Study

Effects of single-tree and group selection harvesting on the diversity and abundance of spring forest herbs in deciduous forests in southwestern Ontario

  • Published source details Falk K.J., Burke D.M., Elliott K.A. & Holmes S.B. (2008) Effects of single-tree and group selection harvesting on the diversity and abundance of spring forest herbs in deciduous forests in southwestern Ontario. Forest Ecology and Management, 255, 2486-2494

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Use group-selection harvesting

Action Link
Forest Conservation

Thin trees within forests: effects on understory plants

Action Link
Forest Conservation
  1. Use group-selection harvesting

    A replicated, controlled, before-and-after trial in 2004-2005 in temperate broadleaf forest in Ontario Canada (Falk et al. 2006) found that group-selection harvesting increased the diversity of early spring herbaceous species and decreased the percent of plant species lost. The increase in the diversity (Shannon's index) of early spring herbaceous species was higher in group-selection (0.15 to 0.25) than in unharvested plots (0.32 to 0.34). Overall, the percentage of plant species lost was higher in unharvested (15%) compared to the group-selection treatment (8%). The percentage of plant species gained was similar (unharvested: 29%; group-selection:  35%). Two replicates (average 33 ha) of each group-selection harvest (creating five 400 m2, four 700 m2 and three 1,400 m2 gaps) and unharvested plots, were established between November 2004 and April 2005. Sampling was in April 2004 (pre-harvesting) and in April-May 2005 (post-harvesting) in 4 m2 regeneration growth plots (45×2 in control and 112×2 in group-selection).

     

  2. Thin trees within forests: effects on understory plants

    A replicated, controlled, before-and-after trial in 2004-2005 in temperate broadleaf forest in Ontario Canada (Falk et al. 2008) found that thinning increased the species richness of herbs. The increase in number of herbaceous species/plot was higher in thinned (3.6 to 4.5) than in unthinned plots (4.3 to 4.8). Overall percent of plant species lost (15% and 11% unthinned and thinned respectively) and of plant species gained (29% and 42%) was similar among treatments. Two thinned (leaving basal area of 20 m2/ha) and two unthinned blocks (average 33 ha) were established between November 2004 and April 2005. Sampling of herbs that grew mid-spring was in April 2004 (pre-harvesting) and in April-May 2005 (post-harvesting) in 45 regeneration growth plots (4 m2) in each block.

     

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 18

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