SREL Reprint #3823

Caught in headlights: Captive white-tailed deer responses to variations in vehicle lighting during imminent collision scenarios

Carson J. Pakula1,2, Gino J. D’Angelo2, Adrianna Mowrer2, Olin E. Rhodes Jr.1,3, and Travis L. DeVault1

1Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, University of Georgia, P.O. Drawer E, Aiken, SC 29802, USA
2Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Georgia, 180 E Green St, Athens, GA 30602, USA
3Odum School of Ecology, University of Georgia, 140 E Green St, Athens, GA 30602, USA

Abstract: Vehicle collisions with deer (Odocoileus spp.) cause billions of dollars in damages and injure thousands of drivers every year in the United States, and few mitigation methods have proven effective. However, recent research suggests that vehicle lighting might influence white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus; hereafter, deer) responses to oncoming vehicles. Most new vehicles are manufactured with light emitting diode (LED) headlights which differ in total radiance and wavelength of light emitted compared to the previous industry standard of tungsten-halogen (halogen) headlights. Also, frontal vehicle illumination through rear-facing lighting has shown promise in enhancing deer responses to vehicles, but its effectiveness has not been tested under various headlight conditions (headlight type or intensity). As such, it remains unclear how these aspects of vehicle lighting affect deer responses to an approaching vehicle. We used 23 captive, wild-type deer to investigate how variations in vehicle lighting affect deer responses to an approaching vehicle at night, when most collisions occur. We released deer into a 95 m long, 3 m wide chute and approached them from the opposite end with an electric golf cart outfitted with two versions of stock 2017–2020 Ford Fusion headlights (LED and halogen) and a 51 cm rear-facing lightbar to test how vehicle lighting affected deer avoidance behaviors in an imminent, head-on collision scenario. Each deer received eight lighting treatments consisting of unique combinations of headlight type (LED vs. halogen), light intensity (low vs. high beam), and rear-facing lighting (lightbar off vs. on). We measured deer alert and flight behavior using infrared videography. We found that the halogen, high beam, lightbar off treatment had the greatest probability of evoking an alert response. Furthermore, when the lightbar was off, high beams appeared to increase alert probability for halogen headlights. Also, we found evidence that high beam, halogen headlights tend to increase alert probability over high beam, LED headlights, when the lighbar was off. We found no effect of our lighting treatments on deer alert distance, flight probability, or flight initiation distance. Across all behavioral responses, the random effect deer ID explained 0.86–9.19 × more variation than our lighting treatments, reflecting large differences in responses among deer. Overall, we found that vehicle lighting can impact deer behavior during an imminent, head-on collision scenario, although lighting was ineffective at increasing favorable flight behaviors. Future research should investigate how vehicle lighting treatments affect free-ranging, wild deer in a variety of real-world scenarios and at longer approach distances.

Keywords: White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus); Deer behavior; Wildlife-vehicle collisions; LED headlights; Road ecology; Wildlife damage management

SREL Reprint #3823

Pakula, C. J., G. J. D'Angelo, A. Mowrer, O. E. Rhodes Jr., and T. L. DeVault. 2025. Caught in headlights: Captive white-tailed deer responses to variations in vehicle lighting during imminent collision scenarios. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 287(106652).

This information was provided by the University of Georgia's Savannah River Ecology Laboratory (srel.uga.edu).