Knowledge Resource Center for Ecological Environment in Arid Area
DOI | 10.1002/jwmg.163 |
Does Small-Perimeter Fencing Inhibit Mule Deer or Pronghorn Use of Water Developments? | |
Larsen, Randy T.1,2; Bissonette, John A.3; Flinders, Jerran T.1; Robinson, Aaron C.4 | |
通讯作者 | Larsen, Randy T. |
来源期刊 | JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT
![]() |
ISSN | 0022-541X |
出版年 | 2011 |
卷号 | 75期号:6页码:1417-1425 |
英文摘要 | Wildlife water development can be an important habitat management strategy in western North America for many species, including both pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus). In many areas, water developments are fenced (often with small-perimeter fencing) to exclude domestic livestock and feral horses. Small-perimeter exclosures could limit wild ungulate use of fenced water sources, as exclosures present a barrier pronghorn and mule deer must negotiate to gain access to fenced drinking water. To evaluate the hypothesis that exclosures limit wild ungulate access to water sources, we compared use (photo counts) of fenced versus unfenced water sources for both pronghorn and mule deer between June and October 2002-2008 in western Utah. We used model selection to identify an adequate distribution and best approximating model. We selected a zero-inflated negative binomial distribution for both pronghorn and mule deer photo counts. Both pronghorn and mule deer photo counts were positively associated with sampling time and average daily maximum temperature in top models. A fence effect was present in top models for both pronghorn and mule deer, but mule deer response to small-perimeter fencing was much more pronounced than pronghorn response. For mule deer, we estimated that presence of a fence around water developments reduced photo counts by a factor of 0.25. We suggest eliminating fencing of water developments whenever possible or fencing a big enough area around water sources to avoid inhibiting mule deer. More generally, our results provide additional evidence that water development design and placement influence wildlife use. Failure to account for species-specific preferences will limit effectiveness of management actions and could compromise research results. (c) 2011 The Wildlife Society. |
英文关键词 | exclosure guzzler negative binomial water development zero-inflated |
类型 | Article |
语种 | 英语 |
国家 | USA |
收录类别 | SCI-E |
WOS记录号 | WOS:000293787100016 |
WOS关键词 | SOUTHERN ARIZONA ; SITE SELECTION ; BIGHORN SHEEP ; DESERT ; WILDLIFE ; PRODUCTIVITY ; HYPOTHESES ; PATTERNS ; DESIGN ; MODELS |
WOS类目 | Ecology ; Zoology |
WOS研究方向 | Environmental Sciences & Ecology ; Zoology |
来源机构 | United States Geological Survey |
资源类型 | 期刊论文 |
条目标识符 | http://119.78.100.177/qdio/handle/2XILL650/169522 |
作者单位 | 1.Brigham Young Univ, Plant & Wildlife Sci Dept, Provo, UT 84602 USA; 2.ML Bean Life Sci Museum, Provo, UT 84602 USA; 3.Utah State Univ, USGS Utah Cooperat Fish & Wildlife Unit, Dept Wildland Resources, Logan, UT 84322 USA; 4.N Dakota Game & Fish Dept, Dickinson, ND 58601 USA |
推荐引用方式 GB/T 7714 | Larsen, Randy T.,Bissonette, John A.,Flinders, Jerran T.,et al. Does Small-Perimeter Fencing Inhibit Mule Deer or Pronghorn Use of Water Developments?[J]. United States Geological Survey,2011,75(6):1417-1425. |
APA | Larsen, Randy T.,Bissonette, John A.,Flinders, Jerran T.,&Robinson, Aaron C..(2011).Does Small-Perimeter Fencing Inhibit Mule Deer or Pronghorn Use of Water Developments?.JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT,75(6),1417-1425. |
MLA | Larsen, Randy T.,et al."Does Small-Perimeter Fencing Inhibit Mule Deer or Pronghorn Use of Water Developments?".JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 75.6(2011):1417-1425. |
条目包含的文件 | 条目无相关文件。 |
除非特别说明,本系统中所有内容都受版权保护,并保留所有权利。