Retain wildlife corridors in logged areas

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

Study locations

Key messages

  • Two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of retaining wildlife corridors in logged areas. One study was in Australia and one was in Canada.




  • Use (2 studies): A replicated study in Australia found that corridors of trees, retained after harvesting, supported seven species of arboreal marsupial. A replicated, controlled study in Canada found that lines of woody debris through clearcut areas that were connected to adjacent forest were not used more by red-backed voles than were isolated lines of woody debris.

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 study (year not stated) of forest at 49 sites in Victoria, Australia (Lindenmayer et al. 1993) found that linear corridors of unharvested trees retained after tree harvesting operations supported seven species of arboreal marsupial. From 402 tree hollows surveyed, 69 arboreal marsupials were recorded, at 54 trees. Greater glider Petauroides volans and mountain brushtail possum Trichosurus caninus were the most frequently recorded species, accounting for 78% of observations. Sites were chosen where forest had regrown for around 50 years, following wildfires in 1939, and then been felled years <4 years before mammal observations, but leaving a linear strip. Strips were 125–762 m long and had average widths of 30–264 m. Forty-three strips comprised Eucalyptus regnans stands and six were of Eucalyptus delegatensis. Strips had 1–29 trees with hollows. Marsupial occupation of tree hollows was determined by direct observations.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A replicated, controlled study in 2010–2012 of forest at three sites in British Colombia, Canada (Sullivan & Sullivan 2014) found that following tree harvesting, rows of woody debris connected to adjacent forest were not used more by red-backed voles Myodes gapperi than were isolated rows of woody debris. The average number of voles/trapping session in rows of woody debris attached to forest (9.0) did not differ from the number in those that were isolated (9.3). However, both had more voles than did unharvested forest (4.4). Seventeen plots were spread across three sites of 42–47 ha extent. Eight plots contained rows of woody debris attached to forest edge, six had isolated woody debris rows in clearcut areas and three were unharvested mature or old-growth forest. Plots averaged 0.23–0.40 km apart. Rows of woody debris averaged 136–344 m long, 1–3 m high and 6–9 m diameter or width. Felling and establishment of rows of woody debris occurred in autumn 2009. Voles were sampled using Longworth live traps, at 4-week intervals (two sites) or 4–8-week intervals (one site), from May to October 2010–2012. Traps were set for one day and two nights each time.

    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