Mule deer

Taxonomy

Mule deer can be divided into two main groups: the mule deer (sensu stricto) and the black-tailed deer. The first group includes all subspecies, except O. h. columbianus and O. h. sitkensis, which are in the black-tailed deer group. Mule deer apparently evolved from the black-tailed deer. Despite this, the mtDNA of the white-tailed deer and mule deer is similar, but differs from that of the black-tailed deer. This may be the result of introgression, although hybrids between the mule deer and white-tailed deer are rare in the wild (apparently more common locally in West Texas), and the hybrid survival rate is low even in captivity. Many claims of observations of wild hybrids are not legitimate, as identification based on external features is complicated.

Subspecies

Some authorities have recognized O. h. crooki as a senior synonym of O. h. eremicus, but the type specimen of the former is a hybrid between the mule deer and white-tailed deer, so the name O. h. crooki is invalid. Additionally, the validity of O. h. inyoensis has been questioned, and the two insular O. h. cerrosensis and O. h. sheldoni may be synonyms of O. h. eremicus or O. h. peninsulae.

The 10 valid subspecies, based on the third edition of Mammal Species of the World, are:

• Mule deer (sensu stricto) group:
  • O. h. californicus – California mule deer. This widespread subspecies is found throughout much of California (north of San Diego and Imperial), with high densities in Orange and Los Angeles Counties to coastal Santa Barbara, Ventura, and San Luis Obispo; from Morro Bay to Santa Cruz, along the coast, its range is somewhat patchier. Inland, the California mule deer is known from around San Bernardino to as far north as Lassen; many deer inhabit the areas in and around Sequoia National Park, Yosemite, Plumas National Forest, and of course, the Sierra Nevada, its range partly overlapping with that of the Inyo subspecies (O. h. inyoensis). It is notably absent from the Central Valley and the agricultural districts of the state (roughly between Bakersfield and Sacramento); north of San Francisco, it is replaced by the Columbian subspecies (O. h. columbianus). It is also known to range across the border into west-central Nevada, between Reno and Carson City.
  • O. h. cerrosensis – Cedros or Cerros Island mule deer, after Cedros Island, off of the southwestern Pacific coast of Baja California state, the subspecies' sole habitat.
  • O. h. eremicus – Desert or burro mule deer. Primarily found in the Lower Colorado River Valley, Southern California's Inland Empire, the areas around Las Vegas and extreme southern Nevada, much of Arizona and parts of southern New Mexico. In Mexico, it is primarily known from Sonora, having been known from as far south as Hermosillo; it has also been observed (somewhat out-of-range) in Coahuila, Chihuahua and Durango.
  • O. h. fuliginatus – Southern mule deer. Mainly found in Southern California (Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego Counties) and along the U.S.-Mexico borderlands, into the northern half of the Baja California Peninsula, where it has been sighted as far south as El Rosario. Notably high population densities occur to the west of Anza-Borrego Desert State Park (in the San Diego County portion of the Cleveland National Forest) and in and around the region of Julian, California.
  • O. h. hemionus – Rocky Mountain mule deer. Primarily found in western and central North America, as far south as Colorado and as far north as Yukon and the Northwest Territories, including inland British Columbia.
  • O. h. inyoensis – Inyo mule deer (named after Inyo County, California). This deer is primarily found within the Sierra Nevada and Yosemite, within inland Central California, and has been sighted as far south as Death Valley and as far north as the Stanislaus National Forest.
  • O. h. peninsulae – Baja or Peninsular mule deer; found across the majority of the state of Baja California Sur, Mexico.
  • O. h. sheldoni – Tiburón Island mule deer, also called the venado bura de Tiburón in Spanish. This deer is only found on Tiburón Island, Mexico, in the Gulf of California.
• Black-tailed deer group:
  • O. h. columbianus – Columbian black-tailed deer; found primarily in coastal temperate rainforest habitats of the Pacific Northwest and Northern California (north of approx. the San Francisco Bay Area to Vancouver, British Columbia)
  • O. h. sitkensis – Sitka black-tailed deer (named after Sitka, Alaska); found in similar temperate rainforests as the Columbian subspecies—though with a more northerly range—from the central coast of British Columbia (including Haida Gwaii) throughout Southeast Alaska (along the Gulf of Alaska), with smaller populations further north to Anchorage, the Kenai Peninsula, and Kodiak Island. Found typically in dense, lush habitats, such as the Great Bear Rainforest and Tongass National Forest.

Description

The most noticeable differences between white-tailed and mule deer are ear size, tail color, and antler configuration. In many cases, body size is also a key difference. The mule deer's tail is black-tipped, whereas the white-tailed deer's is not. Mule deer antlers are bifurcated; they "fork" as they grow, rather than branching from a single main beam, as is the case with white-tails.

Each spring, a buck's antlers start to regrow almost immediately after the old antlers are shed. Shedding typically takes place in mid-February, with variations occurring by locale.

Although capable of running, mule deer are often seen stotting (also called pronking), with all four feet coming down together.

The mule deer is the larger of the three Odocoileus species on average, with a height of 80 – at the shoulders and a nose-to-tail length ranging from 1.2 to. Of this, the tail may comprise 11.6 to. Adult bucks normally weigh 55 –, averaging around 92 kg, although trophy specimens may weigh up to 210 kg. Does (female deer) are smaller and typically weigh from 43 to, with an average of around 68 kg.

Unlike the white-tailed, the mule deer does not generally show marked size variation across its range, although environmental conditions can cause considerable weight fluctuations in any given population. An exception to this is the Sitka deer subspecies (O. h. sitkensis). This race is markedly smaller than other mule deer, with an average weight of 54.5 kg and 36 kg in males and females, respectively.

Seasonal behaviors

In addition to movements related to available shelter and food, the breeding cycle is important in understanding deer behavior. The rut or mating season usually begins in the fall as does go into estrus for a period of a few days, and males become more aggressive, competing for mates. Does may mate with more than one buck and go back into estrus within a month if they did not become pregnant. The gestation period is about 190–200 days, with fawns born in the spring. The survival rate of the fawns during labor is about 50%. Fawns stay with their mothers during the summer and are weaned in the fall after about 60–75 days. Mule deer females usually give birth to two fawns, although if it is their first time having a fawn, they often have just one.

A buck's antlers fall off during the winter, then grow again in preparation for the next season's rut. The annual cycle of antler growth is regulated by changes in the length of the day.

The size of mule deer groups follows a marked seasonal pattern. Groups are smallest during fawning season (June and July in Saskatchewan and Alberta) and largest in early gestation (winter; February and March in Saskatchewan and Alberta).

Besides humans, the three leading predators of mule deer are coyotes, wolves, and cougars. Bobcats, Canada lynx, wolverines, American black bears, and grizzly bears may prey upon adult deer but most often attack only fawns or infirm specimens, or they may eat a deer after it has died naturally. Bears and small carnivores are typically opportunistic feeders and pose little threat to a strong, healthy mule deer.

Diet and foraging behaviors

In 99 studies of mule deer diets, some 788 species of plants were eaten by mule deer, and their diets vary greatly depending on the season, geographic region, year, and elevation. The studies gave these data for Rocky Mountain mule deer diets:

The diets of mule deer are very similar to those of white-tailed deer in areas where they coexist.

Mule deer readily adapt to agricultural products and landscape plantings. In the Sierra Nevada range, mule deer depend on the lichen Bryoria fremontii as a winter food source.

The most common plant species consumed by mule deer are the following:

• Among trees and shrubs: Artemisia tridentata (big sagebrush), Cercocarpus ledifolius (curlleaf mountain mahogany), Cercocarpus montanus (true mountain mahogany), Cowania mexicana (Mexican cliffrose), Populus tremuloides (quaking aspen), Purshia tridentata (antelope bitterbrush), Quercus gambelii (Gambel oak), and Rhus trilobata (skunkbush sumac).
• Among forbs: Achillea millefolium (western yarrow), Antennaria (pussytoes) species, Artemisia frigida (fringed sagebrush), Artemisia ludoviciana (Louisiana sagewort), Aster species, Astragalus (milkvetch) species, Balsamorhiza sagittata (arrowleaf balsamroot), Cirsium (thistle) species, Erigeron (fleabane) species, Geranium species, Lactuca serriola (prickly lettuce), Lupinus (lupine) species, alfalfa, Penstemon species, Phlox species, Polygonum (knotweed/smartweed) species, Potentilla (cinquefoil) species, Taraxacum officinale (dandelion), Tragopogon dubius (western salsify), clover, and Vicia americana (American vetch).
• Among grasses and grasslike species: Agropyron, Elymus (wheatgrasses), Pascopyrum species (wheatgrasses), Pseudoroegneria spicatum (bluebunch wheatgrass), Bromus tectorum (cheatgrass), Carex (sedge) species, Festuca idahoensis (Idaho fescue), Poa fendleriana (muttongrass), Poa pratensis (Kentucky bluegrass), and other Poa (bluegrass) species.

Mule deer have also been known to eat ricegrass, gramagrass, and needlegrass, as well as bearberry, bitter cherry, black oak, California buckeye, ceanothus, cedar, cliffrose, cottonwood, creek dogwood, creeping barberry, dogwood, Douglas fir, elderberry, Fendlera species, goldeneye, holly-leaf buckthorn, jack pine, knotweed, Kohleria species, manzanita, mesquite, pine, rabbitbrush, ragweed, redberry, scrub oak, serviceberry (including Pacific serviceberry), Sierra juniper, silktassel, snowberry, stonecrop, sunflower, tesota, thimbleberry, turbinella oak, velvet elder, western chokecherry, wild cherry, and wild oats. Where available, mule deer also eat a variety of wild mushrooms, which are most abundant in late summer and fall in the southern Rocky Mountains; mushrooms provide moisture, protein, phosphorus, and potassium.

Humans sometimes engage in supplemental feeding efforts in severe winters in an attempt to help mule deer avoid starvation. Wildlife agencies discourage such efforts, which cause harm to mule deer populations by spreading disease (such as tuberculosis and chronic wasting disease) when deer congregate for feed, disrupting migratory patterns, causing overpopulation of local mule deer populations, and causing habitat destruction from overbrowsing of shrubs and forbs. Supplemental feeding efforts might be appropriate when carefully conducted under limited circumstances, but to be successful, the feeding must begin early in the severe winter (before poor range conditions and severe weather cause malnourishment or starvation) and must be continued until range conditions can support the herd.

Mule deer are variably gregarious, with a large proportion of solitary individuals (35 to 64%) and small groups (groups with ≤5 deer, 50 to 78%). Reported mean group size measurements are three to five and typical group size (i.e., crowding) is about seven.

File:Mule Deer foraging at Okanagan Mountain Provincial Park.webm|Mule deer foraging on a late winter morning at Okanagan Mountain Provincial Park File:Mule Deer in Zion Canyon.jpeg|Male Rocky Mountain mule deer (O. h. hemionus) in Zion National Park File:muledeerleavenworth.jpg|Male O. h. hemionus near Leavenworth, Washington File:Odocoileus hemionus 5432.JPG|Female Columbian black-tailed deer (O. h. columbianus) in Olympic National Park File:Female mule deer in Garden of the Gods, Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA.jpg|Female mule deer in Garden of the Gods, Colorado Springs, Colorado, US

Nutrition

Mule deer are ruminants, meaning they employ a nutrient acquisition strategy of fermenting plant material before digesting it. Deer consuming high-fiber, low-starch diets require less food than those consuming high-starch, low-fiber diets. Rumination time also increases when deer consume high-fiber, low-starch diets, which allows for increased nutrient acquisition due to greater length of fermentation. Because some of the subspecies of mule deer are migratory, they encounter variable habitats and forage quality throughout the year. Forages consumed in the summer are higher in digestible components (i.e. proteins, starches, sugars, and hemicellulose) than those consumed in the winter. The average gross energy content of the consumed forage material is 4.5kcal/g.

Due to fluctuations in forage quality and availability, mule deer fat storage varies throughout the year, with the most fat stored in October, which is depleted throughout the winter to the lowest levels of fat storage in March. Changes in hormone levels are indications of physiological adjustments to the changes in the habitat. Total body fat is a measure of the individual's energy reserves, while thyroid hormone concentrations are a metric to determine the deer's ability to use the fat reserves. Triiodothyronine (T3) hormone is directly involved with basal metabolic rate and thermoregulation.

Migration

Mule deer migrate from low elevation winter ranges to high elevation summer ranges. Although not all individuals in populations migrate, some will travel long distances between summer and winter ranges. Researchers discovered the longest mule deer migration in Wyoming spanning 150 miles from winter to summer range. Multiple US states track mule deer migrations.

Mule deer migrate in fall to avoid harsh winter conditions like deep snow that covers up food resources, and in spring follow the emergence of new growth northwards. There is evidence to suggest that mule deer migrate based on cognitive memory, meaning they use the same path year after year even if the availability of resources has changed. This contradicts the idea that animals will go to the areas with the best available resources, which makes migratory paths crucial for survival.

Risks

There are many risks that mule deer face during migration including climate change and human disturbance. Climate change impacts on seasonal growth patterns constitute a risk for migrating mule deer by invalidating historic or learned migration paths.

Human activities such as natural resource extraction, highways, fencing, and urban development all have an impact on mule deer populations and migrations through habitat degradation and fragmentation. Natural gas extraction has been found to have varying negative effects on mule deer behavior and can even cause them to avoid areas they use to migrate. Highways not only cause injury and death to mule deer, but they can also serve as a barrier to migration. As traffic volumes increase, the more mule deer tend to avoid those areas and abandon their typical migration routes. It has also been found that fencing can alter deer behavior, acting as a barrier, and potentially changing mule deer migration patterns. In addition, urban development has replaced mule deer habitat with subdivisions, and human activity has increased. As a result of this, researchers have seen a decline in mule deer populations. This is especially prominent in Colorado where the human population has grown by over 2.2 million since 1980.

Management

Protecting migration corridors

Protecting migration corridors is essential to maintain healthy mule deer populations. One thing everyone can do is help slow the increase in climate change by using greener energy sources and reducing the amount of waste in our households. In addition, managers and researchers can assess the risks listed above and take the proper steps to mitigate any adverse impacts those risk have on mule deer populations. Not only will populations benefit from these efforts but so will many other wildlife species.

Highways

One way to help protect deer from getting hit on roadways is to install high fence wildlife fencing with escape routes. This helps keep deer off the road, preventing vehicle collisions and allowing animals that are trapped between the road and the fence a way to escape to safety. However, to maintain migration routes that cross busy highways, managers have also implemented natural, vegetated, overpasses and underpasses to allow animals, like mule deer, to migrate and move safely across highways.

Natural resource extraction

Approaches to mitigating the impact of drilling and mining operations include regulating the time of year when active drilling and heavy traffic to sites are taking place, and using well-informed planning to protect critical deer habitat and using barriers to mitigate the activity, noise, light at the extraction sites.

Urban development

The increase in urbanization has impacted mule deer migrations and there is evidence to show it also disrupts gene flow among mule deer populations. One clear option is to not build houses in critical mule deer habitat; however, building near mule deer habitat has resulted in some deer becoming accustomed to humans and the resources, such as food and water. Rather than migrate through urban areas some deer tend to stay close to those urban developments, potentially for resources and to avoid the obstacles in urban areas. Suggested measures by property owners to protect mule deer genetic diversity and migration paths include planting deer-resistant plants, placing scare devices such as noise-makers, and desisting from feeding deer.

Disease

Wildlife officials in Utah announced that a November–December 2021 field study had detected the first case of SARS-CoV-2 in mule deer. Several deer possessed apparent SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, however a female deer in Morgan County had an active Delta variant infection. White-tailed deer, which are able to hybridize with mule deer and which have shown high rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection, have migrated into Morgan County and other traditional mule deer habitats since at least the early 2000s.

Chronic wasting disease

Main article: Chronic wasting disease

Chronic wasting disease (CWD) is a disease rapidly spreading throughout populations of the Cervus family. It first appeared in captive deer in Colorado in 1967 but has made a large impact on wild mule deer populations since then, spreading throughout all of North America.

References

References

1. Sanchez-Rojas, G.. (2016). "''Odocoileus hemionus''".
2. {{ITIS
3. (27 April 1984). "Odocoileus hemionus". [[Mammalian Species]].
4. (1817). "Extracts from the Journal of Mr. Charles Le Raye, relating to some new Quadrupeds of the Missouri Region, with Notes". The American Monthly Magazine and Critical Review.
5. {{MSW3
6. Nowak, Ronald M.. (7 April 1999). "Walker's Mammals of the World". [[JHU Press]].
7. Reid, Fiona A.. (15 November 2006). "Peterson Field Guide to Mammals of North America". [[Houghton Mifflin Harcourt]].
8. Heffelfinger, J.. (March 2011). "Tails with a Dark Side: The truth about whitetail–mule deer hybrids".
9. Geist, Valerius. (January 1998). "Deer of the World: Their Evolution, Behaviour, and Ecology". [[Stackpole Books]].
10. (19 November 2003). "Wild Mammals of North America: Biology, Management, and Conservation". [[JHU Press]].
11. "Observations • iNaturalist".
12. "Observations • iNaturalist".
13. "Observations • iNaturalist".
14. "Observations • iNaturalist".
15. "Observations • inaturalist".
16. "Observations • inaturalist".
17. "Observations • iNaturalist".
18. "Observations • iNaturalist".
19. "Observations • iNaturalist".
20. "Observations • iNaturalist".
21. "Observations • iNaturalist".
22. "Observations • iNaturalist".
23. Petersen, David. (1 November 1985). "North American Deer: Mule, Whitetail and Coastal Blacktail Deer". [[Ogden Publications]].
24. Misuraca, Michael. (1999). "Odocoileus hemionus mule deer". [[University of Michigan]] Museum of Zoology.
25. Burnie, David. (1 September 2011). "Animal: The Definitive Visual Guide to the World's Wildlife". [[Dorling Kindersley Limited]].
26. "Mule Deer Odocoileus hemionus (Rafinesque)".
27. (2014). "Sitka Black-tailed Deer Hunting Information". Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
28. (2008). "Animal Fact Sheet: Mule Deer". [[Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum]].
29. Anderson, Mike. (5 March 2019). "DWR Biologists Use Helicopter Rides, Ultrasound, To Check on Deer Pregnancies". [[Bonneville International]].
30. (2016-03-23). "Infectious Disease and Grouping Patterns in Mule Deer". [[PLOS One]].
31. Heffelfinger, Jim. (September 2006). "Deer of the Southwest: A Complete Guide to the Natural History, Biology, and Management of Southwestern Mule Deer and White-tailed Deer". [[Texas A&M University Press]].
32. (July 1973). "Foods of the Rocky Mountain Mule Deer". [[USDA Forest Service]].
33. Colorado [[Natural Resources Conservation Service]]. (March 2000). "Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus) Fact Sheet". [[USDA]].
34. (February 1977). "Ecological Relationships between Mule Deer and White-Tailed Deer in Southeastern Arizona". [[Ecological Monographs]].
35. Feranec, Robert S.. (3 September 2007). "Stable carbon isotope values reveal evidence of resource partitioning among ungulates from modern C3-dominated ecosystems in North America". [[Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology]].
36. Armstrong, David M.. (19 June 2012). "Species Profile: Deer". [[Colorado Division of Wildlife]].
37. (1961). "American Wildlife & Plants: A Guide to Wildlife Food Habits: The Use of Trees, Shrubs, Weeds, and Herbs by Birds and Mammals of the United States". [[Dover Publications]].
38. (2007). "Lichens in relation to management issues in the Sierra Nevada national parks". North American Fungi.
39. Rue, Leonard Lee III. (October 1997). "The Deer of North America". [[Lyons Press]].
40. "Mule Deer: Changing Landscapes, Changing Perspectives: Supplemental Feeding—Just Say No". Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Mule Deer Working Group.
41. Kucera, Thomas E.. (1978-08-21). "Social Behavior and Breeding System of the Desert Mule Deer". [[Journal of Mammalogy]].
42. "Causes and consequences of sociality in mule deer". [[Alces (journal).
43. (1 December 2015). "Comparing radio-tracking and visual detection methods to quantify group size measures". [[European Journal of Ecology]].
44. (3 July 2011). "Effects of starch and fibre in pelleted diets on nutritional status of mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) fawns". Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition.
45. (October 1975). "Starving and Refeeding Mule Deer". [[The Journal of Wildlife Management]].
46. (March 1977). "Evaluation of Deer Habitat on a Nutritional Basis". Journal of Range Management.
47. (3 September 2014). "Herbivore Body Condition Response in Altered Environments: Mule Deer and Habitat Management". [[PLOS One]].
48. "Red Desert to Hoback Migration Assessment {{!}} Wyoming Migration Initiative".
49. (2018-08-20). "The long, strange trip of Deer 255".
50. "Colorado Parks & Wildlife - Species Data - Mule Deer Migration Corridors - Colorado GeoLibrary".
51. "New big game studies in Montana aimed at declining numbers, disease".
52. (2016-09-19). "Mule Deer Initiative".
53. Lewis, Gary. (23 February 2017). "Central Oregon mule deer migrations in crisis".
54. "UNDERSTANDING MULE DEER MIGRATIONFact Sheet #12". Mule Deer Working Group: Fact Sheet.
55. "New study: Migrating mule deer don't need directions".
56. "Impacts of climate change on migrating mule deer".
57. (August 2020). "Drought reshuffles plant phenology and reduces the foraging benefit of green-wave surfing for a migratory ungulate". Global Change Biology.
58. (September 2009). "Influence of Well Pad Activity on Winter Habitat Selection Patterns of Mule Deer". Journal of Wildlife Management.
59. (June 2015). "Identifying migration corridors of mule deer threatened by highway development: Mule Deer Migration and Highways". Wildlife Society Bulletin.
60. (2019-05-09). "Abandoned Fencing Is Detrimental to Mule Deer and Other Wildlife".
61. (2012-12-05). "A framework for understanding semi-permeable barrier effects on migratory ungulates". Journal of Applied Ecology.
62. "New study reveals how fences hinder migratory wildlife in Western US".
63. "New Study Finds That Expanding Development Is Associated With Declining Deer Recruitment Across Western Colorado".
64. "How You Can Stop Global Warming".
65. "Protecting big-game migration corridors".
66. (May 2015). "MONITORING WILDLIFE-VEHICLE COLLISIONS: ANALYSIS AND COST- BENEFIT OF ESCAPE RAMPS FOR DEER AND ELK ON U.S. HIGHWAY 550". Colorado Department of Transportation: Applied Research and Innovation Branch.
67. staff, the Star-Tribune. (8 October 2013). "Wyoming wildlife crossings labeled success".
68. (2015-08-12). "Study quantifies natural gas development impacts on mule deer".
69. (May 2019). "Connectivity of mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) populations in a highly fragmented urban landscape". Landscape Ecology.
70. (July 2014). "URBAN MULE DEER ISSUES Fact Sheet #9".
71. (July 2014). "UNDERSTANDING MULE DEER MIGRATION Fact Sheet #12". Mule Deer Working Group.
72. (29 March 2022). "Utah mule deer is 1st in U.S. to test positive for COVID-19". The Salt Lake Tribune.
73. (19 October 2008). "Hunting: Whitetail deer influx brings mixed reaction". The Salt Lake Tribune.
74. (2 November 2021). "Widespread Coronavirus Infection Found in Iowa Deer, New Study Says". [[The New York Times]].
75. CDC. (2024-05-13). "Chronic Wasting Disease in Animals".
76. (January 1980). "Chronic Wasting Disease of Captive Mule Deer: A Spongiform Encephalopathy". Journal of Wildlife Diseases.