4.4 Article

Predicting spacing behavior and mating systems of solitary cervids: A study of hog deer and Indian muntjac

期刊

ZOOLOGY
卷 110, 期 4, 页码 261-270

出版社

ELSEVIER GMBH, URBAN & FISCHER VERLAG
DOI: 10.1016/j.zool.2007.03.003

关键词

barking deer; body mass; habitat; site fidelity; social organization

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the validity of current theory for predicting ecological and allometric effects on space use, social structure and mating systems of poorly known solitary cervids, based on a comparative analysis of radiotelemetry data on hog deer Axis porcinus (N = 32) and Indian muntjac Muntiacus muntjak (N = 28). The larger and sexually size-dimorphic hog deer inhabit highly productive alluvial floodplains, where resource distribution is patchy and spatiotemporally unpredictable. As predicted for this species, site fidelity was low and range sizes varied among sex and age groups and among seasons. Hog deer were probably non-territorial, as home range sizes seemed too large to be exclusive when taking into account their high population density. Extensive movements of adult males during the rut implied roaming as a mating strategy. The smaller, forest-dwelling and sexually size-monomorphic muntjacs inhabit a more uniform and stable habitat. As predicted, muntjacs exhibited higher site fidelity than hog deer, and no seasonal variations in home range sizes. Adults exhibited relatively large home range overlap, both inter- and intrasexually. Hence, strict territoriality did not occur, but their well-defined home ranges and high site fidelity indicated some form of site-specific dominance. In conclusion, habitat characteristics were appropriate predictors of home range sizes and site fidelity. Body mass appeared to be a suitable predictor of intraspecific patterns in space use but a poor predictor of interspecific patterns, probably due to a confounding effect of habitat productivity. (c) 2007 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

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

4.4
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