MULE DEER

Donavin A. Leckenby

Dennis P. Sheehy

Carl H. Nellis

Richard J. Scherzinger

Ira D. Luman

Wayne Elmore

James C. Lemos

Larry Doughty

Charles E. Trainer

PACIFIC NORTHWEST FOREST AND RANGE EXPERIMENT STATION

FOREST SERVICE U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
ABSTRACT

Relationships of mule deer behavior and

physiology to management of shrub-steppe 

plant communities in the Great Basin of

southeastern Oregon are presented for

application in land-use planning and habitat

management. Communities are considered as 

they are used by mule deer for thermal cover, 

hiding cover, forage, fawning, and fawn rearing.

KEYWORDS: Deer (mule), wildlife habitat,

range management, Oregon (Great Basin).

THE AUTHORS

DONAVIN A. LECKENBY is Wildlife Biologist, 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, La 

Grande, Oregon. DENNIS P. SHEEHY is a 

former Wildlife Biologist, Oregon Department of 

Fish and Wildlife, Wallowa, Oregon. CARL H. 

NELLIS is Wildlife Biologist, Idaho Fish and 

Game Department, Jerome, Idaho. RICHARD J. 

SCHERZINGER is Wildlife Biologist, Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, Oregon. IRA D. LUMAN is Wildlife Biologist, Bureau 

of Land Management, Portland, Oregon. 

WAYNE ELMORE is Wildlife Biologist, Bureau 

of Land Management, Prineville, Oregon. 

JAMES C. LEMOS is Wildlife Biologist, Oregon 

Depart ment of Fish and Wildlife, Hines, Oregon. 

LARRY DOUGHTY is Wildlife Biologist, Bureau 

of Land Management, Pinedale, Wyoming. 

CHARLES E. TRAINER is Wildlife Biologist, 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Hines, 

Oregon.
This publication is part of the series Wildlife 

Habitats in Managed Rangelands–The Great

Basin of Southeastern Oregon. The purpose of the 

series is to provide a range manager with the

necessary information on wildlife and its relationship 

to habitat conditions in managed rangelands in order 

that the manager may make fully informed decisions.

The information in this series is specific to the 

Great Basin of southeastern Oregon and is generally 

applicable to the shrub-steppe areas of the Western 

United States. The principles and processes

described, however, are generally applicable to all 

managed rangelands. The purpose of the series is to 

provide specific information for a particular area, but 

in doing so to develop a process for considering the 

welfare of wildlife when range management decisions 

are made.

The series is composed of 14 separate publications 

designed to form a comprehensive whole. Although 

each part will be an independent treatment of a

specific subject, when combined in

sequence, the individual parts will be as chapters in a 

book.

Individual parts will be printed as they become 

available. In this way the information will be more 

quickly available to potential users. This means,

however, that the sequence. of printing will not be in 

the same order as the final organization of the

separates into a comprehensive whole.

A list of the publications in the series, their current 

availability, and their final organization is shown on 

the inside back cover of this publication.

Wildlife Habitats in Managed Rangelands–The 

Great Basin of Southeastern Oregon is a

cooperative effort of the USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, and 

United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management.
Introduction

Wildlife biologists, planners, resource managers,

and interested citizens are increasingly involved in 

planning and allocating uses of public lands. Planning 

uses of rangeland often requires predicting effects of 

management on the habitat of mule deer, Odocoileus 

hemionus. Our objective is to describe optimum

habitat for mule deer and provide information to help 

managers predict the consequences of range

management alternatives on deer.

Shrub-steppe rangelands are normally managed to 

increase forage for livestock, but not intentionally

managed to either create or maintain vegetative

structure compatible with deer needs. Good livestock 

management–contrary to conventional wisdom–is not 

always good deer management. Changes in habitat 

can be made to benefit mule deer or to attain other 

goals, if such changes are compatible with the site 

capability (Baker and Frischknecht 1973; Crawford 

1975; Hill 1956; Julander 1962; Leckenby 1968, 1970, 

1978a; Leopold 1933; Plummer et al. 1968; Reynolds 

1964,1974; Robinette et al. 1952; Thomas et al.

1976,1979; Tueller 1979; Tueller and Monroe 1975; 

Verme 1965). Benefits to deer depend on how

compatible range management systems are with the 

physiological and behavioral needs of deer. The key 

to deer management is habitat management. Habitat 

is also affected by other range uses, such as

agriculture, housing, and recreation. Although

meeting projected demands for red meat will require 

more intensive livestock management (Forest-Range 

Task Force 1972, USDA Inter-Agency Work Group on 

Range Production 1974), this need not increase

competition between livestock and deer for forage.

Livestock grazing can be manipulated to make

nutritious food available to wild ungulates at critical 

times (Anderson and Scherzinger 1975, Bell 1971,

deBoer 1970, Leckenby 1968, Willms et al. 1980).

Range seedings, of crested wheatgrass1 for example, 

can increase forage diversity and maintain cover

distributions if extensive monocultures are avoided.

1 Common and scientific names and their sources 

are listed in the appendix.

Shrub-steppe ranges generally occur where annual 

precipitation is below 37.5 centimeters (15 inches)

and are characterized by severe climate. Disturbance 

of vegetation initiates slow successions that do not

regain original conditions, even when areas are

excluded from livestock grazing for up to 30 years 

(Rice and Westoby 1978, Robertson 1971). Because 

of the severity of such sites, some induced

successional stages have lasted many decades.

Resident deer herds occupy some shrub-steppe 

ranges the year around. Other migratory herds spend 

only winters there, causing high animal

concentrations on a small portion of the annual range. 

On such ranges the effects on deer of habitat

manipulations are magnified.

Our objectives are to: (1) define optimally

productive deer habitat on managed shrub-steppe 

rangelands; (2) tie deer habitat to plant community 

and structure; (3) apply these concepts to deer

habitat management units; (4) compare

consequences of habitat management to deer; and 

(5) present information that can be used in preparing 

environmental analyses, habitat management plans, 

allotment management plans, environmental impact 

statements, and long-range management plans.

The use of livestock grazing to improve mule deer 

habitat requires an understanding by resource

specialists, managers, and administrators of the

habitat requirements of deer and the effects of

livestock grazing on deer habitat. The key to this 

understanding, and to communication about deer, is 

the common knowledge these specialists have about 

plant communities.

Understanding of plant communities, their

structure, and arrangement in time and space can 

simplify discussions of the relationships of deer to 

their habitat. This is also basic to understanding 

interactions of ecological factors, evaluating their

relative influences, and predicting the results of

manipulation.

The relationships between deer and their habitat 

and the consequences of management actions

described here apply primarily to the Great Basin of 

southeastern Oregon—specifically the Lake and

Owyhee Desert sections (Holmgren 1972:78-87). The 

information may

1
apply generally to similar areas because: (1) much, 

generally consistent, data are available on mule

deer-habitat relationships; (2) shrub-steppe 

communities are similar; (3) enhancement of livestock 

grazing dominates land management activities on

most ranges; and (4) the basis for management of 

mule deer habitat is interpreting deer requirements in 

terms of plant community composition and structure. 

Extension of our rationale to other geographic areas 

must be done with caution and by incorporating

applicable principles to new data and new knowledge 

about relationships of deer to habitat for those places.

This chapter is not a techniques manual, a

compendium of treatment prescriptions, nor an

evaluation of research publications. It is an

examination of habitat relationships. We define cover 

and forage components of optimum deer habitat and 

describe how changes in plant community structure 

and composition affect habitat quality.

While we emphasize optimum habitats that allow 

deer herds to approach maximum productivity, we 

recognize that deer exist where habitats are less than 

optimum. We believe that deer habitats on

shrub-steppe ranges can be improved by using

livestock grazing as a management tool.

The literature and cumulative knowledge concerning deer is extensive and provides several ways 

to evaluate deer habitat. To narrow these possibilities 

and to achieve our objectives, we have made the 

following assumptions:

1. Manipulation of vegetation to benefit livestock is 

the primary practice that affects deer habitat and will 

increase as demands for red meat increase.

2. Resource allocations and management influence the welfare and productivity of deer.

3. Cover, forage, water, and space are required by 

deer.

4. Cover and forage areas are separable habitat 

components.

5. The diversity, size, arrangement, juxtaposition, 

and edges of cover and forage areas can be

manipulated to achieve predictable changes in deer 

use and productivity.

6. While deer use the best cover and forage

available, the closer to optimum the size, arrangement, and diversity of habitats, the higher productivity 

will be.

7. Herd size is limited by the productivity of plant 

communities.

8. In situations where forage or cover are limiting 

deer productivity, and there is competition with

livestock, we will consider deer needs first and

pinpoint how deer habitat can be enhanced by

appropriate livestock grazing systems.

9. Since behavior and tradition largely control deer 

distribution and movement (Gruell and Papez 1963; 

Leckenby 1977, 1978a; Mackie 1970; Severinghaus 

and Cheatum 1956; Zalunardo 1965) and prevent

subpopulations of deer from leaving home ranges for 

adjacent forage and cover, the appropriate

management unit is a deer subpopulation range.

10. Range treatments produce both immediate, 

obvious impacts on habitat and long-term, subtle 

impacts.

11. The plant community is a more obvious and 

sensitive indicator of present and past environments 

than combined measures of temperature, insolation, 

soil, etc. (Daubenmire 1968; DeVos and Mosby 1969; 

Duffey and Watt 1971; Leckenby 1968, 1970, 1977; 

Mueller-Dombois and Ellenberg 1974; Roberts 1975).

MANAGEM ENT UNITS

Sizes of habitat management units vary with

management goals and whether they are based on 

biological or political grounds, or both. Existing

political units, such as States, National Forests,

Ranger Districts, and counties can be convenient for 

administration, but are too large for management of 

deer habitat. Herd ranges, usually defined by a

combination of natural and administrative boundaries 

(Dasmann 1971, Hunter and Yeager 1956), or

seasonal ranges, defined by drainages, ridgelines, or 

roads , permit increased administrative sensitivity to 

deer needs, but both are too large to allow managers 

to identify and monitor specific habitat conditions. The 

largest unit that is administratively practical and, at 

the same time, sufficiently sensitive to deer-habitat 

relationships is the range of a subpopulation. A subpopulation is an aggregation of two types of social 

groups that occupy a specific area: females with

fawns and adult males. A subpopulation range

encompasses the separate home ranges of several 

groups of does with fawns and groups of bucks.

2
Since our objective is to define optimum habitat for 

deer, we have adopted the subpopulation range as 

the most appropriate management unit and use it in 

this publication. It is large enough to be adm inistered 

effectively, yet small enough to allow monitoring of 

deer responses to habitat. Subpopulation ranges are 

large enough to accommodate livestock grazing

allotments, allow manipulation of cover and forage 

areas over time, and suit pasture rotation designs; yet 

they are also small enough that two or more can be 

combined as a larger element of a coordinated

management plan.

Subpopulation ranges are usually 10 to 20 times 

larger than seasonal home ranges of individual deer, 

which range from 50 to 1,240 hectares (120 to 3,060 

acres) and average 260 hectares (640 acres) in

widely different habitats (Dasmann 1971, Leckenby 

1978b, Leopold et al. 1951, Robinette 1966, Rodgers 

et al. 1978, Swank 1958, Taber and Dasmann 1958, 

Zeigler 1978). On steep slopes, ranges of subpopulations appear as corridors. For example, a "subpopulation of the Middle Park deer herd" wintered on 

Cedar Ridge in an area 6.4 by 1.6 - 3.2 kilometers (4 

by 1-2 mi) (Gilbert et al. 1970:17, 20). A California 

deer herd consisted of two subpopulations; the

average area occupied was 347 km 2 (134 mi2) in 

summer and 47 km 2 (18 mi2) in winter (Leopold et al. 

1951:16-19, 49). A subpopulation occupied a corridor 

about 5 by 10 kilometers (3 by 6 mi) on a

shrub-steppe winter range (Leckenby 1978b).

In southeastern Oregon, habitat management units 

between 2,500 and 4,700 hectares (6,400 to 11,520 

acres) approximate subpopulation ranges. These

units appear either as corridors on sloping range, 

about 5 by 10 kilometers (3 by 6 mi), or as blocks on 

more level range, about 8 to 9 kilometers (5 to 6 mi) 

on a side. These sizes represent a compromise 

between maximum sensitivity to deer biology and

minimum administrative cost. The number of deer in a 

subpopulation varies widely with quality of habitat and 

can range from as low as 20 deer up to 2,000.

PLANT COMMUNITIES AND STRUCTURAL

CONDITIONS

Plant communities may be grouped in various

ways for different management purposes. We identify 

groups by dominant plant species (Dealy et al. 1981). 

We have arranged the multitude of plant communities 

and seral stages in shrub-steppe succession into five 

structural conditions:2 grass-forb, low shrub, tall

shrub, tree, and tree-shrub.

Use of Plant Communities by Deer

Deer usually require several plant communities.

Daily and seasonally, they use a variety of land and 

vegetation features for cover and forage. Some

communities are used only part of each season, but 

most communities contribute to the well-being of deer 

sometime during the year. When deer can meet their 

needs within a relatively small area, deer productivity 

will be enhanced because maintenance energy costs 

will be less (Moen 1968b).

Migratory deer use plant communities on three

seasonal ranges (Zalunardo 1965). They migrate

from lower elevation winter ranges through spring-fall 

ranges to higher summer ranges (fig. 1). Fawning 

usually occurs in upper spring-fall and summer

ranges. Most deer gradually disperse over the

summer range as snow recedes to higher elevations.

Fall migration is largely influenced by weather.

Severe storms often precede migration to winter

range. In moderate winters, deer may not move to 

winter range at all, or they may arrive only after spring 

growth of forage.

2 Maser, C., and J.W. Thomas. The relationship of 

terrestrial vertebrates to the plant communities 

and structural conditions. Unpublished data on file 

at Pacific Northwest Forest and Range 

Experiment Station, La Grande, Oregon.

3
4. Present type of use by deer and livestock;

5. Past uses for roads, fences, water sources, and 

grazing;

6. Probable results of treatment and potential effects 

on productivity.

Deer production is usually greatest in the shrub and 

tree-shrub structural conditions (Hill 1956, Leopold

1950, Moen 1973). Structural condition can be retarded 

or advanced by grazing, fire, chemicals, or machinery 

(Koehler 1975, Plummer et al. 1968, Roberts 1975,

Valletine 1971, Willms et al. 1980, Yoakum and

Dasmann 1969). The challenge is to plan diversity of 

habitat and interspersion of cover with forage that will 

enhance or maintain deer habitat within each

subpopulation management unit in areas managed 

primarily for livestock grazing.

Figure 1. - Use of seasonal ranges depends on how well deer requirements are met by sizes and distribution of habitats relative to ridgelines, canyons, slopes, and flats.

Management Based on Plant Communities

and Structure

The number of deer a management unit can sustain 

is determined partly by the structure, composition, and 

arrangement of the vegetation, habitat diversity, amount 

of edge, availability of water, soil productivity, and 

weather severity. Through manipulation of vegetation 

structure and composition, habitat diversity, amount of 

edge, and availability of water, land managers can

influence the ability of the land to produce deer.

Plant communities, structural conditions, and land 

features provide the information managers need to

predict responses of both animals and vegetation to 

management and provide a basis for land-use planning 

(Crawford 1975, Daubenmire 1968, DeVos and Mosby 

1969, Mueller-Dombois and Ellenberg 1974). This

information includes:

1. Current composition and structure of the

vegetation;

2. Soil depth, stability, and suitability for fertilization;

3. Elevation, steepness, position, aspect, shape, and 

length of slopes;

4
Optimum habitat for deer is defined as the amount 

and arrangement of cover and forage areas which 

result in the greatest use of the most area. Optimum 

habitat is described here by sizes of stands and their 

arrangements in time and space to meet needs of 

deer for thermal and hiding cover, forage areas, and 

fawning and fawn-rearing habitat.

Range use by deer is not uniform. Habitat conditions often vary between intensively and lesser used 

areas (Bertram and Rempel 1977, Leckenby 1978b, 

Owen 1980, Webb 1948). Just how variations in use 

are related to conditions is not always clear.

COVER

Deer require protection from weather and predation. Because of the usual structure of shrub-steppe 

communities, where thermal cover is provided, hiding 

cover is usually also provided (fig. 2). On most range 

sites, cover is provided primarily by tall shrub

species, which in some seasons, also provide much 

of the deer forage. On some management units,

cover needs may be satisfied by one plant

community, juniper/sagebrush, for example.

Thermal Cover

We define optimum thermal cover for deer within 

the Great Basin of southeastern Oregon as stands of 

evergreen or deciduous trees or shrubs, at least 1.5 

meters (5 ft) tall, with crown closure greater than 75 

percent. Deer will use the best available thermal

cover, although it may not be optimum (fig. 3).

Structure of vegetation is more important than

composition, and levels of crown closure greater than 

75 percent appear equally preferred. Thermal cover 

should be at least 0.8-2 hectares (2-5 acres), since 

the area of thermal protection increases with stand 

widths greater than 90 meters (300 ft).

The quality of thermal cover for deer is affected by 

the following factors and relationships:

1. Net radiation flows are modified by crown

closure.

2. Snow depth decreases as crown closure

increases.

3. Vegetation taller than deer furnishes diminishing 

benefits.

4. Sixty-percent crown closure meets minimal

year-round needs.

Figure 2. - Shrub-steppe plant communities that provide 

thermal cover usually provide hiding cover also.

5. Production is greater where there is protection from 

effective temperatures outside the thermal neutral zone.

These relationships have been observed by Dasmann 

(1971), Leckenby (1977), Loveless (1964), and Moen

(1968b, 1973). The zone of thermal neutrality (Brody

1945, Holter et al. 1975) is that range of temperatures 

over which an animal's metabolic rate, as measured by 

heat production, is minimal.

Effective temperature is the result of the combined 

effects of several factors, including air temperature, wind 

speed, and radiation (Moen 1968b, Porter and Gates 

1969). Wind chill (Siple and Passel 1945) is an example 

of effective temperature derived from air temperatures 

and wind speeds only.

Deer use evergreen trees and shrubs for thermal cover 

on winter range and deciduous trees and shrubs as well 

on summer and spring-fall range (Leckenby 1977,1978a; 

Loveless 1964,1967; Mackie 1970). Topographic features, 

such as rocky bluffs, enhance the thermal cover offered 

by vegetation in some locations and may provide the only 

thermal cover (Grace and Easterbee 1979, Staines 1976).

Thermal cover allows deer to conserve energy by

protecting them from stresses induced by weather.

Energy in excess of that required to maintain basal

metabolism, regulate temperature, and provide for tissue 

replacement and necessary activity is then available for 

productive processes.

Much of the energy in the food of ruminants is used to 

satisfy basal and maintenance requirements, or is lost in 

waste products. Basal requirements are those necessary 

to sustain life. These include maintaining minimum body 

temperature and heart rate. Maintenance requirements 

are in addition to basal requirements and include travel to 

and from food and water and replacement of hair coats. If

5

Habitat Requirements of

Mule Deer

basal requirements are not met the animal will die; if 

maintenance needs are not met the animal will lose 

body weight. When basal and maintenance needs are 

met, energy surpluses are used for production, which 

includes growth, storage of reserves, reproduction, 

and care of young (Blaxter 1962; Brody 1945,1956; 

Findlay 1954; Grace and Easterbee 1979; Holter et 

al. 1975; Mitchell 1962; Moen 1968b,1968c, 1973; 

Nordan et al. 1970; Ozoga and Gysel 1972; Silver et 

al. 1969 and 1971).

Temperature regulation in response to thermal

stress increases the energy cost of maintenance (fig. 

4) and thus takes energy that otherwise could be 

used in productive processes. Maintenance requirements increase when radiation flows, surface tem -

Figure 3. - Deer will use the best available thermal cover, 

but cover with some thermal qualities is better than 

none.

peratures, air temperatures, wind speeds, and snow 

depths increase flows of energy from hot environments to ruminants as well as from ruminants to cold 

environments (Chappel and Hudson 1978; Holter et 

al. 1975; Malechek and Smith 1976; Moen

1968x,1976; Porter and Gates 1969). In attempts to 

reduce maintenance costs, deer may remain quiet

under thermal cover or may move to cover from open 

areas that offer only low-energy forage but greater 

thermal stress (Leckenby 1977, Loveless 1964,

Ozoga and Gysel 1972). If their diet meets or exceeds 

maintenance requirements, however, deer and cattle 

may bed or stand in exposed forage areas during 

periods of thermal stress (Malechek and Smith 1976; 

Moen 1968a, 1968c).

6
Figure 4. - Productivity of deer varies with the supply of energy 

available from forage and the thermal cover to conserve it. When 

quality and quantity of forage and cover is minimal, only survival 

needs are met. With increasing supplies of both, animals can 

maintain body weights. As supplies increase further, growth can 

occur, reserves of fat can be stored, and does can produce fawns 

and milk.
The thermal neutral zone covers a range of

temperatures over which heat production increases 

only slightly. With temperatures outside that zone, 

metabolic rate increases rapidly (Blaxter 1962, Brody 

1945, Chappel and Hudson 1978, Holter et al. 1975, 

Moen 1968b). For domestic animals, the shelter and 

food usually provided the year around broadens the 

thermal neutral zone, increasing the upper and

reducing the lower critical temperatures (Blaxter

1962:116-146). Brody (1945:305-306) suggested that 

productive efficiency of domestic animals was little 

affected by temperatures ranging from near zero 

(18°C) to about 80°F (27°C). The shelter and food 

available to wild ruminants, however, over much of 

the year reduces the thermal neutral zone to a

narrower range of temperatures.

The thermal neutral zone of white-tailed deer in 

captivity has been examined in different seasons. A 

"comfort zone" between 5°C and 20°C (41°F and 

68°F) has been suggested for winter, since the

estimated minimum level of energy expenditure

occurred at about 12°C (54°F), but a thermal neutral 

zone could not be demonstrated for spring, summer, 

or fall (Holter et al.1975). In another study, deer in 

winter coat increased heat production by only 25 

percent at temperatures between 0°C and 20°C (32°F 

and 68°F), but when the temperature was dropped to 

-15°C (+5°F) a 75-percent increase was seen (Silver 

et al. 1971).

The cooling effect of wind may either increase or 

decrease thermal stress. Winds coupled with

temperatures below the thermal neutral zone intensify 

stress due to cold because the effective temperature 

is reduced by convective cooling (Grace and

Easterbee 1979, Porter and Gates 1969, Siple and 

Passel 1945, Staines 1976, Stevens and Moen

1970). At temperatures above the thermal neutral

zone, winds lower effective temperatures and reduce 

stress from heat.

Effects of radiation, humidity, and snow on flows of 

energy to and from wild animals are also of great 

biological importance (Gilbert et al. 1970; Grace and 

Easterbee 1979; Moen 1968b, 1973, 1974; Moen and 

Jacobson 1974; Porter and Gates 1969).

Vegetation structure helps create microclimates. 

Height, canopy closure and depth, and stem density 

modify temperature, wind speed, precipitation, and 

radiation within stands. Reifsnyder and Lull (1965:70) wrote "...the forest can 

reduce monthly maximum air temperature in the

summer by about 10°F below that in the open, reduce 

annual rainfall (through interception) by 15 to 30

percent, and reduce wind velocities by about 20 to 60 

percent." Canopy closure in thermal cover reduced 

snow depths from 10 to 50 percent of that in

shrublands (Leckenby and Adams 1978).

Structural effects have been quantified and can be 

related to the biology of deer (Bergen 1971, 1972, 

1974; Cochran 1969; Gary 1974; Geiger 1966;

Gifford 1973; Nudds 1977; Ozoga 1968; Ozoga and 

Gysel 1972; Reifsnyder and Lull 1965; Stevens and 

Moen 1970; Verme 1965). Shrub communities also 

influence microclimate, but less than forests.

Thermal protection is as important in summer as in 

winter. Lack of protection in summer not only reduces 

immediate productivity but also lowers reserves

necessary for survival during the coming winter. Lack 

of protection in winter not only threatens immediate 

survival but also reduces productivity during the

following summer. The importance of thermal

protection in summer could not be fully appreciated 

until annual cycles in body weight of deer were

documented (Robinette et al. 1973, Short et al. 1969, 

Silver et al. 1969, Wood et al. 1962, Wood and

Cowan 1968).

Optimum microclimates for deer require more than 

50-percent canopy closure (Verme 1965). Incoming 

and outgoing radiation will substantially increase or 

decrease surface temperatures at less than

50-percent closure. Canopy closures greater than 50 

percent create more constant and less stressing

microclimates by minimizing fluctuations of incoming 

and outgoing radiation. In the Great Basin, where 

temperatures are often outside the thermal neutral 

zone for deer, 60-percent canopy closure is the

minimum criterion for thermal cover.

The severity of temperature, wind, precipitation, 

and radiation in forage areas surrounded by cover 

stands increases with the ratio of forage area

diameter to height of the adjacent cover stand;

density of nearby cover has an important but smaller 

effect (Cochran 1969, Geiger 1966, Gifford 1973,

Reifsnyder and Lull 1965, Verme 1965).

8
Riparian habitats in rangeland areas are extremely 

valuable for thermal cover and are used intensively by 

wildlife, livestock, and people. This habitat usually

combines in a small area the vegetative and

topographic components that together fulfill most deer 

requirements. Riparian zones also receive intensive 

livestock use because of the availability of thermal 

cover, green forage, and water. People prefer riparian 

habitats for fishing and water-oriented recreation.

Thus, when thermal stress occurs, deer compete with 

other big game, livestock, and people for riparian

zones.

Hiding Cover

Managers assume that deer require hiding cover 

(also called escape or security cover by some

authors) to make maximum use of a range (Bertram 

and Rempel 1977, Dasmann 1971, Nudds 1977,

Owen 1980, Reynolds 1972). We define optimum 

hiding cover on shrub-steppe rangeland as vegetation 

at least 60 centimeters (24 inches) tall and capable of 

hiding 90 percent of a bedded deer from view at 45 

meters (150 ft) or less (the sight distance after

Thomas et al. (1979:109), figs. 5 and 6). Owen (1980) 

detected significant associations between visual

density of vegetation and activities of free-ranging 

mule deer.

Sight distances differ between stands because of 

differences in plant characteristics and seasonal

changes caused by plant phenology. Tall shrubs

provide adequate hiding cover for some activities.

Low shrubs often hide bedded fawns at less than 1.5 

meters (5 ft) during summer. But both shrubs and 

trees are often required to hide deer against a snowy 

background at less than 800 meters (1/2 mi).

Areas of hiding cover should be between four and 

eight sight distances wide (190 to 380 meters or 600 

to 1,200 ft). Patches of hiding cover as small as 2 to 

10 hectares (6 to 26 acres) are probably sufficient for 

social groups of deer. Optimum distribution of hiding 

cover within a management unit consists of

continuous, interconnecting zones and scattered

patches (fig. 7). Canyons and ravines supplement

and enhance vegetative hiding cover. Although

topography may produce a visual barrier between an 

animal and a predator or a road, and distance may 

improve security, deer

may still feel vulnerable without vegetative cover. On 

short sagebrush and grass rangelands, deer

substitute distance and topography for vegetative

cover. "Safe" distance varies with time of year, health 

and activity of the animal, and experience and

conditioning of the animal to varied forms of

disturbance and harassment. Although distance and 

topography, by definition, do not provide optimum 

hiding cover in large open areas, they may provide a 

partial substitute.

9

Figure 5. - Vegetation that hides 90 percent of a bedded deer from view at 

45 meters (150 ft) qualifies as hiding cover, provided the stand is at least 

190 meters (600 ft) wide. Low shrub communities offer little hiding cover.

Figure 6. - The distance at which a deer is 90 percent hidden from view is 

defined as the "sight distance" (after Thomas et al. 1979). Hiding cover 

requires that sight distance be no more than 45 meters (150 ft).
FORAGE

Forage areas are vegetation stands used by deer 

for grazing or browsing which do not fit the definitions 

of thermal or hiding cover (fig. 8). This definition 

assumes that optimum forage areas do not constitute 

optimum cover areas, although plant species that

provide forage at one season often are used primarily 

for cover at other seasons. For example, big

sagebrush and bitterbrush forage may satisfy survival 

or maintenance needs in fall and winter but are used 

primarily for cover in spring, when forb and grass 

species are available to meet maintenance and

production requirements (Holl et al. 1979; Leach

1956; Leckenby 1978a, 1978c). Forage and cover 

types are seldom mutually exclusive on shrub-steppe 

rangelands, but such habitat division is useful for 

planning and m anagement.

Livestock and deer often eat the same forage

species but the overlap varies with range, season, 

and class of livestock. It is greatest if livestock and 

deer occupy the same range when young, green

grass and forbs are prominent in the diet of both 

(Dusek 1975, Hansen and Clark 1977, Hansen and 

Reid 1975, Longhurst et al. 1979, Smith and Julander 

1953). Such dietary overlap works to the advantage 

of management because livestock graze the cured 

grasses of species that deer also eat. Thus cattle 

grazing in summer exposes green forage for deer in 

fall, and winter grazing by cattle improves forage for 

deer in spring.

Grazing livestock on mule deer range at appropriate times minimizes direct competition for available 

forage and assures continued health of range plants. 

Fall grazing of livestock on deer summer range can 

be beneficial, provided deer have migrated from the 

area. Fall grazing by livestock on deer winter ranges 

can also be beneficial, provided it occurs before

greenup and the arrival of deer. Maximum benefits 

will be realized if livestock remove little of the dormant 

browse. Spring turnout of livestock on deer winter

range should occur following spring greenup and after 

most of the deer have migrated. It is critical that 

livestock be removed from deer winter range when 

soil moisture is still adequate to permit grasses to 

grow new leaves to replenish nutrient reserves in their 

roots. If livestock removal is delayed beyond this

point, the vigor of forage plants will decline. Continued 

abuse of plants by such extended grazing will

eventually reduce plant productivity, and declines in 

the productivity of both deer and livestock will soon 

follow.

Where annual grasses, such as some cheatgrass 

stands, persist in spite of continued attempts to

convert them to native bunchgrass, it might be wiser 

and more economical to manage those sites for

annual grasses instead of seeding them with exotic 

perennials. Permitting cheatgrass islands in expanses 

of sagebrush or crested wheatgrass would maintain 

greater forage diversity than reseeding entire blocks. 

Fall burning of cheatgrass stands can make nutritious 

growth available, but the hazards of erosion should be

10

Figure 7.- Ideal mule deer range consists of a mosaic of plant communities arranged to provide thermal cover, hiding 

cover, and forage areas of optimum structure and size.
Figure 8. - Forage areas contain grass, forb, and browse plants but 

not thermal or hiding cover.

The use deer make of forage areas depends on the 

size and interspersion of cover areas as well as size 

and arrangement of the forage areas. Deer do not 

fully utilize forage areas that are too far from cover 

(Reynolds 1962, 1964, 1966; Terrel 1973); they

conserve energy by this strategy. Travel to cover and

seasonal migration to more favorable ranges

increases the amount of energy required for

maintenance (Holl et al. 1979, Moen 1973, Wallmo et 

al. 1977). Forage areas wider than 250 meters (820 

ft) create less than optimum conditions (fig. 9);

walking requires from 18 to 67 percent of the energy 

expenditures of deer, elk, and pronghorns (Moen

1973:358-361). Appropriate arrangements of forage

areas, thermal cover, and hiding cover can minimize 

energy losses caused by exposure, travel, and

anxiety (figs. 7 and 10 are stylized examples).

Exposure to thermal stress is most severe in

openings with diameters more than five times the 

height of adjacent cover, and energy drain from

movement

and tension associated with alertness also increase 

with distance to cover. The production of muscle, fat, 

and milk and prospects for survival all decline (fig. 4) 

when energy, protein, carbohydrates, fats, and

minerals from forage do not surpass maintenance 

requirements (Blaxter 1962; Brody 1945, 1956; Holl 

et al. 1979; Moen 1973; Sadleir 1969).

A diversity of plant species tends to maintain

forage quality and availability over the seasons and to 

provide a buffer against plant losses to diseases or 

insects. Digestibility and nutrient content of forage are 

controlled by phenological stages of growth,

recognized by changes in plant form—bud burst, leaf 

expansion, stem lengthening, and flowering (Hickman 

1975; Hormay 1943, 1956, 1970; Hyder and Sneva 

1963; McIlvanie 1942; Subcommittee on Feed

Composition 1969). Quality generally declines with 

weathering and from spring through winter. The

phenologically young leaves of most species contain 

approximately equivalent high levels of digestible

nutrients (Subcommittee on Feed Composition 1969). 

Some species attain that stage only in spring; others 

also produce nutrient-rich foliage in fall.

11

considered. Young cheatgrass is nutritionally rich and 

it develops earlier in both fall and spring than many 

native perennials. It is very tolerant to intensive

grazing. Because they mature rapidly, however,

annual grasses also decline more quickly in forage 

value than perennial grasses.
Figure 9. - Deer do not fully utilize forage areas that are 

more than 125 meters (410 feet) from cover.

Figure 10. - Centers of forage areas wider than 250 

meters (820 ft), or 125 meters (410 ft) from cover edges, 

are used less than centers of smaller areas.

12

Deer and other ungulates have foraging habits tied 

to their physiological requirements for survival and 

reproduction, and adapted to cycles of plant

phenology. They cope with declining forage quality by 

selecting plants and plant parts that are

phenologically younger (Bell 1971; deBoer 1970; Holl 

et al. 1979; Hungerford 1970; Leach 1956; Leckenby 

1968, 1969, 1978a, 1978c; Spalinger 1980:106); thus 

they need a diversity of forage plant species that

reach equivalent phenological ages at different times. 

For example, Sandberg bluegrass begins leaf growth 

in late winter and has flowered by late spring; bluebunch wheatgrass does not begin growth until late 

spring and flowers in midsummer.

SPECIAL HABITAT NEEDS

Fawning and Fawn-rearing

Compact areas that contain a diversity of thermal 

cover, hiding cover, succulent forage, and water are 

needed by does during fawning and fawn-rearing 

(Reynolds 1974, Sheehy 1978, Stuth 1975). These 

areas become their activity centers during fawning in 

spring and remain central to their movements during 

the fawn-rearing period of summer.

Fawning habitat consists of vegetation stands used 

by does during birth and by newborn fawns for a brief 

sedentary period of about 1 week. Although

fawningoccurs in various habitats and farther than 1 

mile from trees,3 optimum fawning habitat is an area 

of low shrubs or small trees taller than .7 meter

3 Nellis, C. Unpublished data on file at Idaho Fish 

and Game Department, Jerome, Idaho.

13

(2.2 ft), with at least 40-percent canopy closure, that 

lies within 50 meters (160 ft) of taller tree cover. It is 

located on slopes of 0 to 30 percent and within plant 

communities where forage is succulent and plentiful 

in June (Sheehy 1978) (fig. 11).

In ideal fawning habitat of 2 to 10 hectares (5 to 26 

acres), a doe expends only a minimum of energy to 

meet her daily requirements. Surplus energy can then 

be transferred, through milk, into fawn growth (fig. 4). 

Water should be available within 600 meters (2,000 

ft). Elder (1956) surmised that succulent forage meets 

only marginal water requirements. The farther a doe 

has to range from her fawn to satisfy daily

requirements for water or food, the more energy she 

expends and the less energy she has for milk

production. A reduced supply of milk decreases fawn 

growth and jeopardizes fawn survival. Absence of the 

doe from the area in which the fawn is concealed also 

increases the potential for predation since the doe is 

frequently too far away to protect the fawn.

Although one doe requires a relatively small area, 

habitat for several does fawning at the same time 

must be larger. When the density of animals in 

optimum fawning areas is high, and cover patches 

are converted to forage areas, does may be forced to 

use sub-optimal habitats or accept crowding. Crowding causes strife between does and their actions 

probably attract and help predators locate hiding 

fawns.

Fawn-rearing habitat may include the area used for 

fawning but is usually larger and more diverse (fig. 

12). Optimum rearing habitat contains a diversity of 

plant communities and structural conditions in close 

proximity and assures that fawns maintain adequate 

growth rates as they depend more on forage and less 

on milk. Plant communities that satisfy hiding and 

thermal cover requirements are generally used from 

mid-morning until late afternoon. These

characteristically contain a tree overstory with at least 

50-percent canopy closure, and shrub or riparian 

communities more than 0.6 meters (2 ft) high with 

canopy closures of more than 23 percent. Shrub sites 

used during rearing are usually located within 100 

meters (330 ft) of trees. Stands that do not provide 

thermal or hiding cover are infrequently used during 

the day; and are generally used for forage during 

morning and evening (Sheehy 1978). In most

rangeland the need for thermal and hiding cover is 

greater than the supply.

Deer of all ages need high quality, succulent food 

to recover from weather stress, replenish body

reserves, and grow and reproduce at optimum rates. 

This is especially important to nursing does. Young 

plant tissue is required because only in the early

stages of growth does it contain an optimum balance 

and high concentrations of maximally digestible

nutrients needed to produce muscle, fat, and milk.

Because grazing and burning affect the phenology 

of forage plants, appropriate management can

prolong the availability of high quality forage for mule 

deer (Anderson and Scherzinger 1975; Leckenby

1968, 1978c; Tueller and Tower 1979; Willms et al. 

1979, 1980).
Sheehy (1978) found that during the rearing period, fawns 

usually stayed within 1 kilometer (0.6 mi) of the fawning site. 

In the 1st month of life, movement averaged 0.6 kilometer 

(0.4 mi); thereafter single fawns moved less (0.5 kilometer or 

0.3 mi) than twins, who moved 0.8 kilometer (0.5 mi). The 

optimum size for fawn-rearing areas appears to be about 

160 hectares (395 acres). On Steens Mountain, in Harney 

County, Oregon, 90 percent of the fawn-rearing areas

observed were this size or smaller; they ranged from 16 to 

367 hectares (39 to 907 acres); the median was 81 hectares 

(200 acres). Twin fawns tended to occupy larger rearing 

areas than single fawns.

Fawn-rearing areas should not be regarded as

independent units because there is considerable overlap in 

use of areas. It is important to identify and manage

generalized fawn-rearing habitat rather than focusing on

individual rearing areas.

Rehabilitation of fawning habitat may be desirable where 

stands appear decadent. Since control of shrubs replaces 

cover areas with forage areas, herd requirements and the 

probable impacts of reducing cover should be evaluated 

prior to treatment.

Proportion of Cover to Forage

We suggest that optimum mule deer range should contain 

a mixture of plant communities and structural conditions that 

provide areas of optimum size

Figure 11. - Quality of fawning habitat determines a 

fawn's chances of survival through the 1st week.

and spacing that add up to at least 55 percent forage 

areas, 20 percent hiding cover, 10 percent thermal 

cover, 10 percent fawn-rearing habitat, and 5 percent 

fawning habitat (fig. 13). On winter ranges where the 

option is available, thermal cover should be

emphasized in place of habitat for fawning and

fawn-rearing and up to 20 percent of the hiding cover, 

because thermal cover usually also provides hiding 

cover. Agreater shift is not desirable because hiding 

cover contributes more to winter browse than thermal 

cover.

Success in managing habitat for mule deer should 

be measured in part by herd productivity. Goals for 

producing animals that survive in good condition and 

produce the desired number of fawns can be used to 

measure the success of habitat management in

satisfying cover and forage requirements. Based on 

data adapted from another study (Leckenby 1978c, 

Leckenby and Adams 1978) an index of productive 

survival (PS) was estimated for four subpopulations of 

a herd near Silver Lake, Oregon. Productivity was 

estimated from a ratio of the maximum count of deer 

for each subpopulation to the population of the entire 

herd. Survival for each unit was estimated from the 

proportionate decline from fall to spring in the number 

of fawns per adult.

14
Figure 12. - Quality of fawn-rearing habitat determines 

the growth rate and survival of fawns through the 1st 

year.

15
Figure 13. - Optimum mix of cover and forage for deer on

shrub-steppe rangeland. Where there is a choice, thermal cover 

should be increased.

where: d is the maximum count of deer

 ha is the area of a unit in hectares

 t is the number of counting periods

 f is the count of fawns per count of adults in

 fall times 100

s is the count of fawns per count of

 adults in spring times 100

i is a sample unit of the herd range

Comparison among the four subpopulation ranges,

based on new analyses of data (Leckenby 1978c,

Leckenby and Adams 1978) on the number of deer, 

amount of plant community use, number of fawns, 

and severity of weather suggest that maximum

productive survival was attained

Figure 14. - Productive survival appeared maximum when cover 

areas made up 45 percent of mule deer winter range and forage 

areas made up 55 percent (adapted from Leckenby 1978c,

Leckenby and Adams 1978).

where cover areas comprised about 45 percent of a 

subpopulation range (fig. 14). Ratios of cover to forage 

were computed independently from plant communities 

within each management unit.

Management actions that might shift the ratio of 

cover to forage should be based on both the total area 

that is currently occupied by each plant community 

and the area that may reasonably be expected to 

produce cover or forage within the usual treatment

period.

16
A ratio of 40 percent cover to 60 percent forage 

appears to be consistent with proportions observed, 

estimated, or recommended by several authors who 

have studied deer herd ranges (Leopold et

al.1951:23,129; Reynolds 1969x,1972; Taber and

Dasmann 1958:55; Terrel 1973; Thomas et al. 1979).

Riparian Zones

Because rangelands tend to be arid, streamsides, 

spring areas, and moist sites are important for mule 

deer. Riparian zones contain the only permanent or 

seasonal water and often enclose the most vegetationally productive sites found over long distances. 

They provide a diversity of plant species that usually 

offer good thermal and hiding cover and prolong the 

availability of succulent forage. They are especially 

important during fawn-rearing because supplies of 

basic needs are concentrated in them. The intense 

competition for cover, food, and water in riparian

zones attests to their value (fig. 15), and unregulated 

use by livestock and people often reduces the

availability of these resources to deer (Johnson and 

McCormick 1978, Owen 1980). Sheehy found that

riparian vegetation was contained within every home 

range of fawns he observed. 4

Water Sources

Although some studies suggest that deer require 

potable water for maximum production, others show 

that deer survive in regions where water sources are 

either far apart or seasonally intermittent (Dasmann 

1971, Elder 1956). Numbers of deer fluctuate more in 

marginal habitat than on optimum ranges. We

consider ranges less than optimum where water

sources are farther than 320 meters (1,050 ft) apart.

Energy expended for travel to water reduces the 

amount available for survival or production. For

example, a 68-kilogram (150-1b) doe would expend

4

 Sheehy, D.P Personal communication. 

Information on file at Pacific Northwest Forest and 

Range Experiment Station, La Grande, Oregon.

Figure 15. - Planning for riparian zones is singularly 

important. In them deer face increasing disturbance and 

competition from livestock and people.

about the same amount of energy to walk 1 kilometer 

(0.6 mi) on level ground as she would use to produce 

22 grams (0.7 oz) of milk or to raise a liter of water 

from 0°C (32°F) to her body temperature of 39°C 

(102°F). But she would use three times the amount of 

energy needed to walk that distance if water was not 

available and she consumed the equivalent as snow. 

These comparisons arecalculated from estimates of 

the energy costs of walking on the level, producing 

milk, melting snow and heating water (Lange and 

Forker 1961:1539, 1549; Moen 1973:349, 354-356).

17
Various techniques for improving water sources or 

creating new ones have been developed to enhance 

habitat use and improve distribution and production of 

animals (Dasmann 1971, Yoakum and Dasmann

1969).

Management of Great Basin

Plant Communities for Mule Deer

In this report, we have placed 28 plant communities 

of the Great Basin of southeastern Oregon in nine 

managementgroups,comparedthecharacteristicsof 

each with cover and forage requirements of mule 

deer, and contrasted unmanaged conditions with

those induced by management practices. Dealy and 

others (1981) described the structural and floristic

detail of the 28 plant communities. We identify

communities by the species that dominate or

characterize them (table 1). This method is used to 

save space; it does not indicate the importance of the 

identifying species to deer. Ecological requirements of 

each species present in a community provide

information relevant to management of the site.

Where data from southeastern Oregon were

lacking, we reviewed published information on the 

interactions of deer with cover and forage in similar 

plant communities for indications of relationships.

BIG SAGEBRUSHES

Although the various forms of big sagebrush

(Beetle 1960, Hanks et al. 1973, Winward 1980,

Winward and Tisdale 1977) differ in importance to 

mule deer, all are used for cover, forage, or both 

(Leckenby 1968, 1978c; Owen 1980; Sheehy 1975, 

1978; Tueller and Monroe 1975).

Deer Use

The evergreen nature of big sagebrushes sustains 

their cover value throughout the year. Basin big

sagebrush offers thermal and hiding cover because of 

its height, upright growth, and relatively dense crown. 

A tree-like form is often the result of livestock grazing. 

Mountain big sagebrush also forms good thermal and 

hiding cover because it usually has a dense canopy 

both vertically and horizontally, although it has a

table-like form and does not grow as tall as basin big 

sagebrush. The close association of foothill big

sagebrush with western juniper makes it somewhat 

less important as cover, although it can

resemble the mountain form. Stands of Wyoming big 

sagebrush and alpine big sagebrush usually do not 

offergoodhidingorthermalcoverbecauseoflow height,

low density, and open distribution.

Deer do not browse big sagebrush forms equally. 

Sheehy (1975) ranked their palatability as follows:

foothill big sagebrush, good; mountain big sagebrush, 

good to fair; Wyoming big sagebrush, fair; alpine big 

sagebrush, poor; and basin big sagebrush, poor. Big 

sagebrushes generally receive greatest use in winter, 

moderate use in fall and spring, and lightest use in 

summer (Kufeld et al. 1973). Big sagebrush is more 

digestible when eaten in mixed diets than alone; but 

deer lose weight under winter weather conditions

when fed only big sagebrush (Bissell et al. 1955,

Dietz et al. 1962, Smith 1950). Yet, because they are 

evergreen, big sagebrushes are often the best

available forage. Many plants associated with big

sagebrushes are important deer forage (Kufeld et al. 

1973).

Because of its form, palatability, and distribution, 

mountain big sagebrush offers optimum habitat for

fawning and fawn-rearing within the shrub-steppe 

region (Sheehy 1978). The other big sagebrushes are 

used when they provide the best habitat available, but 

they are generally inferior to mountain big sagebrush.

Response to Management

Plans to manipulate big sagebrush stands to

benefit mule deer must specify the plant community, 

the subspecies of sagebrush, the method of

treatment, the size and arrangement of existing

stands and proposed treatments, and the livestock 

grazing system.

Reducing big sagebrush cover can benefit deer in 

the following situations: (1) homogeneous blocks of 

big sagebrush wider than 380 meters (1,250 ft) which 

lack diversity within the grass7forb layer; (2) seasonal 

range where green forage is insufficient but cover is 

excess, such as at lower elevations where favorable 

exposure permits early greenup; (3) where big

sagebrush is less desirable than meadow and riparian 

plant communities. Deer productivity can increase

following reduction of big sagebrush, provided

diversity, size of treatments, and cover-toforage ratios 

are near optimum.

18

19
20

Conversely, reducing the cover reduces deer

productivity in the following situations: (1) where

fawning and fawn-rearing habitat is limited; (2) on 

winter ranges with limited cover; (3) where big

sagebrush provides the only cover, for example, big 

sagebrush islands or draws within expanses of

scabland sageflats and big sagebrush around

rimrocks in open desert; and (4) where riparian

vegetation is not desirable or cannot be developed 

and big sagebrush provides a needed buffer zone of 

cover around springs and seeps.

Deer productivity can improve where big sagebrush 

cover is increased. Planting or management to favor 

its increase should be considered where there is a 

documented need; for example, creating islands of big 

sagebrush in vast areas of crested wheatgrass, or

reestablishing a shrub layer in some juniper plant

communities.

On many big sagebrush sites, herbaceous forage for 

deer can be increased by .appropriate livestock

grazing and by reducing shrub density and planting 

grasses and forbs (Koehler 1975, Plummer et al. 1968, 

Roberts 1975, Winward 1980). Cattle will eat standing 

dead grass. The subsequent regrowth of the shorter 

nutritious young leaves will then be more available to 

deer (Leckenby 1968, Willms et al. 1980). But when 

deer and livestock occupy seasonal ranges

simultaneously they compete for forage. Deer select 

the new growth of grass, forb, and shrub species that 

are also eaten by cattle, sheep, horses, and goats. 

Separating livestock from deer by season of grazing or 

by fences is the key to reducing direct competition. 

Plant vigor is best maintained by grazing livestock

during periods of plant dormancy. The next best

management for plant vigor is to alternate short,

intensegrazing periods with periods of nonuse that

coincide with soil moisture levels which allow regrowth 

and recharge of plant nutrients. Intensityof livestock

grazing is important, but so is the season, duration, 

and frequency. The relative impact of these four

grazing variables depends on how a grazing system 

interacts with the plant community (Hanley 1979).

Livestock grazing can create tree-like cover in basin big 

sagebrush, but the cover value of other big sagebrush

communities is reduced when their forage value is increased. 

Although observations indicate that mountain big sagebrush 

does not survive severe browsing as well as bitterbrush or 

mountain-mahogany, "hedging" effects of browsing by 

cattle on most shrub species

may create a crown that is better protected from

overuse by deer. In decadent stands of mountain big 

sagebrush, cattlegrazingappears to stimulate plant

reproduction by clearing away dead debris which

retards seedling establis hment.

SCABLAND SAGEBRUSHES

Several short sagebrush species (low sagebrush, 

early low sagebrush, black sagebrush, and stiff

sagebrush) occupy harsh, rocky, shallow-soil 

scablands throughout the range of mule deer (Beetle 

1960). These small sagebrushes provide little cover 

but offer forage of varying importance to deer

(heckenby 1968, 1978c; Sheehy 1978; Tueller and 

Monroe 1975).

Deer Use

Because of their small stature, short sagebrushes 

offer little thermal or hiding cover. Deer feed in the 

exposed habitats of short sagebrush scablands,

principally during the mild weather of sunny, calm days 

in winter and near sunrise and sunset in summer.

The short sagebrushes are closely browsed

throughout their distribution. In trials with deer and 

sheep, Sheehy (1975) ranked preference for low

sagebrush as fair and black sagebrush as poor.

Preference for stiff sagebrush is probably fair and 

may be seasonal because it is deciduous. Preference 

for early low sagebrush is probably fair and use may 

be influenced by its very early flowering and seed 

ripening (see footnote 4). Black sagebrush appeared 

to be slightly more digestible than big sagebrush,

perhaps because of its small stems and leaves (Smith 

1950). Sheehy (1975) measured digestibility of low 

sagebrush at 44.3 percent. Kufeld and others (1973) 

reported moderate use in fall, winter, and spring. Use 

throughout the year has been observed (Leckenby

1969).

In spring and early summer the forbs and grasses 

associated with short-sagebrush communities are

important to deer. New growth is early and abundant 

in these scablands because the shallow, rocky soils 

warm quickly, especially on southerly aspects.

Phenological development influences the timing of

use by deer. Sandberg bluegrass, crested

wheatgrass, and starved milkvetch are used very

early, but migratory deer seldom have an oportunity to 

feed on bluebunch wheatgrass and curvepod

milkvetch

22
because these plants normally initiate growth too late 

in the season. The immature stages of bluebunch 

wheatgrass, western needlegrass, and similar 

species are of value to nonmigratory deer, however, 

because their slower development provides digestible 

forage later in summer.

Although short sagebrush stands do not provide 

the cover essential for hiding and protecting fawns 

from predators and the elements, they are desirable 

in fawning and fawn-rearing areas since they often 

have abundant forbs and water during the early

fawn-rearing period.

Response to Management

Present range treatment methods offer little

potential for improving the cover value of scabland 

sites to mule deer. It is not practical to increase cover, 

although more cover would be beneficial. The sites 

are too harsh to support tall plants which could

improve cover, and techniques for establishing them 

are not available.

Methods have not yet been developed for increasing deer forage on many short-sagebrush 

scablands (Winward 1980), but forb, grass, and

browse composition of some stands has been im -

proved by manipulation with fire, machinery, and 

chemicals. The shrubs can be eliminated and grasses 

emphasized by flooding, the management practice 

termed "water spreading," but this treatment 

decreases winter forage.

In stands of low sagebrush that appear to be dying 

because of competition with rank bunchgrass,

livestock grazing could make the young growth of the 

grasses available to deer. Grazing would also tend to 

promote growth of low sagebrush browse.

Spring and early summer are times when livestock 

management can effectively modify forage

production, but also times when competition between 

livestock and deer for forage is maximum. Periodic 

rest from grazing has to be adjusted to the early

initiation of growth and late seed maturity of forbs in 

low sagebrush communities.

SILVER SAGEBRUSHES

Silver sagebrush communities are unique habitats 

that contribute to diversity and increase edge in areas 

dominated by tall sagebrush, short sagebrush,

juniper, and pine communities. They are closely

associated with drainage ways and basins. Beetle

(1960) recognized at least two subs pecies: a

Bolander form that occurs in closed desert basins and 

a mountain form associated with riparian habitats. 

Leckenby (1978c) found that deer preferred Bolander 

silver sagebrush communities on winter range. Dealy 

(1971) considered mountain silver sagebrush 

communities of low value to deer on summer range.

Deer Use

The medium stature of silver sagebrush provides 

some hiding cover for mule deer, but plant density

and canopy cover are usually low and offer little

protection from weather.

Deer browse silver sagebrushes in fall, winter, and 

spring5 (Kufeld et al. 1973). In browsing trials with 

captive mule deer, Sheehy (1975) found that

Bolander silver sagebrush was one of the most

preferred. 

Site, phenology, and the availability and diversity of 

forage plants influence the degree and season of deer 

use of silver sagebrush basins. Lengthy spring

flooding-normally up to a month-is characteristic of

these communities and encourages lush growth of

native forbs and grasses adapted to flooding.

Associated forage plants that deer apparently prefer 

to sagebrush when they are available are muhly,

Newberry's cinquefoil, Fremont combleaf, and other 

grasses and forbs in early growth stages. These are 

more nutritious than the older silver sagebrush

browse.

Riparian zones dominated by mountain silver

sagebrush communities provide fair cover and forage 

near water during much of the fawn-rearing period 

and are sufficiently valuable to mule deer to warrant 

protection. Persistent springflooding, however, makes 

Bolander silver sagebrush communities unsuitable;

after they dry, the flats are of little value for

fawn-rearing because hiding cover, thermal cover,

and forage are inadequate.

5 Leckenby, D.A. Unpublished data on file, Pacific 

Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, 

La Grande, Oregon.

23
Response to Management

Current techniques for manipulating habitat cannot 

increase the cover value of silver sagebrush

communities and will decrease the little value they 

possess. The extremes of flooding and drying each 

year eliminate introduced shrubs which might

otherwise provide increased cover.

Reducingcover, with or without soil disturbance,

does increase forb and grass forage. Leckenby

(1969) found that unusually long ponding significantly 

reduced Bolander silver sagebrush cover in closed 

basins in south-central Oregon for several years. This 

was followed by an increase in Newberry's cinquefoil 

and desert combleaf forage which was significant in 

the diet of mule deer through a mild winter. Most of 

the grasses and forbs planted to produce forage in 

range communities will not survive the inevitable

spring flooding and summer drying in Bolander silver 

sagebrush stands (Leckenby and Toweill 1979a,

Winward 1980).

Water holes and drainage ditches that are frequently dug in silver sagebrush basins quickly

concentrate runoff water into deeper reservoirs.

These retain water much longer than the wide,

shallow ponds that collect water naturally and allow it 

to evaporate rapidly. Created water holes have an 

obvious positive benefit for wildlife and livestock, but 

they also have adverse impacts on wildlife. Some 

drain the basin so efficiently that big sagebrush and 

rabbitbrush are able to invade and replace the silver 

sagebrush.

Other methods have provided valuable water

reservoirs without sacrificing the unique qualities of 

silver sagebrush communities. For example, it

guzzlers" (catchment aprons with storage tanks) have 

been installed in adjacent expanses of tall and short 

sagebrush or western juniper.

Livestock grazing of mountain silver sagebrush

stands can benefit mule deer by removing cured

grass from summer range; however, this must be 

managed to protect plant vigor and prevent damage 

to the riparian zone. Competition between deer and 

livestock for forage is likely to occur in these riparian 

communities on summer range (Dealy 1971, Dusek 

1975). We found that summer cattle grazing of silver 

sagebrush basins on deer winter range resulted in 

late spring and early summer compacted the soil and 

altered plant composition (Ixckenby 1978c).

ANTELOPE BITTERBRUSH

Although it forms pure stands elsewhere (Daubenmire 1970, Nord 1965), antelope bitterbrush is usually 

oneof several shrub species found in browse stands 

in the Great Basin. Managers have historically 

considered this species one of the most important

deer browse plants in the West. Its stature, crown, 

form, and abundant fruit offer both obvious and subtle 

benefits for many species of wildlife. Its structural and 

foliage attributes greatly influence microclimate and 

provide cover and forage values associated with high 

levels of use by both deer and livestock (Hormay

1943, Leckenby 1978c, Tueller and Monroe 1975).

Deer Use

On many winter ranges, antelope bitterbrush

provides exceptionally good hiding cover in both big 

and short sagebrush stands. Although deciduous,

bitterbrush contributes to thermal cover on winter

range because it is taller and has larger crowns than 

the sagebrushes, but it is not tall or dense enough to 

make good thermal or hiding cover under overstories 

of western juniper, ponderosa pine, and lodgepole 

pine on summer ranges.

Antelope bitterbrush is eaten by deer in all

seasons, but major use occurs in late summer, fall, 

and early winter (Kufeld et al. 1973, Leach 1956,

Leckenby 1969). Weather, seasonal moisture, and 

availability of other foods greatly affect browsing.

Secondary peaks in use are noted during dry springs; 

following cool, moist summers major use may not

begin until fall. Hormay (1943:3, 7) found that

bitterbrush produces flowers and seed only on the 

previous year's wood and not on the current shoots. 

He also concluded that at least 40 percent of each 

year's current leader should remain following grazing. 

Adams (1975) and Hormay (1943) both suspected 

that declines in bitterbrush populations in Oregon and 

California had resulted from insufficient seed

production caused by severe browsing.

Others have found that bitterbrush alone is not

digestible enough to provide sufficient energy for

maintenance under winter stress. For example, Dietz 

and others (1962) and Bissell and others (1955)

found that deer fed bitterbrush alone or in combina24
usually seek foods more digestible and richer in

energy than bitterbrush, such as younggrasses and 

forbs, even when unused leaders of bitterbrush are 

abundant. When better forage is not available,

however, deer browse bitterbrush severely, even

clipping off 0.6-centimeter (1/4-inch) diameter branchlets 2 to 4 years olds (Hormay 1943).

Because of their unusual density, height, and

canopy closure, stands of antelope bitterbrush can 

provide good fawn-hiding cover; however, the usual 

ecological situation in which bitterbrush occurs (Nord 

1965) does not assure fawn-rearing success because 

distances to water are usually too great, forbs and 

grasses mature rapidly, and temperatures are

frequently extreme.

Response to Management

In most areas where bitterbrush forms a large part 

of communities important to deer, reducing cover has 

adverse impacts on deer productivity. On the other 

hand, where decadent shrubs are not producing as 

much forage as wildlife and livestock need, replacing 

older canopies with youngshrub crowns is beneficial. 

This requires either new plants or rejuvenation of old 

shrubs (Koehler 1975, Plummer et al. 1968). Grass 

and forb production can be increased without

reducing bitterbrush cover by phenologically

scheduled spraying of herbicides to control

sagebrush and release the herbaceous layer.

Livestock grazing in bitterbrush stands in spring 

and early summer before soil moisture is depleted will 

benefit deer in fall and winter; livestock grazing in 

other seasons will cause direct competition with deer 

for forage and reduce plant vigor and reproduction; 

continuous grazing in summer and fall will magnify 

stress on plants. Unwise grazing management results 

in conditions which gradually alter the value of bitterbrush communities for wildlife and livestock as well.

To produce sufficient seed to continue bitterbrush 

stands, Hormay (1943:7) suggested that cattle be 

allowed to graze shrubs and shape them into more 

compact form that will protect shrubs

6

 Leckenby, D.A. Unpublished data on file at 

Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment 

Station, La Grande, Oregon.

from overuse and allow 15 to 20 percent of the new 

shoots to escape future browsing. He recommended 

one season of rest from cattle browsing every 4 or 5 

years. Where bitterbrush is dying and not being

replaced, we concluded that 2 years of rest would be 

needed to maximize seed production < nd perpetuate 

threatened stands. Hormay also found that height 

growth was restricted by cattle browsing, which

prevented the shrubs from growing out of the reach of 

deer.

Cattle grazingcan also be used to reduce competition of forbs and grasses for water and nutrients 

(Smith and Doell 1968, Tueller and Tower 1979).

Livestock grazing in bitterbrush stands makes more 

forage available to deer by removing the cured foliage 

so deer can reach new leaves of grass. As a result 

deer rely less on bitterbrush for forage.

WESTERN JUNIPER AND

JUNIPER/SAGEBRUSH

The pygmy forests - juniper woodlands of

south-central and southeastern Oregon - are

important to mule deer and other wildlife. They form 

habitats for deer which are analogous to the pinyon-j 

uniper woodlands found elsewhere in the Great Basin 

and the Rocky Mountains (Holmgren 1972). .During 

winter stress, western juniper communities were used 

more than any other type (Leckenby 1978a, Leckenby 

and Adams 1978). This woodland type comprises

many communities. Juniper stands tend to be either 

predominantly young (40 to 80 years) or old (200 to 

500 years) (Adams 1975). The structuralcomponents 

which juniper communities add to habitat diversity are 

apparently important to all aspects of deer use and 

range management on such sites (Leckenby and

Toweill 1979a, 1979b; Reynolds 1972; Short et

a1.1977; Tueller and Monroe 1975).

Deer Use

Western juniper stands provide excellent hiding 

and thermal cover for wildlife because they are short, 

dense-canopied, and evergreen. The arrangement

and mixture of juniper in shrubland and grassland 

communities, however, is often less than optimum, a 

factor which probably contributes to the loss of some 

deer to weather stress and starvation, no matter how 

mild the winter. Better distribution of cover may be the

25
reason some deer survive even the severest

winters. Leckenby (1978c) found that in winter 

deer used juniper for thermal cover more than they 

used grassland forage areas or shrubland

cover-forage areas. They also used juniper intensively for thermal cover on spring and fall ranges. 

Spalinger (1980) found they used juniper cover for 

bedding in Nevada.

Weather stress was 40 percent less under a

young juniper stand with a 25-percent canopy

closure than where canopy closure was 5 percent 

or less (Leckenby 1978a, Leckenby and Adams 

1978). Young juniper stands generally make better 

hiding cover than thermal cover. They also provide 

more grass, forb, and shrub forage than older

stands. As juniper stands age and develop larger 

crowns and greater canopy closure and crown

depth, thermal cover is improved.

Deer use juniper in all seasons, particularly

during stress caused by weather and food shortages. They will browse other forage if they have 

the chance, probably because juniper is not

digestible enough to meet their energy needs

during weather stress. Although chemical analy sis 

of Utah juniper was similar to sagebrush (Smith 

1952), it was less preferred than bitterbrush or

mountain-mahogany. Juniper browse probably

does not provide a maintenance diet but rather a 

survival diet.

Old juniper stands occupy harsh sites, and

current management policies prevent development 

or renewal of other forage within such stands.

Although forage plants do grow under juniper, 

they cannot sustain the same intensity and

frequency of cropping by ungulates they do in 

other settings. Native forage plants grow better

than most exotics, but seeds are not commercially 

available (Leckenby and Toweill 1979a, 1979b).

Western j uniper can hide fawns, but the aridity 

of stands and their lack of succulent forage

through the nursing period limit their value as 

fawn-rearing habitat. Their usefulness depends on 

forage in adjacent plant communities and availability of nearby water. Patches of j uniper may be 

used for fawning and fawn-rearing as Sheehy

(1978) found aspen patches were used within 

expanses of sagebrush.

Response to Management

Where juniper forms extensive, nearly monotonous stands of woodland various treatments can 

increase forage, edge, and diversity. Revegetation 

projects on sloping ranges should be restricted to 

corridors about 1 kilometer (0.6 mi) wide which 

lay across elevational contours. Projects on more 

level ranges should radiate from fawnrearing areas 

and riparian zones. Habitat quality, defined by 

optimum sizes and distribution of cover and forage 

areas, edge distances, and diversity can be

improved by appropriate cutting, chaining, and 

burningof units distributed within a larger project 

area. Such planning of treatment projects within 

management units is most compatible with ranges 

of deer subpopulations (Leckenby 1977, 1978a,

1978b).

Weather stress in the Great Basin makes thermal 

cover exceptionally important on all mule deer 

ranges. The vegetation influences on

microclimates determine how much juniper communities can be manipulated while preserving 

thermal cover. Sizes of patches and distances

between them must be considered.

Deer utilize forage better in smaller openings 

within juniper stands. Created forage areas,

therefore, should be irregular, long, and no wider 

than 60 meters (200 ft), assuming an average j 

uniper height of 6 meters (20 ft). Openings up to 

five tree heights in width allow wind speeds only 

30 percent of speeds in areas where there is no 

cover at all (Geiger 1966). But compact openings 

smaller than recommended, increase turbulance in 

eddies which can exceed the speed of winds above 

the canopy (Bergen 1971, Geiger 1966, Gifford 

1973). The long axis of forage openings should lie 

perpendicular to prevailing winds on winter ranges 

to minimize chilling and east-west on summer 

ranges for optimum shading. Temperature 

extremes in forage areas also vary with adjacent 

cover height (Bergen 1972, 1974; Cochran 1969; 

Geiger 1966; Moen 1968c, 1973).

The effectiveness of juniper cover depends

primarily on structure and secondarily on how well 

stand sizes match the space required by social 

groups of deer. Juniper cover areas should be at 

least 91 meters (300 ft) wide to create adequate 

thermal protection and at least 183 meters (600 ft) 

wide to meet hiding requirements.

26
The latter dimension probably allows sufficient 

space for most social groups. Little additional

effect or microclimate results when thermal cover 

stands are wider than three stand heights (Geiger 

1966, Reifsnyder and Lull 1965). Wider stands, 

however, can accommodate more deer by

providing enough preferred habitat to reduce

conflicts between animals. Deer use increased in 

pinyon-juniper islands when 30 percent of treatment areas were retained in cover patches at least 

152 meters (500 ft) wide, 10 hectares (25 acres) in 

size, and areas were no farther apart than 0.8

kilometers (0.5 mi) (Reynolds 1972).

Habitat diversity and structural qualities unique 

to juniper should be retained where stands

comprise less than 40 percent of a management 

unit. Even though control techniques work better 

on larger junipers, it is not wise to concentrate

treatment in older stands because recovery of their 

unique structural qualities will probably require 

several centuries.

The competition and seasonal availability of

forage within juniper communities will indicate

whether changes in livestock grazing or revegetation are necessary to provide additional forage. 

Manipulation of grazing intensity or season may 

enhance nativeforage by selective release. Several 

options are available when revegetation is selected 

as a way to increase forage (Koehler 1975,

Plummer et al. 1968, Vallentine 1971). Planting 

forage species under standing juniper can in crease 

spring forage without reducing cover (Leckenby 

and Toweill 1979b).

It is more difficult to attain a beneficial effect 

from livestock grazing in juniper stands than in 

most other habitats. On most sites, establishment 

and growth of deer forage is hindered by aridity, 

temperature extremes, shallow soils, and low

fertility. The adverse impacts of severe grazing are 

prolonged by these harsh conditions. Although 

heavy livestock grazing in the past eliminated 

forage species in many stands, grazing can

improve forage for deer if cattle graze coarse, 

mature plant parts. As always, requirements of

forage plants must be satisfied before grazing is 

permitted. Livestock must be restricted to either 

those seasons when plants are dormant or when 

soil mositure levels will permit regrowth and

recharge of plant reserves following grazing.

MOUNTAIN-MAHOGANY AND 

MOUNTAIN-MAHOGANY/SAGEBRUSH

The evergreen nature of mountain-mahogany 

and sagebrushes, which are regular community 

associates, make stands of these species important 

year around habitat for mule deer. The value of 

each stand is determined by composition and

structure. Observed deer use of mountain-mahogany communities was very high for short periods

in spring and fall and low, but consistent, in other 

seasons (Leckenby 1969,1978c). Owen (1980), in 

multivariate analyses, found that bedding, moving, 

and feeding were primarily associated with

structural characteristics of mountain-mahogany 

and other plant communities and secondarily with 

compositional characteristics. Tueller and Monroe 

(1975) found moderate to low densities of pellet 

groups in mountain-mahogany communities 

compared to other types.

Deer Use

Mountain-mahogany stands are generally short

and canopies nearly closed. Cover values,

therefore, are high throughout the year. These

communities frequently grow in ecotones between 

timber and shrubland. Often they provide

exceptional hiding and thermal cover close to

forage areas, for example, where mountainmahogany and short sagebursh communities

adjoin.

Mountain-mahogany is browsed wherever it is 

found (Kufeld et al. 1973). The forage value of a 

particular stand depends primarily on community 

composition and condition, which reflect current 

and past grazing intensity. In most stands past use 

has been severe enough to create high browse

lines, and the present forage value of

mountain-mahogany communities is primarily in 

the associated shrubs, grasses, and forbs. The

microclimate created by mahogany cover is

thought to promote dense forbs and grasses (Owen 

1980).

Excellent cover and usually good forage make 

mountain-mahogany stands potentially valuable

habitat for fawning and fawn-rearing. But fac tors 

in adjacent areas; such as the availability of 

potable water and quality forage throughout the

lactation period, determine their real value.

27
Patches of mountain-mahogany within expanses of 

shrubland may be focal points of fawning and 

fawn-rearing as Sheehy (1978) observed with 

aspen overstory.

Response to Management

Present knowledge of mountain-mahogany 

germination, establishment, growth, reproduction, 

and sprouting is limited (Dealy 1975). Thus,

results of manipulating mahogany to increase

cover and forage are unpredictable and often fail to 

meet treatment objectives. Management can

reduce mountain-mahogany cover and produce

more forage, but at the cost of habitat diversity. 

The present lack of understanding of the intensity 

of use by mule deer suggests that it is not wise to 

manipulate cover in stands of mountainmahogany 

that are narrower than 90 meters (300 ft).

Severe browsing by deer and livestock has

detrimentally affected many mountain-mahogany 

stands. On the other hand, livestock grazing on 

accumulated grass and forb litter in the understory 

can increase forage availability for deer. Grazing 

should be permitted only when plants are dormant. 

Numerous examples show that too much grazing, 

grazing at thewrongtime, grazing at the same time 

every year, as well as too little grazing can all 

reduce forage availability.

SALT DESERT SHRUB: BLACK GREASEWOOD,

SPINY HOPSAGE, AND SHADSCALE

Few mule deer utilize black greasewood, spiny 

hopsage, or shadscale communities. Although

these communities provide sufficient hidingcover 

for bedded deer, thermal cover is poor, and most 

associated forage species are available for only 

short periods in early spring. Mule deer frequent 

the adjacent tall- and short-sagebrush communities 

much more. Where they are interspersed as small 

stands among expanses of sagebrush, the black 

greasewood, spiny hopsage, and shadscale

communities improve habitat diversity and offer 

additional forage species, such as bud sagebrush 

and desert saltgrass. Salt desert shrub communities 

appear generally unimportant to deer management

in this area.

NON-SHRUB COMMUNITIES, GRASSLANDS IN 

GENERAL

Bunchgrass communities, burned areas, seedings, and cheatgrass stands are considered together 

asnonshrubcommunities. Grasslandsare not usually 

considered cover areas, but Nellis' has found that

giant wildrye stands are used as fawn-rearing 

cover in Idaho. Grasslands adjacent to cover may 

provide valuable forage, depending on the

interactions of stand size, grazing management, 

and season (Roll et al. 1979; Leckenby 1978c; 

Reynolds 1962,1964; Tueller and Monroe 1975; 

Willms et al. 1979).

The interspersion of forage types, particularly as 

small areas within cover types, results in

maximum effective use of forage by both deer and 

livestock. Forage was most intensively used

around the edges of large (80 hectares or 200

acres) areas that had been seeded and burned, 

while average use over the entire stand was 40 

percent.' In smaller stands (8 hectares or 20 acres) 

in the same area, 90 percent of available forage 

was used.9

Deer use was greater in small stands grazed by 

cattle in previous seasons. Deer grazed 80 to 96 

percent of the grass plants, primarily crested

wheatgrass, and removed 40 to 65 percent of the 

available spring growth in pastures grazed by

cattle in the previous summer, but on pastures

from which cattle had been excluded by fences, 

deer grazed only 16 to 20 percent of the grass 

plants and ate only 10 to 20 percent of the

available springgrowth (Leckenby 1968). Similar 

patterns of use by deer following cattle use were 

observed where range treatment or wildfire had 

produced grass stands dominated by bottlebrush 

squirreltail.

Nonshrub plant communities are most valu able 

tomuledeerduringfall, spring, and summer because 

of the lush green growth produced by

28

' Nellis, C. Unpublished data on file at Idaho Fish and 

Game Department, Jerome, Idaho.

a Bolstad, R. Unpublished data on file at Lakeview 

District, Bureau of Land Management, Lakeview, Oregon.

9 Leckenby, D.A. Unpublished data on file at Pacific 
precipitation in fall and ample soil moisture in 

spring. Fresh immature forage is high in nutrients, 

digestibility, and moisture and low in fiber,

regardless of plant species (Subcommittee on Feed 

Composition 1969). Fall greenup permits deer to 

add to nutrient reserves before the stresses of

winter. Rich and digestible new growth may also 

increase ovulation rates. Spring and early summer 

greenup supplies quality forage at a critical time 

when body reserves are nearly depleted, fetuses 

are growing rapidly, does are lactating, and deer 

are migrating.

SPECIAL PLANT COMMUNITIES

The Great Basin contains additional plant

communities that are unique or different from the 

majority of habitats in the area. They are

especially important to deer because they are

limited in extent and because they provide valuable habitat within expanses of less hospitable

habitat or satisfy deer needs during certain times 

of the year. They include riparian zones, pine and 

fir forests, and aspen, squawapple, snowbrush,

snowberry, chokecherry, and bitter cherry communities. Management of these environments

requires especially careful evaluation, and maintenance is often the best choice.

Riparian

Riparian zones are especially valuable for

fawn-rearing, summer and winter thermal cover, 

and late season forage. Willow, dogwood, cottonwood, and other characteristic riparian plant

communities provide concentrations of what

Leopold (1933:29) called welfare factors - cover, 

food, and water. Because of these factors, riparian 

zones areoften centers of intensecompetition 

among wildlife, livestock, and people. Agricultural 

activities, housing subdivisions, and recreational 

developments reduce habitat and increase

conflicts. Mule deer are subject to more frequent 

and more intensive disturbance in riparian

communities than in any other habitat throughout 

the Great Basin. Any development or overuse of 

riparian zones reduces their value as deer habitat.

Pine and Fir Forest

Pine and fir forest types are limited in the Great 

Basin and aregenerally restricted to relict stands in 

unique situations. Because seed sources are

isolated, environments are harsh and exacting,

successional stages are persistent, and tree growth 

is slow, these forests will probably not respond to 

management practices in the same manner

recommended for other forested areas (Thomas et 

al.1979). The foregoing factors make these forests 

ecologically much different from the pine and fir 

stands elsewhere - in the Blue Mountains, for

example. Management proposals to manipulate or 

exploit these environments require careful

evaluation. The precarious existence of these

stands, their small size, their unique contributions 

to habitat diversity, and their

importancetowildlifesuggestthatmanagement to

perpetuate and preserve them has a far sounder 

basis than management for timber production or 

livestock forage.

Aspen

Quaking aspen communities add considerably to 

the beauty and diversity of the Great Basin

shrub-steppe.and are second only to riparian zones 

in importance to mule deer. They provide

extremely valuable cover and forage during

fawning and fawn-rearing (Sheehy 1978). They

also provide patches of valuable hiding and

thermal cover within expanses of sagebrush. They 

contain grasses, forbs, and shrubs that provide 

good summer and autumn forage (Smith et

al.1972). Snowberry, for example, is a common 

and important browsecomponentofthesestands.

Competition between mule deer and livestock 

for aspen habitats is high because of the excellent 

cover and forage they provide. Alteration of cover 

and severe grazing within these communities can 

have adverse impacts on deer. Severe browsingof 

aspen sprouts appears to limit regeneration of the 

overstory and probably results from the competition for forage and space (Smith et al.1972). While 

removal of aspen is usually detrimental to the 

welfare of mule deer, the value of decadent stands 

may be improved by prescribing burning, cutting, 

and grazing management (DeByle 1978, Patton 

and Jones 1977, Reynolds 1969b, Smith et al. 

1972). Aspen stands should receive special evaluation during planning.

29
Squawapple

Squawapple communities provide cover and forage 

for mule deer. Associated grasses and forbs are

particularly valuable during early spring growth.

These plant communities are often semiriparian, 

occurring in moist swales in association with scabland 

vegetation types. Their value is heightened because 

of their association with adjacent communities that

are deficient in cover. Like riparian zones,

squawapple communities are focal points for

competition between livestock and deer, especially in 

late spring. Nearby conifer stands often provide

fawning habitats. The stands should be managed to 

enhance their cover and forage attributes while

maintaining their contribution to habitat diversity of 

rangelands.

Snowbrush

The stature, form, density, and evergreen nature of 

snowbrush make it particularly valuable to deer in all 

seasons. It quickly invades burns and establishes 

large forage areas. It is important in summer and fall 

diets (Leach 1956). In late summer, fall, and winter, 

the evergreen foliage is more nutritious than stems of 

many deciduous browse species. On productive sites, 

within 10 years after burning snowbrush will produce 

a canopy of adequate height and closure to provide 

thermal and hiding cover on summer and spring-fall 

ranges. On sites near intermittent or permanent

water, the thermal and hiding cover provided by

snowbrush communities can be excellent10 (Sheehy 

1978).

Since snowbrush quickly becomes tall and dens e 

on good sites, optimum production and availability of 

understory plants lasts only a few years. Prescribed 

burning can perpetuate cover and forage diversity

over extended periods (see footnote 10). Burning is 

necessary to break seed dormancy and regenerate 

snowbrush; mechanical and chemical treatments do 

not create adequate cover or forage stands as quickly 

as fire.

10 Grogan, F. Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife, Lakeview, Oregon. Personal communication. Information on file at Pacific Northwest

Forest and Range Experiment Station, La Grande, 

Oregon.

Snowberry

Communities dominated by snowberry are neither 

extensive nor common in the Great Basin. Where 

they occur, however, they are intensively used by

mule deer. They tend to be associated with specific 

plant habitats, such as stands of wax currant and big 

sagebrush on rimrocks and quaking aspen in moist 

locations.

Cover values of snowberry communities are

generally moderate to low, although in some areas 

they provide excellent hiding cover. Snowberry types 

are used by deer as cover from spring through fall 

(Sheehy 1978).11

Snowberry is browsed the year around. Use is 

generally greatest in late summer and early fall but is 

also high in late spring at lower elevations. Spalinger 

(1980:123) conjectured that snowberry may be more 

valuable than digestion trials indicate.

Manipulation of snowberry communities in the

Great Basin is detrimental to mule deer and other 

wildlife. This is especially true where these

communities occur on rimrocks or aspen sites and 

provide the only diversity in uniform stands of big 

sagebrush.

Chokecherry and Sitter Cherry

Stands of wild cherry species are like quaking

aspen communities in many respects. Theygrow on 

moist sites in rich shrub, forb, and grass communities 

that often retain phenologically young forage species 

longer than adjacent communities and provide

important mid- to latesummer habitats. These plant 

associations add considerable diversity to rocky rims, 

stream canyons, and grassland slopes in many areas. 

Wild cherry communities are often used intensively by 

livestock because they provide mild microclimates

and the resulting competition with deer for space and 

forage is often substantial.

Chokecherry and bitter cherry, like aspen, can

provide excellent thermal and hiding cover from

spring through summer. Stands vary considerably in 

density, but spread by suckering tends to create

dense irregular patches that provide cover favorable 

to deer.

11Nellis, C. Unpublished data on file at Idaho Fish 

and Game Department, Jerome, Idaho.

30
Although used all year, wild cherry species are 

browsed most intensively in fall and spring, and deer 

regularly consume the ripe fruit. Associated forbs also 

provide excellent summer forage.

Because the stands are limited and im portant, and 

since current management techniques cannot 

improve the cover and forage qualities of these

communities, maintenance is the best management.

Management Tips

1. Habitat management units should not exceed 4 

700 hectares (11,500 acres). They should be parallel 

to primary drainages and ridges. On ranges with an 

average slope of more than 2 percent, units should 

be about 5 kilometers (3 mi) wide and no more than 

10 kilometers (6 mi) between upper and lower

elevations. On level ranges, units may approximate 

squares, 8 kilometers (5 mi) on all sides, or circular 

areas with a radius of 4 kilometers (2.5 mi).

2. Because livestock is usually the major product of 

managed rangelands, grazing provides the most

economical tool for manipulating forage over large 

areas. Grazing systems can be used to manipulate 

vegetation and providefor all needs of deer. This

requires careful planning of sizes and boundaries of 

pastures and rotation schedules adapted to deer

subpopulation areas and seasonal movements. The 

usual system of rotating three or four large pastures 

does not allow rest periods tailored to the

physiological requirements of browse species and

may not leave enough forage in an intensively grazed 

pasture that encompasses the range of. a deer

subpopulation. If only lightly grazed or rested

pastures encompass the range of a subpopulation, 

then adequate new growth of grasses will not be 

available. A four- to six-pasture system that includes 

rest and rotation may be needed to maintain or

enhance preferred browse species, such as

bitterbrush.

3. Riparian zones are of great importance to desert 

mule deer. They satisfy requirements for cover, food, 

water, and plant species diversity in a small space. 

Management of these zones requires extremely

careful planning, based on comprehensive analysis of 

a multitude of variables (fig. 16). It is difficult to

implement a livestock grazing system that will

adequately protect unfenced

Figure 16.-Computer techniques are helping to store 

and analyze data to assist managers in understanding 

the importance of managing riparian zones with

sensitivity appropriate to their high value as habitat for 

deer, livestock, and people.

riparian vegetation (Duff 1979, Olson and Armour

1979, Storch 1979), but management has reversed 

vegetation trends and deterioration on some sites 

(Behnke and Raleigh 1978). Reductions in stocking 

may not produce the desired results, since cattle tend 

to concentrate in riparian zones during summer and 

fall and use streamside vegetation intensively. Some

livestock use of riparian areas may be beneficial,

however, since livestock tend to break down or thin 

out streamside growth that becomes too thick for deer 

movement or browsing. Classification of riparian

zones by elevation would associate zones with

summer, winter, and spring-fall ranges and help

managers develop grazing systems compatible with 

the seasonal needs of deer.

4. In units where deer depend on livestock watering 

devices, such devices should remain in operation

after the livestock grazing season. Overflow water

piped from troughs into managed pastures or

livestock exclosures can promote forage for deer and 

cover for other wildlife. The benefits from such water 

management must be balanced against loss of cover 

providedby juniper and sagebrushes , which are

intolerant of soil saturation.

5. Most vegetation conversions replace cover and 

browse with livestock forage, chiefly exotic grasses. 

Such treatments can reduce deer use through loss of 

cover and winter forage. Grass monocultures wider 

than 366 meters (1,200 ft) are poor deer habitat.

Removal of woody, nonforage species is not always 

desirable because they may provide thermal and

hiding cover for deer. Good deer range requires a 

mixture of grass, forbs, browse, and cover species.

31
Conclusion

Flexibility in managing public rangelands to keep 

pace with society's changing demands for products is 

dictated by laws, such as the Forest and Rangeland 

Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 sec 2(3). 

As public land administrators prepare to manage all 

rangeland resources as intensively as they currently 

manage livestock, livestock management will evolve 

into range management, and habitat for wildlife will be 

maintained, increased, and enhanced. Management 

of range ecosystems will include refinements that

account for impacts of old uses as well as new ones, 

as land managers decide which resources are to be 

emphasized and the intensity of management to be 

applied. Although the flow of products from most

rangelands can be sustained, with more careful

planning, more detailed inventories, and tighter

management, we can meet the constraints of

shrub-steppe ecosystems and reap additional

benefits. The trick is to make management decisions 

that maintain harmony among natural

interrelationships and human goals.

Literature Cited

Adams, A.W. 1975. A brief history of juniper and shrub 

populations in southern Oregon. Oreg. Wildl. Comm., Wildl. 

Res. Rep. 6, 33 p. Corvallis. 

 

Anderson, E.W, and R.J. Scherzinger. 1975. Improving 

quality of winter forage for elk by cattle grazing. J. Range 

Manage. 28(2):120-125.

Baker, M.F., and N.C. Frischknecht. 1973. Small 

mammals increase on recently cleared and seeded juniper 

rangeland. J. Range Manage. 26(2):101-103.

Beetle, A.A. 1960. A study of sagebrush, the section

Tridentatae of Aytemisia. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 368, 83 p. 

Univ. Wyo., Laramie.

Behnke, R.J., and R.F. Raleigh. 1978. Grazing and the 

riparian zone: Impact and management perspectives. In 

Strategies for protection and management of flood plain 

wetlands and other riparian ecosystems. R.R. Johnson and 

J.F. McCormick, Tech. Coord. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. WO-12, p. 263-267. Washington, D.C.

Bell, R.H.V. 1971. Agrazingecosystem in the Serengeti. Sci. 

Am. 225(1):86-93.

Bergen, J.D. 1971. Vertical profiles of windspeed in a pine 

stand. For. Sci. 17(3):314-321.

32

6. Vegetation improvement projects to benefit mule 

deer should be implemented only after five conditions 

have been met:

(a) Biological data show a need for range

improvement.

(b) Moderate techniques, such as changes in livestock 

grazing or herd size, have not improved

conditions.

(c) Plant communities have been identified.

(d) The probability of attaining project objectives on 

that site within a reasonable time is high.

(e) Effects on ecosystems and probable future land 

uses and management options have been

evaluated.

7. The success of habitat rehabilitation projects 

should be measured by impacts on all resources, as 

well as costs of treatment.

8. Size of areas to be treated by plowing and seeding 

or other programs should be selected to produce the 

appropriate ratio of cover to forage, desired plant

diversity, and optimum amount of edge. If range

treatment includes seeding, native and adapted exotic 

plants should be selected to maintain a diversity of 

green, succulent forage over as long a time as possible.

9. Since forage productivity declines when plant

requirements are not met, managers need to

beasconcernedwiththeamountofherbageleftat the end of 

the growing season as they are with the am ount 

consumed by deer and livestock.

10. Forage should be allocated to deer on the basis 

of:

(a) season of use;

(b) seasonal availability;

(c) seasonal nutrient requirements;

(d) number of deer planned for, by sex and age

classes;

(e) conversion of available forage to deer unit months, 

a measure similar to animal unit months (AUM) 

but also accounting for overlap of diet and season 

and area of range use.

11. Management practices that encourage human 

use of mule deer habitat should be carefully planned so 

that uses are compatible.
Bergen,J.D. 1972. Windspeed distribution in and near an 

isolated clearing in a pine stand. (Abstr.) Am. Meteorol. Soc. 

Bull. 53:1028.

Bergen,J.D. 1974. Vertical air temperature profiles in a pine 

stand: Spatial variation and scaling problems. For. Sci. 

20(1):64-73.

Bertram, R.C., and R.D. Rempel. 1977. Migration of the 

North Kings deer herd. Calif. Fish and Game 63(3):157-179.

Bissell, H.D., B. Harris, H. Strong, and F. James.

1955. The digestibility of certain natural and artificial foods 

eaten by deer in California. Calif. Fish and Game 

41(1):57-78.

Blaxter, K.L. 1962. The energy metabolism of ruminants. 

329 p. Hutchinson and Co., Ltd. London.

Brody, S. 1945. Bioenergetics and growth. 1023 p. 

Reinhold, New York.

Brody, S. 1956. Climatic physiology of cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 

39:715-725.

Chappel, R.W. and R.J. Hudson. 1978. Winter 

bioenergetics of Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep. Can. J. 

Zool. 56(11):2388-2393.

Cochran, P.H. 1969. Lodgepole pine clearcut size affects 

minimum temperatures near the soil surface. USDA For. 

Serv. Res. Pap. PNW-86, 9 p. Pac. Northwest For. and 

Range Exp. Stn., Portland, Oreg.

Crawford, H.S. 1975. Soil-site and forest land management 

decisions in relation to wildlife. In Forest soils and forest 

land management, p. 571-581. B. Bernier and C.H. Winget, 

eds. Proc. 4th North Am. For. Soils Conf., Les Presses de 

1'Universite Laval, Quebec, Can.

Dasmann, W. 1971. If deer are to survive. 128 p. Stackpole 

Books, Harrisburg, Pa.

Daubenmire, R. 1968. Plant communities, a textbook of 

plant synecology. 300 p. Harper and Row, Publ., New York.

Daubenmire, R. 1970. Steppe vegetation of Washington. 

Wash. Agric. Exp. Stn. Tech. Bull. 62,131 p. Wash. State 

Univ., Pullman.

Dealy, J.E. 1971. Habitat characteristics of the Silver Lake 

mule deer range. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. PNW 125, 99 

p. Pac. Northwest For. and Range Exp. Stn., Portland, 

Oreg.

Dealy, J.E. 1975. Ecology of curlleaf mountain-mahogany in 

Oregon and adjacent areas. Ph. D. thesis. Oreg. State 

Univ., Corvallis. 162 p.

Dealy, J.E., D.A. Leckenby, and D. Concannon. 1981.

Plant communities in managed rangelands and their 

importance to wildlife. In Wildlife habitats in managed 

rangelands: The Great Basin of southeastern Oregon. J.W 

Thomas and C. Maser, eds. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PNW-120, 66 p. Pac. Northwest For. and Range Exp. 

Stn., Portland, Oreg.

deBoer, T.A. 1970. [The contribution of vegetation science 

to the management of wildlife reserves.] De Bydrage Van de 

Vegetatiekinde By Het Beheer Van Wildreservaten. In 

Vegetatiekunde Als Synthetische Wetenschap. Misc. Pap. 

5, p. 63-78. Lanbouwhogesch. Wageningen, The 

Netherlands. [Translated from Dutch by W H. C. Schallig, 

1974].

DeByle, N.V. 1978. Our western aspen ecosystem, quest 

for management. West Wildlands 4(3):18-23.

DeVos, A., and H.J. Mosby. 1969. Habitat analysis and 

evaluation. In Wildlife management techniques, p. 135-172. 

3d ed. R.H. Giles, Jr., ed. Wildl. Soc., Washington, D.C.

Dietz, D.R., R.H. Udall, and L.E. Yeager. 1962. Chemical 

composition and digestibility by mule deer of selected 

forage species, Cache La Poudre Range, Colorado. Colo. 

Game and Fish Dep. Tech. Publ. 14, 89 p.

Duff, D.A. 1979. Riparian habitat recovery on Big Creek, 

Rich County, Utah - a summary of 8 years of study. In 

Proceedings of the forum: Grazing and riparian/ stream 

ecosystems, p. 91-92. O.B. Cope, ed. Trout Unlimited, Inc., 

Denver, Colo.

Duffey, E., and A.S. Watt, Eds. 1971. The scientific 

management of animal and plant communities for 

conservation 11th Symp. Brit. Ecol. Soc., Univ. East Anglia, 

Norwich. July 7-9, 1970. 652 p. Blackwell Sci. Publ., Oxford, 

London, Edinburgh.

Dusek, G.L. 1975. Range relations of mule deer and cattle 

in prairie habitat. J. Wildl. Manage. 39(3):605-616.

Elder, J.B. 1956. Watering patterns of some desert game 

animals. J. Wildl. Manage. 20(4):368-378.

Findlay, J.D. 1954. The climatic physiology of farm animals. 

Meteorol. Monogr. 2(8):19-29.

Forest-Range Task Force. 1972. The Nations range 

resources-A forest-range environmental study. USDA For. 

Serv. For. Resour. Rep. 19, 147 p. Washington, D.C.

Garrison, G.A., J.M. Skovlin, C.E. Poulton, and A.H. 

Winward. 1976. Northwest plant names and symbols for 

ecosystem inventory and analysis. 4th ed. USDA For. Serv. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-46, 263 p. Pac. Northwest For. and 

Range Exp. Stn., Portland, Oreg.
Gary, H.L. 1974. Canopy weight distribution affects windspeed and temperature in a lodgepole pine forest. For. Sci. 

20(4):369-371.

Geiger, R. 1966. The climate near the ground.611 p. Harvard 

Univ. Press, Cambridge, Mass.

Gifford, G.F. 1973. Influence of chaining pinyon-juniper on 

net radiation, solar radiation, and wind. J. Range Manage. 

26(2):130-133.

Gilbert, PF., O.C. Wallmo, and R.B. Gill. 1970. Effect of 

snow depth on mule deer in Middle Park, Colorado. J. Wildl. 

Manage. 34(1):15-23.

Grace, J., and N. Easterbee. 1979. The natural shelter for 

red deer (Cervus elaphus) in a scottish glen. J. Appl. 

Ecolo.16(1):37-48.

Gruell, G.E., and NJ. Papez. 1963. Movements of mule deer 

in northeastern Nevada. J. Wildl. Manage. 27(3):414-422.

Hanks, D.L., E.D. McArthur, R. Stevens, and A.P

Plummer 1973. Chromatographic characteristics and phylogenetic relationships of Artemisia, section Triden tatae. 

USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. INT-141, 24 p. Intermt. For. and 

Range Exp. Stn., Ogden, Utah.

Hanley, TA. 1979. Application of an herbivore-plant model to 

rest-rotation grazing management on shrub-steppe 

rangeland. J. Range Manage. 32(2):115-118.

Hansen, R.M., and R.C. Clark. 1977. Foods of elk and other 

ungulates at low elevations in northwestern Colorado. J. 

Wildl. Manage. 41(1):76-80.

Hansen, R.M., and L.D. Reid. 1975. Diet overlap of deer, 

elk, and cattle in southern Colorado. J. Range Manage. 

28(1):43-47.

Hickman, O.E. 1975. Seasonal trends in the nutritive content 

of important range forage species near Silver Lake, Oregon. 

USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. PNW-187, 32 p. Pac. Northwest 

For. and Range Exp. Stn., Portland, Oreg.

Hill, R.R. 1956. Forage, food habits, and range management 

of the mule deer. In The deer of North America, p. 393-414. 

WP, Taylor, ed. Stackpole Co., Harrisburg, Pa., and Wildl. 

Manage. Inst., Washington, D.C.

Hitchcock, C.L., and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the 

Pacific Northwest, an illustrated manual. 730 p. Univ. Wash. 

Press, Seattle.

Holl, S.A., H. Salwasser, and B. Browning. 1979. The diet 

composition and energy reserves of California mule deer 

during pregnancy. Calif. Fish and Game 65(2):68-79.

Holmgren, N.H. 1972. Plant geography of the intermountain 

region. In Intermountain flora, vascular plants of the intermountain west, U.S.A., p. 77-161. vol. 1. New York Botanical 

Garden. Hafner Publ. Co., Inc., New York and London.

Holter, J.B., WE. Urban, Jr., H.H. Hayes, H. Silver, and H.R. 

Skutt. 1975. Ambient temperature effects on physiological

traits of white-tailed deer. Can. J. Zool. 53(6):679-685.

Hormay, A.L. 1943. Bitterbrush in California. USDA For. Serv. 

Calif. For. and Range Exp. Stn. For.Res. Note 34,13 p. 

Berkeley.

Hormay, A.L. 1956. How livestock grazing habits and growth

requirements of range plants determine sound

grazingmanagement.J. Range Manage.9(4):161-164.

Hormay, A.L. 1970. Principles of rest-rotation grazing and 

multiple-use land management. TT-4 (2200). U.S. Dep. Inter. 

Bur. Land Manage. and USDA For. Serv. 26 p. U.S. Gov. 

Print. Off., Washington, D.C.

Hungerford, C.R. 1970. Response of Kaibab mule deer to 

management of summer range. J. Wildl. Manage. 

34(4):852-862.

Hunter, G.N., and L.E. Yeager. 1956. Management of the 

mule deer. In The deer of North America, p. 449-482. W P 

Taylor, ed. Stackpole Co., Harrisburg, Pa., and Wildl. Manage. 

Inst., Washington, D.C.

Hyder, D.N., and F.A. Sneva. 1963. Morphological and 

physiological factors affecting the grazing management of 

crested wheatgrass. Crop. Sci. 3:267-271.

Johnson, R.R., and J.F. McCormick, Tech. Coord. 1978.

Strategies for protection and management of floodplain 

wetlands and other riparian ecosystems. USDA For. Serv. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-12, 410 p. U.S. Gov. Print. Off., 

Washington, D.C.

Julander, 0. 1962. Range management in relation to mule 

deer habitat and herd productivity in Utah. J. Range Manage. 

15(5):278-281.

Koehler, D.A. 1975. A review of the literature on reseeding 

sagebrush-bunchgrass ranges in the semi-arid Western 

United States. Oreg. Wildl. Comm. Wildl. Res. Rep. 4, 47 p. 

Corvallis.

Kufeld, R.C., O.C. Wallmo, and C. Feddema. 1973. Foods of 

the Rocky Mountain mule deer. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. 

RM-111, 31 p. Rocky Mt. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Fort 

Collins, Colo.

Lange, N.A., and G.M. Forker. 1961. Handbook of chemistry. 

10th ed. 1,969 p. McGraw -Hill Book Co., Inc., New York.

Leach, H.R. 1956. Food habits of the Great Basin deer herds 

of California. Calif. Fish and Game 42(4):243-308.

Leckenby,D.A. 1968. Influences of plant communities on 

wintering mule deer. West. Proc. Annu. Conf. West. Assoc. 

State Game and Fish Comm. 48:201-208.

Leckenby, D.A. 1969. Ecological study of mule deer. Annu. 

Job. Prog. Rep., Fed. Aid Proj. W-53-R-11,July 1,1968-June 

30,1969, Oreg. Game Comm., Res. Div. 51 p. Portland.

34
Leckenby, D.A.1970. Mule deer winter range. In Progress 

in game and sport fishery research 1963-1970, p. 26-29. 

H.J. Rayner, H.J. Campbell, and WC. Lightfoot, eds. A 

report of the research division, Oreg. State Game Comm. 

Corvallis.

Leckenby, D.A. 1977. Management of mule deer and their 

habitat: Applying concepts of behavior, physiology, and 

microclimate. West. Proc. Annu. Conf. West. Assoc. State 

Game and Fish Comm. 57:206-217.

Leckenby, D.A. 1978a. Western juniper management for 

mule deer. In Proceedings of the western juniper ecology 

and management workshop. R.E. Martin, J.E. Dealy, and 

D.L. Caraher, eds. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

PNW-74, p. 137-161. Pac. Northwest For. and Range Exp. 

Stn., Portland, Oreg.

Leckenby, D.A. 1978b. Mule deer subpopulations on a 

south-central Oregon winter range. Oreg. Dep. Fish and 

Wildl., Job Final Rep. Res. Proj. Seg. W-70-R, 46 p. 

Portland.

Leckenby, D.A. 1978c. Mule deer occupancy of plant 

communities on a south-central Oregon winter range. Oreg. 

Dep. Fish and Wildl., Job Final Rep. Res. Proj. Seg. W-70R, 

78 p. Portland.

Leckenby, D.A., and A.W. Adams. 1978. A weather 

severity index for mule deer on a south-central Oregon 

winter range. Oreg. Dep. Fish and Wildl., Job Final Rep. 

Res. Proj. Seg. W-70-R, 58 p. Portland.

Leckenby, D.A., and D.E. Toweill. 1979a. Seeding 

response of selected plant species on mule deer winter 

range in south-central Oregon. Oreg. Dep. Fish and Wildl., 

Job Final Rep. Res. Proj. Seg. W-70-R, 22 p. Portland.

Leckenby, D.A., and D.E. Toweill. 1979b. Seeded plant 

densities in the first, second, and fourth growing seasons 

after treatment of six juniper vegetation subtypes on a 

south-central Oregon mule deer winter range. Oreg. Dep. 

Fish and Wildl., Job Final Rep. Res. Proj. Seg. W-70-R, 38 

p. Portland.

Leopold, A. 1933. Game management. 481 p. Charles 

Scribner's Sons, New York.

Leopold, A.S. 1950. Deer in relation to plant successions. J. 

For. 48:675-6 78.

Leopold, A.S., T Riney, R. McCain, and L. Tevis, Jr. 1951. 

The j awbone deer herd. Game Bull. No. 4.139 p. Calif. Dep. 

Nat. Resour., Div. Fish and Game.

Longhurst, W M., G.E. Connolly, B.M. Browning, and

E.O. Garton. 1979. Food interrelationships of deer and 

sheep in parts of Mendocino and Lake Counties, California. 

Hilgardia 47(6):191-247.

Loveless, C.M. 1964. Some relationships between wintering 

mule deer and the physical environment. Trans. 29th North 

Am. Wildl. Conf. 29:415-431.

Loveless, C.M. 1967. Ecological characteristics of a mule 

deer winter range. C olo. Game, Fish and Parks Dep. Tech 

Publ. 70, 124 p.

McIlvanie, S.K. 1942. Carbohydrate and nitrogen trends in 

bluebunch wheatgrass, Agyopyyon spicatum, with special 

reference to grazing influences. Plant Physiol. 17:540-557.

Mackie, R.J. 1970. Range ecology and relations of mule 

deer, elk, and cattle in the Missouri River Breaks, Montana. 

Wildl. Monogr. 20, 79 p.

Malechek, J.C., and B. M. Smith. 1976. Behavior or range 

cows in response to winter weather. J. Range Manage. 

29(1):9-12.

Mitchell, H.H. 1962. Comparative nutrition of man and 

domestic animals. Vol. 1, 701 p. Vol. 2, 840 p 

AcademicPress, New York.

Moen, A.N. 1968a. Surface temperatures and radiant heat 

loss from white-tailed deer. J. Wildl. Manage. 32(2): 338-344.

Moen, A.N. 1968b. The critical thermal environment: A new

look at an old concept. BioScience 18(11):1041-1043.

Moen, A.N. 1968c. Energy exchange of white-tailed deer, 

western Minnesota. Ecology 49(4):676-682.

Moen, A.N. 1973. Wildlife ecology, an analytical approach. 

458 p. W H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco, Calif.

Moen, A.N. 1974. Radiant temperatures of hair surfaces. J. 

Range Manage. 27(5):401-403.

Moen, A.N. 1976. Energy conservation by white-tailed deer in 

the winter. Ecology 57(1):192-198.

Moen, AX, and F.L. Jacobsen. 1974. Changes in radiant 

temperature of animal surfaces withwindand radiation. J. 

Wildl. Manage. 38(2):366-368.

Mueller-Dombois, D., and H. Ellenberg. 1974. Aims and 

methods of vegetation ecology. 547 p. John Wiley and Sons, 

New York.

Nord. E.C. 1965. Autecology of bitterbrush in California. Ecol. 

Monogr. 35(3):307-334.

Nordan, H.C., I. McT Cowan, and A.J. Wood. 1970. The 

feed intake and heat production of young black-tailed deer 

(Odocoileus hemionuscolumbianus) Can. J. Zool. 

48(2):275-282.

Nudds, TD. 1977. Quantifying the vegetative structure of 

wildlife cover. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 5(3):113-117.

Olson, R.W, and C.L. Armour. 1979. Economic 

considerations for improved livestock management 

approaches for fish and wildlife in riparian/stream areas. In 

Proceedings of the forum: Grazingand riparian/stream 

ecosystems, p. 67-71. O.B. Cope, ed. Trout Unlimited, Inc., 

Denver, Colo.
Owen, R.M. 1980. Classification of mule deer habitat using 

biophysical variables. M.S. thesis. Univ. Nevada, Reno. 122 

p.

Ozoga, J.J. 1968. Variations in microclimate in a conifer 

swamp deer yard in northern Michigan. J. Wildl. Manage. 

32(3):574-585.

Ozoga, JJ., and L.W Gysel. 1972. Response of white-tailed 

deer to winter weather. J. Wildl. Manage. 36(3):892-896.

Patton, D.R., and J.R. Jones 1977. Managing aspen for 

wildlife in the southwest. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

RM-37, 7 p. Rocky Mt. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Fort 

Collins, Colo.

Plummer, A.P, D.R. Christensen, and S.B. Monsen. 1968.

Restoring big game range in Utah. Utah Div. Fish and Game, 

Publ. 68-3,183 p. Publishers Press, Salt Lake City.

Porter, WP, and D.M. Gates. 1969. Thermodynamic 

equilibria of animals with environment. Ecol. Monogr. 

39(3):227-244.

Reifsnyder, WE., and H.W Lull. 1965. Radiant energy in 

relation to forests. USDA

For. Serv. Tech. Bull. 1344,111 p. Washington, D.C.

Reynolds, H.G. 1962. Use of natural openings in a 

ponderosa pine forest of Arizona by deer, elk, and cattle, 

USDA For. Serv. Res. Note RM-78, 4 p. Rocky Mt. For. and 

Range Exp. Stn., Fort Collins, Colo.

Reynolds, H.G. 1964. Elk and deer habitat use of a 

pinyon-juniper woodland in southern New Mexico. Trans. 

North Am. Wildl. Nat. Resour. Conf. 29:438-444.

Reynolds, H.G. 1966. Use of openings in spruce-fir forests of 

Arizona by elk, deer, and cattle, USDA For. Serv. Res. Note 

RM-66, 4 p. Rocky Mt. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Fort 

Collins, Colo.

Reynolds, H.G. 1969a. Improvement of deer habitat on 

southwestern forest lands. J. For. 67(11):803-805.

Reynolds, H.G. 1969b. Aspen grove use by deer, elk, and 

cattle in southwestern coniferous forests. USDA For. Serv. 

Res. Note RM-138, 4 p. Rocky Mt. For. and Range Exp. Stn., 

Fort Collins, Colo.

Reynolds, H.G. 1972. Wildlife habitat improvement in relation 

to watershed management in the southwest. Ariz.

Watershed Symp. Proc. Ariz. Water Comm. 16:10-17.

Reynolds, H.G. 1974. Habitat research . . . cornerstone in 

management. New Mex. Wildl. 19:28-30.

Rice, B., and M. Westoby. 1978. Vegetative responses of 

some Great Basin shrub communities protected against 

jackrabbits or domestic stock. J. Range Manage. 31(1):28-34.

Roberts, R.W. 1975. Evaluating the impact of range 

treatment on vegetation. Oreg. Wildl. Comm. Wildl. Res. Rep. 

7, 30 p. Portland.

Robertson, J.H. 1971. Changes on a sagebrush-grass 

range in Nevada ungrazed for 30 years. J. Range Manage. 

24(5):397-400.

Robinette, W.L. 1966. Mule deer home range and dispersal 

in Utah. J. Wildl. Manage. 30(2): 335-349.

Robinette, W.L., 0. Julander, J.S. Gashwiler, and J.G.

Smith. 1952. Winter mortality of mule deer in Utah in 

relation to range condition. J. Wildl. Manage. 16(3):289-299.

Robinette, W.L., C.H. Baer, R.E. Pilmore, and C.E.

Knittle. 1973. Effects of nutritional change on captive mule 

deer. J. Wildl. Manage. 37(3):312-326.

Rodgers, K.J., P.F. Ffolliott, and D.R. Patton. 1978.

Home range and movement of five mule deer in a 

semidesert grass-shrub community. USDA For. Serv. Res. 

Note RM-355, 6 p. Rocky Mt. For. and Range Exp. Stn., 

Fort Collins, Colo.

Sadleir, R.M.F.S. 1969. The ecology of reproduction in wild 

and domestic animals. 321 p. Methuen and Co., Ltd. 

London.

Severinghaus, CW., and E.L. Cheatum. 1956. Life and 

times of the white-tailed deer. In The deer of North America, 

p. 57-186. W.P. Taylor, ed. Stackpole Co., Harrisburg, Pa., 

and Wildl. Manage. Inst., Washington, D.C.

Sheehy, D.P. 1975. Relative palatability of seven Artemisia 

taxa to mule deer and sheep. M.S. thesis. Oreg. State Univ., 

Corvallis. 147 p.

Sheehy, D.P. 1978. Characteristics of shrubland habitat 

associated with mule deer fawns at birth and during early 

life in southeastern Oregon. Oreg. Dep. Fish and Wildl. Inf. 

Rep. Ser., Wildl. 78-1, 31 p. Corvallis.

Short, H.L., W. Evans, and E.L. Boeker. 1977. The use of 

natural and modified pinyon pinejuniper woodlands by deer 

and elk. J. Wildl. Manage. 41(3):543-559.

Short, H.L., J.D. Newsome, G.L. McCoy, and J.F.

Fowler. 1969. Effects of nutrition and climate on southern 

deer. Trans. 34th North Am. Wildl. Nat. Resour. Conf., p. 

137-146.

Silver, H., N.F. Colovos, J.B. Holter, and H.H. Hayes. 

1969. Fasting metabolism of white-tailed deer. J. Wildl. 

Manage. 33(3):490-498.

Silver, H., J.B. Holter, N.F. Colovos, and H.H. Hayes. 

1971. Effect of falling temperature on heat production in 

fasting white-tailed deer. J. Wildl. Manage. 35(1):37-46.

Siple, P.A., and C.F. Passel. 1945. Measurements of dry 

atmospheric cooling in subfreezing temperatures. Proc. Am. 

Philos. Soc. 89(1):177-199.

Smith, A.D. 1950. Sagebrush as winter feed for deer. J. 

Wildl. Manage. 14(3):285-289.

36

Smith, A.D. 1952. Digestibility of some native forages for 

mule deer. J. Wildl. Mange. 16(3):309-312.

Smith, A.D., and D.D. Doell. 1968. Guides to allocating 

forage between cattle and big game on big game winter 

range. Utah State Div. Fish and Game, Publ. 68-11, 32 p.

Smith, A.D., P.A. Lucas, C.O. Baker, and G. W. Scotter. 

1972. The effects of deer and domestic livestock on aspen 

regeneration in Utah. Utah Div. Wildl. Res. Publ. 72-1, 32 p.

Smith, J.G., and 0. Julander. 1953. Deer and sheep 

competition in Utah. J. Wildl. Manage. 17(2):101-112. 

Spalinger, D.E. 1980. Mule deer habitat evaluation based 

upon nutritional modeling. M.Sc. thesis. Univ. Nevada, 

Reno. 190 p. 

Staines, B.W. 1976. The use of natural shelter by red deer 

(Cervus elaphus) in relation to weather in northeast Scotland. J. Zool. Lond. 180:1-8.

Stevens, D., and A.N. Moen. 1970. Functional aspects of 

wind as an ecological and thermal force. 35th North Am. 

Wildl. Nat. Resours. Conf., p. 106-114. 

Storch, R.L. 1979. Livestock/streamside management 

programs in eastern Oregon. In Proceedings of the forum: 

Grazing and riparian/stream ecosystems, p. 56-59. 

O.B. Cope, ed. Trout Unlimited, Inc. Denver, Colo. Stuth, 

J.W. 1975. Livestock, deer, and logging interactions in the 

lodgepole pine-pumice region of central Oregon. Ph. D. 

thesis. Oreg. State Univ. Corvallis. 175 p.

Subcommittee on Feed Composition, Committee on 

Animal Nutrition, Agricultural Board, National Re search 

Council, United States and Committee on Feed 

Composition, Research Branch Department of Agriculture, Canada.

1969. United States-Canadian tables of feed composition. 

Nutritional data publication 1684.92 p. Natl. Acad. Sci., 

Washington, D.C.

Swank, W.G. 1958. The mule deer in Arizona chaparral. 

Ariz. Game and Fish Dep. Wildl. Bull. 3, 116 p. 

Phoenix. Taber, R.D., and R.F. Dasmann. 1958. The 

black-tailed deer of the chaparral. Calif. Dep. Fish and 

Game, Game Bull. 8, 163 p. 

Terrel, T.L. 1973. Mule deer use patterns as related to 

pinyonjuniper conversion in Utah. Ph. D. thesis. Utah State 

Univ., Logan. 174 p.

Thomas, JW., R.J. Miller, H. Black, and others. 1976.

Guidelines for maintaining and enhancing wildlife habitat in 

forest management in the Blue Mountains of Oregon and 

Washington. Trans. North Am. Wildl. Nat. Resour. Conf. 

41:452-476.

Thomas, JW., H. Black, R.J. Scherzinger, and R.J. 

Pedersen. 1979. Deer and elk. In Wildlife habitats in 

managed forests - the Blue Mountains of Oregon and 

Washington, J.W. Thomas, ed. U.S. Dep. Agric. Agric. 

Handb. 553, p.104-127. U.S. Gov. Print. Off., Washington, 

D.C.

Tueller, P.T. 1979. Food habits and nutrition of mule deer on 

Nevada ranges. Agric. Exp. Stn. Publ. 8128, 104 p. Univ. 

Nevada, Reno.

Tueller, P.T., and L.A. Monroe. 1975. Management 

guidelines for selected deer habitats in Nevada. Agric. Exp. 

Stn. Publ. 8104, 185 p.

Univ. Nevada, Reno. Tueller, P.T., and J.D. Tower.

1979. Vegetation stagnation in three-phase big game 

exclosures. J. Range Manage. 32(4):258-263. 

USDA Inter-agency Work Group on Range Production.

1974. Opportunities to increase red meat production

from ranges of the United States, Phase I.: Non

research. 100 p. U.S. Dep. Agric., Washington, D.C.

Vallentine, J.F. 1971. Range development and 

improvements. 516 p. Brigham Young Univ. Press, Provo, 

Utah.

Verme, L.J. 1965. Swamp conifer deer yards in northern 

Michigan, their ecology and management. J. For. 63(7): 

523-529.

Wallmo, O.C., L.H. Carpenter, W.L. Regelin, and

others. 1977. Evaluation of deer habitat on a nutritional 

basis. J. Range Manage. 30(2):122-127.

Webb, W.L. 1948. Environmental analysis of a winter deer 

range. North Am. Wildl. Conf. 13:442-450.

Willms, W., A.W. Bailey, and A. McLean. 1980. Effect of 

burning or clipping Agropyron spicatum in the autumn on the 

spring foraging behavior of mule deer and cattle. J. Appl. 

Ecol. 17(1):69-84.

Willms, W., A. McLean, R. Tucker, and R. Ritcey. 1979. 

Interactions between mule deer and cattle on big sagebrush 

range in British Columbia. J. Range Manage. 32(4):299-304.

Winward, A.H. 1980. Taxonomy and ecology of sagebrush in 

Oregon. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 642,15 p. Ore. State Univ., 

Corvallis.

Winward, A.H., and E.W. Tisdale. 1977. Taxonomy of the 

Artemisia tridentata complex in Idaho. For., Wildl., and Range 

Exp. Stn. Bull. 19, 15 p. Univ. Idaho, Moscow.

Wood, AJ., and 1. McT. Cowan. 1968. Post natal growth 

section III. In A practical guide to the study of the productivity 

of large herbivores. F.B. Golley and H.K. Buechener, eds. 

IBP Handb. 7, p. 106-113. Blackwell Sci. Publ., Oxford and 

Edinburgh.

37
Wood, A.J., I. McT. Cowan, and H.C. Nordan. 1962.

Periodicity of growth in ungulates as shown by deer of the 

genus Odocoileus. Can. J. Zool. 40:593-603.

Yoakum, J., and W.P. Dasmann. 1969. Habitat 

manipulation practices. In Wildlife management techniques, 

p.173-231. R.H. Giles, Jr., ed. Wildl. Soc., Washington, D.C.

Zalunardo, R.A. 1965. The seasonal distribution of a 

migratory mule deer herd. J: Wildl. Manage. 29(2):345-351.

Zeigler, D.L. 1978. The Okanogan mule deer. Wash. Dep. 

Game Biol. Bull. 15, 116 p. Olympia.

38
39

Appendix

Common and Scientific Names of Plants1

———————————————————————————————

Name in text Scientific name

———————————————————————————————

Antelope bitterbrush Purshia tridentata

Basin big sagebrush Artemisia tridentata tridentata

Big sagebrush Artemisia tridentata

Bitter cherry Prunus emarginata

Black cottonwood Populus trichocarpa

Black greasewood Sarcobatus vermiculatus

Black sagebrush Artemisia nova

Bluebunch wheatgrass Agropyron spicatum

Bolander silver sagebrush Artemisia cana bolanderi

Bottlebrush squirreltail Sitanion hystrix

Bud sagebrush Ariemisia spinescens

Cheatgrass brome Bromus tectorum

Common chokecherry Prunus virginiana

Crested wheatgrass Agropyron desertorum

Curvepod loco Astragalus curvicarpus

Desert combleaf2Polyctenium fremontii

Desert saltgrass Distichlis stricta

Dogwood Cornus stolonifera occidentalis

Early low sagebrush Artemisia longiloba

Foothill big sagebrush3 Artemisia tridentata form xericensis

Giant wildrye Elymus cinereus

Idaho fescue Festuca idahoensis

Lodgepole pine Pinus contorta

Low sagebrush Artemisia arbuscula arbuscula

Mountain big sagebrush Artemisia tridentata vaseyana

Mountain-mahogany Cercocarpus ledifolius

Mountain silver sagebrush Artemisia cana viscidula

Muhly Muhlenbergia richardsonis

Newberry's cinquefoil2Potentilla newberryi

Pinyon4Pinus edulis, and P. monophylla

Ponderosa pine Pin us ponderosa

Quaking aspen Populus tremuloides
Appendix

Common and Scientific Names of Plants1

continued

1Scientific and common names are from Garrison 

et al. (1976), except as noted.

2

 Hitchcock and Cronquist (1973).

3

 Sheehy (1975).

 4 Holmgren (1972).

5

 Smith (1952).

40

————————————————————————————————

Name in text Scientific name 

————————————————————————————————

Sandberg bluegrass Poa sandbergu

Shadscale Atriplex confertifolia

Snowberry Symphoricarpos albus, and

S. oreophilus

Snowbrush Ceanothus velutinus

Spiny hopsage Grayia spinosa

Squawapple Peraphyllum ramosissimum

Starved milkvetch Astragalus miser

Stiff sagebrush Artemisia rigida

Subalpine big sagebrush Artemisia tridentata spiciformis

Utah junipers Juniperus utahensis

Wax currant Ribes cereum

Western juniper5Juniperus occidentalis

Western needlegrass Stipa occidentalis

White fir Abies concolor

Willow Salix spp.

Wyoming big sagebrush Artemisia tridentata 

wyominensis
WILDLIFE HABITATS IN MANAGED RANGELANDS

THE GREAT BASIN OF SOUTHEASTERN OREGON

Technical Editors

JACK WARD THOMAS, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service

CHRIS MASER, U.S. Department of the Interior,

Bureau of Land Management

GPO 995669

Title Now Available

—————————————————————————————————

Introduction

Plant Communities and Their..................... Gen. Tech Rep. PNW-120

Importance to Wildlife

The Relationship of Terrestrial

Vertebrates to the Plant Communities

Native Trout ............................................. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-84

Ferruginous Hawk

Sage Grouse

Pronghorn

Mule Deer................................................ Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-139

Bighorn Sheep

Riparian Zones..........................................Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-80

Edges......................................................Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-85

Geomorphic and Edaphic Habitats............... Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-99

Manmade Habitats .................................... Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-86

Management Practices and Options
The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture is dedicated to the principle of multiple use 

management of the Nation's forest resources for 

sustained yields of wood, water, forage, wildlife, and 

recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation with 

the States and private forest owners, and management 

of the National Forests and National Grasslands, it 

strives - as directed by Congress - to provide 

increasingly greater service to a growing Nation.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is an Equal 

Opportunity Employer. Applicants for all Department 

programs will be given equal consideration without 

regard to age, race, color, sex, religion, or national 

origin.

Pacific Northwest Forest and Range

Experiment Station

809 NE Sixth Avenue

Portland, Oregon 97232