Action Synopsis: Bird Conservation About Actions

Remove vegetation to create nesting areas

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

Study locations

Key messages

  • Two out of six studies found that the number of waders and terns nesting in an area increased following the removal of vegetation, and another found that a tern colony moved to an area prepared by removing vegetation. Two of these studies used multiple interventions at once. One study found a decrease in colony size after several interventions, including vegetation control.
  • A study from the UK found that gulls and terns nested in an area cleared of vegetation and a controlled study from Puerto Rico found that although no terns nested in plots cleared completely of vegetation, more nested in partially-cleared plots than in uncleared plots.
  • A before-and-after study from Canada found that tern nesting success was higher after plots were cleared of vegetation and other interventions were used.


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 before-and-after study on an island in Lake Onatario, Canada (Morris et al. 1980), found that the fledging success of common terns Sterna hirundo was significantly higher when ring-billed gull Larus delawarensis nests were destroyed and vegetation manually removed from the site, compared to before management. This study is discussed in detail in ‘Control avian predators on islands’.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A controlled trial conducted over two seasons (1986-7) at two sooty tern Sterna fuscata breeding colonies in grasslands in the Culebra Archipelago of eastern Puerto Rico (Saliva & Burger 1989) found that terns did not nest in six experimental plots that had been entirely cleared of vegetation, but did nest in three plots in which partial removal of vegetation had resulted in 25%, 50% or 75% vegetation cover. In 1987, there were more nests in partially-cleared areas than in control (un-cleared) plots (58 nests in three regrowth plots vs. 40 in four controls).

    Study and other actions tested
  3. Two before-and-after studies in 1977-89 at two common tern Sterna hirundo colonies in Lake Ontario, Canada (Morris et al. 1992), found that the nesting population increased at one colony but decreased at the second following the use of several interventions, including the removal of vegetation from the nesting area. This study is discussed in ‘Replace nesting substrate following severe weather’.

    Study and other actions tested
  4. A before-and-after study on two small islands in the Columbia River Estuary, Oregon, USA (Roby et al. 2002), found that an entire Caspian tern Sterna caspia colony (approximately 8,900 pairs) relocated from Rice Island to East Sand Island between 1999 and 2001, following the creation and maintenance of 1.5-3.0 ha suitable nesting habitat on East Sand Island in 1999-2001. A bulldozer was used to clear debris and vegetation, tractors smoothed the bare sand and plants were removed physically and through spraying with herbicide each year. In addition, various other interventions were used to encourage birds to move to East Sand Island (see ‘Use decoys to attract birds to new nesting areas’, ‘Use vocalisations to attract birds to new nesting areas’ and ‘Control avian predators on islands’) and habitat on Rice Island was modified to encourage birds to leave (see ‘Alter habitat to encourage birds to leave’). The impact on conflict reduction (the purpose of the translocation) is discussed in ‘Move fish-eating birds to reduce conflict with fishermen’.

    Study and other actions tested
  5. A before-and-after study in 2002-3 in Lancashire, England (Wilson 2005), found that the number of waders nesting on limestone slag banks doubled in the summer after vegetation removed from 465 m2 of the banks, compared to the summer before vegetation removal (2002: three pairs of ringed plovers Charadrius hiaticula, four northern lapwing Vanellus vanellus, four oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus; 2003: six, nine and seven pairs respectively). Previously, in 1999, 2,390 m2 of vegetation had also been removed. Vegetation was scrapped from the banks using the front bucket of a JCB in the winter, before any nesting birds arrived.

    Study and other actions tested
  6. A before-and-after study at a former gravel pit in Kent, England (Akers & Allcorn 2006), found that one pair of common terns Sterna hirundo, five pairs of black-headed gulls Larus ridibundus and approximately 100 pairs of herring gulls L. argentatus nested on a series of gravel islands after vegetation was removed from them. This study is discussed in ‘Provide artificial nesting sites’.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Williams, D.R., Child, M.F., Dicks, L.V., Ockendon, N., Pople, R.G., Showler, D.A., Walsh, J.C., zu Ermgassen, E.K.H.J. & Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Bird Conservation. Pages 137-281 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

Bird Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Bird 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