Cited by 135Wildlife Ecology and ConservationRangeland and Wildlife ManagementEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies

Slow responses of ecosystems to reductions in deer (Cervidae) populations and strategies for achieving recovery

Tanentzap, Andrew J., Kirby, Keith J., Goldberg, Emma·2012·Forest Ecology and Management

Abstract

Large mammalian herbivores significantly alter the functioning of a range of ecosystems worldwide. One family of herbivores in particular, deer (Cervidae), have become widespread throughout temperate regions over the last century. Culling is frequently used to reduce the ecological impacts of deer, but recent studies demonstrate that the recovery of herbivore-disturbed vegetation is often a protracted process on the order of decades. Here, we ask why increases in deer-preferred plants occur slowly following culling and what generalities can inform management of the responses of vegetation to deer culling? Vegetation changes following deer population reduction may be slow because of the: (i) slow growth rate of plants relative to the amount of biomass consumed by herbivores; (ii) depletion of seed sources of deer-preferred plants; (iii) formation of alternate vegetation types under high deer browsing; (iv) preferential browsing of forage even under low deer densities; (v) variation in browse damage of deer-preferred species with plant community composition (e.g. associational resistance or susceptibility); (vi) suppression of trophic cascades; and (vii) changes in abiotic conditions associated with other ecological processes. Managers can accelerate recovery through different active management strategies that directly address the reasons behind slow recovery. However, while the ecology behind the impacts of deer, and to a certain extent their mitigation, are largely understood…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.foreco.2011.10.005

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 124 · Cited by 135

Authors
Tanentzap, A. J., Kirby, K. J., & Goldberg, E.
Affiliations
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • Natural England (GB)
Corresponding author
Tanentzap, Andrew J.
Venue
Forest Ecology and Management
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-01
Volume
264
Pages
159-166
ISSN
0378-1127 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1972749348
Cited by
135
References
124
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 3
FWCI
9.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Forest Ecology and Management (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Rangeland and Wildlife Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Keywords
deer, vegetation recovery, deer browsing, plant growth rate, trophic cascades, ecosystem management

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review