Effects of landscape and land‐ownership patterns on deer movements in a suburban community

Kilpatrick, Howard J.; LaBonte, Andrew M.; Barclay, John S.

doi:10.1002/wsb.48

Cited by 18 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Using the x ‐intercept of the correlogram as the diameter of a genetic patch (Epperson ), we can delineate a circular area of 12.6 ha centered on any given sample wherein fecal samples are more likely to be genetically similar to each other than to samples separated by greater distances. Although our data cannot be used to determine individual home range size, an area of 13 ha is smaller than the typical mean home range size reported for female deer in suburban landscapes (range of means = 25–93 ha; Cornicelli et al , Grund et al , Kilpatrick et al ), again reinforcing our findings that multiple groups of related deer may have been using the same areas. Blanchong et al () also detected patterns of relatedness within urban parks of southeast Michigan consistent with a matrilineal group structure.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

“…However, those studies were conducted using a coarser sampling grain over larger spatial extents that spanned several counties. Our results reflect the reduced spatial scale of home ranges of white‐tailed deer in suburban landscapes (Cornicelli et al , Etter et al , Grund et al , Kilpatrick et al ). Female genotypes were significantly autocorrelated up to pairwise inter‐individual distances of only 400 m in both sampling sites.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 63%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Fine‐scale spatial genetic structure of deer in a suburban landscape

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hunting regulations traditionally applied to manage deer populations in rural areas are not well suited to management in heavily populated suburban landscapes. We evaluated the spatial genetic structure of a suburban deer population to assess the feasibility of localized management at the scale of social groups. We used fecal DNA from white‐tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in suburban Michigan to determine whether deer in suburban landscapes maintain the matrilineal social structure that has been observed in studies of rural deer. We amplified 7 microsatellite loci from fecal pellets (n = 591) collected from August to October 2013 on public and private lands throughout Meridian Township, Ingham County, central Michigan, USA. Based on multi‐locus genotypes, we identified individuals, quantified the extent of spatial genetic structure at multiple spatial scales, identified the location and spatial extent of aggregations of related females and males, and estimated genetic neighborhood size. We also used landscape genetic analyses to evaluate associations between measures of land cover, edge density, the presence of major roads, and inter‐individual genetic distance. Spatial genetic autocorrelation was positive and significant up to a distance of 0.5 km. We did not detect correlations between landscape variables and inter‐individual genetic distance. Results indicate that deer in suburban landscapes exhibit familial structure reported for deer in more rural areas, albeit at a smaller spatial scale, and with substantial overlap among groups. Management at the spatial scales of genetically related groups of deer may be feasible in suburban communities. © 2018 The Wildlife Society.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 63%

Fine‐scale spatial genetic structure of deer in a suburban landscape

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Contrary to expectations, aggregative response was more likely to be associated with direct than indirect consumers changes habitat selection (but see e.g. Kilpatrick et al 2011). Therefore, researchers interested in habitat selection should be particularly aware that the selected habitats are likely to vary through time.…”

Section: Hypothesis 3 Are Indirect Consumers More Likely To Respond mentioning

confidence: 79%

“…Few targeted studies (TS) have explored how mast‐seeding changes habitat selection (but see e.g. Kilpatrick et al ). Therefore, researchers interested in habitat selection should be particularly aware that the selected habitats are likely to vary through time.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How do vertebrates respond to mast seeding?

Bogdziewicz

Zwolak

Crone

2015

Oikos

118

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mast‐seeding is the synchronized and intermittent production of a large seed crop by a population of plants. The cascading effects of masting on wildlife have been well documented in granivorous rodents. Yet, the effects of mast‐seeding are potentially further reaching, since a number of generalist species can take advantage of mast years. We employed a full‐text search algorithm to identify all papers that discussed effects of mast‐seeding on wildlife, in addition to typical searches of titles and abstracts. We aimed to evaluate the breadth of wildlife species for which mast years are thought to be important drivers. In addition, we tested three hypotheses derived from past reviews: 1) species with lower reproductive potential (lower average litter size) are more likely to show aggregative responses to mast‐seeding, 2) species with lower body sizes (lower mobility) are more likely to show reproductive responses, and 3) indirect consumers of mast (predators) are more likely to show aggregative responses than direct consumers. We found 186 articles including reports of response of 122 species of vertebrates to mast‐seeding. Expectations were partly confirmed: relationships 1) and 2) held for mammals, but not for birds. However, 3) direct consumers were more likely than indirect consumers to show aggregative responses. Our tests of the first two hypotheses question the generality of past predictions for taxa other than mammals. Our test of the third hypothesis suggests that responses of direct and indirect consumers might depend on the type of resource pulse. Many of the examples in our analysis come from systems in which wildlife responses to mast have been less rigorously documented than the examples in past reviews. They suggest the range of wildlife responses to mast‐seeding are more taxonomically and ecologically diverse than past reviews have widely recognized and point to directions for future research.

show abstract

“…In this study, the fragmented nature of suburbia itself may be a driver of the observed functional response of hunters and may contribute to the observed floor on population reduction. Suburban management areas will always include properties that cannot be hunted (refugia) due to mandated set-backs from residential dwellings (Kilpatrick et al, 2011) or due to landowner opposition to deer management. A shift in deer activity toward these refugia will limit hunter success regardless of the creative solutions adopted to increase harvests (S. Williams, Connecticut Agricultural Experimental Station, unpublished data).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%