Study

Response of a reptile guild to forest harvesting

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Thin trees within forests

Action Link
Reptile Conservation

Leave woody debris in forests after logging

Action Link
Reptile Conservation
  1. Thin trees within forests

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 2004–2006 in pine forests in South Carolina, USA (Todd & Andrews 2008) found that snake abundance was higher in thinned compared to clearcut forest. The number of snakes captured was higher after thinning (180 individuals) compared to clearcutting (80–102 individuals). Numbers of snakes captured in unharvested plots was 137. Four circular forest sites were divided into four plots and each plot was randomly assigned one of four treatments: 85% thinned, clearcut with coarse woody debris retained, clearcut with coarse woody debris removed and unharvested for >30 years. Logging was from February to April 2004. Reptiles were sampled using drift fences with pitfall traps. Traps were checked every 1–2 days from April 2004 to July 2006 except for August.

    (Summarised by: Maggie Watson, Katie Sainsbury)

  2. Leave woody debris in forests after logging

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 2004–2006 in pine forests in South Carolina, USA (Todd & Andrews 2008) found that snake abundance was similar in clearcut forest with woody debris left in place compared to when debris was removed, but lower in clearcut compared to thinned forest. The number of snakes captured was similar after clearcutting and leaving coarse woody debris in place (102 individuals) or removing coarse woody debris (80 individuals), but lower than after thinning (180 individuals). Numbers of snakes captured in unharvested plots was 137. Four circular forest sites were divided into four plots and each plot was randomly assigned one of four treatments: clearcut with coarse woody debris retained, clearcut with coarse woody debris removed, 85% thinned and unharvested for >30 years. Logging was from February to April 2004. Reptiles were sampled using drift fences with pitfall traps. Traps were checked every 1–2 days from April 2004 to July 2006 except for August.

    (Summarised by: Maggie Watson, 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