Acta Theriologica

, Volume 50, Issue 2, pp 253–262 | Cite as

Do male roe deer clump together during the rut?

  • Claudia Melis
  • Francesca Cagnacci
  • Sandro Lovari


Movement s an d habitat use of 7 male and 7 female roe deerCapreolus capreolus (Linnaeus, 1758) were studied by radioteleme try from March 1999 to February 2001. Annual and bimonthly home ranges of males were small (ca 10 ha, 95% kernel), with large overlap among individuals throughout the year. Exclusive core areas (ca 0.4 ha, 25% kernel) were concentrated in the forest, a limited and sought-after resource in the study area. The difference in overlap between male exclusive core areas and female home ranges in the pre-rut and rut periods suggested that females made excursions to search for territorial males during the rut Our results support the mating strategy hypothesis of territorial behaviour Different space use patterns occurred between the sexes, with females apparently playing an active role in mate choice by visiting males at clumps of core areas in the forest.

Key words

Capreolus capreolus hotspot mating system spatial behaviour territoriality 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Amlaner C. J. and Macdonald D. W. 1980. A handbook on biotelemetry and radio tracking. Pergamon Press, Oxford: 1–804.Google Scholar
  2. Angibault J. M., Bideau E. and Vincent J. P. 1993. Détermination de l'age chez le chevreuil (Capreolus capreolus L.). Mammalia 57: 579–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boitani L. and Ciucci P. 1996. [Research and management of wolf in Tuscany]. Unpublished Report. Dipartimento Agricoltura e Foreste Regione Toscana, Florence, Italy. [In Italian]Google Scholar
  4. Bramley P. S. 1970. Territoriality and reproductive behaviour of roe deer. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 11: 43–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Carranza J. and Mateos-Quesada P. 2001. Habitat modification when scent marking: shrub clearance by roe deer bucks. Oecologia 126: 231–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carranza J. and Valencia J. 1999. Red deer females collect on male clumps at mating areas. Behavioral Ecology 10: 525–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cederlund G. 1983. Home range dynamics and habitat selection by roe deer in a boreal area in central Sweden. Acta Theriologica 30: 443–460.Google Scholar
  8. Cibien C., Bideau E., Boisaubert B. and Maublanc M. L. 1989. Influence of habitat characteristics on winter social organisation in field roe deer. Acta Theriologica 14: 219–226.Google Scholar
  9. Cimino L. and Lovari S. 2003. The effects of food or cover removal on spacing patterns and habitat use in roe deer (Capreolus capreolus). Journal of Zoology, London 261: 299–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Danilkin A. 1996. Behavioural ecology of Siberian and European roe deer. Chapman and Hall, London: 1–296.Google Scholar
  11. Ellenberg H. 1978. The population ecology of roe deer (Capreolus capreolus L., Cervidae) in central Europe. Spixiana 2: 5–211.Google Scholar
  12. Gill R. M. A., Johnson A. L., Francis A., Hiscocks K. and Peace A. J. 1996. Changes in roe deer (Capreolus capreolus L.) population density in response to forest habitat succession. Forest Ecology and Management 88: 31–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Harris S., Cresswell W. J., Forde P. J., Trewella W. J., Woollard T. and Wray S. 1990. Home range analysis using radio tracking data — a review of problems and techniques particularly as applied to the study of mammals. Mammal Review 20: 97–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Henning R. 1962. Über das Revierverhalten des Rehbocke. Zeitschrift für Jadgwissenschaft 8: 61–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hooge P. N. and Eichenlaub B. 1997. Animal movement extension to Arcview. ver. 1.1. Alaska Biological Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey Anchorage, AK, USA: 1–28.Google Scholar
  16. Jeppesen J. L. 1989. Activity patterns of free-ranging roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) at Kalø. Danish Review of Game Biology 13: 1–33.Google Scholar
  17. Johansson A. and Liberg O. 1996. Functional aspects of marking behaviour by male roe deer (Capreolus capreolus). Journal of Mammalogy 77: 558–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kenward R. 1987. Wildlife radio tagging: equipment field techniques and data analysis. Academic Press, London: 1–222.Google Scholar
  19. Kirkpatrick M. and Ryan M. G. 1991. The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature 350: 33–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kurt F. 1968. Das Sozialverhalten des RehesCapreolus capreolus. P. Parey, Hamburg: 1–284.Google Scholar
  21. Liberg O., Johansson A., Andersen R. and Linnell J. D. C. 1998. Mating system, mating tactics and the function of male territoriality in roe deer. [In: The European roe deer: the biology of success. R. Andersen, P. Duncan and J. D. C. Linnell, eds]. Scandinavian University Press, Oslo: 221–256.Google Scholar
  22. Lincoln R. J., Boxshall G. A. and Clark P. F. 1982. A dictionary of ecology, evolution and systematics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 1–269.Google Scholar
  23. Linnell J. D. C. and Andersen R. 1998. Territorial fidelity and tenure in roe deer bucks. Acta Theriologica 43: 67–75.Google Scholar
  24. Lovari S. and San José C. 1997. Wood dispersion affects home range size of female roe deer. Behavioural Processes 40: 239–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Maher C. R. and Lott D. F. 1995. Definitions of territoriality used in the study of variation in vertebrate spacing systems. Animal Behaviour 49: 1581–1597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Maublanc M. L., Bideau E. and Vincent J. P. 1987. Flexibilité de l'organisation sociale du chevreuil en fonction des caractéristiques de l' environnement. Revue Ecologie (Terre et la Vie) 42: 110–133.Google Scholar
  27. Mysterud A. and qstbye E. 1995. Bed-site selection by European roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) in southern Norway. Canadian Journal of Zoology 73: 924–932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Owen-Smith N. 1977. On territoriality in ungulates and an evolutionary model. Quarterly Review of Biology 52: 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sabatini P. 2000. [Some aspects of the ecology of free-ranging dogs]. MSc thesis, University of Siena, Italy: 1–86. [In Italian]Google Scholar
  30. San José C. and Lovari S. 1998. Ranging movements of female roe deer: do home-loving does roam to mate? Ethology 104: 721–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. San José C., Lovari S. and Ferrari N. 1997. Grouping in roe deer: an effect of habitat openness or cover distribution? Acta Theriologica 42: 235–239.Google Scholar
  32. Siegel S. and Castellan N. J. 1998. Nonparametric statistics for the behavioural sciences. McGraw-Hill, New York: 1–399.Google Scholar
  33. SPSS 9.0 2000. Version 9.0. SPSS Inc., USA.Google Scholar
  34. Stüwe M. and Hendrichs H. 1984. Organization of roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) in an open field habitat. Zeitschrift für Säugetierkunde 49: 359–367.Google Scholar
  35. Tufto J., Andersen R. and Linnell J. D. C. 1996. Habitat use and ecological correlates of size in a small cervid: the roe deer. Journal of Animal Ecology 65: 715–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Vincent J. P. and Bideau E. 1992. Influence of density on spatial and social organisation of forest roe deer (Capreolus capreolus L., 1758). [In: Ungulates ’91. F. Spitz, G. Janeau, G. Gonzalez and S. Auglanier, eds]. Societe Francaise Pour L'etude Et La Protection Des Mammiferes, Paris & Institut De Recherche Sur Les Grands Mammiferes, Paris-Toulouse: 267–269.Google Scholar
  37. Zejda J. 1978. Field groupings of roe deerCapreolus capreolus in a lowland region. Folia Zoologica 27: 111–122.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Mammal Research Institute, Bialowieza, Poland 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Claudia Melis
    • 1
  • Francesca Cagnacci
    • 1
  • Sandro Lovari
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Environmental Sciences, Section of Behavioural Ecology, Ethology and Wildlife ManagementUniversity of SienaSienaItaly

Personalised recommendations