Reseed logged forest

Overall effectiveness category Awaiting assessment
Number of studies: 1
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

not assessed
Certainty

not assessed
Harms

not assessed

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

This intervention involves re-seeding logged forest to re-establish tree communities after cutting, as opposed to leaving forest to regenerate naturally.

Study locations

Key messages

One study evaluated the effects of reseeding logged forest on reptile populations. This study was in the USA.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

Community composition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that reptile communities in areas that were reseeded were not more similar to mature forest stands than those left to regenerate naturally.
Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that areas that were reseeded had similar reptile species richness and diversity compared to areas left to regenerate naturally.

POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that areas that were reseeded had similar reptile abundance compared to areas left to regenerate naturally.

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

A replicated, site comparison study in 1991–1992 in sand-pine scrub forest in Florida, USA (Greenberg et al. 1994) found that clearcutting with reseeding did not have greater reptile species richness, abundance, or diversity than salvage logging with natural regeneration but that community composition differed between managed and unmanaged stands. Logging and seeding treatments were carried out together and it is not possible to distinguish their effects. Reptile species richness, abundance, diversity and evenness were similar between clearcutting with broadcast seeded (richness: 8 species/stand, abundance: 69 individuals/stand, Shannon Diversity Index: 0.7, evenness: 0.8, see paper for details), clearcutting with direct-drill seeded plots (7, 79, 0.6, 0.8), salvaged logged with natural regeneration (9, 41, 0.8, 0.8), and unmanaged stands (9, 31, 0.8, 0.8). Community composition was similar between all managed plots (0.88–0.95), but all managed plots were less similar to mature forest stands (0.54–0.65, results reported as Horn’s Index of Community Similarity, see original paper for details including individual species abundances). Forest stands were managed by: clearcutting with roller chopping and broadcast seeding, clearcutting with direct-drill machine-seeding and salvage logging with natural regeneration (following a high intensity wildfire) (three stands/management type). Reptiles were surveyed 5–7 years after management in August 1991–September 1992 by trapping every alternate two weeks using drift fences with pitfall and funnel traps. Reptiles were also trapped in three unlogged stands that had not been burned or otherwise managed for 55 years.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Greenberg C.H., Neary D.G. & Harris L.D. (1994) Effect of high-intensity wildfire and silvicultural treatments on reptile communities in sand-pine scrub. Conservation Biology, 8, 1047-1057.

Please cite as:

Sainsbury K.A., Morgan W.H., Watson M., Rotem G., Bouskila A., Smith R.K. & Sutherland W.J. (2021) Reptile Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Interventions for reptiles. Conservation Evidence Series Synopsis. 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:

Reptile Conservation

Related Actions

Actions	Effectiveness	Studies	Category
Use smaller machinery to log forests Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link
Use shelterwood harvesting Action Link	Awaiting assessment	2	Synopsis Link
Harvest groups of trees instead of clearcutting Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link