- Nigro, Katherine M;
- Bankston, Taylar Z;
- Demarest, Ariel B;
- Foster, Alison C;
- Gonzalez, Angela D;
- Hill, Edward M;
- Wion, Andreas P;
- Wion, Gwen D;
- Addington, Robert N;
- Amme, Noah;
- May, Tegan M;
- Pague, Chris A;
- Rondeau, Renee;
- Redmond, Miranda D
Tree-removal treatments have been broadly applied across piñon-juniper ecosystems of the western United States to reduce tree cover, stimulate understory plant production, and promote habitat for shrub- and grassland-obligate wildlife species. Mastication treatments have become an increasingly common approach, yet the efficacy of these treatments can vary on the basis of a variety of factors, including soil characteristics, woodland structure, and grazing pressures. Here, we assessed vegetation responses to mastication treatments across three dominant soil types in two-needle piñon (Pinus edulis Engelm. [Pinaceae])−one-seed juniper (Juniperus monosperma [Engelm.] Sarg.) woodlands in southeast Colorado, United States, a region characterized by monsoonal precipitation, limited presence of introduced plant species, and relatively high grazing intensity by cattle and wildlife. We found that mastication treatments were effective at increasing herbaceous plant cover and species diversity (by 1.2 × and 1.5 ×) and at reducing the amount of exposed soil (60% reduction) 3 yr following treatment. This was mainly due to increases in native perennial grasses. Further, there were limited (and insignificant) increases in cover of annual plants and low abundance of introduced species in treated plots. Understory plant responses to treatment were similar across soils with a range of available water capacities. The increase in understory plant cover and richness paired with the low abundance of introduced species suggests that mastication treatments increase forage production for cattle and wild ungulates. In addition, the lack of soil type differences in treatment response suggests that mastication treatment placement does not need to prioritize soil type and can instead focus on other key areas of importance, such as wildlife habitat connectivity, historic woodland structure, and treatment feasibility.