Why remove topsoil

November 27, at AM. March 24, at PM. JPS consulting Engineers said May 10, at AM. March 29, at AM. May 8, at AM. Alexia Clark said June 3, at AM. Petey Cruiser said June 23, at AM. Newer Post Older Post Home.

Subscribe to: Post Comments Atom. Blog Archive. Damp-proof courses. Materials for underfloor insulation. Resistance to the Passage of Heat.

Mastic asphalt or pitch mastic. Bitumen sheet. Hot pitch or bitumen. Polythene and polyethylene sheet. Materials for damp-proof membrane. Damp-proof membrane below a floor screed. Surface damp-proof membrane. Damp-proof membrane below site concrete. Damp-Proof Membrane - Concrete. Made up ground - Soils. Metamorphic Rocks. Oversite Concrete Concrete Oversite. Soluble sulphates, Portland blast-furnace cement, Ready-mixed concrete.

Concrete mixes. Proportioning materials. Water-cement ratio. Fine aggregate and coarse aggregate. All-in aggregate Ballast. Brick of tile rubble, Concrete rubble, Gravel and Hardcore - Name given to the infill of materials.

Oversite concrete - Portland Cement. Laying Drains. Drains - Natural system, Herring bone system, Grid Subsoil drains. Site drainage. Resistance to ground moisture. Foundations on sloping sites. Raft foundation on sloping site. Raft foundation. Pad foundations. Short bored pile foundation. Narrow strip trench fill foundation. Wide strip foundation. Foundation Construction - Strip foundations. Functional Requirement - Strenght and stability — Trial Pits - make an examination of the subsoil on Site visit - Soils.

Site Investigation - Select a foundation from tabl Unstable ground - Soils. Please be aware that given the volume of work we have we cannot guarantee a response to every submission. This score is based on the direction and size of the effects reported in each study. There is some variation between actions, e. The effectiveness score does not consider the quantity or quality of studies; a single, poorly designed study could generate a high effectiveness score.

How certain can we be that the effectiveness score applies to all targets of the intervention e. This score is based on the number, quality and coverage species, habitats, geographical locations of studies. Actions with high scores are supported by lots of well-designed studies with a broad coverage relative to the scope of the intervention.

However, the definition of "lots" and "well-designed" will vary between interventions and synopses depending on the breadth of the subject.

The overall effectiveness category is determined using effectiveness, certainty and harms scores generated by a structured assessment process with multiple rounds of anonymous scoring and commenting a modified Delphi method. In this assessment, independent subject experts listed for each synopsis interpret the summarized evidence using standardised instructions. 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, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress. More about What Works in Conservation. An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions. 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.

We use Cookies to personalise content and ads, provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. By using this site, you will be providing your consent to our use of Cookies. Calculating overall effectiveness category Expert assessment panel.

Background information and definitions Stripping topsoil may help to reduce fertility of soils as well as removing seeds that are found in topsoil. Study locations.

Key messages Two randomized, replicated, controlled studies in the UK found that removal of topsoil did not increase heather cover or cover of heathland species. About key messages Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention. Study and other actions tested Referenced paper Wilton-Jones G. Conservation Evidence , 2, Referenced paper Walker K.

Journal of Applied Ecology , 44, Referenced paper Allison M. Biological Conservation , , Referenced paper Gardiner T. Conservation Evidence , 5, Referenced paper Pedley S. Please cite as: Martin, P. Where has this evidence come from? List of journals searched by synopsis All the journals searched for all synopses This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis: Shrubland and Heathland Conservation.

All synopses About synopses Synopsis protocols Synopsis advisory board. Please select your preferred method below. Text full Text references only RIS. Attach files You may submit up to three additional files. File 1. File 2. File 3. Verification Code. What Works in Conservation What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses.

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 Tweets by ConservEvidence. 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.

Go to the Conservation Evidence blog. Who uses Conservation Evidence?