The Big Takeaway
If you have ever looked at a piece of property with poor soils and assumed it could never produce high-quality deer forage, this study offers a reason to reconsider.
Researchers examined 40 plant species commonly eaten by white-tailed deer at 36 sites across 16 eastern states. They found that soil productivity was a poor predictor of the nutritional quality of the plants growing there. Instead, the type of plant growing on the site—particularly native forbs—explained much more of the variation in plant nutrient concentrations.
That does not mean soil quality is irrelevant. Soil productivity can influence how vegetation grows and how much forage a site can produce. But this study suggests that poor soil does not automatically mean poor-quality deer forage. For hunters and land managers, the question may be less about how fertile the soil is and more about what vegetation the property is producing and how much of it is available to deer.
The Question
Areas with more fertile soils often support larger deer and greater deer productivity. But why?
One possibility is that fertile soils simply produce more forage.
Another is that fertile soils produce plants with higher concentrations of nutrients.
Those are two different things.
This study focused on the second question: Does the mineral content of the soil determine the nutritional quality of the plants that deer eat?
What the Researchers Did
Harper and colleagues collected plant samples from 40 species commonly selected as forage by white-tailed deer at 36 sites across 16 states in the eastern United States.
The sites represented a broad range of soil conditions.
The researchers grouped the sampling locations into five soil-productivity classes and analyzed the plants for:
- Crude protein
- Phosphorus
- Potassium
- Calcium
They also collected soil samples directly around the plants and measured soil phosphorus, potassium and calcium.
The researchers then looked at whether differences in soil productivity or soil mineral concentrations could explain differences in the nutritional content of the plants.
They also compared plants by plant type—forbs, semi-woody plants, shrubs and trees—and by tissue age.
What the Study Found
Plant type mattered more than soil productivity
The strongest pattern in the study was not the soil beneath the plant. It was the type of plant itself.
Plant type explained the majority of the variation in plant nutrient concentrations, with forbs containing higher concentrations of all of the measured nutrients than the other plant types.
Young plant material also tended to contain more crude protein and phosphorus, while older plant material contained more calcium.
Soil productivity was a poor predictor of forage quality
The researchers found that their soil-productivity classification did not reliably predict the nutritional quality of the deer forage growing there.
When they compared individual plants with the soil immediately around them, soil phosphorus, potassium and calcium explained essentially none of the variation in plant mineral concentrations. The reported partial R² was 0.00 for those relationships.
Calcium was different—but still not limiting
Calcium was the one mineral that differed among the soil-productivity classes.
However, the researchers found that plant calcium concentrations exceeded the maximum requirements they used for deer across all of the soil-productivity classes.
In other words, even where soil productivity was relatively low, calcium in the plants was not considered limiting for deer.
Why Native Forbs Matter
One of the most interesting findings is the performance of native forbs.
Forbs are broadleaf herbaceous plants. In everyday hunting and habitat conversations, many of them simply get lumped together as “weeds.”
But from a deer-management perspective, that can be misleading.
In this study, forbs had higher concentrations of the measured nutrients than the other plant types.
That is important because a property covered in native vegetation is not necessarily a property with poor deer forage simply because it doesn’t look like a planted food plot.
The researchers concluded that naturally occurring plants—particularly native forbs—can provide sufficient nutrition for deer across a range of soil types represented in their study. They suggested that the availability of native forbs may be a more important limitation on deer body mass and antler size than differences in soil mineral concentration.
What Does This Mean for Deer Hunters?
There is an important distinction here.
This study was not a hunting study, and it does not tell us that a buck on poor soil will grow the same antlers as a buck on highly productive agricultural ground.
What it does suggest is that soil quality alone may be a poor way to judge the nutritional potential of a deer property.
That matters when evaluating hunting land.
A property with relatively poor soils should not automatically be written off as poor deer habitat. If the property produces abundant, nutritious native vegetation, it may be providing considerably more nutritional value than its soil classification would suggest.
For hunters, that means the vegetation you see on a property may tell you more about its deer-forage potential than simply knowing whether the underlying soil is considered “good” or “poor.”
What Does This Mean for Habitat Managers?
The management implication from the study is fairly direct.
If improving deer forage is the goal, the researchers recommend encouraging plant communities with a greater proportion of native forbs—even on soils with relatively low mineral concentrations.
That shifts the focus toward vegetation management.
Practices that increase sunlight reaching the forest floor and encourage early-successional vegetation can create conditions favorable to native forbs.
The practical question for a land manager therefore becomes:
What is limiting the amount and quality of desirable deer forage on my property?
If the answer is insufficient sunlight, excessive canopy, or a plant community dominated by less desirable vegetation, changing the vegetation may offer more benefit than simply assuming the soil needs to be “fixed.”
That does not mean fertilization, lime or soil amendments never have a place. It means this study does not support using soil mineral concentration alone as a predictor of deer-forage quality.
What This Study Does NOT Tell Us
This is an important part of the research.
The study did not manipulate soil fertility and then measure deer response.
It did not demonstrate that:
- Soil quality has no effect on vegetation production.
- Fertilizing a property can never improve deer habitat.
- A property with poor soil will produce the same amount of forage as a property with fertile soil.
- Soil type has no relationship to deer body size or antler size.
- Native plants will automatically provide enough forage for any deer population.
- Food plots are unnecessary.
- Increasing native forbs by itself will produce larger bucks.
What the study demonstrated was narrower and more useful:
Across the sites and plants examined, soil productivity was a poor predictor of the nutrient concentration of deer forage. Plant type—especially forbs—was much more important.
That distinction matters.
The Bigger Picture
The study helps separate two ideas that are sometimes treated as the same thing:
How nutritious is the forage?
and
How much forage is available?
This research primarily addressed the first question.
A property may have nutritious plants but still fail to provide enough total forage to support the number of deer using it. Conversely, a property can have abundant vegetation without necessarily providing the highest-quality diet.
Soil quality may still influence vegetation production and the overall carrying capacity of a property even if it does not strongly determine the nutrient concentration of individual plants.
For a deer manager, that means soil should be considered as one piece of the habitat picture—not the entire picture.
Science at a Glance
| Study type | Field sampling and comparative analysis |
| Published | 2025 |
| Study area | Eastern United States |
| States sampled | 16 |
| Sites | 36 |
| Forage species | 40 |
| Animal | White-tailed deer |
| Soil factors examined | Phosphorus, potassium and calcium |
| Plant nutrients examined | Crude protein, phosphorus, potassium and calcium |
| Journal | Journal of Wildlife Management |
| DOI | 10.1002/jwmg.22722 |
The Bottom Line
If you’ve always assumed that poor soil automatically means poor deer nutrition, this study suggests that assumption deserves another look.
The researchers found that soil productivity was a poor predictor of the nutritional quality of the deer forage they sampled, while plant type—especially native forbs—was much more important.
For deer hunters and land managers, the takeaway isn’t that soil doesn’t matter.
It’s that you should look at the vegetation before judging the property.
What plants are growing?
How much desirable forage is available?
How long does that forage remain nutritious?
And what can be done to create more of it?
Those may be more useful questions than simply asking whether the soil is “good.”
Original Research
Harper, C. A., B. K. Strickland, M. A. Lashley, M. A. Turner, J. S. Nanney, M. Colter Chitwood, C. E. Moorman, N. Ellison-Neary, J. M. Brooke, and G. M. Street. 2025. Soil quality does not predict plant nutrition available to white-tailed deer. Journal of Wildlife Management 89:e22722.
DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.22722
Support DeerManagers
DeerManagers.com is built around finding and explaining peer-reviewed research relevant to white-tailed deer hunting, habitat management and herd management.
If you find these research summaries useful, consider supporting DeerManagers and helping us continue to find, research and share new science.