Landscape Ecology

, Volume 26, Issue 7, pp 999–1010 | Cite as

Landscape composition influences roe deer habitat selection at both home range and landscape scales

  • Nicolas MorelletEmail author
  • Bram Van Moorter
  • Bruno Cargnelutti
  • Jean-Marc Angibault
  • Bruno Lourtet
  • Joël Merlet
  • Sylvie Ladet
  • A. J. Mark Hewison
Research Article


Understanding how patterns of habitat selection vary in relation to landscape structure is essential to predict ecological responses of species to global change and inform management. We investigated behavioural plasticity in habitat selection of roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) in relation to variable habitat availability across a heterogeneous agricultural landscape at the home range and landscape scales. As expected, woodland was heavily selected, but we found no functional response for this habitat, i.e. no shift in habitat selection with changing habitat availability, possibly due to the presence of hedgerows which were increasingly selected as woodlands were less abundant. Hedgerows may thus function as a substitutable habitat for woodlands by providing roe deer with similar resources. We observed a functional response in the use of hedgerows, implying some degree of landscape complementation between hedgerows and open habitats, which may in part compensate for lower woodland availability. We also expected selection for woodland to be highest at the wider spatial scale, especially when this habitat was limiting. However, our results did not support this hypothesis, but rather indicated a marked influence of habitat composition, as both the availability and distribution of resources conditioned habitat selection. There was no marked between-sex difference in the pattern of habitat selection at either scale or between seasons at the landscape scale, however, within the home range, selection did differ between seasons. We conclude that landscape structure has a marked impact on roe deer habitat selection in agricultural landscapes through processes such as landscape complementation and supplementation.


Behavioural plasticity Functional response Substitutable resource Ungulates Woodland fragmentation 



We would like to thank the local hunting associations with the Fédération Départementale des Chasseurs de la Haute Garonne for allowing us to work in the Comminges, as well as numerous co-workers and volunteers for their assistance and two anonymous referees for their constructive criticisms on an earlier draft of this work.


  1. Abbas F, Morellet N, Hewison AJM, Merlet J-l, Cargnelutti B, Lourtet B, Angibault J-M, Daufresne T, Aulagnier S, Verheyden H (2011) Landscape fragmentation and plasticity in resource use generate spatial variation of diet composition and quality in a generalist herbivore. Oecologia. doi: 10.1007/s00442-011-1994-0
  2. Adrados C, Girard I, Gendner J-P, Janeau G (2002) GPS location accuracy improvement due to selective availability removal. C R Biol 325:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersen R, Duncan P, Linnell JDC (eds) (1998a) The European roe deer: the biology of success. Scandinavian University, OsloGoogle Scholar
  4. Andersen R, Gaillard J-M, Liberg O, San Jose C (1998b) Variation in life-history parameters. In: Andersen R, Duncan P, Linnell JDC (eds) The European roe deer: the biology of success. Scandinavian University Press, Oslo, pp 189–219Google Scholar
  5. Bailey D, Alimadhi F (2007) ls.mixed: mixed effects linear model. In: Imai K, King G, Lau O (eds) Zelig: everyone’s statistical software. Available in
  6. Banks SC, Piggott MP, Stow AJ, Taylor AC (2007) Sex and sociality in a disconnected world: a review of the impacts of habitat fragmentation on animal social interactions. Can J Zool 85:1065–1079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Benton TG, Vickery JA, Wilson JD (2003) Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key? Trends Ecol Evol 18:182–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Berryman AA, Hawkins BA (2006) The refuge as an integrating concept in ecology and evolution. Oikos 115:192–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boyce MS (2006) Scale for resource selection functions. Divers Distrib 12:269–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brown JS, Laundré JW, Gurung M (1999) The ecology of fear: optimal foraging, game theory, and trophic interactions. J Mammal 80:385–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Burel F, Butet A, Delettre YR, de la Pena NM (2004) Differential response of selected taxa to landscape context and agricultural intensification. Landsc Urban Plan 67:195–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cargnelutti B, Reby D, Desneux L, Angibault J-M, Joachim J, Hewison AJM (2002) Space use by roe deer in a fragmented landscape some preliminary results. Rev Ecol (Terre Vie) 57:29–37Google Scholar
  14. Cargnelutti B, Coulon A, Hewison AJM, Goulard M, Angibault J-M, Morellet N (2007) Testing GPS performance for wildlife monitoring using mobile collars with known reference points. J Wildl Manag 71:1380–1387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cransac N, Cibien C, Angibault J-M, Morellet N, Vincent J-P, Hewison AJM (2001) Variations saisonnières du régime alimentaire du chevreuil (Capreolus capreolus) selon le sexe en milieu forestier à forte densité (forêt domaniale de Dourdan). Mammalia 65:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dunning JB, Danielson BJ, Pulliam HR (1992) Ecological processes that affect populations in complex landscapes. Oikos 65:169–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. ESRI (2002) Using ArcView GIS version 3.3: the geographic information system for everyone. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., RedlandsGoogle Scholar
  18. Gaillard J-M, Hebblewhite M, Loison A, Fuller M, Powell R, Basille M, Van Moorter B (2010) Habitat-performance relationships: finding the right metric at a given spatial scale. Philos T R Soc Lond B 365:2255–2265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Godvik IMR, Loe LE, Vik JO, Veiberg V, Langvatn R, Mysterud A (2009) Temporal scales, trade-offs, and functional responses in red deer habitat selection. Ecology 90:699–710PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Herfindal I, Tremblay J-P, Hansen BB, Solberg EJ, Heim M, Sæther B-E (2009) Scale dependency and functional response in moose habitat selection. Ecography 32:849–859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hewison AJM, Vincent JP, Reby D (1998) Social organisation of European roe deer. In: Andersen R, Duncan P, Linnell JDC (eds) The European roe deer: the biology of success. Scandinavian University Press, Oslo, pp 189–219Google Scholar
  22. Hewison AJM, Vincent J-P, Joachim J, Angibault J-M, Cargnelutti B, Cibien C (2001) The effects of woodland fragmentation and human activity on roe deer distribution in agricultural landscapes. Can J Zool 79:679–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hewison AJM, Angibault J-M, Cargnelutti B, Coulon A, Rames J-L, Serrano E, Verheyden H, Morellet N (2007) Using radio-tracking and direct observation to estimate roe deer density in a fragmented landscape: a pilot study. Wildl Biol 13:313–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hewison AJM, Morellet N, Verheyden H, Daufresne T, Angibault J-M, Cargnelutti B, Merlet J, Picot D, Rames J-L, Joachim J, Lourtet B, Serrano E, Bideau E, Cebe N (2009) Landscape fragmentation influences winter body mass of roe deer. Ecography 32:1062–1070CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hobbs NT, Hanley TA (1990) Habitat evaluation: do use/availability data reflect carrying capacity. J Wildl Manag 54:515–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Johnson DH (1980) The comparison of usage and availability measurements for evaluating resource preference. Ecology 61:65–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. Manly BFJ, McDonald LL, Thomas DL, McDonald TL, Erickson WP (2002) Resource selection by animals: statistical analysis and design for field studies. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  29. Massé A, Côté SD (2009) Habitat selection of a large herbivore at high density and without predation: trade-off between forage and cover? J Mammal 90:961–970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Morellet N, Verheyden H, Angibault J-M, Cargnelutti B, Lourtet B, Hewison AJM (2009) The effect of capture on ranging behaviour and activity of the European roe deer Capreolus capreolus. Wildl Biol 15:278–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mysterud A, Ims RA (1998) Functional responses in habitat use: availability influences relative use in trade-off situations. Ecology 79:1435–1441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mysterud A, Ostbye E (1999) Cover as a habitat element for temperate ungulates: effects on habitat selection and demography. Wildl Soc Bull 27:385–394Google Scholar
  33. Mysterud A, Larsen PK, Ims RA, Ostbye E (1999) Habitat selection by roe deer and sheep: does habitat ranking reflect resource availability? Can J Zool 77:776–783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Odum EP (1959) Fundamentals of ecology. WB Saunders Company, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  35. Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D, The R Core Team (2009) nlme: Linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3, pp 1–96Google Scholar
  36. Rettie WJ, Messier F (2000) Hierarchical habitat selection by woodland caribou: its relationship to limiting factors. Ecography 23:466–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Saïd S, Servanty S (2005) The influence of landscape structure on female roe deer home-range size. Landscape Ecol 20:1003–1012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Saïd S, Pellerin M, Guillon N, Debias F, Fritz H (2005) Assessment of forage availability in ecological studies. Eur J Wildl Res 51:242–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sempéré AJ, Mauget R, Mauget C (1998) Reproductive physiology of roe deer. In: Andersen R, Duncan P, Linnell JDC (eds) The European roe deer: the biology of success. Scandinavian University Press, Oslo, pp 161–188Google Scholar
  40. Sotherton NW (1998) Land use changes and the decline of farmland wildlife: an appraisal of the set-aside approach. Biol Conserv 83:259–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. R Development Core Team (2009) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0,
  42. Tilman D (1980) Resources: a graphical-mechanistic approach to competition and predation. Am Nat 116:362–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tufto J, Andersen R, Linnell JDC (1996) Habitat use and ecological correlates of home range size in a small cervid: the roe deer. J Anim Ecol 65:715–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Van Moorter B (2008) Habitat selection at different spatial scales: application to roe deer. Dissertation, Claude Bernard Lyon IGoogle Scholar
  45. Van Moorter B, Gaillard J-M, McLoughlin PD, Delorme D, Klein F, Boyce MS (2009) Maternal and individual effects in selection of bed sites and their consequences for fawn survival at different spatial scales. Oecologia 159:669–678PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Venables WN, Ripley BD (2002) Modern applied statistics with S. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. Whittaker J (1990) Graphical models in applied multivariate statistics. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  48. Worton BJ (1989) Kernel methods for estimating the utilization distribution in home-range studies. Ecology 70:164–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicolas Morellet
    • 1
    Email author
  • Bram Van Moorter
    • 4
  • Bruno Cargnelutti
    • 1
  • Jean-Marc Angibault
    • 1
  • Bruno Lourtet
    • 1
  • Joël Merlet
    • 1
  • Sylvie Ladet
    • 2
    • 3
  • A. J. Mark Hewison
    • 1
  1. 1.Comportement et Ecologie de la Faune SauvageInstitut National de la Recherche AgronomiqueCastanet-Tolosan CedexFrance
  2. 2.INRACastanet-TolosanFrance
  3. 3.Université de ToulouseCastanet-TolosanFrance
  4. 4.Centre for Conservation Biology, Department of BiologyNTNU, RealfagbyggetTrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations