Variation in movement patterns of mule deer: have we oversimplified migration?

Madelon van de Kerk; Randy T Larsen; Daniel D Olson; Kent R Hersey; Brock R McMillan

doi:10.1186/s40462-021-00281-7

Variation in movement patterns of mule deer: have we oversimplified migration?

Mov Ecol. 2021 Aug 26;9(1):44. doi: 10.1186/s40462-021-00281-7.

Authors

Madelon van de Kerk^{1

2}, Randy T Larsen³, Daniel D Olson⁴, Kent R Hersey⁴, Brock R McMillan³

Affiliations

¹ Department of Plant and Wildlife Sciences, Brigham Young University, 4105 Life Sciences Building, Provo, UT, 84602, USA. mvandekerk@western.edu.
² School of Environment and Sustainability, Western Colorado University, Kelley Hall 144, Gunnison, CO, 81231, USA. mvandekerk@western.edu.
³ Department of Plant and Wildlife Sciences, Brigham Young University, 4105 Life Sciences Building, Provo, UT, 84602, USA.
⁴ Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, 1594 W North Temple, Suite 2110, Salt Lake City, UT, 84114, USA.

Abstract

Background: Conservation and management of migratory animals has gained attention in recent years, but the majority of research has focused on stereotypical 'migrant' and 'resident' behaviors, often failing to incorporate any atypical behaviors or characterize migratory behaviors beyond distance and timing of the migration. With migration threatened by anthropogenic development and climate change, it is crucial that we understand the full range of migratory behaviors. Our objective was to demonstrate and characterize the variation in migration strategies, including typical and atypical migratory behaviors for mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) in Utah, USA.

Methods: Because calculation of common metrics such as distance, timing, and use of stopovers during migration did not adequately describe the variation we observed in migratory behavior for this species-particularly when animals visited multiple (> 3) ranges for extended lengths of time-we developed additional methods and categories to describe observed variation in migratory behavior. We first categorized trajectories based on the number of discrete, separate ranges and range shifts between them. Then, we further characterized the variation in migration strategies by examining the timing, duration, and distance traveled within each of the categories. We also examined if and how frequently individual deer switched among categories from year to year.

Results: We classified 1218 movement trajectories from 722 adult female mule deer, and found that 54.4% were dual-range migrants, who made one round-trip to one distinct range. Multi-range migrants (23.6%) made one round-trip during which they stayed at multiple discrete ranges. Commuters (1.0%) traveled to the same range multiple times, and poly migrants (1.5%) made multiple round-trips to different ranges. Gradual movers (2.5%) did not show a discrete range shift but moved gradually between ranges, whereas residents (12.6%) never left their home ranges, and dispersers (4.4%) left but never returned. Of the deer that we monitored for multiple years, 51.2% switched among categories.

Conclusion: We conclude that the substantial number of atypical migratory strategies, as well as the number of deer that switched categories, underlines the importance of studying these less-stereotyped behaviors that may be exhibited by large proportions of populations. Acknowledging and investigating the full complexity and diversity in migratory strategies might uncover unknowns with respect to underlying factors and drivers of migration, and can help shape effective conservation strategies.

Keywords: Migration; Migratory continuum; Movement patterns; Mule deer; Net squared displacement; Odocoileus hemionus.