Effect of supplemental feeding on spatial distribution and browse utilization by white-tailed deer in semi-arid rangeland

Cooper, Susan M.; Owens, M. K.; Cooper, Richard Massey; Ginnett, Tim F.

doi:10.1016/j.jaridenv.2005.11.015

Cited by 55 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Many ungulates continue to browse natural vegetation when receiving additional food and damage to flora by white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus; Cooper et al 2005) and moose (Gundersen et al 2004;vanBeest et al 2010) occurs with increasing proximity to feeding stations. Effects on local fauna may be more complex.…”

Section: Have Effects On Habitat Conditions and Non-target Species Bementioning

confidence: 99%

Diversionary feeding: an effective management strategy for conservation conflict?

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human population growth has led to increased contact between people and wildlife, with adverse impacts for both, such as damage to economic crops and wildlife persecution. Diversionary feeding, where food is used to draw animals away from problem activities or locations, is sometimes proposed as a socially acceptable conservation action, but little information exists on its success or what influences its efficacy. Here, we review literature on diversionary feeding and evaluate factors contributing to its success or failure. Success varied greatly among studies and successful uptake of diversionary food did not consistently produce outcomes that met stakeholder objectives. Studies often failed to report results in sufficient detail to allow a quantitative evaluation of efficiency. Of 30 trials presented in 21 studies, 13 enabled assessment of outcomes related to the ultimate objective of reducing conflict (related to threatened prey density, crop yield or nuisance reports) and only five of these were considered successful by the researchers conducting the study. A grand mean increase of 15 % in respective measures of success at the outcome stage was found across all studies. Although diversionary feeding is considered expensive, cost-effectiveness analyses were rarely conducted. Only a third of studies reported information on costs and benefits that could be used to inform future management actions. We propose a decision-making framework that incorporates ecological knowledge, financial costs and evidence from previous studies to aid the planning and implementation of diversionary feeding in an adaptive format. Future studies of diversionary feeding should clearly report objectives, results, costs and effort to allow the return-on-investment to be calculated for different levels of management effort.

show abstract

Section: Have Effects On Habitat Conditions and Non-target Species Bementioning

confidence: 99%

Diversionary feeding: an effective management strategy for conservation conflict?

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, supplementary feeding may increase disease transmission (Sorensen et al 2014), as well as unintentionally alter the demography (Ballesteros et al 2013), behavior (Forristal et al 2012), and population genetics (Blanchong et al 2006) of the targeted game species, sometimes with cascading effects on vegetation (Rinella et al 2012) and other fauna (Mathisen et al 2012;Mathisen and Skarpe 2011). Furthermore, although exceptions occur, supplementary feeding rarely appears to be effective at actually reducing browsing-related damage to crops, production forests, or natural habitats (Cooper et al 2006;Doenier et al 1997;van Beest et al 2010b).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

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

“…Diversionary feeding has been used to reduce grazing in agricultural fields by free ranging European bison (Bison bonasus) (Kowalczyk et al, 2011), to mitigate against traffic accidents and browsing on commercially valuable young forest by moose (Alces alces) in Scandinavia (Gundersen et al, 2004;Andreassen et al, 2005;van Beest et al, 2010a), and to reduce browsing in vineyards by rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) (Barrio et al, 2010). However, many studies have shown that supplementary-fed animals continue to feed on natural vegetation in the proximity of feeding stations (Doenier et al, 1997;Smith, 2001;Gundersen et al, 2004;Cooper et al, 2006). Most of these studies have been carried out at a fine spatial scale, whereas management of forest and wildlife often takes place at a landscape scale.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Long-term effects of supplementary feeding of moose on browsing impact at a landscape scale

Mathisen¹,

Milner²,

Beest

et al. 2014

Forest Ecology and Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Supplementary feeding of wildlife is a common management practice, increasingly used to reduce or divert herbivore impact from sensitive habitats, forestry or agriculture. The landscape-scale spatial distribution of herbivory in relation to supplementary or diversionary feeding stations is of particular relevance to wildlife and land management, yet has never been quantified. We considered multiple hypotheses, based on central-place foraging theory, to investigate how landscape-scale browsing impact changed as a function of distance from feeding stations and thereby test the effectiveness of diversionary feeding. We assessed the landscape-scale browsing impact of moose by quantifying browsing patterns and moose density in commercially-valuable young Scots pine stands in an area of south-east Norway with a long history of winter feeding. We also used positions from GPS-collared female moose to investigate the spatial distribution of individuals across the landscape. Moose density and browsing impact at a fine spatial scale (<1km) followed an exponential decrease with distance from diversionary feeding stations. However, at a landscape scale (1-10 km), browsing impact did not show any relationship with distance to feeding stations. Leader stem browsing on Scots pine trees was high at both the local (< 1 km; 68 ± 12 %) and landscape (1-10 km; 56 ± 7 %) scales. In addition, browsing on commercially valuable Norway spruce, which is normally avoided by moose, was locally high around feeding stations. As currently practiced, long-term diversionary feeding of moose was ineffective in diverting browsing impact from young pine stands at the landscape scale. Browsing on commercially-important tree species was sufficiently high that economic consequences could be expected. To avoid further conflict, we suggest a combination of reducing the moose density and increasing the availability of natural or more attractive supplementary forage.

show abstract

Effect of supplemental feeding on spatial distribution and browse utilization by white-tailed deer in semi-arid rangeland

Cited by 55 publications

References 26 publications

Diversionary feeding: an effective management strategy for conservation conflict?

Diversionary feeding: an effective management strategy for conservation conflict?

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

Long-term effects of supplementary feeding of moose on browsing impact at a landscape scale

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About