Home  About us  Contact
 

Mule Deer (mule + deer)

Distribution by Scientific Domains
Life Sciences100%

Selected Abstracts

Anti-Predator Strategies and Grouping Patterns in White-Tailed Deer and Mule Deer

ETHOLOGY, Issue 4 2001
Susan Lingle
White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and mule deer (O. hemionus) are closely related species of similar size that differ in their anti-predator behavior. White-tails flee from coyotes (Canis latrans), whereas mule deer typically stand their ground and attack this predator. I used observations of coyotes hunting deer to identify: (i) changes in group structure made in response to coyotes; and (ii) the relationship between group structure and the risk of predation for each species. In response to coyotes, groups of mule deer merged with other groups and individuals bunched together. Predation attempts were more likely to escalate when groups split and individuals failed to bunch. Coyotes typically attacked mule deer that were in outlying positions, and these deer had to move to central positions to end attacks. Due to the high frequency of attacks on small groups as well as to the level of dilution of risk, individuals in small mule deer groups were at high risk of being attacked compared with those in larger groups. In contrast to mule deer, white-tails made no consistent changes in group size or formation, and coyotes attacked individuals in central as well as in outlying positions. Variation in aspects of group cohesion was not related to the vulnerability of white-tails, and there was no obvious difference in the risk of attack facing individuals in groups of different size. These results suggest that coyote predation selects for relatively large, cohesive groups in mule deer, apparently because this type of group improves their ability to deter coyotes. Coyote predation does not have similar effects on groups formed by white-tails, which use flight rather than deterrence to avoid predation. The benefits of responding cohesively, occupying certain positions within groups, and forming groups of a certain size can vary widely depending on the anti-predator strategies used by an animal. [source]

Detection and Avoidance of Predators in White-Tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and Mule Deer (O. hemionus)

ETHOLOGY, Issue 2 2001
Susan Lingle
In this paper, we investigate the relationship between early detection of predators and predator avoidance in white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and mule deer (O. hemionus), two closely related species that differ in their habitat preferences and in their anti-predator behavior. We used observations of coyotes (Canis latrans) hunting deer to test whether the distance at which white-tails and mule deer alerted to coyotes was related to their vulnerability to predation. Coyote encounters with both species were more likely to escalate when deer alerted at shorter distances. However, coyote encounters with mule deer progressed further than encounters with white-tails that alerted at the same distance, and this was not due to species differences in group size or habitat. We then conducted an experiment in which a person approached groups of deer to compare the detection abilities and the form of alert response for white-tails and mule deer, and for age groups within each species. Mule deer alerted to the approacher at longer distances than white-tails, even after controlling for variables that were potentially confounding. Adult females of both species alerted sooner than conspecific juveniles. Mule deer almost always looked directly at the approacher as their initial response, whereas white-tails were more likely to flee or to look in another direction with no indication that they pinpointed the approacher during the trial. Mule deer may have evolved the ability to detect predators earlier than white-tails as an adaptation to their more open habitats, or because they need more time to coordinate subsequent anti-predator defenses. [source]

Anti-Predator Strategies and Grouping Patterns in White-Tailed Deer and Mule Deer

ETHOLOGY, Issue 4 2001
Susan Lingle
White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and mule deer (O. hemionus) are closely related species of similar size that differ in their anti-predator behavior. White-tails flee from coyotes (Canis latrans), whereas mule deer typically stand their ground and attack this predator. I used observations of coyotes hunting deer to identify: (i) changes in group structure made in response to coyotes; and (ii) the relationship between group structure and the risk of predation for each species. In response to coyotes, groups of mule deer merged with other groups and individuals bunched together. Predation attempts were more likely to escalate when groups split and individuals failed to bunch. Coyotes typically attacked mule deer that were in outlying positions, and these deer had to move to central positions to end attacks. Due to the high frequency of attacks on small groups as well as to the level of dilution of risk, individuals in small mule deer groups were at high risk of being attacked compared with those in larger groups. In contrast to mule deer, white-tails made no consistent changes in group size or formation, and coyotes attacked individuals in central as well as in outlying positions. Variation in aspects of group cohesion was not related to the vulnerability of white-tails, and there was no obvious difference in the risk of attack facing individuals in groups of different size. These results suggest that coyote predation selects for relatively large, cohesive groups in mule deer, apparently because this type of group improves their ability to deter coyotes. Coyote predation does not have similar effects on groups formed by white-tails, which use flight rather than deterrence to avoid predation. The benefits of responding cohesively, occupying certain positions within groups, and forming groups of a certain size can vary widely depending on the anti-predator strategies used by an animal. [source]

Detection and Avoidance of Predators in White-Tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and Mule Deer (O. hemionus)

ETHOLOGY, Issue 2 2001
Susan Lingle
In this paper, we investigate the relationship between early detection of predators and predator avoidance in white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and mule deer (O. hemionus), two closely related species that differ in their habitat preferences and in their anti-predator behavior. We used observations of coyotes (Canis latrans) hunting deer to test whether the distance at which white-tails and mule deer alerted to coyotes was related to their vulnerability to predation. Coyote encounters with both species were more likely to escalate when deer alerted at shorter distances. However, coyote encounters with mule deer progressed further than encounters with white-tails that alerted at the same distance, and this was not due to species differences in group size or habitat. We then conducted an experiment in which a person approached groups of deer to compare the detection abilities and the form of alert response for white-tails and mule deer, and for age groups within each species. Mule deer alerted to the approacher at longer distances than white-tails, even after controlling for variables that were potentially confounding. Adult females of both species alerted sooner than conspecific juveniles. Mule deer almost always looked directly at the approacher as their initial response, whereas white-tails were more likely to flee or to look in another direction with no indication that they pinpointed the approacher during the trial. Mule deer may have evolved the ability to detect predators earlier than white-tails as an adaptation to their more open habitats, or because they need more time to coordinate subsequent anti-predator defenses. [source]

Gain functions for large herbivores: tests of alternative models

JOURNAL OF ANIMAL ECOLOGY, Issue 1 2005
KATE R. SEARLE
Summary 1The gain function describes the amount of food consumed in a patch as a function of patch residence time. Gain functions play a central role in foraging theory but alternative functional forms portraying dynamics of gain have not been evaluated. We evaluated the strength of evidence in the data for alternative gain functions of mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus, Rafinesque 1817) and blue duikers (Cephalophus monticola, Blythe 1848) feeding in patches composed of different plant species and plant sizes. 2Gain functions decelerated with patch residence time, but there was considerable variation among individual animals and patch types in the nature of this response. Asymptotic and piecewise-linear models received the greatest support in the data. 3Deceleration in gain was caused by a composite of effects that retarded instantaneous intake rate, including reductions in bite mass and increases in bite interval (time between successive bites). Bite interval increased as a result of increases in processing time of accumulated forage in the mouth, rather than increases in time allocated to cropping. 4We demonstrated that unwarranted assumptions about the shape of gain functions can have profound effects on predictions of patch models. Predictions of the classical patch model using purely asymptotic gain functions contrasted sharply with predictions of model-averaged gain functions that were supported by the data. [source]

Summer predation rates on ungulate prey by a large keystone predator: how many ungulates does a large predator kill?

JOURNAL OF ZOOLOGY, Issue 4 2008
J. W. Laundré
Abstract Estimates of predation rates by large predators can provide valuable information on their potential impact on their ungulate prey populations. This is especially the case for pumas Puma concolor and its main prey, mule deer Odocoileus hemionus. However, only limited information on predation rates of pumas exist where mule deer are the only ungulate prey available. I used VHF telemetry data collected over 24-h monitoring sessions and once daily over consecutive days to derive two independent estimates of puma predation rates on mule deer where they were the only large prey available. For the 24-h data, I had 48 time blocks on female pumas with kittens, 43 blocks on females without kittens and 30 blocks on males. For the daily consecutive data, the average number of consecutive days followed was 51.5±4.2 days. There were data on five female pumas with kittens, five pregnant females and nine females without kittens. Predation rates over an average month of 30 days from the 24-h monitoring sessions were 2.0 mule deer per puma month for males (15.1 days per kill), 2.1 mule deer per puma month (14.3 days per kill) for females without kittens and 2.5 mule deer per puma month (12.0 days per kill) for pregnant females and females with kittens. For the consecutive daily data, females without kittens had an estimated predation rate of 2.1±0.14 mule deer per puma month (14.9±0.90 days per kill). Pregnant and females with kittens had predation rates of 2.7±0.18 and 2.6±0.21 mule deer per puma month, respectively (11.4±0.72 and 12.0±1.1 days per kill, respectively). Predation rates estimated in this study compared with those estimated by energetic demand for pumas in the study area but were lower than other field derived estimates. These data help increase our understanding of predation impacts of large predators on their prey. [source]