Measuring Impacts of Restoration on Small Mammals in a Mixed-grass Colorado Prairie

Stone, Eric R.

doi:10.3368/er.25.3.183

Cited by 17 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite the fact that these grasslands are about 175 km south of the historic prairie peninsula, they have been colonized by a large number of native grassland birds, including Henslow's Sparrows (Ammodramus henslowii), Dickcissels (Spiza americana), Bobwhite Quail (Colinus virginianus), Northern Harriers (Circus cyaneus), and Short-eared Owls (Asio flammeus) [6][7][8]. Prairie restorations have also been shown to support increases in grassland-dependent small mammal numbers [9,10].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mine Spoil Prairies Expand Critical Habitat for Endangered and Threatened Amphibian and Reptile Species

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Coal extraction has been occurring in the Midwestern United States for over a century. Despite the pre-mining history of the landscape as woodlands, spent surface coalfields are often reclaimed to grasslands. We assessed amphibian and reptile species on a large tract of coal spoil prairie and found 13 species of amphibians (nine frog and four salamander species) and 19 species of reptiles (one lizard, five turtle, and 13 snake species). Two state-endangered and three state species of special concern were documented. The amphibian diversity at our study site was comparable to the diversity found at a large restored prairie situated 175 km north, within the historic prairie peninsula.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mine Spoil Prairies Expand Critical Habitat for Endangered and Threatened Amphibian and Reptile Species

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The impact of grassland restoration on small 87 mammals has been addressed in a handful of studies in North America. Stone (2007) found that 88 restoration led to a short-term decline in the number of captures, total biomass and species richness 89 of small mammals, followed by a partial recovery 3-5 years after restoration. A comparison of a 90 successional gradient from prairie to forest (Moro and Gadal, 2007) showed that time since 91 restoration (abandonment) did not directly affect small mammals and that their abundance was 92 highest in middle, rather than early or late, successional stages, where the structural diversity of 93 vegetation was highest.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Local habitat management and landscape‐scale restoration influence small‐mammal communities in grasslands

Mérő¹,

Bocz

Polyák³

et al. 2015

Animal Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ecosystem/habitat restoration has become a major goal of international biodiversity policy. However, restorations are often limited in space or time, and we know little on whether and how restoration and management affect vertebrates. Here we assessed the local and landscape‐scale effects of habitat restoration and management on small‐mammal communities in the Egyek–Pusztakócs marsh system (Hortobágy National Park, Hungary), site of the largest active restoration of grasslands on former croplands in Europe. We live‐trapped mice, voles and shrews in spring and autumn in 2 years (four sampling periods) at two sites in six habitat types: croplands, grasslands restored 3–6 years earlier and natural grasslands. Data on 421 individuals of 12 species showed that restored grasslands were similar to croplands and natural grasslands in species richness, abundance and composition. At the local scale, management influenced abundance because there were more small mammals in unmanaged and early‐mown grasslands with taller vegetation than in late‐mown or grazed grasslands with lower vegetation, or in ploughed croplands. Elevation was also important because sites at higher elevation provided refuges during spring floods or summer droughts. At the landscape scale, the proportion of restored and natural grasslands positively affected the abundance of small mammals, whereas the proportion of linear habitats (roads, canals) had a negative effect on abundance. Our results show that management is more important than restoration per se at the local scale, which is expected for habitat generalists such as small mammals in contrast to specialists such as plant‐feeding invertebrates. However, restoration provides landscape‐scale benefits by increasing the area of grasslands that can serve as refuges for small mammals in unfavourable periods. We thus conclude that a mosaic of restored and appropriately managed grasslands with tall vegetation will provide the best chances for the persistence of small‐mammal communities in dynamic landscapes.

show abstract

“…Past human activities could have benefited the small mammals by reducing densities of small‐ and medium‐sized predators (such as mongoose, snakes, and birds of prey) (Caro ). The biomass, density, and diversity of small herbivores have been reported to decrease as a consequence of restoration actions (Briani et al ; Stone ). Before people moved out and restoration began, forests were degraded and it is plausible that there were few medium‐sized predators feeding on small herbivores.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 88%

Comparing seed removal rates in actively and passively restored tropical moist forests

Ssekuubwa

Loe

Sheil

et al. 2017

Restoration Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

High rates of seed removal can impede forest recovery, but tropical seed removal studies are few and mainly from the neotropics. Little is known about the comparative influences of active restoration (i.e. planting) and passive restoration (i.e. protection of natural regrowth) on seed removal. We conducted an evaluation of seed removal in grasslands, natural forests (tropical moist semideciduous forest), and actively (21‐, 17‐, 16‐, 11‐, 8‐, and 6‐year‐old) and passively (21‐year‐old) restored forests in Kibale National Park, Uganda. We wanted to compare the effect of vegetation type, time since restoration and restoration actions (i.e. active vs. passive) on removal of seeds of five animal‐dispersed tree species during wet and dry seasons. Seeds were either fully exposed or placed in closed mesh cages or under a mesh roof. We used differential removal rates between these treatments to attribute seed removal to different animal taxa. Seed removal rate (percentage of seed removed over a 4‐day period) was highest in passively restored forests, compared with actively restored forests, grasslands, and natural forests. We detected no significant relationship between time since restoration and seed removal rates within actively restored sites. Seed removal rate from roofed treatments was not significantly different from removal from open treatments but was significantly higher than removal from closed treatments, which we interpret as reflecting the greater effect of small mammals versus insects. Smaller seeds tended to be removed at a greater rate than larger seeds. We discuss the implications of these findings for forest regeneration.

show abstract

Measuring Impacts of Restoration on Small Mammals in a Mixed-grass Colorado Prairie

Cited by 17 publications

References 14 publications

Mine Spoil Prairies Expand Critical Habitat for Endangered and Threatened Amphibian and Reptile Species

Mine Spoil Prairies Expand Critical Habitat for Endangered and Threatened Amphibian and Reptile Species

Local habitat management and landscape‐scale restoration influence small‐mammal communities in grasslands

Comparing seed removal rates in actively and passively restored tropical moist forests

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About