Study

Effects of clear-cutting and single-tree selection harvests on herbivorous insect larvae feeding on bilberry (Vaccinium myrtillus) in uneven-aged boreal Picea abies forests

  • Published source details Atlegrim O. & Sjöberg K. (1996) Effects of clear-cutting and single-tree selection harvests on herbivorous insect larvae feeding on bilberry (Vaccinium myrtillus) in uneven-aged boreal Picea abies forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 87, 139-148.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Use selective or reduced impact logging instead of conventional logging

Action Link
Butterfly and Moth Conservation
  1. Use selective or reduced impact logging instead of conventional logging

    A replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in 1992 in three boreal forests in Lapland, Sweden (Atlegrim & Sjöberg 1996) found that bilberry Vaccinium myrtillus plants in selectively logged forests had a higher abundance of exposed moth caterpillars, but not concealed caterpillars, than clearcut forests. The abundance of exposed caterpillars (Geometridae and Noctuidae, which crawl on leaves while feeding) in selectively logged forests (2.3–3.5 individuals/m2) was higher than in clearcut forests (0.3–1.3 individuals/m2), and similar to undisturbed forests (3.0–5.7 individuals/m2). However, the abundance of concealed caterpillars (Tortricidae and Pyralidae, which spin leaves together and live between them) was not significantly different in selectively logged (0 individuals/m2), clearcut (0–0.3 individuals/m2) and undisturbed (0–1.3 individuals/m2) forests. Three forests were each divided into three 20-ha stands, which were randomly assigned to three treatments: selective logging (30% of trees and 45–50% of tree volume removed), clearcutting (all trees removed, followed by soil scarification and artificial regeneration), and undisturbed. Felling was staggered between winter 1987/88 and 1991/92. From late June–early July 1992, caterpillars feeding on bilberry were counted in three randomly placed 0.1-m2 plots in each of 10 sites within each stand.

    (Summarised by: Andrew Bladon)

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