48 tree species, e.g., black cherry ( Prunus serotina ), red maple ( Acer rubrum ), white oak ( Quercus alba ), chestnut oak ( Q. montanus ), northern red oak ( Q. rubra ), black oak ( Q. velutina ), and sassa- fras ( Sassafras albidum ). Total number (all species combined) of browsed trees was compared between wire and border zones using a c 2 Yahner: Deer Use of a Right-of-Way in Central Pennsylvania goodness-of-fit test (Sokal and Rohlf 1995). In addi- tion, pellet groups, tracks, and other signs found opportunistically (e.g., buck rubs) along established transects used for vegetative sampling were noted (details of transects are given in Yahner and Hutnik 2004, 2005) in the entire ROW (15 units). Pellet groups were monitored in March 2006, and tracks were counted 2 days after each snowfall. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Only nine and 11 deer were observed on the ROW in 2006 and 2007, respectively. This low number of deer using the ROW is not unexpected because deer are highly mobile (Storm et al. 1995), early successional habitat was lacking on the SGL 33 ROW (Smith and Coggin 1984), the ROW traverses mature forest (greater than 80 years since last cutting), and the general region (including the ROW) is hunted regularly for deer. Based on 8 months per year and 6 days per month, this is 2.1 deer per 10 days of observation on the ROW during both years combined from March to October. By comparison, over twice as many (4.8 deer per 100 days; n = 42 total deer) were seen in fields within 5 km of the ROW or in food plots established by the Pennsylvania Game Commission within an approximate 500 and 150 m of the ROW. These food plots were planted in pasture mixes of grasses and mowed peri- odically to encourage sprouting of nutritive food for deer (Forbes et al. 1971). When compared with the ROW at SGL 33, 22 deer were seen on the Green Lane ROW in Montgomery County, southeastern Pennsylvania in 2007, which equates to nearly sev- enfold the number of deer (13.8 deer per 10 days) per observation day (Yahner 2007). Moreover, no deer were seen along roads or in fields in 2007 within 5 km of the Green Lane ROW. This sug- gests that both deer populations and suitable habitat on the ROW are less on the SGL 33 ROW compared with the Green Lane ROW. The Green Lane ROW traverses residential areas, which are not heavily hunted by deer hunters, and the Green Lane ROW was maintained in 2004 (Yahner 2006), thereby providing less hunting pressure, combined with more suitable habitat, e.g., grass cover type, on and in the general region of the ROW (Smith and Coggin 1984). Browsing by deer on undesirable tree species was greater (70% of total trees browsed) in wire zones compared with border zones (50%) (c 2 Table 1. Average number (percent of total) of undesirable trees/ac 25 to 100 cm (1 to 3 ft tall) in wire zones and border zones of two replicates of each treatment combined that show evidence of browsing or no browsing by white-tailed deer on the State Game Lands 33 Research and Demonstration Area in the year previous to June 2006. z Treatment unit (replicate) Mowing Wire zone Border zone Browsed Unbrowsed Browsed Unbrowsed 31 (72) 12 (28) Mowing plus herbicide 15 (63) 9 (37) Stem–foliage spray Foliage spray Data are combined from undesirable tree species, e.g., black cherry ( Prunus serotina ), red maple ( Acer rubrum ), white oak ( Quercus alba ), chestnut oak ( Q. montanus ), northern red oak ( Q. rubra ), black oak ( Q. velutina ), and sas- Basal low volume All units z safras ( Sassafras albidum ). y Total number (all species combined) of browsed trees were significantly greater in wire zones than in border zones. c 2 df = 1, P = 0.01. goodness-of-fit test; c 2 = 6.7, Second, more tracks in border zones rather than in wire zones might be expected because of the cover afforded by border zones (deer more cryptic, protection against wind) and because of the high winds that caused snow drifting over potential tracks in wire zones. Only two pellet groups were found within established transects with one each per zone. Two buck rubs were noted along the entire ROW (one per zone). In the next couple of years with the progression of plant suc- cession after maintenance in late June 2007, I would expect more deer to use the ROW beginning in Spring 2008. I would pre- dict greater deer use of the ROW, especially in units contain- ing appreciable grass cover, likes with mowing and mowing plus herbicide units. Deer are known not only as browsers, but also as grazers (Beier 1987; Cypher et al. 1988). Adult females, in par- ticular, more so than adult males, use grass as a food resource on a year-round basis (Beier 1987; McCullough et al. 1989). Thus, future years of research should indicate greater use, and perhaps greater abundance, of deer on the State Game Lands 33 ROW. Acknowledgments. Cooperators were Asplundh Tree Expert Co., Dow AgroSciences, FirstEnergy (Penelec), and the Pennsylvania Game Commission. I thank R.T. Yahner and T.R. Yahner for field assistance. LITERATURE CITED = 6.7, df = 1, P = 0.01; Table 1 ). Regardless of treat- ment, average percentage of undesirable trees was at least 50% in wire zones of all treatments, but browsing did not exceed 50% in only two of the five treatments in border zones. Perhaps deer readily found browse in the more “open” wire zones than in the “closed” border zones. Trees and shrubs in border zones likely impeded movements and raised the energetic costs of foraging by deer in border than in wire zones. In comparison, only 30% of undesirable trees of height in the contiguous forest, which were similar in height to those on the adjacent ROW, were browsed by deer. Tracks of ten deer were detected; all tracks were found in bor- der zones. However, I viewed this as an unreliable indication of deer use of the ROW for two reasons. First, tracks are ephemeral and may not be a good method to detect deer use of the ROW. ©2009 International Society of Arboriculture Beier, P. 1987. Sex differences in quality of white-tailed deer diets. Journal of Mammalogy 68:323–329. Bramble, W.C., W.R. Byrnes, and R.J. Hutnik. 1985. Effects of a special technique for right-of-way maintenance on deer habitat. Journal of Arboriculture 11:278–284. Bramble, W.C., R.H. Yahner, W.R. Byrnes, and S.A. Liscinsky. 1992. Small mammals in plant cover types on an electric transmission right- of-way. Journal of Arboriculture 18:316–321. Cypher, B.L., R.H. Yahner, and E.A. Cypher. 1988. Seasonal food use by white-tailed deer in southeastern Pennsylvania. Environmental Management 12:237–242. Forbes, S.E., L.M. Lang, S.A. Liscinsky, and H.A. Roberts. 1971. The white-tailed deer in Pennsylvania. Res. Bull. 170. Pennsylvania Game Commission, Harrisburg, PA. 41 pp. McCullough, D.R., D.H. Hirth, and S.J. Newhouse. 1989. Resource par- titioning between sexes in white-tailed deer. The Journal of Wildlife Management 53:277–283. 18 (78) 5 (22) 24 (80) 6 (20) 10 (50) 10 (50) 98 (70) y 42 (30) 18 (62) 11 (28) 13 (52) 12 (48) 19 (79) 5 (21) 9 (33) 18 (67) 7 (30) 21 (70) 66 (50) 67 (50)
January 2009
| Title Name |
Pages |
Delete |
Url |
| Empty |
Search Text Block
Page #page_num
#doc_title
Hi $receivername|$receiveremail,
$sendername|$senderemail wrote these comments for you:
$message
$sendername|$senderemail would like for you to view the following digital edition.
Please click on the page below to be directed to the digital edition:
$thumbnail$pagenum
$link$pagenum
Your form submission was a success. You will be contacted by Washington Gas with follow-up information regarding your request.
This process might take longer please wait
