Deer browsing on commercially-grown hybrid poplar seedlings can inflict heavy damage to trees and reduce economic returns by deforming and/or stunting the growth of trees. A field trial was initiated on a 7 ,050 ha hybrid poplar plantation to evaluate the effectiveness of a physical barrier (Vexar tubing), a topical repellent (Plantskydd), a systemic repellent (SeO:z), and a less-palatable clone in reducing deer browse damage. The trial was conducted during the 1999 growing season in a recently harvested and replanted 6 ha unit. The four treatments were arranged along with a control in a randomized block design, with five blocks randomly arranged near the edge of the harvest unit where deer activity was concentrated. Tenninal browse damage was assessed at two week intervals over a ten week period. Relatively little browsing occurred in any of the treatments during the first four weeks following planting. Vexar tubing provided superior protection (P <0.05) for seedlings at 6, 8, and 10 weeks following planting compared to all other treatments. The clonal treatment was browsed less (P<0.05) than the Plantskydd, selenium, and control treatments over the ten week evaluation period . However, overall growth rates for this clone were lower (P<0.05) than all other treatments, suggesting that this particular clone would not be beneficial from a fiber production standpoint. The results of this study suggest that Vexar tubing is an effective method of controlling deer browse damage to hybrid poplar seedlings. Use of genetically-resistant clones may provide some browse protection. However, growth rates of the clone tested did not perform well enough to consider using this clone on an operational basis ..

Wintering deer and elk can cause extensive browsing damage to forest plantations. This study was undertaken to identify the cost-effectiveness of two repellents (Plantskydd and Deer-Away BGR Liquid) and Vexar bud caps in reducing browse damage to conifer seedlings. Three plantations located on traditional winter range were selected for the study. The 3 sites were rated by pellet group counts as either elk range, deer range, or both elk and deer range. Treatments were applied to each site in the fall of 2000 in a randomized block design. Trees were then surveyed for damage 5-6 months later once snowmelt had occurred and the animals had migrated to higher elevations. All 3 treatments were equally effective in reducing terminal browse damage by up to 42% when compared to controls on the elk range and deer range sites. However, the site with equal deer and elk use received low browse pressure and no treatment differences for terminal damage were detected. The results of this study should be interpreted with caution, as the winter of 2000-01 was relatively mild in northern Idaho, resulting in a snowpack of 50% of normal. Thus, browse pressure may also have been less than normal. Nevertheless, the 3 treatments tested appear to be effective in reducing both deer and elk winter browsing of conifer seedlings at low to moderate levels of browsing pressure.