Cited by 23Wildlife Ecology and ConservationEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesRangeland and Wildlife Management

Effects of culling white-tailed deer on tree regeneration and Microstegium vimineum, an invasive grass

Schmit, John Paul, Matthews, Elizabeth R., Brolis, Andrejs·2020·Forest Ecology and Management

Abstract

Reduction of forest regeneration due to overbrowsing by white-tailed deer is a growing concern for land managers. Abundant deer can impede forest regeneration through direct predation on tree seedlings. Additionally high deer density can facilitate the establishment of a dense understory of browse tolerant plant species that shades seedlings and persists even in the absence of deer. In response to these challenges, land managers have sought to reduce deer herds to restore tree regeneration, but few studies have evaluated the effectiveness of this management. Our study took place in Catoctin Mountain Park, a US National Park Service unit with a history of high deer density. The park has been heavily invaded by Microstegium vimineum, an invasive grass that can completely cover the forest floor. Using permanent plots established prior to the start of deer management, we were able to assess the joint effects of deer culling and M. vimineum on tree seedling density. We found that tree seedling density increased in response to deer reductions. M. vimineum cover initially increased, but then decreased. Seedling densities were higher in plots with more M. vimineum cover, indicating that it did not form a recalcitrant understory that would suppress regeneration. However, eight years after deer management began, few tree seedlings were >30 cm tall, implying that it will be many years before they grow into the sapling stage. Our results indicate that deer culling can be an effective too…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118015

Cites

73 of 73 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schmit, J. P., Matthews, E. R., & Brolis, A.
Affiliations
National Park Service (US)
Corresponding author
Schmit, John Paul
Venue
Forest Ecology and Management
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-05
Volume
463
Pages
118015
ISSN
0378-1127 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3010154276
Cited by
23
References
73
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1
FWCI
2.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Forest Ecology and Management (publishedVersion)
  • Lincoln (University of Nebraska) (submittedVersion)
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 › Rangeland and Wildlife Management
Keywords
white-tailed deer, deer culling, tree regeneration, Microstegium vimineum, invasive grass, overbrowsing, seedling density, understory vegetation, forest restoration, deer 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