Wildlife habitats in managed rangelands—the Great Basin of southeastern Oregon: mule deer.

Leckenby, Donavin A.; Sheehy, Dennis P.; Nellis, Carl H.; Scherzinger, Richard J.; Luman, Ira D.; Elmore, Wayne; Lemos, James C.; Doughty, Larry; Trainer, Charles E.

doi:10.2737/pnw-gtr-139

Cited by 11 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Aspen communities have long been described as critical summer habitat for mule deer, because they often contain a rich diversity of forbs, grasses and shrubs that provide cover and forage (Leckenby et al 1982). Beck & Peek (2005) documented that aspen habitat can provide high‐quality forage for mule deer during summer; however, during winter these aspen communities may not provide the same nutritional value.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Winter resource selection by female mule deer Odocoileus hemionus: functional response to spatio‐temporal changes in habitat

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Winter resource selection by female mule deer Odocoileus hemionus: functional response to spatio‐temporal changes in habitat

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The decrease in total standing crop biomass may have varying effects on different animal species. This decrease may have a detrimental effect across large landscapes on species needing large amounts of herbaceous cover such as sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) (USDA Soil Conservation Service 1975) or mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) (Leckenby et al 1982). The increase of bare ground that is characteristic of prairie dog colonies may have a positive effect on animal species that require open spaces with less cover, such as the mountain plover (Charadrius montanus) (Miller and Ceballos 1994) or burrowing owl (Speotyto cunicularius) (MacCracken et al 1985).…”

Section: Plant Dynamicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Black-Tailed Prairie Dog Effects on Montana's Mixed-Grass Prairie

Johnson-Nistler¹,

Sowell²,

Sherwood³

2004

REM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Forty paired sites were examined on the mixed-grass prairie of northeastern Montana to compare the effects of black tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) colonies on native range vegetation. Thirty 0.25-m2 quadrats were placed on colonized and uncolonized locations and matched by environmental conditions. Cover and standing crop biomass of each plant species was estimated using a double sampling procedure where every third plot was clipped and estimated. A total of 2 400 quadrats were estimated, whereas 720 quadrats were clipped during the months of May August of 2000 and 2001. Crude protein, digestibility, neutral detergent fiber, and acid detergent fiber were determined on the basis of vegetative classes (cool-season grasses, warm season grasses, standing dead grass, forbs, and dwarf shrubs). Pairwise comparisons were made using paired t tests and differences were declared significant at the 0.05 level. Plant biomass of colonized sites was dominated by fringed sagewort (Artemisia frigida Willd.) (42 %), blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis [HBK] Lag. ex Steud) (16 %), and western wheatgrass (Agropyron smithii Rydb.) (16 %). Uncolonized sites were dominated by Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis Beetle and Young) (36 %), western wheatgrass (13 %), and blue grama (12 %). Standing crop biomass, plant species richness, litter, standing crop crude protein, sagebrush canopy cover, and density were greater (P < 0.05) on uncolonized areas compared to colonized areas. Bare ground and crude protein concentration were greater (P < 0.05) on areas colonized by prairie dogs compared to uncolonized areas. Digestibility and fiber content of both areas were not different (P > 0.05). Activities associated with prairie dog colonies reduced plant productivity and plant species richness of the mixed-grass prairie by reducing cool-season perennial grasses and litter, increasing bare ground, and eliminating big sagebrush.

show abstract

“…Aspen communities on the shrubsteppe western range are second only to the riparian zones in value to mule deer (Leckenby et al 1982). Forage provided by the understory plus thermal cover provided by the overstory make this type especially attractive to deer in summer.…”

Section: Deermentioning

confidence: 99%

Aspen: Ecology and management in the western United States

DeByle¹,

Winokur²

1985

223

139

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Information about the biology, ecology, and management of quaking aspen on the mountains and plateaus of the interior western United States, and to a lesser extent, Canada, is summarized and discussed. The biology of aspen as a tree species, community relationships in the aspen ecosystem, environments, and factors affecting aspen forests are reviewed. The resources available within and from the aspen forest type, and their past and potential uses are examined. Silvicultural methods and other approaches to managing aspen for various resources and uses are presented.

show abstract

Wildlife habitats in managed rangelands—the Great Basin of southeastern Oregon: mule deer.

Cited by 11 publications

References 27 publications

Winter resource selection by female mule deer Odocoileus hemionus: functional response to spatio‐temporal changes in habitat

Winter resource selection by female mule deer Odocoileus hemionus: functional response to spatio‐temporal changes in habitat

Black-Tailed Prairie Dog Effects on Montana's Mixed-Grass Prairie

Aspen: Ecology and management in the western United States

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About