Abstract: The pathophysiology and lesions associated with vitamin E deficiency are similar between domestic and exotic species, and circulating plasma concentrations are also similar between comparable groups. However, many ecological variables must be considered for the most relevant comparisons. Tissue values of vitamin E, apart from plasma, are unknown for most exotics. Dietary vitamin E requirements of exotic species and domestics appear to differ; based on natural foodstuff analyses and clinical observations, between 50 and 200 mg vitamin E/kg DM are necessary to prevent vitamin E deficiency, 5- to 10-fold higher than current livestock recommendations.

Abstract: Both white-tailed deer, Odocoileus virginianus, and mule deer, O. hemionus, females defend fawns against coyotes, Canis latrans, but only mule deer defend nonoffspring conspecific and heterospecific fawns. During a predator attack, females may have to decide whether to defend a fawn while having imperfect information on its identity obtained from hearing a few distress calls. Although imperfect recognition can influence altruistic behaviour, few empirical studies have considered this point when testing functional explanations for altruism. We designed a series of playback experiments with fawn distress calls to test alternative hypotheses (by-product of parental care, kin selection, reciprocal altruism) for the mule deer's defence of nonoffspring, specifically allowing for the possibility that females mistake these fawns for their own. White-tailed deer females approached the speaker only when distress calls of white-tailed deer fawns were played and when their own fawn was hidden, suggesting that fawn defence was strictly a matter of parental care in this species. In contrast, mule deer females responded similarly and strongly, regardless of the caller's identity, the female's reproductive state (mother or nonmother) or the presence of their own offspring. The failure of mule deer females to adjust their responses to these conditions suggests that they do not defend nonoffspring because they mistake them for their own fawns. The lack of behavioural discrimination also suggests that kin selection, reciprocal altruism and defence of the offspring's area are unlikely to explain the mule deer's defence of nonoffspring. We identify causal and functional questions that still need to be addressed to understand why mule deer defend fawns so indiscriminately.

Abstract: Context. Livestock producers worldwide are negatively affected by livestock losses because of predators and wildlife-transmitted diseases. In the western Great Lakes Region of the United States, this conflict has increased as grey wolf (Canis lupus) populations have recovered and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) have served as a wildlife reservoir for bovine tuberculosis (Myobacterium bovis).Aims. We conducted field experiments on cattle farms to evaluate the effectiveness of livestock-protection dogs (LPDs) for excluding wolves, coyotes (C. latrans), white-tailed deer and mesopredators from livestock pastures.Methods. We integrated LPDs on six cattle farms (treatment) and monitored wildlife use with tracking swaths on these farms, concurrent with three control cattle farms during 2005-2008. The amount of time deer spent in livestock pastures was recorded using direct observation.Key results. Livestock pastures protected by LPDs had reduced use by these wildlife compared with control pastures not protected by LPDs. White-tailed deer spent less time in livestock pastures protected by LPDs compared with control pastures not protected by LPDs.Conclusions. Our research supports the theory that LPDs can be an effective management tool for reducing predation and disease transmission. We also demonstrate that LPDs are not limited to being used only with sheep and goats; they can also be used to protect cattle.Implications. On the basis of our findings, we support the use of LPDs as a proactive management tool that producers can implement to minimise the threat of livestock depredations and transmission of disease from wildlife to livestock. LPDs should be investigated further as a more general conservation tool for protecting valuable wildlife, such as ground-nesting birds, that use livestock pastures and are affected by predators that use these pastures.

Abstract: Male ungulates engage in intense competition for access to females during the breeding season. Although fights are generally dyadic level encounters, they are on occasion disrupted by the intervention of third-party males. We investigated these third-party interventions using predictions derived from Dugatkin's model (Dugatkin 1998, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 265, 433-437) of intervention behaviour. The model argues that when an individual successfully defeats an opponent there is an increase in the probability of winning a subsequent contest: a winner effect. Third-party intervention behaviour is predicted to occur as it serves to prevent either member of a competing dyad from successfully defeating his opponent, achieving a winner effect and subsequently becoming a threat to the intervener. Consistent with model predictions, our results show that intervening males held significantly higher rank than males that did not intervene and were also more likely to be dominant to both of the competing males. Intervening males did not selectively target competitors based on rank, nor did they target males based on overall dyadic rates of aggression between the intervener and competing males. Furthermore, interveners were more likely to have won their interaction immediately prior to intervention and were also likely to win their interaction subsequent to intervention when compared with contest success of the two competing males. Our results are consistent with predictions that support a winner effect for intervention behaviour in fallow deer fights.