PL EN


Preferencje help
Widoczny [Schowaj] Abstrakt
Liczba wyników
Czasopismo
2005 | 50 | 1 |
Tytuł artykułu

Population parameters of indigenous populations of Myocastor coypus: the effect of hunting pressure

Warianty tytułu
Języki publikacji
EN
Abstrakty
EN
The coypu or nutriaMyocastor coypus Molina, 1782 is a semiaquatic rodent intensively harvested for fur in its native region. We studied population parameters at four sites differing in hunting pressure and characterised hunting activity in north-eastern Buenos Aires province, Argentina. Our interviews with hunters, local inhabitants and wildlife managers revealed that hunting is a cultural tradition in the countryside with the coypu being used as meat and, fur and the young occasionally used as pets. Quarterly live trapping captured a high proportion of all coypus present at each site. In sites with higher hunting pressure, low density of coypus was associated with high population losses and immigration. I n these sites the proportion of juveniles and pregnant females was similar to that obtained at sites with no hunting pressure. No foraging deficiencies were evident from diet quality analysis. Our results suggest that harvesting determines the dynamics of coypu populations in, this region where hunting pressure can be assessed by accessibility of hunting sites, their distance to urban or rural settlements, effective control of hunting, and human population density of the area.
Wydawca
-
Czasopismo
Rocznik
Tom
50
Numer
1
Opis fizyczny
p.125-132,fig.,ref.
Twórcy
  • Universidad Nacional de Lujan, Rutas 5 y 7, [6700] Lujan, Buenos Aires, Argentina
autor
Bibliografia
  • Abbas A. 1991. Feeding strategy of coypu (Myocastor coypus) in central western France. Journal of Zoology, London 224: 385–401.
  • AOAC. 1980. Official methods of analysis. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington.
  • Bárbaro N. O. 1994. Perfil ambiental de la Argentina. XIX Asamblea General de la Unión Internacional para la Conservación de la Naturaleza, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
  • Bertonatti C. and Corcuera J. 2000. Situación ambiental argentina 2000. Fundación Vida Silvestre Argentina, Buenos Aires: 1–440.
  • Bó R. F., Palomares F., Beltrán J. F. and Moreno S. 1994. Immobilization of coypus (Myocastor coypus) with ketamine hydrochloride and xylazine hydrochloride. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 30: 596–598.
  • Bó R., Quintana R., Merler J., Minotti P., Malvarez A. and De Villafañe G. 1992. Problems in the conservation of mammals in the lower delta region of the Paraná River: evaluation of the current situation using a combined methodology. Noragric Occasional Papers Series C Development and Environment 11: 142–152.
  • Borgnia M., Galante M. L. and Cassini M. H. 2000. Diet of the coypu (Myocastor coypus) in agrosystems of the Argentinean Pampas. The Journal of Wildlife Management 64: 354–361.
  • Bound D. L., Sherfy M. H. and Mollett T. A. 2003. Nutria. [In: Wild mammals of North America. G. A. Felhamer, B. C. Thompson and J. A. Chapman, eds]. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland: 1119–1147.
  • Brøseth H. and Pedersen H. C. 2000. Hunting effort and game vulnerability studies on a small scale: a new technique combining radio-telemetry, GPS and GIS. Journal of Applied Ecology 37: 182–190.
  • Brown L. N. 1975. Ecological relationships and breeding biology of nutria (Myocastor coypus) in the Tampa, Florida, area. Journal of Mammalogy 56: 928–930.
  • Cabrera A. L. 1971. Fitogeografía de la República Argentina. Boletín de la Sociedad Argentina de Botánica 14: 1–42.
  • Cafiero J. P., Massei O. and Mutchinkick D. 2001. Convenio sobre la diversidad biológica: segundo informe nacional a las partes, República Argentina. Ministerio de Desarrollo Social y Medio Ambiente, Buenos Aires: 1–117.
  • Carter J. and Leonard B. P. 2002. A review of the literature on the worldwide distribution, spread of, and efforts to eradicate the coypu (Myocastor coypus). Wildlife Society Bulletin 30: 162–175.
  • Colantoni L. O. 1993. Ecología poblacional de la nutria (Myocastor coypus) en la provincia de Buenos Aires. Flora y Fauna Silvestres 1: 1–25.
  • D’Adamo P., Guichón M. L., Bó R. F. and Cassini M. H. 2000. Habitat use of coypus (Myocastor coypus) in agro-systems of the Argentinean Pampas. Acta Theriologica 45: 25–33.
  • Doncaster C. P. and Micol T. 1989. Annual cycle of a coypu (Myocastor coypus) population: male and female strategies. Journal of Zoology, London 217: 227–240.
  • Doncaster C. P. and Micol T. 1990. Response by coypus to catastrophic events of cold and flooding. Holarctic Ecology 13: 98–104.
  • Giarraca N. 1999. Estudios rurales: teorías, problemas y estrategias metodológicas. Editorial La Colmena, Buenos Aires: 1–245.
  • Goldberg S., Cirera I., Parella M., Benitez A., Bulos L. and Troncoso A. 1995. Caracterización climática y agroclimática de la cuenca del Río Luján. Proceedings of Jornadas sobre la Cuenca del Río Luján, Luján, Argentina: 13-19.
  • Gosling L. M. 1988. A history of coypus in Britain: 1929 to 1988. Transactions of the Norfolk and Norwich Naturalist’s Society 28: 154–157.
  • Gosling L. M. and Baker S. J. 1987. Planning and monitoring an attempt to eradicate coypus from Britain. Symposium Zoological Society of London 58: 99–113.
  • Gosling L. M. and Baker S. J. 1989. Demographic consequences of differences in the ranging behaviour of male and female coypus. [In: Mammals as pests. R. J. Putman, ed]. Chapman & Hall, London: 155–167.
  • Gosling L. M. and Baker S. J. 1991. Coypu. [In: Handbook of British mammals. G. B. Corbet and S. Harris, eds. Third edition]. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford: 267–275.
  • Gosling L. M. and Baker S. J. and Clarke C. N. 1988. An attempt to remove coypus (Myocastor coypus) from a wetland habitat in East Anglia. Journal of Applied Ecology 25: 49–62.
  • Gosling L. M., Watt A. D. and Baker S. J. 1981. Continuous retrospective census of the East Anglian coypu population between 1970 and 1979. Journal of Animal Ecology 50: 885–901.
  • Guichón M. L. 2003. Distribución espacial, comportamiento y estructura de poblaciones del coipoMyocastor coypus en la cuenca del río Luján (Buenos Aires, Argentina). PhD thesis, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires: 1–69.
  • Guichón M. L., Benítez V. B., Abba A., Borgnia M. and Cassini M. H. 2003a. Foraging behaviour of coypusMyocastor coypus: why do coypus consume aquatic plants? Acta Oecologica 24: 241–246.
  • Guichón M. L., Borgnia M., Fernández Righi C., Cassini G. and Cassini M. H. 2003b. Social behavior and group formation in the coypus (Myocastor coypus) in the Argentinean pampas. Journal of Mammalogy 84: 254–262.
  • Guichón M. L. and Cassini M. H. 1999. Local determinants of coypu distribution along the Luján river, eastcentral Argentina. The Journal of Wildlife Management 63: 895–900.
  • Guichón M. L., Doncaster C. P. and Cassini M. H. 2003c. Population structure of coypus (Myocastor coypus) in their region of origin and comparison with introduced populations. Journal of Zoology, London 261: 265–272.
  • Hofer H., Campbell K. L. I., East M. L. and Huish S. A. 1996. The impact of game meat hunting on target and non-target species in the Serengeti. [In: The exploitation of mammal populations. V. J. Taylor and N. Dunstone, eds]. Chapman & Hall, London: 117–146.
  • Holdo R. and García Fernández J. 1995. Identificación de prioridades para la conservación y manejo de la fauna silvestre argentina. Fundación para la Conservación de las Especies y el Medio Ambiente, Buenos Aires: 1–26.
  • Kinler N. W., Linscombe G. and Ramsey P. R. 1987. Nutria. Wild furbearer management and conservation in North America: 327–343.
  • Lundberg P. and Jonzén N. 1999. Optimal population harvesting in a source-sink environment. Evolutionary Ecology Research 1:719–7299.
  • Mares M. A. and Ojeda R. A. 1984. Faunal commercialization and conservation in South America. BioScience 34: 580–584.
  • McCullough D. R. 1996. Spatially structured populations and harvest theory. The Journal of Wildlife Management 60: 1–9.
  • Millner-Gulland E. J. 2001. The exploitation of spatially structured populations. [In: Conservation of exploited species. J. D. Reynolds, G. M. Mace, K. H. Redford and J. G. Robinson, eds]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 87–109.
  • Novaro A. J., Redford R. H. and Bodmer R. E. 2000. Effect of hunting in source-sink systems in the Neotropics. Conservation Biology 14: 713–721.
  • Peres C. A. 2001. Synergistic effects of subsistence hunting and habitat fragmentation on Amazonian forest vertebrates. Conservation Biology 15: 1490–1505.
  • Pollock K. H., Bunck C. M., Winterstein S. R. and Chen C. L. 1990. Statistical inference for capture--recapture experiments. Wildlife Monographs 107: 1–97.
  • Reggiani G., Boitani L., D’Antoni S. and De Stefano R. 1993. Biology and control of the coypu in the Mediterranean area. Supplementi Ricerche di Biologia della Selvaggina 21: 67–100.
  • Ritchie M. E. 1997. Populations in a landscape context: sources, sinks, and metapopulations. [In: Wildlife and landscape ecology: effects of pattern and scale. J. A. Bissonette, ed]. Springer-Verlag, New York: 160–184.
  • Robbins C.T. 1983. Wildlife feeding and nutrition. Academic Press, New York: 1–352.
  • Tuck G. N. and Possingham H. P. 1994. Optimal harvesting strategies for a metapopulation. Bulletin of Mathematical Biology 56: 107–127.
  • Zaccagnini M. E. and Venturino J. J. 1993. La fauna silvestre en el contexto agropecuario entrerriano: problemáticas y necesidades de investigación para su adecuado manejo. INTA Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Paraná Serie Misceláneas 9: 5–30.
Typ dokumentu
Bibliografia
Identyfikatory
Identyfikator YADDA
bwmeta1.element.agro-article-21845e2a-7a88-4f1a-9c12-9ba86f7c5e68
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.