Advertisement

Mammalian Biology

, Volume 77, Issue 2, pp 140–146 | Cite as

Life at the edge: Roe deer occurrence at the opposite ends of their geographical distribution, Norway and Portugal

  • Rita Tinoco TorresEmail author
  • Emílio Virgós
  • Manuela Panzacchi
  • John D. C. Linnell
  • Carlos Fonseca
Original Investigation
First Online:

Abstract

In the face of climate change and habitat fragmentation there is an increasingly urgent need to learn more about factors that influence species distribution patterns and levels of environmental tolerance. Particular insights can be obtained by looking at the edges of a species range, especially from species with wide distributions. The European roe deer was chosen as a model species due to its widespread distribution. By using pellet group counts, we studied summer and winter habitat use of this herbivore at two of the extreme edges of its distribution - southwest of Portugal, and northeast of Norway - in relation to a range of fine-scale environmental factors including forest structure, vegetation characteristics and human disturbance. Our first prediction that roe deer would respond differently to human activity in both counties was supported. While in Norway roe deer are always close to houses, in Portugal they are either far (in summer) or indifferent (winter). However, everywhere and in every season, roe deer are far from roads. Our second prediction that roe deer better tolerate anthropogenic disturbances in the area where the importance of limiting factors is higher (Norway) was validated. However, our third prediction that anthropogenic disturbance would be less tolerated by roe deer outside the limiting seasons in each country was not supported. Our results suggest that roe deer perceive human activities differently in the two countries and that roe deer better tolerate anthropogenic disturbances in Norway.

Keywords

Distribution edge Mediterranean forest Boreal forest Capreolus capreolus Human activities 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andersen, R., Duncan, P., Linnell, J.D.C., 1998. The European Roe Deer: The Biology of Success. Scandinavian University Press, Oslo.Google Scholar
  2. Andersen, R., Gaillard, J.- M., Linnell, J.D.C., Duncan, P., 2000. Factors affecting maternal carein anincome breeder, the European roe deer. J.Anim. Ecol. 69, 672–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersen, R., Herfindel, I., Sæther, B.E., Linnell, J.D.C., Odden, J., Liberg, O., 2004. When range expansion rate is faster in marginal habitats. Oikos 107, 210–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Apollonio, M., Andersen, R., Putman, R., 2010. European ungulates and their management in the 21st Century.Google Scholar
  5. Aragón, S., Braza, F., San José, C., 1995. Socioeconomic, physiognomic, and climatic factors determining the distribution pattern of roe deer Capreolus capreolus in Spain. Acta Theriol. (Warsz.) 40, 37–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bates, D., Sarkar, D., 2006. lme4: Linear Mixed-effects Models using S4 Classes. R Package Version 0.9975-10, Available at: https://doi.org/cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lme4/index.html.Google Scholar
  7. Blondel, J., Aronson, J., 1995. Biodiversity and ecosystem function in the Mediterranean basin: human and non-human determinants. In: Mediterranean-type Ecosystems: The Function of Biodiversity. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  8. Borkowski, J., Ukalska, J., 2008. Winter habitat use by red and roe deer in pine-dominated forest. For. Ecol. Manag. 255, 468–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brewka, A., Kossak, S., 1994. The influenceofatmospheric conditionsonthe mobility of roe deer (Capreolus capreolus L.) in winter. Ekol. Polsk. 40, 225–237.Google Scholar
  10. Buckland, S., 1992. A review of deer count methodology. Report to Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department, p. 41 (unpublished).Google Scholar
  11. Burnham, K.P., Anderson, D.R., 1998. Model Selection and Inference: A Practical Information – Theoretic Approach. Springer, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Campbell, D., Swanson, G.M., Sales, J., 2004. Methodological insights: comparing the precision and cost-effectiveness of faecal pellet group count methods. J. Appl. Ecol. 41, 1185–1196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Collins, W.B., Urness, P.J., 1981. Habitat preferences of mule deer as rated by pellet-group distributions. J. Wildl. Manag. 45, 969–972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Edge, W.D., Marcum, C.L., 1989. Determining elk distribution with pellet-group and telemetry techniques. J. Wildl. Manag. 53, 621–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Faraway, J.J., 2006. Extending the Linear Model with R: Generalized Linear Mixed Effects and Nonparametric Regression Models. Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  16. Faria, A.M.S., 1999. Dieta de corc¸ o (Capreolus capreolus L.) no Centro e Nordeste de Portugal. University of Coimbra, Coimbra.Google Scholar
  17. Frid, A., Dill, L.M., 2002. Human-caused disturbance stimuli as a form of predation risk. Conserv. Ecol. 6, 1–16.Google Scholar
  18. Gaston, K.J., 2003. The Structure and Dynamics of Geographic Ranges. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  19. Gill, R.M.A., Beardall, V., 2001. The impact ofdeeron woodlands: the effects of browsing and seed dispersal on vegetation structure and composition. Forestry 74, 209–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. González-Megías, A., Gómez, J.M., Sanchez-Pin˜ero, F., 2005. Consequences of spatial autocorrelation for the analysis of metapopulation dynamics. Ecology 86, 3264–3271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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, 253–269.Google Scholar
  22. Hewison, A.J., Vincent, J.P., Joachim, J., Angibault, J.M., Cargnelutti, B., Cibien, C., 2001. The effects of woodland fragmentation and human activity on roe deer distribution in agricultural landscapes. Can. J. Zool. 79, 679–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hoffmann, A.A., Blows, M.W., 1994. Species borders: ecological and evolutionary perspectives. Trends Ecol. Evol. 9, 223–227.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Je˛drzejewski, W., Jędrzejewska, B., Okarma, H., Ruprecht, A.L., 1992. Wolf predation and snow cover as mortalityfactors in the ungulate community of the Bialowiez a National Park, Poland. Oecologia 90, 27–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jiang, G., Ma, J., Zhang, M., Stott, P., 2009. Multiple spatial-scale resource selection function models in relation to human disturbance for moose in northeastern China. Ecol. Res. 24, 423–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kaluzinski, J., 1982. Dynamics and structure of a field roe deer population. Acta Theriol. (Warsz.) 27, 385–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Larcher, W., 2000. Temperature stress and survival ability of Mediterranean sclero-phyllous plants. Plant Biosyst. 134, 279–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Latham, J., Staines, B.W., Gorman, M.L., 1997. Correlationsof red (Cervus elaphus) and roe (Capreolus capreolus) deer densities in Scottish forests with environmental variables. J. Zool. 242, 681–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lemmon, P.E., 1956. A spherical densiometer for estimating forest overstory density. For. Sci. 2, 314–320.Google Scholar
  30. Lindén, H., Helle, E., Helle, P., Wikman, M., 1996. Wildlife triangle scheme in Finland: methods and aims for monitoring wildlife populations. Fin. Game Res. 49, 4–11.Google Scholar
  31. Loft, E.R., Kie, J.G., 1988. Comparisonof pellet-group and radio triangulation methods for assessing deer habitat use. J. Wildl. Manag. 52, 524–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mayle, B.A., Putman, R.J., Wyllie, I., 2000. The use of trackway counts to establish an index of deer presence. Mamm. Rev. 30, 233–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Melis, C., Basille, M., Herfindal, I., Linnell, J.D.C., Odden, J., Gaillard, J.-M., Høgda, K.-A., Andersen, R., 2010. Roe deer population growth and lynx predation along a gradient of environmental productivity and climate in Norway. Ecoscience 17, 166–174.CrossRefGoogle 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. Pop. Ecol. 50, 111–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Moreira, L.M., Rosa, J.L., Lourenc, O.J., Barroso, I., Pimenta, V., 1997. Projecto Lobo. Relatório de Progressão 1996 (Cofinanciado pela U. E. – Programa LIFE). Parque Natural de Montesinho, Braganc¸ a.Google Scholar
  36. Mysterud, A., Bjornsen, B.H., 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. Wildl. Biol. 3, 27–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mysterud, A., Lian, L.-B., Hjermann, D.O., 1999. Scale-dependent trade-offs in foraging by European roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) during winter. Can. J. Zool. 77, 1486–1493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mysterud, A., Østbye, E., 1999. Cover as a habitat element for temperate ungulates: effects on habitat selection and demography. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 27, 385–394.Google Scholar
  39. Neff, D.J., 1968. The pellet-group count technique for big game trend, census, and distribution: a review. J. Wildl. Manag. 32, 597–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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. Wildl. Res. 52, 237–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Panzacchi, M., Herfindal, I., Linnell, J., Odden, M., Odden, J., Andersen, R., 2010. Tradeoffs between maternal foraging and fawn predation risk in an income breeder. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 64, 1267–1278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Panzacchi, M., Linnell, J.D.C., 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– 126.Google Scholar
  43. Parmesan, C., Yohe, G., 2003. A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature 421, 37–42.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. Pautasso, M., 2007. Scale dependenceof the correlation between human population presence and vertebrate and plant species richness. Ecol. Lett. 10, 16–24.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Pimenta, V., Correia, J., 2001. Distribuic¸ ão do corc¸ o (Capreolus capreolus) no Parque Natural do Douro Internacional: análise dos factores ambientais que a condi-cionam. Inst. Politécnico de Braganc¸a, Portugal.Google Scholar
  46. Randall, M.G.M., 1982. The dynamics of an insect population throughout its altitu-dinal distribution: Coleophora alticolella (Lepidoptera) in Northern England. J. Anim. Ecol. 51, 993–1016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ratikainen, I.I., Panzacchi, M., Mysterud, A., Odden, J., Linnell, J., Andersen, R., 2007. Use of winter habitat by roe deer at a northern latitude where Eurasian lynx are present. J. Zool. 273, 192–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rowland, M.M., Wisdom, M.J., Johnson, B.K., Kie, J.G., 2000. Elk distribution and modeling in relation to roads. J. Wildl. Manag. 64, 672–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Saïd, S., Servanty, S., 2005. The influence of landscape structure on female roe deer home-range size. Landsc. Ecol. 20, 1003–1012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Stankowich, T., 2008. Ungulate flight responses tohuman disturbance:a review and meta-analysis. Biol. Conserv. 141, 2159–2173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 2009. Statistics Norway, https://doi.org/www.ssb.no/.
  52. Tellería, J.L., Virgós, E., 1997. Distribution of an increasing roe deer population in a fragmented Mediterranean landscape. Ecography 20, 247–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Torres, R.T., Santos, J., Linnell, J.D.C., Virgós, E., Fonseca, C., 2011. Factors affecting roe deer occurrence in a Mediterranean landscape Northeastern Portugal. Mamm. Biol. 76, 491–497.CrossRefGoogle 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, 715–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Vingada, J., Fonseca, C., Cancela, J., Ferreira, J., Eira, C., 2010. Ungulates and their Management in Portugal. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  56. Virgós, E., Telléria, J.L., 1998. Roe deer habitat selection in Spain: constraints on the distribution of a species. Can. J. Zool. 76, 1294–1299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wahlström, L.K., Liberg, O., 1995. Contrasting dispersal patterns in two Scandinavian roe deer Capreolus capreolus populations. Wildl. Biol. 1, 159–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Deutsche Gesellschaft für Säugetierkunde 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rita Tinoco Torres
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  • Emílio Virgós
    • 2
  • Manuela Panzacchi
    • 3
  • John D. C. Linnell
    • 3
  • Carlos Fonseca
    • 1
  1. 1.CESAM & Department of BiologyUniversity of Aveiro, Campus de SantiagoAveiroPortugal
  2. 2.Biodiversity and Conservation AreaUniversity of Rey Juan CarlosMóstoles (Madrid)Spain
  3. 3.Norwegian Institute for Nature ResearchTrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options