Skip to main content

What are the effects of climate variability and change on ungulate life-histories, population dynamics, and migration in North America? A systematic map protocol

Abstract

Background

Climate is an important driver of ungulate life-histories, population dynamics, and migratory behaviors, and can affect the growth, development, fecundity, dispersal, and demographic trends of populations. Changes in temperature and precipitation, and resulting shifts in plant phenology, winter severity, drought and wildfire conditions, invasive species distribution and abundance, predation, and disease have the potential to directly or indirectly affect ungulates. However, ungulate responses to climate variability and change are not uniform and vary by species and geography. Here, we present a systematic map protocol aiming to describe the abundance and distribution of evidence on the effects of climate variability and change on ungulate life-histories, population dynamics, and migration in North America. This map will help to identify knowledge gaps and clusters of evidence, and can be used to inform future research directions and adaptive management strategies.

Methods

We will catalogue evidence on how climate variability and change affect the life-histories, population dynamics, and migration patterns of the fifteen ungulate species native to North America. We will search both academic and grey literature, using academic journal databases and specialist websites. Articles will be screened for inclusion at the title/abstract and full-text levels, and data will be extracted from articles that pass the full-text review. These data will be summarized quantitatively, visually, and with a narrative review to describe the distribution and abundance of evidence on the effects of climate variability and change on ungulates in North America.

Background

Native ungulate species occupy a diversity of habitats across North America, from Canada’s high arctic to the deserts of Mexico [1]. Through their herbivory, wild ungulates play an important ecological role, regulating processes such as nutrient cycling in temperate forests [2] and plant productivity and habitat heterogeneity in grasslands [3, 4]. Ungulates are also economically and culturally important in North America, providing recreational and subsistence hunting opportunities and non-consumptive, aesthetic values. For example, in 2016, 8.1 million people hunted deer (Odocoileus spp.) in the United States, and 0.7 million hunted elk (Cervus canadensis) [5]. However, the management of sustainable and robust ungulate populations in North America is challenged by a number of anthropogenic and environmental threats that have the potential to impact individuals, populations, and the ability of ungulates to move across the landscape [6]. Changes in habitat [7], climate conditions [8, 9], and predator communities [8] are of increasing concern to ungulate managers [10]. Of these, an improved understanding of the effects of changing climate conditions has been highlighted as a key information need [11,12,13]. Climatic variation occurs across multiple spatial and temporal scales, and understanding the impacts of both short- and long-term changes will provide valuable information to wildlife and land managers. Climate is an important driver of ungulate life-history characteristics, population dynamics, and migratory behaviors and changes in climate can directly or indirectly affect the growth, development, fecundity, dispersal, demographic trends, and long-term viability of populations [9, 13] as well as the timing and locations of migratory movements [14, 15]. Here, we use the term “climate variability” to refer to interannual or interdecadal fluctuations in temperature and precipitation, and the term “climate change” to refer to persistent, multidecadal deviations from long-term averages [16].

Understanding the direct and indirect effects of climate variability and change on ungulates will be an important consideration for effective ungulate management and conservation in North America [13, 17], and a number of studies have begun to document these impacts. Direct impacts can include changes in the costs of thermoregulation or locomotion [18], while indirect impacts can include shifts in forage quality and quantity [8]. Studies have documented, for example, that winter temperatures can directly affect juvenile survival [19] and have population-level effects. For example, extreme winter temperatures, increased snowfall, and more frequent winter storms led to elk population reductions in Canada [20]. Precipitation and temperature, through their effects on plant production and nutritional quality, can also directly and indirectly affect ungulate life-history characteristics [21,22,23]. In Idaho, a longer autumn growing season increased mule deer (O. hemionus) fawn overwinter survival [24], while summer drought increased mortality among Sonoran pronghorn (Antilocapra americana sonoriensis) in New Mexico [25].

The effects of changes in the timing of spring green-up and winter severity, two key drivers of ungulate migration in North America, have also been documented. Elk in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem delayed departure from winter range habitat when spring green-up occurred later [15], mule deer in the Sierra Nevada migrated earlier in years with earlier green-up and low snow depth [14], and mule deer in Wyoming altered their use of stopover sites based on changes in plant phenology [26]. Lastly, there have been efforts to project the potential future impacts of climate change on ungulates. For example, studies have modeled the effects of climate change on population growth of pronghorn [27], mountain goat (Oreamnos americanus) [28], and desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis nelsoni) [29] in the western U.S.

The response of ungulates to climate variability and change is not uniform and is likely mediated by local processes and species-specific traits [17], and the evidence is not equally distributed among species and geographies. Synthesizing the existing science on this topic will facilitate the identification of the range of climate-related impacts across ungulate species, populations, and geographies, and highlight knowledge gaps and clusters that can support management decision-making. Here, we propose a systematic map of evidence relating to the effects of climate variability and change on ungulate life-histories, population dynamics, and migration in North America. This review aims to bolster our understanding of how changes in climate conditions, whether occurring over short or long timescales, have already or could potentially impact ungulates. This goal will be achieved by cataloguing the evidence on how changes in climate and climate-related variables affect ungulate life-histories, population dynamics, and migration across the continent.

Stakeholder engagement

We began our process of identifying stakeholder needs by reviewing a series of state wildlife management agency plans that outline key threats and priority research areas related to ungulate management. These plans were developed by 11 western U.S. states in 2018, following the signing of Secretarial Order 3362,“Improving Habitat Quality in Western Big-Game Winter Range and Migration Corridors”. This order, which focuses on elk, mule deer, and pronghorn in 11 states, directs the U.S. Department of the Interior’s land management bureaus to work in partnership with state wildlife agencies to improve ungulate winter range and migration corridor habitats. As part of this effort, each participating state developed a State Action Plan outlining major threats and priorities related to ungulate migration corridors and winter range habitat. In addition to commonly-cited challenges such as wildlife-vehicle collisions and physical barriers to movement such as fences, many plans listed drought, wildfire, disease, and habitat conversion due to the spread of invasive species as key threats to ungulates, and outlined a clear need for information that will enhance the understanding and protection of ungulate migration and use of range habitat.

In addition, we contacted big game and habitat managers from several state wildlife management agencies to better understand their priorities and information needs related to ungulate management. As part of these discussions, we inquired about their current understanding of how climate variability and change affect ungulates, and whether additional information on this topic would support management planning. We also spoke to federal scientists to identify relevant ongoing science activities, and to receive input on the science needs related to ungulates and climate change. This stakeholder input contributed to the initial conceptualization of this study and helped define the scope of the systematic map.

Objective of the review

This systematic map will focus on the fifteen ungulate species of the Order Artiodactyla native to North America [11]. We will describe the abundance and distribution of evidence relating to the impacts of climate variability and change on the life-history characteristics, population dynamics, and migratory behaviors of these species by gathering evidence on the topic from across the continent. First, we will map the evidence on the effects of seasonal, interannual, and interdecadal changes in temperature and precipitation (hereafter referred to as “direct climate variables”) and their derivatives, such as drought, winter severity, and snow depth, on ungulate ecology. Changes in direct climate variables can also affect ungulates via changes in plant phenology [15, 30], wildfire [17, 31], invasive species [17], disease [32], and predation [20]. Therefore, we will describe the evidence on how changes in these “secondary variables” affect ungulates in cases where they are linked to changes in direct climate variables. We will also identify studies that project how future changes in climate could potentially impact ungulates in North America. Together, these tiers of evidence will enable the identification of knowledge gaps and clusters on the topic of ungulates, climate variability, and climate change to inform future primary research directions and targeted systematic reviews.

The primary question for this systematic map is as follows: What evidence exists on the effects of climate variability and change on ungulate life-histories, population dynamics, and migration in North America?

Our research question can be broken down into the following key elements, based on the PECO (Population, Exposure, Comparator, Outcome) question framework:

Population

All subspecies and populations of wild pronghorn, elk, mule deer, moose (Alces alces), bighorn sheep, white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), American bison (Bison bison), mountain goat, Dall sheep (Ovis dalli), muskox (Ovibos moschatus), caribou (Rangifer tarandus), collared peccaries (Pecari tajacu), white-lipped peccaries (Tayassu pecari), brown brocket deer (Mazama gouazoupira), and red brocket deer (M. americana) in the U.S., Canada, or Mexico. The state of Hawai’i, the U.S. territories of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa, and the Canadian province of Prince Edward Island will be excluded from the review. The fifteen ungulate species are either not present on these islands or were introduced and are non-native [33].

Exposure

Temporal changes in direct climate variables (i.e. temperature, precipitation) and their derivatives (e.g. snow, winter severity, drought); temporal, climate-related changes in secondary variables (i.e. plant phenology, wildfire, invasive species, disease, predation).

Comparator

A comparison of at least two different time points, over which there is a quantified, inferred, or projected change in a direct climate or secondary variable.

Outcome

Effect on individual life-history characteristics; population dynamics; migratory behavior; spatial location or quality of migration corridor, winter range, or summer range habitat.

Methods

The review will follow the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence Guidelines and Standards for Evidence Synthesis in Environmental Management [34], and conform to the ROSES reporting standards [35] (Additional file 1).

Searching for articles

We will conduct this review using Web of Science and Scopus, both of which are made available to the authors via the U.S. Geological Survey’s subscriptions with the services. In Web of Science, the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), part of the Web of Science Core Collection, will be searched. SCI-EXPANDED (1985-present) is the Core Collection citation index available to the authors via the U.S. Geological Survey. The search will be run based on the “topic” field, which includes article titles, abstracts, keywords, and “KeyWords Plus” (automatically generated terms pulled from the titles of cited articles). Our subscription service does not enable us to access articles published prior to 1985, so the timespan “all years (1985–2020)” will be selected. In Scopus, article titles, abstracts, and keywords will be searched using the search string outlined below, and all years of data will be searched. All searches will be conducted in English, and only English-language publications will be included in the review since this is the primary language of the reviewers. Search results will be exported into both an Excel spreadsheet and a reference management software, and duplicates will be removed.

Search terms

The final Boolean search string is structured to capture articles that pertain to the population variables and exposure to direct climate variables (and their derivatives) or to climate-related changes in secondary variables. The scientific and common names of each ungulate species were included as search terms. The terms “climat*” and “global warming” were included to capture articles specifically focused on the impacts of climate variability and change on ungulates. The term “weather” was also included, both because climate can be defined as the average weather in a location, and because extreme climate events such as severe icing or heat waves can also be characterized as extreme weather events and are relevant to this review [16]. Terms for the direct climate variables (e.g. temperature, precipitation), as well as relevant derivatives, were also added. These terms include snow, rain, ice, drought, heat, cold, freez*, and winter severity. While numerous additional derivatives of temperature and precipitation exist, such as daily snowfall, total rainfall, or average daily temperature, these variables will be captured by the existing terms in the search string and do not need to be individually added as terms.

We also included one of the secondary variables, phenology, as a search term. Plant phenology is a known driver of ungulate migration in North America [36, 37] and is inherently linked to climate, in particular to temperature [38, 39]. Due to this inherent link, our direct climate variable terms may not be present in the title or abstract of relevant articles addressing ungulates and plant phenology, and as such could be missed by our search string if phenology were not included as a term. We did not include the additional secondary variables as search terms, based on the results of the scoping exercises outlined in the following section.

The final search string, to be used in Web of Science and Scopus, is as follows (in a Web of Science format):

TS = (("mule deer" OR “black-tailed deer” OR “Odocoileus hemionus” OR "white-tailed deer" OR “whitetail*” OR “Odocoileus virginianus” OR "elk" OR “wapiti” OR “Cervus canadensis” OR "pronghorn" OR “antelope” OR “Antilocapra americana” OR "bighorn sheep" OR “mountain sheep” OR “Ovis canadensis” OR "moose" OR “Alces a*” OR “bison” OR “Bison bison” OR “Dall sheep” OR “Dall’s sheep” OR “thinhorn sheep” OR “Ovis dalli” OR “mountain goat” OR “Oreamnos americanus” OR “muskox*” OR “musk-ox*” OR “musk ox*” OR “Ovibos moschatus” OR “caribou” OR “Rangifer tarandus” OR “collared peccar*” OR “javelina*” OR “musk hog*” OR “musk-hog*” OR “Pecari tajacu” OR “white-lipped peccar*” OR “Tayassu pecari” OR “brocket*” OR “brown brocket*” OR “Mazama gouazoupira” OR “red brocket*” OR “Mazama americana”) AND ("climat*" OR "global warming" OR “weather” OR "temperature" OR "precipitation" OR "snow*" OR “rain*” OR “ice” OR “icing” OR “drought” OR “heat” OR “cold” OR “freez*” OR “winter severity” OR “phenology”)).

Assessing retrieval performance

With the exception of phenology, the remaining secondary variables – wildfire, invasives, disease, and predation – were not included as search terms. For the secondary variables, we are concerned only with studies that attribute changes in a secondary variable (e.g. increased disease transmission) to a direct climate variable (e.g. temperature), and examine the effects on ungulates (e.g. mortality). The structure of our final search string inherently captures such articles, as the string is designed to return any article that uses a population term and a direct climate variable term. For example, an article describing the impacts of a temperature-driven change in disease transmission on mule deer would be captured by the final search string, due to the presence of the terms “mule deer” and “temperature”.

To test this assumption, we ran separate searches that included all population variables, direct climate variables, and each of the four remaining secondary variables, one at a time (Additional file 2). We screened the titles and abstracts of the first 100 articles returned by each search, sorted by relevance in Web of Science, and identified any relevant articles based on our study eligibility criteria (Table 1). We then checked if these articles were returned by Web of Science when our final search string was run. The overall performance against the test list was 100% for each variable tested, demonstrating that relevant articles on these topics will be captured by our search string, and these variables do not need to be included as search terms.

Table 1 Study eligibility criteria

The search string was also tested for overall sensitivity by identifying a set of 30 articles known to be relevant to the authors (Additional file 3), and checking if these articles were returned by Web of Science and Scopus. The overall performance against the test list was 100% for Web of Science and 93% for Scopus.

Additional search methods

Grey literature

Grey literature will be identified through a combination of a Scopus search and hand-searches of relevant organizational websites. We are using Scopus to identify both academic and grey literature and therefore will use the same search string as in Web of Science. No additional search strings will be used to identify grey literature in Scopus. In addition to Scopus, the website of each state, provincial, and territorial wildlife management agency in Canada and the U.S. will be searched to locate available technical reports on our focal species (Additional file 4). Because our searches will be English-language only, we will not search the websites of Mexican wildlife management agencies as part of our grey literature search. While this may introduce geographical bias in our grey literature search results, the review team does not have the resources needed to conduct Spanish-language searches and to translate these articles.

If available, the built-in search functions of the organization websites will be used and separate searches will be run for each relevant ungulate species. For example, the website for Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks will be searched using the terms “bighorn sheep”, “bison”, “caribou”, “elk”, “moose”, “mountain goat”, “mule deer”, “pronghorn”, and “white-tailed deer”, as each of these species is currently or has historically been found in the state. The terms used to search each website will be recorded. The websites will also be hand-searched to locate pages containing agency reports and publications. Articles acquired during this process will be downloaded and included in the list of articles subject to the full-text review.

Review articles

Relevant review articles will not be accepted directly into the review. Instead, we will examine the primary sources cited in review articles and ensure that any appropriate sources are captured and subjected to the title and abstract review.

Article screening and study eligibility criteria

A two-stage screening process will be implemented to identify relevant articles from the deduplicated set of search results. The first phase will involve a review of the article titles and abstracts. This phase will be completed using the open access web-based platform Colandr, a machine-learning tool that allows for iterative sorting of relevant and irrelevant articles [40]. All articles deemed relevant during this phase will then be subjected to a full-text review. In cases of uncertainty, the reviewers will include the paper. Data will be coded and extracted from all articles deemed relevant during the full-text review phase. At each stage, the number of excluded articles, and the reason for exclusion, will be documented. A list of articles excluded during the full-text review, with reasons for exclusion, will be provided as an additional file.

At the onset of the title and abstract review stage, each reviewer will assess the eligibility of a random subset of 100 articles and the level of agreement, or interrater reliability, will be tested using the Fleiss Kappa statistic [41]. A kappa result of ≥ 0.61 indicates a substantial level of agreement between reviewers [42] and will be considered acceptable. In cases where the kappa result is less than 0.61, the reviewers will discuss any differences to ensure that screening criteria are being consistently applied. Consistency checking will be repeated until a kappa result of 0.61 is achieved. If needed, the definitions of the eligibility criteria (Table 1) will be updated to improve consistency among reviewers. The remaining articles will be divided for review amongst all but one co-author. The remaining co-author will serve as a second screener on all articles. Any inconsistencies among screeners, or questions about whether an article meets screening criteria, will be reviewed between co-authors. Reviewers that have authored an article under consideration will be recused from decisions regarding the eligibility of the article.

Study validity assessment

A formal study validity assessment will not be carried out as part of this effort.

Data coding strategy

During the full-text review process, information on each relevant article will be extracted and entered into an Excel spreadsheet database. In addition to documenting basic bibliographic information for each article, we will record information on the species and population studied, the geographic location of the study, and the temporal scale over which the analysis was completed. We will document any relevant direct climate or secondary variables to which the study population was exposed, and the outcome variables that were analyzed. If information is missing or unclear in an article, we will email the authors to request the additional information. If the authors do not respond, or do not provide clarification, the article will be excluded from the analysis. Information extracted will include:

  • Bibliographic information

    • Study ID (unique numeric ID assigned to each article)

    • Coder ID (unique ID assigned to each reviewer)

    • Citation information

    • Literature type (academic, grey)

  • Study design

  • Temporal scale

    • Study start and end dates

    • Study duration

  • Population information

    • Study location (country, state/province, site name and location, habitat type, climate zone)

    • Species and subspecies

    • Demographic information (age and sex class)

  • Exposure variables

    • Direct climate variables (temperature, precipitation)

    • Direct climate variable derivatives

    • Secondary variables (plant phenology, wildfire, invasive species, disease, predation)

  • Comparator (type, temporal scale)

  • Outcome components and subcomponents measured

    • Individual life-history characteristics

      • Subcomponents: individual growth (e.g. body mass, nutritional condition), reproduction

    • Population dynamics

      • Subcomponents: abundance, population growth, long-term viability, survival, distribution, structure, density, productivity, recruitment

    • Migration

      • Subcomponents: behavior and movement patterns; range, corridor, and stopover habitat location and quality

We will employ several mechanisms to ensure repeatability and consistency in data coding. First, each data field will have a clear definition of the information intended for that field and the required format for data entry. Wherever possible, drop-down lists will be used to improve consistency in data entry. Additionally, at the onset of the data entry phase, each team member will independently review and enter data for the same 10 articles. Any differences in data entry will be discussed and reconciled, and the database fields will be updated if needed. Lastly, a second reviewer will independently review and enter data for a subset of 10% of all articles that pass the title and abstract phase. Any inconsistencies in the extracted information will be discussed and reconciled, and the extraction methodology will be refined if needed.

Study mapping and presentation

The final systematic map will be synthesized in a narrative review. The synthesis will include summary tables and figures of the study characteristics and select variables will be cross-tabulated in a series of heat maps [e.g. [43]]. These heat maps will display the distribution and frequency of occurrences of evidence on ungulate exposure to changes in direct climate and secondary variables by population (i.e. species) and outcome (i.e. life-history characteristics vs. population dynamics vs. migration). An evidence atlas showing the spatial location of each study containing discrete location information will also be produced.

Together, the narrative, tables, and figures will serve as a mechanism for recognizing knowledge gaps and knowledge clusters on the effects of climate variability and change on ungulates in North America. Identified knowledge gaps may represent topics for future primary research, while knowledge clusters may represent areas ripe for targeted systematic reviews. The full database containing the information extracted from each study will be made available for download.

Availability of data and materials

No datasets were generated or analyzed during the preparation of the protocol. All data that will be used for the review will be made freely available upon the publication of the review.

References

  1. 1.

    Laliberte AS, Ripple WJ. Range contractions of North American carnivores and ungulates. Bioscience. 2004;54:123–38. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[0123:RCONAC]2.0.CO.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Murray BD, Webster CR, Bump JK. Broadening the ecological context of ungulate–ecosystem interactions: the importance of space, seasonality, and nitrogen. Ecology. 2013;94:1317–26. https://doi.org/10.1890/12-1582.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Frank DA, Wallen RL, White PJ. Ungulate control of grassland production: grazing intensity and ungulate species composition in Yellowstone Park. Ecosphere. 2016;7:e01603. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Geremia C, Merkle JA, Eacker DR, Wallen RL, White PJ, Hebblewhite M, et al. Migrating bison engineer the green wave. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2019;116:25707–13.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. 2016 National survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation. 2016;144.

  6. 6.

    Berger J. The last mile: how to sustain long-distance migration in mammals. Conserv Biol. 2004;18:320–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00548.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Lendrum PE, Anderson CR Jr, Monteith KL, Jenks JA, Bowyer RT. Migrating mule deer: effects of anthropogenically altered landscapes. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e64548. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0064548.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Middleton AD, Kauffman MJ, McWhirter DE, Cook JG, Cook RC, Nelson AA, et al. Animal migration amid shifting patterns of phenology and predation: lessons from a Yellowstone elk herd. Ecology. 2013;94:1245–56. https://doi.org/10.1890/11-2298.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Post E, Stenseth NC. Climatic variability, plant phenology, and northern ungulates. Ecology. 1999;80:1322–39. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(1999)080[1322:CVPPAN]2.0.CO.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Vors LIVS, Boyce MS. Global declines of caribou and reindeer. Glob Chang Biol. 2009;15:2626–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.01974.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Krausman P, Bleich V. Conservation and management of ungulates in North America. Int J Environ Stud. 2013;70:372–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Mallory CD, Boyce MS. Observed and predicted effects of climate change on Arctic caribou and reindeer. Environ Rev. 2017;26:13–25. https://doi.org/10.1139/er-2017-0032.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Weiskopf SR, Ledee OE, Thompson LM. Climate change effects on deer and moose in the Midwest. J Wildlife Manage. 2019;83:769–81. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.21649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Monteith KL, Bleich VC, Stephenson TR, Pierce BM, Conner MM, Klaver RW, et al. Timing of seasonal migration in mule deer: effects of climate, plant phenology, and life-history characteristics. Ecosphere. 2011;2:art47. https://doi.org/10.1890/ES10-00096.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Rickbeil GJM, Merkle JA, Anderson G, Atwood MP, Beckmann JP, Cole EK, et al. Plasticity in elk migration timing is a response to changing environmental conditions. Glob Chang Biol. 2019;25:2368–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    IPCC. Glossery of terms. In: Field CB, Barros V, Stocker TF, Qin D, Dokken DJ, Ebi KL, Mastrandrea MD, Mach KJ, Plattner GK, Allen SK, Tignor F, Midgley P, editors. Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2012. p. 555–564.

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    DeVos JC Jr., McKinney T. Potential impacts of global climate change on abundance and distribution of elk and mule deer in western North America. Final report to the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 2007; 32.

  18. 18.

    Parker KL, Barboza PS, Gillingham MP. Nutrition integrates environmental responses of ungulates. Funct Ecol. 2009;23:57–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2009.01528.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Gaillard J-M, Festa-Bianchet M, Yoccoz NG, Loison A, Toïgo C. Temporal variation in fitness components and population dynamics of large herbivores. Annu Rev Ecol Syst. 2000;31:367–93. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.31.1.367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Hebblewhite M. Predation by wolves interacts with the North Pacific Oscillation (NPO) on a western North American elk population. J Anim Ecol. 2005;74:226–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2004.00909.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    McKinney T. Precipitation, weather, and mule deer. In: deVos JC, Conover MR, Headrick N, editors. Mule deer conservation: issues and management strategies. Logan: Jack H. Berryman Press; 2003. p. 219–237.

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Lawrence RK, Demarais S, Relyea RA, Haskell SP, Ballard WB, Clark TEDL. Desert, mule deer survival in southwest texas. J Wildlife Manage. 2004;68:561–9. https://doi.org/10.2193/0022-541X(2004)068[0561:DMDSIS]2.0.CO.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Monteith KL, Bleich VC, Stephenson TR, Pierce BM, Conner MM, Kie JG, et al. Life-history characteristics of mule deer: Effects of nutrition in a variable environment. Wildlife Monogr. 2014;186:1–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/wmon.1011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Hurley MA, Hebblewhite M, Gaillard J-M, Dray S, Taylor KA, Smith WK, et al. Functional analysis of normalized difference vegetation index curves reveals overwinter mule deer survival is driven by both spring and autumn phenology. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2014;369:20130196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Brown DE, Warnecke D, McKinney T. Effects of midsummer drought on mortality of doe pronghorn (Antilocapra Americana). Southwest Nat. 2006;51:220–5. https://doi.org/10.1894/0038-4909(2006)51[220:EOMDOM]2.0.CO.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Sawyer H, Kauffman MJ. Stopover ecology of a migratory ungulate. J Anim Ecol. 2011;80:1078–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2011.01845.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Gedir JV, Cain JW, Harris G, Turnbull TT. Effects of climate change on long-term population growth of pronghorn in an arid environment. Ecosphere. 2015;6:art189. https://doi.org/10.1890/ES15-00266.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    White KS, Gregovich DP, Levi T. Projecting the future of an alpine ungulate under climate change scenarios. Glob Chang Biol. 2018;24:1136–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13919.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Epps CW, McCullough DR, Wehausen J, Bleich VC, Rechel JL. Effects of climate change on population persistence of desert-dwelling mountain sheep in California. Conserv Biol. 2004;18:102–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00023.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Mysterud A. Ungulate migration, plant phenology, and large carnivores: the times they are a-changin’. Ecology. 2013;94:1257–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Singer FJ, Harting A, Symonds KK, Coughenour M. Density dependence, compensation, and environmental effects on elk calf mortality in Yellowstone National Park. J Wildlife Manage. 1997;61:12–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Hoberg EP, Polley L, Jenkins EJ, Kutz SJ. EPA-H. Pathogens of domestic and free-ranging ungulates: global climate change in temperate to boreal latitudes across North America. Rev Sci Tech. 2008;27(2):511–28.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Lowney M, Schoenfeld P, Haglan W, Witmer G. Overview of impacts of feral and introduced ungulates on the on the environment in the Eastern United States and Caribbean. Wildlife Damage Manaement Conf Proc. 2005;88:19.

    Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    CEE. Guidelines and standards for evidence synthesis in environmental management. Version 5. Collaboration for Environmental Evidence. 2018.

  35. 35.

    Haddaway NR, Macura B, Whaley P, Pullin AS. ROSES Reporting standards for Systematic Evidence Syntheses: pro forma, flow-diagram and descriptive summary of the plan and conduct of environmental systematic reviews and systematic maps. Environ Evid. 2018;7:7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-018-0121-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Aikens EO, Kauffman MJ, Merkle JA, Dwinnell SPH, Fralick GL, Monteith KL. The greenscape shapes surfing of resource waves in a large migratory herbivore. Ecol Lett. 2017;20:741–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12772.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Merkle JA, Monteith KL, Aikens EO, Hayes MM, Hersey KR, Middleton AD, et al. Large herbivores surf waves of green-up during spring. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2016;283:20160456. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2016.0456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Cleland EE, Chuine I, Menzel A, Mooney HA, Schwartz MD. Shifting plant phenology in response to global change. Trends Ecol Evol. 2007;22:357–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Cook BI, Wolkovich EM, Davies TJ, Ault TR, Betancourt JL, Allen JM, et al. Sensitivity of spring phenology to warming across temporal and spatial climate gradients in two independent databases. Ecosystems. 2012;15:1283–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-012-9584-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Cheng SH, Augustin C, Bethel A, Gill D, Anzaroot S, Brun J, et al. Using machine learning to advance synthesis and use of conservation and environmental evidence. Conserv Biol. 2018;32:762–4. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13117.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Fleiss JL. Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychol Bull. 1971;76:378–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–74.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    McKinnon MC, Cheng SH, Dupre S, Edmond J, Garside R, Glew L, et al. What are the effects of nature conservation on human well-being? A systematic map of empirical evidence from developing countries. Environ Evid. 2016;5:8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-016-0058-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank B. Miller for providing feedback on this manuscript.

Funding

This work is funded by the U.S. Geological Survey National Climate Adaptation Science Center. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

KM conceived of the original research question, wrote the first draft of this paper, and led the research team. All authors contributed to refining the research question and study design and edited subsequent drafts. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katherine C. Malpeli.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Additional file 1.

ROSES form.

Additional file 2.

Scoping exercises completed to determine inclusion/exclusion of secondary variable terms in final search string.

Additional file 3.

Results of the sensitivity testing of the final search string and the list of articles used to test the sensitivity of the search string.

Additional file 4.

List of management agency websites to be hand-searched for grey literature.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Malpeli, K.C., Weiskopf, S.R., Thompson, L. et al. What are the effects of climate variability and change on ungulate life-histories, population dynamics, and migration in North America? A systematic map protocol. Environ Evid 9, 21 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-020-00204-w

Download citation

Keywords

  • Global change
  • Climate impacts
  • Weather
  • Ungulate management
  • Ungulate ecology