Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Transplant trees We found no evidence for the effect of transplanting trees on planted trees. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1162https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1162Wed, 18 May 2016 15:42:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use pioneer plants or crops as nurse plants We found no evidence for the effect of using pioneer plants or crops on planted trees. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1163https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1163Wed, 18 May 2016 15:47:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use brash mats during harvesting to avoid soil compaction We found no evidence for the effects of using brash mats during harvesting to avoid soil compaction on forests. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1180https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1180Thu, 19 May 2016 10:36:08 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Sustainable management of non-timber forest products We found no evidence for the effects of sustainable management of non-timber forest products on forests. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1182https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1182Thu, 19 May 2016 10:39:39 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use grazing to remove invasive plant species We found no evidence for the effects of using grazing to remove invasive plant species on forests. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1195https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1195Thu, 19 May 2016 13:10:18 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use fencing to enclose large herbivores (e.g. deer) We found no evidence of the effects of using fencing to enclose large herbivores on forests. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1199https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1199Thu, 19 May 2016 13:15:58 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Thin trees within forests: effects on mature trees Eleven of 12 studies (including two replicated, randomized, controlled studies) in Brazil, Canada, and the USA found that thinning trees in forests decreased the density and cover of trees. One study found no effect of thinning on tree density. Five of six studies (including one replicated, controlled, before-and-after study) in Australia, Sweden and the USA found that thinning trees in forests increased tree size. One found mixed effects of thinning on tree size. One replicated, controlled study in the USA found that thinning trees in forests decreased tree species richness and diversity. One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that thinning reduced the number of conifers killed by beetles. Two replicated, controlled studies in the USA found no effect of thinning on bark-beetle caused tree mortality. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1209https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1209Thu, 19 May 2016 15:02:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Thin trees within forests: effects on young trees Six of twelve studies (including two replicated, randomized, controlled studies) in Japan and the USA found that thinning trees in forests increased the density of young trees. One study found that thinning decreased the density of young trees. Five found no effect or mixed effects on the density of young trees. One replicated, controlled study in the USA found no effect of thinning on the density of oak acorns. One controlled study in Peru found that thinning increased the growth rate of young trees. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1210https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1210Thu, 19 May 2016 15:49:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Thin trees within forests: effects on understory plants Seventeen of 25 studies (including four replicated, randomized, controlled studies) in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Japan, Spain and the USA found that thinning trees in forests increased the density and cover of understory plants. Seven studies found no effect or mixed effects. One study found a decrease in the abundance of herbaceous species. Thirteen of 19 studies (including 10 replicated, randomized, controlled studies) in Argentina, Canada, Sweden, the USA and West Africa found that thinning trees in forests increased species richness and diversity of understory plants. Seven studies found no effect. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1211https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1211Fri, 20 May 2016 08:24:54 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Thin trees within forests: effects on non-vascular plants Four studies (including one replicated, randomized, controlled study) in Canada, Finland, and Sweden examined the effects of thinning trees in forests on non-vascular plants. Three found it decreased epiphytic plant abundance and species richness. Three found mixed effects depending on thinning method and species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1212https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1212Fri, 20 May 2016 13:24:45 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use partial retention harvesting instead of clearcutting Three studies (including one replicated, randomized, controlled study) in Canada found that using partial retention harvesting instead of clearcutting decreased the density of young trees. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1215https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1215Fri, 20 May 2016 13:59:21 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use herbicides to remove understory vegetation to reduce wildfires We found no evidence for the effects of using herbicides to remove understory vegetation to reduce wildfiress. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1218https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1218Fri, 20 May 2016 14:40:39 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use clearcutting to increase understory diversity Eight of 12 studies (including three replicated, randomized, controlled studies) in Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Germany, Israel, spain and the USA found that clearcutting increased the cover and species richness of understory plants. Two found it decreased the density and species richness, and two found no effect or mixed effects. Three of six studies (including five replicated, randomized, controlled studies) in Brazil, Canada and Spain found that clearcutting increased the density and species richness of young trees. One found it decreased new tree density and two found no effect or mixed effects depending on the tree species. Three of nine studies (including four replicated, randomized, controlled studies) in Australia, Brazil4, Canada, Japan and the USA found that clearcutting decreased density, species richness and diversity of mature trees. One study found it increased trees species richness .Six studies found no effect or mixed effects on tree density, size and species richness and diversity. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1222https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1222Mon, 23 May 2016 08:58:48 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use group-selection harvesting Four of eight studies (including one replicated, controlled study) in Australia, Canada, Costa Rica and the USA found that group-selection harvesting increased cover and diversity of understory plants and the density of young trees. Two studies found it decreased understory species richness2 and biomass.Two studies found no effect on understory species richness and diversity and two found no effect of group-selection harvest on tree density and growth-rate. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1224https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1224Mon, 23 May 2016 09:45:25 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use herbicides to thin trees One replicated, controlled study in Canada found no effect of using herbicide to thin pine trees on total plant species richness. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1225https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1225Mon, 23 May 2016 10:33:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Thin trees by girdling (cutting rings around tree trunks) One before-and-after trial in Canada found that thinning trees by girdling (cutting rings around tree trunks) increased understory plant species richness, diversity and cover. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1226https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1226Mon, 23 May 2016 10:34:52 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use herbicides to control invasive plant species One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found no effect of invasive plant control using herbicide on the total native plant species richness. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1229https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1229Mon, 23 May 2016 10:52:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use electric fencing to exclude large native herbivores One controlled study in South Africa found that using electric fencing to exclude elephants and nyalas increased tree density. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1231https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1231Mon, 23 May 2016 11:15:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Thin trees after wildfire Five replicated, controlled studies examined the effects of thinning trees in burnt forest areas. Two studies in Spain found that thinning increased plant species richness. One in Canada found that it increased the cover of aspen saplings. One study in the USA found thinning decreased plant biomass and one in Israel found it decreased mortality of pine seedlings. One paired-site study in Canada found that logging after wildfire decreased species richness and diversity of mosses. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1234https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1234Thu, 02 Jun 2016 14:31:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use fertilizer Six of eight studies (including five replicated, randomized, controlled) in the USA, Finland, Brazil, Australia and Switzerland found that applying fertilizer increased total plant cover, understory plant biomass , size of young trees, relative biomass of grasses (out of total biomass of all plants) and cover of plant species that were seeded artificially. Five of the studies found no effect of applying fertilizer on plant biomass, plant cover, seedling abundance, tree growth and tree seedling diversity. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1248https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1248Fri, 03 Jun 2016 11:30:08 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use fertilizer after tree planting Two replicated, controlled studies in Canada and Portugal found that applying fertilizer after planting increased the size of the planted trees. One randomized, replicated, controlled study in Australia found that soil enhancers including fertilizer had a mixed effect on seedling survival and height. Three studies (including two randomized, replicated, controlled study) in France and Australia found no effect of applying fertilizer on the size and survival rate or health of planted trees. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1260https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1260Mon, 06 Jun 2016 10:48:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use mechanical thinning before or after planting Five of six studies (including two replicated, randomized, controlled studies) in Brazil, Canada, Finland, France and the USA found that thinning trees after planting increased survival and size of the planted trees. One study found it decreased their density. One study found that the effects of thinning on the size and survival rate of planted trees varied between species. One replicated study in the USA found that the survival rate of red oak seedlings increased with the size of the thinned area. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1261https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1261Mon, 06 Jun 2016 11:04:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use herbicides after tree planting Two of three studies (including two replicated, randomized, controlled studies) in Sweden and the USA found that using herbicide increased the size of planted trees. One study found no effect on tree size. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Sweden found no effect of using herbicide on frost damage caused to planted Norway spruce seedlings. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1262https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1262Mon, 06 Jun 2016 13:13:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use different planting or seeding methods Four studies (including one replicated, randomized study) in Australia, Brazil, Costa Rica and Mexico found no effect of planting or seeding methods on the size and survival rate of seedlings. One replicated, controlled study in Brazil found that planting early succession pioneer tree species decreased the height of other planted species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1264https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1264Mon, 06 Jun 2016 15:01:28 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use herbicides to remove invasive plant species One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found no effect of invasive plant control using herbicide on the total native plant species richness. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1314https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1314Fri, 23 Sep 2016 14:49:03 +0100