Study

Response of the mixed prairie to protection from grazing

  • Published source details Willms W.D., Dormaar J.F., Adams B.W. & Douwes H.E. (2002) Response of the mixed prairie to protection from grazing. Journal of Range Management, 55, 210-216.

Summary

Fire and grazing are major influences on prairie plant communities. Evidence suggests that their removal in semi-arid areas may cause succession toward more mesic (moist) grassland with litter accumulation and loss in productivity. In this study, large mammal exclosures erected in 1927 in a semi-arid Mixed Prairie community at the Agriculture and AgriFood Canada substation in Alberta (49°07', 110°28'; Canada) were examined to assess the effects of long-term exclusion of large grazers on vegetation and soils.

Fifteen exclosures were examined (11 on Chernozemic soil, 4 on Solonetzic soil). Outside the exclosures the area was livestock grazed, average stocking rates ranged around 0.5 animal unit moths (AUM)/ha (in 1931) and from 1992 to1997 from 0.25 to 0.67 AUM/ha (mostly late summer to December grazed)
 
Soil variables were recorded during surveys (August 1993) and from analyses of soil samples (September 1997 and 1998) inside and outside the exclosures.
 
Species cover were recorded within 20, 20 x 50 cm quadrats placed along a 10-m transect, inside and outside each exclosure (4-27 July 1996 and 16 June-20 July 1997). Standing biomass and litter were harvested at ground level in quadrats after plant cover was estimated.

Most results suggested that protection from grazing and associated disturbance had no effect or infact increased production (contrary to previous beliefs). Soil type influenced herbage production within exclosures; there were greater yields on the Chernozemic soil (annual net primary production grazed 92 g/m²; ungrazed 129 g/m²) but no effect on the Solonetzic soil (grazed 78 g/m²; ungrazed 79 g/m²).
 
Within exclosures, average standing litter was much higher than outside (Chernozemic soil: grazed 28 g/m², ungrazed 94 g/m²; Solonetzic soil: grazed 26 g/m², ungrazed 53 g/m²), which seemed to benefit Chernozemic soil quality. Within exclosures there was a tendency of reduced native species diversity on the Chernozemic soil, but evenness and richness were not affected. Cover of some species increased in exclosures (primarily Pascopyrum smithii and Tragopogon dubius) whilst others decreased (e.g. Bouteloua gracilis and Poa sandbergii).
 
 
Note: If using or referring to this published study, please read and quote the original paper, this can be viewed at: https://www.uair.arizona.edu/holdings/journal/issue?r=http://jrm.library.arizona.edu/Volume55/Number3/

Output references
What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 19

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.


Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust