1960
DOI: 10.2307/3796516
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Deer-Forest Habitat Relationships in North Arkansas

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
5
0

Year Published

1978
1978
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
1
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Deer are thought to visually cue in on biotically pollinated plants due to their conspicuous flowers ( Wiegmann and Waller 2006 ), and since ungulate browse type classes are taxonomically clustered, we expected this trait to exhibit a strong phylogenetic signal. As we observe in this study, many other studies report increases in the relative abundances of the grass and sedge browse types following increases in deer density ( Halls and Crawford 1960 ; Kie et al 1980 ; Horsley et al 2003 ; Rooney et al 2004 ). We did not, however, find an increase in the relative abundance of the fern browse type in response to deer browsing, contrasting findings elsewhere in North America and New Zealand ( Royo and Carson 2006 ).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 85%
“…Deer are thought to visually cue in on biotically pollinated plants due to their conspicuous flowers ( Wiegmann and Waller 2006 ), and since ungulate browse type classes are taxonomically clustered, we expected this trait to exhibit a strong phylogenetic signal. As we observe in this study, many other studies report increases in the relative abundances of the grass and sedge browse types following increases in deer density ( Halls and Crawford 1960 ; Kie et al 1980 ; Horsley et al 2003 ; Rooney et al 2004 ). We did not, however, find an increase in the relative abundance of the fern browse type in response to deer browsing, contrasting findings elsewhere in North America and New Zealand ( Royo and Carson 2006 ).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 85%
“…Although animals may occasionally choose C. canadensis seed pods as a food source during summer and winter months when other food resources are scarce (Post, 1992; Short & Epps, 1976), this is less common scenario for seed dispersal (Dickson, 1990; Halls & Crawford, 1960; Wakeland & Swihart, 2009). Moreover, C. canadensis seed dispersal that is mostly animal‐dependent can become more limiting within isolated areas, further increasing half‐sibling mating and structuring among C. canadensis populations (Koprowski, 2005).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Marshall et al (1955) suggest that frequency of browsing is probably more important than its intensity in determining stem density. Another common effect of deer on woody plant morphology is a "browse line" below which deer have removed stems and twigs of trees (Adams, 1949;Aldous, 1952;Marshall et al, 1955;Neils et al, 1956;Halls and Crawford, 1960;Trumbull et al, 1989). Studies rarely have addressed the effects of deer herbivory on plants' belowground morphology or relative allocation to aboveground vs. belowground structures.…”
Section: Evidence Of Deer Effects Upon Individual Plantsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Unlike trees, herbs do not escape deer herbviory by growing above the browse line. Moreover, during spring and summer forbs often form a significant portion of deer diets (Dunkeson, 1955;Halls and Crawford, 1960;Kohn and Mooty, 1971;Crawford, 1982;Irwin, 1985;McCullough, 1985;Case and Mc-Cullough, 1987). The hypothesis that deer have large effects on survival of herbs is difficult to evaluate at this time because of a lack of studies that have repeatedly censused individual plants.…”
Section: Evidence Of Deer Effects Upon Individual Plantsmentioning
confidence: 99%