Study

Functional diversity response to hardwood forest management varies across taxa and spatial scales

  • Published source details Murray B.D., Holland J.D., Summerville K.S., Dunning J.B., Saunders M.R. & Jenkins M.A. (2017) Functional diversity response to hardwood forest management varies across taxa and spatial scales. Ecological Applications, 27, 1064-1081.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Harvest groups of trees or use thinning instead of clearcutting

Action Link
Butterfly and Moth Conservation

Use shelterwood harvesting instead of clearcutting

Action Link
Butterfly and Moth Conservation
  1. Harvest groups of trees or use thinning instead of clearcutting

    A controlled, before-and-after study in 2007–2014 in two hardwood forest blocks in Indiana, USA (Murray et al. 2017) found that thinned areas had more macro-moth species than patch-cut or clearcut areas, and a similar number to unharvested areas. One–six years after management, the species richness of macro-moths in thinned areas (40–68 species/site) was higher than in patch-cut (30–52 species/site) or clearcut (34–54 species/site) areas, and was similar to shelterwood harvested (53–75 species/site) and unharvested areas (56–84 species/site). Before harvesting, all areas had similar species richness (thinned: 84; patch-cut: 99; clearcut: 96; shelterwood: 95; unharvested: 90 species/site). However, after management, the total species richness in the thinned and patch-cut block was 122–162 species, compared to 144–190 species in the shelterwood and clearcut block, whereas before management richness was similar (thinned/patch-cut: 203; shelterwood/clearcut: 198 species; statistical significance not assessed). Two ~100 ha regenerated forest blocks were managed in autumn 2008. In one “uneven-aged” block, two 2.0-ha, two 1.2-ha and four 0.4-ha areas were patch-cut, and the remaining area was thinned by single-tree selection. In one “even-aged” block, two 4.1-ha areas were clearcut, two 4.1-ha areas were shelterwood harvested (midstory and understory cleared), and the remaining area was not harvested. From May–August 2007 and 2009–2014, macro-moths were sampled on five nights/year (once/fortnight) using 12 W black-light traps. Traps were placed in the centre of 16 patches: four patch-cut and four thinned sites within the uneven-age block, and two clearcut, three shelterwood and three unharvested sites within the even-age block. Species represented by fewer than three individuals were excluded.

    (Summarised by: Andrew Bladon)

  2. Use shelterwood harvesting instead of clearcutting

    A controlled, before-and-after study in 2007–2014 in two hardwood forest blocks in Indiana, USA (Murray et al. 2017) found that shelterwood harvested areas had more macro-moth species than clearcut areas, and a similar number to unharvested forest. One–six years after management, the species richness of macro-moths in shelterwood harvested areas (53–75 species/site) was higher than in clearcut (34–54 species/site) or patch-cut (30–52 species/site) areas, and was similar to thinned (40–68 species/site) or unharvested areas (56–84 species/site). Before harvesting, all areas had similar species richness (shelterwood: 95; clearcut: 96; patch-cut: 99; thinned: 84; unharvested: 90 species/site). After management, the total species richness in the shelterwood and clearcut block was 144–190 species, compared to 122–162 species in the thinned and patch-cut block, whereas before management richness was similar (shelterwood/clearcut: 198; thinned/patch-cut: 203 species; statistical significance not assessed). Two ~100 ha regenerated forest blocks were managed in autumn 2008. In one “even-aged” block, two 4.1-ha areas were shelterwood harvested (non-oak midstory and understory cleared), two 4.1-ha areas were clearcut, and the remaining area was not harvested. In one “uneven-aged” block, two 2.0-ha, two 1.2-ha and four 0.4-ha areas were patch-cut, and the remaining area was thinned by single-tree selection. One block was left unharvested. From May–August 2007 and 2009–2014, macro-moths were sampled on five nights/year (once/fortnight) using 12 W black-light traps. Traps were placed in the centre of 16 patches: three shelterwood, two clearcut and three unharvested sites within the even-age block; four patch-cut and four thinned sites within the uneven-age block. Species represented by fewer than three individuals were excluded.

    (Summarised by: Andrew Bladon)

Output references
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 19

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 Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust