Moose (Alces alces) browsing in young forest stands in central Sweden: A multiscale perspective

Abstract Moose browsing on tree saplings in young forests was examined in relation to the surrounding landscape at three spatial scales: stand (mean±SE 8.6±0.8 ha), winter home range of moose (10 km2) and annual home range of moose (25 km2). Landscape patterns at winter and annual home range scales were similar, but annual home range scale was the most important in relation to browsing on birch, aspen and rowan. Browsing on birch was positively related to pine volume and mean patch size of young forest, whereas browsing on aspen was negatively related to the same variables. Browsing on rowan was highest where the volume of deciduous food and overall young forest area were low. In contrast to other studies, no difference in browsing intensity on Scots pine was found among study plots. The results from this study imply that landscape patterns at broad spatial scales can be informative for predicting browsing at smaller scales, and emphasize the need to incorporate landscape characteristics into studies of moose habitat use and in moose and forest management.

[1]  R. Bergström,et al.  Trends in the moose—forest system in Fennoscandia, with special reference to Sweden , 1996 .

[2]  O. Hjeljord,et al.  Winter feeding strategies of migrating and nonmigrating moose , 1993 .

[3]  N. Hobbs.  Modification of Ecosystems by Ungulates , 1996 .

[4]  M. Nilsson,et al.  Countrywide Estimates of Forest Variables Using Satellite Data and Field Data from the National Forest Inventory , 2003, Ambio.

[5]  Derek W. Bailey,et al.  Large Herbivore Foraging and Ecological HierarchiesLandscape ecology can enhance traditional foraging theory , 1987 .

[6]  R. Heikkilä,et al.  Moose browsing in young Scots pine stands in relation to forest management , 1996 .

[7]  S. C. Weeker.  HABITAT SELECTION. , 1964, Scientific American.

[8]  Malcolm L. Hunter,et al.  Wildlife, Forests and Forestry: Principles of Managing Forests for Biological Diversity , 1989 .

[9]  G. Cederlund.  Home range dynamics and habitat selection by roe deer in a boreal area in central Sweden , 1983 .

[10]  Ari Nikula,et al.  Habitat selection of adult moose Alces alces at two spatial scales in central Finland , 2004, Wildlife Biology.

[11]  O. Hjeljord,et al.  Choice of feeding sites by moose during summer, the influence of forest structure and plant phenology , 1990 .

[12]  R. Bergström,et al.  Effects of moose (Alces alces) rebrowsing on damage development in young stands of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) , 2003 .

[13]  Håkan Sand,et al.  Home-Range Size in Relation to Age and Sex in Moose , 1994 .

[14]  Douglas H. Johnson.  THE COMPARISON OF USAGE AND AVAILABILITY MEASUREMENTS FOR EVALUATING RESOURCE PREFERENCE , 1980 .

[15]  M. Turner,et al.  LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY : The Effect of Pattern on Process 1 , 2002 .

[16]  T. Saksa,et al.  The effect of stand density on moose damage in young Pinus sylvestris stands , 1992 .

[17]  E. Broman.  Environment and Moose Population Dynamics , 2003 .

[18]  A. Hessl.  Aspen, Elk, and Fire: The Effects of Human Institutions on Ecosystem Processes , 2002 .

[19]  D. Wilcove,et al.  Forest Island Dynamics in Man-Dominated Landscapes , 1981 .

[20]  F. Sandegren,et al.  WINTER-RANGE PHILOPATRY OF SEASONALLY MIGRATORY MOOSE , 1989 .

[21]  D. Padilla,et al.  Ecological neighborhoods: scaling environmental patterns , 1987 .

[22]  R. Heikkilä.  Effect of plantation characteristics on moose browsing on Scots pine. , 1990 .

[23]  D. Euler,et al.  Moose winter browsing patterns on clear-cuttings in northern Ontario. , 1980, Canadian journal of zoology.

[24]  L. Edenius,et al.  The Role of Moose as a Disturbance Factor in Managed Boreal Forests , 2002 .

[25]  P. Angelstam,et al.  Distribution of Deciduous Stands in Villages Located in Coniferous Forest Landscapes in Sweden , 2003, Ambio.

[26]  F. Golley.  Introducing landscape ecology , 1987, Landscape Ecology.

[27]  Staffan Hörnberg.  Changes in population density of moose (Alces alces) and damage to forests in Sweden , 2001 .

[28]  H. Andrén,et al.  Moose Browsing on Scots Pine in Relation to Stand Size and Distance to Forest Edge , 1993 .

[29]  J. Kouki,et al.  Long-term persistence of aspen – a key host for many threatened species – is endangered in old-growth conservation areas in Finland , 2004 .

[30]  L. Edenius,et al.  Factors affecting browsing by moose (Alces alces L. ) on European aspen (Populus tremula L.) in a managed boreal landscape , 2001 .

[31]  A. Mysterud.  Diet overlap among ruminants in Fennoscandia , 2000, Oecologia.

[32]  G. Cederlund,et al.  Home Range and Habitat Use of Adult Female Moose , 1988 .

[33]  The relationship between moose (Alces alces) browsing utilisation and the occurrence of different forage species in Sweden , 2001 .

[34]  R. Bergström,et al.  Frequencies and patterns of browsing by large herbivores on conifer seedlings , 1997 .

[35]  A. Mysterud,et al.  Scale-dependent trade-offs in foraging by European roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) during winter , 1999 .

[36]  L. Fahrig,et al.  Conservation of fragmented populations , 1994 .

[37]  A. Rodgers,et al.  Effects of moose density on timber quality and biodiversity restoration in Sweden, Finland, and Russian Karelia. , 2000 .

[38]  Jerry F. Franklin,et al.  Creating landscape patterns by forest cutting: Ecological consequences and principles , 1987, Landscape Ecology.

[39]  B. Saether,et al.  INTERACTIONS BETWEEN A GENERALIST HERBIVORE, THE MOOSE ALCES ALCES, AND ITS FOOD RESOURCES: AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF WINTER FORAGING BEHAVIOUR IN RELATION TO BROWSE AVAILABILITY , 1987 .

[40]  K. Danell,et al.  Foraging by moose on two species of birch when these occur in different proportions , 1986 .

[41]  O. Hjeljord,et al.  Moose and vegetation interactions in northwestern Europe and Poland , 1987 .