Ecological Research

, Volume 26, Issue 3, pp 563–574 | Cite as

Cascading effects of moose (Alces alces) management on birds

Original Article

Abstract

Large herbivores often have key functions in their ecosystems, and may affect ecosystem processes with cascading effects on other animals. The mechanisms often involve relocations of resources of various kinds, including reduction in resource availability following foraging and increase in resources from animal excreta. As large herbivore populations in Europe generally are intensely managed, management activities may interact with the activities of the herbivores themselves in the effect on other ecosystem components. We investigated the effects of moose (Alces alces) winter browsing, together with the effect of net nutrient input via supplementary winter feeding of moose on functional composition and species richness of birds in a boreal forest. Supplementary feeding stations for moose had a net zero effect on bird species richness and abundance, because negative effects of moose browsing were balanced by positive effects of nutrient input. Sites with a similar browsing intensity as at feeding stations but without nutrient input had lower abundance and species richness than feeding stations. Functional groups of bird species showed differing responses: birds nesting at or below browsing height were negatively affected by moose browsing, whereas species nesting above the browsing zone were positively affected by moose browsing. Insect-eating species responded negatively to moose browsing on birch but positively to nutrient input at feeding stations, whereas seed-eating species responded positively to birch browsing and negatively to feeding stations. This study showed that both high levels of cervid activity and human management interventions influence bird communities.

Keywords

Bird diversity Boreal forest Functional group Herbivory Supplementary feeding 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Beate B. Bakke, Marcus Fisher, Christoph Grüner, Lars Hemsing, Christian Jeschke, Henry Stumpf and Roy Ågedal for carrying out fieldwork very early in the morning. Thanks to Kjell Danell, Inga-Lill Persson, Roger Bergström and Jos Milner for reading the manuscript and giving good comments. We are grateful to Harry P. Andreassen and Erlend B. Nilsen for the idea behind this study. We also thank Hedmark University College and the Research Council of Norway for giving financial support to this research.

References

  1. Allombert S, Gaston AJ, Martin JL (2005) A natural experiment on the impact of overabundant deer on songbird populations. Biol Conserv 126:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Almendinger J, DNR (2007) A handbook for collecting vegetation plot data in Minnesota: the relevé method. Department of Natural Resources, MinnesotaGoogle Scholar
  3. Bailey JK, Whitham TG (2003) Interactions among elk, aspen, galling sawflies and insectivorous birds. Oikos 101:127–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berger J, Stacey PB, Bellis L, Johnson MP (2001) A mammalian predator–prey imbalance: grizzly bear and wolf extinction affect avian neotropical migrants. Ecol Appl 11:947–960Google Scholar
  5. Bergström R, Danell K (1987) Effects of simulated winter browsing by moose on morphology and biomass of 2 birch species. J Ecol 75:533–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bibby CJ, Burgess ND, Hill DA, Mustoe SH (2000) Bird census techniques. Academic, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Bonan GB, Shugart HH (1989) Environmental-factors and ecological processes in boreal forests. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 20:1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Casey D, Hein D (1983) Effects of heavy browsing on a bird community in deciduous forest. J Wildl Manag 47:829–836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cederlund G, Bergström R (1996) Trends in the moose-forest system in Fennoscandia, with special reference to Sweden. In: DeGraaf RM, Miller RI (eds) Conservation of faunal diversity in forested landscapes. Chapman & Hall, London, pp 265–281Google Scholar
  11. Côte SD, Rooney TP, Tremblay JP, Dussault C, Waller DM (2004) Ecological impacts of deer overabundance. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 35:113–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cramp S (1977) Handbook of the birds of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa: the birds of the Western Palearctic. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  13. Danell K, Huss-Danell K (1985) Feeding by insects and hares on birches earlier affected by moose browsing. Oikos 44:75–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Danell K, Haukioja E, HussDanell K (1997) Morphological and chemical responses of mountain birch leaves and shoots to winter browsing along a gradient of plant productivity. Ecoscience 4:296–303Google Scholar
  15. Danell K, Bergstrom R, Edenius L, Ericsson G (2003) Ungulates as drivers of tree population dynamics at module and genet levels. For Ecol Manag 181:67–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. DeCalesta DS (1994) Effect of white-tailed deer on songbirds within managed forests in Pennsylvania. J Wildl Manag 58:711–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Folkard NFG, Smith JNM (1995) Evidence for bottom up effects in the boreal forest: do passerine birds respond to large scale experimental fertilization? Can J Zool 73:2231–2237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fuller RJ (2001) Responses of woodland birds to increasing numbers of deer: a review of evidence and mechanisms. Forestry 74:289–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Graham MH (2003) Confronting multicollinearity in ecological multiple regression. Ecology 84:2809–2815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gundersen H, Andreassen HP, Storaas T (2004) Supplemental feeding of migratory moose Alces alces: forest damage at two spatial scales. Wildl Biol 10:213–223Google Scholar
  21. Hester AJ, Bergman M, Iason GR, Moen J (2006) Impacts of large herbivores on plant community structure and dynamics. In: Danell K, Bergstrom R, Duncan P, Pastor J (eds) Large herbivore ecology. Ecosystem dynamics and conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 97–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hill MO, Gauch HG (1980) Detrended correspondence analysis—an improved ordination technique. Vegetatio 42:47–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hobbs NT (1996) Modification of ecosystems by ungulates. J Wildl Manag 60:695–713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Littell RC (2006) SAS for mixed models. SAS Institute, CaryGoogle Scholar
  25. Loe LE, Mysterud A, Stien A, Steen H, Evans DM, Austrheim G (2007) Positive short-term effects of sheep grazing on the alpine avifauna. Biol Lett 3:109–111PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Luccarini S, Mauri L, Ciuti S, Lamberti P, Apollonio M (2006) Red deer (Cervus elaphus) spatial use in the Italian Alps: home range patterns, seasonal migrations, and effects of snow and winter feeding. Ethol Ecol Evol 18:127–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mackey RL, Currie DJ (2001) The diversity–disturbance relationship: is it generally strong and peaked? Ecology 82:3479–3492Google Scholar
  28. Martin JL, Joron M (2003) Nest predation in forest birds: influence of predator type and predator’s habitat quality. Oikos 102:641–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mathisen KM, Buhtz F, Danell K, Bergstrom R, Skarpe C, Suominen O, Persson IL (2010) Moose density and habitat productivity affects reproduction, growth and species composition in field layer vegetation. J Veg Sci 21:705–716Google Scholar
  30. McShea WJ, Rappole JH (2000) Managing the abundance and diversity of breeding bird populations through manipulation of deer populations. Conserv Biol 14:1161–1170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McShea WJ, Underwood HB, Rappole JH (1997) The science of overabundance: deer ecology and population management. Smithsonian Institution Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  32. Melis C, Sundby M, Andersen R, Moksnes A, Pedersen B, Roskaft E (2007) The role of moose Alces alces L. in boreal forest—the effect on ground beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) abundance and diversity. Biodivers Conserv 16:1321–1335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Miyashita T, Takada M, Shimazaki A (2004) Indirect effects of herbivory by deer reduce abundance and species richness of web spiders. Ecoscience 11:74–79Google Scholar
  34. Moen A, Lillethun A, Odland A (1999) Vegetation. Norwegian Mapping Authority, HønefossGoogle Scholar
  35. Neff DJ (1968) The pellet-group count technique for big game trend, census, and distribution: a review. J Wildl Manag 32:597–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pastor J, Naiman RJ (1992) Selective foraging and ecosystem processes in boreal forests. Am Nat 139:690–705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pastor J, Dewey B, Naiman RJ, McInnes PF, Cohen Y (1993) Moose browsing and soil fertility in the boreal forests of Isle-Royale-National-Park. Ecology 74:467–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pastor J, Cohen Y, Hobbs NT (2006) The roles of large herbivores in ecosystem nutrient cycles. In: Danell K, Bergstrom R, Duncan P, Pastor J (eds) Large herbivore ecology. Ecosystem dynamics and conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 289–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pedersen S, Nilsen EB, Andreassen HP (2007) Moose winter browsing affects the breeding success of great tits. Ecoscience 14:499–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Persson IL, Danell K, Bergstrom R (2000) Disturbance by large herbivores in boreal forests with special reference to moose. Ann Zool Fenn 37:251–263Google Scholar
  41. Persson IL, Danell K, Bergstrom R (2005a) Different moose densities and accompanied changes in tree morphology and browse production. Ecol Appl 15:1296–1305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Persson IL, Pastor J, Danell K, Bergstrom R (2005b) Impact of moose population density on the production and composition of litter in boreal forests. Oikos 108:297–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Persson IL, Bergstrom R, Danell K (2007) Browse biomass production and regrowth capacity after biomass loss in deciduous and coniferous trees: responses to moose browsing along a productivity gradient. Oikos 116:1639–1650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Putman RJ, Staines BW (2004) Supplementary winter feeding of wild red deer Cervus elaphus in Europe and North America: justifications, feeding practice and effectiveness. Mamm Rev 34:285–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Quinn GP, Keough MJ (2002) Experimental design and data analysis for biologists. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  46. Rice ME (2010) Niche preference of a coprophagous scarab beetle (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) for summer moose dung in Denali National Park, Alaska. Coleopt Bull 64:148–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Riipi M, Lempa K, Haukioja E, Ossipov V, Pihlaja K (2005) Effects of simulated winter browsing on mountain birch foliar chemistry and on the performance of insect herbivores. Oikos 111:221–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sanz JJ (1998) Effect of habitat and latitude on nestling diet of Pied Flycatchers Ficedula hypoleuca. Ardea 86:81–88Google Scholar
  49. SAS Institute (2003) SAS for Windows ver. 9.1.3. SAS Institute, CaryGoogle Scholar
  50. Shimazaki A, Miyashita T (2002) Deer browsing reduces leaf damage by herbivorous insects through an induced response of the host plant. Ecol Res 17:527–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Skarpe C, Hester A (2008) Plant traits, browsing and grazing herbivores, and vegetation dynamics. In: Gordon IJ, Prins HHT (eds) The ecology of browsing and grazing. Springer, Berlin, pp 217–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Stewart AJA (2001) The impact of deer on lowland woodland invertebrates: a review of the evidence and priorities for future research. Forestry 74:259–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Stokland JN (1997) Representativeness and efficiency of bird and insect conservation in Norwegian boreal forest reserves. Conserv Biol 11:101–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Strengbom J, Nordin A (2008) Commercial forest fertilization causes long-term residual effects in ground vegetation of boreal forests. For Ecol Manag 256:2175–2181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Strengbom J, Witzell J, Nordin A, Ericson L (2005) Do multitrophic interactions override N fertilization effects on Operophtera larvae? Oecologia 143:241–250PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Suominen O (1999) Impact of cervid browsing and grazing on the terrestrial gastropod fauna in the boreal forests of Fennoscandia. Ecography 22:651–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Suominen O, Danell K (2006) Effects of large herbivores on other fauna. In: Danell K, Bergstrom R, Duncan P, Pastor J (eds) Large herbivore ecology. Ecosystem dynamics and conservation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  58. Suominen O, Persson I-L, Danell K, Bergström R, Pastor J (2008) Impact of simulated moose densities on abundance and richness of vegetation, herbivorous and predatory arthropods along a productivity gradient. Ecography 31:636–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. ter Braak CJF, Smilauer P (2006) Canoco for Windows ver. 4.54. Biometris, Plant Research, WageningenGoogle Scholar
  60. Throop HL, Lerdau MT (2004) Effects of nitrogen deposition on insect herbivory: Implications for community and ecosystem processes. Ecosystems 7:109–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Torgersen S (2008) Effects of moose density and supplementary feeding on field layer vegetation. Thesis, Department of forestry and wildlife management. Hedmark University College, EvenstadGoogle Scholar
  62. van Beest FM, Gundersen H, Mathisen KM, Milner JM, Skarpe C (2010) Long-term browsing impact around diversionary feeding stations for moose in Southern Norway. For Ecol Manag 259:1900–1911CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Waide RB, Willig MR, Steiner CF, Mittelbach G, Gough L, Dodson SI, Juday GP, Parmenter R (1999) The relationship between productivity and species richness. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 30:257–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Waldbauer G (1998) The birder’s bug book. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  65. Weisberg PJ, Bugmann H (2003) Forest dynamics and ungulate herbivory: from leaf to landscape. For Ecol Manag 181:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Ecological Society of Japan 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Forestry and Wildlife ManagementHedmark University CollegeElverumNorway
  2. 2.Department of Wildlife, Fish, and Environmental Studies, Faculty of Forest SciencesSwedish University of Agricultural SciencesUmeåSweden

Personalised recommendations