European Journal of Wildlife Research

, Volume 61, Issue 6, pp 831–840 | Cite as

Landscape of risk to roe deer imposed by lynx and different human hunting tactics

  • Jørgen Kvernhaugen Norum
  • Karen Lone
  • John D. C. Linnell
  • John Odden
  • Leif Egil Loe
  • Atle Mysterud
Original Article


Predator efficiency depends on how hunting tactics relate to habitat characteristics. Different tactics such as ambush, stalking, and pursuit may lead to spatially heterogeneous distributions of predation risk. Studying how such a landscape of risk looks in a multi-predator setting has become topical in light of the re-colonization of apex predators in areas with extensive human harvesting. The human hunter is likely to adapt hunting tactics to increase encounter rate and hunting success, but is also limited by time constraints, light conditions, legislation, tradition, and/or skills. The extent to which hunters vary tactics resulting in a spatial pattern of risk to ungulate prey has never been quantified. By comparing habitat characteristics between kill sites and sites used by GPS-marked roe deer, we quantified the landscape of risk as experienced by roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) exposed to predation by both Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx) and humans using different hunting tactics in southeastern Norway. Lynx killed roe deer in denser habitat than roe deer used on average, while humans killed most roe deer in open terrain. However, humans used multiple hunting tactics, and habitat characteristics varied predictably between drive hunts conducted with rifle versus shotgun, and between stalking versus “sit and wait” hunts with a rifle. Vegetation density was higher where roe deer were shot during drive hunts with a shotgun and during stalking than when shot during drive hunting with a rifle or during “sit and wait” hunts. Shooting distance was shortest for drive hunts with a shotgun, similar for drive hunts with a rifle and stalking, and considerably longer during “sit and wait” hunting. Managers therefore have the possibility to create different risk landscapes by restricting types of weapons and types of hunting tactic allowed, also in combination with the duration of the hunting season.


Indirect predation effects Landscape of fear Hunting culture Hunting methods Weapons Ungulates Large carnivores Human harvesting 



This study and the underlying risk map is based on GPS data from collared lynx and roe deer, and kill sites data collected by the Scandlynx project (, and was supported by the Research Council of Norway, the Norwegian Environment Agency, the University of Oslo, the Norwegian University of Life Sciences and the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), the Nature Protection Division of the County Governor’s Office for Oppland, Buskerud, Vestfold, and Telemark counties, the Carnivore Management Boards in regions 2 and 3, the County Municipalities of Buskerud, Vestfold, and Telemark, and the municipalities of Flå, Gol, Hjartdal, Nes, Nore og Uvdal, Rollag, Sauherad, Tinn, and Ål. We are grateful to Hildegunn Viljugrein for statistical advice related to negative binomial models and to Guillaume Latombe for several very helpful suggestions.


  1. Abrahamsen J, Jacobsen NK, Kalliola R, Dahl E, Wilborg L, Påhlsson L (1977) Naturgeografisk region-inndeling av Norden. Nordiske Utredninger Ser B 34:1–135Google Scholar
  2. Andersen R, Karlsen J, Austmo LB, Odden J, Linnell JDC, Gaillard J-M (2007) Selectivity of Eurasian lynx Lynx lynx and recreational hunters for age, sex and body condition in roe deer Capreolus capreolus. Wildl Biol 13:467–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Apollonio M, Andersen R, Putman R (2010) European ungulates and their management in the 21st century. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  4. Apollonio M, Putman R, Grignolio S, Bartos L (2011) Hunting seasons in relation to biological breeding seasons and the implications for the control or regulation of ungulate populations. In: Putman R, Andersen R, Apollonio M (eds) Ungulate management in Europe; problems and practises. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 80–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Atwood TC, Gese EM, Kunkel KE (2009) Spatial partitioning of predation risk in a multiple predator-multiple prey system. J Wildl Manag 73:876–884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Avgar T, Horvitz N, Broitman L, Nathan R (2008) How movement properties affect prey encounter rates of ambush versus active predators: a comment on Scharf et al. Am Nat 172:593–595CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Belotti E, Cerveny J, Sustr P, Kreisinger J, Gaibani GM, Bufka L (2013) Foraging sites of Eurasian lynx Lynx lynx: relative importance of microhabitat and prey occurrence. Wildl Biol 19:188–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Benhaiem S, Delon M, Lourtet B, Cargnelutti B, Aulagnier S, Hewison AJM, Morellet N, Verheyden H (2008) Hunting increases vigilance levels in roe deer and modifies feeding site selection. Anim Behav 76:611–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Beschta RL, Ripple WJ (2013) Are wolves saving Yellowstone’s aspen? A landscape-level test of a behaviorally mediated trophic cascade: comment. Ecology 94:1420–1425CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Bitterlich W (1984) The relascope idea: relative measurements in forestry. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, SloughGoogle Scholar
  11. Bonnot N, Morellet N, Verheyden H, Cargnelutti B, Lourtet B, Klein F, Hewison AJM (2013) Habitat use under predation risk: hunting, roads and human dwellings influence the spatial behaviour of roe deer. Eur J Wildl Res 59:185–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brodie J, Johnson H, Mitchell M, Zager P, Proffitt K, Hebblewhite M, Kauffman M, Johnson B, Bissonette J, Bishop C et al (2013) Relative influence of human harvest, carnivores, and weather on adult female elk survival across western North America. J Appl Ecol 50:295–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference. A practical information-theoretic approach. Springer, New York, 488 pp Google Scholar
  14. Chapron G, Kaczensky P, Linnell JDC, von Arx M, Huber D, Andrén H, López-Bao JV, Adamec M, Álvares F, Anders O et al (2014) Recovery of large carnivores in Europe’s modern human-dominated landscapes. Science 346:1517–1519CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Christianson D, Creel S (2010) A nutritionally mediated risk effect of wolves on elk. Ecology 91:1184–1191CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Ciuti S, Muhly TB, Paton DG, McDevitt AD, Musiani M, Boyce MS (2012) Human selection of elk behavioural traits in a landscape of fear. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B 279:4407–4416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Clinchy M, Sheriff MJ, Zanette LY (2013) The ecology of stress. Predator-induced stress and the ecology of fear. Funct Ecol 27:56–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Creel S, Christianson D, Liley S, Winnie JA (2007) Predation risk affects reproductive physiology and demography of elk. Science 315:960CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Cresswell W, Quinn JL (2013) Contrasting risks from different predators change the overall nonlethal effects of predation risk. Behav Ecol 24:871–876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cromsigt JPGM, Kuijper DPJ, Adam M, Beschta RL, Churski M, Eycott A, Kerley GIH, Mysterud A, Schmidt K, West K (2013) Hunting for fear: innovating management of human-wildlife conflicts. J Appl Ecol 50:544–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dunker H (1988) Winter studies on the lynx (Lynx lynx) in southeastern Norway from 1960-1982. Medd fra Nor Viltforskning 3:1–56Google Scholar
  22. Farmer CJ, Person DK, Bowyer RT (2006) Risk factors and mortality of black-tailed deer in a managed forest landscape. J Wildl Manag 70:1403–1415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gervasi V, Nilsen EB, Odden J, Bouyer Y, Linnell JDC (2014) The spatio-temporal distribution of wild and domestic ungulates modulates lynx kill rates in a multi-use landscape. J Zool 292:175–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Griffith B, Youtie BA (1988) Two devices for estimating foliage density and deer hiding cover. Wildl Soc Bull 16:206–210Google Scholar
  25. Haglund B (1966) Winter habits of the lynx (Lynx lynx L.) and wolverine (Gulo gulo L.) as revealed by tracking in the snow. Swed Wildl Res 4:81–310Google Scholar
  26. Hebblewhite M, Merrill EH, McDonald TL (2005) Spatial decomposition of predation risk using resource selection functions: an example in a wolf-elk predator-prey system. Oikos 111:101–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Herfindal I, Linnell JDC, Odden J, Nilsen EB, Andersen R (2005) Prey density, environmental productivity and home-range size in the Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx). J Zool 265:63–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kauffman MJ, Varley N, Smith DW, Stahler DR, MacNulty DR, Boyce MS (2007) Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system. Ecol Lett 10:690–700CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Kotler BP, Blaustein L (1995) Titrating food and safety in a heterogenous environment: when are the risky and safe patches of equal value? Oikos 74:251–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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
  31. Laundré JW, Hernández L, Altendorf KB (2001) Wolves, elk, and bison: reestablishing the "landscape of fear" in Yellowstone National Park, USA. Can J Zool 79:1401–1409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Laundré JW, Hernández L, Medina PL, Campanella A, López-Portillo J, González-Romero A, Grajales-Tam KM, Burke AM, Gronemeyer P, Browning DM (2014) The landscape of fear: the missing link to understand top-down and bottom-up controls of prey abundance? Ecology 95:1141–1152CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Lemmon PE (1956) A spherical densiometer for estimating forest overstory density. For Sci 2:314–320Google Scholar
  34. Lima SL, Bednekoff PA (1999) Temporal variation in danger drives antipredator behavior: the predation risk allocation hypothesis. Am Nat 153:649–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lima SL, Dill LM (1990) Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospectus. Can J Zool 68:619–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Linnell JDC, Brøseth H, Odden J, Nilsen EB (2010) Sustainably harvesting a large carnivore? Development of Eurasian lynx populations in Norway during 160 years of shifting policy. Environ Manag 45:1142–1154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lone K, Loe LE, Gobakken T, Linnell JDC, Odden J, Remmen J, Mysterud A (2014) Living and dying in a multipredator landscape of fear: roe deer are squeezed by contrasting pattern of predation risk imposed by lynx and humans. Oikos 123:641–651Google Scholar
  38. Lone K, Loe LE, Meisingset EL, Stamnes I, Mysterud A (2015) An adaptive behavioral response to hunting: surviving male red deer shift habitat at the onset of the hunting season. Anim Behav 102:127–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Martin TG, Wintle BA, Rhodes JR, Kuhnert PM, Field SA, Low-Choy SJ, Tyre AJ, Possingham H (2005) Zero tolerance ecology: improving ecological inference by modelling the source of zero observations. Ecol Lett 8:1235–1246CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Mejlgaard T, Loe LE, Odden J, Linnell JDC, Nilsen EB (2013) Lynx prey selection for age and sex classes of roe deer varies with season. J Zool 289:222–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Melis C, Nilsen EB, Panzacchi M, Linnell JDC, Odden J (2013) Roe deer face competing risks between predators along a gradient in abundance. Ecosphere 4:111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Milner JM, Bonenfant C, Mysterud A, Gaillard J-M, Csányi S, Stenseth NC (2006) Temporal and spatial development of red deer harvesting in Europe—biological and cultural factors. J Appl Ecol 43:721–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Murray DL, Boutin S, O’Donoghue M, Nams VO (1995) Hunting behaviour of a sympatric felid and canid in relation to vegetative cover. Anim Behav 50:1203–1210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mysterud A (2011) Selective harvesting of large mammals: how often does it result in directional selection? J Appl Ecol 48:827–834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mysterud A, Østbye E (1999) Cover as a habitat element for temperate ungulates: effects on habitat selection and demography. Wildl Soc Bull 27:385–394Google Scholar
  46. Nilsen EB, Gaillard J-M, Andersen R, Odden J, Delorme D, Van Laere G, Linnell JDC (2009) A slow life in hell or a fast life in heaven: demographic analyses of contrasting roe deer populations. J Anim Ecol 78:585–594CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Pinheiro JC, Bates DM (2000) Mixed effects models in S and S-PLUS. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Proffitt KM, Grigg JL, Hamlin KL, Garrott RA (2009) Contrasting effects of wolves and human hunters on elk behavioral responses to predation risk. J Wildl Manag 73:345–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Proffitt KM, Grigg JL, Garrott RA, Hamlin KL, Cunningham J, Gude JA, Jourdonnais C (2010) Changes in elk resource selection and distributions associated with a late-season elk hunt. J Wildl Manag 74:210–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Proffitt KM, Gude JA, Hamlin KL, Messer MA (2013) Effects of hunter access and habitat security on elk habitat selection in landscapes with a public and private land matrix. J Wildl Manag 77:514–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. R Development Core Team (2012) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  52. Ratikainen II, Panzacchi M, Mysterud A, Odden J, Linnell JDC, Andersen R (2007) Use of winter habitat by roe deer at a northern latitude where Eurasian lynx are present. J Zool 273:192–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Ripple WJ, Beschta RL (2004) Wolves and the ecology of fear: can predation risk structure ecosystems? Bioscience 54:755–766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ripple WJ, Estes JA, Beschta RL, Wilmers CC, Ritchie EG, Hebblewhite M, Berger J, Elmhagen B, Letnic M, Nelson MP et al (2014) Status and ecological effects of the world’s largest carnivores. Science 343:1241484CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Samelius G, Andrén H, Kjellander P, Liberg O (2013) Habitat selection and risk of predation: re-colonization by lynx had limited impact on habitat selection by roe deer. Plos One 8:e75469PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Scharf IE, Nulman E, Ovadia O, Bouskila A (2006) Efficiency evaluation of two competing foraging modes under different conditions. Am Nat 168:350–357CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Schmitz OJ (2008) Effects of predator hunting mode on grassland ecosystem function. Science 319:952–954CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Sih A, Englund G, Wooster D (1998) Emergent impacts of multiple predators on prey. Trends Ecol Evol 13:350–355CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Sönnichsen L, Bokje M, Marchal J, Hofer H, Jedrzejewska B, Kramer-Schadt S, Ortmann S (2013) Behavioural responses of European roe deer to temporal variation in predation risk. Ethology 119:233–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sunde P, Kvam T, Moa P, Negard A, Overskaug K (2000) Space use by Eurasian lynxes Lynx lynx in central Norway. Acta Theriol 45:507–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Theuerkauf J, Rouys S (2008) Habitat selection by ungulates in relation to predation risk by wolves and humans in the Bialowieza Forest, Poland. For Ecol Manag 256:1325–1332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Valeix M, Loveridge AJ, Chamaillé-Jammes S, Davidson Z, Murindagomo F, Fritz H, Macdonald DW (2009) Behavioral adjustments of African herbivores to predation risk by lions: spatiotemporal variations influence habitat use. Ecology 90:23–30CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jørgen Kvernhaugen Norum
    • 1
  • Karen Lone
    • 2
  • John D. C. Linnell
    • 3
  • John Odden
    • 3
  • Leif Egil Loe
    • 2
  • Atle Mysterud
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Ecological and Evolutionary Synthesis (CEES), Department of BiosciencesUniversity of OsloOsloNorway
  2. 2.Department of Ecology and Natural Resource ManagementNorwegian University of Life SciencesÅsNorway
  3. 3.Norwegian Institute for Nature ResearchTrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations