4.7 Article

Responses of small mammals to habitat characteristics in Southern Carpathian forests

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 11, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-91488-6

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu & Hasso Plattner Foundation [LBUS-IRG-2019-05]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study aimed to fill the knowledge gap on habitat use by small mammals in the Southern Carpathian forests. Results showed similarities in habitat use between the study area and Northern Carpathians, but also revealed important differences likely caused by latitude and forest management practices.
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.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available