4.7 Article

Can the impact of deer browsing on tree regeneration be mitigated by shelterwood cutting and strip clearcutting?

Journal

FOREST ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
Volume 257, Issue 1, Pages 38-45

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2008.08.013

Keywords

Deer browsing; Silvicultural treatments; Balsam fir; White-tailed deer; Natural regeneration

Categories

Funding

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada-Produits forestiers Anticosti Industrial Research Chair
  2. Ministere des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune du Quebec
  3. Institut Hydro-Quebec en Environnement, Developpement et Societe

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Silvicultural treatments creating large canopy openings failed to restore regeneration of balsam fir (Abies balsamea (L) Mill.) due to browsing pressure from white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus Zimmermann). Consequently, we tested two alternative silvicultural treatments aimed at improving balsam fir establishment on Anticosti Island (Quebec, Canada). In 1998 and 1999, we set up shelterwood seed cutting using three harvest intensities (0, 25 and 40% of basal area) and strip clearcutting with scarification using three different strip widths (15, 30 and 45 m), both with fenced and unfenced regeneration plots, in balsam fir stands. After 8 years, shelterwood seed cutting did not allow the establishment of new balsam fir seedlings, nor the development of unbrowsed balsam fir seedlings. In the strip clearcutting, deer browsing suppressed growth of palatable species in all strip widths. This favoured the development of unpalatable species, especially white spruce (Picea glauca (Moench) Voss). Our study demonstrates that the use of silvicultural treatments alone is unlikely to restore balsam fir regeneration on Anticosti Island, as long as the deer population remains higher than 20 deer/km(2). (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available