Neighbourhood effects modify deer herbivory on tree seedlings

A Correction to this article was published on 09 February 2021

This article has been updated

Abstract

As spatially fine-scale foraging decisions are intrinsic to browsing herbivores such as deer, the search and selection of individual plants may be shaped by the density of neighbouring plants. However, how such neighbourhood effects may modify herbivore foraging decisions at different spatial scales is largely unexplored. Our main goal was to examine deer foraging preferences for tree species and seedling sizes, and to ask whether the spatial relationship of unbrowsed and browsed seedlings was indicative of different neighbourhood effects at the spatial scale of seedling neighbourhoods. We used two data sets from an old-growth temperate forest: (1) a seedling inventory and (2) fully mapped transect data, and applied a generalized linear mixed model and spatial point pattern analyses, respectively. We found that neighbourhood effects modified deer foraging behaviour depending on the proximity, density and species identity of neighbours, which, in turn, determined the strength and spatial extent of browsing impacts on tree seedlings. While sycamore maple seedlings experienced the highest levels of deer selectivity, deer were selective for European beech seedlings only within short distances. Beyond these distances, beech seedlings were browsed only opportunistically, as conspecific neighbours ceased to modify deer selectivity. Beech seedlings were also more susceptible to browsing within short distances from silver fir seedlings, indicating an associational susceptibility. As fir seedlings experienced strong and extensive density-dependent deer selectivity both near conspecific and beech neighbours, using such neighbourhood effects may not be a promising tool to prevent deer browsing on tree seedlings at the spatial scale of seedling neighbourhoods.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Change history

References

  1. Abbas F, Morellet N, Hewison AJM, Merlet J, Cargnelutti B, Lourtet B, Angibault JM, Daufresne T, Aulagnier S, Verheyden H (2011) Landscape fragmentation generates spatial variation of diet composition and quality in a generalist herbivore. Oecologia 167:401–411. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-011-1994-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Alm U, Birgersson B, Leimar O (2002) The effect of food quality and relative abundance on food choice in fallow deer. Anim Behav 64:439–445. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2002.3057

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ammer C (1996) Impact of ungulates on structure and dynamics of natural regeneration of mixed mountain forests in the Bavarian Alps. For Ecol Manage 88:43–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-1127(96)03808-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Arditi R, Dacorogna B (1988) Optimal foraging on arbitrary food distributions and the definition of habitat patches. Am Nat 131:837–846. https://doi.org/10.1086/284825

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Atsatt PR, O’Dowd DJ (1976) Plant defense guilds. Science 193:24–29. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.193.4247.24

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Baddeley A, Rubak E, Turner R (2015) Spatial point patterns: methodology and applications with R. Chapman and Hall/CRC, London

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bailey DW, Gross JE, Laca EA, Rittenhouse LR, Coughenour MB, Swift DM, Sims PL (1996) Mechanisms that result in large herbivore grazing distribution patterns. J Range Manag 49:386–400. https://doi.org/10.2307/4002919

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Baraza E, Zamora R, Hodar JA (2006) Conditional outcomes in plant–herbivore interactions: neighbours matter. Oikos 113:148–156. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0030-1299.2006.14265.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Barbosa P, Hines J, Kaplan I, Martinson H, Szczepaniec A, Szendrei Z (2009) Associational resistance and associational susceptibility: having right or wrong neighbors. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 40:1–20. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.110308.120242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Beckerman AP, Oksanen L (2005) The shape of things eaten: the functional response of herbivores foraging adaptively. Oikos 110:591–601. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0030-1299.2005.13546.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bee JN, Tanentzap AJ, Lee WG, Lavers RB, Mark AF, Mills JA, Coomes DA (2009) The benefits of being in a bad neighbourhood: plant community composition influences red deer foraging decisions. Oikos 118:18–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2008.16756.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bergman M, Iason GR, Hester AJ (2005) Feeding patterns by roe deer and rabbits on pine, willow and birch in relation to spatial arrangement. Oikos 109:513–520. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0030-1299.2005.13794.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bergvall UA, Rautio P, Kesti K, Tuomi J, Leimar O (2006) Associational effects of plant defences in relation to within- and between-patch food choice by a mammalian herbivore: neighbour contrast susceptibility and defence. Oecologia 147:253–260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-005-0260-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bobrowski M, Gillich B, Stolter C (2015) Modelling browsing of deer on beech and birch in northern Germany. For Ecol Manag 358:212–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.08.031

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Bolker BM, Brooks ME, Clark CJ, Geange SW, Poulsen JR, Stevens MHH, White JSS (2009) Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol Evol 24:127–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2008.10.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Čermák P, Horsák P, Špiřík M, Mrkva R (2009) Relationships between browsing damage and woody species dominance. J For Sci 55:23–31. https://doi.org/10.17221/73/2008-JFS

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Champagne E, Tremblay JP, Côté SD (2016) Spatial extent of neighboring plants influences the strength of associational effects on mammal herbivory. Ecosphere 7:13. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Connell JH (1971) On the role of natural enemies in preventing competitive exclusion in some marine animals and in rain forest trees. In: Den Boer PJ, Gradwell GR (eds) Dynamics of populations. Centre for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation, Wageningen, pp 298–312

    Google Scholar 

  19. Danell K, Edenius L, Lundberg P (1991) Herbivory and tree stand composition—moose patch use in winter. Ecology 72:1350–1357. https://doi.org/10.2307/1941107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Efron B, Tibshirani R (1993) An introduction to the bootstrap. Chapman and Hall, New York

    Google Scholar 

  21. Forrister DL, Endara MJ, Younkin GC, Coley PD, Kursar TA (2019) Herbivores as drivers of negative density dependence in tropical forest saplings. Science 363:1213. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau9460

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Fryxell JM, Hazell M, Borger L, Dalziel BD, Haydon DT, Morales JM, McIntosh T, Rosatte RC (2008) Multiple movement modes by large herbivores at multiple spatiotemporal scales. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:19114–19119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0801737105

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Furniss TJ, Larson AJ, Kane VR, Lutz JA (2020) Wildfire and drought moderate the spatial elements of tree mortality. Ecosphere 11:e03214. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.3214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Gautestad AO, Loe LE, Mysterud A (2013) Inferring spatial memory and spatiotemporal scaling from GPS data: comparing red deer Cervus elaphus movements with simulation models. J Anim Ecol 82:572–586. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.12027

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Goreaud F, Pélissier R (2003) Avoiding misinterpretation of biotic interactions with the intertype K12-function: population independence vs. random labelling hypotheses. J Veg Sci 14:681–692. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1654-1103.2003.tb02200.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hämback PA, Björkman M, Rämert B, Hopkins RJ (2009) Scale-dependent responses in cabbage herbivores affect attack rates in spatially heterogeneous systems. Basic Appl Ecol 10:228–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2008.06.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hämback PA, Inouye BD, Andersson P, Underwood N (2014) Effects of plant neighborhoods on plant–herbivore interactions: resource dilution and associational effects. Ecology 95:1370–1383. https://doi.org/10.1890/13-0793.1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Häsler H, Senn J (2012) Ungulate browsing on European silver fir Abies alba: the role of occasions, food shortage and diet preferences. Wildl Biol 18:67–74. https://doi.org/10.2981/09-013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Häsler H, Senn J, Edwards PJ (2008) Light-dependent growth responses of young Abies alba to simulated ungulate browsing. Funct Ecol 22:48–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2007.01346.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Hester AJ, Baillie GJ (1998) Spatial and temporal patterns of heather use by sheep and red deer within natural heather/grass mosaics. J Appl Ecol 35:772–784. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2664.1998.355348.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Hjältén J, Danell K, Lundberg P (1993) Herbivore avoidance by association—vole and hare utilization of woody plants. Oikos 68:125–131. https://doi.org/10.2307/3545317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Illian J, Penttinen A, Stoyan H, Stoyan D (2008) Statistical analysis and modelling of spatial point patterns, 1st edn. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  33. Illius AW, Duncan P, Richard C, Mesochina P (2002) Mechanisms of functional response and resource exploitation in browsing roe deer. J Anim Ecol 71:723–734. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2656.2002.00643.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Janzen DH (1970) Herbivores and the number of tree species in tropical forests. Am Nat 104:501–528. https://doi.org/10.1086/282687

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Jarnemo A, Minderman J, Bunnefeld N, Zidar J, Månsson J (2014) Managing landscapes for multiple objectives: alternative forage can reduce the conflict between deer and forestry. Ecosphere 5:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1890/ES14-00106.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kim TN, Underwood N (2015) Plant neighborhood effects on herbivory: damage is both density and frequency dependent. Ecology 96:1431–1437. https://doi.org/10.1890/14-1097.1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Klopčič M, Jerina K, Bončina A (2010) Long-term changes of structure and tree species composition in Dinaric uneven-aged forests: are red deer an important factor? Eur J For Res 129:277–288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-009-0325-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Kupferschmid AD (2018) Selective browsing behaviour of ungulates influences the growth of Abies alba differently depending on forest type. For Ecol Manag 429:317–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2018.06.046

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Kupferschmid AD, Zimmermann S, Bugmann H (2013) Browsing regime and growth response of naturally regenerated Abies alba saplings along light gradients. For Ecol Manag 310:393–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2013.08.048

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Kupferschmid AD, Butikofer L, Hothorn T, Schwyzer A, Brang P (2020) Ungulate species and abundance as well as environmental factors determine the probability of terminal shoot browsing on temperate forest trees. Forests 11:22. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11070764

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Law R, Illian J, Burslem D, Gratzer G, Gunatilleke CVS, Gunatilleke I (2009) Ecological information from spatial patterns of plants: insights from point process theory. J Ecol 97:616–628. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2009.01510.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Liang SY, Seagle SW (2002) Browsing and microhabitat effects on riparian forest woody seedling demography. Ecology 83:212–227. https://doi.org/10.2307/2680133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Loosmore NB, Ford ED (2006) Statistical inference using the G or K point pattern spatial statistics. Ecology 87:1925–1931. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2006)87[1925:SIUTGO]2.0.CO;2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Magnusson A, Skaug H, Nielsen A, Berg C, Kristensen K, Maechler M, van Bentham K, Bolker B, Brooks M, Brooks MM (2017) Package ‘glmmTMB’. R Package Version 02 0

  45. Maltoni A, Mariotti B, Tani A, Martini S, Jacobs DF, Tognetti R (2019) Natural regeneration of Pinus pinaster facilitates Quercus ilex survival and growth under severe deer browsing pressure. For Ecol Manag 432:356–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2018.09.045

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Massé A, Côté SD (2012) Linking habitat heterogeneity to space use by large herbivores at multiple scales: from habitat mosaics to forest canopy openings. For Ecol Manag 285:67–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2012.07.039

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Michéli E, Schad P, Spaargaren O, Dent D, Nachtergale F (2006) World reference base for soil resources 2006. World Soil Resour Rep 103:1–128

    Google Scholar 

  48. Milchunas DG, Noy-Meir I (2002) Grazing refuges, external avoidance of herbivory and plant diversity. Oikos 99:113–130. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0706.2002.990112.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Miller AM, McArthur C, Smethurst PJ (2006) Characteristics of tree seedlings and neighbouring vegetation have an additive influence on browsing by generalist herbivores. For Ecol Manag 228:197–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2006.03.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Miller AM, McArthur C, Smethurst PJ (2007) Effects of within-patch characteristics on the vulnerability of a plant to herbivory. Oikos 116:41–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2006.0030-1299.15331.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Milligan HT, Koricheva J (2013) Effects of tree species richness and composition on moose winter browsing damage and foraging selectivity: an experimental study. J Anim Ecol 82:739–748. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.12049

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Morellet N, Van Moorter B, Cargnelutti B, Angibault JM, Lourtet B, Merlet J, Ladet S, Hewison AJM (2011) Landscape composition influences roe deer habitat selection at both home range and landscape scales. Landsc Ecol 26:999–1010. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-011-9624-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Moser B, Schütz M, Hindenlang KE (2006) Importance of alternative food resources for browsing by roe deer on deciduous trees: the role of food availability and species quality. For Ecol Manag 226:248–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2006.01.045

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Ohse B, Hammerbacher A, Seele C, Meldau S, Reichelt M, Ortmann S, Wirth C (2017) Salivary cues: simulated roe deer browsing induces systemic changes in phytohormones and defence chemistry in wild-grown maple and beech saplings. Funct Ecol 31:340–349. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12717

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Ohse B, Seele C, Holzwarth F, Wirth C (2017) Different facets of tree sapling diversity influence browsing intensity by deer dependent on spatial scale. Ecol Evol 7:6779–6789. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.3217

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Oom SP, Hester AJ, Elston DA, Legg CJ (2002) Spatial interaction models: from human geography to plant–herhivore interactions. Oikos 98:65–74. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0706.2002.980107.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Otway SJ, Hector A, Lawton JH (2005) Resource dilution effects on specialist insect herbivores in a grassland biodiversity experiment. J Anim Ecol 74:234–240. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2005.00913.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Palmer SCF, Hester AJ, Elston DA, Gordon IJ, Hartley SE (2003) The perils of having tasty neighbors: grazing impacts of large herbivores at vegetation boundaries. Ecology 84:2877–2890. https://doi.org/10.1890/02-0245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Pellissier F (2013) Early physiological responses of Abies alba and Rubus fruticosus to ungulate herbivory. Plant Ecol 214:127–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-012-0151-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Perea R, Gil L (2014) Shrubs facilitating seedling performance in ungulate-dominated systems: biotic versus abiotic mechanisms of plant facilitation. Eur J For Res 133:525–534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-014-0782-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Pietrzykowski E, McArthur C, Fitzgerald H, Goodwin AN (2003) Influence of patch characteristics on browsing of tree seedlings by mammalian herbivores. J Appl Ecol 40:458–469. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2664.2003.00809.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. R Core Team (2020) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. http://www.R-projectorg

  63. Reimoser F, Gossow H (1996) Impact of ungulates on forest vegetation and its dependence on the silvicultural system. For Ecol Manag 88:107–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-1127(96)03816-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Root RB (1973) Organization of a Plant-Arthropod Association in simple and diverse habitats: the fauna of collards (Brassica oleracea). Ecol Monogr 43:95–124. https://doi.org/10.2307/1942161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Rozenbergar D, Mikac S, Anić I, Diaci J (2007) Gap regeneration patterns in relationship to light heterogeneity in two old-growth beech-fir forest reserves in South East Europe. Forestry 80:431–443. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestry/cpm037

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Schlather M, Ribeiro PJ Jr, Diggle PJ (2004) Detecting dependence between marks and locations of marked point processes. J Roy Stat Soc Ser B (Stat Method) 66:79–93. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1369-7412.2003.05343.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Senft RL, Coughenour MB, Bailey DW, Rittenhouse LR, Sala OE, Swift DM (1987) Large herbivore foraging and ecological hierarchies. Bioscience 37:789–799. https://doi.org/10.2307/1310545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Shimatani K (2002) Point processes for fine-scale spatial genetics and molecular ecology. Biom J 44:325–352. https://doi.org/10.1002/1521-4036(200204)44:3%3c325::AID-BIMJ325%3e3.0.CO;2-B

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Simončič T, Bončina A, Jarni K, Klopčič M (2019) Assessment of the long-term impact of deer on understory vegetation in mixed temperate forests. J Veg Sci 30:108–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/jvs.12702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Storms D, Aubry P, Hamann JL, Said S, Fritz H, Saint-Andrieux C, Klein F (2008) Seasonal variation in diet composition and similarity of sympatric red deer Cervus elaphus and roe deer Capreolus capreolus. Wildl Biol 14:237–250. https://doi.org/10.2981/0909-6396(2008)14[237:svidca]2.0.co;2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Suchomel J, Heroldova M, Purchart L, Homolka M (2010) Herbivore impact on beech in selected tree plantations in the Beskydy and Jeseniky Mountains, vol 3. Mendel University in Brno, Beskydy, pp 187–192

    Google Scholar 

  72. Tahvanainen JO, Root RB (1972) The influence of vegetational diversity on the population ecology of a specialized herbivore, Phyllotreta cruciferae (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Oecologia 10:321–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00345736

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Tsegai AT, Wang L, Wang DL, Huang Y, Lin HJ, Li J, Liu C (2013) Effects of spatial distribution on plant associational defense against herbivory. Basic Appl Ecol 14:680–686. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2013.09.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Underwood N, Inouye BD, Hämback PA (2014) A conceptual framework for associational effects: when do neighbours matter and how would we know? Q Rev Biol 89:1–19. https://doi.org/10.1086/674991

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Visscher DR, Merrill EH, Fortin D, Frair JL (2006) Estimating woody browse availability for ungulates at increasing snow depths. For Ecol Manag 222:348–354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2005.10.035

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Wang L, Wang DL, Bai YG, Jiang GT, Liu JS, Huang Y, Li YX (2010) Spatial distributions of multiple plant species affect herbivore foraging selectivity. Oikos 119:401–408. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2009.17774.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Wiegand T, Moloney KA (2004) Rings, circles, and null-models for point pattern analysis in ecology. Oikos 104:209–229. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0030-1299.2004.12497.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Wiegand T, Moloney KA (2014) Handbook of spatial point-pattern analysis in ecology, 1st edn. Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  79. Wiggins NL, McArthur C, Davies NW (2006) Diet switching in a generalist mammalian folivore: fundamental to maximising intake. Oecologia 147:650–657. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-005-0305-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Zambrano J, Fagan WF, Worthy SJ, Thompson J, Uriarte M, Zimmerman JK, Umana MN, Swenson NG (2019) Tree crown overlap improves predictions of the functional neighbourhood effects on tree survival and growth. J Ecol 107:887–900. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.13075

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Zollner PA, Lima SL (1999) Search strategies for landscape-level interpatch movements. Ecology 80:1019–1030. https://doi.org/10.2307/177035

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank to the administration of the Beskydy Protected Landscape Area for open and helpful approach to the long-term research activities in the National Nature Reserve Salajka.

Funding

This research was funded by the Czech Science Foundation (Grant/Award No. 20-17282S).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Jan Holík, David Janík, Libor Hort and Dušan Adam conceived and designed this study. Jan Holík and Libor Hort conducted fieldwork. Jan Holík and David Janík analysed the data. Jan Holík wrote the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan Holík.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Consent to participate

All authors agreed to participate in the work presented in this manuscript.

Consent for publication

All authors agreed with the publication of the manuscript.

Availability of data

Data are available from the corresponding author on request.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The original online version of this article was revised due to the Fig. 2 was published incorrectly and it has been corrected.

Communicated by Christian Ammer.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 27 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 888 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Holík, J., Janík, D., Hort, L. et al. Neighbourhood effects modify deer herbivory on tree seedlings. Eur J Forest Res 140, 403–417 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-020-01339-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Deer browsing
  • Foraging behaviour
  • Seedling dynamics
  • Tree regeneration
  • Spatial point patterns
  • Deer diet preferences
  • Density-dependent effects
  • Plant–herbivore interactions
  • Associational effects
  • Deer herbivory
  • Old-growth forest