Mapping Nutritional Resources Across Landscapes:
Why, How, Results
Cow Summer Body Fat Dynamics
18
2.9 Kcal DE /g
(64% DDM)
Percent Body Fat
16
14
Began Nutrition Treatments
Began nutrition
treatments
12
2.65 Kcal DE/g
(58% DDM)
10
8
6
2.40 Kcal DE/g
(53% DDM)
High Medium Low
4
2
March
June
October
Probability of Breeding
1.0
0.8
100
80
300
60
20
0
(1/x)
290
Low Nutr.
280
0
20 Sep
4 Oct
18 Oct
1 Nov
27 Sep
11 Oct
25 Oct
8 Nov
1996
0.2
0.0
y = 266.7 x 1.5543
Medium Nutr.
40
0.6 1997
0.4
High Nutr.
Breeding Date (Julian day)
Cumulative Breeding (%)
Autumn Breeding Dynamics
5
10
15
20
Total Body Fat (%)
25
270
260
5
10
15
20
Total Body Fat (%)
25
Calf Growth and Winter Survival
1997
140
100
High Nutr.
80
Days of Winter Survived (no.)
Body Mass (kg)
120
100
80
60
40
60
40
20
y = -109.9 + 3.1656x - 0.0120088x
Medium Nutr.
2
r 2 = 0.63; P < 0.001
0
60
80
100
120
140
120
140
1998
100
80
Low Nutr.
y = 4.1 + 0.479x
r 2 = 0.38; P < 0.001
60
40
20 Weaned
20
1 Jul
0
60
27 Aug
80
100
26 Oct
26Body
Dec Mass (kg)
Beginning
1995-1999
Summer Nutrition (DE) – Animal Performance Relationships
Percent of maximum
120
Poor
Poor
Marginal
Marginal
Good
Good
Excellent
Excellent
<2.4 (53% DDM)
2.4-2.7
2.7-2.9
>2.9 (64% DDM)
100
80
60
40
20
0
Digestible energy of diets (kcal/gram of food)
Calf growth
Yearling growth
Yearling preg
Adult fat
Adult preg
Breeding times
Winter survival
Total body fat (%)
25
r 2 = 0.90; P < 0.001
20
15
10
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
LIVINDEX
7
8
9
Documenting Patterns of Nutritional
Limitations in Wild Herds
22 elk herds in 5 states
12 years (1998 to 2010)
Twice/year captures
~ 3,000 elk sampled
Wild Elk Capture
Coastal
Data Collected:
 Body fat
Washington
Inland NW
Montana
 Age
 Pregnancy status
 Lactation status
 Body mass
 Blood, urine, fecal samples
Oregon
Cascades
Idaho
Rocky Mtns
Wyoming
Colorado
Autumn Body Fat of Lactating Wild Elk Cows
Coastal
Plains and
Foothills
Autumn body fat (%)
15
Cascade
Foothills and
Mountains
Inland
Northwest
Central
Rocky
Mountains
Adequate
nutrition
10
5
Highly deficient
nutrition
0
Rectangle denotes 1 herd;
Each dot represents 1 year of data;
Vertical lines are + 1 S.E.
Pregnancy Rates of Lactating Cow Elk
66%
62%
95%
89%
64%
100%
86%
94%
78%
86%
89%
70%
80%
45%
76%
86%
82%
70%
89%
88%
72%
78%
83%
Average Pregnancy Rate
Pregnancy Rates by Lactation Status
1
0.9
0.8
All Cows (Age 3-13)
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
Lact Cows (Age 313)
Reject
the hypothesis that nutritional influences
are of little or no practical relevance
and
the hypothesis that summer nutrition is
ubiquitously satisfactory and thus is of
little or no practical relevance
Instead,
The relevant
questions are how
severe, where,
why, and what can
be done about it?
Digestible Energy Content
of Consumed Forage: Our
Nutrition Variable for
Resource Mapping
 DE plays a key, usually
dominant role in virtually all life
processes .
There is considerable
precedence…National Research
Council presents livestock
nutritional requirements
guidelines several ways,
including DE content of food.
Integrating Plant Succession, Disturbance,
and Elk Nutrition
Habitat predictor variables
Stand/site
characteristics
Stand age
Animal response variables
Understory
vegetation
characteristics
Canopy cover
Animal foraging
outcomes
Bite mass
Composition
Bite rate
BA, QMD, TPH, HT
Repro, Surv
Biomass
Season
DDP, DDE
DP, DE
Climate
Foraging time
Palatability
Soils
Performance
outcomes
Integrating Plant Succession, Disturbance,
and Elk Nutrition
Macroplots:
n = 349 total
n = 89 w/elk
Nooksack S.A.
Willipa Hills S.A.
Springfield S.A.
Examples of Accepted/Avoided Forage
Accepted Forage
Selected Forage
Neutral Forage
Avoided Forage
Deciduous shrubs:
Big leaf maple
Hazelnut
Cascara
Forbs:
Queen’s cup beadlily
Northern bedstraw
False Solomon’s seal
Oxalis
Most grasses
Deciduous shrubs:
Alder
Elderberry
Salmonberry
Many forbs
Ferns:
Lady fern
Evergreen shrubs:
Salal
Oregon grape
Rhododendron
Ferns:
Deerfern
Swordfern
Most conifers
Digestible Energy of Elk Diets
Digestible energy (kcal/g)
3.4
3.2
3.0
2.8
2.6
Maintenance =
2.7 kcal/g
2.4
2.2
MHZ & PSFZ WHZ
2.0
1.8
0
300
600
900
1200
Neutral + selected biomass (kg/ha)
1500
TSME & ABAM Habitats
All Seasons
All Study Areas
TSHE Habitats
Autumn
All Study Areas
TSHE Habitats
Summer
All Study Areas
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
A
2.0
0
400
800
1200
2.0
1600 0
Accepted biomass (kg/ha)
B
400
2.0
1200 0
800
Accepted biomass (kg/ha)
TSHE Habitats
All Seasons
Nooksack
Digestible energy (kcal/g)
Digestible energy (kcal/g)
TSHE Habitats
All Seasons
All Study Areas
400
800
1200
1600
Accepted biomass (kg/ha)
TSHE Habitats
All Seasons
Willipa Hills
1
3.2
C
D
2.0
0
400
TSHE Habitats
All Seasons
Springfield
3.2
3.2
1
2 3
2
2.8
2.8
3
2.8
4
2.4
2.4
E
2.0
0
400
800
1200
Accepted biomass (kg/ha)
2.4
4
F
2.0
0
400
800
1200 1600
Accepted biomass (kg/ha)
G
2.0
0
300
800
1200
Accepted biomass (kg/ha)
600
900
Accepted biomass (kg/ha)
Equations to Predict Dietary Digestible Energy
(DDE)
n
r2adj
P
MHZ & PSZ Habitats, All Study Areas
DDE = a + b1(NeuB) + b2(SelB) – b3(NeuB*SelB)
14
0.43
0.036
WHZ Habitats, Nooksack
DDE = a + b1(NeuB) + b2(SelB) – b3(NeuB*SelB)
19
0.39
0.015
WHZ Habitats, Willipa Hills
DDE = a + b1(NeuB) + b2(SelB) – b3(NeuB*SelB)
26
0.46
0.001
WHZ Habitats, Springfield
DDE = a + b1(NeuB) + b2(SelB) – b3(NeuB*SelB)
28
0.57
0.0001
Equationsa,b
a
NeuB = Neutral spp biomass; SelB = Selected spp biomass
b P < 0.075 individually for each predictor variable.
Overstory canopy cover (%)
Overstory canopy cover (%)
Overstory Canopy Cover Development
100
80
60
Western hemlock zone
40
20
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
100
80
Pacific fir zone
60
40
Mountain hemlock zone
20
0
0
100
200
300
Stand age (years)
400
500
Understory Production (kg/ha)
Understory Production (kg/ha)
3,500
Springfield, OR
3,000
Conifer
E. Shrub
For. Ferns
PTAQ
Sedge
Grass
Forb
D.Shrub
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
1
6
9
3,500
14 18 21 24 30 34 37 40 44 55 58 63 73 92 153 307 479 642
Springfield, OR
3,000
Age > 50 years,
Mean “accepted” biomass = 50 kg/ha
2,500
2,000
Avoided
Neutral
Selected
1,500
1,000
500
0
1
6
9
14 18 21 24 30 34 37 40 44 55 58 63 73 92 153 307 479 642
Stand Age (years)
Digestible Energy of Elk Diets
Digestible energy (kcal/g)
3.4
Age > 50 years,
Mean “accepted” biomass = 50 kg/ha
3.2
3.0
2.8
Maintenance
2.6
2.4
2.2
MHZ & PSFZ WHZ
2.0
1.8
0
300
600
900
1200
Neutral + selected biomass (kg/ha)
1500
Equations to Predict Forage Biomass Groups
Equationsa,b
n
r2adj
P
MHZ & PSZ Habitats, All Study Areas
AccB = a - b1(CC) + b2(CC2) + b3(HWd)
70
0.70
<0.001
NeuB = a - b1(CC) + b3(HWd)
70
0.72
<0.001
SelB = 1/(a + b1*CC)
70
0.30
<0.001
a AccB = accepted spp biomass; NeuB = neutral spp biomass; SelB =
selected spp biomass; CC = canopy cover; HWd = hardwood stems.
b P < 0.05 individually for each predictor variable.
Equations to Predict Forage Biomass Groups
n
r2adj
AccB = a - b1(CC) + b2(CC2) + b3(HWd)
276
0.68
<0.001
NeuB = a - b1(CC) + b2(CC2) + b3(HWd)
276
0.65
<0.001
SelB = a - b1(CC) + b3(HWd)
276
0.46
<0.001
Equationsa,b
P
WHZ Habitats, By Study Area
a AccB = accepted spp biomass; NeuB = neutral spp biomass; SelB =
selected spp biomass; CC = canopy cover; HWd = hardwood stems.
b P < 0.05 individually for each predictor variable.
Nutrition Succession Trajectories
Western Hemlock-Salal Habitats
Dietary DE (kcal/g)
3.4
Nooksack
3.2
3.0
Willipa Hills
2.8
Springfield
Maintenance
2.6
2.4
2.2
0
50
100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650
Stand Age (years)
Nutrition Succession Trajectories
Western Hemlock-swordfern Habitats
Dietary DE (kcal/g)
3.6
Nooksack
3.4
3.2
Hardwood-riparian
3.0
2.8
Maintenance
Springfield
Willipa Hills
2.6
2.4
2.2
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Stand Age (years)
400
450
500
550
600
Nutrition Succession Trajectories
Mountain Hemlock & Pacific Fir Habitats
Dietary DE (kcal/g)
3.4
Nooksack
3.2
3.0
2.8
Willipa Hills
Maintenance
Springfield
2.6
2.4
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Stand Age (years)
350
400
450
500
The Maps
Pacific Fir & Mtn
Hemlock Zones
Location: Preg; Autumn BF
Nooksack: 95%; 13%
Forks: 62%; 6%
Wynoochee: 53%; 6%
Green River: 89%; 10%
White River: 94%; 11%
Willapa Hills: 78%; 6%
Mount St. Helens: 68%; ~5.5%
Suislaw, Untr.: 18%; ~2.9%
Impr.: 41%; ~3.9%
Springfield: 80%; 10%
Steamboat: 88%; 7%
Toketee: 72%; 9%
Location: Preg%; Autumn BF%
Nooksack: 95%; 13%
Forks: 62%; 6%
Wynoochee: 53%; 6%
Green River: 89%; 10%
White River: 94%; 11%
Willapa Hills: 78%; 6%
Mount St. Helens: 68%; ~5.5%
Suislaw, Untr.: 43%; ~2.9%
Impr.: 49%; ~3.9%
Springfield: 80%; 10%
N. Umpqua R.: 80%; 8%
Habitat Attributes-11 Herds
I. DDE Nutrition Categories
Category
kcal/g of forage
Poor
Low Marginal
High Marginal
<2.45
2.45 to 2.59
2.60 to 2.74
Low Good
High Good
2.75 to 2.89
2.90 to 3.04
Excellent
>3.05
______________________________________________
II. Forest Overstory Canopy Cover: <35%; 35-70%; >70%
III. Forest zones: High elev. including Alpine, MHZ, PSZ
Low elev. including WHZ, DFZ, SSZ
Herd-level Nutritional Resources
100
Percent of area
80
<2.45
2.45-2.60
2.60-2.75
2.75-2.90
2.90-3.05
>3.05
60
40
20
0
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
R
R
R
R
O
O
O
O
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
,
,
,
,
.
.,
.,
d
r.
r.
s,
e,
k,
s,
s,
l
l
R
t
R
R
k
e
c
l
p
n
e
i
n
r
fi
le
o
sa
ch
ua
Im
en
it e
g
e
F
,U
k
,
o
q
aH
e
h
n
H
o
r
i
o
p
w
p
W
n
G
t.
aw
la
la
m
pr
l
y
l
No
S
s
i
s
S
U
i
i
.
W
W
N.
Su
Mt
Su
100
100
90
90
90
80
80
80
70
60
Pregnant (%)
100
Pregnant (%)
Pregnant (%)
Herd-level Pregnancy & DDE
70
60
70
60
50
50
50
40
40
40
30
30
0
1
02
33
30
4 065
r 2 = 0.67
5 69
r 2 = 0.73
r 2 = 0.64
10
7 12 15
15 20
25
of >2.90
areaPercent
with
DDEwith >2.60 DDE
Percent ofPercent
area with
DDE>2.75
of area
> High good
> Low good
> High marginal
30
Herd-level Pregnancy & DDE
100
x1
Pregnant (%)
90
15% >2.75 DDE
12% >2.75 DDE
80
9% >2.75 DDE
70
6% >2.75 DDE
60
3% >2.75 DDE
50
0% >2.75 DDE
40
0
Coastal or Cascade foothill
areas lacking high elevation
habitats
5
10
15
20
25
30
Percent of area with 2.6 to 2.75 DDE (x 2)
35
Preg (%) = 39.3 + 3.03(x1) + 1.48(x2), where x1 = % of area >2.75 DDE (P = 0.0004)
2
R adj
x 2 = % of area 2.6 to 2.75 DDE (P = 0.0109)
= 0.83, P = 0.0009
Herd-level Pregnancy & DDE
100
Pregnant (%)
90
x1
15% >2.75 DDE
12% >2.75 DDE
80
9% >2.75 DDE
70
6% >2.75 DDE
60
3% >2.75 DDE
50
0% >2.75 DDE
40
0
Coastal or Cascade foothill
areas lacking high elevation
habitats
5
10
15
20
25
30
Percent of area with <35% Can Cov (x 2)
35
Preg (%) = 39.3 + 3.06(x1) + 1.50(x2), where x1 = % of area >2.75 DDE (P = 0.0001)
2
R adj
x 2 = % of area <35% Can Cov (P = 0.0023)
= 0.87, P = 0.0002
Herd-level Body Fat & DDE
Ingesta-free body fat (%)
14
12
10
8
6
4
r 2 = 0.65
2
0
3
6
9
12
15
Percent of area with >2.75 DDE
14
12
Ingesta-free body fat (%)
Ingesta-free body fat (%)
14
10
8
6
4
12
10
8
6
4
2
r 2 = 0.44
r = 0.71
2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Percent of area with >2.90 DDE
7
2
0
5
10
15
20
25
Percent of area with >2.60 DDE
30
Herd-level Body Fat & DDE
Ingesta-free body fat (%)
15
x1
12
15% >2.75 DDE
12% >2.75 DDE
9
9% >2.75 DDE
6% >2.75 DDE
6
3% >2.75 DDE
0% >2.75 DDE
3
0
Coastal or Cascade foothill
areas lacking high elevation
habitats
5
10
15
20
25
30
Percent of area with 2.6 to 2.75 DDE (x 2)
35
IFBF(%) = 3.54 + 0.512(x1) + 0.130(x2), where x1 = % of area >2.75 DDE (P = 0.0047)
2
R adj
x2 = % of area 2.6 to 2.75 DDE (P = 0.28)
= 0.66, P = 0.014
Herd-level Body Fat & DDE
Ingesta-free body fat (%)
16
14
x1
12
15% >2.75 DDE
10
12% >2.75 DDE
8
9% >2.75 DDE
6% >2.75 DDE
6
4
2
3% >2.75 DDE
0% >2.75 DDE
0
Coastal or Cascade foothill
areas lacking high elevation
habitats
5
10
15
20
25
30
Percent of area with <35% Can Cov ( x 2)
35
IFBF(%) = 3.28 + 0.518(x1) + 0.152(x2), where x1 = % of area >2.75 DDE (P = 0.0031)
2
R adj
x2 = % of area <35% can cov (P = 0.15)
= 0.70, P = 0.0087