Behavioral Ecology of Ungulates at the National Bison Range

November 2014
Prepared by
DANA N. ANDRES, Student, Ecology and Conservation Biology, University of Idaho,
Moscow, ID, 83843, USA.

2 Andres

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION.3
STUDY AREA...3
METHODS....4
RESULTS......4
DISCUSSION
6FIGURES..7

3 Andres

INTRODUCTION
Ungulates are members of the paraphyletic group Ungulata, characterized as mammals with
hooves, mammals that evolved from a hoofed ancestor or are genetically closely related. There
are many extant species of ungulates, around 450, on almost every continent. The ungulates are
herbivores but are important members of the food chain as a main source of prey for large
carnivores. Ungulates have many ecological roles, such as a food and biomedical source for
humans and maintaining the landscape with grazing. Research has been conducted over many
years on the behavior of the ungulate group, and on group size effect. A study conducted by
Michael Childress and Mark Lung on the size of herds of elk in the Rocky Mountains showed a
correlation between the group size and predatory encounters as well as sex and age differences
and predatory encounters. Herds that were larger did not encounter as many predators and spent
the most time feeding, and mostly adult males had the least amount of encounters (396).
Ungulate behavior is determined by a multitude of factors, including predation. To avoid
becoming prey, ungulates form groups to allow for vigilance while performing their normal
activities. Animals with a larger body size are less subject to predation, but may still utilize
herds. The larger the herd and the larger body mass of the individual, the larger proportion of the
group will be feeding, or laying, rather than vigilant. Species with a larger body mass will spend
more time feeding than smaller ungulates, and the herds with more individuals will have more
feeding time.

STUDY AREA
The observations of the ungulates in this study were taken in the National Bison Range Wildlife
Refuge (NBRWR) in Dixon, Montana. The refuge covers around 29 square miles of land,
ranging from 2,500 feet to 4,900 feet. The area is one of the last intermountain native grasslands
along with Douglas Fir, Ponderosa Pine, and some riparian and pond ecosystems. Formed by the
Glacier ice dam, the area was prehistorically under the Glacial Lake Missoula. The talus slopes,
exposed rocks, ledges and shallow topsoil are evidence of the glacial formation. The diverse
ecosystems in the refuge are home to herds of bison, Rocky Mountain elk (Cervus Canadensis),
mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), pronghorn
(Antilocapra americana), and bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) as well as coyotes (Canis
latrans), mountain lions (Puma concolor), bears (Ursus americanus), bobcat (Lynx rufus) and
over 200 species of birds (USFWS).

4 Andres

METHODS
Field:
Before obtaining any data, each member formulated a hypothesis based on two predictions. The
predictions were statements that were to be tested at the range. The members then formed groups
of four to acquire data at the National Bison Range. At the range, groups drove around the park
in vehicles scanning for groups or individual ungulates to record activity on. The data was
obtained using a scan-sampling method, recording the ungulate activity at an instant in time over
several time intervals. The group ungulates were observed every five minutes for a total of
twenty minutes. Due to the activity of ungulates, the beginning set of data was recorded from
0800 to 1200 and the second set of data was recorded from 1600-1800. Each group of ungulates
was numbered, and data including date, time, sex, age, species, and activities of
standing/vigilant, running/walking, feeding, lying or other were recorded every five minutes.
Occurrence sampling, one or several specific behavioral traits such as grooming or wallowing,
were recorded in the comments section if observed. Once all the data was collected, each data
sheet was combined for analysis.
Analysis:
To calculate the species that had the most members of the group feeding, the number of feeding
animals per group at each time interval was totaled and given as a ratio. The closer the ratio was
to one, the more that species spent eating. Proportions were given for each activity as well as an
average group size per species. To calculate which species spent the most time feeding, the
number of animals feeding and the amount of observed time feeding was put into a table. The
ratio of time feeding to time observed was averaged per species.

RESULTS
In order to determine whether group size contributed to the amount of members in the group
feeding, the average group size for each species was calculated. The data showed that the
Bighorn sheep had to the largest average herd of about 20, followed by elk and bison at 12, Mule
deer at 9, Whitetail at 7, and Pronghorn antelope at 5. The percent of the group that was feeding
at each time interval was calculated by Number Feeding/ Number in the Group. The ratio
amounts (see Figure 1) show that the Whitetail and Mule deer have the highest percentage of
their herd eating. The percent of time that each herd spent eating was given by the amount of
time we observed feeding divided by the total observation time. The relationship between group
ize and amount of time spent feeding is shown in Figure 2.

5 Andres

The relationship between the mass of the animal and the average percent of time it spends
feeding showed a positive correlation. The Mule deer spent the most time feeding, at 77 percent
of the observations; while Bighorn Sheep spent the least amount of time feeding, 55 percent.

DISCUSSION
Based on the data, only a portion of my hypothesis was supported. There was a positive
correlation for body size and time feeding, and a negative correlation between group size and
time feeding. The R value, computed by a Peason correlation test, for the relationship between
group size and feeding is -.78, meaning that the bigger the group, the less time is spent feeding.
The R value for the relationship between body size and feeding was .54. For larger ungulates,
such as bison, the energetic requirements are more than for elk, deer, bighorn sheep and
pronghorn. The bison and elk can also afford to eat with smaller herd due to a larger body mass.
The negative correlation between group size and feeding does not follow other research done on
the effects of group size on foraging and vigilance (Childress). There are predators in the range,
but the amount of exposure is less than in the wild. The negative correlation could also be
explained by outliers of groups observed, such as the herd of 20 bighorn sheep that were lying
down, and by group members choosing which groups of animals to observe. Certain ungulate
groups were recorded by more than one group, even at the same time. The data was not reflective
of a true, large sample size, but was repeated by multiple groups and subjective to the conditions
that day and the range. The day of observation was overcast, the animals were bedded, and very
few groups of ungulates were seen. The methods of observation also caused error in the data
because the vehicles could not leave the road. Only behaviors of visible groups of ungulates in
open areas were recorded.

6 Andres

Average Group Size and Number feeding

25
20
15
10
Number of Animals

average group size

average amount
feeding

Species

Figure 1 above shows the average amount of each herd for the
species and the amount of that herd feeding at each observed
time interval

Figure 2. The relationship between the group size of each species and the
amount of time each species spent feeding

7 Andres

Figure 3. The graph shows the relationship between the mass of Bison, Elk, Mule
Deer, Whitetail Deer, Bighorn Sheep and Pronghorn antelope and the average
percent of time they were found feeding.

LITERATURE CITED

Childress M. J., and Lung M.A. 2003.

Predation risk, gender and the
group size effect: does elk
vigilance depend upon the behaviour of conspecifics? Animal Behavior 66: 389398.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]. 2014
<http://www.fws.gov/refuge/National_Bison_Range/about.html>. Accessed 4 Oct 2014.