Social affiliation and contact patterns among white-tailed deer in disparate landscapes: implications for disease transmission

Eric M. Schauber, Clayton K. Nielsen, Lene Jung Kjær, Charles W. Anderson, Daniel J. Storm

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

In social species, individuals contact members of the same group much more often than those of other groups, particularly for contacts that could directly transmit disease agents. This disparity in contact rates violates the assumptions of simple disease models, hinders disease spread between groups, and could decouple disease transmission from population density. Social behavior of white-tailed deer has important implications for the long-term dynamics and impact of diseases such as bovine tuberculosis and chronic wasting disease (CWD), so expanding our understanding of their social system is important. White-tailed deer form matrilineal groups, which inhabit stable home ranges that overlap somewhat with others-a pattern intermediate between mass-action and strict territoriality. To quantify how group membership affects their contact rates and document the spectrum of social affiliation, we analyzed location data from global positioning system (GPS) collars on female and juvenile white-tailed deer in 2 study areas: near Carbondale in forest-dominated southern Illinois (2002-2006) and near Lake Shelbyville in agriculture-dominated central Illinois (2006-2009). For each deer dyad (i.e., 2 individual deer with sufficient overlapping GPS data), we measured space-use overlap, correlation of movements, direct contact rate (simultaneous GPS locations <10 m apart), and indirect contact rate (GPS locations <10 m apart when offset by 1 or 3 days). Direct contact rates were substantially higher for within-group dyads than between-group dyads, but group membership had little apparent effect on indirect contact rates. The group membership effect on direct contact rates was strongest in winter and weakest in summer, with no apparent difference between study areas. Social affiliations were not dichotomous, with some deer dyads showing loose but positive affiliation. Even for obvious within-group dyads, their strength of affiliation fluctuated between years, seasons, and even days. Our findings highlight the poor fit between deer behavior and simple models of disease transmission and, combined with previous infection data, suggest that direct contact is the primary driver of CWD transmission among free-living female and juvenile white-tailed deer.
Original languageEnglish
JournalJournal of Mammalogy
Volume96
Issue number1
Pages (from-to)16-28
Number of pages13
ISSN0022-2372
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2015
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Illinois
  • Odocoileus virginianus
  • contact
  • disease
  • global positioning system
  • group
  • landscape
  • transmission
  • white-tailed deer
  • Animal Science and Zoology
  • Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
  • Genetics
  • Ecology
  • Nature and Landscape Conservation
  • whitetailed deer
  • bovine tuberculosis
  • chronic wasting disease
  • deer
  • disease transmission
  • GPS
  • population density
  • social behavior
  • space use
  • Carbondale
  • Lake Shelbyville
  • United States
  • Bovinae
  • Cervidae
  • ZOOLOGY
  • CHRONIC WASTING DISEASE
  • PARASITE POPULATION INTERACTIONS
  • JOINT SPACE USE
  • MULE DEER
  • BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS
  • HOME RANGES
  • ODOCOILEUS-VIRGINIANUS
  • LOCALIZED MANAGEMENT
  • PRION TRANSMISSION
  • ORGANIZATION
  • Behavioral biology - General and comparative behavior
  • Behavioral biology - Animal behavior
  • Ecology: environmental biology - General and methods
  • Ecology: environmental biology - Animal
  • Animals, Artiodactyls, Chordates, Mammals, Nonhuman Vertebrates, Nonhuman Mammals, Vertebrates
  • social affiliation
  • contact pattern
  • disparate landscape

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Social affiliation and contact patterns among white-tailed deer in disparate landscapes: implications for disease transmission'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this