Preferencje żerowe saren w odniesieniu do różnych odmian jabłoni z punktu widzenia wykorzystania tego gatunku w urządzaniu łowisk leśnych

• Autorzy: Nasiadka P. , Bors K. , Wajdzik M. , Skubis J.

Warianty tytułu

EN

Preferences of roe deer to different varieties of apple from the point of view of managing the forest hunting grounds

• Języki publikacji: PL

Abstrakty

EN

The results of the inventory of damage caused by roe deer in a 2−year−old apple orchard in central Poland permitted to evaluate the browsing intensity as well as the relationship between biometric characteristics of trees and browsing intensity. The research showed that damage caused by the roe deer was mainly caused by shoot browsing, then rubbing the velvet antlers against trees and bark stripping. In one winter, roe deer damaged 35% of the orchard by browsing even up to 100% shoots on an individual tree. Significant differences were found between the intensity of browsing the different varieties of apple trees. The largest damage was noted in the case of the Ligol variety (35% of shoots on average), while the smallest – for the Idared and Golden Delicious varieties (approximately 5% of shoots on average). Branching and tree height were not found to affect the level of damage. When establishing forest hunting grounds, the Ligol variety, eagerly browsed by roe deer, should be planted on browsing plots, while Idared and Golden Delicious varieties – in orchards designed for fruiting.

Słowa kluczowe

PL

lowiectwo; zwierzeta lowne; sarny; preferencje pokarmowe; preferencje zerowe; szkody lowieckie; lowiska lesne; baza pokarmowa; jablonie; odmiany roslin; dobor odmian; urzadzanie lowisk

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Sylwan
• Rocznik: 2016
• Tom: 160
• Numer: 10
• Opis fizyczny: s.837-845,rys.,bibliogr.

Twórcy

autor

Nasiadka P.

• Samodzielny Zakład Zoologii Leśnej i Łowiectwa, Szkoła Główna Gospodarstwa Leśnego w Warszawie, ul.Nowoursynowska 159, 02-776 Warszawa

autor

Bors K.

autor

Wajdzik M.

• Zakład Bioróżnorodności Leśnej, Uniwersytet Rolniczy w Krakowie, al.29 Listopada 46, 31-425 Kraków

autor

Skubis J.

• Katedra Łowiectwa i Ochrony Lasu, Uniwersytet Przyrodniczy w Poznaniu, ul.Wojska Polskiego 71D, 60-625 Poznań

Bibliografia

• Andelt W. F., Baker D. L., Burnham K. P. 1992. Relative preference of captive cow elk for repellent-treated diets. Journal of Wildlife Management 56: 164-173.
• Andelt W. F., Burnham K. P., Manning J. A. 1991. Relative effectiveness of repellents for reducing mule deer damage. Journal of Wildlife Management 55: 341-347.
• Anthony R. G., Fisher A. R. 1977. Wildlife damage in orchards – a need for better management. Wildlife Society Bulletin 5 (3): 107-112.
• Błaszczyk J. 2011. Żer pędowy dla zwierzyny płowej. Biblioteczka Leśniczego 331.
• Bobek B., Morow K., Perzanowski K. 1984. Ekologiczne podstawy łowiectwa. PWRiL, Warszawa.
• Bobek B., Morow K., Perzanowski K., Kosobucka M. 1992. Jeleń. Monografia przyrodniczo-łowiecka. Wydawnictwo Świat, Warszawa
• Boyce A. P. 1950. Orchard damage. Michigan Conservationist 19: 9-10.
• Brown T. L., Decker D. J., Curtis P. D. 2004. Farmers’ estimates of economic damage from white-tailed deer in New York Satae. Human Dimeensions Research Unit Series 04-3. Department of Natural Resources, NY State College Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca NY, USA.
• Byers R. E., Carbaugh D. H., Presley C. N. 1990. Screening of odour and taste repellents for control of white-tailed deer browse to apples or apple shoots. Journal of Environmental Horticulture 8: 185-189.
• Curtis P. D., Rieckenberg R. 2005. Use of confident dogs for reducing deer damage to apple orchards. Proceedings of the 11th Wildlife Damage Management Conference.
• Dzięgielewski S. 1970. Jeleń. PWRiL, Warszawa.
• Fruziński B. 1989. Organizacja łowiska. W: Krupka J. [red.]. Łowiectwo. PWRiL, Warszawa. 373-386.
• Haber T., Pasławski T., Zaborowski S. 1977. Gospodarstwo łowieckie. PWN, Warszawa.
• Harder J. D. 1968. A literature review on orchard damage be deer. Colorado Department of Game. Fish and Parks Special Report 12.
• Hofmann R. 1989. Evolutionary steps of ecophysiological adaptation and diversification of ruminants: a comparative view of their digestive system. Oecologia 78: 443-457.
• Katsma D. E., Rusch D. H. 1980. Effects of simulated deer browsing on branches of apple trees. Journal of Wildlife Management 44: 603-612.
• Lemieux N. C., Maynard B. K., Johnson W. A. 2000. A regional survey of deer damage throughout northeast nurseries and orchards. Journal of Environmental Horticulture 18: 5-8.
• Okarma H., Tomek A. 2008. Łowiectwo. Wydawnictwo H2O, Kraków.
• Palmer W. L., Wingard R. G., George J. L. 1983. Evaluation of white-tailed deer repellents. Wildlife Society Bulletin 11: 164-166.
• Pielowski Z. 1984. Sarna. PWRiL, Warszawa.
• Phillips M., Forshey C. G., White G. B., Richmond M. E. 1987. The economic impact of wildlife damage on Houdson Valley orchards. Proceedings of the Eastern Wildlife Damage Control Conference 3: 66-83.
• Rozporządzenie Ministra Środowiska z dnia 8 marca 2010 r. w sprawie sposobu postępowania przy szacowaniu szkód oraz wypłat odszkodowań za szkody w uprawach i płodach rolnych. 2010. Dz. U. Nr 45, poz. 272.
• Swihart R. K., Conover M. R. 1990. Reducing deer damage to yews and apple trees: testing Big Game Repellent® RoPel® , and soap as repellents. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 18: 156-162.
• Torrice C. 1999. Deer damage in tree fruit and small fruit crops. W: Curtis P. D., Sullivan K. L. [red.]. Approaches for minimizing deer damage in New York Satate. Cornell Cooperative Extension, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA.