Study

Response of bighorn sheep to clear-cut logging and rescribed burning

  • Published source details Smith T.S., Hardin P.J. & Flinders J.T. (1999) Response of bighorn sheep to clear-cut logging and rescribed burning. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 27, 840-845

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Remove trees and shrubs to recreate open areas of land

Action Link
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Use prescribed burning

Action Link
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation
  1. Remove trees and shrubs to recreate open areas of land

    A before-and-after, site comparison study in 1986–1991 of a mixed grassland, shrubland and woodland site in Utah, USA (Smith et al. 1999) found that removing ponderosa pine Pinus ponderosa and mountain mahogany Cercocarpus spp. trees increased use of these areas by Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep Ovis Canadensis. In areas where trees were removed, sheep activity increased by 165%, but in areas where no trees were cut, sheep activity declined by 45%. Across a 353-ha study area, 32% was clearcut, 49% was unmanaged and 18% was burned (results of burning treatment not present here). Sheep use patterns were assessed, before cutting or burning, from June 1986 to September 1988, by observing 25–30 radio-collared sheep daily. After burning and cutting, use was assessed in June–September 1991, by counting sheep, 62 times, from an 11-km transect.

  2. Use prescribed burning

    A before-and-after, site comparison study in 1986–1991 of a mixed grassland, shrubland and woodland site in Utah, USA (Smith et al. 1999) found that prescribed burning of sagebrush-grass shrublands and pinyon-juniper woodland increased use of these areas by Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep Ovis canadensis. Use of burned areas by sheep increased by 148% and use of unmanaged areas decreased by 45%. Following burning, more sheep used the area (82 sheep groups; average of 14 sheep/group) than before burning (117 sheep groups; average of nine sheep/group). On a 353-ha study area, 18% was burned and 49% was unmanaged. Additionally, 32% was clearcut (results not presented here). Sheep-use patterns were assessed pre-treatment, from June 1986 to September 1988, by observing 25–30 radio-collared sheep daily. Post-treatment use was assessed in June–September 1991, by counting sheep 62 times from an 11-km transect.

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