Cited by 66Wildlife Ecology and ConservationAnimal Ecology and Behavior StudiesRangeland and Wildlife Management

Inferences About Ungulate Population Dynamics Derived From Age Ratios

HARRIS, NYEEMA C., KAUFFMAN, MATTHEW J., MILLS, L. SCOTT·2008·The Journal of Wildlife Management

Abstract

Abstract: Age ratios (e.g., calf:cow for elk and fawn:doe for deer) are used regularly to monitor ungulate populations. However, it remains unclear what inferences are appropriate from this index because multiple vital rate changes can influence the observed ratio. We used modeling based on elk ( Cervus elaphus ) life‐history to evaluate both how age ratios are influenced by stage‐specific fecundity and survival and how well age ratios track population dynamics. Although all vital rates have the potential to influence calf:adult female ratios (i.e., calf:cow ratios), calf survival explained the vast majority of variation in calf:adult female ratios due to its temporal variation compared to other vital rates. Calf:adult female ratios were positively correlated with population growth rate (Λ) and often successfully indicated population trajectories. However, calf:adult female ratios performed poorly at detecting imposed declines in calf survival, suggesting that only the most severe declines would be rapidly detected. Our analyses clarify that managers can use accurate, unbiased age ratios to monitor arguably the most important components contributing to sustainable ungulate populations, survival rate of young and Λ. However, age ratios are not useful for detecting gradual declines in survival of young or making inferences about fecundity or adult survival in ungulate populations. Therefore, age ratios coupled with independent estimates of population growth or population size are necessary to monitor ungulate population demography and dynamics closely through time.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2193/2007-277

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A recent modeling study indicated that changes in elk calf survival explained 93% of variation in calf:cow ratios in a GYE elk population.

    “a recent modeling study based on the life history of a GYE elk population indicated that changes in elk calf survival explained 93% of the variation in calf : cow ratios (Harris et al. 2008).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
HARRIS, N. C., KAUFFMAN, M. J., & MILLS, L. S.
Affiliations
  • University of Montana (US)
  • University of Wyoming (US)
Corresponding author
HARRIS, NYEEMA C.
Venue
The Journal of Wildlife Management
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-07
Volume
72
Issue
5
Pages
1143-1151
ISSN
  • 0022-541X (ISSN-L)
  • 1937-2817
OpenAlex
W2071034170
Cited by
66
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 6 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 3
FWCI
2.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Wildlife Management (publishedVersion)
  • BioOne Complete (BioOne) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Animal Ecology and Behavior Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Rangeland and Wildlife Management
Keywords
age ratio, ungulate population dynamics, elk, red deer, calf survival, adult survival, population growth rate, population monitoring, vital rates

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review