Fence to prevent grazing after tree planting

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

Study locations

Key messages

  • Four of five studies (including two replicated, randomized, controlled studies) in Australia, Canada , Finland and the USA found that using fences to exclude grazing increased the survival, size and cover of planted trees. Two studies found no effect on tree survival rate and one found mixed effects on planted tree size depending on the structure of the fence.


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, randomized, controlled study in 1998-2003 in boreal forest in British Columbia, Canada (Krzic et al. 2006) found that cattle exclusion in rehabilitated forest areas increased the cover of planted lodgepole pine Pinus contorta and one of four non-native forage species alsike clover Trifolium hybridum, but not of any native species. Cover of lodgepole pine (ungrazed: 4.5%; grazed: 2%) and alsike clover (ungrazed: 4%; grazed: 2.5%) was higher in ungrazed plots. In contrast, cover of the other three common non-native forage species (1-19%), of the three common native species (0-5%) and of the invasive weed oxeye daisy‏ Leucanthemum vulgare (15-27%) was similar between treatments.  Data were collected in 2003 in 0.1 ha ungrazed area (fenced with 1.5 m high wire) and 0.2 ha grazed area (230 cow-calf pairs and 20 bulls in May-June and August-September since 1999). Three forest areas were created in mid 1970s and failed to naturally regenerate, planted with 2,450 lodgepole pine seedlings/ha in May 1999.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A replicated, controlled study in 2001-2002 in eucalypt forest in Australia (Parsons et al. 2006) found that kangaroo exclusion increased planted seedlings biomass and survival rate. Seedling biomass (excluded 41; control: 27 g dry mass/plot) and survival (excluded: 13/18 plants; control: 10/18 plants) were higher in exclusion plots. Data were collected in winter 2002 in 16 replicates (each planted with a different species) of four exclusion (2.1 m fence in May-June 2001) and four control plots (1.3 × 1.3 m). Each plot was planted with nine plants in August 2001, at each of two rehabilitated bauxite-mine sites.

    Study and other actions tested
  3. A replicated, controlled study in 2001-2008 in boreal forest in Finland (Den Herder, Kouki & Ruusila 2009) found that exclusion of moose Alces alces and hares Lepus spp. had mixed effects on the height of different tree species, but no effect on their mortality. The height of Eurasian aspen Populus tremula was higher in moose and hare exclusion plots (60 cm) than in moose exclusion and control plots (40 cm). Eurasian aspen mortality was similar in all treatments (17-33%). Height (50-70 cm) and mortality (45-75%) of silver birch Betula pendula were similar in all treatments as were the height (45-60 cm) and mortality (0-15%) of rowan Sorbus aucuparia. Ten seedlings of each species were planted in 2002-2003 in each of three treatment plots (10 ×15 m): control, moose exclusion (fence mesh size 15 cm) and moose and hare exclusion (fence mesh size 5 cm), replicated in three sites. Treatments were applied in 2002. Data were collected in 2002-2008.

    Study and other actions tested
  4. A replicated, controlled study in 1996-2000 in boreal forest in Saskatchewan, Canada (Milakovsky et al. 2011) found that herbivore exclusion increase the growth rate but not the survival rate of planted white spruce Picea glauca seedlings. Height increase was greater in two large mammal and large and medium mammal exclusion treatments (25-26 cm) compared to control plots (20 cm). Seedling survival was similar between treatments (75-78%). In 1996, fifteen plots (4 × 8 m) of large mammal exclusion (prevent browsing by moose Alces alces, elk and deer), all mammal exclusion (also prevent browsing by snowshoe hares Lepus americanus) and control (no exclusion) treatments were established in each of eight blocks. Data were collected in 2000 in four subplots (2 × 2 m) planted with white spruce in June 1996. All plots were harvested (trees >2 m height removed by a feller-buncher) before treatments.

    Study and other actions tested
  5. A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 2004-2009 in temperate broadleaf forest in Pennsylvania, USA (Long, Brose & Horsley 2012) found that deer exclusion increased the size of planted northern red oak Quercus rubra seedlings. Seedling height (fenced: 33 cm; unfenced: 16 cm) and root-collar diameter (fenced: 9.5 mm; unfenced: 6.5) were higher in fenced plots. Data were collected in 2009 in four fenced (2.4 m tall wire to exclude deer in 2002-2004) and four unfenced plots (12.5 × 8.5 m) at each of five sites. All plots were partially thinned (shelterwood harvest) within the past 12 years and were planted with northern red oak seedlings in Apr 2004.

    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