Study

Habitat management influences overwinter survival of mule deer fawns in Colorado

  • Published source details Bergman E.J., Bishop C.J., Freddy D.J., White G.C. & Doherty P.F. (2014) Habitat management influences overwinter survival of mule deer fawns in Colorado. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 78, 448-455

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Restore or create grassland

Action Link
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Remove vegetation using herbicides

Action Link
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Remove vegetation by hand/machine

Action Link
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation
  1. Restore or create grassland

    A replicated, site comparison study in 2005–2008 of a pine-juniper forest in Colorado, USA (Bergman et al. 2014) found that seeding with grassland species as part of a suite of actions including mechanical disturbance and herbicide application (referred to as advanced management) increased overwinter survival of mule deer Odocoileus hemionus fawns. Average overwinter survival was highest under advanced management (77%), intermediate under mechanical disturbance and reseeding but without follow-up actions (69%) and lowest with no habitat management (67%). Mechanical management, commencing in 1998–2004, involved removing and mulching trees to create open areas. These were reseeded with grasses and other flowering plants. Follow-up actions in advanced management plots, two to four years later, involved controlling weeds with herbicide and further seeding with deer browse species. Management actions were not carried out individually, so their relative effects cannot be determined. Fawns were radio-collared on eight study plots; two advanced management plots, four mechanical management plots and two unmanaged plots. Survival was assessed by monitoring fawns from capture (1 December to 1 January) until 15 June, in winters of 2004–2005 to 2007–2008, three to six years after mechanical treatments.

  2. Remove vegetation using herbicides

    A replicated, site comparison study in 2005–2008 of a pine-juniper forest in Colorado, USA (Bergman et al. 2014) found that herbicide application (combined with seeding and preceded by mechanical disturbance and initial seeding – referred to as advanced management) increased overwinter survival of mule deer Odocoileus hemionus fawns. Management actions were not carried out individually, so their relative effects cannot be determined. Average overwinter survival was highest under advanced management (77%), intermediate under mechanical disturbance and seeding without follow-up actions (69%) and lowest with no habitat management (67%). Mechanical management, commencing in 1998–2004, involved removing and mulching trees to create open areas. These were seeded with grasses and forbs. In advanced management plots, follow-up actions, two to four years later, involved controlling weeds with herbicide and further seeding with deer browse species. Fawns were radio-collared on eight study plots; two advanced management plots, four mechanical management plots and two unmanaged plots. Survival was assessed by monitoring fawns from capture (1 December to 1 January) until 15 June, in winters of 2004–2005 through to 2007–2008, three to six years after mechanical treatments.

  3. Remove vegetation by hand/machine

    A replicated, site comparison study in 2005–2008 of a pine-juniper forest in Colorado, USA (Bergman et al. 2014) found that mechanical disturbance of vegetation (combined with reseeding, follow-up herbicide application and further seeding – referred to as advanced management) increased overwinter survival of mule deer Odocoileus hemionus fawns. Management actions were not carried out individually, so their relative effects cannot be determined. Average overwinter survival was highest under advanced management (77%), intermediate under mechanical disturbance and seeding without follow-up actions (69%) and lowest with no habitat management (67%). Mechanical management, commencing in 1998–2004, involved removing and mulching trees to create open areas. These were seeded with grasses and flowering plants. Follow-up actions in advanced management plots, two to four years later, involved controlling weeds with herbicide and further seeding with deer browse species. Fawns were radio-collared on eight study plots; two advanced management plots, four mechanical management plots and two unmanaged plots. Survival was assessed by monitoring fawns from capture (1 December to 1 January) until 15 June, in winters of 2004–2005 through to 2007–2008, three to six years after mechanical treatments.

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 latest volume: Volume 17

Go to the CE Journal

Subscribe to our newsletter

Please add your details if you are interested in receiving updates from the Conservation Evidence team about new papers, synopses and opportunities.

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