Study

Small mammals in modified Pinyon-Juniper woodlands, New-Mexico

  • Published source details Severson K.E. (1986) Small mammals in modified Pinyon-Juniper woodlands, New-Mexico. Journal of Range Management, 39, 31-34

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Use prescribed burning

Action Link
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Remove vegetation by hand/machine

Action Link
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation
  1. Use prescribed burning

    A replicated, controlled study in 1981–1983 of a pinyon-juniper woodland in New Mexico, USA (Severson 1986) found that felled forest areas that were burned did not have more small mammals than did felled unburned areas 13–18 years after treatment. A similar number of small mammals was caught in stands that were bulldozed and burned (408) as in stands that were bulldozed without burning (433). Fewer were caught in undisturbed stands (246). Treatment plots, c.120 ha each, were established in each of two woodland blocks, one in 1965, one in 1970. In each block, one plot was bulldozed (trees pushed over and left), one was bulldozed with trees pushed and piled, then burned and one was undisturbed. Small mammals were trapped in the second and third week of September, each year, in 1981–1983. Each plot was sampled for four days each year.

    (Summarised by: Nick Littlewood)

  2. Remove vegetation by hand/machine

    A replicated, controlled study in 1981–1983 of a pinyon-juniper woodland in New Mexico, USA (Severson 1986) found that 13–18 years after treatment, felled or thinned stands had more small mammals than did undisturbed stands. The number of animals caught in stands that were thinned (432) or bulldozed (433) did not differ from each other but both were greater than the number in undisturbed stands (246). Species composition differed, with more grassland species in bulldozed stands (bulldozed: 95–175; thinned: 35; undisturbed: 46) and more woodland mice in thinned stands (thinned: 58; bulldozed: 6–11; undisturbed: 26). Plots, approximately 120 ha each, were established in each of two woodland blocks, one in 1965, one in 1970. In each block, one plot was thinned (trees ≥6.1 m apart), one was bulldozed (trees pushed over and left) and one was undisturbed. Small mammals were trapped in the second and third week of September, each year, in 1981–1983. Each plot was sampled for four days each year.

    (Summarised by: Nick Littlewood)

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