Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove residential or commercial development We found no studies that evaluated the effects of removing residential or commercial development 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%2F1542https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1542Thu, 19 Oct 2017 16:43:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use fences to exclude livestock from shrublands Two replicated, controlled, randomized studies (one of which was also a before-and-after trial) and one controlled before-and-after trial in the UK found that using fences to exclude livestock increased shrub cover or abundance. Two replicated, controlled, randomized studies in Germany and the UK found that using fences increased shrub biomass or the biomass and height of individual heather plants. Two controlled studies (one of which was a before-and-after study) in Denmark and the UK found that heather presence or cover was higher in fenced areas that in areas that were not fenced. However, one site comparison study in the USA found that using fences led to decreased cover of woody plants. Three replicated, controlled studies (one of which was a before and after study) in the USA and the UK found that fencing either had a mixed effect on shrub cover or did not alter shrub cover. One randomized, replicated, controlled, paired study in the UK found that using fences to exclude livestock did not alter the number of plant species, but did increase vegetation height and biomass. One controlled, before-and-after study in the UK found that fenced areas had lower species richness than unfenced areas. One randomized, replicated, controlled, before-and-after trial in the UK and one site comparison study in the USA found that using fences to exclude livestock led to a decline in grass cover. However, four controlled studies (one of which a before-and-after trial) in the USA, the UK, and Finland found that using fences did not alter cover of grass species. One site comparison study in the USA and one replicated, controlled study in the UK recorded an increase in grass cover. One controlled study in Finland found that using fences to exclude livestock did not alter the abundance of herb species and one site comparison in the USA found no difference in forb cover between fenced and unfenced areas. One replicated, controlled study in the USA found fencing had a mixed effect on herb cover. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1545https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1545Thu, 19 Oct 2017 17:12:06 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Shorten the period during which livestock can graze One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the UK found that shortening the period in which livestock can graze had mixed effects on heather, bilberry, crowberry, and grass cover. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found that grazing in only winter or summer did not affect heather or grass height compared to year-round grazing. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1609https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1609Sun, 22 Oct 2017 10:22:35 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reinstate the use of traditional burning practices One before and after study in the UK found that prescribed burning initially decreased the cover of most plant species, but that their cover subsequently increased. A systematic review of five studies from the UK found that prescribed burning did not alter species diversity. A replicated, controlled study in the UK found that regeneration of heather was similar in cut and burned areas. A systematic review of five studies, from Europe found that prescribed burning did not alter grass cover relative to heather cover. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1625https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1625Sun, 22 Oct 2017 10:52:02 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use cutting/mowing to mimic grazing One systematic review of three studies in lowland heathland in North Western Europe found that mowing did not alter heather abundance relative to grass abundance. A site comparison in Italy found that mowing increased heather cover. Two replicated, randomized, before-and-after trials in Spain (one of which was controlled) found that using cutting to mimic grazing reduced heather cover. One replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after trial in Spain found that cutting increased the number of plant species. However, a replicated, randomized, before-and-after trial found that the number of plant species only increased in a minority of cases. One replicated, randomized, before-and-after trial in Spain found that cutting to mimic grazing increased grass cover. A site comparison in Italy found that mowing increased grass cover. One site comparison study in Italy found a reduction in tree cover. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1627https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1627Sun, 22 Oct 2017 10:59:28 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use grazing to control trees One randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in Italy found that grazing to reduce tree cover reduced cover of common heather and the basal area of trees, but did not alter cover of purple moor grass. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1634https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1634Sun, 22 Oct 2017 11:59:55 +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: 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: 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: Restore habitat in area predicted to have suitable climate for shrubland species in the future We found no studies that evaluated the effects of restoring habitat in areas predicted to have a suitable climate for shrubland species in the future 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%2F1672https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1672Sun, 22 Oct 2017 15:19:16 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore/create habitat connectivity between shrublands We found no studies that evaluated the effects of restoring or creating habitat connectivity between shrublands 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%2F1677https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1677Mon, 23 Oct 2017 09:04:44 +0100Collected 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: 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: 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: Sow seeds Five of six studies (including three replicated, randomized, controlled studies, one site comparison study and one controlled study) in the UK, South Africa, and the USA found that sowing seeds of shrubland species increased shrub cover. One of six studies in the UK found no increase in shrub cover. One replicated site comparison in the USA found in sites where seed containing Wyoming big sagebrush was sown the abundance of the plant was higher than in sites where it was not sown. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that shrub seedling abundance increased after seeds were sown. One study in the USA found very low germination of hackberry seeds when they were sown. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that the community composition of shrublands where seeds were sown was similar to that found in undisturbed shrublands. One randomized, controlled study in the UK found an increase in the cover of heathland plants when seeds were sown. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in South Africa found that sowing seeds increased plant cover. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that areas where seeds were sown did not differ significantly in native cover compared to areas where shrubland plants had been planted. One controlled study in the USA found higher plant diversity in areas where seeds were sown by hand than in areas where they were sown using a seed drill. Two of three studies (one of which was a replicated, randomized, controlled study) in the USA found that sowing seeds of shrubland species resulted in an increase in grass cover. One randomized, controlled study in the UK found no changes in the cover of grasses or forbs. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1698https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1698Mon, 23 Oct 2017 11:05:08 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Sow seeds and plant individual plants One replicated, controlled study in the USA found that planting California sagebrush and sowing of seeds did not increase cover of native plant species compared to sowing of seeds, or planting alone. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1700https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1700Mon, 23 Oct 2017 11:14:02 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Spread clippings One randomized, controlled study in the UK found that the addition of shoots and seeds of heathland plants did not increase the abundance of mature plants for half of plant species. One randomized, controlled study in the UK found that the frequency of heather plants was not significantly different in areas where heather clippings had been spread and areas where they were not spread. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found an increase in the number of heather seedlings, but not of other heathland species. One randomized, controlled study in the UK found that the addition of shoots and seeds increased the number of seedlings for a minority of species. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in South Africa found that plant cover and the number of plant species did not differ significantly between areas where branches had been spread and those where branches had not been spread. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1701https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1701Mon, 23 Oct 2017 11:16:13 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Strip/disturb topsoil (alongside planting/seeding) Two replicated, controlled studies in the UK found that removal of topsoil and addition seed/clippings increased cover of heathland plants or cover of heather and gorse. One controlled study in the UK found that soil disturbance using a rotovator and spreading clippings of heathland plants (alongside mowing) increased the number of heathland plants. One replicated, controlled study in the UK found that stripping the surface layers of soil and adding seed reduced the cover of perennial rye-grass. One randomized, replicated, paired, controlled study in the UK found that removal of topsoil and addition of the clippings of heathland plants did not alter the cover of annual grasses but led to a decrease in cover of perennial grasses. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1711https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1711Mon, 23 Oct 2017 13:29:32 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use herbicide and prescribed burning to control grass One randomized, replicated, controlled, paired, before-and-after study in the UK found that burning and applying herbicide to reduce the cover of purple moor grass reduced cover of common heather but did not reduce cover of purple moor grass. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1725https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1725Wed, 22 Nov 2017 16:31:55 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use ‘bracken bruiser’ to control bracken One randomized, replicated, controlled, before-and-after, paired study in the UK found that bracken bruising increased bracken cover, though bracken cover also increased in areas where bracken bruising was not done.There was no effect on the number of plant species or plant diversity. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1726https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1726Wed, 22 Nov 2017 17:04:59 +0000