Deer‐mediated ecosystem service versus disservice depends on forest management intensity. Issue 1 (3rd December 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Stokely, Thomas D.; Betts, Matthew G.
• Editors: Macinnis‐Ng, Cate
• Is Part Of: Journal of applied ecology. Volume 57:Issue 1(2020)
• Page Start: 31
• Page End: 42
• Publication Date: 2019-12-03
• Subjects: Cervidae -- deer -- early succession -- ecosystem services -- herbicides -- herbivory -- human‐wildlife conflict -- intensive forest management; Agriculture -- Periodicals; Biology, Economic -- Periodicals; Agricultural ecology -- Periodicals; Applied ecology -- Periodicals; 577
• DOI: 10.1111/1365-2664.13532
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0021-8901

Abstract

Abstract: As global terrestrial biodiversity declines via land‐use change, society has placed increasing value on non‐commercial species as providers of ecosystem services. Yet, many deer species and non‐crop plants are perceived negatively when they decrease crop productivity, leading to reduced economic gains and human‐wildlife conflict. We hypothesized that deer provide an ecosystem service in forest plantations by controlling competition and promoting crop‐tree growth, although the effects of herbivory may depend on forest management intensity. If management negatively affects foraging habitat at local and landscape scales, then we expected browsing to shift to less nutritious crop trees. To test these hypotheses, we established a 5‐year experiment that manipulated early forest management intensity via herbicide treatments and access of two deer species to vegetation via exclosures. Contrary to our hypothesis, deer provided an ecosystem service at high management intensities and a disservice occurred with low‐intensity management. Crop‐tree growth and survival was greatest when herbivory and herbicides suppressed broadleaf regeneration. In contrast, crop‐tree growth was lowest when broadleaf vegetation was retained and crop trees were subject to both browse damage and competition. We found a positive, yet variable, association between deer detections and stand – and landscape‐scale broadleaf habitat, and despite initial reductions in forage, herbivory pressure was similar among management intensities. When broadleaf vegetation was suppressed by herbicides and herbivory, selection of herbaceous forage by deer intensified, likely aiding in the service. Overall, our findings indicate that the effects of vegetation management for promoting timber production are highly dependent on the presence of large herbivores. Synthesis and applications . Although deer are thought to reduce crop productivity in many systems, we found that herbivory switched from reducing crop‐tree growth where non‐crop vegetation was retained, to promoting crop‐tree growth when both herbivory and herbicides suppressed competing vegetation. However, the provision of this ecosystem service is likely contingent on the amount of forage available in the landscape and subsequent foraging pressure. We conclude that nature's capacity to provide ecosystem services depends on the intensity of management at local and landscape scales. Abstract : (a) Photos that depict the effects of deer herbivory on vegetation structure in young forest plantations of the Oregon Coast Range. Despite initial effects of herbicides on competing vegetation, without herbivory, broadleaf vegetation regenerated within deer exclosures (left panel), resulting in lower crop tree growth and survival. Deer thus contributed to vegetation management efforts, providing an ecosystem service to managed plantations despite browsing pressure on crop trees. (b) Camera trap photos of male black‐tailed deer ( Odocoileus hemionus columbianus; left panel) and wapiti ( Cervus canadensis roosevelti; right panel) taken in September of 2013 and 2015, respectively, captured at the same location in a stand that received an intensive herbicide treatment. The camera trap photos show the selective foraging of broadleaf vegetation and release of crop‐trees above browsing height and competition. Although vegetation management initially reduced forage availability, foraging pressure remained relatively unaffected.