Seasonal variation in forages utilized by the African buffalo (Syncerus caffer) in the succulent thicket of South Africa

Abstract

The succulent thicket of the Eastern Cape, South Africa, is characterized by densely wooded vegetation that is dominated by succulents with little understory of ephemeral and weakly perennial grasses and forbs. Studies have developed around the question: how do bulk grazers such as the African buffalo (Syncerus caffer) survive in the succulent thicket? In this study, the diet of the African buffalo at the Great Fish River Reserve (GFRR) was studied in two seasons (wet and dry). The diet profile was assessed from faecal matter, using the micro‐histological analysis method. During the wet season, grass species contributed 72% to the diet while 28% was contributed by browse species. In the dry season there was a significant increase in the intake of browse by 5% (χ2 = 19.94, df = 11, P < 0.05). There were species that were neglected in the wet season but became principal dietary items in the dry season, these included Setaria neglecta, Cymbopogon plurinodis, Capparis sepiaria and Portulacaria afra. Diet quality, as estimated from faecal samples, suggested that the buffalo were nutritionally stable; however, the presence of sarcoptic mange in the buffalo suggests nutritional stress.

Settling the browser–grazer debate for African buffalo in grass-limited Eastern Cape thicket, South Africa

“…The specific question addressed was how important is grass in buffalo diet in thicket, taking into account other published work from the study site and region (De Graaff et al 1973;Landman & Kerley 2001;Tshabalala et al 2009;Watermeyer et al 2015). To end off, we consider how our findings influence research perspectives on buffalo resource use in succulent thicket specifically.…”

“…To develop broader insight into the range of buffalo diet in succulent thicket, we draw data from two previous studies at the study site (De Graaff et al 1973;Landman & Kerley 2001) and two others in the region (Great Fish River Nature Reserve - Tshabalala et al 2009; Kwandwe Private Game Reserve - Watermeyer et al 2015). Because De Graaff's study animals died during a drought, we use their data only to support the presence of plant species already recorded.…”

“…Importantly, Landman and Kerley (2001) concluded that De Graaff's methods were inappropriate for testing diet because their study animals died during a pronounced drought and probably as a consequence of excessive browse to which they were not adapted (Novellie et al 1991). Despite this, De Graaff's browsedominated diet continues to be used as a foundation for hypotheses on the diet of healthy animals (Tshabalala et al 2009;Watermeyer et al 2015). As a consequence, the debate around the feeding strategy of buffalo in thicket has not yet been settled.…”

“…grasses, woody shrubs, succulents, forbs and climbers). Principal diet items are those foods consumed in the greatest quantities and were identified as the plant species that contributed > 3% of the diet (Landman & Kerley 2001;Tshabalala et al 2009). ANOVA procedures (Tukeys' test) were used to test for differences in growth form categories and the number of plant species recorded in the diet across seasons.…”

“…They presumed that this was a response to low grass availability at the time and proposed that these buffalo should be considered browsers rather than grazers. This led to a number of studies on the food of buffalo in the region (Landman & Kerley 2001;Tshabalala, Dube & Lent 2009;Watermeyer, Carroll & Parker 2015), each aimed at testing the extent to which buffalo switch their diet between browse and grass. Importantly, Landman and Kerley (2001) concluded that De Graaff's methods were inappropriate for testing diet because their study animals died during a pronounced drought and probably as a consequence of excessive browse to which they were not adapted (Novellie et al 1991).…”