Advertisement

Journal of Forestry Research

, Volume 25, Issue 4, pp 941–945 | Cite as

Forest pasturing of livestock in Norway: effects on spruce regeneration

  • Olav Hjeljord
  • Trond Histøl
  • Hilde Karine Wam
Open Access
Short Communication

Abstract

Forest pasturing of free-roaming livestock is a common practice in many parts of the world, but knowledge on how it affects tree regeneration in boreal forests is lacking. We mapped tree density, livestock site use and accumulated damage to young trees of commercial interest (Norway spruce, Picea abies L. Karst.) on 56 clearcuts inside and outside a fenced forest area used for livestock pasturing in Ringsaker, Norway. Inside the fence 56±1.8% of spruce trees were damaged compared to 37±3.4% outside. Proportion of damaged spruce trees was positively related to cattle use of the clearcut, but not so for sheep. On the most intensively used clearcuts, four out of five trees were damaged. The density of deciduous trees was five times lower inside compared to outside of the fence (varying with plant species). While livestock grazing may reduce resource competition in favour of spruce, the current animal density clearly is impeding forest regeneration in the study area.

Key words

browsing cattle damage timber sheep ungulate 

References

  1. Arnold GW, Dudzinski ML. 1978. Ethology of free-ranging domestic animals. Amsterdam: Elsevier, p.198.Google Scholar
  2. Asner GP, Elmore AJ, Olander LP, Martin RE, Harris AT. 2004. Grazing systems, ecosystem responses, and global change. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 29: 261–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Austrheim G, Solberg EJ, Mysterud A. 2011. Spatio-temporal variation in large herbivore pressure in Norway during 1949–1999: has decreased grazing by livestock been countered by increased browsing by cervids? Wildlife Biology, 17: 286–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Belsky AJ, Blumenthal DM. 1997. Effects of livestock grazing on stand dynamics and soils in upland forests of the Interior West. Conservation Biology, 11: 315–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bennett LJ, English PF, McCain R. 1940. A study of deer populations by use of pellet-group counts. Journal of Wildlife Management, 4: 398–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bestelmeyer BT, Briske DD. 2012. Grand challenges for resilience-based management of rangelands. Rangeland Ecology & Management, 65: 654–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bjor K, Graffer H. 1963. Studies of forest pasturing in Norway. Særtrykk av forskning og forsøk i landbruket, 14: 121–365.Google Scholar
  8. Brunson MW. 2012. The elusive promise of social-ecological approaches to rangeland management. Rangeland Ecology & Management, 65: 632–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fleischner TL. 1994. Ecological costs of livestock grazing in western North America. Conservation Biology, 8: 629–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hester AJ, Edenius L, Buttenschøn RM, Kuiters AT. 2000. Interactions between forests and herbivores: the role of controlled grazing experiments. Forestry, 73: 381–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hjelle KL, Hufthammer AK, Bergsvik KA. 2006. Hesitant hunters: a review of the introduction of agriculture in western Norway. Environmental Archaeology, 11: 147–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Liss BM. 1988. Influence of grazing livestock and wildlife on natural and artificial recruitment of mixed mountain forest in the eastern Bavarian Alps. Forstwissenschaftliches Centralblatt, 107: 14–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mason IL. 1996. A world dictionary of livestock breeds, types and varieties (4thed). Wallingford: CABI Publishing, p.273.Google Scholar
  14. Mayer AC, Stöckli V, Konold W, Kreuzer M. 2006. Influence of cattle stocking rate on browsing of Norway spruce in subalpine wood pastures. Agroforestry Systems, 66: 143–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Neff DJ. 1968. The pellet-group count technique for big game trend, census, and distribution: A review. Journal of Wildlife Management, 32: 597–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Östlund L, Zackrisson O, Axelsson AL. 1997. The history and transformation of a Scandinavian boreal forest landscape since the 19th century. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 27: 1198–1206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Påhlsson L. 1984. Naturgeografisk regioninndeling av Norden. Stocholm: Nordiska Ministerrådet, p.510.Google Scholar
  18. Pender JL. 1998. Population growth, agricultural intensification, induced innovation and natural resource sustainability: An application of neoclassical growth theory. Agricultural Economics, 19: 99–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Prolux M, Mazumder A. 1998. Reversal of grazing impact on plant species richness in nutrient-poor vs. nutrient-rich ecosystems. Ecology, 79: 2581–2592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Putman RJ. 1984. Facts from faeces. Mammal Review, 14: 79–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rook AJ, Dumont B, Isselstein J, Osoro K, WallisDeVries MF, Parente K, Mills J. 2004. Matching type of livestock to desired biodiversity outcomes in pastures — a review. Biological Conservation, 119: 137–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sowell BF, Mosley JC, Bowman JGP. 1999. Social behavior of grazing beef cattle: Implications for management. In: Proceedings of the American Society of Animal Science 1999, pp. 1–6.Google Scholar
  23. Statistics Norway. 2012a. Statistikkbanken: subject 10, table 03688. (in Norwegian). Available at: http://statbank.ssb.no/statistikkbanken. [Access at 15-02-2013].Google Scholar
  24. Statistics Norway. 2012b. Statistikkbanken: subject 10, table 03710. (in Norwegian). Available at: http://statbank.ssb.no/statistikkbanken. [Access15-02-2013].Google Scholar
  25. Tomter SM. 1999. Skog 2000. Statistikk over skogforhold og -ressurser i Norge. NIJOS rapport 7/99.Google Scholar
  26. Tveite B. 1977. Site-index curves for Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.). Norwegian Forest Research Institute, Report No. 33.1, p.84. (in Norwegian with English summary.Google Scholar
  27. Wam HK, Hjeljord O, Solberg EJ. 2010. Differential forage use makes carrying capacity equivocal on ranges of Scandinavian moose (Alces alces). Canadian Journal of Zoology, 88: 1179–1191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wam HK, Pedersen HC, Hjeljord O. 2012. Balancing hunting regulations and hunter satisfaction: An integrated biosocioeconomic model to aid in sustainable management. Ecological Economics, 79: 89–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Zimmerman GT, Neuenschwander LF. 1984. Livestock grazing influences on community structure, fire intensity, and fire frequency within the Douglas-fir/ninebark habitat type. Journal of Range Management, 37: 104–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Northeast Forestry University and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Olav Hjeljord
    • 1
  • Trond Histøl
    • 2
  • Hilde Karine Wam
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Natural Resource ManagementNorwegian University of Life SciencesÅsNorway
  2. 2.Norwegian Institute for Agricultural and Environmental ResearchOrganic Food and Farming DivisionTingvollNorway

Personalised recommendations