European Journal of Wildlife Research

, Volume 56, Issue 2, pp 205–208 | Cite as

Comparing life expectancy of three deer species between captive and wild populations

  • Dennis W. H. Müller
  • Jean-Michel Gaillard
  • Laurie Bingaman Lackey
  • Jean-Michel Hatt
  • Marcus Clauss
Short Communication

Abstract

Life in zoological gardens provides a number of benefits to captive animals, resulting in an artificial reduction of the “struggle for life” compared to their free-ranging counterparts. These advantages should result in a higher chance of surviving from 1 year to the next, and thus in longer average life expectancies for captive animals, given that the biological requirements of the species are adequately met. Here, we compare the life expectancy of captive and free-ranging populations of three deer species (reindeer Rangifer tarandus, red deer Cervus elaphus, and roe deer Capreolus capreolus). Whereas captive reindeer and red deer had life expectancies equal to or longer than free-ranging individuals, the life expectancy of captive roe deer was shorter than that of free-ranging animals. These results support the impression that roe deer are difficult to keep in zoos, whereas reindeer and red deer perform well under human care. We suggest that the mean life expectancy of captive populations relative to that of corresponding free-ranging populations is a reliable indicator to evaluate the husbandry success of a species in captivity.

Keywords

Capreolus capreolus Cervus elaphus Husbandry Longevity Rangifer tarandus Sex differences 

References

  1. Besselmann D, Schaub D, Wenker C, Völlm J, Robert N, Schelling C, Steinmetz H, Clauss M (2008) Juvenile mortality in captive lesser kudu (Tragelaphus imberbis) at Basle zoo and its relation to nutrition and husnandry. J Zoo Wildl Med 39:86–91CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Broom DM (1991) Animal welfare: concepts and measurement. J Anim Sci 69:4167–4175PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Carey JR, Judge DS (2000) Longevity records: life spans of mammals, birds, amphibians, and fish. Odense University Press, OdenseGoogle Scholar
  4. Caughley G (1977) Analysis of vertebrate populations, 1st edn. Willey, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  5. Clauss M, Dierenfeld ES (2008) The nutrition of browsers. In: Fowler ME, Miller RE (eds) Zoo and wild animal medicine. Current therapy 6, 3rd edn. Saunders Elsevier, St. Louis, pp 444–454Google Scholar
  6. Clauss M, Kienzle E, Wiesner H (2002) Importance of the wasting syndrome complex in captive moose (Alces alces). Zoo Biol 21:499–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clauss M, Kienzle E, Hatt J-M (2003) Feeding practice in captive wild ruminants: peculiarities in the nutrition of browsers/ concentrate selectors and intermediate feeders. A review. In: Fidgett A, Clauss M, Gansloßer U, Hatt J-M, Nijboer J (eds) Zoo animal nutrition, vol 2. Filander, Fürth, pp 27–52Google Scholar
  8. Clubb R, Rowcliffe M, Lee P, Mar KU, Moss C, Mason GJ (2008) Compromised survivorship in zoo elephants. Science 322:1649CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Clutton-Brock TH, Isvaran K (2007) Sex differences in ageing in natural populations of vertebrates. Proc R Soc Lond B 274:3097–3104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clutton-Brock TH, Guinness FE, Albon SD (1982) Red deer. Behavior and ecology of two sexes, 1st edn. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  11. Cobben MMP, Linnell JDC, Solberg EJ, Andersen R (2009) Who wants to live forever? Roe deer survival in a favourable environment. Ecol Res 24:1197–1205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dissen J (1983) Untersuchungen über die Verdaulichkeit von Rohnährstoffen verschiedener Futterrationen an Rehwild und Ziegen sowie Beobachtungen über das Äsungsverhalten von Gehege-Rehen. In, vol. dissertation. Universität Bonn, BonnGoogle Scholar
  13. Dollinger P (1981) Parasitenbefall, Sterblichkeit, Todesursachen bei Rehen. Verh.ber Erkrg Zootiere 23Google Scholar
  14. Gaillard J-M, Pontier D, Allainé D, Lebreton JD, Clobert J (1989) An analysis of demographic tactics in birds and mammals. Oikos 56:59–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gaillard J-M, Sempéré AJ, Boutin J-M, Van Laere G, Boisaubert B (1992) Effects of age and body weight on the proportion of females breeding in a population of roe deer (Capreolus capreolus). Can J Zool 70:1541–1545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gaillard J-M, Duncan P, Delorme D, Van Laere G, Pettorelli N, Maillard D, Renaud G (2003a) Effects of hurricane Lothar on the population dynamics of European roe deer. J Wildl Manage 67:767–773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gaillard J-M, Loison A, Festa-Bianchet M, Yoccoz NG, Solberg E (2003b) Ecological correlates of life span in populations of large herbivorous mammals. In: Carey JR, Tuljapurkar S (eds) Life span: evolutionary, ecological, and demographic perspectives, vol 29, 1st edn. The Population Council, New York, pp 39–56Google Scholar
  18. Gaillard J-M, Viallefont A, Loison A, Festa-Bianchet M (2004) Assessing senescence patterns in populations of large mammals. Anim Biodivers Conserv 27:47–58Google Scholar
  19. Gebert C, Verheyden-Tixier H (2001) Variations of diet composition of red deer (Cervus elaphus) in Europe. Mammal Rev 31:189–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Heinemann D (1979) Das Reh. In: Grzimek B (ed) Grzimeks Tierleben Säugetiere 4, vol 13. DTV, Munich, pp 201–207Google Scholar
  21. Hofmann RR (1985) Digestive physiology of the deer—their morphophysiological specialisation and adaptation. In: Drew K, Fennessy P (eds) Biology of deer production, vol 22. Royal Society of New Zealand, Bulletin, Wellington, pp 393–407Google Scholar
  22. Houston DB (1982) The northern Yellowstone elk: ecology and management. Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Jones ML (1980) Lifespan in mammals. In: Montali RJ, Migaki G (eds) The comparative pathology of zoo animals. Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC, pp 495–509Google Scholar
  24. Kaiser TM, Brasch J, Castell JC, Schulz E, Clauss M (2009) Tooth wear in captive wild ruminant species differs from that of free-ranging conspecifics. Mamm Biol 74:425–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Krementz DG, Sauer JR, Nichols JD (1989) Model-based estimates of annual survival rate are preferable to observed maximum lifespan statistics for use in comparative life-history studies. Oikos 56:203–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Leader-Williams N (1988) Reindeer on South Georgia. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  27. Maublanc ML, Bideau E, Picot D, Rames JL, Dubois M, Ferté H, Gerard JF (2009) Demographic crash associated with hog parasite load in an experimental roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) population. Eur J Wildl Res doi:10.1007/s10344-009-0298-8
  28. Müller DWH, Streich WJ, Bingaman Lackey L, Hatt J-M, Clauss M (2010) Life expectancy in captive deer and the relevance of management and feeding regimes. Am J Vet Res (in press)Google Scholar
  29. Nieminen M, Heiskari U (1989) Diets of freely ranging and captive reindeer during summer and winter. Rangifer 9:17–34Google Scholar
  30. Tixier H, Duncan P (1996) Are European roe deer browsers? A review of variations in the composition of their diets. Rev Ecol (Terre Vie) 51:3–17Google Scholar
  31. Tixier H, Duncan P, Scehovic J, Yani A, Gleizes M, Lila M (1997) Food selection by European roe deer: effects of plant chemistry, and consequences for the nutritional value of their diets. J Zool (Lond) 242:229–245Google Scholar
  32. Tschiderer K (1973) Aufzucht-, Fütterungs- und Hegeversuche beim Rehwild (Capreolus capreolus L.). Eur J Wildl Res 19:198–204Google Scholar
  33. Wiesner H (1987) Reh. In: Gabrisch K, Zwart P (eds) Krankheiten der Wildtiere Exotische und heimische Tiere in der Tierarztpraxis. Schlütersche Verlagsanstalt und Druckerei, Hanover, pp 467–494Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dennis W. H. Müller
    • 1
  • Jean-Michel Gaillard
    • 2
  • Laurie Bingaman Lackey
    • 3
  • Jean-Michel Hatt
    • 1
  • Marcus Clauss
    • 1
  1. 1.Clinic for Zoo Animals, Exotic Pets and Wildlife, Vetsuisse FacultyUniversity of ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Unité Mixte de Recherche 5558 “Biométrie et Biologie Evolutive”Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1Villeurbanne CedexFrance
  3. 3.International Species Information System (ISIS)EaganUSA

Personalised recommendations