Conservation Evidence strives to be as useful to conservationists as possible. Please take our survey to help the team improve our resource.

Providing evidence to improve practice

Action: Allow forest to regenerate naturally following logging Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Key messages

Read our guidance on Key messages before continuing

  • One study evaluated the effects on mammals of allowing forest to regenerate naturally following logging. This study was in Canada.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

  • Abundance (1 study): A replicated, site comparison study in Canada found that, natural forest regeneration increased moose numbers relative to more intensive management in the short- to medium-term but not in the longer term.

BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

Supporting evidence from individual studies

1 

A replicated, site comparison study, in 2008–2009, on three large adjacent coniferous forest sites in Ontario, Canada (Boan et al. 2011) found that, following clearcutting, large-scale natural forest regeneration increased moose Alces alces numbers relative to more intensive silvicultural practices (mechanical ground preparation, replanting and herbicide application) 10 years after felling but not 30 years after felling. The number of moose faecal pellet clumps was positively correlated with the extent of naturally regenerating forest that was felled 10 years previously in areas of 10, 20 and 40 km2 around the stand, but not with the extent subject to more intensive silviculture, nor with the extent felled 30 years previously and subject to either management practice (data not presented). Ten forest stands were felled 10 years previously (five regenerating naturally and five subject to intensive silviculture) and ten were felled 30 years previously (five regenerating naturally and five subject to intensive silviculture). Moose faecal pellet clumps were counted within five circles of 5.65 m radius in each stand between July and early September of 2008 or 2009.

Referenced papers

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.