Restore or create grassland

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    40%
  • Certainty
    40%
  • Harms
    0%

Study locations

Key messages

  • Three studies evaluated the effects on mammals of restoring or creating grassland. One study each was in Portugal, the USA and Hungary.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

  • Richness/diversity (1 study): A replicated, site comparison study in Hungary found that grassland restored on former cropland hosted a similar small mammal species richness compared to native grassland.

POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES)

  • Abundance (2 studies): A controlled, before-and-after study in Portugal found that sowing pasture grasses into areas cleared of scrub did not increase European rabbit densities. A replicated, site comparison study in Hungary found that grassland restored on former cropland hosted a similar abundance of small mammals compared to native grassland.
  • Survival (1 study): A replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that seeding with grassland species as part of a suite of actions including mechanical disturbance and herbicide application increased overwinter survival of mule deer fawns.

BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

  1. A controlled, before-and-after study in 2000–2002 on a scrubland in southwest Portugal (Ferreira & Alves 2009) found that sowing pasture grasses into areas cleared of scrub did not increase densities of European rabbits Oryctolagus cuniculus. Rabbit pellet density after sowing of seeds (1.6–3.6 pellets/m2) did not differ significantly from that before sowing (1.5 pellets/m2). Trends in rabbit density were similar on an area not sown with seed (after: 1.1–1.3 pellets/m2; before: 0.5 pellets/m2). Two 300-ha study areas were located at least 3 km apart. In February 2001, scrub was cleared in 5-m-wide strips at both sites. Cleared strips at one site were then sown with two pasture grasses, rye Secale cereale and slender oat Avena barbat, and with subterranean clover Trifolium subterraneum. At the second site, no seeds were sown. Rabbit pellets were counted monthly, at fixed points along transects, from May 2001 to October 2002.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A replicated, site comparison study in 2005–2008 of a pine-juniper forest in Colorado, USA (Bergman et al. 2014) found that seeding with grassland species as part of a suite of actions including mechanical disturbance and herbicide application (referred to as advanced management) increased overwinter survival of mule deer Odocoileus hemionus fawns. Average overwinter survival was highest under advanced management (77%), intermediate under mechanical disturbance and reseeding but without follow-up actions (69%) and lowest with no habitat management (67%). Mechanical management, commencing in 1998–2004, involved removing and mulching trees to create open areas. These were reseeded with grasses and other flowering plants. Follow-up actions in advanced management plots, two to four years later, involved controlling weeds with herbicide and further seeding with deer browse species. Management actions were not carried out individually, so their relative effects cannot be determined. Fawns were radio-collared on eight study plots; two advanced management plots, four mechanical management plots and two unmanaged plots. Survival was assessed by monitoring fawns from capture (1 December to 1 January) until 15 June, in winters of 2004–2005 to 2007–2008, three to six years after mechanical treatments.

    Study and other actions tested
  3. A replicated, site comparison study in 2011–2012 in a marsh and grassland site in Hungary (Mérő et al. 2015) found that grassland restored on former cropland hosted a similar species richness and abundance of small mammals compared to native grassland. The average species richness in restored grassland plots (0–5.9/survey) did not differ significantly from native grassland (0–6.0/survey). Likewise, the average total small mammal catch did not differ between restored grassland (0–40/survey) and native grassland (0–48/survey). However, among restored plots, June-mown restorations had more individuals (1–40/survey) than did August-mown (0–17/survey) or sheep-grazed (0–9/survey) restorations. Restoration was carried out in 2005–2008 on former cropland. Within a 4,073-ha site, eight restored grassland plots and two natural grassland plots were studied. Plots covered 16–300 ha. Small mammals were surveyed using 36 Sherman live traps/site, over five nights and days, in spring and autumn of 2011 and 2012.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Littlewood, N.A., Rocha, R., Smith, R.K., Martin, P.A., Lockhart, S.L., Schoonover, R.F., Wilman, E., Bladon, A.J., Sainsbury, K.A., Pimm S. and Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Terrestrial Mammal Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Interventions for terrestrial mammals excluding bats and primates. Synopses of Conservation Evidence Series. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation - Published 2020

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

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