Linking White-Tailed Deer Density, Nutrition, and Vegetation in a Stochastic Environment
Density-dependent behavior underpins white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) theory and management application in North America, but strength or frequency of the phenomenon has varied across the geographic range of the species. The modifying effect of stochastic environments and poor-quality habi...
Saved in:
| Published in: | Wildlife monographs Vol. 202; no. 1; pp. 1 - 63 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Bethesda
Wiley
01-07-2019
Blackwell Publishing Ltd |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | Get full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Abstract | Density-dependent behavior underpins white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) theory and management application in North America, but strength or frequency of the phenomenon has varied across the geographic range of the species. The modifying effect of stochastic environments and poor-quality habitats on density-dependent behavior has been recognized for ungulate populations around the world, including white-tailed deer populations in South Texas, USA. Despite the importance of understanding mechanisms influencing density dependence, researchers have concentrated on demographic and morphological implications of deer density. Researchers have not focused on linking vegetation dynamics, nutrition, and deer dynamics. We conducted a series of designed experiments during 2004–2012 to determine how strongly white-tailed deer density, vegetation composition, and deer nutrition (natural and supplemented) are linked in a semi-arid environment where the coefficient of variation of annual precipitation exceeds 30%. We replicated our study on 2 sites with thornshrub vegetation in Dimmit County, Texas. During late 2003, we constructed 6 81-ha enclosures surrounded by 2.4-m-tall woven wire fence on each study site. The experimental design included 2 nutrition treatments and 3 deer densities in a factorial array, with study sites as blocks. Abundance targets for low, medium, and high deer densities in enclosures were 10 deer (equivalent to 13 deer/km²), 25 deer (31 deer/km²), and 40 deer (50 deer/km²), respectively. Each study site had 2 enclosures with each deer density. We provided deer in 1 enclosure at each density with a high-quality pelleted supplement ad libitum, which we termed enhanced nutrition; deer in the other enclosure at each density had access to natural nutrition from the vegetation. We conducted camera surveys of deer in each enclosure twice per year and added or removed deer as needed to approximate the target densities. We maintained >50% of deer ear-tagged for individual recognition. We maintained adult sex ratios of 1:1–1:1.5 (males:females) and a mix of young and older deer in enclosures. We used reconstruction, validated by comparison to known number of adult males, to make annual estimates of density for each enclosure in analysis of treatment effects. We explored the effect of deer density on diet composition, diet quality, and intake rate of tractable female deer released into low- and high-density enclosures with natural nutrition on both study sites (4 total enclosures) between June 2009 and May 2011, 5 years after we established density treatments in enclosures. We used the bite count technique and followed 2–3 tractable deer/enclosure during foraging bouts across 4 seasons. Proportion of shrubs, forbs, mast, cacti, and subshrubs in deer diets did not differ (P > 0.57) between deer density treatments. Percent grass in deer diets was higher (P = 0.05) at high deer density but composed only 1.3 ± 0.3% (SE) of the diet. Digestible protein and metabolizable energy of diets were similar (P > 0.45) between deer density treatments. Likewise, bite rate, bite size, and dry matter intake did not vary (P > 0.45) with deer density. Unlike deer density, drought had dramatic (P ≤ 0.10) effects on foraging of tractable deer. During drought conditions, the proportion of shrubs and flowers increased in deer diets, whereas forbs declined. Digestible protein was 31%, 53%, and 54% greater (P = 0.06) during non-drought than drought during autumn, winter, and spring, respectively. We studied the effects of enhanced nutrition on the composition and quality of tractable female deer diets between April 2007 and February 2009, 3 years after we established density treatments in enclosures. We also estimated the proportion of supplemental feed in deer diets. We used the 2 low-density enclosures on each study site, 1 with enhanced nutrition and 1 with natural nutrition (4 total enclosures). We again used the bite count technique and 2–3 tractable deer living in each enclosure. We estimated proportion of pelleted feed in diets of tractable deer and non-tractable deer using ratios of stable isotopes of carbon. Averaged across seasons and nutrition treatments, shrubs composed a majority of the vegetation portion of deer diets (44%), followed by mast (26%) and forbs (15%). Enhanced nutrition influenced the proportion of mast, cacti, and flowers in the diet, but the nature and magnitude of the effect varied by season and year. Thetrend was for deer in natural-nutrition enclosures to eat more mast. We did not detect a statistical difference (P = 0.15) in the proportion of shrubs in diets between natural and enhanced nutrition, but deer with enhanced nutrition consumed 7–24% more shrubs in 5 of 8 seasons. Deer in enhanced-nutrition enclosures had greater (P = 0.03) digestible protein in their overall diet than deer in natural-nutrition enclosures. The effect of enhanced nutrition on metabolizable energy in overall diets varied by season and was greater (P < 0.04) for enhanced-nutrition deer during summer and autumn 2007 and winter 2008. In the enhanced-nutrition treatment, supplemental feed averaged 47–80% of the diet of tractable deer. Of non-tractable deer in all density treatments with enhanced nutrition, 97% (n = 128 deer) ate supplemental feed. For non-tractable deer averaged across density treatments, study sites, and years, percent supplemental feed in deer diets exceeded 70% for all sex and age groups. We determined if increasing deer density and enhanced nutrition resulted in a decline in preferred forbs and shrubs and an increase in plants less preferred by deer. We sampled all 12 enclosures via 20, 50-m permanent transects in each enclosure. Percent canopy cover of preferred forbs was similar (P = 0.13) among deer densities averaged across nutrition treatments and sampling years (low density: = 8%, SE range 6–10; medium density: 5%, 4–6; high density: 4%, 3–5; SE ranges are presented because SEs associated with backtransformed means are asymetrical). Averaged across deer densities, preferred forb canopy cover was similar between nutrition treatments in 2004; but by 2012 averaged 20 ± 17–23% in enhanced-nutrition enclosures compared to 10 ± 8–13% in natural-nutrition enclosures (P = 0.107). Percent canopy cover of other forbs, preferred shrubs, other shrubs, and grasses, as well as Shannon's index, evenness, and species richness were similar (P > 0.10) among deer densities, averaged across nutrition treatments and sampling years. We analyzed fawn:adult female ratios, growth rates of fawns and yearlings, and survival from 6 to 14 months of age and for adults >14 months of age. We assessed adult body mass and population growth rates (lambda apparent, λ
APP) to determine density and nutrition effects on deer populations in the research enclosures during 2004–2012. Fawn:adult female ratios declined (P = 0.04) from low-medium density to high density in natural-nutrition enclosures but were not affected (P = 0.48) by density in enhanced nutrition enclosures although, compared to natural nutrition, enhanced nutrition increased fawn:adult female ratios by 0.15 ± 0.12 fawns:adult female at low-medium density and 0.44 ± 0.17 fawns:adult female at high density. Growth rate of fawns was not affected by deer density under natural or enhanced nutrition (P > 0.17) but increased 0.03 ± 0.01 kg/day in enhanced-nutrition enclosures compared to natural nutrition (P < 0.01). Growth rate of yearlings was unaffected (P > 0.71) by deer density, but growth rate increased for males in some years at some density levels in enhanced-nutrition enclosures. Adult body mass declined in response to increasing deer density in natural-nutrition enclosures for both adult males (P < 0.01) and females (P = 0.10). Enhanced nutrition increased male body mass, but female mass did not increase compared to natural nutrition. Survival of adult males was unaffected by deer density in natural- (P = 0.59) or enhanced- (P = 0.94) nutrition enclosures. Survival of adult females was greatest in medium-density enclosures with natural nutrition but similar at low and high density (P = 0.04). Enhanced nutrition increased survival of females (P < 0.01) and marginally for males (P = 0.11). Survival of fawns 6–14 months old was unaffected (P > 0.35) by density in either natural- or enhanced-nutrition treatments but was greater (P = 0.04) under enhanced nutrition. Population growth rate declined (P = 0.06) with increasing density in natural-nutrition enclosures but not (P = 0.55) in enhanced nutrition. Enhanced nutrition increased λ
APP by 0.32. Under natural nutrition, we found only minor effects of deer density treatments on deer diet composition, nutritional intake, and plant communities. However, we found density-dependent effects on fawn:adult female ratios, adult body mass, and population growth rate. In a follow-up study, deer home ranges in our research enclosures declined with increasing deer density. We hypothesized that habitat quality varied among home ranges and contributed to density-dependent responses. Variable precipitation had a greater influence on deer diets, vegetation composition, and population parameters than did deer density. Also, resistance to herbivory and low forage quality of the thornshrub vegetation of our study sites likely constrained density-dependent behavior by deer. We posit that it is unlikely that, at our high-density (50 deer/km²) and perhaps even medium-density (31 deer/km²) levels, negative density dependence would occur without several wet years in close association. In the past century, this phenomenon has only happened once (1970s). Thus, density dependence would likely be difficult to detect in most years under natural nutrition in this region. Foraging by deer with enhanced nutrition did not result in a reduction in preferred plants in the vegetation community and had a protective effect on preferred forbs because ≤53% of deer |
|---|---|
| AbstractList | Density‐dependent behavior underpins white‐tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) theory and management application in North America, but strength or frequency of the phenomenon has varied across the geographic range of the species. The modifying effect of stochastic environments and poor‐quality habitats on density‐dependent behavior has been recognized for ungulate populations around the world, including white‐tailed deer populations in South Texas, USA. Despite the importance of understanding mechanisms influencing density dependence, researchers have concentrated on demographic and morphological implications of deer density. Researchers have not focused on linking vegetation dynamics, nutrition, and deer dynamics. We conducted a series of designed experiments during 2004–2012 to determine how strongly white‐tailed deer density, vegetation composition, and deer nutrition (natural and supplemented) are linked in a semi‐arid environment where the coefficient of variation of annual precipitation exceeds 30%. We replicated our study on 2 sites with thornshrub vegetation in Dimmit County, Texas. During late 2003, we constructed 6 81‐ha enclosures surrounded by 2.4‐m‐tall woven wire fence on each study site. The experimental design included 2 nutrition treatments and 3 deer densities in a factorial array, with study sites as blocks. Abundance targets for low, medium, and high deer densities in enclosures were 10 deer (equivalent to 13 deer/km2), 25 deer (31 deer/km2), and 40 deer (50 deer/km2), respectively. Each study site had 2 enclosures with each deer density. We provided deer in 1 enclosure at each density with a high‐quality pelleted supplement ad libitum, which we termed enhanced nutrition; deer in the other enclosure at each density had access to natural nutrition from the vegetation. We conducted camera surveys of deer in each enclosure twice per year and added or removed deer as needed to approximate the target densities. We maintained >50% of deer ear‐tagged for individual recognition. We maintained adult sex ratios of 1:1–1:1.5 (males:females) and a mix of young and older deer in enclosures. We used reconstruction, validated by comparison to known number of adult males, to make annual estimates of density for each enclosure in analysis of treatment effects. We explored the effect of deer density on diet composition, diet quality, and intake rate of tractable female deer released into low‐ and high‐density enclosures with natural nutrition on both study sites (4 total enclosures) between June 2009 and May 2011, 5 years after we established density treatments in enclosures. We used the bite count technique and followed 2–3 tractable deer/enclosure during foraging bouts across 4 seasons. Proportion of shrubs, forbs, mast, cacti, and subshrubs in deer diets did not differ (P > 0.57) between deer density treatments. Percent grass in deer diets was higher (P = 0.05) at high deer density but composed only 1.3 ± 0.3% (SE) of the diet. Digestible protein and metabolizable energy of diets were similar (P > 0.45) between deer density treatments. Likewise, bite rate, bite size, and dry matter intake did not vary (P > 0.45) with deer density. Unlike deer density, drought had dramatic (P ≤ 0.10) effects on foraging of tractable deer. During drought conditions, the proportion of shrubs and flowers increased in deer diets, whereas forbs declined. Digestible protein was 31%, 53%, and 54% greater (P = 0.06) during non‐drought than drought during autumn, winter, and spring, respectively. We studied the effects of enhanced nutrition on the composition and quality of tractable female deer diets between April 2007 and February 2009, 3 years after we established density treatments in enclosures. We also estimated the proportion of supplemental feed in deer diets. We used the 2 low‐density enclosures on each study site, 1 with enhanced nutrition and 1 with natural nutrition (4 total enclosures). We again used the bite count technique and 2–3 tractable deer living in each enclosure. We estimated proportion of pelleted feed in diets of tractable deer and non‐tractable deer using ratios of stable isotopes of carbon. Averaged across seasons and nutrition treatments, shrubs composed a majority of the vegetation portion of deer diets (44%), followed by mast (26%) and forbs (15%). Enhanced nutrition influenced the proportion of mast, cacti, and flowers in the diet, but the nature and magnitude of the effect varied by season and year. The trend was for deer in natural‐nutrition enclosures to eat more mast. We did not detect a statistical difference (P = 0.15) in the proportion of shrubs in diets between natural and enhanced nutrition, but deer with enhanced nutrition consumed 7–24% more shrubs in 5 of 8 seasons. Deer in enhanced‐nutrition enclosures had greater (P = 0.03) digestible protein in their overall diet than deer in natural‐nutrition enclosures. The effect of enhanced nutrition on metabolizable energy in overall diets varied by season and was greater (P < 0.04) for enhanced‐nutrition deer during summer and autumn 2007 and winter 2008. In the enhanced‐nutrition treatment, supplemental feed averaged 47–80% of the diet of tractable deer. Of non‐tractable deer in all density treatments with enhanced nutrition, 97% (n = 128 deer) ate supplemental feed. For non‐tractable deer averaged across density treatments, study sites, and years, percent supplemental feed in deer diets exceeded 70% for all sex and age groups. We determined if increasing deer density and enhanced nutrition resulted in a decline in preferred forbs and shrubs and an increase in plants less preferred by deer. We sampled all 12 enclosures via 20, 50‐m permanent transects in each enclosure. Percent canopy cover of preferred forbs was similar (P = 0.13) among deer densities averaged across nutrition treatments and sampling years (low density: x̅ = 8%, SE range 6–10; medium density: 5%, 4–6; high density: 4%, 3–5; SE ranges are presented because SEs associated with backtransformed means are asymetrical). Averaged across deer densities, preferred forb canopy cover was similar between nutrition treatments in 2004; but by 2012 averaged 20 ± 17–23% in enhanced‐nutrition enclosures compared to 10 ± 8–13% in natural‐nutrition enclosures (P = 0.107). Percent canopy cover of other forbs, preferred shrubs, other shrubs, and grasses, as well as Shannon's index, evenness, and species richness were similar (P > 0.10) among deer densities, averaged across nutrition treatments and sampling years. We analyzed fawn:adult female ratios, growth rates of fawns and yearlings, and survival from 6 to 14 months of age and for adults >14 months of age. We assessed adult body mass and population growth rates (lambda apparent, λAPP) to determine density and nutrition effects on deer populations in the research enclosures during 2004–2012. Fawn:adult female ratios declined (P = 0.04) from low‐medium density to high density in natural‐nutrition enclosures but were not affected (P = 0.48) by density in enhanced nutrition enclosures although, compared to natural nutrition, enhanced nutrition increased fawn:adult female ratios by 0.15 ± 0.12 fawns:adult female at low‐medium density and 0.44 ± 0.17 fawns:adult female at high density. Growth rate of fawns was not affected by deer density under natural or enhanced nutrition (P > 0.17) but increased 0.03 ± 0.01 kg/day in enhanced‐nutrition enclosures compared to natural nutrition (P < 0.01). Growth rate of yearlings was unaffected (P > 0.71) by deer density, but growth rate increased for males in some years at some density levels in enhanced‐nutrition enclosures. Adult body mass declined in response to increasing deer density in natural‐nutrition enclosures for both adult males (P < 0.01) and females (P = 0.10). Enhanced nutrition increased male body mass, but female mass did not increase compared to natural nutrition. Survival of adult males was unaffected by deer density in natural‐ (P = 0.59) or enhanced‐ (P = 0.94) nutrition enclosures. Survival of adult females was greatest in medium‐density enclosures with natural nutrition but similar at low and high density (P = 0.04). Enhanced nutrition increased survival of females (P < 0.01) and marginally for males (P = 0.11). Survival of fawns 6–14 months old was unaffected (P > 0.35) by density in either natural‐ or enhanced‐nutrition treatments but was greater (P = 0.04) under enhanced nutrition. Population growth rate declined (P = 0.06) with increasing density in natural‐nutrition enclosures but not (P = 0.55) in enhanced nutrition. Enhanced nutrition increased λAPP by 0.32. Under natural nutrition, we found only minor effects of deer density treatments on deer diet composition, nutritional intake, and plant communities. However, we found density‐dependent effects on fawn:adult female ratios, adult body mass, and population growth rate. In a follow‐up study, deer home ranges in our research enclosures declined with increasing deer density. We hypothesized that habitat quality varied among home ranges and contributed to density‐dependent responses. Variable precipitation had a greater influence on deer diets, vegetation composition, and population parameters than did deer density. Also, resistance to herbivory and low forage quality of the thornshrub vegetation of our study sites likely constrained density‐dependent behavior by deer. We posit that it is unlikely that, at our high‐density (50 deer/km2) and perhaps even medium‐density (31 deer/km2) levels, negative density dependence would occur without several wet years in close association. In the past century, this phenomenon has only happened once (1970s). Thus, density dependence would likely be difficult to detect in most years under natural nutrition in this region. Foraging by deer with enhanced nutrition did not result in a reduction in preferred plants in the vegetation community and had a protective effect on preferred forbs because ≤53% of de ABSTRACT Density‐dependent behavior underpins white‐tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) theory and management application in North America, but strength or frequency of the phenomenon has varied across the geographic range of the species. The modifying effect of stochastic environments and poor‐quality habitats on density‐dependent behavior has been recognized for ungulate populations around the world, including white‐tailed deer populations in South Texas, USA. Despite the importance of understanding mechanisms influencing density dependence, researchers have concentrated on demographic and morphological implications of deer density. Researchers have not focused on linking vegetation dynamics, nutrition, and deer dynamics. We conducted a series of designed experiments during 2004–2012 to determine how strongly white‐tailed deer density, vegetation composition, and deer nutrition (natural and supplemented) are linked in a semi‐arid environment where the coefficient of variation of annual precipitation exceeds 30%. We replicated our study on 2 sites with thornshrub vegetation in Dimmit County, Texas. During late 2003, we constructed 6 81‐ha enclosures surrounded by 2.4‐m‐tall woven wire fence on each study site. The experimental design included 2 nutrition treatments and 3 deer densities in a factorial array, with study sites as blocks. Abundance targets for low, medium, and high deer densities in enclosures were 10 deer (equivalent to 13 deer/km2), 25 deer (31 deer/km2), and 40 deer (50 deer/km2), respectively. Each study site had 2 enclosures with each deer density. We provided deer in 1 enclosure at each density with a high‐quality pelleted supplement ad libitum, which we termed enhanced nutrition; deer in the other enclosure at each density had access to natural nutrition from the vegetation. We conducted camera surveys of deer in each enclosure twice per year and added or removed deer as needed to approximate the target densities. We maintained >50% of deer ear‐tagged for individual recognition. We maintained adult sex ratios of 1:1–1:1.5 (males:females) and a mix of young and older deer in enclosures. We used reconstruction, validated by comparison to known number of adult males, to make annual estimates of density for each enclosure in analysis of treatment effects. We explored the effect of deer density on diet composition, diet quality, and intake rate of tractable female deer released into low‐ and high‐density enclosures with natural nutrition on both study sites (4 total enclosures) between June 2009 and May 2011, 5 years after we established density treatments in enclosures. We used the bite count technique and followed 2–3 tractable deer/enclosure during foraging bouts across 4 seasons. Proportion of shrubs, forbs, mast, cacti, and subshrubs in deer diets did not differ (P > 0.57) between deer density treatments. Percent grass in deer diets was higher (P = 0.05) at high deer density but composed only 1.3 ± 0.3% (SE) of the diet. Digestible protein and metabolizable energy of diets were similar (P > 0.45) between deer density treatments. Likewise, bite rate, bite size, and dry matter intake did not vary (P > 0.45) with deer density. Unlike deer density, drought had dramatic (P ≤ 0.10) effects on foraging of tractable deer. During drought conditions, the proportion of shrubs and flowers increased in deer diets, whereas forbs declined. Digestible protein was 31%, 53%, and 54% greater (P = 0.06) during non‐drought than drought during autumn, winter, and spring, respectively. We studied the effects of enhanced nutrition on the composition and quality of tractable female deer diets between April 2007 and February 2009, 3 years after we established density treatments in enclosures. We also estimated the proportion of supplemental feed in deer diets. We used the 2 low‐density enclosures on each study site, 1 with enhanced nutrition and 1 with natural nutrition (4 total enclosures). We again used the bite count technique and 2–3 tractable deer living in each enclosure. We estimated proportion of pelleted feed in diets of tractable deer and non‐tractable deer using ratios of stable isotopes of carbon. Averaged across seasons and nutrition treatments, shrubs composed a majority of the vegetation portion of deer diets (44%), followed by mast (26%) and forbs (15%). Enhanced nutrition influenced the proportion of mast, cacti, and flowers in the diet, but the nature and magnitude of the effect varied by season and year. The trend was for deer in natural‐nutrition enclosures to eat more mast. We did not detect a statistical difference (P = 0.15) in the proportion of shrubs in diets between natural and enhanced nutrition, but deer with enhanced nutrition consumed 7–24% more shrubs in 5 of 8 seasons. Deer in enhanced‐nutrition enclosures had greater (P = 0.03) digestible protein in their overall diet than deer in natural‐nutrition enclosures. The effect of enhanced nutrition on metabolizable energy in overall diets varied by season and was greater (P < 0.04) for enhanced‐nutrition deer during summer and autumn 2007 and winter 2008. In the enhanced‐nutrition treatment, supplemental feed averaged 47–80% of the diet of tractable deer. Of non‐tractable deer in all density treatments with enhanced nutrition, 97% (n = 128 deer) ate supplemental feed. For non‐tractable deer averaged across density treatments, study sites, and years, percent supplemental feed in deer diets exceeded 70% for all sex and age groups. We determined if increasing deer density and enhanced nutrition resulted in a decline in preferred forbs and shrubs and an increase in plants less preferred by deer. We sampled all 12 enclosures via 20, 50‐m permanent transects in each enclosure. Percent canopy cover of preferred forbs was similar (P = 0.13) among deer densities averaged across nutrition treatments and sampling years (low density: x̅ = 8%, SE range 6–10; medium density: 5%, 4–6; high density: 4%, 3–5; SE ranges are presented because SEs associated with backtransformed means are asymetrical). Averaged across deer densities, preferred forb canopy cover was similar between nutrition treatments in 2004; but by 2012 averaged 20 ± 17–23% in enhanced‐nutrition enclosures compared to 10 ± 8–13% in natural‐nutrition enclosures (P = 0.107). Percent canopy cover of other forbs, preferred shrubs, other shrubs, and grasses, as well as Shannon's index, evenness, and species richness were similar (P > 0.10) among deer densities, averaged across nutrition treatments and sampling years. We analyzed fawn:adult female ratios, growth rates of fawns and yearlings, and survival from 6 to 14 months of age and for adults >14 months of age. We assessed adult body mass and population growth rates (lambda apparent, λAPP) to determine density and nutrition effects on deer populations in the research enclosures during 2004–2012. Fawn:adult female ratios declined (P = 0.04) from low‐medium density to high density in natural‐nutrition enclosures but were not affected (P = 0.48) by density in enhanced nutrition enclosures although, compared to natural nutrition, enhanced nutrition increased fawn:adult female ratios by 0.15 ± 0.12 fawns:adult female at low‐medium density and 0.44 ± 0.17 fawns:adult female at high density. Growth rate of fawns was not affected by deer density under natural or enhanced nutrition (P > 0.17) but increased 0.03 ± 0.01 kg/day in enhanced‐nutrition enclosures compared to natural nutrition (P < 0.01). Growth rate of yearlings was unaffected (P > 0.71) by deer density, but growth rate increased for males in some years at some density levels in enhanced‐nutrition enclosures. Adult body mass declined in response to increasing deer density in natural‐nutrition enclosures for both adult males (P < 0.01) and females (P = 0.10). Enhanced nutrition increased male body mass, but female mass did not increase compared to natural nutrition. Survival of adult males was unaffected by deer density in natural‐ (P = 0.59) or enhanced‐ (P = 0.94) nutrition enclosures. Survival of adult females was greatest in medium‐density enclosures with natural nutrition but similar at low and high density (P = 0.04). Enhanced nutrition increased survival of females (P < 0.01) and marginally for males (P = 0.11). Survival of fawns 6–14 months old was unaffected (P > 0.35) by density in either natural‐ or enhanced‐nutrition treatments but was greater (P = 0.04) under enhanced nutrition. Population growth rate declined (P = 0.06) with increasing density in natural‐nutrition enclosures but not (P = 0.55) in enhanced nutrition. Enhanced nutrition increased λAPP by 0.32. Under natural nutrition, we found only minor effects of deer density treatments on deer diet composition, nutritional intake, and plant communities. However, we found density‐dependent effects on fawn:adult female ratios, adult body mass, and population growth rate. In a follow‐up study, deer home ranges in our research enclosures declined with increasing deer density. We hypothesized that habitat quality varied among home ranges and contributed to density‐dependent responses. Variable precipitation had a greater influence on deer diets, vegetation composition, and population parameters than did deer density. Also, resistance to herbivory and low forage quality of the thornshrub vegetation of our study sites likely constrained density‐dependent behavior by deer. We posit that it is unlikely that, at our high‐density (50 deer/km2) and perhaps even medium‐density (31 deer/km2) levels, negative density dependence would occur without several wet years in close association. In the past century, this phenomenon has only happened once (1970s). Thus, density dependence would likely be difficult to detect in most years under natural nutrition in this region. Foraging by deer with enhanced nutrition did not result in a reduction in preferred plants in the vegetation community and had a protective effect on preferred forbs because ≤ Density-dependent behavior underpins white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) theory and management application in North America, but strength or frequency of the phenomenon has varied across the geographic range of the species. The modifying effect of stochastic environments and poor-quality habitats on density-dependent behavior has been recognized for ungulate populations around the world, including white-tailed deer populations in South Texas, USA. Despite the importance of understanding mechanisms influencing density dependence, researchers have concentrated on demographic and morphological implications of deer density. Researchers have not focused on linking vegetation dynamics, nutrition, and deer dynamics. We conducted a series of designed experiments during 2004–2012 to determine how strongly white-tailed deer density, vegetation composition, and deer nutrition (natural and supplemented) are linked in a semi-arid environment where the coefficient of variation of annual precipitation exceeds 30%. We replicated our study on 2 sites with thornshrub vegetation in Dimmit County, Texas. During late 2003, we constructed 6 81-ha enclosures surrounded by 2.4-m-tall woven wire fence on each study site. The experimental design included 2 nutrition treatments and 3 deer densities in a factorial array, with study sites as blocks. Abundance targets for low, medium, and high deer densities in enclosures were 10 deer (equivalent to 13 deer/km²), 25 deer (31 deer/km²), and 40 deer (50 deer/km²), respectively. Each study site had 2 enclosures with each deer density. We provided deer in 1 enclosure at each density with a high-quality pelleted supplement ad libitum, which we termed enhanced nutrition; deer in the other enclosure at each density had access to natural nutrition from the vegetation. We conducted camera surveys of deer in each enclosure twice per year and added or removed deer as needed to approximate the target densities. We maintained >50% of deer ear-tagged for individual recognition. We maintained adult sex ratios of 1:1–1:1.5 (males:females) and a mix of young and older deer in enclosures. We used reconstruction, validated by comparison to known number of adult males, to make annual estimates of density for each enclosure in analysis of treatment effects. We explored the effect of deer density on diet composition, diet quality, and intake rate of tractable female deer released into low- and high-density enclosures with natural nutrition on both study sites (4 total enclosures) between June 2009 and May 2011, 5 years after we established density treatments in enclosures. We used the bite count technique and followed 2–3 tractable deer/enclosure during foraging bouts across 4 seasons. Proportion of shrubs, forbs, mast, cacti, and subshrubs in deer diets did not differ (P > 0.57) between deer density treatments. Percent grass in deer diets was higher (P = 0.05) at high deer density but composed only 1.3 ± 0.3% (SE) of the diet. Digestible protein and metabolizable energy of diets were similar (P > 0.45) between deer density treatments. Likewise, bite rate, bite size, and dry matter intake did not vary (P > 0.45) with deer density. Unlike deer density, drought had dramatic (P ≤ 0.10) effects on foraging of tractable deer. During drought conditions, the proportion of shrubs and flowers increased in deer diets, whereas forbs declined. Digestible protein was 31%, 53%, and 54% greater (P = 0.06) during non-drought than drought during autumn, winter, and spring, respectively. We studied the effects of enhanced nutrition on the composition and quality of tractable female deer diets between April 2007 and February 2009, 3 years after we established density treatments in enclosures. We also estimated the proportion of supplemental feed in deer diets. We used the 2 low-density enclosures on each study site, 1 with enhanced nutrition and 1 with natural nutrition (4 total enclosures). We again used the bite count technique and 2–3 tractable deer living in each enclosure. We estimated proportion of pelleted feed in diets of tractable deer and non-tractable deer using ratios of stable isotopes of carbon. Averaged across seasons and nutrition treatments, shrubs composed a majority of the vegetation portion of deer diets (44%), followed by mast (26%) and forbs (15%). Enhanced nutrition influenced the proportion of mast, cacti, and flowers in the diet, but the nature and magnitude of the effect varied by season and year. Thetrend was for deer in natural-nutrition enclosures to eat more mast. We did not detect a statistical difference (P = 0.15) in the proportion of shrubs in diets between natural and enhanced nutrition, but deer with enhanced nutrition consumed 7–24% more shrubs in 5 of 8 seasons. Deer in enhanced-nutrition enclosures had greater (P = 0.03) digestible protein in their overall diet than deer in natural-nutrition enclosures. The effect of enhanced nutrition on metabolizable energy in overall diets varied by season and was greater (P < 0.04) for enhanced-nutrition deer during summer and autumn 2007 and winter 2008. In the enhanced-nutrition treatment, supplemental feed averaged 47–80% of the diet of tractable deer. Of non-tractable deer in all density treatments with enhanced nutrition, 97% (n = 128 deer) ate supplemental feed. For non-tractable deer averaged across density treatments, study sites, and years, percent supplemental feed in deer diets exceeded 70% for all sex and age groups. We determined if increasing deer density and enhanced nutrition resulted in a decline in preferred forbs and shrubs and an increase in plants less preferred by deer. We sampled all 12 enclosures via 20, 50-m permanent transects in each enclosure. Percent canopy cover of preferred forbs was similar (P = 0.13) among deer densities averaged across nutrition treatments and sampling years (low density: = 8%, SE range 6–10; medium density: 5%, 4–6; high density: 4%, 3–5; SE ranges are presented because SEs associated with backtransformed means are asymetrical). Averaged across deer densities, preferred forb canopy cover was similar between nutrition treatments in 2004; but by 2012 averaged 20 ± 17–23% in enhanced-nutrition enclosures compared to 10 ± 8–13% in natural-nutrition enclosures (P = 0.107). Percent canopy cover of other forbs, preferred shrubs, other shrubs, and grasses, as well as Shannon's index, evenness, and species richness were similar (P > 0.10) among deer densities, averaged across nutrition treatments and sampling years. We analyzed fawn:adult female ratios, growth rates of fawns and yearlings, and survival from 6 to 14 months of age and for adults >14 months of age. We assessed adult body mass and population growth rates (lambda apparent, λ APP) to determine density and nutrition effects on deer populations in the research enclosures during 2004–2012. Fawn:adult female ratios declined (P = 0.04) from low-medium density to high density in natural-nutrition enclosures but were not affected (P = 0.48) by density in enhanced nutrition enclosures although, compared to natural nutrition, enhanced nutrition increased fawn:adult female ratios by 0.15 ± 0.12 fawns:adult female at low-medium density and 0.44 ± 0.17 fawns:adult female at high density. Growth rate of fawns was not affected by deer density under natural or enhanced nutrition (P > 0.17) but increased 0.03 ± 0.01 kg/day in enhanced-nutrition enclosures compared to natural nutrition (P < 0.01). Growth rate of yearlings was unaffected (P > 0.71) by deer density, but growth rate increased for males in some years at some density levels in enhanced-nutrition enclosures. Adult body mass declined in response to increasing deer density in natural-nutrition enclosures for both adult males (P < 0.01) and females (P = 0.10). Enhanced nutrition increased male body mass, but female mass did not increase compared to natural nutrition. Survival of adult males was unaffected by deer density in natural- (P = 0.59) or enhanced- (P = 0.94) nutrition enclosures. Survival of adult females was greatest in medium-density enclosures with natural nutrition but similar at low and high density (P = 0.04). Enhanced nutrition increased survival of females (P < 0.01) and marginally for males (P = 0.11). Survival of fawns 6–14 months old was unaffected (P > 0.35) by density in either natural- or enhanced-nutrition treatments but was greater (P = 0.04) under enhanced nutrition. Population growth rate declined (P = 0.06) with increasing density in natural-nutrition enclosures but not (P = 0.55) in enhanced nutrition. Enhanced nutrition increased λ APP by 0.32. Under natural nutrition, we found only minor effects of deer density treatments on deer diet composition, nutritional intake, and plant communities. However, we found density-dependent effects on fawn:adult female ratios, adult body mass, and population growth rate. In a follow-up study, deer home ranges in our research enclosures declined with increasing deer density. We hypothesized that habitat quality varied among home ranges and contributed to density-dependent responses. Variable precipitation had a greater influence on deer diets, vegetation composition, and population parameters than did deer density. Also, resistance to herbivory and low forage quality of the thornshrub vegetation of our study sites likely constrained density-dependent behavior by deer. We posit that it is unlikely that, at our high-density (50 deer/km²) and perhaps even medium-density (31 deer/km²) levels, negative density dependence would occur without several wet years in close association. In the past century, this phenomenon has only happened once (1970s). Thus, density dependence would likely be difficult to detect in most years under natural nutrition in this region. Foraging by deer with enhanced nutrition did not result in a reduction in preferred plants in the vegetation community and had a protective effect on preferred forbs because ≤53% of deer Density‐dependent behavior underpins white‐tailed deer ( Odocoileus virginianus ) theory and management application in North America, but strength or frequency of the phenomenon has varied across the geographic range of the species. The modifying effect of stochastic environments and poor‐quality habitats on density‐dependent behavior has been recognized for ungulate populations around the world, including white‐tailed deer populations in South Texas, USA. Despite the importance of understanding mechanisms influencing density dependence, researchers have concentrated on demographic and morphological implications of deer density. Researchers have not focused on linking vegetation dynamics, nutrition, and deer dynamics. We conducted a series of designed experiments during 2004–2012 to determine how strongly white‐tailed deer density, vegetation composition, and deer nutrition (natural and supplemented) are linked in a semi‐arid environment where the coefficient of variation of annual precipitation exceeds 30%. We replicated our study on 2 sites with thornshrub vegetation in Dimmit County, Texas. During late 2003, we constructed 6 81‐ha enclosures surrounded by 2.4‐m‐tall woven wire fence on each study site. The experimental design included 2 nutrition treatments and 3 deer densities in a factorial array, with study sites as blocks. Abundance targets for low, medium, and high deer densities in enclosures were 10 deer (equivalent to 13 deer/km 2 ), 25 deer (31 deer/km 2 ), and 40 deer (50 deer/km 2 ), respectively. Each study site had 2 enclosures with each deer density. We provided deer in 1 enclosure at each density with a high‐quality pelleted supplement ad libitum , which we termed enhanced nutrition; deer in the other enclosure at each density had access to natural nutrition from the vegetation. We conducted camera surveys of deer in each enclosure twice per year and added or removed deer as needed to approximate the target densities. We maintained >50% of deer ear‐tagged for individual recognition. We maintained adult sex ratios of 1:1–1:1.5 (males:females) and a mix of young and older deer in enclosures. We used reconstruction, validated by comparison to known number of adult males, to make annual estimates of density for each enclosure in analysis of treatment effects. We explored the effect of deer density on diet composition, diet quality, and intake rate of tractable female deer released into low‐ and high‐density enclosures with natural nutrition on both study sites (4 total enclosures) between June 2009 and May 2011, 5 years after we established density treatments in enclosures. We used the bite count technique and followed 2–3 tractable deer/enclosure during foraging bouts across 4 seasons. Proportion of shrubs, forbs, mast, cacti, and subshrubs in deer diets did not differ ( P > 0.57) between deer density treatments. Percent grass in deer diets was higher ( P = 0.05) at high deer density but composed only 1.3 ± 0.3% (SE) of the diet. Digestible protein and metabolizable energy of diets were similar ( P > 0.45) between deer density treatments. Likewise, bite rate, bite size, and dry matter intake did not vary ( P > 0.45) with deer density. Unlike deer density, drought had dramatic ( P ≤ 0.10) effects on foraging of tractable deer. During drought conditions, the proportion of shrubs and flowers increased in deer diets, whereas forbs declined. Digestible protein was 31%, 53%, and 54% greater ( P = 0.06) during non‐drought than drought during autumn, winter, and spring, respectively. We studied the effects of enhanced nutrition on the composition and quality of tractable female deer diets between April 2007 and February 2009, 3 years after we established density treatments in enclosures. We also estimated the proportion of supplemental feed in deer diets. We used the 2 low‐density enclosures on each study site, 1 with enhanced nutrition and 1 with natural nutrition (4 total enclosures). We again used the bite count technique and 2–3 tractable deer living in each enclosure. We estimated proportion of pelleted feed in diets of tractable deer and non‐tractable deer using ratios of stable isotopes of carbon. Averaged across seasons and nutrition treatments, shrubs composed a majority of the vegetation portion of deer diets (44%), followed by mast (26%) and forbs (15%). Enhanced nutrition influenced the proportion of mast, cacti, and flowers in the diet, but the nature and magnitude of the effect varied by season and year. The trend was for deer in natural‐nutrition enclosures to eat more mast. We did not detect a statistical difference ( P = 0.15) in the proportion of shrubs in diets between natural and enhanced nutrition, but deer with enhanced nutrition consumed 7–24% more shrubs in 5 of 8 seasons. Deer in enhanced‐nutrition enclosures had greater ( P = 0.03) digestible protein in their overall diet than deer in natural‐nutrition enclosures. The effect of enhanced nutrition on metabolizable energy in overall diets varied by season and was greater ( P < 0.04) for enhanced‐nutrition deer during summer and autumn 2007 and winter 2008. In the enhanced‐nutrition treatment, supplemental feed averaged 47–80% of the diet of tractable deer. Of non‐tractable deer in all density treatments with enhanced nutrition, 97% ( n = 128 deer) ate supplemental feed. For non‐tractable deer averaged across density treatments, study sites, and years, percent supplemental feed in deer diets exceeded 70% for all sex and age groups. We determined if increasing deer density and enhanced nutrition resulted in a decline in preferred forbs and shrubs and an increase in plants less preferred by deer. We sampled all 12 enclosures via 20, 50‐m permanent transects in each enclosure. Percent canopy cover of preferred forbs was similar ( P = 0.13) among deer densities averaged across nutrition treatments and sampling years (low density: = 8%, SE range 6–10; medium density: 5%, 4–6; high density: 4%, 3–5; SE ranges are presented because SEs associated with backtransformed means are asymetrical). Averaged across deer densities, preferred forb canopy cover was similar between nutrition treatments in 2004; but by 2012 averaged 20 ± 17–23% in enhanced‐nutrition enclosures compared to 10 ± 8–13% in natural‐nutrition enclosures ( P = 0.107). Percent canopy cover of other forbs, preferred shrubs, other shrubs, and grasses, as well as Shannon's index, evenness, and species richness were similar ( P > 0.10) among deer densities, averaged across nutrition treatments and sampling years. We analyzed fawn:adult female ratios, growth rates of fawns and yearlings, and survival from 6 to 14 months of age and for adults >14 months of age. We assessed adult body mass and population growth rates (lambda apparent, λ APP ) to determine density and nutrition effects on deer populations in the research enclosures during 2004–2012. Fawn:adult female ratios declined ( P = 0.04) from low‐medium density to high density in natural‐nutrition enclosures but were not affected ( P = 0.48) by density in enhanced nutrition enclosures although, compared to natural nutrition, enhanced nutrition increased fawn:adult female ratios by 0.15 ± 0.12 fawns:adult female at low‐medium density and 0.44 ± 0.17 fawns:adult female at high density. Growth rate of fawns was not affected by deer density under natural or enhanced nutrition ( P > 0.17) but increased 0.03 ± 0.01 kg/day in enhanced‐nutrition enclosures compared to natural nutrition ( P < 0.01). Growth rate of yearlings was unaffected ( P > 0.71) by deer density, but growth rate increased for males in some years at some density levels in enhanced‐nutrition enclosures. Adult body mass declined in response to increasing deer density in natural‐nutrition enclosures for both adult males ( P < 0.01) and females ( P = 0.10). Enhanced nutrition increased male body mass, but female mass did not increase compared to natural nutrition. Survival of adult males was unaffected by deer density in natural‐ ( P = 0.59) or enhanced‐ ( P = 0.94) nutrition enclosures. Survival of adult females was greatest in medium‐density enclosures with natural nutrition but similar at low and high density ( P = 0.04). Enhanced nutrition increased survival of females ( P < 0.01) and marginally for males ( P = 0.11). Survival of fawns 6–14 months old was unaffected ( P > 0.35) by density in either natural‐ or enhanced‐nutrition treatments but was greater ( P = 0.04) under enhanced nutrition. Population growth rate declined ( P = 0.06) with increasing density in natural‐nutrition enclosures but not ( P = 0.55) in enhanced nutrition. Enhanced nutrition increased λ APP by 0.32. Under natural nutrition, we found only minor effects of deer density treatments on deer diet composition, nutritional intake, and plant communities. However, we found density‐dependent effects on fawn:adult female ratios, adult body mass, and population growth rate. In a follow‐up study, deer home ranges in our research enclosures declined with increasing deer density. We hypothesized that habitat quality varied among home ranges and contributed to density‐dependent responses. Variable precipitation had a greater influence on deer diets, vegetation composition, and population parameters than did deer density. Also, resistance to herbivory and low forage quality of the thornshrub vegetation of our study sites likely constrained density‐dependent behavior by deer. We posit that it is unlikely that, at our high‐density (50 deer/km 2 ) and perhaps even medium‐density (31 deer/km 2 ) levels, negative density dependence would occur without several wet years in close association. In the past century, this phenomenon has only happened once (1970s). Thus, density dependence would likely be difficult to detect in most years under natural nutrition in this region. Foraging by deer with enhanced nutrition did not result in a reduction in preferred plants in the vegetation comm |
| Author | WILLIAMSON, KENT M. GANN, WHITNEY J. HEWITT, DAVID G. FELTS, BRANDI L. PHILLIPS, LINDSEY M. GARVER, LUCAS W. GRAHMANN, ERIC D. COOK, NATHAN S. FULBRIGHT, TIMOTHY E. DARR, RYAN L. GAGE, REAGAN T. DEYOUNG, CHARLES A. GANN, KORY R. DONOHUE, ROBIN N. FOLKS, DONALD J. WESTER, DAVID B. DRAEGER, DON A. |
| Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: CHARLES A. surname: DEYOUNG fullname: DEYOUNG, CHARLES A. – sequence: 2 givenname: TIMOTHY E. surname: FULBRIGHT fullname: FULBRIGHT, TIMOTHY E. – sequence: 3 givenname: DAVID G. surname: HEWITT fullname: HEWITT, DAVID G. – sequence: 4 givenname: DAVID B. surname: WESTER fullname: WESTER, DAVID B. – sequence: 5 givenname: DON A. surname: DRAEGER fullname: DRAEGER, DON A. – sequence: 6 givenname: KORY R. surname: GANN fullname: GANN, KORY R. – sequence: 7 givenname: DONALD J. surname: FOLKS fullname: FOLKS, DONALD J. – sequence: 8 givenname: RYAN L. surname: DARR fullname: DARR, RYAN L. – sequence: 9 givenname: KENT M. surname: WILLIAMSON fullname: WILLIAMSON, KENT M. – sequence: 10 givenname: LUCAS W. surname: GARVER fullname: GARVER, LUCAS W. – sequence: 11 givenname: WHITNEY J. surname: GANN fullname: GANN, WHITNEY J. – sequence: 12 givenname: ERIC D. surname: GRAHMANN fullname: GRAHMANN, ERIC D. – sequence: 13 givenname: BRANDI L. surname: FELTS fullname: FELTS, BRANDI L. – sequence: 14 givenname: LINDSEY M. surname: PHILLIPS fullname: PHILLIPS, LINDSEY M. – sequence: 15 givenname: REAGAN T. surname: GAGE fullname: GAGE, REAGAN T. – sequence: 16 givenname: NATHAN S. surname: COOK fullname: COOK, NATHAN S. – sequence: 17 givenname: ROBIN N. surname: DONOHUE fullname: DONOHUE, ROBIN N. |
| BookMark | eNp1kE1PAjEQhhujiYAe_AEmTTyZsNJ229I9GsSPBOEgirdNd2mhCC22RcK_dzdLvHnpdJLnnZk8bXBqnVUAXGF0hxEivf3G2epH0Qlo4SwVCaOMnYIWQoImCPfTc9AOYYVQihHLWuBzZOyXsQs4W5qokqk0azWHD0r56rHBxEMXjnfRm2ic7UJp5_BDLVSUdQ-NhRK-RVcuZYimhEP7Y7yzG2XjBTjTch3U5bF2wPvjcDp4TkaTp5fB_SgpU0ZRojMhCkY1UYIUGguJVHVlieVcF31MuU5RxopCFJpqzhGhnGsm5phKXDKeFWkH3DRzt95971SI-crtvK1W5oRwlKWUCVFRtw1VeheCVzrferOR_pBjlNfi8lpcXour2F7D7isXh__BfPY6GR8T101iFaLzfwnC-5xQzNNfY_J60w |
| CitedBy_id | crossref_primary_10_1186_s13071_021_04590_z crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0248204 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_rama_2023_01_005 crossref_primary_10_1002_ece3_10668 crossref_primary_10_1071_WR21050 crossref_primary_10_3996_JFWM_21_091 crossref_primary_10_1002_jwmg_22413 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jaridenv_2021_104698 crossref_primary_10_1002_jwmg_22161 crossref_primary_10_1093_conphys_coae045 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_foreco_2023_120899 crossref_primary_10_1002_wmon_1040 crossref_primary_10_3389_fevo_2020_00150 crossref_primary_10_1002_ecs2_4850 |
| Cites_doi | 10.2307/3796954 10.1139/z94-068 10.2307/3801050 10.2193/2009-250 10.1139/z92-066 10.1046/j.1365-2656.2002.00655.x 10.2193/0022-541X(2005)069[0782:NETATE]2.0.CO;2 10.2307/1939852 10.1002/wmon.1010 10.2307/3670664 10.1002/jwmg.54 10.1007/BF00302563 10.1111/j.1442-9993.2012.02374.x 10.1016/S0921-4488(03)00143-3 10.1007/BF01012199 10.1201/9781482295986-7 10.1177/0013164403260196 10.1139/z00-008 10.1016/S0378-1127(03)00130-0 10.1002/jwmg.856 10.1371/journal.pone.0163592 10.2193/0091-7648(2004)032[0739:WDFPIM]2.0.CO;2 10.2307/3801185 10.1007/BF01880091 10.2193/2005-707 10.2193/2008-107 10.1016/S0031-9422(97)01022-4 10.1644/08-MAMM-A-227.1 10.2307/3796089 10.1002/wmon.1011 10.1093/ansci/80.8.2099 10.2307/3897116 10.3957/056.040.0105 10.1515/9780691206790 10.1890/1051-0761(2003)013[0098:WTDIOT]2.0.CO;2 10.2307/3898222 10.2307/3802368 10.2134/agronj1944.00021962003600030003x 10.2307/1383164 10.2193/0091-7648(2006)34[283:UUHDEO]2.0.CO;2 10.1890/1051-0761(1999)009[0798:OTRONC]2.0.CO;2 10.2307/3802896 10.2307/1380973 10.1007/s11284-006-0177-7 10.2193/0091-7648(2006)34[519:TNEAEA]2.0.CO;2 10.2307/3898379 10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.04.023 10.1086/285415 10.2307/3809345 10.1139/z05-090 10.1002/wsb.5 10.2307/3898426 10.2307/3893680 10.1201/EBK1584883340 10.2307/1940759 10.2307/3800983 10.1139/z98-032 10.1007/BF00378386 10.2307/3803123 10.2307/1382747 10.2307/3898549 10.1002/wmon.1040 10.1016/j.foreco.2013.11.037 10.1111/j.1440-1703.2004.00651.x 10.2193/2009-258 10.1071/WR15025 10.21423/twj.v3i1.6463 10.1016/j.rama.2016.06.002 10.1139/z02-149 10.2307/3899515 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2009.07.010 10.1016/S0140-1963(18)30521-4 10.1016/j.biocon.2010.05.020 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2010.03.001 10.2134/agronj1971.00021962006300060036x 10.2307/4003071 10.1007/s00442-005-0065-9 10.1111/j.1654-109X.2001.tb00486.x 10.2307/1940583 10.1139/f58-054 10.2307/3897799 10.1034/j.1600-0706.2003.12098.x 10.2307/3897156 10.1890/05-0355 10.1046/j.1365-2699.2002.00799.x 10.2307/3897012 10.1016/j.anbehav.2005.09.012 10.1890/12-0878.1 10.1136/bmj.312.7033.770 10.1080/00063659909477239 10.1016/S0065-2504(09)00405-X 10.2307/3546897 10.1674/0003-0031(2001)146[0001:EOWTDO]2.0.CO;2 10.1016/j.smallrumres.2012.11.033 10.2307/3798904 10.1890/ES14-00196.1 10.1073/pnas.0509606102 10.2307/1383271 10.2307/3800403 10.2307/3801981 10.1007/0-387-33745-8 10.2307/1297607 10.1017/CBO9780511615740 10.2527/2002.80123154x 10.22621/cfn.v118i3.13 10.2307/1940255 10.2307/4003045 10.1016/j.foreco.2010.02.002 10.2307/1382294 10.2981/10-122 10.1046/j.1365-2664.2003.00837.x 10.1017/CBO9780511617461 10.1016/j.foreco.2010.11.026 10.1002/jwmg.798 10.2307/2845377 10.1046/j.1365-2656.2003.00735.x 10.1016/j.actao.2010.10.007 10.1139/z96-236 10.2307/3803183 10.2307/3808821 10.2111/1551-5028(2005)58<58:NVOGAA>2.0.CO;2 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.35.021103.105725 10.1371/journal.pone.0084364 10.2307/1941918 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2004.11.015 10.1175/1520-0493(1984)112<0934:ASMOEN>2.0.CO;2 10.1007/s10886-005-0979-z 10.2307/1552083 10.2193/0022-541X(2005)069<0356:PDCRIW>2.0.CO;2 10.2307/3799870 10.2193/2006-293 10.2307/4002702 10.1007/s11258-008-9489-8 10.1007/BF02033798 10.2307/3545094 10.2193/0091-7648(2005)33[381:CWRINA]2.0.CO;2 10.2307/3800880 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.31.1.367 10.2307/1218190 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2005.11.015 10.1007/BF00379558 10.2307/3803163 10.1007/s10344-008-0199-2 10.1644/12-MAMM-A-014.1 10.5194/hessd-4-439-2007 10.1016/j.beproc.2009.06.009 10.2307/3898131 10.1007/BF00044949 10.2307/4002471 10.7589/0090-3558-13.3.281 10.1016/S0031-9422(97)00240-9 10.2981/wlb.00073 10.1139/z03-054 10.2307/1938809 10.1093/biomet/52.3-4.591 10.2307/3801716 10.1371/journal.pone.0115843 10.2981/wlb.13048 10.2307/4003953 10.1016/j.smallrumres.2005.12.013 10.1016/j.foreco.2005.02.035 10.2307/1937727 10.1016/j.foreco.2014.02.026 10.3377/004.048.0205 10.1007/s10144-008-0095-3 10.2307/4484 10.1002/jwmg.450 10.1007/s10886-006-9081-4 10.1007/s00442-010-1610-8 10.1111/j.1365-2907.2004.00044.x 10.2307/3809171 10.1016/j.smallrumres.2009.12.035 10.2981/wlb.00019 10.1086/284996 10.2307/2258730 10.2307/1948472 10.1111/j.1469-7998.1998.tb00101.x 10.1034/j.1600-0706.2003.11792.x 10.2193/0022-541X(2006)70[1521:MSMATE]2.0.CO;2 10.1016/j.foreco.2011.12.043 10.2307/5021 10.1002/wmon.1020 10.1002/jwmg.606 10.2307/3802741 10.2307/1942463 10.1016/S0006-3207(99)00129-9 10.2307/3800056 10.1894/0038-4909(2004)049<0367:MMBWDF>2.0.CO;2 |
| ContentType | Journal Article |
| Copyright | 2019 The Authors. published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of The Wildlife Society 2019 The Wildlife Society |
| Copyright_xml | – notice: 2019 The Authors. published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of The Wildlife Society – notice: 2019 The Wildlife Society |
| DBID | 24P WIN AAYXX CITATION |
| DOI | 10.1002/wmon.1040 |
| DatabaseName | Wiley-Blackwell Open Access Collection Wiley Online Library Journals CrossRef |
| DatabaseTitle | CrossRef |
| DatabaseTitleList | CrossRef |
| DeliveryMethod | fulltext_linktorsrc |
| Discipline | Zoology Agriculture |
| EISSN | 1938-5455 |
| EndPage | 63 |
| ExternalDocumentID | 10_1002_wmon_1040 WMON1040 26762416 |
| Genre | article |
| GeographicLocations | United States--US Texas |
| GeographicLocations_xml | – name: Texas – name: United States--US |
| GrantInformation_xml | – fundername: T. Dan Friedkin and Stuart W. Stedman |
| GroupedDBID | 0R~ 123 1OC 29R 2AX 2WC 33P 42X 8-1 A00 AAESR AAEVG AAHHS AAHKG AAJUZ AANLZ AASGY AAXRX AAZKR ABBHK ABCUV ABCVL ABDQB ABHUG ABJNI ABPLY ABPPZ ABTLG ABXSQ ACAHQ ACCFJ ACCZN ACGFS ACPOU ACPRK ACXBN ACXME ACXQS ADAWD ADBBV ADDAD ADEOM ADIZJ ADKYN ADMGS ADOZA ADULT ADXAS ADZLD ADZMN AEDJY AEEZP AEGXH AEIGN AEIMD AENEX AEQDE AESBF AEUPB AEUQT AEUYR AFAZZ AFBPY AFFPM AFGKR AFPWT AFRAH AFVGU AGJLS AGUYK AHBTC AIURR AIWBW AJBDE AJXKR ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS ALUQN AMBMR AMYDB APEBS AQVQM ATUGU AUFTA AZVAB BFHJK BHBCM BMNLL BMXJE BNHUX BRXPI CBGCD CS3 CWIXF D0L DCZOG DOOOF DRFUL DRSTM DU5 DWIUU EBD EBS EDH EJD G-S HZ~ JAAYA JBMMH JBS JENOY JHFFW JKQEH JLS JLXEF JPM JSODD JST LATKE LEEKS LITHE LOXES LUTES LYRES M0K MEWTI MSFUL MSSTM MXFUL MXSTM MY~ O66 O9- P2P P2W PQ0 Q5J RBO ROL SA0 SUPJJ WBKPD WH7 WHWMO WIH WLO WOHZO WVDHM WXSBR WYJ YZZ ZCA ZZTAW 08R 0R 24P 31 3V. 7X2 7XC 88A 8FE 8FH 8FW 8G5 A.K AACFU AAPSS ABEFU ABPTK ABTAH ABUWG ACBWZ ACQAM ADHSS ADOYD AEPYG AFFIJ AFKRA AFMIJ AFNWH AGCDD AIDBO AKPMI ASPBG ATCPS AVWKF AZFZN AZQEC BBNVY BDRZF BENPR BES BHPHI BKOMP BKSAR BPHCQ CAG COF DC7 DWQXO FEDTE GNUQQ GODZA GTFYD GUQSH H13 HCIFZ HGD HTVGU HVGLF HZ IL9 IPNFZ JH LK5 LK8 M0L M2O M7P M7R MY NEJ NHB PADUT PATMY PCBAR PQEST PQQKQ PQUKI PRINS PROAC PYCSY R05 RIG UKR UMF WIN XJT ZCG ZY4 -JH 31~ AAHBH AAMNL AAYXX ADACV AHXOZ AITYG CCPQU CITATION HGLYW IPSME XOL |
| ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-c3540-f988b54f2e82bf18a0e017c1adfb7146f3095bb8bf4f6602466f58d14a1c569b3 |
| IEDL.DBID | 33P |
| ISSN | 0084-0173 |
| IngestDate | Tue Nov 19 05:36:47 EST 2024 Thu Nov 21 23:05:13 EST 2024 Sat Jul 09 15:20:53 EDT 2022 Fri Feb 02 07:30:34 EST 2024 |
| IsDoiOpenAccess | true |
| IsOpenAccess | true |
| IsPeerReviewed | true |
| IsScholarly | true |
| Issue | 1 |
| Language | English |
| License | Attribution |
| LinkModel | DirectLink |
| MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c3540-f988b54f2e82bf18a0e017c1adfb7146f3095bb8bf4f6602466f58d14a1c569b3 |
| OpenAccessLink | https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/wmon.1040 |
| PQID | 2260934588 |
| PQPubID | 46491 |
| PageCount | 63 |
| ParticipantIDs | proquest_journals_2260934588 crossref_primary_10_1002_wmon_1040 wiley_primary_10_1002_wmon_1040_WMON1040 jstor_primary_26762416 |
| PublicationCentury | 2000 |
| PublicationDate | 20190701 July 2019 2019-07-00 |
| PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2019-07-01 |
| PublicationDate_xml | – month: 7 year: 2019 text: 20190701 day: 1 |
| PublicationDecade | 2010 |
| PublicationPlace | Bethesda |
| PublicationPlace_xml | – name: Bethesda |
| PublicationTitle | Wildlife monographs |
| PublicationYear | 2019 |
| Publisher | Wiley Blackwell Publishing Ltd |
| Publisher_xml | – name: Wiley – name: Blackwell Publishing Ltd |
| References | e_1_2_9_2_7_1_60_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_119_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_83_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_7_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_172_1 Westoby M (e_1_2_9_2_7_1_265_1) 1979; 28 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_134_1 Helms D (e_1_2_9_2_7_1_126_1) 1981 Clutton‐Brock T. H. (e_1_2_9_2_7_1_45_1) 1982 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_160_1 Canfield R. H (e_1_2_9_2_7_1_32_1) 1941; 39 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_217_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_255_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_278_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_100_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_169_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_108_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_10_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_71_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_270_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_161_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_184_1 Ballard W. B. (e_1_2_9_2_7_1_9_1) 2001; 29 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_146_1 DeYoung C. A. (e_1_2_9_2_7_1_68_1) 2008 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_221_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_33_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_56_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_206_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_229_1 Heffelfinger J. R. (e_1_2_9_2_7_1_123_1) 1990 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_267_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_61_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_84_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_158_1 Bowyer R. T. (e_1_2_9_2_7_1_21_1) 2014; 100 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_6_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_150_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_173_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_112_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_196_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_233_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_210_1 Fowler C. W (e_1_2_9_2_7_1_94_1) 1981 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_46_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_271_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_23_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_218_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_256_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_95_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_147_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_109_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_124_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_222_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_245_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_268_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_19_1 Inglis J (e_1_2_9_2_7_1_135_1) 1964 Clements F. E (e_1_2_9_2_7_1_44_1) 1920 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_260_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_11_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_57_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_34_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_207_1 DeYoung C. A (e_1_2_9_2_7_1_64_1) 1985; 13 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_85_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_117_1 Box T. W (e_1_2_9_2_7_1_22_1) 1967; 6 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_62_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_132_1 McCullough D. L (e_1_2_9_2_7_1_166_1) 1979 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_230_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_181_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_24_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_47_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_215_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_238_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_253_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_276_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_50_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_73_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_96_1 Bartmann R. M. (e_1_2_9_2_7_1_12_1) 1992; 121 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_129_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_106_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_121_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_144_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_193_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_242_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_170_1 Parker K. L. (e_1_2_9_2_7_1_195_1) 1999; 143 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_35_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_58_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_204_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_227_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_86_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_118_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_40_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_63_1 DeYoung C. A (e_1_2_9_2_7_1_65_1) 1988; 16 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_110_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_133_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_156_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_179_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_194_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_8_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_231_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_182_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_25_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_216_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_254_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_48_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_74_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_97_1 Felger R. S. (e_1_2_9_2_7_1_88_1) 2015; 21 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_51_1 Fuller T. K (e_1_2_9_2_7_1_105_1) 1990; 110 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_107_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_183_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_168_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_145_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_220_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_243_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_171_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_36_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_228_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_205_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_266_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_59_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_115_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_87_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_138_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_3_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_41_1 Dyksterhuis E. J (e_1_2_9_2_7_1_79_1) 1983; 5 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_153_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_199_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_130_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_176_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_259_1 Leon F. G. (e_1_2_9_2_7_1_152_1) 1987; 15 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_251_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_274_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_26_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_49_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_213_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_236_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_75_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_98_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_127_1 DeYoung R. W. (e_1_2_9_2_7_1_69_1) 2011 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_52_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_90_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_142_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_104_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_165_1 Mackie R. J. (e_1_2_9_2_7_1_157_1) 1990; 55 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_240_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_191_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_263_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_248_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_37_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_202_1 McBryde G. L (e_1_2_9_2_7_1_162_1) 1995; 23 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_225_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_116_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_139_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_2_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_42_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_80_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_131_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_154_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_177_1 Bartoskewitz M. L. (e_1_2_9_2_7_1_13_1) 2003; 31 Moore M. T. (e_1_2_9_2_7_1_178_1) 2014; 1 Jacobson H. A. (e_1_2_9_2_7_1_137_1) 1997; 25 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_180_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_252_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_237_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_275_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_27_1 Heffelfinger J. R (e_1_2_9_2_7_1_122_1) 2011 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_214_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_76_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_128_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_53_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_91_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_30_1 Baskin J. A. (e_1_2_9_2_7_1_14_1) 2007; 57 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_120_1 Fulbright T. E (e_1_2_9_2_7_1_101_1) 2001 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_143_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_189_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_192_1 Priesmeyer W. J. (e_1_2_9_2_7_1_200_1) 2012; 66 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_241_1 Garrido P. (e_1_2_9_2_7_1_111_1) 2014; 29 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_226_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_249_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_264_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_15_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_99_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_38_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_203_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_136_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_159_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_20_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_43_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_81_1 DeYoung C. A. (e_1_2_9_2_7_1_72_1) 1989; 17 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_174_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_5_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_113_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_197_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_211_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_234_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_257_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_219_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_272_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_66_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_28_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_89_1 Zaiglin R. E. (e_1_2_9_2_7_1_277_1) 1989; 3 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_125_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_148_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_31_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_54_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_92_1 Nixon C. M. (e_1_2_9_2_7_1_188_1) 1991; 118 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_140_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_163_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_186_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_223_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_269_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_208_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_261_1 Stevens J. W. (e_1_2_9_2_7_1_239_1) 1985 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_16_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_39_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_77_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_246_1 Blair W. F (e_1_2_9_2_7_1_18_1) 1950; 2 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_114_1 Norwine J. (e_1_2_9_2_7_1_190_1) 2007 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_82_1 Taylor R. B. (e_1_2_9_2_7_1_244_1) 1997; 42 Fulbright T. E (e_1_2_9_2_7_1_102_1) 2011 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_175_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_198_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_4_1 Littell R. C. (e_1_2_9_2_7_1_155_1) 2006 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_212_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_258_1 Lehmann V. W (e_1_2_9_2_7_1_151_1) 1969 National Research Council (e_1_2_9_2_7_1_185_1) 2007 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_250_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_67_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_273_1 Skalski J. R. (e_1_2_9_2_7_1_232_1) 2005 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_29_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_235_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_149_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_70_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_93_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_164_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_141_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_103_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_187_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_201_1 McCullough D. L (e_1_2_9_2_7_1_167_1) 1990; 55 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_209_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_262_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_55_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_78_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_224_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_247_1 e_1_2_9_2_7_1_17_1 |
| References_xml | – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_96_1 doi: 10.2307/3796954 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_143_1 doi: 10.1139/z94-068 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_99_1 doi: 10.2307/3801050 – volume: 15 start-page: 426 year: 1987 ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_152_1 article-title: Bias in age and sex composition of white‐tailed deer observed from helicopters publication-title: Wildlife Society Bulletin contributor: fullname: Leon F. G. – start-page: 35 volume-title: Proceedings of a symposium on managing wildlife in the Southwest year: 1990 ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_123_1 contributor: fullname: Heffelfinger J. R. – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_247_1 doi: 10.2193/2009-250 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_262_1 doi: 10.1139/z92-066 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_74_1 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_181_1 doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2656.2002.00655.x – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_34_1 doi: 10.2193/0022-541X(2005)069[0782:NETATE]2.0.CO;2 – volume: 118 start-page: 1 year: 1991 ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_188_1 article-title: Ecology of white‐tailed deer in an intensively farmed region of Illinois publication-title: Wildlife Monographs contributor: fullname: Nixon C. M. – volume-title: Wildlife demography: analysis of sex, age, and count data year: 2005 ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_232_1 contributor: fullname: Skalski J. R. – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_209_1 doi: 10.2307/1939852 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_110_1 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_231_1 doi: 10.1002/wmon.1010 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_141_1 doi: 10.2307/3670664 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_273_1 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_164_1 doi: 10.1002/jwmg.54 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_55_1 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_16_1 doi: 10.1007/BF00302563 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_229_1 doi: 10.1111/j.1442-9993.2012.02374.x – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_203_1 doi: 10.1016/S0921-4488(03)00143-3 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_7_1 doi: 10.1007/BF01012199 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_127_1 doi: 10.1201/9781482295986-7 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_144_1 doi: 10.1177/0013164403260196 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_213_1 doi: 10.1139/z00-008 – volume-title: Red deer, behavior and ecology of two sexes year: 1982 ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_45_1 contributor: fullname: Clutton‐Brock T. H. – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_212_1 doi: 10.1016/S0378-1127(03)00130-0 – volume: 16 start-page: 318 year: 1988 ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_65_1 article-title: Comparison of net‐gun and drive‐net capture for white‐tailed deer publication-title: Wildlife Society Bulletin contributor: fullname: DeYoung C. A – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_54_1 doi: 10.1002/jwmg.856 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_107_1 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_91_1 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0163592 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_81_1 doi: 10.2193/0091-7648(2004)032[0739:WDFPIM]2.0.CO;2 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_172_1 doi: 10.2307/3801185 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_117_1 doi: 10.1007/BF01880091 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_233_1 doi: 10.2193/2005-707 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_17_1 doi: 10.2193/2008-107 – start-page: 537 volume-title: Biology and management of white‐tailed deer year: 2011 ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_102_1 contributor: fullname: Fulbright T. E – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_119_1 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_28_1 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_43_1 doi: 10.1016/S0031-9422(97)01022-4 – volume-title: A history of vegetation on the Rio Grande Plain. Bulletin 45 year: 1964 ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_135_1 contributor: fullname: Inglis J – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_73_1 doi: 10.1644/08-MAMM-A-227.1 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_223_1 doi: 10.2307/3796089 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_67_1 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_160_1 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_41_1 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_177_1 doi: 10.1002/wmon.1011 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_257_1 doi: 10.1093/ansci/80.8.2099 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_6_1 doi: 10.2307/3897116 – volume: 21 start-page: 1 year: 2015 ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_88_1 article-title: Ajo Peak to Tinajas Altas: a flora of southwestern Arizona. Part 12 publication-title: Eudicots: Campanulaceae to Cucurbitaceae. Phytoneuron contributor: fullname: Felger R. S. – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_86_1 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_124_1 doi: 10.3957/056.040.0105 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_238_1 doi: 10.1515/9780691206790 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_132_1 doi: 10.1890/1051-0761(2003)013[0098:WTDIOT]2.0.CO;2 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_140_1 doi: 10.2307/3898222 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_129_1 doi: 10.2307/3802368 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_272_1 doi: 10.2134/agronj1944.00021962003600030003x – volume: 13 start-page: 146 year: 1985 ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_64_1 article-title: Accuracy of helicopter surveys of deer in south Texas publication-title: Wildlife Society Bulletin contributor: fullname: DeYoung C. A – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_168_1 doi: 10.2307/1383164 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_274_1 doi: 10.2193/0091-7648(2006)34[283:UUHDEO]2.0.CO;2 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_133_1 doi: 10.1890/1051-0761(1999)009[0798:OTRONC]2.0.CO;2 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_261_1 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_235_1 doi: 10.2307/3802896 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_52_1 doi: 10.2307/1380973 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_242_1 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_263_1 doi: 10.1007/s11284-006-0177-7 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_26_1 doi: 10.2193/0091-7648(2006)34[519:TNEAEA]2.0.CO;2 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_120_1 doi: 10.2307/3898379 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_251_1 doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.04.023 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_237_1 doi: 10.1086/285415 – start-page: 437 volume-title: Dynamics of large mammal populations year: 1981 ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_94_1 contributor: fullname: Fowler C. W – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_220_1 doi: 10.2307/3809345 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_248_1 doi: 10.1139/z05-090 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_142_1 doi: 10.1002/wsb.5 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_85_1 doi: 10.2307/3898426 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_78_1 doi: 10.2307/3893680 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_173_1 doi: 10.1201/EBK1584883340 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_121_1 doi: 10.2307/1940759 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_186_1 doi: 10.2307/3800983 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_197_1 doi: 10.1139/z98-032 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_48_1 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_278_1 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_219_1 doi: 10.1007/BF00378386 – volume: 110 start-page: 3 year: 1990 ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_105_1 article-title: Dynamics of a declining white‐tailed deer population in north‐central Minnesota publication-title: Wildlife Monographs contributor: fullname: Fuller T. K – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_271_1 doi: 10.2307/3803123 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_147_1 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_134_1 doi: 10.2307/1382747 – volume: 3 start-page: 39 year: 1989 ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_277_1 article-title: Supplemental feeding of free ranging deer in South Texas publication-title: Texas Journal of Agriculture and Natural Resources contributor: fullname: Zaiglin R. E. – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_27_1 doi: 10.2307/3898549 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_70_1 doi: 10.1002/wmon.1040 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_161_1 doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2013.11.037 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_176_1 doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1703.2004.00651.x – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_230_1 doi: 10.2193/2009-258 – volume: 42 start-page: 33 year: 1997 ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_244_1 article-title: Diet of feral hogs in the western South Texas Plains publication-title: Southwestern Naturalist contributor: fullname: Taylor R. B. – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_175_1 doi: 10.1071/WR15025 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_193_1 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_187_1 doi: 10.21423/twj.v3i1.6463 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_109_1 doi: 10.1016/j.rama.2016.06.002 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_59_1 doi: 10.1139/z02-149 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_249_1 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_82_1 doi: 10.2307/3899515 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_63_1 doi: 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2009.07.010 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_150_1 doi: 10.1016/S0140-1963(18)30521-4 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_214_1 doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2010.05.020 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_10_1 doi: 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2010.03.001 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_33_1 doi: 10.2134/agronj1971.00021962006300060036x – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_218_1 doi: 10.2307/4003071 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_118_1 – volume: 100 start-page: 550 year: 2014 ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_21_1 article-title: Density dependence in ungulates: a review of causes and concepts with some clarifications publication-title: California Fish and Game contributor: fullname: Bowyer R. T. – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_158_1 doi: 10.1007/s00442-005-0065-9 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_100_1 doi: 10.1111/j.1654-109X.2001.tb00486.x – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_40_1 doi: 10.2307/1940583 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_206_1 doi: 10.1139/f58-054 – volume: 55 start-page: 518 year: 1990 ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_157_1 article-title: Compensation in free‐ranging deer populations publication-title: Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference contributor: fullname: Mackie R. J. – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_115_1 doi: 10.2307/3897799 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_169_1 doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0706.2003.12098.x – volume-title: Nutrient requirements of small ruminants: sheep, goats, cervids, and New World camelids year: 2007 ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_185_1 contributor: fullname: National Research Council – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_221_1 doi: 10.2307/3897156 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_259_1 doi: 10.1890/05-0355 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_243_1 doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2699.2002.00799.x – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_146_1 doi: 10.2307/3897012 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_136_1 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_258_1 doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2005.09.012 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_192_1 doi: 10.1890/12-0878.1 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_19_1 doi: 10.1136/bmj.312.7033.770 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_267_1 doi: 10.1080/00063659909477239 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_20_1 doi: 10.1016/S0065-2504(09)00405-X – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_171_1 doi: 10.2307/3546897 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_216_1 doi: 10.1674/0003-0031(2001)146[0001:EOWTDO]2.0.CO;2 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_254_1 doi: 10.1016/j.smallrumres.2012.11.033 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_2_1 doi: 10.2307/3798904 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_71_1 doi: 10.1002/wmon.1040 – volume: 1 start-page: 127 year: 2014 ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_178_1 article-title: Evaluation of population estimates of white‐tailed deer from camera survey publication-title: Journal of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies contributor: fullname: Moore M. T. – volume: 2 start-page: 93 year: 1950 ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_18_1 article-title: The biotic provinces of Texas publication-title: Texas Journal of Science contributor: fullname: Blair W. F – volume: 57 start-page: 37 year: 2007 ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_14_1 article-title: South Texas and the great American interchange publication-title: Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions contributor: fullname: Baskin J. A. – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_93_1 doi: 10.1890/ES14-00196.1 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_39_1 doi: 10.1073/pnas.0509606102 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_139_1 doi: 10.2307/1383271 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_275_1 doi: 10.2307/3800403 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_8_1 doi: 10.2307/3801981 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_98_1 doi: 10.1007/0-387-33745-8 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_179_1 doi: 10.2307/1297607 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_228_1 doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511615740 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_256_1 doi: 10.2527/2002.80123154x – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_57_1 doi: 10.22621/cfn.v118i3.13 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_77_1 doi: 10.2307/1940255 – volume-title: Soil survey of Dimmit and Zavala counties year: 1985 ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_239_1 contributor: fullname: Stevens J. W. – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_184_1 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_11_1 doi: 10.2307/4003045 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_252_1 doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2010.02.002 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_108_1 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_149_1 doi: 10.2307/1382294 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_240_1 doi: 10.2981/10-122 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_241_1 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_24_1 doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2664.2003.00837.x – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_58_1 doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511617461 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_145_1 doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2010.11.026 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_174_1 doi: 10.1002/jwmg.798 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_4_1 doi: 10.2307/2845377 – volume: 29 start-page: 234 year: 2014 ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_111_1 article-title: Natural forage composition decreases deer browsing on Picea abies around supplemental feeding sites publication-title: Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research contributor: fullname: Garrido P. – volume: 143 start-page: 1 year: 1999 ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_195_1 article-title: Energy and protein balance of free‐ranging black‐tailed deer in a natural forest environment publication-title: Wildlife Monographs contributor: fullname: Parker K. L. – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_90_1 doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2656.2003.00735.x – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_25_1 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_103_1 doi: 10.1016/j.actao.2010.10.007 – start-page: 203 volume-title: Wildlife science: linking ecological theory and management applications year: 2008 ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_68_1 contributor: fullname: DeYoung C. A. – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_128_1 doi: 10.1139/z96-236 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_84_1 doi: 10.2307/3803183 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_225_1 doi: 10.2307/3808821 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_61_1 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_31_1 doi: 10.2111/1551-5028(2005)58<58:NVOGAA>2.0.CO;2 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_56_1 doi: 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.35.021103.105725 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_156_1 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0084364 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_180_1 doi: 10.2307/1941918 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_253_1 doi: 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2004.11.015 – volume: 39 start-page: 388 year: 1941 ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_32_1 article-title: Application of the line interception method in sampling range vegetation publication-title: Journal of Forestry contributor: fullname: Canfield R. H – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_165_1 doi: 10.1175/1520-0493(1984)112<0934:ASMOEN>2.0.CO;2 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_183_1 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_255_1 doi: 10.1007/s10886-005-0979-z – volume-title: Plant indicators: the relation of plant communities to process and practice year: 1920 ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_44_1 contributor: fullname: Clements F. E – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_182_1 doi: 10.2307/1552083 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_113_1 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_23_1 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_138_1 doi: 10.2193/0022-541X(2005)069<0356:PDCRIW>2.0.CO;2 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_49_1 doi: 10.2307/3799870 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_60_1 doi: 10.2193/2006-293 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_163_1 doi: 10.2307/4002702 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_211_1 doi: 10.1007/s11258-008-9489-8 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_201_1 doi: 10.1007/BF02033798 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_236_1 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_38_1 doi: 10.2307/3545094 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_189_1 – volume-title: Forgotten legions: sheep in the Rio Grande Plain of Texas year: 1969 ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_151_1 contributor: fullname: Lehmann V. W – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_29_1 doi: 10.2193/0091-7648(2005)33[381:CWRINA]2.0.CO;2 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_131_1 doi: 10.2307/3800880 – volume: 17 start-page: 275 year: 1989 ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_72_1 article-title: Improving estimates of abundance of white‐tailed deer obtained from helicopter surveys publication-title: Wildlife Society Bulletin contributor: fullname: DeYoung C. A. – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_106_1 doi: 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.31.1.367 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_245_1 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_270_1 doi: 10.2307/1218190 – volume: 121 start-page: 1 year: 1992 ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_12_1 article-title: Compensatory mortality in a Colorado mule deer population publication-title: Wildlife Monographs contributor: fullname: Bartmann R. M. – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_50_1 doi: 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2005.11.015 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_246_1 doi: 10.1007/BF00379558 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_114_1 doi: 10.2307/3803163 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_207_1 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_35_1 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_205_1 doi: 10.1007/s10344-008-0199-2 – volume: 23 start-page: 497 year: 1995 ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_162_1 article-title: Economics of supplemental feeding and food plots for white‐tailed deer publication-title: Wildlife Society Bulletin contributor: fullname: McBryde G. L – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_92_1 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_198_1 doi: 10.1644/12-MAMM-A-014.1 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_196_1 doi: 10.5194/hessd-4-439-2007 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_226_1 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_154_1 doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2009.06.009 – volume-title: SAS for mixed models year: 2006 ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_155_1 contributor: fullname: Littell R. C. – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_87_1 doi: 10.2307/3898131 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_264_1 doi: 10.1007/BF00044949 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_217_1 doi: 10.2307/4002471 – volume: 66 start-page: 107 year: 2012 ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_200_1 article-title: Does supplemental feeding of deer degrade vegetation? A literature review publication-title: Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies contributor: fullname: Priesmeyer W. J. – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_276_1 doi: 10.7589/0090-3558-13.3.281 – start-page: 166 volume-title: Changing plant life in La Frontera year: 2001 ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_101_1 contributor: fullname: Fulbright T. E – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_42_1 doi: 10.1016/S0031-9422(97)00240-9 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_148_1 doi: 10.2981/wlb.00073 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_89_1 doi: 10.1139/z03-054 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_208_1 doi: 10.2307/1938809 – volume: 29 start-page: 99 year: 2001 ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_9_1 article-title: Deer‐predator relationships: a review of recent North American studies with emphasis on mule and black‐tailed deer publication-title: Wildlife Society Bulletin contributor: fullname: Ballard W. B. – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_47_1 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_224_1 doi: 10.1093/biomet/52.3-4.591 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_130_1 doi: 10.2307/3801716 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_83_1 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_36_1 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_97_1 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0115843 – volume: 55 start-page: 534 year: 1990 ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_167_1 article-title: Detecting density dependence: filtering the baby from the bathwater publication-title: Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference contributor: fullname: McCullough D. L – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_153_1 doi: 10.2981/wlb.13048 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_210_1 doi: 10.2307/4003953 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_80_1 doi: 10.1016/j.smallrumres.2005.12.013 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_215_1 doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2005.02.035 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_104_1 – volume: 31 start-page: 1218 year: 2003 ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_13_1 article-title: Supplemental feed use by white‐tailed deer in Southern Texas publication-title: Wildlife Society Bulletin contributor: fullname: Bartoskewitz M. L. – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_95_1 doi: 10.2307/1937727 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_227_1 doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2014.02.026 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_125_1 doi: 10.3377/004.048.0205 – volume: 28 start-page: 169 year: 1979 ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_265_1 article-title: Elements of a theory of vegetation dynamics in arid rangelands publication-title: Israel Journal of Botany contributor: fullname: Westoby M – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_260_1 doi: 10.1007/s10144-008-0095-3 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_234_1 doi: 10.2307/4484 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_116_1 doi: 10.1002/jwmg.450 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_170_1 doi: 10.1007/s10886-006-9081-4 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_222_1 doi: 10.1007/s00442-010-1610-8 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_204_1 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2907.2004.00044.x – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_66_1 doi: 10.2307/3809171 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_266_1 – start-page: 3 volume-title: Biology and management of white‐tailed deer year: 2011 ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_122_1 contributor: fullname: Heffelfinger J. R – start-page: 311 volume-title: Biology and management of white‐tailed deer year: 2011 ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_69_1 contributor: fullname: DeYoung R. W. – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_202_1 doi: 10.1016/j.smallrumres.2009.12.035 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_37_1 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_159_1 doi: 10.2981/wlb.00019 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_3_1 doi: 10.1086/284996 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_191_1 doi: 10.2307/2258730 – volume: 6 start-page: 7 year: 1967 ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_22_1 article-title: Brush, fire, and West Texas rangeland publication-title: Proceedings of the Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference contributor: fullname: Box T. W – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_62_1 doi: 10.2307/1948472 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_199_1 doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7998.1998.tb00101.x – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_75_1 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_51_1 doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0706.2003.11792.x – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_268_1 doi: 10.2193/0022-541X(2006)70[1521:MSMATE]2.0.CO;2 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_269_1 doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2011.12.043 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_194_1 doi: 10.2307/5021 – volume-title: Great plains conservation program: 25 years of accomplishment year: 1981 ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_126_1 contributor: fullname: Helms D – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_46_1 doi: 10.1002/wmon.1020 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_250_1 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_76_1 doi: 10.1002/jwmg.606 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_112_1 doi: 10.2307/3802741 – volume: 5 start-page: 270 year: 1983 ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_79_1 article-title: Habitat type—a review publication-title: Rangelands contributor: fullname: Dyksterhuis E. J – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_5_1 doi: 10.2307/1942463 – volume: 25 start-page: 547 year: 1997 ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_137_1 article-title: Infrared triggered cameras for censusing white‐tailed deer publication-title: Wildlife Society Bulletin contributor: fullname: Jacobson H. A. – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_53_1 doi: 10.1016/S0006-3207(99)00129-9 – volume-title: The George Reserve deer herd: population ecology of a K‐selected species year: 1979 ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_166_1 contributor: fullname: McCullough D. L – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_15_1 doi: 10.2307/3800056 – ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_30_1 doi: 10.1894/0038-4909(2004)049<0367:MMBWDF>2.0.CO;2 – volume-title: The changing climate of South Texas 1900‐2100; problems and prospects, impacts and implications year: 2007 ident: e_1_2_9_2_7_1_190_1 contributor: fullname: Norwine J. |
| SSID | ssj0031059 |
| Score | 2.3095224 |
| Snippet | Density-dependent behavior underpins white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) theory and management application in North America, but strength or frequency... ABSTRACT Density‐dependent behavior underpins white‐tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) theory and management application in North America, but strength or... Density‐dependent behavior underpins white‐tailed deer ( Odocoileus virginianus ) theory and management application in North America, but strength or frequency... Density‐dependent behavior underpins white‐tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) theory and management application in North America, but strength or frequency... |
| SourceID | proquest crossref wiley jstor |
| SourceType | Aggregation Database Publisher |
| StartPage | 1 |
| SubjectTerms | Age Annual precipitation Arid environments Aridity Autumn Body mass Cacti Cactus Canopies Chronology Coefficient of variation Deer Density Density dependence Diet Drought Dry matter Enclosures Enrichment Environmental quality Experimental design Females Fitness Flowers Foraging behavior Forbs Grasses Growth rate Habitats Herbivory Home range Isotopes Males Media Nutrition Nutrition research Odocoileus virginianus Pelleted feeds Plant communities Plant protection Plants (botany) Population decline Population growth Populations Precipitation Protectors Proteins Quality Researchers Sampling Seasons selective foraging Sex ratio Shrubs South Texas Species richness Stable isotopes stochasticity supplemental feeding Survival Variables Vegetation vegetation dynamics Wildlife Winter |
| SummonAdditionalLinks | – databaseName: JSTOR Biological Sciences dbid: JBS link: http://sdu.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwjV3PS8MwFH64gaAHf0zF6ZQgCh5W1jZJmx6H29hBdtnU4aUkTTIF6WQ_8N83SVt1h4GX0ENpyntN3vdev_cF4DbmSUyp8L1MZaFHmC88Ic1AWEiopFhJZWu6w3E8mrJe38rk3FW9MJZW6XiB7i--AUjiQ3XCyCxZgxxqUGMBKRoUqu0WW4Dgtltm6RQxruSD_LDzZT1p8g1_I-gUvMMNRPkXl7rAMjj85ysdwUGJHFG3cPUx7Ki8Afvd2aJUz1AN2H2duyr5CUwfizMRkDsAz5twM7NEPaUWZsgtD6ONRpUQfxvxXKJnNSuph-g9RxyNV_PsjVsZZ9T_7YY7hadBf_Iw9MpDFLzMlnQ8nTAmKNGhYqHQAeO-MlbKAi61iM02qbEBWUIwoYmOIhOxo0hTJgPCg4xGicBnUM_nuToHFOFMhiajwlokJMJKxImmQkuT8QUZUbgJN5WV089CKyMtVJHD1Loita5owpkz5s8dlSWb0KockpbraJkacOgn2HbTNuHeOWn7k9MXE4XsxcW2KS5hz-CdpGDbtqC-WqzVFdSWcn3tvqlvNUrHRw priority: 102 providerName: JSTOR |
| Title | Linking White-Tailed Deer Density, Nutrition, and Vegetation in a Stochastic Environment |
| URI | https://www.jstor.org/stable/26762416 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/wmon.1040 https://www.proquest.com/docview/2260934588 |
| Volume | 202 |
| hasFullText | 1 |
| inHoldings | 1 |
| isFullTextHit | |
| isPrint | |
| link | http://sdu.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwpV07T8MwED5BJSQYeBQqAqWyEANDI5o4Tpyxoq06oAqp5aEukR3bhSVFfYiVn8Bv5JdgO0lpByQkFiuD89Cdfffd5e4zwFXE4ogQ3nJTmfpuQFvc5UIPAfUDIgiWQpqcbn8YDZ5pp2toclZHfeX8EKuEm9kZ1l6bDc74vPiv79-8GyXpUMJE6zpGsM0b-L60wdigBmuDqamxiHDJKbR-54YnyosRN2DmOli13qZ38I_vPIT9AmKidr4mjmBLZlXYa09mBc2GrMLOeGrT6ccwvssPT0D2pLyvj88R028RqCPlTA-ZKdlookHJ2d9ELBPoUU6KKkX0miGGhotp-sIM4zPq_jTOncBDrzu67bvFeQtuarI_roop5SRQvqQ-Vx5lLalll3pMKB5pi6qwxmOcU64CFYbauYehIlR4AfNSEsYc16CSTTN5CijEqfB18IUVj4MQSx7FinAldHDopYHEDlyWsk_eclqNJCdQ9hMjssSIzIGa1cpqhh9q060RpAP1Uk1JseXmicaRrRibxlsHrq1Cfn9y8qQdlrk4-_vUc9jVYCnOS3XrUFnMlvICtudi2bBrr2H7Zhq2qPQbZNLeLQ |
| link.rule.ids | 315,782,786,808,814,1408,27933,27934,58034,58037,58267,58270 |
| linkProvider | Wiley-Blackwell |
| linkToHtml | http://sdu.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwjV3PS8MwFH64iagHf0yH06lBFDysrG2aNj0OtzFx7rKpw0tpmmQK0sl-4L9vkrbqDgMvoYfSlPea976k3_sewHUQhwEhzLYSkbiWR21mMa4Gj7oe4QQLLvSZbm8YDMa03dEyOTdFLYymVRpeoPmLrwAS-xBN11dLViGHEmwSauMgY-4VARdriGACLtWEigAXAkK22_zSvlQ7Dnsl7WTMwxVM-ReZmtTS3f_nSx3AXo4dUStz9iFsiLQCu63JLNfPEBXYep2ac_IjGPezrgjItMCzRrGamaO2EDM1pJqJ0UCDQoq_geKUo2cxycmH6D1FMRoupslbrIWcUee3Hu4Ynrqd0V3PytsoWIk-1LFkSCkjnnQFdZl0aGwLZaXEiblkgQqUEiuYxRhl0pO-r3K270tCuePFTkL8kOEqlNNpKk4A-TjhrtpTYclCz8eCBaEkTHK153MST-AaXBVWjj4ztYwo00V2I-2KSLuiBlVjzJ87CkvWoF44JMpX0jxS8NAOsa6nrcGtcdL6J0cvKg_pi9N1U1zCdm_02I_694OHM9hR6CfMuLd1KC9mS3EOpTlfXpjv6xv85Mqx |
| linkToPdf | http://sdu.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwlV3NS8MwFH84RdGDH9Ph_AziQWFlbdKk6XG4DUUZgvMDL6VpkilIJ9vEf98kbdUdPHgJPZSmvNe890v6e78HcBqlcUSp8L1MZdgLuS88Ic0QchxSSYmSyp7pXt5Fgyfe7VmZnPOqFsbSKh0v0P3FNwBJvKn2u9RtzMyyNeihBkuU48gv2HtV0CUWJrigyy2pIiKViJCP25_Wn2bX4c-lnoJ9OIcrf6NTl176G_94sU1YLzEk6hRO34IFlddhrTOalDoaqg7Lz2N3Xr4NTzdFdwTkWuF5w9TMLlFXqYkZcsvIaKFBJcnfQmku0YMalSRE9JqjFN3NxtlLagWdUe-nLm4H7vu94cWlV7ZT8DJ7uOPpmHNBQ40Vx0IHPPWVsVQWpFKLyARMTQzcEoILHWrGTO5mTFMugzANMspiQRqwmI9ztQuIkUxis7ciWsQhI0pEsaZCS7P3C7JQkSacVJZO3gvVjKTQR8aJdUdi3dGEhjPo9x2VJZtwUDklKVfUNDEw0Y-Jrattwplz1N9PTh5NPrIXe39NcQwrt91-cnM1uN6HVQOC4oKCewCLs8mHOoTaVH4cuU_sC7LUzS4 |
| openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Linking+White%E2%80%90Tailed+Deer+Density%2C+Nutrition%2C+and+Vegetation+in+a+Stochastic+Environment&rft.jtitle=Wildlife+monographs&rft.au=DeYoung%2C+Charles+A.&rft.au=Fulbright%2C+Timothy+E.&rft.au=Hewitt%2C+David+G.&rft.au=Wester%2C+David+B.&rft.date=2019-07-01&rft.issn=0084-0173&rft.eissn=1938-5455&rft.volume=202&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=1&rft.epage=63&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002%2Fwmon.1040&rft.externalDocID=WMON1040 |
| thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=0084-0173&client=summon |
| thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=0084-0173&client=summon |
| thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=0084-0173&client=summon |