Cover the ground with plastic mats after restoration planting

Overall effectiveness category Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)
Number of studies: 1
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

40%
Certainty

20%
Harms

0%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

Harvesting and replanting have substantial effects on forest biodiversity conservation and maintenance of long-term productivity. Covering the ground using plastic mulch mats can increase the establishment success of planted trees by conserving soil moisture and reducing weed growth and competition.

Study locations

Key messages

One replicated study in Canada found that covering the ground with plastic mats after restoration planting decreased the cover of herbecous plants and grasses.

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 1993-1999 in boreal forest in British Colombia, Canada (1) found that plastic mulch mats decreased the total cover of herbaceous species and grasses in the first three years after treatment, but cover was similar to control plots 5-7 years after treatment. The total cover of grasses and herbaceous species was lower in plots with mulch mats (39-33%) than in control plots (71-68%) in the first three years, but similar 5-7 years after treatment (mulch: 70-90%; control: 80%). Herbaceous species and grasses were monitored in four 12 × 12 m plots of each treatment: control and covered with 90 × 90 cm plastic mulch mats. The study site had been planted with Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii in 1993.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Harper G., Comeau P. & Biring B. (2005) A comparison of herbicide and mulch mat treatments for reducing grass, herb, and shrub competition in the BC interior Douglas-fir zone—ten-year results. Western Journal of Applied Forestry, 20, 167-176.

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 selective thinning after restoration planting Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	1	Synopsis Link
Apply herbicides after restoration planting Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	1	Synopsis Link
Cover the ground using techniques other than plastic mats after restoration planting Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	1	Synopsis Link