Study

Management of forest after logging resulted in greater use by American martins but not amphibian abundance compared to stands left to regenerate naturally in Canada

  • Published source details Thompson I.D., Baker J.A., Jastrebski C., Dacosta J., Fryxell J. & Corbett D. (2008) Effects of post-harvest silviculture on use of boreal forest stands by amphibians and marten in Ontario. Forestry Chronicle, 84, 741-747

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Plant trees following clearfelling

Action Link
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Remove competing vegetation to allow tree establishment in clearcut areas

Action Link
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Replant vegetation

Action Link
Amphibian Conservation

Use herbicides to control mid-storey or ground vegetation

Action Link
Amphibian Conservation
  1. Plant trees following clearfelling

    A replicated, site comparison study in 2001–2002 of boreal forest stands in Ontario, Canada (Thompson et al. 2008) found that forest stands subject to tree planting and herbicide treatment after logging were used more by American martens Martes americana than were naturally regenerating stands. The effects of planting and herbicide use were not separated in the study. Radio-tracked martens made greater use of planted and herbicide-treated stands than they did of naturally regenerating stands (data not presented). However, the live-capture rate of martens in planted and herbicide-treated stands (5.6 martens/100 trap nights) was not significantly different to that in regenerating stands (1.9 martens/100 trap nights). Stands were 35–45 years old and located in a 600-km2 forestry area. Forest stands were either regenerating naturally following logging or planted following logging and treated with herbicide. Martens were live-trapped in 2003–2007, and monitored subsequently by radio-tracking.

  2. Remove competing vegetation to allow tree establishment in clearcut areas

    A replicated, site comparison study in 2001–2002 of boreal forest stands in Ontario, Canada (Thompson et al. 2008) found that stands subject to herbicide treatment and tree planting after logging were used more by American martens Martes americana than were naturally regenerating stands. The effects of herbicide and planting were not separated in the study. Radio-tracked martens made greater use of herbicide-treated and planted stands than they did of naturally regenerating stands (data not presented). However, the live-capture rate of martens in herbicide-treated and planted stands (5.6 martens/100 trap nights) was not significantly different to that in regenerating stands (1.9 martens/100 trap nights). Stands were all 35–45 years old and located in a 600-km2 forestry area. Forest stands were either herbicide-treated and planted following logging or were left to regenerate naturally after logging. Martens were live-trapped in 2003–2007, and monitored subsequently by radio-tracking.

  3. Replant vegetation

    A replicated, site comparison study in 2001–2002 of boreal forest stands in Ontario, Canada (Thompson et al. 2008) found that amphibian abundance was not higher following planting and herbicide treatment after logging compared to stands left to regenerate naturally. Wood frogs Rana sylvatica were significantly less abundant in 20–30-year-old stands that had been managed by planting and herbicide treatment with or without scarification (0.06 captures/trap night) compared to those that had been left to regenerate naturally (0.09). However, capture rates in 32–50 year old managed stands (0.07) did not differ significantly from naturally regenerated (0.12) and unharvested stands (0.06). For American toads Bufo americanus, there was no significant difference in capture rates between treatments or ages of stands (managed: 0.02–0.04; natural regeneration: 0.02–0.03; unharvested: 0.03). Nineteen stands that had received each treatment and five unharvested stands were selected. Drift-fencing with pitfall traps were used for monitoring in August–September 2001–2002.

     

  4. Use herbicides to control mid-storey or ground vegetation

    A replicated, site comparison study in 2001–2002 of boreal forest stands in Ontario, Canada (Thompson et al. 2008) found that herbicide treatment and planting after logging did not result in higher amphibian abundance compared to stands left to regenerate naturally. Wood frogs Rana sylvatica were significantly less abundant in 20–30-year-old stands that had been managed by planting and herbicide treatment with or without tree scarring (0.06 captures/trap night) compared to those that had been left to regenerate naturally (0.09). Capture rates in 32–50-year-old managed stands (0.07) did not differ significantly from naturally regenerated (0.12) and uncut stands (0.06). For American toads Bufo americanus, there was no significant difference in capture rates between treatments or ages of stands (managed: 0.02–0.04; natural regeneration: 0.02–0.03; uncut: 0.03). Nineteen stands that had received each treatment and five uncut stands were surveyed. Drift-fencing with pitfall traps were used for monitoring in August–September 2001–2002.

     

Output references

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, terrestrial 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 17

Go to the CE Journal

Subscribe to our newsletter

Please add your details if you are interested in receiving updates from the Conservation Evidence team about new papers, synopses and opportunities.

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