Management scale and intensity limit forage availability on properties managed for white‐tailed deer

Abstract Habitat management for cervids often focuses on increasing the availability of high‐quality forage to improve body condition and promote larger morphology. Although previous work has evaluated the effects of various treatments on forage availability, no study has quantified existing forage availability across a wide geographic area or compared the contribution of all available vegetation types to nutrient availability and quality for deer on a property. We sampled selected white‐tailed deer ( Odocoileus virginianus ) forages on 43 properties managed for deer across 25 states in the eastern United States to evaluate the limitations of biomass and nutritional carrying capacity using 14% crude protein and 0.3% phosphorus constraints across all major vegetation types on each property. We also calculated a relative forage contribution (RFC) value for each vegetation type to determine which contributed more to the total property‐level nutrient availability relative to their coverage. Forage availability was limited on most properties. Row crops, food plots, and early successional vegetation provided the greatest forage availability, whereas closed‐canopy hardwood forest and pasture/hay provided the least. Early successional vegetation, food plot, and open‐canopy hardwood provided the greatest RFC and closed‐canopy hardwood forest provided the least. Closed‐canopy forest averaged 62.4% coverage, and open‐canopy forest and early successional vegetation averaged only 25.2% and 17% coverage, respectively, across all properties where they were present. Extensive coverage of closed‐canopy forest with limited forage availability was the primary limitation for deer nutrients on most sites. However, forage estimates in open vegetation types were lower than those reported in the literature, indicating relatively poor management of these vegetation types on most properties. Scenarios where forage production in those vegetation types was increased to correspond with values in the literature led to large increases in property‐wide nutrient availability. Even on properties where deer management is a primary objective, our results indicate that most provide relatively poor nutrient availability compared to what is possible with more intensive management. Managers interested in increasing deer forage availability and resulting deer body condition and morphometrics should evaluate available nutrients in the major vegetation types on their property and not only consider more intensive management but also implement management at a greater scale by converting more forest into open woodland and early successional vegetation. Our results can be used by biologists and managers to better understand the potential to influence nutrient availability through more intensive and widespread management.