Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ ZENODOarrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
ZENODO
Report . 2025
License: CC BY
Data sources: ZENODO
ZENODO
Report . 2025
License: CC BY
Data sources: Datacite
ZENODO
Report . 2025
License: CC BY
Data sources: Datacite
versions View all 2 versions
addClaim

Strategic Bracken Framework - Stakeholder Research (RDE747) - Final Report

Authors: Pakeman, Robin J.; Roberts, Martyn;

Strategic Bracken Framework - Stakeholder Research (RDE747) - Final Report

Abstract

Background In 2022 Natural England and NatureScot, alongside the other Statutory Nature Conservation Bodies for Wales and Northern Ireland, and statutory historic advisers established a “bracken working group” aimed at addressing the over-reliance on herbicides in bracken management and establishing a more sustainable approach. This group published updated preliminary UK bracken management guidance in 2024 as a stepping stone to develop a UK-wide strategic framework for bracken management. This project builds on the above work. It has included stakeholder engagement, a questionnaire and four workshops followed by analysis to identify how stakeholders currently address land management issues concerning bracken. The project also sought to identify what type and format of advice they would prefer in a Framework tool, and what further information is required to provide management advice into the future. Main findings · Prior to 2023 (Scotland and Wales) or 2024 (England) the dominant means of control reported from the questionnaire was Asulox spraying, but current control is dominated by mechanical methods and the use of livestock · Few respondents to the questionnaire were carrying out follow-up work to restore habitats · Respondents were mainly sourcing information from the Bracken Control Group, from official guidance and from peers · Workshop attendees highlighted that guidance needs to be improved and tailored for different contexts and different aims. It needs to include information on cost-effectiveness, regulation and funding · Attendees highlighted that the best method of information dissemination was demonstration sites and field meetings · Attendees highlighted the need to share experience, potentially through sharing case studies on an online platform, though this would need hosting and moderating · A range of knowledge gaps emerged including information on bracken extent, risks to human and animal health, the full carbon costs of control, and an overall assessment of the benefits and disbenefits of bracken and its control · More information was needed to improve bracken control particularly around how to use livestock in controlling bracken, how best to establish trees in bracken, how to improve current mechanical methods, assessing the best use of alternative herbicides and the potential of new technology

Related Organizations
Keywords

herbicide, Weed Control, mechanical control, bracken

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average
Green