Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Landscape composition influences roe deer habitat selection at both home range and landscape scales

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Understanding how patterns of habitat selection vary in relation to landscape structure is essential to predict ecological responses of species to global change and inform management. We investigated behavioural plasticity in habitat selection of roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) in relation to variable habitat availability across a heterogeneous agricultural landscape at the home range and landscape scales. As expected, woodland was heavily selected, but we found no functional response for this habitat, i.e. no shift in habitat selection with changing habitat availability, possibly due to the presence of hedgerows which were increasingly selected as woodlands were less abundant. Hedgerows may thus function as a substitutable habitat for woodlands by providing roe deer with similar resources. We observed a functional response in the use of hedgerows, implying some degree of landscape complementation between hedgerows and open habitats, which may in part compensate for lower woodland availability. We also expected selection for woodland to be highest at the wider spatial scale, especially when this habitat was limiting. However, our results did not support this hypothesis, but rather indicated a marked influence of habitat composition, as both the availability and distribution of resources conditioned habitat selection. There was no marked between-sex difference in the pattern of habitat selection at either scale or between seasons at the landscape scale, however, within the home range, selection did differ between seasons. We conclude that landscape structure has a marked impact on roe deer habitat selection in agricultural landscapes through processes such as landscape complementation and supplementation.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abbas F, Morellet N, Hewison AJM, Merlet J-l, Cargnelutti B, Lourtet B, Angibault J-M, Daufresne T, Aulagnier S, Verheyden H (2011) Landscape fragmentation and plasticity in resource use generate spatial variation of diet composition and quality in a generalist herbivore. Oecologia. doi:10.1007/s00442-011-1994-0

  • Adrados C, Girard I, Gendner J-P, Janeau G (2002) GPS location accuracy improvement due to selective availability removal. C R Biol 325:1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersen R, Duncan P, Linnell JDC (eds) (1998a) The European roe deer: the biology of success. Scandinavian University, Oslo

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersen R, Gaillard J-M, Liberg O, San Jose C (1998b) Variation in life-history parameters. In: Andersen R, Duncan P, Linnell JDC (eds) The European roe deer: the biology of success. Scandinavian University Press, Oslo, pp 189–219

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailey D, Alimadhi F (2007) ls.mixed: mixed effects linear model. In: Imai K, King G, Lau O (eds) Zelig: everyone’s statistical software. Available in http://gking.harvard.edu/zelig

  • Banks SC, Piggott MP, Stow AJ, Taylor AC (2007) Sex and sociality in a disconnected world: a review of the impacts of habitat fragmentation on animal social interactions. Can J Zool 85:1065–1079

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benhaiem S, Delon M, Lourtet B, Cargnelutti B, Aulagnier S, Hewison AJM, Morellet N, Verheyden H (2008) Hunting increases vigilance levels in roe deer and modifies feeding site selection. Anim Behav 76:611–618

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benton TG, Vickery JA, Wilson JD (2003) Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key? Trends Ecol Evol 18:182–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berryman AA, Hawkins BA (2006) The refuge as an integrating concept in ecology and evolution. Oikos 115:192–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyce MS (2006) Scale for resource selection functions. Divers Distrib 12:269–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown JS, Laundré JW, Gurung M (1999) The ecology of fear: optimal foraging, game theory, and trophic interactions. J Mammal 80:385–399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burel F, Butet A, Delettre YR, de la Pena NM (2004) Differential response of selected taxa to landscape context and agricultural intensification. Landsc Urban Plan 67:195–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cargnelutti B, Reby D, Desneux L, Angibault J-M, Joachim J, Hewison AJM (2002) Space use by roe deer in a fragmented landscape some preliminary results. Rev Ecol (Terre Vie) 57:29–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Cargnelutti B, Coulon A, Hewison AJM, Goulard M, Angibault J-M, Morellet N (2007) Testing GPS performance for wildlife monitoring using mobile collars with known reference points. J Wildl Manag 71:1380–1387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cransac N, Cibien C, Angibault J-M, Morellet N, Vincent J-P, Hewison AJM (2001) Variations saisonnières du régime alimentaire du chevreuil (Capreolus capreolus) selon le sexe en milieu forestier à forte densité (forêt domaniale de Dourdan). Mammalia 65:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunning JB, Danielson BJ, Pulliam HR (1992) Ecological processes that affect populations in complex landscapes. Oikos 65:169–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ESRI (2002) Using ArcView GIS version 3.3: the geographic information system for everyone. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., Redlands

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaillard J-M, Hebblewhite M, Loison A, Fuller M, Powell R, Basille M, Van Moorter B (2010) Habitat-performance relationships: finding the right metric at a given spatial scale. Philos T R Soc Lond B 365:2255–2265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godvik IMR, Loe LE, Vik JO, Veiberg V, Langvatn R, Mysterud A (2009) Temporal scales, trade-offs, and functional responses in red deer habitat selection. Ecology 90:699–710

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Herfindal I, Tremblay J-P, Hansen BB, Solberg EJ, Heim M, Sæther B-E (2009) Scale dependency and functional response in moose habitat selection. Ecography 32:849–859

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hewison AJM, Vincent JP, Reby D (1998) Social organisation of European roe deer. In: Andersen R, Duncan P, Linnell JDC (eds) The European roe deer: the biology of success. Scandinavian University Press, Oslo, pp 189–219

    Google Scholar 

  • Hewison AJM, 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hewison AJM, Angibault J-M, Cargnelutti B, Coulon A, Rames J-L, Serrano E, Verheyden H, Morellet N (2007) Using radio-tracking and direct observation to estimate roe deer density in a fragmented landscape: a pilot study. Wildl Biol 13:313–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hewison AJM, Morellet N, Verheyden H, Daufresne T, Angibault J-M, Cargnelutti B, Merlet J, Picot D, Rames J-L, Joachim J, Lourtet B, Serrano E, Bideau E, Cebe N (2009) Landscape fragmentation influences winter body mass of roe deer. Ecography 32:1062–1070

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs NT, Hanley TA (1990) Habitat evaluation: do use/availability data reflect carrying capacity. J Wildl Manag 54:515–522

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson DH (1980) The comparison of usage and availability measurements for evaluating resource preference. Ecology 61:65–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kie JG, Bowyer RT, Nicholson MC, Boroski BB, Loft ER (2002) Landscape heterogeneity at differing scales: effects on spatial distribution of mule deer. Ecology 83:530–544

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manly BFJ, McDonald LL, Thomas DL, McDonald TL, Erickson WP (2002) Resource selection by animals: statistical analysis and design for field studies. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Massé A, Côté SD (2009) Habitat selection of a large herbivore at high density and without predation: trade-off between forage and cover? J Mammal 90:961–970

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morellet N, Verheyden H, Angibault J-M, Cargnelutti B, Lourtet B, Hewison AJM (2009) The effect of capture on ranging behaviour and activity of the European roe deer Capreolus capreolus. Wildl Biol 15:278–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mysterud A, Ims RA (1998) Functional responses in habitat use: availability influences relative use in trade-off situations. Ecology 79:1435–1441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mysterud A, Ostbye E (1999) Cover as a habitat element for temperate ungulates: effects on habitat selection and demography. Wildl Soc Bull 27:385–394

    Google Scholar 

  • Mysterud A, Larsen PK, Ims RA, Ostbye E (1999) Habitat selection by roe deer and sheep: does habitat ranking reflect resource availability? Can J Zool 77:776–783

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Odum EP (1959) Fundamentals of ecology. WB Saunders Company, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D, The R Core Team (2009) nlme: Linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3, pp 1–96

  • Rettie WJ, Messier F (2000) Hierarchical habitat selection by woodland caribou: its relationship to limiting factors. Ecography 23:466–478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saïd S, Servanty S (2005) The influence of landscape structure on female roe deer home-range size. Landscape Ecol 20:1003–1012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saïd S, Pellerin M, Guillon N, Debias F, Fritz H (2005) Assessment of forage availability in ecological studies. Eur J Wildl Res 51:242–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sempéré AJ, Mauget R, Mauget C (1998) Reproductive physiology of roe deer. In: Andersen R, Duncan P, Linnell JDC (eds) The European roe deer: the biology of success. Scandinavian University Press, Oslo, pp 161–188

    Google Scholar 

  • Sotherton NW (1998) Land use changes and the decline of farmland wildlife: an appraisal of the set-aside approach. Biol Conserv 83:259–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R Development Core Team (2009) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, http://www.R-project.org

  • Tilman D (1980) Resources: a graphical-mechanistic approach to competition and predation. Am Nat 116:362–393

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tufto J, Andersen R, Linnell JDC (1996) Habitat use and ecological correlates of home range size in a small cervid: the roe deer. J Anim Ecol 65:715–724

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Moorter B (2008) Habitat selection at different spatial scales: application to roe deer. Dissertation, Claude Bernard Lyon I

  • Van Moorter B, Gaillard J-M, McLoughlin PD, Delorme D, Klein F, Boyce MS (2009) Maternal and individual effects in selection of bed sites and their consequences for fawn survival at different spatial scales. Oecologia 159:669–678

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Venables WN, Ripley BD (2002) Modern applied statistics with S. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Whittaker J (1990) Graphical models in applied multivariate statistics. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the local hunting associations with the Fédération Départementale des Chasseurs de la Haute Garonne for allowing us to work in the Comminges, as well as numerous co-workers and volunteers for their assistance and two anonymous referees for their constructive criticisms on an earlier draft of this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Comportement et Ecologie de la Faune Sauvage, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, BP 52627, Castanet-Tolosan Cedex, 31326, France

    Nicolas Morellet, Bruno Cargnelutti, Jean-Marc Angibault, Bruno Lourtet, Joël Merlet & A. J. Mark Hewison

  2. INRA, UMR 1201 DYNAFOR, BP 52627, 31326, Castanet-Tolosan, France

    Sylvie Ladet

  3. Université de Toulouse, UMR 1201 DYNAFOR, 31326, Castanet-Tolosan, France

    Sylvie Ladet

  4. Centre for Conservation Biology, Department of Biology, NTNU, Realfagbygget, Høgskoleringen 5, 7491, Trondheim, Norway

    Bram Van Moorter

Authors
  1. Nicolas Morellet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bram Van Moorter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bruno Cargnelutti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jean-Marc Angibault
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Bruno Lourtet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Joël Merlet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Sylvie Ladet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. A. J. Mark Hewison
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicolas Morellet.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Morellet, N., Van Moorter, B., Cargnelutti, B. et al. Landscape composition influences roe deer habitat selection at both home range and landscape scales. Landscape Ecol 26, 999–1010 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-011-9624-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-011-9624-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation