4.3 Article

The effect of agricultural land use practice on habitat selection of red deer

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE RESEARCH
Volume 60, Issue 1, Pages 69-76

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10344-013-0751-6

Keywords

Habitat selection; Cervus elaphus; Agricultural land; Meadows; Fertilisation; Nutrition

Funding

  1. NFR-Natur og naering program (AREAL) [179370]
  2. Norwegian Directorate for Nature Management

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The population of red deer (Cervus elaphus) has increased substantially in many western European countries during recent decades. Simultaneously, agricultural practices have undergone major changes. Observations suggest that meadows and pastures are important sources of nutrients for deer, but there are few studies quantifying the selection of agricultural land by deer in general. Here, we study red deer selection of various types of agricultural land and the history of land use (times of fertilisation and since renewal) in Norway. We used data from 14 female and 12 male red deer with GPS collars during the years 2007-2010. Our study design was to compare pairs of agricultural fields that had received low and high use by a given individual red deer and data were analysed by using case-control logistic regression. Our results showed that both sexes selected meadows over other types of agricultural land. Females selected intensively fertilised meadows and meadows of intermediate age, while male selection did not depend on meadow age (time since renewal) or fertilisation. The smaller females thus selected meadows of high quality, while the larger males continued to use old meadows of lower quality but rich in biomass. Our analysis suggests that a decreasing supply of meadows in the future due to lower production of livestock fodder may also affect management of red deer, and that a future change in the intensity of agricultural practices may affect sexes of wild large herbivores differently.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available