Estimating Carrying Capacity of a White-Tailed Deer Wintering Area in Quebec

Potvin, François; Huot, Jean

doi:10.2307/3808519

Cited by 31 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Mixedwood stands do not provide the uniform amelioration of snow depths possible under a pure conifer canopy, but they do provide a moderate to high degree of conifer cover relative to open areas and hardwood stands. Many studies of browse abundance indicate that browse in mixedwood stands typically is moderately high, surpassed only by that in deciduous and open or regenerating stands, while browse abundance in softwood stands is comparatively low (Webb 1948, Wetzel et al 1975, Potvin and Huot 1983, Monthey 1984, Mooty et al 1987, Schrnitz 1991. Preliminary surveys at Canaan River supported this pattern; browse was abundant in mixedwoods, exceeded only by hardwoods and regenerating cuts, and was low in pure softwood stands (unpublished data).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Use of mixedwood stands by wintering white-tailed deer in southern New Brunswick

Sabine¹,

Forbes²,

Ballard³

et al. 2001

The Forestry Chronicle

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

On the northern edge of their range, white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) congregate during winter to cope with severe climate conditions. We documented the winter habitat use of deer in southern New Bmnswick, where winters are of moderate severity, and tested predictions concerning the influence of food and cover availability on habitat use by deer under different snow depth regimes. Sixty-three radio-collared deer were monitored during the winters of 1995 to 1997. Within wintering areas, deer showed a preference for mixedwoods. Mixedwood stands provided only moderate amounts of food and cover relative to some other cover types, but were the only type to provide both simultaneously. Current habitat management guidelines in parts of northeastern North America consider critical habitat for wintering deer to be softwood-dominated stands. These guidelines may not provide adequate habitat in this region, since deer appear to use mixedwood stands under some conditions.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Snow depth was measured weekly, as well as before and after any thaw or snowfall. Sinking depths were not measured because they do not correlate closely to deer behaviour (Pauley et al 1993), and are imprecise, varying considerably both within and among days (Potvin and Huot 1983).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of mixedwood stands by wintering white-tailed deer in southern New Brunswick

Sabine¹,

Forbes²,

Ballard³

et al. 2001

The Forestry Chronicle

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The aim of many conservation actions is to positively affect carrying capacity for species by protecting, restoring, or enhancing key habitats at multiple spatial scales (Potvin and Huot 1983, Leopold 1987, Fernández-Juricic and Jokimäki 2001, which ultimately conserves biodiversity and helps maintain populations at goal levels.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modeling distribution and abundance of multiple species: Different pooling strategies produce similar results

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Quantifications of spatial distribution and abundance of animals are essential to identifying key landscape characteristics and targeting locations for conservation action. Since conservation decisions often focus on multiple species aggregated in groups, e.g., guild-level, rather than individual species, predictions of species group abundance are of central importance. However, areas chosen for conservation action may differ if results from various modeling strategies also differ. Therefore, we compared three different strategies for modeling species group distribution and abundance: predict first, assemble later (PA); assemble first, predict later (AP); and the combined assemble, predict, then assemble (APA). All strategies were performed using Boosted Regression Trees (BRTs), which were fit to individual species data and then grouped after modeling, or fit to datasets that were grouped before modeling. Modeling strategies produced very similar results in terms of statistical performance assessed through four evaluation metrics and in spatial patterns in predicted abundance. To further assess potential functional implications of any numeric differences to conservation planning, we examined the relative proportion of the predicted population within existing Canadian protected areas. This metric further confirmed similarity in predictions from the three modeling strategies. Our results suggest that locations targeted for conservation action would be highly consistent among modeling strategies. Slight differences we observed in spatial predictions may be due to data coverage across species ranges, data quality, and the flexibility of the BRTs.

show abstract

“…Forage quality models have been developed for mule deer [18], wapiti [79], mountain sheep [80], and white-tailed deer [81,82]. Forage biomass models can be comparable to nutritional-based models when forage quality is not limiting [82].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimating Economic Carrying Capacity for an Ungulate Guild in Western Canada

Kuzyk¹,

Cool²,

Bork³

et al. 2009

TOCONSBJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Elk Island National Park in western Canada provides an ideal case study for an economic carrying capacity estimate because it supports high density of four species of ungulates (11/km 2 ), lacks large predators, and is enclosed by a 2.1-meter mesh fence. This high density of ungulates has created persistent management challenges by altering vegetation structure and community composition. Using linear programming, we explored optimal allocation of forage resources for bison (Bison bison bison), moose (Alces andersoni), wapiti (Cervus elaphus manitobensis) and deer (Odocoileus virginianus and O. hemionus) to maximize ungulate biomass and numbers, when constrained by use of the major forage classes and minimum viable populations (MVP) of those ungulate species that do not cross the boundary fence (bison and wapiti). Maximum numbers of animals were achieved by a stocking combination dominated by deer and bison, whereas maximum biomass was attained when bison and moose were abundant but deer were absent. Wapiti remained at MVP during all solutions. Optimal solutions consistent with current ungulate densities were associated with 7 to 11% forage removal. This is less than normally assumed for sustainable forage use, and may reflect the need to account for other biotic and abiotic losses to forage in carrying capacity models for which ungulate densities can be constrained by availability of a preferred forage class (e.g., grass) as well as forage quality. This research extends the conventional animal-unit concept to multispecies systems and provides templates based on forage biomass allocation for resource managers facing similar problems of joint stocking in different environments.

show abstract

Estimating Carrying Capacity of a White-Tailed Deer Wintering Area in Quebec

Cited by 31 publications

References 20 publications

Use of mixedwood stands by wintering white-tailed deer in southern New Brunswick

Use of mixedwood stands by wintering white-tailed deer in southern New Brunswick

Modeling distribution and abundance of multiple species: Different pooling strategies produce similar results

Estimating Economic Carrying Capacity for an Ungulate Guild in Western Canada

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About