Action

Action Synopsis: Bird Conservation About Actions

Use prescribed burning on deciduous forests

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    32%
  • Certainty
    60%
  • Harms
    30%

Source countries

Key messages

  • Of four studies found, one paired sites study from the USA found that bird species richness was similar in burned and unburned aspen forests, although there were significant changes in the relative abundances of some species. A replicated, controlled study in the USA found no evidence for changes in community composition in oak and hickory forests following burning.
  • A replicated controlled trial from the USA found no differences in wood thrush nest survival in burned compared to unburned areas. Another replicated controlled trial from the USA found a reduction in the number of black-chinned hummingbird nests following fuel reduction treatments that included burning.

 

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 paired site comparison study in 1994-1995 in Bridger-Teton National Forest Wyoming, USA (Dieni & Anderson 1999), found no difference in average bird species richness in burned compared to unburned forest sites. There were significantly higher relative abundances of mountain bluebird Sialia currucoides and pine siskin Carduelis pinus in burned than unburned sites. Six areas of trembling aspen Populus tremuloides-dominated forest (38-407 ha) were burned during 1988-1993 and paired with similar-sized unburned areas for comparison.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A replicated, controlled study in Wayne National Forest and Vinton Furnace Experimental Forest, Ohio, USA (Artman et al. 2001), found that overall, there were no differences in breeding bird community composition in areas of forest under early spring burning compared to unburned areas, although species responses varied. Four areas dominated by oak Quercus spp. and hickory Carya spp. were each divided into three treatment units of 20-30 ha: unburned; burned 4-years in a row (1996-1999); and burned twice (1996 and 1999). Burning reduced habitat suitability for ground- and low-shrub nesting birds: some species declined in response to repeated burning. Conditions for ground- and aerial-foraging species appeared improved by burning.

    Study and other actions tested
  3. A replicated controlled study in 1995-1999 at four mixed-oak Quecus spp. forest sites in Ohio, USA (Artman & Downhower 2003), found there were no significant differences in wood thrush Hylocichla mustelina nest survival rates in burned plots (of 20-35 ha), compared to unburned ones. Within burn plots, nests were situated more frequently in areas subject to low or moderate burn intensity and less so high intensity areas. Nest concealment (i.e. percentage overhead and side cover) was similar in burned and unburned plots but nests were located significantly higher, and in taller and larger-stemmed trees and shrubs in burned than unburned areas.

    Study and other actions tested
  4. A replicated, controlled study in riparian forest along the Middle Rio Grande, New Mexico, USA, in 2002-2004 (Smith et al. 2009), found a 62% reduction in the number of black-chinned hummingbird Archilochus alexandri nests (from 42 to 16) on two sites where exotic shrubs and woody debris were cut and burned before herbicide was applied to the root crowns of exotic species. This compared with 8-18% increases at sites with fuel reduction treatments that did not involve burning. These results are discussed in more detail in ‘Control/remove understorey and midstorey vegetation’ and ‘Plant native shrubs following fuel reduction’.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Williams, D.R., Child, M.F., Dicks, L.V., Ockendon, N., Pople, R.G., Showler, D.A., Walsh, J.C., zu Ermgassen, E.K.H.J. & Sutherland, W.J. (2019) Bird Conservation. Pages 141-290 in: W.J. Sutherland, L.V. Dicks, N. Ockendon, S.O. Petrovan & R.K. Smith (eds) What Works in Conservation 2019. Open Book Publishers, Cambridge, UK.

 

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Bird Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Bird 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 latest volume: Volume 17

Go to the CE Journal

Subscribe to our newsletter

Please add your details if you are interested in receiving updates from the Conservation Evidence team about new papers, synopses and opportunities.

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