2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2011.09.029
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Bark stripping by red deer in a post-disturbance area: The importance of security cover

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
(44 reference statements)
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Red deer seem sensitive to disturbance (Sunde et al 2009, Sibbald et al 2011, Jarnemo and Wikenros 2014 and bark-stripping level has already been related to human activity (Petrak 1998, Ligot et al 2013. The intensity of damage thus likely depends both on the availability and the quality of day-time security cover (Borkowski and Ukalski 2012). Therefore it will probably be even more important to increase availability of alternative forage in forests within a fragmented landscape and if possible increase availability of habitats offering high-quality day-time security cover to counteract damage.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Red deer seem sensitive to disturbance (Sunde et al 2009, Sibbald et al 2011, Jarnemo and Wikenros 2014 and bark-stripping level has already been related to human activity (Petrak 1998, Ligot et al 2013. The intensity of damage thus likely depends both on the availability and the quality of day-time security cover (Borkowski and Ukalski 2012). Therefore it will probably be even more important to increase availability of alternative forage in forests within a fragmented landscape and if possible increase availability of habitats offering high-quality day-time security cover to counteract damage.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Higher percentages of debarked small trees were also reported in many previous studies (Akashi and Nakashizuka 1999;Yokoyama et al 2001;Nagaike and Hayashi 2003;Jiang et al 2005;Kiffner et al 2008;Takeuchi et al 2011;Borkowski and Ukalski 2012), although the reasons were not clarified. One possibility for the selective debarking of small trees is the relative ease of debarking smaller trees (Ando et al 2004).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 69%
“…Debarking was shown to depend on the size of trees (e.g., Nagaike and Hayashi 2003;Koda and Fujita 2011;Borkowski and Ukalski 2012), their species (e.g., Kay 1993;Akashi and Nakashizuka 1999;Moore et al 1999;Takeuchi et al 2011), proportion of coniferous stands (Ligot et al 2013), the distance from forest road (McLaren et al 2000), and snow depth (Iijima and Nagaike 2015). In addition to these factors, spatial variation of deer impact was observed in lower elevation forests: the higher the deer density, the higher the proportion of debarked trees (Iijima and Nagaike 2015) and browsed saplings (Akashi et al 2011) and the lower the sapling density (Beguin et al 2009).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Bark thickens, stiffens, adheres more strongly to the trunk and is less palatable when trees are growing. These changes reduce sensitivity to BS (Gill, 1992;Jarnemo et al, 2014;Jerina et al 2008;Månsson and Jarnemo 2013;Vospernik 2006;Borkowski and Ukalski 2012;Honda et al 2008). Tree species with early-thickening bark have a short bark peeling sensitivity period, while slowly thickening bark species stay sensitive up to age 60 years (Fehér et al 2016).…”
Section: Stand Characteristicsmentioning
confidence: 99%