Effects of Haying and Old-Field Succession on Small Mammals in Tallgrass Prairie

Sietman, Bernard E.; Fothergill, Wade B.; Finck, Elmer J.

doi:10.2307/2426602

Cited by 26 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This pattern is consistent with observations for the tallgrass prairie in Kansas in that hayfields had lower abundance than did native prairie and old fields (Sietman, Fothergill and Finck 1994).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…The results of this study and those of Lemen and Clausen (1984) and Sietman, Fothergill and Finck (1994) have implications for the common practice of mowing of grasses and forbs in roadside ditches in many of the Great Plains states. Roadside ditches serve as refuges for many small mammals in areas of grazed pastures and croplands (Kirch 1997;Kaufman, Kaufman and Clark 2000).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 58%

“…Although uncommon, southern bog lemmings also reflected this negative impact of haying. Response to haying agreed with the negative effect, mediated through changes in vegetation and litter, of fire and weather on these same 4 species in tallgrass prairie (Sietman, Fothergill and Finck 1994;Kaufman et al 1998). A negative impact of haying also was consistent with an avoidance of grazed mixedgrass prairie by western harvest mice, hispid cotton rats, Elliots short-tailed shrews and southern bog lemmings elsewhere in northcentral Kansas (Kaufman, Kaufman and Clark 2000).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 59%

“…At the Training Facility, these woodland species are responding favorably to woody vegetation that develops as trees and shrubs invade grassland sites, which are not hayed and are burned infrequently. In east central Kansas, white-footed mice also occurred in old fields that had a woody component (i.e., trees and shrubs; Sietman, Fothergill and Finck 1994). Consistent with these ideas is the fact that the 25 white-footed mice trapped in grassland were caught only in 3 control sites, each of which had embedded woody vegetation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

“…Haying, which involves removal of mowed vegetation, is one of those practices imposed upon native and planted grasslands and alfalfa fields that can have a large impact on small mammals (LoBue and Darnell 1959;Lemen and Clausen 1984;Sietman, Fothergill and Finck 1994). When haying occurs in late summer to early autumn, little regrowth occurs; vegetation remains short and sparse (< 5-10 cm in height) from the date of mowing through initiation of plant growth in the following spring.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Effects of haying on small mammals in mixed grass prairie of central Kansas

Kaufman

2008

Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 58%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 59%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Effects of haying on small mammals in mixed grass prairie of central Kansas

Kaufman

2008

Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Testing the niche reduction hypothesis for a fossorial rodent (Geomys bursarius) experiencing agricultural intensification

Alexander

Cosentino

Schooley

2022

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Habitat loss and fragmentation from conversion to agriculture are known threats to grassland species. However, continued agricultural intensification may further reduce a species distribution and realized niche. Here, we create species distribution models (SDMs) for the plains pocket gopher ( Geomys bursarius ), an ecosystem engineer in grasslands, for historic and contemporary eras in a dynamic agroecosystem and test the “niche reduction hypothesis.” We compare SDMs created from gopher occurrences from the historic era (~1950s, pre‐agricultural intensification) and the contemporary era (post‐agricultural intensification) and assess model transferability. We evaluate shifts in environmental relationships, changes in limiting factors, and an overall decline in niche hypervolume. SDMs were nontransferable between the historic and contemporary eras. Environmental drivers of gopher distribution shifted from elevation, precipitation, and land cover in the 1950s to land cover, soil texture, and soil drainage presently. There also were shifts in environmental associations with gophers now occurring at lower elevations, in sandier soils, and less often in agriculture. Dominant limiting factors of gophers shifted from precipitation to land cover. Gophers were not detected at historic locations during recent resurveys. Contemporary niche hypervolume was reduced compared with the historic niche hypervolume. We found support for the niche reduction hypothesis for a fossorial, grassland species. Further application of the niche reduction hypothesis in landscapes experiencing agricultural intensification is warranted. Understanding niche reduction allows for conservation efforts that promote continued persistence in the contemporary niche while also identifying areas to restore within the historic niche.

show abstract

Small mammal use of native warm‐season and non‐native cool‐season grass forage fields

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent emphasis has been put on establishing native warm-season grasses for forage production because it is thought native warm-season grasses provide higher quality wildlife habitat than do non-native cool-season grasses. However, it is not clear whether native warm-season grass fields provide better resources for small mammals than currently are available in non-native cool-season grass forage production fields. We developed a hierarchical spatially explicit capture-recapture model to compare abundance of hispid cotton rats (Sigmodon hispidus), white-footed mice (Peromyscus leucopus), and house mice (Mus musculus) among 4 hayed non-native cool-season grass fields, 4 hayed native warm-season grass fields, and 4 native warm-season grass-forb ("wildlife") fields managed for wildlife during 2 summer trapping periods in 2009 and 2010 of the western piedmont of North Carolina, USA. Cotton rat abundance estimates were greater in wildlife fields than in native warm-season grass and non-native cool-season grass fields and greater in native warm-season grass fields than in non-native cool-season grass fields. Abundances of white-footed mouse and house mouse populations were lower in wildlife fields than in native warm-season grass and non-native cool-season grass fields, but the abundances were not different between the native warm-season grass and non-native coolseason grass fields. Lack of cover following haying in non-native cool-season grass and native warm-season grass fields likely was the key factor limiting small mammal abundance, especially cotton rats, in forage fields. Retention of vegetation structure in managed forage production systems, either by alternately resting coolseason and warm-season grass forage fields or by leaving unharvested field borders, should provide refugia for small mammals during haying events. Ó 2014 The Wildlife Society.KEY WORDS forage production, haying, Mus musculus, native warm-season grass, non-native cool-season grass, Peromyscus leucopus, Sigmodon hispidus.Widespread establishment of non-native, cool-season grasses as cattle forage, conversion of native grasslands to row-crops, and the recent intensification of agricultural practices likely has reduced habitat quality for small mammals (Bowles 1981, Kaufman andKaufman 1989). Non-native grass forage fields planted as dense monocultures have low plant species diversity and limited structural diversity, which limits resource availability (Collins and Gibson 1990, Sietman et al. 1994). Furthermore, frequent haying of cool-season grass forage fields early in the growing season drastically changes groundcover structure and temporarily can displace individual small mammals and potentially reduce long-term population densities (Lemen and Clausen 1984, Sietman et al. 1994, Kaufman and Kaufman 2008.Conventional wisdom that native warm-season grasses are of better quality for various wildlife species than are nonnative cool-season grasses (hereafter, cool-season grass) has contributed to the recent emphasis on establishing these ...

show abstract

Effects of Haying and Old-Field Succession on Small Mammals in Tallgrass Prairie

Cited by 26 publications

References 26 publications

Effects of haying on small mammals in mixed grass prairie of central Kansas

Effects of haying on small mammals in mixed grass prairie of central Kansas

Testing the niche reduction hypothesis for a fossorial rodent (Geomys bursarius) experiencing agricultural intensification

Small mammal use of native warm‐season and non‐native cool‐season grass forage fields

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About