Access to mates in a territorial ungulate is determined by the size of a male's territory, but not by its habitat quality.

1. Territoriality is commonly associated with resource defence polygyny, where males are expected to gain access to females by anticipating how resources will influence female distribution and competing for resource-rich sites to establish their zone of dominance. 2. We tested this hypothesis in European roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) by simultaneously assessing the influence of resources on female distribution and the influence of female distribution on male distribution and breeding success using paternity analyses. 3. Females did not fully distribute themselves among male territories in relation to resources. As a result, relative female abundance in a male's territory depended on territory size, but not on its habitat quality. In turn, relative female abundance in a male's territory determined, at least partially, his breeding success. 4. Interestingly, male territory size, and hence access to females, was partly determined by male body mass (all males) and by residual antler size (subadults only). The latter result suggests that large antlers may be important to young males for establishing their first territory, which is then usually retained for all subsequent reproductive seasons. 5. To conclude, although territoriality of male roe deer has certainly evolved as a tactic for ensuring access to mates, our results suggest that it does not really conform to a conventional resource defence polygyny strategy, as males seem to gain no obvious benefit from defending a territory in an area of high habitat quality in terms of enhanced access to mates. 6. This may explain the stability of male territories between years, suggesting that male territoriality conforms to an 'always stay' and 'low risk-low gain' mating strategy in roe deer.

[1]  S. Miura Social Behavior and Territoriality in Male Sika Deer (Cervus nippon Temminck 1838) during the Rut , 2010 .

[2]  R. Estes Territorial Behavior of the Wildebeest (Connochaetes taurinus Burchell, 1823)1 , 2010 .

[3]  N. Morellet,et al.  Ranging behaviour and excursions of female roe deer during the rut , 2008, Behavioural Processes.

[4]  O. Liberg,et al.  Mating system, sexual dimorphism, and the opportunity for sexual selection in a territorial ungulate , 2008 .

[5]  RICHARD J. BARKER,et al.  Modeling the Relationship Between Fecal Pellet Indices and Deer Density , 2007 .

[6]  A. Mysterud,et al.  Antler Size Provides an Honest Signal of Male Phenotypic Quality in Roe Deer , 2007, The American Naturalist.

[7]  C. Melis,et al.  Fighting behaviour in territorial male roe deer Capreolus capreolus: the effects of antler size and residence , 2007, European Journal of Wildlife Research.

[8]  Sandro Lovari,et al.  Effects of sampling regime on the mean and variance of home range size estimates. , 2006, The Journal of animal ecology.

[9]  Clément Calenge,et al.  The package “adehabitat” for the R software: A tool for the analysis of space and habitat use by animals , 2006 .

[10]  Mark S Boyce,et al.  Lifetime reproductive success and density-dependent, multi-variable resource selection , 2006, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[11]  J. Gaillard,et al.  Predation risk and longevity influence variation in fitness of female roe deer (Capreolus capreolus L.) , 2004, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[12]  A. Watkinson,et al.  Habitat selection by sympatric muntjac (Muntiacus reevesi) and roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) in a lowland commercial pine forest , 2004 .

[13]  O. Liberg,et al.  Experimental evidence for density-dependence of home-range size in roe deer (Capreolus capreolus L.): a comparison of two long-term studies , 2004, Oecologia.

[14]  David R. Anderson,et al.  Model selection and multimodel inference : a practical information-theoretic approach , 2003 .

[15]  Jonas Nordström,et al.  Cyclic voles, prey switching in red fox, and roe deer dynamics – a test of the alternative prey hypothesis , 2003 .

[16]  D. Chessel,et al.  ECOLOGICAL-NICHE FACTOR ANALYSIS: HOW TO COMPUTE HABITAT-SUITABILITY MAPS WITHOUT ABSENCE DATA? , 2002 .

[17]  N. Pettorelli,et al.  Population density and small-scale variation in habitat quality affect phenotypic quality in roe deer , 2001, Oecologia.

[18]  D. Bates,et al.  Mixed-Effects Models in S and S-PLUS , 2001 .

[19]  J. Gaillard,et al.  Factors affecting maternal care in an income breeder, the European roe deer , 2000 .

[20]  J. Gaillard,et al.  Tests of estimation of age from tooth wear on roe deer of known age: variation within and among populations , 1999 .

[21]  Joshua J. Millspaugh,et al.  Effects of sample size on kernel home range estimates , 1999 .

[22]  T. C. Marshall,et al.  Statistical confidence for likelihood‐based paternity inference in natural populations , 1998, Molecular ecology.

[23]  R. Andersen,et al.  Territorial fidelity and tenure in roe deer bucks , 1998 .

[24]  R. Gill,et al.  Behavioral Ecology of Siberian and European Roe Deer , 1996 .

[25]  Ross Ihaka,et al.  Gentleman R: R: A language for data analysis and graphics , 1996 .

[26]  J. Gaillard,et al.  Behavioural Ecology of Siberian and European Roe Deer , 1995 .

[27]  P. Kjellander,et al.  Ideal free distribution and natal dispersal in female roe deer , 1995, Oecologia.

[28]  J. Carranza Female attraction by males versus sites in territorial rutting red deer , 1995, Animal Behaviour.

[29]  O. Liberg,et al.  Patterns of dispersal and seasonal migration in roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) , 1995 .

[30]  L. K. Wahlstrm The significance of male-male aggression for yearling dispersal in roe deer ( Capreolus capreolus ) , 1994 .

[31]  A. Balmford,et al.  Correlates of female choice in resource-defending antelope , 1992, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[32]  T. Clutton‐Brock Review Lecture: Mammalian mating systems , 1989, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. B. Biological Sciences.

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

[34]  G. Cederlund,et al.  Effects of Severe Winters and Fox Prédation on Roe Deer Mortality , 1983 .

[35]  S. Emlen,et al.  Ecology, sexual selection, and the evolution of mating systems. , 1977, Science.

[36]  N. Owen‐Smith On Territoriality in Ungulates and an Evolutionary Model , 1977, The Quarterly Review of Biology.

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

[38]  Bramley Ps Territoriality and reproductive behaviour of roe deer. , 1970, Journal of reproduction and fertility. Supplement.

[39]  S. Fretwell,et al.  On territorial behavior and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds , 1969 .

[40]  D. J. Neff The pellet-group count technique for big game trend, census, and distribution : a review , 1968 .

[41]  Michael J. Ryan,et al.  Sexual Selection , 2005 .

[42]  Erlend B. Nilsen,et al.  Individual access to preferred habitat affects fitness components in female roe deer Capreolus capreolus , 2004 .

[43]  P. Kjellander Density dependence in roe deer population dynamics , 2000 .

[44]  Rasmus Waagepetersen,et al.  Analysis of spatial data using generalized linear mixed models and Langevin-type Markov chain Monte Carlo , 2000 .

[45]  P. Duncan,et al.  Are European roe deer browsers ? A review of variations in the composition of their diets , 1996, Revue d'Écologie (La Terre et La Vie).

[46]  A. Johansson,et al.  Territorial dynamics and marking behaviour in male roe deer , 1996 .

[47]  Robert E. Kenward,et al.  Wildlife radio tagging : equipment, field techniques and data analysis , 1987 .

[48]  P. Jarman,et al.  The Social Organisation of Antelope in Relation To Their Ecology , 1974 .

[49]  B. Campbell Sexual selection and the descent of man, 1871-1971 , 1972 .

[50]  G. Dubost L’ORGANISATION SPATIALE ET SOCIALE DE MUNTIACUS REEVESI OGILBY 1839 EN SEMI-LIBERTE , 1970 .

[51]  Ronald M. Nowak,et al.  Walker's mammals of the world , 1968 .