Study

Effect of burning or clipping bluebunch wheatgrass Agropyron spicatum in the autumn on the spring foraging behaviour of mule deer Odocoileus hemionus near Kamloops, British Columbia, Canada

  • Published source details Willms W., Bailey A.W. & McLean A. (1980) Effect of burning or clipping Agropyron spicatum in the autumn on the spring foraging behaviour of mule deer and cattle. Journal of Applied Ecology, 17, 69-84

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Use prescribed burning

Action Link
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Remove vegetation by hand/machine

Action Link
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation
  1. Use prescribed burning

    A replicated, controlled study in 1975–1977 on grassland in British Columbia, Canada (Willms et al. 1980) found that in burned areas, bluebunch wheatgrass Agropyron spicatum was consumed more by foraging mule deer Odocoileus hemionus than it was in unburned areas. Deer took more bites/observation of bluebunch wheatgrass in burned plots (average 22 bites) than in unburned plots (average two bites). Plots were studied at two sites in sagebrush and two in Douglas fir Pseudotsuga menziesii forest. At each site, plots (1.25 × 5 m) were established in a block. In each block, in October 1975, three plots were burned and three were not burned. In April 1976, three deer were fenced onto the block and their selection between plots was assessed through direct observations at intervals through the day. The same three deer were used on all blocks and observed twice/block for one day each time. In April 1977, four deer were observed, on two blocks combined, over four days.

    (Summarised by: Nick Littlewood)

  2. Remove vegetation by hand/machine

    A replicated, controlled study in 1975–1977 on grassland in British Columbia, Canada (Willms et al. 1980) found that in mown areas, bluebunch wheatgrass Agropyron spicatum was consumed more by foraging mule deer Odocoileus hemionus than in unmown areas. Deer took a higher average number of bites/observation of bluebunch wheatgrass in mown plots (12 bites) than in unmown plots (two bites). Plots were studied at two sites in sagebrush and two in Douglas fir Pseudotsuga menziesii forest. At each site, plots (1.25 × 5 m) were established in a block. In each block, in October 1975, three plots were clipped using a lawnmower and electric-powered sickle and three were uncut. In April 1976, three deer were fenced onto the block and their selection between plots was assessed through direct observations at intervals through the day. The same three deer were used on all blocks and observed twice/block for one day each time. In April 1977, four deer were observed, on two blocks combined, over four days.

    (Summarised by: Nick Littlewood)

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