Observations of Cattle Use of Prairie Dog Towns

Guenther, Debra; Detling, James K.

doi:10.2307/4003830

Cited by 19 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Vegetation canopy height is often reduced on black-tailed prairie dog towns (Archer et al 1987;Winter et al 2002), partly as a result of consumption and partly as a result of active clipping of the vegetation by prairie dogs allowing predator scanning (Hoogland 1995). Average canopy height was lower on (10 cm) than off (20 cm) black-tailed prairie dog towns in the mixed grass prairie (Archer et al 1987) and in the shortgrass steppe, where canopy height was about 6 cm on prairie dog towns and 12 cm off towns (Guenther and Detling 2003). However, we found no significant difference in canopy height on and off of Gunnison's prairie dog towns.…”

Section: Canopy Heightcontrasting

confidence: 53%

“…Plant species composition on black-tailed prairie dog towns generally shifts over time from grasses to forbs in northern mixed grass (Coppock et al 1983;Archer et al 1987;Whicker and Detling 1988) and shortgrass prairies (Winter et al 2002). Grazing by black-tailed prairie dogs also leads to increases in bare ground (Coppock et al 1983) and lower canopy height (Archer et al 1987;Winter et al 2002;Guenther and Detling 2003). These alterations and their subsequent influences on associated species have led to prairie dogs being characterized as a keystone species in many grasslands of western North America (Miller et al 1994;Kotliar et al 1999).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Vegetation on Gunnison’s Prairie Dog Colonies in Southwestern Colorado

Hoffman¹,

Detling²

2006

REM

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prairie dogs (Cynomys spp.) have been labeled keystone species because of the role they play as disturbance creators and ecosystem engineers in the western grasslands of North America. Most studies have concentrated on the black-tailed species (C. ludovicianus); however, other species of prairie dogs may have different effects on their ecosystems. We measured plant cover and biomass, canopy height, and plant nitrogen concentration on and off 6 Gunnison's prairie dog (C. gunnisoni) towns and 6 paired areas off prairie dog towns in southern Colorado. Multivariate analysis of variance and analysis of variance showed no significant differences (P . 0.05) in vegetation cover or biomass on and off of Gunnison's prairie dog towns, contrary to what has been found for black-tailed prairie dog towns. No significant differences were found in canopy height (P . 0.05); however, this may be due to already short vegetation (5-7 cm). Only 1 of 4 focal plants showed a significant difference in nitrogen concentration. No significant differences were found in species diversity on and off prairie dog towns; however, because of drought, these results are inconclusive. This study found few vegetation differences on and off Gunnison's prairie dog towns. Furthermore, those differences were more subtle than those reported on black-tailed prairie dog towns. While the mechanisms for differences in vegetation on and off Gunnison's prairie dog towns may be similar to those on black-tailed prairie dog towns, the magnitude of these differences may be different.

show abstract

Section: Canopy Heightcontrasting

confidence: 53%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Vegetation on Gunnison’s Prairie Dog Colonies in Southwestern Colorado

Hoffman¹,

Detling²

2006

REM

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These predictions are consistent with Hobbs et al (1996a), who found that cattle grazing pastures with ,45 g/m 2 experienced significant reduction in DIR compared to cattle grazing pastures .45 g/m 2 . If cattle forage on colonies in proportion to their abundance (Guenther and Detling 2003), reduced DIR could only be offset by the 12% increase in digestibility for smaller cattle (e.g., 350-550 kg) that are able to attain IIR as high as that reported by Bergman et al (2000). In most cases, the net effect of prairie dogs is reduced daily nutrient intake and reduced cattle mass gain, the magnitude of which will increase with increased prairie dog abundance (Table 1).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Competition and facilitation between a native and a domestic herbivore: trade‐offs between forage quantity and quality

Augustine

Springer

2013

Ecological Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Potential competition between native and domestic herbivores is a major consideration influencing the management and conservation of native herbivores in rangeland ecosystems. In grasslands of the North American Great Plains, black-tailed prairie dogs (Cynomys ludovicianus) are widely viewed as competitors with cattle but are also important for biodiversity conservation due to their role in creating habitat for other native species. We examined spatiotemporal variation in prairie dog effects on growing-season forage quality and quantity using measurements from three colony complexes in Colorado and South Dakota and from a previous study of a fourth complex in Montana. At two complexes experiencing below-average precipitation, forage availability both on and off colonies was so low (12-54 g/m2) that daily forage intake rates of cattle were likely constrained by instantaneous intake rates and daily foraging time. Under these dry conditions, prairie dogs (1) substantially reduced forage availability, thus further limiting cattle daily intake rates, and (2) had either no or a small positive effect on forage digestibility. Under such conditions, prairie dogs are likely to compete with cattle in direct proportion to their abundance. For two complexes experiencing above-average precipitation, forage quantity on and off colonies (77-208 g/m2) was sufficient for daily forage intake of cattle to be limited by digestion rather than instantaneous forage intake. At one complex where prairie dogs enhanced forage digestibility and [N] while having no effect on forage quantity, prairie dogs are predicted to facilitate cattle mass gains regardless of prairie dog abundance. At the second complex where prairie dogs enhanced digestibility and [N] but reduced forage quantity, effects on cattle can vary from competition to facilitation depending on prairie dog abundance. Our findings show that the high spatiotemporal variation in vegetation dynamics characteristic of semiarid grasslands is paralleled by variability in the magnitude of competition between native and domestic grazers. Competitive interactions evident during dry periods may be partially or wholly offset by facilitation during periods when forage digestibility is enhanced and forage quantity does not limit the daily intake rate of cattle.

show abstract

“…We should not extrapolate this example from southwestern grasslands across the prairie dog's range. In short-grass steppe habitat in northeastern Colorado, USA, cows showed no preference for grazing on or off colonies (Guenther andDetling 2003, Detling 2006). In a northern mixed-prairie, bison showed a decided preference for grazing on prairie dog colonies (Coppock et al 1983b, Detling 2006.…”

Section: Competition Between Prairie Dogs and Large Ungulates Ecologimentioning

confidence: 99%

Prairie Dogs: An Ecological Review and Current Biopolitics

Miller¹,

Reading

Biggins

et al. 2007

J Wildl Manag

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, people have interpreted scientific information about the black‐tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) in various, and sometimes conflicting, ways. Political complexity around the relationship among black‐tailed prairie dogs, agricultural interests, and wildlife has increased in recent years, particularly when prairie dogs occur on publicly owned lands leased to private entities for livestock grazing. Some have proposed that estimates of prairie dog (Cynomys spp.) numbers from 1900 are inflated, that prairie dog grazing is not unique (other grazers have similar affects on vegetation), and that prairie dogs significantly reduce carrying capacity for livestock and wildlife. We address all these issues but concentrate on the degree of competition between prairie dogs and ungulates because this motivates most prairie dog control actions. We conclude that the available information does not justify holding distribution and numbers of prairie dogs at a level that is too low to perform their keystone ecological function. We further conclude that it is especially important that prairie dogs be sufficiently abundant on public lands to perform this function.

show abstract

Observations of Cattle Use of Prairie Dog Towns

Cited by 19 publications

References 5 publications

Vegetation on Gunnison’s Prairie Dog Colonies in Southwestern Colorado

Vegetation on Gunnison’s Prairie Dog Colonies in Southwestern Colorado

Competition and facilitation between a native and a domestic herbivore: trade‐offs between forage quantity and quality

Prairie Dogs: An Ecological Review and Current Biopolitics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About