Advertisement

Biology Bulletin

, Volume 44, Issue 9, pp 1134–1150 | Cite as

Changes in Rodent Populations in Eastern Fennoscandia under the Influence of Anthropogenic Transformations of Boreal Ecosystems

  • E. V. Ivanter
  • Ju. P. Kurhinen
Article
  • 10 Downloads

Abstract

Long-term (1966–2015) stationary and expedition studies in eastern Fennoscandia have revealed specific changes in the structure and abundance of rodent populations under the influence of concentrated forest fells. The general patterns of the influence of intensive forest exploitation on the natural habitats, numbers, territorial distribution, and ecological features of small rodents in the region are analyzed. It has been established that, for most rodent species, industrial harvesting leads to a decrease in the total abundance of populations, as well as to an erratic shift in population dynamics with sudden short recoveries and deep longterm depressions, the formation of a nonresistant mosaic spatial distribution, and a disturbance of the rates and a decrease in the intensity of breeding and population reproduction.

Keywords

mouselike rodents population abundance dynamics habitat transformation biotope reforestation population organization population density types of felling successions 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Airapet’yants, A.E., Invectivores and rodents, in Zveri Leningradskoi oblasti (Animals of the Leningrad Oblast), Leningrad: Izd. LGU, 1970, pp. 150–165.Google Scholar
  2. Anufriev, V.M., The field vole, in Fauna evropeiskogo Severo-Vostoka Rossii (Fauna of the European North-East of Russia), vol. 2, part 1: Mlekopitayushchie (Mammals), St. Petersburg: Nauka, 1994, pp. 254–263.Google Scholar
  3. Banach, F. and Kozakewicz, M., Tentative comparison of small mammal communities in a poor pine stand of various ages, Bull. Pol. Acad. Sci., 1980, vol. 28, pp. 43–48.Google Scholar
  4. Bashenina, N.V., Data on the ecology of small mammals of the European taiga zone, Uch. Zap. Perm. Ped. Inst., 1968, vol. 52, pp. 3–44.Google Scholar
  5. Dinesman, L.G, Vliyanie dikikh mlekopitayushchikh na formirovanie drevostoev (Effect of Wild Mammals on the Formation of Stands), Moscow: Nauka, 1961.Google Scholar
  6. Duffendorfer, J.E., Gaunes, V.S., and Holt, R.D., Habitat fragmentation and movements of three small mammals (Sigmodon, Microtus and Peromyscus), Ecology, 1970, vol. 51, no. 33, pp. 827–829.Google Scholar
  7. El’shin, S.V. and Karataev, A.B., Successions of forest mammals in southern taiga clearings, in V s”ezd VTO (V Congress of the All-Union Theriological Society), Moscow: Nauka, 1988, pp. 275–276.Google Scholar
  8. Flint, V.E., Types of the spatial structure in small mammals, in Populyatsionnaya struktura vida u mlekopitayushchikh (Species Population Structure in Mammals), Moscow: Izd. MGU, 1970, pp. 161–163.Google Scholar
  9. Flint, V.E., Prostranstvennaya struktura populyatsii melkikh mlekopitayushchikh (The Spatial Structure of Populations of Small Mammals), Moscow: Nauka, 1977.Google Scholar
  10. Formozov, A.N., Small rodents and insectivores of Sharinskii raion of Kostroma oblast in 1930–1940, in Materialy po gryzunam (Data on Rodents), Moscow: Izd. Mosk. Obshch. Ispytat. Prirody, 1948, no. 3, pp. 3–110.Google Scholar
  11. Glowacinski, Z., Some ecological parameters of avian communities in the successional series of a cultivated pine forest, Bull. Pol. Acad. Sci., 1979, vol. 27, pp. 169–177.Google Scholar
  12. Hansson, Z., Landscape ecology of boreal forest, Trends Ecol. Evol., 1992, vol. 7, pp. 299–302.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Henttonen, H., Kaikusalo, A., Past, J., and Viitala, J., Interspecific competition between small rodents in subarctic and boreal ecosystems, Oikos, 1977, vol. 29, pp. 581–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ivanter, E.V., Populyatsionnaya ekologiya melkikh mlekopitayushchikh taezhnogo Severo-Zapada SSSR (Population Ecology of Small Mammals of Boreal North-West of the USSR), Leningrad: Nauka, 1975.Google Scholar
  15. Ivanter, E.V., The ecological structure and dynamics of small mammal populations of the Ladoga region, in Fauna i ekologiya mlekopitayushchikh Severo-Zapada SSSR (Fauna and Ecology of Mammals of the North-West of the USSR), Petrozavodsk, 1983, pp. 72–99.Google Scholar
  16. Ivanter, E.V., On the development of the concept of peripheral populations of a polytypic species, in Populyatsionnaya ekologiya zhivotnykh (Population Ecology of Animals), Tomsk: Izd. TGU, 2006, pp. 32–46.Google Scholar
  17. Ivanter, E.V., Peripheral populations of a polytypic species as outposts of the evolutionary process, in Charl’z Darvin i sovremennaya nauka (Charles Darwin and Modern Science), St. Petersburg: Nestor-Istoriya, 2010, pp. 276–282.Google Scholar
  18. Ivanter, E.V., Once again on the peripheral populations of a polytypic species and their role in the microevolutionary process, in Teoreticheskie problemy ekologii i evolyutsii (Theoretical Problems of Ecology and Evolution), Tolyatti: Kasandra, 2015, pp. 150–154.Google Scholar
  19. Ivanter, E.V. and Makarov, A.M., Territorial’naya ekologiya zemleroek-burozubok (Insectivora, Sorex) (Territorial Ecology of Shrews (Insectivora, Sorex)), Petrozavodsk: Izd. PetrGU, 2001.Google Scholar
  20. Karaseva, E.V., Ecological features of mammals–carriers of Leptospira and their role in the natural foci of leptospirosis, in Fauna i ekologiya gryzunov (Fauna and Ecology of Rodents), Moscow, 1971, vol. 10, pp. 45–53.Google Scholar
  21. Keith, J.S., Smith, D.J., and Morris, J.K., Dynamics of snowshoe hare population in fragmented habitat, Can. J. Zool., 1993, vol. 71, pp. 1385–1392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kerzina, M.N., Influence of slashes and fire-sites on the formation of forest fauna, in Rol’ zhivotnykh v zhizni lesa (The Role of Animals in the Forest Life), Moscow: Izd. MGU, 1956, pp. 21–304.Google Scholar
  23. Kulik, I.L., Tupikova, N.V., Nikitina, N.A., Karaseva, E.V., and Suvorova, L.G., Data on the ecology of birch mouse (Sicista betulina Pall.), in Sbornik trudov Zoologisheskogo muzeya MGU (Collection of Papers of the Zoological Museum of Moscow State University), 1968, vol. 10, pp. 146–160.Google Scholar
  24. Kupriyanova, I.F., Biotopic groups of small mammals and the dynamics of their numerical relationship in the south of the Arkhangelsk oblast, in Fauna i ekologiya pozvonochnykh zhivotnykh (Fauna and Ecology of Vertebrates), Moscow: Izd. MGPI, 1978, pp. 114–130.Google Scholar
  25. Kurkhinen, Yu.P., Danilov, P.I., and Ivanter, E.V., Mlekopitayushchie Vostochnoi Fennoskandii v usloviyakh antropogennoi transformatsii taezhnykh ekosistem (Mammals of East Fennoscandia in the Conditions of Anthropogenic Transformation of Boreal Ecosystems), Moscow: Nauka, 2006.Google Scholar
  26. Lapin’, I.M., Biologiya i parazitofauna melkikh lesnykh mlekopitayushchikh Latviiskoi SSR (Biology and Helminthofauna of Small Forest Mammals of the Latvian SSR), Riga, 1963.Google Scholar
  27. Larin, B.A., Effect of intensive logging on the productivity of hunting grounds, Trudy VNIO, 1955, no. 14, pp. 137–144.Google Scholar
  28. Larsson, N., Small rodent abundance in relation to reforestation measures and natural habitat variables in Northern Sweden, Bulletin OEPP, 1977, vol. 7, pp. 397–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lindzey, A.A., Response of the white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leocopus) to the transition between disturbed and undisturbed habitats, Can. J. Zool., 1989, vol. 67, no. 2, pp. 505–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mikholap, O.N. and Terekhovich, V.F., Population dynamics of rodents in the forest biotopes of Belarus, in Ekologiya pozvonochnykh zhivotnykh Belorussii (Ecology of Vertebrates of Belarus), Minsk, 1965, pp. 34–41.Google Scholar
  31. Morris, D., Tests of density-dependent habitat selection in a patchy environment, Ecol. Monogr., 1987, vol. 57, no. 4, pp. 269–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Naumov, S.P. and Rukovskii, N.N., The impact of logging and its renewal in the voles of the genera Clethrionomys and Microtus, in Novye problemy zoologicheskoi nauki (New Problems of Zoological Science), Stavropol, 1979.Google Scholar
  33. Pernetta, J.C., Population ecology of British shrews in grass lands, Acta Theriol., 1977, vol. 22, pp. 279–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Popov, I.Yu., The structure and dynamics of populations of small mammals in relation to vegetation succession in European southern taiga, Extended Abstract of Cand. Sci. (Biol.) Dissertation, Moscow, 1998.Google Scholar
  35. Shenbrot, G.I., Sokolov, V.E., Geptner, V.G., and Koval’skaya, Yu.M., Tushkanchikoobraznye. Mlekopitayushchie Rossii i sopredel’nykh regionov (Dipodoidea. Mammals of Russia and Adjacent Regions), Moscow: Nauka, 1995.Google Scholar
  36. Siivonen, L., Mlekopitayushchie Severnoi Evropy (Mammals of Northern Europe), Moscow: Progress, 1979.Google Scholar
  37. Tast, J., Influence of the root vole, Microtus oeconomus (Pallas), upon the habitat selection of the field vole, Microtus agrestis (L.), Northern Finland, Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia. Timituks. S. A, 1968, vol. 4, no. 136, p. 24.Google Scholar
  38. Tast, J., Influence of the root vole, Microtus oeconoimus (Pall.) in man-made habitats in Finland, Ann. Zool. Fenn., 1972, vol. 5, pp. 62–72.Google Scholar
  39. Tur’eva, V.V., The fauna of small rodents of different forest types and its changes under the influence of logging, Trudy. Komi Fil. AN SSSR, 1956, no. 4, pp. 112–115.Google Scholar
  40. Zablotskaya, L.V., Data on ecology of the main species of muroid rodents of the Prioksko-Terrasnyi Reserve and adjacent forests, Trudy Prioksko-Terras. Zapov., 1957, no. 1, pp. 170–240.Google Scholar
  41. Zhigarev, I.A., Melkie mlekopitayushchie rekreatsionnykh lesov Podmoskov’ya (Small Mammals of Recreational Forest of Moscow Environs), Moscow: Prometei, 2004.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Inc. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Petrozavodsk State UniversityPetrozavodskRussia

Personalised recommendations