, Volume 187, Issue 1, pp 47–60 | Cite as

Truly sedentary? The multi-range tactic as a response to resource heterogeneity and unpredictability in a large herbivore

  • Ophélie CouriotEmail author
  • A. J. Mark Hewison
  • Sonia Saïd
  • Francesca Cagnacci
  • Simon Chamaillé-Jammes
  • John D. C. Linnell
  • Atle Mysterud
  • Wibke Peters
  • Ferdinando Urbano
  • Marco Heurich
  • Petter Kjellander
  • Sandro Nicoloso
  • Anne Berger
  • Pavel Sustr
  • Max Kroeschel
  • Leif Soennichsen
  • Robin Sandfort
  • Benedikt Gehr
  • Nicolas Morellet
Behavioral ecology –original research


Much research on large herbivore movement has focused on the annual scale to distinguish between resident and migratory tactics, commonly assuming that individuals are sedentary at the within-season scale. However, apparently sedentary animals may occupy a number of sub-seasonal functional home ranges (sfHR), particularly when the environment is spatially heterogeneous and/or temporally unpredictable. The roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) experiences sharply contrasting environmental conditions due to its widespread distribution, but appears markedly sedentary over much of its range. Using GPS monitoring from 15 populations across Europe, we evaluated the propensity of this large herbivore to be truly sedentary at the seasonal scale in relation to variation in environmental conditions. We studied movement using net square displacement to identify the possible use of sfHR. We expected that roe deer should be less sedentary within seasons in heterogeneous and unpredictable environments, while migratory individuals should be seasonally more sedentary than residents. Our analyses revealed that, across the 15 populations, all individuals adopted a multi-range tactic, occupying between two and nine sfHR during a given season. In addition, we showed that (i) the number of sfHR was only marginally influenced by variation in resource distribution, but decreased with increasing sfHR size; and (ii) the distance between sfHR increased with increasing heterogeneity and predictability in resource distribution, as well as with increasing sfHR size. We suggest that the multi-range tactic is likely widespread among large herbivores, allowing animals to track spatio-temporal variation in resource distribution and, thereby, to cope with changes in their local environment.


Migration Residency Sub-seasonal functional home range Plasticity Roe deer 



This paper was conceived and written within the EURODEER collaborative project (paper no. 07 of the EURODEER series; The coauthors are grateful to all members for their support for the initiative. The EURODEER spatial database is hosted by Fondazione Edmund Mach. For France, we would like to thank the local hunting associations and the Fédération Départementale des Chasseurs de la Haute Garonne for allowing us to work in the Comminges, as well as numerous co-workers and volunteers for their assistance. GPS data collection at the Fondazione Edmund Mach was supported by the Autonomous Province of Trento under grant no. 3479 to F.C. (BECOCERWI—Behavioural Ecology of Cervids in Relation to Wildlife Infections) and project 2C2T. The Norwegian data collection was funded by the Norwegian Environment Agency and the county administration of Buskerud county. J Linnell was also funded by the Research Council of Norway (Grants 212919 and 251112). Financial support for GPS data collection in the Bavarian Forest was provided by the EU-programme INTERREG IV (EFRE Ziel 3) and the Bavarian Forest National Park Administration. The Czech Republic data collection was funded by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of CR within the National Sustainability Program I (NPU I), grant number LO1415. Funding was provided in Białowieża, Poland by the Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research (IZW), the Mammal Research Institute - Polish Academy of Sciences, the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education (grant no NN304172536). We also thank two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.

Author contribution statement

OC, NM and AJMH formulated the idea. AJMH, FC, JDCL, AM, MH, PK, SN, AB, PS, MK, LS, RS and BG provided data. FU created and updated the database. OC, NM, and AJMH developed the methodology, OC and NM performed the statistical analyses and wrote the manuscript with assistance from AJMH. SS, FC, SCJ, JDCL, AM, WP, FU, MH, PK, SN, AB, PS, MK, LS, RS and BG commented on and assisted in revising the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical approval

All applicable institutional and/or national guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.

Data accessibility

Data used for this study are accessible on EURODEER website ( on demand.

Supplementary material

442_2018_4131_MOESM1_ESM.docx (3.7 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 3794 kb)


  1. Baguette M, Stevens VM, Clobert J (2014) The pros and cons of applying the movement ecology paradigm for studying animal dispersal. Mov Ecol 2(2):13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barraquand F, Benhamou S (2008) Animal movements in heterogeneous landscapes: identifying profitable places and homogeneous movement bouts. Ecology 89:3336–3348CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Benhamou S (2014) Of scales and stationarity in animal movements. Ecol Lett 17:261–272CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bischof R, Loe LE, Meisingset EL et al (2012) A migratory northern ungulate in the pursuit of spring: jumping or surfing the green wave? Am Nat 180:407–424CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Börger L, Fryxell JM (2012) Quantifying individual differences in dispersal using net squared displacement. In: Clobert J, Baguette M, Benton TJ, Bullock J (eds) Dispersal ecology and evolution. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 222–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Börger L, Dalziel BD, Fryxell JM (2008) Are there general mechanisms of animal home range behaviour? A review and prospects for future research. Ecol Lett 11:637–650CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Borowik T, Pettorelli N, Sönnichsen L, Jedrzejewska B (2013) Normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) as a predictor of forage availability for ungulates in forest and field habitats. Eur J Wildl Res 59:675–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bowler DE, Benton TG (2005) Causes and consequences of animal dispersal strategies: relating individual behaviour to spatial dynamics. Biol Rev 80:205–225CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Bracis C, Gurarie E, Van Moorter B, Goodwin RA (2015) Memory effects on movement behavior in animal foraging. PLoS ONE 10:1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown JL, Orians GH (1970) Spacing patterns in mobile animals. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 1:239–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bunnefeld N, Börger L, van Moorter B et al (2011) A model-driven approach to quantify migration patterns: individual, regional and yearly differences. J Anim Ecol 80:466–476CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edn. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  13. Cagnacci F, Focardi S, Heurich M et al (2011) Partial migration in roe deer: migratory and resident tactics are end points of a behavioural gradient determined by ecological factors. Oikos 120:1790–1802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cagnacci F, Focardi S, Ghisla A et al (2015) How many routes lead to migration? Comparison of methods to assess and characterise migratory movements. J Anim Ecol 85:54–68CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Chapin FS, Johnson DA, McKendrick JD (1980) Seasonal movement of nutrients in plants of differing growth form in an Alaskan tundra ecosystem: implications for herbivory. J Ecol 68:189–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chapman BB, Hulthén K, Wellenreuther M et al (2014) Patterns of animal migration. In: Hansson L-A, Åkesson S (eds) Animal movement across scales. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 11–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Charnov EL (1976) Optimal foraging, the marginal value theorem. Theor Popul Biol 9:129–136CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Colwell RK (1974) Predictability, constancy, and contingency of periodic phenomena. Ecology 55:1153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Coops N, Culvenor D (2000) Utilizing local variance of simulated high spatial resolution imagery to predict spatial pattern of forest stands. Remote Sens Environ 71:248–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Coops N, Culvenor D, Preston R, Catling P (1998) Procedures for predicting habitat and structural attributes in eucalypt forests using high spatial resolution remotely sensed imagery. Aust For 61:244–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cornélis D, Benhamou S, Janeau G et al (2011) Spatiotemporal dynamics of forage and water resources shape space use of West African savanna buffaloes. J Mammal 92:1287–1297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dunning JB, Danielson BJ, Pulliam HR (1992) Ecological processes that affect populations in complex landscapes. Oikos 65:169–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. English AK, Chauvenet ALM, Safi K, Pettorelli N (2012) Reassessing the determinants of breeding synchrony in ungulates. PLoS ONE 7:e41444CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Fryxell JM, Sinclair ARE (1988) Causes and consequences of migration by large herbivores. Trends Ecol Evol 3:237–241CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Garroutte EL, Hansen AJ, Lawrence RL (2016) Using NDVI and EVI to map spatiotemporal variation in the biomass and quality of forage for migratory elk in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Remote Sens. Google Scholar
  26. Gurarie E, Cagnacci F, Peters W et al (2017) A framework for modeling range shifts and migrations: asking whether, whither, when, and will it return. J Anim 86:943–959. Google Scholar
  27. Haight FA (1967) Handbook of the Poisson distribution. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  28. Hamel S, Garel M, Festa-Bianchet M et al (2009) Spring Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) predicts annual variation in timing of peak faecal crude protein in mountain ungulates. J Appl Ecol 46:582–589. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hein AM, Hou C, Gillooly JF (2012) Energetic and biomechanical constraints on animal migration distance. Ecol Lett 15:104–110. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Hewison AJM, Vincent J-P, Reby D (1998) Social organisation of European roe deer. In: Andersen R, Duncan P, Linnell JDC (eds) The European roe deer: the biology of success. Scandinavian University Press, Oslo, pp 189–219Google Scholar
  31. Huang S, Meng SX, Yang Y (2009) Assessing the goodness of fit of forest models estimated by nonlinear mixed-model methods. Can J For Res 39:2418–2436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. IPCC (2014) Climate Change 2014: Synthesis ReportGoogle Scholar
  33. Jepsen JU, Topping CJ (2004) Modelling roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) in a gradient of forest fragmentation: behavioural plasticity and choice of cover. Can J Zool 82:1528–1541. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Johansson CL, Muijres FT, Hedenström A (2014) The physics of animal locomotion. In: Hansson L-A, Åkesson S (eds) Animal movement across scales. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 232–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kerr JT, Ostrovsky M (2003) From space to species: ecological applications for remote sensing. Trends Ecol Evol 18:299–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Klisch A, Atzberger C (2016) Operational drought monitoring in Kenya using MODIS NDVI time series. Remote Sens 8:267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Latombe G, Fortin D, Parrott L (2014) Spatio-temporal dynamics in the response of woodland caribou and moose to the passage of grey wolf. J Anim Ecol 83:185–198CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Lavielle M (1999) Detection of multiple changes in a sequence of dependent variables. Stoch Process Appl 83:79–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lendrum PE, Anderson CR, Monteith KL et al (2014) Relating the movement of a rapidly migrating ungulate to spatiotemporal patterns of forage quality. Mamm Biol 79:369–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Linnell JDC, Duncan P, Andersen R (1998) The European roe deer: a portrait of a successful species. In: Andersen R, Duncan P, Linnell JDC (eds) The European roe deer: the biology of success. Scandinavian University Press, Oslo, pp 11–22Google Scholar
  41. Lone K, Mysterud A, Gobakken T et al (2016) Temporal variation in habitat selection breaks the catch-22 of spatially contrasting predation risk from multiple predators. Oikos 126:624–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mitchell WA, Lima SL (2002) Predator-prey shell games: large-scale movement and its implications for decision-making by prey. Oikos 99:249–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Morellet N, Bonenfant C, Börger L et al (2013) Seasonality, weather and climate affect home range size in roe deer across a wide latitudinal gradient within Europe. J Anim Ecol 82:1326–1339CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Mueller T, Fagan WF (2008) Search and navigation in dynamic environments - from individual behaviors to population distributions. Oikos 117:654–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mueller T, Olson KA, Dressler G et al (2011) How landscape dynamics link individual- to population-level movement patterns: a multispecies comparison of ungulate relocation data. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 20:683–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nathan R, Getz WM, Revilla E et al (2008) A movement ecology paradigm for unifying organismal movement research. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105:19052–19059CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. Owen-Smith N, Fryxell JM, Merrill EH (2010) Foraging theory upscaled: the behavioural ecology of herbivore movement. Philos Trans R Soc Lond 365:2267–2278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Papi F (1992) Animal homing. Chapman and Hall, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Peters W, Hebblewhite M, Musterud A et al (2017) Migration in geographic and ecological space by a large herbivore. Ecol Monogr 87:297–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pettorelli N, Ryan S, Mueller T et al (2011) The Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI): unforeseen successes in animal ecology. Clim Res 46:15–27. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pyke GH (1984) Optimal foraging theory: a critical review. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 15:523–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Revilla E, Wiegand T (2008) Individual movement behavior, matrix heterogeneity, and the dynamics of spatially structured populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:19120–19125CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  53. Riotte-Lambert L, Benhamou S, Chamaillé-Jammes S (2015) How memory-based movement leads to nonterritorial spatial segregation. Am Nat 185:E103–E116CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Rivrud IM, Loe LE, Mysterud A (2010) How does local weather predict red deer home range size at different temporal scales? J Anim Ecol 79:1280–1295CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Saïd S, Gaillard J-M, Duncan P et al (2005) Ecological correlates of home-range size in spring–summer for female roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) in a deciduous woodland. J Zool 267:301–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Spitz DB, Hebblewhite M, Stephenson TR (2017) “MigrateR”: extending model-driven methods for classifying and quantifying animal movement behavior. Ecography (Cop) 40:788–799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. R Development Core Team (2014) R: a language and environment for statistical computingGoogle Scholar
  58. Turchin P (1991) Translating foraging movements in heterogeneous environments into the spatial distribution of foragers. Ecology 72:1253–1266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Turchin P (1998) Quantitative analysis of movement: measuring and modeling population redistribution in animals and plants. Sinauer Associates, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  60. Van Beest FM, Rivrud IM, Loe LE et al (2011) What determines variation in home range size across spatiotemporal scales in a large browsing herbivore? J Anim Ecol 80:771–785CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Van Moorter B, Visscher D, Benhamou S et al (2009) Memory keeps you at home: a mechanistic model for home range emergence. Oikos 118:641–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Van Moorter B, Bunnefeld N, Panzacchi M et al (2013) Understanding scales of movement: animals ride waves and ripples of environmental change. J Anim Ecol 82:770–780CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Van Moorter B, Rolandsen CM, Basille M, Gaillard J-M (2016) Movement is the glue connecting home ranges and habitat selection. J Anim Ecol 85:21–31CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Vanpé C, Gaillard J, Morellet N et al (2009) Age-specific variation in male breeding success of a territorial ungulate species, the European roe deer. J Mammal 90:661–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Vuolo F, Mattiuzzi M, Klisch A, Atzberger C (2012) Data service platform for MODIS Vegetation Indices time series processing at BOKU Vienna: current status and future perspectives. SPIE Proc 8538:85380ACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wiens JA (1976) Population responses to patchy environments. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 7:81–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ophélie Couriot
    • 1
    Email author
  • A. J. Mark Hewison
    • 1
  • Sonia Saïd
    • 2
  • Francesca Cagnacci
    • 3
  • Simon Chamaillé-Jammes
    • 4
  • John D. C. Linnell
    • 5
  • Atle Mysterud
    • 6
  • Wibke Peters
    • 7
  • Ferdinando Urbano
    • 8
  • Marco Heurich
    • 9
    • 10
  • Petter Kjellander
    • 11
  • Sandro Nicoloso
    • 12
  • Anne Berger
    • 13
  • Pavel Sustr
    • 14
    • 15
  • Max Kroeschel
    • 10
    • 16
  • Leif Soennichsen
    • 17
    • 18
  • Robin Sandfort
    • 19
  • Benedikt Gehr
    • 20
  • Nicolas Morellet
    • 1
  1. 1.CEFS, Université de Toulouse, INRACastanet TolosanFrance
  2. 2.Office National de la Chasse et de la Faune Sauvage, Direction Recherche et Expertise, Unité Ongulés SauvagesMonfortFrance
  3. 3.Biodiversity and Molecular Ecology Department, Research and Innovation CentreFondazione Edmund MachSan Michele all’AdigeItaly
  4. 4.CNRSUniv Montpellier, EPHE, IRD, Univ Paul Valéry Montpellier 3MontpellierFrance
  5. 5.Norwegian Institute for Nature ResearchTrondheimNorway
  6. 6.Centre for Ecological and Evolutionary Synthesis (CEES), Department of BiosciencesUniversity of OsloOsloNorway
  7. 7.Bavarian State Institute of Forestry (LWF)FreisingGermany
  8. 8.Freelance ConsultantMilanItaly
  9. 9.Department of Conservation and ResearchBavarian Forest National ParkGrafenauGermany
  10. 10.Chair of Wildlife Ecology and ManagementUniversity of FreiburgFreiburgGermany
  11. 11.Grimsö Wildlife Research Station, Department of EcologySwedish University of Agricultural SciencesRiddarhyttanSweden
  12. 12.Research, Ecology and Environment Dimension (D.R.E.Am. Italia)PistoiaItaly
  13. 13.Leibniz-Institute for Zoo and Wildlife ResearchBerlinGermany
  14. 14.Department of Biodiversity Research, Global Change Research Institute CASAcademy of Sciences of the Czech RepublicBrnoCzech Republic
  15. 15.Šumava National ParkVimperkCzech Republic
  16. 16.Forest Research Institute of Baden-Wuerttemberg, Wildlife EcologyFreiburgGermany
  17. 17.Mammal Research InstitutePolish Academy of Sciences, ul. Stoczek 1BiałowiezaPoland
  18. 18.Leibniz Instuture for Zoo and Wildlife Research (IZW)BerlinGermany
  19. 19.Department of Integrative Biology and Biodiversity Research, Institute of Wildlife Biology and Game ManagementUniversity of Natural Resources and Life SciencesViennaAustria
  20. 20.Department of Evolutionary Biology and Environmental StudiesUniversity of ZurichZurichGermany

Personalised recommendations