Habitat distribution and diversity of pl
TROPICS Vol. 15 (4)
Issued September 30, 2006
Habitat distribution and diversity of plants as feed resources
for mouse deer (Tragulus javanicus ) and barking deer
(Muntiacus muntjak ) in Gunung Halimun National Park
Wartika Rosa FARIDA, Gono SEMIADI, Tri H. HANDAYANI and HARUN
Bidang Zoologi, Pusat Penelitian Biologi – LIPI, Jl. Raya Bogor–Jakarta KM 46, Cibinong 16911, Bogor, E–mail: wrfarida@indo.net.id
ABSTRACT An initial study on the habitat
and uncontrolled hunting activities. As an endangered
distribution and diversity of plants as feed
species, the mouse deer is listed in IUCN Red List of
resources for mouse deer (Tragulus javanicus ) and
Threatened Animals (IUCN, 1986).
barking deer (Muntiacus muntjak ) was conducted
Mouse deer generally live in lowland areas up to
at Gunung Halimun National Park. The sur vey was
an altitude of 600 m above sea level (Payne et al., 1985),
carried out by visiting places where mouse deer
and according to Adhikerana (1999), this animal is one
and barking deer are usually seen, and collecting
of main tourism assets of the Gunung Halimun National
specimens of the plant species on which those
Park in West Java. Understanding the habitat distributions
animals feed.
In Gunung Kendeng the mouse
of both the mouse and barking deer, as well as the
deer prefers forest habitats up to a height of 1,100
diversity of forest plants preferred by these animals as
m asl, such as dense bush, rock crevices or tree
their feed resources is an urgent priority if these animals
hollows, dense tea plantations, and bush areas not
are to be maintained (in situ) in their Gunung Halimun
far from rivers. Barking deer prefer forests up to
National Park habitat. In addition, the preservation of the
a height of 1,100 m asl in Gunung Kendeng, but
dietary plants selected by mouse deer and barking deer
up to 1,600 m asl in Gunung Botol. Barking deer
is also crucial.
prefer dense bush on the forest edges. Results
Barking deer footprints are frequently found in
showed 50 plant species consisting of 22 families
Gunung Halimun National Park. The animal has a deer
as possible feed resources for mouse deer and
–like posture, and the male has short horns and canines
barking deer.
with a smaller, more slender body size than other deer.
Barking deer prefer living among the bushes and shrubs
Key words: feed plant, habitat, Muntiacus muntjak,
growing in abandoned, un–irrigated agricultural fields
Tragulus javanicus.
or teak forests in both lowland and mountainous areas
up to 2,400 m above sea level. Its body hair is short and
Mouse deer (Tragulus javanicus), categorized in family
delicate whilst longer hairs grow around its ears. The
tragulidae, and barking deer (Muntiacus muntjak),
brown–reddish body hair is faded on the bodies of female
categorized in family cer vidae, are distributed in
and young barking deer. The color of its back is darker
Indonesia on Sumatra, Java, Kalimantan, and the
whilst the hair under parts of the chin, neck, and stomach
surrounding islands (Lekagul & McNeely, 1977). The
,
Mouse deer is the world s smallest ruminant, and was
is white. In Thailand, the Barking deer continues to be
first discovered in Java (Van Dort, 1987). It does not have
1977). Both the mouse deer and the barking deer are
horns and the adult male has canine teeth. It is dispersed
solitary species, and both species couple at the time of
throughout the primary and secondary forests of South
mating only. Their feeding activities occur at night and
hunted for its high quality meat (Lekagul & McNeely,
East Asia (Medway, 1983), and according to Kudo et al.
in the early morning. Preser ving the wholeness of the
(1987), has good potential as an herbivorous laboratory
mouse deer and barking deer habitats, and conserving
animal. People have long used the meat of this animal as
the plant species these animals use in their diet is
a protein resource. The Mouse deer, marked by brown–
necessar y to ensure the continued existence of these
reddish body hair with three white lines under the chin,
animals in the Gunung Halimun National Park. Thus it is
is categorized as an endangered species. This condition
necessary to identify the nutrient contents of the selected
has been caused by habitat damage due to exploitation
plants, in the form of young leaves, young shoots, flowers,
of the forest for settlement and plantations, forest fires,
and fruits, for the purpose of finding alternative foods in
372
Wartika Rosa FARIDA, Gono SEMIADI, Tri H. HANDAYANI and HARUN
order to keep these animals in captive breeding programs
between newspapers, and moistened with methylated
(ex situ), both for research and commercial purposes.
spirits to prevent decay and facilitate identification at the
The aim of this research was to understand the habitat
Bogoriense Herbarium.
distributions of mouse deer and barking deer, as well as
In addition, the forest plants samples, in the form of
the diversity and nutrient contents of plants selected by
leaves, trunks, flowers, and fruit, were dried under the
both animals as their feed resources.
sun for 1 – 2 days to prevent decay. The samples were
kept in plastic bags prior to laboratory analysis. In the
laboratory, all the samples were dried in an oven at 60ºC
MATERIALS AND METHODS
for 12–18 hours, milled and kept in closed containers
A field survey was conducted over 14 days in June 2001
prior to nutrient content analysis based on Harris method
using tracks suggested by forest rangers and local
(1970).
people familiar with the presence of mouse deer in the
During the field research, mouse deer were only
Gunung Halimun National Park. The sur vey locations
seen on two occasions during daylight periods. It is very
(Table 1) were in the vicinity of Gunung Kendeng (940
difficult to see this shy animal unless using a camera trap.
m–1,180 m above sea level) and Gunung Botol (1,300 m
Mouse deer and barking deer were distributed in almost
–1,750 m above sea level). This sur vey was an initial
all the research locations (Table 1) at the foot of Gunung
study consisting of visiting places where mouse and
Kendeng, but not in Gunung Botol, Gunung Halimun
barking deer are frequently found, observing the habitat
National Park. The finding of feces, traces of nests and
distribution, and recording any forest plants these
of feed plants, plus information from local people guiding
animals include in their diet. The locations/habitats
researchers around the forest confirmed this during the
preferred by mouse and barking deer were also recorded.
research.
These locations and places were chosen based on the
It is apparent that the mouse deer lives in areas up
fact that mouse deer and barking deer (and/or signs of
to 1,100 m above sea level around Gunung Kendeng,
the nests of these animals) were frequently found there.
whereas literature has mentioned that it can only be seen
Food plant data were obtained based on the types and
in areas up to 600 m above sea level (Hoogerwerf, 1970;
the parts of food plants (e.g. leaf, trunk, and fruit) eaten
Lekagul & McNelly, 1977). Mouse deer seem to prefer
by mouse and barking deer. Obser ving and recording
,
the data of these animals diet, in this study, is limited to
habitat types such as thick, protective bush, holes in
bush/shrub, climbing, grass, and herb.
to Anonymous (1978), the mouse deer is a tropical animal
trunks, holes in rocks, and areas near rivers. According
The plants parts included in the diet were collected
that inhabits primary and secondary forest habitats, and
in order to build a herbarium and to analyze the nutrient
prefers dry land close to springs and dense vegetation.
contents.
The delicate feet of these species make it difficult to find
Plant samples complete with tr unks, branches,
or even see footprints. Researchers found some feces
leaves, flowers, and fruit (if available) were collected, put
on the forest floor, and local people reported that mouse
Table 1. Position of research location in Gunung Halimun National Park
LATD
LATM
LATS
LONGD
LONGM
LONG
DIRLON
ALT
（m asll）
LOCATION
6
44
21.1
S
106
31
50.0
E
1090
Loop trail Citalahab, Gunung Kendeng
6
44
14.2
S
106
31
25.6
E
1030
Tea plantation Nirmala, Citalahab
6
44
28.4
S
106
31
50.1
E
1050
Curug, Gn. Kendeng
6
44
55.3
S
106
32
17.4
E
1000
Cikaniki, Gn. Kendeng
6
45
05.4
S
106
32
24.7
E
1000
Canopy trail
6
44
41.9
S
106
32
36.6
E
970
Cikaniki river, Gu–nung Kendeng
6
44
53.0
S
106
32
16.3
E
1060
Loop trail Cikaniki
6
44
46,4
S
106
32
30.6
E
1100
Cikuda paeh, Gu–nung Kendeng
6
44
35.7
S
106
32
19.9
E
1050
Wates Citalahab
6
44
46.4
S
106
32
30.6
E
1030
Forest of wates
6
44
52.0
S
106
32
46.9
E
1040
Out of forest of wates
6
43
39.4
S
106
29
36.0
E
1520
Gunung Botol
6
43
33.4
S
106
29
00.3
E
1720
Top I of Gunung Botol
373
Plant Diversity and Deer in Gunung Halimun National Park
deer were frequently seen coupling by the sides of rivers
is sufficient to allow mouse deer to consume high fiber
flowing in the area of Gunung Kendeng, and sometimes
food. It is reported that for rough fiber of 12.7 %, the
drinking water there. Mouse deer and barking deer
mouse deer is able to digest 6.4% (Nolan et al., 1995).
have also been seen under tea bushes growing in the
Considering that this research indicates that the rough
Gunung Halimun National Park, and barking deer have
fiber content consumed by mouse deer is higher (Table
frequently been observed during the afternoon on open
3), it is necessary to observe the optimum capability of
land consisting of young tall, coarse grasses.
this animal to consume rough fiber. On the other hand,
Fifty species of feed plants grouped into 22 families
because information on the morphology of the digestive
were documented during the course of this study. Table
organs of barking deer is ver y scarce, research on the
2 shows that all plant species consumed by mouse
anatomy and morphology of the digestive system of this
deer (44 species) are also consumed by barking deer.
animal is greatly needed.
However, there are 6 feed plants species consumed by
The nutrient contents of the plants mouse and
barking deer, namely Foorestia glabrata, Forrestia sp.,
barking deer use as diet resources in their habitats (Table
Ficus grossularioides, F. padana, F. septica, and Imperata
3) show considerable variation. Ash (mineral) content
cylindrica, which are not consumed by mouse deer.
ranges from 5.2% to 32.9% (average 91.7%
Medway (1983) repor ted that the forest mouse deer
from 10.3% to 34.4% (average 19.9%
is ver y selective, consuming plants such as bushes,
2.9% (average 0.9%
some grasses, and fruits lying on the forest floor, whilst
(average 26.4%
according to Kay et al. (1980), the mouse deer prefers
4,691 cal/g (average 3,493.5 cal/g
1.8), protein
5.8), fat from 0.7% to
0.3), rough fiber from 9.6% to 46.3%
9.9), and energy from 2,576 cal/g to
456.2).
leaves containing water, seeds, and easy–to–digest fruits,
The result of nutrient analysis shows that feed plants
such that it is categorized as a browser or concentrate
selected by mouse deer and barking deer as their diet
selector (Agungpriyono, 1992). On the other hand, the
resources have var ying value ranges for the content
barking deer, although also categorized as a browser
of protein and rough fiber. This condition will greatly
or concentrate selector, consumes a higher number
facilitate the effort of supplying and selecting the types
of grass types than the mouse deer. The barking deer
of alternative feed should (ex situ) captive breeding
also consumes leaves, bushes, herbs, and forest fruit
programs – for both research and commercial purposes –
(Leakagul & McNeely, 1977).
ever be established for these animals.
The Barking deer differs from other ruminants in
that it does not like grasses in the vegetative phase but
prefers the young buds of tall, coarse grasses that grow
CONCLUSION
after fire. This willingness to consume young buds in
This research concludes that the mouse deer exists in
burnt fields is linked with the effort of the barking deer
all Gunung Kendeng foot areas up to 1,150 m above sea
and other Cervidae species to meet their mineral needs,
level, but does not exist in the foot areas of Gunung Botol,
and is especially so for male animals growing velvet
whereas the barking deer is distributed in both areas.
(Semiadi, 1998).
The types of habitats preferred by the mouse deer are
There are some plant species consumed by barking
dense, protected areas such as under tea bushes, holes
deer that are not selected by mouse deer as dietar y
in tree trunks, holes in rocks and nearby rivers, whilst
resources. This fact is seemingly caused by the fact that
the barking deer prefers protected bushes in forests
the plants contain alkaloids, which mouse deer cannot
and non–irrigated fields. This research also resulted in
tolerate. It is known that some plants protect their
a documentation of 50 species including 22 families of
leaves from herbivores by producing compounds such
forest plants selected by mouse and barking deer as diet
as tannins and phenols. A sharp sense of smell allows
resources.
mouse deer to avoid these plants and concentrate instead
on plants and leaves not containing such compounds
ACKNOWLEDMENT Financial suppor t for this
(Kinnaird, 1995). Table 2 shows that the kinds of leaves
research was provided by Biodiversity Conser vation
consumed by mouse deer and barking deer are all young,
Project (JICA) in Indonesia, a joint project with LIPI,
easy to digest leaves with soft and palatable trunks, that
PHPA, and JICA.
contain low tannin and lignin levels (Waterman, 1984).
The report of Kudo et al., (1997) states that the amount of
cellulotic microbes in the digestive organs of ruminants
374
Wartika Rosa FARIDA, Gono SEMIADI, Tri H. HANDAYANI and HARUN
Table 2. List of feed plants of mouse deer and barking deer in Gunung Halimun National Park
No.
Family
Scientific name
Local name
Parts consumed
Eaten by
Kind of Plants
1.
Acanthaceae
Tetraglochidium bibracteatum
Peki
Leaf & young trunk
M&B
Climbing
2.
Amaranthaceae
–
Teklan
Leaf & young trunk, flower
M&B
Shrub
3.
Araceae
Schismatoglottis calyptrata
Solempat
Young trunk
M&B
Shrub
Schismatoglottis rupestris
Cariang
Young trunk
M&B
Shrub
4.
Asteraceae
Adenostemma macrophyllum
Babadotan（wild）
Leaf & young trunk
M&B
Shrub
Bidens chinensis
Hareuga
Leaf & young trunk
M&B
Shrub
Clibadium surinamense
Nampong
Leaf, flower, & fruit
M&B
Shrub
Erechtites valerianifolia
Sintrong
Leaf & young trunk
M&B
Shrub
Galinsogo parviflora
Semingu
Leaf & young trunk
M&B
Shrub
Climbing
Mikania cordata
Capituheur
Leaf & young trunk
M&B
5.
Balsaminaceae
Impatiens javensis
Pacar tere
Leaf & young trunk
M&B
Shrub
6.
Caryophyllaceae
Drymaria cordata
Ibun
Leaf & young trunk
M&B
Shrub
7.
Commelinaceae
Commelina paleata
Gewor
Leaf & young trunk
M&B
Shrub
Forrestia glabrata
Tali sahid（red）
Leaf
B
Shrub
Forrestia sp.
Tali sahid（green）
Leaf & young trunk
B
Shrub
Climbing
8.
Convolvulaceae
Ipomoea batatas
Hui areuy beureum
Leaf & young trunk
M&B
9.
Cucurbitaceae
Cucumis sativus
Bonteng
Young leaf
M&B
Climbing
Cucurbita moschata
Labu kuning
Young leaf
M&B
Climbing
Shrub
Sechium edule
Labu siam
Young leaf
M&B
10.
Cyperaceae
Carex baccans
Ilat
Young leaf
M&B
Shrub
11.
Euphorbiaceae
Omalanthus giganteus
Kareumi
Leaf & young trunk
M&B
Shrub
12.
Fabaceae
Teramnus labialis
Kakacangan
Leaf & young trunk
M&B
Climbing
13.
Moraceae
Ficus grossularioides
Seuhang
Young leaf
B
Young tree
F. padana
Hamerang
Young leaf
B
Young tree
F. septica
Beunying
Young leaf
B
Young tree
14.
Onagraceae
Jussieua linifolia
Cacabean
Leaf & young trunk
M&B
Shrub
15.
Poaceae
Axonopus compressus
Jampang sliper
Leaf & young trunk
M&B
Grass
Digitaria sp.
Kukucayan
Leaf & young trunk
M&B
Grass
Eleusine indica
Jampang carulang
Leaf & young trunk
M&B
Grass
Isachne sp.
Bayona（red）
Leaf & young trunk
M&B
Grass
I. albens
Lameta
Leaf & young trunk
M&B
Grass
Imperata cylindrica
Alang–alang
Leaf & young trunk
B
Grass
Lophaterum gracile
Tangkur gunung
Leaf & young trunk
M&B
Grass
Miscanthus floridulus
Hutamala
Leaf & young trunk
M&B
Grass
Panicum trigonum
Bayona（green）
Leaf & young trunk
M&B
Grass
P. repens
Jajahean
Leaf & young trunk
M&B
Grass
Paspalum conyugatum
Jampang pahit
Young leaf
M&B
Grass
Setaria barbata
Lamotek
Leaf & young trunk
M&B
Grass
S. palmifolia
Sawuheun
Leaf & young trunk
M&B
Grass
Urochloa muticum
Inggris grass
Leaf & young trunk
M&B
Grass
16.
Plantaginaceae
Plantago major
Kiurat
Leaf, flower & young trunk
M&B
Shrub
17.
Polygalaceae
Polygala paniculata
Akar wangi
Leaf & young trunk
M&B
Shrub
18.
Polygonaceae
Polygonum chinensis
Bungbrun
Leaf & young trunk
M&B
Shrub
19.
Rubiaceae
Anotis hirsuta
Kasimukan
Leaf & young trunk
M&B
Shrub
Borreria alata
Goletrak
Leaf, flower & young trunk
M&B
Shrub
Hedyotis auricularia
Kakawatan
Leaf & young trunk
M&B
Shrub
Mussaenda frondosa
Kingkilaban
Young leaf
M&B
Climbing
Macrothelypteris torresiana
Pakis beunyeur
Leaf & young trunk
M&B
Herb
20.
Thelypteridaceae
21.
Urticaceae
Elatostema sp.
Kibeling（wild）
Leaf & young trunk
M&B
Shrub
22.
Verbenaceae
Stachytarpheta jamaicensis
Jarong
Leaf & young trunk
M&B
Shrub
Notes : M = Mouse deer ; B = Barking deer
375
Plant Diversity and Deer in Gunung Halimun National Park
Table 3. Nutrient contents of feed plants of mouse deer and barking deer
No.
Local name
Dry matter
Ash
Protein
Fat
Crude fiber
Energy
%
%
%
%
%
cal/g
1.
Kingkilaban
90.4
8.3
13,1
0.8
27.9
3942
2.
Nampong
89.9
17.2
22,0
1.5
29.9
3498
3.
Kakawatan
90.7
11.6
18,5
0.8
30.4
3839
4.
Jampang pahit
92.4
14.5
13,9
0.8
32.6
3923
5.
Inggris grass
91.4
13.8
18,6
0.8
31.0
3414
6.
Ilat
90.6
13.1
11,9
0.8
46.3
3682
7.
Capituheur
89.6
16.3
23,4
0.8
34.3
3565
8.
Sawuheun
93.1
11.7
15,5
0.8
46.0
3169
9.
Pakis beunyeur
90.5
11.6
24,8
1.0w
36.1
4636
10.
Pacar tere
91.3
15.6
22,1
0.8
44.0
3336
11.
Sintrong
89.8
18.6
29.0
1.5
13.7
3372
12.
Tangkur gunung
92.1
8.2
13,4
0.8
43.1
3951
13.
Hutamala
91.9
10.3
10,5
0.8
41.6
3535
14.
Gewor
91.7
18.6
21,0
0.8
22.5
3467
15.
Goletrak
90.3
15.8
31.2
0.8
12.4
2929
16.
Jampang sliper
91.5
9.7
12.7
0.8
35.0
3513
17.
Lamotek
92.2
14.4
22.2
0.8
23.0
4041
18.
Lameta
95.2
8.1
15.7
0.8
36.0
3554
3529
19.
Kakacangan
93.9
8.9
24.8
0.8
31.7
20.
Bayona（green）
95.7
9.1
14.4
0.8
32.2
3643
21.
Bayona（red）
91.5
7.6
17.7
0.8
21.8
3701
22.
Hui areuy bereum
95.7
10.6
27.8
0.8
16.5
3808
3557
23.
Kasimukan
93.3
15.5
20.2
0.8
26.2
24.
Babadotan（wild）
93.3
14.6
21.8
0.9
12.8
4307
25.
Teklan
90.4
11.4
19.0
1.0
19.6
3362
26.
Semingu
90.3
14.2
23.1
0.8
25.3
3403
27.
Akar wangi
93.3
5,2
22.5
0.8
19.1
3575
28.
Hareuga
90.5
11.5
28.5
0.9
13.9
3214
29.
Bungbrun
90.2
8.8
21.5
0.9
17.9
3155
30.
Kareumi
91.9
6.8
24.1
0.9
11.1
3502
31.
Kukucayan
92.6
14.5
21.2
0.8
30.7
3160
32.
Kibeling（wild）
90.8
15.3
21.0
0.9
18.1
3606
33.
Tali sahid（green）:
–Leaf
92.4
8.9
21.6
1.0
19.8
3300
–Young trunk
92.6
17.1
19.4
1.0
24.9
3608
– leaf
90.8
13.1
20.2
1.0
2.05
3464
Peki
92.3
8.5
18.0
1.5
29.3
3162
34.
35.
Tali sahid（red）:
36.
Jampang carulang
92.6
9.8
16.8
0.8
38.1
3394
37.
Jarong
92.8
6.4
17.2
0.8
17.0
3469
38.
Jajahean
91.1
8.7
14.9
0.8
32.9
3925
39.
Cacabean
91.7
7.7
22.9
0.8
9.6
3601
40.
Cariang（young trunk）
90.6
32.9
10.8
0.8
19.4
4213
41.
Solempat（young trunk）
86.1
27.5
10.3
0.8
26.0
2576
42.
Ibun
91.9
8.2
18.2
0.7
35.6
3143
43.
Kiurat
92.5
16.6
22.1
0.9
17.8
2789
44.
Hamerang
90.6
8.6
14.6
2.9
29.4
4691
45.
Beunying
95.4
10.2
17.0
0.9
32.3
2879
46.
Seuhang
91.6
8.5
19.4
0.7
23.9
3632
47.
Alang–alang
93.7
5.9
11.9
0.7
37.2
3379
376
48.
Wartika Rosa FARIDA, Gono SEMIADI, Tri H. HANDAYANI and HARUN
Labu kuning
90.5
12.6
34.4
0.9
12.7
2594
49.
Labu siam
89.7
15.5
34.0
0.8
14.8
2780
50.
Bonteng
90.8
16.5
24.6
0.8
14.8
2644
REFERENCES
H., Ho, Y. W. & Jalaludin, S. 1995. Food intake,
nutrient utilization and water turnover in the lesser
Adhikerana, A. S. 1999. Keanekaragaman jenis satwa
mouse deer (Tragulus javanicus) given lundai
di Taman Nasional Gunung Halimun sebagai aset
(Sapium baccatum). Comparative Biochemistry and
wisata alam. Laporan Ekspose dan Lokakar ya
Physiology IIIA (1): 177–182.
Potensi Taman Nasional Gunung Halimun dan
Payne, J., Francis, C. M., & Phillips, K. 1985. A Field
Pemanfaatannya secara Berkelanjutan. JICA,
Guide to The Mammals of Bor neo. The Sabah
Puslitbang Biologi – LIPI, dan Ditjen PHPA, Dept.
Kehutanan dan Perkebunan. Bandung, 226–27
Maret 1999. Pp. 55–65.
Agungpriyono, S., Yamamoto, Y., Kitamura, N., Yamada,
J., Sigit, K., & Yamashita, T. 1992. Morphological
Society with World Wildlife Fund Malaysia.
Semiadi, G. 1998. Budidaya Rusa Tropika sebagai
Hewan Ternak. Masyarakat Zoologi Indonesia.
Bogor.
Van Dor t, M. 1987. Note on the Skull Size in The
study on the stomach of the lesser mouse deer
Two Symmetric Mouse Deer Species, Tragulus
(Tragulus javanicus) with special reference to the
javanicus Osbeck, 1765 and Tragulus napu F. Cuvier,
internal sur face. Journal of Veterinar y Medical
1822. Institute of Taxonomy Zoology. Zoological
Science 54: 1063–1069.
Museum, University of Amsterdam. Netherlands.
Anonymous. 1978. Pedoman Pengelolaan Satwa Langka.
Waterman, P. G. 1984. Food acquisition and processing as
Jilid I : Mamalia, Reptilia, dan Amphibia. Direktorat
a function of plant chemistry. Pp. 177–211. In Food
Jenderal Kehutanan. Direktorat Perlindungan dan
acquisition and processing in primates (Chivers, D.
Pengawetan Alam. Bogor.
J., Wood, B. A. and Bilsborough, A. Eds.). Plenum
Har ris, L. E. 1970. Nutrition Research Techniques
Publishing Corporation, New York.
for Domestic and Wild Animals. Animal Science
Received 10th Mar. 2006
Department, Utah State University, Logan.
Accepted 19th June. 2006
Hoogerwerf, A. 1970. Udjung Kulon. The Land of The
Last Javan Rhinoceros. Leiden.
IUCN. 1986. IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals.
IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
Kay, R. N. B., Engelhardt, Von W. & White, R. E. 1980.
The digestive physiology and Metabolism in
Ruminants. 1st Ed. Avi Publishing Co. Westpor t,
Conn. USA.
Kinnaird, M. F. 1995. North Sulawesi. A Natural History
Guide. Development Institute Wallacea, Jakarta.
Kudo, H., Fukuta, K., Imai, S., Dahlan, I., Abdullah, N.,
Ho, Y.W. & Jalaludin, S. 1997. Establishment of
lesser mouse deer (Tragulus javanicus) colony for
use as a new laboratory animal and/or companion
animal. JIRCAS Journal No. 4: 79–88.
Lekagul, B. & McNeely, J. A. 1977. Mammals of Thailand.
The association for the conser vation of wildlife,
Bangkok.
Medway, Ld. 1983. The W ild Mammals of Malaya
(Peninsular Malaysia) and Singapore. 2nd Edition.
Oxford University Press. Kuala Lumpur.
Nolan, J. V., Liang, J. B., Abdullah, N., Kudo, H., Ismail,
Issued September 30, 2006
Habitat distribution and diversity of plants as feed resources
for mouse deer (Tragulus javanicus ) and barking deer
(Muntiacus muntjak ) in Gunung Halimun National Park
Wartika Rosa FARIDA, Gono SEMIADI, Tri H. HANDAYANI and HARUN
Bidang Zoologi, Pusat Penelitian Biologi – LIPI, Jl. Raya Bogor–Jakarta KM 46, Cibinong 16911, Bogor, E–mail: wrfarida@indo.net.id
ABSTRACT An initial study on the habitat
and uncontrolled hunting activities. As an endangered
distribution and diversity of plants as feed
species, the mouse deer is listed in IUCN Red List of
resources for mouse deer (Tragulus javanicus ) and
Threatened Animals (IUCN, 1986).
barking deer (Muntiacus muntjak ) was conducted
Mouse deer generally live in lowland areas up to
at Gunung Halimun National Park. The sur vey was
an altitude of 600 m above sea level (Payne et al., 1985),
carried out by visiting places where mouse deer
and according to Adhikerana (1999), this animal is one
and barking deer are usually seen, and collecting
of main tourism assets of the Gunung Halimun National
specimens of the plant species on which those
Park in West Java. Understanding the habitat distributions
animals feed.
In Gunung Kendeng the mouse
of both the mouse and barking deer, as well as the
deer prefers forest habitats up to a height of 1,100
diversity of forest plants preferred by these animals as
m asl, such as dense bush, rock crevices or tree
their feed resources is an urgent priority if these animals
hollows, dense tea plantations, and bush areas not
are to be maintained (in situ) in their Gunung Halimun
far from rivers. Barking deer prefer forests up to
National Park habitat. In addition, the preservation of the
a height of 1,100 m asl in Gunung Kendeng, but
dietary plants selected by mouse deer and barking deer
up to 1,600 m asl in Gunung Botol. Barking deer
is also crucial.
prefer dense bush on the forest edges. Results
Barking deer footprints are frequently found in
showed 50 plant species consisting of 22 families
Gunung Halimun National Park. The animal has a deer
as possible feed resources for mouse deer and
–like posture, and the male has short horns and canines
barking deer.
with a smaller, more slender body size than other deer.
Barking deer prefer living among the bushes and shrubs
Key words: feed plant, habitat, Muntiacus muntjak,
growing in abandoned, un–irrigated agricultural fields
Tragulus javanicus.
or teak forests in both lowland and mountainous areas
up to 2,400 m above sea level. Its body hair is short and
Mouse deer (Tragulus javanicus), categorized in family
delicate whilst longer hairs grow around its ears. The
tragulidae, and barking deer (Muntiacus muntjak),
brown–reddish body hair is faded on the bodies of female
categorized in family cer vidae, are distributed in
and young barking deer. The color of its back is darker
Indonesia on Sumatra, Java, Kalimantan, and the
whilst the hair under parts of the chin, neck, and stomach
surrounding islands (Lekagul & McNeely, 1977). The
,
Mouse deer is the world s smallest ruminant, and was
is white. In Thailand, the Barking deer continues to be
first discovered in Java (Van Dort, 1987). It does not have
1977). Both the mouse deer and the barking deer are
horns and the adult male has canine teeth. It is dispersed
solitary species, and both species couple at the time of
throughout the primary and secondary forests of South
mating only. Their feeding activities occur at night and
hunted for its high quality meat (Lekagul & McNeely,
East Asia (Medway, 1983), and according to Kudo et al.
in the early morning. Preser ving the wholeness of the
(1987), has good potential as an herbivorous laboratory
mouse deer and barking deer habitats, and conserving
animal. People have long used the meat of this animal as
the plant species these animals use in their diet is
a protein resource. The Mouse deer, marked by brown–
necessar y to ensure the continued existence of these
reddish body hair with three white lines under the chin,
animals in the Gunung Halimun National Park. Thus it is
is categorized as an endangered species. This condition
necessary to identify the nutrient contents of the selected
has been caused by habitat damage due to exploitation
plants, in the form of young leaves, young shoots, flowers,
of the forest for settlement and plantations, forest fires,
and fruits, for the purpose of finding alternative foods in
372
Wartika Rosa FARIDA, Gono SEMIADI, Tri H. HANDAYANI and HARUN
order to keep these animals in captive breeding programs
between newspapers, and moistened with methylated
(ex situ), both for research and commercial purposes.
spirits to prevent decay and facilitate identification at the
The aim of this research was to understand the habitat
Bogoriense Herbarium.
distributions of mouse deer and barking deer, as well as
In addition, the forest plants samples, in the form of
the diversity and nutrient contents of plants selected by
leaves, trunks, flowers, and fruit, were dried under the
both animals as their feed resources.
sun for 1 – 2 days to prevent decay. The samples were
kept in plastic bags prior to laboratory analysis. In the
laboratory, all the samples were dried in an oven at 60ºC
MATERIALS AND METHODS
for 12–18 hours, milled and kept in closed containers
A field survey was conducted over 14 days in June 2001
prior to nutrient content analysis based on Harris method
using tracks suggested by forest rangers and local
(1970).
people familiar with the presence of mouse deer in the
During the field research, mouse deer were only
Gunung Halimun National Park. The sur vey locations
seen on two occasions during daylight periods. It is very
(Table 1) were in the vicinity of Gunung Kendeng (940
difficult to see this shy animal unless using a camera trap.
m–1,180 m above sea level) and Gunung Botol (1,300 m
Mouse deer and barking deer were distributed in almost
–1,750 m above sea level). This sur vey was an initial
all the research locations (Table 1) at the foot of Gunung
study consisting of visiting places where mouse and
Kendeng, but not in Gunung Botol, Gunung Halimun
barking deer are frequently found, observing the habitat
National Park. The finding of feces, traces of nests and
distribution, and recording any forest plants these
of feed plants, plus information from local people guiding
animals include in their diet. The locations/habitats
researchers around the forest confirmed this during the
preferred by mouse and barking deer were also recorded.
research.
These locations and places were chosen based on the
It is apparent that the mouse deer lives in areas up
fact that mouse deer and barking deer (and/or signs of
to 1,100 m above sea level around Gunung Kendeng,
the nests of these animals) were frequently found there.
whereas literature has mentioned that it can only be seen
Food plant data were obtained based on the types and
in areas up to 600 m above sea level (Hoogerwerf, 1970;
the parts of food plants (e.g. leaf, trunk, and fruit) eaten
Lekagul & McNelly, 1977). Mouse deer seem to prefer
by mouse and barking deer. Obser ving and recording
,
the data of these animals diet, in this study, is limited to
habitat types such as thick, protective bush, holes in
bush/shrub, climbing, grass, and herb.
to Anonymous (1978), the mouse deer is a tropical animal
trunks, holes in rocks, and areas near rivers. According
The plants parts included in the diet were collected
that inhabits primary and secondary forest habitats, and
in order to build a herbarium and to analyze the nutrient
prefers dry land close to springs and dense vegetation.
contents.
The delicate feet of these species make it difficult to find
Plant samples complete with tr unks, branches,
or even see footprints. Researchers found some feces
leaves, flowers, and fruit (if available) were collected, put
on the forest floor, and local people reported that mouse
Table 1. Position of research location in Gunung Halimun National Park
LATD
LATM
LATS
LONGD
LONGM
LONG
DIRLON
ALT
（m asll）
LOCATION
6
44
21.1
S
106
31
50.0
E
1090
Loop trail Citalahab, Gunung Kendeng
6
44
14.2
S
106
31
25.6
E
1030
Tea plantation Nirmala, Citalahab
6
44
28.4
S
106
31
50.1
E
1050
Curug, Gn. Kendeng
6
44
55.3
S
106
32
17.4
E
1000
Cikaniki, Gn. Kendeng
6
45
05.4
S
106
32
24.7
E
1000
Canopy trail
6
44
41.9
S
106
32
36.6
E
970
Cikaniki river, Gu–nung Kendeng
6
44
53.0
S
106
32
16.3
E
1060
Loop trail Cikaniki
6
44
46,4
S
106
32
30.6
E
1100
Cikuda paeh, Gu–nung Kendeng
6
44
35.7
S
106
32
19.9
E
1050
Wates Citalahab
6
44
46.4
S
106
32
30.6
E
1030
Forest of wates
6
44
52.0
S
106
32
46.9
E
1040
Out of forest of wates
6
43
39.4
S
106
29
36.0
E
1520
Gunung Botol
6
43
33.4
S
106
29
00.3
E
1720
Top I of Gunung Botol
373
Plant Diversity and Deer in Gunung Halimun National Park
deer were frequently seen coupling by the sides of rivers
is sufficient to allow mouse deer to consume high fiber
flowing in the area of Gunung Kendeng, and sometimes
food. It is reported that for rough fiber of 12.7 %, the
drinking water there. Mouse deer and barking deer
mouse deer is able to digest 6.4% (Nolan et al., 1995).
have also been seen under tea bushes growing in the
Considering that this research indicates that the rough
Gunung Halimun National Park, and barking deer have
fiber content consumed by mouse deer is higher (Table
frequently been observed during the afternoon on open
3), it is necessary to observe the optimum capability of
land consisting of young tall, coarse grasses.
this animal to consume rough fiber. On the other hand,
Fifty species of feed plants grouped into 22 families
because information on the morphology of the digestive
were documented during the course of this study. Table
organs of barking deer is ver y scarce, research on the
2 shows that all plant species consumed by mouse
anatomy and morphology of the digestive system of this
deer (44 species) are also consumed by barking deer.
animal is greatly needed.
However, there are 6 feed plants species consumed by
The nutrient contents of the plants mouse and
barking deer, namely Foorestia glabrata, Forrestia sp.,
barking deer use as diet resources in their habitats (Table
Ficus grossularioides, F. padana, F. septica, and Imperata
3) show considerable variation. Ash (mineral) content
cylindrica, which are not consumed by mouse deer.
ranges from 5.2% to 32.9% (average 91.7%
Medway (1983) repor ted that the forest mouse deer
from 10.3% to 34.4% (average 19.9%
is ver y selective, consuming plants such as bushes,
2.9% (average 0.9%
some grasses, and fruits lying on the forest floor, whilst
(average 26.4%
according to Kay et al. (1980), the mouse deer prefers
4,691 cal/g (average 3,493.5 cal/g
1.8), protein
5.8), fat from 0.7% to
0.3), rough fiber from 9.6% to 46.3%
9.9), and energy from 2,576 cal/g to
456.2).
leaves containing water, seeds, and easy–to–digest fruits,
The result of nutrient analysis shows that feed plants
such that it is categorized as a browser or concentrate
selected by mouse deer and barking deer as their diet
selector (Agungpriyono, 1992). On the other hand, the
resources have var ying value ranges for the content
barking deer, although also categorized as a browser
of protein and rough fiber. This condition will greatly
or concentrate selector, consumes a higher number
facilitate the effort of supplying and selecting the types
of grass types than the mouse deer. The barking deer
of alternative feed should (ex situ) captive breeding
also consumes leaves, bushes, herbs, and forest fruit
programs – for both research and commercial purposes –
(Leakagul & McNeely, 1977).
ever be established for these animals.
The Barking deer differs from other ruminants in
that it does not like grasses in the vegetative phase but
prefers the young buds of tall, coarse grasses that grow
CONCLUSION
after fire. This willingness to consume young buds in
This research concludes that the mouse deer exists in
burnt fields is linked with the effort of the barking deer
all Gunung Kendeng foot areas up to 1,150 m above sea
and other Cervidae species to meet their mineral needs,
level, but does not exist in the foot areas of Gunung Botol,
and is especially so for male animals growing velvet
whereas the barking deer is distributed in both areas.
(Semiadi, 1998).
The types of habitats preferred by the mouse deer are
There are some plant species consumed by barking
dense, protected areas such as under tea bushes, holes
deer that are not selected by mouse deer as dietar y
in tree trunks, holes in rocks and nearby rivers, whilst
resources. This fact is seemingly caused by the fact that
the barking deer prefers protected bushes in forests
the plants contain alkaloids, which mouse deer cannot
and non–irrigated fields. This research also resulted in
tolerate. It is known that some plants protect their
a documentation of 50 species including 22 families of
leaves from herbivores by producing compounds such
forest plants selected by mouse and barking deer as diet
as tannins and phenols. A sharp sense of smell allows
resources.
mouse deer to avoid these plants and concentrate instead
on plants and leaves not containing such compounds
ACKNOWLEDMENT Financial suppor t for this
(Kinnaird, 1995). Table 2 shows that the kinds of leaves
research was provided by Biodiversity Conser vation
consumed by mouse deer and barking deer are all young,
Project (JICA) in Indonesia, a joint project with LIPI,
easy to digest leaves with soft and palatable trunks, that
PHPA, and JICA.
contain low tannin and lignin levels (Waterman, 1984).
The report of Kudo et al., (1997) states that the amount of
cellulotic microbes in the digestive organs of ruminants
374
Wartika Rosa FARIDA, Gono SEMIADI, Tri H. HANDAYANI and HARUN
Table 2. List of feed plants of mouse deer and barking deer in Gunung Halimun National Park
No.
Family
Scientific name
Local name
Parts consumed
Eaten by
Kind of Plants
1.
Acanthaceae
Tetraglochidium bibracteatum
Peki
Leaf & young trunk
M&B
Climbing
2.
Amaranthaceae
–
Teklan
Leaf & young trunk, flower
M&B
Shrub
3.
Araceae
Schismatoglottis calyptrata
Solempat
Young trunk
M&B
Shrub
Schismatoglottis rupestris
Cariang
Young trunk
M&B
Shrub
4.
Asteraceae
Adenostemma macrophyllum
Babadotan（wild）
Leaf & young trunk
M&B
Shrub
Bidens chinensis
Hareuga
Leaf & young trunk
M&B
Shrub
Clibadium surinamense
Nampong
Leaf, flower, & fruit
M&B
Shrub
Erechtites valerianifolia
Sintrong
Leaf & young trunk
M&B
Shrub
Galinsogo parviflora
Semingu
Leaf & young trunk
M&B
Shrub
Climbing
Mikania cordata
Capituheur
Leaf & young trunk
M&B
5.
Balsaminaceae
Impatiens javensis
Pacar tere
Leaf & young trunk
M&B
Shrub
6.
Caryophyllaceae
Drymaria cordata
Ibun
Leaf & young trunk
M&B
Shrub
7.
Commelinaceae
Commelina paleata
Gewor
Leaf & young trunk
M&B
Shrub
Forrestia glabrata
Tali sahid（red）
Leaf
B
Shrub
Forrestia sp.
Tali sahid（green）
Leaf & young trunk
B
Shrub
Climbing
8.
Convolvulaceae
Ipomoea batatas
Hui areuy beureum
Leaf & young trunk
M&B
9.
Cucurbitaceae
Cucumis sativus
Bonteng
Young leaf
M&B
Climbing
Cucurbita moschata
Labu kuning
Young leaf
M&B
Climbing
Shrub
Sechium edule
Labu siam
Young leaf
M&B
10.
Cyperaceae
Carex baccans
Ilat
Young leaf
M&B
Shrub
11.
Euphorbiaceae
Omalanthus giganteus
Kareumi
Leaf & young trunk
M&B
Shrub
12.
Fabaceae
Teramnus labialis
Kakacangan
Leaf & young trunk
M&B
Climbing
13.
Moraceae
Ficus grossularioides
Seuhang
Young leaf
B
Young tree
F. padana
Hamerang
Young leaf
B
Young tree
F. septica
Beunying
Young leaf
B
Young tree
14.
Onagraceae
Jussieua linifolia
Cacabean
Leaf & young trunk
M&B
Shrub
15.
Poaceae
Axonopus compressus
Jampang sliper
Leaf & young trunk
M&B
Grass
Digitaria sp.
Kukucayan
Leaf & young trunk
M&B
Grass
Eleusine indica
Jampang carulang
Leaf & young trunk
M&B
Grass
Isachne sp.
Bayona（red）
Leaf & young trunk
M&B
Grass
I. albens
Lameta
Leaf & young trunk
M&B
Grass
Imperata cylindrica
Alang–alang
Leaf & young trunk
B
Grass
Lophaterum gracile
Tangkur gunung
Leaf & young trunk
M&B
Grass
Miscanthus floridulus
Hutamala
Leaf & young trunk
M&B
Grass
Panicum trigonum
Bayona（green）
Leaf & young trunk
M&B
Grass
P. repens
Jajahean
Leaf & young trunk
M&B
Grass
Paspalum conyugatum
Jampang pahit
Young leaf
M&B
Grass
Setaria barbata
Lamotek
Leaf & young trunk
M&B
Grass
S. palmifolia
Sawuheun
Leaf & young trunk
M&B
Grass
Urochloa muticum
Inggris grass
Leaf & young trunk
M&B
Grass
16.
Plantaginaceae
Plantago major
Kiurat
Leaf, flower & young trunk
M&B
Shrub
17.
Polygalaceae
Polygala paniculata
Akar wangi
Leaf & young trunk
M&B
Shrub
18.
Polygonaceae
Polygonum chinensis
Bungbrun
Leaf & young trunk
M&B
Shrub
19.
Rubiaceae
Anotis hirsuta
Kasimukan
Leaf & young trunk
M&B
Shrub
Borreria alata
Goletrak
Leaf, flower & young trunk
M&B
Shrub
Hedyotis auricularia
Kakawatan
Leaf & young trunk
M&B
Shrub
Mussaenda frondosa
Kingkilaban
Young leaf
M&B
Climbing
Macrothelypteris torresiana
Pakis beunyeur
Leaf & young trunk
M&B
Herb
20.
Thelypteridaceae
21.
Urticaceae
Elatostema sp.
Kibeling（wild）
Leaf & young trunk
M&B
Shrub
22.
Verbenaceae
Stachytarpheta jamaicensis
Jarong
Leaf & young trunk
M&B
Shrub
Notes : M = Mouse deer ; B = Barking deer
375
Plant Diversity and Deer in Gunung Halimun National Park
Table 3. Nutrient contents of feed plants of mouse deer and barking deer
No.
Local name
Dry matter
Ash
Protein
Fat
Crude fiber
Energy
%
%
%
%
%
cal/g
1.
Kingkilaban
90.4
8.3
13,1
0.8
27.9
3942
2.
Nampong
89.9
17.2
22,0
1.5
29.9
3498
3.
Kakawatan
90.7
11.6
18,5
0.8
30.4
3839
4.
Jampang pahit
92.4
14.5
13,9
0.8
32.6
3923
5.
Inggris grass
91.4
13.8
18,6
0.8
31.0
3414
6.
Ilat
90.6
13.1
11,9
0.8
46.3
3682
7.
Capituheur
89.6
16.3
23,4
0.8
34.3
3565
8.
Sawuheun
93.1
11.7
15,5
0.8
46.0
3169
9.
Pakis beunyeur
90.5
11.6
24,8
1.0w
36.1
4636
10.
Pacar tere
91.3
15.6
22,1
0.8
44.0
3336
11.
Sintrong
89.8
18.6
29.0
1.5
13.7
3372
12.
Tangkur gunung
92.1
8.2
13,4
0.8
43.1
3951
13.
Hutamala
91.9
10.3
10,5
0.8
41.6
3535
14.
Gewor
91.7
18.6
21,0
0.8
22.5
3467
15.
Goletrak
90.3
15.8
31.2
0.8
12.4
2929
16.
Jampang sliper
91.5
9.7
12.7
0.8
35.0
3513
17.
Lamotek
92.2
14.4
22.2
0.8
23.0
4041
18.
Lameta
95.2
8.1
15.7
0.8
36.0
3554
3529
19.
Kakacangan
93.9
8.9
24.8
0.8
31.7
20.
Bayona（green）
95.7
9.1
14.4
0.8
32.2
3643
21.
Bayona（red）
91.5
7.6
17.7
0.8
21.8
3701
22.
Hui areuy bereum
95.7
10.6
27.8
0.8
16.5
3808
3557
23.
Kasimukan
93.3
15.5
20.2
0.8
26.2
24.
Babadotan（wild）
93.3
14.6
21.8
0.9
12.8
4307
25.
Teklan
90.4
11.4
19.0
1.0
19.6
3362
26.
Semingu
90.3
14.2
23.1
0.8
25.3
3403
27.
Akar wangi
93.3
5,2
22.5
0.8
19.1
3575
28.
Hareuga
90.5
11.5
28.5
0.9
13.9
3214
29.
Bungbrun
90.2
8.8
21.5
0.9
17.9
3155
30.
Kareumi
91.9
6.8
24.1
0.9
11.1
3502
31.
Kukucayan
92.6
14.5
21.2
0.8
30.7
3160
32.
Kibeling（wild）
90.8
15.3
21.0
0.9
18.1
3606
33.
Tali sahid（green）:
–Leaf
92.4
8.9
21.6
1.0
19.8
3300
–Young trunk
92.6
17.1
19.4
1.0
24.9
3608
– leaf
90.8
13.1
20.2
1.0
2.05
3464
Peki
92.3
8.5
18.0
1.5
29.3
3162
34.
35.
Tali sahid（red）:
36.
Jampang carulang
92.6
9.8
16.8
0.8
38.1
3394
37.
Jarong
92.8
6.4
17.2
0.8
17.0
3469
38.
Jajahean
91.1
8.7
14.9
0.8
32.9
3925
39.
Cacabean
91.7
7.7
22.9
0.8
9.6
3601
40.
Cariang（young trunk）
90.6
32.9
10.8
0.8
19.4
4213
41.
Solempat（young trunk）
86.1
27.5
10.3
0.8
26.0
2576
42.
Ibun
91.9
8.2
18.2
0.7
35.6
3143
43.
Kiurat
92.5
16.6
22.1
0.9
17.8
2789
44.
Hamerang
90.6
8.6
14.6
2.9
29.4
4691
45.
Beunying
95.4
10.2
17.0
0.9
32.3
2879
46.
Seuhang
91.6
8.5
19.4
0.7
23.9
3632
47.
Alang–alang
93.7
5.9
11.9
0.7
37.2
3379
376
48.
Wartika Rosa FARIDA, Gono SEMIADI, Tri H. HANDAYANI and HARUN
Labu kuning
90.5
12.6
34.4
0.9
12.7
2594
49.
Labu siam
89.7
15.5
34.0
0.8
14.8
2780
50.
Bonteng
90.8
16.5
24.6
0.8
14.8
2644
REFERENCES
H., Ho, Y. W. & Jalaludin, S. 1995. Food intake,
nutrient utilization and water turnover in the lesser
Adhikerana, A. S. 1999. Keanekaragaman jenis satwa
mouse deer (Tragulus javanicus) given lundai
di Taman Nasional Gunung Halimun sebagai aset
(Sapium baccatum). Comparative Biochemistry and
wisata alam. Laporan Ekspose dan Lokakar ya
Physiology IIIA (1): 177–182.
Potensi Taman Nasional Gunung Halimun dan
Payne, J., Francis, C. M., & Phillips, K. 1985. A Field
Pemanfaatannya secara Berkelanjutan. JICA,
Guide to The Mammals of Bor neo. The Sabah
Puslitbang Biologi – LIPI, dan Ditjen PHPA, Dept.
Kehutanan dan Perkebunan. Bandung, 226–27
Maret 1999. Pp. 55–65.
Agungpriyono, S., Yamamoto, Y., Kitamura, N., Yamada,
J., Sigit, K., & Yamashita, T. 1992. Morphological
Society with World Wildlife Fund Malaysia.
Semiadi, G. 1998. Budidaya Rusa Tropika sebagai
Hewan Ternak. Masyarakat Zoologi Indonesia.
Bogor.
Van Dor t, M. 1987. Note on the Skull Size in The
study on the stomach of the lesser mouse deer
Two Symmetric Mouse Deer Species, Tragulus
(Tragulus javanicus) with special reference to the
javanicus Osbeck, 1765 and Tragulus napu F. Cuvier,
internal sur face. Journal of Veterinar y Medical
1822. Institute of Taxonomy Zoology. Zoological
Science 54: 1063–1069.
Museum, University of Amsterdam. Netherlands.
Anonymous. 1978. Pedoman Pengelolaan Satwa Langka.
Waterman, P. G. 1984. Food acquisition and processing as
Jilid I : Mamalia, Reptilia, dan Amphibia. Direktorat
a function of plant chemistry. Pp. 177–211. In Food
Jenderal Kehutanan. Direktorat Perlindungan dan
acquisition and processing in primates (Chivers, D.
Pengawetan Alam. Bogor.
J., Wood, B. A. and Bilsborough, A. Eds.). Plenum
Har ris, L. E. 1970. Nutrition Research Techniques
Publishing Corporation, New York.
for Domestic and Wild Animals. Animal Science
Received 10th Mar. 2006
Department, Utah State University, Logan.
Accepted 19th June. 2006
Hoogerwerf, A. 1970. Udjung Kulon. The Land of The
Last Javan Rhinoceros. Leiden.
IUCN. 1986. IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals.
IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
Kay, R. N. B., Engelhardt, Von W. & White, R. E. 1980.
The digestive physiology and Metabolism in
Ruminants. 1st Ed. Avi Publishing Co. Westpor t,
Conn. USA.
Kinnaird, M. F. 1995. North Sulawesi. A Natural History
Guide. Development Institute Wallacea, Jakarta.
Kudo, H., Fukuta, K., Imai, S., Dahlan, I., Abdullah, N.,
Ho, Y.W. & Jalaludin, S. 1997. Establishment of
lesser mouse deer (Tragulus javanicus) colony for
use as a new laboratory animal and/or companion
animal. JIRCAS Journal No. 4: 79–88.
Lekagul, B. & McNeely, J. A. 1977. Mammals of Thailand.
The association for the conser vation of wildlife,
Bangkok.
Medway, Ld. 1983. The W ild Mammals of Malaya
(Peninsular Malaysia) and Singapore. 2nd Edition.
Oxford University Press. Kuala Lumpur.
Nolan, J. V., Liang, J. B., Abdullah, N., Kudo, H., Ismail,