Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Adopt community-based management to protect forests Two studies from Ethiopia and Nepal (including one replicated, before-and-after, site comparison) found that forest cover increased more in community-managed forests than in forests not managed by local communities. One replicated, site comparison study in Colombia found that deforestation rates in community-managed forests did not differ from deforestation rates in forests that were not managed by local communities, or in uninhabited national parks. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1152https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1152Wed, 18 May 2016 14:58:54 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Prevent livestock grazing in forests Two of three studies (including one replicated, controlled study) in Brazil, UK and Costa Rica found that preventing livestock grazing increased survival, species richness and diversity of understory plants. One study found mixed effects. One site comparison study in Israel found that preventing cattle grazing increased the density of oak seedlings and saplings. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1206https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1206Thu, 19 May 2016 14:09:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Shorten livestock grazing period or control grazing season in forests One replicated, controlled study in Spain found that shortening the livestock grazing period increased the abundance and size of regenerating oak trees. One paired-sites study in Australia found no effect of shortening the livestock grazing period on native plant species richness. One replicated study in the UK found that the number of tree seedlings was higher following summer compared to winter grazing. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1208https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1208Thu, 19 May 2016 14:33:45 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Thin trees within forests: effects on non-vascular plants Four studies (including one replicated, randomized, controlled study) in Canada, Finland, and Sweden examined the effects of thinning trees in forests on non-vascular plants. Three found it decreased epiphytic plant abundance and species richness. Three found mixed effects depending on thinning method and species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1212https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1212Fri, 20 May 2016 13:24:45 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use shelterwood harvest instead of clearcutting Three replicated, controlled studies in Sweden and the USA found that shelterwood harvesting resulted in higher plant diversity, lower grass cover and higher density of tree species compared with clearcutting. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1214https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1214Fri, 20 May 2016 13:48:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use partial retention harvesting instead of clearcutting Three studies (including one replicated, randomized, controlled study) in Canada found that using partial retention harvesting instead of clearcutting decreased the density of young trees. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1215https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1215Fri, 20 May 2016 13:59:21 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Mechanically/manually remove invasive plants One replicated, controlled study in Hawaii found that removal of invasive grass species increased understory plant biomass. One replicated, controlled study in the USA found no effect of invasive shrub removal on understory plant diversity. One replicated, controlled study in Ghana found that removal of invasive weed species increased tree seedling height. One replicated, controlled study in Hawaii found no effect of invasive plant removal on growth rate of native species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1228https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1228Mon, 23 May 2016 10:45:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Legal protection of forests Two site comparison studies in Nigeria and Iran found that legal protection of forest increased tree species richness and diversity and the density of young trees. One replicated, paired site study in Mexico found no effect of forest protection on seed density and diversity of trees and shrubs. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1233https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1233Mon, 23 May 2016 11:25:48 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Sow tree seeds after wildfire Three studies (including one replicated, randomized, controlled study) in the USA examined the effect of sowing herbaceous plant seeds in burnt forest areas. One found it decreased the number and cover of native species and one found it decreased the density of tree seedlings. All three found no effect of seeding on total plant cover or species richness. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1236https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1236Fri, 03 Jun 2016 08:34:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant a mixture of tree species to enhance diversity One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Brazil found that planting various tree species increased species richness, but had no effect on the density of new trees. One replicated, controlled study in Greece found that planting native tree species increased total plant species richness, diversity and cover. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1243https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1243Fri, 03 Jun 2016 10:43:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or disturb leaf litter to enhance germination One replicated, controlled study in Costa Rica found that leaf litter removal decreased the density of new tree seedlings. One replicated, controlled study in Poland found leaf litter removal increased understory plant species richness but decreased their cover. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1246https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1246Fri, 03 Jun 2016 11:07:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add organic matter One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Brazil found that leaf litter addition increased species richness of young trees. One replicated, controlled study in Costa Rica found leaf litter addition decreased young tree density in artificial forest gaps. Both studies found no effect of litter addition on the density of tree regenerations under intact forest canopy. One replicated, controlled study in Portugal found that adding plant material to the soil surface increased total plant cover. One replicated, controlled study in the USA found mixed effects on cover depending on understory plant group. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1250https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1250Fri, 03 Jun 2016 12:51:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use soil disturbance to enhance germination (excluding scarification or ploughing) Two replicated, controlled studies from Canada and Finland found that disturbance of the forest floor decreased understory vegetation cover. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1252https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1252Fri, 03 Jun 2016 13:50:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Enhance soil compaction Three studies (including two replicated, randomized, controlled) in Canada and the USA found that soil compaction decreased tree regeneration height and density. Two of the studies found it increased understory plant cover and density, while one found it decreased understory plant species richness. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1253https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1253Fri, 03 Jun 2016 14:05:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Fence to prevent grazing after tree planting Four of five studies (including two replicated, randomized, controlled studies) in Australia, Canada , Finland and the USA found that using fences to exclude grazing increased the survival, size and cover of planted trees. Two studies found no effect on tree survival rate and one found mixed effects on planted tree size depending on the structure of the fence. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1254https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1254Fri, 03 Jun 2016 14:24:30 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use prescribed fire after tree planting Two of four studies (including one replicated, randomized, controlled study) in Finland, France and the USA found that using prescribed fire after replanting increased the survival and sprouting rate of planted trees. One study found fire decreased planted tree size and one found no effect of prescribed fire on the size and survival rate of planted trees. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1255https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1255Fri, 03 Jun 2016 15:33:52 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage woody debris before tree planting One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Canada found that removal of woody debris increased the survival rate of planted trees. One replicated, controlled study in the USA found mixed effects of removing, chopping and burning woody debris on the size of planted trees. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1257https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1257Mon, 06 Jun 2016 09:39:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add organic matter after tree planting Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in the USA found that adding leaf litter or wood-chips before restoration planting increased seedling biomass, but decreased seedling emergence and survival. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1258https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1258Mon, 06 Jun 2016 10:36:39 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add lime to the soil after tree planting One of two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in the USA found that adding lime before restoration planting decreased the survival of pine seedlings. The other study found no effect of adding lime on planted oak seedling growth. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1259https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1259Mon, 06 Jun 2016 10:42:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use fertilizer after tree planting Two replicated, controlled studies in Canada and Portugal found that applying fertilizer after planting increased the size of the planted trees. One randomized, replicated, controlled study in Australia found that soil enhancers including fertilizer had a mixed effect on seedling survival and height. Three studies (including two randomized, replicated, controlled study) in France and Australia found no effect of applying fertilizer on the size and survival rate or health of planted trees. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1260https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1260Mon, 06 Jun 2016 10:48:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use herbicides after tree planting Two of three studies (including two replicated, randomized, controlled studies) in Sweden and the USA found that using herbicide increased the size of planted trees. One study found no effect on tree size. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Sweden found no effect of using herbicide on frost damage caused to planted Norway spruce seedlings. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1262https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1262Mon, 06 Jun 2016 13:13:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use tree guards or shelters to protect planted trees One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that using light but not dark coloured plastic tree shelters increased the survival rate of planted tree seedlings. One replicated, controlled study in Hong Kong found that tree guards increased tree height after 37 but not 44 months. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1268https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1268Fri, 10 Jun 2016 09:07:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Log/remove trees within forests: effects on non-vascular plants Two of three studies (including one replicated, paired sites study) in Australia, Norway and Sweden found logging trees in forests decreased epiphytic plant abundance and fern fertility. One found mixed effects depending on species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1270https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1270Fri, 10 Jun 2016 09:37:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Log/remove trees within forests: effects on young trees One replicated controlled study in Canada found that logging trees in forests increased the density of young trees. One replicated controlled study in Costa Rica found mixed effects on the density of young trees. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1272https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1272Mon, 13 Jun 2016 09:18:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use vegetation removal together with mechanical disturbance to the soil Two studies (including one replicated, randomized, controlled study) in Portugal and France found that vegetation removal together with mechanical disturbance of the soil increased the cover and diversity of understory plants. One of the studies found it also decreased understory shrub cover. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in France found that vegetation removal together with mechanical disturbance of the soil increased the density of young trees. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1274https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1274Tue, 28 Jun 2016 10:55:55 +0100