Valuation of damage caused by wild animals in the forest of Brandenburg

Transcription

1 IBL-Sękocin Stary, March Seventh Session of Winter Forest School Valuation of damage caused by wild animals in the forest of Brandenburg E. Gleich, K. Dobiáš, State Office Forestry Brandenburg National Forestry Center of Excellence Eberswalde Research Centre for Wildlife Ecology and Game Management 1

2 IBL-Sękocin Stary, March Seventh Session of Winter Forest School Outline of this presentation : The state of Brandenburg and the Brandenburg forest Brandenburg wildlife populations and hunting bags Monitoring of Wildlife Damage in the State Forestry Administration - Browsing - Control fence procedure (Kontrollzaunverfahren) 2

3 Advice on the state of the vegetation Methods Estimation procedure Sampling Control fence procedure Selection of plots all endangered areas all endangered areas raster mains undifferent. mesh density selected areas area selection by experts Assestment of Browsing-B Peeling-P Baden- Württemberg, B Nordrhein- Westfalen, B + P Sachsen- Anhalt, B + P Saarland, B Niedersachsen, P Meckl. Vorp. B Thüringen, B+P Bavaria, B Rheinl.- Pfalz, B + P Saxonia, B + P Brandenbg, B Hessen, B + P Saarland Plant selection Scoring of the plant linearly Scoring of the plants at five points linearly Scoring of the plants at 7 resp. 10 distributed over the surface points Scoring of the plants in a section Part A: Total report Part B: Browsing report Scoring of the plants - into and outside the fence OTTO, L.; PETRAK, M.; TOTTEWITZ, F. (1996) TOTTEWITZ, F. (2007)

4 IBL-Sękocin Stary, March Seventh Session of Winter Forest School Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania Poland State of Brandenburg : 14 Administrative districts, 4 Independent Cities Saxony- Anhalt Total area : Woodland : 2,9 Mio. Hectares 1,1 Mio. Hectares Saxony Ø Altitude : < 150 m above sea level Ø Temperature: 8-9 C Annual Precipitation : l/m² 4

5 Woodland: 1,1 Mio. ha (37% of the country area ) -thereof 50 % private forest and 25 % State Forest Forest ownership in Brandenburg ha ha ha ha ha ha ha State forest Special fund of the State Corporate forest Privat forest Trust forest Forest of Other States Federal Forest 5

6 Currently more than 80% of the forests of Brandenburg are conifers (Pine: 77%) Distribution of tree species in Brandenburg 5% 5% 3% 2% 8% Pine other conifers Oak Beech 77% other hard deciduous wood other soft deciduous wood 6

7 until 2045 : Reduction of the pine forests from about 70% to 26% at the state forest 7

8 State of Brandenburg: Total area: Hunting area 2,9 Mio. Hectares 2,5 Mio. Hectares Thereof forest area : 41 % Agriculture Area: 54 % Hunting strategy of the State Forestry Administration : low game densities natural regeneration of the forest species-rich forest flora high-quality wood high hunting bags with little effort 8

9 Results in the administrative hunting areas (Brandenburg) 2013/14 (13 % from the hunting area and 28 % from the Woodland) head of large game (13 % of Brandenburg) Game Species Hunting bag [head of large game] Red Deer Fallow Deer Mouflon 68 Roe Deer Wild Boar

10 2013/14: Total hunting bag head of large game (Brandenburg) Hunting bag development in Brandenburg : Anzahl [Stück] Red Deer 2013/14: (Cervus elaphus L.) head Jagdjahr 10

11 Hunting bag development in Brandenburg Anzahl [Stück] Fallow deer 2013/14: (Cervus dama L.) head Jagdjahr 11

12 Hunting bag development in Brandenburg Anzahl [Stück] Mouflon 2013/14: (Ovis orientalis musimon Pallas) 750 head Jagdjahr 12

13 IBL-Sękocin Stary, March Seventh Session of Winter Forest School Hunting bag development in Brandenburg Roe Deer 2013/14: (Capreolus capreolus L.) head Jagdjahr Anzahl [Stück]

14 The development of the hunting bag (three game species) in Brandenburg in the last 40 years Gesamtstrecke Hunting bag (Red (Rot-, Deer, Dam-, Fallow Muffelwild) Deer,Mouflon) Liniowy Linear development (Gesamtstrecke (Rot-, Dam-, Muffelwild)) y = 591,99x ,9 R² = 0,9055 Head Years 14

15 Monitoring of the State Forest Administration for forest regeneration and for damage caused by wildlife : since 2003 Browsing monitoring Control fence procedure 15

16 IBL-Sękocin Stary, March Seventh Session of Winter Forest School Not every browsing damage is a damage, the most important thing is the target Stähr (2005) Heigth class [cm] Tree species HKL 1 < 20 cm HKL cm HKL cm HKL cm HKL cm Pine European Beech Oak Douglas Fir Alder Linde Maple Hornbeam other Deciduous Trees other Conifers (GFI, KTA, LÄ) The number of undamaged trees(at least) of special tree species per hectare 16

17 Browsing monitoring Sampling Determination of browsing percentage Total number of regeneration plants Annually from April to June Area size: >0.3 Hectare Plant height: max m Evaluation criterion: Terminal shoot damaged browsed / undamaged unbrowsed 17

18 Browsing monitoring Location of the plots to evaluate browsing Distribution of 10 sample points on the regeneration area 18

19 Browsing monitoring Assessment of 15 plants for rejuvenation on each sample point according to: damaged browsed / not damaged unbrowsed Abstand Distance zur am from weitesten the farthest entfernten Verjüngungspflanze rejuvenation plant Measure the distance from the farthest rejuvenation plant unverbissene Plant not Pflanze damaged Plant verbissene damaged Pflanze Determination of the total number of plants per hectare and browsing percentage Evaluation via central database in our institute 19

20 Browsing monitoring Results 2006: - Assessment of hectares regeneration areas (pine, beech, oak) - Derivation of silvicultural and hunting actions 33% Assessment of pine areas 38% Assessment of oak areas Assessment of beech areas 12% 16% 22% 35% 43% 72% 29% Additional silvicultural actions required Increase shooting No action required Additional silvicultural actions required Additional silvicultural actions required Increase shooting Increase shooting No action required No action required 20

21 Control fence procedure Determine the locational rejuvenation potential with and without game impact Control of the results every three years Two areas (100 m² each) fenced ( height min m; hare tight) no fence 21

22 Control fence procedure Separate Assessment of woody plants on every area, Determination of plant height and browsing condition Plant height Browsing condition HK 1 = up to 20 cm HK 2 = cm HK 3 = cm HK 4 = cm HK 5 = over 130 cm Browsing conditions VK 1 = strong browsing VK 2 = low browsing VK 3 = no browsing Criteria terminal and lateral shoots or only terminal shoots damaged only lateral shoots damaged no browsing 22

23 Control fence procedure Comparison of recordings from 2003 and 2006: 810 pairs of plots examined The number of woody plants is very different in the fenced-in areas. There are large regional differences in locational rejuvenation potential. The number of woody plants in the fence is almost twice as high as outside. With game influence only about half of the natural regeneration potential was achieved. The number of species of plants in the fence is higher than outside the fence. By deer browsing a part of the spectrum of species of plants will be selected. 23

24 Comparison of recordings from 2003 and 2006: 810 pairs of plots examined With increasing plant height, the number of rejuvenation plants decreases too both inside and outside the fence. The development of woody rejuvenation does not only depend on game influence but on a number of other factors as well. The percentage of browsing damage was the same in 2003 and However, the number of damaged plants as well as the number of undamaged plants increased from 2003 to Woody plants are part of the food spectrum of game and consumption is proportional to supply. 24

25 Outlook A method for the determination of the cause of damage by bark peeling is in progress 25

26 IBL-Sękocin Stary, March Seventh Session of Winter Forest School Importance of game damage monitoring : - Important information for the management of the state forests - Basis for decisions on large game regulation (reduction) - Detection of game damage and hunting priorities But : Monitoring must take place in the whole country! Game management must take place covering large areas in game conservancies (Hegegemeinschaften) Game management in state forests should have model character Game management and forest management should be two sides of one coin 26

27 It is not difficult to practice silviculture without game and it is not difficult to practice game management without taking care of the forest, but it is very difficult to bring both together - Game and Forest- so that both might benefit Prof. Egon Wagenknecht( ) Professor for silviculture and game-management in Eberswalde (Brandenburg) 27

28 Thank you very much for your attention! 28