4.6 Article

Factors affecting space use overlap by white-tailed deer in an urban landscape

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/13658816.2010.524163

关键词

fixed kernel; home range; nocturnal; Odocoileus virginianus; season; space use; volume of intersection; white-tailed deer

资金

  1. City of Town and Country, Missouri
  2. Missouri Department of Conservation [W-13-R-48]
  3. National Wildlife Research Center of the United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, and Wildlife Services

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Variation in the size and overlap of space use by white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) has broad implications for managing deer-human conflicts and disease spread and transmission in urban landscapes. Understanding which factors affect overlap of home range by various segments (i.e., age, sex) of an urban deer population has implications to direct contact between deer on disease epidemiology. We assessed size of home range and overlap of space use using the volume of intersection index (VI) for deer in an urban landscape by sex, age, season, and time of day. We found mean space use was larger for males than for females, for males,3 years old than for males >= 3 years old, and during nocturnal hours compared with diurnal hours. We also identified larger space use by both sexes during the nongrowing than the growing season. Overlap of space use for female and male deer in our urban landscape differed considerably depending on demographic (i.e., age) and environmental variables (i.e., time, season). For example, highest mean VIs occurred between 6-year-old females (mean = 0.51 +/- 0.10) and 5- and 6-year-old males (mean = 0.49 +/- 0.14); no mean VI was greater than 0.31 between females and males for any age combination. Variation in overlap of space use for urban deer provides new information for managing deer-human conflicts and direct transmission of disease between various segments of a deer population in an urban landscape.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据