Soil Region Effects on White-tailed Deer Forage Protein Content

Jones, Phillip D.; Demarais, Stephen; Strickland, Bronson K.; Edwards, Scott L.

doi:10.1656/1528-7092-7.4.595

Cited by 27 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…data;Pettry 1977), and regional soil chemical and physical properties are correlated with Deer body mass (Strickland and Demarais 2006). Forage protein content is greater in more fertile soil regions and is a potential limitation for lactating females in the LCP (Jones et al 2008). McDonald (2003 reported data from 4 Mississippi WMAs showing fawn recruitment on the LCP site to be less than half that in the Delta and Upper Thick Loess sites.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We combined data from the Coastal Flatwoods region with the LCP due to low sample size; Strickland and Demarais (2000) reported these 2 regions were similar in body mass, antler growth, and growth rate. We also combined the Upper and Lower Thin Loess into a single region, and likewise the Upper and Lower Thick Loess, similar to Jones et al (2008). The Delta comprises areas protected by a levee system and batture lands between the levees and the Mississippi River.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reproductive Characteristics of White-Tailed Deer in Mississippi

Jones

Strickland

Demarais

et al. 2010

Southeastern Naturalist

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reproductive Characteristics of White-Tailed Deer in Mississippi

Jones

Strickland

Demarais

et al. 2010

Southeastern Naturalist

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Our list of forages was based on indices of use and not preference. Therefore, given the generally greater quality of native forages in the Delta (Jones et al 2008), these two particular species may not have been selected due to presence of greater quality, more palatable alternatives, thus providing these two species with a release from competition within the controls. Distance among study regions showed regional differences among vegetation composition.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact on plant communities by white-tailed deer in Mississippi, USA

Hanberry

Demarais

et al. 2013

Plant Ecology & Diversity

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The abundance of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in the eastern United States has escalated during the twentieth century, potentially impacting plant communities. Methods: We measured understorey plant cover and biomass five years after excluding deer from mature forests of three ecological regions in Mississippi, USA. We extended the significance of P values to 0.10 to detect developing impacts. Results: Deer impacts were limited and varied by ecological region. We recorded 151 species in cover transects. Consistent exclosure treatment effects were detected in two regions where there was greater cover of two deer forages and less cover of three non-forages. Species richness was greater in exclosures in one region, but otherwise species richness and diversity indices did not differ. We recorded 127 species in biomass quadrats. Exclosure treatment effects on biomass were inconsistent. Out of five species with significant differences, three had more biomass in controls, including two deer forages. Except for greater total biomass in controls of one region, there were no differences by growth form or total vegetation for canopy coverage or biomass. Ordination of community canopy cover demonstrated similarity of paired exclosure and controls. Conclusions: Exclosure treatment effects on canopy cover and species richness in two regions indicated limited negative impacts from deer foraging. A time frame of more than five years may be required for exclusion to allow recovery of vegetation, even with relatively open canopies and a long growing season.

show abstract

“…We collected plant biomass from 24 ( n = 24: 12 interbeds and 12 pine beds) of the 60 plant diversity frames in each treatment unit. We clipped all plant biomass by hand, separated these by species into stems and leaves, placed them in paper bags, stored them in a commercial refrigerator, dried them in a forced air oven for 72 hours at 60°C, and then weighed (g) them to estimate dry biomass (kg/ha; Haufler and Servello , Jones et al , Wheat ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The MSUANL ground forage samples through a 1.0‐mm screen in The Wiley Mill® (Thomas Scientific™, Swedesboro, NJ, USA) and analyzed each sample for nitrogen content using the Kjeldahl procedure. During the Kjeldahl procedure, technicians digested dried samples in a sulfuric acid and catalyst solution producing ammonia, which they then captured and titrated to determine nitrogen concentration of samples (Haufler and Servello , Jones et al , Sáez‐Plaza et al ). We multiplied nitrogen estimates by 6.25 to obtain crude protein estimates of forage nutritional quality (Haufler and Servello , Jones et al , Wheat ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

White‐tailed deer carrying capacity, intercropping switchgrass, and pine plantations

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) is a cellulosic feedstock for alternative energy production that can be grown between rows of planted pines (Pinus spp.) within intensively managed forests. Southeastern planted pine occupies 15.8 million ha and thus, switchgrass intercropping could have far‐ranging effects on plant communities and biomass production within these forests if broadly implemented. Such intercropping could lead to alterations to plant communities that may cause bottom‐up ecological changes affecting ecologically, economically, and socially important wildlife, such as white‐tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus; deer). Therefore, we tested whether intercropping switchgrass in loblolly pine (P. taeda) plantations would cause switchgrass to dominate vegetative biomass thereby decreasing biomass of forages and reducing white‐tailed deer nutritional carrying capacity (NCC), or whether disturbance associated with establishment and harvest of switchgrass would facilitate ruderal forbs, and thereby increase biomass of preferred deer forages and increase NCC. In a randomized complete block design, we assigned 2 treatments (intercropped switchgrass and a standard pine management control) to 4 replicates of 10‐ha experimental units in Kemper County, Mississippi during summers of 2011−2015. We detected 323 plant species. Intercropping switchgrass had little effect on plant biomass production, and did not affect white‐tailed deer NCC at a maintenance diet of 6% crude protein. Intercropping provided additional disturbance allowing high‐protein content ruderal plants to colonize, and temporarily increased (3 yr) deer NCC at the 14% crude protein diet considered necessary to support lactation. However, concomitant with a sharp increase in switchgrass biomass in the third year of the study, NCC dropped to levels similar to traditionally managed pine stands. Switchgrass intercropping is not a reliable means of increasing deer NCC as a management strategy but does not appear to reduce carrying capacity in the short‐term relative to standard intensive pine management. © 2017 The Wildlife Society.

show abstract

Soil Region Effects on White-tailed Deer Forage Protein Content

Cited by 27 publications

References 32 publications

Reproductive Characteristics of White-Tailed Deer in Mississippi

Reproductive Characteristics of White-Tailed Deer in Mississippi

Impact on plant communities by white-tailed deer in Mississippi, USA

White‐tailed deer carrying capacity, intercropping switchgrass, and pine plantations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About