European Journal of Wildlife Research

, Volume 57, Issue 2, pp 241–249 | Cite as

Space and habitat use of moose in southwestern Sweden

  • Mattias Olsson
  • John J. Cox
  • Jeffery L. Larkin
  • Per Widén
  • Anders Olovsson
Original Paper

Abstract

Increasingly, wildlife managers and land managers are challenged to maintain the viability of large mammal populations. Although the moose (Alces alces) is an ecologically, economically, and culturally important ungulate species found throughout most of Sweden, little is known about its ecology throughout the southern part of the country. We collected baseline ecological data on spatial and habitat use patterns in urbanized southwestern Sweden by fitting 22 adult moose (13 F, nine M) with global positioning system (GPS) radio collars. Home range size of cows did not differ among seasons (P > 0.10); however, bulls had larger home ranges during fall than all other seasons (P < 0.010). Mean home range size of males during fall and spring was larger than females during any season (P < 0.010). We used a Euclidean distance-based approach to analyze multi-scale habitat selection by moose. Moose of both sexes and during all seasons selected boreal forest and mires when establishing a home range (P < 0.10). Moose had seasonal differences in habitat selection within their home range (P 0.001), and generally selected clear-cuts and early successional forests, mature coniferous forests, and glades, but avoided agricultural areas and open water. Habitat and space use characteristics of moose in our urbanizing study area were similar to characteristics reported for moose in forest-dominated landscapes of Fennoscandia.

Keywords

Alces alces Global positioning system Habitat Home range Moose Radiotelemetry 

References

  1. Abrahamsen J, Jakobsen NK, Kalliola R, Dahl E, Wilborg L, Påhlsson L (1977) Nature-geographic regions of Norden. Nordisk Utredning Ser B 34:1–135Google Scholar
  2. Anonymous (1999) Geografisk informationsbehandling – metoder och tillämpningar. byggforskningsrådet och ULI (in Swedish)Google Scholar
  3. Anonymous (2004) Älgstammens storlek och sammansättning I området kring Uddevalla. Svensk Naturförvaltning AB. p8 (in Swedish)Google Scholar
  4. Bergström R, Hjeljord O (1987) Moose and vegetation interactions in northwestern Europe and Poland. Swed Wildlife Res Supplement 1:213–228Google Scholar
  5. Bowyer RT (2004) Sexual Segregation in ruminants: definitions, hypotheses, and implications for conservation and management. J Mammal 85:1039–1052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brody AJ, Pelton MR (1989) Effects of roads on black bear movements in western North Carolina. Wildl Soc Bull 17:5–10Google Scholar
  7. Cederlund G, Okarma H (1988) Home range and habitat use of adult female moose. J Wildl Manage 52:336–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cederlund G, Sand HKG (1994) Home-range size in relation to age and sex in moose. J Mammal 75:1005–1012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cederlund G, Ljungquist H, Markegren G, Stålfelt F (1980) Foods of moose and roe deer at Grimsö in central Sweden—results of rumen content analyses. Swed Wildlife Res (Viltrevy) 11:27–74Google Scholar
  10. Cederlund G, Sandegren F, Larsson K (1987) Summer movements of female moose and dispersal of their offspring. J Wildl Manage 51:342–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Conner LM, Plowman BW (2001) Using Euclidean distances to assess nonrandom habitat use. In: Millspaugh J, Marzluff J (eds) Radio telemetry and animal populations. Academic, San Diego, pp 275–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Conner LM, Smith MD, Burger LW (2003) A comparison of distance based and classification-based analyses of habitat use. Ecology 84:526–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cox JJ, Maehr DS, Larkin JL (2006) Florida panther habitat use: new approach to an old problem. J Wildl Manage 70:1778–1785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Davies KF, Gascon C, Margules CR (2001) Habitat fragmentation: consequences, management, and future research priorities. In: Soule ME, Orians GH (eds) Conservation biology: research priorities for the next decade. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 81–97Google Scholar
  15. Engberg A (2002) Produktspecifikation av svenska corine marktäckedata. Lantmäteriet, GävleGoogle Scholar
  16. Franzmann AW, Schwartz CC (1997) Ecology and management of the North American moose. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, p 733Google Scholar
  17. Gasaway WC, Dubois SD, Brink KL (1980) Dispersal of subadult moose from a low density population in interior Alaska. Transactions of the North American Moose Conference and Workshop, vol 16. pp 314–337Google Scholar
  18. Harveson PM, Lopez RR, Collier BA, Silvy NS (2007) Impacts of urbanization on Florida key deer behavior and population dynamics. Biol Conserv 134:321–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hilty JA, Lidicker WZ Jr, Merenlender AM (2006) Corridor ecology: the science and practice of linking landscapes for Biodiversity conservation. Island Press, Washington DC, p 323Google Scholar
  20. Hjeljord O, Hövik N, Pederssen HB (1990) Choice of feeding sites by moose during summer, the influence of forest structure and plant phonology. Holarct Ecol 13:281–291Google Scholar
  21. Hooge PN, Eichenlaub B (2000) Animal movement extension to Arcview. Version 2.0. Alaska Biological Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey, AnchorageGoogle Scholar
  22. Hundertmark K (1998) Home range, dispersal and migration. In: Franzmann AW, Schwartz CC (eds) Ecology and management of the North American moose. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.CGoogle Scholar
  23. Janeau G, Adrados C, Girard I (2001) Is it still necessary to use GPS in differential mode since the elimination of selective availability? Conference proceeding. In: Tracking animals with GPS, Aberdeen, the Netherlands, March 2001. pp 12–13Google Scholar
  24. Jenness Enterprises (2004) Nearest feature extension to Arcview. Version 3.6d. Flagstaff, ArizonaGoogle Scholar
  25. Johnson DH (1980) The comparison of usage and availability measurements for evaluating resource preference. Ecology 61:65–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kelsall JP (1969) Structural adaptations of moose and deer for snow. J Mammal 50:302–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kie JG, Bowyer RT, Nicholson MC, Boroski BB, Loft ER (2002) Landscape heterogeneity at differing scales: effects on spatial heterogeneity of mule deer. Ecology 83:530–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Land ED, Shindle DB, Kawula RJ, Benson JF, Lotz MA, Onorato DP (2008) Florida panther habitat selection of concurrent GPS and VHF telemetry data. J Wildl Manage 73:633–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Larkin JL, Maehr DS, Hoctor TS, Orlando MA, Whitney K (2004) Landscape linkages and conservation planning for the black bear in west-central Florida. Anim Conserv 7:23–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lavsund S, Nygren T, Solberg EJ (2003) Status of moose populations and challenges to moose management in Fennoscandia. Alces 39:109–130Google Scholar
  31. Lopez RR, Viera MEP, Silvy NJ, Frank PA, Winsenant SW, Jones DA (2003) Survival, mortality, and life expectancy of Florida key deer. J Wildl Manage 67:34–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lovallo MJ, Anderson EM (1996) Bobcat movements and home ranges relative to roads in Wisconsin. Wildl Soc Bull 24:71–76Google Scholar
  33. Maehr DS, Land ED, Shindle DB, Bass OL, Hoctor TS (2002) Florida panther dispersal and conservation. Biol Conserv 106:187–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Manly BFJ, Mcdonald LL, Thomas DL, McDonald TL, Erickson WP (2002) Resource selection by animals. Springer, Great Britain, p 240Google Scholar
  35. Markegren G (1974) The moose in Fennoscandia. Naturaliste Can 101:185–194Google Scholar
  36. Meegan RP, Maehr DS (2002) Landscape conservation and regional planning for the Florida panther. Southeast Nat 1:217–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mills LS (2007) Conservation of wildlife populations: demography, genetics, and management. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, p 407Google Scholar
  38. Mladenoff DJ, Sickley TA, Wydeven AP (1999) Predicting gray wolf landscape colonization: logistic regression models vs. new field data. Ecol Appl 9:37–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Moen AN (1976) Energy conservation by white-tailed deer in the winter. Ecology 57:192–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mohr CO (1947) Table of equivalent populations of North American mammals. Am Midl Nat 37:223–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mysterud A, Larsen PK, Ims RA, Østbye E (1999) Habitat selection by roe deer and sheep: does habitat ranking reflect recourse availability? Can J Zool 77:776–783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nikula A, Heikkinen S, Helle E (2004) Habitat selection of adult moose (Alces alces) at two spatial scales in central Finland. Wildlife Biology 10(2):121–135Google Scholar
  43. Orlando MA (2003) The ecology and behavior of an isolated black bear population in west-central Florida. M.Sc. thesis: University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, USAGoogle Scholar
  44. Peek JM (1997) Habitat relationships. In: Franzmann AW, Schwartz CC (eds) Ecology and management of the North American moose. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp 351–377Google Scholar
  45. Perkins MW, Conner LM (2004) Habitat use of fox squirrels in southwestern Georgia. J Wildl Manage 68:509–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Porter WF, Church KE (1987) Effects of environmental pattern on habitat preference analysis. J Wildl Manage 51:681–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pulliainen E (1974) Seasonal movements of moose in Europe. Naturaliste Canadien 101:379–392Google Scholar
  48. Saunders DA, Hobbs RJ, Margules CR (1991) Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation: a review. Conserv Biol 5:18–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Thurber JM, Peterson RO, Drummer TD, Thomasma SA (1994) Gray wolf response to refuge boundaries and roads in Alaska. Wildl Soc Bull 22:61–67Google Scholar
  50. Turner MG, Pearson SM, Romme WH, Wallace LL (1997) Landscape heterogeneity and ungulate dynamics: what spatial scales are important? In: Bissonette JA (ed) Wildlife and landscape ecology—effects of pattern and scale. Springer, New York, pp 331–348Google Scholar
  51. Van Ballenberghe V, Peek JM (1971) Radiotelemetry studies of moose in northeastern Minnesota. J Wildl Manage 35:63–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Van Beest FM, Loe LE, Mysterud A, Milner JS (2010) Comparative space use and habitat selection of moose around feeding stations. J Wildl Manage 74:219–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mattias Olsson
    • 1
  • John J. Cox
    • 2
  • Jeffery L. Larkin
    • 3
  • Per Widén
    • 4
  • Anders Olovsson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyKarlstad UniversityKarlstadSweden
  2. 2.Department of ForestryUniversity of KentuckyLexingtonUSA
  3. 3.Department of BiologyIndiana University of PennsylvaniaIndianaUSA
  4. 4.Department of Health and Environmental SciencesKarlstad UniversityKarlstadSweden

Personalised recommendations