Remove mid-storey vegetation in forest

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    65%
  • Certainty
    40%
  • Harms
    0%

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)

POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

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

  1. 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
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

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation - Published 2020

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

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 18

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 Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust