Landscape Heterogeneity at Differing Scales: Effects on Spatial Distribution of Mule Deer

Kie, John G.; Bowyer, R. Terry; Nicholson, Matthew C.; Boroski, Brian B.; Loft, Eric R.

doi:10.2307/2680033

Cited by 126 publications

(189 citation statements)

References 63 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

167

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Spatial heterogeneity has been found to be an important predictor of ungulate distribution and foraging patterns (Turner et al 1997;Mysterud et al 1999;Kie et al 2002). Our results support the findings of Hjeljord et al (1990) that found a mix of older and younger forests to be important for moose.…”

Section: Habitat Usesupporting

confidence: 83%

Space and habitat use of moose in southwestern Sweden

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Increasingly, wildlife managers and land managers are challenged to maintain the viability of large mammal populations. Although the moose (Alces alces) is an ecologically, economically, and culturally important ungulate species found throughout most of Sweden, little is known about its ecology throughout the southern part of the country. We collected baseline ecological data on spatial and habitat use patterns in urbanized southwestern Sweden by fitting 22 adult moose (13 F, nine M) with global positioning system (GPS) radio collars. Home range size of cows did not differ among seasons (P>0.10); however, bulls had larger home ranges during fall than all other seasons (P<0.010). Mean home range size of males during fall and spring was larger than females during any season (P<0.010). We used a Euclidean distance-based approach to analyze multi-scale habitat selection by moose. Moose of both sexes and during all seasons selected boreal forest and mires when establishing a home range (P<0.10). Moose had seasonal differences in habitat selection within their home range (P0.001), and generally selected clear-cuts and early successional forests, mature coniferous forests, and glades, but avoided agricultural areas and open water. Habitat and space use characteristics of moose in our urbanizing study area were similar to characteristics reported for moose in forest-dominated landscapes of Fennoscandia.

show abstract

Section: Habitat Usesupporting

confidence: 83%

Space and habitat use of moose in southwestern Sweden

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We expected incidence would be negatively related to % deciduous forest and edge density of forest because smaller home range size (Kie et al 2002, Walter et al 2009) and group-size (Hirth 1977, Nixon et al 1991 would reduce betweengroup contact rates (Habib et al 2011). Instead, we found evidence that incidence was positively related to % deciduous forest and edge density of forest.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 54%

“…Mean shape index measures patch compactness, and is the patch perimeter relative to the perimeter of a maximally compact patch of the same size, averaged across forest patches (McGarigal and Marks 1995). Both indices are negatively related to home range size of deer (Kie et al 2002, Skuldt 2005 and likely relate to the degree of resource interspersion.…”

Section: Landscapementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Aggregation of individuals and groups increases potential disease transmission (Cross et al 2007), and seasonal aggregation of white-tailed deer groups occurs more frequently in open agricultural landscapes than in heavily forested landscapes (Hirth 1977, Nixon et al 1991, Mandujano and Gallina 1996, Lingle 2003. Additionally, deer home range size is inversely related to habitat heterogeneity (Kie et al 2002, Saïd and Servanty 2005, Skuldt 2005, Walter et al 2009), and overlap of social groups may decrease as home range size v www.esajournals.org decreases, potentially reducing infectious contact.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Deer density and disease prevalence influence transmission of chronic wasting disease in white‐tailed deer

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Host-parasite dynamics and strategies for managing infectious diseases of wildlife depend on the functional relationship between disease transmission rates and host density. However, the disease transmission function is rarely known for free-living wildlife, leading to uncertainty regarding the impacts of diseases on host populations and effective control actions. We evaluated the influence of deer density, landscape features, and soil clay content on transmission of chronic wasting disease (CWD) in young (,2-year-old) white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in south-central Wisconsin, USA. We evaluated how frequency-dependent, density-dependent, and intermediate transmission models predicted CWD incidence rates in harvested yearling deer. An intermediate transmission model, incorporating both disease prevalence and density of infected deer, performed better than simple density-and frequencydependent models. Our results indicate a combination of social structure, non-linear relationships between infectious contact and deer density, and distribution of disease among groups are important factors driving CWD infection in young deer. The landscape covariates % deciduous forest cover and forest edge density also were positively associated with infection rates, but soil clay content had no measurable influences on CWD transmission. Lack of strong density-dependent transmission rates indicates that controlling CWD by reducing deer density will be difficult. The consequences of non-linear disease transmission and aggregation of disease on cervid populations deserves further consideration.

show abstract

“…Habitat factors (habitat structure, home range temperature) control the size of 50% core areas. We expect the 50% core areas to decrease with increasing habitat structure (e.g., area of large wood, habitat richness; Kie et al 2002;McLoughlin et al 2003;Buner et al 2005), as well as to decrease with increasing temperature (Schwarzkopf and Alford 1996;Seebacher and Alford 2002).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Behavior‐Based Scale Definitions for Determining Individual Space Use: Requirements of Two Amphibians

Indermaur¹,

Gehring²,

Wehrle³

et al. 2009

The American Naturalist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding individual space use remains a major issue in ecology, and it is complicated by definitions of spatial scale and the interplay of multiple factors. We quantified the effect of habitat and biotic and individual factors on space use by amphibians (Bufo bufo spinosus [BB] and Bufo viridis [BV]) that were radio-tracked in their terrestrial summer habitat. We analyzed two spatial scales, 50% core areas and 95% home ranges (excluding 50% core areas), thought to represent resting and foraging areas, respectively. The 50% core area of BB was best explained by habitat structure and prey density, whereas the 50% core area of BV was determined solely by habitat structure. This suggests that the resting and foraging areas of BB are not spatially separated. The 95% home range of BB was determined by prey density, while for BV both habitat structure and prey density determined home range size. We conclude that the terrestrial area requirements of amphibians depend on the productivity and spatiotemporal complexity of landscapes and that differential space use may facilitate their co-occurrence. Behavior-based a priori hypotheses, in combination with an information-theoretic approach and path analyses, provide a promising framework to disentangle factors that govern individual space use, thereby advancing home range studies. [BV]) that were radiotracked in their terrestrial summer habitat. We analyzed two spatial scales, 50% core areas and 95% home ranges (excluding 50% core areas), thought to represent resting and foraging areas, respectively. The 50% core area of BB was best explained by habitat structure and prey density, whereas the 50% core area of BV was determined solely by habitat structure. This suggests that the resting and foraging areas of BB are not spatially separated. The 95% home range of BB was determined by prey density, while for BV both habitat structure and prey density determined home range size. We conclude that the terrestrial area requirements of amphibians depend on the productivity and spatiotemporal complexity of landscapes and that differential space use may facilitate their co-occurrence. Behavior-based a priori hypotheses, in combination with an information-theoretic approach and path analyses, provide a promising framework to dis-

show abstract

Landscape Heterogeneity at Differing Scales: Effects on Spatial Distribution of Mule Deer

Cited by 126 publications

References 63 publications

Space and habitat use of moose in southwestern Sweden

Space and habitat use of moose in southwestern Sweden

Deer density and disease prevalence influence transmission of chronic wasting disease in white‐tailed deer

Behavior‐Based Scale Definitions for Determining Individual Space Use: Requirements of Two Amphibians

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About