Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide financial incentives not to graze We found no evidence for the effects of providing financial incentives not to graze on forests. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1177https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1177Thu, 19 May 2016 10:30:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use wire fences within grazing areas to exclude livestock from specific forest sections Four of eight studies (including two replicated, randomized, controlled studies) in Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Israel, New Zealand, Spain, West Africa and the USA found that excluding livestock using wire fences increased biomass , species richness, density and cover of understory plants. The other four studies found mixed effects or no effect of livestock exclusion on understory plants. Three of four studies (including one replicated, randomized, controlled study) in Mexico, Kenya, Israel and Panama found that excluding livestock using wire fences increased the size and density of regenerating trees and the number of regenerating trees. One study found livestock exclusion decreased tree density but not tree size. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1205https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1205Thu, 19 May 2016 13:44:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Prevent livestock grazing in forests Two of three studies (including one replicated, controlled study) in Brazil, UK and Costa Rica found that preventing livestock grazing increased survival, species richness and diversity of understory plants. One study found mixed effects. One site comparison study in Israel found that preventing cattle grazing increased the density of oak seedlings and saplings. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1206https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1206Thu, 19 May 2016 14:09:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce the intensity of livestock grazing in forests One replicated study in the UK found that reducing grazing intensity increased the number of tree saplings. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Greece found that reducing grazing intensity increased understory biomass. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1207https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1207Thu, 19 May 2016 14:24:40 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Shorten livestock grazing period or control grazing season in forests One replicated, controlled study in Spain found that shortening the livestock grazing period increased the abundance and size of regenerating oak trees. One paired-sites study in Australia found no effect of shortening the livestock grazing period on native plant species richness. One replicated study in the UK found that the number of tree seedlings was higher following summer compared to winter grazing. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1208https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1208Thu, 19 May 2016 14:33:45 +0100