabed than on muddy
seabed, and that recruitment was similar on lines placed near or far from
the nearest adult oyster populations.
Oyster survival (5 studies): One global systematic review found that two of
nine restoration techniques (restoring oyster reef by transplanting juveniles,
and by creating no-harvest sanctuaries) assessed resulted in over 85%
survival of restored oysters. Four replicated, controlled studies in the North
Pacific Ocean found that restoring oyster reefs by placing lines of clam shells
below Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) led to similar survival of oysters
than when placing the lines above MLLW, but that for those placed below
MLLW, moving them above MLLW halfway through the study led to higher
survival than keeping then below, that survival was similar on lines placed
on cobbly seabed or muddy seabed, and that survival was similar on lines
placed near or far from the nearest adult oyster populations.
Oyster condition (5 studies): One replicated, controlled study in the Gulf of
Mexico found that the effect of restoring eastern oyster reefs on average spat
size varied with the restoration material used. One replicated, controlled study
in the North Pacific Ocean found that restoring oyster reefs by placing lines
of clam shells below Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) led to similar growth

708
 13.9 Habitat restoration and creation

of oysters on the shells than placing lines above MLLW. Four replicated,
controlled studies in the North Pacific Ocean found that restoring oyster reefs
by placing lines of clam shells below Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) led
to higher cover of clam shells by non-native species than placing lines above
MLLW, but that for those placed below MLLW, moving them above MLLW
halfway through the study led to lower cover than keeping then below, that
cover was similar on lines placed on cobbly seabed or muddy seabed, and
that cover of clam shells by non-native species was higher on lines placed
near compared to far from the nearest adult oyster populations.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 60%; certainty 50%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2248

● Translocate habitat-forming (biogenic) species -

Translocate reef-forming corals
Two studies examined the effects of translocating habitat-forming corals on
associated subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. One was in Tayabas
Bay (Philippines) and one in the South China Sea (Philippines).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)
Overall community composition (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-
and-after study in the South China Sea found that following coral translocation
associated invertebrate communities did not change and remained similar
to plots without translocated corals.
Overall richness/diversity (2 studies): One replicated, controlled, before-and-
after study in the South China Sea found that following coral translocation
richness of associated invertebrates increased but also increased in plots
without corals, likely due to spill-over. One replicated, controlled study in
Tayabas Bay found that richness of associated invertebrates was higher in
plots with translocated corals than in plots without.
POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after
study in the South China Sea found that following coral translocation
abundance of associated invertebrates increased and became higher than
in plots without translocated corals.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 65%; certainty 43%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2246

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 709

Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation

Unknown effectiveness

● Install a pump on or above the seabed in docks, ports,

harbour, or other coastal areas to increase oxygen
concentration
One study examined the effects of installing a pump on or above the
seabed in docks, ports, harbour, or other coastal areas to increase oxygen
concentration on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. The study was
in Osaka Bay (Japan).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One before-and-after study in Osaka
Bay found that installing a pump on the seabed of a port to mix seawater and
increase oxygen concentration led to an increase in combined invertebrate
and fish species richness.
POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Overall abundance (1 study): One before-and-after study in Osaka Bay
found that installing a pump on the seabed of a port to mix seawater and
increase oxygen concentration led to an increase in combined invertebrates
and fish abundance.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 75%; certainty 20%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2252

● Refill disused borrow pits

One study examined the effects of refilling disused borrow pits on subtidal
benthic invertebrate populations. The study was in Barnegat Bay estuary
(USA).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison
study in Barnegat Bay estuary found that overall invertebrate species richness
and diversity increased at a disused borrow pit after being refilled with
sediments but remained lower than at a natural non-dredged site.
POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Overall abundance (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in
Barnegat Bay estuary found that overall invertebrate abundance increased
at a disused borrow pit after being refilled with sediments but remained
lower than at a natural non-dredged site.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 60%; certainty 32%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2251

710
 13.9 Habitat restoration and creation

● Restore biogenic habitats (other methods) - Restore

mussel beds
Two studies examined the effects of restoring mussel beds (not by transplanting
or translocating mussels) on mussels and mussel bed-associated subtidal
benthic invertebrates. Both were in Strangford Lough (UK).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)
Overall community composition (2 studies): One replicated, controlled
study in Strangford Lough found that after restoring beds of horse mussels
by adding scallop shells to the seabed, overall invertebrate community
composition in restored plots was different to that of unrestored plots. One
replicated, controlled study in the same area found that after restoring beds of
horse mussels by adding scallop shells to the seabed and translocating horse
mussels, overall invertebrate community composition in plots restored with
shells and mussels was different to plots restored without mussels (shells
only), and both were different to unrestored plots and to nearby natural
horse mussel beds.
Overall species richness/diversity (2 studies): One replicated, controlled
study in Strangford Lough found that after restoring beds of horse mussels
by adding scallop shells to the seabed, overall invertebrate species diversity
was lower in restored plots compared to unrestored plots, but species richness
was similar. One replicated, controlled study in the same area found that
after restoring beds of horse mussels by adding scallop shells to the seabed
and translocating horse mussels, species richness and diversity were higher
in restored plots with mussels and shells compared to plots with shells only,
and similar to nearby natural horse mussel beds.
POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Strangford
Lough found that after restoring beds of horse mussels by adding scallop
shells to the seabed, overall invertebrate abundance was higher in restored
plots compared to unrestored plots.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 55%; certainty 30%; harms 5%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2247

● Restore biogenic habitats (other methods) - Restore

seagrass beds/meadows
Three studies examined the effects of restoring seagrass beds (not by
transplanting or translocating seagrass) on seagrass bed-associated subtidal
benthic invertebrates. One was in the North Atlantic Ocean (USA), one in the
Indian Ocean (Kenya), and one in the Florida Keys (USA).
Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 711
Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)

Overall community composition (1 study): One randomized, replicated,
controlled study in the Florida Keys found that restoring seagrass beds
by fertilizing the seabed had no effect on overall invertebrate community
composition, but adding sand led to communities different from both
unrestored and natural sites.
Overall species richness/diversity (2 studies): One randomized, replicated,
controlled study in the Florida Keys found that after restoring seagrass
beds by fertilizing the seabed and adding sand, overall invertebrate species
richness was similar at restored, unrestored, and natural sites. One replicated,
controlled study in the Indian Ocean found that transplanting plastic seagrass
mimics into bare sites, previously-restored seagrass sites, and natural seagrass
sites, resulted in similar invertebrate diversity on mimic leaves and in the
surrounding sediment, and similar species richness on mimic leaves at all
restored sites as on natural seagrass leaves.
POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES)
Overall abundance (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled,
before-and-after study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that after restoring
seagrass beds, the abundance of mobile invertebrates had increased and
was higher in restored than unrestored plots, but the abundance of sessile
invertebrates had not increased. One replicated, controlled study in the
Indian Ocean found that transplanting plastic seagrass mimics into bare
sites, previously-restored seagrass sites, and natural seagrass sites, resulted
in similar abundance of invertebrate in the surrounding sediment across
sites, and resulted in different abundance of invertebrates on mimic leaves
between sites although all had lower abundances than on natural seagrass
leaves. One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the Florida Keys
found that after restoring seagrass beds by fertilizing the seabed or adding
sand, overall invertebrate abundance was not different at restored sites
compared to both unrestored and natural sites.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 40%; certainty 30%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2249

● Restore coastal lagoons

Three studies examined the effects restoring coastal lagoons on subtidal
benthic invertebrate populations. One study was in the Chilika lagoon (India),
and two in East Harbor lagoon (USA).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES)

712
 13.9 Habitat restoration and creation

Crustacean richness/diversity (1 study): One before-and-after study in Chilika

lagoon found that following hydrological restoration total crustacean species
richness decreased, but changes varied with species groups (decreases in
prawn and crab species; increases in lobster species). The lagoon also hosted
new species not found before.
Mollusc richness/diversity (2 studies): Two studies in East Harbor lagoon
found that following hydrological restoration molluscs recolonised the
lagoon and their species richness increased in the first three years but later
decreased over the following six.
POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES)
Crustacean abundance (1 study): One before-and-after study in Chilika
lagoon found that following hydrological restoration abundances of prawns
and crabs increased.
Mollusc abundance (2 studies): Two studies in East Harbor lagoon found
that following hydrological restoration molluscs recolonised the lagoon and
their total abundance increased in the first three years, but later decreased
over the following six.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 40%; certainty 28%; harms 20%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2250

● Translocate habitat-forming (biogenic) species -

Translocate reef- or bed-forming molluscs
Two studies examined the effects of translocating habitat-forming molluscs
on associated subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. Both were in
Strangford Lough (UK).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)
Overall community composition (2 studies): One replicated, site comparison
study in Strangford Lough found that plots with translocated mussels had
different associated invertebrate communities to plots without mussels, but
also to natural mussel beds. One replicated, controlled study in Strangford
Lough found that translocating mussels onto scallop shells or directly onto
the seabed led to similar associated invertebrate communities.
Overall richness/diversity (2 studies): One replicated, site comparison study
in Strangford Lough found that plots with translocated mussels had higher
richness and diversity of associated invertebrates to plots without mussels,
and similar to natural mussel beds. One replicated, controlled study in
Strangford Lough found that translocating mussels onto scallop shells or

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 713

Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation

directly onto the seabed led to similar richness and diversity of associated
invertebrates.
POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)
Overall abundance (2 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in
Strangford Lough presented unclear abundance results. One replicated,
controlled study in Strangford Lough found that translocating mussels
onto scallop shells or directly onto the seabed led to higher abundance of
associated invertebrates in one of two comparisons.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 65%; certainty 35%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2245

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Transplant captive-bred or hatchery-reared habitat-forming
(biogenic) species.

13.9.2 Habitat enhancement

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for habitat enhancement?
Beneficial • Provide artificial shelters
Unknown • Landscape or artificially enhance the seabed
effectiveness (natural habitats)
No evidence • Use green engineering techniques on artificial
found (no structures - Cover subsea cables with artificial
assessment) reefs
• Use green engineering techniques on artificial
structures - Cover subsea cables with materials
that encourage the accumulation of natural
sediments
• Use green engineering techniques on artificial
structures - Modify rock dump to make it more
similar to natural substrate

714
 13.9 Habitat restoration and creation

Beneficial

● Provide artificial shelters

Five studies examined the effects of providing artificial shelters on subtidal
benthic invertebrates. Three studies were in the Caribbean Sea (Mexico); one
in Florida Bay and one in the Florida Keys (USA).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)
Lobster abundance (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled, before-and-after
studies in the Caribbean Sea found that abundance of lobsters either increased
in plots with artificial shelters but not in plots without, or increased in all
plots but more so in plots with artificial shelters than those without.
Lobster condition (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study
in the Caribbean Sea found that lobsters in plots with artificial shelters were
bigger than in plots without.
BEHAVIOUR (3 STUDIES)
Use (3 studies): Three replicated studies (two controlled) in Florida Bay,
the Florida Keys, and the Caribbean Sea, found that artificial shelters were
occupied by lobsters and molluscs, that occupancy by lobsters varied with
artificial shelter designs, that lobsters occupied artificial shelters more than
natural ones (crevices), and that lobsters occupying artificial shelters were
larger, had greater nutritional condition, and had similar sex ratio and
survival rate, compared to lobsters occupying natural shelters.
Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness 70%; certainty 63%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2257

Unknown effectiveness

● Landscape or artificially enhance the seabed (natural

habitats)
Three studies examined the effects of landscaping or artificially enhancing
the seabed on subtidal benthic invertebrates. One study was in the North
Sea (UK), one in the Westerschelde estuary (Netherlands), and one in the
Persian Gulf (Kuwait).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES)
Overall community composition (2 studies): One controlled, before-and after
study in the North Sea found that following addition of gravels, invertebrate

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 715

Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation

community composition became more similar to natural seabed communities.

One before-and-after, site comparison study in the Westerschelde estuary
found no change in invertebrate community composition following addition
of sedimentary dredge material.
Overall richness/diversity (3 studies): One controlled, before-and after study
in the North Sea and one site comparison study in the Persian Gulf found
that invertebrate species richness increased following addition of gravels
or coral and limestone rubbles, and one also found that richness became
similar to natural seabed. One before-and-after, site comparison study in
the Westerschelde estuary found no change in species richness following
addition of sedimentary dredged material.
POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES)
Overall abundance (3 studies): One controlled, before-and after study in
the North Sea and one site comparison study in the Persian Gulf found that
invertebrate abundance and biomass increased following addition of gravels
or coral and limestone rubbles, and one also found that abundance became
similar to natural seabed. One before-and-after, site comparison study in
the Westerschelde estuary found no change in invertebrate abundance and
biomass following addition of sedimentary dredge material.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 50%; certainty 35%; harms 5%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2253

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Use green engineering techniques on artificial structures - Cover
subsea cables with artificial reefs
• Use green engineering techniques on artificial structures - Cover
subsea cables with materials that encourage the accumulation of
natural sediments
• Use green engineering techniques on artificial structures - Modify
rock dump to make it more similar to natural substrate.

716
 13.9 Habitat restoration and creation

13.9.3 Artificial habitat creation

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for artificial habitat creation?
Likely to be • Create artificial reefs
beneficial • Create artificial reefs of different 3-D structure
and material used
Unknown • Locate artificial reefs near aquaculture systems to
effectiveness benefit from nutrient run-offs
• Repurpose obsolete offshore structures to act as
artificial reefs
No evidence • Place anthropogenic installations (e.g.
found (no windfarms) in an area such that they create
assessment) artificial habitat and reduce the level of fishing
activity

Likely to be beneficial

● Create artificial reefs

Twelve studies examined the effects of creating artificial reefs on subtidal
benthic invertebrate populations. Three studies were in the Mediterranean
Sea (Italy); three were in the North Atlantic Ocean (USA, Portugal, France);
one in the Firth of Lorn (UK); two in the North Pacific Ocean (USA); one in
the English Channel (UK), one in the Gulf of Mexico (USA); and one in the
Yellow Sea (China).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (8 STUDIES)
Overall community composition (3 studies): Two site comparison studies
(one replicated) in the English Channel and North Atlantic Ocean found that
invertebrate communities growing on artificial reefs were different to that
of natural reefs. One replicated study the North Pacific Ocean found that
invertebrate community composition changed over time on an artificial reef.
Overall richness/diversity (6 studies): Two site comparison studies (one
replicated) in the Mediterranean Sea and North Atlantic Ocean found that
invertebrate species richness and/or diversity on the artificial reef or in the
sediments inside and adjacent to the reef area were lower compared to on
natural reefs or in nearby natural sediments. One replicated, site comparison
study in the Gulf of Mexico found that artificial breakwaters had more

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 717

Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation

species of nekton compared to adjacent mudflats. One site comparison

study in English Channel recorded 263 taxa on the artificial reef, including
at least nine not recorded on nearby natural reefs but excluding at least 39
recorded on natural reefs. One replicated study in the North Pacific Ocean
found a 49% increase in species richness over five years on an artificial reef.
One study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that artificial reefs hosted at
least five species of large mobile invertebrates.
Mollusc richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study
in the Mediterranean Sea found that mollusc species richness and diversity
were lower on artificial reefs compared to natural reefs.
Worm community composition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison
study in the North Pacific Ocean found that polychaete worm community
composition was similar at one of two artificial reefs compared to a natural reef.
Worm richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in
the North Pacific Ocean found that polychaete worm species richness and
diversity were similar at one of two artificial reefs compared to a natural
reef, but lower at the second artificial reef.
POPULATION RESPONSE (12 STUDIES)
Overall abundance (10 studies): One of two site comparison studies (one
replicated) in the Mediterranean Sea found that abundance of invertebrates
in the sediment was lower at the reef sites than in nearby natural sediments,
but increased in the sediments directly adjacent to the reefs, while the other
study found that abundance was similar in the sediments inside and directly
adjacent to the artificial reef area, but lower than in nearby natural sediments.
Of five site comparison studies (four replicated) in the North Pacific Ocean,
the North Atlantic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico and the Yellow Sea, one found
that invertebrate biomass was higher on the artificial reef than in adjacent
natural sediments, two that invertebrate abundance and biomass and
nekton abundance were similar on artificial reefs and natural habitats (reef;
mudflat), and two found mixed effects on abundances of invertebrates. One
site comparison study in the English Channel reported that the abundances
of some species were lower on the artificial reef compared to natural reefs.
One replicated study in the North Pacific Ocean reported an 86% increase in
invertebrate abundance growing on an artificial reef over five years. One study
in the North Atlantic Ocean found that two of five species at one artificial
reef, and three of seven at another, were recorded during &gt;50% of dives.
Overall condition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the
Yellow Sea found mixed effects of creating an artificial reef on the sizes of
mobile invertebrates.

718
 13.9 Habitat restoration and creation

Mollusc abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the

Mediterranean Sea found that mollusc abundance was lower on artificial
reefs compared to natural reefs.
Crustacean abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison in the Firth
of Lorn found that abundances of edible crabs and velvet swimming crabs
were typically higher on artificial than natural reefs.
OTHER (1 STUDY)
Biological production (1 study): One site comparison study in North Atlantic
Ocean found that secondary production was higher from invertebrates growing
on an artificial reef than from invertebrates in adjacent natural sediments.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 55%; certainty 60%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2258

● Create artificial reefs of different 3-D structure and

material used
Eight studies examined the effects of creating artificial reefs of different
typology on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. One study was in
the English Channel (UK), three in the Mediterranean Sea (Israel, Italy), one
in the North Atlantic Ocean (USA), one in the Firth of Lorn (UK), one in the
North Pacific Ocean (USA), and one in the Gulf of Mexico (USA).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (6 STUDIES)
Overall community composition (3 studies): One controlled study in the
English Channel found that artificial reef modules made of scrap tyres
developed a similar sessile invertebrate community composition as traditional
artificial concrete modules. Two controlled studies (one replicated) in the
Mediterranean Sea found that pyramids reefs made of “sea-friendly” concrete
developed different invertebrate community compositions compared to reefs
of either traditional concrete plinth-pole structures or bundles of traditional
concrete tubes.
Overall richness/diversity (5 studies): Four controlled studies (three replicated)
in the Mediterranean Sea, the North Pacific Ocean, and the Gulf of Mexico
found no differences in overall invertebrate richness/diversity or combined
mobile invertebrate and fish richness between reef structure and/or material.
One controlled study in the Mediterranean Sea found that invertebrate
species richness was lower on “sea-friendly” pyramid reefs compared to
bundle reefs of traditional concrete.
POPULATION RESPONSE (7 STUDIES)
Overall abundance (5 studies): Four controlled studies (three replicated) in
the English Channel, the Mediterranean Sea, the North Pacific Ocean, and

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 719

Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation

the Gulf of Mexico found no differences in overall invertebrate abundances

or combined mobile invertebrate and fish abundance between reef structure
and/or material. One controlled study in the Mediterranean Sea found that
“sea-friendly” concrete pyramids had lower abundance compared to plinth-
pole structures after two years, but higher after three.
Crustacean abundance (2 studies): One replicated, controlled study in the
North Atlantic Ocean found that artificial reefs made of limestone boulders,
gravel concrete aggregate, or tyre-concrete aggregate had similar abundance
of spiny lobsters. One replicated, controlled study in the Firth of Lorn
found that the complexity of artificial reef modules had mixed effects on
the abundance of edible crab and velvet swimming crab.
Mollusc abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the Gulf of
Mexico found that breakwaters made of bags of oyster shells recruited more
oysters and ribbed mussels compared to “ReefBall” breakwaters.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 43%; certainty 40%; harms 10%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2259

Unknown effectiveness

● Locate artificial reefs near aquaculture systems to benefit

from nutrient run-offs
Two studies examined the effects of locating artificial reefs near aquaculture
systems to benefit from nutrient run-offs on subtidal benthic invertebrate
populations. One study was in the Gulf of Aqaba (Israel and Jordan), and
one in the Mediterranean Sea (Spain).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Overall community composition (1 study): One controlled study in the
Mediterranean Sea found that an artificial reef located under aquaculture
cages had similar invertebrate community composition to artificial reefs
located at sites without aquaculture cages.
POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Overall abundance (1 study): One controlled study in the Gulf of Aqaba found
that an artificial reef located at an aquaculture site had similar invertebrate
biomass growing on it compared to an artificial reef located at a site without
aquaculture cages.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 35%; certainty 24%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2260

720
 13.9 Habitat restoration and creation

● Repurpose obsolete offshore structures to act as artificial

reefs
One study examined the effects of repurposing obsolete offshore structures
on subtidal benthic invertebrates. The study was of a sunken oil rig in the
Mediterranean Sea (Italy).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Overall species richness/diversity (1 study): One study in the Mediterranean
Sea recorded at least 53 invertebrate species having colonised a sunken oil rig
after 30 years. Species included 14 species of molluscs, 14 species of worms,
and 11 species of crustaceans.
POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 65%; certainty 26%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2262

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Place anthropogenic installations (e.g. windfarms) in an area such
that they create artificial habitat and reduce the level of fishing
activity.

13.9.4 Other habitat restoration and creation

interventions

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of

the effectiveness of interventions for other habitat restoration and
creation interventions?
Unknown • Offset habitat loss from human activity by
effectiveness restoring or creating habitats elsewhere
• Remove and relocate habitat-forming (biogenic)
species before onset of impactful activities
No evidence • Pay monetary compensation for habitat damage
found (no remediation
assessment)

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 721

Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation

Unknown effectiveness

● Offset habitat loss from human activity by restoring or

creating habitats elsewhere
Two studies examined the effects of offsetting habitat loss from human activity
by restoring or creating habitats elsewhere on subtidal benthic invertebrate
populations. One study was in the Delaware Bay (USA), the other in the
Persian Gulf (Kuwait).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One study in the Persian Gulf found
that an area of low ecological value restored to offset habitat lost to land
reclamation was colonized by over 198 invertebrate species.
POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
OTHER (1 STUDY)
Biological production (1 study): One study in Delaware Bay found that an
artificial reef built to offset lost soft-sediment habitat had higher annual
secondary production/unit area from sessile invertebrates, but lower total
annual secondary production, compared to habitat similar to that lost.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 45%; certainty 20%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2265

● Remove and relocate habitat-forming (biogenic) species

before onset of impactful activities
One study examined the effects of removing and relocating habitat-forming
species before onset of impactful activities on subtidal benthic invertebrates.
The study was in the Fal Estuary (UK).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Overall community composition (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled
study in the Fal Estuary found that invertebrate community composition was
different in plots where maërl bed habitat had been removed and relayed
compared to undisturbed maërl after five weeks, but similar after 44 weeks.
Overall species richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled
study in the Fal Estuary found that invertebrate species richness was lower
in plots where maërl bed habitat had been removed and relayed compared
to undisturbed maërl after five weeks, but similar after 44 weeks.
POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

722
 13.9 Habitat restoration and creation

Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in the

Fal Estuary found that invertebrate abundance was different in plots where
maërl bed habitat had been removed and relayed compared to undisturbed
maërl after five weeks, but similar after 44 weeks.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 55%; certainty 20%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2264

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Pay monetary compensation for habitat damage remediation.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 723

 13.10 Species management

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for species management?
Likely to be • Translocate species - Translocate molluscs
beneficial • Transplant/release captive-bred or hatchery-
reared species - Transplant/release crustaceans
• Transplant/release captive-bred or hatchery-
reared species - Transplant/release molluscs
Unknown • Cease or prohibit the harvesting of scallops
effectiveness • Tag species to prevent illegal fishing or
harvesting
• Translocate species - Translocate crustaceans
• Translocate species - Translocate worms
• Transplant/release captive-bred or hatchery-
reared species in predator exclusion cages
No evidence • Cease or prohibit the harvest of conch
found (no • Cease or prohibit the harvest of sea urchins
assessment)
• Establish size limitations for the capture of
recreational species
• Provide artificial shelters following release
• Remove and relocate invertebrate species before
onset of impactful activities
• Set recreational catch quotas

724
 13.10 Species management

Likely to be beneficial

● Translocate species - Translocate molluscs

Nine studies examined the effects of translocating mollusc species on their
wild populations. Two examined scallops in the North Atlantic Ocean (USA)
and one examined scallops in the Tasman Sea and South Pacific Ocean (New
Zealand). One study examined conch in the Florida Keys (USA). One examined
clams in the North Atlantic Ocean (Portugal). One examined abalone in the
North Pacific Ocean (USA). One examined mussels in Strangford Lough
(UK). Two examined mussels in the Gulf of Corinth (Greece).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (8 STUDIES)
Mollusc abundance (3 studies): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after
study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that translocating bay scallops
increased larval recruitment into the adult population compared to before
translocation. One before-and-after study in the North Pacific Ocean found that
following translocation of adult pink abalone to existing patchy populations,
total abalone abundance (translocated and resident) decreased to similar levels
as before translocation. One replicated, site comparison study in Strangford
Lough found that after translocating horse mussels, the abundance of young
mussels was higher in site with translocated mussels compared to both sites
without translocated mussels and natural mussel reefs.
Mollusc reproductive success (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-
and-after study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that translocating bay
scallops did not increase larval production compared to before translocation.
Mollusc survival (5 studies): Three replicated studies (one before-and-after
and two site comparisons) in the North Atlantic Ocean and in the Tasman
Sea and South Pacific Ocean, found that following translocation, scallops and
clams survived. Survival of translocated New Zealand scallops was higher
in areas closed to commercial fishing compared to fished areas. Two studies
in the Gulf of Corinth found that Mediterranean fan mussels survived when
translocated to a deep site, and had similar survival compared to naturally-
occurring mussels, but did not survive when translocated to a shallow site.
Mollusc condition (2 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in the
North Atlantic Ocean found that following translocation, clams had similar
condition indices to clams in the source site. One study in the Gulf of Corinth
found that translocated Mediterranean fan mussels had similar size-specific
growth-rates compared to naturally-occurring mussels.

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 725

Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation

BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)
Mollusc behaviour (1 study): One replicated study in the Florida Keys found
that translocating non-reproductive adult queen conch to aggregations of
reproductive conch did not have adverse effects on the movement patterns
of non-translocated resident conch, and all conch displayed similar total
distance travelled, movement rates, migration patterns, home-range sizes,
and sociability.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 60%; certainty 60%; harms 10%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2270

● Transplant/release captive-bred or hatchery-reared

species - Transplant/release crustaceans
Five studies examined the effects of transplanting or releasing hatchery-
reared crustacean species on their wild populations. Four examined lobsters
in the North Sea (Germany, Norway, UK), and one examined prawns in the
Swan-Canning Estuary (Australia).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (5 STUDIES)
Crustacean abundance (1 study): One study in the Swan-Canning Estuary
found that after releasing hatchery-reared prawn larvae into the wild, the
abundance of egg-bearing female prawns increased.
Crustacean reproductive success (3 studies): Two studies (one controlled)
in the North Sea found that after their release, recaptured hatchery-reared
female lobsters carried eggs, and the number, size and developmental stage
of eggs were similar to that of wild females. One study in the Swan-Canning
Estuary found that after releasing hatchery-reared prawn larvae into the wild
the overall population fecundity (egg production/area) increased.
Crustacean survival (2 studies): Two studies in the North Sea found that
50–84% and 32–39% of hatchery-reared lobsters survived in the wild after
release, up to eight and up to five years, respectively.
Crustacean condition (4 studies): Two studies in the North Sea found that
hatchery-reared lobsters grew in the wild after release. One controlled study
in the North Sea found that after release into the wild, hatchery-reared
female lobsters had similar growth rates as wild females. One study in the
North Sea found that after releasing hatchery-reared lobsters, no recaptured
lobsters displayed signs of “Black Spot” disease, and 95% had developed
a crusher-claw. One study in the Swan-Canning Estuary found that after

726
 13.10 Species management

releasing hatchery-reared prawn larvae into the wild, the size of egg-bearing
female prawns increased.
BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)
Crustacean movement (1 study): One controlled study in the North Sea
found that after release into the wild, hatchery-reared female lobsters had
similar movement patterns as wild females.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 70%; certainty 45%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2266

● Transplant/release captive-bred or hatchery-reared

species - Transplant/release molluscs
Eight studies examined the effects of transplanting or releasing hatchery-
reared mollusc species on their wild populations. One examined abalone
in the North Pacific Ocean (Canada), one examined clams off the Strait of
Singapore (Singapore), one examined oysters in the North Atlantic Ocean
(USA), and four examined scallops in the North Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of
Mexico (USA).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (8 STUDIES)
Mollusc abundance (2 studies): One replicated, before-and-after study in
the North Atlantic Ocean found that after transplanting hatchery-reared
scallops, abundance of juvenile scallops typically increased, but not that of
adult scallops. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in the North
Atlantic Ocean, found that after releasing hatchery-reared oyster larvae,
more spat initially settled using a direct technique compared to a traditional
remote technique, and equal number of spat settled on cleaned and natural
oyster shells.
Mollusc reproductive success (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after study
in the North Atlantic Ocean found that after transplanting hatchery-reared
scallops, larval recruitment increased across all areas studied.
Mollusc survival (5 studies): One replicated study in the Strait of Singapore
found that, after transplantation in the field, aquarium-reared clams had a
high survival rate. One replicated, controlled study in the North Atlantic
Ocean found that after transplanting hatchery-reared scallops, the number of
transplanted scallops surviving decreased regardless of the methods used, and
maximum mortalities was reported to be 0–1.5%. One replicated, controlled
study in the North Pacific Ocean found that transplanting hatchery-reared
abalone into the wild reduced survivorship compared to non-transplanted

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 727

Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation

hatchery-reared abalone kept in tanks. Two replicated, randomized, controlled

studies in the North Atlantic Ocean found that after releasing hatchery-reared
oyster larvae, 61% of the settled spat survived the winter, and settled spat
survived equally on cleaned and natural oyster shells.
Mollusc condition (3 studies): Two replicated studies in the Strait of Singapore
and the North Atlantic Ocean found after transplantation in the wild,
aquarium-reared clams and hatchery-reared scallops increased in weight
and/or grew. Scallops grew in both free-planted plots and suspended bags
but grew more in free-planted plots. One replicated, before-and-after study
in the Gulf of Mexico found that after transplanting hatchery-reared scallops,
wild populations had not become genetically more similar to hatchery-reared
scallops. One replicated, controlled study in the North Atlantic Ocean found
that after transplanting hatchery-reared scallops, free-planted scallops
developed less shell biofouling than suspended scallops.
Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 45%; certainty 40%; harms 15%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2267

Unknown effectiveness

● Cease or prohibit the harvesting of scallops

Three studies examined the effects of ceasing or prohibiting the harvesting
of scallops on their populations. One study was in the South Atlantic Ocean
(Argentina), one in the English Channel (UK) and one in the Irish Sea (UK).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES)
Scallop abundance (3 studies): Two of three site comparison studies (one
replicated, one before-and-after) in the South Atlantic Ocean, the English
Channel, and the Irish Sea found that in areas where scallop harvesting had
stopped scallop abundance was similar, and one found that scallop biomass
was higher, compared to harvested areas.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 45%; certainty 33%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2277

● Tag species to prevent illegal fishing or harvesting

One study examined the effects of tagging species to prevent illegal fishing
or harvesting on subtidal benthic invertebrates. The study examined the
effects on the Californian abalone fishery (USA).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

728
 13.10 Species management

POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

BEHAVIOURS (1 STUDY)
Behaviour-change (1 study): One before-and-after study in California found
no significant reduction in non-compliance with daily quotas of abalones
after introducing tagging regulations.
OTHER (1 STUDY)
Illegal catch (1 study): One before-and-after study in California found no
significant reduction in illegal takes of abalones after introducing tagging
regulations.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 20%; certainty 22%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2275

● Translocate species - Translocate crustaceans

One study examined the effects of translocating crustacean species on their
wild populations. The study took place in the Tasman Sea (Australia).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Crustacean survival (1 study): One study in the Tasman Sea found that
following translocation survival of southern rock lobsters was similar to
that of resident lobsters.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 75%; certainty 24%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2269

● Translocate species - Translocate worms

One study examined the effects of translocating worm species on their wild
populations. The study was in Scottish Lochs (UK).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Worm survival (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Scottish Lochs
found that no reef-forming red tube worm survived when translocated to
a new Loch, but survival was high when worms were translocated back to
its source Loch.
Worm condition (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Scottish Lochs
found that no reef-forming red tube worm survived and so no growth was
recorded when translocated to a new loch, worms translocated back to its
source Loch grew.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 10%; certainty 25%; harms 15%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2271

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 729

Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation

● Transplant/release captive-bred or hatchery-reared

species in predator exclusion cages
One study examined the effects of transplanting or releasing hatchery-reared
species in predator exclusion cages on their wild populations. The study was
in the North Pacific Ocean (Canada).
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
Survival (1 study): One replicated, controlled study the North Pacific Ocean
found that hatchery-reared abalone transplanted in predator exclusion cages
had similar survivorship following release compared to those transplanted
directly onto the seabed.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 35%; certainty 26%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2268

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Cease or prohibit the harvest of conch
• Cease or prohibit the harvest of sea urchins
• Establish size limitations for the capture of recreational species
• Provide artificial shelters following release
• Remove and relocate invertebrate species before onset of impactful
activities
• Set recreational catch quotas.

730
 13.11 Education and
awareness

Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the

effectiveness of interventions for education and awareness?
Unknown • Provide educational or other training
effectiveness programmes about the marine environment
to improve behaviours towards marine
invertebrates
No evidence • Organise educational marine wildlife tours
found (no to improve behaviours towards marine
assessment) invertebrates

Unknown effectiveness

● Provide educational or other training programmes about

the marine environment to improve behaviours towards
marine invertebrates
One study examined the effects of providing educational or other training
programmes about the marine environment on subtidal benthic invertebrate
populations. The study took place in Hong Kong.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)
Behaviour change (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after survey study
in Hong Kong found that a conservation education programme on the Asian

Visit www.conservationevidence.com for full text and references 731

Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation

horseshoe crab in secondary schools significantly increased the students’

behaviour towards Asian horseshoe crab conservation.
Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 65%; certainty 21%; harms 0%).
https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/2281

No evidence found (no assessment)

We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:

• Organise educational marine wildlife tours to improve behaviours
towards marine invertebrates.

732
This book need not end here...
At Open Book Publishers, we are changing the nature of the traditional
academic book. The title you have just read will not be left on a library shelf,
but will be accessed online by hundreds of readers each month across the
globe. OBP publishes only the best academic work: each title passes through
a rigorous peer-review process. We make all our books free to read online
so that students, researchers and members of the public who can’t afford a
printed edition will have access to the same ideas.
This book and additional content is available at:
https://www.openbookpublishers.com/product/1031

Customise
Personalise your copy of this book or design new books using OBP and third-
party material. Take chapters or whole books from our published list and
make a special edition, a new anthology or an illuminating coursepack. Each
customised edition will be produced as a paperback and a downloadable PDF.
Find out more at:
https://www.openbookpublishers.com/section/59/1

Donate
If you enjoyed this book, and feel that research like this should be available
to all readers, regardless of their income, please think about donating to us.
We do not operate for profit and all donations, as with all other revenue we
generate, will be used to finance new Open Access publications:
https://www.openbookpublishers.com/section/13/1/support-us

Like Open Book Publishers

Follow @OpenBookPublish

Read more at the Open Book Publishers

You may also be interested in:

Global Warming in Local Discourses

How Communities around the World Make Sense of
Climate Change
Edited by Michael Brüggemann and Simone Rödder

https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0212

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Global Evidence for the Effects of Interventions for
Terrestrial Mammals Excluding Bats and Primates
N.A. Littlewood, R. Rocha, R.K. Smith, W.J. Sutherland et al.

https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0234

The Environment in the Age of the Internet

Edited by Heike Graf

https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0096
What Works in Conservation
William J. Sutherland, Lynn V. Dicks, Silviu O. Petrovan and
Rebecca K. Smith (eds)

Is reduced tillage in arable fields beneficial for farmland biodiversity?

Is prescribed burning in grasslands beneficial for bird conservation?
Does livestock exclusion from degraded peatlands benefit peatland conservation?
Is the provision of artificial shelters effective for subtidal benthic invertebrate
conservation?

What Works in Conservation has been created to provide prac��oners with answers
to these and many other ques�ons about prac�cal conserva�on.

This book provides an assessment of the effec�veness of 1614 conserva�on

interven�ons based on summarized scien�fic evidence. The 2020 edi�on contains
new material on bat conserva�on and our first marine chapter, on Sub�dal benthic
invertebrate conserva�on. Other chapters cover prac�cal global conserva�on of
primates, peatlands, shrublands and heathlands, management of cap�ve animals
as well as an extended chapter on control of freshwater invasive species, the global
conserva�on of amphibians, bats, birds and forests, conserva�on of European
farmland biodiversity and some aspects of enhancing natural pest control,
enhancing soil fer�lity and control of freshwater invasive species. It contains key
results from the summarized evidence for each conserva�on interven�on and
an assessment of the effec�veness of each by interna�onal expert panels. The
accompanying website www.conserva�onevidence.com describes each of the
studies individually, and provides full references.
This is the fourth edi�on of What Works in Conservation, which is revised on an annual
basis. As with all Open Book publica�ons, this en�re book is available to read and
download for free on the publisher’s website at h�ps://www.openbookpublishers.
com/product/1031 where printed and ebook edi�ons can also be bought.

e book
ebook and OA edi�ons
also available

OPEN
ACCESS