Celine M.J. Rickels | USGS Science

USGS2025

Harmless tags or hazardous ads? Investigating the potential for ear tags to increase predation on neonatal ungulates

Studies involving individually marked animals provide insights predicated on the assumption marked individuals are accurate models of their unmarked counterparts. Taxa-specific and marker-specific examinations are needed to determine if marked animals are suitable models for the parameter(s) being measured. Our objective was to determine if brightly colored ear tags influenced the probability of predation for neonatal ungulates. We captured 94 neonatal pronghorn (Antilocapra americana (Ord, 1815)), fitted each neonate with a tracking collar, and attached a yellow ear tag to 49 (52.1%) of the captured neonates. We monitored the survival of each neonate during 2023–2024 in Oklahoma, USA. Predation was the leading cause of mortality during our monitoring period and accounted for 29 (82.9%) of the 35 mortalities with a known cause. Coyotes (Canis latrans Say, 1823) were the predominant predator of neonatal pronghorn in our study area. Presence of a yellow ear tag seemingly did not influence the probability of predation, even though coyotes can distinguish yellow objects from most natural backgrounds. A larger sample size may be needed to validate our results, but neonatal ungulates with an ear tag appear to be accurate models of neonatal ungulates without an ear tag when examining predation risk.

Oklahoma↗

USGS2025

Predator-induced injury of a neonatal pronghorn cues abandonment of current reproductive investment

Evolutionary theory predicts that parental care is favored when the fitness benefits outweigh the costs of providing care (Klug et al., 2012 ). In mammals, parental care is generally provided by females, who provide nourishment through lactation, protection from predators, aid in juvenile movement, or otherwise facilitate offspring survival (Balshine, 2012 ; Lent, 1974 ). However, in capital breeding species that rely on stored energy reserves for reproduction, increased investment can reduce the female's body condition and the number of offspring produced in subsequent years (Balme et al., 2017 ; Cook et al., 2013 ; Stephens et al., 2009 ). Unlike income breeders, which produce offspring from concurrent energy uptake, capital breeders deplete energy stores during reproduction, and lactation hinders the recovery of these stores (Clutton-Brock et al., 1983 ; Cook et al., 2013 ; Stephens et al., 2009 ). Consequently, iteroparous mammals face a trade-off between investing in current offspring and investing in maintenance or future offspring (Hamel et al., 2010 ; Stearns, 1989 ; Williams, 1966 ).

Ecology↗