Remove mid-storey vegetation in forest

Overall effectiveness category Likely to be beneficial
Number of studies: 1
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

65%
Certainty

40%
Harms

0%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

Through fire suppression, some forest areas have developed denser mid-storey vegetation (trees at intermediate height between the ground layer and the forest canopy) than was formerly the case. To reduce wildfire risk and for habitat restoration purposes, mid-storey vegetation may be removed either mechanically or through prescribed burning. This intervention considered specifically manual or mechanical removal of mid-storey vegetation and how this may affect forest mammals.

Study locations

Key messages

One study evaluated the effects on mammals of removing mid-storey vegetation in forest. This study was in the USA.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

Richness/diversity (1 study): A randomized, replicated, controlled study in the USA found that after removing mid-storey vegetation, mammal species richness increased.

POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

Abundance (1 study): A randomized, replicated, controlled study in the USA found that after removing mid-storey vegetation, mammal abundance increased.

BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

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 randomized, replicated, controlled study in 1992–1994 of pine-grassland in a mountainous area of Arkansas, USA (Masters et al. 1998) found that after removing mid-storey vegetation, mammal abundance and species richness increased. Small mammal trapping success was higher in mid-storey-removal plots (caught in 3.8–7.4% of traps) than in unmanaged plots (0.9–2.2% of traps). Average species richness was higher in mid-storey removal plots (1.7–4.7 species) than in unmanaged plots (1.3–2.7 species). Forest mid-storey was mechanically removed in 14–45-ha plots. Management timing is unclear, but the practice was initiated in the study area in 1990, primarily to benefit red-cockaded woodpeckers Picoides borealis. Small mammals were live-trapped at 80 stations/plot from 27 December to 4 January. Surveys were conducted in three plots in 1992–1993 and three different plots in 1993–1994. At the same time, sampling was conducted in three plots with retained mid-storey vegetation.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Masters R.E., Lochmiller R.L., McMurry S.T. & Bukenhofer G.A. (1998) Small mammal response to pine-grassland restoration for red-cockaded woodpeckers. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 26, 148-158.

Please cite as:

Littlewood, N.A., Rocha, R., Smith, R.K., Martin, P.A., Lockhart, S.L., Schoonover, R.F., Wilman, E., Bladon, A.J., Sainsbury, K.A., Pimm S. and Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Terrestrial Mammal Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Interventions for terrestrial mammals excluding bats and primates. Synopses of Conservation Evidence Series. University of Cambridge, 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:

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Related Actions

Actions	Effectiveness	Studies	Category
Provide artificial waterholes in dry season Action Link	Likely to be beneficial	3	Synopsis Link
Use fencing to protect water sources for use by wild mammals Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link
Provide shelter structures after fire Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link