Advertisement

European Journal of Wildlife Research

, Volume 57, Issue 3, pp 555–564 | Cite as

Reproduction of the red fox Vulpes vulpes in western France: does staining improve estimation of litter size from placental scar counts?

  • Sandrine RuetteEmail author
  • Michel Albaret
Original Paper

Abstract

We tested a staining method on uteri for counting placental scars on red fox. We estimated reproduction parameters on 358 females collected in three study areas in western France from 1st February 2002 to 31st January 2005. Placental scars (n = 103) were described by macroscopic examinations using the following variables: (1) the width and (2) the aspect of placental scars, (3) the abundance of macrophages or the presence of blood, (4) the presence of swellings, (5) the presence and colour of a central band and (6) the presence and colour of lateral bands. A factorial correspondence analysis showed strong associations between the month when scars were examined and categories of variables. Staining on placental scars made macrophages more visible, facilitating identification of ‘active’ placental scars, i.e. related to the last pregnancy. However, distinction between placental scars due to earlier pregnancies and resorptions was not possible. The staining method used provides a standard that could be useful for obtaining comparable and repeatable results. The mean number of placental scars was 4.85 ± 1.46 (n = 103) per vixen. The mean number of embryos per vixen was 4.66 ± 1.35 (n = 68) for yearlings and 5.53 ± 1.50 (n = 96) for older females. Including percentages of barren vixens, the total population productivity was significantly smaller for yearlings (3.62 ± 1.86, n = 158) than for older females (4.28 ± 1.75, n = 186). We discuss these results in relation to fox densities, culling and food availability.

Keywords

Vulpes vulpes Placental scar counts Litter size Embryos counts Productivity Reproductive performance 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Yves Desmidt, Director, Jean-Louis Pilard, President of the Hunting Association of Ille-et-Vilaine and Joseph Bouvier, responsible of hunting in the Domagné study area. We also thank Franck Drouyer, Nicolas Haigron and Cyril Mangeard for efficient support in the fieldwork and all local hunters and trappers who helped in collecting foxes. Many thanks also to Catherine Carter who kindly edited the English.

References

  1. Aebischer NJ, Baker SE, Johnson PJ, Macdonald DW, Reynolds JC (2003) Hunting and fox numbers in the United Kingdom. Nature 423:400PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen SH (1983) Comparison of red fox litter sizes determined from counts of embryos and placental scars. J Wildl Manage 47(3):860–863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Angerbjorn A, Arvidson B, Noren E, Stromgren L (1991) The effect of winter food on reproduction in the arctic fox, Alopex lagopus: a field experiment. J Anim Ecol 60:705–714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Artois M, Aubert MFA, Gerard Y (1982) Reproduction du renard roux (Vulpes vulpes) en France. Rythme saisonnier et fécondité des femelles. Acta Oecol 3(2):205–216Google Scholar
  5. Asano M, Matoba Y, Ikeda T, Suzuki M, Asakawa M, Ohtaishi N (2003) Reproductive characteristics of the feral raccoon (Procyon lotor) in Hokkaido, Japan. J Vet Med Sci 65(3):369–373PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baker PJ, Harris S, Webbon CC (2002) Effect of British hunting ban on fox numbers. Nature 419:34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baker PJ, Funk SM, Harris S, Bruford MW (2004) Polygynandry in a red fox population: implications for the evolution of group living in canids? Behav Ecol 15:766–778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bray Y, Marboutin E, Péroux R, Ferron J (2003) Reliability of stained placental scars counts in European hares. Wildl Soc Bull 31(1):237–246Google Scholar
  9. Buckland ST, Anderson DR, Burnham KP, Laake JL (1993) Distance sampling. Estimating abundance of biological populations. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Cavallini P, Santini S (1996) Reproduction of the red fox Vulpes vulpes in central Italy. Ann Zool Fenn 33:267–274Google Scholar
  11. Chautan M, Pontier D, Artois M (2000) Role of rabies in recent demographic changes in red fox (Vulpes vulpes) populations in Europe. Mammalia 64:391–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chessel D, Dufour AB, Thioulouse J (2004) The ade4 package—I: one-table methods. R News 4:5–10Google Scholar
  13. Elmeros M, Hammershøj M (2006) Experimental evaluation of the reliability of placental scar counts in American mink (Mustela vison). Eur J Wildl Res 52:132–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Elmeros M, Pedersen V, Wincentz TL (2003) Placental scar counts and litter size estimations in ranched red foxes (Vulpes vulpes). Mammalian Biology 68:391–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Englund JS (1970) Some aspects of reproduction and mortality rates in Swedish foxes (Vulpes vulpes), 1961–63 and 1966–96. Swed Wildlife 8:1–82Google Scholar
  16. Fairley JS (1970) The food, reproduction, form, growth and development of the fox Vulpes vulpes (L.) in north-east Ireland. Proc R Ir Acad 69(B 5):103–137Google Scholar
  17. Fournier-Chambrillon C, Bifolchi A, Mazzola-Rossi E, Sourice S, Albaret M, Bary Y, Cena J-C, Urra Maya F, Agraffel T, Fournier P (2010) Reliability of stained placental scar counts in farmed American mink and application to free-ranging mustelids. J Mammal 91:818–826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gortazar C, Ferreras P, Villafuerte R, Martin M, Blanco JC (2003) Habitat related differences in age structure and reproductive parameters of red foxes. Acta Theriol 48:93–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goszczynski J (1989) Population dynamics of the red fox in central Poland. Acta Theriol 34(10):141–154Google Scholar
  20. Harding EK, Doak DF, Albertson JD (2001) Evaluation the effectiveness of predator control: the non native red fox as a case study. Conserv Biol 15(4):1114–1122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Harris S (1978) Age determination in the red fox (Vulpes vulpes)—an evaluation of technique efficiency as applied to as sample of suburban fixes. J Zool 184:91–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Harris S (1979) Age-related fertility and productivity in red foxes, Vulpes vulpes, in suburban London. J Zool Lond 187:195–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Harris S, Smith GC (1987) Demography of two urban fox (Vulpes vulpes) populations. J Appl Ecol 24:75–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Helle E, Kauhala K (1995) Reproduction in the raccoon dog in Finland. J Mammal 76:1036–1046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hewson R (1986) Distribution and density of fox breeding dens and the effects of management. J Appl Ecol 23:531–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Heydon MJ, Reynolds JC (2000) Demography of rural foxes (Vulpes vulpes) in relation to cull intensity in three contrasting regions of Britain. J Zool Lond 251:265–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Heydon MJ, Reynolds JC, Short MJ (2000) Variation in abundance of foxes (Vulpes vulpes) between three regions of rural Britain, in relation to landscape and other. J Zool Lond 251:253–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kauhala K (1996) Reproductive strategies of the raccoon dog and the red fox in Finland. Acta Theriol 41(1):51–58Google Scholar
  29. Kolb HH, Hewson R (1980) A study of fox populations in Scotland from 1971 to 1976. J Appl Ecol 17:7–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kristiansen LV, Sunde P, Nachman G, Madsen AB (2007) Mortality and reproductive patterns of wild European polecats Mustela putorius in Denmark. Acta Theriol 52(4):371–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lindström E (1981) Reliability of placental scar counts in the red fox (Vulpes vulpes L.) with special reference to fading of the scars. Mamm Rev 11(4):137–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lindström E (1988) Reproductive effort in the red fox, Vulpes vulpes, and future supply of a fluctuating prey. Oikos 52(1):115–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lindström E (1989) Food limitation and social regulation in a red fox population. Holarct Ecol 12:70–79Google Scholar
  34. Lindström ER (1994) Placental scar in the red fox (Vulpes vulpes L.) revisited. Z Saugetierkd 59:169–173Google Scholar
  35. Lindström ER, Mörner T (1985) The spreading of sarcoptic mange among Swedish red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) in relation to fox population dynamics. Rev Ecol (Terre et Vie) 40:211–216Google Scholar
  36. Llyod HG (1968) The control of foxes (Vulpes vulpes L.). Proc Association of Applied Biologists 61:334–349Google Scholar
  37. Llyod HG, Jensen B, Van Haaften JL, Niewold FJJ, Wandeler A, Bögel K, Arata AA (1976) Annual turnover of fox populations in Europe. Zbl Vet Med B 23:580–589Google Scholar
  38. Macdonald DW (1977) The behavioural ecology of the red fox. In: Kaplan C (ed) Rabies—the facts. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 70–90Google Scholar
  39. Marlow NJ, Thomson PC, Algar D, Rose K, Kok NE, Sinagra JA (2000) Demographic characteristics and social organisation of a population of red foxes in a rangeland area in Western Australia. Wildl Res 27:457–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Martin KH, Stehn RA, Richmond ME (1976) Reliability of placental scar counts in the prairie vole. J Wildl Manage 40(2):264–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Martorell JI, Gortazar Schmidt C (1993) Reproduction of red foxes (Vulpes vulpes Linnaeus, 1758) in north-eastern Spain: a preliminary report. OIE Revue Scientifique et Technique 12:19–22Google Scholar
  42. McIlroy J, Saunders G, Hinds LA (2001) The reproductive performance of female red foxes, Vulpes vulpes, in central-western New South Wales during and after a drought. Can J Zool 79(4):545–553Google Scholar
  43. Mowat G, Boutin S, Slough BG (1996) Using placental scar counts to estimate litter size and pregnancy rate in lynx. J Wildl Manage 60:430–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pech R, Hood GM, McIlroy J, Saunders G (1997) Can foxes be controlled by reducing their fertility? Reprod Fertil Dev 9:41–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ruette S, Stahl P, Albaret M (2003) Applying distance-sampling methods to spotlight counts of red foxes. J Appl Ecol 40:32–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Salewski E (1964) Färbemethode zum makroskopischen Nachweis von Implantationsstellen am Uterus der Ratte. Naunyn-Schmiedebergs Archiv für experimentelle Pathologie und Pharmakologie 247:367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Soulsbury CD, Iossa G, Baker PJ, Cole NC, Funk SM, Harris S (2007) The impact of sarcoptic mange Sarcoptes scabiei on the British fox Vulpes vulpes population. Mamm Rev 37(4):278–296Google Scholar
  48. Strand O, Skogland T, Kvam T (1995) Placental scars and estimation of litter size: an experimental test in the Arctic fox. J Mammal 76:1220–1225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Team RDC (2009) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 3-900051-07-0, http://www.R-project.org
  50. Villafuerte R, Luco DF, Gortazer C, Blanco JC (1996) Effect on red fox litter size and diet after haemorrhagic disease in north-eastern Spain. J Zool Lond 240:764–767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Von Schantz T (1981) Red fox numbers, reproduction and social organization at different prey densities. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Animal Ecology, University of Lund, Sweden, 112 ppGoogle Scholar
  52. Vos AC (1994) Reproductive performance of the red fox, Vulpes vulpes, in Garmish-Partenkirchen, Germany, 1987–1992. Z Saugetierkd 59:326–331Google Scholar
  53. Vos A (1995) Population dynamics of the red fox (Vulpes vulpes) after the disappearance of rabies in county Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany, 1987–1992. Ann Zool Fenn 32:93–97Google Scholar
  54. Weber JM, Meia JM, Meyer S (1999) Breeding success of the red fox Vulpes vulpes in relation to fluctuating prey in central Europe. Wildlife Biol 5(4):241–244Google Scholar
  55. Zapata SC, Travaini A, Delibes M (1997) Reproduction of the red fox, Vulpes vulpes, in Donana, southern Spain. Mammalia 61(4):628–631Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Office National de la Chasse et de la Faune Sauvage, CNERA Prédateurs Animaux déprédateursMontfortFrance
  2. 2.Office National de la Chasse et de la Faune Sauvage, CNERA Prédateurs Animaux déprédateursClermont-FerrandFrance

Personalised recommendations