448
aussi que Ia pipistrelle commune est, de loin, l’espèce Ia mieux représentée dens cette
yule.
Cest Ic seul gite de ce type abritant des chauves-souris en He-dc-France, mais
c’est aussi Ic plus important en effectif de chiroptères hivemant de mute cette region.
Remercietnents. Noun tenons a remercier Alexandre Hacquart de nous avoir indiqut cc
gite, A. Brosset et D. Masson pour avoir rein cc manuscrit.
—
Bibliographie.
DUMITRESCO, M. et T, ORGHIDAN, 1963. Contribution a la connaissance de Ia biologic de Pipistrellus pipistrellus Schreber. Ann. spéláo., 18 : 511-517.
GAISLER, J., 1979.
Results of bat census in a town (Mammalia: Chiroptera) Vestnik Ceskoloveuske spolecnosti, Ada Societatis Zoologicae Bohenwslovenicae, tome 43, fasc. 1
—
—
7-21.
J., 1982.
HAENSEL,
—
Weitere Notinen Uber im Berliner Stadtgebiet aufgefundene Fledermause
(Zeitraum 1972-1979). Nyctalus, NF 1: 425-444.
HOOPER, J.H.D., 1981.— The use of an ultrasonic receiver to obtain distribution data for pipistidIes and other bats within the London area. The London Naturalist, 60: 47-63.
MASSON, D., 1984. Contribution a I’étude des chauves-souris du sud-ouest de Ia France. I. Liste
commentée des chiroptbres d’Aquitaine et du Lot. Luireola, 1: 1-16.
Snorri M., ‘1988. Ddcouverte dun important gIte It Minioptéres (Miniopterus schreibersi
Mammifèrcs Chiroptères) en Corse. Bull. Soc. Sc. Hist. Nat. Corse, 107 (553): 97-104.
SCHOBnR, W. et E. GRTMMnEROER, 1991. Guide des chauves-souris d’Europe. Delachaux et
Niestlé: 154 p.
—
-
—
-
—
Red fox capture locations
in relation to home range boundaries
by A. T1tvAira’, J. ALOAMA2 and M. Dnuucs’
‘Esración Biolégica de Doñana, CSJC; Pabellón del Perd, 41013 Sevilla, Spain
2Parque Nacional de Donana, ICONA Mosalascanas, 21760 Almonte, Huelva, Spain
,
Several studies have shown that the capture location of individual canids is often
outside their subsequently estimated home range (Laundrd and Keller 1983; Windberg
and Knowlton 1990). To explain this, Flibler (1976 in Laundrd and Keller 1983) has
suggested that coyotes (Canis latrans) could be more susceptible to capture along the
edges of their home ranges because these areas are less commonly used and therefore,
coyotes engage there in more frequent investigative behaviours. However, Laundré and
Keller (1983) found that vulnerability of coyotes did not differ between boundaries and
centers of home ranges.
Mammalia, t. 57, ii’ 3, 1993.
NOTES
449
Here we present an analysis of the trappability and capture location of red foxes
(Vulpes vulpes) in relation to their home range boundaries. Our purposes are a) determine if foxes are captured statistically more often inside or outside their subsequent
home range limits, b) to evaluate the alternative explanation of a potential geographical
shift of home range as a response to the stress of capture.
Study area and methods.
The study was carried out in the Biological Reserve of Dofiana, a 70 kin2 protected area inside the Doñana National Park, SW Spain (approximately 370 00’ N,
06° 30’ W).
Data came from 10 foxes captured with padded steel traps and radiocollared
(Wildlife Materials Inc., Carbondale, Illinois, U.S.A.) in 1985-1986 (1 adult female,
2 adult males and 1 subadult male) and February-June 1990 (6 aduii females, all of
them pregnant or lactating when captured). They were located by triangulation using a
portable receiver (A.V.M. Instrument Co., California, USA) and a hand-held Yagi
antenna.
Relocation data were computed and home ranges were calculated using the program McPAAL (Stuwe and Blohowiak 1985). Estimates of home range were determined using minimum convex polygons (Macdonald er a!. 1980), and harmonic mean
transformations (Dixon and Chapman 1980) with 3 different contours (90%, 75 % and
50%). Capture sites that were not enclosed by contour of 90% will be considered as
located at the edges or outside of the home range.
As an index of trapping effort, we counted the number of nights each successful
trap was active until it captured a fox. This information was available only for the six
adult females captured in 1990. We cannot assume equal trapping effort through the
home range of each individual fox.
Results and discussion.
Sex, location of the capture in relation to the subsequent home range, number of
radiolocations, and areas included in the harmonic mean contours (90%, 75 % and
50%) of the 10 foxes are shown in table 1.
For the six breeding females, which had a central place of activity (the den) and can
be considered as typical resident individuals, we have tested if captures were made
inside or outside the boundaries of the home range, as defined by the minimum convex
polygon. Four of the six captures occurred outside (Table I), which rejects the assumption that capture location should be within the home range (p = 0.022, n =6, Binomial
procedure; Siegel 1956). It could be that the increased energy requirements of the breeding females forced them to use the edges of their home range more often (M. Artois,
comm. pers,). Nevertheless, the pattem of range frequentation by these females was a
typical concentrical one, the frequency of radiolocations decreasing from the central den.
From the ten trapped animals, seven (4 females and 3 males) were captured outside the 90% harmonic contour of their home range. Although this proportion is not
statistically significant (p = 0.172, Binomial), it indicates a trend of the animals to be
more trappable in the boundaries. We found no statistical differences between the sexes.
Mean trapping effort for the six breeding females was 8.1 nights/trap, ranging
from 1 to 18. There are no statistical differences in trapping effort between the foxes
captured inside and in the edges of their home ranges (p = 0.267, n 6, Mann-Whitney
U-test).
450
MAMMALIA
TABLE 1. — Details of foxes trapped and tracked in Doflana National Park. Home range sizes are expressed
in Ian2.
Fox
*;
Sex
Edge!
Center
Tracking
Period
(weeks)
Radio—
locations
Mm.
cony.
Polygon
aarmonic
mean contour
50%
75%
90%
I
F
C
36
215
11.290
2.748
4.593
6.375
2*
F
5
9
58
2.715
0.300
0.686
2.178
3*
F
S
17
143
2.762
0.199
0.586
0.921
4*
F
5
17
159
0.780
0.080
0.260
0.630
5*
F
C
7
50
2.369
0.627
1.180
P.232
6*
F
C
13
120
3.149
0.351
0.754
1.854
7*
F
5
6
33
2.300
0.225
0.370
0.755
8
M
S
9
50
2.129
0.400
1.180
2.500
9
bl
5
17
95
11.923
1.100
2.800
5.700
10
H
E
3.1
72
12.580
1.900
4.800
7.930
Pregnant
ox lactating females when captured.
Our results confirm that most capt!Jres of red foxes occurred on the boundaries or
outside the home range defined after the capture. This can be interpreted at least in two
ways. Foxes could be more prone to be captured on the edges of their home ranges
because these areas are less intensively used, and because of that, the animals show
more investigative behaviour there (Laundrd and Keller 1983). It may, however, also
be that animals suffering a stress as a result of the capture, change their habits, avoiding the trapping zone. In this case, the home range following the capture will be different from the home range before the capture.
Trappability (here represented by trapping effort) was not higher on boundaries, as
should be expected if the animals would be more prone to be captured there. A similar
trend has been described by Laundrd and Keller (1983) for coyotes. Hence, the second
explanation seems to be supported better by the data.
We are aware more studies about trappability in carnivores should be made, specially on radiotagged animals monitored for long periods arid with at least one recapture. Also, studies in areas with different densities of the target animal are needed. In
the same way as Windberg and Knowlton (1990), this study was carried out in a region
with high density of foxes, estimated by Rau eta!. (1985) between 1 and 1.7
foxes/km2.
If a significant geographical shift of the home range in red foxes occurs after
being captured, as we have suggested, it should be considered in studies of spacing patterns and habitat use.
Acicnow!edgements. This study was made possible by financial and logistical support
train the Consejo Superior de Investigaciones CientIficas, the Insfituto Nacional para Ia Conservacidn de Ia Naturaleza and DOICYT PB 87-0405. We gratefully acknowledge the assistance in
—
NOTES
451
fox trapping and handling provided by Mr. R. Laffitte and P. Ferreras. Many helpful comments
and important improvements on the manuscript were suggested by Dr. I. Mulder, Dr. 1. Goszczynski, Dr. J.-M. Weber, Dr. J.A. Litvaitis, Dr. F. Palomares, Dr. J.A. Donazar, Dr. M. Artois
and an anonymous referee. N. Bustamante improved the English language.
Bibliography.
DixoN, RD. and J.A. CHAPMAN, 1980. Harmonic mean measure of animal activity areas. Ecology, 61: 1040-1044.
HuRLER, S.J., 1976.
Coyote movement patterns in Curlew Valley with emphasis on home range
characteristics. M.S. Thesis. tJtth State Univ. Lngan.
LAUNDRE, J.W. and B.L. KCLLaR, 1983. Trappability of coyotes relative to home range boundaries. Can. J. Zool., 61: 1932-1934.
McooNALn, D.W., F.G. BAu. and NO. MOUGH, 1980.— The evolution of home range size and
configuration using radio tracking data. Pp. 405424 in C.F. Amlaner, Jr., and D.W.
Macdonald, eds. A handbook on biotelemetry and radto tracking. Pergamon Press.
Oxford. UK.
RAU, J.R., M. DELIBES, J. Ruiz and J.I. Sanvm4, 1985. Estimating the abundance of the red fox
(Vulpes vulpes) in SW Spain. Pp. 869-876 in XVII Cong. mt. Union of Game Biol.
Brussels.
SIEGEL, S., 1956. Nonparametric methods for the behavioral sciences. McGraw-Hill Book Co.
New York. N.Y.
Stowe, M. and C.E. BwRows.&tc, 1985. McPaal microcomputer programs for the analysis of
animal locations (ver. 1.2). 19 pp.
WINDBaG, L.A. and F.K. KNOWLTON, 1990. Relative vulnerability of coyotes to some capture
procedures. Wildi. Soc. BulL, 18 : 282-290.
—
—
—
—
—
—
Non aggressive encounter between a wolf pack and a wild boar
by S. REtO
Museo Naciona! de Ciencias Naturales, CSIC,
José (utiérrez Abascal 2, Madrid 28006, Spain
Wild boar (Sus scrofa) is a common food for the wolf (Canis lupus) within the
range where both species are sympatric (Rzebik-Kowalska 1972; Cuesta eta!. 1991);
however, little is known about the wolf s hunting habits concerning this ungulate, especially regarding the relative dietary importance of killed versus scavenged prey. This
note reports an encounter between a wolf pack and wild boars in which no attack by
the wolves, and no attempt to escape by the boar, were seen. Though this record refers
only to an isolated observation, it seems to suggest that boats can sometimes hold wolf
packs at bay, in addition to using other tactics such as escape, group defense, etc. Thus,
Mam,nalia, t. 57, n° 3,1993.