The use of shrub cover to preserve Mediterranean oak dehesas: a comparison between sheep, cattle and wild ungulate management

2015 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 244-253 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ramón Perea ◽  
Aida López-Sánchez ◽  
Sonia Roig
Keyword(s):  
Shrub Cover ◽  
Wild Ungulate ◽  
Ungulate Management

Livestock vs. wild ungulate management in the conservation of Mediterranean dehesas: Implications for oak regeneration

2016 ◽  
Vol 362 ◽  
pp. 99-106 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aida López-Sánchez ◽  
Ramón Perea ◽  
Rodolfo Dirzo ◽  
Sonia Roig
Keyword(s):  
Oak Regeneration ◽  
Wild Ungulate ◽  
Ungulate Management

Roller Chopping Effectively Reduces Shrub Cover and Density in Pine Flatwoods

2011 ◽  
Vol 20 (6) ◽  
pp. 721-729 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emma V. Willcox ◽  
William M. Giuliano
Keyword(s):  
Shrub Cover ◽  
Pine Flatwoods

scholarly journals How leadership could be used to manage domestic and wild ungulate herds

2021 ◽  
pp. 105326
Author(s):  
Amandine Ramos ◽  
Christophe A.H. Bousquet ◽  
Cédric Sueur
Keyword(s):  
Wild Ungulate

scholarly journals Multiple spatial behaviours govern social network positions in a wild ungulate

2021 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 676-686
Author(s):  
Gregory F. Albery ◽  
Alison Morris ◽  
Sean Morris ◽  
Josephine M. Pemberton ◽  
Tim H. Clutton‐Brock ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Social Network ◽  
Wild Ungulate

Microclimatic response to increasing shrub cover and its effect on Sphagnum CO2 exchange in a bog

Ecoscience ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 89-97 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mandy Chong ◽  
Elyn Humphreys ◽  
Tim R. Moore
Keyword(s):  
Co2 Exchange ◽  
Shrub Cover

Deer density and plant palatability predict shrub cover, richness, diversity and aboriginal food value in a North American archipelago

2014 ◽  
Vol 20 (12) ◽  
pp. 1368-1378 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Arcese ◽  
R. Schuster ◽  
L. Campbell ◽  
A. Barber ◽  
T. G. Martin
Keyword(s):  
North American ◽  
Shrub Cover ◽  
Deer Density ◽  
Food Value

Shrub encroachment is not always land degradation: Insights from ground-dwelling beetle species niches along a shrub cover gradient in a semi-arid Namibian savanna

2018 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 14-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Hering ◽  
Morgan Hauptfleisch ◽  
Katja Geißler ◽  
Arnim Marquart ◽  
Maria Schoenen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Land Degradation ◽  
Shrub Encroachment ◽  
Beetle Species ◽  
Shrub Cover ◽  
Semi Arid

scholarly journals Sage-Grouse Nesting, Brood and Winter Habitat Characteristics in Montana

2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 126
Author(s):  
Jennifer Woodward ◽  
Jenny Sika ◽  
Carl Wambolt ◽  
Jay Newell ◽  
Sean Schroff ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Objective ◽  
Habitat Characteristics ◽  
Shrub Cover ◽  
Sage Grouse ◽  
Winter Habitat ◽  
Brood Rearing ◽  
Study Sites ◽  
Wyoming Big Sagebrush ◽  
Central Montana ◽  
Cover Density

<p class="emsd"><span lang="EN-GB">Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) habitat characteristics were studied in central Montana primarily on Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata Nutt. ssp. wyomingensis Beetle &amp; Young) dominated rangeland. The primary objective was to compare shrub and herbaceous parameters within (use, random or non-use) and between seasonal habitats (nest, brood, winter). Two study sites (Musselshell and Golden Valley counties), and 2 years (2004 and 2005) were compared. Nest, brood, and random sites were compared for herbaceous cover, and grass height (n = 648). Nest, brood, random, winter use and winter non-use sites were evaluated for shrub cover, density, and height. All differences were considered significant at P ≤ 0.05. Sage-grouse nested in areas with greater total shrub cover and height, and taller live and residual grass than was randomly available. No differences were found between brood and paired random sites for any of the herbaceous or shrub parameters measured. Shrub cover and density were greater at winter use sites than non-use sites. Winter use sites had less shrub cover than nest sites. The nest and brood habitat had similar shrub cover, density, and height on the study area. Sage-grouse habitats should be managed to include sagebrush, forbs, and grass. Herbaceous vegetation was more important during nesting and brood rearing than during the winter. Therefore, some portions of <span>sage-</span>grouse habitat may benefit from management for greater herbaceous cover, but not at the expense of removing sagebrush. Sagebrush cover from 10 to 15 percent was the most consistent component of sage-grouse habitat.</span></p>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document