Lifetime reproductive success and composition of the home range in a large herbivore.

The relationship between individual performance and nonrandom use of habitat is fundamental to ecology; however, empirical tests of this relationship remain limited, especially for higher orders of selection like that of the home range. We quantified the association between lifetime reproductive success (LRS) and variables describing lifetime home ranges during the period of maternal care (spring to autumn) for 77 female roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) at Trois-Fontaines, Champagne-Ardenne, France (1976-2000). We maintained population growth rate (adjusted to account for removals of non-focal animals) near rmax, which enabled us to define the fitness-habitat relationship in the absence of density effects. Using a negative binomial model, we showed that a roe deer's incorporation into its home range of habitat components important to food, cover, and edge (meadows, thickets, and increased density of road allowances) was significantly related to LRS. Further, LRS decreased with increasing age of naturally reclaimed meadows at the time of a deer's birth, which may have reflected a cohort effect related to, but not entirely explained by, a decline in quality of meadows through time. Predictive capacity of the selected model, estimated as the median correlation (rs) between predicted and observed LRS among deer of cross-validation samples, was 0.55. The strength of this relationship suggests that processes like selection of the site of a home range during dispersal may play a more important role in determining fitness of individuals than previously thought. Individual fitness of highly sedentary income breeders with high reproductive output such as roe deer should be more dependent on home range quality during the period of maternal care compared to capital breeders with low reproductive output. Identification of the most important habitat attributes to survival and reproduction at low density (low levels of intraspecific competition) may prove useful for defining habitat value ("intrinsic habitat value").

[1]  Gregory P. Brown,et al.  Like mother, like daughter: inheritance of nest-site location in snakes , 2007, Biology Letters.

[2]  S. Juliano,et al.  POPULATION DYNAMICS , 2007, Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association.

[3]  J. B. James,et al.  The ideal free pike: 50 years of fitness-maximizing dispersal in Windermere , 2006, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

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

[5]  T. E. Martin,et al.  Habitat Selection Responses of Parents to Offspring Predation Risk: An Experimental Test , 2006, The American Naturalist.

[6]  D. Morris.  Ecology: Moving to the ideal free home , 2006, Nature.

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

[8]  Bruce A. Robertson,et al.  A framework for understanding ecological traps and an evaluation of existing evidence. , 2006, Ecology.

[9]  Sasha R. X. Dall,et al.  Estimating individual contributions to population growth: evolutionary fitness in ecological time , 2006, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[10]  S. Saïd,et al.  The Influence of Landscape Structure on Female Roe Deer Home-range Size , 2005, Landscape Ecology.

[11]  Jean-Michel Gaillard,et al.  Ecological correlates of home‐range size in spring–summer for female roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) in a deciduous woodland , 2005 .

[12]  Nathalie Pettorelli,et al.  The response of fawn survival to changes in habitat quality varies according to cohort quality and spatial scale , 2005 .

[13]  Stan Boutin,et al.  Relating predation mortality to broad‐scale habitat selection , 2005 .

[14]  J. Gaillard,et al.  Big mothers invest more in daughters – reversed sex allocation in a weakly polygynous mammal , 2005 .

[15]  O. Widmer.  The effects of hurricane Lothar on habitat use of roe deer , 2004 .

[16]  Lars Gustafsson,et al.  Single‐Generation Estimates of Individual Fitness as Proxies for Long‐Term Genetic Contribution , 2004, The American Naturalist.

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

[18]  Jean Thioulouse,et al.  The ade4 package - I : One-table methods , 2004 .

[19]  Nathalie Pettorelli,et al.  AGE AND DENSITY MODIFY THE EFFECTS OF HABITAT QUALITY ON SURVIVAL AND MOVEMENTS OF ROE DEER , 2003 .

[20]  N. Pettorelli,et al.  Effects of hurricane lothar on the population dynamics of european roe deer , 2003 .

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

[22]  Douglas W. Morris,et al.  Toward an ecological synthesis: a case for habitat selection , 2003, Oecologia.

[23]  J. Gaillard,et al.  Cohort effects and deer population dynamics , 2003 .

[24]  C. Dormann.  Consequences of manipulations in carbon and nitrogen supply for concentration of anti-herbivore defence compounds in Salix polaris , 2003 .

[25]  M. Boyce,et al.  Evaluating resource selection functions , 2002 .

[26]  N. Pettorelli,et al.  Variations in adult body mass in roe deer: the effects of population density at birth and of habitat quality , 2002, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[27]  Brian D. Ripley,et al.  Modern Applied Statistics with S Fourth edition , 2002 .

[28]  Miguel Delibes,et al.  Effects of an Attractive Sink Leading into Maladaptive Habitat Selection , 2001, The American Naturalist.

[29]  D. Schneider.  The Rise of the Concept of Scale in Ecology , 2001 .

[30]  J. Gaillard,et al.  Temporal Variation in Fitness Components and Population Dynamics of Large Herbivores , 2000 .

[31]  Douglas W. Morris,et al.  OPTIMALLY FORAGING MICE MATCH PATCH USE WITH HABITAT DIFFERENCES IN FITNESS , 2000 .

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

[33]  J. Gaillard,et al.  Body mass and individual fitness in female ungulates: bigger is not always better , 2000, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[34]  P. McLoughlin,et al.  A hierarchical pattern of limiting factors helps explain variation in home range size , 2000 .

[35]  T. Clutton‐Brock,et al.  The relationship between habitat choice and lifetime reproductive success in female red deer , 1999, Oecologia.

[36]  John D. C. Linnell,et al.  Family effects on growth and survival of juvenile roe deer , 1998 .

[37]  J. Gaillard,et al.  Early survival in roe deer: causes and consequences of cohort variation in two contrasted populations , 1997, Oecologia.

[38]  Michael L. Morrison,et al.  The habitat concept and a plea for standard terminology , 1997 .

[39]  John D. C. Linnell,et al.  Habitat use and ecological correlates of home range size in a small cervid : the roe deer , 1996 .

[40]  B. Manly,et al.  Resource selection by animals: statistical design and analysis for field studies. , 1994 .

[41]  Roger Pradel,et al.  Roe deer survival patterns: a comparative analysis of contrasting populations , 1993 .

[42]  S. Levin.  The problem of pattern and scale in ecology , 1992 .

[43]  T. Clutton‐Brock,et al.  Cohort Variation in Reproduction and Survival: Implications for Population Demography , 1992 .

[44]  M. Rosenzweig,et al.  Habitat Selection and Population Interactions: The Search for Mechanism , 1991, The American Naturalist.

[45]  James F. Wittenberger,et al.  Spatial and Temporal Scales in Habitat Selection , 1991, The American Naturalist.

[46]  T. Clutton‐Brock,et al.  Fitness costs of gestation and lactation in wild mammals , 1989, Nature.

[47]  J. Wiens.  Spatial Scaling in Ecology , 1989 .

[48]  H. Pulliam,et al.  Sources, Sinks, and Population Regulation , 1988, The American Naturalist.

[49]  T. Clutton‐Brock,et al.  Early development and population dynamics in red deer. II: Density-independent effects and cohort variation , 1987 .

[50]  M. Rosenzweig,et al.  A Theory of Habitat Selection , 1981 .

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

[52]  C. Robbins,et al.  Fetal and Neonatal Growth Patterns and Maternal Reproductive Effort in Ungulates and Subungulates , 1979, The American Naturalist.

[53]  E. Charnov.  Optimal foraging, the marginal value theorem. , 1976, Theoretical population biology.

[54]  R. Taber,et al.  The Roe Deer (Capreolus capreolus) Population at Kalo and the Factors Regulating Its Size , 1974 .

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

[56]  R. Macarthur,et al.  On Optimal Use of a Patchy Environment , 1966, The American Naturalist.

[57]  C. Stern.  CONCLUDING REMARKS OF THE CHAIRMAN , 1950 .