Manage vegetation using grazing by wild herbivores

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
  • Certainty
  • Harms

Study locations

Key messages

  • Two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of managing vegetation using grazing by wild herbivores. One study was in the USA and one was in South Africa.



  • Abundance (2 studies): A site comparison study in the USA found that areas with higher numbers of wild herbivore grazers hosted more small mammals than did areas grazed by fewer wild herbivores. A study in South Africa found that grazing by Cape mountain zebras did not lead to a higher population of bontebok.


About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

  1. A site comparison study in 1998–1999 at a forest site in Tennessee, USA (Weickert et al. 2001) found that in areas grazed by high numbers of wild herbivores, of three species, there were more small mammals than in areas grazed by fewer wild herbivores with just one species present. More small mammals were caught in areas with high wild herbivore abundance (145 small mammals) than in areas with low wild herbivore abundance (96 small mammals). Numbers caught in areas with high and low herbivore abundance were: white-footed mouse Peromyscus leucopus (130 vs 69), northern short-tailed shrew Blarina brevicauda (8 vs 22), woodland vole Microtus pinetorum (2 vs 5), golden mouse Ochrotomys nuttalli (4 vs 0), southern flying squirrel Glaucomys volans (1 vs 0) (species-level results were not statistically tested). Small mammals were surveyed at six plots inside a 324-ha enclosure, where elk Cervus canadensis and bison Bison bison were released in 1994, and six plots outside the enclosure, where no elk or bison occurred. White-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus occurred both inside and outside the enclosure. Herbivore density was 46/km2 inside the enclosure and 6–10/km2 outside the enclosure. Small mammals were sampled 13 times at each plot, from June 1998 to May 1999, using 15 Sherman live traps, along a 100-m transect, for three nights each time.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A study in 1987–2009 in a shrubland protected area in Western Cape, South Africa (Watson et al. 2011) found that following the introduction of Cape mountain zebras Equus zebra zebra to manage vegetation and facilitate improved grazing for bontebok Damaliscus pygargus pygargus, numbers of bontebok did not increase. Twenty-two years after Cape mountain zebras were introduced, bontebok numbers were approximately one-third lower (187) than at the time of zebra introduction (298). Authors suggest that zebras and bonteboks may compete for similar resources. In 1987–1990, twelve Cape mountain zebras were translocated into a 3,435-ha national park. Between 1987–1990 and 2009, zebra numbers increased from 12 to 48 individuals. Population monitoring details for bonteboks and zebras are not provided.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Littlewood, N.A., Rocha, R., Smith, R.K., Martin, P.A., Lockhart, S.L., Schoonover, R.F., Wilman, E., Bladon, A.J., Sainsbury, K.A., Pimm S. and Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Terrestrial Mammal Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Interventions for terrestrial mammals excluding bats and primates. Synopses of Conservation Evidence Series. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation - Published 2020

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

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

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

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

Read the latest volume: Volume 20

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

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

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered speciesVincet Wildlife Trust