Study

Grazing of lowland heath in England: Management methods and their effects on healthland vegetation

  • Published source details Bullock J.M. & Pakeman R.J. (1997) Grazing of lowland heath in England: Management methods and their effects on healthland vegetation. Biological Conservation, 79, 1-13

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Reduce number of livestock

Action Link
Shrubland and Heathland Conservation

Increase number of livestock

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

    A replicated, site comparison study in 1994 at three heathlands in the UK (Bullock & Pakeman 1997) found that reducing the abundance of livestock had mixed effects on the cover of shrubs, grasses, and herbaceous plant species. Reducing the abundance of livestock increased cover of shrub species in one of nine comparisons (ungrazed: 80%, grazed: 45%) but reduced cover of shrub species in three of nine comparisons (ungrazed: 0–2%, grazed: 3–8%). For one of eight comparisons cover of grass species was lower in grazed (9%) than ungrazed areas (32%) but for three of eight comparisons cover of grass species was higher in grazed (3–8%) than ungrazed areas (0%). For three of six comparisons cover of herbaceous species was higher in grazed (2–3%) than in ungrazed areas (0%) while for the remaining three comparisons cover did not differ in grazed and ungrazed areas. At each site one area was grazed and another area was not grazed. At each site 5–15 quadrats were located randomly and cover of plant species estimated by eye.

  2. Increase number of livestock

    A replicated, site comparison study in 1994 at three heathlands in the UK (Bullock & Pakeman 1997) found that increasing the abundance of livestock had mixed effects on the cover of shrubs, grasses, and herbaceous plant species. Increasing the abundance of livestock decreased cover of shrub species in one of nine comparisons (grazed: 45%, ungrazed: 80%) but increased cover of shrub species in three of nine comparisons (grazed: 3–8%, ungrazed: 0–2%). For one of eight comparisons grass cover was lower in grazed (9%) than ungrazed areas (32%) but for three of eight comparisons grass cover was higher in grazed (3–8%) than ungrazed areas (0%). For three of six comparisons cover of herbaceous species was higher in grazed (2–3%) than in ungrazed areas (0%) while for the remaining three comparisons cover did not differ in grazed and ungrazed areas. At each site one area was grazed and another area was not grazed. At each site 5–15 quadrats were located randomly and cover of plant species estimated by eye.

Output references

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, terrestrial 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

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 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