Testing and documenting effects of wind farm (WF) infrastructure on wildlife are crucial considering increasing development throughout Scandinavia, especially for reindeer, which require large areas for grazing and are vulnerable to disturbances. We present results from 2011 to 2019 for semidomesticated reindeer tracked with Global Positioning System (GPS) transmitters, along with herders' knowledge about reindeers' habitat use and changes following WF development within the Raggonjarga reindeer district summer range in Finnmark, Norway. We tracked up to 36 females (ranging from 19 to 36 individuals per year), from their arrival in the study area in April to their departure in the end of October. We evaluated habitat use before, during, and after WF development at the home range and landscape scales. We also evaluated reindeer habitat use qualitatively based on semistructured interviews with local herders. The herders' reported negative effects of the WF on reindeer, both on general habitat use and intrarange movements, resulting in less use of grazing areas surrounding the WF and increased workload for the herders. The GPS results partly support the herders' experiences. We found negative effects of the WF at the landscape scale, except during summer, where the effect was positive. Results at the home range scale showed negative effects of the WF in spring and summer, but not autumn. Different results at different scales make identifying causality challenging, especially as yearly variation was also large. Different results for summer and autumn may relate to changes in herding activities and larger movement patterns, respectively. Similar and contrasting results from the two methods suggest a need for both sources of data in combination to understand and improve land management. Including herders' knowledge to understand results from GPS data is thus crucial. We also suggest future studies focus on mechanisms behind behavioral changes to better understand cause-and-effect relationships and how effects can be mitigated.

To elucidate genetic variability in vigilance behaviour for reindeer with historical differences in their interactions with predators and humans, we measured vigilance frequency and duration for grazing reindeer in Southern Norway (Rondane and Norefjell-Reinsjøfjell), Svalbard (Edgeøya and Nordenskiöld Land) and Barf/Royal Bay and Busen in the southern Hemisphere (South Georgia). Averaged for all areas, frequency and duration of vigilance bouts were less than 0.5 and 2.5 s, respectively. Frequency was insignificantly 1.3 times higher in Rondane than Edgeøya, and significantly 2.0, 3.5, 5.2 and 12.4 times higher than Norefjell, Nordenskiöld Land, Barf/Royal Bay and Busen, respectively. Duration per vigilance bout was not different amongst the areas. Thus, while frequency varied considerably, duration remained constant, supporting a hard-wired adaptation to, among other suggestions, an open landscape. Plasticity in frequency allows for flexible behavioral responses to environmental factors with predation, domestication and hunting key drivers for reindeer. Other factors include (1) the open, treeless alpine/Arctic environment inhabited by Rangifer subspecies allowing warning time, (2) grouping behaviour, (3) relative low density of predators and (4) the anatomy and physiology of ungulate vision.

We investigated barrier effects of a 66 kV power line established in 1966 before and after the line was upgraded to 132 kV in 2004 over a period of 44 years (1974-2017) in the North Ottadalen wild reindeer area (3245 km2) of which 1038 km2 are in use as winter pastures. The power line transects a peninsula (135 km2) with high quality winter pastures in the southeast periphery. The reindeer population originated from a nucleus herd of 402 animals of domestic origin released in the area in 1964-1965 and 100 resident wild animals. Yearly winter survey started in 1974 and reindeer were first surveyed south of the 66 kV power line in 1982. Comparing the number of animals recorded in the peninsula vs. the number of individuals expected relative to available grazing area during the three periods (1974-2004, 1982-2004 and 2005-2017), the number of animals recorded in the peninsula was 3.6–4.9 times higher than expected. Since the upgrade of the power line, a substantial part of the reindeer population grazed in the peninsula every year. We therefore conclude that there was no long-term barrier effect from the original power line and no barrier effects at all from the upgrade. However, during the first 5 surveys of this study, there were no animals in the peninsula. Therefore, even if there are several possible reasons for this, we cannot exclude the possibility of short-term barrier effects resulting from the construction of the original power line. Our results support recent studies that report no effects from existing power lines and contrast some previous findings that have reported strong longterm barrier and avoidance effects of such infrastructure for Rangifer migration and grazing behaviour.

Anthropogenic activities affect habitat use by Rangifer tarandus, a particularly vulnerable species due to grouping behavior, extensive movements, and grazing ecology. We studied habitat use of GPS-collared reindeer in relation to surface mining activities during the snow-free season in Finnmark, Norway over a period of 7 years. Based on information about the mine’s level of operation (amount of people, vehicles, and equipment in operation) and rock blasting schedule, we divided data into high-activity periods (workdays) and low-activity periods (mine closed for ca 2.5 days on weekends and a yearly 3-week holiday period). We further divided workdays into periods with and without rock blasting and associated high-noise days. We found that reindeer significantly reduced habitat use at closer distances to the mine, indicating an influence zone up to 1.5 km. Reductions in use were strongest closest to the mine in high-activity periods. No avoidance effect of the mine was found beyond approximately 0.9 km for the 3-week holidays, 1.0 km for weekends, and 1.5 km for workdays with or without rock blasting. Compared to holidays and weekends, probability of use was reduced by 30–34% within 1.3 km from the mine for workday blasting periods, and up to 35% within 1.4 km for other workdays. Since averted areas can be partly utilized again within days or weeks following intensive mining activity periods, reduced mining activity in crucial periods for reindeer, such as during calving and migration, can be an effective mitigation measure.

Depending on the spatial scale, fluctuations in the area use of social, migratory herbivores may be related to changes in population size, season, predation, climatic variation, different types of disturbance, and random animal movement. We present a review and case study highlighting how study design limitations and publication bias have influenced our current knowledge on effects of human disturbance on Rangifer spp. Our case study illustrates how yearly variation may lead to false conclusions about the effects of infrastructure. From 58 analyses presented in 52 reviewed papers, we found that 14 analyses had study designs comparing area use before and after construction of infrastructure, 24 included spatial time series of > 6 years, 21 included spatiotemporal variation in their analyses, and only six contained both static and dynamic habitat variables. Categorizing the 58 analyses into 404 specific outcomes, we found that 64% of the authors focused their conclusions on negative effects and 14% focused on mixed effects but emphasized on negative effects of human activities and infrastructure, while only 53% of the outcomes actually showed negative effects, 34% no effects and 13% positive effects. Our review shows that only one study had a before–after-control–impact (BACI) design, and a majority of publications do not include before–after (BA) designs (76%), have not included spatiotemporal variation (64%), and do not evaluate the effects of spatial fluctuations on Rangifer area use at long enough time intervals (only 8 studies had > 10 years data). Although Rangifer is vulnerable to human disturbances, we have showed how the effects of infrastructure differ among studies and highlight the need for study designs that integrate and account for spatiotemporal variation in future studies, for a better understanding of Rangifer (or wildlife) area use in relation to anthropogenic effects.

Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) calculated that 55% of Saskatchewan’s Boreal Shield has been disturbed by wildfire in the last 40 years. The 2012 Canadian Federal Recovery Strategy for woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou (Gmelin, 1788)) states that these large-scale natural disturbances can cause caribou to cease use of portions of their range. This assumption neglects the potential habitat value of postfire residuals. We tested this assumption using 2 years of GPS data obtained from 56 female caribou to identify calving site selection. Seventy-nine calving events were identified from 91 individual calving seasons. For both calving and postcalving periods, woodland caribou preferred nonburned (>40 years) over burned habitats (≤40 years). Within burned areas, residual patches dominated by bogs–fens were preferred, indicating that burns with residuals are important woodland caribou calving habitat. The residuals may act as island refuges providing food–security, while surrounding burns provide reduced visual obstruction from which caribou can detect approaching predators. Although more data are necessary to make robust conclusions, this study provides novel insight into the ecological interactions of forest fires with woodland caribou in northern Saskatchewan, and offers important considerations regarding critical habitat identification and range-level planning to ensure all suitable caribou habitats are identified.

The Fakken Wind farm (WF) was built in 2010-12 on the Fakken peninsula on the south-east corner of the island of Vannoy. Field and GPS sampling was conducted to test the interaction between reindeer spatial use and the WF with associated infrastructure for the period 2007-2015. "Before data" for both direct observations and GPS-positions confirmed that the site where the WF was built was an important winter grazing area for reindeer. Testing data from before, during and after construction of the WF showed that the overall use on the island and for the WE area did not change during the study period. The reindeer density did not vary significantly among the periods, both for the WF and power line areas. We found no avoidance responses on reindeer spatial use towards the WF during the operation periods for direct observation data. However, we found some significant changes in reindeer area use that may be related to disturbance from human activities for the calving period during construction in WF zone 1 and road zone 1 (GPS-data), and for the power line area during construction in summer and autumn (direct observational data). Our study site represents an area where coexistence of reindeer husbandry and wind energy development is possible, with negligible effects on reindeer spatial use during and after WF development. We recommend that new WFs should be built close to existing infrastructure and limit an increase in human accessibility to remote areas where reindeer are less accustomed to human activity.

Demands for increased energy production have initiated several new high-voltage power line projects, of which hundreds of km will traverse reindeer (Rangifer tarandus tarandus) habitat in central and northern parts of Scandinavia. We investigated area use of semidomesticated reindeer in the Essand reindeer district’s summer range (Norway) in connection with a new 420 kV power line built in 2008/2009 to replace an existing 300 kV line. We used 6 years (2008–2013) of GPS telemetry data from 5 to 22 female reindeer per season. During the construction period compared to the period before and after construction, predicted probability of use decreased on average 10 % within areas 6 km from the central infrastructure for the calving period, about 12 % within 3.5 km in summer and close to 13 % within 3.5 km in autumn. In the calving period prior to construction, as well as the calving period, summer and autumn for the years after construction, use of areas close to the infrastructure did not deviate from random. Resource selection functions showed significant effects of construction work, habitat quality, elevation and aspect on the area use of reindeer. We found no support for the hypothesis that power lines have negative effects on reindeer area use, independent of associated human activity during construction. Mitigation measures should focus on both the construction period of power lines, minimizing construction work when adjacent areas are utilized by reindeer, as well as keeping human activity to a minimum during operative years.

Understanding the effects of human infrastructure on wildlife is important for conservation and management and therefore widely studied. Challenges of many such studies are that they are often conducted after infrastructure establishment, when the exact consequence of the structure may be difficult to disentangle from other determinants of animal spatial use. To highlight these challenges, we use a case study of semi-domestic reindeer (Rangifer tarandus tarandus) spatial use within 5–6 km from an existing and a planned power line, using faecal pellet group counts in two areas in northern Norway. We found no relationship between pellet group density and distance to the existing power line, while the density of pellet groups decreased with increasing distance from the planned power line. Vegetation type was the main predictor of reindeer spatial use in the power line area, while elevation and vegetation cover accounted for the occurrence of reindeer in the area without power lines. Our results show that reindeer spatial use is a function of many aspects of the landscape, but not all of these are possible to control for. When this power line is built, what will an after-study of reindeer space use reveal? We underscore the importance of recording wildlife spatial use prior to, and after, infrastructure establishment for sound conclusions about animal response or lack thereof.

Within ungulate home ranges, suitable calving areas are of crucial importance for maintaining the reproductive potential of populations. Using GPS telemetry from a unique time series spanning before, during and after the construction of a 420-kV power line, we present results on calving site locations and area use during calving for two wild reindeer Rangifer tarandus tarandus populations (Setesdal West and Setesdal East) in Norway. For both populations, reindeer consistently preferred a core calving area at 4–8 km distance from the new power line in all three periods, indicating little preference of areas near the new power line. A reduction of the use of areas up to 6 km from the new power line during construction in Setesdal West may possibly indicate a disturbance effect. Contrary to our expectation, reindeer area use close to the new power line increased after construction in Setesdal East. Reindeer intensely used areas close to another existing 132 kV power line crossing the core calving area of Setesdal East during all years. However, reindeer area use was reduced up to 2 km from existing parallel 420 and 300 kV power lines located at the periphery of the calving area in Setesdal West, likely because of poor habitat. Our findings indicate that power lines may not be a disturbance causing avoidance effects for wild ungulates, while construction activities can induce a temporary reduction in area use.

Animal movements in the landscape are influenced by linear features such as rivers, roads and power lines. Prior studies have investigated how linear features, particularly roads, affect movement rates by comparing animal's movement rate measured as step lengths (i.e., the distance between consecutive observations such as GPS locations) before, during and after crossing of a linear feature. The null hypothesis has been that the length of crossing steps should not differ from other steps, and a deviation from this, mainly that steps are longer during crossing, has been taken as support for a disturbance effect of the linear feature. However, based on the simple relationship between the length of a step and its probability to cross a linear feature, we claim that this assumption is inappropriate to test for behavioural responses to linear features. The probability is related to the proportion of the total length of the trajectory (i.e., the path of movement) a step constitutes. Consequently, care should be taken when formulating hypotheses about how animal moves in relation to linear features in the landscape. Statistical tests should be set up with respect to the expected length based on the distribution of step lengths in the trajectory. We propose two methods that accounts for the bias in crossing frequency that is caused by step lengths, and illustrates their applications by using simulated animal trajectories as well as empirical data on reindeer in an area with a power line.

We analyzed GPS-based activity patterns for two wild reindeer (Rangifer tarandus tarandus) herds: Norefjell-Reinsjofjell with domestic ancestry and larger average body size and Rondane with wild ancestry and smaller body sizes. We compared activity patterns and tested whether these could translate into different energy budgets that in turn contribute to population differences in body weights between the two ancestries. We defined activities and calculated movement rates based on distance moved every 40 min from GPS-fixes during 2005-2007 for 10 females from reindeer with domestic ancestry and 12 females from reindeer with wild ancestry. During May (i.e. calving season), summer and hunting seasons, reindeer with wild ancestry travelled 2.2,1.8 and 2.1 times further than those with domestic ancestry. Female reindeer of wild ancestry sustained higher movement rates and bigger home range during the seasons from May to the hunting season. While the total daily cost of locomotion in relation to standard metabolic rate (SMR) during bare-ground seasons amounts to 32-37% and 33-48% among reindeer with domestic and wild ancestry, respectively, the daily energy expenditure (DEE) was higher for the females with domestic ancestry because of their higher body weights. Shorter distances travelled in May, summer and during hunt give reindeer with domestic ancestry a compensatory advantage during the growth season translating into bigger body size, compared to reindeer with wild ancestry. Reindeer with both domestic and wild ancestry exhibited nychthemeral activity in all seasons, optimizing activity regardless of daylight. We conclude that the underlying genetic component associated with ancestry is an important driving force for the significant differences in movement patterns, activity and possibly also body weights. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Wind-power plants (WPs) within reindeer (Rangifer tarandus tarandus) habitat may have negative effects on reindeer habitat use. Avoidance effects towards a WP were tested by comparing reindeer distributions on a peninsula where a WP was built in 2006 with a control peninsula without a WP. Distributions were measured by direct observations during construction period, and in four subsequent years, and limited faecal pellet group counts along transects before, during and after the WP construction (2005–2010). We predicted higher reindeer density in the control than the WP peninsula and at increasing distances from the WP when controlling for habitat quality. We found no avoidance effects from the WP, with significantly more reindeer in the WP than the control peninsula. Faecal pellet group data supported a lack of negative effects towards the WP after construction compared to before, while area within 100 m from the access road to the WP was avoided during the construction period and for 3 years afterwards. Reindeer avoided low-quality habitat both in the control and WP peninsulas. Our study indicates that WP development might have minor effects on habitat use if built in poor habitats, at least for semi-domestic reindeer. Our results cannot be used to infer effects of a WP built in higher-quality habitats or where large-scale movements are less restrictive than on a peninsula. Disturbance effects of human infrastructure likely are context-dependent, and management should thus be careful in planning of WPs to minimize adverse effects.

Reindeer herdsmen and authorities in Scandinavia fear detrimental effects from wind‐power plants (WPs) on movements and area use of reindeer Rangifer tarandus tarandus. We tested the extent to which a WP represented a behavioural barrier for reindeer movement by comparing two neighbouring areas; one peninsula with and one without a WP. Both peninsulas had a parallel road and a power line bisecting them in a north‐south direction. Presence of a larger or similar number of reindeer on the outer western compared to the inner eastern sections in both areas indicated no barrier effect from the WP. Furthermore, no clear barrier effects were found for reindeer movements during summer in the WP or neighbouring area, as reindeer have continued to cross back and forth between the inner and outer sections of the two areas. Contrary to our expectation, our finding contrasted with previous studies finding negative barrier effects from linear structures such as power lines and roads, suggesting considerable variation in the extent to which infrastructure acts as barriers.

Abstract Due to observed interactions between Svalbard reindeer (Rangifer tarandus platyrhynchus) and polar bears (Ursus maritimus) during field work on Edgeøya, Svalbard, we measured response distances for reindeer from a stalking polar bear and improvised five approaches from a person disguised as a polar bear for comparison with human encounters. The alert, flight initiation and escape distances were 1.6, 2.5 and 2.3 times longer, respectively, when Svalbard reindeer were encountered by a person disguised as a polar bear compared to a person in dark hiking gear. Population increase of polar bears on Svalbard and decrease in sea-ice cover in the Arctic region during summer probably results in more frequent interactions with reindeer on the archipelago. Similar reindeer response behavior from encounters with a polar bear and persons disguised as polar bears indicate a predator-prey relationship between the two species on Edgeøya.

ABSTRACT Because wild reindeer (Rangifer tarandus) are hunted in southern Norway, reindeer may perceive all recreationists as threats. Potential adverse effects of hunting on reindeer behavior may be exacerbated by other forms of recreation because the number of skiers and hikers in areas inhabited by reindeer has also increased. The Norefjell‐Reinsjøfjell wild reindeer area is used extensively for recreation and tourism. Reindeer hunting was introduced in the area in 1992, and harvest rate has been stable at about 38% of winter herd size. We recorded behavioral responses of reindeer to a person approaching directly on foot or skis during 1992 and again in 2002–2006. Compared to 1992, flight‐initiation distance increased and fewer groups assessed the observer before taking flight during 2002–2006. In winter, when reindeer are usually comparably more vigilant than in other seasons, flight‐initiation distance increased from only 60 m to 115 m and escape distance decreased from 400 m to 210 m. Neither alert distance, calf carcass weights (23.6 ± 0.7 [SE] kg to 22.4 ± 0.2 kg), nor reindeer herd size (661 ± 73 to 579 ± 15) changed during the 15 years of our study. Reindeer appeared to habituate to the observer because they initiated flight at shorter distances as the number of approaches on the same day increased. In Norefjell‐Reinsjøfjell, encounters with a person on foot or skis did not result in behavioral responses likely to entail substantial energy costs for reindeer; therefore, hunting at current levels appears compatible with other recreational activities.

Linear infrastructures such as roads, pipelines and power lines can hinder Rangifer migration and reduce the total amount of area available for foraging. We studied the barrier and aversion effect of a 66kV power line transecting the range of wild reindeer in North Ottadalen, south central Norway using aerial surveys of reindeer distribution (direct measurement of reindeer use) and lichen measurements (indirect measurement of reindeer use) at varying distances from both sides of the power line. We present a clear definition of the expected barrier and aversion effects, and present specific hypotheses and predictions based on these two terms that are often used unclearly in the literature. The aerial surveys and ground observations showed that reindeer crossed underneath and grazed under and on both sides of the power line during 14 out of the 22years (63.6%) surveys were conducted over the last 31years. This behaviour was confirmed by the lichen measurements, indicating a higher use of lichen pastures along ridges close to and under the power line compared to those at increasing distances and up to 3km from both sides of the power line. This winter grazing pattern probably reflects the topographical channeling of reindeer to the ridges along an 8km wide topographical corridor encompassing the power line and cannot be attributed to the power line itself. We found that direct measurement data (visual observations such as ours or GPS/telemetry tracking) provide less ambiguous information for testing barrier and aversion effects than indirect measurement data (pasture/lichen measurements) that are likely influenced by numerous uncontrollable environmental variables independent of reindeer grazing. Our results contrast with recent studies indicating strong barrier and aversion effects of similar power lines for Rangifer migration and grazing behaviour in alpine terrain.

Increasing outdoor activities by humans could negatively influence reindeer and caribou Rangifer tarandus populations. We recorded the behaviour of feral reindeer R. t. tarandus when a person directly approached them on foot or on skis in Forolhogna, Norway, during March, July and September-October 1996. The farther away the person was when first sighted, the greater the distance the reindeer group fled. The distance the reindeer moved away in response to the approaching person was greatest in July and least in September-October during autumn rut and shortly after the hunting season closed. In September-October rutting activities affected reindeer behaviour more than the disturbance caused by the directly approaching human. Both the distance at which the reindeer group responded by flight and the distance they moved away decreased with increasing group size. Upon flight, when all escape options were available, reindeer more often escaped uphill and into the wind than along level ground, downhill, down wind or crossways to the wind. All reindeer in a group moved towards the approaching human before taking final flight during 50% of 82 disturbance events, the closest approach was within 43 in in March, 24 in in July, and 13 in in September-October. No reindeer group responded by flight when the approaching human was still > 310 in away in March, > 351 in in July, and > 180 in in September-October. In relation to the current level of human activity in the area, our observations indicate no serious negative consequences for the reindeer following disturbance from a directly approaching human, not even shortly after the hunting season.