Annals of Silvicultural Research (Dec 2010)

Roe deer browsing effects on growth development of Turkey oak and chestnut coppices.

  • Andrea Cutini,
  • Francesco Chianucci,
  • Tessa Giannini,
  • Riziero Tiberi,
  • Emilio Amorini

DOI
https://doi.org/10.12899/asr-822
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 36, no. 0
pp. 79 – 86

Abstract

Read online

Normal 0 14 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 Over the last three decades wild ungulates populations in Italy increased to values ranging from 300% to 600%. As a consequence, in Italy as well as in other European countries, situations with high ungulate density and, then, negative effects on the stability and dynamics of ecosystems, are increasing frequently. Starting from these evidences we investigated the effects of roe deer population on the vegetative regeneration of two different broadleaved tree species: Turkey oak (Quercus cerris L.) and chestnut (Castanea sativa Mill.) coppice stands. In Alpe di Catenaia (Apennines – Central Italy), after coppicing in 2002, we chose six experimental areas where fenced (P) and non-fenced (NP) plots were established. Measurements were performed at the beginning of the study period and in winter 2008 in both P and NP plots. Diameter and height of all sprouts were measured. Results showed a different impact of roe deer on the two species. After seven years chestnut did not show any significant browsing-related damage, while in Turkey oak heavy differences between protected and non-protected areas are present: in NP plots roe deer browsing has produced a significant reduction in basal area (58%) and volume (57%) compared to P plots. The results agree with previous studies and confirm: (a) a selective browsing pressure on Turkey oak; (b) the lasting effect of the early impact after clear cutting, visible even seven years after. Based on the findings, we discussed the need for an integrated management of forest vegetation and forest fauna which should define the density of ungulates not only according to the theoretical carrying capacity of ecosystems, but also considering (i) the preservation of the ecosystem overall functionality, (ii) the forest structure development and (iii) the forest management type. st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Tabella normale"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;}

Keywords