Can supplementary feeding be used to redistribute moose Alces alces?

Abstract

Foraging patterns, behaviour and the distribution of animals are affected by the availability and distribution of food in the landscape. Increasing numbers of ungulates may also be in conflict with agriculture, timber, infrastructure and conservation interests. Understanding foraging habits of ungulates and how these are affected by a change in forage availability or composition are, therefore, issues of major importance both from ecological and management perspectives. Supplementary feeding (i.e. artificial supply of food) is being used to improve local habitat, and thereby affecting ungulate movements, habitat choice and migration patterns. We experimentally tested the predictions that supplementary feeding redistributes moose Alces alces during two different migration phases (early, i.e. during the onset of migration and late, i.e. in the wintering areas). We used individually marked moose and pellet group counts to investigate the effect of supplementary feeding both at the individual and population level. We monitored 30 moose with GPS-collars before, during and after the supplementary feeding experiment, corresponding to 8-10% of the moose population in two different valleys in Northern Scandinavia. During early migration, moose ignored supplementary feeding sites even though migration routes were close to the sites. At the end of the migration route, supplementary feeding affected moose movement, distribution and behaviour. In conclusion, we suggest that there is a clear difference in response to supplementary feeding by moose due to the phase of migration. We conclude that supplementary feeding can be used under certain conditions to redistribute moose in relation to browsing, or to traffic, preferably at the endpoint of migration.

Forest Stakeholder Participation in Improving Game Habitat in Swedish Forests

“…In a study regarding the use of supplementary feeding to redistribute moose in the Swedish forests [14] found that supplementary feeding affects moose movement, distribution and behaviour. [13,25] found that moose which use diversionary forage concentrated their space use around feeding stations with a decreasing probability of using areas away from feeding sites.…”

“…Game are also essential for forest ecosystem processes but their feeding activities (e.g., browsing) lead to costs in timber production [19,20]. Although in Sweden timber production and hunting for game have economic values [21,22] and some hunters and forest owners engage in improvement of game habitat to redistribute game activities in forests [14] to help reduce browsing damage in valuable forest stands e.g., young Scots pine trees, conflict of interests between foresters and hunters persist. Some forest owners perceive ungulates such as moose and deer as a problem due to economic losses they often incur from browsing damage [23,24].…”

“…Improvement of game habitats, i.e., silvicultural practices in forests to increase food, water and vegetation cover available for game, is therefore becoming popular as a game management strategy [11,12]. It might contribute toward increasing body weight, survival rate and maintains high population densities as well as helps move ungulates activity away from young forest stands, traffic and habitat of high conservation value [11,[13][14][15][16].…”

Managing Large Herbivores in Protected Areas

“…Placing bait stations or supplementary feeder sites is not expensive, particularly during harsh winters when ungulates will be attracted to even poor quality hay [102]. The tropical savannah version of this is using seasonal water holes during droughts and harsh dry seasons, when elephants and ungulates flock to any water they can find (Chamaillé-Jammes et al, 2007) [103].…”

“…Redistributing a population within a protected area therefore sometimes requires behavioural modification. Moose in Scandinavia have been redistributed by using supplementary feeding sites [102]. Elephants and ungulates in many African game parks have been dispersed or even attracted closer to tourist routes by using artificial water holes [103].…”