Habitat use and spatio‐temporal interactions of mule and white‐tailed deer in an area of sympatry in NE Washington

Staudenmaier, Anna; Shipley, Lisa A.; Bibelnieks, Andris J.; Camp, Meghan J.; Thornton, Daniel H.

doi:10.1002/ecs2.3813

Cited by 11 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 81 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We then intersected each survey segment with the GPS locations for each white-tailed deer group detected. Segment-level spatial covariates included a bivariate smooth of geographic coordinates (Universal Transverse Mercator [UTM]) to account for spatially autocorrelated whited-tailed deer detections and land cover types known to influence deer abundance such as distance from agriculture cover (m) [40][41][42][43], distance from developed cover (m) [42][43][44][45], distance from forest cover (m) [42,46,47], distance from shrub cover (m) [43,48,49], distance from timber cuts (m) [48,50], distance from wetland cover (m) [43,51,52], distance from water (m) [51,53], elevation (m) [12,54,55], and days with snow cover [56,57]. Land cover such as agriculture, developed, forest, shrub, timber cuts, wetland, and water were identified using an updated land cover map of the Park for 2016 that combined Landsat 8 satellite imagery (30 m resolution) acquired from the USGS Global Visualization Viewer for imagery, Normalized Difference Vegetation Index, National Land Cover Dataset, the Adirondack Park Agency's wetlands data, and timber treatment data provided by regional timber companies [24].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A model-based estimate of winter distribution and abundance of white-tailed deer in the Adirondack Park

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the Adirondack Park region of northern New York, USA, white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and moose (Alces alces) co-occur along a temperate-boreal forest ecotone. In this region, moose exist as a small and vulnerable low-density population and over-browsing by white-tailed deer is known to reduce regeneration, sustainability, and health of forests. Here, we assess the distribution and abundance of white-tailed deer at a broad spatial scale relevant for deer and moose management in northern New York. We used density surface modeling (DSM) under a conventional distance sampling framework, tied to a winter aerial survey, to create a spatially explicit estimate of white-tailed deer abundance and density across a vast, northern forest region. We estimated 16,352 white-tailed deer (95% CI 11,762–22,734) throughout the Adirondack Park with local density ranging between 0.00–5.73 deer/km2. Most of the Adirondack Park (91.2%) supported white-tailed deer densities of ≤2 individuals/km2. White-tailed deer density increased with increasing proximity to anthropogenic land cover such as timber cuts, roads, and agriculture and decreased in areas with increasing elevation and days with snow cover. We conclude that climate change will be more favorable for white-tailed deer than for moose because milder winters and increased growing seasons will likely have a pronounced influence on deer abundance and distribution across the Adirondack Park. Therefore, identifying specific environmental conditions facilitating the expansion of white-tailed deer into areas with low-density moose populations can assist managers in anticipating potential changes in ungulate distribution and abundance and to develop appropriate management actions to mitigate negative consequences such as disease spread and increased competition for limiting resources.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A model-based estimate of winter distribution and abundance of white-tailed deer in the Adirondack Park

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Collectively, these findings suggest that closure violations could lead to erroneous support for patterns of independence among species when the true pattern of co‐occurrence is avoidance or aggregation. Several studies have explicitly acknowledged violations of the closure assumption, used conditional two‐species occupancy models to assess patterns of co‐occurrence, and then concluded that the species occurred independently of one another (e.g., Li et al, 2019; Staudenmaier et al, 2021). In these scenarios, my results suggest that the inferred patterns of independence could be an artifact of a lack of closure and should be interpreted cautiously.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While failing to meet the closure assumption in single‐species analyses shifts the interpretation of Ψ to ‘use’, it is unclear how this influences the ability to infer true patterns of co‐occurrence. Nevertheless, studies explicitly acknowledging violations of the closure assumption have gone on to use multi‐species detection histories to infer patterns of co‐occurrence (e.g., Li et al, 2019; Staudenmaier et al, 2021).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Co‐occurrence models fail to infer underlying patterns of avoidance and aggregation when closure is violated

Lonsinger

2022

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Advances in multi-species monitoring have prompted an increase in the use of multispecies occupancy analyses to assess patterns of co-occurrence among species, even when data were collected at scales likely violating the assumption that sites were closed to changes in the occupancy state for the target species. Violating the closure assumption may lead to erroneous conclusions related to patterns of co-occurrence among species. Occurrence for two hypothetical species was simulated under patterns of avoidance, aggregation, or independence, when the closure assumption was either met or not. Simulated populations were sampled at two levels (N = 250 or 100 sites) and two scales of temporal resolution for surveys. Sample data were analyzed with conditional two-species occupancy models, and performance was assessed based on the proportion of simulations recovering the true pattern of co-occurrence.Estimates of occupancy were unbiased when closure was met, but biased when closure violations occurred; bias increased when sample size was small and encounter histories were collapsed to a large-scale temporal resolution. When closure was met and patterns of avoidance and aggregation were simulated, conditional two-species models tended to correctly find support for non-independence, and estimated species interaction factors (SIF) aligned with predicted values. By contrast, when closure was violated, models tended to incorrectly infer a pattern of independence and power to detect simulated patterns of avoidance or aggregation that decreased with smaller sample size. Results suggest that when the closure assumption is violated, co-occurrence models often fail to detect underlying patterns of avoidance or aggregation, and incorrectly identify a pattern of independence among species, which could have negative consequences for our understanding of species interactions and conservation efforts. Thus, when closure is violated, inferred patterns of independence from multi-species occupancy should be interpreted cautiously, and evidence of avoidance or aggregation is likely a conservative estimate of true pattern or interaction.

show abstract

“…This allowed us to be species prescriptive in our recommendations for bottom and top wire heights. Additionally, it has been shown that mule deer and white-tailed deer exhibit different habitat preferences when utilizing similar geographic areas, likely based on the ability of the species to maneuver through different terrain (Staudenmaier et al, 2021). For example, mule deer selected areas with low overhead canopy which differed from white-tailed deer (Staudenmaier et al, 2021).…”

Section: A B Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Additionally, it has been shown that mule deer and white-tailed deer exhibit different habitat preferences when utilizing similar geographic areas, likely based on the ability of the species to maneuver through different terrain (Staudenmaier et al, 2021). For example, mule deer selected areas with low overhead canopy which differed from white-tailed deer (Staudenmaier et al, 2021). Therefore, because white-tailed deer select areas with higher canopy cover, they may be more accustomed to jumping over obstacles (i.e., downed trees).…”

Section: A B Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

How did the deer cross the fence: An evaluation of wildlife-friendlier fence modifications to facilitate deer movement

MacDonald¹,

Jones²,

Hanlon³

et al. 2022

Front. Conserv. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fences are a common feature throughout the landscape of North America’s Great Plains region. Knowledge surrounding the harmful implication that fences have on the movement of wildlife, specifically ungulates, is expanding. Across the region, it is accepted that there is a need to mitigate the impacts of barbed wire fencing and that “wildlife-friendlier” fence designs are emerging as a practical tool to meet these goals. Here we evaluate the response of sympatric deer species to the implementation of two fence modifications, fastening the top two wires together using clips and the installation of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe to encompass the top two wires. We also aim to determine the optimal top wire height to allow for successful crossing by deer, with the goal to provide a more robust understanding of effective wildlife-friendlier fence standards. We used remote trail cameras to capture crossing events and recorded responses for mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). Using generalized linear mixed modelling, we tested the influence modifications had on crossing success and decisions prior to and after the modifications were installed compared to control sites. We found that these modifications had little impact on deer crossing behavior. We determined that wire height had the greatest impact on the permeability of fences, but that deer permeability was strongly influenced by species and sex. We found that the current maximum recommended top wire height of 102 cm (40 inches) is adequate to allow individuals of both deer species to cross over the fence, with the exception of female mule deer. Our results also indicate as the top wire height reaches 110 cm (43 inches) or higher, that the probability of successfully jumping over the fence dramatically drops off, with the exception for male mule deer. We recommend the installation of clips as a cost-effective method to lower top wire height and PVC pipe to improve fence visibility and potentially reduce entanglement events, all while effectively keeping livestock in intended pastures.

show abstract

Habitat use and spatio‐temporal interactions of mule and white‐tailed deer in an area of sympatry in NE Washington

Abstract: spatio-temporal interactions of mule and white-tailed deer in an area of sympatry in NE Washington. Ecosphere 12(11): e03813.

Cited by 11 publications

References 81 publications

A model-based estimate of winter distribution and abundance of white-tailed deer in the Adirondack Park

A model-based estimate of winter distribution and abundance of white-tailed deer in the Adirondack Park

Co‐occurrence models fail to infer underlying patterns of avoidance and aggregation when closure is violated

How did the deer cross the fence: An evaluation of wildlife-friendlier fence modifications to facilitate deer movement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About