This is just a brief post to mention my autumn post-rut observations regarding roe deer.
All the females in this area who had had fawns, kept in constant association with their spring fawns also during the rut and now (second part of September) after the rut is supposedly over.
The grouping (herding) behaviour has loosely begun in one subpopulation but not really in the other and mostly the non-mother females and males are found on their own but the mothers still travel with their fawns (not as a part of a larger group).
I even observed what I believe was a mother with three fawns.
At least it was a female roe deer with three fawns of the spring and they had formed a bonded group (feeding and resting together; the mother also barked to warn the fawns of approaching danger and did not run away from them when the danger (a tractor) was nearer).
The fawns were of the same size and colouring and they exhibited a rather great degree of synchronicity and familiarity (observed during their flight where they attempted to flee together but occasionally bumped into one another without apologizing, i.e., without apparently fearing the consequence of having disturbed someone who was not as familiar to them).
Therefore I think they were all siblings and offspring to the doe (the doe was also first seen resting and I suppose she should be very tired after a summer of raising three fawns).
The family structure is also intact in the observed mother-offspring units.
The females lead the fawns (fawns are always seen following their mothers when both are together) and they take charge in decision-making (upon encountering potential danger).
They also appear protective but this is a subjective impression (leadership might not be equal to motherhood and the doe leading the fawn could be the expression of dominance relationship rather than protective relationship, however, to me, it does not appear exclusively so although I believe that dominance is also at play).
There have been several instances where I believe I have observed protective behaviour or at least behaviour that is compatible with mother-child scenario.
On one occasion (September), I encountered a fawn feeding by itself.
The fawn was startled and it ran into the shrubs.
I thought I had spooked it for good anyway and I decided to take 5 minutes rest by the roadside.
As I was sitting, I noticed someone staring at me through the shrubs.
The fawn had apparently ran back to its mother and the female had arrived to inspect the situation.
In my opinion, this was a protective behaviour and even perhaps an attempt to educate the fawn because it would have been easier and safer for the female to slip off toward the forest (as I was sitting by the road and she was already covered by the shrubs and near the forest).
On another occasion (September), I met a female who was followed by a spring fawn.
As they were crossing a small dirt road, the female (who was leading the company of two) stopped in her tracks and began observing/considering something.
At first, I thought she had spotted me and I stopped to let them cross.
But she was not looking in my direction.
There was a young cat (not anymore a kitten but not an adult either) on the side of the road and the female was apparently interacting with the cat.
It was rather strange because the cat was not behaving ‘abnormally’ – it was simply lying on the ground (the way cats do sometimes as the sand on the road has grown warmer after the Sun comes up).
The cat was far too small to be a threat to the female or her fawn.
Still, it seemed that the female was rather tense and she led the investigation while the fawn remained several steps behind (the positioning of the two deer individuals and the female’s active role of examining the situation suggested of protective quality to the female’s behaviour).
This is an area where roe deer probably meet cats often (private gardens with some smaller colonies of abandoned cats).
Somehow, this particular cat appeared suspicious to the female.
The tension in her body, however, was accompanied by curiosity and I suppose it was both a situation of alarm and of educational value.
It seemed to me that the assumed leadership and the low risk level that her fawn currently faces (being all grown up) and also the fawn’s cognitive prowess (capability of appreciating the circumstances and subjects they are encountering) encouraged and empowered the doe to study the cat more thoroughly.
This might have been aided by the cat’s bold character, as well.
The cat, too, was curious and later the cat even attempted to approach me and my dog.
As the cat did not flee, the doe might have used the boost of confidence (granted by her role as a leader and the almost adulthood by her fawn) to explore the world while still securing that the fawn was safe during this adventure.
Perhaps during this stage of development, it is more difficult to distinguish between social leadership and motherly protection and guidance because the fawns are in little need to be protected and they mostly need to be familiarized with the world (there are no serious predators except for hunters in our area but there are threats and ‘rules’ posed by human disturbance).
The shift from avoidance (the roe deer basic anti-predator, anti-threat strategy) toward exploration and learning might have altered the roe deer female’s psychological predisposition and she might have become more curious regarding low-threat objects, subjects and situations in order to benefit her child who needs to be prepared for independent life.
***
By 6 October I can say that almost all the females I have seen with fawns, have been with fawns alone – not forming a part of a larger group (while other adults have been observed in pairs or trios).
On one occasion, a female who had three fawns this summer was observed feeding on an oil radish field together with two other adults one of which I believe was a male but the other was also a female.
This group was observed in the most open of habitats (consisting of several vast and adjoined arable fields divided only by drainage ditches) while other groups foraged in less open settings where smaller fields bordered riparian forests.
Thus, I believe that group formation in this case was the result of the open habitat.
However, the relative lack of grouping among females with fawns might not indicate of a mother-offspring prolonged bond exclusivity.
It seems that the roe deer in less open habitats still follow their summertime grouping (mothers with fawns / adult male + adult female / adult male + several adult females).
I wonder what triggers group formation in autumn/winter.
Perhaps the summer associations are transformed into winter associations when actual cold sets in.
This has been a very warm autumn (summerlike) and the grouping behaviour might have become postponed.
(Update – perhaps this was coincidental but right after the autumnal cold set in at least in the mornings, I began noticing mother-fawn units together with other adults (not in large groups but two adults + 1 fawn) also in the riparian forest, less open habitats. The temperatures did not fall below zero but they were only a few degrees above zero at night.)
However, the observations more relevant to female-fawn bond after the rut concern the female behaviour upon noticing my presence.
In this area, roe deer (especially, adult roe deer) rarely flee.
This largely depends on the specific habitat.
There are a few habitats that are rather remote and where only cars pass but humans are rare while most of the habitats have a rather intense human presence; the roe deer have not become habituated but they also do not run away without good reason because they know that frequently humans just ignore them, fail to notice them and walk off without causing a bother to the roe deer.
Adult roe deer typically stand their ground and use the ‘invisibility’ strategy (freezing and hoping not to be noticed).
However, all females with fawns still take flight without assessing the situation greatly.
Their first response is to run away.
I believe this evidences protective behaviour by the mother because the mother alone, in all probability, would not have fled but she would have stayed long enough to evaluate the necessity to run away.
***
The last week (third week of December) has been warmer than the beginning of December and the entire month of November.
Temperatures have not risen above zero but they have been at times close to zero, even at night.
Also, as the month of October was warm (and so was September), I believe that the earth and water did not get to chill as much as they would have following a cold autumn.
As a consequence, while November saw temperature in the range of -10 to -5°C, as soon as the air temperature increased, it at once feels very warm.
(I suppose there is a difference between some sort of ‘base temperature’ that is set by less variable substrate and that is experienced in habitats less subject to temperature fluctuations vs. ‘current temperature’ which is determined by larger weather patterns.
Consequently, it can feel cold and warm at the same time – e.g., air feels cold and wind is chilly but in sheltered habitats it is still warmer than it should be according to November temperatures).
I digress.
To put it more concisely, this week of December has felt exceptionally warm, and I have observed a change in roe deer grouping behaviour that is, once again, more pronounced in mosaic-type, less homogeneous and less open habitats (e.g., small fields + riparian woodlands vs. large intense agriculture fields).
While during November, I mostly saw roe deer in larger groups (e.g., 4 – 6 individuals), this week I have spotted a greater number of solitary deer, duos and trios.
In fact, most deer that I have seen have been alone or in pairs.
Notes by Ieva 