4.7 Article

Increase of large game species in Mediterranean areas:: Is the European wildcat (Felis silvestris) facing a new threat?

期刊

BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION
卷 138, 期 3-4, 页码 321-329

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2007.04.027

关键词

apparent amensalism; competition; game management; indirect interactions; rabbit; ungulates

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There are several factors that threaten wildcat (Fells silvestris) populations in Europe, including habitat destruction, direct persecution and genetic introgression from domestic cats. However, in contrast to other predatory species, lack of prey availability has not been evaluated as a risk factor for wildcats. In this study, we analyse the relationship between the abundance of wildcats and the abundance of their preferred prey, the wild rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus), and the abundance of two large ungulates, the wild boar (Sus scrofa) and red deer (Cervus elaphus). The study was conducted in a typical Mediterranean ecosystem, the Monfrague Natural Park (central Spain). We surveyed 30 (2 x 2 km) sites along a 2 km linear transect within each site, looking for signs indicating the presence of each species. Using this indirect method, we calculated an abundance index for each species based on their frequencies of occurrence. The results showed that the abundances of wild rabbits and ungulates were negatively associated. Moreover, wildcat abundance was positively related to rabbit abundance, but negatively related to ungulate abundances. Thus, the high population densities that ungulates reach in some natural areas, promoted in many cases by the hunting management strategies, appear to jeopardise wildcat populations by reducing rabbit availability. Therefore, as a new key action for the conservation of European wildcat we advocate the change of hunting management strategies in order to control ungulate populations, and therefore facilitate the recovery of wild rabbit populations. (C) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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