Publication | Open Access
Habitat selection by mule deer during migration: effects of landscape structure and natural‐gas development
98
Citations
73
References
2012
Year
Wildlife EcologyEvolutionary BiologyMovement EcologyTraditional Migratory RoutesWildlife ManagementNatural‐gas DevelopmentMule DeerResource SelectionHuman-wildlife RelationshipHabitat ManagementSpatial EcologyLandscape StructureConservation Biology
The disruption of traditional migratory routes by anthropogenic disturbances has shifted patterns of resource selection by many species, and in some instances has caused populations to decline. Moreover, in recent decades populations of mule deer ( Odocoileus hemionus ) have declined throughout much of their historic range in the western United States. We used resource‐selection functions to determine if the presence of natural‐gas development altered patterns of resource selection by migrating mule deer. We compared spring migration routes of adult female mule deer fitted with GPS collars ( n = 167) among four study areas that had varying degrees of natural‐gas development from 2008 to 2010 in the Piceance Basin of northwest Colorado, USA. Mule deer migrating through the most developed area had longer step lengths (straight‐line distance between successive GPS locations) compared with deer in less‐developed areas. Additionally, deer migrating through the most developed study areas tended to select for habitat types that provided greater amounts of concealment cover, whereas deer from the least developed areas tended to select habitats that increased access to forage and cover. Deer selected habitats closer to well pads and avoided roads in all instances except along the most highly developed migratory routes, where road densities may have been too high for deer to avoid roads without deviating substantially from established migration routes. These results indicate that behavioral tendencies toward avoidance of anthropogenic disturbance can be overridden during migration by the strong fidelity ungulates demonstrate towards migration routes. If avoidance is feasible, then deer may select areas further from development, whereas in highly developed areas, deer may simply increase their rate of travel along established migration routes.
| Year | Citations | |
|---|---|---|
Page 1
Page 1