Use patch retention instead of clearcutting

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

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

20%
Certainty

25%
Harms

0%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

Patch retention harvesting may be used as an alternative to a total clearcutting in commercial forests exploited for timber. Typically, around 10% of trees are retained in patches within a clearcut area. These retained patches can help maintain characteristic forest species and act as reservoirs for recolonization by forest dependent species.

Study locations

Key messages

We found no evidence for the effect of retaining patches of trees rather than clearcutting on amphibian populations.
One replicated study in Canada found that although released red-legged frogs did not show significant movement towards retained tree patches, large patches were selected more and moved out of less than small patches.

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 study in 2000–2001 of red-legged frogs Rana aurora in harvested coniferous forest on Vancouver Island, Canada (Chan-McLeod & Moy 2007) found that although frogs did not show significant movement towards retained patches of trees within the harvested area, large patches of trees were selected more and moved out of less than small patches. Overall, 55% of frogs left patches of trees within 72 hours of being released. However, frogs were less likely to leave with increasing patch size and stream density. Frogs did not tend to move towards patches unless released within 20 m. However, when given a choice, frogs moved towards large patches (0.8 ha) significantly more and small patches (0.3 ha) significantly less than expected. Forest blocks had been harvested two years previously with 5–30% of trees retained. Ten radio-collared frogs were released at the centre of 20 tree patches or at individual trees (canopy areas 1–3 ha) and monitored for 72 hours. Another 10 frogs were released at each of four randomly located tree patches and four other random locations and were monitored for six days. Seven frogs were released from each of four points equal distances from three different size patches (0.3–0.8 ha). Ten frogs were released at five distances (5–80 m) from two patches.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Chan-McLeod A.C.A. & Moy A. (2007) Evaluating residual tree patches as stepping stones and short-term refugia for red-legged frogs. Journal of Wildlife Management, 71, 1836-1844.

Please cite as:

Smith, R.K., Meredith, H. & Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Amphibian Conservation. Pages 9-64 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

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Amphibian Conservation

Related Actions

Actions	Effectiveness	Studies	Category
Retain riparian buffer strips during timber harvest Action Link	Likely to be beneficial	12	Synopsis Link
Harvest groups of trees instead of clearcutting Action Link	Likely to be ineffective or harmful	5	Synopsis Link
Thin trees within forests Action Link	Likely to be ineffective or harmful	9	Synopsis Link