Conservation Evidence strives to be as useful to conservationists as possible. Please take our survey to help the team improve our resource.

Providing evidence to improve practice

Action: Apply fertilizer to vegetation to increase food availability Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Key messages

Read our guidance on Key messages before continuing

  • Two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of applying fertilizer to vegetation to increase food availability. One study was in Canada and one was in the USA.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES)

  • Use (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies, in Canada and the USA, found that applying fertilizer increased the use of vegetation by pronghorns and Rocky Mountain elk.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

1 

A replicated, controlled study in 1977 on a sagebrush grassland site in Alberta, Canada (Barrett 1979) found that fertilizing sagebrush increased its usage by pronghorns Antilocapra americana. There were 21% more pronghorn faecal pellets on fertilized sagebrush than on unfertilized sagebrush (counts not presented). The proportion of sagebrush leaders browsed by proghorns in fertilized plots (34%) was higher than in unfertilized plots (18%). Twenty-two pronghorns were retained in a 256-ha enclosure from April 1975 to November 1977. Twelve plots, each 6 × 15 m, were fertilized, with 84–252 kg N/ha and 39–118 kg P/ha, on 29 April 1975. For each plot, two unfertilized control plots were established. In November 1977, pronghorn use of plots was assessed by faecal pellet counts and by assessing the proportion of sagebrush leaders that was browsed.

2 

A randomized, replicated, controlled study in 1971–1974 of a grassland in Washington, USA (Skovlin et al. 1983) found that applying fertilizer increased overwintering numbers of Rocky Mountain elk Cervus canadensis nelsoni the following winter, but not in subsequent winters. After one year, elk use was higher in fertilized areas (82 elk days/ha) than in unfertilized areas (55 elk days/ha). There was no difference in use by elk in the second (fertilized: 79; unfertilized: 90 elk days/ha) or third winters (fertilized: 45; unfertilized: 42 elk days/ha) following fertilizer application. Within each of six plots, one subplot was randomly assigned for fertilizer application and one was unfertilized. Subplots measured 3 ha. Fertilizer was applied once, in autumn 1971, at 56 kg N/ha. Elk pellets were counted in spring, to assess use of plots in the winters of 1971–1972, 1972–1973 and 1973–1974.

Referenced papers

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.