DIET, NUTRITION, AND REPRODUCTIVE ... - NWIFC Access

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my major advisor, Dr. R. Golightly, for his valuable input and advice on all aspects of this thesis. Thank you to R. McCoy who had the ambition to begin this project, trusted me with carrying it out, and taught me all he knows about elk. I also would like to thank my committee members, Dr. D. Kitchen and Dr. F. W. Weckerly for their comments on this document. I thank Makah Tribal Council for their support of this study. I thank Makah Tribal Forestry for providing equipment as well as knowledgeable, friendly personnel. The Makah Tribal Council, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), and Bureau of Indian Affairs provided funds without which this project would not have been possible. Thank you to the landowners for allowing access to their lands for elk capture and study: Crown Pacific Timber Company, particularly S. Loy, Rainier Timber Company, Green Crow Timber Company, Merrill and Ring Timber Company, Washington Department of Natural Resources, R. Jones, and A. Boe. Thank you to J. Smith (WDFW), for help with organizing the study, capture efforts, and obtaining funds. I thank Dr. B. Hall (WDFW) for veterinary expertise during the capture, and D. Gadwa (WDFW) for help with funding. Additional capture help was provided by: KBH Archers, C. Madsen, J. Corpuz, B. Gagnon, J. Wilson, T. McCaulley, L. Dalos, G. Smith, F. Silvernail, and from WDFW; W. Mikalis, M. Zahn, S. Ament, A. McMillan. vi
The Marin Rod and Gun Club Scholarship and Frances Fisher Memorial Scholarship provided funding for tuition while I was completing coursework. I thank Dr. B. Bigg for taking time to consider my data and offer statistical advice. Dr. B. Davitt and staff of the Washington State University Wildlife Nutrition Laboratory provided excellent laboratory analyses of vast amounts of fecal samples. Thank you to M. Wilson and J. Vartanian for being excellent field biologists as well as roommates, your company was hugely appreciated. I thank A. Hagen for his hours of grinding plant samples, and J. Sajecki for help with formatting. I also want to thank my lab mates, C. Hamilton, B. Acord, J. Storlie and K. Boyd for sharing what they know and reminding me to get to work. I especially thank M. Fallon-McKnight for making me laugh and helping me put together a piece of equipment neither of us knew anything about. Thank you to J. Boyes for giving me something to look forward to when this is finished. Capture operations and methods were approved by Humboldt State University’s Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC number 99/00.W.80B). vii
Page 1: DIET, NUTRITION, AND REPRODUCTIVE S
Page 4 and 5: Grasses and forbs were high in prot
Page 8 and 9: TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT....
Page 10 and 11: LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Reprodu
Page 12 and 13: LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 Study
Page 14 and 15: LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page A
Page 16 and 17: INTRODUCTION Roosevelt elk (Cervus
Page 18 and 19: Similarly, high quality habitat (ve
Page 20 and 21: 5 deficiencies have been reported f
Page 22 and 23: STUDY AREA The Hoko Game Management
Page 24 and 25: acemosa), swordfern (Polystichum mu
Page 26 and 27: 11 independence, I allowed at least
Page 28 and 29: 13 counted calves and cows, one obs
Page 30 and 31: communication). Riparian areas of v
Page 32 and 33: 17 The 28 vegetation types and timb
Page 34 and 35: could indicate forage plant groups
Page 36 and 37: 21 of digestibility was not an exac
Page 38 and 39: used Pearson’s correlation analys
Page 40 and 41: RESULTS Elk Telemetry and Locations
Page 42 and 43: 27 0.8 Calf:cow ratio Calf:cow rati
Page 44 and 45: Five of the nine herds used vegetat
Page 46 and 47: Table 3. Vegetation groups used les
Page 48 and 49: 33 Table 4. Results of Mann-Whitney
Page 50 and 51: 35 summer months. Shrub consumption
Page 52 and 53: Table 6. Differences in median fora
Page 54 and 55: 39 80 March/April Total grass (%) 6
Page 56 and 57:
Nutritional Analysis of Forage Plan
Page 58 and 59:
IVDMD (%) IVDMD (%) IVDMD (%) 80 60
Page 60 and 61:
DE (Kcal/g) DE (Kcal/g) DE (Kcal/g)
Page 62 and 63:
0.6 47 0.5 Calf survival (%) Mean c
Page 64 and 65:
Table 7. Summary of principal compo
Page 66 and 67:
Table 8. Summary of multiple regres
Page 68 and 69:
Table 10. Summary of multiple regre
Page 70 and 71:
Birthrate was negatively related to
Page 72 and 73:
DISCUSSION Highly productive herds
Page 74 and 75:
consumption of evergreen shrubs, wi
Page 76 and 77:
61 Therefore, low percentages of gr
Page 78 and 79:
63 been able to gain adequate weigh
Page 80 and 81:
65 survival but few calves overall,
Page 82 and 83:
2004), highly nutritious forage pla
Page 84 and 85:
egardless of home range size. There
Page 86 and 87:
71 However, it is possible to have
Page 88 and 89:
73 Cook, J. G., B. K. Johnson, R. C
Page 90 and 91:
75 Hudson, R. J. and J. Z. Adamczew
Page 92 and 93:
Phillips, G. E. and A. W. Alldredge
Page 94 and 95:
APPENDICES 79
Page 96 and 97:
Appendix A. Vegetation types and st
Page 98 and 99:
Appendix C. Coefficient of Associat
Page 100 and 101:
Appendix E. Percentage of each vege
Page 102 and 103:
Appendix F. Diet of nine elk herds
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Appendix G. Total percentage of nin
Page 114 and 115:
99 Appendix I. Multiple regression
Page 116 and 117:
101 Appendix K. Correlations betwee
Page 118 and 119:
Appendix M. Multiple regression ana
show all

DIET, NUTRITION, AND REPRODUCTIVE ... - NWIFC Access

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?