Leave cut vegetation in field to provide cover

How is the evidence assessed?

Study locations

Key messages

  • One study evaluated the effects on mammals of leaving cut vegetation in field to provide cover. This study was in the USA

KEY COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

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, before-and-after study in 1983–1984 on a prairie grassland in Kansas, USA (Kotler et al. 1988) found that increasing cover, by adding cut vegetation (hay), did not increase rodent abundance. Rodent numbers were not significantly different after hay addition (19–28/census) compared to before hay addition (10–25/census). Rodent abundances in plots with no added hay likewise did not differ significantly over the same time periods (after: 14–45/census; before: 9–36/census). Three plots, 0.81 ha each, were established on brome grass Bromus inermns and prairie vegetation. One had 16 cm depth of hay added in January 1984. Two were left unmanaged. Small mammals were sampled using 100 Longworth live traps/plot. Trapping occurred over two nights, biweekly, from 12 weeks before hay addition (October 1983) until 26 weeks after hay addition (August 1984).

    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 2021 cover

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, 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 18

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.


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