Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T05:43:26.514Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Opportunities for telemetry techniques in studies on the nutritional ecology of free-ranging domesticated ruminants

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 May 2012

D. L. Swain  and
M. A. Friend
D. L. Swain*
Affiliation:
Centre for Environmental Management, CQ University, Rockhampton, QLD 4701, Australia
M. A. Friend
Affiliation:
EH Graham Centre for Agricultural Innovation (NSW DPI and Charles Sturt University) PO Box 588, Wagga Wagga, NSW 2678, Australia
*
†E-mail: d.swain@cqu.edu.au
Get access

Abstract

The principles of domestic herbivore nutrition are well understood and have been developed through detailed physiological studies, although methods to accurately measure field-based intake still challenge herbivore nutrition research. Nutritional ecology considers an animal's interaction with the environment based on its nutritional demands. Although there are a number of theoretical frameworks that can be used to explore nutritional ecology, optimal foraging provides a suitable starting point. Optimal foraging models have progressed from deterministic techniques to spatially explicit agent-based simulation methods. The development of optimal foraging modelling points towards opportunities for field-based research to explore behavioural preferences within studies that have an array of nutritional choices that vary both spatially and temporally. A number of techniques including weighing animals, weighing herbage, using markers (both natural and artificial) and sampling forage, using oesophageal-fistulated animals, have been used to determine intake in the field. These intake measurement techniques are generally most suited to studies that occur over a few days and with relatively small (often less than 10) groups of animals. Over the last 10 years, there have been a number of advances in automated behavioural monitoring technology (e.g. global positioning systems) to track animal movement. A number of recent studies have integrated detailed spatial assessments of vegetation using on-ground sampling and satellite remote sensing; these data have been linked to behavioural preferences of herbivores. Although the recent studies still do not address nutritional interactions over months or years, they do point to methods that could be used to address landscape scale nutritional interactions. Emerging telemetry techniques used to monitor herbivore behavioural preferences and also to determine detailed landscape vegetation mapping provide the opportunity for future herbivore nutritional ecology studies.

Keywords

nutritional ecologygrazing behaviourintakeherbivorelandscape
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 7 , Issue s1: The 8th International Symposium on the Nutrition of Herbivores (ISNH8) 6 – 9th September 2011, Aberystwyth (UK) , March 2013 , pp. 123 - 131
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ali, HAM, Mayes, RW, Hector, BL, Verma, AK, Ørskov, ER 2005. The possible use of n-alkanes, long-chain fatty alcohols and long-chain fatty acids as markers in studies of the botanical composition of the diet of free-ranging herbivores. The Journal of Agricultural Science 143, 85–95.Google Scholar
Bailey, DW, Gross, JE, Laca, EA, Rittenhouse, LR, Coughenour, MB, Swift, DM, Sims, PL 1996. Mechanisms that result in large herbivore grazing distribution patterns. Journal of Range Management 49, 386–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beecham, JA, Farnsworth, KD 1998. Animal foraging from an individual perspective: an object orientated model. Ecological Modelling 113, 141–156.Google Scholar
Brosh, A, Henkin, Z, Ungar, ED, Dolev, A, Orlov, A, Yehuda, Y, Aharoni, Y 2006. Energy cost of cows’ grazing activity: use of the heart rate method and the Global Positioning System for direct field estimation. Journal of Animal Science 84, 1951–1967.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buerkert, A, Schlecht, E 2009. Performance of three GPS collars to monitor goats’ grazing itineraries on mountain pastures. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 65, 85–92.Google Scholar
Careau, V, Thomas, D, Humphries, MM, Réale, D 2008. Energy metabolism and animal personality. Oikos 117, 641–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charnov, EL 1976. Optimal foraging, the marginal value theorem. Theoretical Population Biology 9, 129–136.Google Scholar
Coates, DB, Schachenmann, P, Jones, RJ 1987. Reliability of extrusa samples collected from steers fistulated at the oesophagus to estimate the diet of resident animals in grazing experiments. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 27, 739–745.Google Scholar
Cochran, WW, Lord, RD 1963. A radio-tracking system for wild animals. The Journal of Wildlife Management 27, 9–24.Google Scholar
Cook, J, Johnson, B, Cook, R, Riggs, R, Delcurto, T, Bryant, L, Irwin, L 2004. Effects of summer–autumn nutrition and parturition date on reproduction and survival of elk. Wildlife Monographs 155, 1–61.Google Scholar
Cooke, SJ, Hinch, SG, Wikelski, M, Andrews, RD, Kuchel, LJ, Wolcott, TG, Butler, PJ 2004. Biotelemetry: a mechanistic approach to ecology. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19, 334–343.Google Scholar
Côté, SD, Festa-Bianchet, M 2001. Birthdate, mass and survival in mountain goat kids: effects of maternal characteristics and forage quality. Oecologia 127, 230–238.Google Scholar
Day, JEL, Kyriazakis, I, Rogers, PJ 1998. Food choice and intake: towards a unifying framework of learning and feeding motivation. Nutrition Research Reviews 11, 25–43.Google Scholar
Decruyenaere, V, Lecomte, P, Demarquilly, C, Aufrere, J, Dardenne, P, Stilmant, D, Buldgen, A 2009. Evaluation of green forage intake and digestibility in ruminants using near infrared reflectance spectroscopy (NIRS): developing a global calibration. Animal Feed Science and Technology 148, 138–156.Google Scholar
Dixon, R, Coates, D 2009. Near infrared spectroscopy of faeces to evaluate the nutrition and physiology of herbivores. Journal of Near Infrared Spectroscopy 17, 1–31.Google Scholar
Dove, H, Mayes, RW 1991. The use of plant wax alkanes as marker substances in studies of the nutrition of herbivores: a review. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 42, 913–952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dove, H, Mayes, RW 1996. Plant wax components: a new approach to estimating intake and diet composition in herbivores. Journal of Nutrition 126, 13–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dove, H, Mayes, RW 2005. Using n-alkanes and other plant wax components to estimate intake, digestibility and diet composition of grazing/browsing sheep and goats. Small Ruminant Research 59, 123–139.Google Scholar
Fox, DG, Tedeschi, LO, Tylutki, TP, Russell, JB, Van Amburgh, ME, Chase, LE, Pell, AN, Overton, TR 2004. The Cornell Net Carbohydrate and Protein System model for evaluating herd nutrition and nutrient excretion. Animal Feed Science and Technology 112, 29–78.Google Scholar
Ganskopp, D, Bohnert, D 2009. Landscape nutritional patterns and cattle distribution in rangeland pastures. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 116, 110–119.Google Scholar
Green, JA 2011. The heart rate method for estimating metabolic rate: review and recommendations. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, Part A 158, 287–304.Google Scholar
Grünbaum, D 1998. Using spatially explicit models to characterize foraging performance in heterogeneous landscapes. American Naturalist 151, 97–115.Google Scholar
Guo, Y, Poulton, G, Corke, P, Bishop-Hurley, GJ, Wark, T, Swain, DL 2009. Using accelerometer, high sample rate GPS and magnetometer data to develop a cattle movement and behaviour model. Ecological Modelling 220, 2068–2075.Google Scholar
Gustine, DD, Parker, KL, Lay, RJ, Gillingham, MP, Heard, DC 2006. Interpreting resource selection at different scales for woodland caribou in winter. Journal of Wildlife Management 70, 1601–1614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Handcock, RN, Swain, DL, Bishop-Hurley, GJ, Patison, KP, Wark, T, Valencia, P, Corke, P, O'Neill, CJ 2009. Monitoring animal behaviour and environmental interactions using wireless sensor networks, GPS collars and satellite remote sensing. Sensors 9, 3586–3603.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hebblewhite, M, Haydon, D 2010. Distinguishing technology from biology: a critical review of the use of GPS telemetry data in ecology. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 365, 2303–2312.Google Scholar
Holechek, JL, Vavra, M, Pieper, RD 1982. Botanical composition determination of a range herbivore diets: a review. Journal of Range Management 35, 309–315.Google Scholar
Illius, AW, Jessop, NS 1996. Metabolic constraints on voluntary intake in ruminants. Journal of Animal Science 74, 3052–3062.Google Scholar
Jones, RJ, Lascano, CE 1992. Oesophageal fistulated cattle can give unreliable estimates of the proportion of legume in the diets of resident animals grazing tropical pastures. Grass and Forage Science 47, 128–132.Google Scholar
Jones, RJ, Ludlow, MM, Troughton, JH, Blunt, CG 1979. Estimation of the proportion of C3 and C4 plant species in the diet of animals from the ratio of natural 12C and 13C isotopes in the faeces. The Journal of Agricultural Science 92, 91–100.Google Scholar
Kotb, AR, Luckey, TD 1972. Markers in nutrition. Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews 42, 813–845.Google Scholar
Krebs, JR, Ryan, JC, Charnov, EL 1974. Hunting by expectation or optimal foraging? A study of patch use by chickadees. Animal Behaviour 22, 953–964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, S, Glasser, T, Dvash, L 2006. Monitoring nutrition in small ruminants with the aid of near infrared reflectance spectroscopy (NIRS) technology: a review. Small Ruminant Research 61, 1–11.Google Scholar
Landau, S, Friedman, S, Devash, L, Mabjeesh, SJ 2002. Polyethylene glycol, determined by near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy, as a marker of fecal output in goats. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 50, 1374–1378.Google Scholar
Langlands, JP 1975. Techniques for estimating nutrient intake and its utilization by the grazing ruminant. In Digestion and metabolism in the ruminant (ed. IW McDonald, ACI Warner), pp. 320–332. University of New England, Armidale.Google Scholar
Langlands, JP 1987. Assessing the nutrient status of herbivores. In The Nutrition of Herbivores (ed. JB Hacker, JH Ternouth), pp. 363–390. Academic Press, Sydney.Google Scholar
Laredo, MA, Simpson, GD, Minson, DJ, Orpin, CG 1991. The potential for using n-alkanes in tropical forages as a marker for the determination of dry matter by grazing ruminants. The Journal of Agricultural Science 117, 355–361.Google Scholar
Lee, WS, Alchanatis, V, Yang, C, Hirafuji, M, Moshou, D, Li, C 2010. Sensing technologies for precision specialty crop production. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 74, 2–33.Google Scholar
MacArthur, R, Pianka, E 1966. On optimal use of a patchy environment. American Naturalist 100, 603–609.Google Scholar
Marion, G, Swain, DL, Hutchings, MR 2005. Understanding foraging behaviour in spatially heterogeneous environments. Journal of Theoretical Biology 232, 127–142.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marion, G, Smith, LA, Swain, DL, Davidson, RS, Hutchings, MR 2008. Agent-based modelling of foraging behaviour: the impact of spatial heterogeneity on disease risks from faeces in grazing systems. Journal of Agricultural Science 146, 507–520.Google Scholar
Martiskainen, P, Järvinen, M, Skön, J, Tiirikainen, J, Kolehmainen, M, Mononen, J 2009. Cow behaviour pattern recognition using a three-dimensional acceleromter and support vector machines. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 119, 32–38.Google Scholar
Mayes, RW, Lamb, CS 1984. The possible use of normal-alkanes in herbage as indigestible fecal markers. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 43, A39–A39.Google Scholar
Mayes, RW, Dove, H 2000. Measurement of dietary nutrient intake in free-ranging mammalian herbivores. Nutrition Research Reviews 13, 107–138.Google Scholar
Mayes, RW, Lamb, CS, Colgrove, PM 1986. The use of dosed and herbage n-alkanes as markers for the determination of herbage intake. Journal of Agricultural Science 107, 161–170.Google Scholar
McNair, JN 1982. Optimal giving-up times and the marginal value theorem. American Naturalist 119, 511–529.Google Scholar
Mills, JAN, Dijkstra, J, Bannink, A, Cammell, SB, Kebreab, E, France, J 2001. A mechanistic model of whole-tract digestion and methanogenesis in the lactating dairy cow: model development, evaluation, and application. Journal of Animal Science 79, 1584–1597.Google Scholar
Minson, DJ 1990. Forage in ruminant nutrition. Academic Press, San Diego, USA.Google Scholar
Minson, DJ, Butler, KL, Grummitt, N, Law, DP 1983. Bias when predicting crude protein, dry matter digestibility and voluntary intake of tropical grasses by near-infrared reflectance. Animal Feed Science and Technology 9, 221–237.Google Scholar
Montgomery, RA, Roloff, GJ, Ver Hoef, JM, Millspaugh, JJ 2010. Can we accurately characterize wildlife resource use when telemetry data are imprecise? Journal of Wildlife Management 74, 1917–1925.Google Scholar
Nams, VO 2005. Using animal movement paths to measure response to spatial scale. Oecologia 143, 179–188.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nams, VO 2006a. Detecting oriented movement of animals. Animal Behaviour 72, 1197–1203.Google Scholar
Nams, VO 2006b. Animal movement rates as behavioural bouts. Journal of Animal Ecology 75, 298–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nonaka, E, Holme, P 2007. Agent-based model approach to optimal foraging in heterogeneous landscapes: effects of patch clumpiness. Ecography 30, 777–788.Google Scholar
Norris, KH, Barnes, RF, Moore, JE, Shenk, JS 1976. Predicting forage quality by infrared reflectance spectroscopy. Journal of Animal Science 43, 889–897.Google Scholar
Owen-Smith, N, Fryxell, J, Merrill, E 2010. Foraging theory upscaled: the behavioural ecology of herbivore movement. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 365, 2267–2278.Google Scholar
Parker, KL, Barboza, PS, Gillingham, MP 2009. Nutrition integrates environmental responses of ungulates. Functional Ecology 23, 57–69.Google Scholar
Parsons, AJ, Newman, JA, Penning, PD, Harvey, A, Orr, RJ 1994. Diet preference of sheep: effects of recent diet, physiological state and species abundance. Journal of Animal Ecology 63, 465–478.Google Scholar
Penning, PD, Hooper, GE 1985. An evaluation of the use of short-term weight changes in grazing sheep for estimating herbage intake. Grass and Forage Science 40, 79–84.Google Scholar
Poppi, DP, McLennan, SR 1995. Protein and energy utilization by ruminants at pasture. Journal of Animal Science 73, 278–290.Google Scholar
Poppi, DP, McLennan, SR 2010. Nutritional research to meet future challenges. Animal Production Science 50, 329–338.Google Scholar
Provenza, FD 1995. Postingestive feedback as an elementary determinant of food preference and intake in ruminants. Journal of Range Management 48, 2–17.Google Scholar
Provenza, FD, Villalba, JJ, Dziba, LE, Atwood, SB, Banner, RE 2003. Linking herbivore experience, varied diets, and plant biochemical diversity. Small Ruminant Research 49, 257–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pyke, GH 1984. Optimal foraging theory: a critical review. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 15, 523–575.Google Scholar
Raubenheimer, D, Boggs, C 2009. Nutritional ecology, functional ecology and Functional Ecology. Functional Ecology 23, 1–3.Google Scholar
Raubenheimer, D, Simpson, SJ, Mayntz, D 2009. Nutrition, ecology and nutritional ecology: toward an integrated framework. Functional Ecology 23, 4–16.Google Scholar
Robert, B, White, BJ, Renter, DG, Larson, RL 2009. Evaluation of three-dimensional accelerometers to monitor and classify behaviour patterns in cattle. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 67, 80–84.Google Scholar
Rutter, SM, Champion, RA, Penning, PD 1997. An automatic system to record foraging behaviour in free-ranging ruminants. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 54, 185–195.Google Scholar
Salt, CA, Mayes, RW, Colgrove, PM, Lamb, CS 1994. The effects of season and diet composition on the radiocesium intake by sheep grazing on heather moorland. Journal of Applied Ecology 31, 125–136.Google Scholar
Schick, RS, Loarie, SR, Colchero, F, Best, BD, Boustany, A, Conde, DA, Halpin, PN, Joppa, LN, McClellan, CM, Clark, JS 2008. Understanding movement data and movement processes: current and emerging directions. Ecology Letters 11, 1338–1350.Google Scholar
Schwinning, S, Parsons, AJ 1999. The stability of grazing systems revisited: spatial models and the role of heterogeneity. Functional Ecology 13, 737–747.Google Scholar
Skorka, P, Lenda, M, Martyka, R, Tworek, S 2009. The use of metapopulation and optimal foraging theories to predict movement and foraging decisions of mobile animals in heterogeneous landscapes. Landscape Ecology 24, 599–609.Google Scholar
Spedding, CRW, Large, RV, Kydd, DD 1966. The evaluation of herbage species by grazing animals. Proceedings of the 10th International Grassland Congress, Helsinki, pp. 479–483.Google Scholar
Stephens, DW, Charnov, EL 1982. Optimal foraging: some simple stochastic models. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 10, 251–263.Google Scholar
Stobbs, TH 1973. The effect of plant structure on the intake of tropical pastures. I. Variation in the bite size of grazing cattle. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 24, 809–819.Google Scholar
Stobbs, TH, Cowper, LJ 1972. Automatic measurement of the jaw movements of dairy cows during grazing and rumination. Tropical Grasslands 6, 107–112.Google Scholar
Swain, DL, Wark, T, Bishop-Hurley, GJ 2008. Using high fix rate GPS data to determine the relationships between fix rate, prediction errors and patch selection. Ecological Modelling 212, 273–279.Google Scholar
Swain, DL, Friend, MA, Bishop-Hurley, GJ, Handcock, RN, Wark, T 2011. Tracking livestock using global positioning systems – are we still lost? Animal Production Science 51, 167–175.Google Scholar
Taylor, J 1976. The advantage of spacing-out. Journal of Theoretical Biology 59, 485–490.Google Scholar
Thomas, DT, Wilmot, MG, Alchin, M, Masters, DG 2008. Preliminary indications that Merino sheep graze different areas on cooler days in the Southern Rangelands of Western Australia. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 889–892.Google Scholar
Tilley, JMA, Terry, RA 1963. A two-stage technique for the in vitro digestion of forage crops. Grass and Forage Science 18, 104–111.Google Scholar
Tollefson, T, Shipley, L, Myers, W, Keisler, D, Dasgupta, N 2010. Influence of summer and autumn nutrition on body condition and reproduction in lactating mule deer. Journal of Wildlife Management 74, 974–986.Google Scholar
Trotter, MG, Lamb, DW, Hinch, GN, Guppy, CN 2010. Global navigation satellite system livestock tracking: system development and data interpretation. Animal Production Science 50, 616–623.Google Scholar
Undi, M, Wilson, C, Ominski, KH, Wittenberg, KM 2008. Comparison of techniques for estimation of forage dry matter intake by grazing beef cattle. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 88, 693–701.Google Scholar
Ungar, ED, Rutter, SM 2006. Classifying cattle jaw movements: comparing IGER behaviour recorder and acoustic techniques. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 98, 11–27.Google Scholar
Ungar, ED, Henkin, Z, Gutman, M, Dolev, A, Genizi, A, Ganskopp, D 2005. Inference of animal activity from GPS collar data on free-ranging cattle. Rangeland Ecology and Management 58, 256–266.Google Scholar
Ungar, ED, Schoenbaum, I, Henkin, Z, Dolev, A, Yehuda, Y, Brosh, A 2011. Inference of the activity timeline of cattle foraging on a mediterranean woodland using gps and pedometry. Sensors 11, 362–383.Google Scholar
Van der Kley, FK 1956. A simple method for the accurate estimation of daily variation in the quality and quantity of herbage consumed by rotationally grazed cattle and sheep. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 4, 197–204.Google Scholar
Visscher, DR 2006. GPS measurement error and resource selection functions in a fragmented landscape. Ecography 29, 458–464.Google Scholar
Walker, JW, Heitschmidt, RK, Dowhower, SL 1985. Evaluation of pedometers for measuring distance traveled by cattle on 2 grazing systems. Journal of Range Management 38, 90–93.Google Scholar
Wiens, J 1976. Population responses to patchy environments. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 7, 81–120.Google Scholar
Woodward, TE 1936. The quantities of grass that dairy cows will graze. Journal of Dairy Science 19, 347–357.Google Scholar
Zerger, A, Rossel, RAV, Swain, DL, Wark, T, Handcock, RN, Doerr, VAJ, Bishop-Hurley, GJ, Doerr, ED, Gibbons, PG, Lobsey, C 2010. Environmental sensor networks for vegetation, animal and soil sciences. International Journal of Applied Earth Observations and Geoinformation 12, 303–316.Google Scholar