Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cut strips of shrubland vegetation to reduce the spread of fire We found no studies that evaluated the effects of cutting strips of vegetation to reduce the spread of fire 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%2F1624https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1624Sun, 22 Oct 2017 10:47:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Increase number of livestock Two site comparison studies in the UK found that cover of common heather declined in sites with a high density of livestock. One site comparison in the Netherlands found that dwarf shrub cover was lower in grazed areas than in ungrazed areas. One before-and-after study in Belgium found that grazing increased cover of heather. One site comparison in France found that areas grazed by cattle had higher cover of non-ericaceous shrubs, but lower cover of ericaceous shrubs. One before-and-after study in the Netherlands found that increasing the number of livestock resulted in an increase in the number of common heather and cross-leaved heath seedlings. One randomized, replicated, paired, controlled study in the USA found that increasing the number of livestock did not alter shrub cover. One replicated, site comparison study and one before-and-after study in the UK and Netherlands found that increasing grazing had mixed effects on shrub and heather cover. Three site comparisons in France, the Netherlands and Greece found that grazed areas had a higher number of plant species than ungrazed areas. One before-and-after study in Belgium found that the number of plant species did not change after the introduction of grazing. One replicated, before-and-after study in the Netherlands found a decrease in the number of plant species. One before-and-after study in the Netherlands found that increasing the number of livestock resulted in a decrease in vegetation height. One replicated, before-and-after trial in France found that grazing to control native woody species increased vegetation cover in one of five sites but did not increase vegetation cover in four of five sites. A systematic review of four studies in North Western Europe found that increased grazing intensity increased the cover of grass species, relative to heather species. One before-and-after study and two site comparisons in the Netherlands and France found areas with high livestock density had higher grass and sedge cover than ungrazed areas. One randomized, replicated, paired, controlled study in the USA found that increasing the number of livestock reduced grass and herb cover. One before-and-after study in Spain found that increasing the number of ponies in a heathland site reduced grass height. One replicated, site comparison in the UK and one replicated before-and-after study in the Netherlands found that increasing cattle had mixed effects on grass and herbaceous species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1628https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1628Sun, 22 Oct 2017 11:21:34 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cut trees One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the UK found that cutting birch trees increased density of heather seedlings but not that of mature common heather plants. One replicated, controlled study in South Africa found that cutting non-native trees increased herbaceous plant cover but did not increase cover of native woody plants. One site comparison study in South Africa found that cutting non-native Acacia trees reduced shrub and tree cover. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1630https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1630Sun, 22 Oct 2017 11:44:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cut trees and remove leaf litter One before-and-after trial in the Netherlands found that cutting trees and removing the litter layer increased the cover of two heather species and of three grass species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1631https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1631Sun, 22 Oct 2017 11:46:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cut trees and remove tree seedlings A controlled, before-and-after study in South Africa found that cutting orange wattle trees and removing seedlings of the same species increased plant diversity and shrub cover. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1632https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1632Sun, 22 Oct 2017 11:51:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cut/mow shrubland to control trees We found no studies that evaluated the effects of cutting/mowing to control trees 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%2F1633https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1633Sun, 22 Oct 2017 11:54:30 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cut trees and increase livestock numbers We found no studies that evaluated the effects of controlling tree species by cutting and increasing grazing intensity of livestock 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%2F1635https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1635Sun, 22 Oct 2017 12:01:36 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cut trees and apply herbicide One controlled study in the UK found that cutting trees and applying herbicide increased the abundance of heather seedlings. However, one replicated, controlled study in the UK found that cutting silver birch trees and applying herbicide did not alter cover of common heather when compared to cutting alone. Two controlled studies (one of which was a before-and-after study) in South Africa found that cutting of trees and applying herbicide did not increase shrub cover. Two controlled studies in South Africa found that cutting trees and applying herbicide increased the total number of plant species and plant diversity. One replicated, controlled study in the UK found that cutting and applying herbicide reduced cover of silver birch trees. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1636https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1636Sun, 22 Oct 2017 12:04:01 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cut trees and use prescribed burning One replicated, before-and-after trial in the USA found that cutting western juniper trees and using prescribed burning increased the cover of herbaceous plants. One replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after trial in the USA found that cutting western juniper trees and using prescribed burning increased cover of herbaceous plants but had no effect on the cover of most shrubs. One controlled study in South Africa found that cutting followed by prescribed burning reduced the cover of woody plants but did not alter herbaceous cover. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1637https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1637Sun, 22 Oct 2017 12:07:21 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cut/mow to control grass One controlled study in the UK found that mowing increased the number of heathland plants in one of two sites. The same study found that the presence of a small minority of heathland plants increased, but the presence of non-heathland plants did not change. Three replicated, controlled studies in the UK and the USA found that cutting to control grass did not alter cover of common heather or shrub seedling abundance. One replicated, controlled study in the UK found that cutting to control purple moor grass reduced vegetation height, had mixed effects on purple moor grass cover and the number of plant species, and did not alter cover of common heather. Two randomized, controlled studies in the USA found that mowing did not increase the cover of native forb species. Both studies found that mowing reduced grass cover but in one of these studies grass cover recovered over time. One replicated, controlled study in the UK found that mowing did not alter the abundance of wavy hair grass relative to rotovating or cutting turf. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1638https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1638Sun, 22 Oct 2017 12:12:02 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cut/mow to control grass and sow seed of shrubland plants One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the USA found that the biomass of sagebrush plants in areas where grass was cut and seeds sown did not differ from areas where grass was not cut, but seeds were sown. One randomized controlled study in the USA found that cutting grass and sowing seeds increased shrub seedling abundance and reduced grass cover One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the USA found that sowing seeds and mowing did not change the cover of non-native plants or the number of native plant species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1639https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1639Sun, 22 Oct 2017 13:11:17 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cut/mow and rotovate to control grass One controlled study in the UK found that mowing followed by rotovating increased the number of heathland plant species in one of two sites. The same study found that the presence of a minority of heathland and non-heathland species increased. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1641https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1641Sun, 22 Oct 2017 13:14:28 +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: 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: 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: Improve connectivity between areas of shrubland to allow species movements and habitat shifts in response to climate change We found no studies that evaluated the effects of improving connectivity between areas of shrubland to allow species movements in response to climate change 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%2F1673https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1673Sun, 22 Oct 2017 15:20:19 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Legally protect habitat around shrubland We found no studies that evaluated the effects of legally protecting shrubland habitat around shrubland 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%2F1675https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1675Sun, 22 Oct 2017 15:22:45 +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: Increase number of livestock and use prescribed burning to control trees One randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in Italy found that using prescribed burning and grazing to reduce tree cover reduced the cover of common heather and the basal area of trees. However, it did not alter the cover of purple moor grass. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1722https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1722Wed, 22 Nov 2017 14:37:45 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cut and use prescribed burning to control grass One randomized, replicated, controlled, paired, before-and-after study in the UK found that burning and cutting 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%2F1724https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1724Wed, 22 Nov 2017 16:30:40 +0000Collected 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