Use of quaking aspen flower buds by ruffed grouse : its relationship to grouse densities and bud chemical composition

Quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) staminate flower buds are an important winter food for Ruffed Grouse (Bonasa umbellus); however, use of these buds can vary among years. One explanation for this differential use of aspen flower buds is that the buds’ nutritional value or palatability changes. It has been proposed that fluctuations in the chemical content of aspen buds may affect their utilization by Ruffed Grouse, and that the utilization of aspen may be positively related to the population density these birds can maintain. This paper focuses on three key links of the above hypothesis: whether there are significant annual changes in the chemistry of aspen buds, ‘whether aspen utilization by Ruffed Grouse is mediated by the chemistry of the buds, and whether there is a correlation between aspen use and changes in grouse densities. We monitored chemical changes in aspen flower buds periodically over 11 years and related chemical changes to aspen use and Ruffed Grouse densities. Additionally, previous studies were re-examined to determine the relationship between aspen consumption and changes in grouse densities. Significant differences were observed in coniferyl benzoate and protein levels among years. Data suggest hat there may be inherent differences among aspen clones in their ability to chemically defend themselves. Use of aspen buds by grouse appears to be mediated by coniferyl benzoate and protein levels. Quaking aspen use was highly correlated to Ruffed Grouse densities. Lack of suitable or available aspen in the winter may increase predation risks and energetic costs for Ruffed Grouse.

[1]  D. Lynn,et al.  PHENOLIC SIGNALS IN COHABITATION: IMPLICATIONS FOR PLANT DEVELOPMENT , 1990 .

[2]  R. Dixon,et al.  Signals and transduction mechanisms for activation of plant defenses against microbial attack , 1989, Cell.

[3]  F. Thompson,et al.  Habitat use, home range, and survival of territorial male ruffed grouse , 1989 .

[4]  W. J. Mattson,et al.  Changes in Levels of Foliar Minerals and Phenolics in Trembling Aspen, Populus tremuloides, in Response to Artificial Defoliation , 1988 .

[5]  F. Stuart Chapin,et al.  Plant Phenols and Nutrients in Relation to Variations in Climate and Rodent Grazing , 1986, The American Naturalist.

[6]  G. Gullion Grouse of the North Shore , 1984 .

[7]  J. Schultz,et al.  Rapid Changes in Tree Leaf Chemistry Induced by Damage: Evidence for Communication Between Plants , 1983, Science.

[8]  J. A. Bailey,et al.  The Dynamics of host defence , 1983 .

[9]  A. Middleton,et al.  Effects of Dietary Protein Levels on Ruffed Grouse Reproduction , 1982 .

[10]  N. Keen,et al.  The possible association of phytoalexins with resistance gene expression in flax to Melampsora lini , 1979 .

[11]  G. Gullion Forest manipulation for ruffed grouse , 1977 .

[12]  W. J. Mattson,et al.  NUMERICAL ANALYSIS OF A FOREST TENT CATERPILLAR (LEPIDOPTERA: LASIOCAMPIDAE) OUTBREAK IN NORTHERN MINNESOTA , 1975, The Canadian Entomologist.

[13]  L. Keith,et al.  Characteristics of winter feeding aggregations of ruffed grouse in Alberta , 1974 .

[14]  B. V. Barnes,et al.  Clonal variation in the incidence of Hypoxylon canker on trembling aspen , 1974 .

[15]  M. Hubbes,et al.  Polyphenol-oxidase Activity and Growth Inhibition of Hypoxylon pruinatum (Klotzsche) Cke. by Aspen Bark Meal , 1973 .

[16]  P. Johnsgard Grouse And Quails Of North America , 1973 .

[17]  G. Gullion,et al.  Preferential use of aspen by ruffed grouse in northern Minnesota , 1972 .

[18]  G. Gullion The Use of Drumming Behavior in Ruffed Grouse Population Studies , 1966 .

[19]  G. Gullion A Viewpoint concerning the Significance of Studies of Game Bird Food Habits , 1966 .

[20]  G. Gullion IMPROVEMENTS IN METHODS FOR TRAPPING AND MARKING RUFFED GROUSE , 1965 .

[21]  A. Hodson,et al.  Influence of the forest tent caterpillar upon the aspen forests of Minnesota. , 1958 .

[22]  J. B. Lauckhart Animal Cycles and Food , 1957 .