Table 8.2. Relationships of summer home range size and mobility of non- 

 migratory adult females to various potentially influencing 

 factors . 



N a 



PHR D 



AAR C 



With fawns 

 Without fawns 



1976-78 (ave. density 1.1/km 2 ) 



1979-80 (ave. density 1.7/km 2 ) 



1981-82 (ave. density 2.5/km 2 ) 



1983-84 (ave. density 2.9/km 2 ) 



Without fawns 1979-80, 1.7/km 2 

 Without fawns 1983-84, 2.9/km 2 



Poor forage prod. 

 Med. forage prod. 

 Good forage prod. 



(1977,80,84) 

 (1976,81,83) 

 (1978,79,82) 



With fawns-poor forage prod. 

 With fawns-good forage prod. 



1-year-old females 

 2-year-old females 

 3-year-old females 

 4+year-old females 



a number of adult females 

 b km 2 

 c km 



We tested the assumption that home range size and average 

 movements should decrease as forage became more abundant 

 (Table 8.2). Forage production as measured by clipped plots 

 fell into 3 general levels; poor (1977, 1980, and 1984), 

 medium (1976, 1981, and 1983), and good (1978, 1979, and 

 1982). Although home ranges generally were smaller during 

 good forage years than during poor forage years, the 

 difference was not statistically significant for PHR (K-W, 

 X 2 =2.94, P=0.23, df=2) or AAR (K-W, X*=0.97, P=0.62, df=2). 



Females that had fawns during years of good forage 

 production did not have smaller home ranges than those that 

 had fawns during a poor forage production year (Table 8.2; 

 PHR, Rank Sum=67.0, P=0.96; AAR, Rank Sum=76.5, P=0.40). 



Data in Table 8.2 indicated decreasing PHR size with 

 increasing age, but no consistent relationship between AAR and 



215 



