Browsing damage by moose in Swedish forests: Assessments by hunters and foresters

Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research

Volumn 27, Issue 7, 2012, Pages 659-668

  Ezebilo, Eugene E ^a   Sandström, Camilla ^b   Ericsson, Göran ^a  

^a SWEDISH UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES   (Sweden)

^b UMEÅ UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Browsing damage; hunting; moose (Alces alces); rating; Sweden; timber production

Indexed keywords

ALCES ALCES; BROWSING DAMAGE; HUNTING; SWEDEN; TIMBER PRODUCTION;

DAMAGE DETECTION; RATING; TIMBER;

FORESTRY;

DAMAGE; EVALUATION; FORESTS; PRODUCTION; RATING; SWEDEN;

ALCES ALCES;

EID: 84866767552     PISSN: 02827581     EISSN: 16511891     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02827581.2012.698643     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Angelstam, P., Wikberg, P-E., Danilov, P., Faber, W.E. and Nygren, K. 2000. Effects of moose density on timber quality and biodiversity in Sweden, Finland and Russian Karelia. ALCES, 36: 133-145.
2. Ball, J. P. and Dahlgren, J. 2002. Browsing damage on pine (Pinus sylvestris and P. contorta) by a migrating moose (Alces alces) population in winter: Relation to habitat composition and road barriers. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 17: 427-435.
3. Ball, J. P., Ericsson, G. and Wallin, K. 1999. Climate changes, moose and their human predators. Ecological Bulletins, 47: 178-187.
4. Bergman, M. and Åkerberg, S. 2006. Moose hunting, forestry, and wolves in Sweden. ALCES, 42: 13-23.
5. Bergquist, J. and Kalén, C. 2002. "Assessing effects of wildlife on forestry". In Developing Principles and Models for Sustainable Forestry in Sweden, Edited by: Sverdrup, H. and Stjernquist, I. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
6. Blennow, K. and Sallnäs, O. 2002. Risk perception among non-industrial private forest owners. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 17: 472-479.
7. Boardman, A.E., Greenberg, D.H., Vining, A.R. and Weimer, D.L. 2006. Cost-benefit analysis, concepts and practice, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
8. Boman, M., Mattsson, L., Ericsson, G. and Kriström, B. 2011. Moose hunting values in Sweden now and two decades ago: The Swedish hunters revisited. Environmental and Resource Economics, 50: 515-530.
9. Brännlund, R. & Kriström, B. 1998. Miljöekonomi. Studentliteratur [Environmental Economics, student literature]. Stockholm: Lund.
10. Cederlund, G. and Bergström, R. 1996. "Trends in the moose-forest system in Fennoscandia with special reference to Sweden". In Conservation of faunal diversity in forested landscape, Edited by: Degraaf, R.M. and Miller, R.I. 265-281. London: Chapman and Hall.
11. Chatterjee, S. and Price, B. 1991. Regression analysis by example, New York: Wiley.
12. Danell, K., Edenius, L. and Lundberg, P. 1991. Herbivory and tree stand composition: Moose patch use in winter. Ecology, 72: 1350-1357.
13. Dillman, D. A. 2000. Mail and internet surveys, New York: Wiley.
14. Edenius, L., Ericsson, G., Kempe, G., Bergström, R. and Danell, K. 2011. Effects of changing land use and browsing on aspen abundance and regeneration: A fifty year perspective from Sweden. Journal of Applied Ecology, 48: 301-309.
15. Ericsson, G. 1999. Demographic and life history consequences of harvest in a Swedish Moose population. Ph.D. Thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umea, Sweden.
16. Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. 1975. Belief, attitude, intention, and behaviour: An introduction to theory and research, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
17. Garrod, G. and Willis, K. G. 1999. Economic valuation of the environment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
18. Greene, W. H. 2003. Econometric analysis, 5th edn, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
19. Hörnberg, S. 2001. Changes in population density of moose (Alces alces) and damage to forests in Sweden. Forest Ecology and Management, 149: 141-151.
20. Kalén, C. and Bergqvist, J. 2004. Forage availability for moose of young silver birch and Scots pine. Forest Ecology and Management, 187: 149-158.
21. Lavsund, S., Nygren, T. and Solberg, E.J. 2003. Status of moose populations and challenges to moose management in Fennoscandia. Alces, 39: 109-130.
22. Liberg, O., Bergström, R., Kindberg, J. and von Essen, H. 2010. "Ungulates and their management in Sweden". In European Ungulates and their management in the 21st century, Edited by: Marco, A., Andersen, R. and Putman, R. 37-70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23. Mattsson, L. 1990a. Moose management and the economic value of hunting: Towards bioeconomic analysis. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 5: 575-581.
24. Mattsson, L. 1990b. Hunting in Sweden: Extent, economic values and structural problems. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 5: 563-573.
25. Olaussen, J. O. and Skonhoft, A. 2011. A cost-benefit analysis of moose harvesting in Scandinavia. A stage structured modelling approach. Resource and Energy Economics, 33: 589-611.
26. Persson, I. L., Danell, K. and Bergstrom, R. 2005. Different moose densities and accompanied changes in tree morphology and browse production. Ecological Applications, 15: 1296-1305.
27. Sahlsten, J., Bunnefeld, N., Månsson, J., Ericsson, G., Bergström, R. and Dettki, H. 2010. Can supplementary feeding be used to redistribute moose Alces alces?. Wildlife Biology, 16(1): 85-92.
28. Sandstöm, C., Lindkvist, A., Öhman, K. and Nordström, E.-M. 2011. Governing competing demands for forest resources in Sweden. Forests, 2: 218-242.
29. Skogsstyrelsen 2003. Statistical Yearbook of forestry. Jönköping: Skogsstyrelsen [National Board of Forestry].
30. Skogsstyrelsen 2004. Statistical Yearbook of forestry. Jönköping: Skogsstyrelsen [National Board of Forestry].
31. SOU 1997:91. Jaktens villkor-enutredning om vissa jaktfrågor [Conditions for hunting-an investigation of some hunting issues]. Stockholm: Jordbruksdepartementet.
32. SOU 2009:54 Uthållig älgförvaltning i samverkan: betänkande [Sustainable moose management in collaboration: report]. Stockholm: Fritzes. Retrieved December 5, 2011, from http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c6/12/84/56/c7f15b49.pdf
33. Strandgaard, S. 1982. Factors affecting the moose population in Sweden during the 20th century with special attention to silviculture. Report 8. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Wildlife Ecology.
34. Storaas, T., Gundersen, H., Henriksen, H. and Andreassen, H. 2001. The economic value of moose in Norway. Alces, 37: 97-107.
35. Sylvén, S. 1995. Moose harvest strategy to maximise yield value for multiple goal management-a simulation study. Agricultural Systems, 49(3): 277-298.
36. van Beest, F.M., Loe, L.E, Mysterud, A. and Milner, J.M. 2010. Comparative space use and habitat selection of moose around feeding stations. Journal of Wildlife Management, 74: 219-227.
37. Wam, K.H. and Hofstad, O. 2007. Taking timber browsing damage into account: A density dependant matrix model for optimal harvest of moose in Scandinavia. Ecological Economics, 62: 45-55.
38. Wennberg DiGasper, S. 2008. Natural resource management in an institutional disorder: the development of adaptive co-management systems of moose in Sweden. Doctoral dissertation, Division of Political Science, Department of Business Administration and Social Sciences, Luleå University of Technology, Luleå, Sweden.
39. Widemo, F., Ericsson, G. & Bergstrom, R. 2011. Jagande markägare tar hänsyn till vilket [Landowners that hunt take account of wildlife] SVENSK JAKT 11 June 2011. Retrieved December 20, 2011 fromhttp://www.jagareforbundet.se/Swedische-Jagd/Nyheter/Nyheter/2011/06/Jagande-markagare-tar-hansyn-till-viltet-1.16864/