How to graze livestock sustainably is an important and complex question. The debate between rotational and continuous grazing has been ongoing since the 1950s, yet evidence is perennially mixed. We used scientometrics to understand the structure of science on Holistic Management (HM), the most contentious of these adaptive practices. We used papers in Web of Science since 1980 citing the work of HM's ‘father’, Allan Savory, as a way of delineating a field that is otherwise chaotic with terminology. Results show an increasingly diverse use of Savory's work geographically and in terms of subject areas. Taking a positive position on HM seems most likely for those doing farm-scale (rather than experimental) work in dry climates. Bibliographic factions align with the various disciplines working on grazing research and also their expressed opinion on HM practices. Factions represent disciplinary strength, suggesting barriers for integrative work but also the need for the resolution of competing understandings in specific contexts with diverse participants to inform grazing decisions.

A growing literature argues for evidence-based conservation. This concept reflects a wider approach to policy-making and follows thinking in medicine, in which rigorous, objective analysis of evidence has contributed to widespread improvements in medical outcomes. Clearly, conservation decisions should be informed by the best information available. However, we identify issues relating to the type and sources of evidence commonly used and the way evidence-based conservation studies frame policy debate. In this paper we discuss two issues; firstly, we ask ‘what counts as evidence?’ (what is meant by evidence, and what kind of evidence is given credibility). We conclude that evidence-based conservation should adopt a broad definition of evidence to give meaningful space for qualitative data, and local and indigenous knowledge. Secondly, we ask ‘how does evidence count?’ (the relationship between evidence and the policy-making process). We conclude that there should be greater recognition that policy-making is a complex and messy process, and that the role of evidence in policy making can never be neutral. In the light of these issues we suggest some changes to build on developing practice under the title evidence-informed conservation. The change in terminology is subtle, yet it has profound implications in that it calls for a re-positioning and re-understanding of conservation science as one source of information among many for decision-makers.