Mule Deer and Elk Foraging Preference for 4 Sagebrush Taxa

Wambolt, Carl L.

doi:10.2307/4002289

Cited by 31 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Bork et al (1998), Laycock (1967 and Mueggler (1950) have shown long-term declines in threetip sagebrush with recovery of herbaceous vegetation high elevation sites in Idaho. Declines of Wyoming and mountain big sagebrush densities due to heavy deer or elk browsing have been noted in Utah and Montana (Smith 1949, Austin et al 1986, McArthur et al 1988, Patten 1993, Wambolt 1996. These all suggest the potential of browsing animals to be used as a biocontrol for reducing the densities of sagebrush and potentially increasing the herbaceous component.…”

Section: Status and Trends Of Sagebrush Ecosystems 7 -47mentioning

confidence: 93%

“…Similarly, McArthur et al (1988) reported lower densities of mountain big sagebrush in locations exposed to mule deer during heavy snowfall years when little other vegetation was available, while densities of sagebrush were higher in locations protected from mule deer browsing. Wambolt (1996) observed that deer and elk in the northern Yellowstone area preferred mountain big sagebrush over Wyoming big sagebrush, basin big sagebrush and black sagebrush. Heavy browsing damaged or even killed some sagebrush.…”

Section: Deer and Elkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Declines of big sagebrush densities due to heavy deer or elk browsing (Smith 1949, Austin et al 1986, McArthur et al 1988, Patten 1993, Wambolt 1996 suggest that, if warranted, ungulate browsing may be used as a biocontrol for reducing the densities of sagebrush. Bork et al (1998), Laycock (1967) and Mueggler (1950) have shown long-term declines of three-tip sagebrush from livestock browsing with recovery of herbaceous vegetation on high elevation sites in Idaho, suggesting that livestock may also serve a similar function.…”

Section: Status and Trends Of Sagebrush Ecosystems 7 -38mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Sagebrush is very important forage for mule deer in many parts of the assessment area (Wambolt 1996) and as such it may suffer damage from browsing. Although research on the topic is limited, there is some evidence that mule deer population changes in portions of the assessment area may be related to declining sagebrush densities.…”

Section: Deer and Elkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We have changed the semantics of our actions to include objectives other than increasing forage for livestock. Nonetheless, multiple use still mandates our management of sagebrush ecosystems and simply doing nothing is rarely, if ever, considered (Wambolt andPayne 1986, Wambolt et al 2001). Unfortunately, the effects of habitat treatments are rarely monitored at the spatial and temporal scales appropriate to the wildlife response.…”

Section: Synthesis 13 -9mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Genetic structure of Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) in a declining, peripheral population

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Status and Trends Of Sagebrush Ecosystems 7 -47mentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Deer and Elkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Status and Trends Of Sagebrush Ecosystems 7 -38mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Deer and Elkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Synthesis 13 -9mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Genetic structure of Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) in a declining, peripheral population

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Where to forage when afraid: Does perceived risk impair use of the foodscape?

Dwinnell

Sawyer

Randall

et al. 2019

Ecological Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The availability and quality of forage on the landscape constitute the foodscape within which animals make behavioral decisions to acquire food. Novel changes to the foodscape, such as human disturbance, can alter behavioral decisions that favor avoidance of perceived risk over food acquisition. Although behavioral changes and population declines often coincide with the introduction of human disturbance, the link(s) between behavior and population trajectory are difficult to elucidate. To identify a pathway by which human disturbance may affect ungulate populations, we tested the Behaviorally Mediated Forage‐Loss Hypothesis, wherein behavioral avoidance is predicted to reduce use of available forage adjacent to disturbance. We used GPS collar data collected from migratory mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) to evaluate habitat selection, movement patterns, and time‐budgeting behavior in response to varying levels of forage availability and human disturbance in three different populations exposed to a gradient of energy development. Subsequently, we linked animal behavior with measured use of forage relative to human disturbance, forage availability, and quality. Mule deer avoided human disturbance at both home range and winter range scales, but showed negligible differences in vigilance rates at the site level. Use of the primary winter forage, sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata), increased as production of new annual growth increased but use decreased with proximity to disturbance. Consequently, avoidance of human disturbance prompted loss of otherwise available forage, resulting in indirect habitat loss that was 4.6‐times greater than direct habitat loss from roads, well pads, and other infrastructure. The multiplicative effects of indirect habitat loss, as mediated by behavior, impaired use of the foodscape by reducing the amount of available forage for mule deer, a consequence of which may be winter ranges that support fewer animals than they did before development.

show abstract