Oecologia

, Volume 137, Issue 3, pp 363–369 | Cite as

Spatial variation in springtime food resources influences the winter body mass of roe deer fawns

  • Nathalie Pettorelli
  • Stephane Dray
  • Jean-Michel Gaillard
  • Daniel Chessel
  • Patrick Duncan
  • Andrew Illius
  • Nadine Guillon
  • Francois Klein
  • Guy Van Laere
Population Ecology

Abstract

It is well established that the dynamics of mammalian populations vary in time, in relation to density and weather, and often in interaction with phenotypic differences (sex, age and social status). Habitat quality has recently been identified as another significant source of individual variability in vital rates of deer, including roe deer where spatial variations in fawn body mass were found to be only about a tenth of temporal variations. The approach used was to classify the habitat into blocks a priori, and to analyse variation in animal performance among the predefined areas. In a fine-grained approach, here we use data collected over 24 years on 1,235 roe deer fawns captured at known locations and the plant species composition sampled in 2001 at 578 sites in the Chizé forest to determine the spatial structure at a fine scale of both vegetation and winter body mass of fawns, and then to determine links between the two. Space and time played a nearly equal role in determining fawn body masses of both sexes, each accounting for about 20% of variance and without any interaction between them. The spatial distribution of fawn body mass was perennial over the 24 years considered and predicted values showed a 2 kg range according to location in the reserve, which is much greater than suggested in previous work and is enough to have strong effects on fawn survival. The spatial distribution and the range of predicted body masses were closely similar in males and females. The result of this study is therefore consistent with the view that the life history traits of roe deer are only weakly influenced by sexual selection. The occurrence of three plant species that are known to be important food items in spring/summer roe deer diets, hornbeam (Carpinus betulus), bluebell (Hyacinthoides sp.) and Star of Bethlehem (Ornithogalum sp.) was positively related to winter fawn body mass. The occurrence of species known to be avoided in spring/summer roe deer diets [e.g. butcher's broom (Ruscus aculeatus) and beech (Fagus sylvatica)], was negatively related to fawn body mass. We conclude that the spatial variation in the body mass of fawns in winter in this forest is as important as the temporal variation, and that the distribution of plant species that are actively selected during spring and summer is an important determinant of spatial variation in winter fawn body mass. The availability of these plants is therefore likely to be a key factor in the dynamics of roe deer populations.

Keywords

Food supply Plant distribution Population dynamics Spatial structure Ungulates 

References

  1. Aldous SE (1944) A deer browse method. J Mamm 25:130–136Google Scholar
  2. Andersen R, Duncan P, Linnell JDC (eds) (1998) The European roe deer: the biology of success. Scandinavian University Press, OsloGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersen R, Gaillard JM, Linnell, JDC, Duncan P (2000) Factors affecting maternal care in an income breeder, the European roe deer. J Anim Ecol 69:672–682Google Scholar
  4. Besag JE (1977) Comments on Ripley's paper. J R Stat Soc Ser B Methods 39:193–195Google Scholar
  5. Caughley G (1977) Analysis of vertebrate populations. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Charlesworth B (1980) Evolution in age-structured populations. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  7. Cibien C, Sempéré A (1989) Food availability as a factor in habitat use by roe deer. Acta Theriol 34:111–123Google Scholar
  8. Cliff AD, Ord JK (1981) Spatial processes. Pion, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. Clutton-Brock TH, Guinness FE, Albon SD (1982) Red deer: behaviour and ecology of two sexes. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  10. Conradt L, Clutton-Brock TH, Guinness FE (1999) The relationship between habitat choice and lifetime reproductive success in female red deer. Oecologia 120:218–224Google Scholar
  11. Coulson T, Albon SD, Guinness FE, Pemberton J, Clutton-Brock TH (1997) Population substructure, local density, and calf winter survival in red deer. Ecology 78:852–863Google Scholar
  12. Coulson T, Albon SD, Pilkington J, Clutton-Brock TH (1999) Small-scale spatial dynamics in a fluctuating ungulate population. J Anim Ecol 68:658–671Google Scholar
  13. Diggle PJ (1990) Time series: a biostatistical introduction. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  14. Donaldson DD, Nisbet RM (1999) Population dynamics and spatial scale: effects of system size on population persistence. Ecology 80:2492–2507Google Scholar
  15. Dray S, Pettorelli N, Chessel D (2002) Matching data sets from two different spatial samplings. J Veg Sci 13:867–874Google Scholar
  16. Duncan P, Tixier H, Hofman RR, Lechner-Doll M (1998) Feeding strategies and the physiology of digestion in roe deer. In: Andersen R, Duncan P, Linnell JDC (eds) The European roe deer: the biology of success. Scandinavian University Press, Oslo, pp91–116Google Scholar
  17. Everitt B (1974) Cluster analysis. Heinemann, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Gaillard JM (1988) Contribution à la dynamique des populations de grands mammifères: l'exemple du chevreuil. PhD thesis, University of Lyon, FranceGoogle Scholar
  19. Gaillard JM, Sempéré AJ, Van Laere G, Boutin JM, Boisaubert B (1992) Effects of age and body weight on the proportion of females breeding in a population of roe deer. Can J Zool 70:1541–1545Google Scholar
  20. Gaillard JM, Delorme D, Boutin JM, Van Laere G, Boisaubert B, Pradel R (1993a) Roe deer survival patterns: a comparative analysis of contrasting populations. J Anim Ecol 62:778–791Google Scholar
  21. Gaillard JM, Delorme D, Jullien JM (1993b) Effects of cohort, sex, and birth date on body development of roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) fawns. Oecologia 94:57–61Google Scholar
  22. Gaillard JM, Delorme D, Boutin JM, Van Laere G, Boisaubert B (1996) Body mass of roe deer fawns during winter in 2 contrasting populations. J Wildl Manage 60:29–36Google Scholar
  23. Gaillard JM, Delorme D, Van Laere G, Duncan P, Lebreton JD (1997) Early survival in roe deer: causes and consequences of cohort variation in two contrasted populations. Oecologia 112: 502–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gaillard JM, Liberg O, Andersen R, Hewison AJM, Cederlund G (1998) Population dynamics of roe deer. In: Andersen R, Duncan P, Linnell JDC (eds) The European roe deer: the biology of success. Scandinavian University Press, Oslo, pp309–336Google Scholar
  25. Gaillard JM, Festa Bianchet M, Yoccoz NG, Loison A, Toigo C (2000) Temporal variation in fitness components and population dynamics of large herbivores. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 31:367–393Google Scholar
  26. Gilpin M, Hanski I (1991) Metapopulation dynamics: empirical and theoretical investigations. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. Glucksmann A (1974) Sexual dimorphism in mammals. Biol Rev 49:423–475Google Scholar
  28. Hanks J (1981) Characterisation of population condition. In: Fowler CW, Smith TD (eds) Dynamics of large mammal populations. Wiley, New York, pp47–73Google Scholar
  29. 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, pp189–220Google Scholar
  30. Illius AW, O'Connor TG (2000) Resource heterogeneity and ungulate population dynamics. Oikos 89:283–294Google Scholar
  31. Jönsson KI (1997) Capital and income breeding as alternative tactics of resource use in reproduction. Oikos 78:57–66Google Scholar
  32. Levin SA (1992) The problem of pattern and scale in ecology. Ecology 73:1943–1967Google Scholar
  33. Lott DF (1991) Intraspecific variation in the social systems of wild vertebrates. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  34. Maillard D, Boisaubert B, Gaillard JM (1989) La masse corporelle: un bioindicateur possible pour le suivi des populations de chevreuils. Gibier Faune Sauvage 6:57–68Google Scholar
  35. Maizeret C, Tran Manh Sung D (1984) Etude du régime alimentaire et recherche du déterminisme fonctionnel de la sélectivité chez le chevreuil des landes de Gascogne. Gibier Faune Sauvage 3:63–103Google Scholar
  36. Maizeret C, Bidet F, Boutin JM, Carlino JP (1991) Influence de la composition chimique des végétaux sur les choix alimentaires des chevreuils. Rev Ecol Terre Vie 46:39–52Google Scholar
  37. Michel JF, Dray S, de La Rocque S, Desquesnes M, Solano P, De Wispelaere G, Cuisance D (2002) Modelling bovine trypanosomosis spatial distribution by GIS in an agro-pastoral zone of Burkina Faso. Prev Vet Med 56:5–18Google Scholar
  38. Milner-Gulland EJ, Coulson TN, Clutton-Brock TH (2000) On harvesting a structured ungulate population. Oikos 88:592–602Google Scholar
  39. Mitchell A (1999) The ESRI guide to GIS analysis. ESRI Press, USAGoogle Scholar
  40. Morellet N (1998) Des outils biométriques appliqués aux suivis des populations animales: l'exemple des cervidés. PhD thesis, University of Lyon, FranceGoogle Scholar
  41. Morellet N, Champely S, Gaillard JM, Ballon P, Boscardin Y (2001) The browsing index: new tool uses browsing pressure to monitor deer populations. Wildl Soc Bull 29:1243–1252Google Scholar
  42. Mysterud A, Langvatn R, Yoccoz NG, Stenseth NC (2001) Plant phenology, migration and geographic variation in body weight of a large herbivore: the effect of a variable topography. J Anim Ecol 70:915–923Google Scholar
  43. Pettorelli N, Gaillard JM, Duncan P, Ouellet JP, Van Laere G (2001) Spatial variations in habitat quality, local density and phenotypic quality in roe deer. Oecologia 128:400–405Google Scholar
  44. Pettorelli N, Gaillard JM, Duncan P, Kjellander P, Liberg O, Delorme D, Maillard D, Van Laere G (2002) Variations in adult body mass in roe deer: the effects of population density at birth and of habitat quality. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 269:747–754Google Scholar
  45. Portier C, Duncan P, Gaillard JM, Guillon N, Sempéré A (2000) Growth of European roe deer: patterns and rates. Acta Theriol 45:87–94Google Scholar
  46. Rameau JC, Mansion D, Dumé G (1989) Flore forestière française. Ministère de l'agriculture et de la forêtGoogle Scholar
  47. Ray C, Hastings A (1996) Density-dependence: are we searching at the wrong spatial scale? J Anim Ecol 65:556–566Google Scholar
  48. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1995) Biometry, 3rd edn. Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  49. Thioulouse J, Chessel D, Champely S (1995) Multivariate analysis of spatial patterns: a unified approach to local and global structures. Environ Ecol Stat 2:1–14Google Scholar
  50. Tilman D, Kareiva P (1997) Spatial ecology: the role of space in population dynamics and interspecific interactions. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N. J.Google Scholar
  51. Tixier H, Duncan P (1996) Are European roe deer browsers? A review of variations in the composition of their diets. Rev Ecol Terre Vie 51:3–17Google Scholar
  52. Tixier H, Duncan P, Scehovic J, Yani A, Gleizes M, Lila M. (1997) Food selection by European roe deer: effects of plant chemistry, and consequences for the nutritional value of their diets. J Zool (Lond) 242:229–245Google Scholar
  53. Vincent JP, Bideau E, Hewison AJM, Angibault JM (1995) The influence of increasing density on body weight, kid production, home range and winter grouping in roe deer. J Zool (Lond) 236:371–382Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nathalie Pettorelli
    • 1
  • Stephane Dray
    • 1
  • Jean-Michel Gaillard
    • 1
  • Daniel Chessel
    • 1
  • Patrick Duncan
    • 2
  • Andrew Illius
    • 3
  • Nadine Guillon
    • 2
  • Francois Klein
    • 4
  • Guy Van Laere
    • 4
  1. 1.Unité mixte de Recherche CNRS No.5558 "Biométrie et Biologie évolutive"Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1Villeurbanne France
  2. 2.Centre d'Etudes Biologiques de ChizéCNRS UPR 1934 Beauvoir-sur-NiortFrance
  3. 3.Institute of Cell, Animal, and Population BiologyUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK
  4. 4.Office National de la chasseDirection de la recherche et du Développement ParisFrance

Personalised recommendations