Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Adopt continuous cover forestry We found no evidence for the effects of adopting continuous cover forestry on forests. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1179https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1179Thu, 19 May 2016 10:33:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use brash mats during harvesting to avoid soil compaction We found no evidence for the effects of using brash mats during harvesting to avoid soil compaction on forests. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1180https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1180Thu, 19 May 2016 10:36:08 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Thin trees within forests: effects on mature trees Eleven of 12 studies (including two replicated, randomized, controlled studies) in Brazil, Canada, and the USA found that thinning trees in forests decreased the density and cover of trees. One study found no effect of thinning on tree density. Five of six studies (including one replicated, controlled, before-and-after study) in Australia, Sweden and the USA found that thinning trees in forests increased tree size. One found mixed effects of thinning on tree size. One replicated, controlled study in the USA found that thinning trees in forests decreased tree species richness and diversity. One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that thinning reduced the number of conifers killed by beetles. Two replicated, controlled studies in the USA found no effect of thinning on bark-beetle caused tree mortality. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1209https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1209Thu, 19 May 2016 15:02:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Thin trees within forests: effects on young trees Six of twelve studies (including two replicated, randomized, controlled studies) in Japan and the USA found that thinning trees in forests increased the density of young trees. One study found that thinning decreased the density of young trees. Five found no effect or mixed effects on the density of young trees. One replicated, controlled study in the USA found no effect of thinning on the density of oak acorns. One controlled study in Peru found that thinning increased the growth rate of young trees. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1210https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1210Thu, 19 May 2016 15:49:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Thin trees within forests: effects on understory plants Seventeen of 25 studies (including four replicated, randomized, controlled studies) in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Japan, Spain and the USA found that thinning trees in forests increased the density and cover of understory plants. Seven studies found no effect or mixed effects. One study found a decrease in the abundance of herbaceous species. Thirteen of 19 studies (including 10 replicated, randomized, controlled studies) in Argentina, Canada, Sweden, the USA and West Africa found that thinning trees in forests increased species richness and diversity of understory plants. Seven studies found no effect. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1211https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1211Fri, 20 May 2016 08:24:54 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Thin trees within forests: effects on non-vascular plants Four studies (including one replicated, randomized, controlled study) in Canada, Finland, and Sweden examined the effects of thinning trees in forests on non-vascular plants. Three found it decreased epiphytic plant abundance and species richness. Three found mixed effects depending on thinning method and species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1212https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1212Fri, 20 May 2016 13:24:45 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove woody debris after timber harvest One of six studies (including two replicated, randomized, controlled studies) in the USA and France found that woody debris removal increased understory vegetation cover. Three studies found no effect or mixed effects on cover. Four of the studies found no effect or mixed effects on understory vegetation species richness and diversity and two found no effect of woody debris removal on coverand species diversity of trees. Six studies (including two replicated, randomized, controlled studies) in Canada, Ethiopia, Spain and the USA examined the effect of woody debris removal on young trees. One study found that debris removal increased young tree density, another study found that it decreased young tree density, and three studies found mixed effects or no effect on young tree density. One found no effect of woody-debris removal on young tree survival. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1213https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1213Fri, 20 May 2016 13:32:58 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use shelterwood harvest instead of clearcutting Three replicated, controlled studies in Sweden and the USA found that shelterwood harvesting resulted in higher plant diversity, lower grass cover and higher density of tree species compared with clearcutting. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1214https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1214Fri, 20 May 2016 13:48:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use partial retention harvesting instead of clearcutting Three studies (including one replicated, randomized, controlled study) in Canada found that using partial retention harvesting instead of clearcutting decreased the density of young trees. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1215https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1215Fri, 20 May 2016 13:59:21 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use summer instead of winter harvesting One replicated study in the USA found no effect of logging season on plant species richness and diversity. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1216https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1216Fri, 20 May 2016 14:06:18 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Log/remove trees within forests: effects on non-vascular plants Two of three studies (including one replicated, paired sites study) in Australia, Norway and Sweden found logging trees in forests decreased epiphytic plant abundance and fern fertility. One found mixed effects depending on species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1270https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1270Fri, 10 Jun 2016 09:37:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Log/remove trees within forests: effects on mature trees Three of seven studies (including two replicated, controlled studies) in Bolivia, Central African Republic, China, Finland, Malaysia, Uganda and the USA found that logging trees in forests decreased the density and cover of trees. Two found it increased tree density and two found no effect of logging on tree density. Three of six studies (including one replicated, randomized, controlled study) in Bolivia, Canada, China, Kenya, Malaysia and the USA found that logging trees in forests increased tree size. Two found it decreased tree size and one found no effect of logging on tree size. Two of four studies (including one paired site study) in Bolivia, China, Mexico and Papua New Guinea found that logging trees in forests decreased tree species richness and diversity. One study found it increased diversity and one found no effect of logging on tree species diversity. One replicated, controlled study in Canada found that logging trees in forests increased tree mortality rate. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1271https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1271Mon, 13 Jun 2016 08:55:36 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Log/remove trees within forests: effects on young trees One replicated controlled study in Canada found that logging trees in forests increased the density of young trees. One replicated controlled study in Costa Rica found mixed effects on the density of young trees. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1272https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1272Mon, 13 Jun 2016 09:18:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Log/remove trees within forests: effects on understory plants Five of ten studies (including four replicated, randomized, controlled studies) in Bolivia, Canada, India and the USA found that logging trees in forests increased the density and cover of understory plants. Five studies found no effect or mixed effects. Four of seven studies (including one replicated, randomized, controlled study) in Australia, Canada and the USA found that logging trees in forests increased species richness and diversity of understory plants. Three studies found no effect. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1273https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1273Mon, 13 Jun 2016 09:29:47 +0100