1992
DOI: 10.1080/02827589209382732
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The effect of stand density on moose damage in young Pinus sylvestris stands

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

2
31
0

Year Published

2005
2005
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(33 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
2
31
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We believe that this is due to the fact that we used the percentage of pines with recent damage as the response variable. A general pattern is that the absolute number of browsed/damaged trees or shoots increases with increasing food supply, whereas the proportion decreases (Lyly and Saksa 1992;Heikkilä and Härkönen 1996). As pointed out by Ball and Dahlgren (2002), this fact could be exploited in order to increase the number of undamaged pine trees at a given moose population density by increasing the number of Scots pine to 4000-5000 ha -1 in young stands, compared to recommendations of at least 1700 ha -1 .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 92%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…We believe that this is due to the fact that we used the percentage of pines with recent damage as the response variable. A general pattern is that the absolute number of browsed/damaged trees or shoots increases with increasing food supply, whereas the proportion decreases (Lyly and Saksa 1992;Heikkilä and Härkönen 1996). As pointed out by Ball and Dahlgren (2002), this fact could be exploited in order to increase the number of undamaged pine trees at a given moose population density by increasing the number of Scots pine to 4000-5000 ha -1 in young stands, compared to recommendations of at least 1700 ha -1 .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 92%
“…The extent of browsing on young trees is depending on the density of the moose population (Bergström and Vikberg 1992;Hörnberg 2001b) although stand-or tree characteristics, such as stand density (Lyly and Saksa 1992), site productivity (Ball et al 2000), tree species composition (Danell et al 1991a;Härkönen et al 1998;Milligan and Koricheva 2013) or silvicultural treatments (Edenius et al 2002) may affect this relationship. Earlier browsing history may also be important as the browsing by moose on already browsed trees (in terms of number of browsed trees) is more common than expected from a random use (Bergqvist et al 2003).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The absence of such a relation could seem surprising because a negative correlation between tree density and browsing incidence was reported in several studies (Lyly and Saksa 1992;Reimoser et al 2009;Gerhardt et al 2013). For instance, a systematic literature review by Gerhardt et al (2013) revealed that naturally regenerated forests tend to be less vulnerable to browsing than artificially regenerated stands because natural forests are characterised by higher tree density than artificial stands.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Deer browsing has been found to be inversely correlated with tree density (Lyly and Saksa 1992;Reimoser et al 2009;Gerhardt et al 2013). Therefore, we hypothesised that the percentage of browsed oak saplings will be inversely correlated with oak tree density (Hypothesis 1).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…stand density (Lyly & Saksa, 1992) other silvicultural treatments (Edenius et al, 2002;Deal et al, 2003), play an important role. Therefore, it was not possible to determine a critical density of ungulates when protection of the pruned trees is essential.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%