A Review of Damage by Mammals in North Temperate Forests: 1. Deer

Abstract

The causes of browsing, bark stripping, and fraying damage by deer are examined by reviewing the available literature. Trees species differ in vulnerability and each form of damage occurs within certain age and size classes. Stem morphology has an important influence on bark stripping; lower branches and bark thickening tend to deter stripping in any one species. Site related factors such as hiding cover, snow and soil fertility also influence damage. The data relating deer population density to damage are imprecise and there is a need for improved density estimation methods to demonstrate the benefit of culling in different habitats. Vegetation affects both habitat and diet selection in deer, and can create both positive and negative relationships with damage. Computer models are proposed as an aid to damage prediction and forest protection decision making.

Human land-use, forest dynamics and tree growth at the treeline in the Western Italian Alps

“…In the studied areas, these conditions were present at both the forestline and the treeline in the first decades of the 20th century, favoring the establishment of larch cohorts. These cohorts were browsed by the remaining domestic ungulates as evidenced by the narrow rings [8,17,61] and by the lack of correlation between chronologies from TL (high domestic ungulate browsing) and SF (low or no domestic ungulate browsing) (Fig. 3).…”

Willow (Salix spp.) and aspen (Populus tremula) regrowth after felling by the Eurasian beaver (Castor fiber): implications for riparian woodland conservation in Scotland

“…As deer populations in Britain are known to be increasing both in numbers and geographical distribution (Putman and Moore, 1998), the likelihood of a reintroduced beaver population interacting with deer is high. Widespread damage to coppice regrowth in Britain is caused by deer, especially roe deer (Joys et al, 2004), through bark stripping, removal of twigs, stems, leaves, needles, and buds, and uprooting of seedlings (Gill, 1992a). Furthermore, willow and aspen are widely acknowledged as being highly preferred by both roe and red deer, in winter and summer (reviewed by Gill, 1992a;Kay, 1993).…”

“…Widespread damage to coppice regrowth in Britain is caused by deer, especially roe deer (Joys et al, 2004), through bark stripping, removal of twigs, stems, leaves, needles, and buds, and uprooting of seedlings (Gill, 1992a). Furthermore, willow and aspen are widely acknowledged as being highly preferred by both roe and red deer, in winter and summer (reviewed by Gill, 1992a;Kay, 1993). At the Perthshire site roe deer numbers are low to moderate (Ramsay, pers.…”

“…In the UK, such other browsers include six species of deer living in the wild, which are increasing in both numbers and range (Gill, 1992a;Putman and Moore, 1998;Mayle, 1999). Scotland is home to four of these species } the native roe (Capreolus capreolus L.) and red deer (Cervus elaphus L.) and the introduced sika (Cervus nippon Temminck) and fallow deer (Dama dama L.) (Mayle, 1999).…”

“…Of these, roe are the most numerous and most likely to overlap with habitats potentially used by beaver, whether historically or as part of any future reintroduction. Browsing by deer has many well-documented adverse effects on commercial forestry and important natural habitats including damage to both developing and mature trees, and poor regeneration (Gill, 1992a;Putman, 1996). In the circumstances of a trial reintroduction of beavers to Scotland, any effects of coppicing by beavers are likely to be influenced to some degree by deer.…”