Action Synopsis: Bird Conservation About Actions

Use ring-barking (girdling), cutting or silvicides to produce snags

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

Study locations

Key messages

  • Of five studies found, one replicated and controlled study from the USA found that forest plots provided with snags had higher bird diversity and abundance than plots without snags added.
  • Three studies from the USA and UK found that woodpeckers and other species used artificially-created snags for nesting and foraging. One study from the USA found that use increased with how long a snag had been dead.
  • A UK study found that no crested tits used snags created for them, possibly because they were not rotted enough, or because they were too close to the ground.


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 from May-June in 1977-1981 in four plots in pine-hardwood timber clearcuts in Texas, USA (Dickson et al. 1983), found that plots with deadwood snags had higher bird species richness and abundance than plots without snags (5 and 4 species/plot; 166 and 135 individuals/40 ha respectively). Similarly, indices of community diversity and evenness were also significantly higher in plots with snags. Cavity-nesting birds occurred on plots with snags but were virtually absent from plots without snags (13 compared to 1 individuals/40 ha). Other species used snags for foraging and perching. Seventy-five snags (9.4/ha) were made from killing trees of nine species in each plot. Plots were 80 x 250 m, four with snags and four without and were cleared in 1975 and planted with loblolly pines Pinus taeda in 1976.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A before-and-after study in Highland, Scotland (Denny & Summers 1996), found that, by 1994, no crested tits Parus cristatus used any of 30 tree stumps created between 1981 and 1989 to provide nesting habitats. Stumps were made by cutting trees 1-1.2 m from the ground and were supposed to rot to allow tits to excavate nesting sites. Investigating natural nest sites, the authors found that natural nests were both much higher (average of 7.3 m above ground) and in much larger trees (average diameter at breast height of 41 cm vs. 20-26 cm). They also argue that the trees probably needed more time to rot.

    Study and other actions tested
  3. A replicated study over four years in Oregon, USA (Brandeis et al. 2002), found no differences in the rate of use by woodpeckers of Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii snags created by different methods. Instead, only the length of time that a tree had been dead for affected foraging rates. Girdling (ring-barking), injecting with two different silvicides and cutting the tree just below the crown all had similar effects, killing most trees within two years (silvicide and cut trees died after a year or so, girdled trees died after two years but a higher proportion died overall). Chopping at the middle of the crown was the least effective in killing trees, taking over three years and killing fewer trees. Eighteen trees were treated with each method and some snags were inoculated with saprophytic (decaying) fungi.

    Study and other actions tested
  4. A small study on heathland at Great Ovens, Dorset, England (Liley 2005), found that one of two mature Scots pine Pinus sylvestris trees which were ring-barked around November 2000 had a great spotted woodpecker Dendrocopus major nesting hole excavated in it by July 2005. Both trees died, the excavated one leaving 10 m of standing deadwood whilst the second tree fell, leaving a stump 1.25 m high.

    Study and other actions tested
  5. A replicated study in 30 Douglas-fir stands in the Coast Range of Oregon, USA (Walter & Maguire 2005), found that 11 cavity-nesting species of bird used artificially-created snags for nesting or foraging, with 20% of 839 snags being used for nesting and 88% containing cavities. Significantly more snags were used in clearcut stands (with some trees retained) compared to stands managed with group selection cuts. Clearcut stands had significantly higher species richness and abundance of cavity-nesting species. Nest numbers were similar between snags clustered close together and those more widely spaced.

    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. (2020) Bird Conservation. Pages 137-281 in: W.J. Sutherland, L.V. Dicks, S.O. Petrovan & R.K. Smith (eds) What Works in Conservation 2020. 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 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