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: Maintain/create habitat corridors in developed areas We found no studies that evaluated the effects of maintaining or creating habitat corridors in developed areas 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%2F1543https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1543Thu, 19 Oct 2017 16:44:23 +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: Reduce number of livestock Two before-and-after trials in the UK and South Africa and one replicated, controlled study in the UK found that the reducing or stopping grazing increased the abundance or cover of shrubs. Two site comparison studies in the UK found that cover of common heather declined in sites with high livestock density, but increased in sites with low livestock density. One site comparison study in the Netherlands found that dwarf shrub cover was higher in ungrazed sites. One replicated, randomized, before-and-after study in Spain found that reducing grazing increased the cover of western gorse. One randomized, controlled trial and one before-and-after trial in the USA found that stopping grazing did not increase shrub abundance. One site comparison study in France found that ungrazed sites had higher cover of ericaceous shrubs, but lower cover of non-ericaceous shrubs than grazed sites. One site comparison study in the UK found that reducing grazing had mixed effects on shrub cover. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found that reducing grazing increased vegetation height. However, one replicated, controlled, paired site, site comparison study in the UK found that reducing grazing led to a reduction in the height of heather plants. Two site comparison studies in France and the Netherlands found that ungrazed sites had a lower number of plant species than grazed sites. One replicated, controlled, paired, site comparison study in Namibia and South Africa found that reducing livestock numbers increased plant cover and the number of plant species. One controlled study in Israel found that reducing grazing increased plant biomass. However, one randomized, site comparison on the island of Gomera, Spain found that reducing grazing did not increase plant cover and one replicated, controlled study in the UK found that the number of plant species did not change . One replicated, controlled study in the UK found no change in the cover of rush or herbaceous species as a result of a reduction in grazing. Two site comparison studies in France and the Netherlands found that grass cover and sedge cover were lower in ungrazed sites than in grazed sites. One randomized, controlled study in the USA found a mixed effect of reducing grazing on grass cover. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1607https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1607Sun, 22 Oct 2017 09:51:03 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Change type of livestock Two replicated, before-and-after studies and one controlled study in Spain and the UK found changing the type of livestock led to mixed effects on shrub cover. However, in two of these studies changing the type of livestock reduced the cover of herbaceous species. One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the UK found that grazing with both cattle and sheep, as opposed to grazing with sheep, reduced cover of purple moor grass, but had no effect on four other plant species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1608https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1608Sun, 22 Oct 2017 10:05:25 +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: Maintain habitat corridors in areas of energy production or mining We found no studies that evaluated the effects of maintaining habitat corridors in areas of energy production or mining 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%2F1610https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1610Sun, 22 Oct 2017 10:24:08 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Legally protect plant species affected by gathering We found no studies that evaluated the effects of legally protecting the species affected by gathering 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%2F1612https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1612Sun, 22 Oct 2017 10:27:26 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Place signs to deter gathering of shrubland species We found no studies that evaluated the effects of placing signs to deter gathering of shrubland species. '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%2F1613https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1613Sun, 22 Oct 2017 10:28:26 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce the frequency of prescribed burning We found no studies that evaluated the effects of reducing the frequency of prescribed burning 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%2F1614https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1614Sun, 22 Oct 2017 10:29:34 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain habitat corridors over or under roads and other transportation corridors We found no studies that evaluated the effects of maintaining habitat corridors over or under 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%2F1617https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1617Sun, 22 Oct 2017 10:32:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use fences or barriers to protect planted vegetation We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using fences or barriers to protect planted peatland vegetation. ‘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%2F1839https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1839Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:55:19 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove vegetation that could compete with planted peatland vegetation One study evaluated the effects of removing competing plants to aid planted peatland vegetation. The study was in a bog. Survival (1 study): One controlled study in a bog in the UK reported that some Sphagnum moss survived when sown (in gel beads) into a plot where purple moor grass had previously been cut, but no moss survived in a plot where grass had not been cut. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1840https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1840Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:55:34 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add root-associated fungi to plants (before planting) Three studies evaluated the effects of adding root-associated fungi to planted peatland vegetation. All three studies involved peat swamp tree seedlings: two in the wild and one in a nursery. Survival (2 studies): Two controlled studies (one also replicated, paired, before-and-after) in peat swamps in Indonesia found that adding root fungi did not affect survival of planted red balau or jelutong in all or most cases. However, one fungal treatment increased red balau survival in one study. Growth (3 studies): Two replicated, controlled, before-and-after studies (one also paired) of peat swamp trees in Indonesia found that adding root fungi to seedlings had no effect on growth: for red balau and jelutong or the majority of 15 tested species. However, one controlled study in Indonesia found that adding root fungi increased growth of red balau seedlings. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1841https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1841Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:55:55 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect or prepare vegetation before planting (other interventions) We found no studies that evaluated the effects of protecting or preparing peatland vegetation before planting (other than by adding root-associated fungi). ‘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%2F1842https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1842Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:56:10 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise awareness amongst the public (general) One study evaluated the effects of interventions to raise general public awareness about peatlands on knowledge, behaviour, peatland habitats or peatland vegetation. The study reported effects on unspecified peatlands.  Behaviour change (1 study): One before-and-after study in the UK reported that following awareness-raising activities, the percentage of the public buying peat-free compost increased. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1844https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1844Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:57:18 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise awareness amongst the public (wild fire) We found no studies that evaluated the effects of interventions to raise awareness about wild fire on knowledge, behaviour, peatland habitats or peatland vegetation. ‘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%2F1845https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1845Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:57:49 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise awareness amongst the public (problematic species) We found no studies that evaluated the effects of interventions to raise awareness about problematic species on knowledge, behaviour, peatland habitats or peatland vegetation. ‘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%2F1846https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1846Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:58:04 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise awareness through engaging volunteers in peatland management or monitoring We found no studies that evaluated the effects of engaging volunteers to manage or monitor peatlands on knowledge, behaviour, peatland habitats or peatland vegetation. ‘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%2F1847https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1847Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:58:24 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide education or training programmes about peatlands or peatland management Two studies evaluated the effects of peatland education/training programmes on knowledge, behaviour, peatland habitats or peatland vegetation. Both studies were in tropical peat swamps. Behaviour change (2 studies): One study in peat swamps in Indonesia reported that over 3,500 households adopted sustainable farming practices following workshops about sustainable farming. One before-and-after study in peat swamps in Indonesia reported that a training course on rubber farming increased the quality of rubber produced by local farmers. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1848https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1848Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:58:47 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Lobby, campaign or demonstrate to protect peatlands Two studies evaluated the effects of lobbying/campaigning/demonstrating for peatland protection on knowledge, behaviour, peatland habitats or peatland vegetation. Both studies reported effects, on unspecified peatlands, of the same campaign in the UK. Peatland protection (2 studies): Two studies in the UK reported that the area of protected peatland increased following pressure from a campaign group. Behaviour change (1 study): One study in the UK reported that following pressure from a campaign group, major retailers stopped buying compost containing peat from important peatland areas and horticultural companies began marketing peat-free compost. Attitudes/awareness (1 study): One study in the UK reported that following campaign pressure, garden centres and local governments signed peatland conservation agreements. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1849https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1849Tue, 28 Nov 2017 10:29:16 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Adopt zero burning policies near peatlands We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of adopting zero burning policies near peatlands. ‘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%2F1856https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1856Wed, 29 Nov 2017 10:54:22 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Irrigate peatland (without planting) Two studies evaluated the effects of irrigation (without planting) on peatland vegetation. One study was in a bog and one was in a fen. Vegetation cover (2 studies): One replicated, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in a bog in Canada found that irrigation increased the number of Sphagnum moss shoots present after one growing season, but had no effect after two. One before-and-after study in Germany reported that an irrigated fen was colonized by wetland- and fen-characteristic herbs, whilst cover of dryland grasses decreased. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1859https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1859Mon, 11 Dec 2017 15:05:17 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Exclude wild herbivores using physical barriers One study evaluated the effects on peatland vegetation of physically excluding wild herbivores. The study was in a fen meadow. Vegetation cover (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in a fen meadow in Poland reported that the effect of boar- and deer exclusion on vascular plant and moss cover depended on other treatments applied to plots. Vegetation structure (1 study): The same study reported that the effect of boar- and deer exclusion on total vegetation biomass depended on other treatments applied to plots. Overall plant richness/diversity (1 study): The same study reported that the effect of boar- and deer exclusion on plant species richness depended on other treatments applied to plots. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1860https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1860Mon, 11 Dec 2017 15:07:26 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control populations of wild herbivores We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of controlling populations of wild herbivores. ‘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%2F1861https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1861Tue, 12 Dec 2017 14:17:42 +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