Tree Shelters and Other Methods For Reducing Deer Damage to Hardwood Regeneration in the Eastern United States

Dr. Gary W. Miller USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, P.O. Box 404 Parsons, WV 26287 USA

Introduction

This report summarizes t he basic silvicultural problems associated with regenerating commercial hardwood (broadlean species in the eastern United States and includes a review of current methods used to reduce the impact of deer browsing. The following topics a re discussed : 1 ) the biological requirements and regeneration mechanism associated with several important tree species in the region, 2) the specific problem of regenerating northern red oak (Quercus rubra) or high-quality growing sites, 3) the general problems resulting from excessive deer browsing and practical methods used to reduce the impact of deer browsing, and 4) recent results from experimental and commercial use of plastic tree shelters for regenerating northern red oak.

Hardwood Regeneration in the Central Appalachians

The silviculture of hardwood timber species in eastern United States is based primarily on natural regeneration that results from commercial harvest operations. Natural regeneration mechanisms for eastern hardwoods include : 1) new seedlings that develop from seeds stored in the forest floor

a t the time ofsthe harvest operation, 2) ,.

advance seedlings tha t developed for several years prior to the harvest operation, and 3) sprouts from the stumps and roots of the cut trees (Beck 1988). A few comniercial species such a s yellow- poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), white ash (Fraxinus americana), red maple (Acer rubrum), sweet birch (Betula lenta), and black cherry (Prunus serotina) can develop successfully from new seedlings t h a t germinate soon after the harvest cut if sufficient light is available. Most other species, including northern red oak, white oak (Quercus alba), American basswood (Tilia americana), sugar maple (Acer saccharurn), and American beech (Fagus grandifolia) , depend heavily on advance seedlings and sprouts to regenerate successfully (Tablel). Where deer browsing impact is high, black cherry also relies on adequate advance seedlings for successful regeneration (Marquis and others 1992) .

The species composition of regeneration is affected by soil-site relations and by the harvesting practice. Repeated single-tree selection cutting promotes the regeneration of shade-tolerant species such a s sugar maple on the better growing sites and red maple on the poorer sites, with American beech and sweet birch developing after such cutting on all sites (~ r imble 1973). After heavy cutting in which most of the main canopy is removed, shade-intolerant species such as black cherry and yellow- poplar become established if viable seed is present on the better sites while red maple, sassafras (Sassafras albidun), and the oaks become established on the poorer sites. Sugar maple and American beech also become established after heavy cutting if they are present as advance reproduction

before harvest operations. Note t h a t clearcutting promotes a wide variety of species while repeated single-tree selection cutting promotes mainly shade-tolerant species (Trimble 1973).

Some desirable commercial species have difficulty regenerating after harvest operations due to an insufficient number or size of advance seedlings. For example, research has shown that the probability that an adbance northern red oak seedling will successfully compete for crown position and become a codominant tree in the new stand is related to initial seedling size a t the time the overstory trees are removed (Loftis 1990). In most central Appalachian hardwood stands, relatively few advance oak seedlings grow to a n adequate size prior to the harvest operation due the presence of a dense, sapling-size stratum of shade-tolerant species in the understory (Miller 1997; Smith 1993a). Even if there are numerous oak seedlings present, they are usually small and have little chance of surviving and competing with other faster growing species that develop after harvest. As a result, the proportion of oak in the new stand is severely diminished and there is a shift in species composition which usually does not meet management objectives. This problem is most evident on high-quality growing sites where species that compete with oak exhibit faster initial height growth compared to oak (Lorimer 1993). Forest scientists a re seeking innovative methods for regenerating oaks because they provide very valuable commercial wood products and are a n important source of food for wildlife communities.

Deer Impact and Management

Deer browsing is pne of the most important factors affecting hardwood regeneration in the eastern United States. The impact of deer browsing is a function of the local deer population, their feeding preferences, and the local availability of food (Marquis 1974; Marquis 1988; Marquis and others 1992; Tilghman 1989). In extreme cases, where deer populations are high and available food is scarce, excessive deer browsing in recently harvested stands can result in a regeneration failure (Fig. 1). Deer browsing can affect both the abundance and species composition of regeneration. In the years before a hawest cut, browsing tends to reduce the abundance of advance reproduction of desirable species such as sugar maple, white ash, and the oaks. Long-term deer browsing also increases the abundance of interfering plants such as fern, striped maple (Acer pensylvanicum), and beech. After a harvest cut when new seedlings and sprouts begin to develop, heavy deer browsing can continue to reduce the proportion of valuable species in the new stand. However, a small amount of deer browsing also can be beneficial because it reduces the abundance of some species preferred by deer, such a s pin cherry (Prunus pensyluanica) and birch, t h a t aggressively compete with more desirable hardwood species. Thus, average local populations between 6 and 20 deer per 259 ha (259 ha = 1 square mile) are tolerable in this region and usually permit suceesshl hardwood reproduction (Fig.1).

There are several strategies for reducing the impact of deer browsing on hardwood regeneration on relatively large areas. The key to reducing deer impact through silvicultural means is to increase the

supply of available food within the home range of the local population (Marquis 1987). Thinnings and regeneration harvests can be planned in surrounding stands such that deer browsing is dispersed over a relatively broad area, thus reducing the browsing impact on any one stand. In addition, applications of fertilizers after harvest operations can stimulate faster height growth of seedlings so that they grow above the reach of deer in just a few years. For extremely high deer populations, electric fencing can be an economical form of protecting and regenerating relatively valuable species such as black cheny. The average cost of electric fencing is $5.74 per m ( $730 per ha) for a square, 10-ha stand. Fencing is recommended when potential deer browsing impact is high and seedlings of the preferred species exhibit rapid early height growth which enables them to be compete successfully with other species on the site once the deer impact is reduced.

Deer impact also can be reduced by sheltering individual trees of desirable species with devices tha t prevent deer browsing of na tura l or artificial regeneration (Fig. 2) (Marquis 1977; Smith 1993b; Walters 1993). Artificial regeneration by planting or direct seeding of hardwoods is used to regenerate a few valuable species, and commercial applications of such practices cover a relatively small land area within the eastern hardwood region. Artificial regeneration methods usually are used to supplement natural regeneration with selected species. Since 1990, the most widespread use of artificial regeneration on public land has involved planting of nursery-grown northern red oak seedlings and sheltering them with plastic tree

shelters. This treatment has focused on northern red oak because this species is extremely difficult to regenerate naturally, it has high value as a commercial product and as a wildlife food source, and i t has

4 been shown to grow well in tree shelters (Schuler and Miller 1996) . Current p~escriptions entail planting and sheltering seedlings in the spring following a dormant-season shelterwood or clearcut harvest operation. On public forests within the eastern United States, such treatments are prescribed on an average of 500 ha per year which is less than 1 percent of the commercial forestland area.

Research on Tree Shelters

Research results indicate that tree shelters increase the survival and height growth of northern red oak seedlings in clearcut forest openings (Smith 1993b; Schuler and Miller 1996) and in partial cuts where residual stand density i s relatively low (Walters 1993). For research tr ials i n clearcut openings in the central Appalachian region, the average total height increased from 0.5 m to 1.8 m for sheltered seedlings compared to 0.9 m for controls (Fig. 3), and the average survival was 95 percent for sheltered seedlings and 55 percent for controls (Fig. 4) qfter five years. Both na tura l and planted oak seedlings exhibited low rates of survival due to deer browsing and suppression by competing vegetation when tree shelters were not used. Increased height growth in tree shelters was attributed to a reduction in deer browsing (Walters 1993; Smith 1993b) and to improved environmental conditions such as increased humidity (Potter 1988) and increased carbon dioxide concentrations (Mayhead and Jones 1991).

Increased survival in tree shelters was attributed to a reduction in deer browsing (Walters 1993) and to enhanced initial height growth (Schuler and Miller 1996) which allows sheltered seedlings to compete better against the surrounding na tura l vegetation for several years. Controlling vegetation surrounding sheltered seedlings with herbicides or plastic weed barriers slightly increased height growth and survival compared to t ree sh i l t e r s alone, although these differences were not statistically s i d c a n t .

The effects of tree shelters used in clearcut openings were the same for planted and natural seedlings (Schuler and Miller 1996). As a result, tree shelters can be used to enhance the growth and survival of na tura l oak seedlings, and additional seedlings can be planted and sheltered to supplement na tura l reproduction or improve genetics a s needed to satisfy management objectives.

Tree shel ters also have been used to protect planted northern red oak acorns in experimental applications. This method entails planting two acorns about 3 cm deep in the soil and immediately placing a tree shelter over them. The majority of unprotected acorns usually are destroyed by chipmunks, squirrels, and mice. Sheltered acorns exhibit about the same survival and height growth rates after planting as sheltered seedlings. However, planted seedlings reach the top of the shelter in 2 years while seedlings from acorns normally require 3 years to reach the same height.

Tree shelters benefit individual oaks for a

few years,'and then additional cultural treatments are needed to assure their long- term survival. Once the crown of a sheltered seedling emerges from the top of the tree shelter (approximately 1.6 m), the average height growth slows to a rate equal to that of unsheltered seedlings (Fig. 3). In addition, total height of natural competing vegetation often equals or exceeds that of the sheltered seedlings from 6 to 8 years af ter planting. Current experimental follow-up treatments entail cutting competing adjacent stems to provide a crown release for each sheltered seedling in early summer of each year. Without such treatments, the sheltered oak seedlings are expected to be suppressed by the competing vegetation and die within a few years. The crown release treatments may be required for a period of 5 to 10 years unti l the canopy closes and the desired trees are in a competitive, codominant position in the new stand. As a result, the treatment period and total cost of the crown release treatments are unknown at this time.

The prices of shelters vary by manufacturer and quantity purchased. Total cost of planting and sheltering seedlings ranges from $2.50 to $6.00 per unit depending on the cost of the shelter, supporting device, labor, and planting density. Planting density in the eastern United States has varied from 75 to 500 units per ha. Ultimately, the recommended planting density will be determined by the expected survival rate and management objectives.

Recommendations

Tree shel ters a re recommended for stimulating the initial height growth of

slower growing species and for protecting individual trees from deer browsing in unfenced areas. The following guidelines are used in the central Appalachians to enhance the survival and development of northern red oak (Schuler and Miller 1996):

1 . Use t ree shel ters i n full sunlight conditions, usually after a clearcut or seed- t ree cut, to ensure high survival of sheltered seedlings.

2. Place shelters on planted or natural seedlings located where soil is relatively deep and away from cut stumps to avoid aggressive sprout-origin competition for the sheltered seedling.

3 . Use shelters that are at least 1.5 m tall to prevent deer browsing.

4 . Use a durable support stake made of plastic or fiberglass tha t will hold the shelter erect for many years.

5 . Inspect and maintain the shelter and support stake for several years until the sheltered seedling emerges from the top of the shelter and becomes self-supporting.

6 . Plan to reduce competition surrounding sheltered seedlings until they are competitive in the main canopy of the new stand.

Managing the impact of deer browsing requi res information on several key factors : 1 ) i t is important to understand the regeneration mechanism and growth patterns of all the species present on the

site, 2) the forest manager should be aware of local deer populations and their feeding preferences among the various tree species, 3 ) knowledge of the availability of deer food is needed to assess the potential

I

impact of deer browsing on developing reproduction, and 4) the manager must estimate the financial benefits and costs associated with each method for reducing deer damage. All of this information is necessary to evaluate the biological and economic feasibility of fencing, t ree shelters, or other methods used to reduce deer damage.

More information on the use of t ree shelters can be obtained from: USDA Forest Service Timber and Watershed Laboratory P.O. Box 404 Parsons, West Virginia 26287 USA Fax: 304-478-8692

More information on the impact of deer on forest regeneration can be obtained from: USDA Forest Service Forestry Sciences Laboratory P.O. Box 267 Irvine, Pennsylvania 16329 USA Fax: 814-563-1048

Figure Captions

Figure 1. Deer impact on tree regeneration (Marquis and others 1992). Figure 2. Tree shelters accelerate the height growth of seedlings and protect them from deer browsing for 2 to 3 years. (Photo by H.C. Smith). Figure 3. Height of planted northern red oak seedlings. Figure 4. Survival of planted northern red oak seedlings.

Beck, D.E. 1988. Regenerating cove hardwood

stands. In: Smith, H.C.; Perkey, A.W.; Kidd,

W.E! Eds. Proceedings: Guidelines for

regenerating Appalachian hardwood stands;

1988 May 24-26; Morgantown,WV. SAF

Publication 88-03. Morgantown, WV: West

Virginia University Books and USDA Forest

Service: 156- 166.

Loftis, D.L. 1990. Predicting post-harvest

performance of advance red oak reproduction

in the southern Appalachians. Forest Science.

36(4):908-916.

Lorimer, C.G. 1993. Causes of the oak

regeneration problem. In: Loftis, D.L. McGee,

C.E. eds. 1993. Oak regeneration: Serious

problems, practical recommendations.

Symposium Proceedings; 1992 September 8-10;

Knoxville, Tennessee. General Technical

Report SE-84. Asheville, NC : USDA Forest

Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment

Station. 14-39.

Marquis, D.A. 1974. The impact of deer browsing

on Allegheny hardwood regeneration. Research

Paper, NE-308. Upper Darby, PA: USDA

Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment

Station. 8p.

Marquis, D.A. 1977. Devices to protect seedlings

from deer browsing. Research Note, NE-243.

Upper Darby, PA: USDA Forest Service,

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 7 p.

Marquis, D.A. 1987. Silvicultural techniques for

circumventing deer damage. In: Symposium

proceedings, Deer, forestry, and agriculture :

interactions and strategies for management.

1987 June I 5-17. Warren. PA: Plateau and

Northern Hardwood Chapters, Allegheny

Society of American Foresters. 125-1 36.

Marquis, D.A. 1988. Guidelines for regenerating

cherry-maple stands. In: Smith, H.C.; Perkey,

A.W.; Kidd, W.E. Eds. Guidelines for

regenerating Appalachian hardwood stands;

Symposium Proceedings: 1988 May 24-26;

Morgantown,WV. SAF Publication 88-03 . Morgantown, WV: West Virginia University

Books and USDA Forest Service: 167-188.

Marquis, D.A., Ernst, R.L., and Stout, S.L. 1992.

Prescribing silvicultural treatments in

hardwood stands of the Alleghenies. USDA

Forest Service, General Technical Report, NE- 96. [Revised].

Mayhead, G.J; Jones, D. 1991 . Carbon dioxide

concentrations within tree shelters. Quarterly

Joumal of Forestry. 75(4):228-232.

Miller, G.W. 1997. Effect of stand density and

structure on the abundance of northern red oak

advance reproduction. In: Spiecker H, Rogers

R, Somogyi Z., comps. IUFRO Proceedings,

Advances in Research in Intermediate Oak

Stands, July 27-30, 1997. University of

Freiburg: Freiburg, Germany. p. 160-17 1.

Potter, M.J. 1988. Tree shelters improve survival

and early growth rates. Journal of Forestry.

86(8) : 39-41.

Schuler, T.M. and Miller, G.W. 1996. Guidelines

for using tree shelters to regenation northern

red oak. In: Brissette, J.C., ed. Proceedings of

the Tree Shelter Conference; 1995 June 20-22;

Harrisburg, PA. General Technical Report NE- 221. Radnor, PA: USDA Forest Service,

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 37-45.

Smith, H.C. 1993a. Regenerating oaks in the

central Appalachians. In: Loftis, D.L. McGee,

C.E. eds. 1993 . Oak regeneration: Serious

problems, practical recommendations.

Symposium Proceedings; 1992 September 8-

10; Knoxville, Tennessee. General Technical

Report SE-84. Asheville, NC : USDA Forest

Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment

Station. 21 1 -221 . Smith H.C. 1993b. Development of red oak

seedlings using plastic shelters on hardwood

sites in West Virginia. Research Paper, NE-

672. Radnor, PA: USDA Forest Service,

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 7 p.

Trimble, G.R. 1973. The regeneration of central

Appalachian hardwoods with emphasis on the

effects of site quality and harvesting practice.

Research Paper. NE-282. Upper Darby, PA:

USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest

~ x ~ e r i h e n t Station. 14 p.

Tilghman, N.G. 1989. Impacts of white-tailed

deer on forest regeneration in northwestern

Pennsylvania. Journal of Wildlife Management.

53(3): 524-532.

Walters, R. S. 1993. Protecting red oak seedlings

with tree shelters in northwestern Pennsylvania.

Research Paper, NE-679. Radnor, PA: USDA

Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment

Station. 5 p.

FORESTRY COEXISTING WITH WILD ANIMALS Report on

International Symposium on Prevention from Deer and Other Mammal Damages to Planted Young Trees

8nw A a n m mnxkn30-d 4 pays!~qnd pu13 pa?!pa wodw

OZIddIP Kq paaosuods mn!sodurKg

gi$J5z&g 32

a@p#j(z d; 3 *%*$sga>ar;ilk jg8 r;g@g ............................................. 3

? IJ 2 ( ~ $ 5 I t 6 ~ 4 $ a > ~ n ~ ~ & 2346% Dr. Peter Savill .............................. 5

ORIGINAL ENGLISH VERSION Silvicultural Problems and Approaches to Them in Great Britain Dr. Peter Savill ........................................................................... , 76

The History, Development and Use of Treeshelters in Britain Mr. Gary Kerr ............................................................................. .8 4

Thoughts on the Effective Use of Treeshelters to Regenerate Forests in Japan Mr. Gary Kerr ............................................................... 89 Tree Shelters and Other Methods For Reducing Deer Damage to Hardwood Regeneration in the Eastern United States Dr. Gary W. Miller ........................................................................ 93

Dr. G. W. Miller orest st Service , Northeastern Forest Experiment Station)

Za)%SIi, 7 % 11 ne*m%%bcsblT %%mBmTB%SfiTb\&d%&KMT& E % l a ) ~ * W a r ~ 7 ~ ? ? ~ & Lf:Ba)T&a. + a , a - n ~ , Y ~ - ~ c ~ J J * ~ I w ~ t )r i:'t9 T S Z 7TblS%S?%i%5tt:tbl:%@fih fiTb~&;fjEEc:9blT@3Ta Z 2 cc L f = b l o

r ~ r 9 LcTamci, M T ~ B 4 ?hao 1) ra)a&l=;k;biTfza&@%@i:w.j$i

ta&%4m!E*%f+kH%% n=x~a)rn7 BI:cJb>T

2) i%[;a::f@kOJ%??-if&&b@.Ta) norhern red

oak ( Quercus rubra f 3 ) a)E% 3: m.f % 3$iaBn7%i:3b1-C

3) 9 n s .L a a ~ a ) ~ a ) 2 ~ m ~ 9 ~ , 6 )r

+ a ) ~ ~ ? e i % ~ ~ ~ : t b s ~ ~ s ~ ~ n ~ b ~ a +gb:9blT

4) red oak a)E%a)f'.&l:%SK~i.I & b% m i : B % R S n T 3 f : ~ I ) - Y ~ ) b 9 - a ) @ &a)@H&$%b.I3b1T

7 % '1 nX%a)d%&a)S#ti, %$lti% RfkRa)%%!!? Cf.X%E%%&K Lfc B ol T&- f:o %%%ZDLG%&a)X%E%% f i = X A l i , UTa) k i 1=87Tb1& (Beck

1988)o

1) 4 ~ R ~ ~ % ~ C ~ ~ E R l : ~ 1 ; T ~ ? F S .tLTb) f:@&b%%Lf:%&a)%Lb1%&s'ta b a)

2)e#a)%B1$5hb;/J.Cb13%&LTb~ f:%&b- 't a 6 a)

3) BR*~)W 9 %eR-nabiw Lr=b ol Wi%Btll:+IJH -2 kLTbl& G a)@ 5 GTM.

yellow-poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera 1 '1 1 q), white ash ( Fraxinus americana I' $ '1 x), red maple ( ~ c e r rubrum f r ~ 7 ) . sweet birch (Betula lenta A ; / I \ ' ) , black

cherry (Prunus serotina Sf 3 4 ) a ?p%a) ~ l c i , EI B-~c-I -P~ I, s it f ir f , Y X S ~ ) r:na)e);Fwcib.tLr.mgc:w L M ~ ~ 1 . 1

#N755J%Et& Z )r-hCwET&ao +?tLJ%

%a)&@, fl k lP red oak, white oak (Quercus alba 9 7 ) , h l i American basswood

f P W 1' fi: t.3 ;f 4 Liriodendron tulipifera

Betula lenta X

Tilia americana X

Acer rubrum X

Acer saccharum X

Quercus rubra X

Quercus veltina X

Quercus alba X

Quercus prinus X

Carya SPP. X Fraxinus americana X

Prunus serotina X

Magnolia acuminata X

Robinia pseudoacacia X

Fagus grandifolia X

1) n@%nE*-htN*L;&% L f i * * % t o 2) Beck 19881: 1 b,

(Tilia arnericana .j 9 1 3) , sugar maple ( ~ c e r

saccharum +f b 3 A=?). American beech

( ~ a ~ u s grandifolia 7-f) 8 ? Ci , E%fl j d < b > < t:ii, & b%P E&B9 Tb>k%#?!JJ I)t%&bO%&I.:&t LT$i3b88i;kC%tsb al.1 (Z!? 1 B,R), &8f lO 2 Z 5T13, black cheny 6 , bjb&Ldt)+53I.:B97b> f:%&t:@;fFL?kb\k. 5 3 <E%flT3?2 L.\ (~a rqu i s and others 1992),

X ~ E R C : L a g @ a m x i i , *ma4 I+2 tkREC=%%S &So EP@O&*RtkT < I) jl>L L#FlC:%%AhTb>Cil%, ERC:

B b > (H@B) &@jlsE% LTb> < , sugar

maple a k j 8 * C i & E & k b>aaT k < E % L, & 9 2 Zhh%i*O%b>P7iTCd red

mapleOd:5?2*flE%$bo t L T B 6 % E 8 b a H t T c:cd, t 5 Lf:42Ra 4% 8 b . American beech ?sweet birch f l&E %&dt)b OT&& (~rimble 1973)0 Btkfta) 1

i 88bO42R;R;3.'fT;hkL-r, _tM#EOk3 33-jlfBjlb;kb t . &%S,fl& I) P L tile%, black cherry ? yellow-poplar 2 b > 9 f: 6 EEL.> (RB) #@jlf. a&&#O k bbiSi1: @ + b I i C @ & , t LT, a a & i * O k I)

%b>fitLCi red maple, sassafras (Sassafras

albidum Y Y ? ~ .i'=). 0akf@b!~3CiC@ b o sugar maple, American beech 13, @@ ITRMIC:$TC:8b>R&a%#fl&;kf%, $&bO42Raf&T?ii 0 &S,r$-b k 5 C:hs fZ5i . &*Rtk%< I ) ~ ; i L T b ~ & M i i E Bt:S&b~&@f?ctflE%t 67F, Btk?K& @42R29Li%, .S 3 Fdtsl@OE%%9Z& @* b )f b ) 5 L k C:&& S ;kt; b l (~r imble

1973)o

E%etli:&%'OB$Ea>i%tzii, &b%Pe a ~ 9 ~ ~ % ~ a ~ + ~ 3 s ~ f a ~ a b ~ ~ , @4+%4%a9%7F% Lb>6 a f l b > < 9683 6, flL1.f, m!kO red oak a>%&fl@6 k

< &f T 3 b#%Olh7!?Qlt;rD[pl.. %Lb> af:&a>$Xya-)I&Q%L$&TL.l&, tc #%DFPT@Q%*b:akL&-/J\?i&ii, L I : L ~ , o a k i a ~ ~ c : ~ ~ a f i ~ + t r - l f j ~ . W*$F%&ktf~%?9JC: red oak O#M-n'Yh 3 f:@&@j%i:k 3 -03 ED&%%C:~CJT iwa>-k3 S-w9r:&i:-/J\&9-cbl& =: (4 .~>saL;ms. 13', WRQI%%, WL;-/J\C:a9cbl& oftis is 1990)0 q#t7ff3 f 71Ll&ka>K%##a>bZ

ftQ TiiSfPl;, #~BOBb~Mga)a*;a~@C:-F @ % & & T b l & f J > b T h & ( ~ i l l e r 1997 ; Smith 1993a), Z 3 L T , 7': 2 RoakO#$#fl r:< S ~ h 9 f ~ l : L?;;. B t D # + i , t + L L;D#@Crl~l\Sb>Qa>tf L, & 3 % 9 T b ,

~~~iw&i:i~uc 3 r:aEa+bqw 2 a>%+ C:@;ibf ~2xCAf Lb>, fffilL;, %Lb>

#mlra ; l t a oak 0 ~ t q i a 3 G a C : h 9 T L d i D T h & , rDgdl%Cd, && R*~>@B~~~c:%C:R%C:W~TL.~&~ + i LkZB!iTi*ca, oak 2%b>&i%@;3'?9J&

fi16 oak L O & L ~ ~ E + Q ~ L T ~ G - / J \ G T h & (~orimer l993), #%%ia, oak a>=

>75C:L &h%C;t;, 7% 'I 75RBTQ)K% %a>E#s%lQ&?:LTb>&@kOWBO

-9CZa3Tb\b0 2ACLL&&~O%i' ,BO A 3 l I i , 375O%2fa>f*T975-n '&~

6 i t & h $ B D f 2D#MM$%OB ti:&&

( ~ a q u i s 1974 ; Marquis 1988 ; Marquis and others 1992 ; Tiighrnan 1989), &%a%&, 9 75a>B&F&<. & 4 L ; h & h B i ~ 9 t c I t ; k

1%. 9 a tatz1Ur%s;kr:izfi1t~ ~i~iai:& &#J*ePdCEukh4T L a L.h, ?O%R, @ # f i ~ T B t l b ~ L 2 i : a ~ ~ L L a ~ - / J \ h j h b ~ (B l ) , 2 a i : a s f z i i . E%O%2&@

Effect on Deer Reseneration

Failure

Monoculture

Species shifi

Success

Excess competition

lrn~act

Very high (5)

High (4)

Moderate (3)

Low (2)

Very low (1)

6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48

Deer population (number1259 ha)

I R ~ ~ E % K W ~ 5 n m m

as1 * Y ' l - - i r J C 9 - - i t , 2SlZlh'%3qM, iZf* a>tWtl%Sb&&. '/hO)&%Ffil%Pb (ME=H.C. Smith),

~aa,rn~c:~~~~djf:;i~~~~~dj~. ~ x ~ ~ ~ ~ m a m + ~ * a ~ ~ : i a , &sc:6: 9 7, sugar maple, white ash, oak% 2 b > 9 f:

icti%&C:BBah3 b1&@aB&#f Me:% 9 L T L L 5 ikC: tc ! ld%T&b. 2 5 L ?:%%?dcEMMC:;ht:qTE< t , 251, striped maple (Acer pensylvanicum 55 ~ 7 ) , I S k ~ 1 9 f :*Wd%@aE%QmBt&#

@ . n ' w n a t ~ : i l , t s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o%a)~: @OtkRflt7;hkLTjRri LbbZ&-=?G%flrjftE LCrt:C@f:?%9,. > n l : 6 : b h s G t , Wf ts @sa>lt+??i&R;a9, -i75-hS;fjL 9 H d Q b )

striped maple ?If Q)6: 5 a # @ O k $ % & R;a99+iib2 kC:7k97b1<, L*L, @$& a>&$c;tr, B R 9 T j E Z 9 Z k i ) f & b O 2 b1

? O M , 6: 923 L b ~ # @ o d % I t i & L <

%?% L T l.1 b pin cherry runus us pensylvanica

9 3 f ), >3?31fkb>9f:@@Eb;t:>Ai$fH itra~, + Q ) S ~ ' B ~ r t ~:a5&1;~8,b, L i ! : $ q ~ , 259ha ( = l Y f i ~ d k ) %f: 0 s i ) ~ c ; 2 0 ~ o > n a y ~ ~ ~ a c ; . raa %Tit, Fn7Sii.4~ C a b l T , BR, > 75 i3.G S@aBLkBt 5 d <%J$U%R77%8LT b1C-f b (B 1 ),

b \ g $ d TSEtat .3 3 . &%C:>75aB .n'?%b)%&, black chenya 6: 5 7kk@@m@ @?2&1?&@B24S3St L T I i , BZMQZ2 ~$&a) .n '@%~T&b. ~ ~ # ~ ~ % l % H i A ,

lOhaa#%C:%HT& 2 L 7 , m%f: 95.74

FIL (hai!$t:o 7 3 0 F j ~ ) T&bo - i n s 0 S ~ W B G M C : A ~ W E ~ T , ~66a-a L ~.l&@.n.'~%tsa~r;rt~~~s~~~, tad1 O&t@tDB&i:%97?3j t9$%1;h& 6: 5 Q%&C:C3., L a 3 3 b b ~ - r , + D E i & a

- i n % d ~ ~ & B T $ a2ats 6 , $l!O~B#B % T 3 b O

5 Yl ahdo%lca, P 3 Lb4itf*l:m&

i :5x)b9-??f i$L7, X%E%, AXE% % ~ b $ b & d Q B C I & % t b 2 k K 6 : 9 7

BST ?r b (5g 1 ) (Marquis 1977 ; Smith

1993b ; Walter 1993), @%Jt)E% 3 1: 6: b %&oAIE%Ct, ~ @ a & b ~ B l a ~ * c :

Sheltered Control

Years

H 2 @%k $ hknorthern red oakOlB*C0~&3

Years

El 3 @% $ h t~northern red oakOlE*OlYk$

33

FE5fiTfTt9fiTB 4, t 5 Lt:EEfl@% d - X T % & S t L T b > b a ) i i . R%a)&%% #%Ti&, &@&@b>&%t?CfT& b0 A 1 Z%Ei2 , B*, %Zo&tIEb=$i? 9 \ X%% E Q % % ~ I L T f i t 9 h ~ b ~ b o ) - P & b . 1990 +UEi :2$ f i& .TQ~k Q E < % & $ t L f c A

LEjffikb>;ii%, i%d?T%Tf: northern red oak OE*%@;il$bf, +fib:;Pf x f 4 .i,

9 a ) Y l ) - > ~ ) L 9 - 2 d > x * t c b n T &

&, ZO-)i.%id%b:norhemredoak bZ%,fi%? t: Q ? ? & a o t b > 5 012, ZO@I iX

%E%dS3it3dt)-C&L<, L d b & % % H t L TQ@fli% < , .h19B&Bb%9.ks$BiRi. t L T ~ f i 9 t ~ & s l ; - c - & b . TLT, ra*ia~ I ) - Q = ~ w - - e m b > a t i < B S W & Z ~ dP%% 3 ;kt: (Schuler and Miller 1996),

a, iT%+IEL- L T i i , r5 L T h , *tk (irtJii2) lT%dbEtkl+%a)%kM 1: h 3 f: t 3 a)%a)% i:ZPi*P@Ri$if, me1: 7 1) - . ~ L I L ~ - % + S - ~ Z , ~ + W & & ~ 7 % 11 a R%a>/kG#TLA, t i LtzEi%i2WF% 500 ha ffZ%?r"%3%$ hTb>a0 t kLi2#%m%

a) 1 %UTT&;S,

w w $ ; c = L a t , o a k o ~ t # % ~ ~ ~ ; k t:B%@&i:@% L Lj;%&, Y 'I - Q ll l L 9 -id28*a)!k69%&&& 2 2 Q b:EE%a

b ?8!fR %%@tb (smith 1993b ; Schuler and Miller 1996)0 %%;r;fm 1:1&& 7': 853 (%8) tk8ffhTh R @ T W alter 1993), @ % s 5 5 $%, > = IL 9 - 9lgffl Lt:EdiO%@l&$&i2 1.8 mQOC:f$ L, .I$i H L a $ - t:i%*ii 0.9 m (me- Ya)B2), %%O!kW?5dS95% tsa)i:3$ L, f&%a)4$ q i i 5 5 % T & & (me- Ya)@3), > x I L 9

- 9 4 2 H L 8 ~ 2 2 , oakO%&a)#&h, &I KI$l$5 fit:E* Q . 9 15 b: 1 lib&%+%$? %s@#3t:RctT, &6qiilii< t s b o

Y~) ->S" , '&~-O~)~@T#&&E$.~&%S fiaaii, >15a)+sm&imtLlib t : & ~ &

b alter 1993 ; Smith 1993b), 5 i? > -r lb

9 - rjt]%aT$$bfl& < 2 & (potter 1988) k dl, _T@ik%%a)i&I$$$5 < 2 lib (~ayhead

and Jones 1991) 2 +a)%$?%%%lY@B < a at :&~; t ja , ngwiw aaa)ci, ~ Y I

@&%d'&#.$filibf:&T;bj !I (Walter 1993), a k?nmeamfimsfi-c-%h:s < tsa f z & > z 1 ~ 9 - % & S k L f : E * f l H B D % e TbBstB~t%+M1:bt:3T~iFgi=l;i & 6 T & lib (Schuler and Miller 1996)0 -i s. I b 9 - % ~ ~ f i ~ : Z P i * a ) ~ ~ b : ~ S ~ I % & L f c r l , 7 7 x f 4 .;r 3%a)%$%S&%St Lt: 4 LT@!k%?#Jf@Tbf?i&ci, .i, I) -7 r I L 9 -f2bfa)%$b:k4T. b~ < b s i i & EB2&%$%&dt)%dS, t 5 L7':SidSZi-

mi:$jea Q a ) k i i a 3 T b > t c b > o

Btki&.~=%b>-(r@H Sf i t : 1) - 2 IL 9

- O B R i i , &%Sfit:28*2 X%!ka)%B a)b\%fii:f$ L T %$b 6 Qb> (Schulerand

Miller1996)o ??;3'5, 7 ' ) - 9 z I b 9 - i d ,

X%T!% Lf.:oaka)%t#a)EE%+&, !kG d & & & % € I @ T E R S t & L 2 d f T 3 . df:,

X%Z%a)%%k L T , && b>id#%%ga) R H % & ~ : T F Z @ ~ : % ~ ~ J T B ! Z R ~ W ~ T&fc&i:, XUa)B*%M%L. 5 r I L 9 - 9 ~ m ~ s t t91'T$&t9CSTdjb~

711 - 9 r ) L 9 - b 3 B & O oak i:%$f@i: $3f:7T~$JG%i+Bdjt=L&7F, l 2 3 h f:E*9 3 bi:EBKhf:7T@%i:&%S anl < t:&i:ca, rfiurP1.l: 6 W R U ~ T f 2 T d ~ & Z T d j & b 1 7 ?:A/, %*a$Rf -/Jf ~ ' ) - - i r ) L 9 - c 3 k % (13CE1.6mc3&$) dll;&lt&$d: 5 C:G& 1:. E*O#&&S t e a s 1) - - i 1 1 1 1 ~ 9 - - Q @ - + ? ~ b 1 t C b l E * 1 :

irc2[;il c < c; L.lO 6 a1:1&7;-6-& (B 2 )o

+;kc:an;i~, ~ ~ c : ~ i e ~ ~ b ~ a g m o m SjlfY 1) --ir)L9-??@*f:ipj*a&3 1: R E & , djbblC3.i3b1BLTLQ 5 1 : b l i W

&7F, MBf&6+HfPb 8$Hi:&btT%kL & t k7Fk < $6. WB5hkLTbl&R%f& Q&t1: LTia , Yl ) - - i r )L9-%$&Lt: U k 9 U k 9 O E * l Z 9 b l T , @$?i!JgCL, R% L T # & L T b ~ b M @ a % B W 7 T & Z %%El L T 9 . 5 L I r d ~ ~ h k L T b ~ b o L 5 L f ~ @ t % f i h h b l t C 1 ; . Y l ) - - i r )L9-Q 4&-@f:E*T2&,7T6, 2-3$OlitjC:ba % ~ $ & % @ K B l f T % E L T L 3 i T d j 3 i . &Za%fifr&tci, #Z7FH# L T , W TfZbl Hf&aH*df%f:a#%a+TB+c: s - cawswawzamwa a T, 5 + ;3.c,lo+c:wxcaxsc:aa ~-ah:,k~~ L a k i GMfifr&tBm%M%lftCbthifG 1; t?b~adle:9b\Tca, WBa 1: z 3 h & b able L ~ L . ~ * ~ T , ~i ~t:&ti:s-6-~ b - 9 ) L 22 b 7 F b > < 5c:a&&i:9b\T&, W@,6Tca2d~TtCb~0

EE7FEb%laaMaEEB@B L&%$ H m, & a b l c a m w t r b 1 t C b l e

@ ~ m & a # * 9 > n e : L & h B d ~ b 3 & k b\7f:H@C:di, Y l ) - ' J r ) L 9 - a @ H f l # % T s bo +&7/f7?711IfiTIi, red oak o&%@k%*tQ&&bt:&C:, *a L i 8flI' I.'? I' 'Jdf@bkLTbab (Schuler and Miller 1996)0

1 Y I I - ' / Z I L ~ - ~ ~ + ~ G E . E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 6 Ir TRblb L 20 %#!Ca$.fftOdjk.

dj b b~l;t@#&.fftRQ)dj Ir b:4%H-F b0 9 r )b$-B&Lf:E*Ol&%$9@%6&< -F b f . & T & & o

2 k@iFk%f&i?t? < , ht:W 'l#fPb% t l f z k Lsi:&&%R3kLf:E*&b~Lx% Eka~#c:9r)L9-$-&-FLIr0 - i x ) L 9

- Q R W L ~ . E * ~ J w w 1 ; a & n f : w i a d j a b a k % e + b r 1: 9~1 t s t :&-c& b 0

3 $&< t & 1.5mBD-ix1L9-BH blbZ1:o '/nc:k bh#B%Cf:&T&b.

4 > r ) L 9 - 9 E + l Z h f : 9 T E 2 $ * T$ltbRlSU13&3 % R 7 f : 1 S x Y 4 Y 9 gab1 ~7 P ~ / ~ - ~ ~ z ~ a a + z ~ m ~ / ~ a z k 0

5 ~ * d f > x 1 L 9 - ~ k ~ f P ~ ~ 9 X L T, B e T 3 a k i c : G % 3 T . 5-6+M, 9x)L9-IrZ@a,6t&1:R+%qi-i L 20

6 >r)b9-%$&$hf:#*-/Jf%Lbl#

~ a + l r ; ~ + c : l T & k i I:&& 3T, HB a@%1:a%$?%Q@-FbFR~9l.kbr 1: 0

Y ~ ) - ~ L ) ~ ~ - G ~ @ H ~ Z ~ L T , $61: E%i).'&Ze%ti, -F?Z-PA+? 3 b, USDA Forest Service

Timber and Watershed Laboratory

P.O. Box 404

Parsons, West Virginia 26287 USA

Fax: 304-478-8692

&#E%lbL~;f?b2nag;~liZmLT, 5 b C:~%%iFaGStlZli, TEZTA%T & bo USDA Forest Service

Forestry Sciences Laboratory

P.O. Box 267

Irvine. Pennsylvania 16329 USA

Fax: 814-563-1048

Beck, D.E. 1988. Regenerating cove hardwood

stands. In: Smith, H.C.; Perkey, A.W.; Kidd,

W.E! Eds. Proceedings: Guidelines for

regenerating Appalachian hardwood stands;

1988 May 24-26; Morgantown,WV. SAF

Publication 88-03. Morgantown, WV: West

Virginia University Books and USDA Forest

Service: 156- 166.

Loftis, D.L. 1990. Predicting post-harvest

performance of advance red oak reproduction

in the southern Appalachians. Forest Science.

36(4):908-916.

Lorimer, C.G. 1993. Causes of the oak

regeneration problem. In: Loftis, D.L. McGee,

C.E. eds. 1993. Oak regeneration: Serious

problems, practical recommendations.

Symposium Proceedings; 1992 September 8-10;

Knoxville, Tennessee. General Technical

Report SE-84. Asheville, NC : USDA Forest

Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment

Station. 14-39. Marquis, D.A. 1974. The impact of deer browsing

on Allegheny hardwood regeneration. Research

Paper, NE-308. Upper Darby, PA: USDA

Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment

Station. 8p.

Marquis, D.A. 1977. Devices to protect seedlings

from deer browsing. Research Note, NE-243.

Upper Darby, PA: USDA Forest Service,

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 7 p.

Marquis, D.A. 1987. Silvicultural techniques for

circumventing deer damage. In: Symposium

proceedings, Deer, forestry, and agriculture :

interactions and strategies for management.

1987 June I 5-17. Warren. PA: Plateau and

Northern Hardwood Chapters, Allegheny

Society of American Foresters. 125-1 36.

Marquis, D.A. 1988. Guidelines for regenerating

cherry-maple stands. In: Smith, H.C.; Perkey,

A.W.; Kidd, W.E. Eds. Guidelines for

regenerating Appalachian hardwood stands;

Symposium Proceedings: 1988 May 24-26;

Morgantown,WV. SAF Publication 88-03 . Morgantown, WV: West Virginia University

Books and USDA Forest Service: 167-188.

Marquis, D.A., Ernst, R.L., and Stout, S.L. 1992.

Prescribing silvicultural treatments in

hardwood stands of the Alleghenies. USDA

Forest Service, General Technical Report, NE- 96. [Revised].

Mayhead, G.J; Jones, D. 1991 . Carbon dioxide

concentrations within tree shelters. Quarterly

Joumal of Forestry. 75(4):228-232.

Miller, G.W. 1997. Effect of stand density and

structure on the abundance of northern red oak

advance reproduction. In: Spiecker H, Rogers

R, Somogyi Z., comps. IUFRO Proceedings,

Advances in Research in Intermediate Oak

Stands, July 27-30, 1997. University of

Freiburg: Freiburg, Germany. p. 160-17 1.

Potter, M.J. 1988. Tree shelters improve survival

and early growth rates. Journal of Forestry.

86(8) : 39-41.

Schuler, T.M. and Miller, G.W. 1996. Guidelines

for using tree shelters to regenation northern

red oak. In: Brissette, J.C., ed. Proceedings of

the Tree Shelter Conference; 1995 June 20-22;

Harrisburg, PA. General Technical Report NE- 221. Radnor, PA: USDA Forest Service,

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 37-45.

Smith, H.C. 1993a. Regenerating oaks in the

central Appalachians. In: Loftis, D.L. McGee,

C.E. eds. 1993 . Oak regeneration: Serious

problems, practical recommendations.

Symposium Proceedings; 1992 September 8-

10; Knoxville, Tennessee. General Technical

Report SE-84. Asheville, NC : USDA Forest

Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment

Station. 21 1 -221 . Smith H.C. 1993b. Development of red oak

seedlings using plastic shelters on hardwood

sites in West Virginia. Research Paper, NE-

672. Radnor, PA: USDA Forest Service,

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 7 p.

Trimble, G.R. 1973. The regeneration of central

Appalachian hardwoods with emphasis on the

effects of site quality and harvesting practice.

Research Paper. NE-282. Upper Darby, PA:

USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest

~ x ~ e r i h e n t Station. 14 p.

Tilghman, N.G. 1989. Impacts of white-tailed

deer on forest regeneration in northwestern

Pennsylvania. Journal of Wildlife Management.

53(3): 524-532.

Walters, R. S. 1993. Protecting red oak seedlings

with tree shelters in northwestern Pennsylvania.

Research Paper, NE-679. Radnor, PA: USDA

Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment

Station. 5 p.