Microsatellites reveal plasticity in reproductive success of white-tailed deer

Neuman, Timothy J.; Newbolt, Chad H.; Ditchkoff, Stephen S.; Steury, Todd D.

doi:10.1093/jmammal/gyw087

Cited by 12 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some of the fawns in our survey were younger, smaller, and still had visible spots on their coats (a trait usually lost by 4 months) while others were older, larger, and lacked spots (Ditchkoff ). Does were represented by animals 1.5–12.5 years of age, and noticeable differences in body size can exist between yearling (~1.5 yr) and older animals in this population (Neuman et al ). Similarities in appearances between older fawns and younger does likely helped to confound visual criteria used to classify animals and contributed to misclassifications.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Misidentification error associated with classifications of white‐tailed deer images

Newbolt

Ditchkoff

2019

Wildl. Soc. Bull.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Camera traps are widely used to monitor wildlife, with important management decisions often relying on interpretation of these data. Animal misidentifications are known to be an important source of error in wildlife surveys that require the identification of unique individuals from camera-trap data; however, the practice of broadly classifying animal images according to sex or age has received less critical attention despite the significant potential for misidentification error under certain circumstances. From 19 January to 1 April 2017, we solicited a group of 726 participants, consisting of both wildlife professionals and nonprofessionals from across the United States, to take an online survey that tested their ability to classify images of known white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) according to sex and age. Our goal was to determine the relative influence of tested observer (i.e., experience and familiarity with classifying deer images) and image-based factors (i.e., distance of deer from camera, day vs. night image) on accuracy of deer classifications. Our results indicated that respondents that were wildlife biologists and those with greater levels of experience viewing deer images were more accurate than others when classifying posthunting season images of deer as adult male, adult female, or fawn. However, the sex-age group of the deer was the most influential predictor of classification reliability, with branched-antlered adult males being classified more accurately by all respondent groups than were adult females and fawns. Our findings emphasized that animal misidentifications may be an important source of survey error not only when identifying unique individuals, but also under any circumstance where comparative groups lack definitive traits. We suggest that those using camera traps to evaluate wildlife populations should select survey periods that maximize differences among classification groups, when possible, and develop species-specific image training for observers to improve the reliability of results. Further, population demographics should be considered when evaluating the overall reliability of survey results for species where classification accuracy varies among sex-age groups.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The enclosed deer population consisted of approximately 150 individuals and comprised wild animals captured during construction and their descendants. Deer in our facility bred during mid‐December to mid‐February, with peak conception at approximately 18 January (Neuman et al ).…”

Section: Study Areamentioning

confidence: 99%

Misidentification error associated with classifications of white‐tailed deer images

Newbolt

Ditchkoff

2019

Wildl. Soc. Bull.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We conducted this study at Auburn University's Deer Research Facility, which was located in the Piedmont region of east‐central Alabama, USA (Neuman et al ). The facility was constructed in October 2007 and consisted of 174 ha enclosed by a 2.6‐m steel fence designed to inhibit deer movements.…”

Section: Study Areamentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors influencing reproductive success in male white‐tailed deer

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Positive relationships between age, sexually selected traits, and male reproductive success have been reported for a number of polygynous ungulates; however, relatively little is known about the factors influencing male reproductive success in ungulate species whose mating system is characterized by tending‐bond behaviors. Broad interest in the genetic consequences of selective harvest supports a greater understanding of the role of these factors as determinants of male reproductive success in important game species (e.g., white‐tailed deer [Odocoileus virginianus]), that exhibit tending‐bond behaviors. We investigated male reproductive success in white‐tailed deer across a range of sex ratios and age structures using a known population of deer housed in a 175‐ha enclosure in central Alabama, USA. We measured age, annual antler size, and annual body size of male white‐tailed deer and assigned paternity to 143 known‐age offspring during 2007–2014. Reproductive success was attributed to a high proportion of males during each of the 6 breeding seasons. Our most supported model indicated that annual body size and antler size of the individual were positively associated with annual male breeding success. The effects of annual antler size were sensitive to changes in mean male age of the herd, with antler size having the greatest effect on male reproductive success under older male age structures. Young (≤1.5 yr) males reproduced most frequently when male age structure was youngest (which correlated with female‐biased sex ratios in this population). Our results suggest that male age structure and sex ratio played a key role in establishing patterns of male reproductive success in white‐tailed deer. Management practices that encourage balanced adult sex ratios and older male age structures (e.g., Quality Deer Management) may promote a highly competitive environment where sexually selected traits are of increased importance to male breeding success. However, the ability of managers to alter herd genetics in a positive or negative direction through selective harvest is limited in white‐tailed deer because of the high proportion of reproducing males. © 2016 The Wildlife Society.

show abstract

“…We use the term “immature” to refer to these sexually mature, but physically not fully developed ages. Both age classes have been documented to be reproductively active and capable of siring offspring in this population (Neuman et al., 2016; Newbolt et al., 2017). Our approach was consistent with age classifications used in previous research and the typical lifespan of wild deer in a hunted population (Michel et al., 2018; Strickland & Demarais, 2000).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 93%

Patterns of testosterone in male white‐tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus): Seasonal and lifetime variation

Gomes

Ditchkoff

Zohdy

et al. 2021

Ecology and Evolution

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In many vertebrates, testosterone has been linked to dominance behaviors associated with copulation and reproduction (Knol & Egberink-Alink, 1989;Rose et al., 1971). For members of the family Cervidae, testosterone plays a vital role in antler development and facilitates the behaviors and development of physical characteristics necessary for breeding (Miller et al., 1987;Chunwang et al., 2004;Bartoš et al., 2012). Testosterone secretion in deer follows an annual cycle, stimulated by changes in day length, and is strongly associated with reproductive state (Bubenik et al., 1990;Stewart et al., 2018). This cycle gives rise to the annual cycle of antler development and casting, where testosterone remains low during the period of antler growth, increases during antler calcification prior to the breeding season, then dramatically decreases following the breeding season, which results in antler casting (Bubenik, 1982;

show abstract

Microsatellites reveal plasticity in reproductive success of white-tailed deer

Cited by 12 publications

References 46 publications

Misidentification error associated with classifications of white‐tailed deer images

Misidentification error associated with classifications of white‐tailed deer images

Factors influencing reproductive success in male white‐tailed deer

Patterns of testosterone in male white‐tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus): Seasonal and lifetime variation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About