Habitat overlap between sympatric European hares (Lepus europaeus) and Eastern cottontails (Sylvilagus floridanus) in northern Italy

Abstract

In northern Italy, the range of the Eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus) largely overlaps with that of the native European hare (Lepus europaeus) on the Po Plain. Both species appear to have similar habitat requirements. We studied habitat selection by hares and cottontails during feeding activity from September 2006 to August 2007 in two areas where they occur alone (allopatry) and in one area where they occur together (sympatry). The three areas were basically similar, so that shifts in habitat use observed in sympatry should reflect the response to interspecific competition. Habitat selection was examined at micro-and macro-habitat levels throughout seasons. Habitat breadth of both species followed the change of resource availability through seasons in allopatry as well as in sympatry. No shifts in habitat use were evident at macrohabitat level, even during autumn which was the limiting season. Exploitation of shared habitats by the two species seems to be promoted by differential micro-habitat use within macro-habitat types. Cottontails used woods with dense understory in greater proportion than hares, and their present sites were concentrated within the maximum distance of 20 m of the nearest shelter site. Hares were more likely than cottontails to exploit crops, and their sites were distributed even greater than 80 m away from permanent cover patches. The habitat heterogeneity of agricultural ecosystems within the sympatry range could buffer the negative effects of external factors (climate, human disturbance and predation) on hares, and enhance the chances of exploitation of shared habitats by both species.

Dietary partitioning between European roe deer and European brown hare

“…In turn, open fields are its main feeding habitat (Meriggi and Verri 1990;Vidus Rosin et al 2009, 2011. Our results confirm this pattern, because plant species growing in open fields built up ca.…”

Rabbits killing hares: an invasive mammal modifies native predator–prey dynamics

“…We conducted longitudinal data analysis on the abundance of the three species, while previous studies were cross-sectional and did not consider indirect interactions with foxes, failing in finding any impact (Bertolino et al, 2011a(Bertolino et al, , 2013Vidus-Rosin et al, 2011). We conducted longitudinal data analysis on the abundance of the three species, while previous studies were cross-sectional and did not consider indirect interactions with foxes, failing in finding any impact (Bertolino et al, 2011a(Bertolino et al, , 2013Vidus-Rosin et al, 2011).…”

“…Apparent competition is another major consequence of introduced mammals, especially on islands when both a prey and a predator are introduced causing hyperpredation processes (Courchamp et al, 2000;Zhang et al, 2006). Its interactions with the native European hare Lepus europaeus are complex, because the two species select different macro-and microhabitats (Bertolino, Cordero di Montezemolo & Perrone, 2011aVidus-Rosin et al, 2011), but cottontails carry several viruses and parasites, which can potentially affect hares (Bertolino et al, 2010;Tizzani et al, 2011Tizzani et al, , 2014Zanet et al, 2013;Lavazza et al, 2015). As the various competitive dynamics arising with the introduction of invasive mammals can produce long-standing effects on ecosystems, assessing their structure and magnitude is crucial to design effective policies aimed at reducing the impact of invasive species meanwhile minimizing collateral damage to ecosystems (Bergstrom et al, 2009). This work aims at modeling the ecological impact of an invasive mammal in northern Italy.…”

Habitat heterogeneity as the key determinant of the abundance and habitat preference of prey species of tiger in the Chitwan National Park, Nepal

“…where B i,s is the standardized Manly's index for habitat preference for species s in habitat type i, which can be interpreted as the probability that species s selects habitat i, if all habitats are equally available (also used by Vidus-Rosin et al 2011). Finally, for each species, the standardized preference indices B i were summed for all habitats that were used by prey species, in order to determine the proportion of habitat that was preferred by each species.…”