Exclude wild herbivores using physical barriers

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
  • Certainty
  • Harms

Study locations

Key messages

  • 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.

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 replicated, paired, controlled study in 2004–2007 in a degraded fen meadow in Poland (Klimkowska et al. 2010) found that the effect of fencing (to exclude wild herbivores) on vegetation depended on other treatments applied to plots: hay addition and topsoil stripping. This was true for plant species richness, vascular plant cover, moss cover and vegetation biomass (reported as statistical model results). For example, amongst areas stripped of 20 cm of topsoil, fencing increased plant species richness if hay was not added, but reduced richness if hay was added. These comparisons were not tested for statistical significance. In 2004, eight pairs of plots (8 x 16 m) were established in a drained fen meadow grazed by wild boar and deer. Eight plots (one plot/pair) were fenced to exclude these herbivores. The other plots were not fenced. Additionally, all plots were stripped of topsoil (20 or 40 cm deep), and parts of each plot were sown with hay from a nearby fen meadow (details not clear). Vegetation cover and plant species were recorded annually between 2004 (after stripping and fencing) and 2007. Total vegetation biomass was measured from clippings taken in August 2006–2007.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Taylor, N.G., Grillas, P. & Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Peatland Conservation. Pages 367-430 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

Peatland Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Peatland Conservation
Peatland Conservation

Peatland Conservation - Published 2018

Peatland 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