Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Space use and movement patterns of translocated bighorn sheep

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Mammalian Biology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Ungulate species have consistently been a major focus of reintroductions to their native ranges. Bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) are an ecologically sensitive species, and have experienced population declines throughout their historic range; bighorn sheep inhabited the Black Hills region of South Dakota but were extirpated from the area due to anthropogenic impacts in the early 1900s. To continue to restore populations to the area, we translocated 26 bighorn sheep from Alberta, Canada to the Deadwood Region of the Black Hills. Bighorn sheep were fitted with VHF or GPS collars and monitored throughout the duration of the study (Feb 2015–Jan 2017). Our objectives were to evaluate movement patterns post-release of bighorn sheep in the translocated Deadwood bighorn sheep herd. We utilized 3 types of home-range analyses based on collar data; kernel density estimation (KDE), minimum convex polygon (MCP), and Brownian Bridge Movement Models (BBMM) were used to estimate home-ranges year 1, year 2, and for the duration of the study. Home-range size utilizing KDE (95%; \(\overline{x}\) = 41.41 km2, SE = 10.50), minimum convex polygon (95%; \(\overline{x}\) = 55.73 km2, SE = 15.04), and BBMM (95%; \(\overline{x}\) = 32.95 km2, SE = 4.67) differed among methods. Year 1 home-range sizes (95% BBMM; \(\overline{x}\) = 40.01 km2) were larger than year 2 (95% BBMM; \(\overline{x}\) = 4.08 km2) home-range sizes. Travel distances were also larger in year 1 (\(\overline{x}\) = 431.80 km) than year 2 (\(\overline{x}\) = 368.77 km). Our results indicate that after an acclimation period, which included individual dispersal, the translocated Deadwood bighorn sheep herd settled into smaller home-ranges near the release site.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Modified from Werdel et al. 2020)

Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data used and/or analyzed during the study are available from the corresponding author with a reasonable request.

References

  • Barg JJ, Jones J, Robertson RJ (2005) Describing breeding territories of migratory passerines: suggestions for sampling, choice of estimator, and delineation of core areas. J Anim Ecol 74:139–149

    Google Scholar 

  • Beecham JJ, Collins CP, Reynolds TD (2007) Rocky mountain bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis): a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region

    Google Scholar 

  • Bleich VC, Wehausen JD, Ramey RR, Rechel JL (1996) Metapopulation theory and mountain sheep: implications for conservation. In: McCullough DR (ed) Metapopulations and wildlife conservation. D.C., Island Press, Washington, pp 353–373

    Google Scholar 

  • Bleich VC, Bowyer RT, Wehausen JD (1997) Sexual segregation in mountain sheep: resources or predation? Wildlife Monographs 134:3–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Bleisch AD, Keller BJ, Bonnot TW, Hansen LP, Millspaugh JJ (2017) Initial movements of reintroduced Elk in the Missouri Ozarks. Am Midl Nat 178:1–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Borger L, Franconi N, De Michele G, Gantz A, Meschi F, Manica A, Lovari S, Coulson T (2006) Effects of sampling regime on the mean and variance of home range size estimates. J Animal Ecol 75:1393–1405

    Google Scholar 

  • Buechner HK (1960) The bighorn sheep in the United States, its past, present, and future. Wildlife Monogr 4:3–174

    Google Scholar 

  • Burt WH (1943) Territoriality and home range concepts as applied to mammals. J Mammal 24:346–352

    Google Scholar 

  • Calenge C (2006) The package adehabitat for the R software: tool for the analysis of space and habitat use by animals. Ecol Model 197:1035

    Google Scholar 

  • DeCesare NJ, Pletscher DH (2006) Movements, connectivity, and resource selection of Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep. J Mammal 87:531–538

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas CL, Leslie DM Jr (1999) Management of bighorn sheep. In: Valdez R, Krausman PR (eds) Mountain sheep of North America. Arizona, USA, The University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp 238–262

    Google Scholar 

  • Festa-Bianchet M (1986) Seasonal dispersion of overlapping mountain sheep ewe groups. J Wildlife Manag 50:325–330

    Google Scholar 

  • Festa-Bianchet M (1988) Seasonal range selection in bighorn sheep: conflicts between forage quality, forage quantity, and predator avoidance. Oecologia 75:580–586

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Geist V (1966) Validity of horn segment counts in aging bighorn sheep. J Wildl Manag 30:634–635

    Google Scholar 

  • Geist V (1971) Mountain sheep: a study in behavior and evolution. Illinois, USA, University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Getz WM, Wilmers CC (2004) A local nearest-neighbor convex-hull construction of home ranges and utilization distributions. Ecography 27:489–505

    Google Scholar 

  • Gogan PJ (1990) Considerations in the reintroduction of native mammalian species to restore natural ecosystems. Nat Areas J 10:210–217

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon IG, Hester AJ, Festa-Bianchet M (2004) The management of wild large herbivores to meet economic, conservation and environmental objectives. J Appl Ecol 41:1021–1031

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffith B, Scott JM, Carpenter JW, Reed C (1989) Translocation as a species conservation tool: status and strategy. Science 245:477–480

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hemming JE (1969) Cemental deposition, tooth succession, and horn development as criteria of age in dall sheep. J Wildl Manag 33:552–558

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman GR, Alexander RR (1960) Forest vegetation of the black hills national forest of south dakota and wyoming: a habitat type classification. USDA research paper RM-276: rocky mountain forest and range experiment station, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA 48

  • Horne JS, Garton EO, Krone SM, Lewis JS (2007) Analyzing animal movements using Brownian bridges. Ecology 88:2354–2363

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacques CN, Jenks JA, Deperno CS, Sievers JD, Grovenburg TW, Brinkman TJ (2009) Evaluating ungulate mortality associated with helicopter net-gun captures in the Northern Great Plains. J Wildlife Manag 73:1282–1291

    Google Scholar 

  • Jedrzejewski W, Kamler JF (2004) Modified drop-net for capturing ungulates. Wildl Soc Bull 32:1305–1308

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenks JA (2018) Mountain lions of the Black Hills: history and ecology. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland

    Google Scholar 

  • Karsch RC, Cain JW, Rominger EM, Goldstein EJ (2016) Desert bighorn sheep lambing habitat: parturition, nursery, and predation sites. J Wildl Manag 80:1069–1080

    Google Scholar 

  • Kie JG, Matthiopoulos J, Fieberg J, Powell RA, Cagnacci F, Mitchell MS (2010) The home-range concept: are traditional estimators still relevant with modern telemetry technology? Phil Trans R Soc B 365:2221–2231

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kissell RE (1996) Competitive interactions among bighorn sheep, feral horses and mule deer in Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area. Ph.D. Dissertation. Bozeman, MT, Montana State University

  • Krausman PR, Bowyer RT (2003) Mountain sheep (Ovis canadensis and O. dalli). In: Feldhamer GA, Thompson BC, Chapman JA (eds) Wild mammals of North America: biology, management, and conservation, 2nd edn. JHU Press, Baltimore, Maryland, pp 1095–1115

    Google Scholar 

  • Krausman PR, Cox AS (2019) Vexing vocabulary in submissions to the Journal of Wildlife Management. J Wildl Manag 83:1279–1280

    Google Scholar 

  • Krausman PR, Leopold BD, Seegmiller RF, Torres SG (1989) Relationships between desert bighorn sheep and habitat in western Arizona. Wildl Monogr 102:3–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Laver PN, Kelly MJ (2008) A critical review of home range studies. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:290–298

    Google Scholar 

  • Laver PN, Kelly MJ (2010) A critical review of home range studies. J Wildl Manag 72:290–298

    Google Scholar 

  • Leslie DM, Douglas CL (1979) Desert bighorn sheep of the River Mountains, Nevada. Wildl Monogr 66:3–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis JS (2007) The effects of human influences on black bear habitat selection and movement patterns within a highway corridor. University of Idaho, Moscow, Thesis

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowrey B, Garrott RA, Miyasaki HM, Fralick G, Dewey SR (2017) Seasonal resource selection by introduced mountain goats in the southwest Greater Yellowstone Area. Ecosphere 8(4):e01769. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1769

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacCallum NB, Geist V (1992) Mountain restoration: soil and surface wildlife habitat. Geo J 27:23–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Maccallum NB (2012) Effects of delayed spring greenup on bighorn sheep of the Luscar and Gregg River mines, Alberta. Bienn Symp North Wild Sheep Goat Council 18:71–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Mcintosh AC (1949) A botanical survey of the Black Hills of South Dakota. Black Hills Eng 28:1–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Mertes K, Stabach JA, Songer M, Wacher T, Newby J, Chuven J, Al Dhaheri S, Leimgruber P, Monfort S (2019) Management background and release conditions structure post-release movements in reintroduced ungulates. Front Ecol Evolut 7:1–14

    Google Scholar 

  • National oceanic and atmospheric administration (2017) www.ncdc.noaa.gov. Accessed 10 Jan 2017

  • Nicholson MC, Bowyer RT, Kie JG (1997) Habitat selection and survival of mule deer: tradeoffs associated with migration. J Mammal 78:483–504

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielson RM, Sawyer H, McDonald TL (2017) BBMM: Brownian bridge movement models. 2013. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=BBMM. Accessed Jan 2017

  • Nilsen EB, Pedersen S, Linnell JDC (2008) Can minimum convex polygon home ranges be used to draw biologically meaningful conclusions? Ecol Res 23:635–639

    Google Scholar 

  • Orr HK (1959) Precipitation and streamflow in the Black Hills. Station Paper RM44. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. p. 25

  • Parr BL, Kanta J, Sandrini J, Thompson DJ, Jenks JA (2014) Bobcat predation on bighorn lamb in the western Black Hills of South Dakota. Prairie Nat 46:41–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Parr BL (2015) Population parameters of a bighorn sheep herd inhabiting the Elk Mountain region of South Dakota and Wyoming. M.S. Thesis. Brookings, SD, South Dakota State University 148

  • Powell RA, Mitchell MS (2012) What is a home range? J Mammal 93:948–958

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell RA (2000) Animal home ranges and territories and home range estimators. In: Pearl MC (ed) Research techniques in animal ecology. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 65–103

    Google Scholar 

  • R Core Team (2020) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson AH, Peterson LE (1974) History and management of South Dakota deer. South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, Pierre, South Dakota, Bulletin 5: p. 113.

  • Sawyer H, Kauffman MJ, Nielson RM, Horne JS (2009) Identifying and prioritizing ungulate migration routes for landscape-level conservation. Ecol Appl 19:2016–2025

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitz P, Caspers S, Warren P, Witte K (2015) First steps into the wild - exploration behavior of European bison after the first reintroduction in Western Europe. PLoS ONE 10:e0143046

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Schuler KL, Schroeder GM, Jenks JA, Kie JG (2014) Ad hoc smoothing parameter performance in kernel estimates of GPS-derived home ranges. Wbio 20(5):259–266

    Google Scholar 

  • Scillitani L, Darmon G, Monaco A, Cocca G, Sturaro E, Rossi L, Ramanzin M (2013) Habitat selection in translocated gregarious ungulate species: an interplay between sociality and ecological requirements. J Wildl Manag 77:761–769

    Google Scholar 

  • Seegmiller RF, Ohmart RD (1981) Ecological relationships of feral burros and desert bighorn sheep. Wildl Monogr 78:3–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Seton ET (1929) Lives of game animals. Doubleday, Doran and Co., Inc., New York, NY 4 441–501

  • Singer FJ, Bleich VC, Gudorf MA (2000b) Restoration of bighorn sheep metapopulations in and near western national parks. Restor Ecol 8:14–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer FJ, Papouchis CM, Symonds KK (2000a) Translocations as a tool for restoring populations of bighorn sheep. Restor Ecol 8:6–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith JB, Grovenburg TW, Jenks JA (2015) Parturition and bed site selection of bighorn sheep at local and landscape scales. J Wildl Manag 79:393–401

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith JB, Jenks JA, Grovenburg TW, Klaver RW (2014) Disease and predation: sorting out causes of a bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) decline. PLoS ONE 9:e88271

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks. Action plan for management of bighorn sheep in South Dakota (2013) http://gfp.sd.gov/wildlife/management/plans. Accessed 27 February 2017

  • Teck (2012) Teck 2012 sustainability report. Teck Resources Limited, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, p 148

    Google Scholar 

  • Thilenius JF (1972) Classification of deer habitat in the ponderosa pine forest of the Black Hills, South Dakota. USDA Forest Service Research Paper RM-91. Fort Collins, Colorado 28

  • Uresk DW, Mergen DE, Benzon TA (2009) Monitoring meadows with a modified Robel pole in the northern Black Hills, South Dakota. Prairie Nat 41:121–125

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Vuren D (1998) Mammalian dispersal and reserve design. In: Caro T (ed) Behavioral ecology and conservation biology. NY, Oxford University Press, New York, pp 369–393

    Google Scholar 

  • Walter WD, Fischer JW, Baruch-Mordo S, VerCauteren KC (2011) What is the proper method to delineate home range of an animal using today’s advanced GPS telemetry systems: the initial step. In: Krejcar O (ed) Modern telemetry, InTech, pp 249–268

  • Werdel TJ, Jenks JA, Besser TA, Kanta JT, Lehman CP, Frink TJ (2018) Survival of translocated bighorn sheep in the Deadwood region of the Black Hills, South Dakota. Northwestern Nat 99:222–231

    Google Scholar 

  • Werdel TJ, Jenks JA, Besser TA, Kanta JT, Lehman CP, Frink TJ (2020) Restoration of a bighorn sheep population impeded by Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae exposure. Restor Ecol 28:387–395

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilckens DT, Smith JB, Tucker SA, Thompson DJ, Jenks JA (2016) Mountain lion (Puma concolor) feeding behavior in the Little Missouri Badlands of North Dakota. J Mammal 97:373–385

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilckens D (2014) Ecology of mountain lions (Puma concolor) in the North Dakota Badlands: population dynamics and prey use. M.S. Thesis. Brookings, SD, South Dakota State University 92

  • Witte SS, Gallagher MV (2012) The North American Journals of Prince Maximilian of Wied, vol 3. Oklahoma, USA, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman

    Google Scholar 

  • Worton BJ (1987) A review of models of home range for animal movement. Ecol Model 38:277–298

    Google Scholar 

  • Worton BJ (1989) Kernel methods for estimating the utilization distribution in home range studies. Ecology 70:164–168

    Google Scholar 

  • Worton BJ (1995) A convex hull-based estimator of home-range size. Biometrics 51:1206–1215

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman TJ (2008) Evaluation of an augmentation of Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep at Badlands National Park, South Dakota. Ph.D. Dissertation. Brookings, SD, South Dakota State University 139

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, Civil Air Patrol, Deadwood Police Department, Lawrence County Sheriff’s Office, and private property owners in the Deadwood area for their assistance and property access. We thank J. Smith and B. Simpson for their assistance with data analyses. We thank T. Haffley, K. Cudmore, J. Doyle, J. Clark, and C. Werdel for their assistance with monitoring, capturing, and euthanizing bighorn sheep during the study period.

Funding

Financial support for this project was provided by Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration administered through the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks (Study Number 7556).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Ty J. Werdel

    Present address: Department of Horticulture and Natural Resources, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, 66506, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Natural Resource Management, Edgar S. Mcfadden Biostress Lab, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD, 57007, USA

    Ty J. Werdel & Jonathan A. Jenks

  2. South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks, 4130 Adventure Trail, Rapid City, SD, 57702, USA

    John T. Kanta

  3. South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks, 13329 US Highway 16A, Custer, SD, 57730, USA

    Chadwick P. Lehman

  4. Department of Applied Sciences, Burkhiser Complex, Chadron State College, Chadron, NE, 69337, USA

    Teresa J. Frink

Authors
  1. Ty J. Werdel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jonathan A. Jenks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. John T. Kanta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Chadwick P. Lehman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Teresa J. Frink
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

TJW, JAJ, JTK, CPL conceived and designed the study; TJW conducted field data collection; JTK led reintroduction efforts; TJW conducted data analyses; TJW wrote the manuscript and all authors discussed results and contributed to the final manuscript; JAJ secured funding.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ty J. Werdel.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All capture and handling methods were approved by the South Dakota State University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (Approval No. 14-096A). Access to private property, when needed, was done so with landowner permission. No threatened or protected species were involved in this research.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Handling editor: Luca Corlatti.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Werdel, T.J., Jenks, J.A., Kanta, J.T. et al. Space use and movement patterns of translocated bighorn sheep. Mamm Biol 101, 329–344 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42991-021-00107-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42991-021-00107-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation