Journal of Forestry Research

, Volume 10, Issue 2, pp 107–110 | Cite as

Weight contributions of stomach compartment and organs to body weight of Mongolian gazelles

  • Li Junsheng
  • Ma Jianzhang
  • Jiang Zhaowen
  • Wang Wen


The stomach compartments of 51 Mongolian gazelles (Procapra guttrurosa) were weighed and the data were compared with total body weight. The total tissue weights ranged from 2.70% to 2.82% of body weight. Rumens were the heaviest, occupying about 75% of the total stomach, followed by reticulums (9%–11%), abomasums (8%–10%) and omasums (4%–6%). The weights of rumens were directly proportional to body weights and weights of omasums and abomasums were inversely related to body weights. Stomachs of the Mongolian gazelle were of the “mixed feeder” in terms of total weight and contribution of each compartment.

Key words

Procapra guttrurosa Stomach compartment Body weight 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bell, R.H.V. 1971. A grazing ecosystem in the Serengeti. Sci. Am.,225:86–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chivers, D.J. and Hladik, C.M. 1980. Morphology of the gastrointestinal tract in primates: comparisons with other mammals in relation to diet. J. Morphol.,166:337–386PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Church, D.C. and Hines, W.H. 1978, Ruminoreticular characteristics of elk. J. Wildl. Manage,42:654–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Demment, M.W. and Van Soest, P.J. 1982. Body size, digestive capacity and feeding strategies of Herbivores. Morrilton, Arkansas: Winrock International Livestock Research PublicationGoogle Scholar
  5. Gao Zhongxin, Jin Kun, Ma Jianzhanget al. 1995. Winter food habits of Mongolian gazelle in Hulunberer Grassland. Acta Theriologica Sinica,15:203–20Google Scholar
  6. Geist, V. 1974. On the relationship of social evolution and ecology in ungulates. Am. Zool.14:205–220Google Scholar
  7. Hakonson, T.E. and Whiicher, F.W. 1971. The contribution of various tissues and organs to total body mass in the mule deer. J. Mammal,52:628–630PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hofmann, R.R. 1973. The ruminant stomach. E. Afr. Monogr. Biol. Vol. 2. E. Afr. Lit. Bureau, Nairobi, Kenya, 354ppGoogle Scholar
  9. Hu, Shing Tsung, Hannaway, D.B. and Youngberg, H.W. 1992. Forage resources of China. Wageningen, Netherlands. Center for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation (Pudoc): 327ppGoogle Scholar
  10. Hungate, R.E. 1966, The rumen and its microbes. New York and London, Academic Press: 533ppGoogle Scholar
  11. Jarman, P.J. 1974. The social organization of antelope in relation to their ecology. Behavior,48:215–267Google Scholar
  12. Jiang Zhaowen, Xu Li and Zheng Hong. 1991. The comparative analyses on age identification indexes of Mongolian gazelle. Chinese Wildlife,3:25–28Google Scholar
  13. Nagy, J.G. and Regelin, W.L. 1975. Comparison of digestive organ size of three species. J. Wildl. Manage.,39: 621–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Seiki Takatsuki. 1988. The weight contribution of stoamch compartments of Sika doer. J. Wildl. Manage.,52: 313–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Short, H.L. 1964. Postnatal stomach development of whitetailed deer. J. Wildl. Manage.,28: 445–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Northeast Forestry University 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Li Junsheng
    • 1
  • Ma Jianzhang
    • 1
  • Jiang Zhaowen
    • 2
  • Wang Wen
    • 1
  1. 1.College of Wildlife ResourcesNortheast Forestry UniversityHarbinP. R. China
  2. 2.Tokyo UniversityJapan

Personalised recommendations