Access

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

If you need an accessible version of this item please contact JSTOR User Support

Comparison of Techniques for Determining the Nutritional Carrying Capacity for White-Tailed Deer

Thomas C. McCall, Robert D. Brown and Louis C. Bender
Journal of Range Management
Vol. 50, No. 1 (Jan., 1997), pp. 33-38
DOI: 10.2307/4002702
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4002702
Page Count: 6
  • Read Online (Free)
  • Subscribe ($19.50)
  • Cite this Item
If you need an accessible version of this item please contact JSTOR User Support
Comparison of Techniques for Determining the Nutritional Carrying Capacity for White-Tailed Deer
Preview not available

Abstract

Estimates of carrying capacity for herbivores are useful for determining the relative value of different ranges. We compared 6 estimates of nutritional carrying capacity for white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus L.): digestible energy consumed by tame deer, and 5 methods using forage supplies of dry matter, digestible energy, digestible nitrogen, dry matter*digestible energy, and dry matter*digestible nitrogen in two 1-ha enclosures of different shrub plant communities in southern Texas. For the north enclosure, carrying capacity estimates (90% CI) were 3.65 (CI = 3.61-3.69), 4.5 (CI = 3.7-5.3), 9.4 (CI = 7.3-11.5), 15.2 (CI = 11.6-18.8), 3.5 (CI = 2.7-4.3), and 3.5 (CI = 2.7-4.3) deer ha-1 58 $\text{days}^{-1}$ for the digestible energy tame deer, dry matter, digestible energy, digestible nitrogen, dry matter*digestible energy, and dry matter*digestible nitrogen techniques, respectively. Corresponding estimates for the south enclosure were 2.6 (CI = 2.5-2.7), 3.5 (CI = 3.2-3.9), 6.8 (CI = 6.0-7.6), 10.1 (CI = 8.8-11.3), 2.1 (CI = 1.8-2.6), and 2.8 (CI = 2.4-3.1). Some methods for estimating carrying capacity provided different absolute estimates, but all produced similar relative estimates between enclosures. Similar relative results between enclosures suggests any of the methods can be used to determine the relative nutritional quality of plant communities. However, the dry matter-based technique was less expensive than the other techniques; therefore, there is no need to use more costly techniques for determining the relative stocking rates for white-tailed deer, unless forage quality differs greatly among plant communities.

Page Thumbnails

  • Thumbnail: Page 
33
    33
  • Thumbnail: Page 
34
    34
  • Thumbnail: Page 
35
    35
  • Thumbnail: Page 
36
    36
  • Thumbnail: Page 
37
    37
  • Thumbnail: Page 
38
    38