Oecologia

, Volume 103, Issue 3, pp 302–308 | Cite as

Ideal free distribution and natal dispersal in female roe deer

  • L. Kjell Walhström
  • Petter Kjellander
Original Paper

Abstract

We investigated whether adult (≧ 2 years) female roe deer Capreolus capreolus conform to an ideal free or an ideal despotic distribution, in order to understand whether natal dispersal is ‘voluntary’ or socially enforced. The study was undertaken in a high-density, free-ranging population close to Stockholm, Sweden, during 1989–1994. Data on population density, habitat quality, and five parameters on female reproduction and body condition, in addition to age distribution, were obtained in two nearby located areas, the ‘field’ and the ‘forest’, representing contrasting habitats. Population density was estimated by faecal pellet group counting in addition to total counts of culled animals after a major deer harvest. Density in the ‘field area’ was twice that in the ‘forest area’ (66 vs 33 deer/km2). Habitat quality was determined by analysing the amount of faecal nitrogen from samples of faeces collected in the two areas, and by comparing size of summer home ranges for adults of both sexes with the aid of telemetry. Both estimates indicated a higher nutritional quality and resource abundance, respectively, in the ‘field area’, with faecal nitrogen content being higher (2.96 vs 2.43%), and ranges being smaller (12.9 vs 20.9 ha). No significant differences were found in any of the parameters on reproduction or body condition obtained from culled females, i.e. number of corpora lutea (1.8 vs 1.8), proportion of females with offspring (71 vs 56%), body mass (16.9 vs 17.3 kg), kidney fat index (91.9 vs 98.5), and length of the lower mandible (152.8 vs 151.4 mm). Neither did the age distribution among females, as determined from tooth wear, differ between the areas. These results are consistent with the prediction of the ideal free hypothesis. This, in turn, suggests that female dispersal in this species is ‘voluntary’, the underlying proximate cause being maximization of resource gain.

Key words

Dispersal Ideal despotic Ideal free Roe deer 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson AE, Medin DE, Bowden DC (1972) Indices of carcass fat in a Colorado mule deer population. J Wildl Manage 36: 579–594Google Scholar
  2. Angibault JM, Bideau E, Vincent JP, Quéré JP, Khazraie (1993) Détermination de l'âge chez le Chevreuil (Capreolus capreolus L.). Test de critères morphologiques à partir d'animaux d'âge connu. Mammalia 57:579–587Google Scholar
  3. Bideau E, Vincent JP, Maublanc ML, Gonzales R (1987) Dispersion chez le jeune chevreuil (Capreolus capreolus L.): étude sur une population en milieu forestier. Acta Oecol/Oecol Applic 8:135–148Google Scholar
  4. Bideau E, Gerard JF, Vincent JP, Maublanc ML (1993) Effects of age and sex on space occupation by European roe deer. J Mammal 74:745–751Google Scholar
  5. Bobek B (1977) Summer food as the factor limiting roe deer population size. Nature 268:47–49Google Scholar
  6. Bramley PS (1970) Territoriality and reproductive behaviour of roe deer. J Reprod Fert [Suppl] 11:43–70Google Scholar
  7. Cederlund G, Kjellander P, Stålfelt F (1991) Age determination of roe deer by tooth wear and cementum layers—tests with known age material. Trans 20th Congr Union Game Biol University of Gödöllö, Gödöllö, pp 540–545Google Scholar
  8. Dill LM (1987) Animal decision making and its ecological consequences: the future of aquatic ecology and behaviour. Can J Zool 65:803–811Google Scholar
  9. Ellenberg H (1978) The population ecology of roe deer, Capreolus capreolus (Cervidae) in central Europe. Spixiana Suppl 2: 5–211Google Scholar
  10. Fowler CW (1987) A review of density dependence in populations of large mammals. In: Genoways HH (ed) Current mammalogy, vol 1. Plenum Press, New York, pp 401–441Google Scholar
  11. Fretwell SD, Lucas HL (1970) On territorial behavior and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds. I. Theoretical development. Acta Biotheoret 19:16–36Google Scholar
  12. Greenwood PJ, Harvey PH (1982) The natal and breeding dispersal of birds. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 13:1–21Google Scholar
  13. Harper DGC (1982) Competitive foraging in mallards: ‘free’ ducks. Anim Behav 30:575–584Google Scholar
  14. Holand Ø (1992) Fat indices versus ingesta-free body fat in European roe deer. J Wildl Manage 56:241–245Google Scholar
  15. Holand Ø (1994) Seasonal variations in total and alimentary nutrient concentrations and pools in European roe deer (Capreolus capreolus). Comp Biochem Physiol 107:563–571Google Scholar
  16. Inman AJ (1990) Group foraging in starlings: distributions of unequal competitors. Anim Behav 40:801–810Google Scholar
  17. Kaluzinski J (1982) Dynamics and structure of a field roe deer population. Acta Theriol 27:385–408Google Scholar
  18. Klein DR, Strandgaard H (1972) Factors affecting growth and body size of roe deer. J Wildl Manage 36:64–79Google Scholar
  19. Leslie DM, Starkey EE (1985) Fecal indices to dietary quality of cervids in old growth forests. J Wildl Manage 49:142–146Google Scholar
  20. Liberg O, Johnsson A, Lockowandt S, Wahlström LK (1992) Density effects in roe deer demography. Trans 20th Congr Union Game Biologists, University of Gödöllö, Gödöllö, pp 125–130Google Scholar
  21. Liberg O, Cederlund G, Kjellander P (1995) Population dynamics of roe deer in Sweden; a brief review of past and present. Proc Third Int Congr Biol Deer J.A. Milne, Edinburgh (in press)Google Scholar
  22. Messier F, Virgl JA, Marinelli L (1990) Density-dependent habitat selection in muskrats: a test of the ideal free distribution model. Oecologia 84:380–385Google Scholar
  23. Milinski M (1979) An evolutionarily stable feeding strategy in sticklebacks. Z Tierpsychol 51:36–40Google Scholar
  24. Milinski M (1988) Games fish play: making decisions as a forager. Trees 3:325–330Google Scholar
  25. Mitchell B, Rowe JJ, Ratcliffe PR, Hinge M (1985) Defecation frequency in roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) in relation to the accumulation rates of faecal deposits. J Zool 207:1–7Google Scholar
  26. Mohr CO (1947) Table of equivalent populations of North American small mammals. Am Midl Nat 37:223–249Google Scholar
  27. Morris DW (1989) Density-dependent habitat selection: testing the theory with fitness data. Evol Ecol 3:80–94Google Scholar
  28. Mubanga G, Holechek JL, Valdez R, Schemnitz SD (1985) Relationships between diet and faecal nutritive quality in mule deer. Southwest Nat 30:573–578Google Scholar
  29. Neff DJ (1968) The pellet-group counting technique for big game trend, census, and distribution: a review. J Wildl Manage 32: 597–614Google Scholar
  30. Nelson ME, Mech LD (1992) Dispersal in female white-tailed deer. J Mammal 73:891–894Google Scholar
  31. Parker GA (1978) Searching for mates. In: Krebs JR, Davis NB (eds) Behavioural ecology: an evolutionary approach. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford, pp 214–244Google Scholar
  32. Pierotti R (1982) Habitat selection and its effect on reproductive output in the herring gull in Newfoundland. Ecology 63: 854–868Google Scholar
  33. Pulliam HR, Caraco T (1984) Living in groups: is there an optimal group size? In: Krebs JR, Davis NB (eds) Behavioural ecology: an evolutionary approach, Blackwell Scientific, Oxford, pp 122–147Google Scholar
  34. Putman RJ, Hemmings GJ (1986) Can dietary quality of free-ranging ungulates be simply determined from faecal chemistry? Acta Theriol 31:257–270Google Scholar
  35. Ransom AB (1965) Kidney and marrow fat as indicators of whitetailed deer condition. J Wildl Manage 29:397–398Google Scholar
  36. Ratcliffe PR, Mayle BA (1992) Roe deer biology and management. Forestry Commission Bulletin 105, HMSO, London, pp 1–28Google Scholar
  37. Riney T (1955) Evaluating condition of free-ranging red deer (Cervus elaphus), with special reference to New Zealand. J Sci Technol 36:429–463Google Scholar
  38. Strandgaard H (1972) The roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) population at Kalø and the factors regulating its size. Dan Rev Game Biol 7:1–205Google Scholar
  39. Sutherland WJ, Townsend CR, Patmore JM (1988) A test of the ideal free distribution with unequal competitors. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 23:51–53Google Scholar
  40. Vincent JP, Bideau E, Hewison AJM, Angibault JM (1995) The influence of increasing density on body weight, kid production, home range size and winter grouping in roe deer. J Zool (in press)Google Scholar
  41. Wahlström LK (1995) Density-dependent habitat selection in female roe deer. Proc Third Int Congr Biol Deer J.A. Milne, Edinburgh (abstract)Google Scholar
  42. Wahlström LK, Liberg O (1995) Patterns of dispersal and seasonal migration in roe deer (Capreolus capreolus). J Zool 235: 455–467Google Scholar
  43. Whitham TG (1978) Habitat selection by Pemphigus aphids in response to resource limitation and competition. Ecology 59: 1164–1176Google Scholar
  44. Wotschikowski U (1990) Das Rehprojekt Hahnebaum: Zwischenbilanz. Mitt aus der Wildforschung, Universität München, Germany, no 106:1–4Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. Kjell Walhström
    • 1
  • Petter Kjellander
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of ZoologyStockholm UniversityStockholmSweden
  2. 2.Grimsö Wildlife Research StationSwedish University of Agricultural SciencesRiddarhyttanSweden

Personalised recommendations