Sign In or Create an Account. Sign In. Advanced Search. Search Menu. Article Navigation. Close mobile search navigation Article Navigation. Issue Article Contents. Pseudalopex culpaeus.
Oxford Academic. Google Scholar. Select Format Select format. Zorro Culpeo domesticado. Zorro Culpeo. Zorro de Los Andes. Zorro nortino1. Zorro nortino2. Zorro patagonico - panoramio. Zorro Run Run. Zorro salvaje. Zorro sentado. Namespaces Category Discussion. Views View Edit History.
Main page Welcome Community portal Village pump Help center. Upload file Recent changes Latest files Random file Contact us. Upload media. Wikipedia Wikispecies.
We placed scent-stations SSs in three types of habitat from January to August , setting a total of SSs to determine habitat selection. We characterized structure and composition of m2 of vegetation around every SS, and measured its distance to nearest native forest patch, road and bottom creek. On the other hand, P. Our results suggest that native forest fragmentation, considering habitat use only, would have a negative effect on O.
Thus, forest size reduction and isolation may reduce O. In contrast, P. Introduction Habitat loss has widespread consequences for vertebrates Caughley ; Fahrig and Merriam Animal vulnerability to deforestation and forest fragmentation depends on habitat preference and requirements. Forest specialists will be more affected by fragmentation, due to the reduction of available area in which to maintain a minimum viable population Caughley ; Songer et al.
Specialist mammalian carnivorous species could be particularly affected due to their need for extensive areas Beier ; Maehr and Cox ; Lidicker and Koenig Forests in Chile are not an exception Donoso and Lara ; Lara et al. This transformation implies a threat to vertebrate survival. In fact, this area has the greatest conservation problems in Chile Simonetti , All mammalian carnivorous species living in this area, i.
Pseudalopex culpaeus, P. Of these threatened carnivores, O. The species is a native forest specialist Greer ; Dunstone et al. Thus, and considering that most small felids that live in forests, like O. Pine plantations might not be a suitable habitat for O.
Furthermore, P. Therefore, it should be less affected by forest fragmentation. Nevertheless, given the paucity of studies in central Chile, its conservation status remains unknown Glade Vegetation and landscape variables could influence habitat use of both species.
In this regard, structural features of habitats, such as cover, diversity and density of tree species, and variables at landscape level, such as presence of roads and distance to native forest, might influence animal preference or avoidance in a given habitat. Moreover, in the coastal central region of Chile, plantations have arisen in mountainous areas where creeks often harbor remnants of native vegetation, which could act as a corridor for forest specialist carnivores.
Here we test the hypothesis that carnivorous species inhabiting fragmented forests in a Pinus-dominated landscape are influenced by fragmentation. Specifi- cally, we determine whether both species are restricted to some vegetation type and elaborate on future conservation status.
Methods Study site Fieldwork was conducted in the coastal area of the Maule region of central Chile S, W , at Los Queules National Reserve and in the exotic pine plantations and fragments of native forest surrounding it Figure 1. This region was originally covered by Nothofagus glauca forests Gajardo However, over the last 25 years P. Our study site covered an area of ha. Vegetation is dominated by N.
This habitat corresponds to native forest remnants of different size, ranging from 1 to 10 ha. Vegetation is P. Habitat use Habitat use by O. We determined the use of continuous forest, forest fragments and pine plantations by the number of stations with animal tracks. Study area showing Los Queules National Reserve where the study was conducted. Major towns squares , rivers and Highway 5 are shown. Lindzey et al.
A total of 32 SS were installed in accordance with the relative abundance of the different habitat types across the landscape Figure 2. Eleven stations were set in a continuous forest, 6 on forest fragments and 15 on pine plantations. Stations were placed 0. SSs were operated from 3 to 5 nights. They were set in the afternoon and checked the next morning Linhart and Knowlton Study area; positions of SSs are indicated by black dots. Fifteen SSs were set up in pine plantations, 11 on forest reserve and 6 on forest fragments.
Tracks were identified to species level following Acosta and Simonetti Vegetation analysis To determine if O. Habitat selection Habitat selection was estimated following a Compositional Analysis, in order to avoid potentially non-independent data. Habitat availability was assessed as the proportion of active SS per each habitat type in each sample period over the total number of SS in that period. Utilized habitat was assessed as the proportion of SSs visited Aebischer et al.
To rank the habitat type in order of use, a matrix was created. Each habitat type was matched with the other two habitat types considered in the sample period. Equivalently, the use of habitat j relative to habitat i is less than expected. According to Aebischer et al.
For O. These figures are an order of magnitude lower than the smallest non-zero record in a given habitat 0. Subsequently, we performed a multiple regression to predict the probability of a carnivore visit to an SS as a function of habitat and landscape attributes Zar For this purpose, a proportion of visit to each SS in a sample period was regarded as a dependent variable, and vegetation and landscape factors as independent vari- ables.
We test the effect of each variable and perform a forward stepwise regression using those variables not correlated themselves. Characterization of woody species found in all three habitat types.
Habitat use and composition We recorded a total of 58 visits of carnivores, of which It seems that visits by one species were not affected by another because several times one SS was visited by two different species the same night.
The overall comparison of habitat use with habitat availability in the study area for O. The matrix constructed ranked O. On the other hand, the matrix ranked P.
The univariate linear regression model showed that the relative abundance of O. Fur- thermore, O. This indicates that O. The multivariate analysist conducted with variables that influenced visits to SS, showed that the most important variable to explain the abundance of O. Table 7. Mean percentage of vegetation cover in three kinds of habitat in three vertical layers.
Mean distance of SSs placed on three different habitat types pine, forest and fragments to landscape attributes considered. Carnivore visits to SSs placed in three habitat types. Figures are the number of visits and the percentage of each species in a given habitat in parentheses. Ranking matrices for O. Simplified ranking matrices for O.
The multivariate analysis conducted showed that abundance of P. Simplified ranking matrices for P. Effects of each vegetation and landscape variable on O. Asterisks indicate variables retained for multivariate logistic regression analysis. Best multivariate regression model describing relationship between habitat and landscape condition and SS O.
At small scales, animal physiological and per- ceptual abilities are involved, rendering habitat selection an organism-specific feature Kotliar and Wiens Effects of each vegetation and landscape variable on P. Best multivariate regression model describing relationship between habitat and landscape condition and SS P. Dunstone et al. Our results strongly suggest that O. This differential use might account for vegetation characteristics rather than prey availability.
Therefore, prey availability might not be the main factor triggering the reliance of O.
0コメント