Available Forage and the Conditions for Avoiding Predation of the Siberian Roe Deer (Capreolus pygargus) in the Lesser **ng’an Mountains
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2.5. Sampling Design
2.6. Plant Sample Classification
2.7. Measurement and Calculation of the Quantity of Available Forage
2.8. Measurement and Calculation of the Quality of Available Forage
2.9. Data Analysis
3. Results and Analysis
3.1. Available Forage
3.1.1. Quantity of Available Forage
3.1.2. Quality of Available Forage
3.2. Conditions for Avoiding Predation
3.2.1. Conditions of Concealment
3.2.2. Conditions of Escape
4. Discussion
4.1. Quantity of Available Forage
4.2. Quality of Available Forage
4.3. Conditions for Avoiding Predation
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Lima, S.L.; Zollner, P.A. Towards a behavioral ecology of ecological landscapes. Trends Ecol. Evol. 1996, 11, 131–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Treinys, R. Important landscape factors for the breeding territory selection by Lesser Spotted Eagle (Aquila pomarina). Acta Zool. Litu. 2004, 14, 58–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zabala, J.; Zuberogoitia, I.; Garin, I.; Aihartza, J. Landscape features in the habitat selection of European mink (Mustela lutreola) in south-western Europe. J. Zool. 2003, 260, 415–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carrasco, L.; Toquenaga, Y.; Mashiko, M. Extrapolation of random forest models shows scale adaptation in egret colony site selection against landscape complexity. Ecol. Complex. 2015, 24, 29–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hecker, L.J.; Edwards, M.A.; Nielsen, S.E. Behavioral habitat selection of wood bison (Bison bison athabascae) in boreal forests. Mammal Res. 2023, 68, 341–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, P.C.; Teng, M.J.; He, W.; Tang, C.; Yang, J.Y.; Yan, Z.G. Using habitat selection index for reserve planning and management for snub-nosed golden monkeys at landscape scale. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 93, 838–846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brindock, K.M.; Colwell, M.A. Habitat selection by western snowy plovers during the nonbreeding season. J. Wildl. Manag. 2011, 75, 786–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boisjoly, D.; Ouellet, J.P.; Courtois, R. Coyote habitat selection and management implications for the Gaspésie caribou. J. Wildl. Manag. 2010, 74, 3–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marchand, P.; Garel, M.; Bourgoin, G.; Dubray, D.; Maillard, D.; Loison, A. Coupling scale-specific habitat selection and activity reveals sex-specific food/cover trade-offs in a large herbivore. Anim. Behav. 2015, 102, 169–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mugangu, T.E.; Hunter, M.L.; Gilbert, J.R. Food, water, and predation: A study of habitat selection by buffalo in Virunga National Park, Zaïre. Mammalia 1995, 59, 349–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Viejou, R.; Avgar, T.; Brown, G.S.; Patterson, B.R.; Reid, D.E.B.; Rodgers, A.R.; Shuter, J.; Thompson, I.D.; Fryxell, J.M. Woodland caribou habitat selection patterns in relation to predation risk and forage abundance depend on reproductive state. Ecol. Evol. 2018, 8, 5863–5872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dussault, C.; Ouellet, J.P.; Courtois, R.; Huot, J.; Breton, L.; Jolicoeur, H. Linking moose habitat selection to limiting factors. Ecography 2005, 28, 619–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lü, Z.H.; Feng, Y.; Yu, Y.Z.; Zhang, M.H.; Zhang, W.Q. Influence of high dietary overlap on sympatric species habitat selection segregation: A case study of red deer and roe deer. J. North-East For. Univ. 2020, 48, 72–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.; Long, Z.W.; Xu, C.Y.; Lan, J.Y.; Piao, M.J.; Zhu, H.Q. Research situation of impact factors on habitat selection of roe deer (Capreolus capreolus). J. Econ. Anim. 2017, 21, 119–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Utz, J.L.; Shipley, L.A.; Rachlow, J.L.; Johnstone-Yellin, T.; Camp, M.; Forbey, J.S. Understanding tradeoffs between food and predation risks in a specialist mammalian herbivore. Wildl. Biol. 2016, 22, 167–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nielsen, S.E.; McDermid, G.; Stenhouse, G.B.; Boyce, M.S. Dynamic wildlife habitat models: Seasonal foods and mortality risk predict occupancy-abundance and habitat selection in grizzly bears. Biol. Conserv. 2010, 143, 1623–1634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brodmann, P.A.; Reyer, H.U.; Bollmann, K.; Schläpfer, A.R.; Rauter, C. The importance of food quantity and quality for reproductive performance in alpine water pipits (Anthus spinoletta). Oecologia 1997, 109, 200–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brasher, M.G.; Steckel, J.D.; Gates, R.J. Energetic carrying capacity of actively and passively managed wetlands for migrating ducks in Ohio. J. Wildl. Manag. 2007, 71, 2532–2541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heg, D.; Bachar, Z.; Brouwer, L.; Taborsky, M. Predation risk is an ecological constraint for helper dispersal in a cooperatively breeding cichlid. Proc. R. Soc. B-Biol. Sci. 2004, 271, 2367–2374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haapakoski, M.; Sundell, J.; Ylönen, H. Predation risk and food: Opposite effects on overwintering survival and onset of breeding in a boreal rodent. J. Anim. Ecol. 2012, 81, 1183–1192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morosinotto, C.; Villers, A.; Varjonen, R.; Korpimäki, E. Food supplementation and predation risk in harsh climate: Interactive effects on abundance and body condition of tit species. Oikos 2017, 126, 863–873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Visscher, D.R.; Merrill, E.H. Temporal dynamics of forage succession for elk at two scales: Implications of forest management. For. Ecol. Manag. 2009, 257, 96–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yin, Y.J. Study on the Diet, Habitat Capacity and Population Viability Analysis of the Reindeer in Aoluguya, Inner Mongolia, China. Ph.D. Thesis, Northeast Forestry University, Harbin, China, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Godvik, I.M.R.; Loe, L.E.; Vik, J.O.; Veiberg, V.; Langvatn, R.; Mysterud, A. Temporal scales, trade-offs, and functional responses in red deer habitat selection. Ecology 2009, 90, 699–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dupke, C.; Bonenfant, C.; Reineking, B.; Hable, R.; Zeppenfeld, T.; Ewald, M.; Heurich, M. Habitat selection by a large herbivore at multiple spatial and temporal scales is primarily governed by food resources. Ecography 2017, 40, 1014–1027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Visscher, D.R.; Merrill, E.H.; Fortin, D.; Frair, J.L. Estimating woody browse availability for ungulates at increasing snow depths. For. Ecol. Manag. 2006, 222, 348–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Takahashi, H.; Kaji, K. Fallen leaves and unpalatable plants as alternative foods for sika deer under food limitation. Ecol. Res. 2001, 16, 257–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tremblay, J.P.; Thibault, I.; Dussault, C.; Huot, J.; Côté, S.D. Long-term decline in white-tailed deer browse supply: Can lichens and litterfall act as alternative food sources that preclude density-dependent feedbacks. Can. J. Zool. 2005, 83, 1087–1096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ward, R.L.; Marcum, C.L. Lichen litterfall consumption by wintering deer and elk in western Montana. J. Wildl. Manag. 2005, 69, 1081–1089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ditchkoff, S.S.; Servello, F.A. Litterfall: An overlooked food source for wintering white-tailed deer. J. Wildl. Manag. 1998, 62, 250–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agetsuma, N.; Agetsuma-Yanagihara, Y.; Takafumi, H. Food habits of Japanese deer in an evergreen forest: Litter-feeding deer. Mamm. Biol. 2011, 76, 201–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Camp, M.J.; Rachlow, J.L.; Woods, B.A.; Johnson, T.R.; Shipley, L.A. When to run and when to hide: The influence of concealment, visibility, and proximity to refugia on perceptions of risk. Ethology 2012, 118, 1010–1017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boyer, J.S.; Hassa, L.L.; Lurie, M.H.; Blumstein, D.T. Effect of visibility on time allocation and escape decisions in crimson rosellas. Aust. J. Zool. 2006, 54, 363–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Panzacchi, M.; Herfindal, I.; Linnell, J.D.C.; Odden, M.; Odden, J.; Andersen, R. Trade-offs between maternal foraging and fawn predation risk in an income breeder. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2010, 64, 1267–1278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Embar, K.; Kotler, B.P.; Mukherjee, S. Risk management in optimal foragers: The effect of sightlines and predator type on patch use, time allocation, and vigilance in gerbils. Oikos 2011, 120, 1657–1666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Javurkova, V.; Sizling, A.L.; Kreisinger, J.; Albrecht, T. An alternative theoretical approach to escape decision-making: The role of visual cues. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e32522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morellet, N.; Van Moorter, B.; Cargnelutti, B.; Angibault, J.-M.; Lourtet, B.; Merlet, J.; Ladet, S.; Hewison, A.J.M. Landscape composition influences roe deer habitat selection at both home range and landscape scales. Landsc. Ecol. 2011, 26, 999–1010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bose, S.; Forrester, T.D.; Casady, D.S.; Wittmer, H.U. Effect of activity states on habitat selection by black-tailed deer. J. Wildl. Manag. 2018, 82, 1711–1724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pierce, B.M.; Bowyer, R.T.; Bleich, V.C. Habitat selection by mule deer: Forage benefits or risk of predation? J. Wildl. Manag. 2004, 68, 533–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Di Stefano, J.; York, A.; Swan, M.; Greenfield, A.; Coulson, G. Habitat selection by the swamp wallaby (Wallabia bicolor) in relation to diel period, food and shelter. Austral Ecol. 2009, 34, 143–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Takada, H. The summer spatial distribution of Japanese serows (Capricornis crispus) in an area without predation risk. Mamm. Biol. 2020, 100, 63–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Camp, M.J.; Rachlow, J.L.; Woods, B.A.; Johnson, T.R.; Shipley, L.A. Examining functional components of cover: The relationship between concealment and visibility in shrub-steppe habitat. Ecosphere 2013, 4, art19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grovenburg, T.W.; Jacques, C.N.; Klaver, R.W.; Jenks, J.A. Bed site selection by neonate deer in grassland habitats on the northern Great Plains. J. Wildl. Manag. 2010, 74, 1250–1256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carvalho, J.C.; Gomes, P. Influence of herbaceous cover, shelter and land cover structure on wild rabbit abundance in NW Portugal. Acta Theriol. 2004, 49, 63–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Michel, E.S.; Gullikson, B.S.; Brackel, K.L.; Schaffer, B.A.; Jenks, J.A.; Jensen, W.F. Habitat selection of white-tailed deer fawns and their dams in the Northern Great Plains. Mammal Res. 2020, 65, 825–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bowyer, R.T.; Van Ballenberghe, V.; Kie, J.G.; Maier, J.A.K. Birth-site selection by Alaskan moose: Maternal strategies for co** with a risky environment. J. Mammal. 1999, 80, 1070–1083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.W.; Long, Z.X.; Liang, X.; Li, S.Z.; Jiang, G.S. Habitat suitability evaluation for roe deer (Capreolus pygargus) in the Lesser **o Ser. Cienc. For. Y Del Ambiente 2012, 18, 219–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- **a, Q.; Wang, W.; Shen, G.S. Nutrient analysis of plant food of black bear on the southern slope of Lesser **ngan Mountains. Chin. J. Wildl. 2009, 30, 121–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, J.Z.; Chen, H.P.; Sun, Z.W.; Li, F.; Wang, H.; Li, F.; Du, Y.X.; Li, J. Seasonal nutritional quality of red deer and roe deer forages in southern **ao **ngan Mountains, China. Acta Ecol. Sin. 1996, 16, 269–275. [Google Scholar]
- Li, J.S.; Wu, J.P.; Li, J.H.; Jiang, Z.W. A preliminary study on nutritional quality of Mongolian gazelle foods. J. Northeast For. Univ. 2000, 28, 105–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Belovsky, G.E. Food plant selection by a generalist herbivore: The moose. Ecology 1981, 62, 1020–1030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, S.C.; Zhang, M.H.; Yin, Y.X.; Ren, M.F. Habitat selection of roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) in winter in the eastern Wandashan mountains, Heilongjiang Province. J. Bei**g For. Univ. 2010, 32, 122–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- **a, X.; Ren, J.; Li, L.; Wang, H.Y.; Song, Y.C.; Yang, D.D.; Jiang, Z.G. Autumn-winter habitat selection by the re-wild Milu (Elaphurus davidianus) at the early stage after release in Dongting Lake Wetland, China. Biodivers. Sci. 2021, 29, 1087–1096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- **ang, R.W.; Da, Z.; Wu, J.Y.; Bu, X.L.; Wang, J.; Lu, Q.B.; Hao, Y.H.; Sheng, Y.; Meng, X.X. Summer habitat preference of roe deer (Capreolus pygargus) in mountainous areas around Bei**g. Chin. J. Ecol. 2021, 40, 3252–3258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, D.D.; Zhu, H.Q.; Ge, Z.Y.; Chang, S.H.; Li, C.; Zhang, X.D. Selection of musk deer winter habitat in Huangnihe Nature Reserve. J. Northwest AF Univ. (Nat. Sci. Ed.) 2015, 43, 15–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, H.L.; Wu, J.P.; Liu, Y.Z.; Zhang, Y. Habitat selection by Moschus moschiferus in summer in Daxing’an Mountains. Chin. J. Ecol. 2008, 27, 1313–1316. [Google Scholar]
- Masse, A.; Cote, S.D. Habitat selection of a large herbivore at high density and without predation: Trade-off between forage and cover? J. Mammal. 2009, 90, 961–970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mysterud, A.; Ostbye, E. Bed-site selection by European roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) in southern Norway during winter. Can. J. Zool. 1995, 73, 924–932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bonnot, N.; Morellet, N.; Verheyden, H.; Cargnelutti, B.; Lourtet, B.; Klein, F.; Hewison, A.J.M. Habitat use under predation risk: Hunting, roads and human dwellings influence the spatial behaviour of roe deer. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 2013, 59, 185–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teng, L.W.; Liu, Z.S.; Zhang, E.D.; Ma, J.Z. Winter bed-site selection of Capreolus capreolus in low mountain areas of southern **aoxing’anling Mountains. Chin. J. Ecol. 2007, 26, 213–218. [Google Scholar]
Forage Category | Meadows (n = 18) | Forests (n = 80) | Soybean Fields (n = 36) | Cornfields (n = 17) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Horsetails | Other Plants | Soybeans | Soybean Pods | |||
Standing withered | 416.40 ± 209.27 | 9.84 ± 27.57 | 38.19 ± 46.82 | — | — | — |
Litterfall | — | 4.04 ± 11.51 | 86.98 ± 53.33 | 31.26 ± 36.31 | 40.89 ± 85.84 | 57.64 ± 233.31 |
Total | 416.40 ± 209.27 a | 139.06 ± 65.26 b | 72.16 ± 97.39 b | 57.64 ± 233.31 b |
Forage Category | Cornfields (n = 12) | Rice Fields (n = 3) | Meadows (n = 64) | Coniferous Forests (n = 62) | Soybean Fields (n = 5) | Broadleaf Forests (n = 69) | Mixed Forests (n = 7) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Woody | — | — | 6.24 ± 22.01 | 16.38 ± 40.12 | — | 15.28 ± 28.97 | 6.24 ± 8.93 |
Herbaceous | — | — | 549.43 ± 172.27 | 346.81 ± 233.34 | — | 149.36 ± 108.88 | 144.46 ± 61.44 |
Crops | 1081.08 ± 526.76 | 593.83 ± 65.75 | — | — | 198.05 ± 20.55 | — | — |
Total | 1081.08 ± 526.76 a | 593.83 ± 65.75 b | 555.67 ± 176.15 b | 363.19 ± 223.89 bc | 198.05 ± 20.55 c | 164.64 ± 108.94 c | 150.70 ± 63.04 c |
Landscape Type | Forage Category | Hemicellulose | Cellulose | Lignin | Non-Fibrous Components | Nitrogen | Carbon |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Forests | Standing horsetails | 9.93 ± 0.24 | 30.40 ± 0.46 | 1.05 ± 0.05 | 58.62 ± 0.72 | 1.36 ± 0.01 | 35.88 ± 0.12 |
Standing other plants | 16.21 ± 0.85 | 24.51 ± 1.08 | 13.17 ± 1.12 | 46.11 ± 2.14 | 1.53 ± 0.03 | 41.50 ± 0.06 | |
Fallen horsetails | 9.62 ± 0.40 | 31.72 ± 0.97 | 1.20 ± 0.22 | 57.46 ± 1.34 | 1.22 ± 0.01 | 35.14 ± 0.07 | |
Fallen other plants | 15.32 ± 0.79 | 23.67 ± 2.99 | 12.81 ± 3.27 | 48.20 ± 1.70 | 1.44 ± 0.16 | 41.27 ± 0.38 | |
Subtotal | 12.77 ± 3.08 b | 27.58 ± 3.91 ab | 7.06 ± 6.18 ab | 52.60 ± 5.73 b | 1.39 ± 0.14 b | 38.45 ± 2.96 b | |
Meadows | Herbaceous plants | 20.98 ± 0.26 a | 34.76 ± 0.70 a | 11.65 ± 2.28 a | 32.61 ± 1.80 c | 0.73 ± 0.03 b | 43.67 ± 0.04 a |
Soybean fields | Soybeans | 5.84 ± 0.94 | 7.08 ± 0.09 | 0.31 ± 0.17 | 86.77 ± 1.00 | 6.00 ± 0.03 | 48.99 ± 0.07 |
Soybean pods | 17.06 ± 0.69 | 34.38 ± 0.61 | 10.12 ± 0.57 | 38.44 ± 1.61 | 1.26 ± 0.05 | 41.51 ± 0.03 | |
Subtotal | 11.45 ± 5.67 b | 20.73 ± 13.66 b | 5.21 ± 4.92 ab | 62.61 ± 24.20 b | 3.63 ± 2.37 a | 45.25 ± 3.74 a | |
Cornfields | Corn | 5.07 ± 0.75 c | 2.93 ± 0.29 c | 0.10 ± 0.03 b | 91.90 ± 1.05 a | 1.41 ± 0.01 b | 41.90 ± 0.08 ab |
Total | 12.50 ± 5.39 | 23.68 ± 11.54 | 6.30 ± 5.90 | 57.51 ± 20.18 | 1.87 ± 1.58 | 41.23 ± 4.07 |
Landscape Type | Forage Category | Hemicellulose | Cellulose | Lignin | Non-Fibrous Components | Nitrogen | Carbon |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Forests | Standing horsetails | 0.98 ± 2.74 | 2.99 ± 8.38 | 0.10 ± 0.29 | 5.77 ± 16.16 | 0.13 ± 0.37 | 3.53 ± 9.89 |
Standing other plants | 6.19 ± 7.59 | 9.36 ± 11.47 | 5.03 ± 6.17 | 17.61 ± 21.59 | 0.58 ± 0.72 | 15.85 ± 19.43 | |
Fallen horsetails | 0.39 ± 1.11 | 1.28 ± 3.65 | 0.05 ± 0.14 | 2.32 ± 6.61 | 0.05 ± 0.14 | 1.42 ± 4.04 | |
Fallen other plants | 13.33 ± 8.17 | 20.59 ± 12.62 | 11.14 ± 6.83 | 41.93 ± 25.71 | 1.25 ± 0.77 | 35.90 ± 22.01 | |
Subtotal | 17.76 ± 8.33 b | 38.35 ± 18.00 b | 9.82 ± 4.61 b | 73.15 ± 34.33 b | 1.93 ± 0.91 ab | 53.47 ± 25.09 b | |
Meadows | Herbaceous plants | 87.36 ± 43.90 a | 144.74 ± 72.74 a | 48.51 ± 24.38 a | 135.79 ± 68.24 a | 3.04 ± 1.53 a | 181.84 ± 91.39 a |
Soybean fields | Soybeans | 1.83 ± 2.12 | 2.21 ± 2.57 | 0.10 ± 0.11 | 27.13 ± 31.51 | 1.88 ± 2.18 | 15.32 ± 17.79 |
Soybean pods | 6.98 ± 14.65 | 14.06 ± 29.51 | 4.14 ± 8.69 | 15.72 ± 33.00 | 0.52 ± 1.08 | 16.97 ± 35.63 | |
Subtotal | 8.26 ± 11.15 bc | 14.96 ± 20.19 c | 3.76 ± 5.07 bc | 45.18 ± 60.98 b | 2.62 ± 3.54 a | 32.65 ± 44.07 b | |
Cornfields | Corn | 2.92 ± 11.83 c | 1.69 ± 6.84 c | 0.06 ± 0.23 c | 52.97 ± 214.41 b | 0.81 ± 3.29 b | 24.15 ± 97.76 b |
Total | 22.12 ± 30.13 | 41.33 ± 50.03 | 11.89 ± 16.72 | 71.67 ± 87.31 | 2.10 ± 2.27 | 60.51 ± 69.86 |
Landscape Type | Forage Category | Hemicellulose | Cellulose | Lignin | Non-Fibrous Components | Nitrogen | Carbon |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Broadleaf forests | Woody | 21.34 ± 0.91 | 9.60 ± 1.92 | 23.53 ± 2.36 | 45.53 ± 0.57 | 2.18 ± 0.02 | 43.64 ± 0.03 |
Herbaceous | 19.18 ± 3.02 | 5.36 ± 2.89 | 45.02 ± 6.28 | 33.67 ± 5.22 | 2.07 ± 0.03 | 44.24 ± 0.01 | |
Subtotal | 20.26 ± 2.48 a | 7.91 ± 3.14 ab | 34.28 ± 11.75 a | 39.60 ± 6.99 d | 2.13 ± 0.06 c | 43.94 ± 0.30 bc | |
Coniferous forests | Woody | 21.36 ± 0.83 | 8.33 ± 0.59 | 25.67 ± 1.05 | 44.64 ± 1.57 | 2.69 ± 0.01 | 44.71 ± 0.07 |
Herbaceous | 22.62 ± 0.86 | 18.72 ± 2.67 | 18.13 ± 2.77 | 40.53 ± 2.04 | 1.82 ± 0.01 | 43.11 ± 0.04 | |
Subtotal | 21.99 ± 1.05 a | 13.52 ± 5.55 a | 21.90 ± 4.31 bc | 42.59 ± 2.75 cd | 2.26 ± 0.43 c | 43.91 ± 0.80 bc | |
Mixed forests | Woody | 20.67 ± 2.87 | 4.92 ± 2.48 | 28.32 ± 2.55 | 46.09 ± 3.94 | 3.03 ± 0.04 | 44.52 ± 0.05 |
Herbaceous | 16.71 ± 0.95 | 21.55 ± 2.02 | 24.71 ± 4.13 | 37.02 ± 2.11 | 2.32 ± 0.01 | 41.53 ± 0.08 | |
Subtotal | 18.69 ± 2.91 a | 13.24 ± 8.62 a | 26.52 ± 3.88 ab | 41.55 ± 5.53 cd | 2.67 ± 0.36 b | 43.03 ± 1.50 c | |
Meadows | Woody | 11.45 ± 0.61 | 7.57 ± 0.97 | 16.50 ± 1.46 | 64.48 ± 1.23 | 1.85 ± 0.02 | 45.84 ± 0.01 |
Herbaceous | 27.04 ± 0.14 | 17.92 ± 3.18 | 14.93 ± 4.59 | 40.12 ± 1.30 | 1.54 ± 0.01 | 43.47 ± 0.07 | |
Subtotal | 19.25 ± 7.81 a | 12.74 ± 5.68 a | 15.72 ± 3.50 cd | 52.30 ± 12.25 c | 1.69 ± 0.15 d | 44.66 ± 1.18 ab | |
Soybean fields | Crops | 8.35 ± 1.13 b | 15.34 ± 1.07 a | 5.42 ± 0.75 e | 70.88 ± 2.21 b | 3.76 ± 0.03 a | 45.76 ± 0.03 a |
Cornfields | Crops | 4.75 ± 0.13 b | 0.86 ± 0.15 b | 2.89 ± 0.65 e | 91.95 ± 0.11 a | 1.32 ± 0.01 d | 40.95 ± 0.07 d |
Rice fields | Crops | 8.24 ± 1.73 b | 11.40 ± 0.52 a | 8.11 ± 0.87 de | 72.26 ± 2.13 b | 1.43 ± 0.00 d | 41.59 ± 0.30 d |
Total | 16.52 ± 7.03 | 11.56 ± 6.39 | 19.38 ± 11.87 | 53.38 ± 17.91 | 2.18 ± 0.70 | 43.58 ± 1.59 |
Landscape Type | Forage Category | Hemicellulose | Cellulose | Lignin | Non-Fibrous Components | Nitrogen | Carbon |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Broadleaf forests | Woody | 3.26 ± 6.18 | 1.47 ± 2.78 | 3.59 ± 6.82 | 6.96 ± 13.19 | 0.33 ± 0.63 | 6.67 ± 12.64 |
Herbaceous | 28.65 ± 20.88 | 8.01 ± 5.84 | 67.24 ± 49.02 | 50.29 ± 36.66 | 3.09 ± 2.25 | 66.08 ± 48.17 | |
Subtotal | 33.36 ± 22.07 bc | 13.02 ± 8.62 c | 56.44 ± 37.35 ab | 65.20 ± 43.14 d | 3.51 ± 2.32 b | 72.34 ± 47.87 c | |
Coniferous forests | Woody | 3.50 ± 8.57 | 1.36 ± 3.34 | 4.20 ± 10.30 | 7.31 ± 17.91 | 0.44 ± 1.08 | 7.32 ± 17.94 |
Herbaceous | 78.45 ± 52.78 | 64.92 ± 43.68 | 62.88 ± 42.30 | 140.56 ± 94.57 | 6.31 ± 4.25 | 149.51 ± 100.59 | |
Subtotal | 79.87 ± 49.23 ab | 49.10 ± 30.27 ab | 79.54 ± 49.03 a | 154.68 ± 95.35 cd | 8.21 ± 5.06 ab | 159.48 ± 98.31 bc | |
Mixed forests | Woody | 1.29 ± 1.85 | 0.31 ± 0.44 | 1.77 ± 2.53 | 2.88 ± 4.11 | 0.19 ± 0.27 | 2.78 ± 3.97 |
Herbaceous | 24.14 ± 10.27 | 31.13 ± 13.24 | 35.70 ± 15.18 | 53.48 ± 22.75 | 3.35 ± 1.43 | 59.99 ± 25.52 | |
Subtotal | 28.17 ± 11.78 bc | 19.95 ± 8.35 bc | 39.96 ± 16.72 ab | 62.61 ± 26.19 d | 4.02 ± 1.68 b | 64.85 ± 27.13 c | |
Meadows | Woody | 0.71 ± 2.52 | 0.47 ± 1.67 | 1.03 ± 3.63 | 4.02 ± 14.20 | 0.12 ± 0.41 | 2.86 ± 10.09 |
Herbaceous | 148.57 ± 46.58 | 98.46 ± 30.87 | 82.03 ± 25.72 | 220.43 ± 69.12 | 8.46 ± 2.65 | 238.84 ± 74.89 | |
Subtotal | 106.97 ± 33.91 a | 70.79 ± 22.44 a | 87.35 ± 27.69 a | 290.62 ± 92.12 bc | 9.39 ± 2.98 ab | 248.16 ± 78.67 b | |
Soybean fields | Crops | 16.54 ± 1.72 c | 30.38 ± 3.15 bc | 10.73 ± 1.11 b | 140.37 ± 14.56 cd | 7.45 ± 0.77 b | 90.63 ± 9.40 c |
Cornfields | Crops | 51.35 ± 25.02 abc | 9.30 ± 4.53 c | 31.24 ± 15.22 ab | 994.05 ± 484.36 a | 14.27 ± 6.95 a | 442.70 ± 215.71 a |
Rice fields | Crops | 48.93 ± 5.42 bc | 67.70 ± 7.50 a | 48.16 ± 5.33 ab | 429.10 ± 47.51 b | 8.49 ± 0.94 ab | 249.11 ± 27.58 b |
Total | 68.53 ± 46.60 | 40.83 ± 32.08 | 69.14 ± 41.15 | 211.25 ± 248.28 | 7.26 ± 4.79 | 169.95 ± 130.26 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Li, Y.; Li, Y.; Hu, Y.; Li, Y.; Guo, J.; Shao, X.; Gao, H. Available Forage and the Conditions for Avoiding Predation of the Siberian Roe Deer (Capreolus pygargus) in the Lesser **ng’an Mountains. Forests 2023, 14, 2072. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14102072
Li Y, Li Y, Hu Y, Li Y, Guo J, Shao X, Gao H. Available Forage and the Conditions for Avoiding Predation of the Siberian Roe Deer (Capreolus pygargus) in the Lesser **ng’an Mountains. Forests. 2023; 14(10):2072. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14102072
Chicago/Turabian StyleLi, Yueyuan, Yuehui Li, Yuanman Hu, Yue Li, Jia Guo, Xuefeng Shao, and Huifang Gao. 2023. "Available Forage and the Conditions for Avoiding Predation of the Siberian Roe Deer (Capreolus pygargus) in the Lesser **ng’an Mountains" Forests 14, no. 10: 2072. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14102072