Study

Restoration of Araucaria forest: the role of perches, pioneer vegetation, and soil fertility

  • Published source details Zanini L. & Ganade G. (2005) Restoration of Araucaria forest: the role of perches, pioneer vegetation, and soil fertility. Restoration Ecology, 13, 507-514.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Build bird-perches to enhance natural seed dispersal

Action Link
Forest Conservation

Use fertilizer

Action Link
Forest Conservation

Use clearcutting to increase understory diversity

Action Link
Forest Conservation
  1. Build bird-perches to enhance natural seed dispersal

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 2001-2002 in a degraded subtropical Araucaria forest in Brazil (Zanini & Ganade 2005) found that building bird perches increased species richness and abundance of new seedlings. Species richness (perches: 0.6-2.0; no perch: 0.2-0.8/m2) and abundance (perches: 0.7-2.7; no perches: 0.2-1.7) were higher under perches. Data were collected in 2002 in four pairs of perch and control plots (1 × 1 m) in each of 10 blocks randomly located inside a 2 ha area. Perches were 2 m tall with a 16 cm diameter pole and were placed in the centre of each perch plot.

     

  2. Use fertilizer

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 2001-2002 in subtropical Araucaria forest in Brazil (3) found no effect of fertilizing on species richness and abundance of new tree seedlings. Species richness (fertilized: 0.2-1.9; unfertilized: 0.4-2.0/m2) and abundance (fertilized: 0.2-2.7; unfertilized: 0.4-2.5/m2) were similar between treatments. Data were collected in 2002 in two fertilized (nitrogen: 40 kg/ha; phosphorus: 130 kg/ha; potassium: 30 kg/ha) and two unfertilized plots (3 × 3 m) in each of ten blocks randomly located inside a 2 ha area.

     

  3. Use clearcutting to increase understory diversity

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 2001-2002 in subtropical Araucaria forest in Brazil (Zanini & Ganade 2005) found that clearcutting and complete vegetation removal increased species richness and abundance of new seedlings. Species richness/m2 (clearcut: 0.7-2.0; uncut: 0.2-0.6) and abundance (clearcut: 0.8-2.6; uncut: 0.2-0.7) were higher in removal than uncut plots. Data were collected in 2002 in two removal (all plants and organic material removed in 2001) and two uncut plots (3 × 3 m) in each of 10 blocks randomly located inside a 2 ha area.

     

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 18

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