Long-term effects of wild ungulates on the structure, composition and succession of temperate forests
Open accessAbstract
Ungulates in temperate regions are increasing in range and abundance, leading to concerns that browsing and trampling reach levels that hamper tree recruitment and forest regeneration. However, studies that actually quantify the long-term effects of ungulates on forest succession are scarce. Here, we use a chronosequence of ungulate exclosures (fenced) and control (unfenced) plots to assess the long-term effects of ungulates on forest structure, diversity and litter depth in forests on poor sandy soils at the Veluwe, the Netherlands, which have moderate ungulate densities (x¯ = 13.6 ungulates km⁻²). We surveyed the vegetation in 27 paired fenced and unfenced plots that ranged from 1 to 33 years old, and measured seven variables to characterize forest structure (stem density, canopy cover and understory vegetation cover), composition (Shannon diversity, species richness and conifer proportion) and leaf litter depth. We found on average that fencing compared to unfencing reduced understory vegetation cover (fenced = 64.3 ± 20.2%, unfenced = 80.3 ± 19.4%), increased canopy cover (fenced = 47.4 ± 30.1%, unfenced = 29.3 ± 21.1%), tree species richness (fenced = 4.5 ± 1.3 spp., unfenced = 2.7 ± 1.2 spp.), tree Shannon diversity (fenced = 1.1 ± 0.3 index, unfenced = 0.7 ± 0.3 index) and litter layer depth (fenced = 4.4 ± 1.4 cm, unfenced = 2.4 ± 1.1 cm). While fenced plots developed woody vegetation with palatable broadleaved species such as Betula pendula, Betula pubescens, Prunus serotina, and Quercus robur, unfenced plots were not associated with any particular tree species. Our results show that current ungulate densities in this system have pronounced long-term effects on forest structure, composition and litter depth, implying that ungulates can slow down natural succession of temperate forest, from light demanding to shade tolerant species, by keeping the system in an arrested state consisting of light demanding species.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Exclosure experiments have shown that leaf litter in temperate forests may build up as a result of no large mammals passing through.
“Exclosure experiments, whereby large mammals were barred from entering, have shown leaf litter in temperate forests may build up as a result of no large mammals passing through (Ramirez et al., 2019).”
From Fine-scale habitat requirements of the pygmy hippopotamus (Choeropsis liberiensis): Implications for rainforest conservation in West Africa (2026) · cites this paper as Ramirez et al., 2019
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 58 · Cited by 100
Research works printed but not linked: 18
- Borcard D, Gillet F, Legendre P. 2018. Unconstrained ordination. Pages 151-201. Numerical Ecology with R. Springer.
- Côté SD, Rooney TP, Tremblay J-P, Dussault C, Waller DM. 2004. Ecological impacts of deer overabundance. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics:113-147.
- Facelli JM, Pickett ST. 1991. Plant litter: its dynamics and effects on plant community structure. The botanical review 57:1-32.
- Fuller R. 2001. Responses of woodland birds to increasing numbers of deer: a review of evidence and mechanisms. Forestry 74:289-298.
- Gill R. 1992. A review of damage by mammals in north temperate forests: 3. Impact on trees and forests. Forestry 65:363-388.
- Gordon IJ, Prins HH 2008. Introduction: Grazers and browsers in a changing world. Springer.
- Hobbs NT. 1996. Modification of ecosystems by ungulates. The Journal of Wildlife Management:695-713.
- Husheer SW, Hansen QW, Urlich SC. 2005. Effects of red deer on tree regeneration and growth in Aorangi Forest, Wairarapa. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 29:271-277.
- Kalisz S, Spigler RB, Horvitz CC. 2014. In a long-term experimental demography study, excluding ungulates reversed invader's explosive population growth rate and restored natives. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 111:4501-4506.
- Kennard DK. 2002. Secondary forest succession in a tropical dry forest: patterns of development across a 50- year chronosequence in lowland Bolivia. Journal of tropical ecology 18:53-66.
- Klopcic M, Jerina K, Boncina A. 2010. Long-term changes of structure and tree species composition in Dinaric uneven-aged forests: are red deer an important factor? European Journal of Forest Research 129:277- 288.
- Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D. 2014. Linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. Springer 3.
- Prins HH, Fritz H. 2008. Species diversity of browsing and grazing ungulates: consequences for the structure and abundance of secondary production. Pages 179-200. The ecology of browsing and grazing. Springer.
- Ramirez JI, Jansen PA, Poorter L. 2018. Effects of wild ungulates on the regeneration, structure and functioning of temperate forests: A semi-quantitative review. Forest Ecology and Management 424:406-419.
- Reimoser F. 2003. Steering the impacts of ungulates on temperate forests. Journal for Nature Conservation 10:243-252.
- Russell FL, Zippin DB, Fowler NL. 2001. Effects of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) on plants, plant populations and communities: a review. The American Midland Naturalist 146:1-26.
- Svenning J-C, Pedersen PB, Donlan CJ, Ejrnæs R, Faurby S, Galetti M, Hansen DM, Sandel B, Sandom CJ, Terborgh JW. 2015. Science for a wilder Anthropocene: Synthesis and future directions for trophic rewilding research. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences:201502556.
- Waller DM, Alverson WS. 1997. The white-tailed deer: a keystone herbivore. Wildlife Society Bulletin (1973- 2006) 25:217-226.
- Authors
- Ramirez, J. I., Jansen, P. A., den Ouden, J., Goudzwaard, L., & Poorter, L.
- Affiliations
- Wageningen University & Research (NL)
- Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (PA)
- Corresponding author
- Ramirez, J. Ignacio
- Venue
- Forest Ecology and Management
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-01
- Volume
- 432
- Pages
- 478-488
- ISSN
- 0378-1127 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2895604376
- Cited by
- 100
- References
- 58
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 5.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- research.wur.nl
- Licence
- Locations
- Forest Ecology and Management (publishedVersion)
- Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Smithsonian Digital Repository (Smithsonian Institution) (submittedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Funders
- Secretaría de Educación Superior, Ciencia, Tecnología e Inovación del Ecuador, Convocatoria Abierta 2012
- Ecology Fund of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Ecology and biodiversity studies
- Keywords
- wild ungulates, forest succession, temperate forests, ungulate browsing, trampling, forest structure, tree species diversity, understory vegetation cover, canopy cover, leaf litter depth, arrested succession, sandy soil, Veluwe
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
