Open Access

Demographic characterization and social patterns of the Neotropical pampas deer

SpringerPlus20132:259

DOI: 10.1186/2193-1801-2-259

Received: 11 March 2013

Accepted: 17 May 2013

Published: 10 June 2013

Abstract

The most endangered subspecies of pampas deer Ozotoceros bezoarticus uruguayensis is an endemic cervidae of the Uruguayan temperate grasslands. The aim of our study was to assess the demographic trends, grouping structure and dynamic of this small and isolated population. We surveyed the population during seven years and detected an average of 117 (+ 72.7 SD) individuals (44 censuses). The average population structure observed was 55% adult females, 34% adult males, 10% juveniles, and 1% fawns, with a low recruitment rate of 0.11. The pampas deer is a gregarious cervidae with 62% of individuals being observed within groups of at least three animals. Nevertheless we observed substantial differences on group size and composition based on sex, reproductive status, season and trophic resources availability. The population dynamics showed significant changes around the year in the sexual aggregation-segregation pattern, corresponding with reproductive and physiological status. The mean density on this population (11 deer/ km2) is the highest reported for the species. Comparable data, from other populations, showed a significant correlation between density and sex ratio, with a reduction in the proportion of males with higher deer densities. An action plan for this endangered population should include initiatives involving private landowners, and guidelines to improve the deer habitat.

Keywords

Ozotoceros bezoarticus Population dynamics Sexual aggregation-segregation pattern Ungulates Conservation Uruguay

Introduction

The pampas deer, Ozotoceros bezoarticus (Linnaeus 1758), is an ungulate native to the open grassland habitats of South America, from 5° to 41°S (Cabrera, 1943;Jackson & Langguth, 1987, González et al., 2010). Over the last two centuries its natural habitats (the Pampas, Cerrado, and grasslands of Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia, and southern Brazil) have been drastically modified by agricultural activities (Fonseca et al., 1999;González et al., 2010). The pampas deer have been deeply affected by habitat alteration and fragmentation, which are considered to be one of the main causes of the reduction and populations decline in the species’ range (González et al., 1998). This process is clearly visible in Uruguay, which is home to two endemic subspecies: O. b. arerunguaensis, represented by a population of around 1000 individuals in El Tapado (northern Uruguay); and O. b. uruguayensis, with less than 350 individuals, located at Los Ajos in southeast Uruguay (González et al., 2002). While populations of the other subspecies (O. b. leucogaster, O. b. bezoarticus, and O. b. celer) are found in protected areas in Argentina, Bolivia, and Brazil, the Uruguayan populations are located exclusively on private land where several agricultural activities are conducted (Jackson et al., 1980, Cosse et al., 2009;González et al., 2010).

An understanding of the spatial relationships between species and their environments is essential to prioritize research and conservation needs. Group structure is shaped by feeding and anti-predatory strategies (Caughley, 1964). Group foraging generally entails costs and benefits for the individuals, associated with the presence of other individuals of the same species (Krause & Ruxton, 2002). Determining a population’s grouping strategy and its variation in different environments can provide information on various aspects, such as quality of the environment and hunting pressure (Morrison et al., 2006).

In most social ungulate species, males and females live in separate groups outside the breeding season, usually using different home ranges, or different kinds of habitats (Clutton-Brock et al., 1982). Ruckstuhl (2007) provides a comprehensive review of the hypotheses proposed to explain sexual segregation among ungulates. Comprehension these processes in pampas deer is key for understanding the mechanisms that shape the genetic structure of the populations and the implications of the habitat they occupy for the degree of genetic variability and management options.

Previous observations made in several populations showed pampas deer living in small herds, with a group size of one to twelve, but rarely more than five or six animals (Fitzroy & Darwin, 1839, Cabrera et al., 1940;Merino & Beccaceci, 1999, Eisenberg, 2000;Mourão et al., 2000, Dellafiore et al., 2003, Pereira et al., 2005). According to Jackson & Langguth (1987) wild herds are dynamic in size and composition. Especially the males, move from one group to another, but mother-young bonds appear to be strong with fawns staying with their mother until they are at least one year old. However the dynamics of the Pampas deer group composition in agro-ecosystems has not been systematically studied.

The aim of our study was to document the group structure, demography and sex segregation behavior on an isolated pampas deer population in Uruguay. We estimated the population’s size to evaluate the population trend; and we assessed the seasonal variations on group’s conformation. Furthermore, we examined whether mean group size was linked to population density. At the same time, we determined if there are differences in the type of group (nursery/bachelor groups or mixed group) chosen by an individual deer based on deer sex or reproductive status. We examined whether sexual segregation and aggregation within the population was related to life cycle.

Methods

Study area and animals

The study area is mainly located in an 80 km2 ranch (33° 50′ 01″ S; 54° 01′ 34″ W) within the “Bañados del Este” Biosphere Reserve at Ramsar Area, in the southeastern Uruguayan Department of Rocha. The landscape is characterized by low, rolling hills; the parent material consists of Quaternary unconsolidated sediments (clays, argillaceous mud, and sands and, locally in rocky points, igneous or metamorphic rocks). The soils are predominantly gley soils. Altitudes range from −5 to 100 masl, the annual average rainfall is 1000 mm and the average annual temperature is 16°C (Cosse et al., 2009). The main land use activities are livestock (cattle and sheep) ranching, agricultural crops (rice, soy, wheat) and pasture (ryegrass). The pampas deer are free ranging in this complex landscape of discrete patches (paddocks) and are conspicuously patchy in their distribution among paddocks. The paddocks vary on grass species and livestock load.

Data recording

We conducted fieldwork seasonally over the course of seven years, from 1996 to 1999 and 2002 to 2004. Both surveyed periods were assembled previously we performed a Homogeneity of Variances Analysis to perform the demographic calculations.

Observations were made early in the morning from a vehicle traveling at a slow constant speed through a fixed 8 km route, with surveys averaging three hours in duration We performed the observations using a 10 × 40 telescope and at distances of up to 500 m. We estimated Herd Composition Count (HCC) (Kaji et al., 2005). For each survey, we recorded the mean group size and group composition. We defined the groups as singletons (adult male, adult female), bachelor groups (only males), nursery groups (including females and sub-adults/juveniles of unknown sex) and mixed-sex groups. The two sexes were identified based on the presence or absence of antlers, and the year’s offspring were distinguished from older animals on the basis of body size. In cases where sex or group composition could not be determined reliably, data was excluded from the analysis. Monthly observations were pooled as seasonal observations as follows: 1: summer; 2: autumn; 3: winter and 4: spring.

We estimated the typical group size (TGS) following Jarman (1974) and Moore (2001):
TGS = i = 1 N n i 2 i = 1 N n i

Where ni is the number in each groupi and N is the total number of groups observed (Jarman, 1974). This parameter provided information on the size of the group observed for an average individual.

In the mixed-sex groups with three or more individuals (with no unidentified individuals) the sex ratio (number of males/number of females) and juvenile ratio (number of juveniles/total group size) were determined. For each census we analyzed the proportion of each category of individuals in every group type. We used the Kruskal–Wallis (KW) variance analysis to test the differences between variables (Zar, 1999). We run an r x c contingency test (Milton & Tsokos, 1987) to analyze the difference in the type of association (singletons, mixed-sex groups, single-sex groups) presented by individuals based on their sex. The contingency table was run on online software Statistics to Use (Kirkman, 1996).

Density

The pampas deer in Los Ajos are conspicuously patchy in their distribution among paddocks. We estimate two densities values: i) the mean global density, corresponding with the number of deer surveyed on total area they occupy; ii) the mean density only on occupied paddocks, to estimate the deer load on the pastures we calculated the deer density based on the number of individuals per paddock (area) for each survey. We correlated the mean group size and density per paddock and year.

Population viability analysis

We examined the complex interactions between pampas deer demography, environmental and genetic factors by computer simulation modeling, using the program VORTEX version 9.5. VORTEX has been widely used in several endangered species and is especially powerful for modeling vertebrate wildlife population behavior (Lacy et al. 2009).

The program yields the following information: probability of persistence of the population, for a maximum population size (Nmax); the expected persistence time, will depend on the average growth rate r (r = nº births – nº deaths) as well as the variance of this parameter due to environmental fluctuations; size of the average population along time; expected and observed average heterozygosity; average number of alleles; final allele composition of the population; population growth rate (stochastic and deterministic r); probability of extinction is defined as the absence of any of the sexes.

We considered the data from the population structure observed in the surveyed years (sex ratio and age structure), and also the data of the sample of animals captured (González & Duarte, 2003). The variables used were: size of the initial population, one basic scenario was performed, with an initial population size 400, based in current data; for the 400 individual population, age and sex classes were calculated in proportion to the real distribution; during simulations VORTEX distributes the age-sex structure according to the reproduction and death rates specified in each scenario, using the deterministic algorithms of Leslies’ matrix. We run 200 iterations, for 350 years. Results were summarized every ten years.

One basic scenario was considered, with a carrying capacity of the environment (K) of 600 (s.d. 50) individuals. VORTEX fixes carrying capacity as an upper limit for population size, beyond which an additional mortality rate is imposed, proportional along all age-sex classes in order to return the population to the specified K value. Migration and supplementation were not considered. Reproductive system variables considered: polygyny mating system; 18 month of age of reproductive maturity of females and 2 years of males; maximum breeding age (senescence) of 6 years for both sexes; sex ratio at birth 50%; average litter size of 1; proportion of adult females in the breeding pool per year was of 85% (s.d.: 5%) and for adult males was 90% and successfully siring 72%; non inbreeding was considered in the modeling.

The annual mortality rate of individuals under 1 year old of age for females was considered: 32% (s.d. = 5%), and for males 40% (s.d. = 5%) as a maximum value related to environmental conditions, being the first year of life the most critical in large mammals. The annual mortality rate of animals above 1 year of age is 10% (s.d. = 5%).

Sexual segregation

We analyzed the sexual segregation or aggregation pattern using the SSAS index (Bonenfant et al., 2007). We conducted the analyses using the R program (R Development Core Team, 2009) following the protocol developed by Bonenfant et al. (2007).

Inter-population analysis

We compared the mean group size and density reported in the literature from different populations in the species’ distribution range, including information on sex ratio, latitude and longitude. A multiple regression analysis was performed to determine the best predictors of group size and the association between different variables (Zar, 1999).

Results

Demographic parameters

We conducted 44 surveys over seven years, and analyzed a total of 2149 groups. The mean population size estimation was 117 (SD = 72.7). The average ratio of adult males to adult females was 0.61. This sex ratio deviated significantly from a 1:1 ratio (χ2 = 167.5, df = 1, p < 0.05).

The overall population structure observed was 55% adult females, 34% adult males, 10% juveniles, and 1% young. The demographic parameters estimated were: mean size of the population x ¯ = 117 ; sex and age structure: 40 ♂♂:64♀♀: 12juv.: 1fawn; mean recruitment rate x ¯ = 0.11 ; age of first reproduction; 1.5 years; litter size: 1 fawn/♀.

Social structure and groupings

The mean size for the 2149 groups observed was 2.4 individuals (range 1–67; 3.56 SD) and the mean Typical Group Size in 44 censuses was 7.18 (range 1.9 – 37.9; 7.9 SD). We did not obtain a significant correlation between mean group sizes or mean Typical Group Size and density per enclosure, neither overall or seasonally.

When we analyzed the average annual group compositions we found that, 19% of the groups were singletons, 19% were in couples, 44% were groups of three to nine animals, and 18% were in groups of 10 or more individuals.

We recorded 175 nursery groups, with a mean 2.7 individuals (range 2–7; 1.1 SD). We found a significant variation in the size of these groups based on the season (KW: GL = 3; N = 175; H = 11.02; p = 0.01), whose size dropped to a minimum during birth season. In contrast, we observed no significant seasonal variation in the size of the bachelors groups (N = 66; mean size = 2.6, range 2–7, 1.2 SD). For mixed-sex groups (N = 391) the mean size was 4.70 (range 2–67; 6.2 SD), with larger groups observed in July and August (winter) (KW: GL = 9, N = 391; H = 25.08 p = 0.0029) (Figure 1).
Figure 1

Mean group size (□) of females (upper), males (middle) and mixed-sex (bottom) in the different seasons. Mean ± SE (□) and mean ± 1,96*SE().

The differences in the males and females distribution on different group type (singletons; mixed-sex groups; nursery or bachelors groups) based on sex, were statistically significant (χ2 = 38.5; df = 2; p < 0.0001, Table 1). Overall data showed similar proportions between males and females on singletons (32% of males was singletons and 35% of females); interestingly males proportions on mixed-sex groups are higher than females, with 53% of males conforming mixed-sex groups, respect to 42% on females. In this pampas deer population, the lower proportion of individuals were on single-sex group, only 15% of the males were on bachelors groups and 23% of the females were on nursery groups respectively; these proportions change around year but in all seasons males are in higher proportions than females on mixed-sex groups. On summer most females are on singletons and their proportion on mixed-sex groups and nursery groups are similar (32 and 30 percent respectively) (Figure 2).
Figure 2

Proportion of males ( ) and females (▲) in the different group types (singletons; mixed-sex; single-sex). Quadrants by season; Upper left: Autumn; Upper right: Winter; Lower right: Spring; Lower left: Summer.

Table 1

Total numbers of females and males in the different type groups on the 44 population size estimations on seven years: single-sex groups refer to bachelor groups (males) and nursery groups (females)

Individuals

Females

Males

Singletons

640

361

Mixed-sex groups

778

598

Single-sex groups

420

173

Total

1838

1132

Los Ajos population density

The density data were obtained from 28 censuses conducted from 1998 to 2004, which provided information on the distribution of individuals in the various areas and paddocks. A total of 3290 individuals, forming 1645 groups, were recorded for this analysis. The area used by the deer was estimated to be 33.97 km2. We did not obtain significant differences in density by years or per enclosure, neither overall or seasonally. We calculated the mean global density as 3.46 (2.16 SD), however the mean pampas deer load per paddock was 11 deer per km2 (range 1.52 – 54.30; 0.98 SD) in 110 counts.

Los Ajos population viability analysis (PVA)

The PVA showed the average population size maintain in the simulations in 291 individuals in the modeling scenarios. The probability of extinction of the population in simulated 350 years was very low 0.015. In all cases the population size increased rapidly until maximum carrying capacity is reached, in less than ten years. In our analysis the observed growth rate (r), r deterministic of 0.043 and r stochastic of 0.014 (SD = 0.061), being always very low but positive, and was mostly affected by the high mortality rates occurred during the first year of life.

Sexual segregation-aggregation analysis

We detected two annual periods with a non-random male–female association pattern with SSAS. In March (autumn) a sexual aggregation pattern was observed, and in September and October (spring) we observed a period of sexual segregation (Figure 3).
Figure 3

Results of the SASS analysis overlaying events of the biological cycle of the Pampas deer. The SSAS indicates significant sexual segregation or aggregation if the observed value (dotted line) falls above or below the shaded area (at the 5% error level), respectively. The seasons are represented on the axial axis. The graph show the annual biology cycle of Los Ajos Pampas deer: a) unbroken curve corresponds to the mating period; b) dotted curve covers the antler shedding period; c) broken lines represent the population’s birth curve; and d) broken dotted line represents the antler growth period.

Inter-populations analysis

We have performed comparative analyses including information for group size (mean value), density, sex ratio, latitude and longitude on different populations in Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay (Table 2). We observed a significant correlation between sex ratio (M/F) and density (N = 9; Spearman = −0.76; t(N-2) = −3.11; p = 0.017) (Figure 4).
Figure 4

Correlation graphs of sex ratio (male/female) and density (n°deer/km 2 ) for populations on the distribution range of the species.

Table 2

Mean group size, density in km 2 , and sex ratio (males/females) data for different pampas deer populations

Population

Author

Latitude

Longitude

Average group size

Density

Male/female

Cerrado

Leeuwenberg & Lara-Resende (1994)

15.56

53.07

1.84

1.46

0.74

Emas

Redford (1987)

18.15

52.53

1.36

0.32

0.78

Pantanal

Lacerda (2008)

19.57

56.25

2.13

6.85

0.66

Paraná

Braga & Kuniyoshi (2010)

25.34

49.49

2.29

1.19

0.83

Corrientes

Merino & Beccaceci (1999)

28.08

56.33

1.75

0.39

0.68

El Tapado

Moore (2001)

31.36

56.43

2.20

7.00

0.67

Los Ajos

Cosse et al., present work

33.50

54.01

2.40

11.00

0.64

San Luis

Dellafiore et al. (2003)

34.22

65.44

-

0.63

0.76

Samborombón

Giménez Dixon (1991)

36.22

56.52

2.60

1.15

0.75

The geographic location of each population (latitude-longitude) is also indicated.

Discussion

Demographic parameters

Our mean size for the population estimation was 117 individuals, being very small and having along the study period remarkable fluctuations (range 16–254; 73 SD). Furthermore the biological examination of the captured specimens (González & Duarte, 2003) enabled to obtain valuable information in this pampas deer wildlife sample. We observed seven-year survival for the oldest male. Additionally seven from the eight females captured, were reproductively active (being pregnant or lactating, including the youngest at 18 months of age) representing 85% of the sample. The oldest female recorded in the capture had five years old and was lactating.

The parameters obtained in the PVA showed that the population is safe from the genetic and demographic factors for the next 350 years. In all the simulations we obtained very low and positive values of r, which shows that the population has a very low intrinsic growth potential. The carrying capacity of the environment is the main limiting factor. Increasing the habitat available will assure the persistence and expansion of the pampas deer.

This type of population structure is characteristic of “slow” life history, where the number of individuals is close to the carrying capacity, there is a strong resource selection, and a long life expectancy (Reznick et al., 2002;Jeschke & Kokko, 2009). Thus, population size seems to be stabilized by a structure of adult individuals and a failure to recruit young individuals. Our results were similar to those found in the Brazilian National Park Emas population, where it was estimated that adults represented 85 to 97.7% (Schaller & Duplaix-Hall, 1975, Redford, 1987). The low recruitment of young individuals was reported to El Tapado population, which was establish to have an estimated mortality rate of 0.4 for individuals under two years of age (Moore, 2001).

We estimated the sex ratio population as 0.61 (1 adult male to 1.63 adult female). The birth sex ratio at Los Ajos is unknown; in captivity a 1:1 sex ratio has been recorded (Ungerfeld et al., 2008). Nevertheless these results are not generalized to the Los Ajos population, since in some ungulate species in the wild, a relationship between readily-available resources and skewed fawns sex ratio has been observed (Kruuk et al., 1999, Bonenfant et al., 2003). Also to explain the skewed sex ratio in populations it is important to consider that in other Cervidae species is common young males disperse (a behavior that entails a high energy cost and greater mortality) while females exhibited a philopatric behavior (Coulon et al., 2006, Loe et al., 2009;Clutton-Brock & Lukas, 2012). Another explanation to this skewed ratio can be related with the agonistic behavior of males, which may increase the physiological stress (Loison et al., 1999, Pereira et al., 2006), generating individuals more sensitive to pathogens. Moreover, we observed on pampas deer populations a decline in the males proportions when population density rises (Table 2 and Figure 4). This pattern could correspond to a process where the females’ density is correlated with environmental carrying capacity, while the presence of males is determined by territoriality associated with resource defense polygyny tactic (Emlen & Oring, 1977;Vanpé et al., 2009). This tactic has been observed for various ungulate species (Dubost, 1970, Miura, 1984, Putman, 1988;Wahlstrröm, 1994). Nevertheless, the analysis in fecal testosterone demonstrated no significant differences in fecal testosterone concentrations among males from groups of varying sizes (Pereira et al., 2005). However, it will be need to assess the influence of resources on female distribution and their impact on male distribution and reproductive success (Vanpé et al., 2009).

Social structure

Our observations confirmed that the pampas deer is a gregarious species with 62% of the individuals in Los Ajos population within groups of at least three animals.

However the grouping structure is variable and related with several factors. The most common type of groupings we observed in the Los Ajos population were basic units of two to four individuals (41% of the individuals) that appear to come together as feeding groups, with the largest groups forming in autumn or winter. These observations are in accordance with Pereira et al., (2005), who found large aggregations within Emas National Park population in feeding grounds such as burnt patches.

The mean group size values we observed for Los Ajos was 2.4, similar data were reported in other pampas deer populations (Redford, 1987;Merino & Beccaceci, 1999, Netto et al., 2000, Moore, 2001, Dellafiore et al., 2003, Pereira et al., 2005, Lacerda, 2008;Pérez Carusi et al., 2009;Braga & Kuniyoshi, 2010). The Typical Group Size (TGS) we observed at Los Ajos was 7.1 individuals, similar to the TGS (7.2 individuals) reported for the other Uruguayan population on Salto (Moore, 2001). The Uruguayan populations showed larger TGS than the recorded on Pantanal of 3.11 individuals (Lacerda, 2008). The differences between them may be due to the interaction of several factors, as carrying capacity, and including the behavior in different environments. The Uruguayan populations are mainly found in open grasslands and the Pantanal is a complex environment of open wet meadows and forested areas. Pereira et al., (2005) suggested that the low level of aggregation observed at cerrado biome is related to group instability and low density, characteristics that are also reported by Netto et al. (2000) and Jackson & Langguth (1987). Other researchers have observed that exist, in cervidae species, an important relationship between the group size, habitat conditions and feeding style and has been suggested that the differences are not only among species, but also may be among populations; and individuals, which may adopt the appropriate structure for their habitat (Putman, 1988;Putman & Flueck, 2011).

Several authors have considered the pampas deer as a “concentrate selectors” (Pinder, 1997;Rodrigues & Monteiro-Filho, 1999), or “mixed grass feeder” (Jackson & Giulietti, 1988;Cosse, González et al., 2009) according to Hofmann classification (Hofmann, 1989). The possible explanation to the recorded differences in feeding strategies may be also due to the phytogeographical variation throughout the pampas deer’s range. The nutritional value of Uruguayan and Argentinean temperate grasslands (C3) are higher than the rough tropical (C4) vegetation dominant in the Cerrado, which exhibit high dry weight accumulations that are often of low nutritive value (Van Soest, 1994). In the cerrado of the Pantanal the phenological succession correspond with rainy, flood and dry seasons (Pinder, 1997). It will be interesting to obtain more data on TGS for different pampas deer populations to assess on the change on this variable related to the nutritional quality of the pastures.

Other factor that influences the grouping size is related with reproductive behavior. The female segregation observed and the reduction in the size of nursery groups around the birth season has explained changes in the median group size. Meanwhile, in the mating season we observed in Los Ajos population a change in the conformation of the mixed-sex groups with larger proportions of this kind of groups. Similar observations were performed by Lacerda (2008).

Another analyzed factor was the available pasture in areas shared with livestock. For mixed-sex groups our data showed the major size on feeding groups was on winter in which was available ray grass pasture for cattle.

Thus, based on our results, pampas deer groups’ structure and dynamics depend both on seasonal variation and in the requirements of individuals based on their sex and reproductive status. Then, in this population individuals associations pattern are link with the individual’s optimal efficiency (fitness) (Krause & Ruxton, 2002).

Sexual aggregation-segregation

Several authors propose that segregation between the sexes occurs in sexually dimorphic species because the difference in body size between adult males and adult females entails different feeding needs, “forage-selection hypotheses” (Clutton-Brock et al., 1982;Illius & Gordon, 1987, Ruckstuhl, 1998;2000;Yearsley & Javier Pérez-Barbería, 2005). We observed a sexual aggregation-segregation pattern limited to a very specific reproductive and physiological moment (Figure 3). Pampas deer exhibits a low level of polygyny (0.61 ♂:♀), and little sexual dimorphism in body size, the body mass of adult males being approximately 1.17 times that of adult females (González et al., 2010). The existence of a pattern of spatial segregation associated with sexual segregation could be linked to the “predation risk hypothesis” (Ruckstuhl & Neuhaus, 2000), with females with small fawns staying in safer habitats while males choose for better quality pastures to meet their nutritional requirements during antler development, but it is necessary to deeper analysis on spatial segregation and pasture quality in order to have more categorical conclusions.

Conservation implications

Pampas deer in Los Ajos occur exclusively in agro-ecosystems within several ranches on a RAMSAR Biosphere Reserve. This remaining population of the pampas deer has a critical size, which showed significant variations along the years. From a management perspective the PVA showed the populations has the intrinsic potential to survive being important to assure and increase the habitat available to guarantee the expansion and persistence in the future years.

Declarations

Acknowledgments

Part of this research was supported by Comisión Sectorial de Investigación Científica (CSIC), Proyecto Dinámica Demográfica y Genética del Venado de Campo en el Uruguay, Programa de Desarrollo de Ciencias Básicas (PEDECIBA), MGAP–PPR, ANII from Uruguay, Wildlife Trust Alliance, Whitley Award Fund For Nature and Kilverstone Wildlife Charitable Trust. Special thanks to landowners families Arrarte and Etcheverry. Dr William Mc. Shea, who provided helpful comments that improved the quality of this manuscript.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Genética de la Conservación, Departamento de Genética, IIBCE-Facultad de Ciencias/UdelaR

References

  1. Barboza PS, Bowyer RT: Sexual segregation in dimorphic deer: a new gastrocentric hypothesis. J Mammal 2000, 81: 473-489. 10.1644/1545-1542(2000)081<0473:SSIDDA>2.0.CO;2View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Bonenfant C, Gaillard JM, Loison A, Klein F: Sex-ratio variation and reproductive costs in relation to density in a forest-dwelling population of red deer ( Cervus elaphus ). Behav Ecol 2003, 14: 862-869. 10.1093/beheco/arg077View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Bonenfant C, Gaillard JM, Dray S, Loison A, Royer M, Chessel D: Testing sexual segregation and aggregation: old ways are best. Ecology 2007, 88: 3202-3208. 10.1890/07-0129.1View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Braga FG, Kuniyoshi YS: Estimativas de parâmetros populacionais e demográficos de Ozotoceros bezoarticus (Artiodactyla, Cervidae) em Piraí do Sul, Paraná, sul do Brasil. Iheringia Ser Zool 2010, 100: 105-110.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Cabrera A: Sobre la sistemática del venado y su variación individual y geográfica. Revista del Museo de La Plata (n.s), Sec. Zool 1943, 18: 5-41.Google Scholar
  6. Cabrera A, Yepes J, Wiedner CC: Mamíferos sud-americanos: (vida, costumbres y descripción). Buenos Aires: Compañia Argentina de Editores; 1940.Google Scholar
  7. Caughley G: Social organization and daily activity of the red kangaroo and the grey kangaroo. J Mammal 1964, 45: 429-436. 10.2307/1377416View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Clutton-Brock TH, Lukas D: The evolution of social philopatry and dispersal in female mammals. Mol Ecol 2012, 21: 472-492. 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2011.05232.xView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Clutton-Brock TH, Guinness FE, Albon SD: Red deer: behavior and ecology of two sexes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1982.Google Scholar
  10. Cosse M, González S, Gimenez-Dixon M: Feeding ecology of Ozotoceros bezoarticus : conservation implications in Uruguay. Iheringia Ser Zool 2009, 99: 158-164.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Coulon A, Cosson JF, Morellet N, Angibault J-M, Cargnelutti B, Galan M, Aulagnier S, Hewison AJM: Dispersal is not female biased in a resource-defence mating ungulate, the European roe deer. P Roy Soc B-Biol Sci 2006, 273: 341-348. 10.1098/rspb.2005.3329View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Dellafiore C, Demaría M, Maceira N, Bucher E: Distribution and abundance of the pampas deer in San Luis province, Argentina. Mastozoología Neotropical 2003, 10: 11-47.Google Scholar
  13. Development Core Team R: R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2009.Google Scholar
  14. Dubost G: L’organisation spatiale et sociale de Muntiacus reevesi Ogilby 1839 en semi-liberté. Mammalia 1970, 34: 331-355.Google Scholar
  15. Eisenberg JF: The contemporary Cervidae of Central and South America. In Antelopes, deer, and relatives: fossil record, behavioral ecology, systematics, and conservation. Edited by: Vrba ES, Schaller GB. New Haven: Yale University Press; 2000:189-202.Google Scholar
  16. Emlen ST, Oring LW: Ecology, sexual selection, and the evolution of mating systems. Science 1977, 197: 215-223. 10.1126/science.327542View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Fitzroy R, Darwin C: Narrative of the surveying voyages of his majesty’s ships adventure and beagle between the years 1826 and 1836 describing their examination of the southern shores of south America and the Beagles circumnavigation of the globes. London: Henry Colburn; 1839.Google Scholar
  18. Fonseca GAB, Mittermeier RA, Cavalcanti RB, Mittermeier CG: Brazilian Cerrado. In Hotspots: Earth’s biologically richest and most endangered terrestrial ecoregions. Edited by: Mittermeier RA, Myers N, Mittermeier CG, Gil R. SA, Agrupación Sierra Madre, SC, Chicago: CEMEX; 1999:149-155.Google Scholar
  19. Giménez Dixon M Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo. In Estimación de parámetros poblacionales del venado de las Pampas [Ozotoceros bezoarticus celer, Cabr., 1943-Cervidae-] en la costa de la bahía de Samborombón [prov. Buenos Aires] a partir de datos obtenidos mediante censos aéreos. La Plata: Universidad Nacional de La Plata; 1991:116.Google Scholar
  20. González S, Duarte JMB: Emergency pampas deer capture in Uruguay. DSG News 2003, 18: 16-17.Google Scholar
  21. González S, Maldonado JE, Leonard JA, Vilà C, Duarte JMB, Merino M, Brum-Zorrilla N, Wayne RK: Conservation genetics of the endangered Pampas deer ( Ozotoceros bezoarticus ). Mol Ecol 1998, 7: 47-56. 10.1046/j.1365-294x.1998.00303.xView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. González S, Álvarez-Valin F, Maldonado JE: Morphometric differentiation of endangered pampas deer ( Ozotoceros bezoarticus ), with description of new subspecies from Uruguay. J Mammal 2002, 83: 1127-1140. 10.1644/1545-1542(2002)083<1127:MDOEPD>2.0.CO;2View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. González S, Cosse M, Góss Braga F, Vila AR, Merino ML, Dellafiore C, Cartes JL, Maffei L, Gimenez Dixon M: Pampas deer Ozotoceros bezoarticus (Linnaeus 1758). In Neotropical Cervidology: biology and medicine of Latin American deer. Edited by: Duarte JMB, Gonzalez S. Jaboticabal: Funep/IUCN; 2010:119-132.Google Scholar
  24. Hofmann RR: Evolutionary steps of ecophysiological adaptation and diversification of ruminants: a comparative view of their digestive system. Oecologia 1989, 78: 443-457. 10.1007/BF00378733View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Illius A, Gordon I: The allometry of food intake in grazing ruminants. J Anim Ecol 1987, 56: 989-999. 10.2307/4961View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Jackson JE, Giulietti J: The food habits of Pampas deer Ozotoceros bezoarticus celer in relation to its conservation in a relict natural grassland in Argentina. Biol Conserv 1988, 45: 1-10. 10.1016/0006-3207(88)90048-1View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Jackson JE, Langguth A: Ecology and status of the pampas deer in the Argentinian pampas and Uruguay. In Biology and management of the Cervidae. Edited by: Wemmer C. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institute; 1987:402-409.Google Scholar
  28. Jackson J, Landa P, Langguth A: Pampas deer in Uruguay. Oryx 1980, 15: 267-272. 10.1017/S0030605300024674View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Jarman PJ: The social Organization of antelope in relation to their ecology. Behaviour 1974, 48: 215-267. 10.1163/156853974X00345View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Jeschke J, Kokko H: The roles of body size and phylogeny in fast and slow life histories. Evol Ecol 2009, 23: 867-878. 10.1007/s10682-008-9276-yView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Kaji K, Takahashi H, Tanaka J, Tanaka Y: Variation in the herd composition counts of sika deer. Popul Ecol 2005, 47: 53-59. 10.1007/s10144-004-0200-1View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Kirkman TW: Statistics to use. 1996.http://www.physics.csbsju.edu/stats/exact_NROW_NCOLUMN_form.html (04-09-2012)Google Scholar
  33. Krause J, Ruxton GD: Living in groups. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2002.Google Scholar
  34. Kruuk LE, Clutton-Brock TH, Albon SD, Pemberton JM, Guinness FE: Population density affects sex ratio variation in red deer. Nature 1999, 399: 459-461. 10.1038/20917View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Lacerda ACR Instituto de Ciências Biológicas: 194. In Ecologia e estrutura social do veado-campeiro (Ozotoceros bezoarticus) no Pantanal. Brasília: Universidade de Brasília; 2008.Google Scholar
  36. Lacy RC, Borbat M, et al.: Vortex: A stochastic simulation of the extinction process. Version 9.95. Chicago Zoological Society; 2009. (06-03-2013) http://pw1.netcom.com/~rlacy/vortex.html Google Scholar
  37. Leeuwenberg F, Lara Resende S: Ecologia de cervídeos na Reserva Ecológica do IBGE-DF: manejo e densidade de populações. Cad Geoc 1994, 11: 89-95.Google Scholar
  38. Linnaeus C: Systema naturae per regna tria naturae: secundum classes, ordines, genera, species, cum characteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis (in Latin). 10th edition. Stockholm: Laurentius Salvius; 1758.Google Scholar
  39. Loe LE, Mysterud A, Veiberg VR, Langvatn R: Negative density-dependent emigration of males in an increasing red deer population. P Roy Soc B-Biol Sci 2009, 276: 2581-2587. 10.1098/rspb.2009.0224View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Loison A, Festa-Bianchet M, Gaillard J-M, Jorgenson JT, Jullien J-M: Age-specific survival in five populations of ungulates: evidence of senescence. Ecology 1999, 80: 2539-2554. 10.1890/0012-9658(1999)080[2539:ASSIFP]2.0.CO;2View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Merino M, Beccaceci M: Ozotoceros bezoarticus (Artiodactyla, Cervidae) en Corrientes, Argentina: distribución, población y conservación. Iheringia, Ser Zool 1999, 87: 87-92.Google Scholar
  42. Milton JS, Tsokos JO: Estadística para Biología y Ciencias de la Salud. Madrid: Emalsa; 1987.Google Scholar
  43. Miura S: Social behavior and territoriality in male sika deer ( Cervus nippon Temminck 1838) during the rut. Z Tierpsychol 1984, 64: 33-73.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  44. Moore D College of Environmental Science and Forestry: 282. In Aspects of the behavior, ecology and conservation of the Pampas Deer. New York: State University of New York Syracuse; 2001.Google Scholar
  45. Morrison ML, Marcot BG, Mannan RW: Wildlife-habitat relationships concepts and applications. Washington: Island Press; 2006.Google Scholar
  46. Mourão G, Coutinho M, Mauro R, Campos Z, Tomás W, Magnusson W: Aerial surveys of caiman, marsh deer and pampas deer in the Pantanal Wetland of Brazil. Biol Conserv 2000, 92: 175-183. 10.1016/S0006-3207(99)00051-8View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  47. Netto NT, Coutinho-Netto CRM, Costa MJRP, Bon R: Grouping patterns of Pampas deer ( Ozotoceros bezoarticus ) in the Emas National Park Brazil. Revista de Etologia 2000, 2: 85-94.Google Scholar
  48. Pereira RJG, Duarte JMB, Negrão JA: Seasonal changes in fecal testosterone concentrations and their relationship to the reproductive behavior, antler cycle and grouping patterns in free-ranging male Pampas deer ( Ozotoceros bezoarticus bezoarticus ). Theriogenology 2005, 63: 2113-2125. 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2004.08.014View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  49. Pereira RJG, Duarte JMB, Negrão JA: Effects of environmental conditions, human activity, reproduction, antler cycle and grouping on fecal glucocorticoids of free-ranging Pampas deer stags ( Ozotoceros bezoarticus bezoarticus ). Horm Behav 2006, 49: 114-122. 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2005.05.012View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  50. Pérez Carusi LC, Beade MS, Miñarro F, Vila AR, Giménez-Dixon M, Bilenca DN: Relaciones espaciales y numéricas entre venados de las pampas ( Ozotoceros bezoarticus celer ) y chanchos cimarrones ( Sus scrofa ) en el Refugio de Vida Silvestre Bahía Samborombón. Argentina Ecol Austral 2009, 19: 63-71.Google Scholar
  51. Pinder L: Niche overlap among brown brocket deer, pampas deer, and cattle in the Pantanal of Brazil. Gainsville: Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florida; 1997.Google Scholar
  52. Putman R: The natural history of deer. Ithaca, N.Y: Comstock Pub. Associates; 1988.Google Scholar
  53. Putman R, Flueck WT: Intraspecific variation in biology and ecology of deer: magnitude and causation. Anim Prod Sci 2011, 51: 277-291.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  54. Redford K: The pampas deer ( Ozotoceros bezoarticus ) in central Brazil. In Biology and management of the Cervidae. Edited by: Wemmer C. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institute; 1987:410-414.Google Scholar
  55. Reznick D, Bryant MJ, Bashey F: r- and K-Selection Revisited: The Role of Population Regulation in Life-History Evolution. Ecology 2002, 83: 1509-1520.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  56. Rodrigues FHG, Monteiro-Filho ELA: Feeding behaviour of the pampas deer: a grazer or a browser? DSG News 1999, 15: 12-13.Google Scholar
  57. Ruckstuhl KE: Foraging behaviour and sexual segregation in bighorn sheep. Anim Behav 1998, 56: 99-106. 10.1006/anbe.1998.0745View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  58. Ruckstuhl KE: Sexual segregation in vertebrates: proximate and ultimate causes. Integr Comp Biol 2007, 47: 245-257. 10.1093/icb/icm030View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  59. Ruckstuhl KE, Neuhaus P: Sexual segregation in ungulates: a new approach. Behaviour 2000, 137: 361-377. 10.1163/156853900502123View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  60. Schaller GB, Duplaix-Hall N: Notes on the large mammals of the Parque Nacional das Emas, Brazil. Proc 1975. nº 004370/75Google Scholar
  61. Ungerfeld R, Gonzalez-Pensado S, Villagran M, Olazabal D, Bielli A, Perez W: Reproductive biology of the pampas deer ( Ozotoceros bezoarticus ): A review. Acta Vet Scand 2008, 50: 1. 10.1186/1751-0147-50-1View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  62. Van Soest PJ: Nutritional ecology of the ruminant. Ithaca: Comstock Pub; 1994.Google Scholar
  63. Vanpé C, Morellet N, Kjellander P, Goulard M, Liberg O, Hewison AJM: Access to mates in a territorial ungulate is determined by the size of a male’s territory, but not by its habitat quality. J Anim Ecol 2009, 78: 42-51. 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2008.01467.xView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  64. Wahlstrröm LK: The significance of male-male aggression for yearling dispersal in roe deer ( Capreolus capreolus ). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 1994, 35: 409-412. 10.1007/BF00165843View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  65. Yearsley JM, Javier Pérez-Barbería F: Does the activity budget hypothesis explain sexual segregation in ungulates? Anim Behav 2005, 69: 257-267. 10.1016/j.anbehav.2004.04.010View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  66. Zar JH: Biostatistical analysis. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall: Upper Saddle River; 1999.Google Scholar

Copyright

© Cosse and González; licensee Springer. 2013

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.