Next Article in Journal
The Identification of RPL4 as a Hub Gene Associated with Goat Litter Size via Weighted Gene Co-Expression Network Analysis
Previous Article in Journal
Common Spontaneous Tumors and Tumor-like Lesions in 70 Pet Rodents and Negative MMTV Detection in Mammary Tumors
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Temporal and Spatial Influences on Fawn Summer Survival in Pronghorn Populations: Management Implications from Noninvasive Monitoring

1
Department of Wildland Resources, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322, USA
2
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Wildlife Services, National Wildlife Research Center, Utah Field Station, Logan, UT 84322, USA
3
Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, ID 83712, USA
4
Department of Biology, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Current address: Inventory and Monitoring Branch, Southeast Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lacombe, LA 70445, USA.
Animals 2024, 14(10), 1468; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14101468
Submission received: 4 March 2024 / Revised: 20 April 2024 / Accepted: 10 May 2024 / Published: 15 May 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Wildlife)

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Monitoring vital rates allows managers to estimate trends in growth rates of ungulate populations, but connecting the influence of nutrition on ungulate demography is challenging. Internal and external factors are likely to influence neonate survival and recruitment. We found that nitrogen available to adult female pronghorn during early lactation had the greatest influence on fawn summer survival (recruitment). Pronghorn management, where fecal sampling is utilized, should be conducted at the subpopulation level and have baseline fecal nitrogen measures taken. Subpopulations with low recruitment can be positively influenced by increasing nitrogen, or protein, available to them during the early lactation period.

Abstract

Monitoring vital rates allows managers to estimate trends in growth rates of ungulate populations. However, connecting the influence of nutrition on ungulate demography is challenging. Noninvasive sampling offers a low-cost, low-effort alternative for measuring nutritional indices, allowing for an increased understanding of the mechanistic relationships between environmental factors, nutrition, and specific population vital rates. We examined the temporal influence of intrinsic and extrinsic factors on pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) fawn recruitment. We collected fresh fecal samples from adult female pronghorn in five subpopulations spanning three sampling periods associated with critical maternal life-history stages (late gestation, early lactation, breeding season) for 2 years to investigate both intra- and interannual influences. Intrinsic factors were fecal glucocorticoid metabolites (FGMs), nutritional indices (fecal nitrogen (FN) and 2,6-diaminopimelic acid (DAPA)), and dietary composition (protein intake of forbs, graminoids, legumes, other, shrubs), while the extrinsic factor was vegetative greenness (normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI)). We found variations in DAPA, protein intake of forbs, variation in forb protein intake, and protein intake of legumes during late gestation positively influenced fawn recruitment. Fecal nitrogen during early lactation showed the strongest positive influence on the recruitment of any measured parameter. Finally, breeding season NDVI and the variation in DAPA values positively influenced the subsequent year’s fawn recruitment. Our longitudinal study enabled us to investigate which parameter was most important to specific periods of fawn development and recruitment. We combined the results across five subpopulations, but interpretation and subsequent management decisions should be made at the subpopulation level such that pronghorn subpopulations with low recruitment can be positively influenced by increasing nitrogen on the landscape available to adult females during the early lactation period. As the use of noninvasive monitoring methods continues to expand, we believe our methodologies and results can be broadly applied to other ungulate monitoring programs.

1. Introduction

Reliable estimates of vital rates, such as survival and reproduction, are required for both management and scientific understanding of ungulate population dynamics [1]. While there have been some attempts to formally predict population dynamics from harvested ungulates using statistical models [2,3,4], robust and widely applicable prediction tools are currently rare [5]. Monitoring population vital rates (i.e., pregnancy, litter size, neonatal and adult survival) allows managers to estimate trends in population growth rates, as well as mechanistic relationships between environmental factors and specific vital rates of population demography [6]. Juvenile survival in herbivores tends to exhibit greater spatial and temporal variation than adults and, as a result, can have a larger influence on population dynamics [7,8]. Therefore, predicting the future juvenile survival of large herbivores would greatly improve population dynamics modeling and management [5]. Age ratios (i.e., young:adult) are indices regularly incorporated into many wildlife monitoring programs and widely collected via herd composition surveys to infer demographic trends [9]. Ungulate age ratios are used to estimate fecundity and survival rates of young in harvested, threatened, and endangered populations [7,10,11,12,13]. Most commonly, age ratios index recruitment, which is the product of fecundity and survival of young [14]. Harris et al. [9] suggested age ratios can meaningfully reflect the dynamics of an individual component of the ratio, specifically the survival of the young (i.e., recruitment) in wapiti (Cervus canadensis).
Traditionally, physical capture has been the practice for obtaining population information from large mammals [15]. Capture–mark–recapture methodologies can provide accurate and unbiased estimates of population vital rates, such as survival, but are costly [16,17,18] in comparison to noninvasive methods [18]. Noninvasive methods for population monitoring are becoming important components in modern conservation practices, given they are relatively low-cost and low-effort sampling for estimation of individual and population statistics [19,20]. The ability to collect repetitive biological samples containing physiological information makes urine and fecal sampling superior to invasive methods (e.g., capture and handling), which may compromise the physiological state of wild animals [21] while presenting potential hazards to both the animal [22] and the handler [23]. Fecal sampling has many advantages for the biological matrices (e.g., blood, saliva, excreta, integumentary structures) used for measuring hormone metabolites. This method allows for a more accurate and integrated measure of the hormone levels in circulation, considering that metabolites are excreted over a period of hours [24,25] or up to a day, depending upon gut retention time in mammals [24,26,27]. In addition, feces can be easily collected, making temporally longitudinal studies possible [28].
Glucocorticoids are the primary stress steroid hormone in mammals and play a fundamental role in the regulation of energy homeostasis in relation to life-history events (e.g., growth, pregnancy, lactation, migration; [29,30,31]). Glucocorticoids are produced via plasma glucocorticoids, metabolized by the liver and other organs, excreted into the urine via the kidneys or into the gut via bile ducts, and expelled into fecal matter [5]. Fecal glucocorticoid metabolites (FGMs) reflect the free, or unbound, fraction of total glucocorticoids [32,33]. Researchers can use stress measurements (i.e., FGMs) obtained from fecal samples as a tool to evaluate the condition of an ungulate population during particular periods or in specific areas to monitor the relationship between animals and their environment [34], as well as the influence of human disturbances on animal species [35,36].
Knowledge of how nutrition influences the physiological condition of the pregnant female and the subsequent survival of her offspring is paramount to increasing our understanding of the mechanistic linkages between the environment, nutritional condition, and population performance of large ungulates. Nutritional status influences maternal body condition, pregnancy, body size, and survival of both the female and neonate [37], reflecting the quality of forage available to the female during gestation [38]. The quality of a diet is an essential driver of the performance of individuals, which in turn affects the dynamics of populations [39]. In turn, this variable can be used in models of population dynamics to better understand how habitat and nutritional conditions affect ungulate populations, a relationship that is necessary for informing management decisions, in particular for areas experiencing declining ungulate population trends [40,41]. Protein is often seasonally limited for wild ruminants, which has prompted research to focus on indices designed to estimate its concentration in animal diets [42]. As a result, multiple methods have been developed to monitor the diet quality of free-ranging ungulates. These methods are of growing relevance given the dynamic relationship between dietary composition and changes in climate [43,44]. The utilization of indirect measures of diet quality (i.e., fecal indices) is a valuable option based on both the feasibility of sample collection and the minimal disturbance, if any, caused to the animal [45]. Two commonly used fecal indices are fecal nitrogen (FN), an estimate of dietary nitrogen and diet quality [46,47], and fecal 2,6-diaminopimelic acid (DAPA), an estimate of rumen bacterial mass and an index of digestible energy [48,49,50,51].
Nutrition is impacted by changes in forage species availability, abundance, and plant phenological stage [41]; thus, animals must optimize their diet and forage intake to meet their dynamic nutrient demands [52]. Ruminants are categorized by feeding type, and those labeled as intermediate or mixed feeders, like pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana), are generally selective but opportunistic foragers [53]. This is often a function of small body size and relatively small rumen, which limits their ability to digest plants high in lignocellulose, such as graminoids, resulting in its avoidance when other functional groups are available [53]. However, there are positive associative effects from protein-rich forages (e.g., forbs) in diverse ruminant diets, which allow for more efficient utilization of plants high in fiber, like graminoids [54].
Pronghorn antelope are a small ruminant (45 kg) native to sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) and grassland ecosystems in western North America [38,55]. Pronghorn have the unique distinction among mammals to be the only members of the family Antilocapridae and genus Antilocapra [56]. The current distribution of pronghorn is but a fraction of their historic range [57], prompting research into techniques for monitoring population status. They are particularly sensitive to stress and mortality during physical capture [58], and myopathy is not an uncommon consequence of handling [12,59], making alternative methods such as noninvasive sampling appealing. The goal of this study was to determine when and what maternal measure had the largest influence on pronghorn fawn recruitment. Thus, we designed a population monitoring study utilizing noninvasive fecal sampling from free-ranging, adult female pronghorn where our objectives were to (1) examine intra-annual intrinsic and extrinsic factors influencing fawn recruitment, and (2) explore interannual influences (i.e., lag effects) of intrinsic and extrinsic factors on the following year’s recruitment. The intrinsic factors included adult female hormonal measures (e.g., FGM (ng/g)), nutrition indices (e.g., FN (%) and DAPA (mg/g)), and diet composition (e.g., protein intake of forbs, graminoids, legumes, other, shrubs (%)); while the extrinsic factor was vegetative greenness (i.e., normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI)) within each study site. We predicted that (1) there would be temporal differences in correlations between the various predictor variables and pronghorn summer fawn survival, based on seasonal metabolic demands of the female, (2) that adult female nutritional indices (i.e., FN and DAPA) and NDVI (a proxy for plant productivity) would positively influence fawn summer survival during each seasonal collection period, and (3) the nutritional condition of the doe during or at the beginning of the breeding season would positively influence the following year’s fawn summer survival.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

We studied five subpopulations representing the majority of pronghorn habitats and population productivities in southern Idaho, USA [47] (Figure 1), including Jarbidge, Camas Prairie, Little Wood, Birch Creek, and Pahsimeroi (Table 1). The Jarbidge site had a resident pronghorn subpopulation occupying a desert habitat. Based on Idaho’s gap analysis land cover classification [60], basin and Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata tridentata and A. t. wyomingensis) were the dominant cover types. Perennial grasslands (i.e., crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum)) were the next dominant cover type, with the remaining landscape being a mix of low sagebrush (Artemesia arbuscula), antelope bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata), and rabbit brush (Chrysothamnus spp.) communities. The Camas Prairie site had a migratory pronghorn subpopulation persisting largely on agricultural lands through the summer months. Alfalfa (Medicago sativa) was the dominant crop with planted grassland parcels enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program [61]. The Little Wood site had a migratory pronghorn subpopulation occupying native shrub–steppe rangelands with big sagebrush and irrigated agriculture throughout. Birch Creek and Pahsimeroi study sites contained migratory subpopulations inhabiting mountain valley habitats. The Birch Creek subpopulation occupied both the Birch Creek and Lemhi valleys, where low sagebrush was the dominant vegetation community. Mountain, basin, and Wyoming big sagebrush also accounted for a large portion of the study site with limited agricultural lands. The Pahsimeroi subpopulation occupied both the Pahsimeroi and Little Lost River valleys, where mixed stands of mountain big sagebrush and low sagebrush dominated the landscape. Basin and Wyoming big sagebrush were the next most abundant cover types, and agricultural lands were also limited [47]. See Bleke et al. [62] for additional descriptions of habitat types.

2.2. Sample Collections

We randomly collected fresh fecal samples from unmarked, reproductive-aged female pronghorn (i.e., ≥2 years) in 2018 and 2019. Collections occurred during three sampling periods selected to coincide with maternal life history stages: late gestation (April to mid-May), early lactation (June), and breeding season (September). We discuss our results in accordance with female life history stages because we were unable to associate pregnancy or lactation status with individual adult female pronghorn samples, given our noninvasive sampling design. We used magnifying optics to categorize individuals by age class (i.e., fawn, yearling, adult, unknown) and sex and to monitor defecation. Females were identified by a lack of a black cheek patch. We used 2-person teams with two-way radio communication to locate fresh pellet piles. If we were uncertain whether an individual female pronghorn was sexually mature (e.g., a lone individual that lacked a reference adult female for age or size comparison) or we believed an individual was a yearling based on estimated shoulder height or muzzle length, we did not collect a sample. We collected fecal samples from spatially segregated groups of animals to obtain a representative sample of the subpopulation and avoid duplicate sampling.

2.3. Laboratory Methodologies

We collected a total of 1440 samples during our study. From those, we randomly selected 20 samples/subpopulation/sampling period/year (n = 560 samples; 2018 = 260, 2019 = 300) for analyses of fecal glucocorticoid metabolites [63], diet composition via plant DNA barcoding [62], and nutritional indices via fecal nitrogen and DAPA [31]. The overall percentage component of dietary protein, for functional group or family- and genus-level from each operational taxonomic unit, was calculated by summing all samples and dividing by the total [64]. The Little Wood and Camas Prairie subpopulations were not sampled during late gestation in 2018. We dried fecal samples in a drying oven (Precision Scientific, Chicago, IL, USA), where temperatures were held below 50 °C until all moisture evaporated. We ground dried samples with a coffee grinder (Hamilton Beach, Southern Pines, NC, USA) until fecal material became a consistent powder in texture. We sent portions of the dried and ground samples to the Wildlife Habitat and Nutrition Laboratory at Washington State University (Pullman, WA, USA) to measure concentrations of DAPA and fecal nitrogen. DAPA was calculated following the methods of Davitt and Nelson [48], while fecal nitrogen percent was determined using a TruSpec CN Analyzer (LECO, St. Joseph, MI, USA). We also sent portions of the same samples to Jonah Ventures Laboratory (Boulder, CO, USA) for plant DNA barcoding analyses; the laboratory methodologies are summarized in [62]. We used cortisol enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA, ADI-900-071, Enzo Life Sciences, Inc., Farmingdale, NY, USA) kits to measure FGM concentrations. We followed established protocols that were optimized for pronghorn [63] for fecal steroid metabolite extractions, validations, and measurements. Fecal glucocorticoid metabolite measurements were calculated in 34 assays with a mean intra-assay variation of 1.96% and an inter-assay variation of 15.42%.

2.4. Herd Composition Surveys

We conducted ground-based pronghorn composition surveys once per year for each subpopulation to estimate sex and age ratios (i.e., sex (male:female) and age (young:adult)) as a proxy for fawn summer survival. Surveys occurred between 30 July and 6 August 2018–2020. Pronghorn are most dispersed during the fawning season (i.e., May through June), but fawns are in their hiding stage, preventing accurate herd structure estimates [65]. Group sizes remain small and relatively dispersed during August [66] when fawns have increased their activity and grown out of the hiding stage, making late summer an ideal time to calculate pronghorn fawn summer survival [67]. We will henceforth refer to fawn summer survival as fawn recruitment.
We did not survey the Little Wood pronghorn in 2018 due to a wildfire. We began each survey at sunrise and completed each prior to 1200 h. We used one vehicle per survey with two observers, a driver and passenger, who were either Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) biologists or personnel experienced with pronghorn sex and age classifications. Vehicles maintained speeds of ≤40 km/h and stopped every 0.80 km along the route. Observers visually panned their respective 180° perpendicular to the vehicle using magnifying optics (i.e., binoculars and spotting scopes) at each stop and recorded all pronghorn observed. Observers recorded the location of the vehicle with a handheld GPS (Garmin Ltd., Olathe, KS, USA) and the composition of the group (i.e., adult male, adult female, male or female yearling, young, unknown). We attempted to delineate nonreproductive-aged (i.e., yearling) from reproductive-aged (i.e., ≥2 years) females during surveys to increase precision in our recruitment estimates [65]. Several years of these same surveys in various subpopulations of pronghorn were used to examine the influence of landscape variables and climate on fawn recruitment across Idaho [68].

2.5. NDVI

We used atmospherically corrected Landsat 8 surface reflectance data from the Google Earth Engine [69,70] to calculate average NDVI values at 30 × 30 m resolution for each subpopulation’s summer range. We defined these summer ranges with the assistance of IDFG biologists based on their knowledge of these areas. We collected mean NDVI values of each summer range during the three sampling periods, which represented the temporal variation, as well as the standard deviation of the summer ranges, which represented the spatial variation.
This index is the normalized reflectance difference between the visible red bands and the near-infrared, which tracks chlorophyll quantity and plant production throughout the growing season [71,72,73]. We interpolated missing NDVI values across time using the “interpolation” command in the impute time series library (imputeTS; [74]). We standardized the NDVI values to a −1 to 1 scale to facilitate comparisons. We used a weighted Whittaker smoothing process [75,76] to remove inherent noise in NDVI data [77]. All NDVI interpolations, standardizations, and smoothing processes were conducted in R [78].

2.6. Statistical Analyses

We found temporal differences in adult female pronghorn nutrition and diet among these subpopulations [31,63]; therefore, we analyzed our data separately for each sampling period to examine potential differences in predictor variables on fawn recruitment across adult female life history stages of pronghorn in Idaho. Our analyses involved pronghorn fawn recruitment estimates as the response variable and 18 predictor variables (Table 2). Predictor variables included the aforementioned intrinsic and extrinsic factors, as well as their standard deviations, and were averaged by subpopulation and year for analyses. Fawn recruitment estimates were recorded as ratios where we divided the total number of fawns by the total number of adult females observed per subpopulation (Table 1). Variation and predictability of environmental factors and plant phenology were found to be important in ungulate demographics [79,80]; therefore, we included the standard deviation (SD) of our parameters as a measure of variability across individuals within a subpopulation for each measure.
We first assessed correlations via Pearson’s correlation tests, using the cor.test command, to evaluate within-year relationships between predictor variables from late gestation and early lactation and fawn recruitment, as well as predictor variables from the breeding season and the following year’s recruitment. Breeding season sampling occurred after recruitment estimates were determined (i.e., lag effect). Our first step involved eliminating variables by carrying forward only those with correlation coefficients > 0.50 for regression analyses in R. We then used a model selection approach to determine the influence of those predictor variables, by sampling period, on pronghorn fawn recruitment in Idaho. Dietary variables (i.e., protein intake of forb, graminoid, legume, shrub) were recorded as proportions (i.e., 0.0–1.0 scale) where each sample summed to 1 across plant functional groups. Variables with a correlation coefficient > 0.50 were not allowed to occur in the same multivariate model [81]. We ran those selected variables in univariate and additive regression models, along with the null model, to assess whether the inclusion of additive models increased explanatory power for each sampling period. Our null model was fawn recruitment as the response variable. The equation of the null model was lm(formula = recruitment~1).
We used Akaike’s information criterion for small sample sizes (AICc) and AICc weights to rank models. We evaluated the AICc weights of the top-ranking model(s) and the null model to describe the strength of evidence for the top model(s) [82]. We did not combine variable means and variances in additive models, given their inherent correlation. We considered models equivalent when the ratio between AICc weights was <2.0, which would indicate that the top-ranking model was less than twice as likely as the null [83]. We tested models for normality of residuals, heteroscedasticity of residuals, and equal variance. We used α = 0.10 for all statistical tests. With the amount of variability in most study systems and the general lack of controls or replications, statistical tests producing p-values of <0.10 should be examined thoroughly as a biological relationship may exist among the parameters measured, and sample size may be limiting any definitive statistical conclusion [84].

3. Results

We removed two samples from our analyses due to contamination issues with plant DNA barcoding analyses, resulting in a sample size of 558 for this study. Estimates of fawn recruitment varied by subpopulation and year (Table 1). We found temporal differences in the number of predictor variables per sampling period at six, two, and four for late gestation, early lactation, and breeding season, respectively. Herd composition survey results for totals and age ratios from each year can be found in Table 3.

3.1. Late Gestation

The standard deviation of DAPA (DAPA SD), dietary protein intake of forbs (Forb), the standard deviation of forb protein intake (Forb SD), dietary protein intake of graminoids (Graminoid), the standard deviation of graminoid protein intake (Graminoid SD), and dietary protein intake of legumes (Legume) variables were carried forward for late gestation. From those six variables, we found pronghorn fawn recruitment to be negatively correlated with protein intake of graminoids (r = −0.67, df = 6, p = 0.07; Figure 2) during late gestation. We detected significant correlations between DAPA SD and Forb (r = 0.87, N = 8, p = 0.02), DAPA SD and Legume (r = 0.86, N = 8, p = 0.006), Legume and Forb (r = 0.69, N = 8, p = 0.05), and DAPA SD and Forb SD (r = 0.70, N = 8, p = 0.05) variables during late gestation analyses and therefore Legume and Forb SD was the only additive model. Forb SD (R2 = 0.53, F1, 6 = 6.90, p = 0.04) was the top model during late gestation containing 40% of the model weight (Table 4). The null model had a ΔAICc of 0.52.

3.2. Early Lactation

Fecal nitrogen was significantly correlated (r = 0.87, df = 7, p = 0.002) with pronghorn fawn recruitment during early lactation (Figure 3). We also carried forward NDVI for regression analysis based on the strength of the relationship with fawn recruitment (r = 0.54, df = 7, p = 0.13). Fecal nitrogen and NDVI were correlated (r = 0.56, df = 7, p = 0.12) and not included in regression analysis. Fecal nitrogen was the best model (R2 = 0.76, F2, 6 = 9.46, p = 0.01) in predicting pronghorn fawn recruitment in all study subpopulations and contained 95% of the model weight (Table 4). All remaining models had ΔAICc > 2.0.

3.3. Breeding Season Lag Effect

Graminoid (r = −0.63, df = 8, p = 0.05) and Graminoid SD (r = −0.59, df = 8, p = 0.07) during breeding season were negatively correlated with the following year’s fawn recruitment while DAPA SD (r = 0.63, df = 8, p = 0.05) and NDVI (r = 0.61, df = 8, p = 0.06) were positively correlated (Figure 4). DAPA SD and NDVI variables were carried forward for breeding season lag effect regression analysis, but this additive model was correlated (r = 0.70, N = 10, p = 0.02) and not included. DAPA SD was the top model (R2 = 0.40, F1, 8 = 5.37, p = 0.05) for breeding season effect on the following year’s fawn recruitment containing 41% of the model weight, but the NDVI and null models had ΔAICc < 2.0 (Table 4). Additive models demonstrated that the addition of variables did not improve the explanatory power of any models.

4. Discussion

4.1. Late Gestation

Fawn recruitment was positively associated with late gestation protein intake of forbs and legumes as well as the variability in forb protein intake and DAPA (Figure 2A–C,F), but negatively related to protein intake of graminoids and the variability in graminoid protein intake (Figure 2D,E). The relationships between diet variables and fawn recruitment may have reflected plant functional group availability, but no information is available in this regard. The negative relationship with graminoids is likely a result of the animals’ small rumen and associated inability to digest plants with high content of lignocellulose and fiber (i.e., graminoids; [53]). Birch Creek and Jarbidge subpopulations consumed the highest proportions of protein intake from graminoids and subsequently had lower recruitment estimates compared to the Camas Prairie subpopulation, where a majority of protein intake from this subpopulation was from forbs and showed higher recruitment estimates. The Camas Prairie subpopulation was the only site to obtain >4.0% of dietary protein from legumes during late gestation, with a mean composition of 16.67% of plant species consumed, primarily driven by sainfoin (Onobrychis viciifolia; [65]). Forbs are high in crude protein content [85] and have been described as “production plants” because years of higher fawn recruitment coincide with high abundance and extenuated succulence of forbs throughout the summer [86]. Such increased proportion and higher recruitment estimates likely influenced the relationship between legume protein intake and fawn recruitment during this time. Pronghorn diet studies are generally typified into major plant functional groups (i.e., graminoids, forbs, shrubs; [86]), but recent work included legumes as a separate group, which enabled the investigation of potential spatially explicit impacts on agricultural lands. Bleke et al. [62] utilized plant DNA barcoding for dietary analysis and found pronghorn within the shrub–steppe biome acquired the highest proportion of protein from graminoids and the lowest from forbs during late gestation.
Our late gestation sample collection occurred during the third trimester of gestation, the most metabolically demanding period of pregnancy [37], when metabolic costs are 50% greater in pregnant females than in nonpregnant females [87]. Pronghorn pregnant with twins are believed to invest more in reproduction than all other ungulate species per reproductive event [88,89]. Pregnant pronghorn require highly digestible, high-protein forbs during this time as 50% of fetal mass development occurs during the final month of gestation [50], constraining the amount of biomass that could be ingested and digested on a daily basis [90]. In turn, the female’s nutritional status directly influences neonate weight and subsequent survival rates [38,91,92].

4.2. Early Lactation

Fawn recruitment was positively related to early lactation fecal nitrogen and NDVI (Figure 3A,B). Fecal nitrogen was the top model during early lactation, with 97% of the model weight, meaning as subpopulation fecal nitrogen increased, fawn recruitment increased (Table 4). Fecal nitrogen and fecal crude protein share a linear relationship [93] such that as diet quality (i.e., fecal nitrogen) increases, so does protein intake. The importance of fecal nitrogen during this time is likely a result of adult female metabolic demands during early lactation.
The transition from gestation to lactation is among the most important determinants of maternal–offspring health outcomes [94,95,96], when daily energetic requirements increase by 65–215% during the first month postpartum [97,98], and is the metabolic peak for female ungulates [9]. Peak milk volume and milk energy output, in proportion to maternal weight, are higher in pronghorn than other studied species of North American big game [99], particularly during the first two weeks of lactation [86].
Growth rates of neonatal pronghorn have been directly related to milk energy intake, which is highest during early lactation, and a direct result of adult female body condition [100]. The rapid growth rates of pronghorn fawns enable them to quickly attain adult proportions, improving their locomotion efficiency and subsequently increasing survival by outrunning predators [100]. This directly supports our findings on the critical importance of diet quality to female pronghorn during lactation and its direct influence on fawn survival and recruitment. The response of fawn growth rates to a range of energy and protein intake levels suggests nutrition, rather than physiology, constrains the rate of fawn development [99]. Poor forage quality may reduce female milk production, thereby reducing fawn growth rates and subsequently increasing the period of time in which fawns are vulnerable to predation [47].
Fecal nitrogen was highest during early lactation [31], which is supported by previous nutrition work conducted amongst these subpopulations [47]. Both studies found the Camas Prairie subpopulation to have the highest fecal nitrogen during this time, while Jarbidge or Little Wood subpopulations had the lowest values, depending on the year of sampling [31,47]. Forb protein intake [62] and fawn recruitment estimates shared a similar pattern, indicating that increasing diet quality, or forbs, available to pronghorn may be a management strategy to increase fawn recruitment. The annual metabolic commitment that female pronghorn make to fawn recruitment and the influence of dietary nutritional quality on female condition [68] stresses the value of using adult female fecal nitrogen as a predictor of recruitment.

4.3. Breeding Season Lag Effect

Breeding season variations in DAPA and NDVI were positively related to the following year’s fawn recruitment, while protein intake of graminoids and its variation were negatively related (Figure 4). This negative relationship is likely the result of constraints that a small rumen imposes on fiber digestion, as previously explained [53]. Subpopulation variation in DAPA contained 41% of the model weight, but NDVI and the null model had ΔAICc < 2.0 (Table 4), preventing us from deeming it the top model. DAPA variation was higher in 2019 compared to 2018, and fawn recruitment estimates were higher for most subpopulations in 2019, which may help in explaining why DAPA SD was the top model. Variations in DAPA and NDVI were correlated during this period as well and this positive association is likely complementary and aids in female pronghorn’s ability to metabolically recover from the costs of reproduction and lactation [101,102] when female milk energy output is greatly reduced [86].
Female pronghorn generally exhibit no indication of reduced reproductive success attributable to the previous reproductive event(s) [101], yet they produce twins each year [102] at a time when plant quality has declined due to maturation and senescence [103]. This is not the case with other ungulates, such as bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis), where reproductive success in one year leads to lower condition and decreased success the following year [104]. Female ungulates are generally in their best condition at the onset of winter when metabolic demands have greatly decreased following the weaning of young [37]. Specifically, pronghorn maternal condition during fall estrus has been shown to influence offspring prenatal growth rates [102], gestation length, and birth weight [105], further supporting the importance of digestible energy for female pronghorn during the breeding season.
While we demonstrated the utility of a noninvasive technique to predict summer fawn survival for pronghorn in northern latitudes, it did not address the possible effects of predation, habitat quality, or weather. Panting et al. [92] investigated pronghorn neonate survival in Idaho and found neonate body mass index, lagomorph abundance, and diet quality during gestation and lactation influence fawn survival. Our results support this finding. Smyser [47] postulated that summer range quality is a limiting factor for these subpopulations. Our use of DNA barcoding for diet determination allowed us to determine temporal plant functional group protein intake and its influence on fawn summer survival. Advances in the GenBank software will increase the taxonomic resolution of plants consumed and highlight the temporal and spatial importance of particular plant species. Gese et al. [68] explored environmental influence on pronghorn fawn recruitment in Idaho and found that the climatic drivers were spatially and temporarily explicit to the elevation each subpopulation occupied. Finally, our small sample size limited the statistical inferences that could be made on correlation results. Our interest was in modeling variables that showed moderate relationships with recruitment to then determine which had the strongest influence.

5. Conclusions

To noninvasively monitor pronghorn fawn recruitment in Idaho, we recommend managers collect fecal samples during the early lactation period (i.e., June) to assess baseline fecal nitrogen content. Fresh fecal samples are required for accurate hormone measurements due to degradations via exposure [63], but retention of nitrogen in feces is not compromised by exposure to weather and insects for 2–3 weeks post-defecation [106], making fresh collections unnecessary but highly encouraged. Even with a small sample size, fecal nitrogen accounted for 97% of the model weight for all subpopulations and years combined. While June corresponded with early lactation in northern pronghorn populations, it is likely that the life-history stage is more important than the calendar month. Broadly, pronghorn fawn recruitment is a function of fawn growth rates, which depends on fawn milk energy intake. This variable is, in turn, a function of female milk energy output, which relies on diet quality and plant productivity. As such, management decisions should be made at the subpopulation level, where actions should be aimed at increasing diet quality, particularly forbs available during early lactation, for those subpopulations with low fawn recruitment. We showed that any increase in nitrogen on the landscape for lactating adult females may positively influence fawn recruitment.
Temporal variation in the relationships between pronghorn recruitment and physiological variables showed differences in the seasonal demands of adult females. Given our sampling design, we were able to examine the relationships of our measured variables and known adult female expenditures: (a) variation in digestible energy and plant productivity on maternal condition during estrus; (b) variation in digestible energy and diet composition on prenatal growth rates and birth weights during late gestation; and finally, (c) diet quality on milk energy output and associated fawn growth rates and subsequent fawn recruitment during early lactation. Sampling designs utilizing multiple concurrent life-history stages of adult females enable managers to longitudinally track and monitor drivers or factors influencing vital rates (e.g., fawn recruitment) within populations of interest. Improving our understanding of seasonal patterns or differences in ungulate nutritional conditions and their effects on population dynamics can provide useful insight for and guide population and habitat management [37,107,108,109]. Pronghorn in this study consumed plants from all functional groups (i.e., forbs, graminoids, legumes, shrubs) with proportions varying across female life history stages [62], demonstrating the importance of vegetative communities. That balance is important given the differing relationships between protein intake of plant functional groups and fawn recruitment.
Noninvasive monitoring of wildlife populations is increasing in use and popularity, given the feasibility and insight it provides without requiring the capture of an animal. We believe our methodologies and results presented within this study can be broadly tested and applied to ungulate monitoring programs, particularly for elusive and endangered species or species occupying habitats difficult to survey. Species such as pronghorn are at increased risk of injury during capture events, justifying the need for continued adoption of these techniques.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.M.G. and S.B.R.; data curation, C.A.B.; formal analysis, C.A.B. and E.M.G.; funding acquisition, E.M.G. and S.B.R.; investigation, C.A.B., E.M.G., J.J.V. and S.S.F.; methodology, C.A.B., E.M.G. and S.S.F.; project administration, E.M.G. and S.B.R.; resources, E.M.G., J.J.V., S.B.R. and S.S.F.; validation, C.A.B.; visualization, C.A.B., E.M.G. and J.J.V.; writing—original draft, C.A.B.; writing—review and editing, E.M.G., J.J.V., S.B.R. and S.S.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the USFWS Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration (F14AF01014), by a USDA-NWRC Cooperative Research Agreement (20-7449-0042), and by the Ecology Center at Utah State University (no grant number).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The dataset in this study can be requested from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We thank Pat Terletzky for her assistance with statistical analyses. We thank Peyton Webb, Lindsey Magnicheri, Aaron James, and Justin Leegard for their assistance in field collections. We thank IDFG biologists for assisting with organizing field logistics, providing population information, and volunteering to help with sample collections and conducting composition surveys.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest or nonfinancial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript. The findings and conclusions in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The findings and conclusions in this publication have not been formally disseminated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and should not be construed to represent any agency determination or policy.

References

  1. Bonenfant, C.; Gaillard, J.; Klein, F.; Hamann, J. Can we use the young:female ratio to infer ungulate dynamics? An empirical test using red deer Cervus elaphus as a model. J. Appl. Ecol. 2005, 42, 361–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Freddy, D.J. Predicting mule deer harvest in Middle Park, Colorado. J. Wildl. Manag. 1982, 46, 801–806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Peek, J.M.; Dennis, B.; Hershey, T. Predicting population trends of mule deer. J. Wildl. Manag. 2002, 66, 729–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. White, G.C.; Lubow, B.C. Fitting population models to multiple sources of observed data. J. Wildl. Manag. 2002, 66, 300–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Hurley, M.A.; Hebblewhite, M.; Lukacs, P.M.; Nowak, J.J.; Gaillard, J.; Bonenfant, C. Regional-scale models for predicting overwinter survival of juvenile ungulates. J. Wildl. Manag. 2017, 81, 364–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. DeCesare, N.J.; Hebblewhite, M.; Bradley, M.; Smith, K.G.; Hervieux, D.; Neufeld, L. Estimating ungulate recruitment and growth rates using age ratios. J. Wildl. Manag. 2012, 76, 114–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Unsworth, J.W.; Pac, D.F.; White, G.C.; Bartmann, R.M. Mule deer survival in Colorado, Idaho, and Montana. J. Wildl. Manag. 1999, 63, 315–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Gaillard, J.M.; Festa-Bianchet, M.; Yoccoz, M.; Loison, A.; Toigo, C. Temporal variation in fitness components and population dynamics of large herbivores. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Ecol. Syst. 2000, 31, 367–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Harris, N.C.; Kauffman, M.J.; Mills, L.S. Inferences about ungulate population dynamics derived from age ratios. J. Wildl. Manag. 2008, 72, 1143–1151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. White, G.C.; Reeve, A.F.; Lindzey, F.G.; Burnham, K.P. Estimation of mule deer winter mortality from age ratios. J. Wildl. Manag. 1996, 60, 37–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kinley, T.A.; Apps, C.D. Mortality patterns in a subpopulation of endangered mountain caribou. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 2001, 29, 158–164. [Google Scholar]
  12. Bright, J.L.; Hervert, J.J. Adult and fawn mortality of Sonoran pronghorn. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 2005, 33, 43–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Wittmer, H.U.; McLellan, B.N.; Seip, D.R.; Young, J.A.; Kinley, T.A.; Watts, G.S.; Hamilton, D. Population dynamics of the endangered mountain ecotype of woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in British Columbia, Canada. Can. J. Zool. 2005, 83, 407–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. White, P.J.; Garrott, R.A. Northern Yellowstone elk after wolf restoration. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 2005, 33, 942–955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Woodruff, S.P.; Johnson, T.R.; Waits, L.P. Examining the use of fecal pellet morphometry to differentiate age classes in Sonoran pronghorn. Wildl. Biol. 2016, 22, 217–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Lebreton, J.D.; Burnham, K.P.; Clobert, J.; Anderson, D.R. Modelling survival and testing biological hypotheses using marked animals: A unified approach with case studies. Wildl. Monogr. 1992, 62, 67–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Schwarz, C.J.; Seber, G.A.F. A review of estimating animal abundance III. Stat. Sci. 1999, 14, 427–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Lebreton, J.D.; Pradel, R. Multistate recapture models: Modelling incomplete individual histories. J. Appl. Stat. 2002, 29, 359–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Allendorf, F.W.; Hohenlohe, P.A.; Luikart, G. Genomics and the future of conservation genetics. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2010, 11, 697–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Pannoni, S.B.; Proffitt, K.M.; Holben, W.E. Non-invasive monitoring of multiple wildlife health factors by fecal microbiome analysis. Ecol. Evol. 2022, 12, e8564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Stoops, M.A.; Anderson, G.B.; Lasley, B.L.; Shideler, S.E. Use of fecal steroid metabolites to estimate the pregnancy rate of a free-ranging herd of Tule elk. J. Wildl. Manag. 1999, 63, 561–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Peterson, M.N.; Lopez, R.R.; Frank, P.A.; Peterson, M.J.; Silvy, N.J. Evaluating capture methods for urban white-tailed deer. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 2003, 31, 1176–1187. [Google Scholar]
  23. Jessup, D.A.; Clark, R.K.; Weaver, R.A.; Kock, M.D. The safety and cost effectiveness of net-gun capture of desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis nelsoni). J. Zoo Anim. Med. 1988, 19, 208–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Palme, R.; Rettenbacher, S.; Touma, C.; El-Bahr, S.M.; Möstl, E. Stress hormones in mammals and birds: Comparative aspects regarding metabolism, excretion, and noninvasive measurement in fecal samples. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2005, 1040, 162–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. De Souza, L.J.; Tanaka, Y.; Santo, L.G.D.; Duarte, J.M.B. Effect of dietary fiber on fecal androgens levels: An experimental analysis in brown brocket deer (Mazama gouazoubira). Gen. Comp. Endocrinol. 2022, 321–322, 114029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Millspaugh, J.J.; Woods, R.J.; Hunt, K.E.; Raedeke, K.J.; Brundige, G.C.; Washburn, B.E.; Wasser, S.K. Fecal glucocorticoid assays and the physiological stress response in elk. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 2001, 29, 899–907. [Google Scholar]
  27. Möstl, E.; Palme, R. Hormones as indicators of stress. Domest. Anim. Endocrinol. 2002, 23, 67–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Schwarzenberger, F.; Möstl, E.; Palme, R.; Bamberg, E. Faecal steroid analysis for non-invasive monitoring of reproductive status in farm, wild and zoo animals. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 1996, 42, 515–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. McEwen, B.S.; Wingfield, J.C. The concept of allostasis in biology and biomedicine. Horm. Behav. 2003, 43, 2–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Crespi, E.J.; Williams, T.D.; Jessop, T.S.; Delehanty, B. Life and history and the ecology of stress: How do glucocorticoid hormones influence life-history variation in animals? Funct. Ecol. 2013, 27, 93–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Bleke, C.A. Evaluation of Noninvasive Methods for Determining Pregnancy, Diet, Nutrition, and Stress among Pronghorn Antelope: Implications for Population Monitoring. Ph.D. Thesis, Utah State University, Logan, UT, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  32. Touma, C.; Palme, R. Measuring fecal glucocorticoid metabolites in mammals and birds: The importance of validation. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2005, 1046, 57–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Sheriff, M.J.; Krebs, C.J.; Boonstra, R. Assessing stress in animal populations: Do fecal and plasma glucocorticoids tell the same story? Gen. Comp. Endocrinol. 2010, 166, 614–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Dalmau, A.; Ferret, A.; Chacon, G.; Manteca, X. Seasonal changes in fecal cortisol metabolites in Pyrenean chamois. J. Wildl. Manag. 2007, 71, 190–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Lexen, E.; El-Bahr, S.M.; Sommerfeld-Stur, I.; Palme, R.; Möstl, E. Monitoring the adrenocortical response to disturbances in sheep by measuring glucocorticoid metabolites in the faeces. Wien. Tierarztl. Monatsschr. 2008, 95, 64–71. [Google Scholar]
  36. Santos, J.P.V.; Acevedo, P.; Carvalho, J.; Queirós, J.; Villamuelas, M.; Fonseca, C.; Gortázar, C.; López-Olvera, J.R.; Vicente, J. The importance of intrinsic traits, environment and human activities in modulating stress levels in a wild ungulate. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 89, 706–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Parker, K.L.; Barboza, P.S.; Gillingham, M.P. Nutrition integrates environmental responses of ungulates. Funct. Ecol. 2009, 23, 57–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. O’Gara, B.W. Physical characteristics. In Pronghorn: Ecology and Management; O’Gara, B.W., Yoakum, J.D., Eds.; University Press of Colorado: Denver, CO, USA, 2004; pp. 109–144. ISBN 978-0-87081-757-1. [Google Scholar]
  39. Verheyden, H.; Aubry, L.; Merlet, J.; Petibon, P.; Chauvean-Duriot, B.; Guillon, N.; Duncan, P. Faecal nitrogen, an index of diet quality in roe deer Capreolus capreolus? Wildl. Biol. 2011, 17, 166–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Stephenson, T.R.; German, D.W.; Cassirer, E.F.; Walsh, D.P.; Blum, M.E.; Cox, M.; Stewart, K.M.; Monteith, K.L. Linking population performance to nutritional condition in an alpine ungulate. J. Mammal. 2020, 101, 1244–1256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Proffitt, K.M.; Hebblewhite, M.; Peters, W.; Hupp, N.; Shamhart, J. Linking landscape-scale differences in forage to ungulate nutritional ecology. Ecol. Appl. 2016, 26, 2156–2174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Brown, R.D.; Hellgren, E.C.; Abbott, M.; Ruthven, D.C.; Bingham, R.L. Effects of dietary energy and protein restriction on nutritional indices of female white-tailed deer. J. Wildl. Manag. 1995, 59, 595–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Lovari, S.; Franceschi, S.; Chiatante, G.; Fattorini, L.; Fattorini, N.; Ferretti, F. Climatic changes and the fate of mountain herbivores. Clim. Change 2020, 162, 2319–2337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Zemanova, M.A. Towards more compassionate wildlife research through the 3Rs principles: Moving from invasive to non-invasive methods. Wildl. Biol. 2020, 2020, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Osborn, R.G.; Ginnett, T.F. Fecal nitrogen and 2,6-diaminopimelic acid as indices to dietary nitrogen in white-tailed deer. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 2001, 29, 1131–1139. [Google Scholar]
  46. Wehausen, J. Fecal measures of diet quality in wild and domestic ruminants. J. Wildl. Manag. 1995, 59, 816–823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Smyser, T.J. Population productivity and pronghorn nutrition during lactation. In Pronghorn Antelope Workshop Proceedings; Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies: Boise, ID, USA, 2008; Volume 23, pp. 127–144. [Google Scholar]
  48. Davitt, B.B.; Nelson, J.R. Methodology for the determination of DAPA in feces of large ruminants. In Proceedings of the 1984 Western States and Provinces Elk Workshop, Edmonton, AB, Canada, 17–19 April 1984; pp. 133–147. [Google Scholar]
  49. Dennehy, J.J. Influence of social dominance rank on diet quality of pronghorn females. Behav. Ecol. 2001, 12, 177–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Robinson, M.; Wild, M.; Byers, J. Relationship between diet quality and fecal nitrogen, fecal diaminopimelic acid and behavior in a captive group of pronghorn. In Pronghorn Antelope Workshop Proceedings; Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies: Boise, ID, USA, 2001; Volume 19, pp. 28–44. [Google Scholar]
  51. Cain, J.W.; Avery, M.M.; Caldwell, C.A.; Abbott, L.B.; Holechek, J.L. Diet composition, quality and overlap of sympatric American pronghorn and gemsbok. Wildl. Biol. 2017, 2017, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Gordon, I.J. Browsing and grazing ruminants: Are they different beasts. For. Ecol. Manag. 2003, 181, 13–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Hofmann, R.R. Evolutionary steps of ecophysiological adaptation and diversification of ruminants: A comparative view of their digestive system. Oecologia 1989, 78, 443–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Van Soest, P.J. Allometry and ecology of feeding behavior and digestive capacity in herbivores: A review. Zoo Biol. 1996, 15, 455–479. [Google Scholar]
  55. Reinking, A.K.; Smith, K.T.; Monteith, K.L.; Mong, T.W.; Read, M.J.; Beck, J.L. Intrinsic, environmental, and anthropogenic factors related to pronghorn summer mortality. J. Wildl. Manag. 2018, 82, 608–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Harveson, L.A. Life history and ecology of pronghorn. In Proceedings of the 22nd Biennial Pronghorn Workshop, Idaho Falls, ID, USA, 16–19 May 2006; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar]
  57. Yoakum, J.D. Distribution and abundance. In Pronghorn: Ecology and Management; O’Gara, B.W., Yoakum, J.D., Eds.; University Press of Colorado: Denver, CO, USA, 2004; pp. 75–105. ISBN 978-0-87081-757-1. [Google Scholar]
  58. Kreeger, T.J.; Arnemo, J.M.; Raath, J.P. Handbook of Wildlife Chemical Immobilization, 2nd ed.; Wildlife Pharmaceuticals: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 2002; ISBN 0965465209. [Google Scholar]
  59. Chalmers, G.A.; Barrett, M.W. Capture myopathy in pronghorns in Alberta, Canada. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 1977, 171, 918–923. [Google Scholar]
  60. Scott, J.M.; Peterson, C.R.; Karl, J.W.; Strand, E.; Svancara, L.K.; Wright, N.M. A Gap Analysis of Idaho: Final Report; Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit: Moscow, ID, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  61. Kinder, C.A. Camas County Situation Summary; University of Idaho, Camas County Extension Office: Moscow, ID, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  62. Bleke, C.A.; Gese, E.M.; Roberts, S.B.; Villalba, J.J. Seasonal shifts in pronghorn antelope diets under a new lens: Examining diet composition using a molecular technique. PLoS ONE 2023, 18, e0292725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Bleke, C.A.; Gese, E.M.; French, S.S. Variation, validations, degradation, and noninvasive determination of pregnancy using fecal steroid metabolites in free-ranging pronghorn. Gen. Comp. Endocrinol. 2021, 312, 113841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Craine, J.M. Seasonal patterns of bison diet across climate gradients in North America. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 6829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Pojar, T.M. Survey methods to estimate population. In Pronghorn: Ecology and Management; O’Gara, B.W., Yoakum, J.D., Eds.; University Press of Colorado: Denver, CO, USA, 2004; pp. 631–644. ISBN 978-0-87081-757-1. [Google Scholar]
  66. Mitchell, G.J. The Pronghorn Antelope in Alberta, 1st ed.; Alberta Department of Lands and Forests, Fish and Wildlife Division: Alberta, CA, Canada, 1980. [Google Scholar]
  67. Woolley, T.P.; Lindzey, F.G. Relative precision and sources of bias in pronghorn sex and age composition surveys. J. Wildl. Manag. 1997, 6, 57–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Gese, E.M.; Bleke, C.A.; Atwood, P.; Roberts, S.B.; Terletzky, P.A. Spatially and temporally explicit environmental drivers of fawn recruitment in a native ungulate. Ecosphere 2023, 14, e4681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Vermote, E.; Justice, C.; Csiszar, I.; Eidenshink, J.; Myneni, R.; Baret, F.; Masuoka, E.; Wolfe, R.; Claverie, M.; NOAA CDR Program. NOAA Climate Data Record of Normalized Difference Vegetation Index, 4th ed.; NOAA National Climatic Data Center: Asheville, NC, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  70. Gorelick, N.; Hancher, M.; Dixon, M.; Illyushchenko, S.; Thau, D.; Moore, R. Google Earth Engine: Planetary-scale geospatial analysis for everyone. Remote Sens. Environ. 2017, 202, 18–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Pettorelli, N. The Normalized Difference Vegetation Index; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2014; ISBN 978-0-19-969316-0. [Google Scholar]
  72. Jensen, J.R. Introductory Digital Image Processing: A Remote Sensing Perspective, 4th ed.; Pearson: London, UK, 2016; ISBN 978-0-13-405816-0. [Google Scholar]
  73. Villamuelas, M.; Fernández, N.; Albanell, E.; Gálvez-Cerón, A.; Bartolomé, J.; Mentaberre, G.; López-Olvera, J.R.; Fernández-Aguilar, X.; Colom-Cadena, A.; López-Martín, J.M. The Enhanced Vegetation Index (EVI) as a proxy for diet quality and composition in a mountain ungulate. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 61, 658–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Moritz, S.; Bartz-Beielstein, T. imputeTS: Time Series Missing Value Imputation in R. R J. 2017, 9, 207–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Eilers, P.H.C. A perfect smoother. Anal. Chem. 2003, 75, 3631–3636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Atzberger, C.; Eilers, P.H.C. A time series for monitoring vegetation activity and phenology at 10 daily time steps covering large parts of South America. Int. J. Dig. Earth 2011, 4, 365–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Zeng, L.; Wardlow, B.D.; Xiang, D.; Hu, S.; Li, D. A review of vegetation phenological metrics extraction using time-series, multispectral satellite data. Remote Sens. Environ. 2020, 237, 111511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  79. DeMars, C.A.; Gilbert, S.; Serrouya, R.; Kelly, A.P.; Larter, N.C.; Hervieux, D.; Boutin, S. Demographic responses of a threatened, low-density ungulate to annual variation in meteorological and phenological conditions. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0258136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Jesmer, B.R.; Kauffman, M.J.; Courtemanch, A.B.; Kilpatrick, S.; Thomas, T.; Yost, J.; Monteith, K.L.; Goheen, J.R. Life-history theory provides a framework for detecting resource limiting: A test of the nutritional buffer hypothesis. Ecol. Appl. 2021, 31, e02299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Taylor, R. Interpretation of the correlation coefficient: A basic review. J. Diagn. Med. Sonogr. 1990, 1, 35–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Burnham, K.P.; Anderson, D.R. Model Selection and Multimodal Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach, 2nd ed.; Springer: New York City, NY, USA, 2002; ISBN 978-0-38-795364-9. [Google Scholar]
  83. McLaughlin, M.E.; Janousek, W.M.; McCarty, J.P.; Wolfenbarger, L.L. Effects of urbanization on site occupancy and density of grassland birds in tallgrass prairie fragments. J. Field Ornithol. 2014, 85, 258–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Gese, E.M.; Terletzky, P.A.; Cooley, H.S.; Knowlton, F.F.; Lonsinger, R.S. Survey and monitoring methods for furbearers. In Wild Furbearer Management and Conservation in North America; Hiller, T.L., Applegate, R.D., Bluett, R.D., Frey, S.N., Gese, E.M., Organ, J.F., Eds.; Wildlife Ecology Institute: Helena, MT, USA, 2024; pp. 1–44. [Google Scholar]
  85. Short, H.L. Forage digestibility and diet of deer on southern upland range. J. Wildl. Manag. 1971, 35, 698–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Yoakum, J.D. Foraging ecology, diet studies and nutrient values. In Pronghorn: Ecology and Management; O’Gara, B.W., Yoakum, J.D., Eds.; University Press of Colorado: Denver, CO, USA, 2004; pp. 447–502. ISBN 978-0-87081-757-1. [Google Scholar]
  87. Pekins, P.J.; Smith, K.S.; Mautz, W.W. The energy costs of gestation in white-tailed deer. Can. J. Zool. 1998, 76, 1091–1097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Robbins, C.T.; Robbins, B.L. Fetal and neonatal growth patterns and maternal reproductive effort in ungulates and subungulates. Am. Nat. 1979, 114, 101–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Byers, J.A.; Moodie, J.D. Sex-specific maternal investment in pronghorn, and the question of a limit on differential provisioning in ungulates. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 1990, 26, 157–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Forbes, J.M. The effects of sex hormones, pregnancy and lactation on digestion, metabolism and voluntary food intake. In Control of Digestion and Metabolism in Ruminants; Milligan, L.P., Grovum, W.L., Dobson, A., Eds.; Prentice-Hall: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1986; pp. 420–435. ISBN 978-0-83591-014-9. [Google Scholar]
  91. Fairbanks, W.S. Birthdate, birthweight, and survival in pronghorn fawns. J. Mammal. 1993, 74, 129–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Panting, B.R.; Gese, E.M.; Conner, M.M.; Bergen, S. Factors influencing survival rates of pronghorn fawns in Idaho. J. Wildl. Manag. 2021, 85, 97–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Hodgman, T.P.; Bowyer, R.T. Fecal crude protein relative to browsing intensity by white-tailed deer on wintering areas in Maine. Acta Theriol. 1986, 31, 347–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Dunlop, A.L.; Mulle, J.G.; Ferranti, E.P.; Edwards, S.M.N.; Dunn, A.B.; Corwin, E.J. Maternal microbiome and pregnancy outcomes that impact infant health. Adv. Neonatal Care 2015, 15, 377–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Prince, A.L.; Chu, D.M.; Seferovic, M.D.; Antony, K.M.; Ma, J.; Aagaard, K.M. The perinatal microbiome and pregnancy: Moving beyond the vaginal microbiome. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Med. 2015, 5, a023051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Blaser, M.J.; Dominguez-Bello, M.G. The human microbiome before birth. Cell Host Microbe 2016, 20, 558–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Oftedal, O.T. Pregnancy and lactation. In Bioenergetics of Wild Herbivores; Hudson, R.J., White, R.G., Eds.; CRC Press, Inc.: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1985; pp. 216–238. ISBN 978-0-84935-911-8. [Google Scholar]
  98. Robbins, C.T. Wildlife Feeding and Nutrition, 2nd ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  99. Martin, S.K.; Parker, K.L. Rates of growth and morphological dimensions of bottle-raised pronghorns. J. Mammal. 1997, 78, 23–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. O’Gara, B.W. Reproduction. In Pronghorn: Ecology and Management; O’Gara, B.W., Yoakum, J.D., Eds.; University Press of Colorado: Denver, CO, USA, 2004; pp. 275–298. ISBN 978-0-87081-757-1. [Google Scholar]
  101. Byers, J.A. American Pronghorn: Social Adaptations and the Ghosts of Predators Past; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  102. Clancey, E.; Dunn, S.J.; Byers, J.A. Do single point condition measurements predict fitness in female pronghorn (Antilocapra americana)? Can. J. Zool. 2012, 90, 729–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Kie, J.G.; Bowyer, R.T.; Stewart, K.M. Ungulates in western forests: Habitat requirements, population dynamics, and ecosystem processes. In Mammal Community Dynamics: Management and Conservation in the Coniferous Forests of Western North America; Zabel, C.J., Anthony, R.G., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2003; pp. 296–340. [Google Scholar]
  104. Festa-Bianchet, M.; Gaillard, J.M.; Jorgenson, J.T. Mass- and density-dependent reproductive success and reproductive costs in a capital breeder. Am. Nat. 1998, 152, 367–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Byers, J.A.; Hogg, J.T. Environmental effects on prenatal growth rate in pronghorn and bighorn: Further evidence for energy constraint on sex-biased maternal expenditure. Behav. Ecol. 1995, 6, 451–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Leslie, D.M., Jr.; Bowyer, R.T.; Jenks, J.A. Facts from feces: Nitrogen still measures up as a nutritional index for mammalian herbivores. J. Wildl. Manag. 2008, 72, 1420–1433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Stephenson, T.R.; Bleich, V.C.; Pierce, B.M.; Mulcahy, G.P. Validation of mule deer body composition using in vivo and postmortem indices of nutritional condition. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 2002, 30, 557–564. [Google Scholar]
  108. Cook, J.G.; Johnson, B.K.; Cook, R.C.; Riggs, R.A.; Delcurto, T.; Bryant, L.D.; Irwin, L.L. Effects of summer–autumn nutrition and parturition date on reproduction and survival of elk. Wildl. Monogr. 2004, 155, 1–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Monteith, K.L.; Stephenson, T.R.; Bleich, V.C.; Conner, M.M.; Pierce, B.M.; Bowyer, R.T. Risk-sensitive allocation in seasonal dynamics of fat and protein reserves in a long-lived mammal. J. Anim. Ecol. 2013, 82, 377–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Pronghorn antelope summer distributions. Ranges of the five study subpopulations (Birch Creek, Camas Prairie, Jarbidge, Little Wood, Pahsimeroi) of pronghorn antelope within the state of Idaho. Grey lines represent county boundaries.
Figure 1. Pronghorn antelope summer distributions. Ranges of the five study subpopulations (Birch Creek, Camas Prairie, Jarbidge, Little Wood, Pahsimeroi) of pronghorn antelope within the state of Idaho. Grey lines represent county boundaries.
Animals 14 01468 g001
Figure 2. Correlations between (A) standard deviation of 2,6-diaminopimelic acid (DAPA SD (mg/g)), (B) mean forb protein intake (Forb (%)), (C) standard deviation of forb protein intake (Forb SD (%)), (D) graminoid protein intake (Graminoid (%)), (E) SD of graminoid protein intake (Graminoid SD (%)), and (F) legume protein intake (Legume (%)) values, and pronghorn fawn recruitment (i.e., fawn:doe ratio (F:D)) estimates, from late gestation sampling across five subpopulations in Idaho, 2018–2019. The black line represents the regression line, and the gray shaded area is the 95% confidence interval. Black dots (n = 8) represent a mean value for each subpopulation for each year.
Figure 2. Correlations between (A) standard deviation of 2,6-diaminopimelic acid (DAPA SD (mg/g)), (B) mean forb protein intake (Forb (%)), (C) standard deviation of forb protein intake (Forb SD (%)), (D) graminoid protein intake (Graminoid (%)), (E) SD of graminoid protein intake (Graminoid SD (%)), and (F) legume protein intake (Legume (%)) values, and pronghorn fawn recruitment (i.e., fawn:doe ratio (F:D)) estimates, from late gestation sampling across five subpopulations in Idaho, 2018–2019. The black line represents the regression line, and the gray shaded area is the 95% confidence interval. Black dots (n = 8) represent a mean value for each subpopulation for each year.
Animals 14 01468 g002
Figure 3. Correlations between (A) mean fecal nitrogen (FN (%)) and (B) normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) values, with pronghorn fawn recruitment (i.e., fawn:doe ratio (F:D)) estimates from early lactation sampling across five subpopulations in Idaho, 2018–2019. The black line represents the regression line, and the gray shaded area is the 95% confidence interval. Black dots (n = 9) represent a mean value for each subpopulation for each year.
Figure 3. Correlations between (A) mean fecal nitrogen (FN (%)) and (B) normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) values, with pronghorn fawn recruitment (i.e., fawn:doe ratio (F:D)) estimates from early lactation sampling across five subpopulations in Idaho, 2018–2019. The black line represents the regression line, and the gray shaded area is the 95% confidence interval. Black dots (n = 9) represent a mean value for each subpopulation for each year.
Animals 14 01468 g003
Figure 4. Correlations between (A) standard deviation of 2,6-diaminopimelic acid (DAPA SD (mg/g)), (B) graminoid protein intake (Graminoid (%)), (C) SD of graminoid protein intake (Graminoid SD (%)), and (D) normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) values from the previous breeding season, with the succeeding year’s pronghorn fawn recruitment (i.e., fawn:doe ratio (F:D); 2019–2020) estimates across five subpopulations in Idaho, 2018–2019. The black line represents the regression line, and the gray shaded area is the 95% confidence interval. Black dots (n = 9) represent a mean value for each subpopulation for each year.
Figure 4. Correlations between (A) standard deviation of 2,6-diaminopimelic acid (DAPA SD (mg/g)), (B) graminoid protein intake (Graminoid (%)), (C) SD of graminoid protein intake (Graminoid SD (%)), and (D) normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) values from the previous breeding season, with the succeeding year’s pronghorn fawn recruitment (i.e., fawn:doe ratio (F:D); 2019–2020) estimates across five subpopulations in Idaho, 2018–2019. The black line represents the regression line, and the gray shaded area is the 95% confidence interval. Black dots (n = 9) represent a mean value for each subpopulation for each year.
Animals 14 01468 g004aAnimals 14 01468 g004b
Table 1. Mean elevation, annual precipitation, monthly maximum and minimum temperatures, growing degree days (GDDs), and fawn recruitment (fawn:doe) estimates of summer ranges of pronghorn subpopulations in Idaho, 2018–2020.
Table 1. Mean elevation, annual precipitation, monthly maximum and minimum temperatures, growing degree days (GDDs), and fawn recruitment (fawn:doe) estimates of summer ranges of pronghorn subpopulations in Idaho, 2018–2020.
SubpopulationMean Elevation (m)Mean Annual Precipitation (cm)Mean Monthly Max Temperature (°C)Mean Monthly Min Temperature (°C)GDDs (2018)GDDs (2019)2018 Recruitment2019 Recruitment2020 Recruitment
Birch Creek201823.7227.78−15.56196718510.360.420.5
Camas Prairie155233.6629.4414.44189320050.50.510.82
Jarbidge155224.4131.67−6.11178914570.190.370.37
Little Wood172632.8929.44−13.3323852218-0.280.9
Pahsimeroi189719.7631.11−14.44257923490.370.290.31
Table 2. Intrinsic and extrinsic predictor variables and their variation (SD), hypothesized to influence pronghorn fawn summer survival in southern Idaho, USA, 2018–2020. Predictor variables were associated with concurrent late gestation and early lactation sampling periods as well as the following year’s breeding season. The Other functional group contained the families Orobanchaceae, Rosaceae, and Asteraceae, with each comprising forbs and shrubs, which prevented us from classifying them into a specific functional group (i.e., forbs, graminoids, legumes, shrubs).
Table 2. Intrinsic and extrinsic predictor variables and their variation (SD), hypothesized to influence pronghorn fawn summer survival in southern Idaho, USA, 2018–2020. Predictor variables were associated with concurrent late gestation and early lactation sampling periods as well as the following year’s breeding season. The Other functional group contained the families Orobanchaceae, Rosaceae, and Asteraceae, with each comprising forbs and shrubs, which prevented us from classifying them into a specific functional group (i.e., forbs, graminoids, legumes, shrubs).
TypeVariable 1Description
IntrinsicFNMean FN of samples
IntrinsicFN SDStandard deviation of FN of samples
IntrinsicDAPAMean DAPA of samples
IntrinsicDAPA SDStandard deviation of DAPA of samples
IntrinsicFGMMean FGM of samples
IntrinsicFGM SDStandard deviation of FGM of samples
IntrinsicForbMean proportion of dietary protein intake from forbs of samples
IntrinsicForb SDStandard deviation dietary protein intake from forbs
IntrinsicGraminoidMean proportion of dietary protein intake from graminoids of samples
IntrinsicGraminoid SDStandard deviation dietary protein intake from graminoids
IntrinsicLegumeMean proportion of dietary protein intake from legumes of samples
IntrinsicLegume SDStandard deviation dietary protein intake from legumes
IntrinsicShrubMean proportion of dietary protein intake from shrubs of samples
IntrinsicShrub SDStandard deviation dietary protein intake from shrubs
IntrinsicOtherMean proportion of dietary protein intake from other functional group of samples
IntrinsicOther SDStandard deviation dietary protein intake from other functional group
ExtrinsicNDVITemporal mean NDVI of subpopulation summer ranges
ExtrinsicNDVI SDSpatial variation in NDVI of subpopulation summer ranges
1 FN = fecal nitrogen; DAPA = 2,6-diaminopimelic acid; FGM = fecal glucocorticoid metabolite; NDVI = normalized difference vegetation index.
Table 3. Results of pronghorn herd composition surveys in southern Idaho, USA, 2018–2020. Each year included totals of fawns and adult females as well as calculated fawn:doe ratios.
Table 3. Results of pronghorn herd composition surveys in southern Idaho, USA, 2018–2020. Each year included totals of fawns and adult females as well as calculated fawn:doe ratios.
Birch CreekCamas PrairieJarbidgeLittle WoodPahsimeroi
Year201820192020201820192020201820192020201820192020201820192020
Fawns421261228290126387280-183869135126
Adult females118216246165175153203193216-6442187466153
Young:Adult female0.360.580.50.50.510.820.190.370.37-0.280.900.370.290.82
Table 4. Models for linear regression analyses of predictor variables on pronghorn fawn recruitment by sampling period (late gestation, early lactation, breeding season) in southern Idaho, 2018–2019. We present the number of parameters (K), Akaike’s information criterion corrected for small sample sizes (AICc), differences in AICc (ΔAICc), and model weight (wi).
Table 4. Models for linear regression analyses of predictor variables on pronghorn fawn recruitment by sampling period (late gestation, early lactation, breeding season) in southern Idaho, 2018–2019. We present the number of parameters (K), Akaike’s information criterion corrected for small sample sizes (AICc), differences in AICc (ΔAICc), and model weight (wi).
Model 1KAICcΔAICcwiR2
Late gestation model
Forb SD3−9.8600.400.53
Null2−9.340.520.30
Forb3−7.272.590.110.36
Legume3−7.222.640.110.33
DAPA SD3−6.683.180.080.31
Legume + Forb SD4−1.308.560.010.57
Early lactation model
FN3−18.1900.970.76
Null2−10.337.860.02
NDVI3−8.639.570.010.29
Breeding season model
DAPA SD31.690.000.410.28
NDVI32.220.540.320.34
Null22.530.850.27
1 Covariates include standard deviation of 2,6-diaminopimelic acid (DAPA SD), fecal nitrogen (FN), forb protein intake (Forb), standard deviation of forb protein intake (Forb SD), legume protein intake (Legume), and normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Bleke, C.A.; Gese, E.M.; Villalba, J.J.; Roberts, S.B.; French, S.S. Temporal and Spatial Influences on Fawn Summer Survival in Pronghorn Populations: Management Implications from Noninvasive Monitoring. Animals 2024, 14, 1468. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14101468

AMA Style

Bleke CA, Gese EM, Villalba JJ, Roberts SB, French SS. Temporal and Spatial Influences on Fawn Summer Survival in Pronghorn Populations: Management Implications from Noninvasive Monitoring. Animals. 2024; 14(10):1468. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14101468

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bleke, Cole A., Eric M. Gese, Juan J. Villalba, Shane B. Roberts, and Susannah S. French. 2024. "Temporal and Spatial Influences on Fawn Summer Survival in Pronghorn Populations: Management Implications from Noninvasive Monitoring" Animals 14, no. 10: 1468. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14101468

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop