Food Plot/Whitetail clearinghouse
05-19-2004, 06:50 PM
#1
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location:
Posts: 1,572
Food Plot/Whitetail clearinghouse
Since most of the questions on this board relate to whitetail food plots and forage in general I took some time to put together a few relevant studies. There is alot of good info in these studies so feel free to browse for topics that seem relevant to your question or just read a few for the sake of learning something new. I learned quite a bit.
If your having trouble understanding what a particular study is trying to say feel free to post and I'll try to interpret the scientific mumbo jumbo for you.
Food Plots for White-Tailed Deer
The establishment and maintenance of food plots can be a component of any wildlife management plan. When used in conjunction with other habitat management techniques, food plots are useful for attracting wildlife. However, landowners may have unrealistic expectations about the utility and function of food plots. Food plots are not a replacement for habitat management. They can enhance your property for wildlife by increasing the numbers that frequent your property at different times of the year. Food plots can also be a supplemental food source during harsh weather conditions when they are a part of a comprehensive wildlife management plan. Much of the current literature regarding the use and necessity of food plots originates from the southeastern United States. Soil fertility and water abundance in the southeast are relatively poor compared to those found in Indiana. Research confirms that the presence and condition of many wildlife species are correlated to soil fertility (Bolen and Robinson 1999:234- 240). Soil fertility is an indicator of food quality and quantity. Food supplementation can be important for managing wildlife in the Southeast; however, in the Midwest, wildlife populations are not as dependent upon supplemental food plots, although they will use supplements if available. Productive glaciated soils found in the Midwest support a bounty of food for white-tailed deer and other wildlife in areas with a mixture of agricultural crops, woodlots, and old fields.
Myths of Food Plots
Establishing food plots can be a costly endeavor.
Therefore, it is important to understand what food plots can do, for example:
• They can potentially attract more deer to an area.
• They increase the chance of seeing one or more mature deer that have large racks.
• Food plots potentially concentrate deer during the hunting season, especially if the food plot is planted to a green fall or winter crop such as winter wheat or rye.
• They provide a supplemental food source for deer that might be important during harsh winters or when hard mast failures occur. This is true for corn in particular, but also for winter wheat and sometimes grain sorghum.
• Food plots increase the likelihood of seeing other wildlife.
• They potentially increase the populations of smaller, less mobile wildlife, provided their other habitat requirements are met within their home range. Research has not proven that food plots appreciably increase antler growth of any particular free-ranging buck or the overall condition of any free-ranging deer.
Deer Nutrition
Many landowners establish food plots specifically to attract deer to their property. Before offering supplemental food for deer, be aware of their nutritional requirements and factors that affect them throughout the season. Deer are generally classified as browsers, i.e., they eat primarily young twigs, buds, and leaves of trees and shrubs. However, deer eat a wide variety of items including grasses, sedges, fruits, nuts, mushrooms, and forbs (broadleaf herbaceous plants) (Jacobson 1994). Their consumption of these foods varies seasonally and depends upon plant availability and nutrient requirements of deer at a given time. White-tailed deer are ruminants. They have a compound stomach (like that of a cow) consisting of a reticulum, rumen, omasum, and abomasum. Unlike animals with a single stomach (such as pigs), deer are able to digest plant materials that contain cellulose, such as woody twigs, grass stems, and the skins of some berries. Microbes in the rumen and reticulum are able to break down cellulose into volatile fatty acids which can be used for energy (Verme and Ullrey 1984). Although not definitively determined, deer have specific nutritional and energetic requirements that
Spatial use of warm-season food plots by white-tailed deer Jeffrey P. Bonner and Timothy E. Fulbright
Abstract
White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus Zimm.) appear to concentrate foraging activity along the perimeters of warm-season food plots. Because of this, we tested the hypothesis that (1) providing travel lanes (i.e., rows not planted) free of vegetation within food plots will increase deer use of the plots and result in an equal spatial distribution of forage use within the plots, and (2) skip-row planting will result in increased yield and survival of lablab (Dolichos lablab L.), an annual legume. During 1994 and 1995, lablab was established by planting (1) every row spaced 0.9 m apart (solid), (2) 2 rows and not planting 1 row (skip 1), and (3) 2 rows and not planting 2 rows (skip 2) in two 5-ha food plots. Planting scheme did not affect spatial patterns of food plot use by deer. Utilization was concentrated at food plot perimeters on 9 of 15 sampling dates. Food plot utilization by deer was greater in skip 2 treatments only during August 1995, possibly as a result of greater forage availability resulting from greater plant survival than solid rows. Deer foraging in food plots apparently shifted foraging activities to an area of greater forage availability as the resource supply was depleted. Skip-row planting had lower overall planting costs/ha than solid planting but maintained similar forage production per hectare.
Browse occurrence, biomass, and use by white-tailed deer in a northern New Brunswick deer yard
Shawn F. Morrison, Graham J. Forbes, and Steven J. Young
Abstract: Winter browse abundance influences population growth of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in northeastern North America, where they regularly experience harsh winter conditions. We surveyed browse biomass and abundance among vegetation types and determined the extent of browse species selection and avoidance in a northeastern deer yard. Deer browsed 19 species but only red and striped maples (Acer rubrum L. and Acer pensylvanicum L.) were consistently selected. Regenerating, mature mixedwood, and mature spruce–fir stands were most likely to have high amounts of browse cover. Mature mixedwood stands had greater total browse biomass than submature hardwood and mature cedar stands. It is possible that our observed selection and avoidance of browse species reflects changes in availability as snow depth increased in middle to late winter. Thus, browse availability and use should be interpreted with respect to known patterns of deer habitat use during varying degrees of winter severity. We recommend that mixedwood stands be recognized as important part of winter habitat for deer. We underscore their importance for wintering deer, because they allow them to access shelter and browse simultaneously.
Effects of partial cutting in winter on white-tailed deer
Antoine St-Louis, Jean-Pierre Ouellet, Michel Crête, Jean Maltais, and
Jean Huot
Abstract: We documented how commercial logging influenced the spatial behavior and nutritional ecology of northern white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). Using periodic browse surveys, we estimated the additional biomass of twigs available from felled trees to deer in the Pohénégamook wintering area (25 km2) at 55 kg/ha in a 43-ha cut conducted in 1995–1996 that aimed to favor conifers by removing overtopping deciduous trees. Over the entire winter, deer used 54% of the browse made available by the felling residues. The use of the cutover, estimated by pellet group census, was five times greater than the average recorded over the entire wintering area. Felled trees provided approximately
35% of the food intake of the animals that have used the cutover. Of 30 deer fitted with radio collars, the cutover attracted only those whose range neighbored the logging area (<2 km). In preference tests carried out in the winter of 1996–1997, deer showed no preference for twigs from newly cut trees over those from trees cut earlier in the winter, nor for twigs from treetops (browse made accessible during the logging operation) over twigs from saplings (browse usually accessible in winter). If commercial logging is conducted in winter as a means of providing emergency food during snowy winters to enhance deer survival, our results suggest that partial cutting may be ineffective because felling residues were used only by deer found near the cutover and because of the difficulties of logging in deep snow.
White-tailed deer browse preferences in a southern bottomland hardwood forest.
Author: Castleberry, S.B.; Smith, W.P.; Miller, K.V.; Ford, W.M.
Source: Journal of hydrology, May 1999. v. 23 (2), p. 78-82.
Abstract: We examined spring and summer use of woody browse by white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in forest gaps created by group selection timber harvest in a South Carolina bottomland hardwood forest during 1995 and 1996. Percent available twigs browsed, relative abundance, and relative use were calculated for each species with more than 50 twigs sampled. We used chi-square analysis to rate species as preferred, proportional, or low use. Total percent browsed was low in both years (2.5% in 1995, 3.0% in 1996). In 1995, 6 species were rated as high use, 4 species as proportional use, and 10 species as low use. In 1996, 6 species were rated as high use, 7 as proportional use, and 9 as low use. Species ratings generally were in agreement with other food habits studies in the Southeast. Preferred browse species included red maple (Acer rubrum), winged elm (Ulmus alata), greenbrier (Smilax spp.), and black willow (Salix nigra). The low rates of browsing probably were due to low use of the study area by deer during the growing season. Deer browsing likely had little impact on regeneration of most species in this bottomland hardwood forest.
Economics of supplemental feeding and food plots for white-tailed deer.
Wildlife Society Bulletin. 23(3):497-501.
Abstract: To answer the questions, 'Would it be advisable to implement supplemental feeding?' and 'Would it be better to feed or to plant food plots?' I performed a comparative economic analysis of food plots and feeders for white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). If increased deer visibility is the goal, feeders are most economical/ha. If lease cost/unit dry matter of supplemental feed consumed is the goal, then food plots usually are the most economical. There are 2 exceptions: first, if the initial investment on machinery for food plots cannot be met, and second, if expected food plot yields are <3,168 kg/ha dry matter. Considering all costs, however, food plots would not be profitable under most of today's lease rates. An added pitfall of food plots is that by increasing herd levels above normal carrying capacities, additional supplemental feeding may be needed during a drought to protect the herd, the range, or both.
White-tailed deer use of clearings relative to forage availability. Journal of Wildlife Management. 64(3):733-741.
Abstract: Use of woodland clearings by white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) may be in response to increased availability of forage within open patches or increased ability of deer to locate predators. We tested predictions, based upon the forage-maturation hypothesis, that white-tailed deer used areas with the greatest availability of high-quality forage, and that habitat use changed seasonally depending upon availability and quality of major types of forage in their diet. We tested those predictions in subtropical thorn woodland in South Texas, United States. Treatments included (1) areas with continuous woody cover as controls, (2) clearings with high availability of forbs and shrub sprouts, (3) clearings with low availability of shrub sprouts, (4) clearings with low availability of forbs, and (5) clearings with low availability of forbs and shrub sprouts. Intensity of use by deer during summer and autumn increased with increasing biomass of shrub sprouts and then declined with increasing shrub biomass as areas became dominated by mature shrubs with less accessible, usable forage. During spring, intensity of deer use increased in clearings with increases in forage availability and quality, indicated by an index to carrying capacity, then declined as vegetation matured. Responses of white-tailed deer to clearings supported the forage-maturation hypothesis in which herbivore responses to clearings resulted, in part, from the presence of shrub sprouts of high nutritional quality, particularly during summer and autumn when forage availability was low. Maintenance of clearings that are interspersed in a woodland matrix and maintaining high levels of immature shrub sprouts may alter the spatial distribution of white-tailed deer on the landscape.
Deer Habitat in the Ozark Forests of Arkansas
Description: Two enclosures of 590 and 675 acres were constructed and stocked with white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) to determine the deer carrying capacity of an Ozark mountain forest and to evaluate the impact of winter food plots on deer survival and productivity. Deer diets varied considerably within and among years, and they were closely related to habitat type and availability of acorns. Before food plots were established, the deer carrying capacity averaged only one deer per 45 to 100 acres, mainly because of a lack of high-quality, native forage during winter. Capacity was somewhat higher in the enclosure where cedar glades were more prevalent. Fawn production and winter survival of adult deer fluctuated widely and were positively correlated with acorn yields. After openings were established in the forest and planted with elbon rye (Secale cereale), ladino clover (Trifoliumrepens),and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica),the carrying capacity increased to one deer per 21 acres, and popula- tion levels remained fairly stable from year to year. Food plots seemed beneficial only during years of low mast yields. Even with access to high-quality forage, the deer populations were limited by a low fawn survival rate due to predation, disease, parasites, and other unknown factors.
American jointvetch improves summer range for white-tailed deer.
Author: Keegan, T.W.; Nelson, B.D.; Johnson, M.K.
Source: Journal of range management, Mar 1989. v. 42 (2), p. 128-134.
Abstract: Livestock production is limited on upland forested sites in the Southeast by the low quality of native range. Supplemental feeding in the form of improved pastures has dramatic effects on herd production and individual animal performance. Similar relationships probably exist for wild herbivores; and food plots with highly palatable, high quality forages might improve animal performance for wild as well as domestic herbivores. Sixteen American jointvetch (Aeschynomene americana) plots (mean +/- SE = 0.21 +/- 0.02 ha) were established in pastures adjacent to mixed pine (Pinus spp.)-hardwood habitat on a 980-ha tract in southeast Louisiana to estimate the influence of summer-fall food plots on diets of free-ranging white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). American jointvetch accounted for 32.4% of the dry matter in deer diets and occurred in 90.7% of fecal pellet groups. Individual deer consumed about 0.45 kg (ovendry weight) of American jointvetch per day over 2 growing seasons. For all sampling periods, crude protein, phosphorus, in vitro digestible dry matter, and calcium levels were higher (P less than or equal to 0.006) in supplemented diets compared to native diets. Calcium
hosphorus ratios in supplemented diets were lower (P less than or equal to 0.0001) (improved) compared to ratios in native diets. Dietary crude protein, phosphorus, in vitro digestible dry matter, and calcium were positively associated (P less than or equal to 0.0001) with proportions of American jointvetch in deer diets. Warm-season food plots should be considered as viable options for intensive deer management programs in parts of the southeastern United States.
Landscape characteristics of home ranges of white-tailed deer fawns in northcentral Pennsylvania.
Background and Literature Review
Survival rates are important parameters in mammal populations (Caughley 1966). Understanding mechanisms that affect the dynamics of a wildlife population is vital to effectively managing that population and its habitat. Knowledge of causes of mortality, and harvest and survival rates of fawns can be important for sound scientific and effective management of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) populations. Numerous studies have assessed neo-natal mortality of white-tailed deer fawns throughout the deer’s range in North America, but recent scientific study of mortality factors affecting white-tailed deer fawns in Pennsylvania is lacking.
In the eastern portions of the range of the white-tailed deer, home range size of yearling male deer has been reported to be >200 ha, occasionally exceeding 500 ha (Nelson and Mech 1984), but is highly variable (Larson et al. 1978, Nelson and Mech 1984, Tierson et al. 1985, Verme 1973). Home range size and dispersal distances have not been as well documented for fawns, but may be similar. (Several fawns in both study areas already have moved >5 km, some fawns have moved 15–20 km [unpublished data]). At this scale, fawn survival necessarily is a function of landscape characteristics. Published research on the influence of landscape configuration on survival of large mammals is lacking; such research is absent for white-tailed deer, adults or fawns.
Work on caribou in Canada (Stuart-Smith et al. 1997) and pheasants in Iowa (Perkins et al. 1997, Clark et al. 1999) suggested different landscape composition (e.g., percent cover in crops versus forests, proportion of forest in mature versus regenerating stands, road density) in different areas might influence survival. Habitat-influenced survival at broad scales has received some attention in western populations of mule deer (O. hemionus), but this might be because many of these populations migrate seasonally. Landscape ecology has received increasing attention in avian studies, and several such studies have assessed differences in breeding bird abundance and reproductive indices among landscapes with different extents or kinds of disturbance, but landscape-level assessments of white-tailed deer survival are lacking or nonexistent.
Some researchers (Thompson and Fritzell 1989, Cole et al. 1997, Perkins et al. 1997, Stuart-Smith et al. 1997, Clark et al. 1999) have found different landscape variables (e.g., number of patches, patch size, core area, edge contrast, habitat patch diversity, proximity index) and home range characteristics (home range size, mean daily movement) influence survival, nesting success, movements, distribution, abundance, and habitat use for study animals. Studies of the influence of landscape arrangement on survival for ungulates are lacking, however.
Stuart-Smith et al. (1997) observed higher caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) calf mortality in a fragmented landscape compared to an intact landscape, but reported no relationship between landscape configuration and caribou mortality despite smaller calf home range sizes. In a study of pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) nest success, Clarke et al. (1999) concluded habitat patch size, contagion, core area, distance to edges, and grassland edge density within 1 home range radius were related to nest success. Cole et al. (1997) concluded road closure was positively correlated with elk (Cervus elaphus roosevelti) survival. Road density might be negatively correlated with fawn survival by increasing hunter access and consequent hunting mortality. Thompson and Fritzell (1989) concluded home range size and mean daily movement were inversely related to ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus) survival rates. Conversely, Perkins et al. (1997) observed pheasant survival was unrelated to small-scale habitat use and daily movements.
Unsworth et al. (1999) studied survival of fawn and adult female mule deer and fawn mass across 3 western states, but did not quantify landscape factors influencing survival and mass. Foster et al. (1997), studying deer harvest relative to land cover in Illinois, concluded vulnerability of deer to legal harvest was inversely related to percent of land in forest cover and decreased exponentially between 0 and 10% forest cover. Vulnerability was greater in sparsely human-populated counties than in densely populated counties. I am aware of no other studies that have investigated how landscape characteristics or arrangement of habitat features on landscapes influence white-tailed deer fawn harvest rates or other mortality factors.
In Pennsylvania, heavily forested areas often are public land and therefore might receive greater hunting pressure. Agricultural areas generally have less land in forest cover than forested regions and have greater human densities. Forest cover, habitat condition, and hunter access or hunter density as well as interactive effects among these factors will influence fawn harvest rates in these regions.
Roads might influence harvest rates of white tailed deer by influencing animal movements (Kammermeyer and Moser 1990, Cole et al. 1997) and by providing greater access to hunters and poachers (Cole et al. 1997, Forman and Deblinger 2000), but I am aware of no studies that have directly related road density to harvest rates of white-tailed deer. Road density likely affects the number of deer–vehicle collisions, which are an important source of mortality for deer in Pennsylvania, but the extent to which road density influences other sources of mortality in white-tailed deer fawns is unknown.
Most studies of the influence of landscape composition on wildlife populations have estimated population parameters among 2 or more differing areas. While intuitively appealing, this method has at least 2 limitations: (1) replication of study sites (geographic replication) or treatment levels (sample replication) at the landscape is severely limited by logistics, physical limitations of the landscape or study region, and other factors; (2) observed differences in parameter estimates between landscapes often cannot be explained by individual variables. Because the landscapes often differ in many respects, isolating specific causes for differences can be difficult or impossible, depending on study design. Using individual animals as replicates and characterizing habitat arrangement, juxtaposition, and landscape structure within and around fawn home ranges is a superior method to assess influence of landscapes on survival. Sample sizes are greater, characteristics of landscapes (i.e., home ranges) are directly related to survival, and results are biologically meaningful because differences among replicates will not confound interpretation.
Fawns with larger home range areas might exhibit reduced survival rates. Larger home range areas likely increase the probability of contact with predators and might require greater energy expenditure, potentially resulting in decreased fitness. Survival also might decrease for fawns with greater movement rates. Greater movement rates might increase the probability of contact with predators and require greater energy expenditure, potentially resulting in decreased fitness. Fawns living nearer well-traveled roads will exhibit decreased survival. Close proximity to roads increases the probability of collisions with motor vehicles. Roads also provide access to hunters; increased hunter access might inflate harvest rates. Forested habitats might support higher densities of predators whereas agricultural habitats might support fewer predators. In addition, agricultural habitats might provide more or better escape cover and more and higher quality forage than (degraded) forest habitats. Fawns living in close proximity to farmsteads might exhibit decreased survival because of potential contact with domestic livestock that might carry diseases or parasites to which fawns are susceptible.
Response of white-tailed deer foods to discing in a semiarid habitat.
Author: Fulbright, T.E.
Source: Journal of range management, July 1999. v. 52 (4), p. 346-350.
Abstract: Discing strips of rangeland to increase wildlife foods is a common management practice. I tested the hypotheses (1) annual discing results in greater canopy cover of annual forbs preferred by white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus Raf.) than discing at less frequent intervals of time, (2) frequent discing reduces the abundance of preferred perennial forbs, and (3) discing only once results in greater total canopy cover of annual and perennial forbs preferred by deer. The experimental design was a split-plot with soil series (Ramadero loam or Delfina fine sandy loam) as main plots and discing treatment in October as subplots. Discing treatments were (1) no treatment (control); (2) discing once in 1990; (3) discing once in 1994; (4) discing in 1990 and 1994; (5) discing in 1990, 1992, and 1994; and (6) discing annually from 1990-1994. Discing increased canopy cover of annuals preferred by white-tailed deer and increased canopy cover of unpalatable forbs, but decreased preferred perennials. Canopy cover of forbs eaten, but not preferred by deer, increased following discing. Based on these results, soil disturbance by discing is not recommended as a habitat improvement practice in the semiarid western Rio Grande Plains of Texas if the objective of management is to increase canopy cover of forb preferred by white-tailed deer
Effects of food plots on white-tailed deer in Kisatchie National Forest.
Author: Johnson, M.K.; Dancak, K.D.
Source: Journal of range management, Mar 1993. v. 46 (2), p. 110-114.
Abstract: An extensive food plot program maintained for 4 years on the National Red Dirt Wildlife Management Preserve of the Kisatchie National Forest, La., failed to produce improvements in southern pine-mixed hardwood forest range sufficient to affect quality of deer (Odocoileus virginianus) harvested by sport hunters. A combination of normal forest management practices plus maintenance of deer densities at relatively low levels was apparently sufficient for maintaining deer in good condition. Other than for public relations, the food plot program was not warranted based on biological effects.
If your having trouble understanding what a particular study is trying to say feel free to post and I'll try to interpret the scientific mumbo jumbo for you.
Food Plots for White-Tailed Deer
The establishment and maintenance of food plots can be a component of any wildlife management plan. When used in conjunction with other habitat management techniques, food plots are useful for attracting wildlife. However, landowners may have unrealistic expectations about the utility and function of food plots. Food plots are not a replacement for habitat management. They can enhance your property for wildlife by increasing the numbers that frequent your property at different times of the year. Food plots can also be a supplemental food source during harsh weather conditions when they are a part of a comprehensive wildlife management plan. Much of the current literature regarding the use and necessity of food plots originates from the southeastern United States. Soil fertility and water abundance in the southeast are relatively poor compared to those found in Indiana. Research confirms that the presence and condition of many wildlife species are correlated to soil fertility (Bolen and Robinson 1999:234- 240). Soil fertility is an indicator of food quality and quantity. Food supplementation can be important for managing wildlife in the Southeast; however, in the Midwest, wildlife populations are not as dependent upon supplemental food plots, although they will use supplements if available. Productive glaciated soils found in the Midwest support a bounty of food for white-tailed deer and other wildlife in areas with a mixture of agricultural crops, woodlots, and old fields.
Myths of Food Plots
Establishing food plots can be a costly endeavor.
Therefore, it is important to understand what food plots can do, for example:
• They can potentially attract more deer to an area.
• They increase the chance of seeing one or more mature deer that have large racks.
• Food plots potentially concentrate deer during the hunting season, especially if the food plot is planted to a green fall or winter crop such as winter wheat or rye.
• They provide a supplemental food source for deer that might be important during harsh winters or when hard mast failures occur. This is true for corn in particular, but also for winter wheat and sometimes grain sorghum.
• Food plots increase the likelihood of seeing other wildlife.
• They potentially increase the populations of smaller, less mobile wildlife, provided their other habitat requirements are met within their home range. Research has not proven that food plots appreciably increase antler growth of any particular free-ranging buck or the overall condition of any free-ranging deer.
Deer Nutrition
Many landowners establish food plots specifically to attract deer to their property. Before offering supplemental food for deer, be aware of their nutritional requirements and factors that affect them throughout the season. Deer are generally classified as browsers, i.e., they eat primarily young twigs, buds, and leaves of trees and shrubs. However, deer eat a wide variety of items including grasses, sedges, fruits, nuts, mushrooms, and forbs (broadleaf herbaceous plants) (Jacobson 1994). Their consumption of these foods varies seasonally and depends upon plant availability and nutrient requirements of deer at a given time. White-tailed deer are ruminants. They have a compound stomach (like that of a cow) consisting of a reticulum, rumen, omasum, and abomasum. Unlike animals with a single stomach (such as pigs), deer are able to digest plant materials that contain cellulose, such as woody twigs, grass stems, and the skins of some berries. Microbes in the rumen and reticulum are able to break down cellulose into volatile fatty acids which can be used for energy (Verme and Ullrey 1984). Although not definitively determined, deer have specific nutritional and energetic requirements that
Spatial use of warm-season food plots by white-tailed deer Jeffrey P. Bonner and Timothy E. Fulbright
Abstract
White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus Zimm.) appear to concentrate foraging activity along the perimeters of warm-season food plots. Because of this, we tested the hypothesis that (1) providing travel lanes (i.e., rows not planted) free of vegetation within food plots will increase deer use of the plots and result in an equal spatial distribution of forage use within the plots, and (2) skip-row planting will result in increased yield and survival of lablab (Dolichos lablab L.), an annual legume. During 1994 and 1995, lablab was established by planting (1) every row spaced 0.9 m apart (solid), (2) 2 rows and not planting 1 row (skip 1), and (3) 2 rows and not planting 2 rows (skip 2) in two 5-ha food plots. Planting scheme did not affect spatial patterns of food plot use by deer. Utilization was concentrated at food plot perimeters on 9 of 15 sampling dates. Food plot utilization by deer was greater in skip 2 treatments only during August 1995, possibly as a result of greater forage availability resulting from greater plant survival than solid rows. Deer foraging in food plots apparently shifted foraging activities to an area of greater forage availability as the resource supply was depleted. Skip-row planting had lower overall planting costs/ha than solid planting but maintained similar forage production per hectare.
Browse occurrence, biomass, and use by white-tailed deer in a northern New Brunswick deer yard
Shawn F. Morrison, Graham J. Forbes, and Steven J. Young
Abstract: Winter browse abundance influences population growth of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in northeastern North America, where they regularly experience harsh winter conditions. We surveyed browse biomass and abundance among vegetation types and determined the extent of browse species selection and avoidance in a northeastern deer yard. Deer browsed 19 species but only red and striped maples (Acer rubrum L. and Acer pensylvanicum L.) were consistently selected. Regenerating, mature mixedwood, and mature spruce–fir stands were most likely to have high amounts of browse cover. Mature mixedwood stands had greater total browse biomass than submature hardwood and mature cedar stands. It is possible that our observed selection and avoidance of browse species reflects changes in availability as snow depth increased in middle to late winter. Thus, browse availability and use should be interpreted with respect to known patterns of deer habitat use during varying degrees of winter severity. We recommend that mixedwood stands be recognized as important part of winter habitat for deer. We underscore their importance for wintering deer, because they allow them to access shelter and browse simultaneously.
Effects of partial cutting in winter on white-tailed deer
Antoine St-Louis, Jean-Pierre Ouellet, Michel Crête, Jean Maltais, and
Jean Huot
Abstract: We documented how commercial logging influenced the spatial behavior and nutritional ecology of northern white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). Using periodic browse surveys, we estimated the additional biomass of twigs available from felled trees to deer in the Pohénégamook wintering area (25 km2) at 55 kg/ha in a 43-ha cut conducted in 1995–1996 that aimed to favor conifers by removing overtopping deciduous trees. Over the entire winter, deer used 54% of the browse made available by the felling residues. The use of the cutover, estimated by pellet group census, was five times greater than the average recorded over the entire wintering area. Felled trees provided approximately
35% of the food intake of the animals that have used the cutover. Of 30 deer fitted with radio collars, the cutover attracted only those whose range neighbored the logging area (<2 km). In preference tests carried out in the winter of 1996–1997, deer showed no preference for twigs from newly cut trees over those from trees cut earlier in the winter, nor for twigs from treetops (browse made accessible during the logging operation) over twigs from saplings (browse usually accessible in winter). If commercial logging is conducted in winter as a means of providing emergency food during snowy winters to enhance deer survival, our results suggest that partial cutting may be ineffective because felling residues were used only by deer found near the cutover and because of the difficulties of logging in deep snow.
White-tailed deer browse preferences in a southern bottomland hardwood forest.
Author: Castleberry, S.B.; Smith, W.P.; Miller, K.V.; Ford, W.M.
Source: Journal of hydrology, May 1999. v. 23 (2), p. 78-82.
Abstract: We examined spring and summer use of woody browse by white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in forest gaps created by group selection timber harvest in a South Carolina bottomland hardwood forest during 1995 and 1996. Percent available twigs browsed, relative abundance, and relative use were calculated for each species with more than 50 twigs sampled. We used chi-square analysis to rate species as preferred, proportional, or low use. Total percent browsed was low in both years (2.5% in 1995, 3.0% in 1996). In 1995, 6 species were rated as high use, 4 species as proportional use, and 10 species as low use. In 1996, 6 species were rated as high use, 7 as proportional use, and 9 as low use. Species ratings generally were in agreement with other food habits studies in the Southeast. Preferred browse species included red maple (Acer rubrum), winged elm (Ulmus alata), greenbrier (Smilax spp.), and black willow (Salix nigra). The low rates of browsing probably were due to low use of the study area by deer during the growing season. Deer browsing likely had little impact on regeneration of most species in this bottomland hardwood forest.
Economics of supplemental feeding and food plots for white-tailed deer.
Wildlife Society Bulletin. 23(3):497-501.
Abstract: To answer the questions, 'Would it be advisable to implement supplemental feeding?' and 'Would it be better to feed or to plant food plots?' I performed a comparative economic analysis of food plots and feeders for white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). If increased deer visibility is the goal, feeders are most economical/ha. If lease cost/unit dry matter of supplemental feed consumed is the goal, then food plots usually are the most economical. There are 2 exceptions: first, if the initial investment on machinery for food plots cannot be met, and second, if expected food plot yields are <3,168 kg/ha dry matter. Considering all costs, however, food plots would not be profitable under most of today's lease rates. An added pitfall of food plots is that by increasing herd levels above normal carrying capacities, additional supplemental feeding may be needed during a drought to protect the herd, the range, or both.
White-tailed deer use of clearings relative to forage availability. Journal of Wildlife Management. 64(3):733-741.
Abstract: Use of woodland clearings by white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) may be in response to increased availability of forage within open patches or increased ability of deer to locate predators. We tested predictions, based upon the forage-maturation hypothesis, that white-tailed deer used areas with the greatest availability of high-quality forage, and that habitat use changed seasonally depending upon availability and quality of major types of forage in their diet. We tested those predictions in subtropical thorn woodland in South Texas, United States. Treatments included (1) areas with continuous woody cover as controls, (2) clearings with high availability of forbs and shrub sprouts, (3) clearings with low availability of shrub sprouts, (4) clearings with low availability of forbs, and (5) clearings with low availability of forbs and shrub sprouts. Intensity of use by deer during summer and autumn increased with increasing biomass of shrub sprouts and then declined with increasing shrub biomass as areas became dominated by mature shrubs with less accessible, usable forage. During spring, intensity of deer use increased in clearings with increases in forage availability and quality, indicated by an index to carrying capacity, then declined as vegetation matured. Responses of white-tailed deer to clearings supported the forage-maturation hypothesis in which herbivore responses to clearings resulted, in part, from the presence of shrub sprouts of high nutritional quality, particularly during summer and autumn when forage availability was low. Maintenance of clearings that are interspersed in a woodland matrix and maintaining high levels of immature shrub sprouts may alter the spatial distribution of white-tailed deer on the landscape.
Deer Habitat in the Ozark Forests of Arkansas
Description: Two enclosures of 590 and 675 acres were constructed and stocked with white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) to determine the deer carrying capacity of an Ozark mountain forest and to evaluate the impact of winter food plots on deer survival and productivity. Deer diets varied considerably within and among years, and they were closely related to habitat type and availability of acorns. Before food plots were established, the deer carrying capacity averaged only one deer per 45 to 100 acres, mainly because of a lack of high-quality, native forage during winter. Capacity was somewhat higher in the enclosure where cedar glades were more prevalent. Fawn production and winter survival of adult deer fluctuated widely and were positively correlated with acorn yields. After openings were established in the forest and planted with elbon rye (Secale cereale), ladino clover (Trifoliumrepens),and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica),the carrying capacity increased to one deer per 21 acres, and popula- tion levels remained fairly stable from year to year. Food plots seemed beneficial only during years of low mast yields. Even with access to high-quality forage, the deer populations were limited by a low fawn survival rate due to predation, disease, parasites, and other unknown factors.
American jointvetch improves summer range for white-tailed deer.
Author: Keegan, T.W.; Nelson, B.D.; Johnson, M.K.
Source: Journal of range management, Mar 1989. v. 42 (2), p. 128-134.
Abstract: Livestock production is limited on upland forested sites in the Southeast by the low quality of native range. Supplemental feeding in the form of improved pastures has dramatic effects on herd production and individual animal performance. Similar relationships probably exist for wild herbivores; and food plots with highly palatable, high quality forages might improve animal performance for wild as well as domestic herbivores. Sixteen American jointvetch (Aeschynomene americana) plots (mean +/- SE = 0.21 +/- 0.02 ha) were established in pastures adjacent to mixed pine (Pinus spp.)-hardwood habitat on a 980-ha tract in southeast Louisiana to estimate the influence of summer-fall food plots on diets of free-ranging white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). American jointvetch accounted for 32.4% of the dry matter in deer diets and occurred in 90.7% of fecal pellet groups. Individual deer consumed about 0.45 kg (ovendry weight) of American jointvetch per day over 2 growing seasons. For all sampling periods, crude protein, phosphorus, in vitro digestible dry matter, and calcium levels were higher (P less than or equal to 0.006) in supplemented diets compared to native diets. Calcium
hosphorus ratios in supplemented diets were lower (P less than or equal to 0.0001) (improved) compared to ratios in native diets. Dietary crude protein, phosphorus, in vitro digestible dry matter, and calcium were positively associated (P less than or equal to 0.0001) with proportions of American jointvetch in deer diets. Warm-season food plots should be considered as viable options for intensive deer management programs in parts of the southeastern United States. Landscape characteristics of home ranges of white-tailed deer fawns in northcentral Pennsylvania.
Background and Literature Review
Survival rates are important parameters in mammal populations (Caughley 1966). Understanding mechanisms that affect the dynamics of a wildlife population is vital to effectively managing that population and its habitat. Knowledge of causes of mortality, and harvest and survival rates of fawns can be important for sound scientific and effective management of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) populations. Numerous studies have assessed neo-natal mortality of white-tailed deer fawns throughout the deer’s range in North America, but recent scientific study of mortality factors affecting white-tailed deer fawns in Pennsylvania is lacking.
In the eastern portions of the range of the white-tailed deer, home range size of yearling male deer has been reported to be >200 ha, occasionally exceeding 500 ha (Nelson and Mech 1984), but is highly variable (Larson et al. 1978, Nelson and Mech 1984, Tierson et al. 1985, Verme 1973). Home range size and dispersal distances have not been as well documented for fawns, but may be similar. (Several fawns in both study areas already have moved >5 km, some fawns have moved 15–20 km [unpublished data]). At this scale, fawn survival necessarily is a function of landscape characteristics. Published research on the influence of landscape configuration on survival of large mammals is lacking; such research is absent for white-tailed deer, adults or fawns.
Work on caribou in Canada (Stuart-Smith et al. 1997) and pheasants in Iowa (Perkins et al. 1997, Clark et al. 1999) suggested different landscape composition (e.g., percent cover in crops versus forests, proportion of forest in mature versus regenerating stands, road density) in different areas might influence survival. Habitat-influenced survival at broad scales has received some attention in western populations of mule deer (O. hemionus), but this might be because many of these populations migrate seasonally. Landscape ecology has received increasing attention in avian studies, and several such studies have assessed differences in breeding bird abundance and reproductive indices among landscapes with different extents or kinds of disturbance, but landscape-level assessments of white-tailed deer survival are lacking or nonexistent.
Some researchers (Thompson and Fritzell 1989, Cole et al. 1997, Perkins et al. 1997, Stuart-Smith et al. 1997, Clark et al. 1999) have found different landscape variables (e.g., number of patches, patch size, core area, edge contrast, habitat patch diversity, proximity index) and home range characteristics (home range size, mean daily movement) influence survival, nesting success, movements, distribution, abundance, and habitat use for study animals. Studies of the influence of landscape arrangement on survival for ungulates are lacking, however.
Stuart-Smith et al. (1997) observed higher caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) calf mortality in a fragmented landscape compared to an intact landscape, but reported no relationship between landscape configuration and caribou mortality despite smaller calf home range sizes. In a study of pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) nest success, Clarke et al. (1999) concluded habitat patch size, contagion, core area, distance to edges, and grassland edge density within 1 home range radius were related to nest success. Cole et al. (1997) concluded road closure was positively correlated with elk (Cervus elaphus roosevelti) survival. Road density might be negatively correlated with fawn survival by increasing hunter access and consequent hunting mortality. Thompson and Fritzell (1989) concluded home range size and mean daily movement were inversely related to ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus) survival rates. Conversely, Perkins et al. (1997) observed pheasant survival was unrelated to small-scale habitat use and daily movements.
Unsworth et al. (1999) studied survival of fawn and adult female mule deer and fawn mass across 3 western states, but did not quantify landscape factors influencing survival and mass. Foster et al. (1997), studying deer harvest relative to land cover in Illinois, concluded vulnerability of deer to legal harvest was inversely related to percent of land in forest cover and decreased exponentially between 0 and 10% forest cover. Vulnerability was greater in sparsely human-populated counties than in densely populated counties. I am aware of no other studies that have investigated how landscape characteristics or arrangement of habitat features on landscapes influence white-tailed deer fawn harvest rates or other mortality factors.
In Pennsylvania, heavily forested areas often are public land and therefore might receive greater hunting pressure. Agricultural areas generally have less land in forest cover than forested regions and have greater human densities. Forest cover, habitat condition, and hunter access or hunter density as well as interactive effects among these factors will influence fawn harvest rates in these regions.
Roads might influence harvest rates of white tailed deer by influencing animal movements (Kammermeyer and Moser 1990, Cole et al. 1997) and by providing greater access to hunters and poachers (Cole et al. 1997, Forman and Deblinger 2000), but I am aware of no studies that have directly related road density to harvest rates of white-tailed deer. Road density likely affects the number of deer–vehicle collisions, which are an important source of mortality for deer in Pennsylvania, but the extent to which road density influences other sources of mortality in white-tailed deer fawns is unknown.
Most studies of the influence of landscape composition on wildlife populations have estimated population parameters among 2 or more differing areas. While intuitively appealing, this method has at least 2 limitations: (1) replication of study sites (geographic replication) or treatment levels (sample replication) at the landscape is severely limited by logistics, physical limitations of the landscape or study region, and other factors; (2) observed differences in parameter estimates between landscapes often cannot be explained by individual variables. Because the landscapes often differ in many respects, isolating specific causes for differences can be difficult or impossible, depending on study design. Using individual animals as replicates and characterizing habitat arrangement, juxtaposition, and landscape structure within and around fawn home ranges is a superior method to assess influence of landscapes on survival. Sample sizes are greater, characteristics of landscapes (i.e., home ranges) are directly related to survival, and results are biologically meaningful because differences among replicates will not confound interpretation.
Fawns with larger home range areas might exhibit reduced survival rates. Larger home range areas likely increase the probability of contact with predators and might require greater energy expenditure, potentially resulting in decreased fitness. Survival also might decrease for fawns with greater movement rates. Greater movement rates might increase the probability of contact with predators and require greater energy expenditure, potentially resulting in decreased fitness. Fawns living nearer well-traveled roads will exhibit decreased survival. Close proximity to roads increases the probability of collisions with motor vehicles. Roads also provide access to hunters; increased hunter access might inflate harvest rates. Forested habitats might support higher densities of predators whereas agricultural habitats might support fewer predators. In addition, agricultural habitats might provide more or better escape cover and more and higher quality forage than (degraded) forest habitats. Fawns living in close proximity to farmsteads might exhibit decreased survival because of potential contact with domestic livestock that might carry diseases or parasites to which fawns are susceptible.
Response of white-tailed deer foods to discing in a semiarid habitat.
Author: Fulbright, T.E.
Source: Journal of range management, July 1999. v. 52 (4), p. 346-350.
Abstract: Discing strips of rangeland to increase wildlife foods is a common management practice. I tested the hypotheses (1) annual discing results in greater canopy cover of annual forbs preferred by white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus Raf.) than discing at less frequent intervals of time, (2) frequent discing reduces the abundance of preferred perennial forbs, and (3) discing only once results in greater total canopy cover of annual and perennial forbs preferred by deer. The experimental design was a split-plot with soil series (Ramadero loam or Delfina fine sandy loam) as main plots and discing treatment in October as subplots. Discing treatments were (1) no treatment (control); (2) discing once in 1990; (3) discing once in 1994; (4) discing in 1990 and 1994; (5) discing in 1990, 1992, and 1994; and (6) discing annually from 1990-1994. Discing increased canopy cover of annuals preferred by white-tailed deer and increased canopy cover of unpalatable forbs, but decreased preferred perennials. Canopy cover of forbs eaten, but not preferred by deer, increased following discing. Based on these results, soil disturbance by discing is not recommended as a habitat improvement practice in the semiarid western Rio Grande Plains of Texas if the objective of management is to increase canopy cover of forb preferred by white-tailed deer
Effects of food plots on white-tailed deer in Kisatchie National Forest.
Author: Johnson, M.K.; Dancak, K.D.
Source: Journal of range management, Mar 1993. v. 46 (2), p. 110-114.
Abstract: An extensive food plot program maintained for 4 years on the National Red Dirt Wildlife Management Preserve of the Kisatchie National Forest, La., failed to produce improvements in southern pine-mixed hardwood forest range sufficient to affect quality of deer (Odocoileus virginianus) harvested by sport hunters. A combination of normal forest management practices plus maintenance of deer densities at relatively low levels was apparently sufficient for maintaining deer in good condition. Other than for public relations, the food plot program was not warranted based on biological effects.
05-20-2004, 02:41 PM
#2
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Walnut MS USA
Posts: 871
RE: Food Plot/Whitetail clearinghouse
I did notice that most of these studies were done anywhere from 10 to 50 years ago. And some of them I couldn't find any results of what happened. It seems the studies were made with no or very vague conclussions. To me, a study should have some conclussion if the plan resulted in good or bad results. And you are right, much of it is Mumbo-Jumbo.
Russ
Russ
05-20-2004, 08:44 PM
#3
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location:
Posts: 1,572
RE: Food Plot/Whitetail clearinghouse
thanks for pointing that out. I had read the full text of most of those and technically the abstract is supposed to sum up the findings of the study. Apparently the program I was using doesn't work the typical way. I will edit the post and get some relevant information up there ASAP.
By the way, old studies still have good information in them and are not invalid due to age. As long as they followed good scientific guidelines with sound methodologies their findings are as valid as any newer study (in general).
By the way, old studies still have good information in them and are not invalid due to age. As long as they followed good scientific guidelines with sound methodologies their findings are as valid as any newer study (in general).
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
mossbergman11
Whitetail Deer Hunting
3
01-01-2008 08:07 PM
silbowhunter
Wildlife Management / Food Plots
2
09-20-2004 06:16 PM
