Search

Menu
Search
in Ecology

Timing of rainfall influences juvenile and yearling mass of a long-lived herbivore in a semiarid environment

73 Views


Abstract

Resource availability is a primary factor predicting population performance. Synchrony between resource availability and consumer requirements plays a critical role in reproduction, and mismatches in the timing of resource availability and consumer requirements can have negative implications for reproductive success. Our objective was to determine when mass of juvenile and yearling white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in semiarid rangelands is most negatively affected by limited forage availability. Thus, we determined the biological period when rainfall, a primary driver of resource availability, was most predictive of juvenile and yearling mass. Over 12 years, we captured 1,123 juveniles and yearlings across five distinct populations. We linked georeferenced capture records to rainfall data from biological seasons hypothesized to affect juvenile and yearling mass. We found that rainfall during the early growing season exhibited the strongest effect on mass. The resource pulse associated with early growing season rainfall is likely used to fuel fetal development during the critical final trimester of gestation. As environmental change continues to exacerbate the potential for mismatches in resource availability and consumer requirements to occur, it is important to identify when limited forage availability may most negatively affect reproduction to inform species conservation and support long-term sustainability.

Data availability

The data used in this manuscript is provided via Zenodo at the following link: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12611417.

References

  1. Blomberg, E. J., Sedinger, J. S., Gibson, D., Coates, P. S. & Casazza, M. L. Carryover Effects and Climatic Conditions Influence the Postfledging Survival of Greater Sage-grouse. Ecol. Evol. 4, 4488–4499 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Lopp, J. & Sammul, M. The Impact of Timing of Resource Availability on Clonal Propagation of Species with Different Growth Forms. Folia Geobot. 52, 411–422 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Mazzamuto, M. V. et al. Timing of Resource Availability Drives Divergent Social Systems and Home Range Dynamics in Ecologically Similar Tree Squirrels. Front. Ecol. Evol. 8, 174 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Durant, J. M., Hjermann, D. Ø., Ottersen, G. & Stenseth, N. C. Climate and the Match or Mismatch Between Predator Requirements and Resource Availability. Clim. Res. 33, 271–283 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Neumann, W. et al. Divergence in Parturition Timing and Vegetation Onset in a Large Herbivore—Differences Along a Latitudinal Gradient. Biol. Lett. 16, 20200044 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Peláez, M., Gaillard, J. M., Bollmann, K., Heurich, M. & Rehnus, M. Large-scale Variation in Birth Timing and Synchrony of a Large Herbivore Along the Latitudinal and Altitudinal Gradients. J. Anim. Ecol. 89, 1906–1917 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Visser, M. E. & Gienapp, P. Evolutionary and Demographic Consequences of Phenological Mismatches. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 879–885 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Kerby, J. T., Wilmers, C. C., & Post, E. Climate Change Phenology, and the Nature of Consumer–resource Interactions: Advancing the Match/mismatch Hypothesis. in Trait-Mediated Indirect Interactions: Ecological and Evolutionary Perspectives (eds. Ohgushi, T., Schmitz, O. & Holt, R. D.) 508–525. (Cambridge University Press, 2012).

  9. Post, E. & Forchhammer, M. C. Climate Change Reduces Reproductive Success of an Arctic Herbivore through Trophic Mismatch. Philos. Trans. R Soc. B Biol. Sci. 363, 2367–2373 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Rehnus, M., Peláez, M. & Bollmann, K. Advancing Plant Phenology Causes an Increasing Trophic Mismatch in an Income Breeder Across a Wide Elevational Range. Ecosphere 11, 03144 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Youngflesh, C. et al. Demographic Consequences of Phenological Asynchrony for North American Songbirds. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 120, 2221961120 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Lincoln, G. A Brief History of Circannual Time. J. Neuroendocrinol. 31, e12694 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Tyler, N. J. C., Gregorini, P., Parker, K. L. & Hazlerigg, D. G. Animal Responses to Environmental Variation: Physiological Mechanisms in Ecological Models of Performance in Deer (Cervidae). Anim. Prod. Sci. 60, 1248–1270 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Apollonio, M. & Chirichella, R. Deer and Climate Change: Impacts and Perspectives (Animal Production Science, 2023).

  15. Williams, C. T. et al. Seasonal Reproductive Tactics: Annual Timing and the Capital-to-Income Breeder Continuum. Philos. Trans. R Soc. B Biol. Sci. 372, 20160250 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Zerbe, P. et al. Reproductive Seasonality in Captive Wild Ruminants: Implications for Biogeographical Adaptation, Photoperiodic Control, and Life History. Biol. Rev. 87, 965–990 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Gaillard, J. M. et al. How Does Climate Change Influence Demographic Processes of Widespread Species? Lessons from the Comparative Analysis of Contrasted Populations of Roe Deer. Ecol. Lett. 16, 48–57 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hill, A. P., Nolan, C. J., Hemes, K. S., Cambron, T. W. & Field, C. B. Low-Elevation Conifers in California’s Sierra Nevada Are Out of Equilibrium with Climate. PNAS Nexus. 2, 004 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Parmesan, C. Ecological and Evolutionary Responses to Recent Climate Change. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 37, 637–669 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Marshal, J. P., Krausman, P. R., & Bleich, V. C. Rainfall, Temperature, and Forage Dynamics Affect Nutritional Quality of Desert Mule Deer Forage. Rangel. Ecol. Manag. 58, 360–365 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Plaisir, C. A., King, W. J., Forsyth, D. M. & Festa-Bianchet, M. Effects of Rainfall, Forage Biomass, and Population Density, on Survival and Growth of Juvenile Kangaroos. J. Mammal. 103, 491–502 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Walter, J. et al. Increased Rainfall Variability Reduces Biomass and Forage Quality of Temperate Grassland Largely Independent of Mowing Frequency. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 148, 1–10 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Ortega, A. C., Aikens, E. O., Merkle, J. A., Monteith, K. L. & Kauffman, M. J. Migrating Mule Deer Compensate en Route for Phenological Mismatches. Nat. Commun. 14, 2008. (2023).

  24. Aikens, E. O. et al. Migration Distance and Maternal Resource Allocation Determine Timing of Birth in a Large Herbivore. Ecology 102, 03334 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Rachlow, J. L. & Bowyer, R. T. Variability in Maternal Behavior by Dall’s Sheep: Environmental Tracking or Adaptive Strategy? J. Mammal. 75, 328–337 (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Plard, F. et al. Mismatch Between Birth Date and Vegetation Phenology Slows the Demography of Roe Deer. PLoS Biol. 12, 1001828 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Renaud, L. A., Festa-Bianchet, M. & Pelletier, F. Testing the Match–Mismatch Hypothesis in Bighorn Sheep in the Context of Climate Change. Glob Change Biol. 28, 21–32 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Servanty, S., Gaillard, J. M., Toïgo, C., Brandt, S. & Baubet, E. Pulsed Resources and Climate-induced Variation in the Reproductive Traits of Wild Boar under High Hunting Pressure. J. Anim. Ecol. 78, 1278–1290 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Tveraa, T., Stien, A., Bårdsen, B., & Fauchald, P. Population Densities, Vegetation Green-Up, and Plant Productivity: Impacts on Reproductive Success and Juvenile Body Mass in Reindeer. PloS One. 8, 56450 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Cook, J. G. et al. Effects of Summer-Autumn Nutrition and Parturition Date on Reproduction and Survival of Elk. Wildl. Monogr. 155, 1–61 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Strickland, B. K., Demarais, S. & Gerard, P. D. Variation in Mass and Lactation Among Cohorts of White-tailed Deer Odocoileus virginianus. Wildl. Biol. 14, 263–271 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  32. DeYoung, C. A. et al. Density Dependence in Deer Populations: Relevance for Management in Variable Environments (Hewitt Wildlife Science, 2007).

  33. Folks, D. J. et al. Drought but not Population Density Influences Dietary Niche Breadth in White-tailed Deer in a Semiarid Environment. Ecosphere 5, 1–15 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Fulbright, T. E. et al. Forb Standing Crop Response to Grazing and Precipitation. Rangel. Ecol. Manag. 79, 175–185 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Kharouba, H. M. & Wolkovich, E. M. Lack of Evidence for the Match-Mismatch Hypothesis Across Terrestrial Trophic Interactions. Ecol. Lett. 26, 955–964 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  36. IPCC. IPCC, 2023: Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, H. Lee and J. Romero (Eds.)]. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/https://doi.org/10.59327/IPCC/AR6-9789291691647 (IPCC, 2023).

  37. Gaillard, J. M., Festa-Bianchet, M. & Yoccoz, N. G. Population Dynamics of Large Herbivores: Variable Recruitment with Constant Adult Survival. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13, 58–63 (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Hossain, M. L. & Beierkuhnlein, C. Enhanced Aboveground Biomass by Increased Precipitation in a Central European Grassland. Ecol. Process. 7, 1–13 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  39. La Pierre, K. J., Blumenthal, D. M., Brown, C. S., Klein, J. A. & Smith, M. D. Drivers of Variation in Aboveground Net Primary Productivity and Plant Community Composition Differ Across a Broad Precipitation Gradient. Ecosystems 19, 521–533 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Ginnett, T. F. & Young, E. B. Stochastic Recruitment in White-tailed Deer Along an Environmental Gradient. J. Wildl. Manag. 64, 713–720 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Michel, E. S., Jenks, J. A., Kaskie, K. D., Klaver, R. W. & Jensen, W. F. Weather and Landscape Factors Affect White-tailed Deer Neonate Survival at Ecologically Important Life Stages in the Northern Great Plains. PLoS One. 13, 0195247 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Garel, M. et al. Population Abundance and Early Spring Conditions Determine Variation in Body Mass of Juvenile Chamois. J. Mammal. 92, 1112–1117 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Gaillard, J. M. et al. Early Survival in Roe Deer: Causes and Consequences of Cohort Variation in Two Contrasted Populations. Oecologia 112, 502–513 (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  44. Andersen, R., Gaillard, J. M., Linnell, J. D. C. & Duncan, P. Factors Affecting Maternal Care in an Income Breeder, the European Roe Deer. J. Anim. Ecol. 69, 672–682 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Michel, E. S., Demarais, S., Strickland, B. K., Belant, J. L. & Castle, L. E. Body Mass Influences Maternal Allocation More Than Parity Status for a Long-lived Cervid Mother. J. Mammal. 100, 1459–1465 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Thorne, E. T., Dean, R. E. & Hepworth, W. G. Nutrition During Gestation in Relation to Successful Reproduction in Elk. J. Wildl. Manag. 40, 330–335 (1976).

    Google Scholar 

  47. Aubin, G. R. et al. Survival of White-tailed Deer Fawns on Marine Corps Base Quantico. J. Wildl. Manag. 86, 22180 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  48. Heffelfinger, L. J. et al. Timing of Precipitation in an Arid Environment: Effects on Population Performance of a Large Herbivore. Ecol. Evol. 8, 3354–3366 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  49. Hediger, J. A. et al. Physiological Carry-over Effects of Variable Precipitation are Mediated by Reproductive Status in a Long-lived Ungulate. Conserv. Physiol. 12, (2024).

  50. Douhard, M. et al. Variation in Adult Body Mass of Roe Deer: Early Environmental Conditions Influence Early and Late Body Growth of Females. Ecology 94, 1805–1814 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  51. Michel, E. S. et al. Improved Nutrition Cues Switch from Efficiency to Luxury Phenotypes for a Long-lived Ungulate. Ecol. Evol. 6, 7276–7285 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  52. Monteith, K. L., Schmitz, L. E., Jenks, J. A., Delger, J. A. & Bowyer, R. T. Growth of Male White-Tailed Deer: Consequences of Maternal Effects. J. Mammal. 90, 651–660 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  53. Pettorelli, N. et al. Variations in Adult Body Mass in Roe Deer: The Effects of Population Density at Birth and of Habitat Quality. Proc. R Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 269, 747–753 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  54. Solberg, E. J., Loison, A., Gaillard, J. M. & Heim, M. Lasting Effects of Conditions at Birth on Moose Body Mass. Ecography 27, 677–687 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  55. Hewison, A. M. et al. Reproductive Constraints, Not Environmental Conditions, Shape the Ontogeny of Sex-Specific Mass–Size Allometry in Roe Deer. Oikos 120, 1217–1226 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  56. Foley, A. M. et al. Fine-scale Phenotypic Variation of a Large Herbivore in a Pulsed Environment. Ecosphere 15, e4921 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  57. Plard, F. et al. The Influence of Birth Date via Body Mass on Individual Fitness in a Long-lived Mammal. Ecology 96, 1516–1528 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  58. Moen, A. N. Wildlife Ecology: An Analytical Approach (W.H. Freeman, 1973).

  59. PRISM Group at Oregon State University. https://prism.oregonstate.edu/.

  60. Crider, B. L. et al. Influence of White-tailed Deer Population Density on Vegetation Standing Crop in a Semiarid Environment. J. Wildl. Manag. 79, 413–424 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  61. DeYoung, C. A. et al. Linking White-Tailed Deer Density, Nutrition, and Vegetation in a Stochastic Environment. Wildl. Monogr. 202, 1–63 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  62. Gann, W. J. et al. Vegetation Response to White-tailed Deer Density and Enhanced Nutrition. Wildl. Monogr. 202, 1–63 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  63. Gann, K. R. et al. Deer Density Effects on White-tailed Deer Diets and Foraging Behavior Under Natural Nutrition. In Linking White-tailed Deer Density, Nutrition, and Vegetation in a Stochastic Environment 202 19–26 (2019).

  64. Cook, R. S., White, M., Trainer, D. O. & Glazener, W. C. Mortality of Young White-Tailed Deer Fawns in South Texas. J. Wildl. Manag. 35, 47–56 (1971).

    Google Scholar 

  65. Krausman, P. R., Hervert, J. J. & Ordway, L. L. Capturing Deer and Mountain Sheep with a Net-Gun. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 13, 71–73 (1985).

    Google Scholar 

  66. Foley, A. M. et al. Accuracies and Biases of Ageing White-tailed Deer in Semiarid Environments. Wildl. Res. 49, 237–249 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  67. Hirth, D. H. Mother-Young Behavior in White-tailed Deer, Odocoileus virginianus. Southwest. Nat. 30, 297–302 (1985).

    Google Scholar 

  68. Therrien, J. F., Côté, S. D., Festa-Bianchet, M. & Ouellet, J. P. Maternal Care in White-tailed Deer: Trade-off Between Maintenance and Reproduction Under Food Restriction. Anim. Behav. 75, 235–243 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  69. Verme, L. J. Reproductive Patterns of White-tailed Deer Related to Nutritional Plane. J. Wildl. Manag. 33, 881–887 (1969).

    Google Scholar 

  70. TPWD. The Rut in White-tailed Deer. https://tpwd.texas.gov/huntwild/hunt/planning/rut_whitetailed_deer/.

  71. Ortega-S, J. A., Lukefahr, S. D. & Bryant, F. C. Optimum Stocking Rate, Monitoring, and Flexibility: Key Components of Successful Grazing Management Programs. Rangelands 35, 22–27 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  72. Akaike, H. Maximum Likelihood Identification of Gaussian Autoregressive Moving Average Models. Biometrika 60, 255–265 (1973).

    Google Scholar 

  73. Burnham, K. P. & Anderson, D. R. Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach (Springer, 2002).

  74. Bolker, B. M. et al. Generalized Linear Mixed Models: A Practical Guide for Ecology and Evolution. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24, 127–135 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  75. Bates, D. M. lme4: Mixed-effects Modeling with R. (2010).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the East Foundation and the Patton Center for Deer Research for their funding and support during this research. Additional support was provided by the Hixon Fellowship, the Barrientos Scholarship, and the Houston Safari Club Dan L. Duncan Scholarship. J. A. Ortega-Sanchez, K. Gann, M. Rice, and S. Rankins coordinated capture activities during 2011–2020, assisted by numerous student volunteers from Texas A&M University-Kingsville, Southwest Texas Junior College, Stephen F. Austin State University, Sul Ross State University, Tarleton State University, Texas A&M University, Texas State University, and Texas Tech University. A. Montalvo, A. Woodard, J. Haynes, A. Lopez, R. Douglas, S. Vasquez, and M. Robinson of the East Foundation were instrumental in field logistics and activities. A. Tanner and H. Abernathy reviewed earlier drafts of the paper. All clipart was obtained from the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science Integration and Application Network. B. Green assisted in editing conceptual figures. This is #25-114 of the Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute and #096 of the East Foundation.

Funding

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided by the East Foundation and the Patton Center for Deer Research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute, Kingsville, TX, 78363, USA

    Miranda L. Hopper, Bryan D. Spencer, Randy W. DeYoung, Aaron M. Foley, J. Alfonso Ortega-Santos, Timothy E. Fulbright, David G. Hewitt & Michael J. Cherry

  2. East Foundation, San Antonio, TX, 78216, USA

    Landon R. Schofield & Tyler A. Campbell

Authors

  1. Miranda L. Hopper
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bryan D. Spencer
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Randy W. DeYoung
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Aaron M. Foley
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. J. Alfonso Ortega-Santos
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Timothy E. Fulbright
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  7. David G. Hewitt
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Landon R. Schofield
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Tyler A. Campbell
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Michael J. Cherry
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

M.L.H. and M.J.C. conceived the ideas of this manuscript. All authors collected the data. M.L.H. developed the analytical framework and analyzed the data. M.L.H. developed and designed all figures (with illustrations provided by the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science Integration and Application Network and Breanna Green). M.L.H. led the writing of the original manuscript. All authors contributed critically to all drafts and gave final approval for publication.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to
Miranda L. Hopper.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hopper, M.L., Spencer, B.D., DeYoung, R.W. et al. Timing of rainfall influences juvenile and yearling mass of a long-lived herbivore in a semiarid environment.
Sci Rep (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-40861-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-40861-4

Keywords

  • Climate change
  • Drought
  • Environmental stochasticity

  • Odocoileus virginianus
  • Phenological mismatch
  • White-tailed deer

Source: Ecology - nature.com

Designing a more resilient future for plants, from the cell up

Opportunity windows accelerate action and expand options for climate adaptation in Europe

This portal is not a newspaper as it is updated without periodicity. It cannot be considered an editorial product pursuant to law n. 62 of 7.03.2001. The author of the portal is not responsible for the content of comments to posts, the content of the linked sites. Some texts or images included in this portal are taken from the internet and, therefore, considered to be in the public domain; if their publication is violated, the copyright will be promptly communicated via e-mail. They will be immediately removed.

Back to Top
Close