Philip, I guess that would depend on the aims of the original study and its questions. If one is interested in the effect of deer on oak regeneration in second growth forest then the first reviewers comments are pertinent. If however the question is: "how does deer browsing impact the current forest stand? " then the second reveiwer should prevail. My opinion is that the first reviewer may have be confounding the results by imposing a treatment other than deer browsing on the original hypothesis. Also you should contact Ralph Nyland ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) at SUNY CSEF who has done more research on deer and forest management in the Adirondacks than anyone I can think of.
David M Bryant Ph D University of New Hampshire Environmental Education Program Durham, NH 03824 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 978-356-1928 On Aug 18, 2006, at 8:19 AM, Philip Shirk wrote: > A private camp in New York has received a grant from the state to > enclose a > three acre plot for a deer browsing study. However, the state > forester > wants them to clear cut the area and plant acorns in that space. A > forester > connected to the camp is very strongly against that idea and would > rather > fence in the area and not change anything other than the fence. > > The grant is in limbo if the two sides cannot reach an agreement. > Does > anyone have any comments or suggestions as to: > 1) How this research is normally done. > 2) What the benefit to clearing the area and planting acorns may be > (as > opposed to leaving it go and fencing it in). > 3) Any potential solutions. > > Thank you all, > Philip Shirk
