Distribution, habitat utilization and age structure of a suburban fox (Vulpes vulpes) population

Harris, Stephen

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2907.1977.tb00360.x

Cited by 90 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Data on dispersion, colonization and settlement of several wildlife groups such as mammals (Harris 1977;Dickman & Doncaster 1989), insects (Owen 1978) and lizards (Germaine 1995) have clearly underlined the effect of proximity to non-urban source populations in urban biological conservation. Could this relationship hold also for birds in urban landscapes, i.e.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are urban bird communities influenced by the bird diversity of adjacent landscapes?

Clergeau

Jokimäki

Savard³

2001

Journal of Applied Ecology

268

168

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary1. The species diversity of adjacent landscapes influences the conservation or restoration of several animal groups in urban areas, but the effect on birds is unclear. To address this question, we compared bird species richness (BSR) and community composition between periurban (area surrounding the town) and urban (suburban and centre areas) landscapes across three spatial scales. 2. At a large biogeographical scale (temperate and boreal climatic zone), relationships between the BSR of urban areas and their surrounding landscapes were examined in a meta-analysis of 18 published studies. In general, BSR was negatively correlated with latitude and urbanization. The BSR of suburban and centre landscapes correlated positively with the BSR of periurban landscapes. However, latitudinal effects were also involved, as BSR in urban and periurban landscapes declined as town latitude increased. Similarity indices were low (50%) between periurban and centre bird communities. 3. At a regional scale, we assessed winter bird data from several towns within three regions of temperate and boreal countries (western France, northern Finland and eastern Canada). The type of periurban landscape, number of inhabitants and town diameter did not affect BSR. BSR was similar between the cities of a given biogeographical area. Bird communities were more similar between similar habitat types of different cities than between different habitats of the same city. 4. At a local scale, we tested the influence of proximity to the periurban landscape on BSR in parks of western French towns of different size. Neither BSR nor community similarity changed in relation to the distance of the park from the periurban landscape. 5. Guild composition according to diet and feeding habitat did not vary between urban and periurban locations at regional or local scales. 6. We conclude that, at regional and local scales, urban bird communities are independent of the bird diversity of adjacent landscapes, and that local features are more important than surrounding landscapes in determining BSR. Whatever the biodiversity quality of the periurban landscape, site-specific actions such as shrub and tree planting, water restoration and increasing vegetation diversity can change bird diversity in towns and improve the quality of human-wildlife contacts.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are urban bird communities influenced by the bird diversity of adjacent landscapes?

Clergeau

Jokimäki

Savard³

2001

Journal of Applied Ecology

268

168

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A constant feature is that foxes need a quiet place to spend the diurnal period; for this reason, they do not rest near buildings in our area. On that point, the conditions in the Swiss Jura mountains do not correspond to the "quiet gardens" used by urban foxes, for example in Britain (Harris 1977); hunting was very prevalent in the past and is still sustained in certains parts of the area.…”

Section: Type Of Resting Sitesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Choice of resting sites by female foxes Vulpes vulpes in a mountainous habitat

Meia

Weber²

1993

Acta Theriol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The resting sites of seven radio-tracked Red fox Vulpes vulpes (Linnaeus, 1758) vixens were determined in the Swiss Jura mountains. During their nocturnal active period, foxes rested above ground near their foraging areas. In daytime, some foxes always used dens in areas with little cover, while some other individuals often rested above ground when cover was abundant. Weather did not influence the choice of the resting place, except in extreme conditions. Each fox used several resting places, sometimes moving from one to another during the day, especially when lying above ground.

show abstract

“…These estimates of home range size were based on previous studies (Harris 1977;Lloyd 1980;Voigt and Tinline 1980;Trewhella et al 1988;Atkinson and Shackleton 1991;Field 2003;Gautreau 2004;Rosatte and Allan 2009).…”

Section: Habitat Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Population Structure of Harvested Red Foxes (Vulpes vulpes) and Coyotes (Canis latrans) on Prince Edward Island, Canada

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An understanding of the population dynamics and habitat of wild Red Foxes (Vulpes vulpes) and Coyotes (Canis latrans) is a prerequisite to wildlife management. This information is also important in assessing the risk these wild canids pose to the public and domestic animals. On Prince Edward Island, information on age, sex, reproductive activity, and habitat use of 271 Red Foxes and 201 Coyotes was collected in the hunting and trapping season of 2004–2005. The estimated age of Red Foxes and Coyotes ranged from 0.5 to 13.5 years. A large proportion of harvested Red Foxes and Coyotes (58% and 48%, respectively) consisted of juveniles. The sex ratio was not significantly different from 1:1 for either species. Average litter size was 5.0 and 5.2 for Red Foxes and Coyotes, respectively. Number of placental scars ranged from 0 to 7 in Red Foxes and from 0 to 11 in Coyotes. Agricultural areas were the main habitat type (52%) of harvested Red Foxes. For harvested Coyotes, forest was the main habitat (44%), followed closely by agricultural areas (43%). Urban areas were a significant part (13%) of the habitat of Red Foxes. These data can be used to monitor population dynamics over time, provide information for wildlife management, and provide information on potential risk areas for disease transmission by wild canids.

show abstract

Distribution, habitat utilization and age structure of a suburban fox (Vulpes vulpes) population

Cited by 90 publications

References 11 publications

Are urban bird communities influenced by the bird diversity of adjacent landscapes?

Are urban bird communities influenced by the bird diversity of adjacent landscapes?

Choice of resting sites by female foxes Vulpes vulpes in a mountainous habitat

Population Structure of Harvested Red Foxes (<em>Vulpes vulpes</em>) and Coyotes (<em>Canis latrans</em>) on Prince Edward Island, Canada

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About