ArticleAnimal microbiome2024
A taste of wilderness: supplementary feeding of red deer (Cervus elaphus) increases individual bacterial microbiota diversity but lowers abundance of important gut symbionts.
Article in Animal microbiome, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Variations in the Fecal Microbiota of Red Deer in Relation to the Hunting Area in the Friuli-Venezia Giulia Region, Italy.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- Subspecific variation in gut microbiota of North American bison in a sympatric setting reveals differentially abundant taxa.Animal microbiome · 2025Article
- Bacterial indicators of environmental stress in the gut microbiome of free-ranging European roe deer inhabiting agricultural landscapes.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Comparison of Fecal Microbiota and Metabolites Between Captive and Grazing Male Reindeer.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The gut microbiome plays a crucial role in the health and well-being of animals. It is especially critical for ruminants that depend on this bacterial community for digesting their food. In this study, we investigated the effects of management conditions and supplemental feeding on the gut bacterial microbiota of red deer (Cervus elaphus) in the Bavarian Forest National Park, Germany. Fecal samples were collected from free-ranging deer, deer within winter enclosures, and deer in permanent enclosures. The samples were analyzed by high-throughput sequencing of the 16 S rRNA gene. The results showed that the gut bacterial microbiota differed in diversity, abundance, and heterogeneity within and between the various management groups. Free-ranging deer exhibited lower alpha diversity compared with deer in enclosures, probably because of the food supplementation available to the animals within the enclosures. Free-living individuals also showed the highest beta diversity, indicating greater variability in foraging grounds and plant species selection. Moreover, free-ranging deer had the lowest abundance of potentially pathogenic bacterial taxa, suggesting a healthier gut microbiome. Winter-gated deer, which spent some time in enclosures, exhibited intermediate characteristics between free-ranging and all-year-gated deer. These findings suggest that the winter enclosure management strategy, including supplementary feeding with processed plants and crops, has a significant impact on the gut microbiome composition of red deer. Overall, this study provides important insights into the effects of management conditions, particularly winter enclosure practices, on the gut microbiome of red deer. Understanding these effects is crucial for assessing the potential health implications of management strategies and highlights the value of microbiota investigations as health marker.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.