Mississippi Genetics vs Nutrition Steve Demarais Regional Antler Size Variation 5 Years Harvested Bucks Delta Loess LCP Coast 20 Strickland and Demarais 2000 Regional Body ID: 1045848
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Chasing the Cause of Extreme Variation i..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
1. Chasing the Cause of Extreme Variation in Body and Antler Size in Mississippi:Genetics vs NutritionSteve Demarais
2. Regional Antler Size Variation @ 5+ Years(Harvested Bucks)DeltaLoessLCPCoast20“(Strickland and Demarais 2000)
3. Regional Body Size Variation @ 4 Years(Harvested Bucks) DeltaLoessLCP44 lb(Strickland and Demarais 2000)
4. Cause of Regional Differences??Soil QualityNutritionDeer MorphologyLand UsePlantQuality
5. Nutrition & Antler DevelopmentB&C Antler ScoreAdapted from Harmel et al. 19790204060801001201.52.53.54.5Age (Years)Antler Score16% Protein Diet8% Protein Diet
6. Soil Quality?Deer MorphologyLand UsePlantQuality
7. ARegional Variation in Soil PhosphorusBB
8. ARegional Variation in Soil CalciumB
9. Soil QualityDeer MorphologyLand UsePlantQuality?
10. Regional Variation in Plant Quality Spring Crude Protein - Greenbrier
11. ACRegional Variation in Crude Protein 6 Deer Forages CombinedPercent(Jones et al. 2008)
12. Soil QualityDeer MorphologyLand Use?PlantQuality
13. Antler Size (203 Populations)Vegetation &Land Use(Strickland et al. 2007)
14. Antler & Land Use Models(n=65)Agriculture (+)Pines (-)Hardwoods (-) R2 = 0.42(Strickland et al. 2007)
15. Antler & Land Use Models(n=45)Agriculture (+)Pines (-) R2 = 0.47(Strickland et al. 2007)
16. Antler & Land Use Models(n=17)Pine (-)R2 = 69(Strickland et al. 2007)
17. Regional Antler Variation Associated with Land Use(Strickland et al. 2007)
18. Soil QualityDeer MorphologyLand UsePlantQualityOur Conclusion Regional Differences Likely Caused by Nutritional Variation Affecting Expression of Genetic Potential
19. But, taxonomic classification suggests differences are real O. v. virginianusO. v. osceolaO. v. mcilhennyiO. v. macrourus
20. Source PopulationsBred Does and Fawns
21. If genetic potential is the same then significant long-term nutritional improvement will allow morphological compensation
22. First generation (F1) – offspring of wild-raised adult deer and raised on optimum nutritionSecond Generation (F2) – offspring of F1s and raised on optimum nutrition
23. Body and Antler DataEmily FlinnEmily FlinnJustin Thayer
24. What’s the cause:Nutrition or Genetics?Emily Flinn
25. Body Weight At 3 years
26. Body Weight – Partial Compensation At 3 years+1+9 +9
27. Body Weight – Full Compensation At 3 years+35 +11+24(Michel et al. 2016)
28.
29. Antler Score Comparison At 3 years
30. Antler Score – Partial CompensationAt 3 years+7 +12
31. Antler Score – Full Compensation At 3 years+10+4 +21(Michel et al. 2016)
32. Antler Size and Body Weight SummaryFull compensation when nutrition was not limiting!Differences in wild due to nutrition NOT genetics!What is the upper limit of MS deer?Emily Flinn
33. Implications for Ungulate Conservation?Regional morphological variation should not guide taxonomic designations unless it is proven to be caused by meaningful genetic variation