Study

Vertebrate use of a restored riparian site: A case study on the central coast of California

  • Published source details Queheillalt D.M. & Morrison M.L. (2006) Vertebrate use of a restored riparian site: A case study on the central coast of California. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 70, 859-866

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Restore or create forest

Action Link
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Other biodiversity: Restore habitat along watercourses

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland
  1. Restore or create forest

    A replicated, site comparison study in 1999–2001 of riparian forest at a site in California, USA (Queheillalt & Morrison 2006) found that mammal species richness in restored riparian forest was similar to that in natural riparian forest. Mammal species richness in restored sites did not differ from that in natural sites during any season of sampling (data not reported). There was also no significant difference in species richness of small mammals (rodents and shrews) between restored (2–3 species) and natural (3–5 species) sites. Restoration, which included planting of woody riparian species, commenced between 1996 and 1998. Small mammals were surveyed between December 1999 and February 2001, using 16 Sherman live traps/ha. Other mammals were caught in larger live traps (cross section 7.6 × 8.9 cm) between November 1999 and April 2001.

    (Summarised by: Nick Littlewood)

  2. Other biodiversity: Restore habitat along watercourses

    A replicated site comparison in 1996–2001 in five riparian sites in Carmel-by-the-Sea, California, USA, found more plant species, fewer bird species, and similar numbers of amphibian, mammal, and reptile species, in restored forests, compared to mature forests. Amphibians, Mammals, and Reptiles: Similar numbers of amphibian (3), mammal (16), and reptile (4) species were found in restored plots and mature plots. Birds: Fewer bird species were found in restored plots, compared to mature plots, in summer (26–29 vs 48–52), but not in spring (53–56 vs 62–69), fall (17–23 vs 26–32), or winter (22–33 vs 40–41). Restored sites had fewer breeding bird species (4–7 vs 28–33). Plants: More plant species were found in restored forests, compared to mature forests (15–26 vs 8–11). Methods: In 1996–1998, 15 ha of woody riparian species and 2.4 ha of freshwater wetland species were planted. Three restored sites (17,400 m2, 28,000 m2, 65,000 m2) were compared to two mature riparian forest sites (47,420 m2 and 24,780 m2). Vegetation was sampled using transects (30 m) in April, August, October, and January 1999–2000. Amphibians and reptiles were sampled using pitfall traps (May–August 2000) and visual surveys (25 x 25 m area). Bird species were identified in ten-minute point counts (25 m radius, twice/season, March 2000–February 2001) and on transects (1.5 km/hr for 1–2.5 hours). Mammals were captured in live traps (7.6 x 8.9 x 22.9 cm and 7.6 x 8.93 x 30.5 cm), marked, and released (November 1999–April 2001, except spring 2000).

     

Output references

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, terrestrial 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