4.5 Article

Varying impacts of cervid, hare and vole browsing on growth and survival of boreal tree seedlings

Journal

OECOLOGIA
Volume 174, Issue 1, Pages 271-281

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00442-013-2761-1

Keywords

Exclosure; Forest regeneration; Herbivory; Top-down effects; Trophic interactions

Categories

Funding

  1. Academy of Finland [123379, 136717, 250709, 133495]
  2. Nordic Centre of Excellence-Tundra
  3. Jenny and Antti Wihuri Foundation
  4. Academy of Finland (AKA) [133495, 133495] Funding Source: Academy of Finland (AKA)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The negative impacts of mammalian herbivores on plants have been studied quite extensively, but typically with only a single herbivore species at a time. We conducted a novel comparison of the browsing effects of voles, hares and cervids upon the growth and survival of boreal tree seedlings. This was done by excluding varying assemblages of these key mammalian herbivores from silver birch, Scots pine and Norway spruce seedlings for 3 years. We hypothesised that the pooled impacts of the herbivores would be greater than that of any individual group, while the cervids would be the group with the strongest impact. Growth of birch seedlings advanced when cervids were excluded whereas growth of seedlings accessible to cervids was hindered. Survival of all seedlings was lowest when they were accessible to voles and voles plus hares, whereas cervids seemed not to influence seedling survival. Our results show that the impact of herbivores upon woody plants can be potent in the boreal forests, but the mechanism and strength of this link depends on the tree and herbivore species in question. Risk of abated stand regeneration appears highest for the deciduous birch, though there is need for seedling protection also in coniferous stands. The clear cervid-mediated growth limitation of birch also indicates potential for a trophic cascade effect by mammalian top predators, currently returning to boreal ecosystems.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available