2008
DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.03.012
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Hunting increases vigilance levels in roe deer and modifies feeding site selection

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

10
136
1

Year Published

2009
2009
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 154 publications
(147 citation statements)
references
References 50 publications
10
136
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Moreover, the observed vigilance levels were comparable to previous field studies with roe deer ( [35]: median vigilance 10.5%, range <0.01-72.7% (Poland); [20]: mean 24.21%, sd 14.55% (France), both sampled outside the hunting period). In contrast to these, we were able to continuously monitor vigilance behavior in focal animals, even when the animal was hidden in cover, and without introducing any disturbance caused by observer presence in the field.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 71%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Moreover, the observed vigilance levels were comparable to previous field studies with roe deer ( [35]: median vigilance 10.5%, range <0.01-72.7% (Poland); [20]: mean 24.21%, sd 14.55% (France), both sampled outside the hunting period). In contrast to these, we were able to continuously monitor vigilance behavior in focal animals, even when the animal was hidden in cover, and without introducing any disturbance caused by observer presence in the field.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 71%
“…Measuring vigilance, therefore, requires (1) monitoring of the structural behavior 'standing with head up' and (2) evaluating the current internal state (i.e., not resting). In field observations that focus on vigilance behavior, the evaluation of an animal's current state is usually handled by observer judgment if the focal animal is active or foraging [18][19][20]. When automated remote monitoring of vigilance behavior with acceleration data is targeted, procedures that predict the internal state of an animal have to be implemented in the modeling framework.…”
Section: Open Accessmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is well known that ungulate populations subjected to hunting pressure display a higher escape response versus populations in areas with no hunting pressure (Stankowich 2008). For example, it has been documented that hunting and other human activities lead to an increase in the daily movement of the American bison Bison bison (Fortin and Andruskiw 2003), and an increase in the level of vigilance of the red deer Cervus elaphus (Jayakody et al 2008) and the European roe deer Capreolus capreolus (Benhaiem et al 2008). However, little is known about the escape responses of Neotropical ungulates to the various disturbances caused by human activities (e. g., hunting, presence of domestic animals, and recreational activities, among others).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We assume that either competition (e.g., between gemsbok and cattle, warthog) and/or risk avoidance (e.g., due to hunting pressure, Benhaiem et al, 2008) might lead to the utilisation of another site by gemsbok, as gemsbok are frequently hunted on the farm and the non-cleared site was mainly used by gemsbok calves . Supposing that hunting was the reason for the distribution of gemsbok, bush clearing in connection with hunting might foil the aim of gaining better visibility of the animals for tourists or management purposes (e.g., counting).…”
Section: Synthesis and Outlookmentioning
confidence: 99%