Study

Diversification of Pinus halepensis forests by sowing Quercus ilex and Quercus pubescens acorns: testing the effects of different vegetation and soil treatments

  • Published source details Prévosto B., Monnier Y., Ripert C. & Fernández C. (2011) Diversification of Pinus halepensis forests by sowing Quercus ilex and Quercus pubescens acorns: testing the effects of different vegetation and soil treatments. European journal of forest research, 130, 67-76.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Use prescribed fire after tree planting

Action Link
Forest Conservation

Mechanically remove understory vegetation after tree planting

Action Link
Forest Conservation
  1. Use prescribed fire after tree planting

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 2005-2006 in Mediterranean Aleppo pine Pinus halepensis woodland in France (Prévosto et al. 2011) found that prescribed burning increased the survival of planted downy oak Quercus pubescens and holly oak Q. ilex seedlings. In plots with woody debris, survival of downy oak (control: <0.1; burned: 0.8 seedlings/sowing point) and holly oak (control: 1.0; burned: 2.2) was higher in burned plots. In contrast, in plots without woody debris, survival was similar between treatments for both downy oak (control: 0.0; burned: 0.2) and holly oak (control: 0.7; burned: 1.2). Grass cover was similar between treatments in plots with woody debris (control: 17%; burned: 10%) and without (control: 22%; burned: 16%). Data were collected in 2006 in 16 plots (14 × 14 m). There were four control and four burned (prescribed fire in 2005) treatment plots with woody debris scattered in the plot, and four of each treatment where the woody debris had been manually removed. All plots were thinned in 2004 (from 410 to 210 trees/ha) and in November 2006 holly oak and downy oak were planted with three acorns spaced 1 m apart at each sowing point.

     

  2. Mechanically remove understory vegetation after tree planting

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 2005 in Mediterranean Aleppo pine Pinus halepensis woodland in France (Prévosto et al. 2011) found no effect of mechanical cutting of ground vegetation and scarification treatments on survival of planted downy oak Quercus pubescens and holly oak Q. ilex seedlings, or on grass cover. There was no difference between treatments for survival of downy oak (control: <0.1; chopped: 0.2-0.3; one scarification: 0.2-0.6; double scarification: 0.3-0.5 seedlings/sawing point) and holly oak (control: 0.7-1.1; chopped: 1.1-1.6; one scarification: 0.8-1.4; double scarification: 1.2-1.3), or grass cover (control: 16%-17%; chopped: 24%-27%; one scarification: 17%-27%; double scarification: 17%-24%). Data were collected in 2006 in eight replicates of control, chopped (ground vegetation mechanically chopped), one scarification (vegetation chopped, forest floor and top soil loosened in one direction) and double scarification (forest floor and top soil loosened in two directions) plots (14 × 14 m). Treatments were applied in 2005. All plots were thinned in 2004 (from 410 to 210 trees/ha) and seeded in November 2006 with holly oak and downy oak at sowing points of three acorns spaced 1 m apart.

     

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