Study

Short-term effects of reduced white-tailed deer density on insect communities in a strongly overbrowsed boreal forest ecosystem

  • Published source details Brousseau P.-M., Hébert C., Cloutier C. & Côté S.D. (2013) Short-term effects of reduced white-tailed deer density on insect communities in a strongly overbrowsed boreal forest ecosystem. Biodiversity and Conservation, 22, 77-92.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Remove, control or exclude vertebrate herbivores

Action Link
Butterfly and Moth Conservation
  1. Remove, control or exclude vertebrate herbivores

    A replicated, controlled study in 2001–2007 on a forested island in Quebec, Canada (Brousseau et al. 2013) found that reducing invasive white-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus density increased the total species richness of macro-moths, and the abundance of rare nocturnal macro-moths, but not total macro-moth abundance. The total species richness of macro-moths, and the abundance of rare species, in areas with no deer (richness: 34 species/exclosure; abundance: 84 individuals) or reduced deer density (7.5–15 deer/km2: richness: 36 species/exclosure; abundance: 86–113 individuals) was higher than in areas where deer were not controlled (richness: 21 species/exclosure; abundance: 12 individuals). However, the total abundance of macro-moths did not differ significantly between sites (no deer: 113; 7.5 deer/km2: 139; 15 deer/km2: 122; uncontrolled: 87 individuals/exclosure). In 2001, fenced deer exclosures were built at three sites across a 7,943-km2 island. From 2002–2007, at each site, all deer were removed from a 10-ha exclosure (0 deer/km2), and three deer were stocked in both a 40-ha (7.5 deer/km2) and a 20-ha (15 deer/km2) exclosure from early spring to late autumn. An adjacent area with uncontrolled deer (26–57 deer/km2) was also monitored at each site. Within each exclosure, 70% of the area was harvested for timber just prior to construction in 2001. From June–August 2007, moths were sampled over five 3-day periods, using two Luminoc® traps/exclosure (>100 m apart). Traps were placed 3 m high and fitted with a 1.8 W blue light tube and Vapona® strips.

    (Summarised by: Andrew Bladon)

Output references
What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 21

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.


Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust