Action

Enhance soil compaction

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    28%
  • Certainty
    40%
  • Harms
    45%

Source countries

Key messages

 

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

  1. A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 1995-2000 in boreal forest in British Columbia, Canada (Kabzems & Haeussler 2005) found that soil compaction treatments decreased the height of trembling aspen Populus tremuloides saplings but not their density. Height of dominant aspen saplings was lower in medium and heavy compaction plots (175 and 170 cm respectively) than in control plots (230 cm). Sapling density was similar between treatments (38,000-39,000 stems/ha). The height of at least 12 dominant aspen saplings and total sapling density were monitored in nine control (no deliberate compaction), nine medium compaction (2 cm impression in soil) and nine heavy compaction (5 cm impression in soil) treatment plots (40×70 m). Treatments were applied in 1995, data were collected in 2000.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 1998-2002 in boreal forest in British Columbia, Canada (Tan, Kabzems & Chang 2006) found that soil compaction increased understory plant cover in debris-removed plots but decreased plant species richness and the height of trembling aspen Populus tremuloides saplings in debris remaining plots. Total cover of shrubs, herbaceous species and mosses was higher in compaction plots with woody debris removal (compaction: 115%; control: 81%). With debris remaining species richness was lower in compaction (17 species/subplot) than control plots (21), as was the maximum height of aspen (compaction: 225 cm; control: 345 cm). There was no difference between compaction treatments and controls for: understory plant cover in debris remaining plots (compaction: 75%; control: 77%); plant species richness in debris removal plots (compaction: 23; control: 22); understory or the maximum height of aspen in debris removal plots (compaction: 110 cm; control: 120 cm). Six compaction (soil depressed by 4–5 cm; 40×70 m) and six control treatment plots were established in 1998-1999. Three of each treatment were assigned as woody debris removal (whole tree harvested, forest floor stripped to expose the soil) and three as debris remaining (trunk only harvested, woody debris left) plots. Under-canopy plants were monitored in 2001 in two subplots (4 m radius). Aspen saplings were measured in 2002 in three subplots within each treatment plot.

    Study and other actions tested
  3. 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.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Agra H., Schowanek S., Carmel Y., Smith R.K. & Ne’eman G. (2018) Forest Conservation. Pages 285-328 in: W.J. Sutherland, L.V. Dicks, N. Ockendon, S.O. Petrovan & R.K. Smith (eds) What Works in Conservation 2018. Open Book Publishers, Cambridge, UK.

 

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Forest Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Forest Conservation
Forest Conservation

Forest Conservation - Published 2016

Forest synopsis

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation assesses the research looking at whether interventions are beneficial or not. It is based on summarised evidence in synopses, on topics such as amphibians, bats, biodiversity in European farmland, and control of freshwater invasive species. More are available and in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
Our Journal: Conservation Evidence

Our Journal:
Conservation Evidence

A unique, free to publish open-access journal publishing research and case studies that measure the effects of conservation actions.

Read latest volume: Volume 16

Special issues: Amphibian special issue

Go to the 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 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