Food Habits of White-Tailed Deer in South Texas

Abstract

Highlight White-tailed deer were primarily grazers, rather than browsers, during the winter-spring periods of 1963, 1964, and 1965, in South Texas. There were only minor differences in distribution of major forage classes in deer diets from distinct range site groups, but major differences existed in species composition of diets in relation to site. Complexity of diet reduced the importance of any one or several species in the diet. Among high priority forage species, perennials were more important than annuals. Deer food habits varied according to availability and phenology of range vegetation, and were further modified by forage preferences. Major emphasis in management of South Texas rangeland has been directed toward sustained production of domestic livestock. Much of the same rangeland also supports substantial populations of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus Boddaert). This dual use of rangeland compounds management problems (Glazener, 1958). The preferred and most-used foods of each class of grazing animal in a given locality must be known as a basis for sound management of common-use ranges. Previous studies have shown that deer in the South and Southwest are primarily browsing animals, except during late winter and early spring when there is usually an increase in utilization of grasses and forbs (Hahn, 1945; Davis, 1952; Goodrum and Reid, 1954; 'CYhite, 1961; McMahan, 1964). Similar trends have also been noted in other regions (Chapman, 1939; Korschgen, 1962). McMahan (1964) reported that forbs appeared to be of greater importance in deer diets in the Texas Edwards Plateau region than generally believed. In South Texas, Davis (1952) reported that total consumption and diet of deer on the King Ranch followed the annual progression of plant growth l Contribution No. 115, Welder Wildlife Foundation,

Interactive effects of chronic deer browsing and canopy gap disturbance on forest successional dynamics

“…We used empirical estimates for successful species establishment from a 20-year deer exclosure that suggested L. tulipfera was not preferentially browsed in this forest, while Seagle and Liang used a four-level browse preference rank list, where L. tulipifera is listed at the highest level of preference. Study differences are likely due to site-specific differences in browse preference, as have been noted by others (Chamrad andBox 1968, Gill 1992). In addition, American beech is known to have a higher tolerance for wetter soils (Tubbs and Houston 1990), and the difference in simulation results could be due to Seagle and Liang (2001) modeling a riparian forest, whereas we simulated an upland deciduous forest.…”

Food habits of sika deer on the Boso Peninsula, central japan

“…Temporal variation includes seasonal variation CHill 1946;Knowlton 1960;Chamrad & Box 1968;.jackson 1977;Leader-Williams et al 1981;Crawford 1982) and annual variation (Anderson et al 1965;Segelquist & Green 1968;Harlow et al 1975;Hobbs et al 1981;McCullough 1985). Spatial variation includes geographical variation (Skogland 1980) and local habitat variation (Klein 1965;Leader-Williams et al 1981;Takatsuki 1990).…”

Food habits of ungulates in dry tropical forests of Gir Lion Sanctuary, Gujarat, India

“…Food availability is one of the most important factors influencing the distribution of free ranging wild ungulates and hence formulation of management strategy for a protected area necessarily requires adequate information on the food habits of different species (Chamrad and Box 1968, Fitzgerald and Waddington 1979, Holecheck et al 1982, Gill et al 1983. Equally important for sound management is the information on spatio-temporal variation in food availability, possibility of competition for certain food resources and hence food regulating the ungulate population.…”