White-tailed deer forage production in managed and unmanaged pine stands and summer food plots in Mississippi

Abstract

Nutritional habitat quality in unmanaged southeastern forests often is limited because a dense midstory and litter layer impede growth of high‐quality, shade‐intolerant forage species. Management actions often are designed to improve the quantity of natural forages and to supplement natural forages with agronomic plantings. We evaluated the use of a selective herbicide, prescribed fire, and fertilizer to improve forage production for white‐tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in naturally regenerated, mature loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) stands in north‐central Mississippi, treated during 1998–1999. We compared nutritional quality and production of selected forages in treated plots (n=4) and untreated plots (n=4) during years 2 and 3 post‐treatment. We also measured quality and production of cowpeas (Vigna unguiculata) produced in food plots (n=4). Treatment plots produced an average of 435 kg/ha of leaf biomass and 34 kg/ha of digestible protein; untreated plots averaged 119 kg/ha of leaf biomass and 7 kg/ha of digestible protein. Cowpea food plots produced 545 kg/ha of leaf biomass and 110 kg/ha of digestible protein. Carrying‐capacity estimates (deer‐days/ha) increased from 7 in untreated plots to 268 in treated plots. Extrapolated over a 10‐year economic planning horizon, the cost of producing digestible protein was $8/kg for treated plots and $15/kg for cowpea food plots. Vegetation treatments as described can cost‐effectively produce high‐quality, natural deer forages.

Food plots as a habitat management tool: forage production and ungulate browsing in adjacent forest

“…The non-grazed crops produced on average 2230 to 5810 kg ha 1 biomass during the growing season (marrow stem kale, second-year clover mix and early-sown rape seed within exclosures). This is in the upper range of what has been shown in earlier studies where biomass produced in food plots varied between 545 and 5860 kg ha 1 over a season (Keegan et al 1989, Hehman and Fulbright 1997, Edwards et al 2004; all in southeastern Table 3 for model details.…”

“…Furthermore, the biomass produced per unit area in our study also seems to be larger than what has been reported through other measures used for forage improvement in forest-dominated landscapes, such as burning and fertilization (leaf biomass 435 kg ha 1 ; Edwards et al 2004 in southeastern USA), ungulate-adapted slash treatment at final felling of forest stands (271 kg ha 1 winter forage, Edenius et al 2014 in Sweden), felling of seed trees (1200 kg ha 1 winter forage, Månsson et al 2010 in south-central Sweden) and establishment of willow plantations for bioenergy purposes (128-1222 kg ha 1 summer forage, Bergström and Guillet 2002 in south-central Sweden). The biomass is also larger than the amounts of forage generally available in young Scots pine dominated forests in Scandinavia (200-2000 kg ha 1 moose winter forage, Kalén and Bergquist 2004).…”

Can supplementary feeding be used to redistribute moose Alces alces?

“…they did not result in the production of additional goods such as timber or conventional crop yield. Our results show that fencing of the fields during the growing season may be a measure to substantially increase the biomass available at the end of the growing season, as also has been suggested elsewhere (Edwards et al 2004). For all target crops except second-year clover mix, there was a significant difference in plant biomass between unfenced quadrats and exclosures.…”

“…The non-grazed crops produced on average 2230 to 5810 kg ha 1 biomass during the growing season (marrow stem kale, second-year clover mix and early-sown rape seed within exclosures). This is in the upper range of what has been shown in earlier studies where biomass produced in food plots varied between 545 and 5860 kg ha 1 over a season (Keegan et al 1989, Hehman and Fulbright 1997, Edwards et al 2004; all in southeastern Figure 3. Relationship between browsing pressure in forest and distance from the food plots.…”

Effect of plant community composition on plant response to fire and herbicide treatments

“…stands of the southeastern United States (Brockway and Outcalt, 2000;Edwards et al, 2004;McInnis et al, 2004). Fire is a natural process whereas selective herbicides, specifically those containing imazapyr, offer an alternative unimpeded by smoke management issues or limited burning degree days (Brennan et al, 1998;Wigley et al, 2002).…”