Ecological Research

, Volume 26, Issue 4, pp 781–789 | Cite as

Comparative use of forest habitats by roe deer and moose in a human-modified landscape in southeastern Norway during winter

  • Rita Tinoco Torres
  • J. C. Carvalho
  • M. Panzacchi
  • J. D. C. Linnell
  • C. Fonseca
Original Article

Abstract

The negative impact of anthropogenic disturbance and land-use changes on large mammals is generally recognized within conservation biology. In southeastern Norway, both moose (Alces alces) and roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) occur throughout human-modified landscapes, facilitating an interesting comparative study of their habitat use. By using pellet group counts, we looked at the importance of forest structure, vegetation characteristics and human disturbance (e.g., distance to the nearest house, nearest paved road, and nearest edge between field and forest) in shaping the winter distribution of both species at multiple spatial scales, in non-agricultural habitats. Moose occurred more often in areas with higher densities of heather and Vaccinium sp. in the ground layer, and used areas with more open forest structure. The proportion of built-up areas, within a 1,000-m buffer, negatively influenced moose occurrence. Roe deer occurred more often in areas with deciduous trees and patches with juniper and Vaccinium sp. in the ground layer, used areas near roads less, but were significantly associated with areas near the field–forest ecotone. The proportion of built-up areas positively influenced roe deer distribution within a 2,500-m buffer. Roe deer seem to be able to persist in more human-dominated landscapes, possibly due to the availability of field–forest edges providing both high-quality fodder and cover in close proximity. Moose, on the contrary, did not show any preference for areas associated with human disturbance, and their distribution was only associated with patches providing food.

Keywords

Capreolus capreolus Alces alces Game management Human activities Pellet group counts 

References

  1. Acevedo P, Delibes-Mateos M, Escudero MA, Vicente J, Marco J, Gortazar C (2005) Environmental constraints in the colonization sequence of roe deer (Capreolus capreolus Linnaeus, 1758) across the Iberian Mountains, Spain. J Biogeogr 32:1671–1680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersen R, Linnell JDC, Langvatn R (1996) Short-term behavioural and physiological response of moose Alces alces to military disturbance in Norway. Biol Conserv 77:169–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aulak W, Babinskawerka J (1990) Estimation of roe deer density based on the abundance and rate of disappearance of their feces from the forest. Acta Theriol 35:111–120Google Scholar
  4. Bates D, Sarkar D (2006) lme4: linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.9975-10. Available at: http://cran.rproject.org/web/packages/lme4/index.html
  5. Borkowski J, Ukalska J (2008) Winter habitat use by red and roe deer in pine-dominated forest. For Ecol Manag 255:468–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (1998) Model selection and inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Cederlund G, Nyström A (1981) Seasonal differences between moose and roe deer in ability to digest browse. Ecography 4:59–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cederlund GN, Okarma H (1988) Home range and habitat use of adult female moose. J Wild Manag 52:336–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cederlund G (1989) Activity patterns in moose and roe deer in a north boreal forest. Ecography 12:39–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cederlund G, Kjellander P (1991) Effects of chasing by hunting dogs on roe deer. Trans Int Union Game Biol Congr 20:363–370Google Scholar
  11. Collins WB, Urness PJ (1981) Habitat preferences of mule deer as rated by pellet-group distributions. J Wild Manag 45:969–972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coulon A, Morellet N, Goulard M, Cargnelutti B, Angibault J-M, Hewison M (2008) Inferring the effects of landscape structure on roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) movements using a step selection function. Landsc Ecol 23:603–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Danilkin A, Hewison AJM (1996) Behavioural ecology of Siberian and European roe deer. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Dussault C, Ouellet JP, Courtois R, Huot J, Breton L, Jolicoeur H (2005) Linking moose habitat selection to limiting factors. Ecography 28:619–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ecke F, Löfgren O, Sörlin D (2002) Population dynamics of small mammals in relation to forest age and structural habitat factors in northern Sweden. J Appl Ecol 39:781–792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Edge WD, Marcum CL (1989) Determining elk distribution with pellet-group and telemetry techniques. J Wild Manag 53:621–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Faraway JJ (2006) Extending the linear model with R: generalized linear mixed effects and nonparametric regression models. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Frid A, Dill LM (2002) Human-caused disturbance stimuli as a form of predation risk. Conserv Ecol 6:11Google Scholar
  19. Guillet C, Bergstrom R, Cederlund G, Bergstrom J, Ballon P (1995) Comparison of telemetry and pellet-group counts for determining habitat selectivity by roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) in winter. Gibier Faune Sauvage 12:253–269Google Scholar
  20. Gundersen H, Andreassen HP, Storaas T (2004) Supplemental feeding of migratory moose Alces alces: forest damage at two spatial scales. Wild Biol 10:213–223Google Scholar
  21. Herfindal I, Tremblay JP, Hansen BB, Solberg EJ, Heim M, Sæther BE (2009) Scale dependency and functional response in moose habitat selection. Ecography 32:849–859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hewison AJM, Vincent JP, Joachim J, Angibault JM, 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. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow L (1989) Applied logistic regression. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Jiang G, Ma JZ, Zhang MH, Stott P (2009) Multiple spatial-scale resource selection function models in relation to human disturbance for moose in northeastern China. Ecol Res 24:423–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Landskogstakseringen (1971) Instruks for markabeidet. Technical report, pp 45 (in Norwegian)Google Scholar
  26. Lavsund S, Nygrén T, Solberg EJ (2003) Status of moose populations and challenges to moose management in Fennoscandia. Alces 39:109–130Google Scholar
  27. Licona M, McCleery R, Collier B, Brightsmith DJ, Lopez R (2010) Using ungulate occurrence to evaluate community-based conservation within a biosphere reserve model. Anim ConservGoogle Scholar
  28. Lima SL, Dill LM (1990) Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospectus. Can J Zool 68:619–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lindén H, Helle E, Helle P, Wikman M (1996) Wildlife triangle scheme in Finland: methods and aims for monitoring wildlife populations. Finn Game Res 49:4–11Google Scholar
  30. Loft ER, Kie JG (1988) Comparison of pellet-group and radio triangulation methods for assessing deer habitat use. J Wild Manag 52:524–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Loreau M, Naeem S, Inchausti P, Bengtsson J, Grime JP, Hector A, Hooper DU, Huston MA, Raffaelli D, Schmid B, Tilman D, Wardle DA (2001) Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: current knowledge and future challenges. Science 294:804–808PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mayle BA, Putman RJ, Wyllie I (2000) The use of trackway counts to establish an index of deer presence. Mamm Rev 30:233–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McLoughlin PD, Gaillard JM, Boyce MS, Bonenfant C, Messier F, Duncan P, Delorme D, Moorter BV, Saïd S, Klein F (2007) Lifetime reproductive success and composition of the home range in a large herbivore. Ecology 88:3192–3201PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Miyashita T, Suzuki M, Ando D, Fujita G, Ochiai K, Asada M (2008) Forest edge creates small-scale variation in reproductive rate of sika deer. Popul Ecol 50:111–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mysterud A (1996) Bed-site selection by adult roe deer Capreolus capreolus in southern Norway during summer. Wild Biol 2:101–106Google Scholar
  36. Mysterud A, Bjornsen BH, Østbye E (1997) Effects of snow depth on food and habitat selection by roe deer Capreolus capreolus along an altitudinal gradient in south-central Norway. Wild Biol 3:27–33Google Scholar
  37. Mysterud A, Østbye E (1999) Cover as a habitat element for temperate ungulates: effects on habitat selection and demography. Wild Soc Bull 27:385–394Google Scholar
  38. Neff DJ (1968) The pellet-group count technique for big game trend, census, and distribution: a review. J Wild Manag 32:597–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Neumann W (2009) Moose Alces alces behaviour related to human activity. Faculty of Forest Sciences, Umeå University, UmeåGoogle Scholar
  40. Niklasson M, Granström A (2000) Numbers and sizes of fires: long-term spatially explicit fire history in a Swedish boreal landscape. Ecology 81:1484–1499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nikula A, Heikkinen S, Helle E (2004) Habitat selection of adult moose Alces alces at two spatial scales in central Finland. Wildl Biol 10:121–135Google Scholar
  42. Odden J, Linnell J, Andersen R (2006) Diet of Eurasian lynx, Lynx lynx, in the boreal forest of southeastern Norway: the relative importance of livestock and hares at low roe deer density. Eur J Wild Res 52:237–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Panzacchi M, Linnell JDC, Odden J, Odden M, Andersen R (2008) When a generalist becomes a specialist: patterns of red fox predation on roe deer fawns under contrasting conditions. Can J Zool 86:116–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Panzacchi M, Linnell JDC, Odden M, Odden J, Andersen R (2009) Habitat and roe deer fawn vulnerability to red fox predation. J Anim Ecol 78:1124–1133PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pautasso M (2007) Scale dependence of the correlation between human population presence and vertebrate and plant species richness. Ecol Lett 10:16–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Persson IL, Danell K, Bergstroem R (2000) Disturbance by large herbivores in boreal forests with special reference to moose. Ann Zool Fenn 37:251–263Google Scholar
  47. Prugh LR, Hodges KE, Sinclair ARE, Brashares JS (2008) Effect of habitat area and isolation on fragmented animal populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105:20770–20775PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ratikainen I, Panzacchi M, Mysterud A, Odden J, Linnell JDC, Andersen R (2007) Use of winter habitat by roe deer at a northern latitude where Eurasian lynx are present. J Zool 273:192–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rossiter SJ, Jones G, Ransome RD, Barratt EM (2001) Outbreeding increases offspring survival in wild greater horseshoe bats (Rhinolophus ferrumequinum). Proc R Soc Lond (Biol) 268:1055–1061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sæther BE, Heim M (1993) Ecological correlates of individual variation in age at maturity in female moose (Alces alces): the effects of environmental variability. J Anim Ecol 62:482–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Saïd S, Servanty S (2005) The influence of landscape structure on female roe deer home-range size. Landsc Ecol 20:1003–1012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sand H, Cederlund G, Danell K (1995) Geographical and latitudinal variation in growth patterns and adult body size of Swedish moose (Alces alces). Oecologia 102:433–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Senft RL, Coughenour MB, Bailey DW, Rittenhouse LR, Sala OE, Swift DM (1987) Large herbivore foraging and ecological hierarchies. BioScience 37:789–799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tufto J, Andersen R, Linnell J (1996) Habitat use and ecological correlates of home range size in a small cervid: the roe deer. J Anim Ecol 65:715–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. van Beest FM, Loe LE, Mysterud A, Milner JM (2010) Comparative space use and habitat selection of moose around feeding stations. J Wild Manag 74:219–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Vors LS, Schaefer JA, Pond BA, Rodgers AR, Patterson BR (2007) Woodland caribou extirpation and anthropogenic landscape disturbance in Ontario. J Wild Manag 71:1249–1256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Vospernik S, Reimoser S (2008) Modelling changes in roe deer habitat in response to forest management. For Ecol Manag 255:530–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wahlström LK, Liberg O (1995) Contrasting dispersal patterns in two Scandinavian roe deer Capreolus capreolus populations. Wild Biol 1:159–164Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Ecological Society of Japan 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rita Tinoco Torres
    • 1
  • J. C. Carvalho
    • 2
  • M. Panzacchi
    • 3
  • J. D. C. Linnell
    • 3
  • C. Fonseca
    • 1
  1. 1.CESAM and Department of BiologyUniversity of AveiroAveiroPortugal
  2. 2.Department of Biology, CBMA-Molecular and Environmental CentreUniversity of MinhoBragaPortugal
  3. 3.Norwegian Institute for Nature ResearchTrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations