Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Apply 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. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1645https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1645Sun, 22 Oct 2017 13:33:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use grazing or alter livestock 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. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1646https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1646Sun, 22 Oct 2017 13:34:04 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: 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 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. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1647https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1647Sun, 22 Oct 2017 13:35:48 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: 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. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1648https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1648Sun, 22 Oct 2017 13:42:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add 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. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1649https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1649Sun, 22 Oct 2017 13:43:52 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add 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. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1650https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1650Sun, 22 Oct 2017 13:46:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cut/mow, rotovate and sow seeds to control grass One controlled study in the UK found that mowing followed by rotovating, and spreading clippings of heathland plants increased the number of heathland species. The same study found an increase in abundance of a minority of heathland and non-heathland species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1651https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1651Sun, 22 Oct 2017 13:49:39 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected 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 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. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1652https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1652Sun, 22 Oct 2017 14:09:58 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: 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. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1653https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1653Sun, 22 Oct 2017 14:36:13 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: 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, 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. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1654https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1654Sun, 22 Oct 2017 14:42:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cut and burn bracken We found no studies that evaluated the effects of cutting and burning bracken 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%2F1655https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1655Sun, 22 Oct 2017 14:47:54 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: 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. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1656https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1656Sun, 22 Oct 2017 14:50:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use herbicide and sow seed of shrubland plants to control bracken We found no studies that evaluated the effects of controlling bracken by applying herbicide and sowing seed 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%2F1658https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1658Sun, 22 Oct 2017 14:56:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Increase livestock numbers to control bracken We found no studies that evaluated the effects of controlling bracken by increasing livestock numbers 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%2F1659https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1659Sun, 22 Oct 2017 14:57:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: 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. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1660https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1660Sun, 22 Oct 2017 14:59:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use herbicide and grazing to control bracken We found no studies that evaluated the effects of controlling bracken by using herbicide and grazing 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%2F1661https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1661Sun, 22 Oct 2017 15:02:06 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected 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. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1662https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1662Sun, 22 Oct 2017 15:03:54 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: 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. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1663https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1663Sun, 22 Oct 2017 15:06:18 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use biological control to reduce the number of problematic invertebrates We found no studies that evaluated the effects of reducing numbers of herbivorous invertebrates by using biological control 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%2F1664https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1664Sun, 22 Oct 2017 15:07:20 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant vegetation to act as a buffer to exclude pollution We found no studies that evaluated the effects of planting vegetation to act as a buffer to exclude pollution 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%2F1665https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1665Sun, 22 Oct 2017 15:11:46 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce pesticide use on nearby agricultural/forestry land We found no studies that evaluated the effects of reducing pesticide use on nearby agricultural/forestry land 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%2F1666https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1666Sun, 22 Oct 2017 15:12:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce herbicide use on nearby agricultural/forestry land We found no studies that evaluated the effects of reducing herbicide use on nearby agricultural/forestry land 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%2F1667https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1667Sun, 22 Oct 2017 15:13:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce fertilizer use on nearby agricultural/forestry land We found no studies that evaluated the effects of reducing fertilizer use on nearby agricultural/forestry land 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%2F1668https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1668Sun, 22 Oct 2017 15:14:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Mow shrubland to reduce impacts 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. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1669https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1669Sun, 22 Oct 2017 15:15:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: 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. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1670https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1670Sun, 22 Oct 2017 15:17:05 +0100