Test of Localized Management for Reducing Deer Browsing in Forest Regeneration Areas

Abstract

White‐tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) browsing in forest regeneration sites can affect current and future stand structure and species composition. Removal of deer social units (localized management) has been proposed as a strategy to alleviate deer overbrowsing in forest systems. We conducted an experimental localized removal in a high‐density deer population in the central Appalachians of West Virginia, USA, during winter 2002. We removed 51 deer within a 1.1‐km2 area that encompassed 2 forest regeneration sites (14 ha). During the summer following removal, we detected decreases in distance from the removal area in 8 of 30 (26.7%) adult females having pretreatment mean telemetry locations <2.5 km from the center of the removal area. We measured browsing rates during the summers of 2001–2004 from forest regeneration sites to examine efficacy of localized management. Browsing rates declined annually in both removal and control areas, due in part to increased timber harvesting on the larger study site, suggesting that increasing forage availability may be more effective at reducing impacts on forest regeneration than localized reductions in deer populations. Three years after the initial removal, we removed an additional 31 deer from the original 1.1‐km2 removal area. Home range shifts of adjacent deer coupled with the large number of animals collected in the second removal suggests that localized management only produces temporary voids within high‐density deer herds. Localized management may not effectively reduce negative impacts of deer in areas of high deer density.

The canary in the coal mine: Sprouts as a rapid indicator of browse impact in managed forests

“…This information allows managers to avert losses to the regenerating cohort through actions such as deer herd reduction (Miller et al, 2010;Royo et al, 2010;Tanentzap et al, 2011) or protecting harvested areas by fencing (Marquis et al, 1992;Vercauteren et al, 2006).…”

Can controlled bow hunts reduce overabundant white-tailed deer populations in suburban ecosystems?

“…7) across all three removal levels. Confirming our simple modeling exercise, Miller et al (2010) executed highintensity culling by removing approximately 80% (39 female, 20 male) of deer from 1.1 km 2 in West Virginia where deer herds averaged 12-20 deer km 2 . Their study herd was characterized by high philopatry and exhibited low rates of dispersal (Miller, 2008), and thus, was an ideal candidate for localized management (Campbell et al, 2004).…”

“…First, as a consequence of their small size and relative independence, deer management areas are localized, raising the question as to whether sustained population reduction can be realized despite a contiguous population of unmanaged deer existing at or near carrying capacity at the landscape level. Localized herd reduction has been theorized for female white-tailed deer owing to their philopatric nature, and thus low dispersal rates (Porter et al, 1991;Mathews and Porter, 1993); however, evidence for successful small-scale management is conflicting (Oyer and Porter, 2004;Miller et al, 2010). Second, the management tool, bow hunting, has been criticized for being relatively inefficient (Hansen and Beringer, 1997) and producing slow, moderate, or incomplete herd reductions (Ellingwood and Spignesi, 1986;Krueger et al, 2002).…”

Responses of Female White-Tailed Deer Home-Ranges to Increased Resource Availability

“…Although the effects of population density on Deer recruitment (Keyser et al 2005a), physical condition (Garroway andBroders 2005, Keyser et al 2005b), and herbivory (Miller et al 2010), are well known and generally consistent, their effects on space-use patterns are inconsistent, especially in forested landscapes. For example, on coastal islands in South Carolina, seasonal home-range sizes of suburban Deer increased in response to a 50% reduction in population density (Henderson et al 2000).…”