Home range of Desert Mule Deer : Testing the body-size and habitat-productivity hypotheses

By Rick A. Relyea, R. Lawrence, S. Demarais. 2000

109 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Ecological correlates of home‐range size in spring–summer for female roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) in a deciduous woodland (2005, unknown): “…et al., 1996), season (Nicholson, Bowyer & Kie, 1997), availability of forage (Tufto, Andersen & Linnell, 1996; Powell, Zimmerman & Seaman, 1997; Relyea et al., 2000), availability of water (Hervert & Krausman, 1986; Bowers, Welch & Carr, 1990), fragmentation of landscape (Kie et al., 2002),…”
Roads and supplemental feeding affect home-range size of Slovenian red deer more than natural factors (2012, background): “…25 July 2018 the home range of males in some species can be so much larger than that of females that intersexual differences in home-range size cannot be explained solely by intersexual differences in energy use attributable to differences in body mass (Dahle and Swenson 2003a; Relyea et al. 2000).”
Factors influencing female home range sizes in elk (Cervus elaphus) in North American landscapes (2005, background): “Body size, sex and age have been shown to influence home range sizes in animals (McNab 1963; Sweeney and Sweeney 1984; Relyea et al. 2000; Mysterud et al. 2001).”