1. Average values of animal group sizes are prone to be overestimated in traditional field studies because small groups and singletons are easier to overlook than large ones. This kind of bias also applies for the method of locating groups by tracking previously radio-collared individuals in the wild. If the researcher randomly chooses a collared animal to locate a group to visit, a large group has higher probability to be selected than a small one, simply because it has more members.
2. The question arises whether location of groups by means of finding collared animals has smaller or greater bias than searching for groups by visual observation. If the bias is smaller or same, this method can be recommended for finding groups. However, such a comparison cannot be made by speculation, only by empirical investigation.
3. The present study compares the two methods empirically, by statistically comparing group size measures (mean, median, quantiles, frequency distribution, and ‘typical group size’) between two data sets. These data sets comprise of Rocky Mountain mule deer group size values collected in the same area during the same period of time, referring either to groups located by the traditional ‘search and observe method’ or located by tracking formerly collared individuals.
4. All group size measures are statistically similar in the two samples, thus we conclude that the two methods yielded similar biases. Although the true group size measures are not known, we presume that both methods have overestimated them. We propose that these results do not necessary apply to other species, thus cannot be generalized. The reason for this is that bias may depend on factors specific to the species: bias of visual observation may depend on how well the species conceals itself in the existing habitat, and the bias associated with finding groups using collared animals is likely dependent on group size distribution and also on the proportion of collared animals in the population.
Bowyer, R.T., McCullough, D.R. & Belovsky, G.E. (2001) Causes and consequences of sociality in mule deer. Alces, 37, 371-402.
Brennan A., Cross P.C. & Creel S. (2015) Managing more than the mean: using quantile regression to identify factors related to large elk groups. Journal of Applied Ecology, 52, 1656-1664.
Buuveibaatar, B., Fuller, T.K., Fine, A.E., Chimeddorj, B., Young, J.K. & Berger, J. (2013) Changes in grouping patterns of saiga antelope in relation to intrinsic and environmental factors in Mongolia. Journal of Zoology, 291, 51-58.
Clutton-Brock, T.H., Guinness, F.E. & Albon, S.D. (1982) Red deer: behavior and ecology of two sexes. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA.
Dar, T.A., Habib, B. & Khan, J.A. (2012) Group size, habitat use and overlap analysis of four sympatric ungulate species in Shivalik Ecosystem, Uttarakhand, India. Mammalia, 76, 31-41.
Djaković, N., Holand, Ø., Hovland, A.L., Weladji, R.B., Røed, K.H. & Nieminen, M. (2015) Effects of males’ presence on female behaviour during the rut. Ethology Ecology & Evolution, 27, 148-160.
Gerard, J-F., & Loisel, P. (1995) Spontaneous emergence of a relationship between habitat openness and mean group size and its possible evolutionary consequences in large herbivores. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 176, 511-522.
Gueron, S. & Levin, S.A. (1995) The dynamics of group formation. Mathematical Biosciences, 128, 243-264.
Hirth, D.H. (1977) Social behavior of white-tailed deer in relation to habitat. Wildlife Monographs, 53, 3-55.
Jarman, P.J. (1974) The social organization of antelope in relation to their ecology. Behaviour, 48, 215-268.
Krause, J. & Ruxton, G.D. (2002) Living in groups. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Lingle, S. (2003) Group composition and cohesion in sympatric whitetailed deer and mule deer. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 81, 1119-1130.
Mejía Salazar, M.F., Waldner, C., Stookey, J. & Bollinger, T.K. (2016) Infectious disease and grouping patterns of mule deer - submitted.
Monteith, K.L., Sexton, C.L., Jenks, J.A. & Bowyer, R.T. (2007) Evaluation of techniques for categorizing group membership of whitetailed deer. Journal of Wildlife Management, 71, 1712-1716.
Ramesh, T., Sankar, K., Qureshi, Q. & Kalle, R. (2011) Group size, sex and age composition of chital (Axis axis) and sambar (Rusa unicolor) in a deciduous habitat of Western Ghats. Mammalian Biology, 77, 53-59.
Reiczigel, J. & Rózsa, L. (2008) Flocker 1.1. Budapest, Hungary. Available: http://www.zoologia.hu/flocker/
Reiczigel, J., Lang, Z., Rózsa, L. & Tóthmérész, B. (2008) Measures of sociality: two different views of group size. Animal Behaviour, 75, 715-721.
Reiczigel, J., Rózsa, L. & Reiczigel, A. (2013) Quantitative Parasitology (QPweb). Available: http://www2.univet.hu/qpweb
Semeñiuk, M.B. & Merino, M.L. 2015. Pampas deer (Ozotoceros bezoarticus) social organization in semiarid grasslands of San Luis, Argentina. Mammalia, 79, 131-138.
Silbernagel, E.R., N.K. Skelton, C.L. Waldner, and T.K. Bollinger. (2011) Interaction among deer in a chronic wasting disease endemic zone. Journal of Wildlife Management, 75, 1453-1461.
Sinclair, A.R. (1977) The African buffalo: A study of resource limitation of populations. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA.
Wronski, T., Apio, A., Plath, M. & Averbeck, C. (2009) Do ecotypes of bushbuck differ in grouping patterns? Acta Ethologica, 12, 71-78.