Study

Elk use of winter range as affected by cattle grazing, fertilizing, and burning in southeastern Washington

  • Published source details Skovlin J.M., Edgerton P.J. & Mcconnell B.R. (1983) Elk use of winter range as affected by cattle grazing, fertilizing, and burning in southeastern Washington. Journal of Range Management, 36, 184-189

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Manage vegetation using livestock grazing

Action Link
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Apply fertilizer to vegetation to increase food availability

Action Link
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Use prescribed burning

Action Link
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation
  1. Manage vegetation using livestock grazing

    A randomized, replicated, controlled study in 1971–1974 of a grassland in Washington, USA (Skovlin et al. 1983) found that spring grazing by cattle did not increase pasture use by Rocky Mountain elk Cervus canadensis nelsoni the following winter. There were no significant differences in the numbers of elk using cattle-grazed and ungrazed plots in the first winter (grazed: 60; ungrazed: 68 elk days/ha) or third winter (grazed: 38; ungrazed: 51 elk days/ha) after cattle grazing commenced. In the second winter, fewer elk used grazed plots (71 elk days/ha) than used ungrazed plots (98 elk days/ha). Three plots (9.3 ha each) were randomly assigned to be grazed by cattle and three were ungrazed. Grazing was at a rate of one mature cow or equivalent/2.4 ha, from mid-April to early-June in 1971–1973. Elk pellets were counted each spring to assess elk use of plots in winters of 1971–1972, 1972–1973, and 1973–1974.

  2. Apply fertilizer to vegetation to increase food availability

    A randomized, replicated, controlled study in 1971–1974 of a grassland in Washington, USA (Skovlin et al. 1983) found that applying fertilizer increased overwintering numbers of Rocky Mountain elk Cervus canadensis nelsoni the following winter, but not in subsequent winters. After one year, elk use was higher in fertilized areas (82 elk days/ha) than in unfertilized areas (55 elk days/ha). There was no difference in use by elk in the second (fertilized: 79; unfertilized: 90 elk days/ha) or third winters (fertilized: 45; unfertilized: 42 elk days/ha) following fertilizer application. Within each of six plots, one subplot was randomly assigned for fertilizer application and one was unfertilized. Subplots measured 3 ha. Fertilizer was applied once, in autumn 1971, at 56 kg N/ha. Elk pellets were counted in spring, to assess use of plots in the winters of 1971–1972, 1972–1973 and 1973–1974.

  3. Use prescribed burning

    A randomized, replicated, controlled study in 1971–1974 of a grassland in Washington, USA (Skovlin et al. 1983) found that burning grass did not increase overwinter use by Rocky Mountain elk Cervus canadensis nelsoni. Overwinter use by elk totalled 47–80 elk days/ha on burned areas and 42–79 elk days/ha on unburned areas. Within each of six plots, one 3.1-ha subplot was randomly assigned for burning and one was not burned. Burning was carried out once, in late-autumn 1971. Elk pellets were counted in spring to assess use of plots in the winters of 1971–1972, 1972–1973 and 1973–1974.

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 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