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: Maintain/create habitat corridors in developed areas We found no studies that evaluated the effects of maintaining or creating habitat corridors in developed areas 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%2F1543https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1543Thu, 19 Oct 2017 16:44:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use fences to exclude livestock from shrublands  Two replicated, controlled, randomized studies (one of which was also a before-and-after trial) and one controlled before-and-after trial in the UK found that using fences to exclude livestock increased shrub cover or abundance. Two replicated, controlled, randomized studies in Germany and the UK found that using fences increased shrub biomass or the biomass and height of individual heather plants. Two controlled studies (one of which was a before-and-after study) in Denmark and the UK found that heather presence or cover was higher in fenced areas that in areas that were not fenced. However, one site comparison study in the USA found that using fences led to decreased cover of woody plants. Three replicated, controlled studies (one of which was a before and after study) in the USA and the UK found that fencing either had a mixed effect on shrub cover or did not alter shrub cover. One randomized, replicated, controlled, paired study in the UK found that using fences to exclude livestock did not alter the number of plant species, but did increase vegetation height and biomass. One controlled, before-and-after study in the UK found that fenced areas had lower species richness than unfenced areas. One randomized, replicated, controlled, before-and-after trial in the UK and one site comparison study in the USA found that using fences to exclude livestock led to a decline in grass cover. However, four controlled studies (one of which a before-and-after trial) in the USA, the UK, and Finland found that using fences did not alter cover of grass species. One site comparison study in the USA and one replicated, controlled study in the UK recorded an increase in grass cover. One controlled study in Finland found that using fences to exclude livestock did not alter the abundance of herb species and one site comparison in the USA found no difference in forb cover between fenced and unfenced areas. One replicated, controlled study in the USA found fencing had a mixed effect on herb cover. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1545https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1545Thu, 19 Oct 2017 17:12:06 +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: Change type of livestock Two replicated, before-and-after studies and one controlled study in Spain and the UK found changing the type of livestock led to mixed effects on shrub cover. However, in two of these studies changing the type of livestock reduced the cover of herbaceous species. One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the UK found that grazing with both cattle and sheep, as opposed to grazing with sheep, reduced cover of purple moor grass, but had no effect on four other plant species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1608https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1608Sun, 22 Oct 2017 10:05:25 +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: Maintain habitat corridors in areas of energy production or mining We found no studies that evaluated the effects of maintaining habitat corridors in areas of energy production or mining 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%2F1610https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1610Sun, 22 Oct 2017 10:24:08 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Legally protect plant species affected by gathering We found no studies that evaluated the effects of legally protecting the species affected by gathering 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%2F1612https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1612Sun, 22 Oct 2017 10:27:26 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Place signs to deter gathering of shrubland species We found no studies that evaluated the effects of placing signs to deter gathering of shrubland species. '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%2F1613https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1613Sun, 22 Oct 2017 10:28:26 +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: Maintain habitat corridors over or under roads and other transportation corridors We found no studies that evaluated the effects of maintaining habitat corridors over or under roads and other transportation corridors 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%2F1617https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1617Sun, 22 Oct 2017 10:32:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create buffer zones beside roads and other transportation corridors We found no studies that evaluated the effects of creating buffer zones beside roads and other transportation corridors 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%2F1618https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1618Sun, 22 Oct 2017 10:33:50 +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: Use signs and access restrictions to reduce disturbance We found no studies that evaluated the effects of placing signs to discourage access to sensitive areas of shrub 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%2F1620https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1620Sun, 22 Oct 2017 10:36:35 +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: Use prescribed burning to mimic natural fire cycle We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using prescribed burning to mimic the natural fire cycle 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%2F1622https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1622Sun, 22 Oct 2017 10:38:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use prescribed burning to reduce potential for large wild fires We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using prescribed burning to reduce the potential for large wild fires 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%2F1623https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1623Sun, 22 Oct 2017 10:39:39 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cut strips of shrubland vegetation to reduce the spread of fire We found no studies that evaluated the effects of cutting strips of vegetation to reduce the spread of fire 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%2F1624https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1624Sun, 22 Oct 2017 10:47:24 +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: Use cutting/mowing to mimic grazing One systematic review of three studies in lowland heathland in North Western Europe found that mowing did not alter heather abundance relative to grass abundance. A site comparison in Italy found that mowing increased heather cover. Two replicated, randomized, before-and-after trials in Spain (one of which was controlled) found that using cutting to mimic grazing reduced heather cover. One replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after trial in Spain found that cutting increased the number of plant species. However, a replicated, randomized, before-and-after trial found that the number of plant species only increased in a minority of cases. One replicated, randomized, before-and-after trial in Spain found that cutting to mimic grazing increased grass cover. A site comparison in Italy found that mowing increased grass cover. One site comparison study in Italy found a reduction in tree cover.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1627https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1627Sun, 22 Oct 2017 10:59:28 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Increase number of livestock Two site comparison studies in the UK found that cover of common heather declined in sites with a high density of livestock. One site comparison in the Netherlands found that dwarf shrub cover was lower in grazed areas than in ungrazed areas. One before-and-after study in Belgium found that grazing increased cover of heather. One site comparison in France found that areas grazed by cattle had higher cover of non-ericaceous shrubs, but lower cover of ericaceous shrubs. One before-and-after study in the Netherlands found that increasing the number of livestock resulted in an increase in the number of common heather and cross-leaved heath seedlings. One randomized, replicated, paired, controlled study in the USA found that increasing the number of livestock did not alter shrub cover. One replicated, site comparison study and one before-and-after study in the UK and Netherlands found that increasing grazing had mixed effects on shrub and heather cover. Three site comparisons in France, the Netherlands and Greece found that grazed areas had a higher number of plant species than ungrazed areas. One before-and-after study in Belgium found that the number of plant species did not change after the introduction of grazing. One replicated, before-and-after study in the Netherlands found a decrease in the number of plant species. One before-and-after study in the Netherlands found that increasing the number of livestock resulted in a decrease in vegetation height. One replicated, before-and-after trial in France found that grazing to control native woody species increased vegetation cover in one of five sites but did not increase vegetation cover in four of five sites. A systematic review of four studies in North Western Europe found that increased grazing intensity increased the cover of grass species, relative to heather species. One before-and-after study and two site comparisons in the Netherlands and France found areas with high livestock density had higher grass and sedge cover than ungrazed areas. One randomized, replicated, paired, controlled study in the USA found that increasing the number of livestock reduced grass and herb cover. One before-and-after study in Spain found that increasing the number of ponies in a heathland site reduced grass height. One replicated, site comparison in the UK and one replicated before-and-after study in the Netherlands found that increasing cattle had mixed effects on grass and herbaceous species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1628https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1628Sun, 22 Oct 2017 11:21:34 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Apply herbicide to trees One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in South Africa found that using herbicide to control trees increased plant diversity but did not increase shrub cover. One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the UK found that herbicide treatment of trees increased the abundance of common heather seedlings. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1629https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1629Sun, 22 Oct 2017 11:29:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cut trees One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the UK found that cutting birch trees increased density of heather seedlings but not that of mature common heather plants. One replicated, controlled study in South Africa found that cutting non-native trees increased herbaceous plant cover but did not increase cover of native woody plants. One site comparison study in South Africa found that cutting non-native Acacia trees reduced shrub and tree cover. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1630https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1630Sun, 22 Oct 2017 11:44:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cut trees and remove leaf litter One before-and-after trial in the Netherlands found that cutting trees and removing the litter layer increased the cover of two heather species and of three grass species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1631https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1631Sun, 22 Oct 2017 11:46:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cut trees and remove tree seedlings A controlled, before-and-after study in South Africa found that cutting orange wattle trees and removing seedlings of the same species increased plant diversity and shrub cover. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1632https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1632Sun, 22 Oct 2017 11:51:22 +0100
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
For a full list of, and information about, our champions:
All Evidence Champions
About our champions, why and how to become one:
Become an Evidence Champion

This website uses Cookies

We use limited Cookies to run the site and to analyse our traffic (none for site vendors). By using this site, you will be providing your consent to our use of Cookies.

Accept & continue