Habitat use and home range traits of resident and relocated hares (Lepus europaeus, Pallas)

Abstract

The aim of the study was to identify the habitat preferences and home range of resident and relocated brown hares during the nohunting period. The trial was carried out in a protected area and in a free-hunting territory (FHT), both located in the Florence province. During the captures, 21 hares were equipped with a necklace radio-tag: seven hares (resident group) were released in the same area of capture and 14 hares (relocated group) were relocated in six different locations within the FHT. The effect of the place of release was analysed by ANOVA and/or nonparametric methods. Results showed that the home ranges of the resident group were characterized by a greater amount of fallow land and shrub land than of the relocated group (P<0.05). Home range sizes and maximum distances from the releasing sites were greater in the relocated group. Resident hares preferred landscape characterized by a higher density of patches (152 vs. 70 n/100 ha), patch richness (43 vs. 12 n/100 ha), and patch area (4703 vs. 8142 m 2 ) than the relocated hares (P<0.01). The landscape structure indices, the home range sizes and the maximum distance from the releasing sites suggest that the relocated hares, even if released in suitable habitats, will move from their releasing point to look for better habitats. The landscape with the most complexity is preferred by the resident hares. This result should be considered when a project is programmed to reintroduce this lagomorph into a territory, or when it is necessary to improve the dynamics of a natural population.

Spring and autumn habitat preferences of active European hares (Lepus europaeus) in an agricultural area with low hare density

“…However, evidence of use of most other habitat types from different studies is contradictory in part. As an example, woodland and hedges are reported to be avoided in some studies (Tapper and Barnes 1986;Roedenbeck and Voser 2008;Ferretti et al 2010;Cardarelli et al 2011;Bertolino et al 2011b) and preferred in others (Tapper and Barnes 1986;Homolka et al 1988;Bertolino et al 2011a).…”

“…However, all studies on habitat selection have been conducted in areas where European hare densities are between medium and high as densities range between 15 to 74 animals per 100 ha (Pielowski 1966;Jezierski 1968;Pépin 1986;Tapper and Barnes 1986;Marboutin and Aebischer 1996;Smith et al 2004Smith et al , 2005Pépin and Angibault 2007;Vidus-Rosin et al 2009Ferretti et al 2010;Cardarelli et al 2011;Bertolino et al 2011b). Finding habitat preferences at high densities is difficult as most available habitats are occupied (Frylestam 1979) due to intraspecific competition for resources and the use of unpreferred habitats by subordinate individuals.…”

Performance and mortality of farmed hares

“…As a consequence, knowledge about productive performance and, more importantly, diseases of farmed hares is lacking (Trocchi and Riga, 2005;Sánchez-García et al, 2012). In contrast, a number of studies are available on free-living European brown hares in Italy and in Europe (Strauß et al, 2008;Ferretti et al, 2010); these mainly focus on local wild populations or farmed hares released into the wild.…”

Reducing visual stimulations in European hares (Lepus europaeusPallas) captured for translocation

“…A valuable technique for restocking, inside low densities free hunting territories, is the release of brown hares captured in high-density protected areas (Ferretti et al, 2010) and/or in large enclosures (Santilli et al, 2004). Capture for translocation (transport and release in different areas, presenting more or less similar habitats) may cause direct death or stress that can play a role in the development of future complications in the released hares.…”