The ever
growin
g presence of red deer (
m>Cervus elaphusm>) in the forest peri
meters of the Lous? Mountain area of central Portu
gal is causin
g local conflicts a
mon
g stakeholders who report da
ma
ge to a
griculture and forest. One of the forest peri
meter re
gions (Lous?) has been selected to develop a Portu
guese Standard for the Forest Certification Syste
m (PEFCC). The ai
m of this study was to deter
mine whether any real da
ma
ge or i
mpact caused by red deer had in fact occurred in the area. Four types of forest cover were considered and nine plots (150
m2) were rando
mly selected within each type. All trees were recorded and the dia
meter at breast hei
ght (dbh) was
measured. The characteristics of
marks of each rubbed tree were recorded. The a
mount of folia
ge browsin
g was esti
mated visually as a percenta
ge except in situations of re
generation where the total nu
mber of consu
med leader or lateral shoots was counted. The shrub layer was scored accordin
g to hei
ght and cover. Altitude and distance to the nearest villa
ge, river or national road were
measured in each plot to analyse their influence on the de
gree of da
ma
ge. Cluster analysis allowed us to observe a da
ma
ge pattern across the study plots that separated browsin
g da
ma
ge fro
m frayin
g da
ma
ge. Pine re
generation type ve
getation suffered si
gnificant da
ma
ge by browsin
g but the percenta
ge of da
ma
ge due to frayin
g was not si
gnificantly different between forest types. So
me species of trees, such as sweet chestnut (
m>Castanea sativam>), were
more susceptible to frayin
g da
ma
ge. In all cases, deer clearly preferred rubbin
g on the s
mallest trees.
A classification tree where the percentage of rubbed trees was the response variable, showed that diameter at breast height (dbh), distance to national road and the number of trees were primary contributors to probability of damage. We propose that new indicators should be introduced into the certification process and that there is also a need to find a balance between different stakeholders?interests and wildlife.