Spatial structure of reproductive success infers mechanisms of ungulate invasion in Nearctic boreal landscapes

Abstract

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Cumulative effects of human footprint, natural features and predation risk best predict seasonal resource selection by white-tailed deer

“…Anthropogenic landscape change is a leading driver of seasonal deer habitat selection behaviour. Landscape change is also associated with deer distribution and reproduction at landscape scales 27 , 35 , and given these effects are consistent across the ecological hierarchy (behaviour, distribution, populations), we infer it is a key driver of deer expansion in western boreal landscapes. Range-expanding deer in the Nearctic boreal forest have numerous ecological implications for native fauna and flora.…”

“…However, the cumulative effects of two different disturbance forms-polygonal early-successional patches and linear features -on deer distribution and reproduction are a key emerging pattern 27 . For example, in western North America, deer reproductive success increases in areas with intensive resource extraction 35 . The behavioural component of these responses remains unclear.More importantly, few studies have examined deer response to cumulative landscape disturbance in the context of predation risk, which is critical for most prey species.…”

Extent and direction of introgressive hybridization of mule and white‐tailed deer in western Canada

“…As home ranges change over time so do the ranges of species overlap, which may promote interspecific contact and opportunities for hybridization. Specifically, large‐scale industrial development causes diverse landscapes to homogenize, promoting early seral vegetation and reducing sloped and forested areas, largely to the benefit of WT and the detriment of MD and caribou ( Rangifer tarandus ) (DeCesare et al, 2010 ; Fisher & Burton, 2020 ). The proliferation and encroachment of WT into habitat formerly dominated by MD may affect species interactions on a systematic scale.…”

A synthetic review of terrestrial biological research from the Alberta oil sands region: 10 years of published literature

“…This has indirect impacts on other species by increasing predator–prey encounters (Mckenzie et al, 2012 ) and wolf hunting efficiency (Dickie et al, 2017 ), which consequently leads to avoidance of these features by prey species (Latham, Latham, Boyce, & Boutin, 2011 ). Such altered predator–prey interactions have, in combination with changes in deer ( Odocoileus virginianus ) habitats and populations (Dawe et al, 2014 ; Dawe & Boutin, 2016 ; Fisher et al, 2020 ; Fisher & Burton, 2021 ), been implicated in the decline of woodland caribou ( Rangifer tarandus ) in the OSR (S. Boutin et al, 2012 ).…”

“…Typically, geospatial data are incorporated into empirical or statistical models as habitat or resource selection predictor variables, with a GIS often used to determine landcover or human footprint classes (i.e., anthropogenic landscape disturbance) at or around species observation locations or monitoring sites. Such studies use models to explain species occurrence (e.g., Fisher & Burton, 2018 ; Latham, Latham, Boyce, 2011 ; Shonfield & Bayne, 2017b ), abundance (e.g., Ball et al, 2016 ; Mahon et al, 2016 ; Toews et al, 2018 ), movement (e.g., Latham, Latham, Latham, Boyce, & Boutin, 2011 ; Whitman et al, 2017 ), predation (e.g., Neilson & Boutin, 2017 ), reproduction (e.g., Fisher & Burton, 2021 ), or contaminant burdens (e.g., Thomas et al, 2017b ).…”