Mountain gazelle agonistic behaviour

Grau, Gerald A.; Walther, Fritz R.

doi:10.1016/s0003-3472(76)80077-2

Cited by 19 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results of these studies indicate that among gazelles, as in several other ungulates, female groups constitute open units with individuals moving freely between the groups at any time, including among and in the male territories (Grau, 1974;Mendelssohn & Yom-Tov, 1987). In contrast, adult males occupy territories delineated by`odour stations', which they maintain by frequent urination and defecation (Grau & Walther, 1976). Female groups move freely within male territories, and no adverse relations were reported between female groups.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Use of space and social organization of female mountain gazelles (Gazella gazella gazella) in Ramat HaNadiv, Israel

1999

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The social organization of female mountain gazelles was studied on Mount Carmel, Israel. The behaviour of distinctly recognized individuals was studied by year-round observations. Female gazelles lived in groups whose composition remained constant throughout the year, and new females did not freely enter the established groups. Group home ranges overlapped, but various groups replaced each other in the same area at different times of the day. Different groups tended to use different parts of the overlapping home range. In general, but especially in summer, the different groups largely avoided being synchronously together in the same area. The occurrence of two groups in the same area at the same time was a rare event and when it occurred, a high rate of agonistic interaction was observed between the groups. Hence, groups of female mountain gazelles hold and defend temporal territories against other female groups. Mean seasonal group size ranged between 3.4 and 6.4 and was largest during winter, when groups of females joined together occasionally and little agonistic interaction was observed between the groups. It is suggested that group size is affected by food availability and predation pressure.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Use of space and social organization of female mountain gazelles (Gazella gazella gazella) in Ramat HaNadiv, Israel

1999

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, musk deer establish latrines by defecating repeatedly at the same location within their home range (0.15 to 0.31 km 2 ; Green, 1985;Kattel, 1993). In many mammals, including musk deer, latrines are used for territorial defense by establishing latrines in the periphery and core areas of the habitat (Grau & Walther, 1976;Green, 1985Green, , 1987bMykytowycz, Hesterman, Gambale, & Dudziński, 1976;Wronski, Apio, & Plath, 2006). In many mammals, including musk deer, latrines are used for territorial defense by establishing latrines in the periphery and core areas of the habitat (Grau & Walther, 1976;Green, 1985Green, , 1987bMykytowycz, Hesterman, Gambale, & Dudziński, 1976;Wronski, Apio, & Plath, 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Such behavior is believed to facilitate olfactory/chemical communication among individuals (Green, 1987b;Meng, Cody, Gong, & Xiang, 2012b;Meng, Li, & Meng, 2012a). In many mammals, including musk deer, latrines are used for territorial defense by establishing latrines in the periphery and core areas of the habitat (Grau & Walther, 1976;Green, 1985Green, , 1987bMykytowycz, Hesterman, Gambale, & Dudziński, 1976;Wronski, Apio, & Plath, 2006). Because latrines are confirmed evidence of deer presence in a particular habitat, the ecological and environmental covariates of latrine locations can provide insights into preferred habitats and conditions throughout the landscape.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ecological correlates of Himalayan musk deer Moschus leucogaster

Singh

Saud

Cram

et al. 2018

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Himalayan musk deer (Moschus leucogaster; hereafter musk deer) are endangered as a result of poaching and habitat loss. The species is nocturnal, crepuscular, and elusive, making direct observation of habitat use and behavior difficult. However, musk deer establish and repeatedly use the same latrines for defecation. To quantify musk deer habitat correlates, we used observational spatial data based on presence–absence of musk deer latrines, as well as a range of fine spatial‐scale ecological covariates. To determine presence–absence of musk deer, we exhaustively searched randomly selected forest trails using a 20‐m belt transect in different study sites within the Neshyang Valley in the Annapurna Conservation Area. In a subsequent way, study sites were classified as habitat or nonhabitat for musk deer. A total of 252 plots, 20 × 20 m, were systematically established every 100 m along 51 transects (each ~0.5 km long) laid out at different elevations to record a range of ecological habitat variables. We used mixed‐effect models and principal component analysis to characterize relationships between deer presence–absence data and habitat variables. We confirmed musk deer use latrines in forests located at higher elevations (3,200–4,200 m) throughout multiple seasons and years. Himalayan birch (Betula utilis) dominated forest, mixed Himalayan fir (Abies spectabilis), and birch forest were preferred over pure Himalayan fir and blue pine (Pinus wallichiana) forest. Greater crown cover and shrub diversity were associated with the presence of musk deer whereas tree height, diameter, and diversity were weakly correlated. Topographical attributes including aspect, elevation, distance to water source, and slope were also discriminated by musk deer. Over‐ and understory forest management can be used to protect forests likely to have musk deer as predicted by the models to ensure long‐term conservation of this rare deer.

show abstract

“…Territorial gazelle species, such as the mountain gazelle, show a high site-fidelity, which makes them dependent on sufficient resource availability (Grau and Walther, 1976;Walther et al, 1983;Dunham, 1999;Geffen et al, 1999). It is therefore essential to relate population density to the availability of limiting resources such as food (Norton et al, 1982;Hubbs and Boonstra, 1998) water (Dunham, 1994;Mendelssohn et al, 1995), space and shelter (Fabricius and Mentis, 1992;Elchuk and Wiebe, 2003).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors affecting population dynamics of re-introduced mountain gazelles (Gazella gazella) in the Ibex Reserve, central Saudi Arabia

Wronski

2010

Journal of Arid Environments

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mountain gazelle agonistic behaviour

Cited by 19 publications

References 13 publications

Use of space and social organization of female mountain gazelles (Gazella gazella gazella) in Ramat HaNadiv, Israel

Use of space and social organization of female mountain gazelles (Gazella gazella gazella) in Ramat HaNadiv, Israel

Ecological correlates of Himalayan musk deer Moschus leucogaster

Factors affecting population dynamics of re-introduced mountain gazelles (Gazella gazella) in the Ibex Reserve, central Saudi Arabia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About