Zur Bestandssituation des Feldhasen (Lepus europaeus Pallas) in Bayern

Kilias, Harald; Ackermann, Wilfried

doi:10.1007/bf02239823

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…They prefer to forage in habitats with low vegetation where predators can easily be seen ( [3]; this is contrary to rodents, which prefer to forage in habitats with high vegetation cover to avoid avian predators; [5,23] and they prefer areas with high vegetation for resting [35]. Furthermore, hares have very large home ranges and population density is very low (around 20 N/100 ha, [26]. Since practically all habitats are used, in particular arable land, landscape size was the most relevant parameter regarding population survival since larger landscapes related to larger populations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2) densities were: 8.3 N/ha in field edges (used as surrogate for grassland and orchards), 45.6 N/ha in woodland, 18.2 N/ha in hedges and 11.5 N/ha in arable land. For brown hare [1,4,13,30,39,41,46,51,52], [26] a mean density of 0.31 N/ha was considered in the whole landscape. For European rabbit [32] the following densities were considered: 3.4 N/ha in pasture or grassland (La Chevallerais), 1.3 N/ha in woodland (Lalinde), 15.8 N/ha for hedges (Donzère-Mondragon) and 3.9 N/ha in arable land (Cerizay).…”

Section: Analyses Of Landscape Structure and Compositionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Selection of scenarios for landscape-level risk assessment of chemicals: case studies for mammals

Wang¹,

Park²,

Dietrich³

et al. 2022

Environ Sci Eur

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background For landscape-level risk assessments of pesticides, the choice of the scenario is a key question, since it determines the outcome of a risk assessment. Typically, the aim is to select a realistic worst-case scenario. In the present study, landscapes from an area with a high proportion of cereal fields in France were analysed and simulations with population models for wood mouse, common vole, brown hare and European rabbit were conducted to understand if the worst-case character regarding pesticide exposure and population survival can be determined based on landscape features alone. Furthermore, it was analysed which landscape features relate with population survival and the magnitude of effects due to pesticide application. Answers to these question may help to decide whether landscape scenarios can be selected based on expert decision and whether the same scenarios may be used for different species or not. Results There were species-specific landscape features relating to long-term population survival. A landscape that is worst-case for one species, was not necessarily worst-case for another. Furthermore, landscapes that were worst-case regarding population survival were often not worst-case regarding the magnitude of effects resulting from pesticide application. We also found that small landscapes were sometimes, but not always worst-case compared to larger landscapes. When small landscapes were worst-case, this was typical because of the artificial borders of the digitised landscape. Conclusions Landscape analyses can help to obtain an approximate impression of the worst-case character of a landscape scenario. However, since it was difficult to consistently and reliably do this for single landscapes, it may be advisable to use a set of different landscapes for each risk assessment, which covers the natural variability. Depending on whether population survival shall be ensured or the magnitude of effects due to pesticides, different landscape structure and composition needs to be considered to establish a worst-case landscape scenario.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Analyses Of Landscape Structure and Compositionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Selection of scenarios for landscape-level risk assessment of chemicals: case studies for mammals

Wang¹,

Park²,

Dietrich³

et al. 2022

Environ Sci Eur

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hoeveel hazen je in een bepaald gebied kunt verwachten, varieert dus sterk, niet alleen tussen gebieden met verschillen in grootte en habitatkwaliteit, maar ook per seizoen en van jaar tot jaar in hetzelfde gebied. Zo zijn bijvoorbeeld verschillen in gemiddelde aantallen getelde hazen per vierkante kilometer van 5.4 in Oost-Duitsland en 23.9 in Noordwest-Duitsland bekend en tussen seizoenen van 31.3 (lente) en 44.2 (herfst) hazen per vierkante kilometer of 83 (lente) en 147.4 (herfst) per vierkante kilometer (Strauß et al, 2008;Kilias & Ackermann, 2001;Schäfers et al, 2016). In hetzelfde telgebied kunnen binnen twee jaren verhogingen van 67 tot 91 en binnen vier jaren dalingen van 13 naar 3 per vierkante kilometer plaatsvinden (Frylestam, 1979;Marboutin et al, 2003).…”

Section: Tabel 52 Samenvatting Staat Van Instandhouding Konijnunclassified

“…Uit de literatuur blijkt dat de dichtheid aan hazen sterk uit elkaar kan lopen, van gemiddeld slechts enkele per km² tot ruim 200 of zelfs 300 hazen per km² in exceptionele omstandigheden (Panek & Kamieriarz, 1999;Kilias & Ackermann, 2001;Strauß et al, 2008;Bertolino et al, 2011;Arnold et al, 2015;Schäfers et al, 2016;Schai-Braun et al, 2019;Grün, 2020). Pfister et al (2002) gaan voor gemiddeld tot hoge dichtheden uit van 14-19 dieren per km² en zeer hoge dichtheden tot 40 dieren per km².…”

Section: Tabel 52 Samenvatting Staat Van Instandhouding Konijnunclassified