Spatiotemporal patterns of male and female white‐tailed deer on a hunted landscape

Abstract

Resource selection in sexually dimorphic ungulates is at least partially explained by sex‐specific resource requirements and risk aversion strategies. Females generally spend more time in areas with less risk and abundant, high‐quality forage due to their smaller body size. However, demographically variable responses to risk are context dependent, and few have concurrently quantified male and female behavior within areas with the same resource base. We captured 111 (54 males, 57 females) adult white‐tailed deer ( Odocoileus virginianus ) from 2009 to 2018 on a site in South Carolina, USA, where hunters were the primary source of adult mortality. We fit each deer with a GPS collar programmed to collect locations at 30‐min intervals. Upon collar recovery, we analyzed the data to estimate sex‐ and time‐specific selection for, and distance to, various cover types. While both sexes generally avoided risky areas (i.e., sites hunted more frequently) during the day, females ( p = .41) were more likely than males ( p = .16) to use risky areas containing abundant food resources during the day, where p = probability of selection. Our findings indicate that female white‐tailed deer may be forced to utilize high risk areas during high risk periods due to their smaller body size and increased nutritional demands, whereas larger males are better able to forgo foraging opportunities during risky periods to mitigate risk; however, our study design left room for the possibility that our observations were driven by innate sex‐specific patterns in white‐tailed deer. Nonetheless, our study contributes information to the literature by describing sex‐specific resource selection by diel period on a site where sexes shared the same resources and were presented with the same landscape of risk.

Effects of human and nonhuman predation risk on antipredator movement behaviors of an upland game bird

“…To investigate these potential population and community effects, it is necessary to compare the impacts of human and nonhuman predation risk on prey antipredator behaviors (Clinchy et al, 2016; Crawford et al, 2022; Suraci, Frank, et al, 2019). Examples of antipredator behavioral responses are changes in vigilance (Creel et al, 2014; Laundre et al, 2001; Schuttler et al, 2017), foraging (Smith et al, 2017; Van Beeck Calkoen et al, 2022), movement (Courbin et al, 2015; Crawford et al, 2022; Gehr et al, 2018), and resource selection (Perry et al, 2020; Stewart et al, 2022; Suraci, Clinchy, et al, 2019). Although studies have compared the impacts of human versus nonhuman fear on vigilance and foraging using auditory playbacks and cameras (Crawford et al, 2022; Smith et al, 2017), and used GPS data to investigate the impacts of hunters on movement and resource selection (Collier et al, 2017; Gross et al, 2015; Perry et al, 2020; Stewart et al, 2022; Sullivan et al, 2018), few studies have compared the impacts of human and nonhuman predation risk on movement and resource selection of prey.…”

“…Furthermore, the risk allocation hypothesis suggests antipredator behavior depends on both immediate short‐ and long‐term risk (Lima & Bednekoff, 1999; Moll et al, 2017), wherein prey should exhibit strongest antipredator behavior during brief high‐risk situations within low background risk, and weakest antipredator behaviors during pulses of safety within high background risk (Creel et al, 2005; Lima & Bednekoff, 1999). While proactive and reactive responses to predation risk have both been documented to have population‐ and community‐level effects (Courbin et al, 2015; Fortin et al, 2005; Stewart et al, 2022; Sullivan et al, 2018), they are not mutually exclusive and are rarely considered simultaneously (Creel et al, 2014; Gehr et al, 2018). Investigating both proactive and reactive movements simultaneously allows one to test the risk allocation hypothesis from human‐ and nonhuman‐induced risk at multiple spatial and temporal scales.…”

Temporal variations in female moose responses to roads and logging in the absence of wolves

“…Understanding the determinants of animal space use and habitat selection patterns implies taking into account circadian and annual cycles in animal behavior (e.g., Lagos et al, 2012;Stewart et al, 2022).…”

“…Understanding the determinants of animal space use and habitat selection patterns implies taking into account circadian and annual cycles in animal behavior (e.g., Lagos et al., 2012 ; Stewart et al., 2022 ). Temporal variations can affect resource consumption (Merkle et al., 2016 ), predation (Kittle et al., 2022 ), and, consequently, individual survival (Jessop et al., 2018 ; Larsen & Boutin, 1994 ) and reproduction (Fahrig, 2007 ; Robertson et al., 2018 ).…”