Fell trees in groups, leaving surrounding forest unharvested

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    40%
  • Certainty
    30%
  • Harms
    0%

Source countries

Key messages

  • Three studies evaluated the effects on mammals of felling trees in groups, leaving surrounding forest unharvested. Two studies were in Canada and one was in the UK.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES)

  • Abundance (2 studies): One of two replicated studies (including one controlled study and one site comparison study), in Canada, found that felling groups of trees within otherwise undisturbed stands increased the abundance of one of four small mammal species relative to clearcutting. The other study found that none of four small mammal species monitored showed abundance increases.
  • Survival (1 study): A study in the UK found that when trees were felled in large groups with surrounding forest unaffected, there was less damage to artificial hazel dormouse nests than when trees were felled in small groups or thinned throughout.

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, controlled study in 1994–1997 of Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii forest in British Colombia, Canada (Klenner et al. 2003) found that felling groups of trees within otherwise undisturbed stands increased southern red-backed vole Myodes gapperi abundance in some years relative to clearcutting but did not increase abundances of three other small mammal species. There were more southern red-backed voles in the third and fourth year after felling in group cut stands (7–14/stand) than in clearcuts (0.3–0.7/stand) but similar numbers between treatments in the first two years (group cut: 27–51/stand; clearcut: 13–34/stand). There were no differences between treatments for deer mouse Peromyscus maniculatus (group cut: 2–13/stand; clearcut: 6–21) or northwestern chipmunk Tamias amoenus (group cut: 1–8/stand; clearcut: 0.3–6/stand). There were fewer meadow voles Microtus pennsylvanicus in 20% group cut stands (1–3/stand) than in 50% group cut stands (0.8–4/stand) or clearcut stands (3–14/stand). Forest stands (20–25 ha) were partially harvested in winter 1993/94. Two each had 20% volume removed by cutting patches of 0.1–1.6 ha and 50% volume removed by cutting patches of 0.1–1.6 ha. Abundances across these stands were compared with that in two clearcuts of 1.6 ha. Small mammals were sampled by live-trapping at 2–4-week intervals, from May–October in 1994, 1995, and 1996 and from April–May 1997.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A replicated, site comparison study in 2006 in four forest sites in British Columbia, Canada (Ransome et al. 2009) found that harvesting trees in 1 ha blocks did not result in higher small mammal abundance compared to clearcutting large areas. The average number of red-backed voles Myodes gapperi caught in 1-ha cuts (19.0 individuals) was not significantly different to that caught in clearcuts (8.4 individuals). Numbers caught also did not differ significantly between felling types for dusky shrew Sorex monticolus (1-ha cuts: 34.0 individuals; clearcuts: 44.3 individuals), deer mouse Peromyscus maniculatus (1-ha cuts: 9.6 individuals; clearcuts: 11.6 individuals) or common shrew Sorex cinereus (1-ha cuts: 7.3; clearcuts: 7.0). A 1-ha area was harvested in each of four sites. These were compared with two large (>30 ha) clearcut areas. Trees were harvested in 1992–1993. Small mammals were live-trapped every three weeks in June–October 2006 (five sessions). Traps were operated for two nights and, if daytime temperatures were ≤25°C, the intervening day.

    Study and other actions tested
  3. A study in 2003 of a forest in Worcestershire, UK (Trout et al. 2012) found that when trees were felled in large groups with surrounding forest unaffected, there was less damage to artificial hazel dormouse Muscardinus avellanarius nests than when trees were felled in small groups or thinned throughout. A lower proportion of artificial nests was damaged during large group felling (31%) than small group felling (62–66%) or thinning (73%). Non-native Corsican pines Pinus nigra were cleared from one third of the area of each of four plots (3 ha each) in a forest undergoing restoration to ancient woodland vegetation. Plot treatments, executed in late autumn/winter 2003, were clearance of small groups (12–14 trees) using chainsaws, clearance of small groups using a mechanised harvester, thinning throughout using a harvester and large group fells (c.0.4 ha each) using a harvester. Artificial dormouse nests comprised spheres of florists’ “oasis” (7–10 cm diameter) on the ground mimicking natural nests.

    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 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, terrestrial 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