1991
DOI: 10.2307/1381849
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Trophic-Niche Relationships among Galictis cuja, Dusicyon culpaeus, and Tyto alba in Central Chile

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
41
0
3

Year Published

1993
1993
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 41 publications
(48 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
4
41
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Studies from Argentina describe the grison's diet as being based on rodents and introduced lagomorphs, which comprise > 95% of the biomass intake (Delibes et al 2003). Similarly, Zapata et al (2005) found a diet based on rodents (56% of biomass) and lagomorphs (34.5%) from the southern limit of the species' distribution, while Ebensperger et al (1991) described G. cuja as preying on rabbits, rodents, and small marsupials in central Chile. However, in our study, we found no evidence that the grison consumed lagomorphs, despite the high abundance of Lepus europaeus (Pallas, 1778) in some parts of Rio Grande do Sul (Kasper et al 2012a).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Studies from Argentina describe the grison's diet as being based on rodents and introduced lagomorphs, which comprise > 95% of the biomass intake (Delibes et al 2003). Similarly, Zapata et al (2005) found a diet based on rodents (56% of biomass) and lagomorphs (34.5%) from the southern limit of the species' distribution, while Ebensperger et al (1991) described G. cuja as preying on rabbits, rodents, and small marsupials in central Chile. However, in our study, we found no evidence that the grison consumed lagomorphs, despite the high abundance of Lepus europaeus (Pallas, 1778) in some parts of Rio Grande do Sul (Kasper et al 2012a).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This high frequency of studies is due mainly to the wide distribution of the species and to the habit of owls to regurgitate compact pellets with well preserved prey remains, usually under shelters or nests (Sick, 1997;Motta-Júnior and Alho, 2000;Bonvicino and Bezerra, 2003;Corrêa and Roa, 2005). In South America, information on the diet of the barn owl is concentrated on the south cone of the continent, mostly in Chile and Argentina (Jaksic et al, 1982;Ebensperger et al, 1991;Pardiñas and Cirignoli, 2002;Corrêa and Roa, 2005), and is still scarce in Brazil, where it has become incipient just recently (Motta-Júnior and Talamoni, 1996;Motta-Júnior and Alho, 2000;Bonvicino and Bezerra, 2003;Escarlate-Tavares and Pessoa, 2005).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…En relación con ello, en el noroeste de la Patagonia argentina, Diuck-Wasser & Cassini (1998) encontraron un mayor consumo de conejos (Oryctolagus cuniculus Linnaeus 1758), también cuando las abundancias de estas presas fueron más altas. Es importante destacar que en el área de estudio no están presentes los conejos, importantes en la alimentación del quique en Chile central (Ebensperger et al 1991) y el noroeste de la Patagonia argentina (Diuck-Wasser & Cassini 1998). Sin embargo, sí está presente (Dietrich 1984) la liebre europea (Lepus europaeus Pallas 1778), lagomorfo introducido y relevante en términos de la biomasa consumida por los quiques en el sureste de la Patagonia argentina (Zapata et al 2005).…”
Section: Resultsunclassified
“…A pesar de su amplia distribución geográfi ca es, sin embargo, una especie poco conocida. Respecto a su dieta se han publicado los siguientes trabajos: (i) uno en humedales del Este de Rocha, Uruguay (Kraus & Rödel 2004), (ii) otro en Chile central (Ebensperger et al 1991) y (iii) tres correspondientes a diferentes localidades de la Patagonia Argentina (Delibes et al 2003, Diuck-Wasser & Cassini, 1998, Zapata et al 2005. En general todos estos trabajos coinciden en que el principal componente de la dieta del quique corresponde a mamíferos (más del 90%), siendo sus principales presas roedores nativos y lagomorfos introducidos (2 especies), y un porcentaje casi despreciable correspondería a crustáceos, anfi bios, reptiles y aves.…”
Section: Introductionunclassified