Use shelterwood harvest instead of clearcutting

Overall effectiveness category Likely to be beneficial
Number of studies: 3
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

75%
Certainty

55%
Harms

15%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

Shelterwood harvesting is a management technique designed to obtain even-aged trees without clearcutting. It involves harvesting trees in a series of partial cuts, with trees removed uniformly over the plot. This allows new seedlings to grow from seeds dispersed by older trees. This can help in maintaining distinctive forest species and increase structural diversity of stands.

Study locations

Key messages

Three replicated, controlled studies in Sweden and the USAfound that shelterwood harvesting resulted in higher plant diversity, lower grass cover and higher density of tree species compared with clearcutting.

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 1985-1993 in temperate coniferous forest in Sweden (Hannerz & Hånell 1997) found that shelterwood harvesting increased plant diversity compared with clearcutting. Plant diversity was higher in shelterwood (Simpson index: 0.48) than in clearcut areas (0.37). Species richness, average height and total cover of plants were similar between shelterwood (species: 5.3/0.25 m²; height: 33 cm; cover: 75%) and clearcut areas (species: 4.2/0.25 m²: height: 34 cm: cover: 65%). In 1985, 2-4 clearcut (all trees removed) plots (40 × 25 m) and 4-8 shelterwood (140-200 trees/ha retained) plots (20 × 25 m) were established in each of four sites. Monitoring was undertaken in 1993 in 24-160 subplots/treatment in each site. Each subplot was 0.5 × 0.5 m.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Hannerz M. & Hånell B. (1997) Effects on the flora in Norway spruce forests following clearcutting and shelterwood cutting. Forest Ecology and Management, 90, 29-49.
A replicated, controlled study in 1974-1992 in temperate coniferous forest in Montana, USA (Shearer & Schmidt 1999) found that shelterwood harvesting increased the density of conifers compared with clearcutting. Density (trees/ha) of conifers >30 cm tall (shelterwood: 19,895; clearcut: 6,834) and total conifer density (shelterwood: 31,389; clearcut: 8,741) were the highest in shelterwood. Three blocks of each treatment, shelterwood and clearcutting, were duplicated in two sites in 1974. Data were collected in 1992 in 80 plots (0.004 ha) in each treatment block.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Shearer R.C. & Schmidt J.A. (1999) Natural regeneration after harvest and residue treatment in a mixed conifer forest of northwestern Montana. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 29, 274-279.
A replicated, study in 1993-2000 in temperate forest in Sweden (Karlsson & Nilsson 2005) found that shelterwood harvesting increased the density of some tree species and decreased the cover of grasses compared with clearcutting. Density (seedlings/ha) of Scots pine Pinus sylvestris (shelterwood: 18,500-23,000; clearcut: 3,000-6,500) and Norway spruce Picea abies (shelterwood: 17,000-20,000; clearcut: 2,500-3,000) was higher in shelterwood while density of birch Downy birch Betula pubescens and Silver birch B. pendula was similar between treatments (3,500-8,500 seedlings/ha). Cover of grasses (shelterwood: 19-20%; clearcut: 32-35%) was lower in shelterwood while cover of herbs (5-11%) and dwarf-shrubs (12-18%) was similar. In 1993-1995 two shelterwood (cutting 40% of volume) and two clearcut treatment plots (0.4 ha) were established in each of eight sites. Data were collected in 2000.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Karlsson M. & Nilsson U. (2005) The effects of scarification and shelterwood treatments on naturally regenerated seedlings in southern Sweden. Forest Ecology and Management, 205, 183-197.

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

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Forest Conservation

Related Actions

Actions	Effectiveness	Studies	Category
Use brash mats during harvesting to avoid soil compaction Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link
Remove woody debris after timber harvest Action Link	Unlikely to be beneficial	12	Synopsis Link
Use shelterwood harvest instead of clearcutting Action Link	Likely to be beneficial	3	Synopsis Link