4.5 Article

Ungulate winter habitat selection as a driver of herbaceous-layer heterogeneity in northern temperate forests

期刊

ECOSPHERE
卷 2, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1890/ES10-00189.1

关键词

Acer saccharum; biodiversity; biogeochemical hotspots; forest ecology; Odocoileus virginianus; ordination; plant community structure; Tsuga canadensis; white-tailed deer

类别

资金

  1. McIntier -Stennis Cooperative Forestry Program
  2. Ecosystem Science Center at Michigan Technological University
  3. Wildlife Division of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Concentrated seasonal habitat use by ungulates may amplify their influence on ecosystem processes. For example, white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) depend on forests of coniferous trees, such as Tsuga canadensis (L.) Carr. (eastern hemlock), for winter cover and forage in the northern portion of their range. We hypothesized that winter habitat use influences summer herbaceous-layer plant communities through cascading indirect effects resulting from the deposition of nitrogenous wastes and browsing of woody plants. Deer use was monitored from 2006-2008 via fecal pellet group counts in 15 T. canadensis stands across the western Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Detailed vegetation and soil sampling was performed during the summer of 2008. Estimates derived from winter inputs of fecal pellets, suggest that overwintering white-tailed deer deposit 3.3 +/- 0.8 kg N ha(-1) yr(-1). Results from nonmetric multidimensional scaling ordinations and permutational ANOVAs of distance to group centroids of ground-layer vegetation and soil attributes indicated that high levels of winter deer-use were significantly associated with greater heterogeneity in ground-layer community composition and relative soil nutrient variability within and between stands. Our results highlight potentially important feedbacks between habitat selection by ungulates, site productivity, and plant community structure in forest ecosystems.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据