2007
DOI: 10.1656/1092-6194(2007)14[61:eodbon]2.0.co;2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effects of Deer Browsing on Native and Non-native Vegetation in a Mixed Oak-Beech Forest on the Atlantic Coastal Plain

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

2
27
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 49 publications
(29 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
2
27
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The doubling invasive vine cover and nearly 20-fold increase of native vine cover with this treatment combination relative to the control (i.e., I 0 U, untreated invasives outside exclosures) was not anticipated. However, the literature does indicate that both invasive vines found in this study, Japanese honeysuckle and Oriental bittersweet, are preferred browse species [21,69,70]. This highlights that excluding all deer herbivory can have the deleterious, secondary effect of increasing growth of invasive vines.…”
Section: Inside Exclosuresmentioning
confidence: 57%
“…The doubling invasive vine cover and nearly 20-fold increase of native vine cover with this treatment combination relative to the control (i.e., I 0 U, untreated invasives outside exclosures) was not anticipated. However, the literature does indicate that both invasive vines found in this study, Japanese honeysuckle and Oriental bittersweet, are preferred browse species [21,69,70]. This highlights that excluding all deer herbivory can have the deleterious, secondary effect of increasing growth of invasive vines.…”
Section: Inside Exclosuresmentioning
confidence: 57%
“…Likewise, "snapshot counts" of invaders often leave out critical life cycle stages and do not provide information on rates of survival, reproduction, or growth, without which population dynamics cannot be analyzed. Thus, it is not surprising that ungulate exclusion experiments that apply such metrics provide no unified answer regarding exotic invaders [effect on invasion success: none (34)(35)(36); mixed (37,38); positive (39-41; reviewed in ref. 16)] because these studies cannot address population viability of invaders or natives.…”
Section: Significancementioning
confidence: 99%
“…have increased up to 15-fold since the early 1900s (McCabe and McCabe 1997;Rooney 2001), leading ecologists to question their role in facilitating plant invasion (Vavra et al 2007). Literature on the subject is equivocal, with some studies showing that deer increase the abundance of invasive introduced plants (Eschtruth and Battles 2009b;Knight et al 2009;Kalisz et al 2014) and others showing the opposite (Rossell et al 2007), variable (Cadenasso et al 2002;Knapp et al 2008;Averill 2014), or no (Bowers 1993) effect of deer. Deer are expected to selectively browse at the individual plant and species levels (Augustine and McNaughton 1998), but deer selectivity across broader groups of native versus invasive introduced plants has not previously been tested.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%