The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Forests Too Deer: Edge Effects in Northern Wisconsin
Abstract
Abstract: Browsing by white‐tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) can profoundly affect the abundance and population structure of several woody and herbaceous plant species. Enclosure studies and population surveys reveal that past and current deer densities as low as 4 deer/km 2 may prevent regeneration of the once common woody species, Canada yew (Taxus canadensis), eastern hemlock (Tsuja canadensis), and white cedar Puja occidentalis), as well as several herbaceous species. Prior to European settlement, forests in northern Wisconsin contained relatively sparse deer populations (<4/km 2 ), but extensive timber cutting in the late nineteenth century boosted deer populations. Continued habitat fragmentation resulting from scattered timber harvests and the creation of “wildlife openings” to improve deer forage maintain these high densities throughout much of the Northeast. Because deer wander widely, the effects of high deer densities penetrate deeply into remaining stands of old and mature forest, greatly modifying their composition Thus, abundant early successional and “edge” habitat, and the high deer densities they engender, represent significant external threats to these plant communities. We hypothesize that establishing large (200–400 km 2 ) continuous areas of maturing forest, especially in conjunction with increased hunting, could reduce local deer densities and so provide a simple and inexpensive method for retaining species sensitive to the deleterious effects of browsing.
Overview
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
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Ecological Meltdown in Predator-Free Forest Fragments
Terborgh, J., Lopez, L., Nuñez, P., Rao, M., Shahabuddin, G., Orihuela, G., Riveros, M., Ascanio, R., Adler, G. H., Lambert, T. D., et al. (2001) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1064397 · Cited by 1,656
Why do farmers prefer oil palm? Lessons learnt from Bungo District, Indonesia
Feintrenie, L., Chong, W. K., & Levang, P. (2010) · Small-scale Forestry · doi:10.1007/s11842-010-9122-2 · Cited by 335
Letnic, M., Webb, J. K., & Shine, R. (2008) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2008.04.031 · Cited by 192
Webster, C. R., Jenkins, M. A., & Rock, J. H. (2005) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2005.03.027 · Cited by 136
Bump, J. K., Webster, C. R., Vucetich, J. A., Peterson, R. O., Shields, J. M., & Powers, M. D. (2009) · Ecosystems · doi:10.1007/s10021-009-9274-0 · Cited by 135
Metadata
- Authors
- ALVERSON, W. S., WALLER, D. M., & SOLHEIM, S. L.
- Venue
- Conservation Biology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1988-12
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 348-358
- ISSN
- 0888-8892 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-1739
- OpenAlex
- W2112376742
- Cited by
- 560
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 1.86
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Forests Too Deer: Edge Effects in Northern Wisconsin. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1523-1739.1988.tb00199.x
- The paper
- ALVERSON, W. S., WALLER, D. M., & SOLHEIM, S. L. (1988). Forests Too Deer: Edge Effects in Northern Wisconsin. Conservation Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.1988.tb00199.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.