Aggressive behavior of white‐tailed deer at concentrated food sites as affected by population density

Donohue, Robin N.; Hewitt, David G.; Fulbright, Timothy E.; DeYoung, Charles A.; Litt, Andrea R.; Draeger, Don A.

doi:10.1002/jwmg.606

Cited by 22 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We assigned each deer to a sex‐age class of juvenile, yearling male, adult female, or adult male based on pelage (for fawns) and morphological characteristics (rostrum length, body size, and antler presence; Donohue et al. ). We assigned group size to each observation by tallying the number of deer in the image.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For juveniles, we included the presence of any male because both adult and yearling males are dominant over juveniles and thus may reduce feeding (Donohue et al. ). We scaled and centered all continuous predictors to facilitate parameter estimation.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We categorized the behavioral state of each photographed deer as actively feeding (i.e., head down actively consuming bait) or not (Cherry et al 2015). We assigned each deer to a sex-age class of juvenile, yearling male, adult female, or adult male based on pelage (for fawns) and morphological characteristics (rostrum length, body size, and antler presence; Donohue et al 2013). We assigned group size to each observation by tallying the number of deer in the image.…”

Section: Quantifying Foraging Behaviormentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We also included the presence of fawns for adult females because females may increase vigilance to protect fawns or may increase feeding to replace nutritional stores depleted by lactation. For juveniles, we included the presence of any male because both adult and yearling males are dominant over juveniles and thus may reduce feeding (Donohue et al 2013). We scaled and centered all continuous predictors to facilitate parameter estimation.…”

Section: Quantifying Foraging Behaviormentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Behavioral response of white‐tailed deer to coyote predation risk

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Behavioral responses of prey to predation risk can affect lower trophic levels. White‐tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus; hereafter deer) increase vigilance in response to coyote (Canis latrans) presence, but vigilance responses to spatiotemporal variation in coyote abundance are unknown. Therefore, we examined the relationship between deer foraging behavior and coyote abundance on two 2000‐ha study areas in Georgia, USA, during 2010–2013. We used baited camera traps during fall and winter to quantify deer behavior (i.e., feeding or vigilant) and estimated coyote abundance using fecal genotyping to noninvasively mark and recapture individuals. During 2011 and 2012, coyote removals were implemented on each study area. Coyote abundance (i.e., predation risk) varied spatiotemporally and was a predictor of foraging behavior during at least one season for all sex‐age classes of deer except juveniles. Adult males were more sensitive to predation risk in winter, after the breeding season, whereas adult females were sensitive to predation risk during both seasons, but more so during fall when offspring are at greater risk. Yearling males were more sensitive to predation risk than adult males, and juveniles were least sensitive to predation risk, likely because of inexperience and high energetic demands. Reproductive chronology explained sex‐specific and seasonal antipredator responses to predation risk, but there was a non‐linear relationship between indirect predator effects and direct predation risk for some sex‐age classes. Our results suggest deer detect and respond behaviorally to variation in coyote abundance. Due to the widespread distribution of deer and their interactions at multiple trophic levels, the ecological implications of this finding may be wide‐reaching.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Quantifying Foraging Behaviormentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Quantifying Foraging Behaviormentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Behavioral response of white‐tailed deer to coyote predation risk

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Such aggregation has consequences for social behavior, as well as inter-and intra-specific interactions and stress levels. Aggression (Donohue et al 2013) and stress (Forristal et al 2012) both increase with ungulate density, and 4/5 studies observed higher levels of aggression associated with feeding (e.g., Pérez-González et al 2010).…”

Section: Evidence Of Unintended Effects Of Feedingmentioning

confidence: 99%

To feed or not to feed? Evidence of the intended and unintended effects of feeding wild ungulates

Milner

Beest

Schmidt³

et al. 2014

Jour. Wild. Mgmt.

136

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Storaas, T. (2014). To feed or not to feed? Evidence of the intended and unintended effects of feeding wild ungulates.Journal of Wildlife Management, 78(8) Large ungulates are keystone species in many ecosystems and are a highly valued natural 47 resource for social, cultural, and economic reasons (Gordon et al. 2004). Many populations have grown over recent decades, causing environmental and socio-economic 49 impacts on wider communities and conservation concerns, as well as density-dependent 50 changes in performance (Côté et al. 2004, Putman et al. 2011. Consequently, conflicts 51 arise between stakeholders who benefit economically from high ungulate numbers (e.g., 52hunters, outfitters, tourism operators) and those faced with the costs of their presence 53(e.g., land managers, conservationists, transport users and operators; Austin et al. 2010). 54Manipulating forage availability through the provision of additional food could 60Wildlife can be fed by humans in many different ways, intentionally (e.g., at 61 feeding stations) and unintentionally (e.g., unprotected agricultural crops and rubbish 62 dumps; Oro et al. 2013, Sorensen et al. 2014. In this review, we focus on the effects of 63 intentional feeding of ungulates, specifically considering supplementary feeding (often 64 called winter feeding) and diversionary, or intercept, feeding used to attract animals away 65 from vulnerable vegetation, livestock, or major traffic arteries (defined fully in 66 Supplemental Material). However, many of the issues raised also apply across a broad 67 range of unintentional but predictable anthropogenic food subsidies (Oro et al. 2013). 68Earlier reviews of the consequences of feeding large herbivores, published a decade or 77 METHODS 78We reviewed articles in the peer-reviewed and, to a lesser extent, grey literature that our search terms resulted in 232 articles. 86We identified 5 major management goals of supplementary and diversionary 87 feeding and considered the intended effects of feeding that would allow these goals to be 88 achieved (Table 1). We also identified commonly perceived unintended or secondary 89 consequences of feeding ( Table S1). 152Among adult females, an effect of feeding is complicated by the strong impact of 153 reproductive status on autumn mass (Cook et al. 2013 and higher neonatal growth rates (Jacobsen et al. 1981, Smith et al. 1997). 160The reproductive rate (number of offspring per adult female in summer or 161 autumn) of supplementally fed herbivores increased in 5/7 studies ( were used (Gundersen et al. 2004, Sahlsten et al. 2010 feeding site users and non-users (van Beest et al. 2010b). 282Of 16 controlled studies, 6 showed diversionary feeding to be effective in 283 reducing damage in the targeted areas, whereas 4 showed a significantly increased 284 impact, opposing the management goal ( we found no studies that formally addressed this ( 379In studies addressing the increased probability of browsing or grazing impacts in 380 response to feeding (4/4 studies; Table 2 and Supplem...

show abstract

Age-related patterns of antler development in free-ranging white-tailed deer

et al. 2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The relationship of antler size at one age to that at a later age is important in cervid management, in part by defining the effects of selective harvest based on antler characteristics. We used capture and harvest records from 2,948 male white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) on 5 study sites over a 10-year period to define age-antler size relationships. Antler size (Boone and Crockett score converted to cm) increased with deer age to 5 years of age, and we therefore considered males mature at !5 years of age. Antler size at !2 years of age was positively related to yearling antler size with antler size increasing 0.64 cm (SE ¼ 0.07) for every cm of yearling antler score. Antler size at maturity increased 0.52-0.78 cm (SE ¼ 0.05-0.12) for each cm of antler size at 2, 3, and 4 years of age. Number of yearling antler points is a criterion in some selective harvest regimes. Yearling deer with 3 antler points had antlers at maturity that were 32 cm (SE ¼ 8.4 cm) smaller than deer with !4 antler points as yearlings. Because of a relationship between yearling antler size and antler size at later ages, selective harvest at young ages can influence antler size of deer remaining in the cohort at later ages. Ó

show abstract

Aggressive behavior of white‐tailed deer at concentrated food sites as affected by population density

Cited by 22 publications

References 21 publications

Behavioral response of white‐tailed deer to coyote predation risk

Behavioral response of white‐tailed deer to coyote predation risk

To feed or not to feed? Evidence of the intended and unintended effects of feeding wild ungulates

Age-related patterns of antler development in free-ranging white-tailed deer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About