-
Pas de résultats
- Navigation
What Works in Conservation 2017
Introduction
1. Amphibian conservation
1.1 Threat: Residential and commercial development
1.2 Threat: Agriculture
1.3 Threat: Energy production and mining
1.4 Threat: Transportation and service corridors
1.5 Threat: Biological resource use
1.6 Threat: Human intrusions and disturbance
1.7 Threat: Natural system modifications
1.8 Threat: Invasive and other problematic species
1.9 Threat: Pollution
1.10 Threat: Climate change and severe weather
1.11 Habitat protection
1.12 Habitat restoration and creation
1.13 Species management
1.14 Education and awareness raising
2. Bat conservation
2.1 Threat: Residential and commercial development
2.2 Threat: Agriculture
2.3 Threat: Energy production – wind turbines
2.4 Threat: Energy production – mining
2.5 Threat: Transportation and service corridors
2.6 Threat: Biological resource use
2.7 Threat: Human disturbance – caving and tourism
2.8 Threat: Natural system modification – natural fire and fire suppression
2.9 Threat: Invasive species
2.10 Threat: Pollution
2.11 Providing artificial roost structures for bats
2.12 Education and awareness raising
3. Bird conservation
3.1 Habitat protection
3.2 Education and awareness raising
3.3 Threat: Residential and commercial development
3.4 Threat: Agriculture
3.5 Threat: Energy production and mining
3.6 Threat: Transportation and service corridors
3.7 Threat: Biological resource use
3.8 Threat: Human intrusions and disturbance
3.9 Threat: Natural system modifications
3.10 Habitat restoration and creation
3.11 Threat: Invasive alien and other problematic species
3.12 Threat: Pollution
3.13 Threat: Climate change, extreme weather and geological events
3.14 General responses to small/declining populations
3.15 Captive breeding, rearing and releases (ex situ conservation)
4. Farmland conservation
4.1 All farming systems
4.2 Arable farming
4.3 Perennial (non-timber) crops
4.4 Livestock farming
4.5 Threat: Residential and commercial development
4.6 Threat: Agri-chemicals
4.7 Threat: Transport and service corridors
4.8 Threat: Hunting and trapping (for pest control, food or sport)
4.9 Threat: Natural system modification
4.10 Threat: Invasive and other problematic species
4.11 Threat: Education and awareness
5. Forest conservation
5.1 Threat: Residential and commercial development
5.2 Threat: Agriculture
5.3 Threat: Transport and service corridors
5.4 Threat: Biological resource use
5.5 Habitat protection
5.6 Threat: Invasive and other problematic species
5.7 Threat: Pollution
5.8 Threat: Climate change and severe weather
5.9 Habitat protection
5.10 Habitat restoration and creation
5.11 Actions to improve survival and growth rate of planted trees
5.12 Education and awareness raising
6. Some aspects of control of freshwater invasive species
6.1 Threat: Invasive plants
6.2 Threat: Invasive molluscs
6.3 Threat: Invasive crustaceans
6.4 Threat: Invasive fish
6.5 Threat: Invasive reptiles
6.6 Threat: Invasive amphibians
7. Some aspects of enhancing natural pest control
7.1 Reducing agricultural pollution
7.2 All farming systems
7.3 Arable farming
7.4 Perennial farming
7.5 Livestock farming and pasture
8. Enhancing soil fertility
8.1 Reducing agricultural pollution
8.2 All farming systems
8.3 Arable farming
8.4 Livestock and pasture farming
- Table des matières
1. AMPHIBIAN CONSERVATION
2. BAT CONSERVATION
3. BIRD CONSERVATION
4. FARMLAND CONSERVATION
5. FOREST CONSERVATION
6. SOME ASPECTS OF CONTROL OF FRESHWATER INVASIVE SPECIES
7. SOME ASPECTS OF ENHANCING NATURAL PEST CONTROL
- imprimer
- Citer
Référence électronique du chapitre
2.2 Threat: Agriculture In : What Works in Conservation 2017 [en ligne]. Cambridge : Open Book Publishers, 2017 (généré le 28 mars 2024). Disponible sur Internet : <https://books.openedition.org/obp/3743>. ISBN : 978-2-8218-8395-6.Sutherland, W. J., Dicks, L. V., Ockendon, N., & Smith, R. K. (Eds.) 2017. 2.2 Threat: Agriculture. In What Works in Conservation 2017. Open Book Publishers. Tiré de https://books.openedition.org/obp/3743Sutherland, William J, et al., (dir..) “2.2 Threat: Agriculture”. Cambridge : Open Book Publishers, 2017. (pp. 71-73) Web. <https://books.openedition.org/obp/3743>.Référence électronique du livre
SUTHERLAND, William J. (dir.) ; et al. What Works in Conservation 2017. Nouvelle édition [en ligne]. Cambridge : Open Book Publishers, 2017 (généré le 28 mars 2024). Disponible sur Internet : <https://books.openedition.org/obp/3710>. ISBN : 978-2-8218-8395-6.Sutherland, W. J., Dicks, L. V., Ockendon, N., & Smith, R. K. (Eds.) 2017. What Works in Conservation 2017. Open Book Publishers. Tiré de https://books.openedition.org/obp/3710Sutherland, William J, et al., ed. What Works in Conservation 2017. Cambridge : Open Book Publishers, 2017. Web. <https://books.openedition.org/obp/3710>.Compatible avec Zotero - Partager URL :
- Courriel
Collez le code html suivant pour intégrer ce livre sur votre site.
2.2 Threat: Agriculture
2.2.1 Land use change
Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the effectiveness of interventions for land use change?
Likely to be beneficial |
● Protect or create wetlands as foraging habitat for bats |
Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence) |
● Retain or plant trees on agricultural land to replace foraging habitat for bats |
No evidence found (no assessment) |
● Conserve old buildings or structures on agricultural land as roosting sites for bats |
Likely to be beneficial
Protect or create wetlands as foraging habitat for bats
1We found no evidence for the effects of protecting existing wetlands. One replicated, controlled, site comparison study in the USA found higher bat activity over heliponds and drainage ditches within a pine plantation than over natural wetlands. A replicated study in Germany found high levels of bat activity over constructed retention ponds compared to nearby vineyard sites, but comparisons were not made with natural pond sites. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 60%; certainty 48%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/959
Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)
Retain or plant trees on agricultural land to replace foraging habitat
2We found no evidence for the effects of retaining trees as foraging habitat for bats. Two site comparison studies (one replicated) in Australia found no difference in bat activity and the number of bat species in agricultural areas revegetated with native plantings and over grazing land without trees. In both studies, bat activity was lower in plantings than in original forest and woodland remnants. Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 20%; certainty 20%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/958
No evidence found (no assessment)
3We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:
-
Conserve old buildings or structures on agricultural land as roosting sites for bats
-
Retain old or dead trees with hollows and cracks as roosting sites for bats on agricultural land
-
Retain or replace existing bat commuting routes on agricultural land
2.2.2 Intensive farming
Based on the collated evidence, what is the current assessment of the effectiveness of interventions for intensive farming?
Likely to be beneficial |
● Convert to organic farming |
Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence) |
● Introduce agri-environment schemes |
Likely to be beneficial
Convert to organic farming
4Four replicated, paired, site comparison studies on farms in the UK had inconsistent results. Two studies found higher bat abundance and activity on organic farms than conventional farms, and two studies showed no difference in bat abundance between organic and non-organic farms. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 40%; certainty 40%; harms 0%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/961
Encourage agroforestry
5Four replicated, site comparison studies (three in Mexico and one in Costa Rica) found no difference in bat diversity, the number of bat species and/or bat abundance between cacao, coffee or banana agroforestry plantations and native rainforest. One replicated, site comparison study in Mexico found higher bat diversity in native forest fragments than in coffee agroforestry plantations. One replicated, randomized, site comparison study in Costa Rica found lower bat diversity in native rainforest than in cacao agroforestry plantations. A replicated, site comparison study in Mexico found that bat diversity in coffee agroforestry plantations and native rainforest was affected by the proportion of each habitat type within the landscape. Three studies found that increasing management intensity on agroforestry plantations had a negative effect on some bat species, and a positive effect on others. Assessment: likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 50%; certainty 50%; harms 10%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/963
Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)
Introduce agri-environment schemes
6One replicated, paired study in Scotland, UK found lower bat activity on farms participating in agri-environment schemes than on non-participating conventional farms. Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 0%; certainty 18%; harms 13%).
http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/962