Retain understorey vegetation within plantations

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    62%
  • Certainty
    30%
  • Harms
    0%

Source countries

Key messages

  • One study evaluated the effects on mammals of retaining understorey vegetation within plantations. This study was in Chile.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)

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, controlled, before-and-after study in 2009–2012 of a Monterey pine Pinus radiata plantation in central Chile (Simonetti et al. 2013) found that retaining understorey vegetation resulted in there being a greater number and higher visit rate of medium-sized mammal species, compared to areas cleared of understorey vegetation. Before clearance, the same four species were recorded both in plots designated to be uncleared and cleared; guiña Leopardus guigna, culpeo Pseudalopex culpaeus, Molina's hog-nosed skunk Conepatus chinga and southern pudu Pudu puda. After understorey clearance, all four species remained in uncleared plots but just southern pudu occurred in cleared plots. There were also fewer visits to cleared plots after understorey removal (visit rates presented as response ratios). Thirteen plots (≥300 m apart) were monitored using camera traps for four to five nights, monthly, from October 2009 to July 2012. In February 2011, understorey vegetation was removed from 1,600 m2 around cameras in five plots. Regrowth was controlled in February 2012.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Littlewood, N.A., Rocha, R., Smith, R.K., Martin, P.A., Lockhart, S.L., Schoonover, R.F., Wilman, E., Bladon, A.J., Sainsbury, K.A., Pimm S. and Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Terrestrial Mammal Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Interventions for terrestrial mammals excluding bats and primates. Synopses of Conservation Evidence Series. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation - Published 2020

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

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