Study

Fire-type and forestry management effects on the early postfire vegetation dynamics of a Pinus pinaster woodland

  • Published source details Pérez B. & Moreno J.M. (1998) Fire-type and forestry management effects on the early postfire vegetation dynamics of a Pinus pinaster woodland. Plant Ecology, 134, 27-41

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Remove burned trees

Action Link
Forest Conservation

Thin trees within forests: effects on understory plants

Action Link
Forest Conservation
  1. Remove burned trees

    A replicated, controlled study in 1991-1994 in maritime pine Pinus pinaster woodland in Spain (Pérez & Moreno 1998) found that removing burned trees increased the cover and species richness of legumes but not of all herbaceous plants, or of the dominant shrub gum rockrose Cistus ladanifer. Legume cover (removed: 7-29%; control: 3-26%) and species richness (removed: 3-6; control: 2-5/plot) were higher in removal plots. There were no differences between treatments for: total herbaceous cover (removed: 8-47%; control: 3-49%), species richness (removed: 5-16; control: 6-14), gum rockrose cover (removed: 8%-25%; control: 10%-46%) and gum rockrose density (removed: 1-5; control: 5-11/m2). Data were collected in 12 removal plots (burned trees removed after fire) and 12 control plots (trees not removed, 5 × 5 m). Treatments were three years after the entire study site was burned by wildfire fire in 1991.

     

  2. Thin trees within forests: effects on understory plants

    A replicated, controlled study in 1991-1994 in maritime pine Pinus pinaster woodland in Spain (Pérez & Moreno 1998) found that thinning before wildfire increased post-fire biomass and species richness of herbaceous species, but not of the dominant shrub gum rockrose Cistus ladanifer. Herbaceous biomass (g/m2) (pre-thinned: 37-93; unthinned: 2-10) and species richness (species/plot) (pre-thinned: 6-16; unthinned: 5-7) were higher in pre-thinned plots. Herbaceous cover (pre-thinned: 13%-49%; unthinned: 3%-11%) and gum rockrose cover (pre-thinned: 8%-46%; unthinned: 16%-32%) and density () (pre-thinned: 1-10/m2; unthinned: 2-7/m2) were similar between treatments. Data were collected in six thinned (1975-1991) and six unthinned plots (5 × 10 m), three years after the entire study site was burned by wildfire fire in 1991.

     

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

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