Rotovate to control grass

Overall effectiveness category Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)
Number of studies: 1
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

Rotovators are machines that have a series of blades that rotate to pierce and disturb soil. Using them disturbs soil and thus may help to control grass species while creating areas of bare ground that may be colonised by shrubland plants.

Study locations

Key messages

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.

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

A replicated, controlled study in 1996–1998 in a heathland invaded by wavy hair-grass Deschampsia flexuosa in Breckland, UK (1) found that rotovating did not decrease the presence of wavy-hair grass or increase the presence of heather Calluna vulgaris relative to mowing or cutting turf. After two years, wavy hair-grass presence in plots that had been rotovated (99% of plots) was not significantly different to presence in mown plots (100% of plots) or plots where turf had been cut (98% of plots). After two years, heather presence did not differ significantly between plots that had been rotovated (10% of plots) and those that had been mown (5% of plots) or where turf was cut (24% of plots). In August 1996 a number of 0.5 ha areas were rotovated, grass was cut to a height of 10 cm or less in a number of 1-2 ha blocks, and in five 4 m² areas turf and soil were removed to a depth of 10 cm. Five 4 m² plots were established in each of the areas subject to different interventions. Each plot was divided into a grid of 20 cm x 20 cm squares and presence of species was recorded in each square twice a year in 1996–1998.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Britton A.J., Marrs R.H., Carey P.D. & Pakeman R.J. (2000) Comparison of techniques to increase Calluna vulgaris cover on heathland invaded by grasses in Breckland, south east England. Biological Conservation, 95, 227-232.

Please cite as:

Martin, P.A., Rocha, R., Smith, R.K. & Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Shrubland and Heathland Conservation. Pages 483-525 in: W.J. Sutherland, L.V. Dicks, S.O. Petrovan & R.K. Smith (eds) What Works in Conservation 2020. Open Book Publishers, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Shrubland and Heathland Conservation

Related Actions

Actions	Effectiveness	Studies	Category
Cut/mow to control grass and sow seed of shrubland plants Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	3	Synopsis Link
Use herbicide to control bracken Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	8	Synopsis Link
Use prescribed burning to control grass Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	2	Synopsis Link