Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T03:19:01.364Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dietary preferences of sambar (Cervus unicolor) and red deer (Cervus elaphus) offered browse, forage legume and grass species

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

G. Semiadil ,
T. N. Barry ,
P. D. Muir  and
J. Hodgson
G. Semiadil
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science Department Ag Research, Flock House, Private Bag, Bulls, New Zealand
T. N. Barry
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science
P. D. Muir
Affiliation:
Department Ag Research, Flock House, Private Bag, Bulls, New Zealand
J. Hodgson
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Science, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Grazing sambar and red deer in New Zealand were offered a free choice of seven different plant species (forage legumes, browse and grasses) in 1992 and 1993 and dietary preference rankings were determined. Nutritive value of plants on offer and diet selected, plant height, plant species purity and stem diameter selected (browse only) were also determined. Total nitrogen (N) and organic matter digestibility (OMD) were highest for red clover, lowest for grasses and intermediate for browse species (willow, poplar and lupin). Top dietary preference ranking was willow for sambar and red clover for red deer in both years, with Yorkshire fog and prairie grass being lowly preference ranked with both deer species. Sambar selected willow stems up to 38 mm in diameter and poplar stems up to 54 mm in diameter. When the plants were grouped into browse, grass and forage legume categories, both deer species showed a similar preference ranking for grasses. Relative to grasses, sambar showed a strong preference for browse and a low preference for forage legumes, whilst red deer showed a strong preference for forage legumes of high nutritive value and a very low preference for browse. It was calculated that sambar selected a total diet higher in condensed tannins and lignin but lower in nitrogen than that selected by red deer, with similar values for total fibre and OMD. Differences in dietary preference between the two deer species may be linked with the greater ability of sambar deer to neutralize some plant secondary compounds and their more efficient rumination pattern compared with red deer. Both sambar and red deer can be classified as intermediate feeders, having a similar preference for grasses, but differing preferences for forage legumes and browse.

Type
Animals
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 125 , Issue 1 , August 1995 , pp. 99 - 107
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Austin, P. J., Suchar, L. A., Robbins, C. T. & Hagerman, A. E. (1989). Tannin-binding proteins in saliva of deer and their absence in saliva of sheep and cattle. Journal of Chemical Ecology 15, 1335–1347.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barry, T. N. (1989). Condensed tannins: their role in ruminant protein and carbohydrate digestion and possible effects upon the rumen ecosystem. In The Roles of Protozoa and Fungi in Ruminant Digestion (Eds Nolan, J. V., Leng, R. A. & Demeyer, D. I.), pp. 153–169. Armidale, Australia: Penambul Books.Google Scholar
Barry, T. N. & Duncan, S. J. (1984). The role of condensed tannins in the nutritional value of Lotus pedunculatus for sheep. 1. Voluntary intake. British Journal of Nutrition 51, 485–491.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barry, T. N., Manley, T. R. & Duncan, S. J. (1986). The role of condensed tannins in the nutritional value of Lotus pedunculatus for sheep. 4. Sites of carbohydrate and protein digestion as influenced by dietary reactive tannin concentration. British Journal of Nutrition 55, 123–137.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bootsma, A., Ataja, A. M. & Hodgson, J. (1991). Diet selection by young deer grazing mixed ryegrass/white clover pasture. Proceedings of the New Zealand Grassland Association 51, 187–190.Google Scholar
Burke, P. (1982). Food plants utilized by sambar. Australian Deer 17, 7–12.Google Scholar
Clutton-Brock, T. H. & Albon, S. D. (1989). Red Deer in the Highlands. Melbourne: BSP Professional Books.Google Scholar
Dinnerstein, E. (1987). Deer, plant phenology and succession in the lowland forests of Nepal. In Biology and Management of the Cervidae (Ed. Wemmer, C. M.). Washington DC: Smithsonian Institute Press.Google Scholar
Goering, H. K. & Van Soest, P. J. (1970). Forage Fiber Analysis. USDA Agriculture Research Service No. 379.Google Scholar
Hagerman, A. E. & Robbins, C. T. (1993). Specificity of tannin-binding salivary proteins relative to diet selection by mammals. Canadian Journal of Zoology 71, 628–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgson, J. (1979). Nomenclature and definitions in grazing studies. Grass and Forage Science 34, 11–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, R. R. (1985). Digestive physiology of the deertheir morphophysiological specialisation and adaptation. In Biology of Deer Production (Eds Fennessy, P. F. & Drew, K. R.), pp. 393–407. The Royal Society of New Zealand Bulletin 22.Google Scholar
Hunt, W. F. & Hay, R. J. M. (1990). A photographic technique for assessing the pasture species performance of grazing animals. Proceedings of the New Zealand Grassland Association 51, 191–196.Google Scholar
Kay, R. N. B. & Staines, B. W. (1981). The nutrition of the red deer (Cervus elaphus). Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews, Series B 51, 601–622.Google Scholar
Kay, R. N. B., Engelhardt, W. V. & White, R. G. (1980). The digestive physiology of wild ruminants. In Digestive Physiology and Metabolism in Ruminants (Eds Ruckebusch, Y. & Thivend, P.), pp. 743–761. Lancaster: MTP Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelton, S. D. (1981). Biology of sambar deer (Cervus unicolor Kerr. 1792) in New Zealand with particular preference to diet in a Manawatu flax swamp. MSc thesis, Massey University, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Kelton, S. D., & Skipworth, J. P. (1987). Food of sambar deer (Cervus unicolor) in a Manawatu (New Zealand) flax swamp. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 10, 149–152.Google Scholar
Minson, D. J. (1981). Nutritional differences between tropical and temperate pastures. In World Animal Science (Ed. Morley, F. H. W.), pp. 143–157. Netherlands: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Nair, P. V. & Jayson, J. A. (1988). Habitat utilization by large mammals in teak plantations and natural forests. Kerala Forest Research Institute. Research Report No. 56. Kerala, India.Google Scholar
Ngampongsai, C. (1987). Habitat use by the sambar (Cervus unicolor) in Thailand: a case study for Khao-Tai National Park. In Biology and Management of the Cervidae (Ed. Wemmer, C. M.). Washington DC: Smithsonian Institute Press.Google Scholar
Riney, T. (1957). Sambar (Cervus unicolor) in sand hill country. Proceedings of the New Zealand Ecology Society 5, 26–27.Google Scholar
Robbins, C. T., Mole, S., Hagerman, A. E. & Hanley, T. A. (1987). Role of tannins in defending plants against ruminants: reduction in dry matter digestion? Ecology 68, 1606–1615.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roughan, P. G. & Holland, R. (1977). Predicting in-vivo digestibilities of herbages by exhaustive enzymic hydrolysis of cell walls. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 28, 1057–1064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaller, G. B. (1967). The Deer and the Tiger. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Semiadi, G., Barry, T. N., Stafford, K. J., Muir, P. D. & Reid, C. S. W. (1994). Comparison of digestive and chewing efficiency and time spent eating and ruminating in sambar deer (Cervus unicolor) and red deer (Cervus elaphus). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 123, 89–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shea, S. M., Flynn, L. B., Marchinton, R. L. & Lewis, J. E. (1990). Part II. Social behaviour, movement ecology and food habits. In Ecology of Sambar Deer on St Vincent National Wildlife Refuge, Florida, Bulletin No. 25, pp. 13–62. Tallahassee, Florida: Tall Timbers Research Station.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis System (1987). SAS/STAT Guide for Personal Computers. Version 6. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.Google Scholar
Terrill, T. H., Rowan, A. M., Douglas, G. B. & Barry, T. N. (1992). Determination of extractable and bound condensed tannin concentrations in forage plants, protein concentrate meals and cereal grains. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 58, 321–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terrill, T. H., Waghorn, G. C., Woolley, D. J., McNabb, W. C. & Barry, T. N. (1994). Assay and digestion of 14Clabelled condensed tannins in the gastrointestinal tract of sheep. British Journal of Nutrition 72, 467–477.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed