Improve soil quality after tree planting (excluding applying fertilizer)

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
  • Certainty
  • Harms

Study locations

Key messages

  • One of two randomized, replicated, controlled studies in Australia found that different soil enhancers had mixed effects on tree seedling survival and height, but no effect on tree seedling health. The other found that combinations of soil enhancers did not increase seedling survival, height, diameter or health.


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

  1. A randomized, replicated, controlled study in 1995–2007 in a limestone quarry in Western Australia (Ruthrof, Bell & Calver 2009) found that adding a variety of soil enhancers together to the soil did not increase the survival, height, diameter or health of tree seedlings. Experiment one found that three soil enhancers did not affect survival (no data), height (soil enhancers: 0.06–7m; untreated: 4.4–5.2 m), diameter (soil enhancers: 0.3–12.9 cm; untreated: 4.6–7.8 cm) or health class (soil enhancers: 2–5; untreated: 3–4.4) of tuart Eucalyptus gomphocephala and Limestone Marlock E. decipiens seedlings. Experiment two found that adding three soil enhancers with fertiliser tablets did not affect survival (no data), height (soil enhancers: 1.6–6 m; untreated: 1.6–6.8 m), diameter (soil enhancers: 1.5–6.5 cm; untreated: 2–7.9 cm) or health (soil enhancers: 2.3–5; untreated: 3.5–4.5) of tuart, Limestone Marlock and coojong Acacia saligna seedlings. Experiment one consisted of four blocks each containing six plots (6 × 10 m). Experiment two consisted of four blocks each with four plots (5 × 6 m). In experiment one, treated plots received all but one of the following treatments: fertiliser tablets, added topsoil, sewage sludge and micronutrients (details see paper). In experiment two, treated plots received all four treatments. Half the plots in each experiment received one application of broadcast fertilizer (superphosphate: 400 kg/ha and potassium chloride: 100 kg/ha). Five seedlings of each species were planted/plot. After 12 years, the survival, height, diameter and health class (index based on stress, herbivory and nutrient deficiencies, 1: dead; 5: healthy) of all seedlings was assessed.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A randomized, replicated, controlled study in 2008–2009 in two sites in degraded tuart Eucalyptus gomphocephala woodlands in Western Australia (Ruthrof et al. 2012) found that adding soil enhancers (other than fertilizers) had mixed effects on tuart seedling survival and height but no effect on seedling health. At one site, seedlings were taller in plots treated with a biological stimulant for soil microbes (approx. 106 cm) than in untreated plots (approx. 82), but smaller where a clay-based amendment was added (approx. 63 cm; data taken from a graph). No other treatments had an effect on height (see paper for additional data). None of the treatments increased survival rate. At a second site, seedlings height and survival were higher in plots with fertilizer + moisture retaining chemicals (survival: 80%; height 39 cm) or fertilizer + moisture retaining chemicals + metal ion retaining agent (survival: 82%; height 37 cm) than in untreated plots (survival: 54%; height 28 cm). However, they did not differ from plots treated with fertilizer tablets (survival: 96%; height 50 cm). None of the other treatments had an effect on survival or height. None of the treatments had an effect on plant health class at either site. Each site had three blocks each with six plots (6 × 10 m) containing 20 tuart seedlings. Each plot received one of the following treatments:  fertilizer tablets, a clay-based amendment, a biological stimulant for soil microbes, fertilizer + moisture retaining chemicals, fertilizer + moisture retaining chemicals + metal ion retaining agent, or was left untreated (for details see study, fertilizer treatments differed).  After one year the survival, growth and health of all seedlings was assessed. Seedling health class was based on general vigour, crown density, colour and amount eaten by herbivores.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Agra, H., Schowanek, S., Carmel, Y., Smith, R.K. & Ne’eman, G. (2020) Forest Conservation. Pages 323-366 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

Forest Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Forest Conservation
Forest Conservation

Forest Conservation - Published 2016

Forest synopsis

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 20

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 Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered speciesVincet Wildlife Trust