| Literature DB >> 27711208 |
Aaron M Foley1, David G Hewitt1, Charles A DeYoung1, Randy W DeYoung1, Matthew J Schnupp2.
Abstract
White-tailed deer are a culturally and economically important game species in North America, especially in South Texas. The recent discovery of chronic wasting disease (CWD) in captive deer facilities in Texas has increased concern about the potential emergence of CWD in free-ranging deer. The concern is exacerbated because much of the South Texas region is a semi-arid environment with variable rainfall, where precipitation is strongly correlated with fawn recruitment. Further, the marginally productive rangelands, in combination with erratic fawn recruitment, results in populations that are frequently density-independent, and thus sensitive to additive mortality. It is unknown how a deer population in semi-arid regions would respond to the presence of CWD. We used long-term empirical datasets from a lightly harvested (2% annual harvest) population in conjunction with 3 prevalence growth rates from CWD afflicted areas (0.26%, 0.83%, and 2.3% increases per year) via a multi-stage partially deterministic model to simulate a deer population for 25 years under four scenarios: 1) without CWD and without harvest, 2) with CWD and without harvest, 3) with CWD and male harvest only, and 4) with CWD and harvest of both sexes. The modeled populations without CWD and without harvest averaged a 1.43% annual increase over 25 years; incorporation of 2% annual harvest of both sexes resulted in a stable population. The model with slowest CWD prevalence rate growth (0.26% annually) without harvest resulted in stable populations but the addition of 1% harvest resulted in population declines. Further, the male age structure in CWD models became skewed to younger age classes. We incorporated fawn:doe ratios from three CWD afflicted areas in Wisconsin and Wyoming into the model with 0.26% annual increase in prevalence and populations did not begin to decline until ~10%, ~16%, and ~26% of deer were harvested annually. Deer populations in variable environments rely on high adult survivorship to buffer the low and erratic fawn recruitment rates. The increase in additive mortality rates for adults via CWD negatively impacted simulated population trends to the extent that hunter opportunity would be greatly reduced. Our results improve understanding of the potential influences of CWD on deer populations in semi-arid environments with implications for deer managers, disease ecologists, and policy makers.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27711208 PMCID: PMC5053495 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0163592
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Schematic representing the white-tailed deer life cycle used in the parameter validation model.
Initial population and age structure for the first year of the population model.
Population size and sex ratio were derived from helicopter surveys and age structure was estimated based on field studies in South Texas.
| Sex | Age | N deer | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Male | 1.5 | 712 | 15.8 |
| 2.5 | 592 | 13.1 | |
| 3.5 | 522 | 11.6 | |
| 4.5 | 462 | 10.3 | |
| 5.5 | 414 | 9.2 | |
| ≥6.5 | 1801 | 40.0 | |
| Female | 1.5 | 1362 | 14.6 |
| 2.5 | 1237 | 13.2 | |
| 3.5 | 1112 | 11.9 | |
| 4.5 | 992 | 10.6 | |
| 5.5 | 913 | 9.8 | |
| ≥6.5 | 3744 | 40.0 | |
| Total | 13863 |
Reported field study values, parameter values, and references used to construct a population model that was compared with observed trends from deer helicopter surveys in South Texas.
| Parameter | Field Study Values | Modeled Value | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Female Survival: 1.5 years old | 0.74 and 0.85 | Annual random number selected from uniform distribution ranging between 0.74 and 0.85 | [ |
| Female Survival: 2.5–5.5 years old | 0.85 and 0.93 | Annual random number selected from uniform distribution ranging between 0.85 and 0.93 | [ |
| Female Survival: ≥6.5 years old | Unknown; assumed lower than average of 2.5–5.5 year old females | 0.83 | [ |
| Male Survival: 1.5 years old | 0.74, 0.80, and 0.85 | Annual random number selected from uniform distribution ranging between 0.74 and 0.85 | [ |
| Male Survival: 2.5–5.5 years old | 0.76, 0.78, 0.82, 0.88, and 0.92 | Annual random number selected from uniform distribution ranging between 0.76 and 0.92 | [ |
| Male Survival: ≥6.5 years old | Unknown; assumed lower than average of 2.5–5.5 year old males | 0.75 | [ |
| Recruitment rate | 0.32, 0.49, 0.29, 0.57, 0.45, 0.22, 0.32, 0.37, 0.42, 0.14, 0.39, 0.35, 0.21, 0.14, 0.44, 0.36, 0.22, 0.22, 0.43, 0.67 | Fawn:doe ratios during 1996–2015, in order of year observed | Empirical data |
| Fawn sex ratio | 0.5 | 0.5 | [ |
| Harvest rate | 1–7% of adult males and 1–6% of adult females | Proportion of annual count of adult males and females that were harvested, in order of year observed | Empirical data |
Fig 2Fawn:doe ratios observed during helicopter surveys in South Texas, 1996–2015.
Horizontal line indicates mean fawn:doe ratio.
Fig 3Percent of adult males and females harvested annually.
Percent of deer harvested was based on number of adult males and females observed during September helicopter surveys in South Texas.
Fig 4Comparison between observed, 3-year moving average, and modeled deer population size trends.
White-tailed deer were counted via helicopter surveys in South Texas during 1996–2015 and compared well with output of parameter validation model (solid line).
Fig 5Schematic representing the white-tailed deer life cycle used in CWD simulations.
Initial population and age structure for the first year of the simulations.
Sex- and age-specific numbers were derived from median values generated in year 7 of simulations based on South Texas data without CWD and without harvest.
| Sex | Age | N deer | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Male | 1.5 | 1263 | 21.3 |
| 2.5 | 1064 | 17.9 | |
| 3.5 | 877 | 14.7 | |
| 4.5 | 748 | 12.6 | |
| 5.5 | 641 | 10.8 | |
| ≥6.5 | 1333 | 22.4 | |
| Female | 1.5 | 1261 | 15.3 |
| 2.5 | 1122 | 13.6 | |
| 3.5 | 977 | 11.8 | |
| 4.5 | 879 | 10.6 | |
| 5.5 | 794 | 9.6 | |
| ≥6.5 | 3208 | 48.9 | |
| Total | 14167 |
Parameter values used to simulate CWD effects on deer population dynamics in South Texas.
| Parameter | Value | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| Recruitment rate: Semi-arid | Randomly selected from empirical fawn:doe ratios observed during 1996–2015 | Empirical data |
| Recruitment rate: Temperate | 0.44,0.40,0.72,0.49,0.46,0.73 (Converse, WY) | [ |
| 0.66,0.62,0.51,0.59,0.61,0.81 (Laramie, WY) | ||
| 1.00,0.76,0.87,0.90,0.88,0.62 (Wisconsin) | ||
| Population prevalence growth | Started at 1% and increased 0.26%, 0.83%, or 2.3% annually for 25 years | [ |
| Female CWD risk: 1.5—≥3.5 year old | 2.3, 3.8, and 6.1%, respectively | [ |
| Male CWD risk: 1.5—≥6.5 year old | 2.3, 7.6, 9.9, 13.7, 16.8, and 19.1%, respectively | [ |
| CWD mortality rate | Randomly selected 33%, 50%, or 100% mortality rate applied towards subset of infected males and females | [ |
| Harvest | Constant within each model and increased at 1% increments for each additional model until population declined |
Fig 6Plots of simulated white-tailed deer population trajectories.
One thousand 25-year simulations were run to predict future populations without CWD and 2% harvest (top left) and with CWD and without harvest (top right) with fawn:doe ratios from South Texas, with CWD and 2% harvest (bottom left) and 16% harvest (bottom right) with fawn:doe ratios from Laramie, Wyoming. Slow CWD was modeled to increase 0.26% annually. White line indicates median of the 1,000 simulated projections.
Fig 7Age structure of male and female population after 25-year simulations with and without CWD.
Slow CWD started at 1% prevalence and increased 0.26% annually.
Fig 8Sex- and age-specific prevalence at the end of simulated years in the slow CWD increase model.
Prevalence is the percent of the median number of infected sex- and age-specific deer in the population at the end of each simulated year. Slow CWD started at 1% prevalence and increased annually by 0.26%.
Fig 9Maximum annual harvest of adult male and female deer with slow, medium, and rapid CWD prevalence growth rates.
CWD increased annually at rates of 0.26% (slow), 0.83% (medium) or 2.3% (rapid). Absent bars indicate scenarios when harvest of both sexes caused a population decline.