Supplementary winter feeding of wild red deer Cervus elaphus in Europe and North America: justifications, feeding practice and effectiveness

249 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

The challenges and opportunities of coexisting with wild ungulates in the human-dominated landscapes of Europe's Anthropocene (2019, unknown): “For example, the widespread practice of supplementary feeding of wild ungulates (e.g. Mysterud et al., 2019; Putman and Staines, 2004) may create situations with high local densities and high interaction rates (Gortázar et al., 2006).”
Disease risks and overabundance of game species (2006, background): “But human interference can limit the effects of these natural mechanisms of population control, for example, feeding wildlife (Putman and Staines 2004), providing water (Borralho et al. 1999), controlling predators (Frey et al. 2003), or even treating against parasites (Rajkovic-Janje et al. 2004)…”
Challenges and science-based implications for modern management and conservation of European ungulate populations (2017, background): “Supplementary feeding can enhance survival, reproduction and population growth under adverse conditions (Milner et al. 2014; Putman and Staines 2004).”
Roads and supplemental feeding affect home-range size of Slovenian red deer more than natural factors (2012, background): “Ungulates are frequently supplementally fed to increase their hunting value, improve winter survival, and reduce damage to agriculture and forestry caused by browsing and bark peeling (Putman and Staines 2004; Smith 2001).”