# Bed-Site Characteristics of Pronghorn Fawns

> Where does a newborn pronghorn hide in the Texas desert? Following 101 radio-tagged fawns, researchers found they bed down on flat ground right against a tuft of grass, a shrub or a yucca, hidden while lying down but with a clear view of the land around them. As fawns grow, their choice of bed changes from hiding to watching for danger.

Summary by Kersey Lawrence, Original Wisdom. Updated 9 November 2026. Page: https://www.originalwisdom.com/tracking-literature/1997-canon-bryant-bed-site-characteristics-pronghorn/

## Citation and access

- **Authors:** S. Kemble Canon and Fred C. Bryant
- **Year published:** 1997
- **Journal or source:** The Journal of Wildlife Management
- **Full citation:** Canon, S. K. and Bryant, F. C. 1997. Bed-site characteristics of pronghorn fawns. The Journal of Wildlife Management 61(4): 1134-1141.
- **DOI:** 10.2307/3802111
- **Access status:** Hosted (freely available elsewhere)
- **PDF:** https://www.originalwisdom.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/1997_Canon_and_Bryant_bed-site-characteristics-of-pronghorn-fawns.pdf

## Tags

- **Species:** Mammals > Pronghorn
- **Region:** North America > United States
- **Behaviour and ecology:** Behaviour; Habitat selection; Predation; Predator avoidance
- **Methods and technology:** Analysis of variance (ANOVA); Direct observation; Radio telemetry
- **Data type:** New field data
- **Observer qualification:** Not needed
- **Discipline:** Behaviour and ecology
- **Year published:** 1997

## Detailed keywords

- **Species:** Studied: pronghorn (Antilocapra americana), newborn fawns. Of 89 fawns that died, 83 were lost to predation; the predators are not named. Cattle grazed the study area from June to August each year. Compared in the discussion: young gazelles (Gazella spp.). Plants named: yucca (Yucca elata), grama grasses (Bouteloua spp.), creosote bush (Larrea tridentata), tarbush (Flourensia cernua), three-awns (Aristida spp.), muhlenbergias (Muhlenbergia spp.), and forbs of the genera Aster, Astragalus, Croton, Dyssodia, Gilia and Sphaeralcea.
- **Location and habitat:** The 6,500-hectare Buckhorn Pasture, Double U Ranch, northern Hudspeth County, Trans-Pecos Region, Texas, United States (University of Texas Lands System), bordering the Hueco Mountains. Semi-desert in the Chihuahuan Desert, about 30 cm of rain a year; steep to gentle hills in the west and open flats in the east; stony hills, clay flats, gypsum flats and deep uplands; yucca savannah, grama grassland and creosote bush-tarbush desert shrub. Cattle grazing at about 35 hectares per animal unit on a 3-month rotation.
- **Topics:** fawn bed-site selection, fawning habitat, microhabitat, hiding (concealing) cover, nearest concealing cover, visibility and sight lines, predator avoidance, fawn survival and predation, fawn age classes (young 5 days or less, middle 6 to 14 days, old over 14 days), bed slope and terrain slope, shrub, grass, forb and rock cover, topographic position (bottoms, slopes, ridges), rangeland and livestock management. Inconsistencies in the paper: (1) the abstract gives 11 surviving fawns, but Table 1 and the results give 12 (12 + 89 = 101); (2) the abstract and methods speak of 11 microhabitat characteristics, but the tables list 10 (plus 9 visibility measures); (3) the results text says visibility at bed sites was greater than at random sites in all positions except three, but Table 4 shows lower visibility at bed sites for a bedded fawn at 25 m and 50 m (97.4 versus 124.7 cm, and 49.3 versus 62.5 cm), which fits the paper’s conclusion that bed sites concealed bedded fawns; (4) the results say shrub cover was 20% greater at random sites while also saying differences were under 1% overall; Table 2 gives 2.8% at bed sites and 3.5% at random sites; (5) the random-site value for a standing fawn at 25 m is 201.5 in Table 4 but 205.9 in Table 6; (6) the header of Table 5 gives survivors as n = 12, while Table 6 gives n = 127 bed sites.
- **Statistics or models:** Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for a completely randomized design, with bed sites as the experimental unit; least significant difference (LSD) test to separate means; stepwise discriminant analysis (SAS) to find the best set of variables separating bed sites from random sites, survivors from non-survivors, and the three age groups.
- **Data type:** New field data: 101 radio-tagged fawns over three fawning seasons, April to June 1990 to 1992 (May was the main fawning month); 616 bed sites (127 of surviving and 489 of non-surviving fawns) and 225 random sites (75 a year). Nearest concealing cover was measured in 1991 and 1992 only.

## Synopsis

### 1. What they did

Earlier studies disagree about what makes good fawning habitat for pronghorn: some found fewer fawns died in open country, where mothers and fawns can see predators coming, and others found more fawns survived where cover was dense. The authors set out to describe the bed sites that pronghorn fawns choose in the Trans-Pecos Region of Texas, and to test whether the choice of bed site affected whether fawns survived.

- Marking fawns (1990 to 1992). Over three fawning seasons, from April to June, they caught 101 fawns within 5 days of birth and fitted each with a small ear-tag radio transmitter (32 g) that signalled if the fawn died. To limit disturbance, they wore surgical gloves, masked their scent with creosote leaves, took no body measurements, and handled each fawn for only 1 to 2 minutes.

- Finding bed sites. They radio tracked each fawn once a day and watched it from 20 to 40 m away. Each bed site was flagged and mapped. Capture sites were used only if an undisturbed fawn had chosen them.

- Measuring bed sites. Late in each fawning season, they measured shrub, grass, forb and rock cover, shrub density, plant heights, terrain slope, the slope of the bed itself, and the distance to the nearest concealing cover (a plant or object a fawn could hide against). They also measured visibility with a 240 cm pole: how much could be seen at 25 m and 50 m from the heights of a bedded fawn (0.1 m), a standing fawn (0.5 m) and a standing adult (1.0 m), and whether sight lines were open at about 150 m.

- Comparing. They measured 225 random sites the same way, and compared bed sites with random sites, bed sites of fawns that survived with those of fawns that died, and bed sites of young (5 days or less), middle (6 to 14 days) and old (over 14 days) fawns.

### 2. What they found

Survival

- Only 12 of the 101 fawns (12%) survived to mid to late August. Of the 89 that died, 83 were killed by predators, 5 went missing and 1 died of other causes.

- They measured 616 bed sites: 61% on slopes, 29% in bottoms and 10% on ridges.

Bed sites compared with random sites

- Fawns bedded where there was less shrub cover (2.8% versus 3.5%) and fewer shrubs (1,299 versus 1,631 per hectare), especially in bottoms and on ridges.

- Bed sites had slightly more grass cover (16.1% versus 15.0%) and less rock cover (11.8% versus 15.4%).

- Fawns bedded much closer to concealing cover: on average 20.3 cm away, against 36.8 cm at random sites. Almost all of this cover was plants: grasses (45%), shrubs and forbs (34%), and cacti and yucca (20%). Fawns tended to bed with their backs to it.

- Beds were flatter than random sites (0.6% versus 1.2% slope), although the surrounding terrain was just as steep.

- From a bedded fawn’s height, bed sites were harder to see into at 25 m and 50 m than random sites. From standing heights, bed sites gave a better view at 50 m and at long range (about 150 m).

Fawns that survived compared with fawns that died

- Survivors’ bed sites had less rock cover (8.8% versus 12.6%), gentler terrain (4.3% versus 5.3%) and flatter beds (0.4% versus 0.6%).

- Their shrub cover, shrub density and grass cover were closer to random sites than to the bed sites of fawns that died.

- Survivors tended to bed nearer concealing cover (15.7 versus 21.5 cm; not quite significant).

- Visibility was the same at both groups’ bed sites.

Fawns of different ages

- Young fawns bedded among more shrubs and less grass than old fawns, and on more rock and steeper beds.

- Middle-aged fawns chose the most concealed beds: visibility from a bedded fawn’s height was lowest at their sites at all three distances.

- Old fawns bedded in the most open sites, and distance to concealing cover increased with age (not significantly).

### 3. What they concluded

- Fawns chose bed sites that were mostly different from what was available at random. They chose places that hid them while bedded but gave a good view of the surroundings before and after bedding.

- The preference for long-range visibility did not translate directly into better survival, because visibility was the same at the bed sites of survivors and of fawns that died.

- Bed-site choice is tied to avoiding predators and changes as fawns grow. Very young fawns may rely more on their mothers’ choices; middle-aged fawns, still vulnerable but more active, may actively seek better hiding places; older fawns that can outrun predators rely more on seeing them coming.

- The most important features were shrub cover, shrub density, grass cover, nearest concealing cover and bed slope, and to a lesser extent rock cover, terrain slope and plant heights.

- Bed sites vary greatly between regions, so fawns may learn or imprint on the best local combination of features.

### 4. How tracking was or was not used

The study did not use tracks and signs. Fawns were found with radio telemetry and watched from a distance, and their bed sites were then flagged and measured. The fawn age classes were based on observations made during capture and radio tracking.

### 6. Other technologies, skills or innovations

- Mortality-sensing ear-tag radio transmitters on newborn fawns, with steps to limit human scent and handling.

- A visibility method using a 240 cm pole read from three heights (bedded fawn, standing fawn, standing adult) at 25 m, 50 m and about 150 m, in four directions.

- Random “artificial bed sites” measured in the same way, to test which features fawns actually selected.

### 7. Implications for conservation (from the paper)

- For pronghorn fawning areas in the Texas Trans-Pecos, the authors suggest about 3% shrub and cactus cover, about 1,500 shrubs and cacti per hectare, 3% forb cover, 16% grass basal cover, overstory around 60 cm and understory around 14 cm, clumped and taller understory plants to give fawns concealing cover, and slopes of 4 to 5%.

- Livestock stocking rates that allow more grass and forb growth can give fawns cover and mothers forage, without blocking long-range visibility.

### 8. Implications for tracking (Original Wisdom's observations)

_These are Original Wisdom's observations, not the authors'._

- For trackers looking for pronghorn fawn beds, the paper gives a search image: small, flat beds tucked within about 20 cm of a clump of grass, a shrub, a cactus or a yucca, often on slopes, with the fawn’s back to the cover and a clear view outward.

## Cite this summary

Lawrence, K. 2026. Summary of: Bed-Site Characteristics of Pronghorn Fawns (Canon and Bryant, 1997). Original Wisdom, Tracking Literature. https://www.originalwisdom.com/tracking-literature/1997-canon-bryant-bed-site-characteristics-pronghorn/