Study

Influences of gap position, vegetation management and herbivore control on survival and growth of white spruce (Picea glauca (Moench) Voss) seedlings

  • Published source details Milakovsky B., Frey B.R., Ashton M.S., Larson B.C. & Schmitz O.J. (2011) Influences of gap position, vegetation management and herbivore control on survival and growth of white spruce (Picea glauca (Moench) Voss) seedlings. Forest Ecology and Management, 261, 440-446.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Fence to prevent grazing after tree planting

Action Link
Forest Conservation

Mechanically remove understory vegetation after tree planting

Action Link
Forest Conservation
  1. Fence to prevent grazing after tree planting

    A replicated, controlled study in 1996-2000 in boreal forest in Saskatchewan, Canada (Milakovsky et al. 2011) found that herbivore exclusion increase the growth rate but not the survival rate of planted white spruce Picea glauca seedlings. Height increase was greater in two large mammal and large and medium mammal exclusion treatments (25-26 cm) compared to control plots (20 cm). Seedling survival was similar between treatments (75-78%). In 1996, fifteen plots (4 × 8 m) of large mammal exclusion (prevent browsing by moose Alces alces, elk and deer), all mammal exclusion (also prevent browsing by snowshoe hares Lepus americanus) and control (no exclusion) treatments were established in each of eight blocks. Data were collected in 2000 in four subplots (2 × 2 m) planted with white spruce in June 1996. All plots were harvested (trees >2 m height removed by a feller-buncher) before treatments.

     

  2. Mechanically remove understory vegetation after tree planting

    A replicated, controlled study in 1996-2000 in boreal forest in Saskatchewan, Canada (Milakovsky et al. 2011) found no effect of ground vegetation control treatments on survival or growth rate of planted white spruce Picea glauca seedlings. Survival (75-78%) and height increase (20-26 cm) were similar between treatments. In 1996, fifteen plots (4 × 8 m) of each cutting (all vegetation cut to ground level), crushing (all vegetation and rootstock ground up) and control treatments were established in each of eight blocks. Data were collected in 2000 in four subplots (2 × 2 m) planted with white spruce in June 1996. All plots were harvested (trees >2 m height removed by a feller-buncher) before treatments.

     

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