Influence of livestock grazing on the capybara's trophic niche and forage preferences

• Autorzy: Quintana R. D.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Trophic niche parameters and forage preferences of capybara Hydrochaeris hydro- chaeris Linnaeus, 1766 were studied at three areas of east-central Argentina: Lower Delta Islands (LDI), only capybara present; Puerto Constanza (PC), capybara and cattle, and Villaguay (VI), capybara, cattle and sheep. Significant correlation was found in the annual botanical composition of capybara faeces at LDI and PC, but no cor­relation was found between faecal composition at these two areas and those at VI. The narrowest trophic niche corresponded to LDI, while the widest corresponded to VI, with significant differences in the values among the three areas. Capybara consumed Carex riparia, Cynodon dactylon and Panicum grumosum in LDI, and P. milioides in VI in proportion greater than availability. Three and eight food items were consumed less than availability in VI and PC, respectively. The greater the species number and density of livestock animals, the more generalist the behavior of capybara, possibly due to direct interaction in the use of grazing resources. Changes in availability of foraging species may influence the capybara's preference patterns and the consumption of suboptimal feeding items may indicate a greater pressure on foraging resources in the areas where capybaras share their habitat with livestock.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Argentina; wetland; feeding habit; capybara; Parana River; forage preference; niche; Hydrochaeris hydrochaeris

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Acta Theriologica
• Rocznik: 2002
• Tom: 47
• Numer: 2
• Opis fizyczny: p.175-183,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Quintana R. D.

• Ciudad Universitaria, [1428] Buenos Aires, Argentina

Bibliografia

• Braun-Blanquet J. 1979. Fitosociología. H. Blume, Madrid: 1-820.
• CONAPA. 1991. Informe nacional a la Conferencia sobre Ambiente y Desarrollo de las Naciones Unidas. Comisión Nacional de Política Ambiental, Buenos Aires: 1-75.
• Escobar A. and González Jiménez E. 1976. Estudio de la competencia alimenticia de los herbívoros mayores del llano inundable con especial referencia al chigüire (Hydrochaeris hydrochaeris). Agronomía Tropical 26: 215-227.
• Free J., Hansen, M. and Sims P. 1970. Estimating dry weights of food plants in feces of herbivores. Journal of Range Management 23: 300-302.
• Fritz H., De Garine-Wichatitsky M. and Letessier G. 1996. Habitat use by sympatric wild and domestic herbivores in an African savanna woodland: The influence of cattle spatial behaviour. Journal of Applied Ecology 33: 589-598.
• González Jiménez E. 1978. Digestive physiology and feeding of capybara (Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris). [In: Handbook series in nutrition and food. M. Rechcigl, ed]. CRC Press, Cleveland: 163-177.
• Hansen R. and Lucich G. 1978. A field procedure and study design for fecal collections to be used to determine wildlife and livestock food habits. Composition Analysis Laboratory, Range Science Department, Colorado State University: 1-16.
• Herrera E. A. and Macdonald D. W. 1987. Group stability and the structure of a capybara population. Symposia of the Zoological Society of London 58: 115-130.
• Hobbs N. T. 1982. Confidence intervals on food preference indices. The Journal of Wildlife Manage­ment 46: 505-507.
• Jaksic F. and Medel R. 1987. El acuchillamiento de datos como método de obtención de intervalos de confianza y de prueba de hipótesis para índices ecológicos. Medio ambiente 8: 95-103.
• Jenkins S. H. 1980. A size-distance relation in food selection by beavers. Ecology 61: 740-746.
• Johnson M. K. and Pearson H. 1981. Esophageal, fecal and exclosure estimates of cattle diets on longleaf pine-bluestem range. Journal of Range Management 34: 232-234.
• Krebs C. J. 1999. Ecological methodology. 2nd ed. Benjamin Cummings, Menlo Park, CA: 1-620.
• Krebs J. R., Houston A. and Charnov E. 1981. Some recent developments in optimal foraging. [In: Foraging behaviour. A. Kamil and T. Sargent, eds]. Garland STPM Press, New York: 3-18.
• Krueger W. 1972. Evaluating animal forage preference. Journal of Range Management 25: 471-475.
• Malvárez A. I., Boivín M. and Rosato A. 1999. Biodiversidad, uso de los recursos naturales y cambios en las islas del Delta Medio del Río Paraná (Departamento de Victoria, Provincia de Entre Ríos, Argentina). [In: Biodiversidad y uso de la tierra. Conceptos y ejemplos de Latinoamérica. S. D. Matteucci, O. T. Solbrig, J. Morello and G. Halffter, eds]. Colección CEA, EUDEBA, Buenos Aires: 291-315.
• Manly B. F., McDonald L. and Thomas D. L. 1993. Resource selection by animals: Statistical design and analysis for field studies. Chapman and Hall, London: 1-177.
• Ojasti J. 1973. Estudio biológico del chigüire o capibara. Fondo Nacional de Investigaciones Agro­pecuarias, Caracas: 1-275.
• Petrides G. A. 1975. Principal foods versus preferred foods and their relation to stocking rate and range condition. Biological Conservation 7: 161-169.
• Pulliam H. R. 1986. Niche expansion and contraction in a variable environment. American Zoologist 26: 71-79.Quintana R. D. 1996. Habitat suitability of capybara (Hydrochaeris hydrochaeris) in relation with landscape heterogeneity and cattle interactions. PhD thesis, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires: 1-273. [In Spanish with English summary]
• Quintana R. D., Monge S. and Malvárez A. I. 1994. Feeding habits of capybara (Hydrochaeris hydrochaeris) in afforestation areas of the Lower Delta of the Paraná River, Argentina. Mammalia 58: 569-580.
• Quintana R. D., Monge S. and Malvárez A. I. 1998a. Feeding patterns of capybara Hydrochaeris hydrochaeris (Rodentia, Hydrochaeridae) and cattle in the non-insular area of the Lower Delta of the Paraná River, Argentina. Mammalia 62: 37-52.
• Quintana R. D., Monge S. and Malvárez A. I. 1998b. Composition and diversity of capybara's (Hydro­chaeris hydrochaeris) and livestock's diets in an agroecosystem of Central Entre Ríos, Argentina. Ecotrópicos 11: 34-44. [In Spanish with English summary]
• Quintana R. D. and Rabinovich J. 1993. Assessment of capybaras (Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris) popu­lations in the wetlands of Corrientes, Argentina. Wetlands Ecology and Management 2: 223-230.
• Sanders K., Dahl B. and Scott G. 1980. Bite-count vs. fecal analysis for range animal diets. Journal of Range Management 33: 146-149.
• Schwartz C. C. and Ellis J. E. 1981. Feeding ecology and niche separation in some native and domestic ungulates on the shortgrass prairie. Journal of Applied Ecology 18: 343-353.
• Stephens D. W. and Krebs J. 1986. Foraging theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton: 1-237.
• Stewart D. 1967. Analysis of plant epidermis in faeces: a technique for studying the food preferences of grazing herbivores. Journal of Applied Ecology 4: 83-111.
• Voeten M. M. and Prins H. H. T. 1999. Resource partitioning between sympatric wild and domestic herbivores in the Tarangire region of Tanzania. Oecologia 120: 287-294.
• Wiens J. A. 1989. The ecology of bird communities, vol. 2. Processes and variations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 1-345.
• Wilsey B. J., Chabreck R. H. and Linscombe R. G. 1991. Variation in nutria diets in selected freshwater forested wetlands of Louisiana. Wetlands 11: 263-278.
• Williams O. 1969. An improved technique for identification of plant fragments in herbivore feces. Journal of Range Management 22: 51-52.
• Zar J. 1996. Biostatistical analysis. 3rd ed. Prentice Hall, New Jersey: 1-718.