Skógræktarritið - 15.05.2001, Side 101

Skógræktarritið - 15.05.2001, Side 101
agers are operating within a set of constraints, for example finan- cial, the herbivores they already have, and the availability of land; (2) second, they require a range of options to suit these con- straints. For example if a land manager has only sheep and it is uneconomic to purchase cattle and provide them with winter housing and feeding, then that manager will require an option which uses sheep. Equally, if only summer grazing is recom- mended for forest regeneration, but there are no land resources to overwinter sheep, then it will not be possible to adopt that management unless it is possi- ble to pay to overwinter the sheep elsewhere, and so on. So the management options also must include a strong economic component to be able to assess the feasibility of different grazing scenarios and, if the practical grazing (for forest regeneration) options do not fit economically with land managers' needs, then the Government grants need to offer greater incentives to make it worthwhile. As my own area of expertise relates to (1) above, this is where the remainder of this paper will focus, but other papers in this volume consider many of the relevant economic issues. What is currently known about appropriate herbivore densities to allow tree regeneration in com- plex upland landscapes such as in Scotland? Examination of the rel- evant literature (published and unpublished) reveals that very few studies have been done and very little is known. As far as i am aware, the only published esti- mate for sheep is from one exper- imental study (Hester, Mitchell S- Kirby 1996), suggesting that 50 sheep per km2 might allow suffi- cient regeneration, at least of more grazing-resistant tree species such as birch. There have been slightly more studies of deer densities and tree regeneration (Beaumont et al. 1994; Stewart 1996), most ofwhich showed marked increases in regeneration when deer numbers were reduced to about 5 per km2, but at no sites were the density:regeneration relationships statistically signifi- cant. This is primarily because most studies were carried out in single, unreplicated areas, with huge variation both between and within sites, caused by a whole range of other factors such as availability and distribution of other vegetation, topography, exposure and disturbance. Examination of published infor- mation on other herbivores, such as rabbits, hares or voles, reveals no density recommendations to date. To summarise, in these com- plex upland landscapes where the herbivores can range widely, it is still not possible to recom- mend specific grazing manage- ment options to ensure súccess- ful regeneration under a range of different conditions. In view of this scarcity of information, it is not surprising that Government grant schemes still normally require complete removal of large herbivores, and this will no doubt continue until reliable grazing management prescrip- tions are developed for these upland areas. Let us therefore consider what are the key out- standing research issues, and how they can best be approached. Key research issues In these complex upland land- scapes, simple herbivore density estimates mask the highly vari- able distribution and severity of their impact. Our understanding needs to increase before predic- tions and recommendations can be made to reconcile grazing management with forest regener- ation over large areas of land. Three main areas of study can be identified, each one operating at a different scale, from herbivore ranging behaviour at the land- scape scale, through forage pref- erences at the site scale, to sapling responses to browsing damage at the individual plant level. Let us consider each in turn below: Herbivore ranging behaviour At the landscape scale, an ability to predict ranging behaviour and habitat use by different herbivore species is a crucial starting point, as it determines when an animal is actually likely to be present in the area where young trees are growing. indeed, this is one of the main reasons why simple herbivore density/tree regenera- tion relationships are so hard to find. In simple terms, one can predict likely habitat use based on vegetation preferences from first principles, and several mod- els exist which do just that, based on biomass and digestibil- ity of different vegetation types at different times of year. Such predictions have been found to be accurate if the only factor affecting animal movements is the vegetation. But clearly the predictions will not be accurate if other factors, such as climate, disturbance, accessibility, also strongly affect herbivore move- ments. For example, it is not use- ful to predict that animals will focus on a particular vegetation type if for other reasons they never visit the area where that vegetation type grows (e.g. Stewart 1996). Large herbivores, such as red deer, range widely in these open landscapes, and their use of forest areas or new areas of regeneration is known to be strongly affected by factors other SKÓGRÆKTARRITIÐ 2001 l.tbl. 99
Side 1
Side 2
Side 3
Side 4
Side 5
Side 6
Side 7
Side 8
Side 9
Side 10
Side 11
Side 12
Side 13
Side 14
Side 15
Side 16
Side 17
Side 18
Side 19
Side 20
Side 21
Side 22
Side 23
Side 24
Side 25
Side 26
Side 27
Side 28
Side 29
Side 30
Side 31
Side 32
Side 33
Side 34
Side 35
Side 36
Side 37
Side 38
Side 39
Side 40
Side 41
Side 42
Side 43
Side 44
Side 45
Side 46
Side 47
Side 48
Side 49
Side 50
Side 51
Side 52
Side 53
Side 54
Side 55
Side 56
Side 57
Side 58
Side 59
Side 60
Side 61
Side 62
Side 63
Side 64
Side 65
Side 66
Side 67
Side 68
Side 69
Side 70
Side 71
Side 72
Side 73
Side 74
Side 75
Side 76
Side 77
Side 78
Side 79
Side 80
Side 81
Side 82
Side 83
Side 84
Side 85
Side 86
Side 87
Side 88
Side 89
Side 90
Side 91
Side 92
Side 93
Side 94
Side 95
Side 96
Side 97
Side 98
Side 99
Side 100
Side 101
Side 102
Side 103
Side 104
Side 105
Side 106
Side 107
Side 108
Side 109
Side 110
Side 111
Side 112
Side 113
Side 114
Side 115
Side 116
Side 117
Side 118
Side 119
Side 120
Side 121
Side 122
Side 123
Side 124
Side 125
Side 126
Side 127
Side 128
Side 129
Side 130
Side 131
Side 132
Side 133
Side 134
Side 135
Side 136
Side 137
Side 138
Side 139
Side 140
Side 141
Side 142
Side 143
Side 144
Side 145
Side 146
Side 147
Side 148
Side 149
Side 150
Side 151
Side 152
Side 153
Side 154
Side 155
Side 156
Side 157
Side 158
Side 159
Side 160
Side 161
Side 162
Side 163
Side 164
Side 165
Side 166
Side 167
Side 168
Side 169
Side 170
Side 171
Side 172
Side 173
Side 174
Side 175
Side 176
Side 177
Side 178
Side 179
Side 180
Side 181
Side 182
Side 183
Side 184
Side 185
Side 186
Side 187
Side 188
Side 189
Side 190
Side 191
Side 192
Side 193
Side 194
Side 195
Side 196
Side 197
Side 198
Side 199
Side 200
Side 201
Side 202
Side 203
Side 204
Side 205
Side 206
Side 207
Side 208
Side 209
Side 210
Side 211
Side 212

x

Skógræktarritið

Direkte link

Hvis du vil linke til denne avis/magasin, skal du bruge disse links:

Link til denne avis/magasin: Skógræktarritið
https://timarit.is/publication/1996

Link til dette eksemplar:

Link til denne side:

Link til denne artikel:

Venligst ikke link direkte til billeder eller PDfs på Timarit.is, da sådanne webadresser kan ændres uden advarsel. Brug venligst de angivne webadresser for at linke til sitet.