Study

Temporal longevity of unidirectional and dynamic filters to faunal recolonization in post-mining forest restoration

  • Published source details Craig M.D., Smith M.E., Stokes V.L., St J. Hardy G.E. & Hobbs R.J. (2018) Temporal longevity of unidirectional and dynamic filters to faunal recolonization in post-mining forest restoration. Austral Ecology, 43, 973-988.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Use prescribed burning in combination with vegetation cutting

Action Link
Reptile Conservation

Restore former mining or energy production sites

Action Link
Reptile Conservation
  1. Use prescribed burning in combination with vegetation cutting

    A replicated, site comparison study in 1990–1992, 2005–2006 and 2010–2011 in eucalypt forest in Western Australia, Australia (Craig et al. 2018) found that burned and thinned restored ex-mining forest had similar species richness and abundance to unmanaged restored ex-mining forest, but restored forest overall had lower species richness compared to unmined forest. Seven years after 20–22-year-old restored mining forest was managed through prescribed burning and tree thinning, reptile species richness was similar between managed-restored forest (5 species/plot) and unmanaged-restored forest (4) but richness in both was lower than in unmined forest (9). Reptile abundance was statistically similar in managed-restored (21 individuals/plot) and unmanaged-restored forest (10) and unmanaged-restored forest had lower abundance than unmined forest (34). See original paper for individual reptile abundances. The area was restored after mining in 1990–1992 by reseeding with local over- and understory species. Reptiles were surveyed in four plots of each of managed-restored, unmanaged-restored, and unmined forest. Managed-restored forest was thinned by felling trees (December 2002–June 2003) and prescribed burning (November 2003, reduced to 600–800 stems/ha) and two plots were re-thinned in January–December 2009 (reduced to 400 stems/ha). Unmined forest was prescribed burned 3–5 years before surveys. Reptiles were monitored using drift fences with funnel and pitfall traps in 2005–2006, 2010, and 2011.

    (Summarised by: Katie Sainsbury)

  2. Restore former mining or energy production sites

    A replicated, site comparison study in 1990–1992, 2005–2006 and 2010–2011 in eucalypt forest in Western Australia, Australia (Craig et al. 2018) found that 20–22 year-old restored mining sites that were thinned and burned had similar species richness and abundance to restored sites that were not thinned and burned, but restored forest overall had lower species richness compared to unmined forest. Seven years after burning and tree thinning (management) took place, reptile species richness was similar between managed-restored forest (5 species/plot) and unmanaged-restored forest (4 species/plot) but richness in both restored forest types was lower than in unmined forest (9 species/plot). Reptile abundance was similar in managed-restored (21 individuals/plot) and unmined forest (34 individuals/plot). Abundance in unmanaged-restored forest (10 individuals/plot) was lower than in unmined forest, but similar to managed restored forest. See original paper for details of individual reptile abundances. The study area was restored after mining in 1990–1992 by reseeding with local vegetation. Reptiles were surveyed in four plots in each of managed-restored forest, unmanaged-restored forest and unmined forest. Managed-restored forest was thinned by felling (December 2002–June 2003) and prescribed burning (November 2003, reduced to 600–800 stems/ha) and two plots were re-thinned in January–December 2009 (reduced to 400 stems/ha). Unmined forest was prescribed burned 3–5 years before surveys. Reptiles were monitored using drift fences with funnel and pitfall traps in 2005–2006, 2010, and 2011.

    (Summarised by: Katie Sainsbury)

Output references
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 19

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 Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust