Browse Quality and the Kenai Moose Population

Oldemeyer, John L.; Franzmann, Albert W.; Brundage, Adrienne; Arneson, Paul D.; Flynn, A. V.

doi:10.2307/3800528

Cited by 46 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…High food availability and diversity are considered important for generalist herbivores (Westoby 1974, Oldemeyer et al 1977. Artificially regenerated Scots pine stands usually contain an admixture of naturally regenerated deciduous tree species; this increases the biomass availability and density of alternative forage for moose.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of silvicultural cleaning in mixed pine‐deciduous stands on moose damage to scots pine (Pinus sylvestris)

Härkönen¹

1998

Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Silvicultural cleaning is commonly carried out in young stands to control competition between conifers and deciduous tree species. However, it has been questioned whether this practice affects moose (Alces alces L.) browsing on Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) with respect to damage at the stand level. In this study, moose winter browsing was examined in relation to food availability in 19 Scots pine stands divided into silviculturally cleaned and non-cleaned blocks. Cleaning had a negative effect on moose foraging in terms of reduced density, biomass availability, and height of the deciduous tree species. The total biomass consumed by moose was significantly lower on the cleaned blocks than on the non-cleaned ones. There were no differences between the treatments in the amounts of pine consumed and in moose damage to pines. The density or biomass available of different deciduous tree species did not explain the variation in moose browsing on pine. In conclusion, timing of silvicultural cleaning with reference to moose browsing should be taken into account. If pines are not overtopped by deciduous trees, as in the present study, silvicultural cleaning is not necessary to prevent moose damage.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of silvicultural cleaning in mixed pine‐deciduous stands on moose damage to scots pine (Pinus sylvestris)

Härkönen¹

1998

Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Grass contains more fibre, and a greater proportion of this fibre is cellulose, while browse has less total but more lignified fibre (Short et al 1974;Oldemeyer et al 1977;Owen-Smith 1982;McDowell et al 1983; Cork and Foley 1991;Robbins 1993; Van Wieren 1996b;Iason and Van Wieren 1999;Holechek et al 2004;Hummel et al 2006; Codron et al 2007a). These differences are more pronounced if C4 grasses are compared to browse (Caswell et al 1973).…”

Section: Grass and Browsementioning

confidence: 99%

The Morphophysiological Adaptations of Browsing and Grazing Mammals

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

(2008). The morphophysiological adaptations of browsing and grazing mammals. In: Gordon, I J [et al.]. The ecology of browsing and grazing. Berlin, 47-88. Postprint available at: http://www.zora.uzh.ch Posted at the Zurich Open Repository and Archive, University of Zurich. http://www.zora.uzh.ch Originally published at: Gordon, I J [et al.] 2008. The ecology of browsing and grazing. Berlin, 47-88. The morphophysiological adaptations of browsing and grazing mammals AbstractThere has been a continous debate whether there are fundametal morphophysiological differences in the ingestive apparatus (head, teeth) and the digestive tract between browsing and grazing herbivores. A particular characteristic of this debate appears to be that while there is a wealth of publications on such potential differences, the supposed undelying differences between browse and grass have rarely been analysed quantitatively. In this chapter, we first review the actual state of knowledge on those properties of browse and grass that appear relevant for the ingestive and digestive process, and then deduct hypotheses as to how one would assume that browsers and grazers differ due to these characteristics. We address the methodological issues involved in actually testing these hypotheses, with emphasis on the influence of body mass and phylogenetic descent. Finally, we present a literature compilation of statistical tests of differences between the feeding-types. Although in general, the published tests support many hypothesized differences, there is still both a lack of comparative data, and a lack of analyses with phylogenetic control, on different taxonomic levels. However, the published material appears to indicate that convergent evolutionary adaptations of browsing and grazing herbivores to their diet represent a rewarding area of research. The Morphophysiological Adaptations of Browsing and Grazing MammalsMarcus Clauss, Thomas Kaiser, and Jürgen Hummel IntroductionAnimals represent adaptations to particular ecological niches they occupy or once occupied.Studying the correlation between a given set of characteristics of an ecological niche and the morphological and physiological adaptations of organisms to these characteristics is one of the most basic approaches to comparative biology, and has fuelled scientific interest for generations (Gould 2002). However, current scientific standards cannot be met by mere descriptions of both the characteristics of the niche and the organism, and a (hypothetical) intuitive explanation for the adaptive relevance of the latter; the presence or absence of a characteristic must be demonstrated in sound statistical terms (Hagen 2003) 1 ideally supported by experimental data (from in vivo, in vitro, or model assays) on its adaptive relevance.In this chapter, we adopt an approach that first presents the relevant characteristics of the ecological niche of the 'grazer' (GR) and of the 'browser' (BR), outlines hypotheses based on these characteristics, and finally addresses examples where such hypotheses h...

show abstract

“…Studies from around the northern hemisphere and on a diversity of ungulate species lend additional weight to the importance of dietary mixing (Beck and Peek 2005;Berteaux et al 1998;Oldemeyer et al 1977;Parsons et al 1994;Westoby 1974). More specifically, there are many indications of compensatory feeding responses by supplementary fed wild ungulates: for example, if white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginiatus) are provided with ad libitum access of energy dense food (corn, oats, or pellets), they continue (Cooper et al 2006;Doenier et al 1997;Schmitz 1990) or even double their normal intake of browse (Timmons et al 2010).…”

Section: Background To the Moose And Nutritional Balancingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interactions between ungulates, forests, and supplementary feeding: the role of nutritional balancing in determining outcomes

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People provide wild ungulates with large quantities of supplementary feed to improve their health and survival and reduce forest damage. Whereas supplementary feeding can positively affect the winter survival of ungulates and short-term hunting success, some of the feeds provided may actually reduce ungulate health and increase forest damage. Here, we highlight how recent advances in ungulate nutritional ecology can help explain why supplementary feeding can lead to undesirable outcomes. Using Europe's largest cervid, the moose (Alces alces), as a model species, and Sweden, as the socio-ecological context, we explain the concept of nutritional balancing and its relevance to supplementary feeding. Nutritional balancing refers to how animals alter their food intake to achieve a specific nutritional target balance in their diet, by selecting balanced food items or by combining items with nutritional compositions that are complimentary. As the most common supplementary feeds used contain higher concentrations of non-structural carbohydrates than the ungulates' normal winter diet, the consumption of such feeds may cause animals to increase their intake of woody browse, and thereby exacerbate forest damage. We also explain how animal health may be negatively affected by large intakes of such feed if complementary browse items are not available. We therefore suggest that the use of inappropriate feed is an additional means by which supplementary feeding may result in negative outcomes for hunters, forest owners, and wild animals.

show abstract

Browse Quality and the Kenai Moose Population

Cited by 46 publications

References 18 publications

Effects of silvicultural cleaning in mixed pine‐deciduous stands on moose damage to scots pine (Pinus sylvestris)

Effects of silvicultural cleaning in mixed pine‐deciduous stands on moose damage to scots pine (Pinus sylvestris)

The Morphophysiological Adaptations of Browsing and Grazing Mammals

Interactions between ungulates, forests, and supplementary feeding: the role of nutritional balancing in determining outcomes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About