Study

Variable response of butterflies and vegetation to elk herbivory: An exclosure experiment in ponderosa pine and aspen-mixed conifer forests

  • Published source details Kleintjes Neff P.K., Fettig S.M. & VanOverbeke D.R. (2007) Variable response of butterflies and vegetation to elk herbivory: An exclosure experiment in ponderosa pine and aspen-mixed conifer forests. The Southwestern Naturalist, 52, 1-14.

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, randomized, paired, controlled study in 1997–2002 in a grassland and forest reserve in New Mexico, USA (Kleintjes Neff et al. 2007) found that forest areas where elk Cervus elaphus were excluded had a higher abundance and species richness of butterflies in one out of four years, but the number of butterflies was similar in the remaining years and in all grassland areas. In forest sites where elk were excluded, the abundance (91 individuals/site) and species richness (17 species) of butterflies was higher than in browsed sites in one of four years (abundance: 42 individuals/site; richness: 13 species), but was not significantly different in the other three years (excluded: 2–9 individuals/site/year, 5–6 species/year; browsed: 2 individuals/site/year, 4–6 species/year). In grassland sites, the abundance and species richness of butterflies was not significantly different between exclusion (abundance: 3–141 individuals/site/year; richness: 5–16 species/year) and browsed sites (abundance: 3–85 individuals/site/year; richness: 4–13 species/year). In 1997–1998, four areas of ponderosa pine Pinus ponderosa grassland and five areas of mixed forest were selected, and a 60 × 60 m exclosure was constructed randomly on half of each site. Exclosures were 3 m high with 10-cm wire fencing to exclude elk. Three grassland sites and one forest site were deliberately or accidentally burned during the experiment. In June–August 1999–2002, butterflies were surveyed 2–5 times/year along a 360-m-long zigzag transect through each exclosure and browsed site. Grassland sites were not surveyed in 2002. Skippers (Hesperiidae) were not identified to species.

    (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