Spatio-temporal variation in male white-tailed deer harvest rates in Pennsylvania: Implications for estimating abundance

Andrew S. Norton, Duane R. Diefenbach, Bret D. Wallingford, Christopher S. Rosenberry

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The performance of 2 popular methods that use age-at-harvest data to estimate abundance of white-tailed deer is contingent on assumptions about variation in estimates of subadult (1.5 yr old) and adult (â¥2.5 yr old) male harvest rates. Auxiliary data (e.g., estimates of survival or harvest rates from radiocollared animals) can be used to relax some assumptions, but unless these population parameters exhibit limited temporal or spatial variation, these auxiliary data may not improve accuracy. Unfortunately maintaining sufficient sample sizes of radiocollared deer for parameter estimation in every wildlife management unit (WMU) is not feasible for most state agencies. We monitored the fates of 397 subadult and 225 adult male white-tailed deer across 4 WMUs from 2002 to 2008 using radio telemetry. We investigated spatial and temporal variation in harvest rates and investigated covariates related to the patterns observed. We found that most variation in harvest rates was explained spatially and that adult harvest rates (0.36-0.69) were more variable among study areas than subadult harvest rates (0.26-0.42). We found that hunter effort during the archery and firearms season best explained variation in harvest rates of adult males among WMUs, whereas hunter effort during only the firearms season best explained harvest rates for subadult males. From a population estimation perspective, it is advantageous that most variation was spatial and explained by a readily obtained covariate (hunter effort). However, harvest rates may vary if hunting regulations or hunter behavior change, requiring additional field studies to obtain accurate estimates of harvest rates. © 2011 The Wildlife Society.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)136-143
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Wildlife Management
Volume76
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2012

Fingerprint

Odocoileus virginianus
deer
temporal variation
spatial variation
fish and wildlife law
wildlife management
radio telemetry
behavior change
wildlife
hunters
rate
harvest
population estimation
radiotelemetry
animals
hunting
sampling
methodology

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
  • Ecology
  • Nature and Landscape Conservation

Cite this

Norton, Andrew S. ; Diefenbach, Duane R. ; Wallingford, Bret D. ; Rosenberry, Christopher S. / Spatio-temporal variation in male white-tailed deer harvest rates in Pennsylvania : Implications for estimating abundance. In: Journal of Wildlife Management. 2012 ; Vol. 76, No. 1. pp. 136-143.
@article{0a94b83d22ae472c830e6684be1a9a44,
title = "Spatio-temporal variation in male white-tailed deer harvest rates in Pennsylvania: Implications for estimating abundance",
abstract = "The performance of 2 popular methods that use age-at-harvest data to estimate abundance of white-tailed deer is contingent on assumptions about variation in estimates of subadult (1.5 yr old) and adult ({\^a}¥2.5 yr old) male harvest rates. Auxiliary data (e.g., estimates of survival or harvest rates from radiocollared animals) can be used to relax some assumptions, but unless these population parameters exhibit limited temporal or spatial variation, these auxiliary data may not improve accuracy. Unfortunately maintaining sufficient sample sizes of radiocollared deer for parameter estimation in every wildlife management unit (WMU) is not feasible for most state agencies. We monitored the fates of 397 subadult and 225 adult male white-tailed deer across 4 WMUs from 2002 to 2008 using radio telemetry. We investigated spatial and temporal variation in harvest rates and investigated covariates related to the patterns observed. We found that most variation in harvest rates was explained spatially and that adult harvest rates (0.36-0.69) were more variable among study areas than subadult harvest rates (0.26-0.42). We found that hunter effort during the archery and firearms season best explained variation in harvest rates of adult males among WMUs, whereas hunter effort during only the firearms season best explained harvest rates for subadult males. From a population estimation perspective, it is advantageous that most variation was spatial and explained by a readily obtained covariate (hunter effort). However, harvest rates may vary if hunting regulations or hunter behavior change, requiring additional field studies to obtain accurate estimates of harvest rates. {\circledC} 2011 The Wildlife Society.",
author = "Norton, {Andrew S.} and Diefenbach, {Duane R.} and Wallingford, {Bret D.} and Rosenberry, {Christopher S.}",
year = "2012",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1002/jwmg.249",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "76",
pages = "136--143",
journal = "Journal of Wildlife Management",
issn = "0022-541X",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "1",

}

Spatio-temporal variation in male white-tailed deer harvest rates in Pennsylvania : Implications for estimating abundance. / Norton, Andrew S.; Diefenbach, Duane R.; Wallingford, Bret D.; Rosenberry, Christopher S.

In: Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 76, No. 1, 01.01.2012, p. 136-143.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Spatio-temporal variation in male white-tailed deer harvest rates in Pennsylvania

T2 - Implications for estimating abundance

AU - Norton, Andrew S.

AU - Diefenbach, Duane R.

AU - Wallingford, Bret D.

AU - Rosenberry, Christopher S.

PY - 2012/1/1

Y1 - 2012/1/1

N2 - The performance of 2 popular methods that use age-at-harvest data to estimate abundance of white-tailed deer is contingent on assumptions about variation in estimates of subadult (1.5 yr old) and adult (â¥2.5 yr old) male harvest rates. Auxiliary data (e.g., estimates of survival or harvest rates from radiocollared animals) can be used to relax some assumptions, but unless these population parameters exhibit limited temporal or spatial variation, these auxiliary data may not improve accuracy. Unfortunately maintaining sufficient sample sizes of radiocollared deer for parameter estimation in every wildlife management unit (WMU) is not feasible for most state agencies. We monitored the fates of 397 subadult and 225 adult male white-tailed deer across 4 WMUs from 2002 to 2008 using radio telemetry. We investigated spatial and temporal variation in harvest rates and investigated covariates related to the patterns observed. We found that most variation in harvest rates was explained spatially and that adult harvest rates (0.36-0.69) were more variable among study areas than subadult harvest rates (0.26-0.42). We found that hunter effort during the archery and firearms season best explained variation in harvest rates of adult males among WMUs, whereas hunter effort during only the firearms season best explained harvest rates for subadult males. From a population estimation perspective, it is advantageous that most variation was spatial and explained by a readily obtained covariate (hunter effort). However, harvest rates may vary if hunting regulations or hunter behavior change, requiring additional field studies to obtain accurate estimates of harvest rates. © 2011 The Wildlife Society.

AB - The performance of 2 popular methods that use age-at-harvest data to estimate abundance of white-tailed deer is contingent on assumptions about variation in estimates of subadult (1.5 yr old) and adult (â¥2.5 yr old) male harvest rates. Auxiliary data (e.g., estimates of survival or harvest rates from radiocollared animals) can be used to relax some assumptions, but unless these population parameters exhibit limited temporal or spatial variation, these auxiliary data may not improve accuracy. Unfortunately maintaining sufficient sample sizes of radiocollared deer for parameter estimation in every wildlife management unit (WMU) is not feasible for most state agencies. We monitored the fates of 397 subadult and 225 adult male white-tailed deer across 4 WMUs from 2002 to 2008 using radio telemetry. We investigated spatial and temporal variation in harvest rates and investigated covariates related to the patterns observed. We found that most variation in harvest rates was explained spatially and that adult harvest rates (0.36-0.69) were more variable among study areas than subadult harvest rates (0.26-0.42). We found that hunter effort during the archery and firearms season best explained variation in harvest rates of adult males among WMUs, whereas hunter effort during only the firearms season best explained harvest rates for subadult males. From a population estimation perspective, it is advantageous that most variation was spatial and explained by a readily obtained covariate (hunter effort). However, harvest rates may vary if hunting regulations or hunter behavior change, requiring additional field studies to obtain accurate estimates of harvest rates. © 2011 The Wildlife Society.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84255198129&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84255198129&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/jwmg.249

DO - 10.1002/jwmg.249

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84255198129

VL - 76

SP - 136

EP - 143

JO - Journal of Wildlife Management

JF - Journal of Wildlife Management

SN - 0022-541X

IS - 1

ER -