Comparison of red deer stomach in relation to different foraging habitat

• Autorzy: Siuta A
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The aim of the study was to evaluate the stomach chambers of Zielonogorskie (Z) and Bieszczady (B) red deer (Cervus elaphus L. 1758) from different foraging habitats in South-West and South-East Poland. Thirteen calves, ten hinds and bulls were shot in Z and B, and examination of the carcasses indicated the substantial impact of foraging strategies in various habitats on polygastric parameters. Differences (P<0.05) in stomach content (SC), fresh and dry matter of stomach tissue (FSTM, DSTM) and total stomach area (TSA) were noted between the deer of Z and B. Additionally, some indexes (IA, IB) of FSTM, DSTM in relation to body mass (carcass weight, C) were relatively higher in each category of deer from the B region. Comparisons of ID (ratio DSTM to TSA), IE (DSTM to metabolic body mass - C0.75) and IF (TSA to C0.75 ) indicated a relatively thicker stomach tissue wall, and its larger overall area and volume of some stomach chambers in deer from the B vs. Z region. The study indicates that the carrying capacity of habitats, and conditions such as the quality and abundance of plants (their structure and nutritional value) considerably influence modifications within the digestive system, and mainly the stomach chambers in polygastric wild ruminants.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

red deer; stomach tissue; nutritive value; carcass weight; dry matter; wild ruminant; body mass; animal nutrition; stomach tissue wall; Cervus elaphus; different habitat; fresh matter; total stomach area; stomach habitat; gastrointestinal tract; plant

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Medycyna Weterynaryjna
• Rocznik: 2006
• Tom: 62
• Numer: 01
• Opis fizyczny: p.32-35,fig.,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Siuta A

• Agricultural University, Mickiewicza Ave.24/28, 30-059 Krakow, Poland

Bibliografia

• 1.Barboza P. S., Bowyer R. T.: Sexual segregation in dimorphic deer: a new gastrocentric hypothesis. J. Mammalogy 2000, 81, 473-489.
• 2.Bowyer R. T., Kie J. K.: Effects of foraging activity on sexual segregation in mule deer. Mammalogy 2004, 85, 498-504.
• 3.Clauss M., Lechner-Doll M.: Differences in selective particle retention as a key factor in the diversification of ruminants. Oecologia 2001, 129, 321-327.
• 4.Clauss M., Lechner-Doll M., Streich W. J.: Ruminant Diversification as an adaptation to the physicomechanical characteristics of forage. A reevaluation of an old debate and a new hypothesis. Oikos 2003, 102, 253-262.
• 5.Clauss M.: The potential interplay of posture, digestive anatomy, density of ingesta and gravity in mammalian herbivores: why sloths do not rest upside down. Mammal Rev. 2004, 34, 241-245.
• 6.Conradt L., Gordon J., Clutton-Brock T. H., Thomson D., Guinness F.: Zoology competition hypothesis explain inter-sexual site segregation in red deer (Cervus elaphus L.)? J. Zoology 2001, 254, 185-193.
• 7.Gordon I. J.: Browsing and grazing ruminants: are they different beasts? Forest Ecol. Manage. 2003, 181, 13-21.
• 8.Gordon I. J., Hester A. J., Festa-Bianchet M.: The management of wild large herbivores to meet economic, conservation and environmental objectives. J. Appl. Ecology 2004, 41, 1021-1031.
• 9.Hofmann R. R.: Evolutionary steps of ecophysiological adaptation and diversification of ruminant: a comparative view of their digestive system. Oecologia 1989, 78, 443-457.
• 10.Hofmann R. R.: Functional and comparative digestive system anatomy of Arctic ungulates. Rangifer 1999, 20, 71-81.
• 11.Illius A. W., Gordon I. J.: The physiological ecology of mammalian herbiviory, [in:] Jung H. J., Fahey G. C. (eds.), Nutritional Ecology of Herbivore. Am. Soc. Anim. Sci. Savoy, Illinois 1999, 71-96.
• 12.Merta D., Bobek B., Frąckowiak W., Sułkowski P.: The population size, demography and the harvest strategy for the red deer (Cervus elaphus L.) in the Polish Eastern Carpathians. Pirineos 2002, 157, 47-56.
• 13.Mysterud A., Perez-Barberia F. J., Gordon I. J.: The effect of season, sex and feeding style on home range area versus body mass scaling in temperate ruminants. Oecologia 2001, 127, 30-39.
• 14.Mysterud A., Langvatn R., Yoccoz N. G., Stenseth N. C.: Plant phenology, migration and geographic variation in body weight of a large herbivore: the effect of a variable topography. J. Anim. Ecol. 2001, 70, 915-923.
• 15.Parcz A.: Zasobność bazy pokarmowej jeleniowatych w siedliskach lasu górskiego, Przedgórze Bieszczadzkie. Zakład Badań Łowieckich. Inst. Biol. Środow. UJ, Master's thesis. Kraków 1990, 1-30.
• 16.Pelliza A., Willems P., Manacorda M.: Dietary structural types of polygastric herbivore at different environments and seasons. J. Range Manag. 2001, 54, 330-337.
• 17.Soest P. J. Van: Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant. Comstock. Publishing Associated a Division of Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London 1994.
• 18.Soida D.: Ocena bazy pokarmowej jeleniowatych w siedlisku lasu górskiego Bieszczad. Zakład Badań Łowieckich. Inst. Biol. Środow. UJ, Master's thesis. Kraków 1990, 1-35.
• 19.Users Guide. Statistics, Version 5 Edition. SAS Inst. Inc. Cary, NC. 1995.