Study

Harvesting intensity affects forest structure and composition in an upland Amazonian forest

  • Published source details Parrotta J.A., Francis J.K. & Knowles O.H. (2002) Harvesting intensity affects forest structure and composition in an upland Amazonian forest. Forest Ecology and Management, 169, 243-255.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Use clearcutting to increase understory diversity

Action Link
Forest Conservation
  1. Use clearcutting to increase understory diversity

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 1985-1997 in tropical forest in Pará State, Brazil (Parrotta, Francis & Knowles 2004) found that clearcuttng decreased species richness, density and size of trees, but not species richness, density and size of vines, herbaceous species and grasses. Species richness of trees (>15 cm diameter at breast height) was higher in uncut (20/plot) and low intensity cuts (20) than in clearcut and moderate intensity cuts plots (clearcutting: 7/plot; moderate-intensity: 12). Numbers of trees/ha was lower in moderate intensity cut plots (164) than in the other treatments (uncut: 323; low intensity: 339; clearcut: 296). Trees basal area (m2/ha) was higher in low (16) and moderate intensity cuts (17) than in clearcuts (9) and highest in uncut plots (uncut: 25). Density of vines (uncut: 17,468; low intensity: 8,758; moderate intensity: 11,174; clearcuts: 9,268), herbaceous species (uncut: 1,210; low intensity: 1,131; moderate intensity: 1,401; clearcuts: 1,417) and grasses (uncut: 334; low intensity: 223; moderate intensity: 270; clearcuts: 6,362), and species richness/plot of vines (uncut: 13; low intensity: 13; moderate intensity: 12; clearcuts: 12), herbaceous species (uncut: 3; low intensity: 2; moderate intensity 2; clearcuts: 3) and grasses (<1 in all treatments) were similar between treatments.  Data were collected in 1996-1997 in four treatments (20 × 70 m2): uncut, low intensity cuts (trees ≥45 cm diameter at breast height removed), moderate intensity cuts (trees ≤20 and ≥60 cm removed), and clearcutting, replicated randomly in four blocks in 1985.

     

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