Collected 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: 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: 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: 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: Apply herbicide and remove plants to control grass One randomized, replicated, controlled, paired study in the USA found that areas sprayed with herbicide and weeded to control non-native grass cover had higher cover of native grasses and forbs than areas that were not sprayed or weeded, but not a higher number of native plant species. The same study found that spraying with herbicide and weeding reduced non-native grass cover. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1645https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1645Sun, 22 Oct 2017 13:33:12 +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: Add mulch to control grass One randomized, controlled study in the USA found that areas where mulch was used to control grass cover had a similar number of shrub seedlings to areas where mulch was not applied. The same study found that mulch application did not reduce grass cover. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1649https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1649Sun, 22 Oct 2017 13:43:52 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add mulch to control grass and sow seed One randomized, controlled study in the USA found that adding mulch, followed by seeding with shrub seeds, increased the seedling abundance of one of seven shrub species but did not reduce grass cover. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1650https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1650Sun, 22 Oct 2017 13:46:49 +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 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: Use herbicide and remove leaf litter to control bracken One randomized, controlled study in the UK found that using herbicide and removing leaf litter did not increase total plant biomass after eight years. The same study found that for three of six years, heather biomass was higher in areas where herbicide was sprayed and leaf litter was removed than in areas that were sprayed with herbicide. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1660https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1660Sun, 22 Oct 2017 14:59:23 +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: 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: 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 shrubland We found no studies that evaluated the effects of legally protecting shrubland 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%2F1674https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1674Sun, 22 Oct 2017 15:21:21 +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: 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: Add peat to soil We found no studies that evaluated the effects of adding peat to soils to encourage recolonization 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%2F1687https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1687Mon, 23 Oct 2017 09:59:21 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Burn leaf litter We found no studies that evaluated the effects of burning leaf litter 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%2F1690https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1690Mon, 23 Oct 2017 10:39:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise awareness amongst the general public We found no studies that evaluated the effects of raising awareness amongst the general public 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%2F1717https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1717Mon, 23 Oct 2017 14:02:19 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide education programmes about shrublands We found no studies that evaluated the effects of providing education programmes 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%2F1718https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1718Mon, 23 Oct 2017 14:03:12 +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