Bearded Grains Cause Death of Deer

Winter, Kenneth B.; Honess, Ralph F.

doi:10.2307/3797211

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The palatability of the plant may change and the awns may become more of an irritant as they dry. This irritation has been documented by Winter and Honess (1952), who found bearded wheat to be a cause of death for several mule deer during a single event in Wyoming, USA. During this case, the awns lodged themselves into the gums of the deer and inflamed the abomasums, causing mastication and digestion to be disrupted.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 59%

“…The 2 types of wheat heads are bearded wheat, which has bristle‐like features (i.e., awns) located on the wheat head, and unbearded wheat, which lacks awns. The presence of awns has been correlated to disease‐resistance, heat and drought tolerance, and inhibition of browsing by herbivores (Winter and Honess 1952, Schlehuber and Tucker 1967, Blum 1985). Recently, some producers have suggested that bearded wheat may reduce deer browsing and increase the subsequent wheat yield, but little is known about the impact awns have on deer browsing.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The effect of white‐tailed deer browsing on wheat quality and yields in Delaware

Springer

Bowman

Vasilas

2013

Wildlife Society Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Locally overabundant white‐tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus; hereafter, deer) have caused increased damage to agronomic crops across their range. Winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) is grown in >60% of the states in the United States where white‐tailed deer occur. Although the effect of deer browsing on corn (Zea mays) and soybean (Glycine max) yields has been documented, research on the effect of deer browsing on winter wheat yields and quality is limited. In 2007–2009, we investigated the effect of deer browse timing and wheat type (bearded and unbearded) on yields and quality in Delaware, USA. We randomly stratified 3 treatments (i.e., no protection, protected at planting, or protected prior to heading) in 1,680 plots. After head emergence, we surveyed the plots weekly to estimate browse rates and biomass removed by deer. We harvested a 1‐m2 area in the middle of each plot to determine the deer impact on yield. Browsing increased in intensity as head development progressed and more browsing occurring on the unbearded wheat. Unprotected plots had 195 kg/ha greater wheat yield than did protected plots in 2007 (P = 0.08). We found no difference in wheat yield among treatments during 2008 and 2009 (P = 0.38). Bearded wheat fields had 379 kg/ha greater wheat yield during 2007 and 399 kg/ha greater yield during 2008 and 2009 than did unbearded wheat fields (P < 0.001). We also observed no difference in wheat quality among treatments or between types of wheat (P > 0.417). Our browse surveys suggested avoidance of bearded wheat but the overall browsing was not intense enough to affect yield. Our results demonstrated that white‐tailed deer had no impact on wheat yield at a deer density of 15 deer/km2. © 2013 The Wildlife Society.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 59%

mentioning

confidence: 99%