Animal Diversity Web

Ge­o­graphic Range

Alces alces, com­monly called moose in North Amer­ica and Eurasian elk in Eu­rope, have a cir­cum­po­lar dis­tri­b­u­tion in the bo­real forests of the North­ern Hemi­sphere. (Eurasian elk should not be con­fused with North Amer­i­can elk, Cervus canaden­sis, which are a dif­fer­ent species.) In Eura­sia, Alces alces have a range on the west from Scan­di­navia, Poland and south­ern Czech Re­pub­lic to Siberia (Rus­sia) in the east. Its south­ern range ex­tends to Ukraine, north­ern Kaza­khstan, north­ern China and north­ern Mon­go­lia. In North Amer­ica, moose are found through­out much of Alaska and Canada and just south of the bor­der be­tween the con­tigu­ous United States and Canada, but ex­tend far­ther south­ward down the Rocky Moun­tains to Utah and Col­orado. Fac­tors that likely limit their north­ern dis­tri­b­u­tion are suf­fi­cient for­age and snow depths greater than 70 cm for long pe­ri­ods. Warm cli­mates that have tem­per­a­tures above 27 C for long pe­ri­ods likely limit their south­ern dis­tri­b­u­tion. (Grubb, 2005; Karns, 2007; Kel­sall and Tefler, 1974)

• Biogeographic Regions
• nearctic
  • native
• palearctic
  • native

• Other Geographic Terms
• holarctic

Habi­tat

Moose can be found in a range of habi­tats in the cold, north­ern re­gions of the globe that have sea­sonal snow cover. They in­habit the taiga and tem­per­ate for­est bio­mes, in­clud­ing the tun­dra-sub­alpine zone. For­est types in­clude bo­real, broadleaf and mixed (conif­er­ous-de­cid­u­ous). Within these forests, they pre­fer the early suc­ces­sional stage, where for­age is in abun­dance due to dis­tur­bance. Fire, log­ging, flood­ing, or glacial ac­tion greatly in­crease the qual­ity and quan­tity of for­age for moose and, ul­ti­mately, moose den­sity. Be­sides forested habi­tats, moose will seek out areas near water, such as ponds, lakes, rivers and swamps, which also have a con­cen­tra­tion of their fa­vorite foods. Their large bod­ies, in­abil­ity to sweat, and the heat pro­duced by fer­men­ta­tion in their guts mean they can­not tol­er­ate tem­per­a­tures ex­ceed­ing 27 de­grees Cel­sius for long. (Bowyer, et al., 2003; Peek, 2007)

• Habitat Regions
• temperate
• terrestrial

• Terrestrial Biomes
• tundra
• taiga
• forest
• scrub forest
• mountains

• Aquatic Biomes
• lakes and ponds
• rivers and streams

• Wetlands
• marsh
• swamp
• bog

• Other Habitat Features
• riparian

Phys­i­cal De­scrip­tion

Moose are the largest species in the deer fam­ily, hav­ing long, slen­der legs that sup­port a mas­sive body, while a short, thick neck and humped shoul­ders that sup­port a large head. This horse-size species can be as tall as 2.3 m at the shoul­ders with long ears (250 mm) and an in­con­spic­u­ous tail (80 to 120 mm). One of the most dis­tinc­tive fea­tures of this species is its long, bul­bous, droop­ing muz­zle. The upper lip over­hangs the lower lip and be­tween its nos­trils is a tri­an­gu­lar patch of bare skin. Under the neck hangs a flap of furred skin called the bell, which may or may not be pre­sent in fe­males. With no upper in­cisors or ca­nines, moose must nip off plants be­tween a bony upper palate and their lower in­cisors. They have a den­tal for­mula of I 0/3, C 0/1, P 3/3, M 3/3 = 32. (Bubenik, 2007; Wil­son and Ruff, 1999)

Males are dis­tin­guished by car­ry­ing the largest antlers of any mam­mal, which can weigh as much as 35 kg in North Amer­i­can moose. Antlers are grown in the spring and shed in the win­ter each year. The widest antler spread recorded is 2048 mm. Antlers of North Amer­i­can moose are palmate, hav­ing a main palm and brow palm in a but­ter­fly con­fig­u­ra­tion. A cervine-shape, with­out palma­tion, is more com­mon in Eu­ro­pean moose (Alces alces alces) and Manchurian moose (A. a. cameloides). (Bubenik, 2007; Engan, 2001; Novak, 1999)

Moose are sex­u­ally di­mor­phic, with males being more than 40% heav­ier than fe­males. Live weights of males range from 360 to 600 kg with lengths from 2.4 to 3.1 m. Fe­males range from 270 to 400 kg with lengths 2.3 to 3.0 m. The largest sub­species of moose, Alces alces gigas, oc­curs in Alaska with a max­i­mum weight of 771 kg for a male and 573 kg for a fe­male. (Bowyer, et al., 2003; Bubenik, 2007)

Pelage is gen­er­ally dark, black to brown or gray­ish brown, with the lower legs being lighter. An all-white color phase is rare. Their un­der­fur and long guard hairs pro­vide ex­cel­lent in­su­la­tion from cold. Young have a red­dish brown pelage and are not spot­ted like other young in the deer fam­ily. In­di­vid­ual hairs are 15 to 25 cm long and hol­low, re­sult­ing in ex­cel­lent in­su­la­tion. (Novak, 1999)

• Other Physical Features
• endothermic
• homoiothermic
• bilateral symmetry

• Sexual Dimorphism
• male larger
• ornamentation

• Range mass

  270 to 771 kg

  594.71 to 1698.24 lb

• Range length

  2.3 to 3.1 m

  7.55 to 10.17 ft

Re­pro­duc­tion

Moose are polyg­y­nous. Males and fe­males at­tract each other by mak­ing vo­cal­iza­tions and scent mark­ing trees. Moose ex­hibit two dif­fer­ent types of breed­ing strate­gies: tun­dra moose in Alaska form harems and taiga moose form tran­sient pair bonds. In the harem mat­ing sys­tem, the largest, most dom­i­nant male at­tempts to herd a group of fe­males to­gether, which he de­fends from all other males. Other bulls chal­lenge the harem mas­ter for the right to mate. Young bulls with smaller antlers typ­i­cally re­treat from the dom­i­nant bull, whereas evenly sized bulls will fight. Bulls will en­gage their antlers, push­ing and twist­ing, while at­tempt­ing to gore each other. In the pair bond­ing sys­tem, a dom­i­nant bull stays with and de­fends just one cow until he can mate with her. Af­ter­ward, he searches for other fe­males who have not yet been bred by other bulls. (Bowyer, et al., 2003; Schwartz and Hun­dert­mark, 1993; Hun­dert­mark, et al., 2002; Schwartz, 1992; Schwartz, 2007)

• Mating System
• polygynous

Moose breed in Sep­tem­ber and Oc­to­ber of each year. The fe­male es­trous cycle lasts 24 to 25 days, with the length of the heat being 15 to 26 hours. If the fe­male is not bred within this time, she will re­cy­cle through es­trus in about three weeks. Ges­ta­tion av­er­ages about 231 days with cows giv­ing birth to one calf on av­er­age, al­though twins are com­mon. Calves are born at an av­er­age weight of 16.2 kg and gain ap­prox­i­mately 1 kg per day while they are nurs­ing. Males and fe­males are sex­u­ally ma­ture at two years of age but full growth po­ten­tial isn't reached until 4 or 5 years of age. At that age fe­males are at their re­pro­duc­tive peak and males have the largest antlers. (Franz­mann, 1981; Schwartz and Hun­dert­mark, 1993; Hun­dert­mark, et al., 2002; Schwartz, 1992; Schwartz, 2007)

• Key Reproductive Features
• iteroparous
• seasonal breeding
• gonochoric/gonochoristic/dioecious (sexes separate)
• sexual
• fertilization
• viviparous

• Breeding interval

  Moose breed annually.

• Breeding season

  Breeding occurs in September and October.

• Range number of offspring

  1 to 2

• Average number of offspring

  1

• Average gestation period

  231 days

• Average weaning age

  5 months

• Average time to independence

  1 years

• Range age at sexual or reproductive maturity (female)

  16 to 28 months

• Range age at sexual or reproductive maturity (male)

  2 to 5 years

Only fe­males take care of their young for a pe­riod of one year. Fe­males seek se­cluded sites to give birth to young and re­main iso­lated until the calves are weaned. Calves can browse and fol­low their mother at 3 weeks old and are weaned at 5 months. They re­main with their mother until about 1 year after their birth, when the mother's next young is born. (Franz­mann, 1981; Schwartz and Hun­dert­mark, 1993; Hun­dert­mark, et al., 2002; Schwartz, 1992; Schwartz, 2007)

• Parental Investment
• precocial
• pre-fertilization
  • provisioning
  • protecting
    • female
• pre-hatching/birth
  • provisioning
    • female
  • protecting
    • female
• pre-weaning/fledging
  • provisioning
    • female
  • protecting
    • female
• pre-independence
  • protecting
    • female
• inherits maternal/paternal territory
• maternal position in the dominance hierarchy affects status of young

Lifes­pan/Longevity

Many calves, as much as 50% or more, do not live be­yond their first six weeks of life due to pre­da­tion by bears and wolves. Once they reach adult­hood, their chances of sur­vival are high. Adult fe­males have an av­er­age sur­vival of 95%. Male sur­vival is more vari­able due to hunt­ing and male-male com­pe­ti­tion. Adult moose are in their prime from 5 to 12 years of age but begin to suf­fer from arthri­tis, den­tal dis­eases and wear, and other fac­tors after about 8 years. Few moose live past 15 years in the wild, al­though one cow was recorded to have lived to the age of 22. Peak re­pro­duc­tive age in fe­males is 4 to 12 years of age and 4 to 8 years in males. (Bowyer, et al., 2003; Gail­lard, et al., 1998; Wil­son and Ruff, 1999)

• Range lifespan
  Status: wild

  22 (high) years

• Typical lifespan
  Status: wild

  8 to 15 years

Be­hav­ior

Moose are the least so­cial species among cervids, re­main­ing fairly soli­tary ex­cept dur­ing the mat­ing sea­son. They are not ter­ri­to­r­ial. Out­side of the rut­ting pe­riod, males and fe­males are sex­u­ally seg­re­gated: males and fe­males are sep­a­rated spa­tially, tem­po­rally, and/or by habi­tat. It has been hy­poth­e­sized that this is due to the dif­fer­ences in nu­tri­tional needs of the sexes due to body size dif­fer­ences. Also, cows with calves at heel se­clude them­selves from con­specifics to re­duce the risk of being sin­gled out by preda­tors. Moose are cre­pus­cu­lar by na­ture, being most ac­tive at sun­rise and sun­set. De­spite their un­gainly ap­pear­ance, moose are able to run silently through dense forests. Max­i­mum speeds have been clocked at 56 km/hr and sus­tained speeds at 9.6 km/hr. Moose are also strong swim­mers, being known to swim up to 20 km or up to 9.5 km per hour. Most of their time cen­ters around feed­ing. The daily pat­tern is trav­el­ing to a new site to feed, avoid­ing preda­tors, brows­ing on plants, stand­ing, and lying down for the ru­mi­na­tion of their food. Moose mainly stay in the same gen­eral area, though some pop­u­la­tions mi­grate be­tween sites fa­vor­able at dif­fer­ent times of the year. These mi­gra­tions can ex­ceed 300km in Eu­ro­pean pop­u­la­tions. (Boyer, 2004; Bubenik, 2007; Wil­son and Ruff, 1999)

• Key Behaviors
• cursorial
• terricolous
• diurnal
• crepuscular
• motile
• migratory
• sedentary
• solitary
• dominance hierarchies

Home Range

Home range size of moose varies be­tween 3.6 to 92 km2. Dur­ing their first year of life, young moose oc­cupy the same home range as their mother and do not es­tab­lish their own home range until the age of two. Home range size of males tend to be larger than fe­males. Some moose mi­grate sea­son­ally, up to 179 km in North Amer­ica and 300 km in north­east­ern Eu­rope. (Hun­dert­mark, 2007; LeResche, 1974; Pul­li­ainen, 1974)

Com­mu­ni­ca­tion and Per­cep­tion

Moose are not as vocal as other mem­bers of the deer fam­ily, such as elk (Cervus ela­phus). Most of their vo­cal­iza­tions occur dur­ing the rut. Fe­males make a long, qua­ver­ing moan­ing call when in es­trus, which at­tracts males and can be heard up to 3.2 km away. Males make a grunt to court fe­males or chal­lenge other bulls. Both sexes are ca­pa­ble of mak­ing a loud, gut­tural “roar­ing” sound as a threat. Moose will also com­mu­ni­cate chem­i­cally by scent-mark­ing trees. They strip trees and shrubs of their bark and rub their fore­heads and pre­or­bital glands into the bare spot to ad­ver­tise their pres­ence to the op­po­site sex. Moose are not known to have good eye sight. Con­fir­ma­tion of this is not avail­able due to a lack of stud­ies, al­though it is known that they de­pend less on sight than their sense of hear­ing or smell. Moose have very acute hear­ing due in part to the large ex­ter­nal sur­face area of their ears. Their ears are ca­pa­ble of ro­tat­ing in­de­pen­dently, giv­ing them stereo­phonic hear­ing. Their sense of smell is ex­cep­tional due to the large sur­face area of their nasal cav­i­ties, which are lined with mil­lions of sent-smelling cells. (Bowyer, et al., 2003; Bubenik, 2007; Franz­mann, 1981)

• Communication Channels
• visual
• tactile
• acoustic
• chemical

• Other Communication Modes
• pheromones
• scent marks

• Perception Channels
• visual
• tactile
• acoustic
• chemical

Food Habits

The word “moose” comes from the Na­tive Amer­i­can tribe, the Al­go­nquins, which means “twig eater” in their lan­guage. It is an ap­pro­pri­ate name be­cause moose pri­mar­ily browse upon the stems and twigs of woody plants in the win­ter and the leaves and shoots of de­cid­u­ous plants in the sum­mer. For moose in Poland, 87% of their diet con­sisted of trees and shrubs with the most im­por­tant species being pine (Pinus sil­vestris), which rep­re­sented 52% of their diet. In North Amer­ica, moose have been ob­served to con­sume as many as 221 plant species and gen­era, and in Rus­sia 355, al­though only a se­lect few com­prise a sig­nif­i­cant por­tion of their diet. Wil­lows (Salix spp.) are the most pre­ferred for­age where avail­able. In in­te­rior Alaska wil­lows ac­counted for 94% of the bio­mass con­sumed in the win­ter. Other species that are con­sumed are paper birch (Be­tula pa­pyrifera), quak­ing aspen (Pop­u­lus tremu­loides), and bal­sam fir (Abies bal­samea). Moose also con­sume aquatic veg­e­ta­tion dur­ing the sum­mer be­cause it is highly di­gestible and abun­dant in some areas. An adult re­quires about 20 kg food per day. (Bowyer, et al., 2003; Franz­mann, 1981; Re­necker and Schwartz, 2007)

• Primary Diet
• herbivore
  • folivore
  • lignivore

• Plant Foods
• leaves
• wood, bark, or stems
• flowers

Pre­da­tion

Wolves, brown or griz­zly bears, black bears, and cougars are major preda­tors of moose, and to a lesser ex­tent coy­otes and Amur tigers. Major preda­tors can have such an im­pact on moose pop­u­la­tions that they can slow their pop­u­la­tion growth and hold them below the car­ry­ing ca­pac­ity of the habi­tat. Whether or not preda­tors can hold (reg­u­late) a moose pop­u­la­tion at an equi­lib­rium point is con­tro­ver­sial. Pre­da­tion by bears tends to be the high­est in the spring when calves are the most vul­ner­a­ble. Pre­da­tion by wolves is higher in the win­ter when snow depths are high enough to im­pede the move­ment of moose. Moose ag­gres­sively de­fend them­selves and their young with their ro­bust antlers and sharp hooves. (Bal­lard and Van Bal­len­berghe, 2007; Bowyer, et al., 2003; Franz­mann, 2000; Miquelle, et al., 1996)

• Anti-predator Adaptations
• cryptic

• Known Predators

  • gray wolves (Canis lupus)
  • brown bears (Ursus arctos)
  • coyotes (Canis latrans)
  • Amur tigers (Panthera tigris)
  • black bears (Ursus americanus)
  • cougars (Puma concolor)
  • humans (Homo sapiens)

Ecosys­tem Roles

Moose can have a sig­nif­i­cant im­pact on ecosys­tems be­cause of their daily ac­tiv­i­ties of feed­ing, tram­pling, defe­cat­ing, and uri­nat­ing. One re­searcher es­ti­mated that the Swedish moose pop­u­la­tion con­tributed 300,000 met­ric tons of feces each year to the land. This equals about 5,600 tons of ni­tro­gen, which is es­sen­tial for plant growth. Moose can af­fect the rate of nu­tri­ent cy­cling, flo­ral com­po­si­tion, rate of for­est suc­ces­sion, and bi­o­log­i­cal di­ver­sity of a for­est. For this rea­son, they are con­sid­ered to be a key­stone species. (Kie, et al., 2003; Kiel­land and Bryant, 1998; Molvar, et al., 1993; Pers­son, et al., 2000)

Moose are af­fected by sev­eral dis­eases and par­a­sites. "Moose dis­ease", fatal to moose, is caused by a brain­worm which most com­monly in­fects white-tailed deer. Moose can be­come se­verely in­fested with win­ter ticks and death can some­times re­sult in win­ter as a re­sult of blood loss and nu­tri­tional stress. (Wil­son and Ruff, 1999)

• Ecosystem Impact
• creates habitat
• keystone species

Eco­nomic Im­por­tance for Hu­mans: Pos­i­tive

Moose are hunted through­out much of their range and pro­vide mil­lions of pounds in meat to hu­mans each year. In 1983, 152,000 moose were har­vested in Swe­den, rep­re­sent­ing 14% of the total meat con­sump­tion of the coun­try. Moose hunt­ing also gen­er­ates a con­sid­er­able amount of money to local economies. Moose hunters con­tribute $31 mil­lion an­nu­ally to Alaska’s econ­omy and $50 mil­lion to Canada’s. Moose also draw many tourists for wildlife view­ing op­por­tu­ni­ties. Moose milk is har­vested from cap­tive moose in some areas, in­clud­ing Rus­sia and Swe­den. (Bowyer, et al., 2003; Novak, 1999; Regelin and Franz­mann, 1998)

• Positive Impacts
• food
• body parts are source of valuable material
• ecotourism
• produces fertilizer

Eco­nomic Im­por­tance for Hu­mans: Neg­a­tive

Ve­hi­cle col­li­sions with moose are a se­ri­ous prob­lem in North Amer­ica and Eu­rope. In North Amer­ica, nearly 3,000 occur each year. In Swe­den alone, 4,500 occur per year on av­er­age, as well as 10 to 15 human fa­tal­i­ties. Be­yond the in­cal­cu­la­ble cost in terms of human life, moose col­li­sions cause sig­nif­i­cant prop­erty dam­age, es­ca­late in­sur­ance pre­mi­ums, can cause a local moose pop­u­la­tion to de­cline and re­duce recre­ational op­por­tu­ni­ties. Moose can also be a pest to agri­cul­ture and forestry in some areas. Moose for­ag­ing can in­hibit the growth of young trees. In Rus­sia, dam­age to the forestry in­dus­try was es­ti­mated in mil­lions of rubles, dur­ing the 1950's. (Child, 2007; Kuznetsov, 2002; Seiler, 2005)

• Negative Impacts
• injures humans
• crop pest

Con­ser­va­tion Sta­tus

IUCN lists moose as a species of “Least Con­cern” be­cause a ma­jor­ity of pop­u­la­tions are ex­pand­ing and ex­tremely abun­dant de­spite heavy hunt­ing pres­sure in parts of their range. The Eurasian pop­u­la­tions are es­ti­mated to be 1.5 mil­lion in­di­vid­u­als, one-third of which con­sists of the Eu­ro­pean pop­u­la­tions. In 2002, pop­u­la­tions of the United States and Canada were es­ti­mated at 1,000,000. Some ex­cep­tions to this fa­vor­able as­sess­ment are moose in Manchuria and Mon­go­lia (A. a. cameloides), which are scarce, and a pop­u­la­tion in Nova Sco­tia (A. a. amer­i­cana), which Canada has deemed en­dan­gered. (Geist, et al., 2008; Hent­to­nen, et al., 2008; Novak, 1999; Tim­mer­mann, 2003)

• IUCN Red List

  Least Concern
  More information

• IUCN Red List

  Least Concern
  More information

• US Federal List

  No special status

• CITES

  No special status

• State of Michigan List

  Special Concern

Other Com­ments

Alces, which has been tra­di­tion­ally clas­si­fied as a mono­typic genus, has been re­cently di­vided into two species by some re­searchers: the Eu­ro­pean species, Alces alces, and the North Amer­i­can species, Alces amer­i­canus. Such a di­vi­sion has caused con­fu­sion and does not rep­re­sent the lat­est ge­netic re­search. The di­vi­sion of moose into Eu­ro­pean and North Amer­i­can species was be­lieved to be sup­ported by mor­pho­log­i­cal dif­fer­ences and ev­i­dence that Eu­ro­pean moose have 68 chro­mo­somes and North Amer­i­can moose have 70. It is now known that moose in Cen­tral Asia (Yaku­tia) also have 70 chro­mo­somes and share mi­to­chon­dr­ial DNA halo­types with Eu­ro­pean and North Amer­i­can moose. Fur­ther­more, moose ex­hibit low vari­abil­ity in mi­to­chon­dr­ial DNA world­wide and have rel­a­tively low over­all ge­netic di­ver­sity com­pared to other mam­mals. It is more likely that all ex­tant lin­eages of moose orig­i­nated from Cen­tral Asia within the last 60,000 years, sup­port­ing a sin­gle species hy­poth­e­sis rather than a two or three species hy­poth­e­sis. (Grubb, 2005; Hun­dert­mark and Bowyer, 2004; Hun­dert­mark, et al., 2002)

Con­trib­u­tors

Tanya Dewey (ed­i­tor), An­i­mal Di­ver­sity Web.

Daniel De Bord (au­thor), Uni­ver­sity of Alaska Fair­banks, Link E. Olson (ed­i­tor, in­struc­tor), Uni­ver­sity of Alaska Fair­banks.

Ref­er­ences

Bal­lard, W., V. Van Bal­len­berghe. 2007. Preda­tor-Prey Re­la­tion­ships. Pp. 247-273 in A Franz­mann, C Schwartz, eds. Ecol­ogy and Man­age­ment of the North Amer­i­can Moose. Boul­der, Col­orado: Uni­ver­sity Press of Col­orado.

Bowyer, R., V. Van Bal­len­berghe, J. Kie. 2003. Moose: Alces alces . Pp. 931-964 in G Feld­hamer, B Thomp­son, J Chap­man, eds. Wild mam­mals of North Amer­ica: Bi­ol­ogy, man­age­ment and con­ser­va­tion. Bal­ti­more, MD: John Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity Press.

Boyer, R. 2004. Sex­ual seg­re­ga­tion in Ru­mi­nants: de­f­i­n­i­tions, hy­pothe­ses, and im­pli­ca­tions for con­ser­va­tion and man­age­ment.. Jour­nal of Mam­mal­ogy, 85: 1039-1052.

Bubenik, A. 2007. Be­hav­ior. Pp. 173-221 in A Franz­mann, C Schwartz, eds. Ecol­ogy and Man­age­ment of the North Amer­i­can Moose. Boul­der, Col­orado: Uni­ver­sity Press of Col­orado.

Child, K. 2007. In­ci­den­tal mor­tal­ity. Pp. 275-301 in A Franz­mann, C Schwartz, eds. Ecol­ogy and Man­age­ment of the North Amer­i­can Moose. Boul­der, Col­orado: Uni­ver­sity Press of Col­orado.

Engan, J. 2001. Changes in the re­la­tion­ship be­tween palmate and cervine antlers in moose in south­east­ern Nor­way. Alces, 37: 79-88.

Franz­mann, A. 1981. Alces alces. Mam­malian Species, 154: 1-7.

Franz­mann, A. 2000. Moose. Pp. 578-600 in S De­maris, P Kraus­man, eds. Ecol­ogy and man­age­ment of large mam­mals in North Amer­ica. Upper Sad­dle River, NJ: Pren­tice-Hall.

Gail­lard, J., M. Festa-Bianchet, N. Yoc­coz. 1998. Pop­u­la­tion Dy­nam­ics of Large Her­bi­vores: Vari­able Re­cruit­ment with Con­stant Adult Sur­vival. Trends in Ecol­ogy & Evo­lu­tion, 13: 58-63.

Geist, V., M. Fer­gu­son, J. Rachlow. 2008. "Alces amer­i­canus" (On-line). IUCN Red List of Threat­ened Species. Ac­cessed No­vem­ber 16, 2008 at http://​www.​iucnredlist.​org/​details/​818.

Grubb, P. 2005. Ar­tio­dactyla: Cervi­dae: Capre­oli­nae. Pp. 652-653 in D Wil­son, D Reeder, eds. Mam­mal species of the world: a tax­o­nomic and ge­o­graphic ref­er­ence. Bal­ti­more, MD: The Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity Press.

Hent­to­nen, H., M. Stubbe, T. Maran, A. Tikhonov. 2008. "Alces alces" (On-line). 2008 IUCN Red List of Threat­ened Species. Ac­cessed No­vem­ber 16, 2008 at http://​www.​iucnredlist.​org/​details/​41782.

Hun­dert­mark, K. 2007. Home range, dis­per­sal and mi­gra­tion. Pp. 303-335 in A Franz­mann, C Schwartz, eds. Ecol­ogy and man­age­ment of the North Amer­i­can moose. Boul­der, CO: Uni­ver­sity Press of Col­orado.

Hun­dert­mark, K., R. Bowyer. 2004. Ge­net­ics, evo­lu­tion, and phy­lo­geog­ra­phy of moose. Alces, 40: 103-122.

Hun­dert­mark, K., G. Shields, I. Udina, R. Bowyer, A. Danilkin, C. Schwartz. 2002. Mi­to­chon­dr­ial phy­lo­geog­ra­phy of moose (Alces alces): late Pleis­tocene di­ver­gence and pop­u­la­tion ex­pan­sion. Mol­e­c­u­lar Phy­lo­ge­net­ics and Evo­lu­tion, 22: 375-387.

Karns, P. 2007. Pop­u­la­tion dis­tri­b­u­tion, den­sity, and trends. Pp. 125-139 in A Franz­mann, C Schwartz, eds. Ecol­ogy and Man­age­ment of the North Amer­i­can Moose. Boul­der, CO: Uni­ver­sity Press of Col­orado.

Kel­sall, J., E. Tefler. 1974. Bio­geog­ra­phy of moose with par­tic­u­lar ref­er­ence to west­ern North Amer­ica. Nat­u­ral­iste Cana­dien, 101: 117-130.

Kie, J., R. Bowyer, K. Stew­art. 2003. Un­gu­lates in west­ern forests: Habi­tat re­quire­ments, pop­u­la­tion dy­nam­ics, and ecosys­tem processes. Pp. 296-340 in C Zabel, R An­thony, eds. Mam­mal com­mu­nity dy­nam­ics in west­ern conif­er­ous forests: Man­age­ment and con­ser­va­tion. Bal­ti­more, MD: Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity Press.

Kiel­land, K., J. Bryant. 1998. Moose her­bivory in taiga: ef­fects on bio­geo­chem­istry and veg­e­ta­tion dy­nam­ics in pri­mary suc­ces­sion. Oikos, 82: 377-383.

Kuznetsov, G. 2002. Moose and for­est prob­lems in Rus­sia. Alces sup­ple­ment, 2: 65-70.

LeResche, R. 1974. Moose mi­gra­tions in North Amer­ica. Nat­u­ral­iste Cana­dien, 101: 393-415.

Miquelle, D., E. Smirnov, H. Quigley, M. Hornocker, E. Niko­laev, E. Matyushkin. 1996. Food habits of Amur tigers in Sikhote-Alin Za­poved­nik and the Russ­ian Far East, and im­pli­ca­tions for con­ser­va­tion. Jour­nal of Wildlife Re­search, 1: 138-147.

Molvar, E., R. Bowyer, V. Van Bal­len­berghe. 1993. Moose her­bivory, browse qual­ity, and nu­tri­ent cy­cling in an Alaskan tree­line com­mu­nity. Oe­colo­gia, 94: 472-479.

Novak, R. 1999. Walker's Mam­mals of the World. Bal­ti­more, MD: The John Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity Press.

Peek, J. 2007. Habi­tat re­la­tion­ships. Pp. 351-375 in A Franz­mann, C Schwartz, eds. Ecol­ogy and man­age­ment of North Amer­i­can moose. Boul­der, CO: Uni­ver­sity Press of Col­orado.

Pers­son, I., K. Danell, R. Bergstrom. 2000. Dis­tur­bance by large her­bi­vores in Bo­real forests with spe­cial ref­er­ence to moose. An­nales Zo­o­logici Fen­nici, 37: 251-263.

Pul­li­ainen, E. 1974. Sea­sonal move­ments of moose in Eu­rope. Nat­u­ral­iste Cana­dien, 101: 379-392.

Regelin, W., A. Franz­mann. 1998. Past, pre­sent and fu­ture moose man­age­ment and re­search in Alaska. Alces, 34: 279-286.

Re­necker, L., C. Schwartz. 2007. Food habits and feed­ing be­hav­ior. Pp. 403-439 in A Franz­mann, C Schwartz, eds. Ecol­ogy and Man­age­ment of the North Amer­i­can Moose. Boul­der, CO: Uni­ver­sity Press of Col­orado.

Schwartz, C. 2007. Re­pro­duc­tion, na­tal­ity, and growth. Pp. 141-171 in A Franz­mann, C Schwartz, eds. Ecol­ogy and Man­age­ment of the North Amer­i­can Moose. Boul­der, CO: Uni­ver­sity Press of Col­orado.

Schwartz, C. 1992. Re­pro­duc­tive bi­ol­ogy of North Amer­i­can moose. Alces, 28: 165-173.

Schwartz, C., K. Hun­dert­mark. 1993. Re­pro­duc­tive char­ac­ter­is­tics of Alaskan moose. Jour­nal of Wildlife Man­age­ment, 57: 454-468.

Seiler, A. 2005. Pre­dict­ing lo­ca­tions of moose-ve­hi­cle col­li­sions in Swe­den. Jour­nal of Ap­plied Ecol­ogy, 42: 371-382.

Tim­mer­mann, H. 2003. The sta­tus and man­age­ment of moose in North Amer­ica circa 2000-01. Alces, 39: 131-151.

Wil­son, D., S. Ruff. 1999. The Smith­son­ian Book of North Amer­i­can Mam­mals. Wash­ing­ton, D.C.: Smith­son­ian In­sti­tu­tion Press.