Study

Nine-year response of hardwood understory to organic matter removal and soil compaction

  • Published source details Ponder F. (2008) Nine-year response of hardwood understory to organic matter removal and soil compaction. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry, 25, 25-31

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Enhance soil compaction

Action Link
Forest Conservation

Remove woody debris after timber harvest

Action Link
Forest Conservation
  1. Enhance soil compaction

    A replicated, controlled study in 1994-2003 in temperate broadleaf forest in Missouri, USA (Ponder 2008) found that soil compaction decreased tree and woody-vine density and increased annual plant density but had no effect on the density of shrubs, perennial herbaceous species and grasses, or on the height of trees or all other plants. Density of trees was lower in severe compaction than in control plots (control: 5.5; medium compaction: 4.2; severe compaction: 3.2/m2). Density of woody vines was lower in severe compaction (2.6/m2) than in medium compaction (4.6) and control plots (4.9). Density of annual herbaceous plants was lower in control (2/m2) than medium (4.1) and severe compaction plots (3.7). There was no difference between treatments for the density of shrubs (control: 2.5; medium compaction: 3.1; severe compaction: 3.5/m2), perennial herbaceous species (control: 2.5; medium compaction: 3.1; severe compaction: 2.5/m2) and grasses (control: 1.2; medium compaction: 1.5; severe compaction: 2.4/m2), or for the height of trees (control: 2.7; medium compaction: 2.5; severe compaction: 2.3 m) or all other plants (control: 0.6; medium compaction: 0.5; severe compaction: 0.5 m). Data were collected in 2003 in three plots (8 m2) in each of three replicates of: control (average soil bulk density 1.3 g/cm3), medium compaction (to 1.7 g/cm3) and severe compaction (to 1.8 g/cm3) treatment plots (0.4 ha). Treatments were applied in 1994.

     

  2. Remove woody debris after timber harvest

    A replicated study in 1994-2003 in temperate broadleaf forest in Missouri, USA (Ponder 2008) found that after wood harvest, removal of the whole tree decreased the density but not the height of young trees compared with removal of main stems only, or removal of the whole tree plus debris from the forest floor. The number of individuals/m2 plot for trees was lower in whole tree removal plots (3.9) than in main stem removal plots (4.6) and forest floor debris removal plots (4.6). For shrubs (main stem removal: 2.8; whole tree removal: 3.2; forest floor debris removal: 3.3), woody vines (main stem removal: 4.9; whole tree removal: 3.7; forest floor debris removal: 3.5) and herbs (main stem removal: 7.7; whole tree removal: 7.7; forest floor debris removal: 8.9) numbers of individuals was similar between treatments. Height (m) of trees (main stem removal: 2.6; whole tree removal: 2.6; forest floor debris removal: 2.4) and of all other plants (main stem removal: 0.6; whole tree removal: 0.5; forest floor debris removal: 0.5) was similar between treatments. Data were collected in 2003 in three plots (8 m2) in each of three replicate treatment plots (0.4 ha): main stem removal, whole tree removal and forest floor debris removal. Harvest and removal treatments were applied in 1994.

     

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 17

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