Retain dead trees after uprooting

Overall effectiveness category Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)
Number of studies: 1
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

60%
Certainty

20%
Harms

0%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

Management or restoration of some habitats involves removing trees. This may occur, for example, in sites where fire suppression has caused woodland to become denser than it has been historically. Retaining uprooted trees can increase structural diversity at ground level. This may in turn increase cover available to some mammal species.

Study locations

Key messages

One study evaluated the effects on mammals of retaining dead trees after uprooting. This study was in the USA.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)

Use (1 study): A replicated, controlled study in the USA found that areas where trees were uprooted but left on site were used more by desert cottontails than were cleared areas.

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 replicated, controlled study in 1965–1968 of pinyon-juniper forest at a site in New Mexico, USA (Kundaeli & Reynolds 1972) found that where trees were uprooted but left on site, more desert cottontail Sylvilagus auduboni faecal pellets were counted than in fully cleared areas. Results were not tested for statistical significance. Where uprooted trees were left, there were 3.2 cottontail pellets/ft² compared to 1.0 pellets/ft² where trees were uprooted and burned. In each of two blocks, there was one plot with all trees uprooted and left on site and one with all trees uprooted, piled up and burned. Plots covered 300–500 acres each. Treatments were carried out in 1965. Cottontail pellets were counted on randomly selected sample points on belts of l/400 acre within the middle of each plot, in 1968.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Kundaeli J.N. & Reynolds H.G. (1972) Desert cottontail use of natural and modified pinyon-juniper woodland. Journal of Range Management, 25, 116-118.

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
Harvest timber outside mammal reproduction period Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link
Use selective harvesting instead of clearcutting Action Link	Likely to be beneficial	8	Synopsis Link
Apply fertilizer to trees Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	3	Synopsis Link