Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Mammalia

Editor-in-Chief: Denys, Christiane


IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 0.732
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.794

CiteScore 2018: 0.91

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.434
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.665

Online
ISSN
1864-1547
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 83, Issue 6

Issues

Reproductive senescence in free-ranging North American elk Cervus elaphus Cervidae

Louis C. Bender
  • Corresponding author
  • Extension Animal Sciences and Natural Resources, New Mexico State University, P.O. Box 30003 MSC 3AE, Las Cruces, NM, USA
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Jessica R. Piasecke
  • Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, New Mexico State University, P.O. Box 30003 MSC 3001, Las Cruces, NM, USA
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2019-03-07 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/mammalia-2018-0076

Abstract

Successful production of calves is necessary for growth of North American elk (Cervus elaphus Linnaeus 1758) populations, but few studies have evaluated age-related effects on both the conception and survival of a calf to weaning in multiple free-ranging populations. Conception and survival of calves to weaning were both affected by maternal age, with old (age 9 and older) females showing reproductive senescence as compared to prime-aged (ages 2–8) females despite achieving similar or greater size and condition. Reproductive senescence in our free-ranging populations ultimately resulted in old females weaning fewer calves (0.42 calves/female) than did prime-aged females (0.64 calves/female). Other factors, especially maternal size, also influenced conception and survival to weaning, and these interacted with age in a consistent manner, i.e. larger females or females in better condition were more likely to conceive and successfully wean calves within each age class. Female age structure receives less consideration in ungulate management than does male age structure, despite demonstrated impacts on population productivity of multiple species because of reproductive senescence. Because of the large proportion of individuals in senesced age classes in elk populations, low productivity in populations may simply reflect female age structure, rather than other frequently hypothesized factors.

Keywords: age; calf survival; Cervus elaphus; conception; elk; fecundity; reproduction; size

References

  • Arman, P., W.J. Hamilton and G.A.M. Sharman. 1978. Observations on the calving of free-ranging tame red deer (Cervus elaphus). J. Repro. Fertil. 37: 87–90.Google Scholar

  • Bender, L.C. 2019. Age structure and population dynamics. In: (B.D. Fath, ed.) Encyclopedia of ecology, 2nd Edition, vol 1. Elsevier B.V., Oxford, UK. pp. 135–143.Google Scholar

  • Bender, L.C. and J.G. Cook. 2005. Nutritional condition of elk in Rocky Mountain National Park. West. North Am. Nat. 65: 329–334.Google Scholar

  • Bender, L.C. and B.D. Hoenes. 2018. Age-related fecundity of mule deer in south-central New Mexico. Mammalia 82: 124–132.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bender, L.C. and J.R. Piasecke. 2010. Population demographics and dynamics of colonizing elk in a desert grassland-scrubland. J. Fish Wildl. Manage. 1: 152–160.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bender, L.C., G.J. Roloff and J.B. Haufler. 1996. Evaluating confidence intervals for habitat suitability models. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 24: 347–352.Google Scholar

  • Bender, L.C., E. Carlson, S.M. Schmitt and J.B. Haufler. 2002. Production and survival of elk (Cervus elaphus) calves in Michigan. Am. Midl. Nat. 148: 163–171.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bender, L.C., E. Carlson, S.M. Schmitt and J.B. Haufler. 2003. Body mass and antler development patterns of Rocky Mountain elk (Cervus elaphus nelsoni) in Michigan. Am. Midl. Nat. 150: 169–180.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bender, L.C., M. Davison, J.G. Cook, P.B. Hall and R.C. Cook. 2006. Assessing elk population status and potential performance in the Nooksack herd area, Washington. Northwest. Nat. 87: 98–106.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bender, L.C., J.G. Cook, R.C. Cook and P.B. Hall. 2008. Relations between nutritional condition and survival of elk in the Pacific Northwest. Wildl. Bio. 14: 70–80.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bender, L.C., O.C. Rosas-Rosas, C.L. Rodden, M.E. Weisenberger, P.C. Morrow and M.J. Hartsough. 2019. Compensatory predation and additive human-related mortality on adult female elk in New Mexico, Southwestern USA. In: Cervus elaphus: habitat, behavior, and conservation. Nova, Happauge, New York, NY. pp. In press.Google Scholar

  • Bertouille, S.B. and S.A. de Crombrugghe. 2002. Fertility of red deer in relation to area, age, body mass, and mandible length. Zeit. für Jagd. 48 (supplement): 87–98.Google Scholar

  • Bingham, C.M., P.R. Wilson and A.S. Davies. 1990. Real-time ultrasonography for pregnancy diagnosis and estimation of fetal age in farmed red deer. Vet. Rec. 126: 102–106.Google Scholar

  • Burnham, K.P. and D.R. Anderson. 1998. Model selection and inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.Google Scholar

  • Cheatum, E.L. and J.E. Gaab. 1952. Productivity of north Yellowstone elk as indicated by ovary analysis. Proc. West. Assoc. State Game Fish Comm. 32: 174–177.Google Scholar

  • Clutton-Brock, T.H., F.E. Guinness and S.D. Albon. 1982. Red deer: behavior and ecology of two sexes. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar

  • Clutton-Brock, T.H., M. Major, S.D. Albon and F.E. Guinness. 1987. Early development and population dynamics in red deer I. Density-independent effects on juvenile survival. J. Anim. Ecol. 56: 53–67.Google Scholar

  • Connolly, G.E. 1981. Assessing populations. In: (O.C. Wallmo, ed.) Mule and black-tailed deer of North America. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NB. pp. 287–345.Google Scholar

  • Cook, R.C., J.G. Cook, D.L. Murray, P. Zager, B.K. Johnson and M.W. Gratson. 2001. Development of predictive models of nutritional condition for Rocky Mountain elk. J. Wildl. Manage. 65: 973–987.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Cook, R.C., J.G. Cook and L.L. Irwin. 2003. Estimating elk body mass using chest-girth circumference. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 31: 536–543.Google Scholar

  • Cook, J.G., B.K. Johnson, R.C. Cook, R.A. Riggs, T. Delcurto, L.D. Bryant and L.L. Irwin. 2004. Effects of summer-autumn nutrition and parturition date on reproduction and survival of elk. Wildl. Monogr. No. 155.Google Scholar

  • Efron, B. and R.J. Tibshirani. 1993. An introduction to the bootstrap. Chapman & Hall, New York, NY.Google Scholar

  • Flook, D.R. 1970. Causes and implications of an observed sex differential in the survival of wapiti. Canadian Wildlife Service Report, Serial No. 11. Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Quebec, Canada.Google Scholar

  • Gogan, P.J.P. and R.H. Barrett. 1987. Comparative dynamics of introduced Tule elk populations. J. Wildl. Manage. 51: 20–27.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Greer, K.R. 1968. Yellowstone elk study, 1967–1968. Job completion report, Pittman-Robertson Project W-83-R-11. Montana Department of Fish and Game, Helena, MO.Google Scholar

  • Greer, K.R. and H.W. Hawkins. 1967. Determining pregnancy in elk by rectal palpation. J. Wildl. Manage. 31: 145–149.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Guinness, F.E., T.H. Clutton-Brock and S.D. Albon. 1978. Factors affecting calf mortality in red deer. J. Anim. Ecol. 47: 817–832.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Halbritter, H. and L.C. Bender. 2011. Condition, survival, and productivity of elk in the Sacramento Mountains of southern New Mexico. Southwest. Nat. 56: 305–314.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Harper, J.A. 1971. Ecology of Roosevelt elk. Report, Pittman-Robertson Project W-59-R. Oregon Department of Fish and Game, Portland, OR.Google Scholar

  • Harper, J.A., J.H. Harn, W.W. Bentley and C.F. Yokom. 1967. The status and ecology of Roosevelt elk in California. Wildl. Monogr. No. 16.Google Scholar

  • Heard, D., S. Barry, G. Watts and K. Child. 1997. Fertility of female moose (Alces alces) in relation to age and body composition. Alces 33: 165–176.Google Scholar

  • Hewison, A.J.M. and J.M. Gaillard. 2001. Phenotypic quality and senescence affect different components of reproductive output in roe deer. J. Anim. Ecol. 70: 600–608.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hosmer, D.W. and S. Lemeshow. 1989. Applied logistic regression. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.Google Scholar

  • Houston, D.B. 1982. The northern Yellowstone elk: ecology and management. Macmillian, New York, NY.Google Scholar

  • Keiss, R.E. 1969. Comparison of eruption-wear patterns and cementum annuli as age criteria in elk. J. Wildl. Manage. 33: 175–180.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kuss, O. 2004. How to use SAS for logistic regression with correlated data. Paper 261-27, SAS Users Group International, Cary, NC.Google Scholar

  • Landete-Castillejos, T., A. García, J.A. Gómez and L. Gallego. 2003. Lactation under food constraints in Iberian red deer Cervus elaphus hispanicus. Wildl. Bio. 9: 131–139.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Moran, R.J. 1973. The Rocky Mountain elk in Michigan. Research and Development Report No. 267. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, MI.Google Scholar

  • Morrison, D.F. 1990. Multivariate statistical methods. Third edition. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.Google Scholar

  • Noyes, J.H., R.G. Sasser, B.K. Johnson, L.D. Bryant and B. Alexander. 1997. Accuracy of pregnancy detection by serum protein (PSPB) in elk. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 25: 695–698.Google Scholar

  • Nussey, D.H., L.E.B. Kruuk, A. Donald, M. Fowlie and T.H. Clutton-Brock. 2006. The rate of senescence in maternal performance increases with early-life fecundity in red deer. Ecol. Lett. 9: 1342–1350.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ozoga, J.J. 2000. John Ozoga’s whitetail intrique: scientific insights for white-tailed deer hunters. Krause Publications, Iona, WI.Google Scholar

  • Piasecke, J.R. 2006. Relationships among condition, health, and reproduction in free-ranging elk (Cervus elaphus) populations throughout the United States. M.S. thesis, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM.Google Scholar

  • Piasecke, J.R. and L.C. Bender. 2011. Patterns in the costs of lactation to body condition of free-ranging Rocky Mountain elk (Cervus elaphus nelsoni) populations. In: (V.K. Gupta and A.K. Verma, eds.) Animal diversity, natural history, and conservation. Volume 1. Daya, New Delhi, India. pp. 95–111.Google Scholar

  • Piasecke, J.R., L.C. Bender and S.M. Schmitt. 2009. Factors affecting pregnancy in free-ranging elk in Michigan. Can. Field-Nat. 123: 230–235.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Quimby, D.C. and J.E. Gaab. 1957. Mandibular dentition as an age indicator in Rocly Mountain elk. J. Wildl. Manage. 21: 435–451.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Quimby, D.C. and D.E. Johnson. 1951. Weights and measurements of Rocky Mountain elk. J. Wildl. Manage. 15: 57–62.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Raedeke, K.J., J.J. Millspaugh and P.E. Clark. 2002. Population characteristics. In: (D.E. Toweill and J.W. Thomas, eds.) North American elk: ecology and management. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. pp. 449–491.Google Scholar

  • Smith, B.L. and S.H. Anderson. 1998. Juvenile survival and population regulation of the Jackson elk herd. J. Wildl. Manage. 62: 1036–1045.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Thorne, E.T., R.E. Dean and W.G. Hepworth. 1976. Nutrition during gestation in relation to successful reproduction in elk. J. Wildl. Manage. 40: 330–335.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Verme, L.J. and D.E. Ullrey. 1984. Physiology and nutrition. In: (L.K. Halls, ed.) White-tailed deer: ecology and management. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA. pp. 91–118.Google Scholar

  • Weber, B.J., M.L. Wolfe and G.C. White. 1982. Use of serum progesterone levels to detect pregnancy in elk. J. Wildl. Manage. 46: 835–838.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Wegge, P. 1975. Reproduction and early calf mortality in Norwegian red deer. J. Wildl. Manage. 39: 92–99.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

About the article

Received: 2018-04-25

Accepted: 2019-01-15

Published Online: 2019-03-07

Published in Print: 2019-11-26


Citation Information: Mammalia, Volume 83, Issue 6, Pages 593–600, ISSN (Online) 1864-1547, ISSN (Print) 0025-1461, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/mammalia-2018-0076.

Export Citation

©2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in