Yesterday I published a post in which I attempted to report roe deer family morning routines (Roe deer observation (second part of June, 2024) – possible metabolic water constraints, morning routines, early courtship).
In this post, I accentuated the role by the male in scouting for foraging spots once the fawn is being taken out to feed further from its birthplace (as well as the male’s role in social communication).
In the morning of June 28 (2024), meanwhile, I observed a female with a fawn foraging alone (without the male present) in one of the areas where the fawn has been formerly seen in the entire group association (female, male, fawn) and which is far from the birth site.
Accordingly, I believe, that in some families (and this is a family with restricted resources near the fawning site) the mother and her offspring are foraging on their own, perhaps during night already, in these spots that have previously been arranged for by the male and to which the male had initially led his family while watching over them.
I believe that the males might actually get up later than the females.
The males might not be active throughout the night but toward the dawn (e.g., 1 -2 hours before dawn) and after sunrise (for longer perhaps than females, including the mature, adult females).
It also seems that the males possibly feed before the sunrise but as it grows lighter, they assume their social responsibilities.
Overall, it appears that sunrise is the time when roe deer communicate between family groups more intensely.
After having foraged for a while, the males might be focusing on their social duties in the neighbourhood.
The dawn hours could also be the time when neighbours pay visits to each other if this is not done purely out of foraging needs.
Such strategy might have perhaps arisen due to several reasons:
- Predators are active around sunrise and males might be more invested in protecting their families during this time (when the families are also quite vulnerable);
- Predators cease their activity before humans commence theirs and this is when the roe deer appear to be initiating long-distance communication;
- Near dawn the air carries plenty of moisture, and if there are any hydration issues, those would concern the males to a lesser extent as their social duties involve rather a lot of trotting around and vocalizing;
- There might be other atmospheric qualities that allow for sound to travel efficiently during dawn (which might be one of the reasons why songbirds, too, vocalize during these hours as roe deer and many bird species have rather interesting similarities).
I cannot make claims regarding sunset hours as I do not have a chance to observe wildlife then.
I do not think that in all families roe deer are eager to bring their fawns out in the open but, overall, fawns might be travelling with their mothers to forage in the spots prospected by their dads, and the fathers might be nearby but not imposing their presence and not vocalizing as actively.
As the sun rises, the females (and the fawns and yearling daughters) gradually cease their activity but it seems that the males stay active for longer perhaps because they have not been as out and about during night and because heat does not aggravate them and they still have to feed after having performed their social duties (and protective duties during the vulnerable twilight time).
The June 28 observation was also interesting because it evidenced of mother’s strategies regarding guarding the fawn in open habitats.
The observation was made on one side of a countryside dirt road. On this side, there is a wheat-field which has been rather overgrown with weeds and there is also a ditch with grassy banks.
The roe deer appear to be focusing on the forbs among the wheat but mainly on the vegetation by the ditch-sides.
The country road leads through an entirely flat landscape and, in some places including this area, it is a bit elevated above the surrounding fields.
There is no tree cover, either.
As a result, it is impossible to approach with any stealth although, once there, if fortunate enough not to have been spotted, squatting low to ground tends to prolong observations.
This time, we (my dog and I) were noticed almost immediately by the female.
Perhaps she was also more vigilant as she was with the fawn, quite far from tree cover (ca. 150 m).
At first, the fawn was not visible as the grasses there were taller than the youngling.
I wondered if it was the mother or the yearling daugther.
I thought it was strange that the female did not bounce off across the field toward the forest which was something the yearling female would have done.
The female did not keep watching us and foraging nonchalantly, either, which is something that mature adult roe deer tend to do when disturbance is far enough and not very threatening.
The female actually disappeared in the grasses and did not run, nor manifest any activity.
I was a bit perplexed, and I waited for a few moments thinking that perhaps the grasses were so tall as to have hidden the female who might have simply walked to the forest (without the typical bounce).
I did not wish to alarm the female in case she was still there, and we started off along the road.
Once we had reached the driveway of the nearby household (some 100 m ahead from the spot whence we observed the female on the field), the female began leaping off toward the forest, and she was followed by a fawn.
I realized the female had waited until we retreated far enough not to be able to catch the fawn who was slower than she was.
The female had also attempted not to give away the fawn’s location by, simultaneously, approaching it and probably advising it to keep low as well as keeping low to the ground herself so that she was not seen, either (a behaviour that I have rarely observed in adults although it has happened).
The fawn could not run the entire distance in one go, and they took a stop (after having crossed the ditch which was likely a challenge for the fawn despite the fact that the fawn was already very big and strong).
We kept walking forth (and glancing back over our shoulders) so that the female felt secure with her strategy.
I am not certain they ended up in the forest at all because they might have stayed as we vanished fast enough.
I hope that was the case because I suspect – once they would have reached the forest, the fawn might have been too wary to return out in the open, and their foraging bout would have ended.
It was also interesting that we observed a male roe deer not far from this family group.
This was not the female’s mate (the probable father of the fawn).
This male was leaner, possibly much younger, with only spikes of antlers.
I believe it was their yearling son as he was located mere 100 – 150 metres from the mother and her fawn.
I have seen the yearling male there before.
I believe that the yearling son has not left the family and he has been localizing in the most suboptimal of suboptimal areas on the family’s range (a wheat field that has an overgrown grassy area of the nearby household adjacent to it as well as a very small grove of spruces by the wasteland).
Formerly, I had observed the yearling son on the other side of the household where I suppose there is a lawn-type orchard or something of the sorts.
The yearling son does not make his escape toward the forest where the family resides (although it is the nearest forest) but rather seeks to take cover in the sparse growth of spruces.
This morning the yearling son was on the wheat field side, closer to where the female had been located.
I wonder if now that the fawn is rather big, the yearling son (who has apparently taken residence in the least disturbing way to his younger sibling but also to his sister who is admitted to more optimal areas, including areas currently used by the parents and the fawn albeit not perhaps to the fawning site itself) has resumed his social contact with the family.
The son was not foraging near them but he must have been close enough for them to see one another.
Perhaps the importance of vision in roe deer social life is based precisely on this relative isolation of core family units but maintained contact through spotting the older offspring and the neighbours.
It is even possible that the son briefly interacted with the mother more closely because the mother had not been by the fawn’s side when she appeared (rather, some 100 metres to the right where there is another household) and the son came from the area where the mother could have been foraging.
The son might not have tried to approach the younger offspring but his mother.
Meanwhile, during this very same morning, I observed another male (this time, a territorial resident male with his own family) on a hayfield which belongs to another family group.
This has not been the first visitation by this male and his family on the hayfield (see Roe deer observation (Jun 22, 2024) – neighbours visiting?) but this time the male was alone.
I call him the over-river male because his family resides across the river (from the hayfield and from the hayfield family).
The male is very similar in appearance to the resident male.
In fact, I was unsure for a while whether it was the resident buck or the over-river male because:
- they have similar facial features (both exceedingly beautiful males);
- they are both quite curious and not very timid (the resident male allows us to approach within metres, and, this morning, so did the over-river male who actually walked some steps toward us cutting the space between us to 4 – 5 metres).
They are different in size (the over-river male is smaller) and in colouring (the over-river male is darker).
I believe they are brothers but perhaps not of the same generation (as roe deer, typically, only give birth to one fawn anyway).
The male, finally, walked toward the river quite definitely with an apparent intent to cross it right where his home range lies on the other side (the resident male sometimes also crosses the river but not in that particular area, more to the right where no male has claimed the land specifically) which suggests it was the over-river male.
The male had not announced his presence (unlike when he had arrived with his mate and their yearling daughter) and he was, in truth, proceeding very boldly deep into the hayfield.
Previously, the male had also reached quite deep into the resident family’s range but in the direction of the orchard which is not the family’s core area.
This time the male seemed more focused on the core area.
I wonder if his objective was to take sight of the fawn (to determine whether there was a fawn, how big it was, how many fawns etc….).
The hayfield family is very secretive about their fawn, and the fawn has not yet been seen in areas that are more open and visible to the neighbours.
If these males are brothers, the interest might be augmented due to the relatedness.
It appeared to me that the male had arrived not with the purpose of scouting for foraging grounds for his family, nor perhaps foraging by himself but with the purpose of stealthily sneaking a peek at his brother’s fawn which was better achieved while on his own and without announcing his presence (that could have sent the fawn hiding).
I cannot help but wonder whether both families might at some point, before winter, meet on the larger hayfield for their single fawns to have playmates (although I have not seen the over-river family’s fawn and perhaps they have had twins).
Notes by Ieva 