Food interrelationships of deer and sheep in parts of Mendocino and Lake counties, California
AuthorsWilliam M. Longhurst
Guy E. Connolly
Bruce M. Browning
Edward O. Garton
Authors AffiliationsW. M. Longhurst was Professor, Department of Agronomy and Range Science, University of California, Davis; G. E. Connolly was formerly Staff Research Associate, Division of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, University of California, Davis, is Wildlife Research Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Twin Falls, Idaho; B. M. Browning was Associate Wildlife Manager Biologist, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento; E. O. Garton was formerly Lecturer, Division of Environmental Studies, University of California, Davis, is Assistant Professor of Wildlife, College of Forestry Wildlife and Range Sciences, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho.
Hilgardia 47(6):191-247. DOI:10.3733/hilg.v47n06p191. December 1979.
Between 1951 and 1975, range forage interrelationships and food habits of black-tailed deer and domestic sheep were studied on the Hopland Field Station of the University of California. Other nearby areas with contrasting covertypes were compared.
Data were collected on percent of volume and frequency of occurrence of forage plant species in samples of rumen contents taken from animals collected on the various range types. Browse preferences were compared in a series of “cafeteria” feeding trials with penned animals, and correlations with phosphorus and protein content were tested.
Little significant forage competition between deer and sheep was found, although chaparral browse was limited. In general, diets of these animals were complementary, with deer relying primarily on browse, and sheep on grass. In other range types, deer had a wide latitude in their dietary patterns, depending upon availability of preferred forage species.
In browse preference feeding trials, where grasses were excluded from the diet of sheep, both deer and sheep tended to select or reject the same browse species; their palatability did not correlate with phosphorus or protein content when measured on a dry weight basis. However, deer preference ranking correlated significantly with plant protein content determined on a green weight basis.
Relationships between forage consumption and forage production on the field station were also evaluated. Production of all forage classes except chaparral browse exceeded estimated consumption by wide margins. However, combined browsing by sheep and deer substantially reduced oak seedlings and will eventually lower browse, mast, and lichen production. Sheep grazing on Hopland Field Station maintains grassland in a productive seral stage, which raises the carrying capacity for deer over that which would exist without livestock.
Anderson F. M., Connolly G. E., Halter A. N., Longhurst W. M. A computer simulation study of deer in Mendocino County, California. Ore. Agr. Expt. Sta. Tech. Bull. 1974. 130:72
Anthony R. G., Smith N. S. Comparison of rumen and fecal analysis to describe deer diets. J. Wildl. Mgt. 1974. 35:535-40. DOI: 10.2307/3800886 [CrossRef]
Buechner H. K. Life history, ecology and range use of pronghorn antelope in Trans-Pecos Texas. Amer. Midland Natur. 1950. 43:257-354. DOI: 10.2307/2421904 [CrossRef]
Bissell H. D., Harris B., Strong H., James F. The digestibility of certain natural and artificial foods eaten by deer in California. Calif. Fish and Game. 1955. 41:57-78.
Bjugstand A. J., Crawford H. S., Neal D. L. Determining forage consumption by direct observation of domestic grazing animals. USDA For. Serv. Misc. Publ. 1970. 1147:101-04.
Book S. A., Connolly G. E., Longhurst W. M. Fallout 137Cs accumulation in two adjacent populations of northern California deer. Health Phy. 1972. 22:379-85. DOI: 10.1097/00004032-197204000-00010 [CrossRef]
Bridger G. L., Boyland D. R., Markey J. N. Colorimetric determination of phosphorous pentoxide in fertilizers using a standard calibration plot. Anal. Chem. 1953. 25:336-38. DOI: 10.1021/ac60074a034 [CrossRef]
Browning B. M., Lauppe E. M. A deer study in a redwood-Douglas fir forest type. Calif. Fish and Game. 1964. 50:132-147.
Burcham L. T. California range land. 1957. Ca.: Calif. Division of Forestry. Sacramento. 261p.
Connolly G. E. A population model for deer on the Hopland Field Station, Mendocino County, California 1970. p.54. M.A. Thesis, Sonoma State College, Rohnert Park, Ca
Connolly G. E., Longhurst W. M. Deer production at Hopland Field Station. Calif. Agr. 1975. 29:8-9.
Conover W. J. Practical non-parametric statistics. 1971. N.Y.: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 462p.
Drawe D. L., Box T. W. Forage ratings for deer and cattle on the Welder Wildlife Refuge. J. Range Mgt. 1968. 21(4):225-28. DOI: 10.2307/3895819 [CrossRef]
Eberhardt L. L., Giles R. H. Jr. Population analysis. Wildlife Management Techniques. 1969. Wash., D.C.: The Wildlife Society. p. 457-95.
Freeland W. J., Janzen D. H. Strategies in herbivory by mammals: The role of plant secondary compounds. Amer. Naturalist. 1974. 108(961):269-89. DOI: 10.1086/282907 [CrossRef]
Gowans K. D. Soil survey of the Hopland Field Station. 1958. Davis: Univ. of Calif. Agr. Expt. Sta., Dept. Soils and Plant Nut. 34p. 1 Map
Griffin J. R. Oak regeneration in the upper Carmel Valley, California. Ecology. 1971. 52:862-68. DOI: 10.2307/1936034 [CrossRef]
Heady H. F. Vegetational changes in the California annual type. Ecology. 1958. 39:402-16. DOI: 10.2307/1931750 [CrossRef]
Heady H. F. Palatability of herbage and animal preference. Jour. Range Mgt. 1964. 17(2):76-82. DOI: 10.2307/3895315 [CrossRef]
Barbour M. G., Major J. Valley grasslands. Terrestrial Vegetation of California. 1977. N.Y.: Wiley and Sons. p. 491-514.
Heady H. F., Mallory J. I. Cover type map of the Hopland Field Station. Univ. of Calif. Agr. Expt. Sta. 1955.
Hitchcock A. S. Manual of the grasses of the United States. USDA Misc. Publ. 1951. 200:1051
Horwitz W. Improved Kjeldal method for nitrate-free samples. Method No. 2.036. In Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Agricultural Chemists. 1960. 9th Edition Washington D.C.: A.O.A.C.
Kelker G. H. Estimating deer populations by differential hunting loss in the sexes. Utah Acad. Sci., Arts, and Let., Proc. 1940. 17:65-69.
Kelker G. H. Sex ratio equations and formulas for determining wildlife populations. Utah Acad. Sci., Arts and Let., Proc. 1943. 20:189-98.
Klein D. R. Rumen contents analysis as an index to range quality. Trans. N. Amer. Wild. Conf. 1962. 27:150-64.
Kufeld R. C., Wallmo O. C., Feddema C. Foods of the Rocky Mountain mule deer 1973. p.31. USDA Forest Service Res. Paper, RM-111
Lincoln F. C. Calculating waterfowl abundance on the basis of banding returns 1930. p.4. USDA Circ. No. 118
Longhurst W. M., Connolly G. E. The effects of brush burning on deer 1970. pp.139-55. Trans. Ann. Mtg. Calif.-Nev. sections, The Wildl. Soc. and Amer. Fisheries Soc
Longhurst W. M., Douglas J. R. Parasite interrelationships of domestic sheep and Columbian black-tailed deer. Trans. N. Amer. Wildl. Conf. 1953. 18:168-88.
Longhurst W. M., Oh H. K., Jones M. B., Kepner R. E. A basis for the palatability of deer forage plants. Trans. N. Amer. Wildl. and Natur. Res. Conf. 1968. 33:181-92.
Martin A. C., Gensch R. H., Brown C. P. Alternate methods in upland game bird food analysis. Jour. Wildl. Mgt. 1946. 10:8-12. DOI: 10.2307/3795806 [CrossRef]
Mackie R. J. Range ecology and relations of mule deer, elk and cattle in the Missouri River breaks, Montana. Wildl. Mono. 1970. 20:79
Medin D. E. Stomach content analyses: collections for wild herbivores and birds. Range and Wildlife Habitat Evaluation—A Research Symposium. USDA, For. Serv., Misc. Publ. No. 1970. 1147:133-45.
Mckean W. T., Bartmann R. W. Deer-livestock relations on a pinyon-juniper range in northwestern Colorado. 1971. Fish &; Parks: Colo. Dept. Game. 132p.
Munz P. A., Keck D. D. A California flora and supplement. University of California Press. 1975. 1681(+ 224):
Murphy A. H. Predicted forage yield based on fall precipitation in California annual grasslands. Jour. Range Mgt. 1970. 23:363-65. DOI: 10.2307/3896168 [CrossRef]
National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Subcommittee on Sheep Nutrition. Nutrient requirements of sheep. Nutrient Requirements of Domestic Animals Series. 1975. 1963:5th revised ed.72
Neff D. J. Forage preferences of trained mule deer on the Beaver Creek watersheds 1974. p.61. Ariz. Game &; Fish Dept. Spec. Rept. No. 4
Nellis C. H., Ross R. L. Changes in mule deer food habits associated with herd reduction. Jour. Wildl. Mgt. 1969. 33:191-95. DOI: 10.2307/3799671 [CrossRef]
Norris J. J. Botanical analysis of stomach contents as a method of determining forage consumption of range sheep. Ecology. 1943. 24:244-51. DOI: 10.2307/1929703 [CrossRef]
Overton W. S., Giles R. H. Jr. Estimating numbers of animals in wildlife populations. Wildlife Management Techniques. 1969. Wash. D.C.: The Wildlife Society. p. 403-55.
Petrides G. A. Principal foods versus preferred foods and their relations to stocking rate and range condition. Biol. Conserv. 1975. 7:161-69. DOI: 10.1016/0006-3207(75)90012-9 [CrossRef]
Pitt M. D. The effects of site, season, weather patterns, grazing, and brush conversion on annual vegetation, watershed II, Hopland Field Station 1975. p.281. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. of Calif., Berkeley
Pudney R. A. Food preference of mule deer on the Ruby Butte study area 1972. p.95. M.S. Thesis. Univ. Nevada, Reno
Radwan M. A. Differences between Douglas-fir genotypes in relation to browsing preference by black-tailed deer. Canadian J. For. Res. 1972. 2:250-55. DOI: 10.1139/x72-041 [CrossRef]
Radwan M. A. Natural resistance of plants to mammals 1974. pp.85-94. Wildlife and Forest Management in the Pacific Northwest, Symposium Proc., Ore. State Univ. Press, Corvallis
Radwan M. A. Genotype and season influence chlorogenic acid content in Douglas-fir foliage. Can. J. Forest Res. 1975. 5:281-84. DOI: 10.1139/x75-038 [CrossRef]
Radwan M. A., Crouch G. L. Plant characteristics related to feeding preference by blacktailed deer. J. Wildl. Mgt. 1974. 38:32-41. DOI: 10.2307/3800197 [CrossRef]
Rice R. W. Stomach content analyses: a comparison of the rumen vs. esophageal techniques. USDA For. Serv. Misc. Publ. 1970. 1147:127-32.
Schoener T. W. The anolis lizards of Bimini: resource partitioning in a complex fauna. Ecology. 1968. 49:704-26. DOI: 10.2307/1935534 [CrossRef]
Severinghaus C. W., Macguire H. F., Cookingham R. A., Tanck J. E. Variations by age class in the antler beam diameters of white-tailed deer related to range conditions. Trans. N. Amer. Wildl. and Nat. Res. Conf. 1950. 15:551-70.
Short H., Medin D. E., Anderson A. E. Ruminoreticular characteristics of mule deer. Jour. Mamm. 1965. 46:196-99. DOI: 10.2307/1377838 [CrossRef]
Skovlin J. M., Edgerton P. J., Harris R. W. The influence of cattle management on deer and elk. Trans. N. Amer. Wildl. Conf. 1968. 33:169-81.
Taber R. D. Deer nutrition and population dynamics in the north coast range of California. Trans. N. Amer. Wildl. Conf. 1956. 21:159-72.
Taber R. D., Dasmann R. F. The black-tailed deer of the chaparral 1958. p.163. Calif. Dept. Fish and Game, Bull. 8
Theurer B. Chemical indicator techniques for determining range forage consumption. USDA For. Serv. Misc. Publ. 1970. 1147:111-19.
van Dyne G. M., Heady H. F. Botanical composition of sheep and cattle diets on a mature annual range. Hilgardia. 1965a. 36:465-92. DOI: 10.3733/hilg.v36n13p465 [CrossRef]
van Dyne G. M., Heady H. F. Dietary chemical composition of cattle and sheep grazing in common on a dry annual range. Jour. Range Mgt. 1965b. 18:78-85. DOI: 10.2307/3895472 [CrossRef]
van Dyne G. M., Heady H. F. Interrelations of botanical and chemical dietary components of animals grazing dry annual range. Jour. Anim. Sci. 1965c. 24:305-12.
van Dyne G. M., Meyer J. H. Forage intake by cattle and sheep on dry annual range. Jour. Anim. Sci. 1964. 23:1108-15.
van Dyne G. M., Torell D. T. Development and use of the esophageal fistula: a review. Jour. Range Mgt. 1964. 17:7-19. DOI: 10.2307/3895540 [CrossRef]
Verme L. J. Mortality of white-tailed deer fawns in relation to nutrition. Proc. 1st Nat. White-tailed Deer Dis. Symp. 1962. 1:15-38.
Wallmo O. C., Gill R. B., Carpenter L. H., Reichert D. W. Accuracy of field estimates of deer food habits. J. Wildl. Mgt. 1973. 37:556-62. DOI: 10.2307/3800322 [CrossRef]
Williams O. C., Neff D. J. Direct observations of tamed deer to measure their consumption of natural forage. USDA For. Serv. Misc. Publ. 1970. 1147:1105-10.
Ward A. L. Stomach content and fecal analysis: methods of forage identification. USDA For. Serv. Misc. Publ. 1970. 1147:146-58.
Weir W. C., Torell D. T. Selective grazing by sheep as shown by a comparison of the chemical composition of range and pasture forage obtained by hand clipping and that collected by esophageal-fistulated sheep. Jour. Anim. Sci. 1959. 18:641-49.