Home ranges and movement patterns in a vulnerable polecat Mustela putorius population

• Autorzy: Baghli A. , Verhagen R.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Home range characteristics and movement patterns of four female and six male polecats Mustela putorius Linnaeus, 1758 were studied in Luxembourg using radio- -telemetry. Home range size of polecats ranged from 42 to 428 ha with an average of 181 ha. The mean (± SE) home range size of males of (246 ± 45 ha) was significantly larger than that of females (84 ± 17 ha). Polecats concentrated 50% of their space use in only 15% of their home range possibly indicating a patchy .environment. Comparing our data with other studies in Europe, polecats seem to occupy approximately the same home range size (except in Switzerland) regardless of population density. Average distance traveled per night by males was 3.6 times greater than that of females. Also, seasonal variation in movements was observed in males but not in females.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Mustela putorius; vulnerable species; Luxembourg; movement pattern; home range; polecat; population

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Acta Theriologica
• Rocznik: 2004
• Tom: 49
• Numer: 2
• Opis fizyczny: p.247-258,fig.,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Baghli A.

• National Museum of Natural History, 25 rue Munster, L-2160 Luxembourg, Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

autor

Verhagen R.

Bibliografia

• Arthur S. M. and Krohn W. B. 1991. Activity patterns, movements and reproductive ecology of fishers in Southcentral Maine. Journal of Mammalogy 72: 379–385.
• Baghli A., Engel E. and Verhagen R. 1998. Premičres données sur la répartition et le statut des mustélidés en général et du putois (Mustela putorius L.) en particulier au Luxembourg. Bulletin de la Société des Naturalistes luxembourgeois 99: 87–93.
• Baghli A., Engel E. and Verhagen R. 2002. Feeding habits and trophic niche overlap of two sympatric Mustelidae, the polecatMustela putorius and the beech martenMartes foina. Zeitschrift für Jagwissenschaft 48: 217–225.
• Baghli A. and Verhagen R. 2003. The distribution and status of the polecatMustela putorius L. in Luxembourg. Mammal Review 33: 57–68.
• Birks J. D. S. and Kitchener A. C. 1999. Ecology of the polecat in lowland England. [In: The distribution and status of the polecatMustela putorius in Britain in the 1990s. J. D. S. Birks and A. C. Kitchener, eds]. The Vincent Wildlife Trust, London: 111–134.
• Blanco J. C. and Gonzalez J. L. (eds) 1992. Libro rojo de los Vertebrados de España. ICONA, Madrid: 1–714.
• Blandford P. R. S. 1986. Behavioural ecology of the polecat in Wales. PhD thesis, University of Exeter, UK: 1–415.
• Blandford P. R. S. 1987. Biology of the polecatMustela putorius: a literature review. Mammal Review 17: 155–198.
• Blundell G. M., Maier J. A. and Debevec E. M. 2001. Linear home ranges: effects of smoothing, sample size, and autocorrelation on kernel estimates. Ecological Monographs 71: 469–489.
• Brzeziński M., Jędrzejewski W. and Jędrzejewska B. 1992. Winter home ranges of polecatsMustela putorius in Białowieża Primeval Forest, Poland. Acta Theriologica 37: 181–191.
• Burt W. H. 1943. Territoriality and home range concepts as applied to mammals. Journal of Mammalogy 24: 346–352.
• Danilov P. I. and Rusakov O. S. 1969. Peculiarities of the ecology ofMustela putorius in northwest districts of the European part of the USSR. Zoologicheskii Zhurnal 48: 1383–1394. [In Russian with English summary].
• De Solla S. R., Bonduriansky R. and Brooks R. J. 1999. Eliminating autocorrelation reduces biological relevance of home range estimates. Journal of Animal Ecology 68: 221–234.
• du Bothma P. J., Knight M. H., le Riche E. A. N. and Van Hensbergen H. J. 1997. Range size of southern Kalahari leopards. South African Journal of Wildlife Research 27: 94–99.
• Erlinge S. and Sandell M. 1986. Seasonal changes in the social organization of male stoats,Mustela erminea: an effect of shifts between two decisive resources. Oikos 47: 57–62.
• Gittleman J. L. and Harvey P. H. 1982. Carnivore home-range size, metabolic needs and ecology. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 10: 57–63.
• Goodrich J. M. and Buskirk S. W. 1998. Spacing and ecology of North American badgers (Taxidea taxus) in a prairie-dog (Cynomys leucurus) complex. Journal of Mammalogy 79: 171–179.
• Hansteen T. L., Andreassen H. P. and Ims R. A. 1997. Effects of spatiotemporal scale on autocorrelation and home range estimators. The Journal of Wildlife Management 61: 280–290.
• Harestad A. S. and Bunnell F. L. 1979. Home range and body weight — a reevaluation. Ecology 60: 389–402.
• Harris S., Cresswell W. J., Forde P. G., Trewhella W. J., Woollard T. and Wray S. 1990. Home-range analysis using radio-tracking data — a review of problems and techniques particularly as applied to the study of mammals. Mammal Review 20: 97–123.
• Herrenschmidt V. 1982. Note sur les déplacements et le rythme d’activité d’un putois,Mustela putorius L., suivi par radio-tracking. Mammalia 46: 554–556.
• Hooge P. N. and Eichenlaub B. 2000. Animal movement extension to ArcView. Version 2.1. Alaska Biological Science Center, U.S. Geographical Survey, Anchorage, Alaska, USA.
• Johnson D. D. P., Macdonald D. W. and Dickman A. J. 2000. An analysis and review of models of the sociobiology of the Mustelidae. Mammal Review 30: 171–196.
• Kenward R. E. (ed) 2001. A manual for wildlife radio tagging. Academic Press, London: 1–311.
• Kossak S. 1989. Multiple hunting by lynx and red fox and utilisation of prey by some carnivores. Acta Theriologica 34: 505–512.
• Kruuk H. 1986. Interactions between Felidae and their prey species: a review. [In: Cats of the World: Biology, conservation, and management. S. D. Miller and D. D. Everett, eds]. National Wildlife Federation and Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute, Texas: 353–374.
• Liberg O. and Sandell M. 1988. Spatial organization and reproductive tactics in the domestic cat and other felids. [In: The domestic cat: the biology of its behaviour. D. C. Turner and P. Bateson, eds]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 83–98.
• Libois R. 1996. The current situation of wild mammals in Belgium: an outline. Hystrix (n.s.) 8: 35–41.
• Lindstedt S. L., Miller B. J. and Buskirk S. W. 1986. Home range, time and body size in mammals. Ecology 67: 413–418.
• Litvaitis J. A., Sherburne J. A. and Bissonette J. A. 1986. Bobcat habitat use and home range size in relation to prey density. The Journal of Wildlife Management 50: 110–117.
• Lodé T. 1993. Stratégies d’utilisation de l’espace chez le putois européenMustela putorius L. dans l’Ouest de la France. Revue d’Ecologie (Terre Vie) 48: 305–322.
• Lodé T. 1996. Conspecific tolerance and sexual segregation in the use of space and habitats in the European polecat. Acta Theriologica 41: 171–176.
• Lodé T. 1999. Time budget as related to feeding tactics of European polecatMustela putorius. Behavioural Processes 47: 11–18.
• Lodé T. 2000. Functional response and area-restricted search in a predator: seasonal exploitation of anurans by the European polecat,Mustela putorius. Austral Ecology 25: 223–231.
• Lucherini M. and Lovari S. 1996. Habitat richness affects home range size in the red foxVulpes vulpes. Behavioural Processes 36: 103–105.
• Macdonald D. W. 1983. The ecology of carnivore social behaviour. Nature 301: 379–389.
• Mace G. M. and Harvey P. H. 1983. Energetic constraints on home range size. The American Naturalist 121: 120–132.
• MacNab B. K. 1963. Bioenergetics and the determination of home range size. The American Naturalist 97: 133–140.
• McNay R. S., Morgan J. A. and Bunnell F. L. 1994. Characterizing independence of observations in movements of Columbian black-tailed deer. The Journal of Wildlife Management 58: 422–429.
• Minta S. C., Kareiva P. M. and Peyton Curlee A. 1999. Carnivore research and conservation: learning from history and theory. [In: Carnivores in ecosystems: the Yellowstone experience. T. W. Clark, S. C. Minta, P. M. Kareiva and A. Payton Curlee, eds]. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT: 323–404.
• Mohr C. O. 1947. Table of equivalent populations of North American small mammals. The American Midland Naturalist 37: 223–249.
• Nilsson T. 1978. Home range utilisation and movements in polecats during autumn. [In: International Theriological Congress, Brno, Chechoslovakia, 20–27 June 1978]. Proceedings of the II International Theriological Congress, Brno: 173.
• Otis D. L. and White G. C. 1999. Autocorrelation of location estimates and the analysis of radio tracking data. The Journal of Wildlife Management 63: 1039–1044.
• Powell R. A. 1979. Mustelid spacing patterns: variations on a theme byMustela. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 50: 153–165.
• Reynolds T. D. and Laundre J. L. 1990. Time intervals for estimating pronghorn and coyote home ranges and daily movements. The Journal of Wildlife Management 54: 319–322.
• Robitaille J.-F. and Baron G. 1987. Seasonal changes in the activity budget of captive ermine,Mustela erminea L. Canadian Journal of Zoology 65: 2864–2871.
• Rooney S. M., Wolfe A. and Hayden T. J. 1998. Auto correlated data in telemetry studies: time to independence and the problem of behavioural effects. Mammal Review 28: 89–98.
• Saint-Girons M.-C., Maurin H., Rosoux R. and Keith P. 1993. Les mammifères d’eau douce, leur vie, leurs relations avec l’homme. Ministčre de l’Environnement, Ministčre de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche et la Société Française pour l’Etude et la Protection des Mammifčres, Paris: 1–46.
• Samson C. and Raymond M. 1995. Daily activity pattern and time budget of stoats (Mustela erminea) during summer in southern Québec. Mammalia 59: 501–510.
• Sandell M. 1989. The mating tactics and spacing patterns of solitary carnivores. [In: Carnivore behaviour ecology and evolution. J. L. Gittleman, ed]. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY: 164–182.
• Schley L. 2000. The badgerMeles meles and the wild boarSus scrofa: Distribution and damage to agricultural crops in Luxembourg. PhD thesis, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK: 1–162.
• Schley L., Krier A., Baghli A. and Roper T. J. 1998. Hunting records of game species in Luxembourg during the period 1946 to 1995. Bulletin de la Société des Naturalistes luxembourgeois 99: 69–75.
• Seaman D. E. and Powell R. A. 1996. An evaluation of the accuracy of kernel density estimators for home range analysis. Ecology 77: 2075–2085.
• Skirnirson K. 1986. Untersuchungen zum Raum-Zeit-System freilebender Steinmarder (Martes foina Erxleben 1777). Beiträge zur Wildbiologie 6: 1–200.
• SPSS For Windows 1999. Version 10.0.5, SPSS Inc. Chicago, IL. Statec 2001. Le recensement agricole. Bulletin du Statec 3: 125–127.
• Stubbe M. and Stubbe A. 1994. Säugetierarten und deren feldökologische Erforschung im östlichen Deutschland. Tiere im Konflikt 3: 3–52.
• Swihart R. K. and Slade N. A. 1985. Testing for independence of observations in animal movements. Ecology 66: 1176–1184.
• Weatherhead P. J. and Hoysak D. J. 1989. Spatial and activity patterns of black rat snakes (Elaphe obsoleta) from radio telemetry and recapture data. Canadian Journal of Zoology 67: 463–468.
• Weber D. 1988. Die aktuelle Verbreitung des Iltisses (Mustela putorius L.) in der Schweiz. Revue suisse de Zoologie 95: 1041–1056.
• Weber D. 1989a. Beobachtungen zu Aktivität und Raumnutzung beim Iltis (Mustela putorius L.). Revue suisse de Zoologie 96: 841–862.
• Weber D. 1989b. The diet of polecats (Mustela putorius L.) in Switzerland. Zeitschrift für Säugetierkunde 54: 157–171.
• Weber D. 1989c. The ecological significance of resting sites and the seasonal habitat change in polecats (Mustela putorius). Journal of Zoology, London 217: 629–638.
• White G. C and Garrott R. A. (eds) 1990. Analysis of wildlife radio-tracking data. Academic Press, San Diego, New York: 1–383.
• Worton B. J. 1989. Kernel methods for estimating the utilization distribution in home-range studies. Ecology 70: 164–168.
• Worton B. J. 1995. Using Monte Carlo simulation to evaluate kernel-based home range estimators. The Journal of Wildlife Management 59: 794–800.
• Zar J. H. 1999. Biostatistical analysis. 4th edition. Prentice Hall Professional, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: 1–663.