Wildlife Responses to Brush Management

A Contemporary Evaluation

Timothy E. Fulbright, Kirk W. Davies, Steve Archer

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Wildlife-associated recreation and biodiversity are important management considerations on public and private rangelands, making it imperative that rangeland professionals explicitly take wildlife conservation into account in vegetation management planning and implementation. Here, we synthesize the literature reporting effects of brush management on wildlife and make recommendations for applying brush management to accomplish wildlife conservation objectives. Key observations arising from our synthesis are that habitat-related terminology is often misused in brush management literature. Recommending brush management as a “wildlife habitat improvement” tool is a non sequitur because habitat is species specific and brush management has different consequences for different species of wildlife and plants. Communication between resource managers and stakeholders can be improved by making it clear that habitat is species specific and then identifying what constitutes a benefit of brush management. Changes in resources resulting from brush management may not benefit targeted wildlife species unless these changes overcome some limiting factor or factors. Wildlife responses to brush management treatments are too complex to make broad generalizations because they are mediated by environmental factors and depend on the plant community, size and configuration of the area manipulated, type of treatment applied, and time since application. Prescriptions aimed at improving habitat for wildlife generalists may have relatively modest positive effects on that group but have potentially detrimental effects on specialists. Given this potential trade-off, an idea to consider is that it may be best to err on the side of using brush management as a tool to manage habitat for specialists. Brush management plans and recommendations should take into account trade-offs such as benefiting grassland wildlife at the expense of woodland species. Taking a broader “systems” perspective that balances needs of wildlife in conjunction with other ecosystem services affected by woody plant encroachment and brush management should be a goal of natural resource managers.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)35-44
Number of pages10
JournalRangeland Ecology and Management
Volume71
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2018

Fingerprint

brush control
wildlife
habitat
wildlife habitats
wildlife management
habitats
rangelands
nature conservation
rangeland
managers
evaluation
terminology
recreation
communication (human)
woody plants
resource
woody plant
ecosystem services
natural resources
stakeholders

Keywords

  • biodiversity
  • grassland
  • habitat
  • rangeland
  • savanna
  • shrubland

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ecology
  • Animal Science and Zoology
  • Nature and Landscape Conservation
  • Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

Cite this

Wildlife Responses to Brush Management : A Contemporary Evaluation. / Fulbright, Timothy E.; Davies, Kirk W.; Archer, Steve.

In: Rangeland Ecology and Management, Vol. 71, No. 1, 01.01.2018, p. 35-44.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Fulbright, Timothy E. ; Davies, Kirk W. ; Archer, Steve. / Wildlife Responses to Brush Management : A Contemporary Evaluation. In: Rangeland Ecology and Management. 2018 ; Vol. 71, No. 1. pp. 35-44.
@article{509ae95ec5ec4af8b943625f0ba98e0a,
title = "Wildlife Responses to Brush Management: A Contemporary Evaluation",
abstract = "Wildlife-associated recreation and biodiversity are important management considerations on public and private rangelands, making it imperative that rangeland professionals explicitly take wildlife conservation into account in vegetation management planning and implementation. Here, we synthesize the literature reporting effects of brush management on wildlife and make recommendations for applying brush management to accomplish wildlife conservation objectives. Key observations arising from our synthesis are that habitat-related terminology is often misused in brush management literature. Recommending brush management as a “wildlife habitat improvement” tool is a non sequitur because habitat is species specific and brush management has different consequences for different species of wildlife and plants. Communication between resource managers and stakeholders can be improved by making it clear that habitat is species specific and then identifying what constitutes a benefit of brush management. Changes in resources resulting from brush management may not benefit targeted wildlife species unless these changes overcome some limiting factor or factors. Wildlife responses to brush management treatments are too complex to make broad generalizations because they are mediated by environmental factors and depend on the plant community, size and configuration of the area manipulated, type of treatment applied, and time since application. Prescriptions aimed at improving habitat for wildlife generalists may have relatively modest positive effects on that group but have potentially detrimental effects on specialists. Given this potential trade-off, an idea to consider is that it may be best to err on the side of using brush management as a tool to manage habitat for specialists. Brush management plans and recommendations should take into account trade-offs such as benefiting grassland wildlife at the expense of woodland species. Taking a broader “systems” perspective that balances needs of wildlife in conjunction with other ecosystem services affected by woody plant encroachment and brush management should be a goal of natural resource managers.",
keywords = "biodiversity, grassland, habitat, rangeland, savanna, shrubland",
author = "Fulbright, {Timothy E.} and Davies, {Kirk W.} and Steve Archer",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.rama.2017.07.001",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "71",
pages = "35--44",
journal = "Rangeland Ecology and Management",
issn = "1550-7424",
publisher = "Society for Range Management",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Wildlife Responses to Brush Management

T2 - A Contemporary Evaluation

AU - Fulbright, Timothy E.

AU - Davies, Kirk W.

AU - Archer, Steve

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - Wildlife-associated recreation and biodiversity are important management considerations on public and private rangelands, making it imperative that rangeland professionals explicitly take wildlife conservation into account in vegetation management planning and implementation. Here, we synthesize the literature reporting effects of brush management on wildlife and make recommendations for applying brush management to accomplish wildlife conservation objectives. Key observations arising from our synthesis are that habitat-related terminology is often misused in brush management literature. Recommending brush management as a “wildlife habitat improvement” tool is a non sequitur because habitat is species specific and brush management has different consequences for different species of wildlife and plants. Communication between resource managers and stakeholders can be improved by making it clear that habitat is species specific and then identifying what constitutes a benefit of brush management. Changes in resources resulting from brush management may not benefit targeted wildlife species unless these changes overcome some limiting factor or factors. Wildlife responses to brush management treatments are too complex to make broad generalizations because they are mediated by environmental factors and depend on the plant community, size and configuration of the area manipulated, type of treatment applied, and time since application. Prescriptions aimed at improving habitat for wildlife generalists may have relatively modest positive effects on that group but have potentially detrimental effects on specialists. Given this potential trade-off, an idea to consider is that it may be best to err on the side of using brush management as a tool to manage habitat for specialists. Brush management plans and recommendations should take into account trade-offs such as benefiting grassland wildlife at the expense of woodland species. Taking a broader “systems” perspective that balances needs of wildlife in conjunction with other ecosystem services affected by woody plant encroachment and brush management should be a goal of natural resource managers.

AB - Wildlife-associated recreation and biodiversity are important management considerations on public and private rangelands, making it imperative that rangeland professionals explicitly take wildlife conservation into account in vegetation management planning and implementation. Here, we synthesize the literature reporting effects of brush management on wildlife and make recommendations for applying brush management to accomplish wildlife conservation objectives. Key observations arising from our synthesis are that habitat-related terminology is often misused in brush management literature. Recommending brush management as a “wildlife habitat improvement” tool is a non sequitur because habitat is species specific and brush management has different consequences for different species of wildlife and plants. Communication between resource managers and stakeholders can be improved by making it clear that habitat is species specific and then identifying what constitutes a benefit of brush management. Changes in resources resulting from brush management may not benefit targeted wildlife species unless these changes overcome some limiting factor or factors. Wildlife responses to brush management treatments are too complex to make broad generalizations because they are mediated by environmental factors and depend on the plant community, size and configuration of the area manipulated, type of treatment applied, and time since application. Prescriptions aimed at improving habitat for wildlife generalists may have relatively modest positive effects on that group but have potentially detrimental effects on specialists. Given this potential trade-off, an idea to consider is that it may be best to err on the side of using brush management as a tool to manage habitat for specialists. Brush management plans and recommendations should take into account trade-offs such as benefiting grassland wildlife at the expense of woodland species. Taking a broader “systems” perspective that balances needs of wildlife in conjunction with other ecosystem services affected by woody plant encroachment and brush management should be a goal of natural resource managers.

KW - biodiversity

KW - grassland

KW - habitat

KW - rangeland

KW - savanna

KW - shrubland

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85037851900&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85037851900&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.rama.2017.07.001

DO - 10.1016/j.rama.2017.07.001

M3 - Article

VL - 71

SP - 35

EP - 44

JO - Rangeland Ecology and Management

JF - Rangeland Ecology and Management

SN - 1550-7424

IS - 1

ER -