Study

Vegetation and deer response to mechanical shrub clearing and burning

  • Published source details Rogers J.O., Fulbright T.E. & Ruthven D.C. (2004) Vegetation and deer response to mechanical shrub clearing and burning. Journal of Range Management, 57, 41-48

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Remove vegetation by hand/machine

Action Link
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Use prescribed burning

Action Link
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation
  1. Remove vegetation by hand/machine

    A before-and-after study in 2001–2002 of a shrubland site in Texas, USA (Rogers et al. 2004) found that carrying out a second mechanical vegetation clearance of plots already subject to an earlier mechanical clearance did not increase their utilization by white-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus. There was no significant difference in deer track counts between plots before (37 track crossings/km) or after (47 track crossings/km) the second mechanical clearance. Plots (3–9 ha), were established in a 6,154-ha study area. In March–April 1999, five plots were cleared of woody vegetation using a mechanical aerator pulled by a tractor. Plots were mechanically cleared again in September 2000. Deer utilization was assessed by counting tracks along prepared track lanes, over three days on four occasions. Surveys were conducted once before clearance, in late-May to July 2000, and three times after clearance, in December 2000 to January 2001, May 2001 and June–July 2001.

  2. Use prescribed burning

    A randomized, paired sites, before-and-after study in 2001–2002 of a shrubland site in Texas, USA (Rogers et al. 2004) found that burning plots already subject to mechanical vegetation clearance did not increase plot utilization by white-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus relative to carrying out a second mechanical clearance. There was no significant difference in deer track counts between plots before (burning: 36; mechanical clearance: 37 track crossings/km) or after (burning: 43; mechanical clearance: 47 track crossings/km) treatments were applied. Ten plots (3–9 ha), established in a 6,154-ha study area, were paired by size, soil and vegetation. In March–April 1999, all plots were cleared of brush using a mechanical aerator pulled by a tractor. In September 2000, one plot from each pair was burned and the other was mechanically cleared a second time. Treatment assignment within pairs was random. Deer utilization was assessed by counting tracks along prepared track lanes, over three days, before and after treatments were applied.

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