Environmental Management

, Volume 51, Issue 2, pp 435–447 | Cite as

Landscape-Scale Factors Affecting Feral Horse Habitat Use During Summer Within The Rocky Mountain Foothills

  • Tisa L. Girard
  • Edward W. Bork
  • Scott E. Neilsen
  • Mike J. Alexander


Public lands occupied by feral horses in North America are frequently managed for multiple uses with land use conflict occurring among feral horses, livestock, wildlife, and native grassland conservation. The factors affecting habitat use by horses is critical to understand where conflict may be greatest. We related horse presence and abundance to landscape attributes in a GIS to examine habitat preferences using 98 field plots sampled within a portion of the Rocky Mountain Forest Reserve of SW Alberta, Canada. Horse abundance was greatest in grassland and cut block habitats, and lowest in conifer and mixedwood forest. Resource selection probability functions and count models of faecal abundance indicated that horses preferred areas closer to water, with reduced topographic ruggedness, situated farther from forests, and located farther away from primary roads and trails frequented by recreationalists, but closer to small linear features (i.e. cut lines) that may be used as beneficial travel corridors. Horse presence and abundance were closely related to cattle presence during summer, suggesting that both herbivores utilise the same habitats. Estimates of forage biomass removal (44 %) by mid-July were near maximum acceptable levels. In contrast to horse-cattle associations, horses were negatively associated with wild ungulate abundance, although the mechanism behind this remains unclear and warrants further investigation. Our results indicate that feral horses in SW Alberta exhibit complex habitat selection patterns during spring and summer, including overlap in use with livestock. This finding highlights the need to assess and manage herbivore populations consistent with rangeland carrying capacity and the maintenance of range health.


Faecal counts Forage biomass Habitat selection Human disturbance Landscape characteristics Thermal cover Water availability 



Funding for this project was provided by a Ministerial Grant to E. W. Bork from Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, the University of Alberta, the Rocky Mountain Forest Range Association, and an ACA—Biodiversity Challenge Grant to T. Girard. We are grateful to Craig DeMaere, Alicia Entem and Michael Girard for their contributions to the project, and to Drs. Robert Hudson, Barry Irving and Evelyn Merrill, all of whom provided input on an earlier draft of the manuscript.


  1. Barry SC, Welsh AH (2002) Generalized additive modelling and zero inflated count data. Ecol Model 157:179–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Belsky AJ (1986) Does herbivory benefit plants? A review of the evidence. Am Nat 127(6):870–892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bork EW, Adams BW, Willms WD (1996) Prescribed burning of bog birch. Rangelands 18(1):4–7Google Scholar
  4. Burkinshaw AM, Bork EW (2009) Shrub encroachment impacts the potential for multiple use conflicts on public land. Environ Manag 44(3):493–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cameron AC, Windmeijer FAG (1997) An r-squared measure of goodness of fit for some common nonlinear regression models. J Econom 77:329–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Collins WB, Urness PJ (1981) Habitat preferences of mule deer by pellet-group distributions. J Wildl Manag 45(4):969–972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Collins WB, Urness PJ (1983) Feeding behaviour and habitat selection of mule deer and elk on northern Utah summer range. J Wildl Manag 47(3):646–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crane KK, Smith MA, Reynolds D (1997) Habitat selection patterns of feral horses in southcentral Wyoming. J Range Manag 50(4):374–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Environment Canada (2010) Canadian climate normals 1971–2000. Accessed 15 Oct 2010
  10. Fleurance G, Fritz H, Duncan P, Gordon IJ, Edouard N, Vial C (2009) Instantaneous intake rate in horses of different body sizes: influence of sward biomass and fibrousness. Appl Anim Behav Sci 117:84–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ganskopp D, Vavra M (1987) Slope use by cattle, feral horses, deer, and bighorn sheep. Northwest Sci 61(2):74–81Google Scholar
  12. Government of Alberta (1984) A policy for the resource management of the eastern slopes. Revised 1984. ENR number T/38. International standard book number 0-85499-067-7. EdmontonGoogle Scholar
  13. Government of Alberta (2011) Feral horses. Accessed 10 Sept 2011
  14. Holechek JL, Pieper D, Herbel CH (2004) Range management: principles and practices, 5th edn. Pearson Education Inc, Upper Saddle River pp 607Google Scholar
  15. Hubbard RE, Hansen RM (1976) Diets of wild horses, cattle, and mule deer in Piceance basin, Colorado. J Range Manag 29(5):389–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Janis C (1976) The evolutionary strategy of the equidae and the origins of rumen and cecal digestion. Evolution 30(4):757–774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kauffman J (2011) Interactions between cattle grazing and forestry on Alberta’s public lands. MSc Thesis. University of Alberta, pp 206Google Scholar
  18. Kie JG, Evans CJ, Loft ER, Menke JW (1991) Foraging behaviour by mule deer: the influence of cattle grazing. J Wildl Manag 55(4):665–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Knopff KH (2010) Cougar predation in a multi-prey system in west-central Alberta, PhD. Dissertation. University of Alberta, Edmonton pp 294Google Scholar
  20. Kruger K, Flauger B (2008) Social feeding decisions in horses (Equus callabus). Behav Process 78:76–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kumar L, Skidmore AK, Knowles E (1997) Modelling topographic variation in solar radiation in a GIS environment. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 11(5):475–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Laliberte AS, Ripple WJ (2004) Range contractions of North American carnivores and ungulates. Bioscience 54:123–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lever C (1985) Naturalized mammals of the world. Longman Group Ltd, New York pp 487Google Scholar
  24. Loft ER, Menke JW, Kie JG (1991) Habitat shifts by mule deer: the influence of cattle grazing. J Wildl Manag 55(1):16–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Manly BFJ, McDonald LL, Thomas DL, McDonald TL, Erickson WP (2002) Resource selection by animals: statistical design and analysis for field studies. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht pp 221Google Scholar
  26. McInnis ML, Vavra M (1987) Dietary relationships among feral horses, cattle, and pronghorn in southeastern Oregon. J Range Manag 40(1):60–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Michalsky S (2010) Grazing inventory for management of the Mclean Creek grazing allotment. Prepared for the Rocky Mountain Forest Range Association, Paskwa Consultants Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
  28. Mysterud A, Østbye E (1999) Cover as a habitat element for temperate ungulates: effects on habitat selection and demography. Wildl Soc Bull 27(2):385–394Google Scholar
  29. Natural Regions Committee (2006) Natural regions and subregions of Alberta. Compiled by Downing DJ, Pettapieve WW. Government of Alberta. Pub. no. T/852, pp 264Google Scholar
  30. Nielsen SE, Johnson CJ, Heard DC, Boyce MS (2005) Can models of presence-absence be used to scale abundance? Two case studies considering extremes in life history. Ecography 28(2):197–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Riley SJ, DeGloria SD, Elliot R (1999) A terrain ruggedness index that quantifies topographic heterogeneity. Intermt J Sci 5:23–27Google Scholar
  32. Salter RE, Hudson RJ (1979) Feeding ecology of feral horses in western Alberta. J Range Manag 32(3):221–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Salter RE, Hudson RJ (1980) Range relationships of feral horses with wild ungulates and cattle in western Alberta. J Range Manag 33(4):266–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. SAS Institute Inc (2011) SAS/ETS® 9.22 user’s guide. Accessed 1 Oct 2011
  35. Shingu Y, Kondo S, Hata H (2010) Differences in grazing behaviour of horses and cattle at the feeding station scale on woodland pasture. Anim Sci J 81:384–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Singer B (2005) A brief history of the horse in America. Canadian geographic. Accessed 13 Nov 2009
  37. Stevens EF (1988) Contests between bands of feral horses for access to fresh water: the resident wins. Anim Behav 36(6):1851–1853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stewart KM, Bowyer RT, Kie JG, Cimon NJ, Johnson BK (2002) Temporospatial distributions of elk, mule deer, and cattle: resource partitioning and competitive displacement. J Mammal 83(1):229–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Trombulak SC, Frissel CA (2000) Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities. Conserv Biol 14(1):18–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Van Beest FM, Mysterud A, Leo LE, Milner JM (2010) Forage quantity, quality and depletion as scale-dependent mechanisms driving habitat selection of a large browsing herbivore. J Anim Ecol 79:910–922Google Scholar
  41. Vaudor L, Lamouroux N, Olivier JM (2011) Comparing distribution models for small samples of overdispersed counts of freshwater fish. Acta Oecol 37:170–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Willms WD, Smoliak S, Dormaar JF (1985) Effects of stocking rate on rough fescue grassland vegetation. J Range Manag 38(3):220–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Willoughby MG, Alexander MJ, Adams BW (2005) Range plant community types and carrying capacity for the montane subregion. 6th Approx. Pub. T/071. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Public Lands Division, EdmontonGoogle Scholar
  44. Windmeijer FAG (1995) Goodness-of-fit measures in binary choice models. Econ Rev 14:101–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tisa L. Girard
    • 1
  • Edward W. Bork
    • 1
  • Scott E. Neilsen
    • 2
  • Mike J. Alexander
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Agricultural, Food and Nutritional ScienceUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  2. 2.Department of Renewable ResourcesUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  3. 3.Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource DevelopmentPincher CreekCanada

Personalised recommendations