Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T12:43:54.980Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The effect of relative abundance on diet choice in fallow deer

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2017

U. Alm
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Stockholm, 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden
B. Birgersson
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Stockholm, 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden
O. Leimar
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Stockholm, 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden
Get access

Extract

The fallow deer is a generalist herbivore that eats different plants containing secondary compounds in various amounts. From observations of foraging behaviour it is known that large herbivores tend to eat from a variety of locations and, over the short term, typically ingest small quantities of a variety of foods and sample novel foods rather than making an immediate decision to either eat large amounts or to reject the food (Freeland and Janzen 1974). The diet choice of large herbivores is influenced by the presence of nutrients and toxins (Provenza 1995), but another factor that could influence the diet choice is the relative abundance of different plants and plant types. In order to study these effects we have performed experiments on the effect of the relative abundance of different food types on diet choice in fallow deer.

Type
Open Communications Session
Copyright
Copyright © The British Society of Animal Science 2001

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

Freeland, W.J. and Janzen, D.H. 1974. Strategies in herbivory by mammals: the role of plant secondary compounds. The American Naturalist 108: 269289.Google Scholar
Provenza, F.D. 1995. Postingestive feedback as an elementary determinant of food preference and intake in ruminants. Journal of Range Management 48: 217.Google Scholar