In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Deciding to Apply Brush Management White-tailed deer have a wide range of tolerance in their need for cover and food provided by woody plants. In other words, there is probably not some optimum amount of brush that deer need. Rather, there is a broad range of amounts and spatial arrangements of brush that provide suitable cover and food for deer. In addition, a broad range of combinations of brush and open areas dominated by herbaceous vegetation that are also suitable to deer likely exist. In some cases, canopy cover and density of brush may be excessive and its reduction through brush management may (1) increase yield of herbaceous vegetation through reduced competition between woody and herbaceous plants; (2) provide openings to serve as focal areas for feeding; and (3) increase quality, accessibility, and palatability of browse by stimulating production of immature sprouts from crowns and stem bases (Drawe, Ortega-S., and Fulbright 1999). Most methods of brush control result in short-term increases in yield of herbaceous vegetation and wildlife visibility; however, positive effects of brush management on deer foods cannot always be expected. We reviewed papers published between 1966 and 2011 in scientific journals on the effects of brush management on food plants for deer in western United States rangelands (fig. 7.1). In 56 percent of the studies, brush management increased canopy cover, nutritional value, preference, or yield of deer foods. Prescribed fire was the brush management approach that most consistently resulted in an improvement in deer foods. Deer use increased following brush management in 27 percent of the studies; in most cases deer use was not increased or was reduced by brush management (fig. 7.2). The Ax, Plow, and Fire: Brush Management for White-Tailed Deer K e y C o n c e p t s ▼ Brush management may benefit or harm white-tailed deer habitat; thus, careful planning and understanding of plant and plant community responses to brush control are critical. ▼ Landscapes that have not been mechanically or chemically treated to control brush should remain untreated if quality white-tailed deer habitat is the management goal. ▼ Brush management may improve white-tailed deer habitat by increasing yield of herbaceous vegetation; creating openings for feeding activity ; and increasing quality, accessibility , and palatability of browse. ▼ Created openings for feeding areas should be about 8.1 ha in size and should be interspersed within a matrix of woodland or shrubland to provide wooded travel corridors and daytime bedding sites for whitetailed deer. ▼ Stands of tall, dense, diverse brush are important for thermal and hiding cover and should not be subjected to brush management. 7 176 chapter 7 ▼ Regardless of potential benefits, brush management by chemical or mechanical means also has serious potential drawbacks. Long-term effects, particularly of mechanical treatments, may include changes in plant community structure and species composition that are unfavorable for whitetailed deer. Repeated brush clearing invariably reduces diversity of woody vegetation. Repeated treatments are essential to maintain the short-term “benefits” and postpone the long-term detriments after brush control has been applied to an area. Managers often do not plan and forecast budgets for habitat improvements on a long-term basis. Lack of long-term planning to cover future maintenance expenses results in habitat degradation. Deciding to apply brush management is extremely serious because of its long-term implications. No method of brush management is free from undesirable side effects. Plans should be developed with much thought, taking into account all possible impacts on the habitat and wildlife species that depend on the habitat. We encourage wildlife managers to avoid manipulating habitats that are relatively undisturbed and productive without human interference. Brush management is not recommended in the few habitats that remain unaltered by humans. Unfortunately, disturbance by intensive livestock grazing and previous attempts to control brush have reduced the productivity of extensive tracts of rangeland, necessitating human intervention to impede or reverse the damage. It is the philosophy of the authors that habitat manipulation by mechanical and chemical means is appropriate only in habitats previously degraded by human use. Brush management should be carried out only when plans, and funds, are in place for periodic maintenance. Figure 7.1. Effects of brush management on deer food plants (canopy cover, nutritional value, preference, or standing crop) based on a review of thirtytwo published, peerreviewed , scientific papers published between 1966 and 2011 and reporting effects of thirty-six treatments. Data from Powell and Box (1966); Box and White (1969); Krefting and Hansen...

Share