Darr, Ryan

DeYoung, Charles A.

Draeger, Don

Fulbright, Timothy

Gage, Reagan

Grahmann, Eric

Hewitt, David G.

English

University of Kentucky

University of Kentucky UKnowledge International Grassland Congress Proceedings 21st International Grassland Congress / 8th International Rangeland Congress Effects of Supplemental Feed and White‐Tailed Deer Density on Vegetation Timothy Fulbright Texas A&M University-Kingsville Charles A. DeYoung Texas A&M University-Kingsville David G. Hewitt Texas A&M University-Kingsville Eric Grahmann Texas A&M University-Kingsville Reagan Gage Texas A&M University-Kingsville See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/igc  Part of the Plant Sciences Commons, and the Soil Science Commons This document is available at https://uknowledge.uky.edu/igc/21/3-2/11 The 21st International Grassland Congress / 8th International Rangeland Congress took place in Hohhot, China from June 29 through July 5, 2008. Proceedings edited by Organizing Committee of 2008 IGC/IRC Conference Published by Guangdong People's Publishing House This Event is brought to you for free and open access by the Plant and Soil Sciences at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in International Grassland Congress Proceedings by an authorized administrator of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact UKnowledge@lsv.uky.edu. Presenter Information Timothy Fulbright, Charles A. DeYoung, David G. Hewitt, Eric Grahmann, Reagan Gage, Ryan Darr, and Don Draeger This event is available at UKnowledge: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/igc/21/3-2/11 瞯 ]494　 瞯 　 Multifunctional Grasslands in a Changing World 　 Volume Ⅰ 　Grasslands/Rangelands Resources and Ecology ——— Soil‐Plant‐Animal InterrelationshipsEffects of supplemental feed and white‐tailed deer density on vegetationTimothy E . Fulbright1 , Charles A . DeYoung1 , Dav id G . Hew itt1 , Eric G rahmann1 , Reagan Gage1 , Ryan Darr1 ,DonDraeger2Caesar K leberg W ildli f e Research Institute , Texas A &M University‐K ingsv ille , MSC 218 , K ingsv ille , Texas , USA 78363 ,E‐mail : timothy .f ulbright＠ tamuk .edu .2 Comanche Ranch , Carrizo Sp rings , Texas , USA 78834Keywords : foraging , forbs , habitat , species richnessIntroduction Southwestern Texas is at the xeric edge of the range of white‐tailed deer ( Odocoileus v irginianus ) in NorthAmerica . Land managers commonly provide dry , pelleted feeds to increase white‐tailed deer nutritional status . Provision ofpelleted feeds may alleviate constraints on foraging time , enabling herbivores to selectively feed on the most palatable plants ,potentially resulting in habitat degradation ( Murden and Risenhoover １９９３ ) . We tested the hypothesis that compared to nosupplemental feeding , provision of pelleted feed results in habitat degradation . We predicated an interaction between increasingdensity of white‐tailed deer and feeding treatment , in which high density and supplemental feeding reduces canopy cover offorbs and shrubs eaten by deer and reduces forb species richness compared to low density and no supplemental feeding .Materials and methods The experimental design was a randomized , complete‐block with a block at each of ２ locations ３７ kmapart . Two ４８６ ha sites were subdivided into six ８１ ha paddocks separated by ３ .１ m tall fences . Pelleted feed ( ～ ２０％ crudeprotein) was randomly assigned to ３ of the ６ paddocks at each location . In ２００４ , １０ ,２５ , or ４０ white‐tailed deer were randomlyassigned to an enclosure with pelleted feed provided ad libitum and an enclosure with no pelleted feed . Twenty ５０‐m transectswere randomly established within each enclosure . We estimated canopy cover of forbs and shrubs and forb species richnessduring summer ２００４‐２００７ . Plants palatable to deer were determined in bite count experiments . Data were analyzed usingrepeated measures analysis of variance with the difference between mean canopy cover and species richness from ２００５‐２００７ andthese values on the initial sampling date as the dependent variables . Supplemental feeding treatment , white‐tailed deer density ,and the feeding x density interaction were independent variables .Results There was no treatment x density interaction ( P ＞ ０ .０５) for any of the dependent variables . Canopy cover of palatableforbs declined about ４％ in paddocks with no supplemental feed , averaged across sampling dates and densities , but did notdecline relative to canopy cover at the beginning of the study in paddocks with supplemental feed ( Figure １ ) . Differences incanopy cover of shrubs and forb species richness between ２００５‐２００７ and ２００４ were similar ( P ＞ ０ .０５ ) between feedingtreatments ( Figure ２) . None of the dependent variables differed significantly ( P ＞ ０ .０５ ) among white‐tailed deer densities ,averaged across feeding treatments and sampling dates .Figure 1 Di ff erence in canopy cover o f p alatablef orbs and hal f shrubs between the mean o f thesubsequent samp ling dates and the initial samp lingdate , averaged across densities .　 　 　Figure 2 Di ff erence in herbaceous speciesrichness between the mean o f the subsequentsamp ling dates and the initial samp lingdate , averaged across densities .Conclusions In contrast to our hypothesis , supplemental feeding appeared to alleviate foraging pressure on palatable forbs . Ourresults should be considered preliminary because extreme annual variation in rainfall may have ameliorated impacts ofsupplemental feed and white‐tailed deer densities on vegetation .Acknowledgment Research supported by T . Dan Friedkin , Comanche Ranch , The Neva and Wesley West Foundation , FaithRanch , Stuart Stedman , Houston Safari Club , and the Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo . Assistance of Will Moseley , KentWilliamson , Matthew Moore , and other students is gratefully acknowledged .ReferenceMurden , S . B . and K . L . Risenhoover ( １９９３ ) . Effects of habitat enrichment on patterns of diet selection . EcologicalA p p lications ３ , ４９７‐５０５ .I □ Feed ■ No Feed I 20 N P = 0.168 E 15 '-- 2 P = 0.042 P = 0.969 ~ ~~ (/) 10 o- 0 .!!:! u Q) u u Q) 5 >, C: -2 a. a. Q) Cl) 0 ... C: Q) -4 0 cu :::: Palatable Feed No Feed (.) '6 -6 forbs 

Effects of Supplemental Feed and White‐Tailed Deer Density on Vegetation

https://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2622&amp;context=igc

Effects of Supplemental Feed and White‐Tailed Deer Density on Vegetation

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Kentucky