Apply water to vegetation to increase food availability during drought

Overall effectiveness category Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)
Number of studies: 1
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

70%
Certainty

34%
Harms

0%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

Drought can cause plants to die as a result of a lack of water. Dieback of vegetation may in turn negatively affect mammal populations by reducing the availability of food. Applying water during a drought may help to reduce some of these negative consequences.

Study locations

Key messages

One study evaluated the effects on mammals of applying water to vegetation to increase food availability during drought. This study was in the USA.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)

Use (1 study): A controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that watering scrub during drought increased its use by adult Sonoran pronghorns for feeding.

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

A controlled, before-and-after study in 2005 in a desert enclosure in Arizona, USA (Wilson et al. 2010) found that watering scrub during drought increased its use for feeding by adult Sonoran pronghorns Antilocapra american sonoriensis. In winter (January–March), before plots were watered, pronghorns selected plots to be watered and unwatered in proportion to their availability. After watering commenced, pronghorns fed more in watered plots than their availability in spring (April–June), summer (July–September) and autumn (October–December). Use of watered plots was highest in autumn, when 48% of observations were in these plots, which covered 5% cover of the enclosure. Seven adult pronghorns were held in a 130-ha enclosure. Eight desert scrub plots, c.8,000 m² each, were watered at least once every two weeks from April–December 2005, by applying c.13 cm of water. Autumn rainfall during the study period was low (4 mm, compared to average of 16 mm). Pronghorn feeding area selection was determined by watching from a partially concealed viewpoint, from 23 January to 2 December 2005. Observations were recorded at 2-minute intervals, four to five days/week during either first light to noon or noon to last light, giving 38,900 individual observations.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Wilson R.R., Krausman P.R. & Morgart J.R. (2010) Forage enhancement plots as a management tool for Sonoran pronghorn recovery. Journal of Wildlife Management, 74, 236-239.

Please cite as:

Littlewood, N.A., Rocha, R., Smith, R.K., Martin, P.A., Lockhart, S.L., Schoonover, R.F., Wilman, E., Bladon, A.J., Sainsbury, K.A., Pimm S. and Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Terrestrial Mammal Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Interventions for terrestrial mammals excluding bats and primates. Synopses of Conservation Evidence Series. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Related Actions

Actions	Effectiveness	Studies	Category
Remove flood water Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link
Translocate animals from source populations subject to similar climatic conditions Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	1	Synopsis Link
Protect habitat along elevational gradients Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link