Study

Do biomass harvesting guidelines influence herpetofauna following harvests of logging residues for renewable energy?

  • Published source details Fritts S., Moorman C., Grodsky S., Hazel D., Homyack J., Farrell C. & Castleberry S. (2016) Do biomass harvesting guidelines influence herpetofauna following harvests of logging residues for renewable energy?. Ecological Applications, 26, 926-939.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Leave woody debris in forests after logging

Action Link
Reptile Conservation
  1. Leave woody debris in forests after logging

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 2010–2014 in commercial pine forests in North Carolina and Georgia, USA (Fritts et al. 2016) found that retaining woody debris after clearcutting did not affect reptile species richness, or overall reptile and amphibian species diversity. Over 3–4 years after clearcutting, reptile species richness and overall reptile and amphibian species diversity were similar when 100% of woody debris was retained, 15–30% of wood debris was retained, or all debris was removed (results reported as statistical model outputs, see original paper for details). Eight replicate sites in three locations (one in North Carolina, two in Georgia) of intensively managed loblolly pine Pinus taeda plantations (64–70 ha/site, 25–35 years old) were clearcut in autumn 2010–summer 2011 and six 11–12 ha plots/site were managed by retaining 100% of woody debris; retaining 30% of woody debris in large piles; retaining 30% of woody debris evenly distributed; retaining 15% of woody debris in large piles; retaining 15% of woody debris evenly distributed; or by removing all woody debris (following traditional practice). Sites were replanted and treated with herbicide in 2011–2012. Reptiles and amphibians were surveyed in April–August 2011–2014 in North Carolina and 2011–2013 in Georgia using three drift fence and funnel trap arrays/plot. Three–eight trapping periods were carried out/year (2011: 10 consecutive days; 2012–2014: five consecutive days).

    (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 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