Next Article in Journal
Energy Balance Indicators during the Transition Period and Early Lactation of Purebred Holstein and Simmental Cows and Their Crosses
Previous Article in Journal
Feeding Value Assessment of Substituting Cassava (Manihot esculenta) Residue for Concentrate of Dairy Cows Using an In Vitro Gas Test
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Animals
Volume 11
Issue 2
10.3390/ani11020308
animals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Feeding Preferences of the Italian Roe Deer (Capreolus capreolus italicus Festa, 1925) in a Coastal Mediterranean Environment

by
Pierangelo Freschi
1,
Simonetta Fascetti
1,
Francesco Riga
2,
Gabriella Rizzardini
1,
Mauro Musto
1 and
Carlo Cosentino
1,*
1
School of Agricultural, Forestry, Food and Environmental Sciences (SAFE), University of Basilicata, 85100 Potenza, Italy
2
Italian Institute for Environmental Protection and Research (ISPRA), 00144 Rome, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Animals 2021, 11(2), 308; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11020308
Submission received: 2 December 2020 / Revised: 19 January 2021 / Accepted: 22 January 2021 / Published: 26 January 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Wildlife)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

The Italian roe deer, once largely diffused in central and southern Italy, currently populates residual areas of its historical range in an extremely precarious status, with a numerical consistency which has been reduced to a few thousand heads. Moreover, the introgressive hybridization due to the occurrence in close contact with the European roe deer, in some areas of Tuscany and Calabria, threatens the genetic identity of the endemic subspecies. Therefore, the numerous risk factors for this subspecies require enabling targeted conservation strategies. In the present research we studied the diet and feeding behavior of the Italian roe deer, considering that the most representative plants of the diet could act as key indicators for the subspecies to identify and conserve its elective habitats. During all the year, the Italian roe deer preferred mainly feeding resources from woods and scrubland including, particularly in wet season, also a great proportion of forbs, whereas in its diet grasses were poorly represented. The results obtained in this study evidenced that the Italian roe deer is a browser able to exploit many plant species and to adapt its diet preferences to space-time variation of food availability.

Abstract

The present study was aimed to deepen the knowledge on diet and on feeding preferences of the Italian roe deer. The research was carried on in the Castelporziano Presidential Estate, a protected area of Latium coast. Quadrat method was used to assess plant frequency, whereas diet composition was determined by fecal micro-histological analysis. A total of 143 plant species were identified in the site and 109 of them were found in the feces of the Capreolus capreolus italicus. All over the year, most of the taxa were ingested in low percentages (≤5%) and the most utilized plant species were Quercus suber, Prunus spinosa, Rubia peregrina, and Crateaegus monogyna. Fagaceae and Rosaceae plant families represented the bulk of the diet and were positively selected. In addition, a positive selection on Fabaceae and Oleaceae families was found in wet season but not in dry one. In both periods the Italian roe deer showed a positive selection for deciduous woody plants and evergreen woody plants, instead avoided wild forbs and wild graminoids. Our results confirmed that this subspecies behaved as a generalist highly selective feeder.

1. Introduction

Studies on feeding ecology and diet composition of a threatened taxon as the Italian roe deer (Capreolus capreolus italicus Festa, 1925) are essential to identify potential factors influencing the population viability, as well as for protection of its elective habitats [1] Additionally, plants composing the diet may act as early warning indicators of food resource limitation, especially in relation to diet overlap with other animals, and are essential to assess the species’ role in the ecosystem and in the development of management or reintroduction plans [2].
The Italian roe deer is currently confined in only a few areas: Sienese hills and Maremma Regional Park (Tuscany), Castelporziano Presidential Estate (Latium), Umbra Forest (Gargano Regional Park, Apulia), Orsomarso mountains (Pollino National Park, Calabria). Thanks to recent reintroductions, it is also present in the Gallipoli Cognato Piccole Dolomiti Lucane Regional Park (Basilicata) and in the Aspromonte National Park (Calabria) [1]. The Italian roe deer occupies a diversity of habitat, mainly deciduous forests of the Southern Apennines, Mediterranean scrublands and agricultural areas. The distinction of this endemism from the European roe deer (Capreolus capreolus Linnaeus, 1758) was suggested for the first time by Festa (1925). Later, the Italian roe deer was genetically differentiated from the nominal species [2,3,4]. Only the populations of Castelporziano and of Umbra Forest, confined in two protected areas and isolated from the European roe deer, are not threatened by hybridization [5,6].
Ecological studies on the Italian roe deer mainly concern the spatial behavior and habitat use of both historical and southern Tuscany populations [7,8,9,10,11,12], only little is known about its feeding ecology. The few studies focused on feeding behavior of this small cervid [12,13,14] put in evidence that its diet is wide and diversified with only a few plant species ingested in higher percentage. Studies on the diet of roe deer regard mostly the European roe deer and are mainly localized in forest areas of central and northern Europe e.g., [15,16,17,18,19]. These researches evidenced a wide selection of plant species (about 1000 at a continental scale) with high-energy content and high digestibility (especially herbaceous dicotyledons, followed by woody plants and monocotyledons). In general, roe deer is defined as a concentrate selector, and its ecological plasticity is highlighted by its adaptation in response to the different availability of feeding resources [13] and to the vegetation phenology, since roe deer selects plants in the most nutritive phenological stages [20].
Nevertheless, information obtained from these studies might prove poorly appropriate for the Italian roe deer, predominantly distributed in Mediterranean habitats [2,12].
The present research was carried on in a protected area of the Latium coast with the aim of studying the seasonal variations of diet and feeding selection behavior of the Italian roe deer.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Site

The study was conducted in the Castelporziano Presidential Estate (Figure 1), an enclosed and protected area of Lazio coast (headquarters coordinates: 41°44′37.83″ N, 12°24′2.20″ E) where the mean annual temperature is +15.4 °C and the annual precipitation is 740 mm. The Estate covers about 5892 ha containing several land-cover types representative for the Mediterranean area: natural oak woods with both evergreen (Quercus ilex and Quercus suber) and deciduous (Quercus cerris and Quercus frainetto) species, broad-leaved mixed oak forest, pasture, Mediterranean maquis, pseudo steppe and reforestation areas with prevalence of domestic pine (Pinus pinea) [21].
A sampling site of about 400 ha was chosen in the north of the Estate in order to include different vegetational covers. Ground cover of this area is characterized by: (1) a dominant tree layer of Pinus pinea, by sparse shrub undergrowth with Asparagus acutifolius, Laurus nobilis, Phillyrea latifolia, and Rubus spp. and a very scarce herbaceous layer formed by Carex dystachya, Carex flacca and Poa trivialis; (2) a tree pasture area, with scattered specimens of Quercus suber, with prevailing annual-growing grasses as herbaceous species (e.g., Anthoxanthum odoratum, Briza maxima, Bromus hordeaceus and Cynosurus echinatus and Trifolium spp.), the presence of nitrophilous spiny species, such as Cirsium strictum and Galactites tomentosa, is probably affected by cattle overgrazing [22]; (3) a fallow area characterized by annual growing grasses (in prevalence, Avena fatua, Cynodon dactylon, Dasypyrum villosum, Lagurus ovatus and Poa trivialis). The control activity of the estate gamekeepers excludes from the study area the presence of fallow deer (Dama dama Linnaeus, 1758) and wild boar (Sus scrofa majori De Beaux e Festa, 1927), species that may interfere on feeding behavior of the Italian roe deer [8,23]. The site is not usually frequented by Red deer (Cervus elaphus hippelaphus Erxleben, 1777).

2.2. Sampling and Analysis Procedures

For each vegetational cover, two permanent transects were performed and sampling took place once in dry season (DS, May–August) and once in wet season (WS, November–February). Transects were distant from each other at least 100 m. Quadrat method was used to assess plant frequency [24]: in each transect (100 m) 50 samplings were made analyzing 1 m2 of vegetation and skipping the following. Identified species were grouped into five vegetation forms: evergreen woody plants (EWP), deciduous woody plants (DWP), half-woody plants (HWP), wild forbs (WF) and wild graminoids (WG). The taxonomic nomenclature of the identified taxa follows Bartolucci et al. [25]. Sampling of plants species took place along the above descripted transects to create a reference collection. The plant material was divided into anatomical parts and crushed in a ceramic mortar. Fragments were dispersed in a few drops of water, placed on microscope slides and put in oven at 50 °C for 30′. Histological fragments were photographed by light microscopy and catalogued in a database using the image analyzer Leica Q500IW (Leica Imaging System Ltd., Cambridge, UK).
Fecal sampling took place in DS and WS along 3 replicate and permanent transects (2 m × 200 m), spatially distributed in order to include the different vegetation covers of the site.
Pellets were collected monthly in DS (June–August) and in WS (November–February). From each collection a minimum of 6 fresh pellets (bright brown feces) of various sizes and formats, were mixed to form a single composite sample. Overall, 24 composite samples (8 months × 3 sites) were analyzed.
Fecal pellets were hydrated, homogenized and placed in sodium hypochlorite (NaClO) for 4 h, in order to allow the discoloration of plant fragments Successively, fragments were washed with water and collected with 400 μm filter paper [26]. The filtrate was dried at 50 °C for 90′ and mounted in glycerol gelatin on microscope slides. For each composite sample were mounted 10 microscope slides. The slides were examined by light microscopy by using the image analyzer Leica Q500 IW (Leica Imaging System Ltd., Cambridge, UK), obtaining 200 readings for each sample, counting non-overlapping plant fragments in systematic transects across a slide along alternate rows.
Identification of plant species was affected by comparing the different characteristic of the epidermal cells and other structures (e.g., stomates and trichomes) with those of the plant reference collection. This reference material is available at the Laboratory of Environmental and Applied Botany, University of Basilicata. Not identified fragments (5.4%) were classified as ‘unidentified’ and excluded from the analysis.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

Data on the plant species identified in DS and WS were used to calculate the relative frequencies of each taxon, family, and vegetation form. Similarly, we calculated the relative frequencies of the plant species identified in the feces by dividing the total number of fragments attributed to a given taxon by the total number of identified fragments collected for each season [27,28,29]. Data on identified plant species composing the diet were also used to compute the following alpha diversity indices:
-
Shannon diversity index (H) [30], whose value usually ranges between 1.5 and 3.5 and often does not exceed 4 [31];
-
Margalef index (D) for species richness (higher the value the greater is the richness) [32];
-
Buzas and Gibson evenness index (E) [33].
For each of the above indices’ differences between DS and WS were tested by Student’s t-test.
To compare dietary similarity between DS and WS two indices were computed: the Sørensen similarity index (CS) [34] and the Morisita-Horn index (CM) [35]. Both indices vary between 0 (no similarity) and 1 (complete similarity). Morisita-Horn index values were classified as: 0 < CM ≤ 0.29 small overlap, 0.30 ≤ CM ≤ 0.59 medium overlap, and CM ≥ 0.60 high overlap [36].
Diet selection was estimated for life vegetation forms and for plant families, utilizing the relative frequencies, in vegetation and diet by Resource selection ratio (wi) [37]:
wi = oi/pi
where oi is the proportion of the botanical family (or life form) in the diet and pi is its available proportion. Differences were tested by χ2 test [38]. Data were analyzed by R software [39].

3. Results

3.1. Vegetation Assessment of the Site

Relative frequencies of each taxon, family, and vegetation form composing vegetation cover are shown in Table A1. Overall, 143 plant species were detected (72 in DS and 71 in WS), belonging to 56 families (26 in DS and 30 WS). The most represented families were Poaceae (49.1% in DS and 19.8% in WS), Asteraceae (20.8% in DS and 16.3% in WS), Rosaceae (9.2% in DS) and Geraniaceae (9.5% in WS). Among inventoried species the most representative ones were Quercus suber (8.9%), Avena fatua (6.6%), Dasypyrum villosum (6.2%), Achnatherum bromoides (6.1%), and Briza maxima (5.5%) in DS and Quercus suber (19.4%), Rubus ulmifolius (5.6%), Geranium robertianum (5.4%), Brachypodium retusum (5.0%) and Dactylis glomerata (4.5%) in WS.
During all the year, the most abundant vegetation forms were wild forbs (48.7%) followed by wild graminoids (33.6%), evergreen woody plants (10.0%), deciduous woody plants (7.0%) and half-woody plants that was the less abundant form (0.8%).

3.2. Diet Composition

A total of 109 taxa belonging to 51 families was found in the feces of Capreolus capreolus italicus (Table A1). The number of identified species/families was similar in both seasons (DS: 56/29; WS: 53/22). Among plant species the most ingested were Quercus. suber (13.3%), Prunus spinosa (9.0%), Rubia peregrina (7.7%) and Crateaegus monogyna (5.4%). In DS the most consumed species were: Rubia peregrina (10.11%), Quercus suber (8.9%) and Osyris alba (7.51%). In WS the most utilized were: Quercus suber (19.4%), Prunus spinosa (15.2%), Crataegus monogyna (9.2%) and Pyrus communis (7.8%). Overall, in the two periods, most of the taxa were ingested in low percentages (≤5%), giving 64.5% of total.
All over the year, Rosaceae was the most representative family in the diet (20.8%), followed by Fagaceae (17.0%) and Rubiaceae (10.7%). In DS the family of Rubiaceae was the most ingested (14.6%), followed by Fagaceae (14.4%) and Rosaceae (11.6%) while in WS the most representative families in the diet were Rosaceae (33.4%), Fagaceae (20.6%) and Poaceae (15.7%).

3.3. Seasonal Variation in Dietary Diversity and Similarity

Table 1 provides the results obtained by computing the alpha and beta diversity indices in the two seasons. The Student’s t-test revealed significant differences in terms of diet diversity. The value of the Shannon index was significantly higher (t = 4.733, df = 4.999, p ≤ 0.01) in WS than in DS (3.312 vs. 2.490). Similarly, we also found a significant difference concerning diet richness: the value of the Margalef’s index was significantly higher (t = 6.583, df = 4.668, p ≤ 0.01) in WS compared to DS (7.415 vs. 2.490). No significant difference was found when comparing the value of Buzas and Gibson’s index (t = 1.766, df = 4.879, p = 0.14).
Concerning beta diversity analysis, the DS and WS diets showed a relative low value of CS (0.28). However, observing the value of the Morisita-Horn index, the degree of dietary overlap can be defined “high” (CM = 0.76).

3.4. Dietary Selection

The Italian roe deer showed a positive selection in DS and WS for deciduous woody plants and evergreen woody plants (p ≤ 0.001); wild forbs and wild graminoids were instead avoided (p ≤ 0.001) (Figure 2 and Figure 3).
In Table 2 is reported the selection ratio (wi) of the Italian roe deer on botanical families. In DS, Fabaceae, Fagaceae, Oleaceae and Rosaceae families have been used more than expected according to their availability (p ≤ 0.05); conversely, Apiaceae, Asteraceae, Poaceae and Smilacaceae were negatively selected (p ≤ 0.001). In WS only Fagaceae and Rosaceae were positively selected (p ≤ 0.05), whereas Apiaceae, Asteraceae, Fabaceae, Plantaginaceae and Poaceae were avoided (p ≤ 0.001).

4. Discussion

Four main results emerged from our study: (1) annual diet composition was characterized by a broad spectrum of plant species, around 110 belonging to 12 families; (2) use and selection of food was conditioned not only by the seasonal availability of plant species but also by their phenological stage, e.g., Fabaceae were preferred in DS and avoided in WS; (3) all over the year, Quercus suber, Prunus spinosa, Rubia peregrina and Crataegus monogyna represented the bulk of diet; these species were observed in the diet of the European roe deer too [11,18,40,41]; (4) comparing alpha and beta indices, we found that in wet season the diet was more diverse and richer than in dry season, and that there was an even distribution of plant species eaten in each season; besides, some of these species were shared by the diets, and this was particularly evident if taking species abundance into consideration.
During all the year, Fagaceae and Rosaceae represented the bulk of the diet, and were positively selected. In addition, in summer we found a positive selection on Fabaceae and Oleaceae families as well. These results seem to support the findings by Focardi et al. [23] who suggested that the availability of high-quality food resources makes woods and scrubland the most preferred habitats by the Italian roe deer.
The selection on Rosaceae has been highlighted by the identification of fruits in the feces and confirms that these cervids seek out more palatable and high-quality food sources. Previous studies have shown that fruits are the most preferred food items in summer and in early autumn for the European roe deer [42]. In a study on summer diet of the subspecies [14], Rosaceae and Fagaceae represented the bulk of the diet in both a coastal and mountain environment.
Mammalian herbivores can be considered generalist or specialist in feeding behavior if the incidence of a family plant on the diet is less than or greater than 60%, respectively [43]. In this study the generalist behavior in the Italian roe deer was confirmed. At the same time, it was also evidenced the high selectivity of this endemism: if we consider the 4 most abundant species in the diets of the two periods they accounted for 35.4% in WS and 27.9% in DS.
Despite the large diet breath, diet selection occurred, because deciduous woody plants and evergreen woody plants were selected in both periods, whereas wild forbs and wild graminoids were avoided. Evergreen woody plants represented the basic diet for the Italian roe deer (45%), in agreement with previous studies in other areas: up to 65% in Maremma Regional Park [13] and over 50% in the province of Siena, where evergreen woody plants were selected in autumn-winter when the availability of deciduous plants is reduced [12]. Deciduous woody plants were used more than expected by their availability, in particular in wet season. In literature, this biological form is selected and utilized in similar amounts by the European roe deer [13].
The relatively low proportion of ingested wild forb taxa may be attributed to their better digestibility that can give a biased idea of the actually utilized species. Studies on diet selection show considerable variation with respect to spatial and temporal scales and methods employed to measure resource use and availability [15,44,45]. Conclusions about whether a single vegetation form is used above, in proportion to, or below its availability are directly dependent upon the accuracy of diet and availability assessments, but also upon which categories are deemed available [44]. However, avoidance of many forbs and graminoids and use of almost all tree and shrub species were confirmed by other studies based on browsing marks and direct observation of the European roe deer [46]. The results obtained in this study are in accordance with literature regarding the food preferences of the European roe deer that is commonly recognized as a browser, capable of exploiting a large number of plant species and adapting its dietary niche to the space-time variation of food availability [17,47,48,49]. The Italian roe deer managed to model its feeding behavior in relation to the available food resources in the dry and wet periods, satisfying its metabolic demand with variable proportions of different plant categories.

5. Conclusions

Our results showed that, although the Italian roe deer heavily relied on woody plants, its diet was quite richer and diverse all year long, due to the availability and the phenological stage of the plants. These results confirm that feeding behavior of the Italian roe deer is plastic, changing with the seasonal availability of feeding resources [17,20]. Knowledge of the diet and of the feeding behavior of herbivorous species is an important element for the definition of their trophic niche, of their elective habitats, and of the competition with other taxa [50]. Our results could give useful indications for the management of this subspecies in similar environments of the Mediterranean area. Nevertheless, studies conducted at multiple scales [20] could, provide a fuller characterization of habitat use patterns and a far-reaching impact on the development of reintroduction plans.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.F., S.F. and F.R.; data curation, G.R. and M.M.; investigation, G.R. and C.C.; methodology, P.F., S.F. and F.R.; supervision, P.F.; writing—original draft, S.F. and G.R.; writing—review and editing, S.F. and C.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Plant reference collection is available at the Laboratory of Environmental and Applied Botany, University of Basilicata, Potenza, Italy.

Acknowledgments

We are very grateful for the possibility to carry out the research to the Direction of Castelporziano Presidential Estate and, in particular, we thank: Giulia Bonella, Director, and Daniele Cecca, Head of the technical-scientific area and training. A great acknowledge is also due to the three Anonymous Reviewers for their careful work provided on the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1: Frequencies (%) of Plant species, Families, and Vegetation form (1) in dry season (DS) and in wet season (WS), in vegetation (availability) and in diet (ingested).
Table
Table A1. Frequencies (%) of Plant species, Families, and Vegetation forms (1) in dry season (DS) and in wet season (WS), in vegetation (availability) and in diet (ingested).
Table A1. Frequencies (%) of Plant species, Families, and Vegetation forms (1) in dry season (DS) and in wet season (WS), in vegetation (availability) and in diet (ingested).
FamilyPlant SpeciesVegetation FormDSWS
AvailabilityIngestedAvailabilityIngested
AmaryllidaceaeAllium triquetrumWF0.830.002.610.20
0.830.002.610.20
AnacardiaceaePistacia lentiscusEWP0.000.770.000.00
0.000.770.000.00
ApiaceaeChaerophyllum spp.WF0.000.002.610.00
Daucus carotaWF2.220.000.230.00
Foeniculum vulgareWF0.280.240.000.07
Oenanthe pimpinelloidesWF0.000.001.590.07
Smyrnium olusatrumWF0.140.000.000.00
2.640.244.420.13
AraceaeArum italicumWF0.000.000.340.00
0.000.000.340.00
AraliaceaeHedera helixEWP0.971.150.000.00
0.971.150.000.00
AsparagaceaeAsparagus acutifoliusEWP2.361.491.131.91
Ruscus aculeatusEWP0.000.670.230.13
2.362.171.362.04
AsphodelaceaeAsphodelus ramosusWF0.000.002.270.00
0.000.002.270.00
AsteraceaeAnthemis cotulaWF0.140.003.970.00
Bellis perennisWF0.000.003.170.00
Carlina corymbosaWF0.000.000.340.00
Carthamus lanatusWF0.280.000.000.00
Centaurea solstitialisWF5.410.000.000.00
Cichorium intybusWF3.050.000.000.00
Cirsium arvenseWF0.000.000.110.07
Cirsium strictumWF2.220.003.170.00
Coleostephus myconisWF2.770.001.020.00
Dittrichia viscosaWF0.000.000.230.00
ErigeronbonariensisWF0.000.000.340.13
Erigeron spp.WF0.140.000.000.00
Galactites tomentosaWF3.190.000.000.00
Helminthothec aechioidesWF2.770.000.000.00
Hypochaeris radicataWF0.000.000.000.13
Hypocheris achyrophorusWF0.000.000.230.00
Onopordon illyricumWF0.550.000.110.00
Picris hieracioidesWF0.830.000.000.00
Ptilostemon strictusWF0.000.000.000.26
Reichardia picroidesWF0.000.003.630.00
Rhagadiolus stellatusWF0.140.000.000.00
Sonchus oleraceusWF0.000.000.000.13
Taraxacum officinaleWF0.000.480.000.00
21.500.4816.330.73
BetulaceaeAlnus glutinosaDWP0.002.360.000.00
0.002.360.000.00
BoraginaceaeCynoglossum spp.WF0.140.000.000.00
Echium vulgareWF0.140.000.000.00
Myosotis spp.WF0.140.000.000.00
0.420.000.000.00
BrassicaceaeRaphanus raphanistrumWF0.140.000.910.00
0.140.000.910.00
CaprifoliaceaeLonicera etruscaDWP0.000.000.000.07
0.000.000.000.07
CaryophyllaceaeSilene albaWF0.140.000.570.00
Silene colorataWF0.280.000.000.00
Stellaria mediaWF0.000.002.490.00
0.420.003.060.00
CelastraceaeEuonymus europaeusEWP0.001.200.000.00
Euonymus latifoliusDWP0.000.000.000.13
0.001.200.000.13
ChenopodiaceaeChenopodium albumWF0.420.000.000.00
0.420.000.000.00
CistaceaeCistus creticusEWP0.280.000.682.64
Cistus monspeliensisEWP0.000.670.000.00
Cistus salviifoliusEWP0.002.020.000.00
0.282.690.682.64
CorylaceaeCorylus avellanaDWP0.000.630.000.00
0.000.630.000.00
CyperaceaeCarex echinataWG0.280.000.000.00
Carex flaccaWG0.693.800.000.00
Carex halleranaWG0.280.000.000.00
1.253.800.000.00
DioscoreaceaeTamus communisEWP0.005.390.000.00
0.005.390.000.00
EricaceaeArbutus unedoEWP0.005.050.000.00
Erica arboreaEWP0.000.910.000.00
0.005.970.000.00
EuphorbiaceaeEuhorbia helioscopiaWF0.280.000.000.00
Euphorbia peplisWF0.000.003.400.00
0.280.003.400.00
FabaceaeAstragalus glycyphyllusWF0.000.000.230.00
Coronilla scorpioidesWF0.140.000.000.00
Cytisus scopariusEWP0.001.440.000.00
Hippocrepis bifloraWF0.000.000.000.07
Hippocrepis unisiliquosaWF0.000.000.570.00
Lathyrus sylvestrisWF0.000.000.000.46
Medicago arabicaWF0.000.000.110.07
Spartium junceumEWP0.000.910.000.00
Trifolium alexandrinumWF0.000.580.000.00
Trifoliuman gustifoliumWF0.140.000.680.00
Trifolium pratenseWF1.390.530.230.33
Trifolium repensWF0.000.480.000.00
Trifolium spp.WF0.000.000.110.00
Trifolium stellatumWF0.280.000.000.07
Trifolium vesiculosumWF0.280.000.000.00
2.223.951.930.99
FagaceaeQuercus cerrisDWP0.000.000.000.99
Quercus frainettoDWP0.004.720.000.00
Quercus ilexEWP0.000.770.000.26
Quercus pubescensDWP0.140.000.230.00
Quercus suberEWP2.088.900.3419.38
2.2214.390.5720.63
GeraniaceaeErodium cicutariumWF0.000.000.000.07
Geranium dissectumWF3.050.001.930.46
Geranium robertianumWF0.000.005.440.00
Geranium rotundifoliumWF0.000.002.150.00
3.050.009.520.53
HypericaceaeHypericum perforatumWF0.000.000.571.52
0.000.000.571.52
JuncaceaeJuncus acutusWG0.000.580.000.00
0.000.580.000.00
LamiaceaeClinopodium vulgareHWP0.000.001.360.00
Lamium albumWF0.000.000.340.00
Prunella volgarisWF0.000.000.000.79
0.000.001.700.79
LauraceaeLaurus nobilisEWP0.000.000.230.00
0.000.000.230.00
LiliaceaeOrnithogalum umbellatumWF0.280.000.000.00
0.280.000.000.00
MalvaceaeMalva sylvestrisWF0.690.000.000.00
0.690.000.000.00
OleaceaeFraxinus ornusDWP0.000.000.001.19
Ligustrum vulgareEWP0.000.340.000.00
Olea europeaEWP0.000.430.000.00
Phyllirea latifoliaEWP1.805.154.083.36
1.805.924.084.55
OxalidaceaeOxalis corniculataWF0.000.001.130.20
0.000.001.130.20
PinaceaePinus pineaEWP0.000.000.450.00
0.000.000.450.00
PlantaginaceaePlantago crassifoliaWF0.000.530.000.00
Plantago lanceolataWF0.420.432.610.13
Plantago mediaWF0.280.000.110.07
0.690.962.720.20
PoaceaeAchnatherum bromoidesWG6.240.000.000.00
Antoxantum odoratumWG0.140.000.000.00
Arrhenatherum elatiusWG3.610.000.000.00
Avena barbataWG0.000.000.001.25
Avena fatuaWG6.800.000.000.00
Brachypodium retusumWG0.000.004.990.07
Brachypodium sylvaticumWG0.280.580.232.90
Briza maximaWG5.690.003.060.13
Bromus hordeaceusWG1.660.000.000.00
Cynodon dactylonWG0.280.530.000.13
Cynosurus cristatusWG0.000.001.590.00
Cynosurus echinatusWG2.770.001.021.25
Dactylis glomerataWG0.140.584.544.35
Dasypyrum villosumWG6.380.003.510.07
Elymus repensWG0.970.000.000.00
Gastridium ventricosumWG5.270.000.000.00
Holcus lanatusWG0.000.000.790.00
Hordeum bulbosumWG0.000.000.110.00
Lagurus ovatusWG0.280.000.000.00
Lolium arundinaceumWG0.000.000.003.76
Lolium perenneWG5.410.000.000.00
Melica ciliataWG0.000.000.000.07
Oloptum thomasiiWG0.830.000.000.00
Phalaris minorWG1.110.000.000.00
Phleum pratenseWG0.140.000.000.00
Poa trivialisWG0.830.000.001.71
Triticum vagansWG0.280.000.000.00
49.101.6819.8415.69
PolygonaceaePolygonum aviculareWF0.280.000.000.00
Rumex bucephalophorusWF0.000.580.570.00
Rumex conglomeratusWF0.140.530.570.00
Rumex crispusWF0.000.480.000.00
Rumex obtusifoliusWF0.000.000.110.00
0.421.591.250.00
PrimulaceaeAnagallis arvensisWF0.140.000.000.00
Cyclamen repandumWF0.000.000.790.00
0.140.000.790.00
RanunculaceaeClemantis flammulaEWP0.002.170.114.02
Ranunculus bulbosusWF0.000.960.000.00
Ranunculus ficariaWF0.000.530.000.00
Ranunculus flammulaWF0.000.000.110.00
Ranunculus lanuginosusWF0.001.250.000.00
Ranunculus repensWF0.000.002.950.07
0.004.913.174.09
RhamnaceaeRhamnus alaternusEWP0.831.350.000.00
0.831.350.000.00
RosaceaeCrateaegus monogynaDWP0.832.601.479.23
Filipendula ulmariaWF0.000.340.000.00
Potentilla reptansWF0.000.720.000.00
Prunus spinosaDWP0.424.571.0215.16
Pyrus communisDWP0.000.000.007.78
Rosa sempervirensEWP0.000.871.020.66
Rubus canescensDWP0.001.200.000.00
Rubus spp.DWP4.020.000.000.59
Rubus ulmifoliusDWP0.001.255.560.00
5.2711.559.0733.42
RubiaceaeGalium aparineWF0.000.001.250.86
Galium cruciataWF0.000.000.230.00
Galium verumWF0.002.260.000.00
Rubia peregrinaWF0.1410.112.384.48
Sherardia arvensisWF0.002.210.000.00
0.1414.583.855.34
SantalaceaeOsyris albaEWP0.007.511.590.26
0.007.511.590.26
SapindaceaeAcer campestreDWP0.000.000.000.73
Acer monspessulanusDWP0.002.360.000.00
0.002.360.000.73
ScrophulariaceaeVerbascum blattariaWF0.000.530.000.00
Verbascum sinuatumWF0.000.430.000.00
0.000.960.000.00
SmilacaceaeSmilax asperaEWP1.660.290.235.14
1.660.290.235.14
SolanaceaeSolanum nigrumWF0.000.001.700.00
0.000.001.700.00
UlmaceaeUlmus minorDWP0.000.580.000.00
0.000.580.000.00
UrticaceaeUrtica dioicaWF0.000.000.230.00
0.000.000.230.00
(1) EWP = Evergreen woody plants; DWP = Deciduous woody plants; HWP = Half-woody plants; WF = Wild forbs; WG = Wild graminoids.

References

  1. Focardi, S.; Montanaro, P.; La Morgia, V.; Riga, F. Piano D’azione Nazionale per il Capriolo Italico (Capreolus Capreolus Italicus). Quaderni di Conservazione della Natura; Ministero dell’Ambiente—ISPRA: Roma, Italy, 2009; Volume 31, p. 172. ISSN 1592-2901. [Google Scholar]
  2. Lorenzini, R.; Lovari, S.; Masseti, M. The rediscovery of the Italian roe deer: Genetic differentiation and behavioural ecology and sociobiology management implications. Ital. J. Zool. 2002, 69, 367–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Randi, E.; Pierpaoli, M.; Danilkin, A. Mitochondrial DNA polymorphism in populations of Siberian and European roe deer (Capreolus pygargus and C. capreolus). Heredity 1998, 80, 429–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Randi, E.; Alves, P.C.; Carranza, J.; Milosevic-Zlatanovic, S.; Sfougaris, A.; Mucci, N. Phylogeography of roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) populations: The effects of historical genetic subdivisions and recent nonequilibrium dynamics. Mol. Ecol. 2004, 13, 3071–3083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Mucci, N.; Mattucci, F.; Randi, E. Conservation of threatened local gene pools: Landscape genetics of the Italian roe deer (Capreolus c. italicus) populations. Evol. Ecol. Res. 2012, 14, 897–920. [Google Scholar]
  6. Riga, F.; Focardi, S. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Available online: http://www.iucn.it/scheda.php?id=-460310570 (accessed on 13 October 2020).
  7. Aiello, V.; Lovari, S.; Bocci, A. Ranging behaviour and reproductive rate in the threatened population of Roe deer in Gargano, South Italy. Ital. J. Zool. 2013, 80, 614–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Ferretti, F.; Sforzi, A.; Lovari, S. Behavioural interference between ungulate species: Roe are not on velvet with fallow deer. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2011, 65, 875–887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Hofmann, R.R. Evolutionary steps of ecophysiological adaptation and diversification of ruminants: A comparative view of their digestive system. Oecologia 1989, 78, 443–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Lovari, S.; Bartolommei, P.; Meschi, F.; Pezzo, F. Going out to mate: Excursion behaviour of female roe deer. Ethology 2008, 114, 886–896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Minder, I. Adaptive Parameters of the Diet of Roe Deer in a Coastal Mediterranean Area. Ph.D. Dissertation, Università degli Studi di Siena, Siena, Italy, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  12. Sangiuliano, A.; Lovari, S.; Ferretti, F. Dietary partitioning between European roe deer and European brown hare. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 2016, 62, 527–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Minder, I. Local and seasonal variations of roe deer diet in relation to food resource availability in a Mediterranean environment. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 2012, 58, 215–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Freschi, P.; Fascetti, S.; Riga, F.; Cosentino, C.; Rizzardini, G.; Musto, M. Diet composition of the Italian roe deer (Capreolus capreolus italicus) (Mammalia: Cervidae) from two protected areas. Eur. Zool. J. 2017, 84, 34–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Cornelis, J.; Casaer, J.; Hermy, M. Impact of season, habitat and research techniques on diet composition of roe deer (Capreolus capreolus): A review. J. Zool. 1999, 248, 195–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Danilkin, A. Behavioural Ecology of Siberian and European Roe Deer; Chapman and Hall: London, UK, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  17. Duncan, P.; Tixier, H.; Hofman, R.R.; Lechner-Doll, M. Feeding strategies and the physiology of digestion in roe deer. In The European Roe Deer: The Biology of Success; Andersen, R., Duncan, P., Linell, J.D.C., Eds.; Scandinavian University Press: Oslo, Norway, 1998; ISBN 8200376826. [Google Scholar]
  18. Jackson, J. The annual diet of the roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) in the New Forest, Hampshire, as determined by rumen content analysis. J. Zool. 1980, 192, 71–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Krasnov, V.; Shelest, Z.; Boiko, S.; Gulik, I.; Sieniawski, W.; Kornatowska, B. The diet of the roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) in the forest ecosystems of Zhytomirske Polesie of the Ukraine. For. Res. Pap. 2015, 76, 184–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Mancinelli, S.; Wibke, P.; Boitani, L.; Hebblewhite, M.; Cagnacci, F. Roe deer summer habitat selection at multiple spatio-temporal scales in an Alpine environment. Hystryx 2015, 26, 132–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Della Rocca, B.; Pignatti, S.; Mugnoli, S.; Bianco, P.M. La carta della vegetazione della tenuta di Castelporziano. In Il Sistema Ambientale della Tenuta Presidenziale di Castelporziano; Accademia Nazionale delle Scienze detta dei Quaranta—Segretariato Generale della Presidenza della Repubblica Italiana: Roma, Italy, 2001; pp. 709–748. [Google Scholar]
  22. Freschi, P.; Musto, M.; Paolino, R.; Cosentino, C. Grazing and biodiversity conservation: Highlights on a natura 2000 network site. In The Sustainability of Agro-Food and Natural Resource Systems in the Mediterranean Basin; Vastola, A., Ed.; Springer International Publishing AG: Basel, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 271–288. ISBN 978-3-319-20054-5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Focardi, S.; Aragno, P.; Montanaro, P.; Riga, F. Inter-specific competition from fallow deer reduces habitat quality for the Italian roe deer (Capreolus capreolus italicus). Ecography 2006, 29, 407–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Bonham, C.D. Measurements for Terrestrial Vegetation; John Wiley and Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1989; ISBN 978-0-470-97258-8. [Google Scholar]
  25. Bartolucci, F.; Peruzzi, L.; Galasso, G.; Albano, A.; Alessandrini, A.N.M.G.; Ardenghi, G.; Astuti, G.; Bacchetta, S.; Ballelli, E.; Banfi, G.; et al. An updated checklist of the vascular flora native to Italy. Plant Biosyst. Int. J. Dealing Asp. Plant Biol. 2018, 152, 179–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Freschi, P.; Fascetti, S.; Musto, M.; Cosentino, C.; Paolino, R.; Valentini, V. Seasonal variation in food habits of the Italian hare in a south Apennine semi-natural landscape. Ethol. Ecol. Evol. 2016, 28, 148–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Freschi, P.; Fascetti, S.; Musto, M.; Mallia, E.; Blasi, A.C.; Cosentino, C.; Paolino, R. Diet of the Apennine hare in a southern Italy Regional Park. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 2014, 60, 423–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Freschi, P.; Fascetti, S.; Musto, M.; Mallia, E.; Cosentino, C.; Paolino, R. Diet of the Italian hare (Lepus corsicanus) in a semi-natural landscape of southern Italy. Mammalia 2015, 79, 51–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Rizzardini, G.; Fascetti, S.; Pietri, C.; Riga, F.; Cosentino, C.; Freschi, P. Feeding preferences in dry season of the Italian hare (Lepus corsicanus) in two sites of Corsica. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 2019, 43, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Shannon, C.E.; Weaver, W. The Mathematical Theory of Communication; University of Illinois Press: Urbana, IL, USA, 1949. [Google Scholar]
  31. Margalef, R. Diversity, stability and maturity in natural ecosystems. In Unifying Concepts in Ecology; van Dobben, W.H., Lowe-McConnell, R.H., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1975; pp. 151–160. ISBN 978-94-010-1956-9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Margalef, R. Information theory in ecology. Int. J. Gen. Syst. 1958, 3, 36–71. [Google Scholar]
  33. Buzas, M.; Gibson, T.G. Species diversity: Benthonic foraminifera in Western North Atlantic. Science 1969, 163, 72–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Sørensen, T.A. A method of establishing groups of equal amplitude in plant sociology based on similarity of species content, and its application to analyses of the vegetation on Danish commons. Biol. Skr. Dan. Vid. Sel. 1948, 5, 1–34. [Google Scholar]
  35. Morisita, M. Measuring of interspecific association and similarity between communities. Jap. J. Ecol. 1961, 3, 65–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Langton, R.W. Diet overlap between Atlantic cod, Gadus morhua, silver hake, Merluccius bilinearis, and fifteen other northwest Atlantic finfish. Fish. Bull. 1982, 80, 745–759. [Google Scholar]
  37. Manly, B.F.J.; McDonald, L.L.; Thomas, D.L.; McDonald, T.L.; Erickson, W.P. Resource Selection by Animals: Statistical Design and Analysis for Field Studies, 2nd ed.; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2004; ISBN 1-4020-0677-2. [Google Scholar]
  38. Zar, J.H. Biostatistical Analysis, 2nd ed.; Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1984; ISBN 100130779253. [Google Scholar]
  39. R version 3.6.1. Available online: https://www.r-project.org (accessed on 12 December 2019).
  40. Bartolomé, J.; Rosell, C.; Bassols, E. Diet composition of roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) in the Natural Park of the Garrotxa volcanic zone (Catalonia, Spain). Pirineos 2002, 157, 57–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Hearney, A.W.; Jennings, T.J. Annual foods of the red deer Cervus elaphus and the roe deer Capreolus capreolus in the east of England. J. Zool. 1983, 201, 565–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Wallach, A.D.; Shanas, U.; Inbar, M. Feeding activity and dietary composition of roe deer at the southern edge of their range. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 2010, 56, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Shipley, L.A.; Forbey, J.S.; Moore, B.D. Revisiting the dietary niche: When is a mammalian herbivore a specialist. Integr. Comp. Biol. 2009, 49, 274–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Johnson, D.H. The comparison of usage and availability measurements for evaluating resource preference. Ecology 1980, 61, 65–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Thomas, D.L.; Taylor, E.J. Study designs and tests for comparing resource use and availability. J. Wildl. Manag. 1990, 54, 324–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Kossak, S. Trophic relations of roe deer in a fresh deciduous forest. Acta Theriol. 1983, 28, 83–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Obidziński, A.; Kiełtyk, P.; Borkowski, J.; Bolibok, L.; Remuszko, K. Autumn-winter diet overlap of fallow, red, and roe deer in forest ecosystems, Southern Poland. Cent. Eur. J. Biol. 2013, 8, 8–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Tixier, H.; Duncan, P. Are European roe deer browsers? A review of variations in the composition of their diets. Rev. Ecol. 1996, 51, 3–17. [Google Scholar]
  49. Tixier, H.; Duncan, P.; Scehovic, J.; Yant, A.; Gleizes, M.; Lila, M. Food selection by European roe deer (Capreolus capreolus): Effects of plant chemistry, and consequences for the nutritional value of their diets. J. Zool. 2009, 242, 229–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Imperio, S.; Focardi, S.; Santini, G.; Provenzale, A. Population dinamics in a guild of four Mediterranean ungulates: Density-dependence, environmental effects and inter-specific interactions. Oikos 2012, 12, 1613–1626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Animals 11 00308 g001 550
Figure 1. Map showing the study site in Latium coast.
Figure 1. Map showing the study site in Latium coast.
Animals 11 00308 g001
Animals 11 00308 g002 550
Figure 2. Ingested and available plants grouped by vegetation form in DS (EWP = Evergreen woody plants; DWP = Deciduous woody plants; WF = Wild forbs; WG = Wild graminoids).
Figure 2. Ingested and available plants grouped by vegetation form in DS (EWP = Evergreen woody plants; DWP = Deciduous woody plants; WF = Wild forbs; WG = Wild graminoids).
Animals 11 00308 g002
Animals 11 00308 g003 550
Figure 3. Ingested and available plants grouped by vegetation form in WS (EWP = Evergreen woody plants; DWP = Deciduous woody plants; WF = Wild forbs; WG = Wild graminoids).
Figure 3. Ingested and available plants grouped by vegetation form in WS (EWP = Evergreen woody plants; DWP = Deciduous woody plants; WF = Wild forbs; WG = Wild graminoids).
Animals 11 00308 g003
Table
Table 1. Diet of Capreolus capreolus italicus in dry season (DS) and in wet season (WS): diversity and similarity indices.
Table 1. Diet of Capreolus capreolus italicus in dry season (DS) and in wet season (WS): diversity and similarity indices.
IndexDSWSp-Value
MeanSEMeanSE
Diversity
Shannon, H2.490 ± 0.0643.312 ± 0.045<0.01
Margalef, D4.589 ± 0.1737.415 ± 0.091<0.01
Buzas & Gibson, E0.442 ± 0.0270.564 ± 0.0160.14
Similarity
Sørensen, CS0.28
Morisita-Horn, CM0.76
Table
Table 2. Selection ratio (wi) of Capreolus capreolus italicus on botanical families in dry season (DS) and in wet season (WS).
Table 2. Selection ratio (wi) of Capreolus capreolus italicus on botanical families in dry season (DS) and in wet season (WS).
FamilyDSWS
wiFeeding Behavior p-ValuewiFeeding Behavior p-Value
Apiaceae0.139A<0.0010.021A<0.001
Asparagaceae1.401I0.801.068I0.07
Asteraceae0.034A<0.0010.032A<0.001
Cistaceae14.824I0.932.757I0.62
Fabaceae2.713P0.050.365A<0.001
Fagaceae9.893P<0.00125.888P0.05
Oleaceae5.009P<0.010.793I0.62
Plantaginaceae2.118I0.180.052A<0.001
Poaceae0.052A<0.0010.562A<0.001
Rosaceae3.344P<0.0012.621P<0.001
Rubiaceae160.412I0.130.985I0.15
Smilacaceae0.265A<0.00116.128I0.24
Feeding behavior: (P) preference, (I) indifference, (A) avoidance.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Freschi, P.; Fascetti, S.; Riga, F.; Rizzardini, G.; Musto, M.; Cosentino, C. Feeding Preferences of the Italian Roe Deer (Capreolus capreolus italicus Festa, 1925) in a Coastal Mediterranean Environment. Animals 2021, 11, 308. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11020308

AMA Style

Freschi P, Fascetti S, Riga F, Rizzardini G, Musto M, Cosentino C. Feeding Preferences of the Italian Roe Deer (Capreolus capreolus italicus Festa, 1925) in a Coastal Mediterranean Environment. Animals. 2021; 11(2):308. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11020308

Chicago/Turabian Style

Freschi, Pierangelo, Simonetta Fascetti, Francesco Riga, Gabriella Rizzardini, Mauro Musto, and Carlo Cosentino. 2021. "Feeding Preferences of the Italian Roe Deer (Capreolus capreolus italicus Festa, 1925) in a Coastal Mediterranean Environment" Animals 11, no. 2: 308. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11020308

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop