Action

Action Synopsis: Bird Conservation About Actions

Remove midstorey from savannas

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    30%
  • Certainty
    10%
  • Harms
    30%

Source countries

Key messages

A controlled study in Argentina found that in summer, but not overall, a control area had higher bird abundance and species richness than an area where shrubs were removed. There were also differences in community composition between treatments.

 

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 controlled study in 1998-1999 in one treatment (where shrubs were manually removed) and one control (shrubs left unmanipulated) area (both 200 ha) within the same Chacoan forest in Santiago del Estero, Argentina (Codesido et al. 2009) found that, overall, there was no difference in bird abundance or species richness between the two areas. However, the treatment area contained significantly lower species richness and abundance than the control area in summer. At the guild level, bark-feeding insectivores were more abundant in the treatment area; whereas foliage-gleaning insectivores and arboreal seed-eating species were less abundant in the treatment area. In December 1998, terrestrial insectivores were less abundant in the treatment. Birds were surveyed four times at 30 points within each area. In the treatment area, saplings of species that form the tree layer were not removed.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Williams, D.R., Child, M.F., Dicks, L.V., Ockendon, N., Pople, R.G., Showler, D.A., Walsh, J.C., zu Ermgassen, E.K.H.J. & Sutherland, W.J. (2019) Bird Conservation. Pages 141-290 in: W.J. Sutherland, L.V. Dicks, N. Ockendon, S.O. Petrovan & R.K. Smith (eds) What Works in Conservation 2019. Open Book Publishers, Cambridge, U

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Bird Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Bird 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 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