European Journal of Wildlife Research

, Volume 57, Issue 5, pp 1017–1023 | Cite as

Can pellet counts be used to accurately describe winter habitat selection by moose Alces alces?

Original Paper


Pellet counts have been used to measure habitat selection of a variety of ungulate species often under the assumption that this method gives an unbiased sample of the true distribution of the species among habitats. The validity of this method has been questioned and comparisons with other methods have sometimes showed divergent results. We tested the validity of pellet group distribution as a tool for habitat selection studies by comparing the distribution of moose pellet groups in four different forest age categories (forest age <30, 31–60, 61–90, >90 years) and mire with GPS positions from collared moose (Alces alces). Sample plots (n = 531) were cleaned from pellet during the fall 2007 and the number of new pellet groups were counted in spring 2008, thus resulting in a defined period of accumulation. In addition, pellet groups were counted in paired, uncleaned, control plots. GPS data from 15 collared moose monitored during the same period were used for comparison with habitat composition and distribution of pellet groups. Both the distribution of pellet groups and GPS positions differed significantly from the habitat composition within the study area. Young forest stands (<30 years) were significantly more used than both forests >30 years and mire. The selection by moose, as calculated by Manly’s alpha, showed identical ranking among habitat classes for cleaned sample plots and GPS data whereas uncleaned plots showed a shifted rank order for two of the habitat classes. We conclude that pellet group counts can be used to accurately predict habitat use for moose during winter.


GPS Habitat selection Ungulate Pellet-group Survey 



The work was supported by grants from the private foundation “Marie-Claire Cronstedts stiftelse” and The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency within the research programme “Adaptive management of fish and wildlife populations.” We also thank Sveaskog for the cooperation in this study.


  1. Aebischer NJ, Robertson PA, Kenward RE (1993) Compositional analysis of habitat use from animal radio-tracking data. Ecology 74:1313–1325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersen R, Hjeljord O, Sæther B-E (1992) Moose defecation rates in relation to habitat quality. Alces 28:95–100Google Scholar
  3. Arnemo JM, Kreeger TJ, Soveri T (2003) Chemical immobilization of free-ranging moose. Alces 39:243–253Google Scholar
  4. Ball JP, Danell K, Sunesson P (2000) Response of a herbivore community to increased food quality and quantity: an experiment with nitrogen fertilizer in a boreal forest. J Appl Ecol 37:247–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bowman JL, Kochanny CO, Demarais S, Leopold BD (2000) Comparison of pellet-group and radio triangulation methods for assessing deer habitat use. Wildl Soc Bull 28:141–145Google Scholar
  6. Cederlund G, Okarma H (1988) Home range of moose and habitat use of adult female moose. J Wild Man 52:336–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Collins WB, Urness PJ (1981) Habitat preferences of mule deer as rated by pellet-group distributions. J Wild Man 45:969–972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. D’Eon RG, Serrouya R, Smith G, Kochanny CO (2002) GPS radiotelemetry error and bias in mountainous terrain. Wildl Soc Bull 30:430–439Google Scholar
  9. Dussault C, Courtois R, Ouellet JP, Huot J (1999) Evaluation of GPS telemetry collar performance for habitat studies in the boreal forest. Wildl Soc Bull 27:965–972Google Scholar
  10. Dussault C, Courtois R, Ouellet JP, Huot J (2001) Influence of satellite geometry and differential correction on GPS location accuracy. Wildl Soc Bull 29:171–179Google Scholar
  11. Edge WD, Marcum CL (1989) Determining elk distribution with pellet-group and telemetry techniques. J Wild Man 53:621–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fieberg J, Matthiopoulos J, Hebblewhite M, Boyce MS, Frair JL (2010) Correlation and studies of habitat selection: problem, red herring or opportunity? Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 365:2233–2244PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Franzmann AW, Schwartz CC (1997) Ecology and management of the North American moose, 1st edn. Smithsonian Institution Press, USAGoogle Scholar
  14. Guillet C, Bergström R, Cederlund G, Bergström J, Ballon P (1995) Comparison of telemetry and pellet-group counts for determining habitat selectivity by roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) in winter. J Gibi Faun Sau 12:253–269Google Scholar
  15. Johnson H (1980) The comparison of usage and availability measurements for evaluating resource preference. Ecology 6:65–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kardell L (1980) Occurrence and production of bilberry, lingonberry and raspberry in Sweden’s forests. For Ecol Manage 2:285–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Krebs CJ (1999) Ecological methodology, 2nd edn. Benjamin/Cummings, Menlo parkGoogle Scholar
  18. Lavsund S (1975) Investigations on pellet groups. Research notes 23. Royal College of Forestry. Stockholm. In Swedish with English summaryGoogle Scholar
  19. Lavsund S, Nygren S, Solberg EJ (2003) Status of moose population and challenges to moose management in Fennoscandia. Alces 39:109–130Google Scholar
  20. Leban FA (1999) Resource selection for Windows: user’s guide. University of Idaho, MoscowGoogle Scholar
  21. Leopold BD, Krausman PR, Hervert JJ (1984) Comment: the pellet-group census technique as an indicator of relative habitat use. Wildl Soc Bull 12:325–326Google Scholar
  22. Litvaitis JA, Sherburne JA, Bissonette JA (1985) A comparison of methods used to examine snowshoe hare habitat use. J Wild Man 49:693–695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Loft ER, Kie JG (1988) Comparison of pellet-group and radio triangulation methods for assessing deer habitat use. J Wild Man 52:524–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Manly BFJ, Miller P, Cook LM (1972) Analysis of a selective predation experiment. Am Nat 106:719–736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Månsson J (2009) Environmental variation and moose Alces alces density as determinants of spatio-temporal heterogeneity in browsing. Ecography 32:601–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Månsson J, Andren H, Pehrson A, Bergstrom R (2007) Moose browsing and forage availability: a scale-dependent relationship? Can J Zool 85:372–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Miquelle DG, Peek JM, Ballenberghe VV (1992) Sexual segregation in Alaskan moose. Wildl Monogr 122:3–57Google Scholar
  28. Moen R, Pastor J, Cohen Y, Schwartz CC (1996) Effects of moose movement and habitat use on GPS collar performance. J Wild Man 60:659–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Moen R, Pastor J, Cohen Y (1997) Accuracy of GPS telemetry collar locations with differential correction. J Wild Man 61:530–539Google Scholar
  30. Neff DJ (1968) The pellet-group count technique for big game trend, census, and distribution: a review. J Wild Man 32:597–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Neu CW, Byers CR, Peek JM (1974) A technique for analysis of utilization-availability data. J Wild Man 38:541–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Olsson M, Cox JJ, Larkin JL, Widén P, Olovsson A (2010) Space and habitat use of moose in southwestern Sweden. Eur J Wildl Res. doi: 10.1007/s10344-010-0418-5 Google Scholar
  33. Persson IL (2003) Seasonal and habitat differences in visibility of moose pellets. Alces 39:233–241Google Scholar
  34. Pradhan NMB, Wegge P (2007) Dry season habitat selection by a recolonizing population of Asian elephants Elephas maximus in lowland Nepal. Acta Theriol 52:205–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Putman RJ (1984) Facts from feces. Mammal Rev 14:79–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rempel RS, Rodgers AR (1997) Effects of differential correction on accuracy of a GPS animal location system. J Wildl Manage 61:525–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rempel RS, Rodgers AR, Abraham KF (1995) Performance of a GPS animal location system under boreal forest canopy. J Wildl Manage 59:543–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rodgers AR, Rempel RS, Abraham KF (1996) A GPS-based telemetry system. Wildl Soc Bull 24:559–566Google Scholar
  39. Rönnegård L, Sand H, Andrén H, Månsson J, Pehrson Å (2008) Evaluation of four methods used to estimate population density of moose Alces alces. Wildl Biol 14:358–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Van Beest MF, Loe LE, Mysterud A, Milner JM (2010) Comparative space use and habitat selection of moose around feeding stations. J Wild Man 74:219–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. White GC, Garrot RA (1990) Analysis of wildlife radio-tracking data. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Grimsö Wildlife Research Station, Department of EcologySwedish University of Agricultural SciencesRiddarhyttanSweden

Personalised recommendations