Coppice trees

Overall effectiveness category Awaiting assessment
Number of studies: 1
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

not assessed
Certainty

not assessed
Harms

not assessed

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

Coppicing is a management practice typical of Eurasian northern temperate zone deciduous woodlands and wood pastures, in which stems of tree species, such as hazel Corylus avellana and sweet chestnut Castanea sativa, are cut near ground level once every few years, often in defined coppice compartments. These then regrow from the cut ‘stool’ giving a sustainable yield of woody material harvested on a rotational basis. Coppicing maintains a mosaic of woodland areas with differing amounts of daylight reaching the forest floor and, therefore, promotes a variety of ground vegetation conditions. This may benefit reptiles that require either open canopy woodland or a mix of open and more closed woodland in close proximity. Coppicing has declined over the last century and some former coppice woodlands are no longer actively managed.

Study locations

Key messages

One study evaluated the effects of coppicing trees on reptile populations. This study was in the UK.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the UK found that no slow worms or common lizards were found in coppiced areas of woodland, whereas they were found in open areas maintained by vegetation cutting.

BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

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 (year not provided) in two sites of temperate broadleaf woodland on the border of Northamptonshire and Cambridgeshire, UK (Fish 2015) found that in coppiced areas of a woodland no slow worms Anguis fragilis or common lizards Zootoca vivipara were found, whereas both species were found in open areas maintained by cutting. No slow worms or common lizards were found in either recently coppiced sites (2–6 years previously) or older coppiced sites (9–17 years old), whereas 41 common lizards and 102 slow worms were found in open areas maintained by cutting. In each of two areas of woodland, three sites of recently coppiced woodland (2–6 years old), three sites of older coppice (9–17 years old) and three open areas were selected (one of the open areas was selected two weeks after surveys began). All coppiced areas were dominated by small-leaved lime trees Tilia cordata. At each survey site, 20 coverboards (50 x 50 cm; 10 made of roofing felt, 10 made of corrugated bitumen) were arranged in a grid, with 5 m gaps between boards. Coverboards were left for one week, and then checked for reptiles on 3–6 days/week for eight weeks.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Fish A. (2015) Common lizards (Zootoca vivipara) and slow-worms (Anguis fragilis) are not found in coppiced small-leaved lime (Tilia cordata) areas of a Northamptonshire-Cambridgeshire nature reserve. The Herpetological Bulletin, 134, 26-27.

Please cite as:

Sainsbury K.A., Morgan W.H., Watson M., Rotem G., Bouskila A., Smith R.K. & Sutherland W.J. (2021) Reptile Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Interventions for reptiles. Conservation Evidence Series Synopsis. 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:

Reptile Conservation

Related Actions

Actions	Effectiveness	Studies	Category
Retain riparian buffer strips during timber harvest Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link
Use shelterwood harvesting Action Link	Awaiting assessment	2	Synopsis Link
Harvest groups of trees instead of clearcutting Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link