Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 3, 2025

Protocol for Assessing the Relative Effects of Environment and Genetics on Antler and Body Growth for a Long-lived Cervid
Published on: August 8, 2017
Defecation Site Preferences and Spatial Ecological Segregation of Forest Musk Deer and Siberian Roe Deer in North
Yixin Li1, Luyao Hai1, Pengfei Luo1
1School of Ecology and Nature Conservation, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100107, China.
Abstract:
The forest musk deer (Moschus berezovskii) and Siberian roe deer (Capreolus pygargus) are browsers with a broad sympatric distribution in North and Southwest China. However, little is known about their spatial utilization of microhabitats and habitats. This study, conducted on Huanglong Mountain in China, analyzed the defecation site distribution, indicating preferences of forest musk deer and Siberian roe deer for their habitat demands. Using generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs), we compared the defecation site preferences of both species and further examined their spatial utilization patterns. The results indicated that the primary factors influencing defecation site preferences for forest musk deer were slope (15.79%), elevation (4.26%), herbaceous cover (19.93%), herb height (33.73%), and tree diversity (15.64%). Conversely, for Siberian roe deer, elevation (54.63%) and herbaceous cover (29.31%) were the key factors. Significant differences were found in elevation (p < 0.001) and herbaceous diversity (p < 0.01) between the defecation sites of the two species, with additional notable differences in slope position, tree diversity, and average tree height (p < 0.05). Furthermore, forest musk deer primarily utilized broadleaf forests, coniferous forests, mixed conifer-broadleaf forests, and sparse woodlands. In contrast, Siberian roe deer utilized broadleaf forests, sparse woodlands, and coniferous forests, showing a significant difference (p = 0.01). These findings suggest distinct spatial ecological segregation between forest musk deer and Siberian roe deer regarding their microhabitat preferences and vegetation type utilization at the habitat scale.
Related Concept Videos
Optimal Foraging
Predator-Prey Interactions
Habitat Fragmentation

