Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide supplementary feed to reduce tree damage One study evaluated the effects of providing supplementary feed on the magnitude of tree damage caused by mammals. This study was in USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): A replicated, randomized, paired sites, controlled, before-and-after study in USA found that supplementary feeding reduced tree damage by black bears. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2629https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2629Fri, 12 Jun 2020 12:41:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use tree tubes/small fences/cages to protect individual trees We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using tree tubes, small fences or cages to protect individual trees from mammals. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2630https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2630Fri, 12 Jun 2020 12:42:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant trees following clearfelling One study evaluated the effects on mammals of planting trees following clearfelling. This study was in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): A replicated, site comparison study in Canada found that forest stands subject to tree planting and herbicide treatment after logging were used more by American martens compared to naturally regenerating stands. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2631https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2631Fri, 12 Jun 2020 12:45:40 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control firewood collection in remnant native forest and woodland We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of controlling firewood collection in remnant native forest and woodland. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2632https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2632Fri, 12 Jun 2020 12:46:51 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Harvest timber outside mammal reproduction period We found no studies that evaluated the effects of harvesting timber outside the mammal reproduction period. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2633https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2633Fri, 12 Jun 2020 12:47:51 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Allow forest to regenerate naturally following logging One study evaluated the effects on mammals of allowing forest to regenerate naturally following logging. This study was in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): A replicated, site comparison study in Canada found that, natural forest regeneration increased moose numbers relative to more intensive management in the short- to medium-term but not in the longer term. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2634https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2634Fri, 12 Jun 2020 12:49:45 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Coppice trees We found no studies that evaluated the effects of coppicing trees on mammals. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2635https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2635Fri, 12 Jun 2020 12:51:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use selective harvesting instead of clearcutting Eight studies evaluated the effects on mammals of using selective harvesting instead of clearcutting. Four studies were in Canada, three were in the USA and one was a review of studies in North America. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): A replicated, site comparison study in Canada found that harvesting trees selectively did not result in higher small mammal species richness compared to clearcutting. POPULATION RESPONSE (7 STUDIES) Abundance (7 studies): One of six replicated, controlled or replicated, site comparison studies in the USA and Canada found more small mammals in selectively harvested forest stands than in fully harvested, regenerating stands. Three studies found that selective harvesting did not increase small mammal abundance relative to clearcutting. The other two studies found mixed results with one of four small mammal species being more numerous in selectively harvested stands or in selectively harvested stands only in some years. A systematic review in North American forests found that partially harvested forests had more red-backed voles but not deer mice than did clearcut forests. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): A site comparison study in the USA found that partially harvested forest was not used by snowshoe hares more than was largely clearcut forest. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2637https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2637Fri, 12 Jun 2020 13:06:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use patch retention harvesting instead of clearcutting Three studies evaluated the effects on mammals of using patch retention harvesting instead of clearcutting. Two studies were in Canada and one was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): Two replicated, controlled, before-and-after studies and a replicated, site comparison study in Canada and Australia found that retaining patches of unharvested trees instead of clearcutting whole forest stands increased or maintained numbers of some but not all small mammals. Higher abundances where tree patches were retained were found for southern red-backed voles, bush rat and for female agile antechinus. No benefit of retaining forest patches was found on abundances of deer mouse, meadow vole and male agile antechinus. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2639https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2639Fri, 12 Jun 2020 14:25:32 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain undisturbed patches during thinning operations Two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of retaining undisturbed patches during thinning operations. Both studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): Two randomized, replicated, controlled studies (one also before-and-after) in the USA found that snowshoe hares and tassel-eared squirrels used retained undisturbed forest patches more than thinned areas. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2640https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2640Fri, 12 Jun 2020 15:37:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Clear or open patches in forests Four studies evaluated the effects on mammals of clearing or opening patches in forests. Two studies were in the USA, one was in Bolivia and one was in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Abundance (4 studies): Two of four replicated studies (including three controlled studies and a site comparison study), in Bolivia, the USA and Canada, found that creating gaps or open patches within forests did not increase small mammal abundance relative to uncut forest. One study found that it did increase small mammal abundance and one found increased abundance for one of four small mammal species. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2641https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2641Fri, 12 Jun 2020 15:46:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain dead trees after uprooting One study evaluated the effects on mammals of retaining dead trees after uprooting. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): A replicated, controlled study in the USA found that areas where trees were uprooted but left on site were used more by desert cottontails than were cleared areas. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2642https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2642Fri, 12 Jun 2020 15:55:19 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use thinning of forest instead of clearcutting One study evaluated the effects on mammals of using thinning of forest instead of clearcutting. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): A replicated, controlled study in the USA found that thinned forest areas were used more by desert cottontails than were fully cleared or uncleared areas. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2643https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2643Fri, 12 Jun 2020 15:57:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove competing vegetation to allow tree establishment in clearcut areas Three studies evaluated the effects on mammals of removing competing vegetation to allow tree establishment in clearcut areas. Two studies were in Canada and one was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (3 STUDIES) Use (3 studies): One of three studies (including two controlled studies and one site comparison study), in the USA and Canada, found that where competing vegetation was removed to allow tree establishment in clearcut areas, American martens used the areas more. One study found mixed results for moose and one found no increase in site use by snowshoe hares. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2644https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2644Fri, 12 Jun 2020 16:14:25 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain understorey vegetation within plantations One study evaluated the effects on mammals of retaining understorey vegetation within plantations. This study was in Chile. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in Chile found that areas with retained understorey vegetation had more species of medium-sized mammal, compared to areas cleared of understorey vegetation. POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in Chile found that areas with retained understorey vegetation had more visits from medium-sized mammals, compared to areas cleared of understorey vegetation. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2645https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2645Fri, 12 Jun 2020 16:19:21 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Leave standing deadwood/snags in forests One study evaluated the effects on mammals of leaving standing deadwood or snags in forests. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): A replicated, controlled study in the USA found that increasing the quantity of standing deadwood in forests increased the abundance of one of three shrew species, compared to removing deadwood. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2646https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2646Fri, 12 Jun 2020 17:32:19 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Leave coarse woody debris in forests Three studies evaluated the effects on mammals of leaving coarse woody debris in forests. One study was in Canada, one was in the USA and one was in Malaysia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): A replicated, site comparison study, in Malaysia found more small mammal species groups in felled forest areas with woody debris than without. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): One out of three replicated studies (two controlled, one site comparison, one before-and-after) in Canada, the USA and Malaysia found that retaining or adding coarse woody debris did not increase numbers or frequency of records of small mammals. The other study found that two of three shrew species were more numerous in areas with increased volumes of coarse woody debris than areas without coarse woody debris. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2647https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2647Fri, 12 Jun 2020 17:38:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Fell trees in groups, leaving surrounding forest unharvested Three studies evaluated the effects on mammals of felling trees in groups, leaving surrounding forest unharvested. Two studies were in Canada and one was in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One of two replicated studies (including one controlled study and one site comparison study), in Canada, found that felling groups of trees within otherwise undisturbed stands increased the abundance of one of four small mammal species relative to clearcutting. The other study found that none of four small mammal species monitored showed abundance increases. Survival (1 study): A study in the UK found that when trees were felled in large groups with surrounding forest unaffected, there was less damage to artificial hazel dormouse nests than when trees were felled in small groups or thinned throughout. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2648https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2648Sat, 13 Jun 2020 17:59:48 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Apply fertilizer to trees Three studies evaluated the effects on mammals of applying fertilizer to trees. All three studies were in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (3 STUDIES) Use (3 studies): One of three replicated studies (including one controlled study and two site comparison studies), in Canada, found that thinned forest stands to which fertilizer was applied were used more by snowshoe hares in winter but not in summer over the short-term. The other studies found that forest stands to which fertilizer was applied were not more used by snowshoe hares in the longer term or by mule deer or moose. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2649https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2649Sat, 13 Jun 2020 18:06:25 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Thin trees within forest Twelve studies evaluated the effects on mammals of thinning trees within forests. Six studies were in Canada and six were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Species richness (2 studies): A replicated, site comparison study the USA found that in thinned tree forest stands, there was similar mammal species richness compared to in unthinned stands. A replicated, controlled study in Canada found that thinning of regenerating lodgepole pine did not increase small mammal species richness 12–14 years later. POPULATION RESPONSE (8 STUDIES) Abundance (8 studies): Three of eight replicated, controlled and replicated, site comparison studies, in the USA and Canada, found that thinning trees within forests lead to higher numbers of small mammals. Two studies showed increases for some, but not all, small mammal species with a further study showing an increase for one of two squirrel species in response to at least some forest thinning treatments. The other two studies showed no increases in abundances of small mammals or northern flying squirrels between 12 and 14 years after thinning. BEHAVIOUR (4 STUDIES) Use (4 studies): Three of four controlled and comparison studies (three also replicated, one randomized) in Canada found that thinning trees within forests did not lead to greater use of areas by mule deer, moose or snowshoe hares. The other study found that a thinned area was used more by white-tailed deer than was unthinned forest. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2650https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2650Sat, 13 Jun 2020 18:09:47 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain wildlife corridors in logged areas Two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of retaining wildlife corridors in logged areas. One study was in Australia and one was in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): A replicated study in Australia found that corridors of trees, retained after harvesting, supported seven species of arboreal marsupial. A replicated, controlled study in Canada found that lines of woody debris through clearcut areas that were connected to adjacent forest were not used more by red-backed voles than were isolated lines of woody debris. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2651https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2651Sat, 13 Jun 2020 18:33:04 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain riparian buffer strips during timber harvest We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of retaining riparian buffer strips during timber harvesting. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2652https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2652Sat, 13 Jun 2020 18:34:20 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Gather coarse woody debris into piles after felling Two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of gathering coarse woody debris into piles after felling. Both studies were in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): A randomized, replicated, controlled study in Canada found higher mammal species richness where coarse woody debris was gathered into piles. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One of two randomized, replicated, controlled studies in Canada found higher counts of San Bernardino long-tailed voles where coarse woody debris was gathered into piles. The other study found higher small mammal abundance at one of three plots where debris was gathered into piles. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2653https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2653Sat, 13 Jun 2020 18:38:30 +0100
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
For a full list of, and information about, our champions:
All Evidence Champions
About our champions, why and how to become one:
Become an Evidence Champion

This website uses Cookies

We use limited Cookies to run the site and to analyse our traffic (none for site vendors). By using this site, you will be providing your consent to our use of Cookies.

Accept & continue