Aspen canopy removal and root trenching effects on understory vegetation

  • Published source details Powell G.W. & Bork E.W. (2006) Aspen canopy removal and root trenching effects on understory vegetation. Forest Ecology and Management, 230, 79-90.


This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Thin trees within forests: effects on understory plants

Action Link
Forest Conservation
  1. Thin trees within forests: effects on understory plants

    A replicated, controlled study in 2000-2002 in boreal forest in Alberta, Canada, (Powell & Bork 2006) found that removal of trembling aspen Populus tremuloides canopies increased the biomass of understory vegetation and cover of herbaceous species. Biomass  (kg/ha) of understory vegetation was higher in partial  (1,300-2,200) and complete removal plots (2,100-2,700) than control plots (700-850) at the parkland site and differed between all treatments at the boreal site (control: 400-750; partial removal: 1,100-1,150; complete removal: 2,100-2,900). Cover of non grass herbaceous plants at the boreal site (control: 29-45%; partial removal: 33-38%; complete removal: 46-66%) and of grasses at the parkland site (control: 8-20%; partial removal: 15-37%; complete removal: 52-79%) was higher in complete than in partial removal and control plots. Cover of tall shrubs (>1 m) at the boreal site was lower in partial (3-8%) and complete removal (8-20%) than in control plots (15-42%). There was no difference between treatments for the following: cover of tall shrubs at the parkland site (control: 4-10%; partial removal: 5-8%; complete removal: 0-3%), low shrubs (<1 m) at the parkland (control: 25-31%; partial removal: 12-25%; complete removal: 17-38%) and at the boreal site (control: 24-51%; partial removal: 35-40%; complete removal: 46-52%), forbs at the parkland (control: 7-10%; partial removal: 3-4%; complete removal: 4-7%) and grasses at the boreal site (control: 1-3%; partial removal: 0-2%; complete removal: 2-9%). Three replicates of complete removal (all aspen canopies removed), partial removal (half of aspen canopy area removed) and control plots (10 × 10 m) were established in 2000 in a 'boreal' site (16,319 stems/ha) and a 'parkland' site (13,194 stems/ha). Data were collected in 2002.

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 19

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