Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reintroduce large herbivores We captured no evidence for the effects of reintroducing large herbivores 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%2F1188https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1188Thu, 19 May 2016 11:47:47 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pollard trees (top cutting or top pruning) We captured no evidence for the effects of tree pollarding 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%2F1189https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1189Thu, 19 May 2016 11:49:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Coppice trees We captured no evidence for the effects of tree coppicing 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%2F1190https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1190Thu, 19 May 2016 11:50:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Halo ancient trees We captured no evidence for the effects of haloing ancient trees 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%2F1191https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1191Thu, 19 May 2016 11:51:52 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Adopt conservation grazing of woodland We captured no evidence for the effects of adopting conservation grazing of woodland. '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%2F1192https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1192Thu, 19 May 2016 11:53:01 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain fallen trees We captured no evidence for the effects of retaining fallen trees 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%2F1193https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1193Thu, 19 May 2016 11:54:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Imitate natural disturbances by pushing over trees We captured no evidence for the effects of imitating natural disturbances by pushing over trees 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%2F1194https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1194Thu, 19 May 2016 11:55:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use clearcutting to increase understory diversity Eight of 12 studies (including three replicated, randomized, controlled studies) in Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Germany, Israel, spain and the USA found that clearcutting increased the cover and species richness of understory plants. Two found it decreased the density and species richness, and two found no effect or mixed effects. Three of six studies (including five replicated, randomized, controlled studies) in Brazil, Canada and Spain found that clearcutting increased the density and species richness of young trees. One found it decreased new tree density and two found no effect or mixed effects depending on the tree species. Three of nine studies (including four replicated, randomized, controlled studies) in Australia, Brazil4, Canada, Japan and the USA found that clearcutting decreased density, species richness and diversity of mature trees. One study found it increased trees species richness .Six studies found no effect or mixed effects on tree density, size and species richness and diversity. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1222https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1222Mon, 23 May 2016 08:58:48 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use shelterwood harvesting Six of seven studies (including five replicated, controlled studies) in Australia, Iran, Nepal and the USA found that shelterwood harvesting increased abundance, species richness and diversity of understory plants, as well as the growth and survival rate of young trees. One study found shelterwood harvesting decreased plant species richness and abundance. One study found no effect of shelterwood harvest on tree abundance. One replicated, controlled study in Canada found no effect of shelterwood harvest on red oak acorn production. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1223https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1223Mon, 23 May 2016 09:34:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use group-selection harvesting Four of eight studies (including one replicated, controlled study) in Australia, Canada, Costa Rica and the USA found that group-selection harvesting increased cover and diversity of understory plants and the density of young trees. Two studies found it decreased understory species richness2 and biomass.Two studies found no effect on understory species richness and diversity and two found no effect of group-selection harvest on tree density and growth-rate. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1224https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1224Mon, 23 May 2016 09:45:25 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use herbicides to thin trees One replicated, controlled study in Canada found no effect of using herbicide to thin pine trees on total plant species richness. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1225https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1225Mon, 23 May 2016 10:33:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Thin trees by girdling (cutting rings around tree trunks) One before-and-after trial in Canada found that thinning trees by girdling (cutting rings around tree trunks) increased understory plant species richness, diversity and cover. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1226https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1226Mon, 23 May 2016 10:34:52 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use thinning followed by prescribed fire Three of six studies (including one replicated, randomized, controlled study) in the USA found that thinning followed by prescribed burning increased cover and abundance1 of understory plants as well as the density of deciduous trees. One study found that thinning then burning decreased trees density and species richness. Three studies found no effect or mixed effects of thinning followed by burning on tree growth rate and density of young trees. One replicated, controlled study Australia found no effect of thinning followed by burning on the genetic diversity of black ash. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1227https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1227Mon, 23 May 2016 10:38:49 +0100