Study

Long-term response of planted conifers, natural regeneration, and vegetation to harvesting, scalping, and weeding on a boreal mixedwood site

  • Published source details Man R., Rice J.A. & MacDonald G.B. (2009) Long-term response of planted conifers, natural regeneration, and vegetation to harvesting, scalping, and weeding on a boreal mixedwood site. Forest Ecology and Management, 258, 1225-1234.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Use mechanical thinning before or after planting

Action Link
Forest Conservation

Use clearcutting to increase understory diversity

Action Link
Forest Conservation
  1. Use mechanical thinning before or after planting

    A replicated, randomized controlled study in 1993-2007 in boreal forest in Ontario, Canada (Man, Rice & MacDonald 2009) found that cutting increased the survival rate and size of planted trees. Survival rate (5-14 years after planting) of white spruce Picea glauca (uncut: 36%; cut: 69-74%) and jack pine Pinus banksiana (uncut: 6%; cut: 39-52%) was lower in uncut than in the three cut treatments. Height (cm) of white spruce  (uncut: 60; partial cut : 180; partial cut and removal: 230; clearcut: 250) and  jack pine (uncut: 70; partial cut: 300; partial cut and removal: 400; clearcut: 450) as well as root-collar diameter (cm) of white spruce  (uncut: 1; partial cut: 3; partial cut and removal: 5; clearcut: 6) and  jack pine (uncut: 1; partial cut: 4; partial cut and removal: 7; clearcut: 9) increased with increasing cutting intensity. In 1993-1994 four treatments: uncut, 50% partial cut, 50% partial cut with removal of residuals after three years, and clearcut were replicated in six blocks (112 × 56 m). Blocks were planted with white spruce and jack pine in 1994. Data were collected in 1998-2007.

     

  2. Use clearcutting to increase understory diversity

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 1993-2007 in boreal forest in Ontario, Canada (Man, Rice & MacDonald 2009) found no effect of clearcutting on the density of new tree regenerations. Density (stems/ha) of hardwood and conifer regenerations was similar in all treatments (hardwood: ~4,000; conifer: ~1,500). In 1993-1994, four treatments: control (uncut), 50% partial cut, 50% partial cut with removal of residuals after 3 years, and clearcut were replicated in six blocks (112 × 56 m). Data were collected in 1998-2007.

     

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