Advertisement

Mammal Research

, Volume 63, Issue 3, pp 297–305 | Cite as

Why do migrants move downhill? The effects of increasing predation and density on red deer altitudinal migration in temperate Carpathian forests

  • Peter SmolkoEmail author
  • R. Kropil
  • T. Pataky
  • A. Veselovská
  • E. Merrill
Original Paper
  • 199 Downloads

Abstract

Resource selection by ungulates is driven by trade-offs between foraging and predation avoidance or by intraspecific competition. Ungulates use migratory flexibility to optimize access to spatially and temporally variable resources across seasons, sometimes even adaptively switching between migrant and resident strategy as conditions change. After an 80% increase in red deer (Cervus elaphus) population and simultaneous recovery of wolves (Canis lupus) in the Kremnica Mountains, Slovakia, a significant portion of the deer population started to migrate downhill (< 700 m) to marginal habitats during winter. Building on available spatial data on forage availability, predation risk, and deer abundance, we tested for differences in habitat selection of migrant and resident male red deer to assess possible reasons for this change. On high-altitude (700–1100 m) summer ranges, deer were not forced to trade-off forage to avoid predation within their home ranges. However, during winter, residents remaining on high-altitude ranges selected for areas with highly abundant forage only under low predation risk or at high deer abundance. Downhill migration exposed migrants to 15% lower forage availability but simultaneously reduced wolf predation risk by 39% relative to residents. Consequently, the limited access to forage resources at low-altitude ranges have reduced antler growth, especially in young males. Our study represents one of few that address the role of predation risk in driving seasonal migrations in temperate systems where snow is not likely to be the major driver of migration to low-altitude winter ranges.

Keywords

Predator-prey interaction Ungulates Seasonal migration Wolf predation Slovakia 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Dr. J. Ciberej, Dr. M. Jurčík, and Dr. D. Rajský for supervising the immobilisations. We also thank the University Forest Enterprise and the Urban Forests of Kremnica for the field assistance and National Forestry Centre for providing GIS forestry data. Special thanks to Dr. J. Sládek, Dr. M. Svitok, Dr. P. Garaj Sr., Dr. K. Střelcová, and Dr. J. Luptáková for their advices and to field assistants Ľ. Ferlica, Dr. M. Ostrihoň, and Dr. P. Garaj Jr. All applicable national and international guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.

Funding information

This paper was produced within the project APVV-14-0637 supported by the Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sport of the Slovak Republic and projects ITMS 26220120006 and ITMS 26220120049 supported by the Operational Programme Research and Development within the European Regional Development Fund.

Supplementary material

13364_2018_355_MOESM1_ESM.docx (19 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 18 kb)

References

  1. Albon SD, Langvatn R (1992) Plant phenology and the benefits of migration in a temperate ungulate. Oikos 65(3):502–513.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3545568 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berger J (2007) Fear, human shields and the re-distribution of prey and predators in protected areas. Biol Lett 3(6):620–623.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2007.0415 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Beschta RL, Ripple WJ (2007) Wolves, elk and aspen in the winter range of Jasper National Park, Canada. Can J For Res 37(10):1873–1885.  https://doi.org/10.1139/X07-017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bischof R, Loe LE, Meisingset E, Zimmermann B, Van Moorter B, Mysterud A (2012) A migratory northern ungulate in the pursuit of spring: jumping or surfing the green wave? Am Nat 180(4):407–424.  https://doi.org/10.1086/667590 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Boyce MS (1991) Migratory behaviour and management of elk (Cervus elaphus). Appl Anim Behav Sci 29(1-4):239–250.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(91)90251-R CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boyce MS, Vernier PR, Nielsen SE, Schmiegelow FKA (2002) Evaluating resource selection functions. Ecol Model 157(2-3):281–300.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3800(02)00200-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brazda AR (1953) Elk migration patterns and some of the factors affecting movements in the Gallatin River drainage, Montana. J Wildl Manag 17(1):9–23.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3796798 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer-Verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. CARPATCLIM Database © European Commission - JRC, (2013). http://www.carpatclim-eu.org/pages/home/
  10. Carranza J, Hidalgo de Trucios SJ, Medina R, Valencia J, Delgado J (1991) Space use by red deer in a Mediterranean ecosystem as determined by radio-tracking. Appl Anim Behav Sci 30(3-4):363–371.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(91)90141-J CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clutton-Brock TH, Guinness F, Albon SD (1982) Red deer: behavior and ecology of two sexes. Edinburg University Press, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  12. ESRI (2014) ArcGIS Desktop 10.2. ESRI (Environmental Systems Research Institute), Redlands, California, USAGoogle Scholar
  13. Finďo S, Petráš R (2007) Ekologické základy ochrany lesa proti poškodzovaniu zverou. Národné lesnícke centrum Zvolen, Slovakia, (in Slovak)Google Scholar
  14. Garaj P, Kropil R (2015) Game management. Technical University in Zvolen Press, ZvolenGoogle Scholar
  15. Georgii B, Schröder W (1983) Home range and activity patterns of male red deer (Cervus elaphus L.) in the Alps. Oecologia 58(2):238–248.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00399224 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Hebblewhite M, Merrill EH (2009) Trade-offs between predation risk and forage differ between migrant strategies in a migratory ungulate. Ecology 90(12):3445–3454.  https://doi.org/10.1890/08-2090.1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Hebblewhite M, Pletscher DH (2002) Effects of elk group size on predation by wolves. Can J Zool 80(5):800–809.  https://doi.org/10.1139/z02-059 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jamrozy G (1980) Winter food resources and food preferences of red deer in Carpathian forests. Acta Theriol 25:221–238.  https://doi.org/10.4098/AT.arch.80-17 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Johnson CHJ, Nielsen SE, Merrill EH, Mcdonald TL, Boyce MS (2006) Resource selection functions based on use-availability data: theoretical motivation and evaluation methods. J Wildl Manage 70(2):347–357Google Scholar
  20. Kaštier P (2010) Endangerment prediction of forest stands by red deer in a model territory PGMA Poľana. Dissertation. Technical University in Zvolen, SlovakiaGoogle Scholar
  21. Katreniak J (1992) Food resources for ruminating game in the winter period in the first to fourth forest vegetation belt. Folia Venatoria 22:11–20Google Scholar
  22. Kauffman MJ, Varley N, Smith DW, Stahler DR, MacNulty DR, Boyce MS (2007) Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system. Ecol Lett 10(8):690–700.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01059.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Konôpka J, Kaštier P, Slamečka J (2014) Koncepcia rozvoja poľovníctva v Slovenskej Republike. Poľovnícke štúdie 12. Národné lesnícke centrum – Lesnícky výskumný ústav, Zvolen, SlovakiaGoogle Scholar
  24. Krojerová-Prokešová J, Barančeková M, Šustr P, Heurich M (2010) Feeding patterns of red deer in the Bohemian Forest: effect of habitat and season. Wildl Biol 16(2):173–184.  https://doi.org/10.2981/09-004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kropil R, Smolko P, Garaj P (2015) Home range and migration patterns of male red deer Cervus elaphus in Western Carpathians. Eur J Wildl Res 61(1):63–72.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-014-0874-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. LeResche RE (1974) Moose migrations in North America. Nat Can 101:393–415Google Scholar
  27. Lincoln GA (1992) Biology of antlers. J Zool 226(3):517–528.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1992.tb07495.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Manly BFJ, McDonald LL, Thomas DL, Mc Donald TL, Erickson WP (2002) Resource selection by animals: statistical design and analysis for field studies, 2nd edn. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. Mansson J, Jarnemo A (2013) Bark-stripping on Norway spruce by red deer in Sweden: level of damage and relation to tree characteristics. Scand J For Res 28(2):117–125.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2012.701323 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mao JS, Boyce MS, Smith DW, Singer FJ, Vales DJ, Vore JM, Merrill EH (2005) Habitat selection by elk before and after wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone National Park. J Wild Manage 4:1691–1707. https://doi.org/10.2193/0022-541X(2005)69[1691:HSBEBA]2.0.COGoogle Scholar
  31. Mysterud A, Meisingset E, Langvatn R, Yoccoz NG, Stenseth NC (2005) Climate-dependent allocation of resources to secondary sexual traits in red deer. Oikos 111(2):245–252.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0030-1299.2005.14197.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mysterud A, Loe LE, Zimmermann B, Bischof R, Veiberg V, Meisingset E (2011) Partial migration in expanding red deer populations in northern latitudes—a role for density dependence? Oikos 120(12):1817–1825.  https://doi.org/10.2307/41316000 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nams VO (2006) Locate III user’s guide. Pacer Computer Software, TatamagoucheGoogle Scholar
  34. R Development Core Team (2009) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  35. Šebeň V, Konôpka J, Kaštier P (2011) Sources of food for game, according to National forest inventory and monitoring of the Slovak Republic 2005–2006. Folia Venatoria 40–41:29–52Google Scholar
  36. Smith BL (1998) Antler size and winter mortality of elk: effects of environment, birth year and parasites. J Mammal 79(3):1038–1044.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1383113 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Smolko P, Veselovská A, Kropil R (2018) Seasonal dynamics of forage for red deer in temperate forests: importance of the habitat properties, stand development stage and overstorey dynamics. Wildl Biol – In Press.  https://doi.org/10.2981/wlb.00366
  38. Zweifel-Schielly B, Kreuzer M, Ewald KC, Suter W (2009) Habitat selection by an alpine ungulate: the significance of forage characteristics varies with scale and season. Ecography 32(1):103–113.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2008.05178 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Mammal Research Institute, Polish Academy of Sciences, Białowieża, Poland 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Applied Zoology and Wildlife ManagementTechnical University in ZvolenZvolenSlovakia
  2. 2.OZ Diana – Carpathian Wildlife ResearchBanská BystricaSlovakia
  3. 3.Faculty of Science, Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations