Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T09:53:52.338Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

12 - Modelling of large herbivore–vegetation interactions in a landscape context

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 November 2009

By
Peter J. Weisberg ,
Michael B. Coughenour  and
Harald Bugmann
Edited by
Kjell Danell ,
Roger Bergström ,
Patrick Duncan  and
John Pastor
Peter J. Weisberg
Affiliation:
University of Nevada
Michael B. Coughenour
Affiliation:
Colorado State University
Harald Bugmann
Affiliation:
Mountain Forest Ecology
Kjell Danell
Affiliation:
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
Roger Bergström
Affiliation:
The Forestry Research Institute of Sweden
Patrick Duncan
Affiliation:
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Paris
John Pastor
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota, Duluth
Get access

Summary

INTRODUCTION

There is growing appreciation of the important role large herbivores can play in vegetation, ecosystem and landscape dynamics (Hobbs 1996, Danell et al. 2003, Rooney & Waller 2003, and earlier chapters of this volume). In turn, there has been an improved understanding of the importance of landscape pattern for large herbivore dynamics (Turner et al. 1994, Illius & O'Connor 2000, Walters 2001), and research into patterns of animal movement through landscapes (Gross et al. 1995, Schaefer et al. 2000, Johnson et al. 2002). At landscape scales, the large herbivore‐vegetation interaction can be quite complex, involving many interacting factors such as plant competition, landscape pattern, climate, disturbance regimes and biogeochemical cycles. The earlier chapters of this volume demonstrate the complexity of such relationships, and the difficulty in establishing simple generalizations.

Simulation modelling has proved a useful tool for disentangling some of this complexity, and for integrating information across multiple scales. There are numerous modelling approaches, at varying levels of complexity, developed to satisfy different research objectives, for simulating the impacts of large herbivores upon vegetation or vice versa. However, few represent key interactions between the two ecosystem components in a balanced manner.

In this chapter, we review the different modelling approaches for representing large herbivore‐landscape interactions in an integrated way. By integrated models, we refer to modelling approaches that consider vegetation and animal dynamics with similar levels of complexity, bridging the two key components through the ecological process of herbivory.

Type
Chapter
Information
Large Herbivore Ecology, Ecosystem Dynamics and Conservation , pp. 348 - 382
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abrams, P. A. & Matsuda, H. (1996). Positive indirect effects between prey species that share predators. Ecology, 77, 610–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Apps, C. D., McLellan, B. N., Kinley, T. A. & Flaa, J. P. (2001). Scale‐dependent habitat selection by mountain caribou, Columbia Mountains, British Columbia. Journal of Wildlife Management, 65, 65–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, H., Gordon, I. J., Grant, S. A.et al. (1997a). A model of the grazing of hill vegetation by sheep in the UK. I. The prediction of vegetation biomass. Journal of Applied Ecology, 34, 166–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, H., Gordon, I. J., Hutchings, N. J.et al. (1997b). A model of the grazing of hill vegetation by sheep in the UK. II. The prediction of offtake by sheep. Journal of Applied Ecology, 34, 186–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ball, J. T., Woodrow, I. E. & Berry, J. A. (1987). A model predicting stomotal conductance and its contribution to the control of photosynthesis under different environmental conditions. In Progress in Photosynthesis Research, Vol. IV, ed. Biggins, I.. Dordrecht: Martinees Nijhof, pp. 221–4.Google Scholar
Blatt, S. E., Janmaat, J. A. & Harmsen, R. (2001). Modelling succession to include a herbivore effect. Ecological Modelling, 139, 123–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boone, R. B., Coughenour, M. B., Galvin, K. A. & Ellis, J. E. (2002). Addressing management questions for Ngorongoro conservation area, Tanzania, using the savanna modeling system. African Journal of Ecology, 40, 138–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bugmann, H. (1996a). A simplified forest model to study species composition along climate gradients. Ecology, 77, 2055–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bugmann, H. (1996b). Functional types of trees in temperate and boreal forests : classification and testing. Journal of Vegetation Science, 7, 359–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bugmann, H. (2001). A review of forest gap models. Climatic Change, 51, 259–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bugmann, H., Lindner, M., Lasch, P.et al. (2000). Scaling issues in forest succession modelling. Climatic Change, 44, 265–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunnell, F. L. & Boyland, B. (2003). Decision‐support systems : it's the question not the model. Journal for Nature Conservation, 10, 269–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, L., Coughenour, M., Ellis, J. & Chen, Z. (2003). Sustainability of the typical steppe : model assessment of grazing on ecosystem state. Journal of Range Management, 56, 319–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coughenour, M. B. (1985). Graminoid responses to grazing by large herbivores : adaptations, exaptations, and interacting processes. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Gardens, 72, 852–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coughenour, M. B. (1992). Spatial modeling and landscape characterization of an African pastoral ecosystem : a prototype model and its potential use for monitoring droughts. In Ecological Indicators, Volume I, ed. McKenzie, D. H., Hyatt, D. E. & McDonald, V. J.. New York: Elsevier Applied Science, pp. 787–810.Google Scholar
Coughenour, M. B. (2000). Ungulates and grassland interactions : integrating across scales with models. Proceedings of the British Grassland Society 6th Research Conference, 9/11/2000, Aberdeen, Scotland. British Grassland Society, University of Reading, UK, pp. 1–21.
Coughenour, M. B. (2002). Elk in the Rocky Mountain National Park Ecosystem – a model‐based assessment. Final Report, US Geological Survey Biological Resources Division and US National Park Service, Rocky Mountain National Park.
Coughenour, M. B. & Singer, F. J. (1996). Yellowstone elk population responses to fire – a comparison of landscape carrying capacity and spatial‐dynamic ecosystem modeling approaches. In The Ecological Implications of Fire in Greater Yellowstone, ed. Greenlee, J.. Fairfield, WA: International Association of Wildland Fire, pp. 169–80.Google Scholar
Coughenour, M. B., McNaughton, S. J. & Wallace, L. L. (1984). Simulation study of east‐African perennial graminoid responses to defoliation. Ecological Modelling, 26, 177–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danell, K., Bergström, R., Edenius, L. & Ericsson, G. (2003). Ungulates as drivers of tree population dynamics at module and genet levels. Forest Ecology and Management, 181, 67–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeAngelis, D. L., Gross, L. J., Huston, M. A.et al. (1998). Landscape modeling for Everglades ecosystem restoration. Ecosystems, 1, 64–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dumont, B. & Hill, D. R. C. (2001). Multi‐agent simulation of group foraging in sheep : effects of spatial memory, conspecific attraction and plot size. Ecological Modelling, 141, 201–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edenius, L., Danell, K. & Nyquist, H. (1995). Effects of simulated moose browsing on growth, mortality, and fecundity in Scots pine : relations to plant productivity. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 25, 529–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, J. E., Wiens, J. A., Rodell, C. F. & Anway, J. C. (1976). A conceptual model of diet selection as an ecosystem process. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 60, 93–108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Farnsworth, K. D. & Illius, A. W. (1996). Large grazers back in the fold : generalizing the prey model to incorporate mammalian herbivores. Functional Ecology, 10, 678–80.Google Scholar
Farnsworth, K. D. & Illius, A. W. (1998). Optimal diet choice for large herbivores : an extended contingency model. Functional Ecology, 12, 74–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginnett, T. F. & Demment, M. W. (1995). The functional response of herbivores : analysis and test of a simple mechanistic model. Functional Ecology, 9, 376–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, I. J. (1988). Facilitation of red deer grazing by cattle and its impact on red deer performance. Journal of Applied Ecology, 25, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, I. J. (2003). Browsing and grazing ruminants : are they different beasts?Forest Ecology and Management, 181, 13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gross, J. E., Shipley, L. A., Hobbs, N. T., Spalinger, D. E. & Wunder, B. A. (1993). Functional response of herbivores in food‐concentrated patches : tests of a mechanistic model. Ecology, 74, 778–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gross, J. E., Zank, C., Hobbs, N. T. & Spalinger, D. E. (1995). Movement rules for herbivores in spatially heterogeneous environments : responses to small scale pattern. Landscape Ecology, 10, 209–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacker, R. B., Wang, K.‐M., Richmond, G. S. & Lindner, R. K. (1991). IMAGES : an integrated model of an arid grazing ecological system. Agricultural Systems, 37, 119–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobbs, N. T. (1996). Modification of ecosystems by ungulates. Journal of Wildlife Management, 60, 695–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobbs, N. T. (1999). Responses of large herbivores to spatial heterogeneity in ecosystems. In Nutritional Ecology of Herbivores, ed. Jung, H. G. & Fahey, G. C.. Proceeding of the Fifth International Symposium on the Nutrition of Herbivores. Savory, Illinois: American Society of Animal Sciences, pp. 97–129.Google Scholar
Hobbs, N. T. & Swift, D. M. (1985). Estimates of habitat carrying capacity incorporating explicit nutritional constraints. Journal of Wildlife Management, 49, 814–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobbs, N. T., Baker, D. L., Bear, G. D. & Bowden, D. C. (1996a). Ungulate grazing in sagebrush grassland : mechanisms of resource competition. Ecological Applications, 6, 200–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobbs, N. T., Baker, D. L., Bear, G. D. & Bowden, D. C. (1996b). Ungulate grazing in sagebrush grassland : effects of resource competition on secondary production. Ecological Applications, 6, 218–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Illius, A. W. & O'Connor, T. G. (1999). On the relevance of nonequilibrium concepts to arid and semiarid grazing systems. Ecological Applications, 9, 798–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Illius, A. W. & O'Connor, T. G. (2000). Resource heterogeneity and ungulate population dynamics. Oikos, 89, 283–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeltsch, F., Milton, S. J., Dean, W. R. J. & Rooyen, N. (1997). Analysing shrub encroachment in the southern Kalahari : a grid‐based modelling approach. Journal of Applied Ecology, 34, 1497–1508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, C. J., Parker, K. L., Heard, D. C. & Gillingham, M. P. (2002). Movement parameters of ungulates and scale‐specific responses to the environment. Journal of Animal Ecology, 71, 225–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jorritsma, I. T. M., Hees, A. F. M. & Mohren, G. M. J. (1999). Forest development in relation to ungulate grazing : a modeling approach. Forest Ecology and Management, 120, 23–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kienast, F., Fritschi, J., Bissegger, M. & Abderhalden, W. (1999). Modeling successional patterns of high‐elevation forests under changing herbivore pressure – responses at the landscape level. Forest Ecology and Management, 120, 35–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiker, G. A. (1998). Development and comparison of savanna ecosystem models to explore the concept of carrying capacity. Ph.D. thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
King, A. W. (1991). Translating models across scales in the landscape. In Quantitative Methods in Landscape Ecology: The Analysis and Interpretation of Landscape Heterogeneity, ed. Turner, M. G. & Gardner, R. H.. New York: Springer‐Verlag, pp. 479–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, K., Baveco, H., Bijlsma, R. J.et al. (2001). Landscape Forming Processes and Diversity of Forested Landscapes: Description and Application of the Model FORSPACE. Wageningen: Alterra, Green World Research.Google Scholar
Kramer, K., Groen, T. A. & Wieren, S. E. (2003). The interacting effects of ungulates and fire on forest dynamics : an analysis using the model FORSPACE. Forest Ecology and Management, 181, 205–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuiters, A. T. & Slim, P. A. (2003). Tree colonisation of abandoned arable land after 27 years of horse‐grazing : the role of bramble as a facilitator of oak wood regeneration. Forest Ecology and Management, 181, 239–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latham, J. (1999). Interspecific interactions of ungulates in European forests : an overview. Forest Ecology and Management, 120, 13–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liedloff, A. C., Coughenour, M. B., Ludwig, J. A. & Dyer, R. (2001). Modelling the trade‐off between fire and grazing in a tropical savanna landscape, northern Australia. Environment International, 27, 173–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loza, H. J., Grant, W. E., Stuth, J. W. & Forbes, T. D. A. (1992). Physiologically based landscape use model for large herbivores. Ecological Modelling, 61, 227–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ludwig, J. A., Coughenour, M. B., Liedloff, A. C. & Dyer, R. (2001). Modelling the resilience of Australian savanna systems to grazing impacts. Environment International, 27, 167–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McNaughton, S. J. (1979). Grazing as an optimization process : grass‐ungulate relationships in the Serengeti. American Naturalist, 113, 691–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millard, P., Hester, A. J., Wendler, R. & Baillie, G. (2001). Interspecific defoliation responses of trees depend on sites of winter nitrogen storage. Functional Ecology, 15, 535–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moen, R. A., Pastor, J. & Cohen, Y. (1997). A spatially explicit model of moose foraging and energetics. Ecology, 78, 505–21.Google Scholar
Moen, R. A., Pastor, J. & Cohen, Y. (1998). Linking moose population and plant growth models with a moose energetics model. Ecosystems, 1, 52–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noble, I. R. & Gitay, H. (1996). A functional classification for predicting the dynamics of landscapes. Journal of Vegetation Science, 7, 329–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ott, E. (1989). Verjüngungsprobleme in hochstaudenreichen Gebirgsnadelwäldern. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Forstwesen, 140, 23–42.Google Scholar
Parton, W. J., Stewart, J. W. B. & Cole, C. V. (1988). Dynamics of C, N, P and S in grassland soils : a model. Biogeochemistry, 5, 109–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pastor, J., Dewey, B., Moen, R.et al. (1998). Spatial patterns in the moose‐forest‐soil ecosystem on Isle Royale, Michigan, USA. Ecological Applications, 8, 411–24.Google Scholar
Pastor, J., Cohen, Y. & Moen, R. (1999a). Generation of spatial patterns in boreal forest landscapes. Ecosystems, 2, 439–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pastor, J., Standke, K., Farnsworth, K., Moen, R. & Cohen, Y. (1999b). Further development of the Spalinger‐Hobbs mechanistic foraging model for free‐ranging moose. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 77, 1505–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ripple, W. J. & Larsen, E. J. (2000). Historic aspen recruitment, elk, and wolves in northern Yellowstone National Park, USA. Biological Conservation, 95, 361–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ripple, W. J., Larsen, E. J, Renkin, R. A. & Smith, D. W. (2001). Trophic cascades among wolves, elk and aspen on Yellowstone National Park's northern range. Biological Conservation, 102, 227–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Risenhoover, K. L., Underwood, H. B, Yan, W. & Cooke, J. L. (1997). A spatially explicit modeling environment for evaluating deer management strategies. In The Science of Overabundance : Deer Ecology and Population Management, ed. McShea, W. J., Underwood, H. B. & Rappole, J. H.. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institute, pp. 366–79.Google Scholar
Rooney, T. P. & Waller, D. M. (2003). Direct and indirect effects of white‐tailed deer in forest ecosystems. Forest Ecology and Management, 181, 165–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sage, R. W., Patten, B. C. & Salmon, P. A. (2003). Flying the North American adirondack whitetail on instruments : a multi‐parameter modeling approach to ecosystem‐based wildlife management. Journal for Nature Conservation, 10, 280–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saunders, M. R. & Puettmann, K. J. (1999). Effects of overstory and understory competition and simulated herbivory on growth and survival of white pine seedlings. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 29, 536–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaefer, J. A., Bergman, C. M. & Luttich, S. N. (2000). Site fidelity of female caribou at multiple spatial scales. Landscape Ecology, 15, 731–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schütz, M., Risch, A. C., Leuzinger, E., Krüsi, B. O. & Achermann, G. (2003). Impact of herbivory by red deer (Cervus elaphus L.) on patterns and processes in subalpine grasslands in the Swiss National Park. Forest Ecology and Management 181, 177–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seagle, S. W. & Liang, S.‐Y. (2001). Application of a forest gap model for prediction of browsing effects on riparian forest succession. Ecological Modelling, 144, 213–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seagle, S. W., McNaughton, S. J. & Ruess, R. W. (1992). Simulated effects of grazing on soil nitrogen and mineralization in contrasting Serengeti grasslands. Ecology, 73, 1105–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Senft, R. L., Coughenour, M. B., Bailey, D. W.et al. (1987). Large herbivore foraging and ecological hierarchies. BioScience, 37, 789–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, A. R. E. & Norton‐Griffiths, M. (1982). Does competition or facilitation regulate migrant ungulate populations in the Serengeti? A test of hypothesis. Oecologia, 53, 364–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Singer, F. J. & Schoenecker, K. A. (2003). Do ungulates accelerate or decelerate nitrogen cycling?Forest Ecology and Management, 181, 189–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spalinger, D. E. & Hobbs, N. T. (1992). Mechanisms of foraging in mammalian herbivores : new models of functional response. American Naturalist, 140, 325–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stuth, J. W. (1991). Foraging behavior. In Grazing Management : An Ecological Perspective, ed. Heitschmidt, R. K. & Stuth, J. W.. Portland: Timber Press, pp. 65–82.Google Scholar
Sweeney, J. M. & Sweeney, J. R. (1984). Snow depths influencing winter movements of elk. Journal of Mammalogy, 65, 524–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, M. G., Wu, Y., Wallace, L. L., Romme, W. H. & Brenkert, A. (1994). Simulating winter interactions among ungulates, vegetation, and fire in northern Yellowstone Park. Ecological Applications, 4, 472–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oene, H., Berendse, F. & Kovel, C. G. F. (1999a). Model analysis of the effects of historic CO2 levels and nitrogen inputs on vegetation succession. Ecological Applications, 9, 920–35.Google Scholar
Oene, H., Deursen, E. J. M. & Berendse, F. (1999b). Plant‐herbivore interaction and its consequences for succession in wetland ecosystems : a modeling approach. Ecosystems, 2, 122–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walters, S. (2001). Landscape pattern and productivity effects on source‐sink dynamics of deer populations. Ecological Modelling, 143, 17–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wardle, D. A., Bonner, K. I. & Barker, G. M. (2002). Linkages between plant litter decomposition, litter quality, and vegetation responses to herbivores. Functional Ecology, 16, 585–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisberg, P. J. & Bugmann, H. (2003). Forest dynamics and ungulate herbivory : from leaf to landscape. Forest Ecology and Management, 181, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisberg, P. J. & Coughenour, M. B. (2003). Model‐based assessment of aspen responses to elk herbivory in Rocky Mountain National Park, USA. Environmental Management, 32, 152–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weisberg, P. J., Hobbs, N. T., Ellis, J. E. & Coughenour, M. B. (2002). An ecosystem approach to population management of ungulates. Journal of Environmental Management, 65, 181–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
White, C. A., Feller, M. C. & Bayley, S. (2003). Predation risk and the functional response of elk‐aspen herbivory. Forest Ecology and Management, 181, 77–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xie, J., Hill, H. R., Winterstein, S. R. et al. (1999). White‐tailed deer management options model (DeerMOM) : design, quantification, and application. Ecological Modelling, 124, 121–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×