Reseed logged forest
Overall effectiveness category Awaiting assessment
Number of studies: 1
Background information and definitions
This intervention involves re-seeding logged forest to re-establish tree communities after cutting, as opposed to leaving forest to regenerate naturally.
Supporting evidence from individual studies
A replicated, site comparison study in 1991–1992 in sand-pine scrub forest in Florida, USA (Greenberg et al. 1994) found that clearcutting with reseeding did not have greater reptile species richness, abundance, or diversity than salvage logging with natural regeneration but that community composition differed between managed and unmanaged stands. Logging and seeding treatments were carried out together and it is not possible to distinguish their effects. Reptile species richness, abundance, diversity and evenness were similar between clearcutting with broadcast seeded (richness: 8 species/stand, abundance: 69 individuals/stand, Shannon Diversity Index: 0.7, evenness: 0.8, see paper for details), clearcutting with direct-drill seeded plots (7, 79, 0.6, 0.8), salvaged logged with natural regeneration (9, 41, 0.8, 0.8), and unmanaged stands (9, 31, 0.8, 0.8). Community composition was similar between all managed plots (0.88–0.95), but all managed plots were less similar to mature forest stands (0.54–0.65, results reported as Horn’s Index of Community Similarity, see original paper for details including individual species abundances). Forest stands were managed by: clearcutting with roller chopping and broadcast seeding, clearcutting with direct-drill machine-seeding and salvage logging with natural regeneration (following a high intensity wildfire) (three stands/management type). Reptiles were surveyed 5–7 years after management in August 1991–September 1992 by trapping every alternate two weeks using drift fences with pitfall and funnel traps. Reptiles were also trapped in three unlogged stands that had not been burned or otherwise managed for 55 years.Study and other actions tested