Use grazing to control trees

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    20%
  • Certainty
    10%
  • Harms
    5%

Source countries

Key messages

  • One randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in Italy found that grazing to reduce tree cover reduced cover of common heather and the basal area of trees, but did not alter cover of purple moor grass.

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 randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in 2005-2009 in a heathland invaded by aspen Populus tremuloides and silver birch Betula pendula in Italy (Ascoli et al. 2013) found that grazing to reduce tree cover reduced the cover of common heather Calluna vulgaris and the basal area of trees but did not alter the cover of purple moor grass Molinia arundinacea. After five years, the cover of common heather in grazed areas was similar (77%) to than that in areas that were not burned (77%). Purple moor grass cover was similar between grazed (84%) and ungrazed areas (88%). The basal area of trees was lower in grazed (3.2 m2/ha) than in ungrazed areas (4.6 m2/ha). No statistical analyses were carried out in this study. Starting in spring 2006 nine 650 m2 plots were grazed by goats for five years, and another six plots were not grazed. Five 2 x 2 m quadrats were placed in each plot and diameter of trees within them measured. Cover of common heather and purple moor grass was estimated using a 10 m transect in each plot along which the presence of both species was noted every 20 cm.

    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