Re-route paths to reduce habitat disturbance

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    30%
  • Certainty
    10%
  • Harms
    0%

Source countries

Key messages

  • 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.

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 trial between 2001 and 2011 in alpine shrubland in Victoria, Australia (de Bie & Vesk 2014) found that closing paths to reduce habitat disturbance increased the number of plant species, but did not alter shrub cover. After paths were closed former tracks had a higher number of plant species (15 species) than prior to paths being closed (12 species), as well as a higher number of species than areas that were adjacent to paths (12 species). Shrub cover on tracks did not differ significantly before (22%) or after (21%) closure, and this was not significantly different to adjacent areas (33%). Before path closure shrubs in areas adjacent to tracks were taller (26 cm) than those on tracks (17 cm) but after closure there was no significant difference in shrub heights between areas adjacent to tracks (14 cm) and former tracks (20 cm). Horse riding tracks were closed in 2001. In 2001 and 2011 vegetation cover was surveyed using forty 25 m2 plots. Plots were either placed on tracks or directly adjacent to tracks.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Martin P.A., Rocha R., Smith R.K. & Sutherland W.J. (2018) Shrubland and Heathland Conservation. Pages 447-494 in: W.J. Sutherland, L.V. Dicks, N. Ockendon, S.O. Petrovan & R.K. Smith (eds) What Works in Conservation 2018. Open Book Publishers, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Shrubland and Heathland Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Shrubland and Heathland Conservation
Shrubland and Heathland Conservation

Shrubland and Heathland Conservation - Published 2017

Shrubland and Heathland synopsis

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation assesses the research looking at whether interventions are beneficial or not. It is based on summarised evidence in synopses, on topics such as amphibians, bats, biodiversity in European farmland, and control of freshwater invasive species. More are available and in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
Our Journal: Conservation Evidence

Our Journal:
Conservation Evidence

A unique, free to publish open-access journal publishing research and case studies that measure the effects of conservation actions.

Read latest volume: Volume 16

Special issues: Amphibian special issue

Go to the Journal

Subscribe to our newsletter

Please add your details if you are interested in receiving updates from the Conservation Evidence team about new papers, synopses and opportunities.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet 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