4.5 Article

Shrub density effects on the presence of an endangered lizard of the Carrizo Plain National Monument, California

期刊

ECOLOGY AND EVOLUTION
卷 13, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ece3.10128

关键词

blunt-nosed leopard lizard; density; desert; facilitation; foundation species; lizards; shrubs; telemetry

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Positive associations between animals and foundational shrub species are frequent in desert ecosystems. This study investigated the impact of shrub density on the presence and habitat use of the federally endangered lizard species, Gambelia sila. The findings suggest that both shrub density and shrub cover are key factors for some desert lizards.
Positive associations between animals and foundational shrub species are frequent in desert ecosystems for shelter, resources, refuge, and other key ecological processes. Herein, we tested the impact of the density of the shrub species Ephedra californica on the presence and habitat use of the federally endangered lizard species, Gambelia sila. To do this, we used a 3-year radio telemetry dataset and satellite-based counts of shrub density across sites at the Carrizo Plain National Monument in San Luis Obispo County, CA. The effect of shrub density on lizard presence was contrasted with previous shrub cover analyses to determine whether measures of shrub density were superior to shrub cover in predicting lizard presence. Increasing shrub density increased lizard presence. As shrub density increased, lizards were located more frequently above ground versus below ground in burrows. Male lizards had significantly larger home ranges than females, but both sexes were similarly associated with increasing shrub densities. Shrub density and shrub cover models did not significantly differ in their prediction of lizard presence. These findings suggest that both habitat measures are effective analogs and that ecologically, both cover and the density of foundation shrub species are key factors for some desert lizards.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据