Collected 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: 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: 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 +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: 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: 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 +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: Add fertilizer to soil (alongside planting/seeding) A replicated, controlled study in Iceland found that adding fertilizer and sowing seeds increased cover of shrubs and trees in a majority of cases. The same study showed an increase in vegetation cover in two of three cases. One controlled study in the USA found that adding fertilizer increased the biomass of four-wing saltbush in a majority of cases. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1704https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1704Mon, 23 Oct 2017 11:35:39 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add peat to soil (alongside planting/seeding) One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found that adding peat to soil and sowing seed increased the cover of common heather in the majority of cases, compared to seeding alone. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found that adding peat to soil and sowing seed increased the density of heather seedlings, and led to larger heather plants than seeding alone, but that no seedlings survived after two years. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1705https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1705Mon, 23 Oct 2017 11:54:26 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add mulch to soil (alongside planting/seeding) A replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that using mulch did not increase the number of shrubs, or the height of California sagebrush. A randomized, controlled study in South Africa found that applying mulch and sowing seeds increased the number of seedlings, but not their survival. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1706https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1706Mon, 23 Oct 2017 11:59:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant/sow seeds of nurse plants alongside focal plants A randomized, replicated, controlled study in the UK found that sowing seeds of nurse plants and heathland plants did not increase the cover of common heather. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that sowing seeds of nurse plants and California sagebrush seeds together reduced survival of shrubs in more than half of cases. The same study found that California sagebrush biomass was also reduced when its seeds were sown with those of nurse plants. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1713https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1713Mon, 23 Oct 2017 13:44:40 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add root associated bacteria/fungi to introduced plants Two controlled studies (one of which was randomized) in Spain found that adding rhizobacteria to soil increased the biomass of shrubs. One of these studies also found an increase in shrub height. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1716https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1716Mon, 23 Oct 2017 14:00:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use prescribed burning to control trees One randomized, replicated, controlled, before-and-after trial in the USA found that burning to control trees did not change cover of two of three grass species. One randomized, controlled study in Italy found that prescribed burning to control trees reduced cover of common heather, increased cover of purple moor grass, and had mixed effects on the basal area of trees. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1721https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1721Wed, 22 Nov 2017 12:48:12 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use prescribed burning to control grass One replicated controlled, paired, before-and-after study in the UK found that prescribed burning to reduce the cover of purple moor grass, did not reduce its cover but did reduce the cover of common heather. One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the UK found that prescribed burning initially reduced vegetation height, but this recovered over time. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1723https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1723Wed, 22 Nov 2017 16:27:49 +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 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Drain/replace acidic water Two studies evaluated the effects on peatland vegetation of draining/replacing acidic surface water. Both studies were in fens. Vegetation cover (2 studies): Two controlled studies in fens in the Netherlands reported that draining acidic water had mixed effects on cover of Sphagnum moss and herbs after 4–5 years, depending on the species and whether moss was also removed. Overall plant richness/diversity (1 study): One controlled, before-and-after study in a fen in the Netherlands reported that draining and replacing acidic water increased plant species richness. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1791https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1791Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:18:46 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Excavate pools (without planting) Two studies evaluated the effects of excavating pools (without planting) on peatland vegetation. Both studies were based on the same experimental set-up in bogs in Canada. Plant community composition (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after, site comparison study in bogs in Canada reported that excavated pools were colonized by peatland vegetation over 4–6 years, but contained different plant communities to natural pools. In particular, cattail was more common in created pools. Vegetation cover (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after, site comparison study in bogs in Canada reported that after four years, created pools had less cover than natural pools of Sphagnum moss, herbs and shrubs. Overall plant richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after, site comparison study in bogs in Canada reported that after six years, created pools contained a similar number of plant species to natural pools. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1806https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1806Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:30:10 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Disturb peatland surface to encourage growth of desirable plants (without planting) Two studies evaluated the effects of disturbing the peat surface (without planting) on peatland vegetation. Both studies were in fens. Plant community composition (2 studies): Two replicated, paired, controlled, before-and-after studies (one also randomized) in fens in Germany and Sweden reported that soil disturbance affected development of the plant community over 2–3 years. In Germany, disturbed plots developed greater cover of weedy species from the seed bank than undisturbed plots. In Sweden, the community in disturbed and undisturbed plots became less similar over time.  Characteristic plants (2 studies): The same two studies reported that wetland- or fen-characteristic plant species colonized plots that had been disrturbed (along with other interventions). The study in Germany noted that peat-forming species did not colonize the fen. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1811https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1811Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:31:40 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cover peatland with organic mulch (without planting) Two studies evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of covering a peatland with organic mulch (without planting). Both studies were in bogs (but in one study, being restored as a fen). Vegetation cover (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in a bog in Canada found that covering bare peat with straw mulch did not affect cover of fen-characteristic plants. One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in a bog in Australia reported that plots mulched with straw had similar Sphagnum moss cover to unmulched plots. Characteristic plants (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in a bog in Canada found that covering bare peat with straw mulch increased the number of fen characteristic plants present, but did not affect their cover. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1813https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1813Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:38:22 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cover peatland with something other than mulch (without planting) Two studies evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of covering a peatland with something other than mulch (without planting). Both studies were in bogs. Vegetation cover (2 studies): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in a bog in Germany reported that covering bare peat with fleece or fibre mats did not affect the number of seedlings of five herb/shrub species. One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in bogs in Australia reported that recently-burned plots shaded with plastic mesh developed greater cover of native plants, forbs and Sphagnum moss than unshaded plots. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1814https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1814Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:39:22 +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: 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 +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