” But although spring was arriving earlier, the animals’ birth season stayed the same, failing to keep pace with the changing temperatures.”
Why not, given spring’s variance from year to year? That sounds like either a design flaw....or normal and not meaningful.
estrus and rut in deer is trigger by light, or more specifically a decrease in light signaled by the shortening days of autumn.
This whole article is a crock given that they are postulating that earlier greening, i.e. more food sooner is negatively affecting their fawn survival, while admitting that the actual population had consistent positive growth rates for the entire 27 years of the study.
But because the growth rate declined (while still remaining positive) 6% over that time it’s because of global warming. Not something more obvious like IDK, increased competition for food sources due to increased demand from the increased population.
The stupid agenda is strong in this one.
It’s a BS article. If there was a climate causality involved deer would not thrive in warm climates -like FL.
So what if the spring flora comes out two weeks early? The does feed the fawns for the first several weeks. As long as there’s available vegetation for the does is all that matters. Now if spring was two weeks ~late~ that would matter since there would be less for the does to eat to support the fawns. Food available earlier for the does to feed the fawns only helps them.
Irrational liberal argument # 45,089,342,197. The article’s reasoning is BS.
I'll take "normal and not meaningful" for $500...