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

Borowski, Zbigniew; Bałazy, Radomir; Ciesielski, Mariusz; Korzeniewski, Krzysztof

doi:10.1002/ps.5131

Cited by 9 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 39 publications

(100 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When deer are abundant, the only way to ensure the growth and survival of these species is to mechanically or chemically protect them with covers, fencing or repellents 6–8 . Therefore, in modern commercial forestry, free‐living large herbivorous mammals are viewed as pests due to the economic losses they generate 1,3,9 . This is particularly apparent in areas where deer browse on seedlings, saplings and young trees, which limits their growth and changes the desired structure and species composition of the forest stand 10 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors affecting deer pressure on forest regeneration: The roles of forest roads, visibility and forage availability

Borowski

Bartoń

Gil

et al. 2020

Pest Management Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND Deer pressure on forest regeneration constitutes a serious problem in commercial forests in the northern hemisphere due to the increase in deer populations. However, other drivers, such as climate, landscape structure and the level of human activity, have a strong influence on deer pressure. The direct, density‐related impacts of ungulates on forest regeneration have been well studied, but there is limited empirical evidence related to the indirect factors mentioned above. We conducted a field experiment in three forest divisions in Poland to evaluate the role of a common element of human infrastructure, i.e. small, unpaved forestry roads. Additionally, we assessed the modifying effect of visibility driven by vegetation cover and forage availability. RESULTS The proximity of unpaved roads affected deer habitat use and foraging behaviour, and limited browsing pressure on regenerating forests. Low visibility and higher winter forage availability increased the probability of tree browsing. We observed different responses to roads in two deer species: red deer avoided roads, while roe deer browsed in the vicinity of roads. CONCLUSIONS A typical forest network of unpaved roads creates a landscape of fear for red and roe deer, and limits browsing pressure on regenerating forests due to the changes in deer habitat use, activity patterns and foraging behaviour. Knowledge of the factors influencing browsing pressure can help to spatially optimise the application of protective measures for tree seedlings.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors affecting deer pressure on forest regeneration: The roles of forest roads, visibility and forage availability

Borowski

Bartoń

Gil

et al. 2020

Pest Management Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Regarding supplemental feeding stations, our study indicates that managers should avoid types of feed that appear to induce deer to eat bark (e.g. root vegetables and similar crops rich in sugar or starch), and perhaps replace them with feeds that can act as a substitute for bark and thus might reduce bark stripping (Borowski et al., 2019; Masuko et al., 2011; Rajský et al., 2008). Rajský et al.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…High levels of damage in forests near supplemental feeding sites have been associated with a higher deer use of such stands than in stands further away from feeding stations (Gossow, 1988; Jerina et al., 2008; Nahlik, 1995), or with an increased need for the bark to balance the diet (Nahlik, 1995; Ueckermann, 1983). However, supplemental feeding can also reduce bark stripping by deer (Borowski et al., 2019; Ueckermann, 1983), and certain types of feed, for example beet pulp or mixed silage, seem to counteract the urge to consume bark (Ueckermann et al., 1977; Masuko et al., 2011; Pheiffer & Hartfiel, 1984; Rajský et al., 2008), which adds further complexity to this issue. Supplemental feeding is generally conducted from October to February and is frequent in the study area.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The proximity of rapeseed fields influences levels of forest damage by red deer

Jarnemo

Widén

Månsson

2022

Ecol Sol and Evidence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. Deer can show transitional use between agricultural fields and forests for foraging and shelter. Such transitional use may affect forest damage as nutrient balancing theory suggests that if deer ingest large amounts of nutrient-rich food, complementary browse, such as bark, may be required to balance the diet.2. We investigated the relationship between the level of red deer Cervus elaphus bark-stripping damage in 68 Norway spruce Picea abies stands and the presence of rapeseed Brassica napus fields -an energy-rich crop preferred by red deer -in the surroundings, hypothesizing that damage increases with decreasing distance to rapeseed fields. We also considered other potentially influencing factors, such as supplemental feeding, alternative forage availability, and deer use of spruce stands as indexed by a pellet group count.3. Spruce stands closer to rapeseed had a significantly higher proportion of damaged stems. The increased level of bark-stripping damage was not explained by a higher stand use of deer closer to rapeseed fields, indicating that deer increase their consumption of bark in order to balance their diet. Similarly, spruce stands closer to supplemental feeding stations had significantly higher damage levels. 4. In line with earlier findings, damage levels were negatively related to the amount of available browse in the forest. This emphasizes the importance of alternative forage for reducing the damage risk in forest plantations. 5. Our study shows that the availability of fields with nutrient-rich food, such as rapeseed, as well as supplemental feeding needs to be considered when predicting the level of forest damage. With a high availability of nutrient-rich food in the vicinity of forest stands, a higher damage level can be expected and counteractions could be taken such as increased disturbance, harvest or changed choice of both crop and supplemental feed types. These actions may also be combined with a push-pull strategy where the deer are steered to disturbance-free zones insensitive to damage and with alternative forage. The importance of alternative forage availability onThis is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

show abstract

“…the intentional provision of natural and/or non-natural foods to animals, is an increasing practice in species management and conservation, which is broadly applied and affects a wide range of species (Dubois and Fraser, 2013;Ewen et al, 2014;Murray et al, 2016;Selva et al, 2014;Steyaert et al, 2014;Tryjanowski et al, 2017;van Beeck Calkoen et al, 2020;Walpole, 2001). For example, supplementary feeding has been considered necessary because: (a) the distribution and availability of natural food might limit threatened populations (Ewen et al, 2014;Thierry et al, 2020); (b) there is a hypothesised benefit to providing safe food sources, free of veterinary drugs or poisons (Oro et al, 2013); (c) it might aid recovery of hunted populations (Delibes-Mateos et al, 2009) or (d) it may prevent damages in forestry and agriculture (Arnold et al, 2018;Borowski et al, 2019;Selva et al, 2014). But artificial feeding is also widely used to support human leisure activities, by both the hunting and ecotourism industries (Orams, 2002;Penteriani et al, 2017;Prinz et al, 2020;Steyaert et al, 2014), e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does artificial feeding affect large carnivore behaviours? The case study of brown bears in a hunted and tourist exploited subpopulation

Penteriani

Lamamy

Kojola

et al. 2021

Biological Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Artificial food supplementation of wildlife is an increasing practice for species conservation, as well as for hunting and viewing tourism. Yet, our understanding of the implications of wildlife supplementary feeding is still very limited. Concerns have been raised over the potential negative impact of artificial feeding, but the effects of this practice on animal movements and rhythms of activity are just beginning to be investigated. Here, with the aim of studying whether the artificial feeding of brown bears may affect their behaviour, we analysed (1) the probability and intensity of feeding site use at different temporal scales, (2) how the use of artificial feeding sites is related to the bear's age and sex, main periods of the bear's annual cycle (i.e. mating and hyperphagia) and characteristics of the feeding sites, and (3) how the use of artificial feeding may be affecting bear movement patterns. We analysed the movements of 71 radio-collared brown bears in southern-central Finland and western Russian Karelia. Artificial feeding sites had several effects on brown bears in boreal habitats. The probability of a feeding site being used was positively correlated to the stability of this food resource over time, whereas sexes and bear classes (subadults, adults and females with cubs) did not show significant differences in the use of feeding sites, which were visited predominantly at night and slightly more during hyperphagia. The probability of using an artificial feeding site affected the daily net distance only (bears using feeding sites: 3.5 ± 4.5 km, range: 0-29 km; bears not using feeding sites: 4.4 ± 4.9 km, range: 0-47 km). Those brown bears using artificial feeding more intensively moved shorter distances at a lower speed within smaller home ranges compared to bears that used this food sources less. Highly predictable and continuously available anthropogenic food may therefore have substantial impacts on brown bear movement patterns, ecology and health. The recorded changes in movement patterns support the evidence that artificial feeding may have important implications for bear ecology and conservation.

show abstract

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

Abstract: Additional winter supplementary feeding can reduce damage caused by deer in forest stands, but only in areas with high deer pressure. Moreover, feeders should be situated in locations > 600 m above sea level in our study area. © 2018 Society of Chemical Industry.

Cited by 9 publications

References 39 publications

Factors affecting deer pressure on forest regeneration: The roles of forest roads, visibility and forage availability

Factors affecting deer pressure on forest regeneration: The roles of forest roads, visibility and forage availability

The proximity of rapeseed fields influences levels of forest damage by red deer

Does artificial feeding affect large carnivore behaviours? The case study of brown bears in a hunted and tourist exploited subpopulation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About