Invasive Species Compendium

Detailed coverage of invasive species threatening livelihoods and the environment worldwide

Datasheet

Muntiacus reevesi
(Reeves' muntjac)

Toolbox

Datasheet

Muntiacus reevesi (Reeves' muntjac)

Summary

  • Last modified
  • 27 September 2018
  • Datasheet Type(s)
  • Invasive Species
  • Preferred Scientific Name
  • Muntiacus reevesi
  • Preferred Common Name
  • Reeves' muntjac
  • Taxonomic Tree
  • Domain: Eukaryota
  •   Kingdom: Metazoa
  •     Phylum: Chordata
  •       Subphylum: Vertebrata
  •         Class: Mammalia
  • Summary of Invasiveness
  • In the UK, where it is now well established, M. reevesi shows rapid expansion of distribution, estimated (between 1972 and 2002) at a compound rate of 8.2% per year (...

Don't need the entire report?

Generate a print friendly version containing only the sections you need.

Generate report

Pictures

Top of page
PictureTitleCaptionCopyright
Muntiacus reevesi (Reeves' muntjac); running muntjac have a distinctive 'springing' gait. Note the simple, unbranched, antlers of this young male.
TitleYoung male
CaptionMuntiacus reevesi (Reeves' muntjac); running muntjac have a distinctive 'springing' gait. Note the simple, unbranched, antlers of this young male.
Copyright©Jackie Pringle
Muntiacus reevesi (Reeves' muntjac); running muntjac have a distinctive 'springing' gait. Note the simple, unbranched, antlers of this young male.
Young maleMuntiacus reevesi (Reeves' muntjac); running muntjac have a distinctive 'springing' gait. Note the simple, unbranched, antlers of this young male.©Jackie Pringle
Muntiacus reevesi (Reeves' muntjac); female muntjac in stubble field showing colouring in summer coat. Note the distinctive 'fat' tail
TitleFemale
CaptionMuntiacus reevesi (Reeves' muntjac); female muntjac in stubble field showing colouring in summer coat. Note the distinctive 'fat' tail
Copyright©Jackie Pringle
Muntiacus reevesi (Reeves' muntjac); female muntjac in stubble field showing colouring in summer coat. Note the distinctive 'fat' tail
FemaleMuntiacus reevesi (Reeves' muntjac); female muntjac in stubble field showing colouring in summer coat. Note the distinctive 'fat' tail©Jackie Pringle
Muntiacus reevesi (Reeves' muntjac); female Reeves muntjac in winter coat.
TitleFemale
CaptionMuntiacus reevesi (Reeves' muntjac); female Reeves muntjac in winter coat.
Copyright©Jackie Pringle
Muntiacus reevesi (Reeves' muntjac); female Reeves muntjac in winter coat.
FemaleMuntiacus reevesi (Reeves' muntjac); female Reeves muntjac in winter coat.©Jackie Pringle

Identity

Top of page

Preferred Scientific Name

  • Muntiacus reevesi Ogilby, 1839

Preferred Common Name

  • Reeves' muntjac

Other Scientific Names

  • Cervus reevesi

International Common Names

  • English: Reeves's muntjac

Local Common Names

  • UK/England and Wales: barking deer; Chinese muntjac

Summary of Invasiveness

Top of page

In the UK, where it is now well established, M. reevesi shows rapid expansion of distribution, estimated (between 1972 and 2002) at a compound rate of 8.2% per year (Ward, 2005). However actual rate of expansion under natural conditions is hard to assess, since clear gaps in continuity make it obvious that much of the initial and continuing expansion in distribution is due to continuing secondary translocation (Chapman et al., 1994a). Natural spread of muntjac may occur at perhaps 1 km per year but actual rates including escapes from captive collections or deliberate releases may be nearer 2.4 km per year (Chapman et al., 1994a).

Taxonomic Tree

Top of page
  • Domain: Eukaryota
  •     Kingdom: Metazoa
  •         Phylum: Chordata
  •             Subphylum: Vertebrata
  •                 Class: Mammalia
  •                     Order: Artiodactyla
  •                         Suborder: Ruminantia
  •                             Family: Cervidae
  •                                 Genus: Muntiacus
  •                                     Species: Muntiacus reevesi

Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature

Top of page
The muntjacs are an oriental genus of small forest deer, with nine species distributed from Pakistan and China through South-East Asia to Borneo. They are characterized by small, backwardly-directed antlers in the males (bucks) and enlarged canine tusks, also in males.

Reeves’ muntjac, Muntiacus reevesi, has a native range restricted to southeast China and Taiwan.  Two subspecies are recognized: M. reevesi reevesi in mainland China (introduced to Britain), poorly differentiated from M. reevesi micrurus in Taiwan. Although M. reevesi reevesi has been introduced to zoos and collections elsewhere, it is believed that extensive feral populations are established only in the United Kingdom. Local populations are established in parts of the Netherlands and in Belgium.
 
M. reevesi is sometimes referred to as the Chinese muntjac (not a helpful common name since there are at least 4 species of muntjac native to China) or barking deer (although this latter name is more generally used to refer to the Indian muntjac M. muntjak).

Description

Top of page

M. reevesi is a small reddish-brown deer, weighing 12-16 kg and standing about 0.5m high at the shoulder. There is a conspicuous white underside to a comparatively fat tail, which is held vertically and very prominent when alarmed.

Males have short simple antlers with or without small brow tines. The pedicles of the antlers are long, and continuous with strong bony brow-ridges extending down the skull. The upper canine teeth protrude below the lip in male but are not as long as in Chinese water deer. The facial markings are very distinct: males have black frontal stripes on a ginger background, almost forming a V, up the frontal ridges and pedicles. Females have a dark or black kite-shaped pattern on the forehead.

Fawns are heavily spotted: spots gradually fade and have usually disappeared by about 2 months of age. Males develop full facial markings by 9 months.

Stance is also quite distinctive: muntjac often stand with the back arched and commonly hold the head down so the rump appears higher than the withers. When disturbed they often run off in a series of springing jumps.

Distribution

Top of page
M. reevesi has a native range restricted to southeast China and Taiwan. In China, populations are recorded in Anhui, Fujian, Gansu, Guangdong, Guangxi, Guizhou, Hubei, Hunan, Jiangsu, Jiangxi, Shanxi, Sichuan, Yunnan and Zhejiang provinces. The species is not present in Hong Kong (KJC Pei, Institute of Wildlife Conservation, National Pingtung University of Science & Technology, Taiwan, personal communication, 2009).

Although it has been introduced to zoos and collections elsewhere, it is believed that feral populations are established only in Japan (Chiba prefecture in Honshu), the United Kingdom (currently England and possibly Northern Ireland), Ireland (possibly), Belgium and the Netherlands.

Distribution Table

Top of page

The distribution in this summary table is based on all the information available. When several references are cited, they may give conflicting information on the status. Further details may be available for individual references in the Distribution Table Details section which can be selected by going to Generate Report.

Continent/Country/RegionDistributionLast ReportedOriginFirst ReportedInvasiveReferenceNotes

Asia

ChinaWidespreadNativeSheng, 1991; Zhang, 1997; Pang et al., 2007SE China. KJC Pei, Institute of Wildlife Conservation, National Pingtung Universtity of Science & Technology, Taiwan, personal communication 2009; X Lu , South China Institute of Endangered Animals, China, personal communication, 2009
-AnhuiWidespreadNativeSheng, 1991; Zhang, 1997; Pang et al., 2007
-FujianWidespreadNativeSheng, 1991; Zhang, 1997; Pang et al., 2007
-GansuWidespreadNativeSheng, 1991; Zhang, 1997; Pang et al., 2007
-GuangdongPresentNativeZhang, 1997; Pang et al., 2007
-GuangxiWidespreadNativeSheng, 1991; Zhang, 1997; Pang et al., 2007
-GuizhouWidespreadNativeSheng, 1991; Zhang, 1997; Pang et al., 2007
-HubeiWidespreadNativeSheng, 1991; Zhang, 1997; Pang et al., 2007
-HunanWidespreadNativeSheng, 1991; Zhang, 1997; Pang et al., 2007
-JiangsuPresentNativeSheng, 1991; Zhang, 1997; Pang et al., 2007
-JiangxiWidespreadNativeSheng, 1991; Zhang, 1997; Pang et al., 2007
-ShanxiWidespreadNativeSheng, 1991; Zhang, 1997; Pang et al., 2007
-SichuanWidespreadNativeSheng, 1991; Zhang, 1997; Pang et al., 2007
-YunnanPresentNativeZhang, 1997; Pang et al., 2007
-ZhejiangWidespreadNativeSheng, 1991; Zhang, 1997; Pang et al., 2007
JapanPresentPresent based on regional distribution.
-HonshuLocalisedIntroducedNG Chapman, Suffolk, UK, personal communication, 2009. Introduced from Taiwan to Chiba prefecture
TaiwanWidespreadNativeDR McCullough, University of California, Berkeley, USA, personal communication, 2009
VietnamAbsent, unreliable recordKJC Pei, Institute of Wildlife Conservation, National Pingtung Universtity of Science & Technology, Taiwan, personal communication, 2009. Single record from mid 1980s in central Vietnam. No other record and therefore this report must be considered unreliable

Europe

BelgiumLocalisedIntroducedNG Chapman, Suffolk, UK, personal communication, 2009
FrancePresent only in captivity/cultivationNG Chapman, Suffolk, UK, personal communication, 2009
IrelandPresent, few occurrencesIntroducedCarden et al., 2011In counties Wicklow and Kildare. Also unconfirmed reports from Wexford, Sligo, Longford and Leitrim which are possibly recent releases/escapes and not indicative of an established feral population
NetherlandsLocalisedIntroducedNG Chapman, Suffolk, UK, personal communication, 2009
UKWidespreadIntroduced1894Chapman, 2008Well established over much of England, especially southern half. By 1993 only 5 counties lacked any records (Chapman et al., 1994a). Some further expansion since then, expected to continue. A few records from Wales and Scotland probably represent individual (short-lived) escapes from captivity and generally have not persisted. There have been numerous reports from Northern Ireland although many are unconfirmed (RF Carden, National Museum of Ireland, Dublin, Ireland, personal communication, 2011)
-England and WalesWidespreadIntroduced1894Chapman, 2008Well established over much of England, especially southern half. By 1993 only 5 counties lacked any records (Chapman et al., 1994a). Some further expansion since then, expected to continue. A few records from Wales probably represent individual (short-lived) escapes from captivity and generally have not persisted.
-Northern IrelandPresent, few occurrencesIntroducedRF Carden, National Museum of Ireland, Dublin, Ireland, personal communication, 2011There have been numerous reports from Northern Ireland although many are unconfirmed.
-ScotlandPresent, few occurrencesIntroducedChapman, 2008A small number of records which probably represent individual (short-lived) escapes from captivity and generally have not persisted.

History of Introduction and Spread

Top of page

In the UK specimens of two species of muntjac were introduced to Woburn Park, Bedfordshire: Indian muntjac M. muntjak (in 1893) and Reeves’ muntjac M. reevesi (in 1894). Thirty-one M. muntjak and 11 M. reevesi were released into neighbouring woods in 1901, but populations of M. muntjak did not survive. Muntjac now established in UK are all M. reevesi (Chapman and Chapman, 1982; Chapman et al., 1993). These became more widely established as a result of many translocations, escapes and releases from the 1930s to the 1990s, as well as through natural spread (Chapman et al., 1994a). Muntjac are now recorded in a significant number of counties in the south of England as well as in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

M. reevesi is otherwise established in a number of areas within the Netherlands and Belgium. A number of individuals have also been introduced to private collections in France (N Chapman, personal communication, 2009) but it is not known if escapes have established persistent feral populations.

Introductions

Top of page
Introduced toIntroduced fromYearReasonIntroduced byEstablished in wild throughReferencesNotes
Natural reproductionContinuous restocking
Ireland UK   Hunting, angling, sport or racing (pathway cause) ,
Intentional release (pathway cause)
Carden et al. (2011)
UK China 1894 Hunting, angling, sport or racing (pathway cause) ,
Intentional release (pathway cause)
Yes Chapman (2008)

Risk of Introduction

Top of page
Further introductions seem unlikely. Most countries/states now forbid deliberate introduction or release of exotic ungulates. However, there remains a risk of establishment by accidental or deliberate release from captive collections and muntjac are sufficiently shy and secretive that unless these are dealt with very speedily, there is real risk of establishment. Localized muntjac populations, often persisting for some time before eradication, remain a continuing problem in Scotland and Ireland. Ward and Lees (2011) considered that the English population was likely to spread to Scotland in future.

Establishment of populations in the Netherlands and in Belgium must be a cause for real concern, since the species now has the potential for further spread across continental Europe wherever there is suitable habitat. Although in theory both rate of spread and overall extent might be limited by mountains and other natural barriers, experience in the UK and in Ireland suggests that enthusiasm for establishment of the species by hunters may lead to (illegal) secondary translocations past such natural barriers (Chapman et al., 1994a).

Habitat

Top of page
Within its native range M. reevesi inhabits scrub and dense forest from 200-400 m altitude (see for example McCullough et al., 2000).

In the UK, they still favour dense habitat with diversity of vegetation: deciduous woodland with year-round understorey, coppice, young unthinned plantations, scrub and even overgrown and undisturbed gardens and cemeteries are occupied. They are frequently present in commercial coniferous woodlands which have some deciduous trees and ground cover. Here they select areas with a variety of vegetation types, especially in the ground and shrub layers, bramble and mature nut-bearing trees (Chapman et al., 1985; Chapman, 2008).

Habitat List

Top of page
CategorySub-CategoryHabitatPresenceStatus
Terrestrial
Terrestrial – ManagedCultivated / agricultural land Present, no further details Harmful (pest or invasive)
Managed forests, plantations and orchards Principal habitat Harmful (pest or invasive)
Urban / peri-urban areas Present, no further details
Terrestrial ‑ Natural / Semi-naturalNatural forests Principal habitat

Biology and Ecology

Top of page
Genetics

Chromosomes: 2n=46, all acrocentric except for small submetacentric Y chromosome.
 
Tandem fusion of chromosomes has occurred during the evolution of Muntiacus permitting hybridization between species of widely differing chromosome number (Yang et al., 1995). M. reevesi can hybridize with Indian muntjac (M. muntjak) (Shi et al., 1980) but the progeny are infertile (Shi and Pathak, 1981; Chapman, 2008).
 
Reproductive Biology
 
Muntjac are polygynous so a male has the opportunity to mate with any doe coming into oestrus whose home range overlaps with his. The gestation period is 210 days and females give birth to a single fawn; twin foetuses do occur but are rare (Chapman, 2008).
 
Most strikingly and of most significance in relation to invasiveness, muntjac are aseasonal breeders, breeding throughout the year. Fawns are born in any month with no obvious peak (Chapman et al., 1984). There is a post-partum oestrus, so that a female often conceives within a few days of parturition. Of 36 precisely known inter-birth periods, the shortest was 211 days, 50% were 216 days and a further 31% were 220-250 days (Chapman, 2008). A female can be almost continuously pregnant over many years.
 
Age at puberty is also very low. First conception in captive animals can occur at 5-6 months of age, more usually at 7 months or later (Chapman, 2008).
 
Feeding and Nutrition
 
Muntjac are concentrate selectors (sensuHofmann, 1985), i.e. selecting small food items of high nutritive value. As a result they are primarily browsers rather than grazers, but also select herbs and forbs of high nitrogen content, as well as fruit.
 
In deciduous woods, leaves and flowers of many species and shoots are selected, causing changes in the composition of flora and the habitat structure, with loss of biodiversity (Cooke, 1998, 2005; Symonds, 1985, Tabor, 1999). Within a mainly coniferous wood in the UK, 85 species of plants were recorded in the diet (Harris and Forde, 1986). The most important was Rubus (bramble and raspberry), accounting for 30-40% of the diet in all months. Other foods changed seasonally with ivy, ferns, fungi, broad-leaved trees and shrubs, nuts and other fruits all being important. Grasses were a significant food only briefly in spring and in some winters when preferred foods were in short supply (Harris and Forde, 1986; Keeling 1995).
 
Associations
 
Within the UK, muntjac often co-exist with one or more other deer species, usually fallow (Dama dama) and/or roe (Capreolus capreolus).

Social Organization and Behaviour
 
Muntjac are basically solitary animals. The vast majority of sightings are of adults or subadults of either sex alone. Observations and radio-tracking of marked animals have shown that a particular mature male and adult female may frequently be together over several years but this does not indicate a life-bond as changes in associations occur, or several may occur concurrently (Chapman, 2008).
 
Adult males are territorial, with defended home ranges; these seldom overlap with those of other males. Ranges of adult males however tend to be larger than those of females and thus may encompass or overlap the ranges of several females. Females are less territorial but core areas of the range remain exclusive and aggressive chasing toward intruding individuals has been observed (Chapman et al., 1993). Range size varies with habitat quality/diversity (Chapman et al., 1993, Keeling, 1995, Staines et al., 1998).
 
Muntjac have prominent preorbital glands and scent marking is an important form of communication. Males use facial glands more than females, and dominant males more than subordinates (Barrette, 1977). The pre-orbital gland may be opened, or even everted (Barrette, 1976), and the secretions wiped against twigs in territory marking (Dubost, 1971). Muntjac are also vocal deer, making loud, single barks which may be repeated. Muntjac also utter a loud scream when alarmed which, given their otherwise secretive nature, is often a good first indicator that an area has been colonized by muntjac.

 

Climate

Top of page
ClimateStatusDescriptionRemark
Cs - Warm temperate climate with dry summer Preferred Warm average temp. > 10°C, Cold average temp. > 0°C, dry summers
Cw - Warm temperate climate with dry winter Preferred Warm temperate climate with dry winter (Warm average temp. > 10°C, Cold average temp. > 0°C, dry winters)

Latitude/Altitude Ranges

Top of page
Latitude North (°N)Latitude South (°S)Altitude Lower (m)Altitude Upper (m)
22-54

Natural enemies

Top of page
Natural enemyTypeLife stagesSpecificityReferencesBiological control inBiological control on
Vulpes vulpes Predator Juvenile not specific No

Notes on Natural Enemies

Top of page
There are few natural enemies although most UK populations are managed by human hunting. It is noted however that the red fox (Vulpes vulpes) may impose significant mortality on juveniles (Chapman, 2008). In one study area, although the fox population was at a low density, total loss of fawns (up to 2 months old) was estimated at 47%, mostly due to predation (Harris et al., 1995).

Heavy mortality may also occur during severe winters with prolonged periods of deep snow. Debilitation from starvation, often with pneumonia, accounted for deaths of c. 50% of a high density population (Cooke, 1996).

Means of Movement and Dispersal

Top of page

Introductions outside their native range have been deliberate, although subsequent release to the wild may be accidental (through escape from captivity) or deliberate (see History of Introduction). After establishment, they show a rapid expansion of distribution, estimated in the UK at a compound rate of 8.2% per year (Ward, 2005). However, the actual rate of expansion under natural conditions is hard to assess, since it is clear that much of the initial and continuing expansion in distribution is due to continuing secondary translocation (Chapman et al., 1994a). Natural spread of muntjac may occur at perhaps 1 km per year but actual rates including escapes from captive collections or deliberate releases may be nearer 2.4 km per year (Chapman et al., 1994a).

Pathway Causes

Top of page
CauseNotesLong DistanceLocalReferences
Botanical gardens and zoosOriginally for wildlife collections in England and France Yes Chapman, 2008
Hunting, angling, sport or racingSecondary tranlocations: England. Original introductions: Ireland, Japan Yes Carden et al., 2011; Chapman, 2008

Impact Summary

Top of page
CategoryImpact
Environment (generally) Negative

Economic Impact

Top of page

Negative impacts occur from localized damage to arable crops, soft fruit nurseries or other horticulture. At present muntjac within the UK are not widely implicated in agricultural damage but they may cause local problems in horticulture (Putman and Moore, 1998) or in gardens (Chapman et al., 1994b). Damage to forestry is also localized though muntjac may seriously compromise establishment through damage to naturally regenerating or planted saplings, and may cause significant (though again localized) damage to coppice regrowth through browsing and stem breakage (Tabor, 1993; Cooke, 1994, 1998, 2006; Cooke and Farrell, 2001).

Environmental Impact

Top of page
Heavy impacts on the field and ground layer in woodlands may have a pronounced effect on diversity of plant species present (above), with indirect effects on other fauna (e.g. Pollard and Cooke, 1994; Cooke and Farrell, 2001).

There is considerable niche overlap between muntjac and roe deer, so there may be competition in winter; correlational data (with declines in density of roe correlated with increases in muntjac density) suggest muntjac may displace roe from areas of sympatry (Forde, 1989; Wray, 1994; Hemami et al., 2005).

Chapman (2008) notes that impacts in conservation woodland can be serious where muntjac densities are high (Cooke, 2004) with direct effects noted on woody vegetation (Tabor, 1993; Cooke and Farrell, 1995, 2001; Cooke, 2005) and ground flora (Cooke, 1994, 1997, 2006; Diaz and Burton, 1996; Tabor, 1999).

Rackham (1975) and Tabor (1993) highlight damage to woodland ground flora (especially to oxslip Primula elatior) which they attribute to high grazing and browsing pressure from fallow deer and muntjac. Cooke has also reported comprehensively on the effects of muntjac at high densities on other elements of the ground flora (primroses, Primula vulgaris; bluebells, Hyacynthoides non-scripta; dog’s mercury, Mercurialis perennis; and common spotted orchid Dactylorhiza fuchsii), within Monk’s Wood National Nature Reserve in Cambridgeshire (summarized for example in Cooke, 1994, 1995, 2005, 2006) although these heavy impacts were recorded at extremely high population levels, and the extent to which they impacts are more widely representative is uncertain.

Risk and Impact Factors

Top of page Invasiveness
  • Proved invasive outside its native range
  • Has a broad native range
  • Abundant in its native range
  • Highly adaptable to different environments
  • Capable of securing and ingesting a wide range of food
  • Fast growing
  • Has high reproductive potential
Impact outcomes
  • Ecosystem change/ habitat alteration
  • Negatively impacts agriculture
  • Negatively impacts forestry
  • Threat to/ loss of native species
Impact mechanisms
  • Competition - monopolizing resources
  • Herbivory/grazing/browsing
Likelihood of entry/control
  • Highly likely to be transported internationally deliberately
  • Highly likely to be transported internationally illegally
  • Difficult to identify/detect in the field
  • Difficult/costly to control

Uses

Top of page

While muntjac were established in the UK largely as a novelty, they are now regularly hunted, and most of the subsequent secondary translocations were motivated by a wish to expand the distribution of a new potential quarry species. Introduction to Honshu (Japan) was specifically for hunting. In practice, however, most hunting is recreational and this is not a species of great positive economic benefit.

Uses List

Top of page

General

  • Botanical garden/zoo
  • Sport (hunting, shooting, fishing, racing)

Detection and Inspection

Top of page
Impact on forestry, agriculture and/or conservation habitats is best assessed through routine monitoring of damage levels, ensuring correct attribution to species responsible for damage recorded – (see for example Putman and Watson, 2009).

Detection of muntjac is however somewhat difficult because of their rather secretive habit and preference for dense, concealing habitats. Often it does not become obvious that they are present within an area until they have already reached a high density.
 
Preventive action is therefore always to be preferred and, even in areas where they are not currently recorded, the possibility of future colonization and establishment of muntjac should always be considered when planning for establishment or management of potentially vulnerable enterprises (such as woodlands or coppice).

Similarities to Other Species/Conditions

Top of page

As a genus, muntjacs are quite conservative and most species are rather similar. Muntjac are also of similar size and habit to Chinese water deer (Hydropotes inermis) and European roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) with which they occur in the UK.

Prevention and Control

Top of page
Within England, muntjac are now extremely well-established and eradication seems unlikely to be a possibility.

However, where establishment of populations is comparatively recent and populations are still small and localized, there probably remains a potential for local eradication of individual population nuclei before further expansion. The problem with this as an approach to containment would appear to be, in many cases, a lack of willingness, since muntjac are often valued as an interesting quarry and thus hunters are actively keen to see their wider establishment.
 
Ward and Lees (2011) analysed the costs of preventing establishment in Scotland. They estimated that the costs to the national economy of eradicating an outbreak of muntjac were likely to range from £3,683 to £60,625 per outbreak (for populations of up to 200 animals), compared to costs of managing an established muntjac population in perpetuity which were likely to range from £457,821 to £1,915,411 per year. 
 
Control
 
Control of damage to forestry, agriculture or natural habitats may be best achieved through direct population control (shooting) or by appropriate crop protection (fencing, tree guards). Where genuine efforts can be made to control spread or eradicate local populations, this may best be achieved by shooting over bait, or trapping to euthanase, as for wild boar.

References

Top of page

Barrette C, 1976. Musculature of facial glands scent glands in the muntjac. Journal of Anatomy, 122:61-66.

Barrette C, 1977. Scent-marking in captive muntjacs, Muntiacus reevesi. Animal Behaviour, 25:536-541.

Carden RF; Carlin CM; Marnell F; McElholm D; Hetherington J; Gammell MP, 2011. Distribution and range expansion of deer in Ireland. Mammal Review 41 (4): 313-325. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2907.2010.00170.x.

Chapman DI; Chapman NG, 1982. The taxonomic status of feral muntjac (Muntiacus sp.) in England. Journal of Natural History, 16:381-387.

Chapman N; Harris S; Stanford A, 1994. Reeves' Muntjac Muntiacus reevesi in Britain: their history, spread, habitat selection, and the role of human intervention in accelerating their dispersal. Mammal Review, 24(3):113-160.

Chapman NG, 2008. Reeves muntjac. In: Mammals of the British Isles: Handbook: 4th edition [ed. by Harris S, Yalden DW] London, UK: The Mammal Society, 564-571.

Chapman NG; Claydon K; Claydon M; Forde PG; Harris S, 1993. Sympatric populations of muntjac and roe deer: a comparative analysis of their ranging behaviour, social organisation and activity. Journal of Zoology, 229:623-640.

Chapman NG; Claydon K; Claydon M; Harris S, 1985. Distribution and habitat selection by muntjac and other species of deer in a coniferous forest. Acta Theriologica, 30:287-303.

Chapman NG; Harris A; Harris S, 1994. What gardeners say about muntjac. Deer, 9:302-306.

Cooke A, 1998. Survival and regrowth performance of coppiced ash (Fraxinus excelsior) in relation to browsing damage by muntjac deer (Muntiacus reevesi). Quarterly Journal of Forestry, 92(4):286-290.

Cooke AS, 1994. Colonisation by muntjac deer Muntiacus reevesi and their impact on vegetation. In: Monks Wood National Nature Reserve. The experience of 40 years 1953-93 [ed. by Massey ME, Welch RC] Peterborough, UK: Natural England, 45-61.

Cooke AS, 1996. Conservation, muntjac deer and woodland reserve management. Journal of Practical Ecology and Conservation, Special publication, 1:43-52.

Cooke AS, 1997. Effects of grazing by muntjac (Muntiacus reevesi) on bluebells (Hyacinthoides non-scripta) and a field technique for assessing feeding activity. Journal of Zoology, 242(2):365-369.

Cooke AS, 2004. Muntjac and conservation woodland. In: Managing woodlands and their mammals: proceedings of a joint Mammal Society/Forestry Commission Symposium [ed. by Quine CP, Shore RF, Trout RC] Edinburgh, UK: Forestry Commission, 65-69.

Cooke AS, 2005. Muntjac deer Muntiacus reevesi in Monks Wood NNR: their management and changing impact. In: Ten years of change: woodland research at Monks Wood NNR, 1993-2003 [ed. by Gardiner C, Sparks T], 65-74. [English Nature Research Report 613.]

Cooke AS, 2006. Monitoring muntjac deer Muntiacus reevesi and their impacts in Monks Wood National Nature Reserve., 1-174. [English Nature Research Reports 681.]

Cooke AS; Farrell L, 1995. Establishment and impact of muntjac (Muntiacus reevesi) on two national nature reserves. In: Muntjac Deer. Their Biology, Impact and Management in Britain [ed. by Mayle BA] Edinburgh, UK: Forestry Commission, 48-62.

Cooke AS; Farrell L, 2001. Impact of muntjac deer (Muntiacus reevesi) at Monks Wood National Nature Reserve, Cambridgeshire, eastern England. Forestry (Oxford), 74(3):241-250.

Diaz A; Burton RJ, 1996. The impact of predation by Muntjac deer Muntiacus reevesi on sexual reproduction of the woodland herb, Lords & Ladies Arum maculatum. Deer, 10:14-19.

Dubost G, 1971. Ethological observations on Muntjac (Muntiacus muntjak Zimmermann 1789 and M.reevesi Ogilby 1839) in captivity and semi-liberty. (Observations éthologiques sur le Muntjak (Muntiacus muntjak Zimmermann 1789 et M.reevesi Ogilby 1839) en captivité et semi-liberté. 28:387-427) Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie, 28:387-427.

Forde P, 1989. Comparative ecology of muntjac Muntiacus reevesi and roe deer Capreolus capreolus in a commercial coniferous forest. Bristol, UK: University of Bristol.

Harris S; Forde P, 1986. The annual diet of muntjac (Muntiacus reevesi) in the King's Forest, Suffolk. Bulletin of the British Ecological Society, 17:19-22.

Harris S; Morris P; Wray S; Yalden D, 1995. A review of British mammals: population estimates and conservation status of British mammals other than cetaceans. Peterborough, UK: JNCC, 168 pp.

Hemami MR; Watkinson AR; Dolman PM, 2005. Population densities and habitat associations of introduced muntjac Muntiacus reevesi and native roe deer Capreolus capreolus in a lowland pine forest. Forest Ecology and Management, 215(1/3):224-238.

Hofmann RR, 1985. Digestive physiology of the deer - their morphophysiological specialisation and adaptation. ([Review].) In: Biology of deer production. Proceedings of an International Conference held at Dunedin, New Zealand, 13-18 February 1983 [ed. by Fennessy PF, Drew KR] Wellington, New Zealand, 393-407.

Keeling JGM, 1995. Ecological determinants of muntjac deer Muntiacus reevesi behaviour. Bristol, UK: University of Bristol.

McCullough DR; Pei KCJ; Wang Y, 2000. Home range, activity patterns, and habitat relationships of Reeves' muntjacs in Taiwan. Journal of Wildlife Management, 64:430-441.

Pang TH; Wang TC; Jin; K, 2007. Color Guide of Mammals in China. Beijing, China: China Forestry Publishing House.

Pollard E; Cooke AS, 1994. Impact of muntjac deer Muntiacus reevesi on egg-laying sites of the white admiral butterfly Ladoga camilla in a Cambridgeshire wood. Biological Conservation, 70:189-191.

Putman RJ; Moore NP, 1998. Impact of deer in lowland Britain on agriculture, forestry and conservation habitats. Mammal Review, 28(4):141-163.

Putman RJ; Watson P, 2009. Developing an impact assessment methodology for use beyond the site scale: a report for the National Trust. UK: The National Trust, 33 pp. [Deer Initiative Research Report 09/01.] http://www.thedeerinitiative.co.uk/pdf/NT-impact-assessments%20100809.pdf

Rackham O, 1975. Hayley Wood: its history and ecology. Cambridge:. Cambridge, UK: Cambridgeshire and Isle of Ely Naturalists' Trust Ltd, 221 pp.

Sheng H, 1991. Reeves' muntjac Muntiacus reevesei. In: The Deer in China [ed. by Shen H] Shanghai, China: East China Normal University Press, 126-144.

Sheng H; Ohtaishi N, 1993. The status of deer in China. In: Deer of China: biology and management [ed. by Ohtaishi N, Sheng H] Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier, 1-11.

Shi L; Pathak S, 1981. Gametogenesis in a male Indian muntjac x Chinese muntjac hybrid. Cytogenetics and Cell Genetics, 30:152-156.

Shi L; Ye Y; Duan X, 1980. Comparative cytogenetic studies on red muntjac, Chinese muntjac and their F1 hybrids. Cytogenetics and Cell Genetics, 26:22-27.

Staines B; Palmer SCF; Wyllie I; Gill R; Mayle B, 1998. Desk and limited field studies to analyse the major factors influencing regional deer populations and ranging behaviour. Desk and limited field studies to analyse the major factors influencing regional deer populations and ranging behaviour. London, UK: Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food. [MAFF Contract report VC 0314.]

Symonds R, 1985. A comparison of the food preferences of fallow deer (Dama dama) and muntjac (Muntiacus reevesi) in Hayley Wood SSSI, Cambridgeshire: with special reference to the effects of browsing on coppice regrowth. British Ecological Society Bulletin, 16:97-98.

Tabor RC, 1999. The effects of Muntjac deer, Muntiacus reevesi, and Fallow deer Dama dama, on the Oxslip Primula elatior. Deer, 11:14-19.

Tabor RCC, 1993. Control of deer in a managed coppice. Quarterly Journal of Forestry, 87(4):308-313.

Ward AI, 2005. Expanding ranges of wild and feral deer in Great Britain. Mammal Review, 35(2):165-173. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/servlet/useragent?func=showIssues&code=mam

Ward AI; Lees K, 2011. Analysis of cost of preventing establishment in Scotland of muntjac deer (Muntiacus spp.). Inverness, UK: Scottish Natural Heritage, vi + 30 pp. [Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No.457.]

Wray S, 1994. Competition between muntjac and other herbivores in a commercial coniferous forest. Deer, 9:237-245.

Yang F; Carter NP; Shi L; Ferguson-Smith MA, 1995. A comparative study of karyotypes of muntjacs by chromosome painting. Chromosoma, 103:642-652.

Zhang YZ, 1997. The Atlas of mammal distribution in China. Beijing, China: China Forestry Publishing House.

Contributors

Top of page

09/07/09 Original text by:

Rory Putman, Consultant, UK

Distribution Maps

Top of page
You can pan and zoom the map
Save map