Study

Desert cottontail use of natural and modified Pinyon-Juniper woodland

  • Published source details Kundaeli J.N. & Reynolds H.G. (1972) Desert cottontail use of natural and modified Pinyon-Juniper woodland. Journal of Range Management, 25, 116-118

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Retain dead trees after uprooting

Action Link
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Use thinning of forest instead of clearcutting

Action Link
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation
  1. Retain dead trees after uprooting

    A replicated, controlled study in 1965–1968 of pinyon-juniper forest at a site in New Mexico, USA (Kundaeli & Reynolds 1972) found that where trees were uprooted but left on site, more desert cottontail Sylvilagus auduboni faecal pellets were counted than in fully cleared areas. Results were not tested for statistical significance. Where uprooted trees were left, there were 3.2 cottontail pellets/ft2 compared to 1.0 pellets/ft2 where trees were uprooted and burned. In each of two blocks, there was one plot with all trees uprooted and left on site and one with all trees uprooted, piled up and burned. Plots covered 300–500 acres each. Treatments were carried out in 1965. Cottontail pellets were counted on randomly selected sample points on belts of l/400 acre within the middle of each plot, in 1968.

  2. Use thinning of forest instead of clearcutting

    A replicated, controlled study in 1965–1968 of pinyon-juniper forest at a site in New Mexico, USA (Kundaeli & Reynolds 1972) found that in areas where trees were thinned, more desert cottontail Sylvilagus auduboni faecal pellets were counted than in fully cleared areas or uncleared areas. Results were not tested for statistical significance. In thinned plots, there were 2.7 cottontail pellets/ft2 compared to 1.0 pellets/ft2 where trees were cleared (uprooted and burned) and 2.4 pellets/ft2 where trees were left unmanaged. In each of two blocks, there was one plot with trees thinned to 100 trees/acre, one with all trees uprooted, piled up and burned and one with trees left unmanaged. Plots covered 300–500 acres each. Treatments were carried out in 1965. Cottontail pellets were counted at randomly selected sample points in treatment plots in 1968.

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