Applying evidence-based practice in conservation management: Lessons from the first systematic review and dissemination projects

Lack of systematic evaluation of the effectiveness of conservation practices has hindered advances in scientific management of biodiversity. Development of an evidence-based framework of the kind used in the health services has been advocated as an approach to address this problem. Here we report on and evaluate the first two ecological systematic reviews undertaken using this framework. The subjects were the effectiveness of burning as a conservation intervention for UK sub-montane, dry dwarf shrub heaths (heath review) and blanket bog (bog review). Systematic search yielded 13 data sets from seven ‘heath’ articles and 11 data sets from eight ‘bog’ articles. Data from the heath review were of sufficient quality to enable meta-analysis whereas data from the bog review was synthesised by “vote counting”. Meta-analysis of the heath data indicates that floristic diversity is variable, particularly in early post-fire successional sequences, but older stands experienced significantly greater loss of diversity than younger stands. The bog review indicates that there are no consistent changes in floristic composition in response to burning. The evidence-base for upland management by burning is insufficient to generate robust management recommendations highlighting the necessity for further work. Feedback from the dissemination of the reviews provided valuable lessons for future reviews in terms of stakeholder involvement in question formulation and the balance between a reductionist and holistic approach. Systematic reviews are appropriate tools for conservation management and formalise the information available based on the weight of evidence. Evidence will commonly be lacking in many areas of conservation biology and the evidence-based framework effectively exposes this situation in a way that can determine requirements for needs-led research.