Compatibility of Dual Enterprises for Cattle and Deer in North America: A Quantitative Review

Hines, Stacy L.; Fulbright, Timothy E.; Ortega-S., Alfonso; Webb, Stephen L.; Hewitt, David G.; Boutton, T. W.

doi:10.1016/j.rama.2020.10.005

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our results suggest that interference competition between cattle and white‐tailed deer resulted in changes in two of three behavioral metrics, speed, and resource selection. We suspected that exploitative competition between cattle and deer would be minimal immediately after stocking as the Coloraditas had favorable rangeland conditions after being destocked for two years and due to cattle and deer operating on opposing sides of the browser‐grazer dietary continuum (Hines et al, 2021; Ortega et al, 1997). Thus, exploitative competition with cattle would not have significant effects on deer space use and behavior (Anholt, 1990; Villemereuil & López‐Sepulcre, 2011).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is particularly true in Texas, USA, where the economic value of cattle production accounted for about $12.3 billion in 2017 and the value of deer hunting accounted for about $1.6 billion in 2015 (National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2019; Outlaw et al, 2017). In South Texas, white‐tailed deer productivity is dynamic, and understanding limiting factors, such as competition with cattle, is needed for evaluating the land‐sharing paradigm and the compatibility of these two species (Cook et al, 1971; DeYoung et al, 2019; Hines et al, 2021; Young et al, 2008). Interactions between cattle and Odocoileus sp.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Deer and cattle operate on opposing ends of the browser‐grazer dietary strategy continuum (Esmaeili et al, 2021; Fulbright & Ortega‐S, 2013). However, dietary overlap increases when forage becomes limited due to overgrazing or environmental stochasticity (Chaikina & Ruckstuhl, 2006; Hines et al, 2021; Ortega et al, 1997). Furthermore, cattle, due to their greater absolute dietary demands as the larger ruminant, consume approximately five times more biomass daily than deer, and at a 20% dietary overlap, one mature cow can consume the daily equivalent of forage needed to support one deer for a day (Fulbright & Ortega‐S, 2013; Hines et al, 2021).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Understanding an ecological tug of war: Disentangling competition between native and domesticated ungulates

Spencer,

DeYoung,

Foley

et al. 2024

Ecosphere

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Competition is a complex ecological process involving individual and community interactions at ecological and evolutionary time scales. Individuals within and between species can compete through two mechanisms: exploitative and interference competition. These mechanisms often co‐occur, making it difficult to develop a mechanistic understanding of competition. We used movement data from 19 GPS‐collared white‐tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) associated with an experimental cattle (Bos taurus) stocking event to disentangle exploitative from interference competition between deer and cattle. We assumed any effect of exploitative competition on reduced forage availability for deer would not occur immediately, whereas interference competition would occur immediately after cattle stocking, and antagonistic interactions between deer and cattle would alter deer behavior and degrade habitat quality. We evaluated the effects of the experimental stocking event on deer for 30‐day intervals before and after the cattle stocking event as this period was assumed to be too short for cattle to reduce deer forage resources through exploitative competition. We assessed the effects of interference competition using the movement metrics of home range size, speed, and resource selection. We used home range size as a proxy for habitat quality, assuming cattle would degrade deer habitat through means other than loss of forage. We used speed and resource selection as indicators of deer behavior. We experimentally stocked cattle at densities ranging from 0 to 15.7 animal units/km2 to previously destocked pastures. Stocking densities did not influence home range sizes ( = 17.033, 85% CI: −189.471 to 235.322) of deer. However, as stocking density increased, deer decreased speed ( = −0.014, 85% CI: −0.020 to −0.008) and increased selection for woody cover ( = 0.047, 85% CI: 0.031 to 0.063) and sandier soils ( = 0.062, 85% CI: 0.033 to 0.090). Our results suggest cattle density altered deer behavior and their realized niche within our system. Our results demonstrated mechanisms by which competition with livestock could influence native wildlife populations, which can be used to inform management of multiuse working landscapes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Understanding an ecological tug of war: Disentangling competition between native and domesticated ungulates

Spencer,

DeYoung,

Foley

et al. 2024

Ecosphere

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Esta reducción en la competencia muestra que, a pesar de presentarse altos niveles de utilización, la vegetación puede mantener una composición más estable cuando es utilizada por dos herbívoros con diferentes preferencias de forraje que cuando es utilizada por un solo (Gallina 1993). Otros estudios muestran que, aunque es más importante económicamente la producción bovina, ésta es compatible con el mantenimiento del venado colablanca siempre que la carga animal se encuentre entre 0.12 y 0.17 UA ha −1 (Hines et al 2021). Bajo las condiciones de este trabajo, se estimó un coeficiente de agostadero de 33.3 has por animal, lo que representa una carga animal de 0.03 UA ha −1 , lo cual se encuentra muy por abajo de los parámetros mencionados anteriormente y justifica el uso económico de ambas especies.…”

Section: Estimación Del Número De Individuosunclassified

Traslape de dieta entre el venado cola blanca y otros herbívoros en la Mixteca Poblana

Arellano-Alavez

Mendoza-Martínez

Espino-Barros

et al. 2021

Ecosist. Recur. Agropec.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

El objetivo del estudio fue determinar la superposición de la dieta entre el venado cola blanca (Odocoileus virginianus) y otros herbívoros (lagomorfos, bovinos y equinos) caracterizando la dieta tanto de los cérvidos como la de los lagomorfos de la región. Se muestreó la vegetación y excretas encontradas en 15 transectos de 300 m de largo y 6 m de ancho. Mediante la técnica micro histológica se elaboró un catálogo de referencia vegetal y se analizaron las muestras fecales por especie para determinar la composición botánica de la dieta. De las 65 especies vegetales recolectadas presuntamente consumibles por los cérvidos, solo 16 fueron consumidas por estos. El análisis micro histológico reveló que la dieta de venados y lagomorfos coincide en una sola especie arbórea, un arbusto y una herbácea; pero, para los lagomorfos, el consumo de estos tres grupos vegetales representa más del 50% de la dieta; mientras que, para los caballos y bovinos, la dieta estuvo formada por una sola especie de herbáceas o gramíneas, respectivamente. El índice de Pianka entre el venado cola blanca y los lagomorfos fue de 0.26, mientras que en comparación con el ganado bovino y equino fue de 0.04 en ambos casos. Como se esperaba del análisis micro histológico, la superposición de la dieta entre los ciervos y otras especies de herbívoros fue relativamente baja. Sin embargo, el traslape entre venado cola blanca y lagomorfos es del 26% y considerando el número estimado de individuos en la UMA puede ser un elemento de competencia importante.

show abstract

“…Lowered land maintenance cost due to native range fertility requirements being generally lower compared to introduced grasses (Brejda, 2000). Improvements in wildlife habitat (Harper et al., 2004) can provide landowners the ability to incorporate hunting fees into their operations (Holecheck et al., 2011; Keyser et al., 2015) while still maintaining compatibility with livestock grazing (Hines et al., 2020). Switchgrass ( Panicum virgatum L.) can produce grazeable forage early in the spring that can extend the grazing season of winter annual forage production systems (Mosali, et al., 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methods to increase native warm‐season grass diversity in bermudagrass

Rogers

Robertson

2021

Crop Forage & Turfgrass Mgmt

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bermudagrass [Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers.] is the most common warm-season introduced forage species grown in the southern portion of the United States. Often grown as a monoculture, bermudagrass responds well to fertilizer and intensive management but provides little wildlife or microbial soil community benefits due to the lack of species diversity. A methods study to evaluate methods of increasing diversity of bermudagrass by adding switchgrass (SG) or a native warm-season grass mixture (NGMIX) was conducted in southern Oklahoma. An established bermudgrass stand was suppressed using either 7, 11, or 19 months of seedbed preparation time (PREP) with either zero, one, two, or three cover crops depending on PREP time and applied to either till or no-till strips. Initiation of PREP times were staggered so a common date for SG and NGMIX planting was achieved in two consecutive planting years, April 2011 (Year 1) and April 2012 (Year 2). On both soil textures, till establishment increased stand frequency of SG and NGMIX the year of establishment compared to no-till. Stand frequency was repeated in 2015 (3 and 4 years post planting, respectively). The loam soil, no-till stand frequency counts in 2015 had improved for SG and NGMIX and were similar to till. The sandy loam site 2015 stand frequency counts of till established SG and NGMIX remained higher than no-till. No-till establishment was slower than and not as successful as till but it still achieved plant diversity in bermudagrass at a lower cost compared to till. Cover crops and PREP time had little effect on establishment. INTRODUCTIONThere are multiple reasons to consider establishing native warm-season grasses into bermudagrass [Cynodon dactylon (L.

show abstract

Compatibility of Dual Enterprises for Cattle and Deer in North America: A Quantitative Review

Cited by 7 publications

References 29 publications

Understanding an ecological tug of war: Disentangling competition between native and domesticated ungulates

Understanding an ecological tug of war: Disentangling competition between native and domesticated ungulates

Traslape de dieta entre el venado cola blanca y otros herbívoros en la Mixteca Poblana

Methods to increase native warm‐season grass diversity in bermudagrass

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About