Nutrient Content of Mule Deer Diets from Ponderosa Pine Range

Urness, Philip J.; Neff, Don J.; Vahle, J. R.

doi:10.2307/3800225

Cited by 12 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our protocol required that a female had to reside in its enclosure for .1 month before we would use them in a bite-count trial. We conducted bite counts (Urness et al 1975) quarterly beginning in April 2005 and ending March 2006. We classified January-March bite counts as winter foraging, April-June counts as spring foraging, July-September counts as summer foraging, and October-December counts as autumn foraging.…”

Section: Bite Countsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Supplemental Feed Increase Selective Foraging in a Browsing Ungulate?

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Provision of supplemental feed to large herbivores is a common management practice that may motivate selective foraging, thereby influencing plant community composition. Our objective was to assess the effect of a high‐quality supplement on diet composition and nutritional quality for white‐tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). We permanently released hand‐reared deer into 4 81‐ha enclosures; in 2 enclosures we provided a pelleted supplement. We conducted bite‐count studies seasonally to assess diet composition and quality. Supplemented deer reduced mast (fruits and pods of woody plants and cacti) in their diets (P < 0.019) during spring and autumn compared to unsupplemented deer. Diets of deer in supplemented enclosures had 2 times greater proportion of browse during spring (P = 0.065) and 5 times greater proportion of forbs during autumn (P = 0.007). Quality of the forage portion of the diet did not vary by treatment during winter or summer. Metabolizable energy concentration was 13% greater (P = 0.054) in spring and digestible protein content was 3 times greater (P = 0.006) during autumn in diets of supplemented compared to unsupplemented deer. Our results support the selective foraging hypothesis during autumn but not during winter, spring, or summer. Furthermore, white‐tailed deer did not reduce the proportion of their diet composed of browse, but did reduce consumption of mast. Supplemented deer continued to eat poor‐quality, chemically defended forage, perhaps to alleviate ruminal acidosis induced by the supplement or because nutrients in the supplement increased the deer's ability to detoxify chemically defended browses. A decline in mast consumption by supplemented deer could influence plant communities, depending on the role of deer in seed dispersal and seed predation. Impacts of supplemental feed on selective foraging of white‐tailed deer in shrub‐dominated rangelands are more complex than suggested by previous research. Long‐term studies of vegetation communities are needed before wildlife managers will be able to fully incorporate effects of supplemental feed into management decisions.

show abstract

Section: Bite Countsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Supplemental Feed Increase Selective Foraging in a Browsing Ungulate?

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) is an important vegetative type that is commonly included within summer home ranges of mule deer (Urness et al 1975, Currie et al 1977, Pederson and Harper 1978. However, decades of fire suppression and even-aged timber management have rendered ponderosa and other coniferous forests densely stocked, with closed canopies that preclude growth of shrubs and herbs Moore 1994, Kolb et al 1994).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Characteristics of mule deer day-bed and forage sites in current-condition and restoration-treated ponderosa pine forest

Germaine¹,

Germaine²,

Boe³

2004

Wildlife Society Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We characterized microhabitat (structure and microclimate) at 236 mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) day‐beds, 152 diurnal forage sites, and 439 random locations during summers of 1998–2000. Our objectives were to 1) identify important microhabitat characteristics of day‐beds and forage sites in untreated forest, 2) compare relative availability of bed and forage sites having these characteristics between forest types, 3) determine whether mule deer selected either forest type disproportionately for these activities, and 4) compare characteristics of day‐bed and forage sites between forest types. Mule deer selected bed and forage sites with specific characteristics in untreated forest each year. Site temperature and canopy closure were the most influential attributes in bed‐site selection, while forage availability best described forage sites. Availability of characteristic day‐bed microhabitat was reduced 50–100%, while forage characteristics increased 31–66% each year in treated forest. Foraging mule deer selected treated forest in 1 year but demonstrated no preference in 2 years. Mule deer continued to use day‐beds in both forest types each year as expected based on proportional area of each forest type, but did so in treated forest in 1999 by utilizing a novel suite of microhabitat features. Bed sites in each forest type had similar levels of midstory canopy closure, but treated forest bed sites were warmer in one year, exclusively located under oaks (Quercus gambelii) rather than conifers, and less concealed than untreated forest beds. Small oak stands were the only dense patches retained in the restoration prescription we examined and provided marginal thermal and hiding cover for day‐bed use by female mule deer. These differences may increase thermoregulatory stress and the potential for increased disturbance and predation of female mule deer and fawns during summer. We recommend retaining >0.04‐ha patches of dense bedding and hiding cover in areas where both forest restoration and mule deer are management concerns.

show abstract

“…We estimated diet quality following Urness et al (1975). For each nutrient, the percent a plant species contributed to the seasonal diets was multiplied by its chemical concentration to yield a weighted nutritional value, and then the nutrient content of seasonal diets was estimated by dividing the summed weighted nutritional values across species by the percent of the total diet accounted for the species analyzed that season.…”

Section: Forage and Diet Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Seasonal composition and quality of red deer Cervus elaphus diets in northeastern China

Chen¹,

Ma²,

Li³

et al. 1998

Acta Theriol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

. 1998. Seasonal composition and quality of red deer Cervus elaphus diets in northeastern China. Acta Theriologica 43: 77-94.Seasonal composition and quality of diets of red deer Cervus elaphus Linnaeus, 1758 were investigated, basing on microhistological analysis of composite fecal samples in the Less Xingan Mountains, northeastern China. Red deer consumed more graminoids (46%) in spring, shifted to forbs (45%) in summer, and returned to graminoids (35%) in autumn. Availability and high quality [high level of crude protein (CP), and low level of neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and acid detergent fiber (ADF) in forbs in summer] appeared to be two key factors causing these changes in diets. Winter diets were dominated by browses (74%) and the horsetails Equisetum hiemale (21%). Three forbs (Oxalix corniculata, Caltha palustris, Agrimonia pilosa) were prevalent in diets during snow-free seasons, and aspen (Populus spp.) was an important browse species in all seasons, especially in winter (32%). Forage and diet quality changed seasonally. Dietary CP and in vitro dry matter digestibility (IVDMD) declined significantly from spring to winter (from 19.6 to 6.4% and from 61.1 to 32.9%, respectively). In contrast, dietary NDF and ADF increased from 55.6 to 69.9% and from 27.9 to 54.3%, respectively. Red deer diets showed different patterns of seasonal variation in mineral contents. In most cases, dietary Ca, P and K were adequate, but Na appeared deficient all the year round. It is concluded that red deer in this region are typical mixed feeders and their diet shows seasonal changes in quality, similar to those of North American wapiti. Although red deer may have enough protein in most seasons, energy might be a key limiting factor in severe winters.College of Wildlife Resources,

show abstract

Nutrient Content of Mule Deer Diets from Ponderosa Pine Range

Cited by 12 publications

References 6 publications

Does Supplemental Feed Increase Selective Foraging in a Browsing Ungulate?

Does Supplemental Feed Increase Selective Foraging in a Browsing Ungulate?

Characteristics of mule deer day-bed and forage sites in current-condition and restoration-treated ponderosa pine forest

Seasonal composition and quality of red deer Cervus elaphus diets in northeastern China

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About