On Jun 17, shortly after sunrise (4.45 – 5 am), we (my dog and I) observed a roe deer family, i.e., a mother, a father and a fawn, foraging on forbs and grasses that can be found in a somewhat overgrown wheat field and by its edges.
While the fawns began foraging on solid food (including shrub leaves) for at least three weeks already, I had not yet seen any of the fawns brought along on a family foraging trips.
This particular family was feeding a great distance (ca. 0.5 km) from the fawning site and the terrain that was crossed to reach it could not have been easy on the fawn (thick shrubs, tall nettles, some uphill-downhill climbing).
The fawn was, however, large. It was barely concealed by the wheat but it was still notably fawn-sized.
Fawns this year (2024) might have been born in the beginning of May already.
Meanwhile, last year (2023), it was only around mid-June (present time) when I began observing first fawns emerging from the birthing sites, tiny and somewhat wobbly on legs.
As the family foraged, the male was keeping watch and barking at times.
The fawn’s yearling sister was quite nearby (< 300 metres but on the other side of a forest band).
The relationships in this specific family are tight (Roe deer observation (Jun 2, 2024) – male watching out for his yearling daughter), and recently I observed the family foraging together in the same area (with the yearling daugther but without the fawn).
I believe the yearling daughter had not joined the group in order to keep the number on individuals out in the open minimal (the fawn would be less likely to become spotted by predators if the group size was smaller) and perhaps she was even watching out for potential danger.
In fact, over the last 2 days, there has been a surge in male barking activity which was not correlated to weather events (the male barking, formerly, was resumed after a drop, not a rise in temperature but now there was a slight increase).
Importantly, the barking was mainly assumed by males who live in suboptimal habitats although almost all males participated.
The only territorial father who was not barking, also has the most optimal of ranges regarding resource abundance and resource distribution with regard to the fawning site.
Thence I drew a conclusion that the males were perhaps prospecting the patches where to bring their fawns to because most of the males do not have suitable foraging sites right next to the fawning site.
Additionally, the fawning site itself is rather limited on most ranges. That is to say, the riparian forest area is relatively small and as the fawn becomes more interested in solid food, the family probably has to move out of the forest itself as the forest can no longer support the growing fawn’s needs due to its reduced area size.
The trip has to be long in these families, and it must be planned ahead of the time because it might be impossible to return to the best-sheltered site speedily.
I believe that recently the females relocalized their fawns due to a sudden, dramatic drop in temperature, and perhaps this proved to the parents that the fawns were grown enough to travel (Roe deer observation (Jun 11, 2024) – males worried over ‘vanished fawns’).
However, for example, this very same male (who was leading his foraging group of three) was heard barking in two different areas yesterday (Jun 16, 2024) and I do not think that he was followed by the female and the fawn at the time because he was moving rather speedily.
It appeared to me that this male was perhaps inspecting potential sites to bring the fawn to, and it seems that other males are also doing the same thing.
I suppose that the barking communicates his plans to the mother but possibly also to neighbours who would then know where the family intends to forage now that the fawning sites have ceased being the focal centre of activity (especially, as, in my view, neighbours are not hostile and much of the ‘territorial barking’ is, in fact, conferring regarding family status and intentions).
For this particular male who was barking in two sites (> 1 km from one another and across the river from one another), the choice where to bring his family must be under quite some constraints.
His fawn was growing up in a forest clearing which is now entirely overgrown with osiers.
The osier grove itself is dense and shady. In the small openings, mainly very tall ruderal plants (nettles) prevail and much of the area has been taken over by the invasive Canadian goldenrods.
It is hardly a suitable area for a fawn to take in solid food.
But it is a very large-sized area.
On one side of this thicket/nettle/goldenrod jungle, there are open crop fields which are perilous and which are also far (ca. 0.5 km from the river).
On the other side of the river, there are garden allotments.
The male was inspecting both options.
The garden plot area, however, falls under another male’s domain.
Curiously, as I heard the male walking around and barking and then retreating back to his side of the river, I realized that nobody in particular had claimed the area on this side of the river (across from the fawning site) and the resident male here localizes quite far.
The riparian forest lies on the opposite side of the garden allotment area, and that is where the other family dwells.
Accordingly, this particular patch that the thicket-male was exploring sort of belongs to the resident male but, at the same time, is not claimed actively.
It has made me wonder whether roe deer, in fact, have some ‘communal areas’ that might or might not befall under someone’s control but on which presence of neighbours or even yearling/older sons is tolerated (see, e.g., Roe deer observations – a non-territorial male residing on two territorial males’ ranges?).
A similar area lies within some orchards further down the road.
And these areas cannot be described as ‘no man’s land’ because they are still optimal for foraging and resting purposes (although not very suitable for the mother and the fawn, usually also far from the fawning site).
It is usually thought that roe deer males would claim all the suitable area but I think they leave some areas half-claimed and this is the space where young males without their ranges or poorer neighbours might be tolerated.
I suppose that the male from over the river came to test his neighbour’s tolerance as it would have been easier for the fawn to simply wade across the shallow river and to walk the distance of mere 100 – 300 metres (vs. 0.5 km on rough terrain, at least for fawns).
The male was never contested by his neighbour. There was no response from the resident male.
I believe that the ‘poor dad’ could have brought his family there without repercussions.
However, there is not much to forage on.
The male apparently selected to lead his family to the open fields despite the challenges they faced (terrain, distance, lack of cover) because there was a greater abundance of forage.
Other males also appeared to be prospecting their ranges in a similar manner.
Today, however, it seemed to me that the male was also barking… Well, I should be stating that he was warning his family or showing the fawn that the father was near and that the father was watching out for the fawn…
Yet I could not help but get an impression the male was barking to draw some attention to his family.
It appears counterintuitive but, at the time, there was no peril.
I simply had this gut feeling that the male wanted to show off his wonderful, strong fawn that was so big already, so tenacious.
And if neighbours were around to see them, the male would have been the proud dad who enjoys others catching a glimpse of the success and adorableness of his child.
In fact, it appears that the roe deer are becoming more social already which seems strange because the fawns are young, the winter is far and there is yet the mating season due (in a month or so).
However, my theory is that the mating season might be determined by social motivations.
I think that roe deer used to mate later in the season (late autumn, winter) like most ungulates do.
But I also think that roe deer hormonal levels are affected by social stimuli.
Namely, I believe that the roe deer, during their evolution, shifted their mating season toward a earlier period (late summer rather than late autumn) because it benefited them when they began settling in colder regions (thence, delayed implantation evolved).
And this shift might have been enabled because the roe deer began gathering and interacting in full family groups as well as with neighbours more frequently as the fawns started foraging away from the fawning sites (which in those days when riparian forests had not been cleared and presented more plentiful foraging opportunities, could have occurred later, toward August).
I think that social interactions boost testosterone in males and perhaps estrogen in females.
As a result, the roe deer might have used social cues to alter their hormonal cycle which, in turn, could initiate a transition in the reproductive cycle.
I believe that roe deer are becoming more social already during the summer, and these common areas might be used to check in on neighbouring families and their progress.
At the same time, later in summer, I mainly observe the female alone with the fawn.
I think that while the female might need the male’s assistance in selecting safe sites to lead her fawn(s) to and also his company to guide the fawn(s) thereward for the first several times, it might also be important that the male does not severe the bond between the female and her fawn(s).
The fawn probably learns basic life skills from the mother.
The presence of too many relatives could confuse the fawn reducing its learning potential.
In many species, larger individuals or individuals with otherwise more ‘imposing’ presence (not in a bad sense but in the sense of being more conspicuous, more dominant) tend to draw attention of the group because often the group relies on the decision-making by these individuals.
Perhaps in order to learn from the less dominant mother (females and males are about the same size but males are louder and they tend to be altogether more noticeable) and also in order to learn how to make independent decisions, the fawn still has to spend time with the mother exclusively which is why full sociality (within the family and within the population) is not assumed until the fawn has acquired necessary life skills and confidence, self-reliance.
It will be interesting to see how other family groups fare and I suppose that fawns will be spotted more often as they emerge from their seclusion.
At the same time, I think that these shifts are early this year.
The family on the most optimal range has not been exhibiting similar behaviours despite the fact that the male is very sociable.
The male, however, has been travelling on both sides of the river.
I believe this male comes from the population across the river and he wishes to introduce his fawn to his homeland.
Still, the family has not moved yet and perhaps it is because they are in little need to do so (there is plenty of forage even for a fawn that has matured faster than usual).
This is rather relevant. If the males of various species depend on aquatic nutrients (riparian nutrients) to perform well on a reproductive level, riparian habitats might be crucial in the context of reproductive outlooks for these species.
Notes by Ieva 