Response of Desert Ungulates to a Water Project in Arizona

Spatial distributions and resource selection by mule deer in an arid environment: Responses to provision of water

“…The importance of water in patterns of resource selection by desert ungulates is often postulated, but selection has been difficult to detect (Krausman and Etchberger, 1995;Marshal et al, 2006;Cain et al, 2008). We identified strong selection for sources of permanent water by mule deer, while simultaneously accounting for variation in availability of water among individuals resulting from placement of their UDs on the landscape as well as other important aspects of habitat in this ecosystem.…”

Compensating for diminishing natural water: Predicting the impacts of water development on summer habitat of desert bighorn sheep

“…habitat available for desert bighorn sheep. Artificial water developments in the park were initially considered to be only partially successful (Douglas and White, 1979), possibly because it can take time for ungulate populations to discover and use new resources, particularly point sources (Krausman and Etchberger, 1995). However, artificial water sources now represent half of the existing perennial water sources available to desert bighorn sheep.…”

“…Although, the benefit of providing artificial water sources for wildlife is now a subject of considerable debate, many investigators continue to assert that water developments increase population carrying capacity, allow for range expansions, and mitigate loss of habitat and loss of naturally occurring water (Bleich et al, 1982;Rautenstrauch and Krausman, 1989;deVos and Clarkson, 1990;Kie et al, 1994;Dolan, 2006). In contrast, others cite instances of no response by wildlife to new water sources (Krausman and Etchberger, 1995), or describe potential negative impacts such as changes in natural movement patterns, displaced native ungulates or increased mortality due to poor water quality or increased predation (Broyles, 1995;Broyles and Cutler, 1999). In addition, the use and maintenance of water developments on sensitive lands are controversial because wildlife populations may be artificially maintained on lands managed as wilderness areas (Czech and Krausman, 1999;Bleich, 2005).…”

Observations of predator activity at wildlife water developments in southern Arizona

“…Thus, we were not surprised to find no difference in peccary sign between water and non-water sites. The need for free-standing water by other ungulates is less clear; some authors report that ungulates do not seem to respond to water developments Leopold 1986, Krausman andEtchberger 1995), while others report that water developments are used by ungulates and may be beneficial (Leslie and Douglas 1979, Hervert and Krausman 1986, Ockenfels et al 1991, depending on the species and season involved (deVos et al 1997b). We did not document a difference in ungulate sign between water and nonwater sites, but because we lumped all ungulate sign (except peccary) together, we cannot say how ungulate sign may have differed between water and nonwater sites for individual species on our study area during winter.…”