This documentation file was generated on 2019-10-18 by Thomas D. Stokely ------------------- # GENERAL INFORMATION ------------------- 1. Title: Deer-mediated ecosystem service vs. disservice depends on forest management intensity - Dataset 2. Creator Information Name: Thomas D. Stokely Institution: Oregon State University College, School or Department: College of Forestry, Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society Address: 321 Richardson Hall, Corvallis, Oregon 97331 Email: thomas.stokely@oregonstate.edu ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6044-5886 Role: Postdoc, Primary Author 3. Collaborator information Name: Matthew G. Betts Institution: Oregon State University. College, School or Department: College of Forestry, Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society Address: 321 Richardson Hall, Corvallis, Oregon 97331 Email: matthew.betts@oregonstate.edu ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7100-2551 Role: Professor, Secondary Author Name: Jake Verschuyl Institution: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. Address: P.O. Box 1259, Anacortes, WA 98221 Email: jverschuyl@NCASI.org Role: Director of Forest Research, Collaborator Name: Zhiqiang Yang Institution: Oregon State University College, School or Department: College of Forestry, Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society Address: 321 Richardson Hall, Corvallis, Oregon 97331 Email:zhiqiang.yang@oregonstate.edu Role: Courtesy Faculty, Collaborator 3. Contact Information Name: Thomas D. Stokely Institution: Oregon State University College, School or Department: College of Forestry, Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society Address: 321 Richardson Hall, Corvallis, Oregon 97331 Email: thomas.stokely@oregonstate.edu ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6044-5886 Name: Matthew G. Betts College, School or Department: College of Forestry, Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society Address: 321 Richardson Hall, Corvallis, Oregon 97331 Email: matthew.betts@oregonstate.edu ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7100-2551 ------------------- CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION ------------------- 1. Abstract This dataset consists of planted crop-tree growth metrics (Pseudotsuga menziesii), non-crop tree vegetation metrics, and foraging data for black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus) and Roosevelt elk (Cervus canadensis rooseveli) collected from the Intensive Forest Management experiment, Oregon Coast Range, USA, 2011-2016. The objective of the experiment was to quantify the effects of silvicultural herbicide treatments on biodiversity and ecosystem functions. MANUSCRIPT ABSTRACT As global terrestrial biodiversity declines via land-use intensification, society has placed increasing value on non-commercial species as providers of ecosystem services. Yet, many deer species and non-crop plants are perceived negatively when they decrease crop productivity, leading to reduced economic gains and human-wildlife conflict. We hypothesized that deer provide an ecosystem service in forest plantations by controlling competition and promoting crop-tree growth, although the effects of herbivory may depend on forest management intensity. If management negatively affects foraging habitat at local and landscape scales, then we expected browsing to shift to less-palatable crop trees. To test these hypotheses, we established a 5-year experiment that manipulated early forest management intensity via herbicide treatments and access of two deer species to vegetation via exclosures. Contrary to our hypothesis, deer provided an ecosystem service at high management intensities and a disservice occurred with low-intensity management. Crop-tree growth and survival was greatest when herbivory and herbicides suppressed broadleaf regeneration. In contrast, crop-tree growth was lowest when broadleaf vegetation was retained and crop-trees were subject to both browse damage and competition. We found a positive, yet variable, association between deer detections and stand- and landscape-scale broadleaf habitat, and despite initial reductions in forage, herbivory pressure was similar among management intensities. When broadleaf vegetation was suppressed by herbicides and herbivory, selection of herbaceous forage by deer intensified, likely aiding in the service. Overall, our findings indicate that the effects of vegetation management for promoting timber production are highly dependent on the presence of large herbivores. Synthesis and applications: Although deer are thought to reduce crop productivity in many systems, we found that herbivory switched from reducing crop tree growth where non-crop vegetation was retained, to promoting crop tree growth when both herbivory and herbicides suppressed competing vegetation. However, the provision of this ecosystem service is likely contingent on the amount of forage available in the landscape and subsequent foraging pressure. We conclude that nature's capacity to provide ecosystem services depends on the intensity of management at local and landscape scales. 2. Context of the research project that this dataset was collected for. The objectives of the research were to quantify the effects of deer herbivory on forest plantations subject to a variety of herbicide treatments, including an untreated control. We hypothesized that by selectively browsing non-crop tree vegetation (specifically woody-broadleaved species, hereafter-broadleaf species), deer provide an ecosystem service to forest plantations, but the degree to which herbivory favors crop trees may depend on management intensity. When broadleaf plants are retained in less intensive management regimes, selective foraging should control competing vegetation, thereby releasing crop trees. The opposite should be true when heavier herbicide treatments reduce forage availability and crop-tree browse damage intensifies. Further, we expected that greater amounts of broadleaf habitat at stand and landscape scales should increase the prevalence of deer in plantations, resulting in a greater effect of herbivory on forest regeneration. In order to test these hypotheses, we established a large-scale intensive forest management experiment, which manipulated both vegetation management intensity and access to vegetation by deer in young forest plantations of the Oregon Coast Range, USA. 3. Date of data collection: 2011-6-15 - 2016-12-15 4. Geographic location of data collection: West_Bounding_Coordinate: -123.35 East_Bounding_Coordinate: -123.8333 North_Bounding_Coordinate: 45.75 South_Bounding_Coordinate: 44.7333 5. Funding sources that supported the collection of the data: Funding was provided by the United States Department of Agriculture, Agriculture and Food Research Initiative grant (AFRI-2009-04457, AFRI-2015-67019-23178), the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc., the Oregon Forest Industries Council, and the Oregon State University College of Forestry (Giustina Family Research grant, Noble fund, Fish and Wildlife Habitat in Managed Forests grant, Dean’s fund and Institute for Working Forest Landscapes). -------------------------- SHARING/ACCESS INFORMATION -------------------------- 1. Licenses/restrictions placed on the data: This work is on the Public Domain 2. Links to publications related to the dataset: Stokely, T. D., M. G. Betts. Deer-mediated ecosystem service vs. disservice depends on forest management intensity. Journal of Applied Ecology. In press. 4. Recommended citation for the data: Stokely, T. (2019) Deer-mediated ecosystem service vs. disservice depends on forest management intensity - Dataset [Version 1]. (Dataset) Oregon State University https://doi.org/10.7267/1r66j709p 5. Dataset Digital Object Identifier (DOI) https://doi.org/10.7267/1r66j709p -------------------------- VERSIONING AND PROVENANCE -------------------------- 1. Last modification date 2019-10-15 2. Was data derived from another source? The landscape-scale broadleaf amount data (BROADLEAF.LANDSCAPE) were derived from the Gradient Nearest Neighbor Analysis, which integrates remote sensing with the USDA Forest Inventory Analysis 3. Additional related data collected that was not included in the current data package: -------------------------- METHODOLOGICAL INFORMATION -------------------------- 1. Description of methods used for collection/generation of data: The experiment was conducted using a repeated-measures, split-plot, complete-block design, with three fixed factors, deer and elk exclusion plots (225m^2 plots) herbicide treated stands (~13 ha stands) and time (5 sampling seasons). Within each exclosure and open plot (allowing deer and elk access), we repeatedly measured tagged crop trees (planted Pseudotsuga menziesii). For each crop tree, we measured the bole diameter at 10 cm from the root collar, height from the uphill side of each tree and presence or absence of browse damage. From 12 1x1m quadrats, systematically located within each open and excluded plot, we measured the visual cover by plant species and calculated the average height per species per plot. In open plots, we measured the presence or absence of browse damage for each species in each 1x1m quadrat. In the open plot, we deployed a camera trap (Bushnell Trophy Camera, model 119436) and set the camera to capture continuously when triggered by motion and body heat. Camera traps were in operation from May-October for each year from 2012 to 2015. In 2014 for excluded and open plots, we also planted two big-leafed maple seedlings (Acer macrophyllum) to test the effects of herbivory on a consistently planted broadleaf species. In the fall of 2015, we clipped, dried (55 deg C) and weighed the aboveground biomass of each living maple. With the help of Zhiqiang Yang, we used Gradient Nearest Neighbor Analysis to identify 30x30 m pixels, defined as early successional broadleaf habitat (i.e. mean quadratic diameter less than 10cm and with dominant broadleaf composition). 2. Methods for processing the data: To estimate crop tree volume (CROP.VOLUME), we calculated the bole-only volume of a cone (1/3*pi*r^2*height) and summed the volume among all trees, divided by the area sampled to obtain volume/ha. To estimate crop tree basal area (CROP.BASAL), we calculated the cicular area of each tree bole (pi*r^2) and summed the area among all trees To estimate crop tree height (CROP.HEIGHT), we took an average height of all crop trees. To estimate crop tree survival (CROP.ALIVE; CROP.DEAD), we tabulated the number of alive and dead trees, which were tagged in the beginning of the experiment. To estimate the cover of herbaceous (HERB.COVER), fern (FERN.COVER), broadleaf (BROAD.COVER) and forage (FORAGE.COVER) and non-forage species (NONFORAGE.COVER), we summed the plot-level cover of all species within each group, as defined in Appendix S2, Table S1. To estimate the average height of herbaceous (HERB.HEIGHT), broadleaf and fern (FERN.HEIGHT) species (BROAD.HEIGHT), we took an average height of all species within each group across all quadrats. To estimate planted maple biomass (MAPLE.BIOMASS), we added the biomass measurements between the two clipped maples. To estimate deer and elk detections from camera traps (DEER.DETECTIONS), we summed the total number of photos taken of individual deer and elk, divided by the number of days that cameras were operating to obtain an average number of photos taken per day. To estimate stand-scale broadleaf abundance (BROADLEAF.STAND), we took the average cover of broadleaf species between both open and excluded plots. To estimate landscape-scale broadleaf abundance (BROADLEAF.LANDSCAPE), we summed the number of pixels defined as broadleaf habitat within a 5km radius from each exclosure plot. To estimate the frequency of browsed and non-browsed broadleaf species (BROWSE.BROADN, BROWSE.BROADY, respectively) and browsed and non-browsed herbaceous species (BROWSE.HERBY, BROWSE.HERBN), we tabulated the number of species among all quadrats across all years with and without evidence of deer herbivory. To estimate the frequency of browsed and non-browsed crop trees (BROWSE.CROPY, BROWSE.CROPN), we summed the number of browsed and unbrowsed crop trees across all years. 2. Environmental/experimental conditions: Non-crop vegetation measurements were conducted during the peak in vegetation production for each year (~June-August), corresponding to the dry summer season in the region. For crop trees, we took measurement in the fall, when crop trees were at the peak in annual growth, corresponding to the moist fall and winter in the region. Camera traps were deployed from May-October for each year. 6. Describe any quality-assurance procedures performed on the data: We conducted rigorous quality-assurance procedures, cross checking data among years, double checking data entry and correcting data entry mistakes using raw datasheets. 7. People involved with sample collection, processing, analysis and/or submission: Data collection was assisted by A. Kern, E. Ireland, S. Gilsdorf, E. McClelland, J. Hannon, M. Hovland, T. Laird, D. Uzez, A. Comstock, T. Schrautemeier, M. Silbernagel, J. Gibson, Ellie Rondon and C. Mathis. --------------------- DATA & FILE OVERVIEW --------------------- 1. File List A. Filename: Stokely & Betts 2019_Journal of Applied Ecology_Supplimentary Data.csv Short description: This dataset consists of planted crop tree growth (Pseudotsuga menziesii), vegetation and wild-ungulate data. B. Filename: Stokely & Betts 2019_Journal of Applied Ecology_Geographical Information.csv Short description: This dataset consists of geographical data for the study sites reported in the supplimentary dataset. 2. Relationship between files: Stokely & Betts 2019_Journal of Applied Ecology_Geographical Information.csv reports the geographical parameters (land position, aspect, elevation, location) related to the dataset in Stokely & Betts 2019_Journal of Applied Ecology_Supplimentary Data.csv ----------------------------------------- TABULAR DATA-SPECIFIC INFORMATION FOR: Stokely & Betts 2019_Journal of Applied Ecology_Supplimentary Data.csv ----------------------------------------- 1. Number of variables: 29 2. Number of cases/rows: 309 3. Missing data codes: NA Data were either missing (i.e. no variable to measure) or not measured for the specific row (i.e., Year and Plot). 4. Variable List Name: YEAR Description: The year that data were recorded 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 Name: BLOCK Description: Experimental blocks which contain four experimental stands, each randomly assigned to an herbicide treatment The four stands per block were located a distance of 1-5 km from each other Name: STAND Description: Experimental stands that treatments were applied to, four replicated within each block Average stand size ~ 13 ha Name: HERBICIDE Description: Herbicide treatment, randomly assigned to each stand within each block Control - untreated; Light - 2011 herbaceous and 2012 broadleaf spray; Moderate - 2010 site preparation, 2011 herbaceous, 2012 coppice-sprouting maple sprays; Intensive 2010 site preparation, 2011-2013 herbaceous, 2011-2014 broadleaf spray Name: HERBIVORY Description: Herbivory exclusion plot, 15x15 m plots, randomly located within each stand. Excluded = deer and elk excluded, Open = deer and elk allowed access to vegetation Name: CROP.VOLUME Description: Planted crop-tree volume, estimated from the bole-only conical volume and summed across all individual Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) for each plot (m^3ha^-1) Name: CROP.BASAL Description: Planted crop-tree basal area, estimated from the area of tree boles (measured 10 cm from tree base) and summed across all individual Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) for each plot (m^2ha^-1) Name: CROP.HEIGHT Description: Planted crop-tree height, averaged across all individual Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) for each plot (cm) Name: CROP.ALIVE Description: Number of living crop trees (planted Pseudotsuga menziesii) for each plot Name: CROP.DEAD Description: Number of dead crop trees (planted Pseudotsuga menziesii) for each plot Name: HERB.COVER Description: Summed cover of all herbaceous plants (forbs and graminoids) for each plot Percent Name: FERN.COVER Description: Summed cover of all ferns for each plot Percent Name: BROAD.COVER Description: Summed cover of all woody broadleaf plants for each plot Percent Name: FORAGE.COVER Description: Summed cover of all woody broadleaf forage species for each plot Percent Name: NONFORAGE.COVER Description: Summed cover of all non-forage species for each plot Percent Name: HERB.HEIGHT Description: Average height of all herbaceous plants for each plot (cm) Name: FERN.HEIGHT Description: Average height of all ferns for each plot (cm) Name: BROAD.HEIGHT Description: Average height of all woody broadleaf plants for each plot (cm) Name: MAPLE.BIOMASS Description: Total aboveground biomass of planted maples (Acer macrophyllum) for each plot (g) Name: DEER.DETECTIONS Description: Average number of photos of individual Black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus) and Roosevelt elk (Cervus canadensis roosevelti) recorded per day throughout the sampling period (~May-October) per year. Photos/day Name: CROP.VOLUME(IN-OUT) Description: Difference in crop-tree volume between open and excluded plots (m^3ha^-1) Name: BROADLEAF.STAND Description: Stand-scale cover of broadleaf species, averaged between open and excluded plots Percent Name: BROADLEAF.LANDSCAPE Description: Area of broadleaf habitat defined by Gradient Nearest Neighbor Analysis (m^2) Name: BROWSE.BROADY Description: Number of quadrats with evidence of browse damage across all woody broadleaf forage species Name: BROWSE.BROADN Description: Number of quadrats without evidence of browse damage across all woody broadleaf forage species Name: BROWSE.HERBY Description: Number of quadrats with evidence of browse damage across all herbaceous forage species Name: BROWSE.HERBN Description: Number of quadrats without evidence of browse damage across all herbaceous forage species Name: BROWSE.CROPY Description: Number of individual crop trees (planted Pseudotsuga menziesii) with evidence of browse damage Name: BROWSE.CROPN Description: Number of individual crop trees (planted Pseudotsuga menziesii) without evidence of browse damage ----------------------------------------- TABULAR DATA-SPECIFIC INFORMATION FOR: Stokely & Betts 2019_Journal of Applied Ecology_Geographical Information.csv ----------------------------------------- 1. Number of variables: 10 2. Number of cases/rows: 29 3. Variable List Name: BLOCK Description: Experimental blocks which contain four experimental stands, each randomly assigned to an herbicide treatment The four stands per block were located a distance of 1-5 km from each other Name: STAND Description: Experimental stands that treatments were applied to, four replicated within each block Average stand size ~ 13 ha Name: HERBICIDE Description: Herbicide treatment, randomly assigned to each stand within each block Control - untreated; Light - 2011 herbaceous and 2012 broadleaf spray; Moderate - 2010 site preparation, 2011 herbaceous, 2012 coppice-sprouting maple sprays; Intensive 2010 site preparation, 2011-2013 herbaceous, 2011-2014 broadleaf spray Name: HERBIVORY Description: Herbivory exclusion plot, 15x15 m plots, randomly located within each stand. Excluded = deer and elk excluded, Open = deer and elk allowed access to vegetation Name: Aspect Description: Relative slope aspect of each plot Degrees Name: Slope Description: Relative steepness of slope Percent Name: Position (T) Description: Geographical position used for UTMs Name: UTM (E) Description: Easting UTM location Name: UTM (N) Description: Northing UTM location Name: ELEV Description: (m) Name: STAND AREA Description: Area of each stand, which treatments were applied (ha)