Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove residential or commercial development We found no studies that evaluated the effects of removing residential or commercial development 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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1542https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1542Thu, 19 Oct 2017 16:43:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce number of livestock Two before-and-after trials in the UK and South Africa and one replicated, controlled study in the UK found that the reducing or stopping grazing increased the abundance or cover of shrubs. Two site comparison studies in the UK found that cover of common heather declined in sites with high livestock density, but increased in sites with low livestock density. One site comparison study in the Netherlands found that dwarf shrub cover was higher in ungrazed sites. One replicated, randomized, before-and-after study in Spain found that reducing grazing increased the cover of western gorse. One randomized, controlled trial and one before-and-after trial in the USA found that stopping grazing did not increase shrub abundance. One site comparison study in France found that ungrazed sites had higher cover of ericaceous shrubs, but lower cover of non-ericaceous shrubs than grazed sites. One site comparison study in the UK found that reducing grazing had mixed effects on shrub cover. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found that reducing grazing increased vegetation height. However, one replicated, controlled, paired site, site comparison study in the UK found that reducing grazing led to a reduction in the height of heather plants. Two site comparison studies in France and the Netherlands found that ungrazed sites had a lower number of plant species than grazed sites. One replicated, controlled, paired, site comparison study in Namibia and South Africa found that reducing livestock numbers increased plant cover and the number of plant species. One controlled study in Israel found that reducing grazing increased plant biomass. However, one randomized, site comparison on the island of Gomera, Spain found that reducing grazing did not increase plant cover and one replicated, controlled study in the UK found that the number of plant species did not change . One replicated, controlled study in the UK found no change in the cover of rush or herbaceous species as a result of a reduction in grazing. Two site comparison studies in France and the Netherlands found that grass cover and sedge cover were lower in ungrazed sites than in grazed sites. One randomized, controlled study in the USA found a mixed effect of reducing grazing on grass cover. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1607https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1607Sun, 22 Oct 2017 09:51:03 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Shorten the period during which livestock can graze One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the UK found that shortening the period in which livestock can graze had mixed effects on heather, bilberry, crowberry, and grass cover. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found that grazing in only winter or summer did not affect heather or grass height compared to year-round grazing. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1609https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1609Sun, 22 Oct 2017 10:22:35 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce the frequency of prescribed burning We found no studies that evaluated the effects of reducing the frequency of prescribed burning 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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1614https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1614Sun, 22 Oct 2017 10:29:34 +0100Collected 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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1619https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1619Sun, 22 Oct 2017 10:35:44 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant spiny shrubs to act as barriers to people We found no studies that evaluated the effects of planting spiny shrubs to act as barriers to people 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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1621https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1621Sun, 22 Oct 2017 10:37:20 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reinstate the use of traditional burning practices One before and after study in the UK found that prescribed burning initially decreased the cover of most plant species, but that their cover subsequently increased. A systematic review of five studies from the UK found that prescribed burning did not alter species diversity. A replicated, controlled study in the UK found that regeneration of heather was similar in cut and burned areas. A systematic review of five studies, from Europe found that prescribed burning did not alter grass cover relative to heather cover. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1625https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1625Sun, 22 Oct 2017 10:52:02 +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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1640https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1640Sun, 22 Oct 2017 13:13:04 +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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1648https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1648Sun, 22 Oct 2017 13:42:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce numbers of large herbivores One before-and-after trial in the USA found that removing feral sheep, cattle and horses increased shrub cover and reduced grass cover. One replicated study in the UK found that reducing grazing pressure by red deer increased the cover and height of common heather. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1663https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1663Sun, 22 Oct 2017 15:06:18 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant vegetation to act as a buffer to exclude pollution We found no studies that evaluated the effects of planting vegetation to act as a buffer to exclude pollution 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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1665https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1665Sun, 22 Oct 2017 15:11:46 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce pesticide use on nearby agricultural/forestry land We found no studies that evaluated the effects of reducing pesticide use on nearby agricultural/forestry land 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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1666https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1666Sun, 22 Oct 2017 15:12:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce herbicide use on nearby agricultural/forestry land We found no studies that evaluated the effects of reducing herbicide use on nearby agricultural/forestry land 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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1667https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1667Sun, 22 Oct 2017 15:13:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce fertilizer use on nearby agricultural/forestry land We found no studies that evaluated the effects of reducing fertilizer use on nearby agricultural/forestry land 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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1668https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1668Sun, 22 Oct 2017 15:14:05 +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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1672https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1672Sun, 22 Oct 2017 15:19:16 +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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1677https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1683https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1684https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1684Mon, 23 Oct 2017 09:23:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove leaf litter One randomized, controlled study in the UK found that removing leaf litter did not alter the presence of heather. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1688https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1688Mon, 23 Oct 2017 10:00:36 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant turf Two randomized, controlled studies in the UK found that planting turf from intact heathland sites increased the abundance or cover of heathland species. One of these studies also found that planting turf increased the seedling abundance for a majority of heathland plant species. One randomized, controlled study in the UK found that planting turf increased forb cover, and reduced grass cover. One randomized, replicated, controlled study in Iceland found that planting large turves from intact heathland sites increased the number of plant species, but smaller turves did not. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1703https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1703Mon, 23 Oct 2017 11:28:15 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant/sow seeds of nurse plants alongside focal plants A randomized, replicated, controlled study in the UK found that sowing seeds of nurse plants and heathland plants did not increase the cover of common heather. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that sowing seeds of nurse plants and California sagebrush seeds together reduced survival of shrubs in more than half of cases. The same study found that California sagebrush biomass was also reduced when its seeds were sown with those of nurse plants. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1713https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1713Mon, 23 Oct 2017 13:44:40 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant/seed under established vegetation A replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that sowing seed under established shrubs had mixed effects on blackbrush seedling emergence. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1714https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1714Mon, 23 Oct 2017 13:53:01 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant shrubs in clusters A randomized, controlled study in South Africa found that when shrubs were planted in clumps more of them died than when they were planted alone. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1715https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1715Mon, 23 Oct 2017 13:57:53 +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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1717https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1718https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1718Mon, 23 Oct 2017 14:03:12 +0100