IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i13p3738-d246739.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Extensive Orchards in the Agricultural Landscape: Effective Protection against Fraying Damage Caused by Roe Deer

Author

Listed:
  • Petr Marada

    (Forestry and Game Management Research Institute, v.v.i., Strnady 136, 252 02 Jíloviště, Czech Republic
    Faculty of AgriSciences, Mendel University Brno, Zemědělská 1, 613 00 Brno, Czech Republic)

  • Jan Cukor

    (Forestry and Game Management Research Institute, v.v.i., Strnady 136, 252 02 Jíloviště, Czech Republic
    Faculty of Forestry and Wood Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Kamýcká 129, 165 00 Prague 6 Suchdol, Czech Republic)

  • Rostislav Linda

    (Faculty of Forestry and Wood Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Kamýcká 129, 165 00 Prague 6 Suchdol, Czech Republic)

  • Zdeněk Vacek

    (Faculty of Forestry and Wood Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Kamýcká 129, 165 00 Prague 6 Suchdol, Czech Republic)

  • Stanislav Vacek

    (Faculty of Forestry and Wood Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Kamýcká 129, 165 00 Prague 6 Suchdol, Czech Republic)

  • František Havránek

    (Forestry and Game Management Research Institute, v.v.i., Strnady 136, 252 02 Jíloviště, Czech Republic)

Abstract

The objective of this research was to determine the efficiency of different types of protective barriers and how they protect against fraying damage in extensive fruit tree orchards. Orchards in open agricultural land are the target of fraying damage caused by roe deer ( Capreolus capreolus L.). We assessed the effectiveness of four protective barriers: a rabbit-proof fence, a standard plastic tube commonly used in forestry, and an innovative plastic tube—variants with and without an additional rendering fat application. The study was situated in three extensive orchards in the southeastern part of Moravia in the Czech Republic. We analyzed the ratio of damaged trees, stem circumference damage, the length and height of damage on tree stems, the time periods with the most observed damage, and finally, the economic efficiency of each studied barrier. Most of the damage was observed in April and July. The most effective protective barrier was the innovative tube with rendering fat application (up to 100%) followed closely by the innovative tube without rendering fat application (95%). The standard plastic tube had an effectiveness of 49%, while the rabbit-proof fence was the least effective at 25%. In terms of the mean damage-lengths on tree stems, we found no significant differences between the rabbit-proof fence and the standard plastic tubes (21–22 cm). The usage of the innovative plastic tube without rendering fat reduced the average damage-length by half (10 cm) as compared to standard types (rabbit-proof fence, standard tube) of protection. The damage-heights on tree stems showed no significant differences among all variants (53–58 cm from the ground). Our analysis of economic parameters showed that rabbit-proof fencing had the worst cost efficiency, while the innovative tubes without rendering fat, had the best cost efficiency. We recommend starting the installation of protective barriers on trees in March, since we recorded relatively high activity of male roe deer in the following months.

Suggested Citation

  • Petr Marada & Jan Cukor & Rostislav Linda & Zdeněk Vacek & Stanislav Vacek & František Havránek, 2019. "Extensive Orchards in the Agricultural Landscape: Effective Protection against Fraying Damage Caused by Roe Deer," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(13), pages 1-12, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:13:p:3738-:d:246739
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/13/3738/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/13/3738/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. van Leeuwen, Cynthia C.E. & Cammeraat, Erik L.H. & de Vente, Joris & Boix-Fayos, Carolina, 2019. "The evolution of soil conservation policies targeting land abandonment and soil erosion in Spain: A review," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 174-186.
    2. Mouron, Patrik & Heijne, Bart & Naef, Andreas & Strassemeyer, Jörn & Hayer, Frank & Avilla, Jesus & Alaphilippe, Aude & Höhn, Heinrich & Hernandez, José & Mack, Gabriele & Gaillard, Gérard & Solé, Joa, 2012. "Sustainability assessment of crop protection systems: SustainOS methodology and its application for apple orchards," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 1-15.
    3. Alan Agresti & Matilde Bini & Bruno Bertaccini & Euijung Ryu, 2008. "Simultaneous Confidence Intervals for Comparing Binomial Parameters," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 64(4), pages 1270-1275, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jan Cukor & František Havránek & Sergei Sokolov & Vlastimil Skoták & Lucie Hambálková & Richard Ševčík & Zdeněk Vacek & Daniyar Nurseitov, 2022. "Estimation of ungulate population density in Kazakhstan: Case study from foothill ecosystems," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 68(11), pages 452-458.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Qianru Chen & Hualin Xie & Qunli Zhai, 2022. "Management Policy of Farmers’ Cultivated Land Abandonment Behavior Based on Evolutionary Game and Simulation Analysis," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-23, February.
    2. Channa Suraweera & Martin Baláš & Josef Gallo & Giuseppe D'Andrea & Stanislav Vacek & Jiří Remeš, 2023. "Intensive initial care of silver fir using improving compounds: A way to support diverse forests?," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 69(5), pages 179-192.
    3. García-Ruiz, J.M. & Lasanta, T. & Nadal-Romero, E. & Lana-Renault, N. & Álvarez-Farizo, B., 2020. "Rewilding and restoring cultural landscapes in Mediterranean mountains: Opportunities and challenges," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    4. Xuan Wei & Lihua Zhou & Guojing Yang & Ya Wang & Yong Chen, 2020. "Assessing the Effects of Desertification Control Projects from the Farmers’ Perspective: A Case Study of Yanchi County, Northern China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(3), pages 1-15, February.
    5. M. Lefebvre & C. Biguzzi & E. Ginon & S. Gomez-y-Paloma & S. R. H. Langrell & S. Marette & G. Mateu & A. Sutan, 2017. "Mandatory integrated pest management in the European Union: experimental insights on consumers’ reactions," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 98(1), pages 25-54, July.
    6. Juliana dos Santos Müller & Eduardo Mendes da Silva & Rita Franco Rego, 2022. "Prevalence of Musculoskeletal Disorders and Self-Reported Pain in Artisanal Fishermen from a Traditional Community in Todos-os-Santos Bay, Bahia, Brazil," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(2), pages 1-15, January.
    7. Carolina Perpiña Castillo & Eloína Coll Aliaga & Carlo Lavalle & José Carlos Martínez Llario, 2020. "An Assessment and Spatial Modelling of Agricultural Land Abandonment in Spain (2015–2030)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-23, January.
    8. Jaime Martínez-Valderrama & Gabriel del Barrio & María E. Sanjuán & Emilio Guirado & Fernando T. Maestre, 2022. "Desertification in Spain: A Sound Diagnosis without Solutions and New Scenarios," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-13, February.
    9. Morteza Akbari & Hadi Memarian & Ehsan Neamatollahi & Masoud Jafari Shalamzari & Mohammad Alizadeh Noughani & Dawood Zakeri, 2021. "Prioritizing policies and strategies for desertification risk management using MCDM–DPSIR approach in northeastern Iran," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 2503-2523, February.
    10. Goossens, Y. & Annaert, B. & De Tavernier, J. & Mathijs, E. & Keulemans, W. & Geeraerd, A., 2017. "Life cycle assessment (LCA) for apple orchard production systems including low and high productive years in conventional, integrated and organic farms," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 81-93.
    11. Zhang, Zhihui & Ghazali, Samane & Miceikienė, Astrida & Zejak, Dejan & Choobchian, Shahla & Pietrzykowski, Marcin & Azadi, Hossein, 2023. "Socio-economic impacts of agricultural land conversion: A meta-analysis," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    12. Alan Agresti & Sabrina Giordano & Anna Gottard, 2022. "A Review of Score-Test-Based Inference for Categorical Data," Journal of Quantitative Economics, Springer;The Indian Econometric Society (TIES), vol. 20(1), pages 31-48, September.
    13. Lavik, Ming Su & Hardaker, J. Brian & Lien, Gudbrand & Berge, Therese W., 2020. "A multi-attribute decision analysis of pest management strategies for Norwegian crop farmers," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    14. de Groot, Rudolf & Moolenaar, Simon & de Vente, Joris & De Leijster, Vincent & Ramos, María Eugenia & Robles, Ana Belen & Schoonhoven, Yanniek & Verweij, Pita, 2022. "Framework for integrated Ecosystem Services assessment of the costs and benefits of large scale landscape restoration illustrated with a case study in Mediterranean Spain," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    15. Zhaoxia Guo & Qinqin Guo & Yujie Cai & Ge Wang, 2021. "Unraveling Risk Networks of Cultivated Land Protection: An Exploratory Stakeholder-Oriented Case Study in Xiliuhe Town, Hubei Province, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-26, November.
    16. Patrik Mouron & Chiara Calabrese & Stève Breitenmoser & Simon Spycher & Robert Baur, 2016. "Sustainability Assessment of Plant Protection Strategies in Swiss Winter Wheat and Potato Production," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 6(1), pages 1-17, January.
    17. Yun Teng & Peiwen Lin, 2022. "Research on Behavioral Decision-Making of Subjects on Cultivated Land Conservation under the Goal of Carbon Neutrality," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-25, September.
    18. Jiayi Sun & Deqing Tan, 2023. "Non-cooperative Mode, Cost-Sharing Mode, or Cooperative Mode: Which is the Optimal Mode for Desertification Control?," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 61(3), pages 975-1008, March.
    19. Junhui Shi & Fang Wang, 2022. "The Effect of High-Speed Rail on Cropland Abandonment in China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-16, July.
    20. Luján Soto, Raquel & Cuéllar Padilla, Mamen & de Vente, Joris, 2020. "Participatory selection of soil quality indicators for monitoring the impacts of regenerative agriculture on ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:13:p:3738-:d:246739. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.