Retain undisturbed patches during thinning operations

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

Study locations

Key messages

  • Two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of retaining undisturbed patches during thinning operations. Both studies were in the USA.




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, before-and-after study in 2001–2003 of a coniferous forest in Montana, USA (Ausband & Baty 2005) found that snowshoe hares Lepus americanus used retained undisturbed patches more than they used thinned forest. More hare tracks were counted in undisturbed patches than in thinned areas when patches comprised 8% (undisturbed: 106; thinned: 25 tracks/km) and 35% (undisturbed: 107; thinned: 15 tracks/km) of the stand. The same was found for faecal pellet counts in 8% (undisturbed: 1.0; thinned: 0.2 pellets/tray) and 35% (undisturbed: 1.4; thinned: 0.1 pellets/tray) retention patches. After treatments were applied, hares increased use of undisturbed (before treatment: 29; after: 144 tracks/km) and mature (before treatment: 64–80; after: 88–181 tracks/km) stands, suggesting movements into these areas. Five conifer stands (10.5–14.0 ha), regenerating naturally after felling in 1985, were selected. Treatments were applied in June 2002 and comprised: thinning with five 0.2-ha unthinned patches (8%) retained (two stands), thinning with five 0.8-ha unthinned patches (35%) retained (two stands) and one undisturbed stand. Conifer density was 5,350–7,050/ha before and 656–750/ha after thinning. Two adjacent mature stands represented pre-harvest conditions. Hare-track density was assessed from December–March in 2001–2002 (prior to thinning) and 2002–2003 (after thinning). Faecal pellets were surveyed each winter within 50 trays in each stand, into which pellets accumulated during April snowmelt.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A randomized, replicated, controlled study in 2005–2007 of a ponderosa pine Pinus ponderosa forest in Northern Arizona, USA (Loberger et al. 2011) found that tassel-eared squirrels Sciurus aberti made greater use of undisturbed than thinned forest. In winter 57% and during the rest of the year 51% of squirrel home range areas fell within undisturbed forest compared to 39% availability by extent in the study area. Squirrels also showed a preference for dense canopies. In winter, canopies with 51–75% cover accounted for 53% of squirrel use compared to 44% of resource availability. Thinning was carried out from 1998–2000. Seventeen-hectare blocks within a 10-km2 area were randomly assigned to no thinning and to low, medium and high-intensity thinning. A combination of these managements was applied to four additional blocks of approximately 40 ha each. Squirrel locations were monitored by radio-tracking from December 2005 to July 2007.

    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 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