Regaining the History of Deer Populations and Densities in the Southeastern United States

Abstract

Despite widespread interest in white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in the southeastern United States, historical deer populations and densities have not been compiled into one accessible source. We digitized maps from 1950, 1970, 1982, and 2003 and reviewed literature to quantify population sizes and densities in the Southeast, although previous estimates may not be accurate. Deer population sizes declined to a minimum of <215,000 during the early 1900s. Population sizes and mean deer densities were 304,000 and 0.22 deer/km 2 by 1940, 476,000 and 0.35 deer/km 2 by 1950, 2.9 million to 4.1 million and 2.2 to 3.1 deer/km 2 by approximately 1970, 6.2 million and 4.6 deer/km 2 by 1982, and 10.8 million to 12 million and 8 to 9 deer/km 2 by about 2003. Although our estimates are likely not completely accurate in space and time, due to difficulty of counting animals, they provide the best available information and a range and trend in values, with general corroboration among sources. The current population size may be greater than during pre-Euro-American settlement, when based on minimum historical deer densities, or, conversely, the current population may be within the bounds of mid to high historical deer densities. Large deer densities trigger a research need to evaluate deer effects on vegetation, but threshold densities when deer are damaging to herbaceous plants may need to be reconsidered. Instead, we conjecture that deer may be considered a natural disturbance helpful in controlling increased tree densities during the past century, albeit placing a secondary stress upon declining herbaceous plants, which are losing ground to trees.

Fear, concealment, and time of day interactively predict group size of a common ungulate

“…Further examining how responses in the group size of ungulates affects plant communities, and potentially other vertebrate or invertebrate species, might illuminate other top‐down relationships that more completely explain the ecological ramifications of grouping. Similarly, deer–vehicle collisions represent a major economic cost and sometimes fatal hazard for humans (Conover, 1997). If group size of deer correlates with rates of deer–vehicle collisions, then city planners may consider balancing the relationship between development, risk of natural predation, and fragmentation of concealment when planning new urban or suburban developments to reduce deer–vehicle collisions.…”

Changes in the geographic distribution of the blacklegged tick, Ixodes scapularis, in the United States

“…Deer populations did persist in isolated local refugia, such as on Naushon Island off the Massachusetts coast or Long Island in New York, due to landowner management of the deer population ( Severinghaus and Brown, 1956 ; Busby et al, 2008 ) or in forested tracts in areas that were very sparsely populated by or mostly inaccessible to humans, including in Wisconsin and the central Adirondacks of New York ( Dahlberg and Guettinger, 1956 ; Severinghaus and Brown, 1956 ; Nixon, 1970 ). The white-tailed deer appears to have been less severely impacted in some areas of the Southwest and South by the early 1900s, with the greatest numbers of deer thought to remain in parts of Florida, Louisiana, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia ( Blackard, 1971 ; Hanberry and Hanberry, 2020 ). Remnant deer populations likely persisted in river swamps and rugged mountainous areas.…”

“…Over the 1900s, the combination of successive reforestation of the eastern US ( Li et al, 2023 ), legislation to protect white-tailed deer ( Trefethen, 1970 ; Adams and Hamilton, 2011 ), and deer restocking and population management ( McDonald and Miller, 2004 ; Diefenbach and Shea, 2011 ; VerCauteren and Hygnstrom, 2011 ) led to dramatic increases in white-tailed deer populations ( McCabe and McCabe, 1997 ; Adams and Hamilton, 2011 ; Hanberry and Hanberry, 2020 ). White-tailed deer were restocked in most states of the eastern US, with the exception of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin (reviewed by McDonald and Miller, 2004 ).…”

Current sika deer effective population size is near to reaching its historically highest level in the Japanese archipelago by release from hunting rather than climate change and top predator extinction

“…Deer damage crops and planted trees (Gill, 1992; Walter et al, 2010) and alter plant community irreversibly (Filazzola et al, 2014; Tanentzap et al, 2012). Deer have been overexploited historically (Chen et al, 2019) and since the early 1900s (Hanberry and Hanberry, 2020; Redding, 1995). However, excessive suppression of hunting after overexploitation has caused an increase of various deer species in recent years (Côté et al, 2004; Putman and Moore, 1998; Waller and Alverson, 1997), which leads to new problems like deer vehicle collision (DeNicola and Williams, 2008) and the increase of ticks that vector zoonosis (Ostfeld et al, 2018) in addition to the damage of human products and natural vegetation.…”