Winter use of glyphosate-treated clearcuts by moose in Maine

  • Published source details Eschholz W.E., Servello F.A., Griffith B., Raymond K.S. & Krohn W.B. (1996) Winter use of glyphosate-treated clearcuts by moose in Maine. Journal of Wildlife Management, 60, 764-769.


This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Remove competing vegetation to allow tree establishment in clearcut areas

Action Link
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation
  1. Remove competing vegetation to allow tree establishment in clearcut areas

    A randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in 1991–1993 in a coniferous forest in Maine, USA (Eschholz et al. 1996) found that moose Alces alces did not use herbidice-treated forest clearcuts more than untreated clearcuts 1–2 years after treatment but foraging and sleeping signs were more numerous on treated than untreated clearcuts 7–11 years after treatment. Moose track quantity was similar between plots in the year before herbicide application (treatment plots: 0.07 track groups/ha; untreated: 0.08). One to two years after treatment, there were no significant differences in total number of track groups (treated: 1.6–3.0/km; untreated: 2.6–5.1), pellet groups (treated: 0.1–0.2/km; untreated: 0.2–0.4) or moose beds (treated: 0.03–0.05/km; untreated: 0.13–0.26), but there were fewer foraging tracks in treated plots (treated: 0.4 track groups/km; untreated: 1.0 tracks/km). After 7–11 years, there were more foraging tracks in treated (2.1–4.3/km) than untreated (1.1–1.8) plots and more moose beds (treated: 0.35–0.55/km; untreated: 0.12–0.31). There were no differences between treatments for total track groups (treated: 5.3–7.7/km; untreated: 3.4–4.2) or pellet groups (treated: 0.8–0.9/km; untreated: 0.4–0.5). Six of 12 clearcuts (18–89 ha), harvested 4.5–8.5 years previously, were herbicide-treated in August 1991. Six of 11 different clearcuts (21–73 ha) were glyphosate-treated 7–10 years before sampling. Treated plots in this second group averaged 19 years post-felling and, untreated plots, 16 years. Across all 23 plots, groups of moose foraging tracks and all tracks, moose beds and faecal pellet clumps were counted 5–7 times/year in January–March of 1992 and 1993, along 2-m-wide transects, 3–7 days after snowfall.

    (Summarised by: Nick Littlewood)

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 21

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 ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust