What shapes intra-specific variation in home range size? A case study of female roe deer

Oikos

Volumn 118, Issue 9, 2009, Pages 1299-1306

  Saïd, Sonia ^a   Gaillard, Jean Michel ^b   Widmer, Olivier ^a   Débias, François ^b   Bourgoin, Gilles ^b   Delorme, Daniel ^a   Roux, Céline ^a  

^a National de la Chasse et de la Faune Sauvage   (France)

^b LABORATOIRE DE BIOMÉTRIE ET BIOLOGIE EVOLUTIVE   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DEER; ECOLOGICAL MODELING; FOOD AVAILABILITY; HABITAT USE; INTRASPECIFIC VARIATION; PATCHINESS; RANGE SIZE; SPATIAL VARIATION;

CHAMPAGNE-ARDENNE; EURASIA; EUROPE; FRANCE; MARNE; TROIS FONTAINES; WESTERN EUROPE;

CAPREOLUS; CERVIDAE; MAMMALIA;

EID: 69549111176     PISSN: 00301299     EISSN: 16000706     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2009.17346.x     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Andersen, R. et al. 2000. What shapes maternal care in an income breeder? A study of contrasting populations of European roe deer J. Anim. Ecol. 69: 672 682.
2. Bertrand, M. R. et al. 1996. Effects of parturition on home ranges and social affiliations of female white-tailed deer J. Wildlife Manage. 60 : 899 909.
3. Borger, L. et al. 2006. Effects of sampling regime on the mean and variance of home range size estimates J. Anim. Ecol. 75 : 1393 1405.
4. Bowers, M. A. et al. 1990. Home range size adjustments in response to natural and manipulated water availability in the eastern chipmunk, Tamias striatus Can. J. Zool. 68 : 2016 2020.
5. Brown, J. H. Maurer, B. A. 1987. Evolution of species assemblages: effects of energetic constraints and species dynamics on the diversification of the North American avifauna Am. Nat. 130 : 1 17.
6. Burnham, K. P. Anderson, D. R. 2002. Model selection and inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer.
7. Carvalho, P. et al. 2008. Ranging behaviour of translocated roe deer in a Mediterranean habitat: seasonal and altitudinal influences on home range size and patterns of range use Mammalia 72 : 82 94.
8. Cederlund, G. Sand, H. 1994. Home range size in relation to age and sex in moose J. Mammal. 75 : 1005 1012.
9. Cressie, N. A. C. 1993. Statistics for spatial data. Wiley.
10. Dray, S. et al. 2008. Spatial ordination of vegetation data using a generalization of Wartenberg's multivariate spatial correlation J. Veg. Sci. 19 : 45 56.
11. Duncan, P. et al. 1998. Feeding strategies and the physiology of digestion in roe deer Andersen, R. The European roe deer: the biology of success. Scandinavian Univ. Press 91 116.
12. Elkie, P. C. et al. 1999. Patch analyst users manual: a tool for quantifying landscape structure (). NWST technical manual TM-002. Ontario.
13. Focardi, S. et al. 2006. Inter-specific competition from fallow deer Dama dama reduces habitat quality for the Italian roe deer Capreolus capreolus italicus Ecography 29 : 407 417.
14. Fretwell, S. D. Lucas, Jr. H. L. 1970. On territorial behavior and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds. 1. Theoretical development Acta Biotheor. 19 : 16 36.
15. Gaillard, J. M. et al. 1993. Roe deer survival patterns: a comparative analysis of contrasting populations J. Anim. Ecol. 62 : 778 791.
16. Gaillard, J. M. et al. 1997. Early survival in roe deer: causes and consequences of cohort variation in two contrasted populations Oecologia 112 : 502 513.
17. Gaillard, J. M. et al. 1998. Family effects on growth and survival of juvenile roe deer Ecology 79 : 2878 2889.
18. Gaillard, J. M. et al. 2000. Temporal variation in fitness components and population dynamics of large herbivores Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 31 : 367 393.
19. Harestad, A. S. Bunnell, F. L. 1979. Home range and body weight - a reevaluation Ecology 60 : 389 402.
20. Hooge, P. N. Eichenlaub, B. 1997. Animal movement extension for Arcview Ver. 11 (). Alaska Biol. Sci. Centre, US Geol. Survey, Anchorage, AK.
21. Kie, J. G. et al. 2002. Landscape heterogeneity at differing scales: effects on spatial distribution of mule deer Ecology 83 : 530 544.
22. Kjellander, P. et al. 2004. Experimental evidence for density-dependence of home-range size in roe deer (Capreolus capreolus L.): comparison of two long-term studies Oecologia 139 : 478 485.
23. Kodric-Brown, A. Brown, J. H. 1978. Influence of economics, interspecific competition, and sexual dimorphism on territoriality of migrant rufous hummingbirds Ecology 59 : 285 296.
24. Lindstedt, S. L. et al. 1986. Home range, time and body size in mammals Ecology 67 : 413 417.
25. Loft, E. R. et al. 1993. Grazing in the Sierra Nevada: home range and space use patterns of mule deer as influenced by cattle Calif. Fish Game 79 : 145 166.
26. Mares, M. A. et al. 1982. An experimental analysis of social spacing in Tamias striatus Ecology 63 : 267 273.
27. McGarigal, K. Marks, B. J. 1995. FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure. General Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-351. Pac. Northwest Res. Stn, For. Service, US Dept of Agric., Portland, OR.
28. McLoughlin, P. D. et al. 2007. Lifetime reproductive success and composition of the home range in a large herbivore Ecology 88 : 3192 3201.
29. Mysterud, A. 1999. Seasonal migration pattern and home range of roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) in an altitudinal gradient in southern Norway J. Zool. 247 : 479 486.
30. Nicholson, M. C. et al. 1997. Habitat selection and survival of mule deer: tradeoffs associated with migration J. Mammal. 78 : 483 504.
31. Palomares, F. 1994. Site fidelity and effect of body mass on home range size of Egyptian mongooses Can. J. Zool. 72 : 465 469.
32. Pellerin, M. et al. 2008. Roe deer Capreolus capreolus home-range sizes estimated from VHF and GPS data Wildlife Biol. 14 : 101 110.
33. Peters, R. H. 1983. The ecological implications of body size. Camb. Stud. Ecol.
34. Pettorelli, N. et al. 2006. Using a proxy of plant productivity (NDVI) to find key periods for animal performance: the case of roe deer Oikos 112 : 565 572.
35. Pinheiro, J. et al. 2005. nlme: linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package ver. 3.1-65. R Development Core Team.
36. Relyea, R. A. et al. 2000. Home range of desert mule deer: testing the body size and habitat productivity hypotheses J. Wildlife Manage. 64 : 146 153.
37. Riley, S. J. Dood, A. R. 1984. Summer movements, home range, habitat use, and behavior of mule deer fawns J. Wildlife Manage. 48 : 1302 1310.
38. Saïd, S. Servanty, S. 2005. The influence of landscape structure on female roe deer home-range size Landscape Ecol. 20 : 1003 1012.
39. Saïd, S. et al. 2005a. Ecological correlates of home range size in spring-summer for female roe deer in a deciduous woodland J. Zool. 267 : 301 308.
40. Saïd, S. et al. 2005b. Assessment of forage availability in ecological studies Eur. J. Wildlife Res. 51 : 242 247.
41. Seaman, D. E. et al. 1999. Effects of sample size on kernel home range estimates J. Wildlife Manage. 63 : 739 747.
42. Smith, C. C. 1968. The adaptive nature of social organization in the genus of three squirrels Tamiasciurus Ecol. Monogr. 38 : 31 63.
43. Strandgaard, H. 1972. The roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) population at Kalø and the factors regulating its size Dan. Rev. Game Biol. 7 : 1 205.
44. Tufto, J. R. et al. 1996. Habitat use and ecological correlates of home range size in a small cervid: the roe deer J. Anim. Ecol. 65 : 715 724.
45. White, G. C. Garrott, R. A. 1990. Analysis of wildlife radio-tracking data. Academic Press.
46. Widmer, O. et al. 2004. The effects of hurricane Lothar on habitat use of roe deer For. Ecol. Manage. 195 : 237 242.
47. Worton, B. J. 1989. Kernel methods for estimating the utilization distribution in home-range studies Ecology 70 : 164 168.