Plant trees following clearfelling

Overall effectiveness category Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)
Number of studies: 1
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

50%
Certainty

20%
Harms

0%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

Following felling of tees, for timber harvesting, a range of actions may be employed to accelerate forest regrowth. These include treating with herbicide (to supress herbaceous vegetation) and planting of trees.

Study locations

Key messages

One study evaluated the effects on mammals of planting trees following clearfelling. This study was in Canada.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)

Use (1 study): A replicated, site comparison study in Canada found that forest stands subject to tree planting and herbicide treatment after logging were used more by American martens compared to naturally regenerating stands.

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

A replicated, site comparison study in 2001–2002 of boreal forest stands in Ontario, Canada (Thompson et al. 2008) found that forest stands subject to tree planting and herbicide treatment after logging were used more by American martens Martes americana than were naturally regenerating stands. The effects of planting and herbicide use were not separated in the study. Radio-tracked martens made greater use of planted and herbicide-treated stands than they did of naturally regenerating stands (data not presented). However, the live-capture rate of martens in planted and herbicide-treated stands (5.6 martens/100 trap nights) was not significantly different to that in regenerating stands (1.9 martens/100 trap nights). Stands were 35–45 years old and located in a 600-km² forestry area. Forest stands were either regenerating naturally following logging or planted following logging and treated with herbicide. Martens were live-trapped in 2003–2007, and monitored subsequently by radio-tracking.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Thompson I.D., Baker J.A., Jastrebski C., Dacosta J., Fryxell J. & Corbett D. (2008) Effects of post-harvest silviculture on use of boreal forest stands by amphibians and marten in Ontario. The Forestry Chronicle, 84, 741-747.

Please cite as:

Littlewood, N.A., Rocha, R., Smith, R.K., Martin, P.A., Lockhart, S.L., Schoonover, R.F., Wilman, E., Bladon, A.J., Sainsbury, K.A., Pimm S. and Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Terrestrial Mammal Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Interventions for terrestrial mammals excluding bats and primates. Synopses of Conservation Evidence Series. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

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:

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Related Actions

Actions	Effectiveness	Studies	Category
Retain undisturbed patches during thinning operations Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	2	Synopsis Link
Harvest timber outside mammal reproduction period Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link
Retain riparian buffer strips during timber harvest Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link