Responses of small mammal communities to environment and agriculture in a rural mosaic landscape

Benedek, Ana Maria; Sîrbu, Ioan

doi:10.1016/j.mambio.2018.02.008

Cited by 34 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There are differences in the habitat preferences not only along the latitudinal gradient 15 , 35 , 46 , 47 but also on elevation. At the foothills of Southern Carpathians M. glareolus is limited mainly to forest edges and riparian forests with tall hygrophilous vegetation 48 . During this study we did not find a significant effect of the interaction between elevation and tree cover, probably because of the relatively short elevational gradient (of 1200 m), which did not include lowland forests outside the ecological optimum of M. glareolus .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Responses of small mammals to habitat characteristics in Southern Carpathian forests

Benedek

Sîrbu

Lazăr

2021

Sci Rep

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Compared to Northern Carpathians, the small mammal fauna of Southern Carpathian forests is poorly known, with no data on habitat use; our study seeks to fill this gap. To this end, we conducted a survey in the Southern Carpathians for five years, assessing habitat use by small mammals in forests along an elevational gradient. Trapping was done using live traps set in transects at elevations between 820 and 2040 m. For each transect we evaluated variables related to vegetation structure, habitat complexity, and geographical location. We considered abundance, species composition and species richness as response variables. The rodents Apodemus flavicollis and Myodes glareolus and the shrew Sorex araneus were common and dominant. Their abundance were positively correlated with tree cover, the best explanatory variable. Responses to other variables were mixed. The strong divergence in the relative habitat use by the three most abundant species may act as a mechanism that enables their coexistence as dominant species, exploiting the same wide range of habitat resources. Overall, habitat use in our study area was similar to that reported from Northern Carpathians, but we found also important differences probably caused by the differences in latitude and forest management practices.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Responses of small mammals to habitat characteristics in Southern Carpathian forests

Benedek

Sîrbu

Lazăr

2021

Sci Rep

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In disturbed habitats with varying agricultural practices, species ecology will be different [53]. Knowledge of the driving factors in small mammal ecology would allow harmonization of conservation needs and economic necessities [18].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are tendencies that enhance land capacity for small mammals, such as the Entry Level Scheme Tier of Environmental Stewardship, whereby 1% of cropland is converted to wildlife habitats [8] or other habitats with various levels of success [17]. Management measures of small mammal communities in the agro-landscape should be related to knowledge of the factors that influence their formation and survival [18]. This is important not only from the point of view of nature protection but also for pest control [19,20].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the Czech Republic, the highest abundance and diversity of small mammals was observed in fallow lands and crops with long-term vegetation [11]. In Romania, vegetation traits were the most important factors influencing small mammal communities [18]. In Mexico, orchards exceeded crop fields and grasslands in terms of small mammal diversity, species richness, and abundance [21].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Edge habitats and hedgerows enhance diversity in agricultural lands [36], as does the creation of field margins; these substantially increase the species richness and abundance of voles, mice, and shrews [8,31]. Fallow habitats support abundant, diverse, and stable small mammal communities [11] but do not significantly alter species composition [18]. However, rodent activity peaks are characteristic also “in the middle of the orchard regardless of field border type” [31].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Mow the Grass at the Mouse’s Peril: Diversity of Small Mammals in Commercial Fruit Farms

Balčiauskas

Balčiauskienė

Stirkė

2019

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Small mammals are not only pests but also an important part of agricultural ecosystems. The common vole is a reference species for risk assessment of plant protection products in the European Union, but no data about the suitability of the species in the Baltic countries are present so far. Using the snap-trap line method, we evaluated species composition, abundance, and diversity of small mammal communities in commercial orchards and berry plantations in Lithuania, testing the predictions that (i) compared with other habitats, small mammal diversity in fruit farms is low, and (ii) the common vole is the dominant species. The diversity of small mammals was compared with control habitats and the results of investigations in other habitats. Out of ten small mammal species registered, the most dominant were common vole and striped field mouse. Small mammal diversity and abundance increased in autumn and decreased in line with the intensity of agricultural practices but were not dependent on crop type. In the most intensively cultivated fruit farms, small mammals were not found. The diversity of small mammal communities in fruit farms was significantly higher than in crop fields and exceeded the diversities found in most types of forests except those in rapid succession.

show abstract

Landscape heterogeneity provides co‐benefits to predator and prey

Kuntze,

Pauli,

Zulla

et al. 2023

Ecological Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Predator populations are imperiled globally, due in part to changing habitat and trophic interactions. Theoretical and laboratory studies suggest that heterogeneous landscapes containing prey refuges acting as source habitats can benefit both predator and prey populations, although the importance of heterogeneity in natural systems is uncertain. Here, we tested the hypothesis that landscape heterogeneity mediates predator–prey interactions between the California spotted owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis) – a mature forest species – and one of its principal prey, the dusky‐footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes) – a younger forest species – to the benefit of both. We did so by combining estimates of woodrat density and survival from live‐trapping and VHF tracking with direct observations of prey deliveries to dependent young by owls in both heterogeneous and homogeneous home ranges. Woodrat abundance was approximately 2.5x higher in owl home ranges (1412 hectares) featuring greater heterogeneity in vegetation types (1805.0 ± 50.2 SE) compared to those dominated by mature forest (727.3 ± 51.9 SE), in large part because of high densities in young forests appearing to act as sources promoting woodrat densities in nearby mature forests. Woodrat mortality rates were low across vegetation types and did not differ between heterogeneous and homogeneous home ranges, yet all observed predation by owls occurred within mature forests, suggesting young forests may act as woodrat refuges. Owls exhibited a type 1 functional response, consuming approximately 2.5x more woodrats in heterogeneous (31.1/month ±5.2 SE) versus homogeneous (12.7/month ±3.7 SE) home ranges. While consumption of smaller‐bodied alternative prey partially compensated for lower woodrat consumption in homogeneous home ranges, owls nevertheless consumed 30% more biomass in heterogeneous home ranges – approximately equivalent to the energetic needs of producing one additional offspring. Thus, a mosaic of vegetation types including young forest patches increased woodrat abundance and availability that, in turn, provided energetic and potentially reproductive benefits to mature forest‐associated spotted owls. More broadly, our findings provide strong empirical evidence that heterogeneous landscapes containing prey refuges can benefit both predator and prey populations. As anthropogenic activities continue to homogenize landscapes globally, promoting heterogeneous systems with prey refuges may benefit imperiled predators.This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

show abstract

Responses of small mammal communities to environment and agriculture in a rural mosaic landscape

Cited by 34 publications

References 40 publications

Responses of small mammals to habitat characteristics in Southern Carpathian forests

Responses of small mammals to habitat characteristics in Southern Carpathian forests

Mow the Grass at the Mouse’s Peril: Diversity of Small Mammals in Commercial Fruit Farms

Landscape heterogeneity provides co‐benefits to predator and prey

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About