Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Habitat use at fine spatial scale: how does patch clustering criteria explain the use of meadows by red deer?

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
European Journal of Wildlife Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Large mammalian herbivores are keystone species in different ecosystems. To mediate the effects of large mammalian herbivores on ecosystems, it is crucial to understand their habitat selection pattern. At finer scales, herbivore patch selection depends strongly on plant community traits and therefore its understanding is constrained by patch definition criteria. Our aim was to assess which criteria for patch definition best explained use of meadows by wild, free-ranging, red deer (Cervus elaphus) in a study area in Northeast Portugal. We used two clustering criteria types based on floristic composition and gross forage classes, respectively. For the floristic criteria, phytosociological approach was used to classify plant communities, and its objectivity evaluated with a mathematical clustering of the floristic relevés. Cover of dominant plant species was tested as a proxy for the phytosociological method. For the gross forage classes, the graminoids/forbs ratio and the percentage cover of legumes were used. For assessing deer relative use of meadows we used faecal accumulation rates. Patches clustered according to floristic classification better explained selection of patches by deer. Plant community classifications based on phytosociology, or proxies of this, used for characterizing meadow patches resulted useful to understand herbivore selection pattern at fine scales and thus potentially suitable to assist wildlife management decisions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aguiar CFG (2001) Flora e vegetação da Serra de Nogueira e do Parque Natural de Montesinho. PhD Thesis, Technical University of Lisbon

  • Arsenault V, Owen-Smith N (2002) Facilitation versus competition in grazing herbivore assemblages. Oikos 97:313–318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailey DW, Gross J, Laca E, Rittenhouse L, Coughenour M, Swift D, Sims P (1996) Mechanisms that result in large herbivore grazing distribution patterns. J Range Manag 49:386–400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowyer RT, Kie JG (2006) Effects of scale on interpreting life–history characteristics of ungulates and carnivores. Divers Distrib 12(3):244–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun-Blanquet J (1932) Plant sociology—the study of plant communities. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Bugalho MN, Milne JA (2003) The composition of the diet of red deer (Cervus elaphus) in a Mediterranean environment: a case of summer nutritional constraint? For Ecol Manag 181(1–2):23–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bugalho MN, Lecomte X, Gonçalves M, Caldeira MC, Branco M (2011) Establishing grazing and grazing-excluded patches increases plant and invertebrate diversity in a Mediterranean oak woodland. For Ecol Manag 261(11):2133–2139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell D, Swanson GM, Sales J (2004) Comparing the precision and cost-effectiveness of faecal pellet group count methods. J Appl Ecol 41(6):1185–1196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapman DF, Parsons AJ, Cosgrove GP, Barker DJ, Marotti DM, Venning KJ, Rutter SM, Hill J, Thompson AN (2007) Impacts of spatial patterns in pasture on animal grazing behavior, intake, and performance. Crop Sci 47(1):399–415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clauss M, Kaiser T, Hummel J (2007) The morphophysiological adaptations of browsing and grazing mammals. In: Gordon P (ed) The ecology of browsing and grazing. Springer, Berlin, pp 47–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Clutton-Brock TH, Guinness FE, Albon SD (1982) Red deer behavior and ecology of two sexes. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Cote SD, Rooney TP, Tremblay J-P, Dussault C, Waller DM (2004) Ecological impacts of deer overabundance. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 35(1):113–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coulon A, Morellet N, Goulard M, Cargnelutti B, Angibault J-M, Hewison A (2008) Inferring the effects of landscape structure on roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) movements using a step selection function. Landsc Ecol 23(5):603–614

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dufrêne M, Legendre P (1997) Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a flexible asymmetrical approach. Ecol Monogr 67(3):345–366

    Google Scholar 

  • Dumont B, Carrère P, D’Hour P (2002) Foraging in patchy grasslands: diet selection by sheep and cattle is affected by the abundance and spatial distribution of preferred species. Anim Res 51(5):367–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dumont B, Renaud PC, Morellet N, Mallet C, Anglard F, Verheyden-Tixier H (2005) Seasonal variations of red deer selectivity on a mixed forest edge. Anim Res 54(5):369–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2007) Interpretation manual of European Union Habitats—EUR 27. European Commission DG Environment

  • Fales SL, Fritz JO (2007) Factors affecting forage quality. In: Barnes RF, Miller DA, Nelson CJ (eds) Forages: the Science of Grassland Agriculture. Blackwell Publishing, pp 569–580

  • Fisher RA (1935) The logic of inductive inference. J R Stat Soc 98:39–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher RA (1990) Statistical methods, experimental design, and scientific inference: a re-issue of statistical methods for research workers, the design of experiments, and statistical methods and scientific inference. Oxford University Press, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Fortin D, Beyer HL, Boyce MS, Smith DW, Duchesne T, Mao JS (2005) Wolves influence elk movements: behavior shapes a trophic cascade in Yellowstone National Park. Ecol 86(5):1320–1330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • García A (1992) Conserving the species-rich meadows of Europe. Agric Ecosyst Environ 40:219–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon IJ (1988) Facilitation of red deer grazing by cattle and its impact on red deer performance. J Appl Ecol 25(1):1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon IJ (1989a) Vegetation community selection by ungulates on the Isle of Rhum. I. Food supply. J Appl Ecol 26(1):35–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon IJ (1989b) Vegetation community selection by ungulates on the Isle of Rhum. II. Vegetation community selection. J Appl Ecol 26(1):53–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths WM, Hodgson J, Arnold GC (2003) The influence of sward canopy structure on foraging decisions by grazing cattle. I. patch selection. Grass Forage Sci 58:112–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gu W, Swihart RK (2004) Absent or undetected? Effects of non-detection of species occurrence on wildlife-habitat models. Biol Conserv 116(2):195–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanley TA (1997) A nutritional view of understanding and complexity in the problem of diet selection by deer (cervidae). Oikos 79(2):209–218

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hartigan JA, Wong MA (1979) Algorithm AS 136: a k-means clustering algorithm. J R Stat Soc Ser C Appl Stat 28(1):100–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Hebblewhite M, Merrill EH, McDonald TL (2005) Spatial decomposition of predation risk using resource selection functions: an example in a wolf–elk predator–prey system. Oikos 111(1):101–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huntly N (1991) Herbivores and the dynamics of communities and ecosystems. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 22:477–503

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs J (1974) Quantitative measurement of food selection: a modification of the forage ratio and Ivlev’s electivity index. Oecologia 14(4):413–417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson C, Parker K, Heard D (2001) Foraging across a variable landscape: behavioral decisions made by woodland caribou at multiple spatial scales. Oecologia 127(4):590–602

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kie JG, Bowyer RT, Nicholson MC, Boroski BB, Loft ER (2002) Landscape heterogeneity at differing scales: effects on spatial distribution of mule deer. Ecol 83(2):530–544

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kie JG, Ager AA, Bowyer RT (2005) Landscape-level movements of North American elk (Cervus elaphus): effects of habitat patch structure and topography. Landsc Ecol 20(3):289–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kilcher MR (1981) Plant development, stage of maturity and nutrient composition. J Range Manag 34(5):363–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langvatn R, Hanley TA (1993) Feeding-patch choice by red deer in relation to foraging efficiency. Oecologia 95(2):164–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loehle C (2011) Complexity and the problem of ill-posed questions in ecology. Ecol Complex 8:60–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mládek J, Hejcman M, Hejduk S, Duchoslav M, Pavlů V (2011) Community seasonal development enables late defoliation without loss of forage quality in semi-natural grasslands. Folia Geobot 46(1):17–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monteiro-Henriques T (2010) Landscape and phytosociology of the Paiva River’s hydrographical basin. PhD Thesis, Technical University of Lisbon

  • Mueller-Dombois D, Ellenberg H (1974) Aims and methods of vegetation ecology. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Mysterud A, Larsen PK, Ims RA, Østbye E (1999) Habitat selection by roe deer and sheep: does habitat ranking reflect resource availability? Can J Zool 77(5):776–783

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neff DJ (1968) The pellet-group count technique for big game trend, census, and distribution: a review. J Wildl Manag 32(3):597–614

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noor A, Habib B, Kumar S (2010) Effects of plot size and shape on the encounter rate of ungulate faecal pellet groups and abundance estimate precision. Curr Sci 99(6):800–804

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne BC (1984) Habitat use by red deer (Cervus elaphus) and hill sheep in the west Highlands. J Appl Ecol 21:497–506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen-Smith N, Novellie P (1982) What should a clever ungulate eat? Am Nat 19:151–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paiva J (2004). Estimating red and roe deer population densities in Parque Natural de Montesinho. First degree thesis, University of Coimbra

  • Palmer SCF, Truscott AM (2003) Seasonal habitat use and browsing by deer in Caledonian pinewoods. For Ecol Manag 174(1–3):149–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Partl E, Szinovatz V, Reimoser F, Schweiger-Adler J (2002) Forest restoration and browsing impact by roe deer. For Ecol Manag 159(1–2):87–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puerto A, Rico M, Matías MD, García JA (1990) Variation in structure and diversity in Mediterranean grasslands related to trophic status and grazing intensity. J Veg Sci 1(4):445–452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putfarken D, Dengler J, Lehmann S, Härdtle W (2008) Site use of grazing cattle and sheep in a large-scale pasture landscape: a GPS/GIS assessment. Appl Anim Behav Sci 111:54–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R Development Core Team (2010) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Rivas-Martínez S (2007) Mapa de series, geoseries y geopermaseries de vegetación de España. Itinera Geobot 17:5–436

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts DW (2007) labdsv: ordination and multivariate analysis for ecology. R package version 1.3–1. http://ecology.msu.montana.edu/labdsv/R

  • Roleček J, Chytrý M, Hájek M, Lvončík S, Tichý L (2007) Sampling design in large-scale vegetation studies: do not sacrifice ecological thinking to statistical purism! Folia Geobot 42(2):199–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rooney TP, Waller DM (2003) Direct and indirect effects of white-tailed deer in forest ecosystems. For Ecol Manag 181(1–2):165–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Semiadil G, Barry TN, Muir PD, Hodgson J (1995) Dietary preferences of sambar (Cervus unicolor) and red deer (Cervus elaphus) offered browse, forage legume and grass species. J Agric Sci 125(1):99–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Senft RL, Coughenour MB, Bailey DW, Rittenhouse LR, Sala OE, Swift DM (1987) Large herbivore foraging and ecological hierarchies. BioSci 37(11):789–799

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharif CM, West NE (1968) Forage moisture variations on mountain summer range. J Range Manag 21:228–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shipley LA (1999) Grazers and browsers: how digestive morphology affects diet selection. In: Launchbaugh KL, Sanders KD, Mosley JC (eds) Grazing behaviour of livestock and wildlife. Univ. of Idaho, Moscow, pp 20–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Smallidge ST, Baker TT, VanLeeuwen D, Gould WR, Thompson BC (2010) Elk distributions relative to spring normalized difference vegetation index values. Int J Ecol 2010:1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smart JCR, Ward AI, Whitehead PCL (2004) Monitoring woodland deer populations in the UK: an imprecise science. Mamm Rev 34(1–2):99–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Maarel E (2005) Vegetation ecology—an overview. In: van der Maarel E (ed) Vegetation ecology. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 1–51

    Google Scholar 

  • van Soest PJ (ed) (1994) Nutritional ecology of the ruminant. Cornell University Press, Ithaca

    Google Scholar 

  • Vavra M (2005) Livestock grazing and wildlife: developing compatibilities. Rangel Ecol Manag 58:128–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • WallisDeVries MF, Laca EA, Demment MW (1999) The importance of scale of patchiness for selectivity in grazing herbivores. Oecologia 121(3):355–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiens JA (1976) Population responses to patchy environments. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 7:81–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Annalisa Bellu was financed by a PhD grant from Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (SRFH/BD/24134/2005), within the programme of National funds of the Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Ensino Superior (MCTES). The authors would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on a previous draft of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Applied Ecology “Baeta Neves”, Instituto Superior Agronomia, Technical University of Lisbon (TULisbon), Tapada da Ajuda, 1349-017, Lisbon, Portugal

    Annalisa Bellu, Miguel N. Bugalho & Francisco C. Rego

  2. Centro de Botânica Aplicada à Agricultura, Instituto Superior Agronomia, Technical University of Lisbon (TULisbon), Tapada da Ajuda, 1349-017, Lisbon, Portugal

    Tiago Monteiro-Henriques & José C. Costa

Authors
  1. Annalisa Bellu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Miguel N. Bugalho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tiago Monteiro-Henriques
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. José C. Costa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Francisco C. Rego
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Annalisa Bellu.

Additional information

Communicated by P. Acevedo

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bellu, A., Bugalho, M.N., Monteiro-Henriques, T. et al. Habitat use at fine spatial scale: how does patch clustering criteria explain the use of meadows by red deer?. Eur J Wildl Res 58, 645–654 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-012-0612-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-012-0612-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation