Use partial retention harvesting instead of clearcutting

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

Study locations

Key messages

  • 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.


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 replicated study in 1999-2000 in boreal forest in Alberta, Canada (Frey et al. 2003) found that partial retention harvesting decreased the cover and root-sucker density of Populus spp. compared with clearcutting. Cover of Populus spp. (clearcutting: 9%; thinning: 3%) and density of Populus spp. root-suckers (stems/ha) (clearcutting: 74,800; thinning: 53,900) were higher in clearcut sites. Data were collected in August 2000 in twenty 2 x 2 m plots in each of three replicates of clearcutting (complete removal) and partial removal (50% of basal area removed) treatment units (10 ha). Treatments were applied during the winter of 1998-1999.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A replicated, controlled study in 1999-2007 in boreal mixed wood forest in Alberta, Canada (Gradowski et al. 2010) found that low logging intensity levels decreased young tree density compared with clearcutting. Young tree density for the dominant species trembling aspen Populus tremuloides and balsam poplar Populus balsamifera was higher in clearcutt plots (15,000/ha) than in 50% (7,000) and 75% tree area retention sites (3,000), and higher in 10% (12,000) than in 75% tree retention sites. In 20% retention sites, density was similar to all other retention levels (9,000). Each of five logging intensity levels: clearcutting (0%), 10%, 20%, 50% and 75% of the area retained were applied in nine 10 ha forest compartments. Regeneration of trembling aspen and balsam poplar was assessed using six 2 × 10 m plots in each compartment (total of 270 plots).

    Study and other actions tested
  3. A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 1994-2005 in temperate coniferous woodland in British Columbia, Canada (Newsome et al. 2010) found that partial-cutting decreased the cover of understory conifers compared with clearcutting at one of two sites. At one site cover of tall (2-10 m) understory conifers was higher in clearcut (12%) than partial-cut plots (3-6%). Cover of other plants was similar between treatments: tall shrubs (clearcut: 19%; partial-cut: 13-15%), short (<2 m) shrubs (clearcut: 39%; partial-cut: 24-28%), short conifers (clearcut: 2%; partial-cut: 4-5%), herbs (clearcut: 37%; partial-cut: 36-41%) and mosses and lichens (clearcut: 6%; partial-cut: 12-22%). At a second site, cover of plant groups was similar between treatments: tall conifers (clearcut: 8%; partial-cut: 6-8%), short conifers (clearcut: 10%; partial-cutt: 10-14%), tall shrubs (clearcut: 12%; partial-cut: 3-4%), short shrubs (clearcut: 41%; partial-cut: 19-28%), herbs (clearcut: 23%; partial-cut: 21-22%) and mosses and lichens (clearcut: 6%; partial-cut: 13-19%). Data were collected in 2004-2005 in 16 subplots (200 m2) within each of four clearcut and eight partial cut (25-50% of basal area retained) treatment plots (1 ha) in each of two sites. Treatments were applied in 1994-1996.

    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 21

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 ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust