Advertisement

Landscape Ecology

, Volume 24, Issue 10, pp 1405–1420 | Cite as

Regional assessment on influence of landscape configuration and connectivity on range size of white-tailed deer

  • W. David Walter
  • Kurt C. VerCauteren
  • Henry CampaIII
  • William R. Clark
  • Justin W. Fischer
  • Scott E. Hygnstrom
  • Nancy E. Mathews
  • Clayton K. Nielsen
  • Eric M. Schauber
  • Timothy R. Van Deelen
  • Scott R. Winterstein
Research Article

Abstract

Variation in the size of home range of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) has broad implications for managing populations, agricultural damage, and disease spread and transmission. Size of home range of deer also varies seasonally because plant phenology dictates the vegetation types that are used as foraging or resting sites. Knowledge of the landscape configuration and connectivity that contributes to variation in size of home range of deer for the region is needed to fully understand differences and similarities of deer ecology throughout the Midwest. We developed a research team from four Midwestern states to investigate how size of home range of deer in agro-forested landscapes is influenced by variations in landscape characteristics that provide essential habitat components. We found that for resident female deer, annual size of home range in Illinois (mean = 0.99 km2), Michigan (mean = 1.34 km2), Nebraska (mean = 1.20 km2), and Wisconsin (mean = 1.47 km2) did not differ across the region (F 3,175 = 0.42, P = 0.737), but differences between agricultural growing and nongrowing periods were apparent. Variables influencing size of home range included: distance to forests, roads, and urban development from the centroid of deer home range, and percent of crop as well as four landscape pattern indices (contrast-weighted edge density, mean nearest neighbor, area-weighted mean shape index, and patch size coefficient of variation). We also identified differences in model selection for four landscapes created hierarchically to reflect levels of landscape connectivity determined from perceived ability of deer to traverse the landscape. Connectivity of selected forested regions within agro-forested ecosystems across the Midwest plays a greater role in understanding the size of home ranges than traditional definitions of deer habitat conditions and landscape configuration.

Keywords

Anthropogenic Connectivity Home range Landscape pattern indices Odocoileus virginianus White-tailed deer 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Funds were provided by the State Agricultural Experiment Station (SAES) in partnership with the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) under the US Department of Agriculture and the National Wildlife Research Center of the United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services. Funding and logistical support for Illinois was provided by the Illinois Department of Natural Resources through the Federal Aid Project W-87-R, and Cooperative Wildlife Research Laboratory, Department of Zoology, and Graduate School at Southern Illinois University Carbondale. Several people assisted with field work in Illinois, especially C. Bloomquist, M. Bloomquist, A. Nollman, P. McDonald, J. Rohm, and D. Storm. Funds for field work in Michigan were provided by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources-Wildlife Division through the Federal Aid in Restoration Act under Pittman-Robertson Project W-147-R, Michigan State University, Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, Safari Club International, and Whitetails Unlimited. Several people contributed to the project and assisted with Michigan field work, especially T. Hiller with assistance from A. Leach, E. Arrow, R. Havens, B. Dodge, L. McNew, D. Haan, M. Rubley, B. Rudolph, S. Dubay, S. Hanna, F. Davis, and V. Tisch. Funds for field work in Nebraska were provided by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Desoto National Wildlife Refuge, Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, Safari Club International, Nebraska Bowhunters Association, Professional Bowhunters Association, Cabela’s Incorporated, Berryman Institute for Wildlife Damage Management, and the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. We thank G. Gage, L. Klimek, M. Buske, B. Barry, and M. Sheets for providing study sites, equipment, assistance, maintenance, and lodging and G. Clements, M. Clements, S. Korte, and J. Gilsdorf for assistance with data collection in Nebraska. Funds for field work in Wisconsin were provided by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Wisconsin Cattleman’s Association, Whitetails Unlimited Association, Northcentral Agricultural Experiment Station, Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Department of Wildlife Ecology, Women in Science and Engineering Leadership Institute, and the University of Wisconsin-Madison Graduate School. Many people assisted with Wisconsin field work and analysis, especially: A. M. Oyer, L. H. Skuldt, J. C. Chamberlin, V. Green, W. Delanis, R. A. McLean, D. Grove, and S. B. Magle. We thank D. Theobald at Colorado State University for creating and providing the urban density GIS data layer used in this manuscript.

References

  1. Anderson DP, Forester JD, Turner MG, Frair JL, Merrill EH, Fortin D, Mao JS, Boyce MS (2005) Factors influencing female home range sizes in elk (Cervus elaphus) in North American landscapes. Landscape Ecol 20:257–271. doi: 10.1007/s10980-005-0062-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beier P, McCullough DR (1990) Factors influencing white-tailed deer activity patterns and habitat use. Wildl Monogr 109:1–51Google Scholar
  3. Blanchong JA, Joly DO, Samuel MD, Langenberg JA, Rolley RE, Sausen JF (2006) White-tailed deer harvest from the chronic wasting disease eradication zone in south-central Wisconsin. Wildl Soc Bull 34:725–731. doi: 10.2193/0091-7648(2006)34[725:WDHFTC]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brinkman TJ, DePerno CS, Jenks JA, Haroldson BS, Osborn RG (2005) Movement of female white-tailed deer: effects of climate and intensive row-crop agriculture. J Wildl Manage 69:1099–1111. doi: 10.2193/0022-541X(2005)069[1099:MOFWDE]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Campa H III, Winterstein SR, Peyton RB, Dudderar GR, Leeferes LA (1997) An evaluation of a multidisciplinary problem: ecological and sociological factors influencing white-tailed deer damage to agricultural crops in Michigan. Trans North Am Wildl Nat Resour Conf 62:431–440Google Scholar
  7. Caughley G (1981) Overpopulation. In: Jewell PA, Holt S (eds) Problems in management of locally abundant wild mammals. Academic Press, New York, pp 7–19Google Scholar
  8. Connelly NA, Decker DJ, Wear S (1987) Public tolerance of deer in a suburban environment: implications for management and control. Proc East Wildl Damage Contr Conf 3:207–218Google Scholar
  9. Conner MM, Miller MW (2004) Movement patterns and spatial epidemiology of a prion disease in mule deer population units. Ecol Appl 14:1870–1881. doi: 10.1890/03-5309 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Deblinger RD, Wilson ML, Rimmer DW, Spielman A (1993) Reduced abundance of Immature Ixodes dammini (Acari: Ixodidae) following incremental removal of deer. J Med Entomol 30:144–150PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Decker DJ, Gavin TA (1987) Public attitudes toward a suburban deer herd. Wildl Soc Bull 15:173–180Google Scholar
  12. Elkie PC, Rempel RS, Carr AP (1999) Patch analyst user’s manual: a tool for quantifying landscape structure. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Northwest Science and Technology, Thunder BayGoogle Scholar
  13. Etter DR, Hollis KM, Ludwig DR, Chelsvig JE, Anchor CL (2002) Survival and movements of white-tailed deer in suburban Chicago, Illinois. J Wildl Manage 66:500–510. doi: 10.2307/3803183 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Felix AB, Walsh DP, Hughley BD, Campa HI, Winterstein SR (2007) Applying landscape-scale habitat-potential models to understand deer spatial structure and movement patterns. J Wildl Manage 71:804–810. doi: 10.2193/2006-366 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Finder RA, Roseberry JL, Woolf A (1999) Site and landscape conditions at white-tailed deer/vehicle collision locations in Illinois. Landsc Urban Plan 44:77–85. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(99)00006-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ford RG (1983) Home range in a patchy environment: optimal foraging predictions. Am Zool 23:315–326Google Scholar
  17. Fuller MR, Millspaugh JJ, Church KE, Kenward RE (2005) Wildlife radiotelemetry. In: Braun CE (ed) Techniques for wildlife investigations and management. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, pp 377–417Google Scholar
  18. Gaughan CR, DeStefano S (2005) Movement patterns of rural and suburban white-tailed deer in Massachusetts. Urban Ecosyst 8:191–202. doi: 10.1007/s11252-005-3265-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gese EM, Andersen DE, Rongstad OJ (1990) Determining home-range size of resident coyotes from point and sequential locations. J Wildl Manage 54:501–506. doi: 10.2307/3809665 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Girvetz EH, Greco SE (2007) How to define a patch: a spatial model for hierarchically delineating organism-specific habitat patches. Landscape Ecol 22:1131–1142. doi: 10.1007/s10980-007-9104-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gladfelter HL (1984) Midwest agricultural region. In: Halls LK (ed) White-tailed deer ecology and management. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, pp 427–440Google Scholar
  22. Grund MD, McAninch JB, Wiggers EP (2002) Seasonal movements and habitat use of female white-tailed deer associated with an urban park. J Wildl Manage 66:123–130. doi: 10.2307/3802878 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Harden CD, Woolf A, Rosenberry J (2005) Influence of exurban development on hunting opportunity, hunter distribution, and harvest efficiency of white-tailed deer. Wildl Soc Bull 33:233–242. doi: 10.2193/0091-7648(2005)33[233:IOEDOH]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Henderson DW, Warren RJ, Cromwell JA, Hamilton RJ (2000) Responses of urban deer to a 50% reduction in local herd density. Wildl Soc Bull 28:902–910Google Scholar
  25. Hiller TL (2007) Land-use patterns and population characteristics of white-tailed deer in an agro-forest ecosystem in south central Michigan. Dissertation, Michigan State University, East LansingGoogle Scholar
  26. Hooge PN, Eichenlaub B (1997) Animal movement extension in ArcView, Version 1.1. Alaska Biological Science Center, US Geological Survey, AnchorageGoogle Scholar
  27. Hubbard MW, Danielson BJ, Schmitz RA (2000) Factors influencing the location of deer-vehicle accidents in Iowa. J Wildl Manage 64:707–713. doi: 10.2307/3802740 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Johnson BK, Kern JW, Wisdom MJ, Findholt SL, Kie JG (2000) Resource selection and spatial separation of mule deer and elk during spring. J Wildl Manage 64:685–697. doi: 10.2307/3802738 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kie JG, Bowyer RT, Nicholson MC, Boroski BB, Loft ER (2002) Landscape heterogeneity at differing scales: effects on spatial distribution of mule deer. Ecology 83:530–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kilpatrick HJ, Spohr SM (2000) Spatial and temporal use of a suburban landscape by female white-tailed deer. Wildl Soc Bull 28:1023–1029Google Scholar
  31. Kilpatrick HJ, Spohr SM, Lima KK (2001) Effects of population reduction on home ranges of female white-tailed deer at high densities. Can J Zool 79:949–954. doi: 10.1139/cjz-79-6-949 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kjaer LJ, Schauber EM, Nielsen CK (2008) Spatial and temporal analysis of contact rates in female white-tailed deer. J Wildl Manage 72:1819–1825. doi: 10.2193/2007-489 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kotliar NB, Wiens JA (1990) Multiple scales of patchiness and patch structure: a hierarchical framework for the study of heterogeneity. Oikos 59:253–260. doi: 10.2307/3545542 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Long ES, Diefenbach DR, Rosenberry CS, Wallingford BD, Grund MD (2005) Forest cover influences dispersal distance of white-tailed deer. J Mammal 86:623–629. doi: 10.1644/1545-1542(2005)86[623:FCIDDO]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McGarigal K, Marks BJ (1995) FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure. General Technical Report PNW-351, US Forest Service, CorvallisGoogle Scholar
  36. Miller R, Kaneene JB, Fitzgerald SD, Schmitt SM (2003) Evaluation of the influence of supplemental feeding of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) on the prevalence of bovine tuberculosis in the Michigan wild deer population. J Wildl Dis 39:84–95PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Milne BT, Johnston KM, Forman TT (1989) Scale-dependent proximity of wildlife habitat in a spatially-neutral Bayesian model. Landscape Ecol 2:101–110. doi: 10.1007/BF00137154 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Montgomery GG (1963) Nocturnal movements and activity rhythms of white-tailed deer. J Wildl Manage 27:422–427. doi: 10.2307/3798516 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium [MRLC] (2009) National land cover database. <http://gisdata.usgs.gov/website/mrlc/viewer.htm>. Accessed 4 May 2007
  40. Nixon CM, Hansen LP, Brewer PA, Chelsvig JE (1991) Ecology of white-tailed deer in an intensively farmed region of Illinois. Wildl Monogr 118:1–77Google Scholar
  41. North Central Regional Association of State Agricultural Experiment Directors [NCRA] (2008) Landscape ecology of white-tailed deer in agro-forested ecosystems: a cooperative approach to support management. <http://nimss.umd.edu/homepages/home.cfm?trackID=2074>. Accessed 4 May 2007
  42. O’Brien DJ, Schmitt SM, Fitzgerald SD, Berry DE, Hickling GJ (2006) Managing the wildlife reservoir of mycobacterium bovis: The Michigan, USA, experience. Vet Microbiol 112:313–323. doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2005.11.014 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Odum EP, Kuenzler EJ (1955) Measurement of territory and home range size in birds. Auk 72:128–137Google Scholar
  44. Owen-Smith N (2004) Functional heterogeneity in resources within landscapes and herbivore population dynamics. Landscape Ecol 19:761–771. doi: 10.1007/s10980-005-0247-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pogue DW, Schnell GD (2001) Effects of agriculture on habitat complexity in a prairie-forest ecotone in the southern great plains of North America. Agric Ecosyst Environ 87:287–298. doi: 10.1016/S0167-8809(01)00150-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rice WR (1989) Analyzing tables of statistical tests. Evol Int J Org Evol 43:223–225. doi: 10.2307/2409177 Google Scholar
  47. Rodgers AR, Carr AP (1998) HRE: the home range extension for ArcViewTM: user’s manual. Beta test version 0.9. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Centre for Northern Forest Ecosystem Research, Thunder BayGoogle Scholar
  48. Said S, Servanty S (2005) The influence of landscape structure on female roe deer home-range size. Landscape Ecol 20:1003–1012. doi: 10.1007/s10980-005-7518-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schmitt SM, Fitzgerald SD, Cooley TM, Bruning-Fann CS, Sullivan L, Berry D, Carlson T, Minnis RB, Payeur JB, Sikarskie J (1997) Bovine tuberculosis in free-ranging white-tailed deer from Michigan. J Wildl Dis 33:749–758PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Seaman DE, Powell RA (1996) An evaluation of the accuracy of kernel density estimators for home range analysis. Ecology 77:2075–2085. doi: 10.2307/2265701 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Seaman DE, Millspaugh JJ, Kernohan BJ, Brundige GC, Raedeke KJ, Gitzen RA (1999) Effects of sample size on kernel home range estimates. J Wildl Manage 63:739–747. doi: 10.2307/3802664 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Skuldt LH, Mathews NE, Oyer AM (2008) White-tailed deer movements in a chronic wasting disease area in south-central Wisconsin. J Wildl Manage 72:1156–1160. doi: 10.2193/2006-469 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Slingenbergh J, Gilbert M, de Balogh K, Wint W (2004) Ecological sources of zoonotic diseases. Rev Sci Tech 23:467–484PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Storm DJ, Nielsen CK, Schauber EM, Woolf A (2007) Space use and survival of white-tailed deer in an exurban landscape. J Wildl Manage 71:1170–1176. doi: 10.2193/2006-388 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Stout RJ, Stedman RC, Decker DJ, Knuth BA (1993) Perceptions of risk from deer-related vehicle accidents: implications for public preferences for deer herd size. Wildl Soc Bull 21:237–249Google Scholar
  56. Theobald DM (2001) Land-use dynamics beyond the American urban fringe. Geogr Rev 91:544–564. doi: 10.2307/3594740 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Theobald DM, Miller JR, Hobbs NT (1997) Estimating the cumulative effects of development on wildlife habitat. Landsc Urban Plan 39:25–36. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(97)00041-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tscharntke T, Klein AM, Kruess A, Steffan-Dewenter I, Thies C (2005) Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity —ecosystem service management. Ecol Lett 8:857–874. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00782.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Turner MG (1989) Landscape ecology: the effect of pattern on process. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 20:171–197. doi: 10.1146/annurev.es.20.110189.001131 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. United States Department of Agriculture (2002) National agricultural statistics service. <http://www.nass.usda.gov/Data_and_Statistics/Quick_Stats/index.asp>. Accessed 18 May 2007
  61. VerCauteren KC, Hygnstrom SE (1998) Effects of agricultural activities and hunting on home ranges of female white-tailed deer. J Wildl Manage 62:280–285. doi: 10.2307/3802289 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Walter WD, VerCauteren KC, Gilsdorf JM, Hygnstrom SE (2009) Crop, native vegetation, and biofuels: response of white-tailed deer to changing management priorities. J Wildl Manage 73:339–344. doi: 10.2193/2008-162 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Warren RJ (1997) Deer overabundance—special issue. Wildl Soc Bull 25:213–562Google Scholar
  64. Whitney GG, Somerlot WJ (1985) A case study of woodland continuity and change in the American midwest. Biol Conserv 31:265–287. doi: 10.1016/0006-3207(85)90071-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wiens JA (1976) Population responses to patchy environments. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 7:81–120. doi: 10.1146/annurev.es.07.110176.000501 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wobeser GA (2006) Essentials of diseases in wild animals. Blackwell, AmesGoogle Scholar
  67. Worton BJ (1989) Kernel methods for estimating the utilization distribution in home-range studies. Ecology 70:164–168. doi: 10.2307/1938423 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© United States Department of Agriculture/Animal Plant Health Inspection Service/Wildlife Services 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • W. David Walter
    • 1
    • 2
  • Kurt C. VerCauteren
    • 3
  • Henry CampaIII
    • 4
  • William R. Clark
    • 5
  • Justin W. Fischer
    • 3
  • Scott E. Hygnstrom
    • 6
  • Nancy E. Mathews
    • 7
  • Clayton K. Nielsen
    • 8
  • Eric M. Schauber
    • 8
  • Timothy R. Van Deelen
    • 9
  • Scott R. Winterstein
    • 4
  1. 1.Colorado Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research UnitColorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA
  2. 2.United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection ServicesNational Wildlife Research CenterFort CollinsUSA
  3. 3.United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services, Wildlife ServicesNational Wildlife Research CenterFort CollinsUSA
  4. 4.Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station and Department of Fisheries and WildlifeMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  5. 5.Ecology, Evolution, and Organismal BiologyIowa State UniversityAmesUSA
  6. 6.School of Natural ResourcesUniversity of NebraskaLincolnUSA
  7. 7.Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental StudiesUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA
  8. 8.Cooperative Wildlife Research Laboratory and Department of ZoologySouthern Illinois UniversityCarbondaleUSA
  9. 9.Department of Forest and Wildlife EcologyUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations