4.4 Article

Food niche variation of European and American mink during the American mink invasion in north-eastern Belarus

期刊

BIOLOGICAL INVASIONS
卷 12, 期 7, 页码 2207-2217

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10530-009-9631-0

关键词

Mustela lutreola; Neovison vison; Feeding ecology; Species displacement; Invasive predator; Species co-existence

资金

  1. British Government's Darwin Initiative Foundation
  2. Institute of Zoology of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus
  3. Marie Curie European Reintegration Grant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Understanding processes allowing the co-existence of ecologically similar species is important but difficult to study in community ecology. Introductions of alien species are unplanned experiments allowing investigation of co-adaptation of both native and invasive species over a short period. We analysed food niche differentiation between native European mink and alien American mink after invasion of the latter species in Belarus. European mink feed mainly on crayfish, frogs and fish whereas American mink prefer small mammals, fish and frogs. The diet of both species varied between seasons and during the period of alien mink invasion. Concurrent with the progress of American mink invasion, the European mink food niche has narrowed to feeding mainly on frogs, with the proportion of aquatic prey (fish and crayfish) in their diet drastically reduced. In contrast, the American mink food niche became wider during invasion. The breadth was stable but included a varied proportion of different prey categories: namely an increased proportion of aquatic prey and a decreased proportion of water vole and waterfowl. The increase in abundance of American mink saw a decrease in the proportion of larger prey in their diet. When American mink preyed more often on frogs, food niche overlap of both predators increased. This result suggests that arrival of an alien competitor reduced food abundance (exploitative competition) and caused a change in native mink diet.

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

4.4
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