Access

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

If You Use a Screen Reader

This content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.

Habitat Use and Ecological Correlates of Home Range Size in a Small Cervid: The Roe Deer

Jarle Tufto, Reidar Andersen and John Linnell
Journal of Animal Ecology
Vol. 65, No. 6 (Nov., 1996), pp. 715-724
DOI: 10.2307/5670
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/5670
Page Count: 10
  • Read Online (Free)
  • Download ($18.00)
  • Subscribe ($19.50)
  • Cite this Item
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Habitat Use and Ecological Correlates of Home Range Size in a Small Cervid: The Roe Deer
Preview not available

Abstract

1. Summer home range size variation and habitat selection of 35 radio-collared adult female roe deer was studied, using kernel home range estimation and compositional analysis of habitat use. 2. Female roe deer adjust the size of their home range in response to decreasing food supply, and the hypothesis that female roe deer utilize the minimum area that sustain their energy requirement cannot be rejected. 3. Home range size increased with the visibility in the home range (the average distance at which sight is blocked by intervening vegetation). This supports the hypothesis that cover is important in reducing the risk of predation and thereby increasing adult survival. 4. Female roe deer spend more time near habitat edges, supporting the hypothesis that different habitat types contain complementary resources, e.g. food and cover or different nutrients. Simultaneous access to several habitat types did not have any effect on home range size, possibly because variation in heterogeneity between different home ranges was too low. 5. Females without fawns had smaller home ranges, possibly because they only need to sustain their own energetic requirements. 6. The analyses of habitat selection inside each home range showed that the forest types, characterized by high densities of food and low visibility, were preferred, suggesting that habitat use is allocated in proportion to either food or cover or both.

Page Thumbnails

  • Thumbnail: Page 
715
    715
  • Thumbnail: Page 
716
    716
  • Thumbnail: Page 
717
    717
  • Thumbnail: Page 
718
    718
  • Thumbnail: Page 
719
    719
  • Thumbnail: Page 
720
    720
  • Thumbnail: Page 
721
    721
  • Thumbnail: Page 
722
    722
  • Thumbnail: Page 
723
    723
  • Thumbnail: Page 
724
    724