Movement distances of two species of sympatric rodents in linear habitats of Central Argentine agro-ecosystems

Abstract

a b s t r a c tMovement patterns of Akodon azarae and Calomys venustus in linear habitats were studied in relation to sex, season and abundance. Movement distances were measured by seasonal capture-mark-recapture samples from November 2005 to August 2007 in field borders in agro-ecosystems of Central Argentina. Movement distances in A. azarae varied by season and sex. During the breeding period, movement distances of males were longer than those of females, meanwhile in non-breeding period movement distances became similar between sexes. The main effect of sex on movement distances is consistent with the promiscuous / polygynous mating system suggested for A. azarae. Abundance and sex were the most important factor affecting movement distances in C. venustus, males moved larger distances than females and the higher the abundance, the shorter the movement distances of individuals. The results of this study may have implications in the management of non-crop linear habitats in agriculture landscapes since the maintenance of field borders would be important to support rodent populations that are important food sources for birds and mammals.

Small mammals in farmlands of Argentina: Responses to organic and conventional farming

“…In Argentina, mean plot sizes of agricultural systems are larger than those of European systems (in our study, mean plot size >30 ha versus <10 ha in average in European systems, e.g. Fischer et al, 2011), fully exceeding dispersal scale of rodent species (Gomez et al, 2011;Sommaro et al, 2010). Thus, crop fields in conventional farms with scarce weed cover could not connect suitable habitats for small mammals nor provide shelter from predators; reinforcing the importance of border habitats as corridors and as source of resources for long-term survival and reproduction in these agroecosystems (Coda et al, 2014;Gomez et al, 2011;Sommaro et al, 2010).…”

“…Fischer et al, 2011), fully exceeding dispersal scale of rodent species (Gomez et al, 2011;Sommaro et al, 2010). Thus, crop fields in conventional farms with scarce weed cover could not connect suitable habitats for small mammals nor provide shelter from predators; reinforcing the importance of border habitats as corridors and as source of resources for long-term survival and reproduction in these agroecosystems (Coda et al, 2014;Gomez et al, 2011;Sommaro et al, 2010). Although, mean plot sizes of organic farms are similar to those of conventional ones, the formers could provide more resources (coverage and food) for small mammals, both in border habitat and crop fields; which could be related to the exclusion of external inputs (Coda et al, 2014).…”

“…These lines were located parallel to border lines at 15 m within crop fields (see details in Appendix: Table A1). The minimum distance between lines was 300 m to avoid correlation between neighbouring lines and the influence of neighbouring farms (Gomez et al, 2011;Sommaro et al, 2010). Traps were baited with a mixture of peanut butter and cow fat.…”

“…These linear habitats frequently receive intentional or unintentional spraying of broad-spectrum herbicides from the neighbouring crops (de la Fuente et al, 2010;Ghersa et al, 2002). In intensively managed agricultural landscapes, the maintenance of undisturbed linear habitat networks can attenuate the effects of agricultural intensification by providing suitable habitats for biodiversity conservation (Coda et al, 2014;Gomez et al, 2011;Simone et al, 2010).…”

Edge effects on small mammals: Differences between arboreal and ground‐dwelling species living near roads in Brazilian fragmented landscapes

“…However, in the tropics, some rainforest-dependent species of small mammals avoid edges (Goosem 2000(Goosem , 2007. A number of studies suggest that in the tropics, ground-dwelling species are prone to edge attraction behaviour (Bergallo et al 2005;Gomez et al 2010), whereas arboreal species are more dependent on the forest interior and show edge avoidance behaviour (Pardini 2004;P€ uttker et al 2008). Apart from the edge itself, the habitat structure (e.g.…”