Estimation of roe deer Capreolus capreolus and mouflon Ovis aries densities, abundance and habitat use in a mountainous Mediterranean area

• Autorzy: Tsaparis D. , Katsanevakis S. , Stamouli C. , Legakis A.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The abundance, density, and habitat use of roe deerCapreolus capreolus (Linnaeus, 1758) and mouflonOvis aries Linnaeus, 1758 were studied in a confined Mediterranean area in Greece with a dung survey based on the faecal accumulation rate (FAR) technique. Estimated density was modelled with generalized additive models using altitude, habitat type, and slope as potential covariates. Model selection among the set of candidate models was conducted based on their generalized cross-validation score. Roe deer had an estimated mean density of 13.9 ind./km2 and the best model included slope and habitat type as covariates. The mean density of mouflon in the study area was 22.1 ind./km2 and the best model used altitude and habitat type as covariates. For both species, the highest densities were encountered in abandoned cultivations and glades, followed by conifer forests, while the lowest densities were observed in maquis. However, use of open habitats by mouflon was much greater than it was for roe deer. The strong preference of mouflon (a grazer species) for open habitats that were abundant with grasses probably reflected food availability and contrasted with the more diverse habitat use by roe deer (a selective browser).

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Mediterranean ecosystem; density modelling; roe deer; mountain area; conservation; management; mouflon; ruminant; Capreolus capreolus; Ovis aries; abundance; habitat; ungulate; density

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Acta Theriologica
• Rocznik: 2008
• Tom: 53
• Numer: 1
• Opis fizyczny: p.87-94,fig.,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Tsaparis D.

• University of Athens, Panepistimioupolis, 15784 Athens, Greece

autor

Katsanevakis S.

autor

Stamouli C.

autor

Legakis A.

Bibliografia

• Bailey R. E. and Putman R. J. 1981. Estimation of fallow deer (Dama dama) populations from faecal accumulation. Journal of Applied Ecology 18: 697–702.
• Belovsky G. E. and Slade J. B. 1986. Time budgets of grassland herbivores: body size similarities. Oecologia 70: 53–62.
• Borchers D. L., Buckland S. T. and Zucchini W. 2002. Estimating Animal Abundance. Springer, London: 1–330.
• Buckland S. T., Anderson D. R., Burnham K. P., Laake J. L., Borchers D. L. and Thomas L. 2001. Introduction to distance sampling: estimating abundance of biological populations. Oxford University Press, London: 1–448.
• Campbell D., Swanson G. M. and Sales J. 2004. Comparing the precision and cost-effectiveness of faecal pellet group count methods. Journal of Applied Ecology 41: 1185–1196.
• Danilkin A. A. 1996. Behavioural ecology of Siberian and European roe deer. Chapman and Hall, London: 1–296.
• Duncan P., Tixier H., Hoffman R. R. and Lechner-Doll M. 1998. Feeding strategies and the physiology of digestion in roe deer. [In: The european roe deer: the biology of success. R. Andersen, P. Duncan and J. D. C. Linnell, eds]. Scandinavian University Press, Oslo: 91–116.
• Edge W. D. and Marcum C. L. 1989. Determining elk distribution with pellet-group and telemetry techniques. The Journal of Wildlife Management 53: 621–624.
• Efron B. and Tibshirani R. J. 1993. An introduction to the bootstrap. Chapman and Hall, New-York: 1–436.
• Focardi S., Aragno P., Montanaro P. and Riga F. 2006. Inter-specific competition from fallow deerDama dama reduces habitat quality for the Italian roe deerCapreolus capreolus italicus. Ecography 29: 407–417.
• Hastie T. J. and Tibshirani R. J. 1990. Generalized additive models. Chapman and Hall, London: 1–335.
• Hemami M. R., Watkinson A. R. and Dolman P. M. 2004. Habitat selection by sympatric muntjac (Muntiacus reevesi) and roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) in a lowland commercial pine forest. Forest Ecology and Management 194: 49–60.
• Hofmann R. R. 1989. Evolutionary step of ecophysiological adaptation and diversification of ruminants: a comparative view of their digestive system. Oecologia 78: 443–457.
• Kamler J. 2001. Morphological variability of forestomach mucosal membrane in red deer, fallow deer, roe deer and mouflon. Small Ruminant Research 41: 101–107.
• Katsanevakis S. 2007. Density surface modelling with line transect sampling as a tool for abundance estimation of marine benthic species: thePinna nobilis example in a marine lake. Marine Biology 152: 77–85.
• Kim Y. J. and Gu C. 2004. Smoothing spline gaussian regression: more scalable computation via eficient approximation. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 66: 337–356.
• Krebs C. J. 1999. Ecological Methodology. 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley Longman, New York: 1–624.
• Laing S. E., Buckland S. T., Burns R. W., Lambie D. and Amphlett A. 2003. Dung and nest surveys: estimating decay rates. Journal of Applied Ecology 40: 1102–1111.
• Langvatn R. and Hanley T. A. 1993. Feeding-patch choice by red deer in relation to foraging efficiency: an experiment. Oecologia 95: 164–170.
• Latham J., Staines B. W. and Gorman M. L. 1996. The relative densities of red (Cervus elaphus) and roe (Capreolus capreolus) deer and their relationship in Scottish plantation forests. Journal of Zoology, London 240: 285–299.
• Lehmann A., Overton J. M. C. and Leathwick J. R. 2002. GRASP: generalized regression analysis and spatial prediction. Ecological Modelling 157: 189–207.
• Leopold B. D., Krausman P. R. and Hervert J. J. 1984. Comment: the pellet-group census technique as an indicator of relative habitat use. Wildlife Society Bulletin 12: 325–326.
• Loft E. R. and Kie J. G. 1988. Comparison of pellet-group and radio triangulation methods for assessing deer habitat use. Journal of Wildlife Management 52: 524–527.
• Marques F. F. C., Buckland S. T., Goffin D., Dixon C. E., Borchers D. L., Mayle B. A. and Peace A. J. 2001. Estimating deer abundance from line transect surveys of dung: sika deer in southern Scotland. Journal of Applied Ecology 38: 349–363.
• Mayle B. A. 1996. Progress in predictive management of deer populations in British woodlands. Forest Ecology and Management 88: 187–198.
• Mayle B. A., Peace A. J. and Gill R. M. A. 1999. How many deer? A field guide to estimating deer population size. Forestry Commission, Edinburg: 1–96.
• Mitchell B., Rowe J. J., Ratcliffe P. and Hinge M. 1985. Defecation frequency in roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) in relation to the accumulation rates of faecal deposits. Journal of Zoology, London 207: 1–7.
• Mysterud A., Larsen P. K., Ims R. A. and Østbye E. 1999. Habitat selection by roe deer and sheep: does habitat ranking reflect resource availability? Canadian Journal of Zoology 77: 776–783.
• Papageorgiou N. K. 1978. Use of forest openings by roe deer as shown by pellet group counts. The Journal of Wildlife Management 42: 650–654.
• Putman R. J. 1984. Facts from feces. Mammal Review 14: 79–97.
• R Development Core Team (2007). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. (ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL http://​www.​R-project.​org)
• Seber G. A. F. 2002. The Estimation of Animal Abundance and Related Parameters. 2nd edn. Blackburn Press, New Jersey: 1–654.
• Staines B. W. and Ratcliffe P. R. 1987. Estimating the abundance of red deer (Cervus elaphus) and roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) and their current status in Great Britain. Symposia of the Zoological Society of London 58: 131–152.
• Welch D., Staines B. W., Catt D. C. and Scott D. 1990. Habitat usage by red (Cervus elaphus) and roe (Capreolus capreolus) deer in a Scottish Sitka spruce plantation. Journal of Zoology, London 221: 453–476.
• Wood S. N. 2000. Modelling and smoothing parameter estimation with multiple quadratic penalties. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 62: 413–428.
• Wood S. N. 2006. Generalized additive models: an introduction with R. Chapman and Hall/CRC, Florida: 1–416.