Cover the ground using techniques other than 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

30%
Certainty

15%
Harms

10%

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 different techniques can increase the establishment success of planted trees by conserving soil moisture and reducing weed growth and competition.

Study locations

Key messages

One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that covering the ground with mulch after planting increased total plant cover.

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, randomized, controlled study in 1991-1995 in a degraded temperate coniferous forest in Idaho, USA (Walsh & Redente 2011) found that covering the ground after restoration planting had mixed effects or no effect on vegetation cover depending on material used. Total plant cover was higher in plots covered with local redtop hay (46-49%) and erosion control blanket (50-54%) than plots covered with wood-fiber hydro mulch (33-35%) or uncovered (32-35%). Each of four covering treatments: local redtop hay (at 4.5 x 10³kg/ha), erosion control blanket (consisting of wood shavings of aspen and alder placed between two plastic nets), wood-fiber hydro mulch (applied at a rate of 1,682 kg/ha) and uncovered was applied in 1991 to four plots (3 × 10 m) at each of two hilltop sites. All plots were planted with western white pine Pinus monticola trees, shrubs and grasses before treatments in 1991. Vegetation cover was measured in 1995.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Walsh J.R. & Redente E.F. (2011) Comparison of reclamation techniques to re‐establish western white pine on smelter‐impacted hillsides in Idaho. Restoration Ecology, 19, 141-150.

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