The impacts of deer on woodland butterflies: the good, the bad and the complex
-
Published source details
Feber R.E., Brereton T.M., Warren M.S. & Oates M. (2011) The impacts of deer on woodland butterflies: the good, the bad and the complex. Forestry, 74, 271-276.
Published source details Feber R.E., Brereton T.M., Warren M.S. & Oates M. (2011) The impacts of deer on woodland butterflies: the good, the bad and the complex. Forestry, 74, 271-276.
Actions
This study is summarised as evidence for the following.
| Action | Category | |
|---|---|---|
|
Remove, control or exclude invertebrate herbivores Action Link |
 |
-
Remove, control or exclude invertebrate herbivores
A replicated, site comparison study in 1995–1998 in 28 woodland sites in Argyll, UK (Feber et al 2011) found that at sites fenced to exclude grazing animals there was a higher density of pearl-bordered fritillary butterflies Boloria Euphrosyne than at unfenced sites. In sites within woodland that were fenced to exclude deer there was a higher density of pearl-bordered fritillaries (6.8 butterflies/hectare) than at sites where deer were not excluded (3.7 butterflies/ha). In woodland edge sites where fencing excluded deer, there was a higher density of pearl-bordered fritillaries (10.7 butterflies/ha) than where deer were not excluded and sheep were grazing (0.1 butterflies/ha). In May and June 1998 mark-release-recapture surveys of pearl-bordered fritillaries were conducted at the 28 sites of woodland and woodland edge in Lochawe. Within this area were two woods designated in 1995–1996 under the Woodland Grant Scheme and fenced to exclude deer (6 sampling sites in woodland, 12 at woodland edge). These were compared to other woodland sites without deer fencing (3 sites) and woodland edge sites without fencing which were also sheep grazed (7 sites).
(Summarised by: Eleanor Bladon)
)_2023.JPG)
