Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Efficient application of a browsing repellent: Can associational effects within and between plants be exploited?
Stockholm University, Faculty of Science, Department of Zoology.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-0031-2755
Show others and affiliations
Number of Authors: 72019 (English)In: European Journal of Forest Research, ISSN 1612-4669, E-ISSN 1612-4677, Vol. 138, no 2, p. 253-262Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Browsing can reduce forest productivity, particularly when the apical shoots of trees are damaged. Repellents are used widely to reduce browsing, but application is costly. To improve efficiency, it may be possible to take advantage of associational plant refuge effects, requiring repellents to be applied only to some trees or parts of trees, or reapplied less frequently. Using captive moose (Alces alces) and constructed stands of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris), we tested for potential refuges by applying a commercial repellent (HaTe2) to all, alternate or none of the apical shoots, or all of the previous-year apical shoots. We also tested for potential refuges under field conditions, applying the repellent to all, alternate or none of the apical pine shoots in forest stands. Captive moose (two individuals in a 2.1-ha enclosure, similar to 95 individuals km(-2)) browsed 100% of trees, but were significantly less likely to browse apical shoots treated with repellent. Associational refuge was ineffective both within and between trees. In the field (0.84 moose km(-2)), only 1.3% of trees sustained browsing damage. Applying the repellent to the apical shoots of pines had no direct repellent effect nor any within-plant associational effects. Trees with treated apical shoots provided some protection for untreated neighbouring trees, but this was not biologically meaningful given the low percentage of trees browsed overall. Here, a simple captive experiment was not predictive of the browsing response observed in the field, demonstrating the need to test repellent application strategies in situ.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2019. Vol. 138, no 2, p. 253-262
Keywords [en]
Foraging decision, Forestry, Herbivore, Multi-use management, Pine, Ungulate
National Category
Biological Sciences Agricultural Science, Forestry and Fisheries
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:su:diva-168599DOI: 10.1007/s10342-019-01166-6ISI: 000461561000005OAI: oai:DiVA.org:su-168599DiVA, id: diva2:1315948
Available from: 2019-05-15 Created: 2019-05-15 Last updated: 2019-12-04Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Stutz, Rebecca S.Leimar, OlofBergvall, Ulrika A.
By organisation
Department of Zoology
In the same journal
European Journal of Forest Research
Biological SciencesAgricultural Science, Forestry and Fisheries

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 13 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf