The Mule Deer of Arid Zones

Humans have altered terrestrial ecosystems for millennia [1], yet wilderness areas still remain as vital refugia where natural ecological and evolutionary processes operate with minimal human disturbance [2-4], underpinning key regional- and planetary-scale functions [5, 6]. Despite the myriad values of wilderness areas-as critical strongholds for endangered biodiversity [7], for carbon storage and sequestration [8], for buffering and regulating local climates [9], and for supporting many of the world's most politically and economically marginalized communities [10]-they are almost entirely ignored in multilateral environmental agreements. This is because they are assumed to be relatively free from threatening processes and therefore are not a priority for conservation efforts [11, 12]. Here we challenge this assertion using new comparable maps of global wilderness following methods established in the original "last of the wild" analysis [13] to examine the change in extent since the early 1990s. We demonstrate alarming losses comprising one-tenth (3.3 million km(2)) of global wilderness areas over the last two decades, particularly in the Amazon (30%) and central Africa (14%). We assess increases in the protection of wilderness over the same time frame and show that these efforts are failing to keep pace with the rate of wilderness loss, which is nearly double the rate of protection. Our findings underscore an immediate need for international policies to recognize the vital values of wilderness and the unprecedented threats they face and to underscore urgent large-scale, multifaceted actions needed to maintain them.

The green wave hypothesis (GWH) states that migrating animals should track or 'surf' high-quality forage at the leading edge of spring green-up. To index such high-quality forage, recent work proposed the instantaneous rate of green-up (IRG), i.e. rate of change in the normalized difference vegetation index over time. Despite this important advancement, no study has tested the assumption that herbivores select habitat patches at peak IRG. We evaluated this assumption using step selection functions parametrized with movement data during the green-up period from two populations each of bighorn sheep, mule deer, elk, moose and bison, totalling 463 individuals monitored 1-3 years from 2004 to 2014. Accounting for variables that typically influence habitat selection for each species, we found seven of 10 populations selected patches exhibiting high IRG-supporting the GWH. Nonetheless, large herbivores selected for the leading edge, trailing edge and crest of the IRG wave, indicating that other mechanisms (e.g. ruminant physiology) or measurement error inherent with satellite data affect selection for IRG. Our evaluation indicates that IRG is a useful tool for linking herbivore movement with plant phenology, paving the way for significant advancements in understanding how animals track resource quality that varies both spatially and temporally.

In most social ungulate species, males are larger than females and the sexes live in separate groups outside the breeding season. It is important for our understanding of the evolution of sociality to find out why sexual segregation is so widespread not only in ungulates but also in other mammals. Sexual body size dimorphism was proposed as a central factor in the evolution of sexual segregation in ungulates. We tested three hypotheses put forward to explain sexual segregation: the predation-risk, the forage-selection, and the activity budget hypothesis. We included in our analyses ungulate species ranging from non-dimorphic to extremely dimorphic in body size. We observed oryx, zebra, bighorn sheep and ibex in the field and relied on literature data for 31 additional species. The predation-risk hypothesis predicts that females will use relatively predator-safe habitats, while males are predicted to use habitats with higher predation risk but better food quality. Out of 24 studies on different species of ungulates, females and their offspring chose poorer quality but safer habitat in only eight cases. The forage-selection hypothesis predicts that females would select habitat based on food quality, while males should prefer high forage biomass. In fact, females selected higher quality food in only six out of 18 studies where males and females segregated, in eight studies there was no difference in forage quality and in four studies males were in better quality habitat. The activity budget hypothesis predicts that with increasing dimorphism in body size males and females will increasingly differ in the time spent in different activities. Differences in activity budgets would make it difficult for males and females to stay in mixed-sex groups due to increased costs of synchrony to maintain group cohesion. The predictions of the activity budget hypothesis were confirmed in most cases (22 out of 23 studies). The heavier males were compared to females, the more time females spent foraging compared to males. The bigger the dimorphism in body mass, the more males spent time walking compared to females. Lactating females spent more time foraging than did non-lactating females or males. Whether species were mainly bulk or intermediate feeders did not affect sexual differences in time spent foraging. We conclude that sexual differences in activity budgets are most likely driving sexual segregation and that sexual differences in predation risk or forage selection are additive factors.