v70 p10 thompson

10
Michael .Thompson, Nlonlana epaftment f F sh , W d fe and Parks 3201 SpLrrg Boad [4 ssou a N4ontana 980] Winter Foraging Response f Elk o Spotted Knapweed Removal Abstract Piclofain $as u\cd lo con\elt I 10 ha of.Ln hj\toricnlly culti!ated gftrs\land hereaiicr old field) fionl spofied knrr]$eed (airrrrtrr /",,Lk1i1l,J,)Iogr.1si0nue]k(C.]-|lll./z?,ill!)q'i!crr3ngeiDwe\te|nNlontann'Ab0ul30ha\\' eslzed hat knapxccd rcno\.rl roukl nol: (H,I) xfect inlcr laraging rcrivity of elki (H,r1l) rlect q'inter dierst H.,lll) \ rr! in 1ts effects on iirraging aclilil) and diets rc0is the firn lour $irrers ftef knapweed cno\.rll and (H,,lV) aiicc( clk popularion distrjhutiolr. Lk Nulked n.rdjacent napreed nd g s s slaDd\ ndiscfiJninatcl!. Lr t oftged rlm, r c\! tu,r\ t\ r n rh e !rr\\ \r. rrl (H,1).Diclssrmpledbeliteandafterknap$ccdrcmo!alwefenotrankcorrchlcd.andtbmge\characlcisticoftheoldtleld(i.c.. Pod. Dtonlt6. Phl nt) "J.nked highcr n dicls .rlier knrpreed remo|al (H,ll). Elk tin.rging aclivir) $as significantl! highcr n the lirsl $i er than n subsequent \rntcA (H,lll). A highef proporljor ol |he estinrted elk popularion used he old-field alicr knap- $,ied relno\'al (H IV). I concludcd hrl rbundant gfeen grass a(raclcd elk to dre old-field in $c lirst uinrer after knap$eed rcmo!al. Cured 8r.r\s affarentlv allraclcd elk ibr ging acti!it) and allccr.d $intef diets ro a lcsscr crlent in subsequenl win(ers. wlcn pllnning knrp\reed remo\'al. clk rn.rnrgcfs should consider preexisling .rnge ondition and knap!vced density. occurrcncc of prclcircd loralre species. current a d dcsmd elk distribution. and thc probtrbilit!' of rdequatc ranliall fif sub\ianljil g SS gro$th n the ifst gro$ing eason ilcr hcrbic e application. Introduction Knapweeds C(ntoLtreo spp.) are Eurasian sp e cies occulring on over tlve million hectares n thcnofthu'est United States nd southwest anada (Lacey 1989). nnual production fspottcd nap- weed (C rrrrcrlosri)may exceed 1,000 kg/ha on disturbed angelands ear oadside eed ources (Carycntcr 986). yser an d Ke y (1988) also e- pofied tl're nvasion of spotted knapweed hcrc- aftcr knapweed) llto relatively pristine escue Easslands vithacoincident ecline n native plant divcrsity. Winter runges f Rocky Mountain elk (Ccnus e aphus e sou ) typically nclude angcltrnds Lyon an d Ward 19821 ulnerable o kna pweed nva- sion Mooers 1986). lk arc no t obligate razers. as evidenccd y the 5l winter orages isred b y Nelson an d Leege 1982). ut nray ose braging elficiency Wickstrcm et al. l98.1) whcrc knap- weed dominates roductire rasslands. lthou-qh speculative. n Lrnpublishcd orest Service eport (Spoon t rl . l9E3) ha s often bccn ef'erenced o iustify wamings of f'uture elk declines as knap- wced spreads Lolo NaLional orest 99l). Bedunah and Clrpcnter ( 1989) ertrapolatcd he results fherbicide rials o mply a potential2..+ lbld increase n range canving capacity br elk lirllorving knapweed ontrol and concunent grass procluction gains. However. results reportedby Lavelle 1986) uggest lk can ncorporrte nap wccd into their winter diets. Participants at the 1989 Knapwccd Symposium dentified knap*eed impacts on elk winter ran-ees s a research need (Fay an d Laccy 9E9). In May 1989. nrpweed was removed io m most of ar historically ultivated rassland here- aftcr old-field) on an el k winter range n rvcstern Montana. This vegetation onversion rovided an unusual ppofiunity o study elkdietaryrespenses because he vegetation omposition f the old- field was unique n conrparison ith surround- ing habitats; hus, dietary changes aused y old lleld treatments resumably would be indicated by corespondingchanges n proportions of old ficlclgrasses n elk feces. hypothesized weed emoval would not: (H1)l) f]'ect u,inter br - aging activity of elk; (H0lI) aflect wintcr diets: (HnIIl) vary in its effects on foraging activity and diets rcross he fi rst tirur winters afterknapweed removal; nd (HoIV) affect 1k opulation istri- buhon. Study Area The study focused on a l:10-ha old-licld in th e northwest ortion of the Threenile Wildlife Man- agementArea TWMA), Jocated n Ravalli County. Montana Figure ). The old-field s 1.3.10-1.,160 m abovc sea evel on the wcst slope of the Sap- phire Mountains nd normally eccives 2 cm of Norlhwest Science. o l. 70 , No. 1, 1996 r.!) lrlr6 L.] lr.\o,rlN.{ S!LUr,rir A\oc rrr All ri-.hrr.$r.d 1 { )

Upload: allison-v-moffett

Post on 14-Apr-2018

235 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

7/30/2019 v70 p10 Thompson

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/v70-p10-thompson 1/10

Michael .Thompson,Nlonlana epaftment f F sh ,W d fe and Parks3201SpLrrg Boad[4 ssoua N4ontana980]

WinterForagingResponse f Elk o SpottedKnapweedRemoval

AbstractPiclofain $as u\cd lo con\elt I 10 ha of.Ln hj\toricnlly culti!ated gftrs\land hereaiicrold field) fionl spofiedknrr]$eed (airrrrtrr

/ " , , L k 1 i 1 l , J , ) I o g r . 1 s i 0 n u e ] k ( C . ] - | l l l . / z ? , i l l ! ) q ' i ! c r r 3 n g e i D w e \ t e | n N l o n t a n n ' A b 0 u l 3 0 h a \ \ '

eslzed hat knapxccd rcno\.rl roukl nol: (H,I) xfect inlcr laraging rcrivity of elki (H,r1l) rlect q'interdierst H.,lll) \ rr! in 1tseffects on iirraging aclilil) and diets rc0is the firn lour $irrers ftef knapweed cno\.rll and (H,,lV) aiicc( clk populariondistr jhut io lr . LkNulked n.rd jacentnapreed nd g ssslaDd\ndiscf iJninatc l! .Lr toftged r lm, r c\! tu,r \ t\ rn rh e! r r \ \ \ r . r r l(H,1).Dic lssrmpledbeli teandafterknap$ccdrcmo!alwefenotrankcorrchlcd.andtbmge\characlc ist icoftheoldt le ld( i .c ..

Pod.Dtonlt6. Phl nt) "J.nkedhighcr n dicls .rlier knrpreed remo|al (H,ll). Elk tin.rging aclivir) $as significantl! highcr n thelirsl $i er than n subsequent\rntcA (H,lll). A highef proporljor ol |he estinrted elk popularionused he old-field alicr knap-$,ied relno\'al (H IV). I concludcd hrl rbundant gfeen grassa(raclcd elk to dre old-field in $c lirst uinrer after knap$eedrcmo!al. Cured 8r.r\saffarentlv allraclcd elk ibr ging acti!it) and allccr.d $intef diets ro a lcsscrcrlent in subsequenlwin(ers.wlcn pllnning knrp\reed remo\'al.clk rn.rnrgcfsshouldconsiderpreexisling .rnge ondition and knap!vceddensity.occurrcnccof prclcircd loralre species.currenta d dcsmd elk distribution. and thc probtrbilit!'of rdequatc ranliall fif sub\ianljil g SSgro$th n the i f s t gro$ing eason ilcr hcrbic e applicat ion.

Introduction

Knapweeds C(ntoLtreospp.) are Eurasianspecies occulringon over t lve mill ion hectaresnthc nofthu'estUnitedStates ndsouthwest anada(Lacey1989). nnualproductionfspottcd nap-weed(C rrrrcrlosri) may exceed1,000kg/ha ondisturbedangelandsear oadside eed ources(Carycntcr 986). yseran dKe y (1988)also e-pofied tl're nvasion of spottedknapweed hcrc-aftcr knapweed)llto relativelypristine escue

Easslandsvith a coincident ecline n nativeplantdivcrsity.

Winterrunges f Rocky Mountainelk (Ccnuse aphus esou ) typically nclude angcltrndsLyonan dWard 19821 ulnerableo kna pweed nva-sion Mooers1986). lk arcno tobligate razers.asevidenccd y the 5l winter oragesisredbyNelsonan dLeege 1982). ut nray ose bragingelf iciency Wickstrcmet al. l98.1)whcrcknap-weeddominatesroductire rasslands.lthou-qhspeculative. n Lrnpublishcd orestService eport(Spoon t rl . l9E3)ha softenbccn ef'erencedo

iustify wamings of f'utureelk declines as knap-wced spreads Lo lo NaL iona l o res t 99 l ) .Bedunahand Clrpcnter ( 1989)ertrapolatcd heresults fherbiciderials o mply apotential2..+

lbld increase n rangecanving capacity br elklirllorving

knapweed ontrolandconcunentgrassprocluctiongains.However. resultsreported by

Lavelle 1986) uggest lk can nco rporrte nap

wccd into their winter diets. Participantsat the1989KnapwccdSymposiumdentifiedknap*eedimpactson elk winter ran-eess a researchneed(Fayan dLaccy 9E9).

In May 1989. nrpweedwas removedio mmostof ar historically ult ivated rasslandhere-aftcrold-field) on an elk winterrange n rvcsternMontana.This vegetation onversion rovidedanunusual ppofiunity o studyelkdietary respensesbecausehe vegetation omposition f the old-field wasunique n conrparison ith surround-ing habitats;hus,dietarychanges aused y old-lleld treatments resumablywould be indicatedby coresponding changesn proportionsof oldficlclgrassesn elk feces. hypothesizedhatknap-weed emoval would not: (H1)l) f]'ectu,inter br-agingactivityof elk; (H0lI)aflectwintcr diets:(HnIIl) vary in itseffectson foragingactivity anddietsrcross he first tirur wintersafter knapweedremoval;nd (HoIV)affect 1k opulation istri-buhon.

StudyArea

The study focused on a l:10-haold-licld in thenorthwest ortionof the Threenile Wildlife Man-agementAreaTWMA), Jocatedn RavalliCounty.Montana Figure ). Theold-field s 1.3.10-1.,160

m abovcsea evelon the wcst slopeof the Sap-phireMountains nd normally eccives 2 cm of

NorlhwestScience. ol. 70 ,No. 1, 1996r.!) lrlr6 L.] lr.\o,rlN.{ S!LUr,rir A\oc rrr All ri-.hrr.$r.d

1{ )

7/30/2019 v70 p10 Thompson

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/v70-p10-thompson 2/10

westemwhcatgras! A. stnithii\, i:meth\ .PltleLtnlpraten\e). daho cscue, ulbous lucgrrss Prrrrbu|bostt),,ntd iurada luegrassP. o1tlpressa).

Forbs ndu'oody pccics ereuncommonn theold f ield.

On 5 Ma-v1989. iclorarn asaerirl l l broad-calt (200 cc/ha)over about l0 ha of the oldficld.About30 ha werc efi untreatedFigure1 .D. J. Beclunahpers. omm.)agreedhe vegeta-rion esponseopicloram isually esemblcdha tmeaswed uring heearlierherbiciderialsbv Car-pentcr 1986) ndBedunah ndCarpenter19Ii9).An abrupldcmarc tion between hegrass piclo-ram-treated)ndknapweedLuttrealccl)tands 'asconspicuousrom Septcmber 989hrough 993.Grassgrowth in the old field afierknaptveed c-nr r , \ ! l l eg i l r )r t c in rhe 08o rou in ! . c l r .on .an dwas ikelystinulated y above-normaluly-August ainfall.Grasscsenrainedreen hroughthe ils l winter.bu tgrass hcnologv etumed1()normal n subsequentrowirg seasons. emperaluresandprecipitalionwerebroadlysimilaracross

the our winters f study. heold-field enerally\ !as snow covcred n December-Fcbruarvndsnow-treen March.

Methods

Unlessotherwise tated.1990denolcsDecember 1989-February990 the 'irst vintelof srudy);l ikewise.1993denotesDecembcr1992Febru-ary 1993 the ounh and lnalwinterof studv).

H..l:Foraging Act vlty

I countedrack-trailsno t ndividual racks) ndt'eedilgcraters n the sno$'as evidence f elk

foraging ctivity n the old-fleldknapweed ndgrass tands uring1990 1993. ourparallel clttransects2 x 80 m) u'ereestablishcd irr counting tracksand craten on eachsideof the demar-cationbetween hc knapweed nd grassstaods(Figure ). Transects ereeither50 or,100m (ap-

proxinately)tiom the demarcation. anpling re-quency epended ponenough now o covergrassfoliage ndpreviously ountedrack rails here-alter tracks).Mean mck and cratercounts n thcknapweed nd grass tandswere esled i)r dif-tercnces singa paired test.

H - : D i e t s

Conpositewinterdietsofelk wcrcestimated vfec , r lrn rhs i : t s t c r r rn 96- .T : lb lcr . . r . r lpe l l cs

Figure L. lu\tapo\i t ionof stud! s ires nd cgct. rr ion one\x ith i. thc ainter ome ange adaprcdiom Beall

L c]7.1:701.hcr!) outline n fi gure)of lhcTtueenileel k populNti |)n.99(l l99l.

annualprecipitationCar?enter 986). t is partol an ecotonebetwecnponderosa ine (Pi?r.tponulerosrr)irrestandnative angcland ominatedby bluebunch vheatgt.\ssAg op| ron spi atunt).Idaho fescuc(.Fe.stu(atlahoensis),neeclJegrass(.l l l7ra spp.) and arrowlerf balsamroot

lBaIsantorlt i;u . tgi t t I tut). ivcstockhad beenexcluded incc1967.when heMorllanaDepartnrentof Fish.Wildli lt andParks MDFWP)pur-chased heTWMA to naintain andenhance lk$ inter ange.

Knapu'eed orninatedhe oldJield b1' 1973(HalJm 1975).Carpenter l986.) nd Bcdunah ndCarperter 1989)cimductederbicideritrls n 2ha of theold-fleld n 1985-1988Figure ). Ontheir control plots, annualproduction averaged1.23,1.6g/ha napwcednd 7l1.7 kg.4raurasses.comparcdwith 8.0 kg/ha napwced nd 1.582.9kg/hagrassesnpicloram-treatedlots Carpcn-

ter 1986).PrairiejunegrassKoelerianecruntlto)and Kentuckl'bluegrassPonprrlcrrsis) ncrcased

si-snif icantlvlier realnrcnt. therglassesn theold-fi eld includedclreatgrtssB cnLt.t ec o rLt1 .

E lk Rc . p , ' r r r e , ,K l l p \ \ ced Rcnr , r \ i l l | |

7/30/2019 v70 p10 Thompson

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/v70-p10-thompson 3/10

TABLI L Fcc,rl \amp]ing dcsign br e\rjrnxting i\e $inter diets ofelk on the Threenile \Vildlile \{artrgcncnl Arca. Erch dict

rcprcscnlcd col.rc\pondingo posited,trmpleofl- lpel ler\ l io lnerchofNindi! idudpelletsroups.

llk Pcllcl Croup!

Rcpr( \ . n lJ l , ,n

a;lt , \S90

C] A59I

GRAS93

KNAP9I)

KNAP86

E2

Okl field

Old - f ie ld

Old lield

I I knl south

of o ld f ie ld

Old f ie ld and

immediale ic in it)

Firsr $ ir tcr alicr knaps eeed emo\'al (pelletscollectedon 25 Febmafr- 1990);

dier porcrtirlly rflccrcd by knip$ccd rerrolal

Second inrcra j ic r napnccd rcnrovxl pel le ls ol lected n I I ebruxrf 99l) :

d ic l polc l l l ia l l)at iccrcd ! knapxeed emoval

Fou.th \ in terai ier knap\ieed emolal fe l le ts ol lected n : : N{rfch 199-l) :

dicr porenrialll affectedb) knap$eed e|ln)\'.Ll

First \ i r rer r l ier knrp$ccd cnro!t l (pcl lcrs ol lectcd . l5 Fehruar l 990Jl

dier poteDti|ll) unLrllected ] knlp!\ccd rcno!al

Fouf $ mten belbre nr p$eed eno!.r1 dala iom 1-a!c l lc l91i6 l.pc l lc l \

collecled December 1985 Nlarch 1986)

deposited uring he currentwintcrperiodwereidentif iecly coloran dshapeEbefhardt ndVan

Etten1956). u,as rlikely to mistakenly ollectsummer-rnd all deposit ions ccause ost elkmigrated o the studyarean li,rte ovenrber. arly-

springbiaseswcrc avoided ) selecting gainstfreshlydeposited ellets urjng ate-winter ol-

lectiols.Composite tmplcs ncluded 2 pellets

liom nranl pcllct-groups1(] ncorporatea repre-scnlalive aDge f anilnal and empori,rlariation(Table ). Microhis tological nalyses erepe r

tirrmcd by the Wildlife Habitat I-aboratoryatWhshington trteUniversit)', ullmrn.

Diets ol clk in the old tleld were comparcdam(nr-sbur winte$ (Table ): i.e..one GRAS90.),

two (GRA59l) and bur(GRAS93)wintcrs f tcr

piclorirm leatment,and our winte$ before featmcnt KNAPS6). sanpled il ih diet KNAP90)

to test br temporal-enhancedariationbelweenthc KNAP86 and GRAS9O iets.My sampling

obiecti le br the KNAPgOdict wils o represent

the same ombinalionof foraginghabitatswhichyiclded heKNAPS6 iet.Accordingly.sampledtheKNAP9Oandall otherdietswithin hc winterhome rlnge of thc Threemile elk population(as

dr l ineatcJ1Bca l l ( ) -J l .Ry uh je , i re rs . . . -

mentoltrack patlerns.l oncludedhat he nflu-enceof thepiclor-am-treatedld-ficid could be

excluded rom lhe KNAP9o sample ,vcollect-ing pcllcts 3 km south fthe old-tield Table1.

Figure ). If elk braging istributionseprcscntcd

by the KNAP9OandCRAS90 samples verlappedin the old-field, he probability f clct ccting c-

tual clk dietary responseso knapweed emovalwas reduced.

Diets were comparcd y l irst calculaLingrrreanwinter diet composition ion the lve indi-

vidualdiets.The t 'ewestoragc axa with mcanpcrcent ompositionsotall ing> 75% wer e selected or'lurther analysis.Theseprincipal tbr-ageswere rlnked by their percentagesn eachindividual diet, and he ive dietswere comparedusing Spearman'san kcorrelation. pearmrn'scoellicientsweresegregatedDto hrcedietgroups(i.e.,KNAP versus NAP.GRASvcrsusGRAS.KNAP vcrsusGRAS;Table ) an dgrouped o'efficientswere averaged s an ndex ofdiet sini

ladty fbr comparison nronggroups.Principaltirrageswere softcd by thcir occurrence n threchabitat ategoriesi.e..old-1ield. unounding ativehabitats,nixed) and rankingswere compared.

H"l :Temporarends

Snowdepthwa snrcasurcdo thenearest cm intheold-fieldwheneverfackswerecounted. ountsoftracksan d eeding raters ere ested i)rdif-t'crcnccs elweenyearsusing a I way alalysisof variance. i l lerences etweencarswcre n-

teryreted.n pafi.by testing rackandcratercouDts(dependentariables) orcorrelation it h snow

depth ndjulian ay indcpcndcntariablcs).nclmultiplc near egressionnalyses erepefomed.

12 Thompson

7/30/2019 v70 p10 Thompson

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/v70-p10-thompson 4/10

Juiirnda y beginninglom I December) aspre-sumed1r) eflecta gradual eduction n the ecological netabolisnMocn 1978) f elk benvecnlate fall and nricl-rvinter. umulalivc ti)ra-qe e-moval"and deteioralingsnowconditions i.e.,settlingandcrusting).Dietarl differenccs etween

),eaIS er eexamincd y c onpadng Spearntan'srankcorrelation oeffi icnts.

H.. :E k Dst rbutonI estimatedevelsof winter clk useon the oldlield lbr conparison with previousestinalcs byBeall 197.1), akim (1975)an dLavelle 1986).I r ecordecl l l incidental bsen,ationsf elk inthe old l ield l icinit l. Croup size vasestimatedwhenevera groupof elk lcft tiesh and ndividu-ally distinguishabler. l tck-setseadedn hesamedirection.Pellet groups were countedon thetransectsn Februarl ' 990. nd he otal vas x-

1 '1 . . seJn pc l le ti roup. / l t r r .ub jecr i re. .e . : .meul of 1o\\'. rodelateor high elk usewas madelbllowing thedcscriptions f Beall ( 197.1).on -

sideringall i ldicationsof e1kpresence. nnualaerialsurveys f the Threemilccl k population(single ounts uringMarch or April) continuedthrough hisstudy J.E. Firebaugh crs. omm.).Dit l 'erencesl meanpopulrt ionsizeu ere ested$'ith a t-tcst .The J99211ight roduced n outlying low count 3) thlt wasomitted.

Results

Eightccn urveys f elk tracksand eeding raterswereacconplishcd luringhe irst bur win-ters al'tcr nap*eed emoval Figurc2) . A lacko l l re .h nor , . r , ' ren ledro le h tnonr : : l r r \e )n1992.Coresponding ccalsarnplesbr dietest i-

nlationwele notcollectedhirlwinter.

H!l Forag ng Activity

I counted1.1103racksand l90 lteding craters.Elk walked hroughadjacent napweed ndgrassslandsndiscriminatelr,'.utpawcdonly irur(2.17c)of the cralers n the knapu,eedtand Figure3) .Theretbre. rejectedH,,l andconcluded hat lhc-tols ilssociatedwith ktapweed rcmovalattt-actedeJ k braging ctivity H, l).

Hr l l D e ts

Forty-eight brage axa wcrc identit ied ioln a

combincd700elkpelletgroups trmplcd 1 -avelle

I

1 9 9 0 1 9 9 1 1 9 9 21 9 9 3

Y e a f

Figure . N{can ounl\ r l l t r .rn\ectsonrbricd)ofe lknrcksand ccding ratersn.rnold i le ldon heThreenileWi ld l i i i M.rraSenent fea. ANO\A (1 \ia)) ontrack\ b] yellr: F = 0.809. P = 0..+7:ANO\A (l

$a,""on craters v err: F=;+ 725.P= 0 01. Djflcrent lettefs vithin group\ (i.e.. ruck\ or crao-s)

derore ignif icani i i i i rcnccs P < 0.10) ndicarcd

b] Bonferoni test. N = number of surve]!.

( 1986)and heprescnt tudv.Thirteen 27. %)genera ornprised 7570 fthe averagewinterdiet(Table ). KNAP andGRAS diets Table I ge rerallydisplayed orc sinrilaritywithin groupshanbetwccngroups Table3.).Spcannan'soetlcientsiodicated er ocorrelatioDetween itherKNAPdicr andrhe GRAS93 dicr. rvhile he GRAS93an dGRAS9I dictsdisplayedhehighcst on-elation (Table3). Genera haract eristicf the old-tield (i.e..Poo, Brornus,Pftlearr) rankedhigherin GRASdiets hanKNAPdiets,while he ankingsol widely distributedgcnerrwerevariable nrble2). Therefore, rejectedHnlI and concluded hatfirctorsassociated ith knapweedremovalausedneasulable hif is n elk rinter dicts H"I]).

H,l l Temporalrends

Elk prescncen the old f ield (i .c. . racks)wasconsistent through four witters followinc

S sE (Tracks)

I sE {craiers)j nacks: 1 Observation

: Cralers1 ObsetuationJ

E

F

:Lrl

z

N = 8

l ] '

Elk Responseo Knapweed emoval l3

7/30/2019 v70 p10 Thompson

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/v70-p10-thompson 5/10

70

9 6 0

^ t

L!

E= , ^

egF

: 3 0LIJ* l

b2 c oJ.

= 1 0

Ss e o,""r"rlse (c,er"o)

N = 1 8( 1 9 9 0 - 1 9 9 3 o m b i n e d )

K n a p w e e d l n f e s t e d K n a p w e e d B e m o v e d

Figure -1.Nlean counts of elk rfack\ .Lnd eeding crrters b)sanpling s itc in an old l jc ld on lhe Threein i leWild l i fe ManagementArer. Dif fefent letters

! \ th in gfoup\ ( i .e . . rack\ or c l. t te ls) enorc i g

nit icanl d i l lerenccs P < 0.05). Paircd = 0.5,1(tracks) nd 1.65 craler() .

knapweedemoval Figurc2.1. oragin-qctivityindicated y craters rs highestn 1990. ndwa ssignil icantlyower n subsequent inters.Dur-ing 1990. racksan dcratcrswcrc not corrclatcdwith sno*,dcpth, ut racks cndcd o ncrcasc swinterprogrcsscdTable ). During subsequcnlyears. rackcountsdeclined s snow depths n-clelr.ed nJ u in1qt. rugres.eJ. he nlerr,.ir.rrrof snou,depth and ulian day explained417c of

the vadation n trackcountsduring l99l-1993.The addit ion f data rorn 1990 educedhi sex -plained ariationo 8'lr (Table ). TheCRAS9landGRAS93 iets isplayed ore imilarit),han

any otherdiet comparison, ndboth diets$ererelativel.v issimilar o GRAS90(Table3). Thercfore. I rejectedH,,III and concluded hat elk responses 0 actorsassociated ith knapweed e-movalpersistedhrough he ilst four rvinters fterknapweed emoval, but were more pronouncedin the first \\"inter H,III).

H.lVElkDistr ibut ion

On 3l December 989, counted 5 1i'eshrack

sets eadingwestandverified hatexactly95 freshtrack sets etumed across he old field. This indicatednearly four times the number of elk encoultered duringprevjousstudiesn the old-tleld(Table5). Other measures f elk-use ndicateda170 1.200clrncreasen this studycomparcdwithprevious eports Table5).

lAUl-E 2. Principalplanr genefa n file estim.rted \'irter dier\ of elk on thc Thrccnilc Wildlili Nllanagcmcnl rca (c.g.. rh .

KNAP86diel l -a le l le19861 efr ins o the 1986 Lir ter:Tlb l c 1).

Dicr Compo\ition

RankB\ Winte l

Habltr t

Cenus KN,A.P90 CR,A.S93N,A.PE6 GR,A.S90 CRAS9IO1d'lield gfrssllllld prin.ril)

Po( 11.20

B r o u \ 5 . 7 l

PhltLt 1.58

Sunoundi. g ra. gela.d/lbrest primxf l,v

7 . 1 36.55.1. l.1.1

3 1 01.362 . 89

6.191 . 811 . 99

. 1 . l 0

1.533 . 29-1.51 . 59-1.911 . 95

25

l l

1, 1.1

23

21 l

5I

l l.1

1

22

3

E

I

' l9

16l

1 l

1 iIJ

)

l

I)

l l J

8l 5

.l

6l 2t l

53

1

I

63

tL)l 7l l22

15

1t3l l

I

12

E

B . . r l ' . J ' L . l I d . r r r ^ | | n J r - J, r p e l , rd , r i .

FesI d 12.15

Attr)11\'tott 7.15

(:entuut.u 3.91lbral 16.07

9 . 71

l . 2 l

1.+ Thompson

7/30/2019 v70 p10 Thompson

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/v70-p10-thompson 6/10

TABLE 3. Spcannans correlationcoefficients " denotesP < 0.05, bdenotesP < {) 10) comp.ring live eslimated virter diets ol

c l k o n t h c T h r c c r n i l c w i l d l i f e M a n a g e m e n r A f e r ( e . g . , r h e K N A P s 6 d i e t f l a v e l l e l 9 S f l p e f i a i n s t o t h e l 9 3 6 w i n t e l

Trblc I ).

Diet

1 ) ie t KNAP86 KNAP9O GRAS9I CRAS9]

Poteniirll! .riltcted x potentiall] ttfiectedby knap\-ccd rcmo!al

GRASq0 0.335

CJ R S9

Unailiclcd (KNr\P86) x poientirll,vunrffected b] kn.rp\ieed emolrl

KNAP9o 0.511'

Pote.Iiall! affected un.r*ected or potenti.rlli unaiiecledby knapNccd cmolal

0.'121

0 . 610

0.51

GRAS9O

CRAS9I

GRAS93

0.225 0.526F

0. r0 0 .108-0.005 0.005

0 . l 9

T,A.BLI .1 .Thc nl lucncc l sno$dcprh(c in)andJulirndx)(beginninglDecember)onrviDtefcountsofelktfacksrndfeeding

crrrers, as ndicatcd bt Pcrrson conclalion coeificientsand multiple linear regfes\ion.Threemile Wildlife N{.rnrge-

mentAfer ( ' denoles < 0.05. dcnolcs = 0.01).

Correhtion

N

Dependent

Vttlirblc I)ay

1990

l99t l99l

r990 99-l

Track\

Cmte|s

Tracli\

Cmters'lrrck\

0.26

0.0,1

0 . 17

-0.26

0 . l l

0.5.1

0 . 33

,0.59.

0.06

-0 . 18

0 . 1 9

l l

r8

1.5.lb

0.1.1

0.6.1

2.08

0.,11

0.0-l

0.011

0.12

TABLE 5. Comp.u.rtrle irdic.rtions of $intcr clk prcscnccal1dabundanccon thc old iield grasslandof lhreemile Wildlife

Ntanagement fea.

Vethod PreviousStrrdies This Studv

Subjective

Pc l lc lgroup PC)

Lrrgest elk !ruup

Lruge\t elk group.

judgingn.om0rck\

Nlodcratc ca!] usc. aladonlh ccritcria i Bcall 197,+).

18,1 c,fta

68 8 Jan1993I I '. of N'

95 (-l l)ec lgEq):l3tf oi N'

Lighl elk use,occasion.rLly oderateor no use Beull 191,1).

Fe\ e lk minnnalus e La!el le 1986).

l , l PG/ha Hak im 1975)

ll (La\c l lc 1986)

I 1 9 , l N "

15 .approx. Beall 197.1)

l7 % (l t N"

N'= 1,19 lkcnimlcd in hc Thrccni lcpopulat ion.986 l989rNb= 1. lE lk er l imated.97l- 1973. } Beall1 l97,1)r '= l20 e lk

est inated. 990 19q.1

Elk RespoDseo KnapweedRemoval 15

7/30/2019 v70 p10 Thompson

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/v70-p10-thompson 7/10

Annual trendcountsof the Threerri lc clkpopulation yeraged,lT% igher t = -2.10.P=

0.07.11uringMarch-April 990. 1991. 993 nd199:1 = 165.SD = 38) than ur ing 986-1989(- = 112,SD = 26).Sirnilarmethodsn conrpa-rablecover ard terrain n thc ElkhornMountainsdetected :1.77of87 marked lk(R. M. DeSirnonepers.comm..). rovidinga co[ection factor osuggest he Thrccnile populationaveraged bout

220e lk n 1990-199.1and: l9c lk n l9 l i6 -1989.Beall (197.1) scdnrarked nimals nd multipleccnsus ounts o obtainannual stimalcs f 127-16 8elk n heThrccrnile opulationn l97l 1973.

Elk numbcrs nd indicators fuse n theold-tield lcleasedbeyomd roportionsxplained olelvby thepopulationncrease ocunrcnted uring hisstud]'. I obscrved3l-43% of the estimatcdThreemile opulationn theold-ficld. omparcdwlth fepofisequivalcnt ) | l- l7% of thepopula-tion betor-e napweed emoval(Table5). Therefore. I rcjccted H,,lV and concluded hat factorsassociatedwith knapu,eed emovalattlactedelk

to theold-field.presunably ronrelsewherevithinthe wintcrh()me ange f theThreenilepopula-tion (H"IV).

Discussion

Factors ssociated'ithknapweedemoval n thcold lield apparenLlyttractecllk nunbersequivalcnt k) 1;+-327 f the Threemilcpopulation.naddition o thc cstimrted1J-17%of thepopula-tion that used heold f ield bcforcknapweede-noval (Table ). By definit ion.hisdistf ibutionalshif i o$ard the old f ield (H,tV) alsodecreasedelk-claysfuseelsewherecrosshewintcrhonrerange.Although other$ se unaftectedby knap-weed enoval.elk enain ing n rr dit ionally se dhabitats away from the old f ield nt ay havebenetltted rom reduccdcornpetition br limitedresourccse.9.,Bartmanlet al. 1992). hus ,e1 kredisbibutionn responsco knapweedemovalmay havebeenanalogouso a winterpopulation

reduclion pproaching.l 32./r.. rerious tudieshaveassociatedhangesn population ensitywiLhchanges n th e population dynarnicsof elk(Buechner nd Svanson1955)ard r ed deer Ce. scoti(us.CluttonBrock eLal. 19132:259-285).

Morcover. knapweed emoval expandcd or-agirg options or thc estimated l ,137c f the

el k populationTable ) whichused heold l ield(H.l). A correspondingietary esponseo tac-

tors inked with knapweed emovalwas dctectedin all three vinters H,ll). This dietar1 esponsc\\"asndicated y t 'ecaJnalysis espitc ighen -vironmentll variabil itywhich may haveoverwhelmedhi sstudl'spower o detect ore subtlediclarychanges f potential iologicalsignificance(White1983). nvironmertalariabil ity ashighbecause:l) knapweed emovalmodificdonlyabout5% (i.e..old field) ol the wi nrerhone rangcofliee-roanring elk, (2) lew forage Laxa ccurredin theold-tield comparcd o t he rernailderof Lhcu in terhornc r rnpe.r rJ l ) p l ln t l - r ' l gnr t .n tsntecescollectedn the old-field mayhavebecningcstcd t distant eeding ites cveral ay sbelbredefecationNelson ndLeege1982). interhigh biological significance iom the facl thatadietary esponsettributableo knapveed emovalcouldbedistinguishcdiom the nfluences ftheseuncontrolled afiables. ikewise.Wickstrometd. (198,1:1299)oncludedha tmanagementrac-liccsaft'ectingegetation n winter angesre ikehto havcprofbund npact on ungulate irragingef'liciency during the seasonwhen energybalanceis especiaJlyrit ical.

The KNAP9Oand GRAS9Odiets wererankco[elated (Tablc3). This u,asan expecled csultof samplingboth diets ron the sanrepopulatiot]dudng he samcwinter Table ), anddid notdi -rninish he mportancc fobserveddiflerenccs e-twcen thesediets which werc rtrributed to factofs associalsd ith knapweedemoval(?rble 2).Further, he significant ank correlationbetweenthe KNAPgo and KNAP86 diets. and a lack ofcorrelation etweenhe GRAS90and KNAP86diets (Table 3) , promotedconfidcnce n th eKNAP86d ie t : r r . r l i Jha .e l ineor rs . c . : i n !

dietary hangesinkedwith knapweedemoval.Therctbrc,hepurposeorestimating he KNAP90diet was served.

Only one reatment itc andone controlsilcwerecompared. heretbre.his study acked ep-lication.which precludedhe useof inferentialstatistic! to test for treatmenteffects(Hurlbert198,1).he -test n Figure3 indicatedhatcratercountsdiffered bctweensites \"lile track countsdid no t. Fron this, concludedha telk lbragedmore on the rcated sitethan on the control site.though hey $'alked hroughboth sites ndiscrilrinately. his,considered ith the other esults fthis study. ed me to subjectivelyconclude hat

tactors ssociated ith knapwccd emoval 1.e. ,the featnlent tself)causedhe observcd oraging

16 Thompson

7/30/2019 v70 p10 Thompson

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/v70-p10-thompson 8/10

response. eplication assacril iccd o e!l luate

r t re r lmen lr l ' \ u l ' l i c i cn li te I r r t . -e -s inc t t rn -agcment pplicationsvhi esimultaneouslyon-tlning environmcntal afiation o that ourd withinthe angeof a singleel k populatit)n. cplicated

experiments, swcll asobsen'ational tudies uch

as hi sonc,ar eneededo advance cological n-

dcrstandingEberhrirdt ndThomas1991).

Factors ssociatedith knapweeclemoval

$,eremostattractivc o foragingelk u 1990 H,III,

Figure ).This nit ialattractionppearcdo over-ide the efltcts of snow depth and$'lnter dura-tion rvhich nfluencedbragingactivit l in 1991-

1993 Table;l). Knaprveed cmovrl may have

attracted lkbecau c: I ) knap$,eed\,as emoved.(2) gr:rss tanding lop ncreased,nd/or 3) i) F

agequalitycharacteristicsf thr:grassesmproved.Knaprvccd and grassstalding crops \r'ere con-

sistent cross ll wintcrs l lcrknapweedemo\.alan dcouldno texplain higherattractionn 1990.

Horvever lbrage quality nray havc been higher

in 1990due o: (1 ) a shon{erm erti l izereflect

causedat thc lime of treatnent by a releaseofnutdentspreviouslyoccupiecl y living knapweedplants Harvcyan dNorvierski 989). nd/or 2)

a one time occufienceof abunclant rccn grass

on thc winter ange.

Morc grass itter waspresent ll the old-field

in 1991-1993, ut probablydi d no t explain hc

abrupt rop n firrrging ctivity bservedn 1991.

Jourdonnais nd Bedunah 1990)observedes s

elkfeedinguse frough escueE scabrrllri)plants

with dcnscstanding itter.While rough escueproducesdense ulis of pcrsistcntstanding itter.

the nontut'tedgrasses revalent n the oldjield(c.-r. . luegrassesndbromes) id not.By ocular

estimate. lk consumed bout 35%ol'the grassstanding ropon thc transects efole25 Febm-ary 1990.and he remainingunconsumcdbli-

age ended o tlatten,presentingDo apparent b-structiono elk eeding n current car'sgrowth

in thev in tero f 1991.

The eflects ol knapwccd rcnloval appeared

to continucatlracting lk foragingact ir, i tyan d

influencingwinterdietsn l99l-1993 (Figure :

Tables , 3.and5) .Prior1() napweedemoval.

high densityofcoarse.per-sistent,napwccd tcmsnrry havc dctcrredelk from grazing he scatteredgrassplants n the old-field.compilrablco the

ellectof standing enseiner on clk useof oughfescue Jourdonnaisnd Bedurah 1990).Addi-

t ionally. rass roductiolr ains oncurrcnl vilhknapweed emovalmay have Dcreased lnter

foraging efficiercy. Wickstrom et al. ( 9ll4) rc-pofted hat dry malter ntake atedecleased 'hen

el k grazed rass tands ith t irage biomasscr'-

els below a thresholdof about 1,500kg/ha. andlhcy concludedt wasulplofitable 1breJk o graze

grassswardsof low productivitl,. regardlcssof

digestibil ity. pplying hcir csulls o thepresent

sludy, he ncrease rom about700 kg/hagrass )1.600 g/hr (Carpentcr 986) aused y piclo

ranl treatmentmay have exceeded production

threshold mpoftant n thc foragingenergetics fwintcringelk.

The oraging esponse felk might havebeelstrongern l99l 1993 fnative bunchgra!sesere

more abundantn the old-ficld.Althoughblue-grassesomprised8% of thewinterelk diet n

theElkhornMountains. ordoD1968) eportedthatelk did not usecuredbluegrassoliage. he

cured bliage of Idaho fescLr,cnd bluebunchwheatgrass ere hcprimarywipterfoods eponed

by Gordon(1968.). ikewise. Threemileelk

werc

aftractedo thebluegrass onrinated ld-ficldwhcn

-qrasscs ere predominatelygleen in 1990, but

foraged essn theold-fieldwhenbluegrasscscrcprcdominatelyured n l99l 1993.

Conclusions ndRecommendations

Elk populationsn Montanaareat twentiethcen-

tury highs Firebaugh 993). oincident ith heincrease nd spreadof knapweed Lacey 1989).Although xistin g abitat ould uppotmoreelk,lower populationobiectives re necessaryir r

compatibil ity it h competing unrtrn scs f thcland (Wildl. Div.. Elk Manage.Plan.MDFWP.

Hclcna.1992). hus, hequestior fwhetherex-i . l i ng nap\ \ ed n e \ t r l i ,n \ ne l l r t n le r rngc:limit ccological carrying capacity s somewhatacademic he nel knumbers re imitcd o a owcr

cconomic carrying capacity, as detined byCaughley 1979).

Neve{heless. he esultsofthis study areper-

tinent o elk managementn two respects . irsl.continucd spreadof knapweed beyond current

distdbutions, nd ncreasednap*eeddensit ieswithin cxisting stands, l'rould oncernmalagelsof grassland inter rangeswho strivc o main-tain hccurrenlproductivity fassociated lk herds.

Second.emovalor thinningofexisting krapweedstands n tavorable braging habitatsmay attract

Elk Responseo Knapweed emoval l1

7/30/2019 v70 p10 Thompson

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/v70-p10-thompson 9/10

elk.potcntially ieldingsimilarhabitat ndherdenhancencnt esults s -erti l izing.urning.an dprcscribed att legrazing Ro\\ ' land t al. 191i3.Skor'l in tal .1983. ourdonnaisndBcclunah990.Frisina1992).

I t ' u r rk r r , ' r rr l t j t ce lk ' r r ! i n t re \pon\cr lthe old f ield wa s representati\ef the responsemanagershould xpect r-om napwecdemovalon tr-pical unchgrassvinter t l lces.Recovcryratesof nalivc angeludsnal bc depressedvhistorical se Willns ct a1.191i5), 'hichwouldrenrain factor c-eardlessfknapwccd emoval.Exlrapolrt ing he resultsof the present tudy.knaprl,ecdemoval vouldelicit the atcest or -aging esponse herepreexisting ensities fbothknapweed ld preferrcdirnigegrassesverchigh.Further at leasta pofiioD ol thc elk rcsponse ()knapueed ernovaln theold-field l,asikcly rt -tdbutable 0a short-terlrlbrage uality ncreasein the irst winter blJ owing icloran trcatment.Th ecoinciclencef massir knaprveedortali lyu i th r r leqr ru tc. r in lu l l r ' p rohrh l l rn rupor

Literature Cited

B.rnm.rnn.l . N l . .C i .C. Whiie. rnd L. H. CarpcDter. 992.Compensator\)oi.rlLt\ in I Colorado ulcdccrpopu-l.r t ion. \ ' i ld l Nlonogr111.

Be.r l1. .C. 197,1.Wnlcrhabitrrselect ionudus cb \ l \ , ,e \ t -cr]r {ont.rn.r lk hefd. lnir!'rsiU oftr{ont n N{issoula.Ph .D.Disseft.r t ion.

I ] d , r . , r l r . . . r . l J . C . - F r ' t ' r l . r | . r | t r n r f , I n T I \ r .\pon\e i)llo$ ing spoficd nrpweecl airrdr,&r ,r.k l1

| - r . . l l $ i r . r < r. , . f e . $ r r . r\{onrunr.h P K. l n ! . and J R. L.rcei (eds.)Proc .1989Kn.rp\\eed vnu.. \4o lNn.rSta teUnivefs jtr ' .Bo/cr l lan. p.205-112.

Uucch.cr.H. K.. rLnd . \ l Sxl1nson. 955. ncreasecla la lit\ rcsulting fom lowcrcd popLrhti('rdenijt) aurong

elk n southe$tcnrWlshimgtonTrans.NorlhAnr.Wildl.Conf.:0:560 567.

Cttrpenler.. L. lc) i i6 Rciponses fthfeepla. l connnunit iesto hefbicide spralins trnd burning of spo[cd knrp,rced (al.nrzxr l" .r aot losd) in $ester. N{oDl.rra.

Un i \eNi t t o f N lo tanr. l issoLrh. l .S. lhcsr\.Crughle!.G 1979. 'hal i \ th is b iDg al led anymgc.rpac,

iry? In \{. S. Bo_,-ce,nd L. D. Hivdcr \\'ing (eds.)

Norlh ,\mcricaD 1k: Ecolog,v,Uehr\ior trndNftrn.rge-mc.l. Unnersit) of \\r,!orningPrcs\.L.trJnlie.Pp . 8.

Clut lon Urock. . H.. F E. Guinness. rd S. D. Albon. 1982.l i ! 'd Dccr:Beha\iofand hcolog,"-l Ti!o Sexes.hcl ln i \c r \ i ty d ChicrgoPfess, h icrgo.

Ebefh. l |dt. . , a.d R C. VrLn tten.1956.E\r lLn t i (nof thepelle lgnrlrp ount15a deefcen\u\mclhod. .Wi ld l .Nhnage. rl:70 7.1.

Ebefhafdt. . L.. .rnd J. \ '1 . homa\. 1991.Desrgnrng nlr

rorrncnul ie ld studies.--col.lonogf.6 l:51 13.

tant detenninantof the obscr\'ed brage anclelkresponsen the lrst $inter.Managers oping oreplicatchese onditions hould pplvpicJoranror otherapplopriate crbicides ssoonas he ungebecones snow-fiee n sping to take full advan-t l e c , ' l r r r a i l t h l r l , , l \ l u r en l h e r r . t l n u i n sseas0n.

AcknowledgementsI amgratetirl o J. E. Fircbaugh br plojcctsupervision,crit ical cview,and enthusiasticupporlof thc publication f lbrt ;G. R. Baty for exceptionall"vhorough nd helpful reviewsand dis-cussions f two drafi rnanuscripts;. E.Jorgensen.D. J. Bedunah. . D. Rose,B. B. Davit t .M. R.Frisina. andC. L. Marcum for their ad\,icedur-ing hestudyan dclit ical eviews f draltmannsclipts:R. E. Hendersonor computer ssislance:andananonymoLlseviewerbl helpful comnents.This studywa s undedby rheMontanaDcpart-mentof Fish,WildliteandParks.

Fr) . P K.. ard . l l . l -accy cds.). 989. umrnuvofthe reserrchneedimceling. lnProc.989Knap$eedS)mp..

\{ontan.r StareUni!cnit}'. Bozemxn. P 210.Fircbaugh. . 1993.Elk stalLrscport N{onrana.n J. D. Cadr

J. C. Perer\on,ndlN. Lonner comp\.)Proc. 'est.St te\ rndPro\. Elk\\brkshot.. \{ontantrDepfiJnenrof Fish. Wildlile .rndP.uks. Uozcmln. P 8.

f r i . r r , r . l R 1 " " i . L l k h t r h : , tU . c $ t n . . f e . t , ,J l r l ' l r

! fazing sysle ln. angeland\, l :93 96Gofdm. Fl \ . 1968.Rllnge elat io.ship! f e lk rnd carl lc n

elk $inlcrrrnge. Cro\r Creek.Nlonlana. lontanaSlatcUniver\ j ty .Bozenan.Nl .S. hc \ i ! .

Hukin, S A. 1975.Range ondit ion n t lrcThreenile a cRange n scstern {ontrna. Lni!crs it ! of Ntontarr.\4rssoulr. .S .Thesis

Hrfvei. S. J.. and R. V. Nowiersl,i 1989.Spotredkn|pweed:

allclopathyof nutrientdcPletxn? In P K. Fr). .rndJR. Lacey ed,i .)Proc .1989Knrp$eed Syrnp.. {on-lana StateLhilersit\. Bozem.rn.P I 18.

Hurlbert. S. H. 19i1.1. seudorcplicarion nd ths dclign ofccologic.r lie ld experi cnls.Eco l .Monogr.5.1:t8 l-l n .

Jourdonnris. . S..an dD. J. Bcdunr . 1990.Prcscibed if elrnduitle grazingon rn elk \iinrerrangc in \Iontanx.Wi lc l l .Soc.Uu l l . 8:232-2,10.

Lace}.C. 1989.Knap\aeedanagemen(i decrde fchlngc.In P K. 1-n!. nd J. R. Lrce,v eds.)Proc. 1989 Knipq,eedS).rp.. Nlonrana trte Unilcrsil). Bozeman.Pp.

l -a!cllc. D. A. 1 86.Liscand preference f spo(cd knap$'eedCetualttu ruI(tlo\tl) br elk (( "rf"r .L"fur!) .rndmuledeer O./.,..)il.,r/r ,./rl.r?&! on !\o \!mierrangesin $,ester.

Xlontrna.Lrniversit\of Nlonrrnl. N4issorLla.\{ .S. Ihcsis.

lE Thompson

7/30/2019 v70 p10 Thompson

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/v70-p10-thompson 10/10

Lolo N.rt ionrlFore\ i . 1991. . lo} ' ious ee dm.rn.rgemenr.jnal Fl \ircn. llnprct Srrtement.N4jssoula.\,lontana.

t.,,-on. . J . andA. L. wxrd. 191i2. lk.rnd land DrLnrgemenr.Inthonras.J.W. rndD. E Toueil l eds.) lko l No ihr\nrcnca [!ologland\Ianageme.t.SlackpolcBookr.Hrrisburg. Penn\'lrania. Pp . 1,11171

NIoen. . N. 1978.ScasonalhrLnge\n heart atc\.act i \ i r r- .lnetabolism.md foragc nlakc of\!hite-triled deer.J.\\'ildl. \lanrge. .12 I 5-118.

I looers. G. B. 1986.Rchlionship i cr i t ic l l envifonment..r llicloh to the mccessof spottcdknNp\eed (C.r/rn-

/?d rirr 1L)vr)in rlcslcmNlontrn.r.UniveNil\ of \,lonrana.Vis\0ultr .NLS.The\is.

Nclson. .R...rnd .A. Leege. 982. u l i t i | )nul equirementsand oodhabils. n Thom.rs. . W. .rndD. E. lb l le i l l(cds.)Elk ol Nonh Ameficr hcolog! NndNILrnLrge-ment Stackpole ook\.Hrmsburg, enn\! lrania. p.-l2t -r67.

Rolv land.Nl . \ { . . A. W. Al ld redge. . E. E l l is . B. J. Wcbcr.an dC. C. Whne. 198-1. onrprtutne inter c l ier\ f

c lk ir N ew Me\ico. .1. i l d l . \{anage. 17:91.1-932.

Reteit 'ed l Marclt 1995

Acceptedor publicution25 October 1995

Sko\ l in . . l . N{ . .P J. Edgerton. nd B. l t . \ ' rcconncl l .19u1.hlk usc of $irter rLnge as rffectcd b) ca le gfrLzing.

terriliTing. rnd burning in southea{crn \Vlshinlton.

J. tangcNl tn t lgc . 6:1 i1.1-89 .Spoon.C. W.. H. R. Bo$lcs. nd A. Kull a. 1983.No\ious

ueedson the -o1oationul Forest: s i trat iorr]n r l !sis staff pater. {-SDA lor. Ser!.. Nti\soula. \{onunu.

l l p.

Sre$art. ) . R. N l 1967.,{nal ls isof lant! 'p idcrmisir f |eces:

a cchnique i)f nud\,ing the oodprclcrcncesofgf.Lzing herbi\ores. .Appl. Ecol. ,1:81l1.

'liser. R. $J. rnd C. H. Ke). 1988.Spo!cd kirp\Leed in nrtural arca tscue gr.rs\lands:an ecologicrl rsse\sment.N*or t l rw.ci .62 :151- 59

Whrte.R. G. 1981. orrg irg p.rt tefns nddrejrmrlt ip l ie f et -feci! o. producti!itr ol nodrern ungulalcs. Oikos,10i37738:1.

Wickstrorn.r1 . . . C.T. Robbins,l A. l lanlcr-. E Sp l l inger .an dS.NL Pafish. 98.1. oodli takemd l inrg in! en

ergelics felk md nruleded: J.Wikll. Nhmge..18:I285

l -101.

Wil l s. W D.. S. Snnrl i . rk. ndJ. F. Dormrar 1985.Ef tec r r

ol !tockirg rate on a rough icscuc gr.rssl|ndvegetr

tron. . RangeM.rnrge. 8:220 225.

Elk Responsco Knapweed emoval 19