Study

Interactions among fire, aspen, and elk affect insect diversity: Reversal of a community response

  • Published source details Bailey J.K. & Whitham T.G. (2002) Interactions among fire, aspen, and elk affect insect diversity: Reversal of a community response. Ecology, 83, 1701-1712.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Remove, control or exclude vertebrate herbivores

Action Link
Butterfly and Moth Conservation
  1. Remove, control or exclude vertebrate herbivores

    A replicated, controlled study in 1997–1998 in a mixed forest in Arizona, USA (Bailey & Whitham 2002) found that aspen Populus tremuloides stands where elk Cervus canadensis were excluded had a higher abundance and species richness of arthropods (including moths) following intense fire, but a lower abundance and species richness following intermediate severity fire. After intense fire, the abundance and species richness of arthropods (including moths) was higher in aspen stands where elk were excluded (abundance: 6 individuals/plot; richness: 4 species/plot) than in browsed stands (abundance: 2 individuals/plot; richness: 1 species/plot), but following intermediate severity fire arthropod abundance and species richness was lower in elk-excluded (abundance: 5 individuals/plot; richness: 3 species/plot) than browsed stands (abundance: 8 individuals/plot; richness: 5 species/plot). The abundance of the most common moth, aspen blotch miner Lithocolletis tremuloidiella, did not differ significantly between elk-excluded (2–6 individuals/plot) and browsed stands (0–4 individuals/plot). Following a wildfire in 1996 which burned at high and intermediate intensity, in 1997 two 75-ha elk exclosures were constructed within a mixed ponderosa pine Pinus ponderosa and aspen forest. In summer 1998, arthropods (e.g. insects and spiders) were surveyed visually on the tallest aspen shoot in each of six 1-m2 plots in each of 12 aspen stands (three inside and three outside the exclosures in each of the high and intermediate intensity burned areas).

    (Summarised by: Andrew Bladon)

Output references
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 19

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