Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove trees/crops to restore shrubland structure We found no studies that evaluated the effects of removing trees/crops to restore shrubland structure on shrublands. 'We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1683https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1683Mon, 23 Oct 2017 09:22:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove trees, leaf litter and topsoil We found no studies that evaluated the effects of removing trees, leaf litter and soil surface on shrublands. 'We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1684https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1684Mon, 23 Oct 2017 09:23:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: 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. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1685https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1685Mon, 23 Oct 2017 09:26:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add 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. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1686https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1686Mon, 23 Oct 2017 09:45:51 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add peat to soil We found no studies that evaluated the effects of adding peat to soils to encourage recolonization on shrublands. 'We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1687https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1687Mon, 23 Oct 2017 09:59:21 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove leaf litter One randomized, controlled study in the UK found that removing leaf litter did not alter the presence of heather. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1688https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1688Mon, 23 Oct 2017 10:00:36 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Burn leaf litter We found no studies that evaluated the effects of burning leaf litter on shrublands. 'We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1690https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1690Mon, 23 Oct 2017 10:39:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add 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. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1691https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1691Mon, 23 Oct 2017 10:40:15 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: 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. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1692https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1692Mon, 23 Oct 2017 10:42:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add 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. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1694https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1694Mon, 23 Oct 2017 10:48:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add manure to soil One replicated, randomized, controlled study in South Africa found that adding manure to the soil increased plant cover and the number of plant species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1695https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1695Mon, 23 Oct 2017 10:50:48 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Irrigate degraded shrublands One replicated, randomized, controlled study at two sites in USA found that temporary irrigation increased shrub cover. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1696https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1696Mon, 23 Oct 2017 10:52:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected 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. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1727https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1727Thu, 23 Nov 2017 11:47:54 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Disturb topsoil A controlled study in a former pine plantation in South Africa found that digging soil did not alter vegetation cover or the density of native plants. One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the UK found that soil disturbance increased the abundance or species richness of specialist and generalist plant species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1728https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1728Thu, 23 Nov 2017 11:49:36 +0000
What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

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

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

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

Read the latest volume: Volume 21

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

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

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust
For a full list of, and information about, our champions:
All Evidence Champions
About our champions, why and how to become one:
Become an Evidence Champion

This website uses Cookies

We use limited Cookies to run the site and to analyse our traffic (none for site vendors). By using this site, you will be providing your consent to our use of Cookies.

Accept & continue