Study

Effects of prescribed fire and thinning on tree recruitment patterns in central hardwood forests

  • Published source details Albrecht M.A. & McCarthy B.C. (2006) Effects of prescribed fire and thinning on tree recruitment patterns in central hardwood forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 226, 88-103

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Use thinning followed by prescribed fire

Action Link
Forest Conservation

Thin trees within forests: effects on young trees

Action Link
Forest Conservation

Use prescribed fire: effects on young trees

Action Link
Forest Conservation
  1. Use thinning followed by prescribed fire

    A replicated, controlled study in 2001-2005 in second-growth oak forests in southern Ohio, USA (Albrecht & McCarthy 2006) found that mechanical thinning followed by prescribed fire reduced large sapling density, increased small sapling and large seedling density, but did not affect densities of small seedlings and of oak Quercus spp. saplings. Densities of large seedlings (50-150 cm tall) and small saplings (<3 cm DBH) was higher in thinned and burned (11,000 large seedlings/ha; 3,000 small saplings/ha) than in untreated plots (1,500 large seedlings/ha; 1,000 small saplings/ha). The density of large saplings (3-10 cm DBH) was lower in thinned and burned plots (200 large saplings/ha) than in untreated plots (600 large saplings/ha). The density of small seedlings (<50 cm tall) was similar in thinned and burned (90,000 small seedlings/ha) and in untreated plots (120,000 small seedlings/ha). Three forest areas were divided into treatment units (each approximately 30 ha): untreated, mechanical thinning followed by prescribed fire. Treatments were applied in the inactive season of 2001. Regeneration was sampled in ten 0.1 ha plots/treatment (a total of 40 plots/site) in summer 2004.

     

  2. Thin trees within forests: effects on young trees

    A replicated, controlled study in 2001-2005 in second-growth oak Quercus spp. forests in southern Ohio, USA (Albrecht & McCarthy 2006) found that mechanical thinning reduced small seedling density and increased large seedling and small sapling densities. Density (individuals/ha) of small (<50 cm tall) seedlings was lower in thinned plots (unthinned: 135,000; thinned: 70,000). In contrast, the density of large seedlings (40-150 cm tall) (unthinned: 2,000; thinned: 7,000) and small saplings (<3 cm DBH) (unthinned: 1,000; thinned: 2,400) was higher in thinned plots. Thinning had no effect on density of large saplings (3-10 cm DBH) (unthinned: 600; thinned: 500). Three forest areas were divided into unthinned and thinned (mechanical-thinning) treatment units (30 ha). Treatments were applied in the inactive season of 2001. Regeneration was sampled in ten 0.1 ha plots in each treatment (a total of 40 plots/site) in summer 2004.

     

  3. Use prescribed fire: effects on young trees

    A replicated, controlled study in 2001-2005 in second-growth oak forests in southern Ohio, USA (Albrecht & McCarthy 2006) found that prescribed fire reduced total large sapling density and increased large seedlings density, but not seedlings of oaks Quercus spp. A single prescribed fire reduced large sapling (3-10 cm diameter at breast height) density from 600 to 300 saplings/ha and increased large seedlings (40-150 cm tall) density from 2,000 to 6,000 seedlings/ha. Prescribed fire had no effect on the densities of small seedlings <50 cm tall (control: 135,000; fire: 140,000 seedlings/ha) and small saplings <3 cm diameter at breast height (control: 1,000; fire: 1,050 saplings/ha). A single prescribed fire did not affect densities of oak seedlings. Three forest areas were divided into treatment units (each approximately 30 ha): control and prescribed fire. Treatments were applied in the inactive season of 2001. New tree growth was sampled in ten 0.1 ha plots/treatment (a total of 40 plots/site) in summer 2004.

     

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