Study

The state of change of Erica scoparia L. heathland through cattle grazing and oak colonization

  • Published source details Gachet S., Sarthou C., Bardat J. & Ponge J. (2009) L’état de changement de la lande à Erica scoparia L. sous l’effet du pâturage et de la colonisation par le chêne. Revue d'Écologie (La Terre et La Vie), 64, 3-17.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Increase number of livestock

Action Link
Shrubland and Heathland Conservation

Reduce number of livestock

Action Link
Shrubland and Heathland Conservation
  1. Increase number of livestock

    A site comparison study in 2006 in six heathland sites in France (Gechet et al. 2009) found that areas grazed by cattle had a higher number of plant species, higher cover of grass and non-ericaceous shrubs, but lower cover of ericaceous shrubs. Grazed sites had a higher number of plant species and cover of grass (species: 13–14 species/plot, grass: 47–54% cover) than ungrazed sites (species: 7–8 species/plot, grass: 2–24% cover). Grazed sites also had higher cover of non-ericaceous shrubs (66–67%) than three of the four ungrazed sites (9–58%). However, cover of ericaceous shrubs was lower in grazed sites (56–63%) than in ungrazed sites (86–95%). No statistical tests were carried out in this study. Two moderately grazed sites and four ungrazed sites were selected for study. In 2006 four 1 m2 plots were placed at each site and plant cover estimated.

    (Summarised by: Phil Martin)

  2. Reduce number of livestock

    A site comparison study in 2006 in six heathland sites in France (Gachet et al. 2009) found that sites not grazed by cattle had a lower number of plant species, lower cover of grass and non-ericaceous shrubs, but higher cover of ericaceous shrubs. Ungrazed sites had a lower number of plant species and cover of grass (species: 7–8 species/plot, grass: 2–24% cover) than grazed sites (species: 13–14 species/plot, grass: 47–54% cover). Three of the four ungrazed sites also had lower cover of non-ericaceous shrubs (9–58%) than grazed sites (66-67%). However, cover of ericaceous shrubs was higher in ungrazed sites (86-95%) than in grazed sites (56-63%). Two moderately grazed sites and four ungrazed sites were selected for study. In 2006 four 1 m2 plots were placed at each site and plant cover estimated.

    (Summarised by: Phil Martin)

Output references
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 18

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 Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust