Habitat selection of the roe deer Capreolus capreolus (Artiodactyla, Cervidae) in an agroforestry system

Submitted: 8 June 2021
Accepted: 11 January 2022
Published: 20 October 2022
Abstract Views: 1457
PDF: 601
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Authors

The present study aimed at assessing the habitat preferences of the most widespread and abundant ungulate in Italy, the roe deer, in the Vallevecchia protected area (Venice). This area has been the object of naturalistic management and continuous environmental improvements in the last decades. Currently, the area is characterized by a high habitat heterogeneity, including deciduous woodlands, pine forests, wetlands, and farmlands. The study was carried out during the summers of 2017 and 2020. Data were collected along standardized transects, and the geo-localized records were divided into the corresponding habitats to calculate the Jacobs Index. In addition, chi-square test was applied, with the calculation of Pearson residuals to estimate the significance of associations to the habitats. The analyses show that in Vallevecchia the roe deer prefers woods and permanent meadows. Conversely, this ungulate avoids pine forests, wetlands and farmlands, despite their potential as sources of food and shelter. In line with other studies on agroforestry systems, wooded areas were most likely preferred because they provide shelter from disturbing factors and thermal stress, while meadows were likely chosen for trophic reasons. In this respect, we point out that in the studied area the preference for meadows was most likely due also to the availability of sprouts all year round, deriving from the constant mowing activities implemented in this habitat. In addition, our investigation underlines that the roe deer normally avoids maize and wheat crops, in accordance with similar studies. Moreover, the analyses highlight the preference for farmlands only if woods and grasslands are not present in the adjoining areas. Conversely, the proximity of these habitats results in a low impact on crops. In addition to encouraging the enforcement of current management actions in Vallevecchia, our results represent a contribution to a more effective management of the roe deer in agroforestry systems, aimed at limiting its impact in anthropized contexts and at achieving the conditions for a better coexistence of this deer with human activities.

Dimensions

Altmetric

PlumX Metrics

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Citations

Abbas F., Picot D., Merlet J., Cargnelutti B., Lourtet B., Angibault J., Daufresne T., Aulagnier S. & Verheyden H., 2012 – A typical browser, the roe deer, may consume substantial quantities of grasses in open landscapes. European Journal of Wildlife Research, 59 (1): 69-75.
Agresti A., 2007 – An Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis. 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken (NJ), 2: 35-36.
Apollonio M., Andersen R. & Putman R., 2010 – European ungulates and their management in the 21st century. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Benhaiem S., Delon M., Lourtet B., Cargnelutti B., Aulagnier S., Hewison A. J. M., Morellet N. & Verheyden H., 2008 – Hunting increases vigilance levels in roe deer and modifies feeding site selection. Animal Behaviour, 76 (3): 611-618.
Biosa D., Scandura M., Tagliavini J., Luccarini S., Mattioli M. & Apollonio M., 2015 – Patterns of genetic admixture between roe deer of different origin in central Italy. Journal of Mammalogy, 96 (4): 827-838.
Carnevali L., Pedrotti L., Riga F. & Toso S., 2009 – Banca Dati Ungulati: Status, distribuzione, consistenza, gestione e prelievo venatorio delle popolazioni di Ungulati in Italia. Rapporto 2001-2005. Biologia e Conservazione della Fauna, 117.
Cederlund G., Bergqvist J., Kjellander P., Gill R., Gaillard J. M., Boisaubert B., Ballon P. & Duncan P., 1998 – Managing roe deer and their impact on the environment: Maximising the net benefits to society. In: The European roe deer: The biology of success. Andersen R., Duncan P. & Lannell J. D. C. (eds.). Scandinavian University Press, Oslo, 337-372.
Cornelis J., Casaer J. & Hermy M., 1999 – Impact of season, habitat and research techniques on diet composition of roe deer (Capreolus capreolus): a review. Journal of Zoology, 248 (2), 195-207.
Hewison A. J. M., Vincent J. P., Joachim J., Angibault J. M., Cargnelutti B. & Cibien C., 2001 – The effects of woodland fragmentation and human activity on roe deer distribution in agricultural landscapes. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 79 (4): 679-689.
Jacobs J., 1974 – Quantitative measurement of food selection. Oecologia, 14 (4): 413-417.
Linnell J. D. C., Cretois B., Nilsen E. B., Rolandsen C. M., Solberg E. J., Veiberg V., Petra Kaczensky P., Van Moorter B., Panzacchi M., Rauset G. R. & Kaltenborn B., 2020 – The challenges and opportunities of coexisting with wild ungulates in the human-dominated landscapes of Europe’s Anthropocene. Biological Conservation, 244: 108500.
Lovari S., Serrao G. & Mori E., 2017 - Woodland features determining home range size of roe deer. Behavioural Processes, 140: 115-120.
Mancinelli S., Peters W., Boitani L., Hebblewhite M. & Cagnacci F., 2015 – Roe deer summer habitat selection at multiple spatio-temporal scales in an Alpine environment. Hystrix, the Italian Journal of Mammalogy, 26 (2): 132-140.
Morellet N., Van Moorter B., Cargnelutti B., Angibault J. M., Lourtet B., Merlet J., Ladet S. & Hewison A. J. M., 2011 – Landscape composition influences roe deer habitat selection at both home range and landscape scales. Landscape Ecology, 26, 999-1010.
Mysterud A. & Ostbye E., 1999 – Cover as a habitat element for temperate ungulates: effects on habitat selection and demography. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 27 (2): 385-394.
Randi E., 2005 – Management of Wild Ungulate Populations in Italy: Captive-Breeding, Hybridisation and Genetic Consequences of Translocations. Veterinary Research Communications, 29 (2): 71-75.
Putman R. J., 1986 – Foraging by Roe Deer in Agricultural Areas and Impact on Arable Crops. Journal of Applied Ecology, 23 (1): 91-99.
Saïd S. & Servanty S., 2005 – The influence of landscape structure on female roe deer home range size. Landscape Ecology, 20 (8): 1003-1012.
Saïd S., Gaillard J. M., Duncan P., Guillon N., Guillon N., Servanty S., Pellerin M., Lefeuvre K., Martin C. & Van Laere G., 2005 – Ecological correlates of home-range size in spring–summer for female roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) in a deciduous woodland. Journal of Zoology, 267 (3): 301-308.
Sharpe D., 2015 – Chi-Square Test is Statistically Significant: Now What? Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 20 (8): 1-10.
Walhstrom L. & Kjellander P., 1995 – Ideal free distribution and natal dispersal in female roe deer. Oecologia, 103 (3): 302-308.

How to Cite

Zorzi, P. ., Nardotto, A., Bottazzo, M. ., & Dal Zotto, M. . (2022). Habitat selection of the roe deer <em>Capreolus capreolus</em> (Artiodactyla, Cervidae) in an agroforestry system. Natural History Sciences, 9(2), 3–6. https://doi.org/10.4081/nhs.2022.550

Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.