Action Synopsis: Bird Conservation About Actions

Use prescribed burning on Australian sclerophyll forest

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
  • Certainty
  • Harms

Study locations

Key messages

  • Two of three studies from Australia found no differences in bird species richness in burned sites compared to unburned areas.
  • Three studies found differences in species assemblages in burned and unburned areas, with some species lost and others gained from areas after fire.


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

  1. A before-and-after study at Treen Brook State Forest, Western Australia, Australia (Wooller & Brooker 1980), in 1978-1979 found no significant effect on overall bird abundance of understorey burning of karri Eucalyptus diversicolor forest, but two species (of low conservation concern) present prior to the burn were absent afterwards and five species not caught pre-burn were captured post-burn. Capture data from pre-burn (May 1978; 31 net-days) and post-burn (May 1979; 37 net-days) mist-netting was used to monitor birds. In May 1979, 83 individuals of 15 species were captured, comparable to the 66 individuals of 12 species caught in May 1978 (allowing for difference in catch effort).

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A replicated study in 1999 in 36 sclerophyll forest sites in southeast Queensland, Australia (Smyth et al. 2002), at found that two of the eleven hollow-nesting species analysed (brown treecreeper Climacteris picumnus, little lorikeet Climacteris picumnus) were positively associated with more frequent prescribed burning. No species were negatively associated with more frequent prescribed burning.

    Study and other actions tested
  3. A randomised, controlled study in January-March 2001 in eucalypt and riparian woodland at three sites along seasonally dry watercourses in northeast Queensland, Australia (Valentine et al. 2007), found no significant differences in overall bird species richness between 10 ha plots burned during the dry season (August 2000), the wet season (December 1999) or unburned plots. Two species were more abundant in the dry season burned compared to unburned sites, while one was more abundant in the dry season burned areas than under other treatments and two species were less abundant after burns. Two other species’ responses varied depending on which forest type they were in. Follow-up surveys in 2004 found no differences in species richness between fire treatments.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Williams, D.R., Child, M.F., Dicks, L.V., Ockendon, N., Pople, R.G., Showler, D.A., Walsh, J.C., zu Ermgassen, E.K.H.J. & Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Bird Conservation. Pages 137-281 in: W.J. Sutherland, L.V. Dicks, S.O. Petrovan & R.K. Smith (eds) What Works in Conservation 2020. Open Book Publishers, Cambridge, UK.


Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Bird Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Bird Conservation
What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

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

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

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 21

Go to the CE Journal

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.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust