2001
DOI: 10.2458/azu_jrm_v54i5_henley
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluation of 3 techniques for determining diet composition

Abstract: A comparative study was made of 3 techniques applied to the study of herbivore diet selection, namely direct observation, faecal analysis and the recently developed remote control oesophageal fistula valve, using 3 animals over 4 study days. Direct observation showed a relatively high level of precision with respect to the woody forage class but a poor measurement of the grass class. The ratios of grass to dicot were similar in the diets determined by direct observation and valve fistulation, but faecal analys… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
19
0
6

Year Published

2006
2006
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(25 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
0
19
0
6
Order By: Relevance
“…The density dependence observed in diet was robust to the methodology used, as both direct observation and microhistological analyses of diet composition yielded similar results. However, the absolute values obtained by these two methods differed, as faecal analyses tended to underestimate the proportion of easily digestible plants such as many forbs, whereas grasses and especially shrubs may be overestimated (Stewart & Stewart, 1970; Kessler et al , 1981; Mofareh, Bech & Schneberger, 1997; Henley et al , 2001). On the other hand, it can be very difficult to obtain unbiased estimates by direct observation, as some plants are removed completely, leaving no observable bite marks.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The density dependence observed in diet was robust to the methodology used, as both direct observation and microhistological analyses of diet composition yielded similar results. However, the absolute values obtained by these two methods differed, as faecal analyses tended to underestimate the proportion of easily digestible plants such as many forbs, whereas grasses and especially shrubs may be overestimated (Stewart & Stewart, 1970; Kessler et al , 1981; Mofareh, Bech & Schneberger, 1997; Henley et al , 2001). On the other hand, it can be very difficult to obtain unbiased estimates by direct observation, as some plants are removed completely, leaving no observable bite marks.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Determining the diet of ungulates in field studies is difficult, as all methods have their different biases (e.g. Gaare, Sørensen & White, 1977;Kessler, Kasworm & Bodie, 1981;Henley, Smith & Raats, 2001). We therefore used two methods (direct observation and faecal analysis) to assess dietary choice.…”
Section: Fine-scale Foraging: Dietmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Since it was impossible to distinguish consumption signs on herbs in the field, we evaluated the preference of herbivores for different resources (woody versus herbaceous species) using microhistological analysis of plant remains in faecal samples (Holechek et al 1982;McInnis et al 1983;Putman 1984;Henley et al 2001). Fresh faeces were collected during spring 2006 and in winter 2006 and 2007 from the three ungulate species.…”
Section: Laboratory Analysesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A lot of methods have been used until now to evaluate ruminant diet selection under grazing systems [e.g., faecal analysis, esophageal fistulation (Papachristou and Nastis, 1993;Henley et al, 2006;Mellado et al, 2012), direct observation of grazing animals (Dumont and Boissy, 2000;Foroughbakhch et al, 2013;Mancilla-Leytón et al, 2013) and direct estimation of grazing damage of each species (Hejcman et al, 2008;Nagaike, 2012)]. However, in the current study the BR percentage of the whole flock on the half-long term was evaluated fitting the method proposed by Nagaike (2012) to the vertical point-quadrat method.…”
Section: Vegetation Surveys Browsing Ratio and Species Intake Assessmentioning
confidence: 99%