Ecological Archives E089-038-A2

Martin B. Main. 2008. Reconciling competing ecological explanations for sexual segregation in ungulates. Ecology 89:693–704.

Appendix B. Summary of studies comparing sex differences in habitat and diet quality for north-temperate polygynous ungulates.

Sex differences in quality of habitat (forage quantity and forage quality) and diet reported for sexually segregated populations of north-temperate ungulates. Feeding type (FT) is designated as CS (concentrate select feeder), IF (intermediate feeder), and GR (bulk grazer) and sexual dimorphism in body size (M:F) is presented as the ratio of male to female body weights. The letters M (male), F (female), and E (equivalent) denote which sex if any occupies habitat with greater forage availability or forage quality or consumes diets of higher quality. Letters marked with an asterisk (*) indicate mixed results and were designated as E* unless >50% of the results reported superior habitat or diet for a given sex during that time period. See Appendix C for full citations.

     
Forage quantity
Forage quality
Diet Quality
 

Species

FT

M:F

 

Jan–Mar

 Apr–May Jun–Aug Sep–Dec

 

Jan–Mar

 Apr–May Jun–Aug Sep–Dec

 

Jan–Mar

 Apr–May Jun–Aug Sep–Dec

Reference

Alces alces

IF

1.3

M

      

E

              

Bowyer et al. (2001)a
 

IF

1.3

E

E

E

  

E

E

E

          

Hauge and Keith (1981)
 

IF

1.3

  

E

E

E

  

E

E

E

        

Kufeld and Bowden (1996)
 

IF

1.3

M

M

M

  

E

E

E

          

Miquelle et al. (1992)b

Bison bison (Bos bison)

GR

2.0

    

M*

      

F*

      

F*

  

Mooring et al. (2005)
 

GR

2.0

                

E

E

E*

F*

Post et al. (2001)

Capra hircus

IF

1.5

E

    

E

E

    

E

        

Gordon (1989a,b)c
 

IF

1.5

    

E

      

E

          

Riney and Caughley (1959)

Capra ibex

IF

2.1

E

F

M

E

E

F

F

E

        

Villaret et al. (1997)d

Cervus elaphus

IF

1.5

                    

M

  

Bugalho et al. (2001)
 

IF

1.5

M

  

M

  

M

  

E

          

Clutton-Brock et al. (1987)e
 

IF

1.5

E

  

E

  

M

  

E

          

Conradt et al. (2001)f
 

IF

1.5

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

        

Gordon (1989a,b)
 

IF

1.5

                

E

E

E

E

Groot Buinderink and Hazebroek (1995)
 

IF

1.5

                    

F

F

Kerridge and Bullock (1991)
 

IF

1.5

E

E

    

E

E

F

F

        

Lazo et al. (1994)
 

IF

1.5

                

F

F

E

F

Staines and Crisp (1978)
 

IF

1.5

M

M

  

M

F

F

  

F

F

    

F

Staines et al. (1982)
 

IF

1.5

        

F

              

Watson and Staines (1978)

Cervus nippon

IF

1.6

                

E

    

M

Asada and Ochiai (1996)

Dama dama

IF

1.7

  

M

      

M

            

Apollonio et al. (2005)
 

IF

1.7

                    

M

M

Kerridge and Bullock (1991)
 

IF

1.7

                

M

F

F

E

Putman et al. (1993)

Odocoileus hemionus

CS

1.6

  

E

E

E

                

Bowyer (1984)
 

CS

1.6

    

E

      

E

          

Bowyer et al. (1996)
 

CS

1.6

    

M

      

E

      

M

E

Main and Coblentz (1996)

Odocoileus virginianus

CS

1.5

                

E*

F*

E*

E*

Beier (1987)
 

CS

1.5

    

E

      

E

          

Beier and McCullough (1990)
 

CS

1.5

        

M

M

M

M

E

E

E

  

Kie and Bowyer (1999)g
 

CS

1.5

    

M

M

    

M

M

      

E

LaGory et al. (1991)
 

CS

1.5

            

M

M

        

Lesage et al. (2002)h
 

CS

1.5

                

E

    

E

McCullough (1985)
 

CS

1.5

  

E

E

E

  

E

E

E

        

McCullough et al. (1989)
 

CS

1.5

E

E

  

E

E

E

  

E

        

Nixon et al. (1991)
 

CS

1.5

                      

F

Warren and Krysl (1983)
 

CS

1.5

                

E

      

Weckerly and Nelson (1990)

Ovis canadensis

GR

1.5

M

M

M

  

M

M

M

  

M

M

M

  

Bleich et al. (1997)
 

GR

1.5

  

M

M

                  

Festa-Bianchet (1988)
 

GR

1.5

                  

E

E

E

Krausman et al. (1989)
 

GR

1.5

    

M

      

M

          

Mooring et al. (2003)
 

GR

1.5

                  

E

  

E

Shank (1982)
 

GR

1.5

  

E

E

    

E

E

          

Ruckstuhl (1998), Ruckstuhl and Neuhaus (2002)
 

GR

1.5

                

E

E

E

E

Tarango et al. (2002)

Ovis dalli

GR

1.6

                    

E

  

Seip and Bunnell (1985)

Ovis gmelini

GR

1.8

M

                      

Bon et al. (1995)
 

GR

1.8

E

  

E

  

E

  

E

          

Cransac and Hewison (1997)
 

GR

1.8

                

E

    

E

Cransac et al. (1997)
 

GR

1.8

  

E

      

E

            

Cransac et al. (1998)

Rangifer tarandus

IF

1.5

    

M

      

M

          

Bergerud et al. (1984)
 

IF

1.5

  

M

M

    

M

M

    

M

M

  

Heard et al. (1996)
 

IF

1.5

E

M

  

E

E

M

  

E

        

Jakimchuk et al. (1987)
 

IF

1.5

                  

E

E

E

Leader-Williams et al. (1981)
 

IF

1.5

      

E

      

E

        

Van Wieren and de Bie (1980)

Rupicapra pyrenaica

IF

1.3

                

F

F

F

F

Pérez-Barbería et al. (1997)

Rupicapra rupicapra

IF

1.5

    

E

      

E

          

Shank (1985)

Male

Female

Equivalent

Total

    

6

0

9

15

7

1

9

17

11

0

12

23

2

0

9

11

4

2

10

16

5

1

9

15

7

3

13

23

3

2

8

13

2

3

9

14

2

4

7

13

5

4

9

18

2

6

11

18

  

aComparisons based on biomass and forage quality of feltleaf willow (Salix alaxensis).

bMysterud 2000 has M<F for diet quality under the subheading ‘year’, but Miquelle et. al (1992:33) report no significant differences were found in diet quality between sexes.

cMales and females used different habitats during Apr-May and Jun-Aug, but it was not clear whether biomass or forage quality was superior for either sex because goats have a broad dietary niche and diets were not reported.

dRuckstuhl and Neuhaus (2002) reported forage quality superior for females but results were mixed.

eIncludes data from Clutton-Brock et al. (1982).

fComparisons are between feeding sites used by sexes within the same habitats.

gResults are for the free-ranging population outside of the predator exclosure (39 deer/km2). Data from the high-density (77 deer/km2) population within the exclosure were excluded because they did not represent normal conditions.

hForage quality based on the availability of forbs.


[Back to E089-038]