The Effects of Decreasing Winter Diet Quality on Foraging Behavior and Life-History Traits of White-Tailed Deer Fawns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many high-density populations of wild ungulates have exerted strong negative impacts on their habitat. A decrease in forage quantity and quality may affect individual growth, fecundity, and survival, especially under harsh winter conditions. On Anticosti Island, Québec, Canada, browsing by introduced white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) negatively affected boreal forest composition. Since the preferred contemporary winter forage of deer, balsam fir (Abies balsamea), has been almost completely extirpated from the island at browse height, deer are forced to increase the proportion of normally avoided forage, such as white spruce (Picea glauca), in their winter diet. We predicted that an increase in the proportion of white spruce in the diet would have detrimental effects on deer body condition and would affect their behavior and life history traits. We experimentally simulated a deterioration of winter forage quality in semi-natural enclosures by increasing the proportion of white spruce in the diet and examined the effects of winter diet quality on 1) forage intake, 2) body condition loss, 3) activity budget, and 4) survival of white-tailed deer fawns. Fawns fed the poor-quality diet maintained a higher forage intake rate throughout the winter than fawns fed the control diet, suggesting a compensatory response to the decrease of forage quality by consuming more forage during winter. Body mass decreased over the winter, but we did not observe any significant effects of diet quality on body mass loss. Diet quality did not influence the activity budget of fawns, but deer decreased activity in cold weather. The main determinant of overwinter survival was individual body mass in early winter. Our study suggests that deer have adapted to the extreme conditions encountered on Anticosti (i.e., harsh and long winters, low-quality browse, and a high-density population). Even though white spruce stands are gradually replacing balsam fir stands, our results suggest that deer on Anticosti could maintain a high-density population by increasing the amount of white spruce in their diet. However, future studies are necessary to address the long-term effects of a diet dominated by white spruce on deer body condition, survival, and reproduction under natural conditions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".