NICHE SIZE AND NICHE OVERLAP IN THE CHOIC E OF FOOD PLANTS BY RED DEER (CERVUS-ELAPHUS L, 1758) AND ROE DEER (CAPREOLUS-CAPREOLUS L, 1758) IN THE NORTHWEST EIFEL
M. Petrak, NICHE SIZE AND NICHE OVERLAP IN THE CHOIC E OF FOOD PLANTS BY RED DEER (CERVUS-ELAPHUS L, 1758) AND ROE DEER (CAPREOLUS-CAPREOLUS L, 1758) IN THE NORTHWEST EIFEL, Zeitschrift fur Jagdwissenschaft, 39(3), 1993, pp. 161-170
Niche sizes as measures of the actively used resource spectrum as rega
rds the choice of food plants (''the converse of specialization'') wer
e determined for wild red and roe deer. A chronological reference syst
em based on plant phenology and a spatial reference system founded on
plant associations were used to classify data from a 30 km2 investigat
ion area in the northwest Eifel into a resource matrix (Table 1). This
was then used to calculate niche size and niche overlap (Table 2). Se
asonal changes in niche sizes of red deer (Fig. 1) and roe deer (Fig.
2) are closely correlated to seasonal changes in food supply in these
spruce dominated habitats as well as to seasonal changes in behaviour.
The amount of the resource spectrum used is inversely proportional to
the supply. Niche size in the winter increases to a maximum of 2.227
for red deer and 1.794 for roe deer, indicating an expanded utilizatio
n of the resource spectrum to meet metabolic needs; or a decreased sel
ectivity in the choice of food plants with a decreasing supply of thes
e. The minimum niche size coincides with the time of optimum food supp
ly, for red deer with 0.450 in early summer. The relative minimum in m
id autumn (1.539) for red deer is a result of the synchronization and
synlocalization of the population due to the rutting season. Red deer
have a higher amplitude in niche size, 1.777, compared to roe deer, 0.
619, reflecting their much greater adaptability in the trophic system
as befits a ruminant of intermediate type in comparison to a concentra
te selector like roe deer. The results emphasize the fact that the hab
itat utilization by red deer limits the food supply for roe deer. The
generally low niche overlap values of 0.22-0.88 (Fig. 3), rather, demo
nstrate the carrying capacity of the habitats in the sense of compleme
ntary utilization, especially in consideration of the present browse s
carcity in winter and early spring when values of 0.58 or 0.48 were ca
lculated.