Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use herbicide and remove leaf litter to control bracken One randomized, controlled study in the UK found that using herbicide and removing leaf litter did not increase total plant biomass after eight years. The same study found that for three of six years, heather biomass was higher in areas where herbicide was sprayed and leaf litter was removed than in areas that were sprayed with herbicide. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1660https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1660Sun, 22 Oct 2017 14:59:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use herbicide and grazing to control bracken We found no studies that evaluated the effects of controlling bracken by using herbicide and grazing 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%2F1661https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1661Sun, 22 Oct 2017 15:02:06 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use fences to exclude large herbivores One controlled study in the USA found that using fences to exclude deer increased the height of shrubs, but not shrub cover. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1662https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1662Sun, 22 Oct 2017 15:03:54 +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: Use biological control to reduce the number of problematic invertebrates We found no studies that evaluated the effects of reducing numbers of herbivorous invertebrates by using biological control 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%2F1664https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1664Sun, 22 Oct 2017 15:07:20 +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: Mow shrubland to reduce impacts of pollutants One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the UK found that mowing to reduce the impact of nitrogen deposition did not alter shoot length of common heather or the number of purple moor grass seedlings. One controlled study in the UK found that mowing a heathland affected by nitrogen pollution did not alter the cover or shoot length of heather compared to areas where prescribed burning was used. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1669https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1669Sun, 22 Oct 2017 15:15:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Burn shrublands to reduce impacts of pollutants One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the UK found that prescribed burning to reduce the impact of nitrogen deposition did not alter the shoot length of common heather or the number of purple moor grass seedlings compared to mowing. A controlled study in the UK found that burning to reduce the concentration of pollutants in a heathland affected by nitrogen pollution did not alter the cover or shoot length of heather relative to areas that were mowed. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1670https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1670Sun, 22 Oct 2017 15:17:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add lime to shrubland to reduce the impacts of sulphur dioxide pollution We found no studies that evaluated the effects of adding lime to reduce the impacts of sulphur dioxide 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%2F1671https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1671Sun, 22 Oct 2017 15:18:10 +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: Improve connectivity between areas of shrubland to allow species movements and habitat shifts in response to climate change We found no studies that evaluated the effects of improving connectivity between areas of shrubland to allow species movements in response to climate change 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%2F1673https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1673Sun, 22 Oct 2017 15:20:19 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Legally protect shrubland We found no studies that evaluated the effects of legally protecting shrubland habitat 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%2F1674https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1674Sun, 22 Oct 2017 15:21:21 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Legally protect habitat around shrubland We found no studies that evaluated the effects of legally protecting shrubland habitat around shrubland 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%2F1675https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1675Sun, 22 Oct 2017 15:22:45 +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: Allow shrubland to regenerate without active management Five before-and-after trials (two of which were replicated) in the USA, UK, and Norway, found that allowing shrubland to recover after fire without any active management increased shrub cover or biomass. One replicated, paired, site comparison in the USA found that sites that were allowed to recover without active restoration had similar shrub cover to unburned areas. One controlled, before-and-after trial in the USA found no increase in shrub cover. One before-and-after trial in Norway found an increase in heather height. One before-and-after trial in Spain found that there was an increase in seedlings for one of three shrub species. Two replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after trials in Spain and Portugal found that there was an increase in the cover of woody plant species. One before-and-after study in Spain found that cover of woody plants increased, but the number of woody plant species did not. One replicated, before-and-after study in South Africa found that the height of three protea species increased after recovery from fire. One before-and-after trial in South Africa found that there was an increase in vegetation cover, but not in the number of plant species. One before-and-after trial in South Africa found an increase in a minority of plant species. Two before-and-after trials in the USA and UK found that allowing shrubland to recover after fire without active management resulted in a decrease in grass cover or biomass. One controlled, before-and-after trial in the USA found an increase in the cover of a minority of grass species. One before-and-after study in Spain found that cover of herbaceous species declined. One replicated, before-and-after study in the UK found mixed effects on cover of wavy hair grass. One controlled, before-and-after trial in the USA found no increase in forb cover. One replicated, randomized, controlled before-and-after trial in Spain found that herb cover declined after allowing recovery of shrubland after fire. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1679https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1679Mon, 23 Oct 2017 09:08:16 +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: Strip topsoil Two randomized, replicated, controlled studies in the UK found that removal of topsoil did not increase heather cover or cover of heathland species. However, one controlled study in the UK found an increase in heather cover. One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the UK found that removing topsoil increased the cover of both specialist and generalist plant species, but did not increase species richness. One randomized, replicated, paired, controlled study in the UK found that removal of topsoil increased cover of annual grasses but led to a decrease in the cover of perennial grasses. One controlled study in the UK found that removal of turf reduced cover of wavy hair grass. One controlled, before-and-after trial in the UK found that stripping surface layers of soil increased the cover of gorse and sheep’s sorrel as well as the number of plant species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1685https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1685Mon, 23 Oct 2017 09:26:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add topsoil Two randomized, controlled studies in the UK found that the addition of topsoil increased the cover or abundance of heathland plant species. One replicated, site comparison in Spain found an increase in the abundance of woody plants. One randomized, controlled study in the UK found an increase in the number of seedlings for a majority of heathland plants. One controlled study in Namibia found that addition of topsoil increased plant cover and the number of plant species, but that these were lower than at a nearby undisturbed site. One randomized, controlled study in the UK found an increase in the cover of forbs but a reduction in the cover of grasses. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1686https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1686Mon, 23 Oct 2017 09:45:51 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add peat to soil We found no studies that evaluated the effects of adding peat to soils to encourage recolonization 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%2F1687https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1687Mon, 23 Oct 2017 09:59:21 +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: Burn leaf litter We found no studies that evaluated the effects of burning leaf litter 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%2F1690https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1690Mon, 23 Oct 2017 10:39:07 +0100