Habitat quality, configuration and context effects on roe deer fecundity across a forested landscape mosaic

Autoři: Valentina Zini aff001;  Kristin Wäber aff001;  Paul M. Dolman aff001
Působiště autorů: School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom aff001;  Forestry Commission, East England, Santon Downham, Brandon, United Kingdom aff002
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(12)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0226666


Effective landscape-scale management of source-sink deer populations will be strengthened by understanding whether local variation in habitat quality drives heterogeneity in productivity. We related female roe deer Capreolus capreolus fecundity and body mass to habitat composition and landscape context, separately for adults and yearlings, using multi-model inference (MMI) applied to a large sample of individuals (yearlings: fecundity = 202, body mass = 395; adults: fecundity = 908, body mass = 1669) culled during 2002–2015 from an extensive (195 km2) heterogeneous forest landscape. Adults were heavier (inter-quartile, IQ, effect size = +0.5kg) when culled in buffers comprising more arable lands while contrary to our prediction no effects on body mass of grassland, young forest or access to vegetation on calcareous soil were found. Heavier adults were more fertile (IQ effect size, +12% probability of having two embryos instead of one or zero). Counter-intuitively, adults with greater access to arable lands were less fecund (IQ effect of arable: -7% probability of having two embryos, instead of one or zero), and even accounting for greater body mass of adults with access to arable, their modelled fecundity was similar to or lower than that of adults in the forest interior. In contrast, effects of grassland, young forest and calcareous soil did not receive support. Yearling body mass had an effect on fecundity twice that found in adults (+23% probability of having one additional embryo), but yearling body mass and fecundity were not affected by any candidate habitat or landscape variables. Effect of arable lands on body mass and fecundity were small, with little variance explained (Coefficient of Variation of predicted fecundity across forest sub-regions = 0.03 for adults). More variance in fecundity was attributed to other differences between forest management sub-regions (modelled as random effects), suggesting other factors might be important. When analysing source-sink population dynamics to support management, an average value of fecundity can be appropriate across a heterogeneous forest landscape.

Klíčová slova:

Crops – Deer – Ecosystems – Embryos – Fecundity – Forests – Grasslands – Habitats


1. Côté SD, Rooney TP, Tremblay J-P, Dussault C, Waller DM. Ecological Impacts of Deer Overabundance. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst [Internet]. 2004;35(1):113–47. Available from: http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.35.021103.105725

2. Dolman PM, Wäber K. Ecosystem and competition impacts of introduced deer. Wildl Res [Internet]. 2008 [cited 2016 May 10];35(3):202. Available from: http://www.publish.csiro.au/?paper=WR07114

3. Ward AI. Expanding ranges of wild and feral deer in Great Britain. Mamm Rev. 2005;35(2):165–73.

4. Kilpatrick HJ, Labonte AM, Stafford KC. The relationship between deer density, tick abundance, and human cases of Lyme disease in a residential community. J Med Entomol [Internet]. 2014 Jul 1;51(4):777–84. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/jme/article-lookup/doi/10.1603/ME13232 25118409

5. Langbein J, Putman R, Pokorny B. Traffic collisions involving deer and other ungulates in Europe and available measures for mitigation. In: Putman R, Apollonio M, Andersen R, editors. Ungulate Management in Europe [Internet]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2011. p. 215–59. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/CBO9780511974137A016/type/book_part

6. Fuller RJ. Ecological impacts of increasing numbers of deer in British woodland. Forestry [Internet]. 2001 Mar 1 [cited 2016 May 16];74(3):193–9. Available from: http://forestry.oupjournals.org/cgi/doi/10.1093/forestry/74.3.193

7. Wäber K, Spencer J, Dolman PM. Achieving landscape-scale deer management for biodiversity conservation: the need to consider sources and sinks. J Wildl Manage [Internet]. 2013 May;77(4):726–36. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/jwmg.530

8. Wäber K, Dolman PM. Deer abundance estimation at landscape-scales in heterogeneous forests. Basic Appl Ecol [Internet]. 2015 Nov [cited 2016 May 10];16(7):610–20. Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S143917911500095X

9. Focardi S, Pelliccioni E, Petrucco R, Toso S. Spatial patterns and density dependence in the dynamics of a roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) population in central Italy. Oecologia [Internet]. 2002 Feb 1 [cited 2016 May 10];130(3):411–9. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00442-001-0825-0 28547048

10. Albon SD, Mitchell B, Staines BW. Fertility and body weight in female red deer: a density-dependent relationship. J Anim Ecol. 1983;52(3):969–80.

11. Miyashita T, Suzuki M, Ando D, Fujita G, Ochiai K, Asada M. Forest edge creates small-scale variation in reproductive rate of sika deer. Popul Ecol. 2008;50(1):111–20.

12. McLoughlin PD, Gaillard J, Boyce MS, Bonenfant C, Messier F, Duncan P, et al. Lifetime reproductive success and composition of the home range in a large herbivore. Ecology [Internet]. 2007;88(12):3192–201. Available from: http://apps.isiknowledge.com/InboundService.do?product=WOS&action=retrieve&SrcApp=Papers&UT=000251965200024&SID=3BeHidDjIMbeKk3e8AH&SrcAuth=mekentosj&mode=FullRecord&customersID=mekentosj&DestFail=http%3A%2F%2Faccess.isiproducts.com%2Fcustom_image 18229853

13. Nilsen EB, Linnell JDC, Andersen R. Individual access to preferred habitat affects fitness components in female roe deer Capreolus capreolus. J Anim Ecol. 2004;73(1):44–50.

14. Hewison AJM, Gaillard JM. Phenotypic quality and senescence affect different components of reproductive output in roe deer. J Anim Ecol [Internet]. 2001 Dec 20;70(4):600–8. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1046/j.1365-2656.2001.00528.x

15. Andersen R, Linnell JDC. Irruptive potential in roe deer: density-dependent effects on body mass and fertility. J Wildl Manage [Internet]. 2000 Jul;64(3):698. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3802739?origin=crossref

16. Hewison AJM. Variation in the fecundity of roe deer in Britain: effects of age and body weight. Acta Theriol (Warsz) [Internet]. 1996 Jun 10;41(2):187–98. Available from: http://rcin.org.pl/ibs/dlibra/docmetadata?id=12622&from=publication

17. Clutton-Brock TH, Albon SD. Red Deer In The Highlands. Oxford: Blackwell scientific publications; 1989.

18. Tufto J, Andersen R, Linnell J. Habitat use and ecological correlates of home range size in a small cervid: the roe deer. J Anim Ecol [Internet]. 1996 Nov;65(6):715. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/5670

19. Gill RMA, Johnson AL, Francis A, Hiscocks K, Peace AJ. Changes in roe deer (Capreolus capreolus L.) population density in response to forest habitat succession. For Ecol Manage [Internet]. 1996 Nov [cited 2016 May 10];88(1–2):31–41. Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0378112796038078

20. Kramer K, Groot Bruinderink GWTA, Prins HHT. Spatial interactions between ungulate herbivory and forest management. For Ecol Manage [Internet]. 2006 May;226(1–3):238–47. Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0378112706000843

21. Saïd S, Servanty S. The influence of landscape structure on female roe deer home-range size. Landsc Ecol. 2005;20(8):1003–12.

22. Freschi P, Fascetti S, Riga F, Cosentino C, Rizzardini G, Musto M. Diet composition of the Italian roe deer (Capreolus capreolus italicus) (Mammalia: Cervidae) from two protected areas. Eur Zool J [Internet]. 2017 Jan 22;84(1):34–42. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/11250003.2016.1268655

23. Hemami M., Watkinson A., Dolman P. Habitat selection by sympatric muntjac (Muntiacus reevesi) and roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) in a lowland commercial pine forest. For Ecol Manage [Internet]. 2004 Jun [cited 2016 May 25];194(1–3):49–60. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378112704001112

24. Hemami MR, Watkinson AR, Dolman PM. Population densities and habitat associations of introduced muntjac Muntiacus reevesi and native roe deer Capreolus capreolus in a lowland pine forest. For Ecol Manage [Internet]. 2005 Aug [cited 2016 May 25];215(1–3):224–38. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378112705003336

25. Eycott AE, Watkinson AR, Dolman PM. Ecological patterns of plant diversity in a plantation forest managed by clearfelling. J Appl Ecol. 2006;43(6):1160–71.

26. Flajšman K, Jerina K, Pokorny B. Age-related effects of body mass on fertility and litter size in roe deer. Festa-Bianchet M, editor. PLoS One [Internet]. 2017 Apr 12;12(4):e0175579. Available from: http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175579 28403161

27. Aitken RJ. Cementum layers and tooth wear as criteria for ageing Roe deer (Capreolus capreolus). J Zool. 1975;175(1):15–28.

28. Hewison A, Vincent JP, Angibault JM, Delorme D, Van Laere G, Gaillard JM. Tests of estimation of age from tooth wear on roe deer of known age: variation within and among populations. Can J Zool [Internet]. 1999 Jul;77(1):58–67. Available from: http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/10.1139/z98-183

29. Sempere A.J., Mauget R. & Mauget C. Reproductive physiology of roe deer. In: Andersen R. D P & L JDC, editor. The European Roe Deer: The Biology of Success. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press; 1998. p. 161–88.

30. Morton RD, Rowland CS, Wood CM, Meek L, Marston CG, Smith GM. Land Cover Map 2007 (25m raster, GB) v1.2. NERC Environmental Information Data Centre. 2014.

31. R core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing [Internet]. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2018. Available from: https://www.r-project.org/

32. Pebesma EJ, Bivand RS. Classes and methods for spatial data in R. R News 5(2) [Internet]. 2005. Available from: https://cran.r-project.org/doc/Rnews/

33. Roger A, Rowlingson B, Sumner M, Hijmans R, Rouault E. Package ‘ rgdal ‘ [Internet]. 2017. Available from: https://cran.r-project.org/package=rgdal/rgdal.pdf

34. Linnell JDC, Andersen R. Territorial fidelity and tenure in roe deer bucks. Acta Theriol (Warsz) [Internet]. 1998 Mar 10;43(1):67–75. Available from: http://rcin.org.pl/ibs/dlibra/docmetadata?id=12793&from=publication

35. Bideau E, Gerard JF, Vincent JP, Maublanc ML. Effects of age and sex on space occupation by European roe deer. J Mammal [Internet]. 1993 Aug 20 [cited 2018 May 25];74(3):745–51. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/jmammal/article-lookup/doi/10.2307/1382297

36. Chapman NG, Claydon K, Claydon M, Forde PG, Harris S. Sympatric populations of muntjac (Muntiacus reevesi) and roe deer (Capreolus capreolus): a comparative analysis of their ranging behaviour, social organization and activity. J Zool [Internet]. 1993 Apr;229(4):623–40. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1993.tb02660.x

37. Morellet N, Bonenfant C, Börger L, Ossi F, Cagnacci F, Heurich M, et al. Seasonality, weather and climate affect home range size in roe deer across a wide latitudinal gradient within Europe. J Anim Ecol. 2013;82(6):1326–39. doi: 10.1111/1365-2656.12105 23855883

38. Burnham KP, Anderson DR. Model Selection and Multi-Model Inference. A Practical Information—Theoretic Approach. 2nd ed. editor. Springer Verlag, New York; 2002.

39. Bartoń K. MuMIn: Multi-Model Inference. R package version 1.42.1. [Internet]. 2018. https://cran.r-project.org/package=MuMIn

40. Freckleton RP. On the misuse of residuals in ecology: regression of residuals vs. multiple regression. J Anim Ecol [Internet]. 2002 May;71(3):542–5. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1046/j.1365-2656.2002.00618.x

41. Bivand R. Package ‘ spdep ‘ [Internet]. 2017. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/spdep/spdep.pdf

42. Bivand R, Pebesma E, Gómez-Rubio V. Spatial neighbours and spatial weights. In: Applied Spatial Data Analysis With R. 2nd ed. New York: Springer; 2013. p. 266–74.

43. Gordon IJ, Illius AW. The functional significance of the browser-grazer dichotomy in African ruminants. Oecologia [Internet]. 1994 Jul;98(2):167–75. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/BF00341469 28313974

44. Duncan P, Tixier H, Hofman R, Lechner-Doll M. Feeding strategies and the physiology of digestion in roe deer. In: The European Roe Deer: The Biology Of Success. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press; 1998. p. 91–116.

45. Hewison AJM, Morellet N, Verheyden H, Daufresne T, Angibault J-M, Cargnelutti B, et al. Landscape fragmentation influences winter body mass of roe deer. Ecography (Cop) [Internet]. 2009 Dec;32(6):1062–70. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2009.05888.x

46. Putman RJ. Foraging by roe deer in agricultural areas and impact on arable crops. J Appl Ecol [Internet]. 1986 Apr;23(1):91. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2403083?origin=crossref

47. Sinclair ARE. Carrying capacity and the overabundance of deer. In: The Science of Overabundance: Deer Ecology and Population Management. Washington: Smithsonian Institution; 1997. p. 380–394.

48. Andersen R, Gaillard J-M, Liberg O, José CS. Variation in life-history parameters. In: The European Roe Deer: The Biology of Success. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press; 1998. p. 285–307.

49. Debeffe L, Morellet N, Cargnelutti B, Lourtet B, Bon R, Gaillard J-M, et al. Condition-dependent natal dispersal in a large herbivore: heavier animals show a greater propensity to disperse and travel further. Fryxell J, editor. J Anim Ecol. 2012 Nov;81(6):1327–1327. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2012.02014.x 22844997

Článek vyšel v časopise


2019 Číslo 12