Slow responses of ecosystems to reductions in deer (Cervidae) populations and strategies for achieving recovery
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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 impacts of chronic excessive browse accumulate, creating legacy effects that persist for decades.
“The impacts of chronic excessive browse also accumulate, creating legacy effects that persist for decades (Nuttle et al., 2014;Tanentzap et al., 2012;Webster et al., 2005).”
From Overabundant deer and invasive plants drive widespread regeneration debt in eastern United States national parks (2023) · cites this paper as Tanentzap et al., 2012
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