Habitat characteristics and life history explain reproductive seasonality in lagomorphs

Abstract

Lagomorphs show extensive seasonal variation in their reproduction. However, the factors causing this large variation have so far mostly been investigated intraspecifically and therefore provide only some exemplary comparisons of lagomorph reproductive seasonality. The present study applies both a categorical description (birth season categories 1–5) and a quantitative measure (birth season length in months) to summarize the degree of birth seasonality in the wild of 69 lagomorph species. Using a comparative approach, I tested the influence of 13 factors, comprising six habitat, five life history and two allometric variables on birth season length in lagomorphs. Leporids mainly show non-seasonal birthing patterns with high intraspecific variation. Their opportunistic breeding strategy with high reproductive output and their large distribution areas across wide latitude and elevation ranges might be the reasons for this finding. Ochotonids reproduce strictly seasonally, likely because they live at northern latitudes, are high-altitude specialists, and occur in limited distribution areas. The most important factors associated with variation in lagomorph birth seasonality are mid-latitude, mean annual temperature and precipitation of a species’ geographical range and life history adaptations including fewer but larger litters in seasonal habitats. Birth seasons become shorter with increasing latitude, colder temperatures, and less precipitation, corresponding to the decreasing length of optimal environmental conditions. Leporid species with shorter breeding seasons force maternal resources into few large litters to maximise reproductive output while circumstances are favourable. Since allometric variables were only weakly associated with reproductive seasonality, life history adaptations and habitat characteristics determine birth seasonality in Lagomorpha.

Evolutionary determinants of reproductive seasonality: a theoretical approach

“…Yet, this effect gets weaker when the level of environmental productivity increases (H2). These two effects are in line with many studies showing a positive correlation between latitude and reproductive seasonality in most mammalian orders (Di Bitetti & Janson, 2000; Janson & Verdolin, 2005; English et al , 2012; Zerbe et al , 2012; Heldstab et al , 2018; Heldstab, 2021a, 2021b; Heldstab et al , 2021). While this association is often interpreted as the effect of environmental seasonality alone, increasing latitude reflects both increasing environmental seasonality and decreasing environmental productivity.…”

“…While this association is often interpreted as the effect of environmental seasonality alone, increasing latitude reflects both increasing environmental seasonality and decreasing environmental productivity. Yet, the effect of environmental productivity has been overlooked in previous studies, with mean temperature being the closest proxy found to have a negative effect on reproductive seasonality, even when corrected for latitude (Heldstab et al , 2021; Heldstab, 2021a, 2021b).…”

“…For example, a shorter gestation was found to be associated (when controlling for body mass) with a higher reproductive seasonality in several mammalian orders (Zerbe et al, 2012;Heldstab et al, 2018;Heldstab et al, 2021) ; such a result could, in fact, reflect the increase in daily reproductive energy requirements due to a shortened gestation. This interpretation is strengthened by the case of lagomorphs and rodents, where the intensity of reproductive seasonality was not associated with gestation length but rather with the size and number of litters per year (Heldstab, 2021a(Heldstab, , 2021b. There, species with larger and more frequent litters, which faced increased daily reproductive energy requirements, bred more seasonally.…”

Reproductive cost in female European and mountain hares

“…Among rodents, voles are a good example of small size species with a fast and risky reproductive strategy; a reproductive cost in terms of reduced future reproduction has been infrequently reported in voles (Hamel, Gaillard, et al., 2010). Conversely to most species of voles, European and mountain hares are larger in size (voles <100 g (Kraus et al., 2005); hares >1.5 kg; (Heldstab, 2021; Swihart, 1984)), have higher monthly survival (voles: Mediterranean pine vole, Microtus duodecimcostatus ~ 0.88; Bank vole, Myodes glareolus , ~0.42–0.83; Townsend's vole, Microtus . Townsendii , ~ 0.72, (Kraus et al., 2005); Hares >0.95 (Dahl, 2005; Devillard & Bray, 2009; Gillis, 1998; Marboutin & Hansen, 1998; Marboutin & Peroux, 1995; Misiorowska & Wasilewski, 2012)) and show a reproductive cost (this study).…”

Engaging stakeholders in wildlife disease management: Hunters' willingness to adopt and support biosecurity actions to prevent the spread of rabbit hemorrhagic disease

“…State wildlife agencies rely on hunters to report suspicious rabbit deaths (passive disease surveillance) and to adopt appropriate biosecurity actions to mitigate RHDV2 transmission (e.g., removing carcasses from the field; Shapiro et al, 2022). Lagomorphs exploit seasonal habitats during periods of optimal conditions (Heldstab, 2021). Hunters pursuing lagomorphs target specific habitat characteristics and use specialized techniques including cooperative hunting parties with multiple hunters and trained scenting hounds.…”