Production and Survival of Elk (Cervus elaphus) Calves in Michigan

Bender, Louis C.; Carlson, Elaine; Schmitt, Stephan; Haufler, Jonathan B.

doi:10.1674/0003-0031(2002)148[0163:pasoec]2.0.co;2

Cited by 42 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…From 2003 to 2005, productivity in CCNHP was comparable to the highest productivity rates seen (51-56/100 for elk in Michigan; Bender et al 2002) and with the fastest growing elk herd documented (l = 1.22; Eberhardt et al 1996;Bender et al 2002). Similarly, the highest documented elk calf survival through summer was 0.95 for a population in Michigan (Bender et al 2002) Maternal condition positively affected calf survival in CCNHP, similar to responses found elsewhere (Wegge 1975;Thorne et al 1976;Guinness et al 1978;CluttonBrock et al 1982). However, most of the causes of preweaning mortality these studies found were classed as density independent (i.e., drowning, accidents, predation), suggesting that chance also played a strong role in preweaning survival in addition to maternal influences.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 74%

“…We checked lactation status of each cow to assess calf survival up to the point of capture (November). Lactation indicated successful nursing by a calf within 3-11 d (Bender et al 2002). We used spring scales or girth to estimate body mass (kg; Cook et al 2003), where calves = 0.0003901 6 G 2.6430078 ; yearlings = 2.038 6 G 2 97.533; and adults = 2.549 6G 2 156.760, where G = chest girth (cm).…”

Section: Elk Capture and Conditionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We also used pregnancy status of individual cows and their lactation status the following autumn to determine calf survival (Bender et al 2002;i.e., Ŝ calf = Lactating y / Pregnant y21 ). This estimate of calf survival incorporates calves that may have died shortly after parturition but before we were able to either capture them or observe them with their dam, and thus would not have been included in the radiotagged or calf-at-heel samples.…”

Section: Survivalmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Population Demographics and Dynamics of Colonizing Elk in a Desert Grassland–Scrubland

Bender

Piasecke

2010

Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 74%

Section: Elk Capture and Conditionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Survivalmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Population Demographics and Dynamics of Colonizing Elk in a Desert Grassland–Scrubland

Bender

Piasecke

2010

Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Elk with serum progesterone levels of 1.0 ng/mL or higher were considered pregnant (Bender et al 2002). We determined lactation status for adult cows by inspecting either Elk gut-piles or remaining mammary tissue on hunter-harvested Elk, 1984Elk, -1991.…”

Section: Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We determined lactation status for adult cows by inspecting either Elk gut-piles or remaining mammary tissue on hunter-harvested Elk, 1984Elk, -1991. Mammary tissue still secreting milk indicated that the harvested cow was either still nursing a calf or had been nursing a calf within 3-11 days (Bender et al 2002).…”

Section: Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors Affecting Pregnancy in Free-ranging Elk, <em>Cervus elaphus nelsoni</em>, in Michigan

2009

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Uncertainty exists as to which factors are most closely related to probability of pregnancy in Elk (Cervus elaphus), which thresholds are key for managers who want to assess the potential productivity of free-ranging Elk herds, and whether these thresholds vary among populations. We examined relationships among pregnancy, age, and mass for 513 harvested freeranging Elk in Michigan, and compared relationships with other published models and with thresholds derived from other free-ranging and penned populations to see if relationships were consistent among populations. Pregnancy rates varied (χ 2 2 = 136.3; P < 0.0001) among yearling (0.30), prime-aged (2.5-11.5-year-olds; 0.88), and old (> 12.5-year-olds; 0.60) cows. Probability of pregnancy in adult cows was related to mass (χ 2 = 7.4; P = 0.006), age (χ 2 = 12.6; P = 0.0004) and age class (χ 2 = 16.4; P < 0.0001), but not to lactation status (χ 2 = 0.4; P = 0.515); pregnancy was also positively related (χ 2 = 15.8; P < 0.0001) to mass in yearlings. Probability of pregnancy increased 1.02× and 1.04× for each 1 kg increase in body mass of adult and yearling cows, respectively, and prime-aged cows were 4.9× more likely to conceive than old cows. Compared to thresholds derived primarily from penned or farmed Elk, both adult and yearling free-ranging Elk in Michigan and elsewhere were able to achieve higher levels of pregnancy at lower body mass. Thresholds also varied among free-ranging Elk populations. Given variation among populations, managers should calibrate mass-pregnancy relationships for their respective populations to determine whether condition is potentially limiting pregnancy in their populations.

show abstract

Effects of black bear relocation on elk calf recruitment at Great Smoky Mountains National Park

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research from 2001 to 2006 on an experimentally released elk (Cervus elaphus) population at Great Smoky Mountains National Park (GSMNP or Park) indicated that calf recruitment (i.e., calves reaching 1 yr of age per adult female elk) was low (0.306, total SE = 0.090) resulting in low or negative population growth (λ = 0.996, 95% CI = 0.945–1.047). Black bear (Ursus americanus) predation was the primary calf mortality factor. From 2006 to 2008, we trapped and relocated 49 bears (30 of which were radiocollared) from the primary calving areas in the Park and radiomonitored 67 (28 M:39 F) adult elk and 42 calves to compare vital rates and population growth with the earlier study. A model with annual calf recruitment rate correlating with the number of bears relocated each year was supported (ΔAICc = 0.000; β = 0.070, 95% CI = 0.028–0.112) and a model with annual calf recruitment differing from before to during bear relocation revealed an increase to 0.544 (total SE = 0.098; β = −1.092, 95% CI = −1.180 to −0.375). Using vital rates and estimates of process standard errors observed during our study, 25‐yr simulations maintained a mean positive growth rate in 100% of the stochastic trials with λ averaging 1.118 (95% CI = 1.096–1.140), an increase compared with rates before bear relocation. A life table response experiment revealed that increases in population growth were mostly (67.1%) due to changes in calf recruitment. We speculate that behavioral adaptation of the elk since release also contributed to the observed increases in recruitment and population growth. Our results suggest that managers interested in elk reintroduction within bear range should consider bear relocation as a temporary means of increasing calf recruitment. © 2011 The Wildlife Society.

show abstract

Production and Survival of Elk (Cervus elaphus) Calves in Michigan

Cited by 42 publications

References 17 publications

Population Demographics and Dynamics of Colonizing Elk in a Desert Grassland–Scrubland

Population Demographics and Dynamics of Colonizing Elk in a Desert Grassland–Scrubland

Factors Affecting Pregnancy in Free-ranging Elk, <em>Cervus elaphus nelsoni</em>, in Michigan

Effects of black bear relocation on elk calf recruitment at Great Smoky Mountains National Park

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About