Study

Response of white-footed mice (Peromyscus leucopus) to fire and fire surrogate fuel reduction treatments in a southern Appalachian hardwood forest

  • Published source details Greenberg C.H., Otis D.L. & Waldrop T.A. (2006) Response of white-footed mice (Peromyscus leucopus) to fire and fire surrogate fuel reduction treatments in a southern Appalachian hardwood forest. Forest Ecology and Management, 234, 355-362

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Remove understorey vegetation in forest

Action Link
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Use prescribed burning

Action Link
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation
  1. Remove understorey vegetation in forest

    A replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in 2001–2003 in North Carolina, USA (Greenberg et al. 2006) found that mechanically removing understorey vegetation in forest, to reduce fuel load and associated wildfire risk, did not increase white-footed mouse Peromyscus leucopus abundance compared to using prescribed fire. Mouse abundance increased across all treatments during the study, but the rate of increase in understorey removal plots (from 14 to 30 mice/plot) was not significantly different to that in prescribed burning plots (from 9 to 36 mice/plot). Plots (each >14 ha) were established in three blocks. In each block, understorey growth was mechanically felled in one plot in winter 2001–2002 and prescribed burning was carried out in a different plot in March 2003. Mice were live-trapped over 10 consecutive days and nights in July and August of 2001 (before management) and 2003 (after management).

  2. Use prescribed burning

    A replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in 2001–2003 in North Carolina, USA (Greenberg et al. 2006) found that prescribed burning did not alter the abundance of eight small mammal species. After burning, the numbers of captures of eight small mammal species did not differ significantly between burned (0–28 animals/plot) and unburned plots (0–17 animals/plot). Similarly, before burning, numbers did not differ between plots assigned for burning (0–24 animals/plot) and unburned plots (0–19 animals/plot). See paper for full break-down of species abundances. Three blocks were established, containing plots of >14 ha. In each block, one plot was burned in March 2003 and one plot was not burned. Small mammals were live-trapped over 10 consecutive days and nights in July and August of 2001–2003.

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 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