Advertisement

European Journal of Wildlife Research

, Volume 60, Issue 2, pp 237–247 | Cite as

Home range size estimates of red deer in Germany: environmental, individual and methodological correlates

  • Horst Reinecke
  • Loretta Leinen
  • Ines Thißen
  • Marcus Meißner
  • Sven Herzog
  • Stefan Schütz
  • Christian KiffnerEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

Home range size (HRS) is the fundamental measure of space use by animals. Despite the importance of the home range concept, there is no consensus on how to estimate the HRS of animals. Assessments of the performance of commonly applied HRS estimators have largely been based on simulated data or on location data of few sample individuals occupying one study area. To empirically evaluate the impact of supplementary feeding, habitat composition, red deer sex, and estimation method (minimum convex polygon (MCP), kernel density estimator (KDE) and α-local convex hull (α-LoCoH)) on HRS, we analysed the data of 183 annual red deer home ranges using a mixed modelling approach. Red deer HRSs were smallest in areas with substantial supplementary feeding, intermediate in areas with closed forest cover but no supplementary feeding, and largest in fragmented landscapes where supplementary feeding rarely occurs. Consistently, male HRSs were larger than female HRSs. While MCP- and KDE-HRS estimates were roughly similar, estimates from the α-LoCoH method were substantially smaller than those of MCP and KDE. Analyses of 342 seasonal HRS largely reflected patterns of annual HRS. However, seasonal HRS differed between seasons and red deer sex. In areas with no or little feeding, red deer adjusted HRS seasonally, whereas red deer supplied with supplementary food during winter did not alter their HRS seasonally. Our study suggests that supplementary feeding and habitat configuration strongly affect the spatial ecology of red deer; this might have considerable sanitary and ecological implications. We suggest that sex differences in annual space use extent are proportional along a resource gradient but are mediated by seasons. Finally, method-related variation in space use studies of animals needs to be considered more cautiously.

Keywords

Macro-ecology Disease transmission Movement restriction Resource dispersion Supplementary feeding 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We sincerely thank the Federal Agency for Agriculture and food (BLE), the Institute for Federal Real Estate (BImA) and the National Park Kellerwald-Edersee for funding this study. For access to the study areas and for logistic support, we thank T. Scherer (SH), U. Maushake (GW) and A. Bauer and W. Kommallein (KW). We thank J. Backhaus, J. Beckmann, E. Bemmann, R. Chartschenko, F. Gerstenmeyer, A. Irle, J. Schaub, U. Schomann, H. Wiek and M. Zickermann for the valuable support in the field.

References

  1. Bartón K (2013) Model selection and model averaging based on information criteria (AICc and alike). http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/MuMIn/index.html
  2. Bates D, Maechler M, Dai B (2008) lme4: linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes, R package version 0.999375-39Google Scholar
  3. 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 11:637–650PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Börger L, Franconi N, de Michele G, Gantz A, Meschi F, Manica A, Lovari S, Coulson T (2006) Effects of sampling regime on the mean and variance of home range size estimates. J Anim Ecol 75:1393–1405PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burgman MA, Fox JC (2003) Bias in species range estimates from minimum convex polygons: implications for conservation and options for improved planning. Anim Conserv 6:19–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Burt WH (1943) Territoriality and home range concepts as applied to mammals. J Mammal 24:346–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bützler W (2001) Rotwild. Biologie, Verhalten, Umwelt, Hege. BLV Verlagsgesellschaft mbH, München, Wien, ZürichGoogle Scholar
  9. Bro-Jørgensen J, Brown ME, Pettorelli N (2008) Using the satellite-derived normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) to explain ranging patterns in a lek-breeding antelope: the importance of scale. Oecologia 158:177–182PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Calabrese JM, Brunner JL, Ostfeld RS (2011) Partitioning the aggregation of parasites on hosts into intrinsic and extrinsic components via an extended Poisson-gamma mixture model. PLoS ONE 6(12):e29215. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0029215 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Calenge C (2006) The package “adehabitat” for the R software: a tool for the analysis of space and habitat use by animals. Ecol Model 197:516–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carbone C, Gittleman JL (2002) A common rule for the scaling of carnivore density. Science 295:2273–2276PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Caro T (2007) Behaviour and conservation: a bridge too far? TREE 22:394–400PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Cholet S, Martin JL (2013) Declining woodland birds in North America: should we blame Bambi? Diversity Distrib 19:481–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Clutton-Brook TH, Guiness FE, Albon SD (1982) Red deer: behavior and ecology of two sexes. The University of Chicago Press, IllinoisGoogle Scholar
  16. Cote SD, Rooney TP, Tremblay JP, Dussault C, Waller DM (2004) Ecological impacts of deer overabundance. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 35:113–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cumming GS, Cornélis D (2012) Quantitative comparison and selection of home range metrics for telemetry data. Diversity Distrib 18:1057–1065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Darwin C (1861) On the origin of species by means of natural selection, 3rd edn. Murray, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. Formica VA, Augat ME, Barnard ME, Butterfield RE, Wood CW, Brodie ED III (2010) Using home range estimates to construct social networks for species with indirect behavioural interactions. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 64:1199–1208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gelman A, Su YS, Yajima M, Hill J, Pittau MG, Kermann J, Zheng T (2013) arm: data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. http://cran.rproject.org/web/packages/arm/
  21. Getz WM, Wilmers CC (2004) A local nearest-neighbor convex-hull construction of home ranges and utilization distributions. Ecography 27:489–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Getz WM, Fortmann-Roe S, Cross PC, Lyons AJ, Ryan SJ, Wilmers CC (2007) LoCoH: nonparameteric kernel methods for constructing home ranges and utilization distributions. PLoS ONE 2:e207. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0000207 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gill RMA (1992) A review of damage by mammals in north temperate forests: 1. Deer. Forestry 65:145–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gortázar C, Torres MJ, Vicente J, Acevedo P, Reglero M et al (2008) Bovine tuberculosis in Doñana Biosphere Reserve: the role of wild ungulates as disease reservoirs in the last Iberian lynx strongholds. PLoS ONE 3(7):e2776. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0002776 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hansen BB, Herfindal I, Aanes R, Saether B-E, Henriksen S (2009) Functional response in habitat selection and the tradeoffs between foraging niche components in a large herbivore. Oikos 118:859–872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hawkes C (2009) Linking movement behaviour, dispersal and population processes: is individual variation a key? J Anim Ecol 78:894–906PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hemson G (2003) Some ecological correlates of lion density and space use revisited. In: Hemson G (ed) The ecology and conservation of lions: human-wildlife-conflict in semi-arid Botswana. University of Oxford, United Kingdom, pp 114–136Google Scholar
  28. Hemson G, Johnson P, South A, Kenwards R, Ripley R, MacDonald D (2005) Are kernels the mustard? Data from global positioning system (GPS) collars suggests problems for kernel home-range analyses with least-squares cross-validation. J Anim Ecol 74:455–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Herfindal I, Tremblay J-P, Hansen BB, Solberg EJ, Heim M, Saether BE (2009) Scale dependency and functional response in moose habitat selection. Ecography 32:849–859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Huck M, Davison J, Roper TJ (2008) Comparison of two sampling protocols and four home-range estimators using radio-tracking data from urban badgers Meles meles. Wildlife Biol 14:467–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Humphries NE, Queiroz N, Dyer JRM, Pade NG, Musyl MK, Schaefer KM, Fuller DW, Brunnschweiler JM, Doyle TK, Houghton JDR, Hays GC, Jones CS, Noble LR, Wearmouth VJ, Southall EJ, Sims DW (2010) Environmental context explains Lévy and Brownian movement patterns of marine predators. Nature 465:1066–1069PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jennrich RI, Turner FB (1969) Measurement of non-circular home range. J Theor Biol 22:227–237PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jetz W, Carbone C, Fulford J, Brown JH (2004) The scaling of animal space use. Science 306:266–268PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kamler JF, Jedrzejewski W, Jedrzejewska B (2008) Home ranges of red deer in a European old-growth forest. Am Midl Nat 159:75–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kelt DA, van Vuren DH (2001) The ecology and macroecology of mammalian home range area. Am Nat 157:637–645PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kie JG, Matthiopoulos J, Fieberg J, Powell RA, Cagnacci F, Mitchell MS, Gaillard J-M, Moorcroft PR (2010) The home-range concept: are traditional estimators still relevant with modern telemetry technology. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 365:2221–2231Google Scholar
  37. Kiffner C, Roessiger E, Trisl O, Schulz R, Rühe F (2008) Probability of recent bark stripping damage by red deer (Cervus elaphus) on Norway spruce (Picea abies) in a low mountain range in Germany—a preliminary analysis. Silva Fennica 42:125–134Google Scholar
  38. Laver PN, Kelly MJ (2008) A critical review of home range studies. J Wildl Manage 72:290–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. MacDonald D (1983) The ecology of carnivore social behaviour. Nature 301:379–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Madsen AB, Strandgaard H, Prang A (2002) Factors causing traffic killings of roe deer Capreolus capreolus in Denmark. Wildlife Biol 8:55–61Google Scholar
  41. Manly BF, McDonald LL, Thomas DL, McDonald DL, Erickson WP (2002) Resource selection by animals: statistical analysis and design for field studies. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  42. Merrill E, Sand H, Zimmermann B, McPhee H, Webb N, Hebblewhite M, Wabakken P, Frair JL (2010) Building a mechanistic understanding of predation with GPS-based movement data. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 365:2279–2288Google Scholar
  43. Milner JM, Bonenfant C, Mysterud A, Gaillard J-M, Csányi SNC (2006) Temporal and spatial development of red deer harvesting in Europe: biological and cultural factors. J Appl Ecol 43:721–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mohr CO (1947) Table of equivalent populations of North American small mammals. Am Midl Nat 37:223–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Morales JM, Moorcroft PR, Matthiopoulos J, Frair JL, Kie JG, Powell RA, Merrill EH, Haydon DT (2010) Building the bridge between animal movement and population dynamics. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 365:2289–2301Google Scholar
  46. Müller M, Naumann L, Weber A, Ehrlein J, Ewringmann T, Krisch A, Kahlau D (2007) Nachweis des Mycobacterium tuberculosis-Komplexes bei Wildschweinen mittels PCR [Detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex in wild boars by PCR]. Tierärztliche Umschau 62:140–143Google Scholar
  47. Nilsen EB, Pedersen S, Linnell JDC (2008) Can minimum convex polygon home ranges be used to draw biologically meaningful conclusions? Ecol Res 23:635–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Owen-Smith N, Fryxell JM, Merrill EH (2010) Foraging theory upscaled: the behavioural ecology of herbivore movement. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 365:2267–2278Google Scholar
  49. R Development Core Team (2010): R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org. Accessed 11 January 2010
  50. Rivrud IM, Loe LE, Mysterud A (2010) How does local weather predict red deer home range size at different temporal scales? J Anim Ecol 79:1280–1295PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schöning JM, Cerny N, Prohaska S, Wittenbrink MM, Smith NH et al (2013) Surveillance of bovine tuberculosis and risk estimation of a future reservoir formation in wildlife in Switzerland and Liechtenstein. PLoS ONE 8(1):e54253. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0054253 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tomkiewicz SM, Fuller MR, Kie JG, Bates KK (2010) Global positioning system and associated technologies in animal behaviour and ecological research. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 365:2163–2176Google Scholar
  53. Urbano F, Cagnacci F, Calenge C, Dettki H, Cameron A, Neteler M (2010) Wildlife tracking data management: a new vision. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 365:2177–2185Google Scholar
  54. van Beest FM, Rivrud IM, Loe LE, Milner JM, Mysterud A (2011) What determines variation in home range size across spatiotemporal scales in a large browsing herbivore? J Anim Ecol 80:771–785PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Walter WD, VerCauteren KC, Campa H, Clark WR, Fischer JW, Hygnstrom SE, Mathews NE, Nielsen CK, Schauber EM, Van Deelen TR, Winterstein SR (2009) Regional assessment on influence of landscape configuration and connectivity on range size of white-tailed deer. Landscape Ecol 24:1405–1420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Witey JC, Bloxton TD, Marzluff JM (2001) Effects of tagging and location error in wildlife radiotelemetry studies. In: Millspaugh JJ, Marzluff JM (eds) Radiotracking and animal populations. Academic, San Diego, pp 45–75Google Scholar
  57. Worton BJ (1989) Kernel methods for estimating the utilization distribution in home-range studies. Ecology 70:164–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Horst Reinecke
    • 1
  • Loretta Leinen
    • 1
  • Ines Thißen
    • 1
  • Marcus Meißner
    • 2
  • Sven Herzog
    • 2
    • 3
  • Stefan Schütz
    • 1
    • 2
  • Christian Kiffner
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Forest Zoology and Forest Conservation incl. Wildlife Biology and Game Management, Büsgen-InstituteGeorg-August-Universität GöttingenGöttingenGermany
  2. 2.Institut für Wildbiologie Göttingen & Dresden e.V.GöttingenGermany
  3. 3.Wildlife Ecology and ManagementDresden University of TechnologyTharandtGermany

Personalised recommendations