SynthesisEnvironmental evidence2025
Effectiveness of perches in promoting bird-mediated seed dispersal for natural forest regeneration: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Environmental evidence, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAssisted Natural Regeneration (ANR) is an increasingly popular cost-effective approach to restore forests for climate change mitigation and biodiversity conservation. One ANR strategy is the use of perches to attract avian seed dispersers to degraded landscapes for increased seed supply and seedling establishment. This systematic review sought to determine the effectiveness of artificial, semi-natural, and natural perches in promoting natural forest regeneration, specifically in driving four outcomes: seed richness, seed density, seedling richness, and seedling density.
methodsIn September 2023, we searched for studies in eight bibliographic sources, which include an organizational library and a web-based search engine, using a refined search string in English. After deduplication, we conducted double screening at title and abstract, then at full text level to check for eligibility (e.g., compared perches versus control). The final list of studies underwent critical appraisal based on risk of bias and method validity, then data extraction. We used Hedges' g as our effect size and fitted each outcome in a three-level meta-regression model. We also tested the effect of matrix type, bioregion, and precipitation variation as modifiers, and conducted sensitivity analysis based on risk of bias and method validity. REVIEW
findingsAfter screening, we accepted a total of 396 studies in 79 articles for the review. The majority of these studies examined seed (49%) and seedling density (28%) outcomes over richness, using mostly natural perches (68%) and, to a lesser frequency, artificial and semi-natural perches. Most studies that included distance to forest edge as a factor reported no effects (n = 68). We then analysed 333 studies in a meta-analysis. Results showed that natural perches had overall positive effects in increasing seed and seedling density and richness, while artificial and semi-natural perches were effective only for seed outcomes. We found high heterogeneity in our models, with perch effectiveness affected by matrix type, bioregion, precipitation variation, method specificity, as well as study quality. In general, perches showed robust positive effects in shrublands and grasslands in tropical, subtropical, and mediterranean biomes.
conclusionsThe use of perches can be an effective ANR strategy to increase seed rain and seedling establishment in a variety of degraded landscapes. We recommend that natural perches be preserved in the matrix, but in areas lacking these natural features, to explore the use of artificial or semi-natural perches to increase seed rain and follow it up with additional treatments, such as soil amelioration and weeding, to improve seedling establishment. Due to insufficient data, we could not analyse the effect of distance to forest edge as a moderator in our meta-regression models. This gap can be addressed by examining perches placed at increasing distances from the edge and having better data sharing practices. We also emphasize a need for improving the quality of reporting, such as variances and detailed methodologies, in order for research to be useful for systematic reviews and meta-analysis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.