Action

Maintain/create buffer zones

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    50%
  • Certainty
    10%
  • Harms
    0%

Study locations

Key messages

  • One site comparison study in Australia found that a forest edge protected by a planted buffer strip had higher canopy cover and lower stem density, but similar understory species richness to an unbuffered forest edge.

 

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 site comparison in 2008 in two remnants of complex mesophyll vine forests in North Queensland, Australia (Sonter, Metcalfe & Mayfield 2011) found that a forest edge protected by a planted buffer strip had higher canopy cover and lower stem density, but similar understory species richness to a forest edge with no buffer. Canopy cover in the buffered forest edge (approx. 90%) was higher than that along the edge with no planted buffer (approx. 75%). Similarly, stem density along the buffered edge (approx. 4 trees/m2) was lower than along the unbuffered edge (approx. 14 trees/m2). However, there was no difference in species richness of the understory between the buffered (approx. 1.3 species/m2) and unbuffered edge (approx. 2.4 species/m2). The 30 m wide buffer had been planted 14 years earlier and consisted of 80 different plant species planted 1.8 m apart. The surrounding area consisted of pastures and maintained lawns. The vegetation at each forest edge was sampled using ten 40 m transects, perpendicular to the buffer and the unbuffered forest edge respectively. Each transect contained ten quadrats (1 × 1 m).

     

    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 18

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