Country, Cover or Protection: What Shapes the Distribution of Red Deer and Roe Deer in the Bohemian Forest Ecosystem?

Abstract

The Bohemian Forest Ecosystem encompasses various wildlife management systems. Two large, contiguous national parks (one in Germany and one in the Czech Republic) form the centre of the area, are surrounded by private hunting grounds, and hunting regulations in each country differ. Here we aimed at unravelling the influence of management-related and environmental factors on the distribution of red deer (Cervus elaphus) and roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) in this ecosystem. We used the standing crop method based on counts of pellet groups, with point counts every 100 m along 218 randomly distributed transects. Our analysis, which accounted for overdispersion as well as zero inflation and spatial autocorrelation, corroborated the view that both human management and the physical and biological environment drive ungulate distribution in mountainous areas in Central Europe. In contrast to our expectations, protection by national parks was the least important variable for red deer and the third important out of four variables for roe deer; protection negatively influenced roe deer distribution in both parks and positively influenced red deer distribution in Germany. Country was the most influential variable for both red and roe deer, with higher counts of pellet groups in the Czech Republic than in Germany. Elevation, which indicates increasing environmental harshness, was the second most important variable for both species. Forest cover was the least important variable for roe deer and the third important variable for red deer; the relationship for roe deer was positive and linear, and optimal forest cover for red deer was about 70% within a 500 m radius. Our results have direct implications for the future conservation management of deer in protected areas in Central Europe and show in particular that large non-intervention zones may not cause agglomerations of deer that could lead to conflicts along the border of protected, mountainous areas.

Habitat metrics based on multi‐temporal Landsat imagery for mapping large mammal habitat

“…), and disturbed forest stands are important habitat features for lynx, red deer and roe deer (Heurich et al. ; Filla et al. ).…”

“…Roe deer and red deer are widely distributed in the area (Heurich et al. ) and Eurasian lynx has been reintroduced in the 1970s (Wölfl et al. ).…”

Habitat selection by Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx) is primarily driven by avoidance of human activity during day and prey availability during night

“…Human densities are relatively low. They vary between less than 2 people per km² in the core area to about 30 and 70 people per km 2 in the marginal areas in the Czech Republic and Germany, respectively (Heurich et al., ).…”

“…A limited number of studies have investigated habitat selection by lynx on a finer scale (third‐ or fourth‐order selection) and have mainly described microhabitat characteristics, such as significance of low visibility for resting sites and importance of habitat heterogeneity (stalking cover, good visibility) for kill sites (Belotti et al., ; Podgórski, Schmidt, Kowalczyk, & Gulczyńska, ). Roe deer ( Capreolus capreolus ), the main prey of lynx in Central Europe (Jędrzejewski, Schmidt, Milkowski, Jędrzejewska, & Okarma, ), reach good body condition and high densities in human‐modified landscapes (Abbas et al., ; Basille et al., ; Hewison et al., ) which also applies for Central Europe (Heurich et al., ; Gehr et al., in press; Märkel et al, unpublished data). Here, the main causes of lynx mortality, poaching and road accidents (e.g., Kaczensky et al., ), are related to humans.…”

Does winter supplementary feeding affect deer damage in a forest ecosystem? A field test in areas with different levels of deer pressure

“…Partial confirmation of this assumption is that the results from our previous study showed that in the eastern Sudety Mountain region the proportion of area damaged by deer was the lowest at <600 m ASL and damage increased considerably with altitude. If we assume, based on other studies, that red deer density below and above 600 m ASL was similar, the variability in natural forage availability or quality, snow depth and energetic constrains may explain the altitudinal differences in deer pressure exerted on forest stands. It is also possible that at low elevation deer were stressed due to high pressure from settlements, agriculture and hunters, which limited their activity and pressure …”