I can produce more offspring as you can imagine: first records on exceptionally large litters in roe deer in central/southern Europe

  • Katarina Flajšman
  • Boštjan Pokorny
  • Roberta Chirichella
  • Elisa Bottero
  • Luca Mattioli
  • Marco Apollonio
Short Communication


Most roe deer females produce twins and more rarely singletons and triplets. Some very rare reported cases of litters above three offspring refer to quadruplets which are, however, very much an exception in roe deer reproduction (only some tens of documented cases can be found in the scientific literature). In this paper, we present the first firm evidence that roe deer females are able to produce even five offspring. By examination of large sample set (n = 4690) of roe deer uteri and ovaries in two neighbouring countries in southern/central Europe (Italy and Slovenia), we found ten females that either carried or had potential to produce quadruplets, and in three does the (potential) litter size was even five. While one doe from Slovenia had five corpora lutea, two does from Tuscany, Italy, carried five foetuses. In both cases, all foetuses were normally and equally developed, indicating that none of them had predominant exposure to resorption/abortion. Six out of 13 females with exceptionally large potential litters (>3 offspring) had significantly higher body mass in comparison with mean body mass of all does harvested in the same hunting management district and in the same period, while five of them were significantly lighter. This indicates that some roe deer females can produce exceptionally large litters even when their phenotypic quality is not higher than the average in the population, and that such large litters are a stochastic episode rather than a reproductive performance of a very vital individual(s).


Roe deer Litter size Exceptionally large litters Offspring Foetus Corpora lutea 



The Slovene part of the study was made by the financial support of the Slovenian Research Agency, aimed to educate Katarina Flajšman as a young researcher (contract no. 1000-12-0404), and which together with the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food financed the project V4-1627. We are grateful to the Arezzo Province for supplying data. We are indebted to M. Meacci for logistic support in collecting data for the Italian part of the study, and to Simona Diklič for improving the grammar of the manuscript. We would like to thank to all hunters who provided samples of roe deer reproductive organs which was a perquisite for performing the study.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. All roe deer females used in the research were harvested during the regular hunting activity, i.e. prescribed by the national authorities of Slovenia and Italy within the yearly hunting management plans. Therefore, no animal was shot or killed by any other means for the purposes of the research in which we used reproductive organs of already dead animals.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Data availability statement

The datasets during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Supplementary material

10344_2017_1102_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (266 kb)
Fig. S1 (PDF 266 kb)
10344_2017_1102_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (421 kb)
Fig. S2 (PDF 421 kb)
10344_2017_1102_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (174 kb)
Table S1 (PDF 174 kb)
10344_2017_1102_MOESM4_ESM.pdf (173 kb)
Table S2 (PDF 173 kb)


  1. Andersen R, Linnell JDC (2000) Irruptive potential in roe deer: density-dependent effects on body mass and fertility. J Wildl Manag 64:698–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersen R, Duncan P, Linnell JDC (1998a) The European roe deer: the biology of success. Scandinavian University Press, Oslo, pp 376Google Scholar
  3. Andersen R, Gaillard JM, Liberg O, San Jose C (1998b) Variation in life-history parameters in roe deer. In: Andersen R, Duncan P, Linnell JDC (eds) The European roe deer: the biology of success. Scandinavian University Press, Oslo, pp 285–308Google Scholar
  4. Andersen R, Gaillard JM, Linnell JDC, Duncan P (2000) Factors affecting maternal care in an income breeder, the European roe deer. J Anim Ecol 69:672–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Apollonio M, Andersen R, Putman RJ (Eds.) (2010) European ungulates and their management in the 21st century. Cambridge University Press: 618 ppGoogle Scholar
  6. Borg K (1970) On mortality and reproduction of roe deer in Sweden during the period 1948–1969. Swedish Sportsmen's Association 7:121–149Google Scholar
  7. Borowik T, Wawrzyniak P, Jędrzejewska B (2016) Red deer (Cervus elaphus) fertility and survival of young in a low-density population subject to predation and hunting. J Mammal. doi: 10.1093/jmammal/gyw133 Google Scholar
  8. Capitani C, Mattioli L, Apollonio M (2005) Progetto di monitoraggio integrato degli ungulati nei distretti di gestione appenninici della Provincia di Arezzo. Technical Report: 87 pp [In Italian]Google Scholar
  9. Clutton-Brock TH, Guinness FE, Albon SD (1982) Red deer: behavior and ecology of two sexes. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh 378 ppGoogle Scholar
  10. Cresswell WJ, Harris S, Cheeseman CL, Mallinson PJ (1992) To breed or not to breed: an analysis of the social and density-dependent constraints on the fecundity of female badgers (Meles meles). Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 338:393–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Danilkin A (1996) Behavioural ecology of Siberian and European roe deer. Chapman and Hall, London 277 ppGoogle Scholar
  12. Flajšman K, Jelenko I, Poličnik H, Pokorny B (2013) Reproductive potential of roe deer (Capreolus capreolus L.): review of the most important influential factors. Acta Silvae et Ligni 102:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Flajšman K, Jelenko I, Pokorny B (2014a) Razmnoževalni potencial srnjadi v Sloveniji. Lovec 97:360–366 [In Slovene]Google Scholar
  14. Flajšman K, Jelenko I, Pokorny B (2014b) Reproductive potential of roe deer in Slovenia. Balk J Wildl Res 1:20–25Google Scholar
  15. Flajšman K, Jerina K, Pokorny B (2017) Age-related effects of body mass on fertility and litter size in roe deer. PLoS One In PressGoogle Scholar
  16. Focardi S, Pelliccioni ER, Petrucco R, Toso S (2002) Spatial patterns and density dependence in the dynamics of a roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) population in central Italy. Oecologia 130:411–419. doi: 10.1007/s00442-001-0825-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Frauendorf M, Gethöffer F, Siebert U, Keuling O (2016) The influence of environmental and physiological factors on the litter size of wild boar (Sus scrofa) in an agriculture dominated area in Germany. Sci Total Environ 541:877–882CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Gaillard JM, Sempere AJ, Boutin JM, Van Laere G, Boisaubert B (1992) Effects of age and body-weight on the proportion of females breeding in a population of roe deer (Capreolus capreolus). Can J Zool 8:1541–1545. doi: 10.1139/z92-212 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Garel M, Solberg EJ, Saether BE, Grøtan V, Tufto J, Heim M (2009) Age, size, and spatiotemporal variation in ovulation patterns of a seasonal breeder, the Norwegian moose (Alces alces). Amer Nat 173:89–104. doi: 10.1086/593359 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Garnier A, Gaillard JM, Gauthier D, Besnard A (2016) What shapes fitness costs of reproduction in long-lived iteroparous species? A case study on the Alpine ibex. Ecology 97:205–2014. doi: 10.1890/15-0014.1 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Gingras J, Couturier S, Côté SD, Tremblay JP (2014) Opposite responses of body condition and fertility in adjacent moose populations. J Wildl Manag 78:830–839. doi: 10.1002/jwmg.729 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hamel S, Gaillard JM, Festa-Bianchet M, Côté SD (2009) Individual quality, early-life conditions, and reproductive success in contrasted populations of large herbivores. Ecology 90:1981–1995. doi: 10.1890/08-0596.1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Hewison AJM (1996) Variation in the fecundity of roe deer in Britain: effects of age and body weight. Acta Theriol 41:187–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hewison AJM, Gaillard JM (2001) Phenotypic quality and senescence affect different components of reproductive output in roe deer. J Anim Ecol 70:600–608. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2656.2001.00528.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hewison AJM, Vincent JP, Angibault JM, Delorme D, Van Laere G, Gaillard JM (1999) Tests of estimation of age from tooth wear on roe deer of known age: variation within and among populations. Can J Zool 77:58–67. doi: 10.1139/z98-183 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Krasiński ZA, Raczyński J (1967) The reproductive biology of European bison living in reserves and in freedom. Acta Theriol 12:407–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Krže B (2000) Srnjad: biologija, gojitev, ekologija. Ljubljana, Lovska zveza Slovenije, Zlatorogova knjižnica 27: 271 pp [In Slovene]Google Scholar
  28. Lisjak (2016) Slovene Hunting Information System.
  29. Macdonald DW, Johnson PJ (2008) Sex ratio variation and mixed pairs in roe deer: evidence for control of sex allocation? Oecologia 158:361–370. doi: 10.1007/s00442-008-1142-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Pérez-Barbería FJ, Mutuberría G, Ñores C (1998) Reproductive parameters, kidney fat index, and grazing activity relationships between the sexes in Cantabrian chamois Rupicapra pyrenaica parva. Acta Theriol 43:311–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ratcliffe PR, Mayle BA (1992) Age determination of roe deer. For Comm Bull 105:26–28Google Scholar
  32. Schröder W (1971) Untersuchungen zur Ökologie des Gamswildes (Rupicapra rupicapra L.) in einem Vorkommen der Alpen. Z Jagdwiss 17:197–235Google Scholar
  33. Simard MA, Huot J, de Bellefeuille S, Côté SD (2014) Linking conception and weaning success with environmental variation and female body condition in a northern ungulate. J Mammal 95:311–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. StatSoft (2014) Statistica (data analysis software system). Version 12 ed: StatSoft, Inc.Google Scholar
  35. Strandgaard H (1972) An investigation of corpora lutea, embryonic development, and time of birth of roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) in Denmark. Dan Rev Game Biol 6:1–22Google Scholar
  36. Stubbe C, Stubbe M, Stubbe I (1982) Zur Reproduktion der Rehwildpopulation–Capreolus c. capreolus (L., 1758) – des Wildforschungsgebietes Hakel. Hercynia 19:97–109Google Scholar
  37. Wauters LA, de Crombrugghe SA, Nour N, Matthysen E (1995) Do female roe deer in good condition produce more sons then daughters? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 37:189–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Slovenian Forestry InstituteLjubljanaSlovenia
  2. 2.Environmental Protection CollegeVelenjeSlovenia
  3. 3.Ecological Research and Industrial CooperationVelenjeSlovenia
  4. 4.Department of Science for Nature and Environmental ResourcesUniversity of SassariSassariItaly
  5. 5.Provincial Administration of ArezzoArezzoItaly

Personalised recommendations