, Volume 104, Issue 3, pp 297–300 | Cite as

Patch selection by red deer in relation to energy and protein intake: a re-evaluation of Langvatn and Hanley's (1993) results

Original Paper


Langvatn and Hanley (1993) recently reported that patch use by red deer (Cervus elaphus) was more strongly correlated with short term rates of intake of digestible protein than dry matter. Such short term measures overlook effects of gut filling, which may constrain intake by ruminants over longer time scales (i.e., daily rates of gain). We reanalyzed Langvatn and Hanley's data using an energy intake model incorporating such a processing constraint, to determine whether their conclusions are robust. We found that the use of patches by red deer was just as strongly correlated with an estimate of the daily rate of intake of digestible energy as one of digestible protein during four out of seven trials, but slightly lower in three out of seven trials. In all cases, daily intake of digestible energy was a much better predictor of patch preference by red deer than was the intake of dry matter. Our reanalysis suggests that the daily intake of energy was highly correlated with that of protein in these trials, as may often be the case for herbivores feeding on graminoids. Hence the observed pattern of patch use by red deer could simultaneously enhance rates of both protein and energy intake.

Key words

Energy Cervus elaphus Foraging Patch selection Protein 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ammann AP, Cowan RL, Mothershead CL, Baumgardt BR (1973) Dry matter and energy intake in relation to digestibility in white-tailed deer. J Wildl Manage 37:195–201Google Scholar
  2. Armstrong DG (1964) Evaluation of artificially dried grass as a source of energy for sheep. II. The energy value of cocksfoot, timothy, and two strains of rye-grass at varying stages of maturity. J Agric Sci 62:399–413Google Scholar
  3. Arnold GW (1985) Regulation of forage intake. In: Hudson RJ, White RG (eds) Bioenergetics of wild herbivores. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 81–101Google Scholar
  4. Belovsky GE (1978) Diet optimization in a generalist herbivore: the moose. Theor Popul Biol 14:105–134Google Scholar
  5. Casella G (1983) Leverage and regression through the origin. Am Stat 37:147–152Google Scholar
  6. Doucet CM, Fryxell JM (1993) The effect of nutritional quality on forage preference by beavers. Oikos 67: 201–208Google Scholar
  7. Fryxell JM (1991) Forage quality and aggregation by large herbivores. Am Nat 138:478–498Google Scholar
  8. Fryxell JM, Vamosi SM, Walton RA, Doucet CM (1994) Retention time and the functional response of beavers. Oikos 71:207–214Google Scholar
  9. Gates C, Hudson RJ (1978) Energy costs of locomotion in wapiti. Acta Theriol 22:365–370Google Scholar
  10. Gross JE, Shipley LA, Hobbs NT, Spalinger DE, Wunder BA (1993) Functional response of herbivores in food-concentrated patches; tests of a mechanistic model. Ecology 74:778–791Google Scholar
  11. Krebs JR, McCleery RH (1984) Optimization in behavioural ecology. In: Krebs JR, Davies NB (eds) Behavioural ecology. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 91–121Google Scholar
  12. Langvatn R, Hanley TA (1993) Feeding-patch choice by red deer in relation to foraging efficiency: an experiment. Oecologia 95:164–170Google Scholar
  13. Mellin TN, Poulton BR, Anderson MJ (1962) Nutritive value of timothy hay as affected by date of harvest. J Anim Sci 21:123–126Google Scholar
  14. Mould ED, Robbins CT (1982) Digestive capabilities in elk compared to white tailed deer. J Wildl Manage 46:22–29Google Scholar
  15. Myers RH (1986) Classical and modern regression with applications. Druxbury Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  16. Stephens DW (1985) How important are partial preferences? Anim Behav 33:667–669Google Scholar
  17. Van Soest P (1982) Nutritional ecology of the ruminant. O and B Books, CorvallisGoogle Scholar
  18. Wickstrom ML, Robbins CT, Hanley TA, Spalinger DE, Parish SM (1984) Food intake and foraging energetics of elk and mule deer. J Wildl Manage 28:1285–1301Google Scholar
  19. Wilmshurst JF, Fryxell JM, Hudson RJ (1995) Forage quality and patch choice by wapiti (Cervus elaphus). Behav Ecol 6:209–217Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ZoologyUniversity of GuelphOntarioGuelphCanada

Personalised recommendations