Study

Overcoming resistance and resilience of an invaded community is necessary for effective restoration: a multi-site bracken control study

  • Published source details Alday J.G. , Cox E.S., Pakeman R.J., Harris M.P.K., LeDuc M.G. & Marrs R.H. (2013) Overcoming resistance and resilience of an invaded community is necessary for effective restoration: a multi-site bracken control study. Journal of Applied Ecology, 50, 156-167

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Cut and apply herbicide to control bracken

Action Link
Shrubland and Heathland Conservation

Use herbicide to control bracken

Action Link
Shrubland and Heathland Conservation

Cut to control bracken

Action Link
Shrubland and Heathland Conservation
  1. Cut and apply herbicide to control bracken

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 1993–2003 in three heathland sites in Cannock and the Peak District, UK (Alday et al. 2013) found that cutting bracken Pteridium aquilinum and then spraying asulam increased heathland species richness but spraying asulam and then cutting did not. In plots where bracken was cut and then asulam was applied, species richness was higher ten years after treatment (5.2–8.1) than after one year 4–6.3). However, in plots where bracken was first sprayed and then cut, species richness was lower ten years after treatment (3.1–5.5) than after one year (3.6–6.1). Over the same period species richness decreased in untreated plots (one year after: 3.2–4.9; 10 years after: 2.6–3.9) (data presented as model results). Ten years after treatment, species composition in plots where bracken had been treated was not significantly different from untreated plots (data presented as ordination results). Between six and eighteen 10 x 12 m and 10 x 5 m plots were selected and cutting of bracken and application of herbicide took place between June and August 1993. In one site treatments were repeated in August 1999. Vegetation was monitored annually in June using 1 x 1 m quadrats.

    (Summarised by: Phil Martin)

  2. Use herbicide to control bracken

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 1993–2003 in three heathland sites in Cannock and the Peak District, UK (Alday et al. 2013) found that spraying bracken Pteridium aquilinum with the herbicide asulam increased heathland species richness. In plots where asulam was applied, species richness was higher ten years after herbicide spraying (4.9–7.6) than one year after spraying (4.5–7.1). However, over the same period species richness decreased in unsprayed plots (one year after: 3.2–4.9; 10 years after: 2.6–3.9) (data presented as model results). Ten years after treatment, species composition in sprayed and unsprayed plots did not differ significantly from unsprayed plots (data presented as ordination results). Between four and twelve 10 x 12 m and 10 x 5 m plots were selected and the herbicide asulam was sprayed in August 2003. Vegetation was monitored annually in June using 1 x 1 m quadrats.

    (Summarised by: Phil Martin)

  3. Cut to control bracken

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 1993–2003 in four heathland sites in Cannock and the Peak District, UK (Alday et al. 2013) found that cutting of bracken Pteridium aquilinum increased heathland species richness and moved heathland species composition towards pre-invasion conditions. In both plots where bracken was cut once and twice per year, species richness was higher ten years after cutting (bracken cut once a year: 6.5–9.8; bracken cut twice a year: 6.8–10.1) than one year after cutting (bracken cut once a year: 4.3–6.2; bracken cut twice a year: 3.7–6.7). However, over the same period species richness decreased in uncut plots (one year after: 3.2–4.9; 10 years after: 2.6–3.9) (data presented as model results). Ten years after treatment, species composition in plots where bracken was cut was significantly different from uncut plots and closer to pre-invasion conditions (data presented as ordination results). Between four and twelve plots measuring 10 x 12 m, 10 x 5 m and 6 x 5 m were selected and bracken was cut once a year in June in three of four sites, and twice a year (June and August) in all four. Vegetation was monitored annually in June using 1 x 1 m quadrats.

    (Summarised by: Phil Martin)

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

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