Testing the effects of deer grazing on two woodland rodents, bankvoles and woodmice

Buesching, Christina D.; Newman, Chris; Jones, Jasmine; Macdonald, David W.

doi:10.1016/j.baae.2011.02.007

Cited by 28 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In modified landscapes that provide high quality food and lack large predators, deer populations are projected to increase further (Ward 2005, Suominen andDanell 2006). Deer have severe impacts on woodland biodiversity, altering structure (Martin et al 2010, Holt et al 2011, Newson et al 2012, reducing woodland bird abundance (Holt et al 2011, Martin et al 2011, modifying small mammal (Buesching et al 2011) and invertebrate (Allombert et al 2005) assemblages, and affecting ecosystem functions including carbon storage (Tanentzap and Coomes 2012). Currently high deer numbers threaten to jeopardize proposals to mitigate carbon emissions through increased woodfuel production (Fuller and Rothery 2010) and are a vector for Lyme disease (Hartfield et al 2011), with implications for human health.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Achieving landscape‐scale deer management for biodiversity conservation: The need to consider sources and sinks

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hyper-herbivory following predator removal is a global issue. Across North America and Europe, increasing deer numbers are affecting biodiversity and human epidemiology, but effectiveness of deer management in heterogeneous landscapes remains poorly understood. In forest habitats in Europe, deer numbers are rarely assessed and management is mainly based on impacts. Even where managed areas achieve stable or improving impact levels, the extent to which they act as sinks or persist as sources exporting deer to the wider landscape remains unknown. We present a framework to quantify effectiveness of deer management at the landscape scale. Applied across 234 km 2 of Eastern England, we assessed management of invasive Reeve's muntjac (Muntiacus reevesi) and native roe (Capreolus capreolus), measuring deer density (using thermal imaging distance transects 780 km/year), fertility, neonatal survival, and culling to quantify source-sink dynamics over 2008-2010. Despite management that removed 23-40% of the annual population, 1,287 (95% CI: 289-2,680) muntjac and 585 (454-1,533) roe deer dispersed annually into the wider landscape, consistent with their ongoing range expansion. For roe deer, culled individuals comprised fewer young deer than predicted by a Leslie matrix model assuming a closed population, consistent with agedependent emigration. In this landscape, for roe and muntjac, an annual cull of at least 60% and 53%, respectively, is required to offset annual production. Failure to quantify deer numbers and productivity has allowed high density populations to persist as regional sources contributing to range expansion, despite deliberative management programs, and without recognition by managers who considered numbers and impacts to be stable. Reversing an unfavorable condition of woodland biodiversity requires appropriate culls across large contiguous areas, supported by knowledge of deer numbers and fertility. ß 2013 The Wildlife Society.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Achieving landscape‐scale deer management for biodiversity conservation: The need to consider sources and sinks

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, in both Europe and North America increasing numbers of native and invasive deer are altering the structure of forest vegetation (Gill & Beardall 2001;Joys, Fuller, & Dolman 2004;Goldberg & Watson 2011) and the abundance, species and trait composition of woodland bird (McShea & Rappole 2000;Gill & Fuller 2007;Holt, Fuller, & Dolman 2011, 2014, small mammal (McShea 2000;Flowerdew & Ellwood 2001;Buesching, Newman, Jones, & Macdonald 2011) and insect (Pollard & Cooke 1994;Feber, Brereton, Warren, & Oates 2001;Côte, Rooney, Tremblay, Dussault, & Waller 2004) assemblages. Local impacts can be mitigated by deer management guided by simple indices of relative abundance, such as impact scores (Cooke & Farrell 2001).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Deer abundance estimation at landscape-scales in heterogeneous forests

Wäber

Dolman

2015

Basic and Applied Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reliable estimates of deer abundance support effective management of source-sink population dynamics in complex landscapes and improve understanding of the relation between deer density and biodiversity impacts. Performance of distance sampling using thermal imaging of Reeves’ muntjac Muntiacus reevesi and roe deer Capreolus capreolus was examined across 123 km2 of conifer forest in Eastern England, sampling 1567 km in total. For muntjac distance sampling was compared to estimates from drive counts in 2007. For each of three subsequent winters (2008-2010), we compared the magnitude and precision of forest-wide abundance estimated from analytical designs that: i) ignored potential habitat-specific detectability, either with uneven or balanced sampling effort; ii) controlled for sampling effort and/or density among seven forest blocks (mean = 18.8 km2 ± 11.1 SD); iii) accounted for potential movement prior detection; iv) accounted for varying detectability among habitat classes (as a covariate), while controlling for differing densities among blocks. Detectability was further examined in models that stratified to estimate habitat-specific Effective Strip Width (ESW). Estimated muntjac densities from distance sampling were of similar magnitude to estimates from drive counts. Over 2008-2010, we observed 1926 muntjac and 921 roe groups; allowing robust abundance estimation and habitat-specific analysis. ESWs in open habitat were 31% and 27% greater than in mature and 45% and 46% greater than in dense habitat, for roe and muntjac respectively. Although differences in densities among model designs were not large, ignoring block or habitat effects gave higher estimates, while models that accounted for habitat-specific detectability gave lower (-8%) and more precise (38% reduction in CV) estimates (n = 3, muntjac: 5.3-7.5% CV; roe deer: 8.8-12.6% CV). The similarity of density estimates between ungrouped and grouped data and analysis of behaviour of detected deer support the conclusion that distance estimates were not biased by avoidance. We conclude that distance sampling using thermal imaging is a robust and powerful method for estimating deer density. In heterogeneous forest density estimates will be improved by accounting for varying detectability among growth stages or habitats

show abstract

“…till now, no evidence of this grazing impact had been given for the grassland habitats of the Alps. Also, it has been recognized that small mammal species can respond quite differently to grazing, depending on habitat type and on species ecology (tabeni & Ojeda 2005;tabeni et al 2007;Buesching et al 2011). Because our abundance data mainly refer to Apodemus spp., our results point out that even ecologically flexible species suffer from the deep vegetation changes observed after intensive grazing.…”

Section: Grazing Level Trapping Sessionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rodents in grassland habitats: does livestock grazing matter? A comparison of two Alpine sites with different grazing histories

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Testing the effects of deer grazing on two woodland rodents, bankvoles and woodmice

Cited by 28 publications

References 28 publications

Achieving landscape‐scale deer management for biodiversity conservation: The need to consider sources and sinks

Achieving landscape‐scale deer management for biodiversity conservation: The need to consider sources and sinks

Deer abundance estimation at landscape-scales in heterogeneous forests

Rodents in grassland habitats: does livestock grazing matter? A comparison of two Alpine sites with different grazing histories

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About