Remove/control non-native plants

Overall effectiveness category Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)
Number of studies: 2
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

8%
Certainty

25%
Harms

0%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

Invasive plants can out compete established plant species and alter habitat structure. This may alter resource availability for mammals. Some mammal species may benefit but, for others, invasive plants may reduce available food or shelter or change the nature of the environment such that they are at increased risk of predation. Removal or control of non-native invasive plants may be carried out in an attempt to reverse these effects.

Study locations

Key messages

Two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of removing or controlling non-native invasive plants. Both studies were in the USA.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

Richness/diversity (1 study): A replicated study in the USA found that control of introduced saltcedar did not change small mammal species richness.

POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

Abundance (1 study): A site comparison study in the USA found that partial removal of velvet mesquite did not increase abundances of six mammal species.

BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

A site comparison study in 1976–1978 in three desert sites in Arizona, USA (Germano et al. 1983) found that partial removal of velvet mesquite Prosopis juliflora var. velutina did not increase abundances of six mammal species, and complete removal reduced the abundance of two species. The abundance of black-tailed jackrabbits Lepus californicus was higher in the undisturbed (0.37/km) and partially cleared mesquite sites (0.36/km) than in the cleared, mesquite-free, site (0.06/km). The same pattern held for antelope jackrabbit Lepus alleni (0.37 and 0.56 vs 0.09/km). However, abundances were similar in the undisturbed, partially and fully cleared sites for desert mule deer Odocoileus hemionus crooki (0.30, 0.24 and 0.16/km), javelina Dicotyles tajacu (0.24, 0.15 and 0.00/km), coyote Canis latrans (0.05, 0.06 and 0.01/km) and desert cottontail Sylvilagus audubonii (0.04, 0.02 and 0.03/km). Mesquite was cleared from one 300 ha site in 1955 using diesel oil, and partially removed from a second 300 ha site by clearing seven 2.8–30.4 ha patches by chaining in July 1976. At the third 300 ha site, mesquite was left undisturbed. Mammals were counted monthly along four 1,200-m transects between September 1976 and June 1978.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Germano D.J., Hungerford R. & Martin S.C. (1983) Responses of selected wildlife species to the removal of mesquite from desert grassland. Journal of Range Management, 36, 309-311.
A replicated study in 2001–2012 in three sites in Nevada, USA (Longland 2014) found that control of introduced saltcedar Tamarix ramosissima, did not change small mammal species richness. Ten years after saltcedar control commenced, small mammal species richness (3–6 species) was similar to that when control started (3–7 species). Small mammals were trapped annually in May or June for three consecutive nights between 2001 and 2011–2012 at three sites along waterways. An additional trapping period of three nights was conducted in July or August 2001–2004 at one site, and 2001–2006 at two sites. Each night at each site, 2–4 parallel rows of 25 Sherman^® live traps, baited with wild birdseed mix, were set with 10 m between traps and 25–100 m between rows. Saltcedar was controlled by leaf beetles Diorhabda spp. released at the sites in 2001–2002.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Longland W.S. (2014) Biological control of saltcedar (Tamarix spp.) by saltcedar leaf beetles (Diorhabda spp.): effects on small mammals. Western North American Naturalist, 74, 378-385.

Please cite as:

Littlewood, N.A., Rocha, R., Smith, R.K., Martin, P.A., Lockhart, S.L., Schoonover, R.F., Wilman, E., Bladon, A.J., Sainsbury, K.A., Pimm S. and Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Terrestrial Mammal Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Interventions for terrestrial mammals excluding bats and primates. Synopses of Conservation Evidence Series. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Related Actions

Actions	Effectiveness	Studies	Category
Remove/control non-native amphibians (e.g. cane toads) Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link
Remove/control non-native species that could interbreed with native species Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link
Remove/control non-native invertebrates Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	1	Synopsis Link