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.
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 |
 |
|
|
Use prescribed burning Action Link |
|
-
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).
(Summarised by: Nick Littlewood)
-
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.
(Summarised by: Nick Littlewood)
)_2023.JPG)
