Winter Foraging Ecology of Moose on Glyphosate-Treated Clearcuts in Maine

Raymond, Kevin S.; Servello, Frederick A.; Griffith, Brad; Eschholz, William E.

doi:10.2307/3802374

Cited by 29 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Since deer tend to feed extensively on herbs, which generally increase in abundance following herbicide treatment (Crawford et al 1993), their behaviour appears unaffected. Raymond et al (1996) found that, one to two years after glyphosate treatment, biomass and percent of available deciduous browse eaten by moose were reduced significantly relative to untreated controls. However, seven to 11 years after treatment, both were 4 to 5 times greater on treated than untreated clearcuts.…”

Section: Mid-to Large-sized Mammalsmentioning

confidence: 96%

What are the Environmental Consequences of Using Silviculturally Effective Forest Vegetation Management Treatments?

SwiftKathie¹,

Wayne

2011

The Forestry Chronicle

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we present examples of stand-level consequences of using forest vegetation management treatments in boreal and temperate forest ecosystems in Canada. Specifically, we address several selected indicators: air and water quality, soils and nutrients, plant diversity, and wildlife habitat. For each of these, we discuss direct and indirect effects of five broad categories of treatments: (1) silviculture and harvesting systems and (2) physical, (3) thermal, (4) cultural, and (5) chemical/biological treatments. Our emphasis is on forest vegetation management treatments that are currently used in Canada to manage conifers. By applying regulations and best management practices, conducting landscape-level analyses and developing longer-term monitoring programs resource managers can minimize the effects of FVM treatments on the environmental indicators presented in this paper.

show abstract

Section: Mid-to Large-sized Mammalsmentioning

confidence: 96%

What are the Environmental Consequences of Using Silviculturally Effective Forest Vegetation Management Treatments?

SwiftKathie¹,

Wayne

2011

The Forestry Chronicle

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, in Oregon, Gourley et al (1990) found that five years after glyphosate treatment, planted Douglas-fir volume production was actually 33-50% greater than on untreated plots, regardless of treatments designed to reduce deer and elk browsing. Raymond et al (1996) found that, one to two years after glyphosate treatment, biomass and percent of available deciduous browse eaten by moose were reduced significantly relative to untreated controls. However, seven to eleven years after treatment, both were four to five times greater on treated than untreated clearcuts.…”

Section: Deer and Moosementioning

confidence: 96%

“…However, Kelly et al (1998) suggested that on some sites in northwestern Ontario, forage availability and habitat use reductions may continue through eight years after treatment. Eschholz et al (1996), and Raymond et al (1996), using a combination of designed and retrospective studies, reported that biomass of deciduous browse eaten by moose and habitat use during winter decreased soon after glyphosate release treatments, while seven to eleven years after treatment, availability increased in treated clearcuts. Raymond et al (1996), who found heavy browsing in older treated areas, concluded, as did Lautenschlager (1986Lautenschlager ( , 1993a and Newton et al (1989), that those areas were more attractive to moose than control areas.…”

Section: Raymond Andmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Stand-level biomass reductions of non-conifer vegetation (commonly 50-70% during the first year after treatment, but varying by vegetative group - Fig. 1) have consistently followed site-preparation and conifer release treatments in a variety of northern ecosystems (Newton et al 1992;Pitt et al 1992Pitt et al , 1993Pitt et al , 2000Freedman et al 1993;Raymond et al 1996;Bell et al 1997;Kelly et al 1998;Sullivan et al 1998a;Vreeland et al 1998;Gagné et al 1999;Lindgren and Sullivan 2001). However, operationally effective conifer release treatments generally eliminate few, if any, of the species from treated sites (Morrison and Meslow 1983;Newton et al 1989;Santillo et al 1989;Lautenschlager ,1993aHorsley 1994;Bell and Newmaster 1998 by the end of 2 years.…”

Section: Review Vegetation (Table 1) Abundance and Diversitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Stand-level reductions in forage biomass availability (commonly 50-70% during the first year after treatment - Newton et al 1987;Cumming 1992,1994;Raymond et al 1996, Kelly et al 1998 and reductions in habitat use by moose have consistently followed conifer release treatments (Lautenschlager 1992. Most studies confirm that those reductions persist up to four years after treatment.…”

Section: Raymond Andmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Effects of herbicide treatments on biotic components in regenerating northern forests

Lautenschlager¹,

Sullivan²

2002

The Forestry Chronicle

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We reviewed literature, primarily since 1990, that documents effects of herbicide treatments on major biotic components in northern forested ecosystems. Vegetation changes are responsible for changes in all other biotic components. Non-conifer vegetation is commonly reduced for two to five years following broadcast herbicide treatments. Fungal components, however, seem relatively unaffected. Short-term vegetation reductions in cover, density, and related biomass, if they occur, are species and/or vegetation group specific; longer-term changes are linked to conifer stocking, site quality, and the ability of conifers to dominate treated sites. Herbicide treatments do not reduce, and may increase, stand-and landscape-level plant species richness. Those treatments seldom produce monocultures when used by foresters for boreal or boreal mixedwood management. The active ingredients in the herbicide products used in forestry in northern ecosystems have no direct effect on the general health (survival, growth, reproduction) of animals in treated areas. Specific, stand-level forest management practices, particularly effects of site preparation and conifer release, must be examined in relation to the landscape mosaic and the desired future forest conditions. At broad scales, across boreal and boreal mixedwood ecosystems, conifers have been consistently replaced by hardwoods since Europeans began harvesting timber from those ecosystems. Herbicides provide a safe, effective tool for restoring conifers in previously conifer-dominated ecosystems. Forest scientists presently have a reasonable understanding of effects of a variety of herbicide treatments on conifer growth and a variety of environmental components. However, they need to continually update that understanding relative to treatments (replicates, chemicals, combinations, or timing) that may be used in the future.Key words: amphibians, conifer release, deer, disturbance, environment, glyphosate, herbicides, invertebrates, landscape, moose, reptiles, site preparation, small mammals, songbirds, snowshoe hare, triclopyr, vegetation Nous avons révisé la littérature, principalement depuis 1990, qui documente les effets des traitements phytocides sur les principaux éléments biotiques dans les écosystèmes forestiers nordiques. Les modifications apportées à la végétation sont responsables des changements survenus chez tous les autres éléments biotiques. La végétation non-résineuse est habituellement réduite de deux à cinq ans suivant les traitements d'épandage généralisé de phytocides. Les composantes fongiques, cependant, ne semblent relativement pas affectées. Les réductions à court terme de la végétation au niveau du couvert, de la densité et de la biomasse impliquée, si tel est le cas, touchent spécifiquement certaines espèces ou groupe de plantes; les changements à long terme sont reliés au nombre de semis de résineux, la qualité de la station et la capacité des résineux à dominer dans les sites traités. Les traitements phytocides ne réduisent pas, et pourraient accroîtr...

show abstract

Ungulate occurrence in forest harvest blocks is influenced by forage availability, surrounding habitat and silviculture practices

McKay¹,

Finnegan²

2023

Ecol Sol and Evidence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Forest harvesting causes habitat loss and alteration and can change predator–prey dynamics. In Canada, forest harvesting has shifted the distribution and abundance of ungulates (deer, elk and moose) that prefer early seral forest, resulting in unsustainable caribou predation by shared predators (bears, cougars and wolves). Long‐term solutions for caribou recovery require management to reduce ungulate prey species within caribou ranges. Silviculture practices applied after forest harvesting directly affect the amount of forage available in harvested areas, and therefore influence ungulate distribution, but few studies have completed detailed assessments on how specific treatments of site preparation, planting and stand tending influence ungulate use of harvest blocks. We used camera traps, silviculture data, GIS‐derived habitat and disturbance data, and detailed vegetation data collected at field sites to investigate ungulate occurrence in harvest blocks in west‐central Alberta, Canada. We compared seasonal ungulate occurrence and investigated how site‐specific characteristics, the surrounding habitat and disturbance density, and fine‐scale silviculture treatments influenced ungulate occurrence in blocks. Deer, elk and moose occurrence was higher in summer compared to winter. Elk, moose and white‐tailed deer occurrence was higher in blocks with greater availability of specific forage species. Moose occurrence was higher in blocks with a lower road density in the surrounding area, and white‐tailed deer occurrence was higher in blocks further from seismic lines and with a lower proportion of harvest blocks in the surrounding area. Deer, elk and moose occurrence was higher in younger harvest blocks. Mule deer and white‐tailed deer occurrence was lower in blocks with higher planting densities of lodgepole pine, and mule deer occurrence was also lower in blocks that had been stand tended. Our study provides detailed information on ungulate response to fine‐scale silviculture methods used in Alberta, directly linking wildlife occurrence to forestry practices, and providing practical scientific information to inform sustainable forestry. Translating this research into practical landscape management decisions could benefit boreal biodiversity, including threatened species like caribou, and culturally and economically important species like deer, elk and moose.

show abstract

Winter Foraging Ecology of Moose on Glyphosate-Treated Clearcuts in Maine

Cited by 29 publications

References 26 publications

What are the Environmental Consequences of Using Silviculturally Effective Forest Vegetation Management Treatments?

What are the Environmental Consequences of Using Silviculturally Effective Forest Vegetation Management Treatments?

Effects of herbicide treatments on biotic components in regenerating northern forests

Ungulate occurrence in forest harvest blocks is influenced by forage availability, surrounding habitat and silviculture practices

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About