Remove understorey vegetation in forest

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    10%
  • Certainty
    50%
  • Harms
    0%

Study locations

Key messages

  • Three studies evaluated the effects on mammals of removing understorey vegetation in forest. All three studies were in the USA.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES)

  • Abundance (3 studies): Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies (two also before-and-after), in the USA, found that compared to prescribed burning, mechanically removing understorey vegetation growth in forests did not increase abundances of white-footed mice, shrews or four rodent species.

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 replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in 2001–2003 in North Carolina, USA (Greenberg et al. 2006) found that mechanically removing understorey vegetation in forest, to reduce fuel load and associated wildfire risk, did not increase white-footed mouse Peromyscus leucopus abundance compared to using prescribed fire. Mouse abundance increased across all treatments during the study, but the rate of increase in understorey removal plots (from 14 to 30 mice/plot) was not significantly different to that in prescribed burning plots (from 9 to 36 mice/plot). Plots (each >14 ha) were established in three blocks. In each block, understorey growth was mechanically felled in one plot in winter 2001–2002 and prescribed burning was carried out in a different plot in March 2003. Mice were live-trapped over 10 consecutive days and nights in July and August of 2001 (before management) and 2003 (after management).

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 2003–2004 in North Carolina, USA (Greenberg et al. 2007) found that mechanically removing understorey vegetation in forest, to reduce fuel load and associated wildfire risk, did not increase shrew abundance compared to using prescribed fire. The number of shrews caught did not differ significantly between understorey removal plots and prescribed burning plots in the first year (understorey removal: 22 shrews/plot; burning: 15) or the second year (understorey removal: 7 shrews/plot; burning: 6) after treatments were applied. Plots (each >14 ha) were established in three blocks. Within each block, understorey growth was mechanically felled in one plot in winter 2001–2002 and prescribed burning was carried out in a different plot in March 2003. Shrews were surveyed using pitfall traps and drift fencing over 123 nights in 2003 and 125 nights in 2004.

    Study and other actions tested
  3. A replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in 2001–2003 of a forest in California, USA (Amacher et al. 2008) found that mechanically removing understorey vegetation in forest, to reduce fuel load and associated wildfire risk, did not increase abundances of California ground squirrels Spermophilus beecheyi, long-eared chipmunks Tamias quadrimaculatus, brush mice Peromyscus boylii or deer mice Peromyscus maniculatus, compared to using prescribed burning. Changes in capture rates between before and after treatments did not differ significantly between understorey removal plots and fire plots for California ground squirrel (understorey removal: 2.6 to 11.0; fire: 4.2 to 7.6/100 trap nights), long-eared chipmunk (understorey removal: 0.7 to 2.4; fire: 0.7 to 1.7/100 trap nights) or brush mouse (understorey removal: 0.6 to 1.4; fire: 0.1 to 1.4/100 trap nights). Deer mouse abundance declined with understorey removal (from 2.0 to 1.2/100 trap nights) compared to an increase with fire (from 0.5 to 2.0/100 trap nights). Forests stands were 14–29 ha each. In four stands, 90% of understorey trees were removed in 2001–2002. Four different stands were burned in October–November 2002. Small mammals were live-trapped over nine consecutive days and nights in July–August of 2001 (pre-treatment) and 2003 (post-treatment).

    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