Food Preferences of Antelope and Domestic Sheep in Wyomin& Red
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
FALL FERTILIZATION 21 termediate wheatgrass. J. Range MILLAR, C. E., L. M. TURK, AND H. D. wheatgrass, bromegrass, and Rus- Manage. 18: 7-11. FOTH. 1958. Fundamentals of soil sian wildrye as influenced by fer- KAY, B. L., J. E. STREET,AND C. W. science. Ed. 3. John Wiley and tilization. J. Range Manage. 13: RIMBEY. 1957. Nitrogen carryover Sons, Inc., New York. 526 p. 243-246. on sagebrush range. Calif. Agr. 11 NELSON,WERNER L. 1965. Beat a wet SNEVA, FORRESTA., D. N. HYDER,AND (10) : 5,lO. spring . fertilize this fall. Better C. S. COOPER. 1958. The influence KRESGE, C. B. 1965. Response of Crops with Plant Food XLIX (4) : of ammonium nitrate on the orchardgrass to fall and spring ap- 24-29. growthand yield of crested wheat- plied nitrogen. Agron. J. 57: 390- ROGLER,G. A., ANDR. J. LORENZ.1957. grass on the Oregon High Desert. 393. Nitrogen fertilization of Northern Agron. J. 50: 40-44. LEVEN,A. A., ANDH. E. DREGNE.1963. Great Plains rangelands. J. Range THOMAS, JAMES R. 1964. Interrela- Productivity of Zuni Mountain Manage. 10: 156-160. tionships of nitrogen, phosphorus forest soils. New Mexico Agr. Exp. RUSSELL, E. J., AND E. W. RUSSELL. and seasonal precipitation in the Sta. Bull. 469. 1950. Soil conditions and plant production of bromegrass-crested LORENZ,RUSSELL J., ANDG. A. ROGLER. growth. Ed. 2. Longmans, Green, wheatgrass hay. U.S.D.A., A.R.S. 1962. A comparison of methods of and Co., New York. 635 p. Prod. Rep. 82. renovating old stands of crested SMIKA, D. E., H. J. HAAS, AND G. A. THOMPSON,LOUIS M. 1957. Soils and wheatgrass. J. Range Manage. 15: ROGLER. 1960. Yield, quality, and soil fertility. Ed. 2. McGraw-Hill, 215-219. fertilizer recovery of crested New York. 451 p. Food Preferences of Antelope and ever, stated that “. because their annual diet consists of a high pro- Domestic Sheep in Wyomin& Red Dese& portion of browse and forbs, ante- lope are in direct competition with K. E. SEVERSON’ AND M. MAY sheep, whose diet comprises the Graduate Student and Associate Professor, Plant Science same type of forage.” Buechner Division, University of Wyoming, Laramie. (1950) maintained that competition is severe on overgrazed sheep ranges because the forbs and weedy spe- Highlight ’ lope and sheep, will assist land cies preferred by antelope were elim- managers in making more pre- A food habits study, in a big sage- inated, but that it may be almost brush-grass type in Wyoming’s Red cise evaluations of management absent on properly grazed ranges. Desert, revealed very little overlap practices such as sagebrush in use of native range forage by During World War II, Wyoming pronghorn antelope and domestic spraying and game-or-stock-only went as far as to hold special hunt- sheep. Generally, sheep preferred programs. ing seasons to reduce the antelope grasses whereas antelope utilized herds in an attempt to “. re- shrubs. The information used in this discussion was obtained in a co- duce competition between domestic stock and antelope . to cope with The Red Desert region is the operative study initiated by the Bureau of Land Management, the the feed shortage for domestic stock” most important winter sheep (Allred, 1943). range in Wyoming. It is also a Wyoming Game and Fish De- Study Area and Procedures major pronghorn antelope range. partment, and the Plant Science The study area was located in the Although these two animal spe- Division of the University of Red Desert region in the south cen- cies have apparently been com- Wyoming. The primary objec- tives of the study were to deter- tral part of Wyoming north of Wam- patible in this area for several sutter. The greater portion of the mine the degree of overlap in decades, new livestock manage- observations were taken from a pas- ment practices have tended. to use of native vegetation and to ture system designed and con- focus additional attention on this determine grazing capacities of structed by the Bureau of Land Man- multiple-use region. Future man- pronghorn antelope and do- agement which consisted of six pas- agement plans include using this mestic range sheep. tures; 2 of 120 acres, stocked with area as a year-long, sheep and The degree of forage competition antelope; 2 of 120 acres, stocked with cattle range. This study, designed between these two herbivores varies sheep; and 2 of 240 acres, stocked greatly and appears to depend on to yield data on competition for with both antelope and sheep. The the geographic area, season, and the pastures were located in a uniform forage between pronghorn ante- vegetative types being used. big sagebrush community. The major Einarsen (1948) did not put too species in the study area were: big much emphasis on forage competi- 1Published with the approval of the sagebrush, Artemisia tridentata; Director, Wyoming AgricuZturaZ Ex- tion between antelope and sheep. He Douglas rabbitbrush, Chrysothamnus periment Station, as Journal Article stated that antelope preference is viscidijlorus var. pumilis; we s tern No. 289. for a wide variety of foods including wheatgrass, Agrop yron smithii; 2PresentZy Instmxtor of Range Man- most range weeds and browse plants, needleandthread, Stipa comata; In- agement, South Dakota State Uni- while sheep are more restricted in dian ricegrass, Oryzops-is hymenoides; versity, Brookings, South Dakota. their diet. Hoover et al. (1959), how- bottlebrush squirreltail, Sitanion 22 SEVERSON AND MAY h ystrix; winterfat, Eurotia lanata; Table 1. Average annual forage pro- collected over the same period in Sandberg bluegrass, Poa secunda and duction on fhe study area for 1964 1965. The excellent replication obtuse sedge, Carex obtusata. and 1965, determined by clipping demonstrated by western wheat- The methods and procedures used of 2 x 4 ff plofs. (Lb/acre, oven grass is, at best, unusual. It does, were all based on standard range dried). however, demonstrate the trend analysis methods. Percent com- Species 1964 1965 pressed crown cover and precent that will become obvious after utilization by weight of the plant Big sagebrush 147.0 266.7 examining the entire table-and species were estimated from plots Douglas rabbitbrush 89.4 88.7 that is the preference for grasses 1 x 10 ft in size. Ninety of the plots Western wheatgrass 51.6 57.2 by sheep as compared to an- were analyzed during each sample Needleandthread 19.3 21.1 telope. The trend in shrub util- period. Production was determined Indian ricegrass 14.5 19.2 ization is indicated by Douglas Bottlebrush squirrel for all species except sagebrush by rabbitbrush which was preferred tail 13.0 14.9 clipping 96 caged plots, 2 x 4 ft in more by antelope than by sheep. size. Sagebrush production was ob- Winterfat 10.0 6.7 Indian ricegrass and needleand- tained by clipping 15 plots, 4 in wide Sandberg bluegrass 3.6 7.7 thread were taken infrequently x 50 ft long, in an exclosure adjacent Obtuse sedge 3.1 8.1 Forbs T 2.6 by antelope, but were the two to the pastures. Sagebrush utiliza- -_ most important species in the tion was estimated by examining 150 Total 351.5 492.9 plants in each pasture. All sample sheep diet. Needleandthread ap- numbers were obtained by statistical peared to be more preferable analysis and all weights given are etation is fairly characteristic of than Indian ricegrass. There was oven dried weights. the entire desert, except in dis- some difference in sheep use of Under the direction of the Wyo- turbed areas where russian- these two species from 1964 to ming Game and Fish Commission, thistle (Salsola kali) and halo- 1965, notably a decrease in the two antelope and two sheep were get on (Halogeton glomeratus) use of needleandthread and in- collected for rumen samples each are found. This is the reason that month. Other data obtained from creased use of Indian ricegrass. the information obtained in Wyo- the collected animals included body, The possible reasons for these viscera and organ weights, jaws for ming doesn’t even remotely re- differences will be discussed age determinations and information semble that collected in Texas later. Sandberg bluegrass fol- on internal parasites. by Buechner (1950) or Russell’s lowed the same trend-that is, Forage Production (1964) studies in New Mexico. use to a greater extent by sheep. Forage production varied sig- In both of these areas forbs were However, both animal species nificantly between 1964 and 1965 predominant in the antelope diet used this plant heavily in the (Table 1). The most significant and in Texas, the floral composi- spring because it was the first increase was noted in the annual tion. species to exhibit green growth, production of big sagebrush, UMizafion but sheep utilized it later into from 147 lb/acre to 266.7 lb/acre. Utilization figures are given the summer. Winterfat, in the All species except Douglas rab- in pounds consumed per acre summer, was used infrequently bitbrush and winterfat demon- over a particular season and re- by sheep and not at all by an- strated some increase. The dif- lated to animal days of use. telope. ference in annual production be- Table 2 compares data gathered Big sagebrush, another impor- tween 1964 and 1965 can be ex- in the summer of 1964 with that tant species in the antelope diet, plained by variations in climate. Annual precipitation increased Table 2. Summer forage consumpfion by anielope and sheep defected by every year since 1962 when 4.5 in agronomic methods. were recorded. Five inches fell in Summer, 1964 Summer, 1965 1963, 5.5 inches in 1964 and in Antelope Sheep Antelope Sheep 1965, 6.5 in were recorded.