Red Oak Seedlings as Indicators of Deer Browse Pressure: Gauging the Outcome of Different White-Tailed Deer Management Approaches

After decades of high deer populations, North American forests have lost much of their previous biodiversity. Any landscape‐level recovery requires substantial reduc‐ tions in deer herds, but modern societies and wildlife management agencies appear unable to devise appropriate solutions to this chronic ecological and human health crisis. We evaluated the effectiveness of fertility control and hunting in reducing deer impacts at Cornell University. We estimated spring deer populations and planted Quercus rubra seedlings to assess deer browse pressure, rodent attack, and other factors compromising seedling performance. Oak seedlings protected in cages grew well, but deer annually browsed ≥60% of unprotected seedlings. Despite female ster‐ ilization rates of \u3e90%, the deer population remained stable. Neither sterilization nor recreational hunting reduced deer browse rates and neither appears able to achieve reductions in deer populations or their impacts. We eliminated deer sterilization and recreational hunting in a core management area in favor of allowing volunteer arch‐ ers to shoot deer over bait, including at night. This resulted in a substantial reduction in the deer population and a linear decline in browse rates as a function of spring deer abundance. Public trust stewardship of North American landscapes will require a fundamental overhaul in deer management to provide for a brighter future, and oak seedlings may be a promising metric to assess success. These changes will re‐ quire intense public debate and may require new approaches such as regulated com‐ mercial hunting, natural dispersal, or intentional release of important deer predators (e.g., wolves and mountain lions). Such drastic changes in deer management will be highly controversial, and at present, likely difficult to implement in North America. However, the future of our forest ecosystems and their associated biodiversity will depend on evidence to guide change in landscape management and stewardship

The evolution of reversed size dimorphism in hawks, falcons and owls: a comparative analysis

Krüger O. The evolution of reversed size dimorphism in hawks, falcons and owls: a comparative analysis. Evol. Ecol. 2005;19(5):467-486

Deer, wolves, and people: costs, benefits and challenges of living together

International audienceHuman‐driven species annihilations loom as a major crisis. However the recovery of deer and wolf populations in many parts of the northern hemisphere has resulted in conflicts and controversies rather than in relief. Both species interact in complex ways with their environment, each other, and humans. We review these interactions in the context of the ecological and human costs and benefits associated with these species. We integrate scattered information to widen our perspective on the nature and perception of these costs and benefits and how they link to each other and ongoing controversies regarding how we manage deer and wolf populations. After revisiting the ecological roles deer and wolves play in contemporary ecosystems, we explore how they interact, directly and indirectly, with human groups including farmers, foresters, shepherds, and hunters. Interactions with deer and wolves generate various axes of tension, posing both ecological and sociological challenges. Resolving these tensions and conflicts requires that we address key questions using integrative approaches: what are the ecological consequences of deer and wolf recovery? How do they influence each other? What are the social and socio‐ecological consequences of large deer populations and wolf presence? Finally, what key obstacles must be overcome to allow deer, wolves and people to coexist? Reviewing contemporary ecological and sociological results suggests insights and ways to improve our understanding and resolve long‐standing challenges to coexistence. We should begin by agreeing to enhance aggregate benefits while minimizing the collective costs we incur by interacting with deer and wolves. We should also view these species, and ourselves, as parts of integrated ecosystems subject to long‐term dynamics. If co‐existence is our goal, we need deer and wolves to persevere in ways that are compatible with human interests. Our human interests, however, should be inclusive and fairly value all the costs and benefits deer and wolves entail including their intrinsic value. Shifts in human attitudes and cultural learning that are already occurring will reshape our ecological interactions with deer and wolves