Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create buffer zones beside roads and other transportation corridors We found no studies that evaluated the effects of creating buffer zones beside roads and other transportation corridors 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%2F1618https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1618Sun, 22 Oct 2017 10:33:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Re-route paths to reduce habitat disturbance One before-and-after trial in Australia found that closing paths did not alter shrub cover, but did increase the number of plant species in an alpine shrubland. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1619https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1619Sun, 22 Oct 2017 10:35:44 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use signs and access restrictions to reduce disturbance We found no studies that evaluated the effects of placing signs to discourage access to sensitive areas of shrub habitat 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%2F1620https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1620Sun, 22 Oct 2017 10:36:35 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant spiny shrubs to act as barriers to people We found no studies that evaluated the effects of planting spiny shrubs to act as barriers to people 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%2F1621https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1621Sun, 22 Oct 2017 10:37:20 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use prescribed burning to mimic natural fire cycle We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using prescribed burning to mimic the natural fire cycle 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%2F1622https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1622Sun, 22 Oct 2017 10:38:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use prescribed burning to reduce potential for large wild fires We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using prescribed burning to reduce the potential for large wild fires 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%2F1623https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1623Sun, 22 Oct 2017 10:39:39 +0100Collected 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: 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: 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: Apply herbicide to trees One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in South Africa found that using herbicide to control trees increased plant diversity but did not increase shrub cover. One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the UK found that herbicide treatment of trees increased the abundance of common heather seedlings. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1629https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1629Sun, 22 Oct 2017 11:29:53 +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: 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: 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: Rake to control grass A randomized, replicated, controlled, paired study in the USA found that cover of both invasive and native grasses, as well as forbs was lower in areas that were raked than in areas that were not raked, but that the number of annual plants species did not differ. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1640https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1640Sun, 22 Oct 2017 13:13:04 +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: Use herbicide to control grass Two randomized, controlled studies in the UK and the USA found that spraying with herbicide did not affect the number of shrub or heathland plant seedlings. One of these studies found that applying herbicide increased the abundance of one of four heathland plants, but reduced the abundance of one heathland species. However, one randomized, controlled study in the UK found that applying herbicide increased cover of heathland species. One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the UK reported no effect on the cover of common heather. One randomized, replicated study in the UK reported mixed effects of herbicide application on shrub cover. Two randomized, controlled studies in the USA and the UK found that herbicide application did not change the cover of forb species. However, one randomized, controlled, study in the USA found that herbicide application increased native forb cover. Four of five controlled studies (two of which were replicated) in the USA found that grass cover or non-native grass cover were lower in areas where herbicides were used to control grass than areas were herbicide was not used. Two randomized, replicated, controlled studies in the UK found that herbicide reduced cover of purple moor grass, but not cover of three grass/reed species. Two randomized, controlled studies in the UK found that herbicide application did not reduce grass cover. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1643https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1643Sun, 22 Oct 2017 13:23:19 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Apply herbicide and sow seeds of shrubland plants to control grass One randomized, controlled study in the USA found that areas where herbicide was sprayed and seeds of shrubland species were sown had more shrub seedlings than areas that were not sprayed or sown with seeds. One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the USA found that spraying with herbicide and sowing seeds of shrubland species did not increase the cover of native plant species, but did increase the number of native plant species. One of two studies in the USA found that spraying with herbicide and sowing seeds of shrubland species reduced non-native grass cover. One study in the USA found that applying herbicide and sowing seeds of shrubland species did not reduced the cover of non-native grasses Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1644https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1644Sun, 22 Oct 2017 13:30:11 +0100
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