Use thinning of forest instead of clearcutting

Overall effectiveness category Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)
Number of studies: 1
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

Harvesting of timber within forests can be carried out by clearcutting sites or by various methods of harvesting a proportion of trees. By thinning, rather than felling a whole forest, larger areas would need to be managed in order to achieve the same timber harvest though some degree of forest cover can be retained over that area. Thinning forest may benefit some species that prefer an open forest structure whilst not having detrimental effects on forest mammals that clearcutting would be likely to have.

See also Thin trees within forest for where thinning is an intervention in woodland that would otherwise be left without removing trees.

Study locations

Key messages

One study evaluated the effects on mammals of using thinning of forest instead of clearcutting. This study was in the USA.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)

Use (1 study): A replicated, controlled study in the USA found that thinned forest areas were used more by desert cottontails than were fully cleared or uncleared areas.

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

A replicated, controlled study in 1965–1968 of pinyon-juniper forest at a site in New Mexico, USA (Kundaeli & Reynolds 1972) found that in areas where trees were thinned, more desert cottontail Sylvilagus auduboni faecal pellets were counted than in fully cleared areas or uncleared areas. Results were not tested for statistical significance. In thinned plots, there were 2.7 cottontail pellets/ft² compared to 1.0 pellets/ft² where trees were cleared (uprooted and burned) and 2.4 pellets/ft² where trees were left unmanaged. In each of two blocks, there was one plot with trees thinned to 100 trees/acre, one with all trees uprooted, piled up and burned and one with trees left unmanaged. Plots covered 300–500 acres each. Treatments were carried out in 1965. Cottontail pellets were counted at randomly selected sample points in treatment plots in 1968.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Kundaeli J.N. & Reynolds H.G. (1972) Desert cottontail use of natural and modified pinyon-juniper woodland. Journal of Range Management, 25, 116-118.

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

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Related Actions

Actions	Effectiveness	Studies	Category
Use tree tubes/small fences/cages to protect individual trees Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link
Retain undisturbed patches during thinning operations Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	2	Synopsis Link
Leave standing deadwood/snags in forests Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	1	Synopsis Link