Does small‐perimeter fencing inhibit mule deer or pronghorn use of water developments?

Larsen, Randy T.; Bissonette, John A.; Flinders, Jerran T.; Robinson, Aaron C.

doi:10.1002/jwmg.163

Cited by 9 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 30 publications

(43 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Also consistent with our original hypotheses and predictions, was a seasonal shift in the 95% UD, and the 50% core UD, which indicated smaller UDs during hot seasons, especially in areas where water was abundant. Larsen et al (2011) also observed that mean Fig. 4.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 75%

Spatial distributions and resource selection by mule deer in an arid environment: Responses to provision of water

McKee

Stewart

Sedinger

et al. 2015

Journal of Arid Environments

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 75%

Spatial distributions and resource selection by mule deer in an arid environment: Responses to provision of water

McKee

Stewart

Sedinger

et al. 2015

Journal of Arid Environments

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…), we measured vegetative and topographical characteristics within a 1785 m radius around each water source (Larsen et al. ). We selected a 1785 m radius based on summer home range sizes and daily distances traveled for pronghorn and mule deer (Gregg , Kitchen , Yoakum , Hoskinson and Tester , Garrott et al.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We used tree cover and topographical ruggedness (terrain roughness) as our primary habitat variables to follow what has been done with pronghorn and mule deer at water sources in the Great Basin Desert (Larsen et al. ). We derived tree cover using vegetative cover types available in LANDFIRE (Landscape Fire and Resource Management Planning Tools) data provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service and the U.S. Department of the Interior.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We defined tree cover as the proportion of pixels within a 1785 m radius around water sources containing vegetation dominated by trees (Larsen et al. ). Using ArcGIS (ArcMap, version 10.3; Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, California, USA), we calculated ruggedness within the 1785 m radius buffer around water sources using a 30‐m resolution digital elevation model.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To account for the potential influence of site characteristics on the use of water by wildlife , Hall et al 2013), we measured vegetative and topographical characteristics within a 1785 m radius around each water source (Larsen et al 2011). We selected a 1785 m radius based on summer home range sizes and daily distances traveled for pronghorn and mule deer (Gregg 1955, Kitchen 1974, Yoakum 1978, Hoskinson and Tester 1980, Garrott et al 1987, Hayes and Krausman 1993, O'Gara and Yoakum 2004.…”

Section: Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Feral horses influence both spatial and temporal patterns of water use by native ungulates in a semi‐arid environment

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The horse (Equus caballus) is a feral ungulate that currently exceeds target population sizes in many areas of western North America. Horses are behaviorally dominant over native ungulates and outcompete the latter for access to water sources. However, a better understanding of the broader spatial and temporal implications of horse-induced competition on access to water by native ungulates will enable better conservation and management of native species. Our objective was to determine whether pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) spatially or temporally altered their use of water to minimize interactions with horses. From 2010 to 2014, we used remote cameras to monitor ungulates at 32 water sources in the Great Basin Desert. We evaluated spatial and temporal partitioning by these species at water sources using generalized linear models, mixed-effects models, and Mann-Whitney U tests. We found that both native ungulates used water sources less often where horse activity at water sources was high, indicating that spatial avoidance occurred. Further, we observed significant differences in peak arrival time for pronghorn, but not mule deer at horse-occupied sites versus sites where horses were absent or uncommon, indicating that temporal avoidance may be more important for pronghorn than mule deer. Because mule deer are primarily crepuscular and nocturnal whereas horses are largely diurnal, we did not expect to observe a temporal shift for mule deer. We also found strong support for the interactive negative effect of elevated temperature and subsequent increased activity of horses at water sources on drinking patterns of pronghorn and mule deer. Our findings indicate that feral horses further constrain access to an already limited resource for native species in a semi-arid environment.

show abstract

The influence of predators, competitors, and habitat on the use of water sources by a small desert carnivore

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Free water can influence the ecology of desert species. While the use of free water is influenced by physiological factors (e.g., species-specific water requirements, moisture in forage, temperature), nonphysiological factors, such as habitat characteristics and interspecific interactions, are also important. In fact, for species of concern, interspecific interactions and habitat can be important factors influencing their spatial and temporal use of the landscape and its resources. The kit fox (Vulpes macrotis) is a small carnivore considered to be a species of concern over much of its range, and two of the most important conservation challenges it faces are related to (1) habitat and (2) predation/competition by intraguild species. Our objective was to determine the influence of habitat characteristics, predators (bobcats [Lynx rufus], coyotes [Canis latrans]), and potential competitors (badgers [Taxidea taxus], gray foxes [Urocyon cinereoargenteus]) on the use of water by kit foxes. From June to September 2010-2012, we used remote cameras to monitor carnivores at 63 water sources in the Mojave Desert. We used zero-inflated mixed-effects models and a twostage model selection analysis to evaluate the influence of habitat, predators, and competitors on spatial visits to water by kit foxes. We also assessed temporal avoidance of intraguild predators and competitors by kit foxes at water sources using a coefficient of overlap. We found that visual obscurity, overhead canopy cover, badgers, and coyotes influenced spatial visits of kit foxes. In addition, kit foxes exhibited strong temporal overlap with badgers and bobcats, moderate temporal overlap with gray foxes, and weak temporal overlap with coyotes. Taken together, our study demonstrates that the spatial and temporal use of water sources by kit foxes is dynamic, depending on habitat characteristics and the activity of intraguild predators and competitors.

show abstract

Does small‐perimeter fencing inhibit mule deer or pronghorn use of water developments?

Cited by 9 publications

References 30 publications

Spatial distributions and resource selection by mule deer in an arid environment: Responses to provision of water

Spatial distributions and resource selection by mule deer in an arid environment: Responses to provision of water

Feral horses influence both spatial and temporal patterns of water use by native ungulates in a semi‐arid environment

The influence of predators, competitors, and habitat on the use of water sources by a small desert carnivore

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About