Diet composition of the Italian roe deer (Capreolus capreolus italicus) (Mammalia: Cervidae) from two protected areas

References

• Abbas F, Picot D, Merlet J, Cargnelutti B, Lourtet B, Angibault J, Daufresne T, Aulagnier S, Verheyden H. 2013. A typical browser, the roe deer, may consume substantial quantities of grasses in open landscapes. European Journal of Wildlife Research 59: 69–75. doi:10.1007/s10344-012-0648-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barančeková M. 2004. The roe deer diet: Is floodplain forest optimal habitat. Folia Zoologica 53: 285–292.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barančeková M, Krojerová-Prokešová J, Šustr P, Heurich M. 2010. Annual changes in roe deer (Capreolus capreolus L.) diet in the Bohemian Forest, Czech Republic/Germany. European Journal of Wildlife Research 56: 327–333. doi:10.1007/s10344-009-0321-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bartolomé J, Rosell C, Bassols E. 2002. Diet composition of roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) in the natural park of the Garrotxa Volcanic Zone (Catalonia, Spain). Pirineos 157: 57–64. doi:10.3989/pirineos.2002.v157.61
   Google Scholar
• Battisti C, Di Gennaro A, Gippoliti S. 2015. Schematizing a historical demographic collapse on a large time span using local, secondary and grey data: The case of Italian roe deer Capreolus capreolus italicus in Central Italy. Journal for Nature Conservation 24: 63–67. doi:10.1016/j.jnc.2015.02.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baumgartner LL, Martin AC. 1939. Plant histology as an aid in squirrel food-habit studies. The Journal of Wildlife Management 3: 266–268. doi:10.2307/3796113
   Google Scholar
• Blair RM, Short HL, Epps jr EA. 1977. Seasonal nutrient yield and digestibility of deer forage from a young pine plantation. The Journal of Wildlife Management 41: 667–676. doi:10.2307/3799988
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buzas MA, Gibson TG. 1969. Species diversity: Benthonic foraminifera in western north Atlantic. Science 163: 72–75. doi:10.1126/science.163.3862.72
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conti F, Abbate G, Alessandrini A, Blasi C. 2005. An annotated checklist of the Italian vascular flora. Rome: Palombi Editori.
   Google Scholar
• Cornelis J, Casaer J, Hermy M. 1999. Impact of season, habitat and research techniques on diet composition of roe deer (Capreolus capreolus): A review. Journal of Zoology (Lond.) 248: 195–207. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7998.1999.tb01196.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duncan P, Tixier H, Hofmann RR, Lechner-Doll M. 1998. Feeding strategies and the physiology of digestion in roe deer. In: Andersen R, Duncan P, Linnell JDC, editors. The European roe deer: The biology of success. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press. pp. 91–116
   Google Scholar
• Dusi JL. 1949. Methods for the determination of food habits by plant microtechniques and histology and their application to cottontail rabbit food habits. The Journal of Wildlife Management 13: 295–298. doi:10.2307/3795871
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Festa E. 1925. Il Capriolo dell’Italia centrale. [The Roe deer of central Italy]. Bollettino del Museo zoologico e di Anatomia comparata dell’Università di Torino 40: 1–2.
   Google Scholar
• Focardi S, Aragno P, Montanaro P, Riga F. 2006. Inter-specific competition from fallow deer (Dama dama) reduces habitat quality for the Italian roe deer (Capreolus capreolus italicus). Ecography 29: 407–417. doi:10.1111/j.2006.0906-7590.04442.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Focardi S, Franzetti B, Ronchi F, Imperio S, Montanaro P, Aragno P, Toso S. 2015. Monitoring populations of a guild of ungulates: Implications for the conservation of a relict Mediterranean forest. Rendiconti Lincei 26: 535–544. doi:10.1007/s12210-015-0439-9
   Google Scholar
• Focardi S, Montanaro P, La Morgia V, Riga F. 2009. Piano d’azione nazionale per il Capriolo italico (Capreolus capreolus italicus). [National Action Plan of the Italian Roe deer (Capreolus capreolus italicus)]. Min. Ambiente — INFN, Quaderni di Conservazione della Natura 31:1–177.
   Google Scholar
• Freschi P, Fascetti S, Musto M, Cosentino C, Paolino R, Valentini V. 2016. Seasonal variation in food habits of the Italian hare in a south Apennine semi-natural landscape. Ethology Ecology Evolution 28: 148–162. doi:10.1080/03949370.2015.1022906
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freschi P, Fascetti S, Musto M, Mallia E, Blasi AC, Cosentino C, Paolino R. 2014. Diet of the Apennine hare in a southern Italy Regional Park. European Journal of Wildlife Research 60: 423–430. doi:10.1007/s10344-014-0799-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freschi P, Fascetti S, Musto M, Mallia E, Cosentino C, Paolino R. 2015. Diet of the Italian hare (Lepus corsicanus) in a semi-natural landscape of southern Italy. Mammalia 79: 51–59. doi:10.1515/mammalia-2013-0117
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gębczynska Z. 1980. Food of the roe deer and red deer in the Białowieża Primeval Forest. Acta Theriologica 25: 487–500. doi:10.4098/AT.arch.80-44
   Google Scholar
• Gentile G, Vernesi C, Vicario S, Pecchioli E, Caccone A, Bertorelle G, Sbordoni V. 2009. Mitochondrial DNA variation in roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) from Italy: Evidence of admixture in one of the last C. C. italicus pure populations from central-southern Italy. Italian Journal of Zoology 76: 16–27. doi:10.1080/11250000802018725
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hearney AW, Jennings TJ. 1983. Annual foods of the red deer (Cervus elaphus) and the roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) in the east of England. Journal of Zoology 201: 565–570. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7998.1983.tb05079.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heroldová M. 1996. Dietary overlap of three ungulate species in the Palava Biosphere Reserve. Forest Ecology Management 88: 139–142. doi:10.1016/s0378-1127(96)03819-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hofmann RR. 1989. Evolutionary steps of ecophysiological adaptation and diversification of ruminants: A comparative view of their digestive system. Oecologia 78: 443–457. doi:10.1007/BF00378733
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holechek JL, Vavra M, Pieper RD. 1982. Botanical composition determination of range herbivore diets: A review. Journal of Rangeland Management 35: 309–315. doi:10.2307/3898308
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Illius AW, Duncan P, Richard C, Mesochina P. 2002. Mechanisms of functional response and resource exploitation in browsing roe deer. Journal of Animal Ecology 71: 723–734. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2656.2002.00643.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackson J. 1980. The annual diet of the roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) in the New Forest, Hampshire, as determined by rumen content analysis. Journal of Zoology 192: 71–83. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7998.1980.tb04220.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krasnov V, Shelest Z, Boiko S, Gulik I, Sieniawski W. 2015. The diet of the roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) in the forest ecosystems of Zhytomirske Polesie of the Ukraine. Forest Research Papers 76: 184–190. doi:10.1515/frp-2015-0018
   Google Scholar
• Lamberti P, Mauri L, Merli E, Dusi S, Apollonio M. 2006. Use of space and habitat selection by roe deer Capreolus capreolus in a Mediterranean coastal area: How does woods landscape affect home range? Journal of Ethology 24: 181–188. doi:10.1007/s10164-005-0179-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Latham J, Staines BW, Gorman ML. 1999. Comparative feeding ecology of red (Cervus elaphus) and roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) in Scottish plantation forests. Journal of Zoology 247: 409–418. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7998.1999.tb01003.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lorenzini R, Lovari S, Masseti M. 2002. The rediscovery of the Italian roe deer: Genetic differentiation and management implications. Italian Journal of Zoology 69: 367–379. doi:10.1080/11250000209356482
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manes F, Grignetti A, Tinelli A, Lenz R, Ciccioli P. 1997. General features of the Castelporziano test site. Atmospheric Environment 31: 19–25. doi:10.1016/S1352-2310(97)00070-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Margalef R. 1958. Information theory in ecology. Journal of General Systems 3: 36–71.
   Google Scholar
• Margalef R. 1972. Interpretation not strictly statistical of representation of biological entities in multifactorial space. Investigación Pesquera 36: 183–190.
   Google Scholar
• Morisita M. 1959. Measuring of interspecific association and similarity between communities. Memoirs of the Faculty of science of Kyushu University. Serie E (Biology) 3: 65–80.
   Google Scholar
• Moser B, Schütz M, Hindenlang KE. 2008. Resource selection by roe deer: Are windthrow gaps attractive feeding places? Forest Ecology Management 255: 1179–1185. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2007.10.023
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pignatti S, Bianco PM, Tescarollo P, Scarascia Mugnozza GT. 2001. La vegetazione della Tenuta Presidenziale di Castelporziano. Il sistema ambientale della Tenuta Presidenziale di Castelporziano. Accademia Nazionale delle Scienze detta dei XL. Scritti E Documenti XXVI: 441–640.
   Google Scholar
• Regione Basilicata. 2006. Progetto esecutivo per la reintroduzione della specie Capreolus capreolus italicus nelle aree protette della regione Basilicata. [Executive project for the reintroduction of Capreolus capreolus italicus into protected areas of Basilicata Region]. DGR n. 728-15/05/2006. Available: http://www.regione.basilicata.it/giunta/files/docs/DOCUMENT_FILE_360990.pdf. Accessed Sep 2016 27.
   Google Scholar
• Rondinini C, Battistoni A, Peronace V, Teofili C. 2013. Lista Rossa IUCN dei Vertebrati Italiani [The IUCN Red List of Italian Vertebrates]. Rome: Comitato Italiano IUCN e Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare.
   Google Scholar
• Sangiuliano A, Lovari S, Ferretti F. 2016. Dietary partitioning between European roe deer and European brown hare. European Journal of Wildlife Research 62: 527–535. doi:10.1007/s10344-016-1023-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shannon CE, Weaver W. 1949. The mathematical theory of communication. [dissertation]. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
   Google Scholar
• Short HL, Epps EA. 1976. Nutrient quality and digestibility of seeds and fruits from southern forests. The Journal of Wildlife Management 40: 283–289. doi:10.2307/3800427
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sørensen TA. 1948. 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. Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskabs Biologiske Skrifter 5: 1–34.
   Google Scholar
• Tixier H, Duncan P. 1996. Are European roe deer browsers? A review of variations in the composition of their diets. Revue d’Ecologie (La Terre et La Vie) 51: 3–17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tixier H, Duncan P, Scehovic J, Yant A, Gleizes M, Lila M. 1997. Food selection by European roe deer (Capreolus capreolus): Effects of plant chemistry, and consequences for the nutritional value of their diets. Journal of Zoology 242: 229–245. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7998.1997.tb05799.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torres RT, Carvalho JC, Panzacchi M, Linnell JDC, Fonseca C. 2011. Comparative use of forest habitats by roe deer and moose in a human-modified landscape in southeastern Norway during winter. Ecological Research 26: 781–789. doi:10.1007/s11284-011-0837-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valente AM, Fonseca C, Marques TA, Santos JP, Rodrigues R, Torres RT. 2014. Living on the edge: Roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) density in the margins of its geographical range. Plos ONE 9: e88459. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0088459
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wallach AD, Shanas U, Inbar M. 2010. Feeding activity and dietary composition of roe deer at the southern edge of their range. European Journal of Wildlife Research 56: 1–9. doi:10.1007/s10344-009-0281-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ward A, White PCL, Walker NJ, Critchley CH. 2008. Conifer leader browsing by roe deer in English upland forests: Effects of deer density and understorey vegetation. Orest Ecology and Management 256: 1333–1338. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2008.06.034
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar