Moose selecting for specific nutritional composition of birch places limits on food acceptability.

Despite decades of intense research, it remains largely unsolved which nutritional factors underpin food selection by large herbivores in the wild. We measured nutritional composition of birch foliage (Betula pubescens) available to, and used by, moose (Alces alces) in natural settings in two neighboring regions with contrasting animal body mass. This readily available food source is a staple food item in the diet of moose in the high-fitness region, but apparently underutilized by moose in the low-fitness region. Available birch foliage in the two regions had similar concentrations of macronutrients (crude protein [CP], fiber fractions, and water-soluble carbohydrates [WSC]), although a notably lower variation of WSC in the low-fitness region. For minerals, there were several area differences: available birch foliage in the low-fitness region had less Mg (depending on year) and P, but more Ca, Zn, Cu, and Mn. It also had higher concentrations of some plant secondary metabolites: chlorogenic acids, quercetins, and especially MeOH-soluble condensed tannins. Despite the area differences in available foliage, we found the same nutritional composition of birch foliage used in the two regions. Compared to available birch foliage, moose consistently used birch foliage with more CP, more structural fiber (mainly hemicellulose), less WSC, higher concentrations of several minerals (Ca, Zn, K, Mn, Cu), and lower concentrations of some secondary metabolites (most importantly, MeOH-soluble condensed tannins). Our study conceptually supports the nutrient-balancing hypothesis for a large herbivore: within a given temporal frame, moose select for plant material that matches a specific nutritional composition. As our data illustrate, different moose populations may select for the same composition even when the nutritional composition available in a given food source varies between their living areas. Such fastidiousness limits the proportion of available food that is acceptable to the animal and has bearings on our understanding and application of the concept of carrying capacity.

Range-body mass interactions of a northern ungulate - a test of hypothesis.

Summer diet, summer temperature, length of the growth season and animal density appeared to best explain annual and regional differences in calf and yearling body mass in moose from southeastern Norway. In general animals inhabiting steep, alpine landscapes had less body mass than animals using flat, low-altitude habitats. Autumn body mass of calves and yearlings decreased with increasing snow depth during the preceding winter and spring. However, calf body mass was more influenced by the summer range and less by the winter range than was body mass of yearlings. There was no indication that the effect of snow depth on autumn body mass was greater in moose living on poor than on good summer ranges. Body mass decreased with increasing competition for summer forage, while the winter range mainly had an density-independent effect. Habitat quality, expressed as regression lines between calf and yearling body mass and animal density (hunting yield), differed between regions. On ranges of medium and high altitude where birch (Betula spp.) rowan (Sorbus aucuparia) and bilberry (Vaccinium myrtillus) dominated moose summer diet, body mass decreased at a rapid rate with increasing animal density. Body mass decreased at a slower rate at low-altitude ranges and at high-altitude ranges where willow (Salix spp.) and forbs dominated the diet. Body mass of lactating cows decreased with increasing animal density, but animal density did not affect body mass of non-lactating cows. There was no indication that the decrease in autumn body mass with increasing moose density over the last 25 years has caused a decrease in animal condition (ability to survive the winter). The results are discussed in relation to the effect of summer and winter range on population regulation in moose. It is concluded that a density-dependent effect is apparent on the summer range even at low and intermediate population densities. On the winter range, on the other hand, density-dependence is likely to occur only at high levels of population density.