Birth date promotes a tortoise or hare tactic for body mass development of a long-lived male ungulate
Maternal and early-life influences may affect life-long individual phenotype, potentially influencing reproductive success. However, some individuals may compensate for a poor start to life, which may improve longevity and reproductive success later in life. We developed four models to assess whether maternal characteristics (age, body mass and previous year cumulative lactation demand) and/or birth date influenced a long-lived mammal’s phenotype to maturity. We used a directional separation analysis to assess the relative influence of each maternal characteristic and birth date on captive male white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) body mass and antler size. We found that birth date was the only characteristic that persistently influenced male body mass. Depending on when offspring were born, they used alternative tactics to increase their body mass. Birth date positively influenced body mass at 1, 2 and 3 years of age-indicating males displayed faster growth and compensated for late birth (hare tactic). However, early-, heavy-born males were heavy juveniles, and juvenile body mass positively influenced mature body mass (slow but steady growth; tortoise tactic). Our findings provide a first evidence that a long-lived ungulate can display alternative tactics to achieve heavy body mass; individuals are either born early and heavy and are heavy throughout life (tortoise), or light, late-born individuals compensate for a poor start in life by growing at a faster rate to equal or surpass the body mass of early-born individuals (hare). Either tactic may be viable if it influences reproductive success as body mass positively influences access to mates in ungulates.
KeywordsBirth date Compensatory growth Life history theory Maternal effects Path analysis White-tailed deer
We thank the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks (MDWFP) for financial support using resources from the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act. We thank MDWFP biologists W. McKinley, A. Blaylock, A. Gary and L. Wilf for their extensive involvement in data collection. We also thank S. Tucker as facility coordinator and multiple graduate students and technicians for their help collecting data. We also thank J. M. Gaillard and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. This manuscript is contribution WFA-412 of the Mississippi State Forest and Wildlife Research Center.
Author contribution statement
ESM, SD, BKS and GW conceived the research idea. ESM collected and analyzed the data. ESM wrote the manuscript with SD, BKS and GW providing editorial advice.
Compliance with ethical standards
All applicable institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.
- Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2014) Lme4: linear mixed-effects models using eigen and s4. R package version 1.1-7. http://cran.r-project.org/package=lme4. Accessed Sept 2015
- Blaylock AC (2007) Effects of soil region, litter size, and gender on morphometrics of white-tailed deer fawns. Master thesis, Department of Wildlife Fisheries and Aquaculture, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, Mississippi, USAGoogle Scholar
- Clutton-Brock TH, Guinness FE, Albon SD (1982) Red Deer: behavior and ecology of two sexes. The University of Chicago Press, IllinoisGoogle Scholar
- Cook JG, Johnson BK, Cook RC, Riggs RA, Delcurto T, Bryant LD, Irwin LL (2004) Effects of summer-autumn nutrition and parturition date on reproduction and survival of elk. Wildlife Monogr 155:1–61Google Scholar
- Demarais S, Strickland BK (2011) Antlers. In: Hewitt DG (ed) Biology and management of white-tailed deer. Florida CRC Press, Florida, pp 107–146Google Scholar
- Demarais S, Miller KV, Jacobson HA (2000) White-tailed deer. In: Demarais S, Krausman PR (eds) Ecology and management of large mammals in North America. Prentice Hall Inc., New Jersey, pp 601–628Google Scholar
- DeYoung RW, Miller KV (2011) White-tailed deer behavior. In: Hewitt DG (ed) Biology and management of white-tailed deer. Florida CRC Press, Florida, pp 311–354Google Scholar
- Ditchkoff SS (2011) Anatomy and physiology. In: Hewitt DG (ed) Biology and management of white-tailed deer. Florida CRC Press, Florida, pp 43–74Google Scholar
- Hewitt DG (2011) Nutrition. In: Hewitt DG (ed) Biology and management of white-tailed deer. CRC Press, Florida, pp 5–106Google Scholar
- Kreeger TJ (1996) Handbook of wildlife chemical immobilization. International Wildlife Veterinary Services, WyomingGoogle Scholar
- Mitchell RJ (2001) Path analysis: pollination. In: Scheiner SM, Gurevitc J (eds) Design and analysis of ecological experiments. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 217–234Google Scholar
- Nesbitt WH, Wright PL, Buckner EL, Byers CR, Reneau J (2009) Measuring and scoring North American big game trophies, 3rd edn. Boone and Crockett Club, MontanaGoogle Scholar
- Schumacker RE, Lomax RG (2004) A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
- Shama LNS, Robinson CT (2006) Sex-specific life-history responses to seasonal time constraints in an alpine caddisfly. Evol Ecol Res 8:169–180Google Scholar
- Stier A, Viblanc VA, Massemin-Challet S, Handrich Y, Zahn S, Rojas ER, Saraux C, Le Vaillant M, Prud’homme O, Grosbellet E, Robin JP, Bize P, Criscuolo F (2014) Starting with a handicap: phenotypic differences between early- and late-born king penguin chicks and their survival correlates. Funct Ecol 28:601–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Verme LJ, Ullrey DE (1984) Physiology and nutrition. In: Halls LK, House C (eds) White-tailed deer ecology and management. Stackpole Books, Pennsylvania, pp 91–118Google Scholar