fewest relocations (22), her PHR was twice as large (9.35 



km 2 ) 



Factors Affecting Home Range Size and Use 



Migratory deer had larger home ranges than resident deer, 

 but we also examined the influence of deer density, sex and 

 age of deer, fawning status of females, forage production, and 

 habitat on home range size. Additionally, non-quantifiable 

 influences such as tradition and chance were considered. 



Both PHR and AAR were significantly larger (Mann-Whitney 

 tests, all P's <0.01) for adult males than for all adult 

 females, annually and seasonally (Table 8.1). The home range 

 size for a stag (castrated or non-descended testicles) was 

 intermediate to those of adult females and adult males, but 

 closer in size to those of adult males (Table 8.1). 



To reduce variability, we used only yearlong resident 

 females to test the effect of reproductive status on home 

 range and movements. Females with fawns were not as mobile as 

 those without fawns (Table 8.2). Females with fawns that 

 survived throughout summer had a significantly smaller mean 

 PHR (2.34 km 2 , n=23) than those without fawns (4.50 km 2 , n=27; 

 M-W Rank Sum = 369.0, P<0.01). Mean AAR also was 

 significantly smaller (M-W Rank Sum = 418.5, P<0.01) for 

 females with fawns (0.72 km) than for females without fawns 

 (0.92 km). Because this relationship occurred across all 

 years, densities, forage conditions, habitats, and age 

 classes, the presence of f awns-at-side overrode all other 

 factors in determining the home range size of adult females. 



Our data did not support the assumption that females 

 would have smaller home ranges as density increased_ (Table 

 8.2). Four density classes were chosen; 1976-78 (X = 310 

 adult females, range 290-335)_, 1979-80 (X - 488 adult females, 

 range 425-550), 1981-82 (X = 690 adult females, range 

 680-700), and 1983-84 (X = 775 adult females, range 760-790). 

 Summer home range size of resident adult females was not 

 significantly different among density classes (Kruskal-Wallis; 

 PHR (X 2 =3.43, P=0.33, df=3) and AAR (X 2 =0.08, P=0.99, df=3)]. 



For most categories, sample size was too small to 

 partition the effect of reproductive status and density. A 

 sufficient sample was available to compare only resident 

 females that did not have fawns in 1979-80 (Table 8.2, n=7, 

 mean density = 488 females) to those that did not have fawns 

 in 1983-84 (n=10, mean density = 775 females) . Neither PHR (X = 

 4.32 km 2 and 4.29 km 2 ) nor AAR (X = 0.94 km and 0.89 km) were 

 significantly different for 1979-80 and 1983-84, respectively 

 (Mann-Whitney, Rank Sum =72.0 P=0.41; Rank Sum=64 . , P=0.96). 



213 



