Habitat use and ecological correlates of home range size in a small cervid : the roe deer

1. Summer home range size variation and habitat selection of 35 radio-collared adult female roe deer was studied, using kernel home range estimation and compositional analysis of habitat use. 2. Female roe deer adjust the size of their home range in response to decreasing food supply, and the hypothesis that female roe deer utilize the minimum area that sustain their energy requirement cannot be rejected. 3. Home range size increased with the visibility in the home range (the average distance at which sight is blocked by intervening vegetation). This supports the hypothesis that cover is important in reducing the risk of predation and thereby increasing adult survival. 4. Female roe deer spend more time near habitat edges, supporting the hypothesis that different habitat types contain complementary resources, e.g. food and cover or different nutrients. Simultaneous access to several habitat types did not have any effect on home range size, possibly because variation in heterogeneity between different home ranges was too low. 5. Females without fawns had smaller home ranges, possibly because they only need to sustain their own energetic requirements. 6. The analyses of habitat selection inside each home range showed that the forest types, characterized by high densities of food and low visibility, were preferred, suggesting that habitat use is allocated in proportion to either food or cover or both.

[1]  D. Scott,et al.  Habitat usage by red (Cervus elaphus) and roe (Capreolus capreolus) deer in a Scottish Sitka spruce plantation , 1990 .

[2]  Norman A. Slade,et al.  Influence of sampling interval on estimates of home-range size , 1985 .

[3]  Steven W. Buskirk,et al.  HOME RANGE, TIME, AND BODY SIZE IN MAMMALS' , 1986 .

[4]  B. Sæther,et al.  Life history of the moose Alces alces: relationship between growth and reproduction , 1985 .

[5]  Norman A. Slade,et al.  Relating Body Size to the Rate of Home Range Use in Mammals , 1988 .

[6]  G. Seber,et al.  The estimation of animal abundance and related parameters , 1974 .

[7]  T. Schoener,et al.  INTRASPECIFIC VARIATION IN HOME-RANGE SIZE IN SOME ANOLIS LIZARDS' , 1982 .

[8]  B. Silverman.  Density estimation for statistics and data analysis , 1986 .

[9]  D. Kleinbaum,et al.  Applied Regression Analysis and Other Multivariate Methods , 1978 .

[10]  F. Bunnell,et al.  Characterizing independence of observations in movements of columbian black-tailed deer , 1994 .

[11]  J. Schoen,et al.  Black-Tailed Deer Use in Relation to Forest Clear-Cut Edges in Southeastern Alaska , 1983 .

[12]  D. Tilman.  Resource competition and community structure. , 1983, Monographs in population biology.

[13]  R. Hofmann,et al.  Digestive physiology of the deer - their morphophysiological specialisation and adaptation. , 1985 .

[14]  F. T. Jung.  The Fire of Life , 1962 .

[15]  W. Laurance,et al.  Predicting the impacts of edge effects in fragmented habitats , 1991 .

[16]  B. Fruziński,et al.  Habitat, density and spatial structure of the forest roe deer population , 1983 .

[17]  A. Harestad,et al.  Home Range and Body Weight‐‐A Reevaluation , 1979 .

[18]  V. P. W. Lowe,et al.  The Roe Deer (Capreolus capreolus) Population at Kalo and the Factors Regulating Its Size. , 1973 .

[19]  F. Bunnell,et al.  Testing responses to forest edges: the example of black-tailed deer , 1992 .

[20]  R. Larsen,et al.  An introduction to mathematical statistics and its applications (2nd edition) , by R. J. Larsen and M. L. Marx. Pp 630. £17·95. 1987. ISBN 13-487166-9 (Prentice-Hall) , 1987, The Mathematical Gazette.

[21]  C. McManus,et al.  Estimation of genetic and phenotypic parameters for growth and reproductive traits for red deer on an upland farm , 1991 .

[22]  L. J. Lyon,et al.  Management Implications of Elk and Deer Use of Clear-Cuts in Montana , 1980 .

[23]  B. Worton.  Kernel methods for estimating the utilization distribution in home-range studies , 1989 .

[24]  A. Sempéré,et al.  Food availability as a factor in habitat use by roe deer , 1989 .

[25]  Douglas H. Johnson.  THE COMPARISON OF USAGE AND AVAILABILITY MEASUREMENTS FOR EVALUATING RESOURCE PREFERENCE , 1980 .

[26]  Nicholas J. Aebischer,et al.  Compositional Analysis of Habitat Use From Animal Radio-Tracking Data , 1993 .

[27]  A. Bowman.  A comparative study of some kernel-based nonparametric density estimators , 1985 .

[28]  J. R. Alldredge,et al.  Comparison of some statistical techniques for analysis of resource selection , 1986 .

[29]  J. Byers,et al.  Do pronghorn mothers reveal the locations of their hidden fawns? , 1983, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[30]  G. Cederlund.  Home range dynamics and habitat selection by roe deer in a boreal area in central Sweden , 1983 .

[31]  B. McNab,et al.  Bioenergetics and the Determination of Home Range Size , 1963, The American Naturalist.

[32]  B. Bobek.  Summer food as the factor limiting roe deer population size , 1977, Nature.