Advertisement

Mammalian Biology

, Volume 83, Issue 1, pp 21–26 | Cite as

Diel variation in movement patterns and habitat use by the Iberian endemic Cabrera vole: Implications for conservation and monitoring

  • Ana Rita Grácio
  • António Mira
  • Pedro Beja
  • Ricardo PitaEmail author
Original investigation

Abstract

Understanding variations in animal movement and habitat selection behaviour over fine spatial and temporal scales remains a particularly challenging goal in ecology and conservation. Here we document for the first time the diel variations in movement patterns and habitat use by wild-ranging Cabrera voles in fragmented Mediterranean farmland, based on radiotracking data (2006–2008) of 25 adult individuals occupying stable home-ranges in vegetation mosaics dominated by wet grasses and shrubs. Results indicated that the proportion of time animals spent moving, the distance moved, and the selection strength of main vegetation types were closely linked behavioural traits, which varied considerably across different periods of the 24-h cycle. In general, voles moved more frequently and over larger distances during daytime (between 06 h15–22 h00), which was when wet grasses were also used more intensively. These patterns were generally consistent across seasons, though during the dry season there was some tendency for a decrease in movement activity during the hottest hours of the day (between 10 h15–14 h00), with peaks around crepuscular hours (06h15–10h00 and 18h15–22h00). Overall, our study provides evidence that Cabrera voles may show notable shifts in habitat use and movement patterns on a finer scale than previously considered. This supports the idea that knowledge of the diel variations in species movement-habitat relationships should strongly contribute to improving local habitat management, as well as effective sampling and monitoring programs targeting the species.

Keywords

Circadian cycles Movement behaviour Habitat selection Microtus cabrera }Radiotelemetry 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ager, A.A., Johnson, B.K., Kern, J.W., Kie, J.G., 2003. Daily and seasonal movements and habitat use by female rocky mountain elk and mule deer. J. Mammal. 84, 1076–1088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barton, K., 2016. Multi-Model Inference. Package MuMIn. https://doi.org/cran.r-project.org/web/packages/MuMIn/index.html.Google Scholar
  3. Beja, P., Alcazar, R., 2003. Conservation of Mediterranean temporary ponds under agricultural intensification: an evaluation using amphibians. Biol. Conserv. 114, 317–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beja, P., Schindler, S., Santana, J., Porto, M., Morgado, R., Moreira, F., Pita, R., Mira, A., Reino, L., 2014. Predators and livestock reduce bird nest survival in intensive Mediterranean farmland. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 60, 249–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bennitt, E., Bonyongo, M.C., Harris, S., 2015. Behaviour-related scalar habitat use by cope buffalo (Syncerus caffer caffer). PLoS One 10, e0145145.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berger-Tal, O., Polak, T., Oron, A., Lubin, T., Kotler, B.P., Saltz, D., 2011. Integrating animal behavior and conservation biology: a conceptual framework. Behav. Ecol. 22, 236–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bestley, S., Jonsen, I.D., Hindell, M.A., Guinet, C., Charrassin, J.B., 2012. Integrative modelling of animal movement: incorporating in situ habitat and behavioural information fora migratory marine predator. Proc. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 280, 20122262.Google Scholar
  8. Bjørneraas, K., Solberg, E.J., Herfindal, I., Moorter, B.V., Rolandsen, C.M., Tremblay, J.P., Skarpe, C., Sæther, B.E., Eriksen, R., Astrup, R., 2011. Moose Alces Alces habitat use at multiple temporal scales in a human-altered landscape. Wildl. Biol. 17, 44–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bray, J.H., Maxwell, S.E., 1985. Multivariate Analysis ofVariance. SAGE Publications California, Newbury Park, CA.Google Scholar
  10. Caro, T., 2007. Behavior and conservation: a bridge too far? Trends Ecol. Evol. 22, 394–400.Google Scholar
  11. Di Stefano, J., York, A., Swan, M., Greenfield, A., Coulson, G., 2009. Habitat selection by the swamp wallaby (Wallabia bicolour) in relation to diel period, food and shelter. Austral. Ecol. 34, 143–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dzialak, M.R., Olson, C.V., Harju, S.M., Webb, S.L., Winstead, J.B., 2012. Temporal and hierarchical spatial components of animal occurrence: conserving seasonal habitat forgreater sage-grouse. Ecosphere 3, 30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fernández-Salvador, R., García-Perea, R., Ventura, J., 2001. Reproduction and postnatal growth of the Cabrera vole, Microtus cabrerae, in captivity. Can. J. Zool. 79, 2080–2085.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ferreira, M., Beja, P., 2013. Mediterranean amphibians and the loss of temporary ponds: are there alternative breeding habitats? Biol. Conserv. 165, 179–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ferron, J., Ouellet, J.-P., 1992. Daily partitioning ofsummer habitat and use of space by the snowshoe hare in southern boreal forest. Can. J. Zool. 70, 2178–2183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gannon, W.L., Sikes, R.S., 2007. Animal care and use committee of the american society of mammalogists guidelines of the american society of mammalogists forthe use of wild mammals in research. J. Mammal. 88, 809–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ganskoop, D.C., Johnson, D.D., 2007. GPS error in studies addressing animal movements and activities. Rangel. Ecol. Manag. 60, 350–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gillies, C.S., Hebblewhite, M., Nielsen, S.E., Krawchuk, M.A., Aldridge, C.L., Frair, J.L., Saher, D.J., Stevens, C.E., Jerde, C.L., 2006. Application of random effects tothe study of resource selection by animals. J. Anim. Ecol. 75, 887–898.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Godvik, I.M.R., Loe, L.E., Vik, J.O., Veiberg, V., Langvatn, R., Mysterud, A., 2009. Temporal scales, trade-offs, and functional responses in red deer habitat selection. Ecology 90, 699–710.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Hadfield, J.D., 2010. MCMC methods for multi-response generalised linear mixed models: the MCMCglmm R package. J. Stat. Softw. 33, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hadfield, J., 2016. MCMC Generalised Linear Mixed Models. Package MCMCglmm (Accessed 9June 2016) https://doi.org/cran.r-project.org/web/packages/MCMCglmm/index.html.Google Scholar
  22. Haroldson, K.J., Fritzell, E.K., 1984. Home ranges, activity, and habitat use by gray foxes in an oak-hickory forest. J. Wildl. Manag. 48, 222–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Horton, T.H., 2001. Conceptual issues in the ecology and evolution of circadian rhythms. In: Takahashi, J.S., Turek, F.W., Moore, R.Y. (Eds.), Handbook of Neurobiology: Circadian Clocks 12. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, pp. 45–57.Google Scholar
  24. Johnson, D.H., 1980. The comparison of usage and availability measurements for evaluating resource preference. Ecology 61, 65–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Johnson, P.C.D., 2014. Extension of Nakagawa & Schielzeth’s R2glmm to random slopes models. Method Ecol. Evol. 5, 44–946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kotler, B.P., Morris, D.W., Brown, J.S., 2016. Direct behavioral indicators as a cconservation and management tool. In: Berger-Tal, O., Saltz, D. (Eds.), Conservation Behaviour: Applying Behavioural Ecology to Wildlife Conservation and Management. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 307–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kronfeld-Schor, N., Dayan, T., 2003. Partitioning of time as an ecological resource. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 34, 153–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lima, S.L., Dill, L.M., 1990. Behavioural decisions made underthe risk of predation. Can. J. Zool. 68, 619–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Luque-Larena, J.J., López, P., 2007. Microhabitat use by wild-ranging Cabrera voles Microtus cabrerae as revealed by live trapping. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 53, 221–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Magaña, M., Alonso, J.C., Martin, C.A., Bautista, L.M., Martin, B., 2010. Nest-site selection by Great Bustards Otis tarda suggests a trade-off between concealment and visibility. Ibis 152, 77–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Manly, B., McDonald, L., Thomas, D., MacDonald, T., Erickson, W., 2002. Resource Selection by Animals. Statistical Design and Analysis for Field Studies. Kluwer Academic Publisher, Springer, Neaderlands.Google Scholar
  32. Mathias, M.L., Klunder, M., Santos, S.M., 2003. Metabolism andthermoregulation in the Cabrera vole (Rodentia: Microtus cabrerae). Comp. Biochem. Phys. A 136, 441–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mayor, S.J., Schneider, D.C., Schaefer, J.A., Mahoney, S.P., 2009. Habitat selection at multiple scales. Écoscience 16, 238–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Moe, T.F., Kindberg, J., Jansson, I., Swenson, J.E., 2007. Importance of diel behaviour when studying habitat selection: examples from female Scandinavian brown bears (Ursus arctos). Can. J. Zool. 85, 518–525.Google Scholar
  35. Morales, J.M., Moorcroft, P.R., Matthiopoulos, J., Frair, J.L., Kie, J.G., Powell, R.A., Merrill, E.H., Haydon, D.T., 2010. Building the bridge between animal movement and population dynamics. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 365, 2289–2301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Morris, D.W., 2014. Can foraging behaviour reveal the eco-evolutionary dynamics of habitat selection? Evol. Ecol. Res. 16, 1–18.Google Scholar
  37. Onorato, D.P., Criffield, M., Lotz, M., Cunningham, M., McBride, R., Leone, E.H., Bass Jr, O.L., Hellgren, E.C., 2011. Habitat selection by critically endangered Florida panthers across the diel period: implications for land management and conservation. Anim. Conserv. 14, 196–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ordiz, A., Kindberg, J., Sæbø, S., Swenson, J.E., Støen, O.-Gunnar, 2014. Brown bear circadian behaviour reveals human environmental encroachment. Biol. Conserv. 173, 1–9 (Elsevier).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pépin, D., Morellet, N., Goulard, M., 2009. Seasonal and daily walking activity patterns of free-ranging adult red deer (Cervus elaphus) at the individual level. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 55, 479–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pita, R., Mira, A., Beja, P., 2006. Conserving the Cabrera vole, Microtus cabrerae, in intensively used Mediterranean landscapes. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 115, 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pita, R., Beja, P., Mira, A., 2007. Spatial population structure of the Cabrera vole in Mediterranean farmland: the relative role of patch and matrix effects. Biol. Conserv. 134, 383–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pita, R., Mira, A., Moreira, F., Morgado, R., Beja, P., 2009. Influence of landscape characteristics on carnivore diversity and abundance in Mediterranean farmland. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 132, 57–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pita, R., Mira, A., Beja, P., 2010. Spatial segregation of two vole species (Arvicola sapidus and Microtus cabrerae) within habitat patches in a highly fragmented farmland landscape. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 56, 651–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pita, R., Mira, A., Beja, P., 2011a. Circadian activity rhythms in relation to season, sex and interspecific interactions in two Mediterranean voles. Anim. Behav. 81, 1023–1030.Google Scholar
  45. Pita, R., Mira, A., Beja, P., 2011b. Assessing habitat differentiation between coexisting species: the role of spatial scale. Acta Oecol. 37, 124–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pita, R., Mira, A., Beja, P., 2014. Microtus cabrerae (Rodentia: Cricetidae). Mamm. Species 46, 48–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Plummer, M., Best, N., Cowles, K., Vines, K., 2006. CODA: convergence diagnosis and output analysis for MCMC. Newsl. R. Proj. 6, 7–11.Google Scholar
  48. RCore Team, 2016. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria (Accessed 9 June 16) https://doi.org/www.R-project.org/.Google Scholar
  49. Railsback, S.F., Harvey, B.C., 2002. Analysis of habitat-selection rules using an individual-based model. Ecology 83, 1817–1830.Google Scholar
  50. Railsback, S.F., Harvey, B.C., Hayse, J.W., LaGory, K.E., 2005. Tests of theory for diel variation in salmonid feeding activity and habitat use. Ecology 86, 947–959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rhodes, J.R., McAlpine, C.A., Lunney, D., Possingham, H.P., 2005. A spatially explicit habitat selection model incorporating home range behavior. Ecology 86, 1199–1205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rosário, I.T., Cardoso, P.E., Mathias, M.L., 2008. Is habitat selection by the Cabrera vole (Microtus cabrerae) related to food preferences? Mamm. Biol. 73, 423–429.Google Scholar
  53. Russell, R.E., Swihart, R.K., Feng, Z., 2003. Population consequences of movement decisions in a patchy landscape. Oikos 103, 142–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Santos, S.M., Rosário, I.T., Mathias, M.L., 2005. Microhabitat preference of the Cabrera vole in a Mediterranean cork oak woodland of southern Portugal. Vie et Milieu 55, 53–59.Google Scholar
  55. Semeniuk, CAD., Dill, L.M., 2005. Cost/benefit analysis of group and solitary resting in the cowtail stingray, Pastinachus sephen. Behav. Ecol. 16, 417–426.Google Scholar
  56. Spiegelhalter, D.J., Best, N.G., Carlin, B.P., Van Der Linde, A., 2002. Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. J. R. Stat. Soc. B 64, 583–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sutherland, W.J., 1998. The importance of behavioural studies in conservation biology. Anim. Behav. 56, 801–809.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  58. Tigas, L.A., Vuren, D.H.V., Sauvajot, R.M., 2002. Behavioral respondes of bobcats and coyotes to habitat fragmentation and corridors in an urban environmental. Biol. Conserv. 108, 299–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Verdolin, J.L., 2006. Meta-analysis of foraging and predation risk trade-offs in terrestrial systems. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 60, 457–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wilson, A.J., Réale, D., Clements, M.N., Morrissey, M.M., Postma, E., Walling, C.A., Kruuk, L.E.B., Nussey, D.H., 2010. An ecologist’s guide to the animal model. J. Anim. Ecol. 79, 13–26.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Deutsche Gesellschaft für Säugetierkunde, e. V. DGS 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ana Rita Grácio
    • 1
  • António Mira
    • 2
  • Pedro Beja
    • 3
    • 4
  • Ricardo Pita
    • 2
    • 4
    Email author
  1. 1.Departamento de BiologiaUniversidade de ÉvoraÉvoraPortugal
  2. 2.Unidade de Biologia da Conservação, CIBIO/InBio-UE., Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, Pólo de ÉvoraUniversidade de ÉvoraÉvoraPortugal
  3. 3.EDP Biodiversity Chair CIBIO/InBio-UP, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos GenéticosUniversidade do PortoVairãoPortugal
  4. 4.CEABN/InBIO, Centro de Ecologia Aplicada “Professor Baeta Neves”, Instituto Superior de AgronomiaUniversidade de Lisboa, Tapada da AjudaLisboaPortugal

Personalised recommendations