Movements and Home Range Dynamics of Cottontail Rabbits in Mississippi

Bond, Bobby T.; Leopold, Bruce D.; Burger, L. Wes; Godwin, K. David

doi:10.2307/3803049

Cited by 39 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The avoidance of anthropogenic-occupied areas came out mostly in allopatry, where villages and road networks were more developed than in the sympatric area; Roedenbeck and Voser (2008) identified the negative effect of villages and road networks on the spatial distribution of hares even in protected areas. Cottontails are also known to feed in association with permanent cover, mostly woods, hedgerows and arboriculture stands (Vance 1976;Swihart and Yahner 1982;Morgan and Gates 1983;Bond et al 2001;Vidus-Rosin et al 2008). Unlike hares, the avoidance by cottontails of crops underlines the relative importance of cropland in our study areas depending on abundance and availability of other herbaceous vegetation, such as alfalfa, edges, and of farmsteads that could provide food and good shelters to cottontails (piles, small buildings, machinery sheds; Swihart and Yahner 1982;Mankin and Warner 1999;Bond et al 2002;Vidus-Rosin et al 2008).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Even if the two species substantially share most habitats for feeding, habitat exploitation by them seems to be promoted by differential habitat use within macro-habitat types, as supported by different macro-and micro-habitat characteristics of their presence sites in sympatry. Studies on different taxa have noted that foraging behaviour is not only motivated by maximum acquisition of nutrients but also by predator avoidance, because whether a prey species (like lagomorphs) increases or decreases its vigilance rate, thereby sacrificing or increasing its foraging activity, may depend on how secure the species senses it is in its habitat structure (Barbour and Litvaitis 1993;Kie 1999;Smith and Litvaitis 2000;Bond et al 2001). The two species exhibited contrasting dependence on cover for protection against predators during feeding due to their different anti-predator strategies: hares use long-distance running to escape from terrestrial predators while cottontails run away for short distances to shelter in the nearest dense cover (Cowan and Bell 1986;Fa et al 1992;Althoff et al 1997).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, cottontails used woods in greater proportion than hares, and within woodlots the species occupied also the central area where thick layers of plant litter were more developed. Woods with good understory represent a suitable habitat for cottontails because they provide optimal cover from predators, abundant forage base and facilitate thermoregulation (Swihart and Yahner 1982;Althoff et al 1997;Bond et al 2001). In general, it seems that hares were more likely than cottontails to exploit open habitats.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Eastern cottontails are known as crepuscular to nocturnal foragers, spending the daylight hours in shelters with vegetative cover, however, they are occasionally seen at any time of the day (Chapman et al 1980;Althoff et al 1997;Bond et al 2001;Hoffman and Smith 2005). This species may use cover for two reasons, as a nocturnal forager, tall brush, bushes, shrubs, and, to a lesser extent, pine trees with low-lying branches provide sufficient escape cover from terrestrial and areal predators while foraging (Trent and Rongstad 1974;Cox et al 1997;Smith and Litvaitis 2000;Vidus Rosin et al 2010;Bertolino et al 2011).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This species may use cover for two reasons, as a nocturnal forager, tall brush, bushes, shrubs, and, to a lesser extent, pine trees with low-lying branches provide sufficient escape cover from terrestrial and areal predators while foraging (Trent and Rongstad 1974;Cox et al 1997;Smith and Litvaitis 2000;Vidus Rosin et al 2010;Bertolino et al 2011). Cottontails also use the cover of dense vegetation as shelter during daytime to reduce heat loss and avoid predators, which makes vegetation structure a possible key indicator of habitat suitability for cottontails (Swihart and Yahner 1982;Althoff et al 1997;Smith and Litvaitis 2000;Bond et al 2001;Bock et al 2006). Vegetation cover not only influenced the habitat use of European rabbits, but also home range size in response to sheltering vegetation and thus predation pressure (Lombardi et al 2007).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Foraging and habitat use of eastern cottontails (Sylvilagus floridanus) in an urban landscape

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Urban landscapes such as college campuses, arboretums, and backyards provide excellent habitats for education and research into animal behavior. We investigated aspects of the foraging activity of free-ranging Eastern cottontails (Sylvilagus floridanus) on the campuses of the University of Illinois at Chicago and Lawrence University. We used giving-up densities (GUD) to test for habitat selection and patch-use behavior by cottontails inhabiting an urban landscape with a gradient of shrub and tree cover. In addition, we used small garden fences around feeding trays to test their effect as obstacles to the foraging of cottontails. Foraging activity was significantly higher under cover than in the open. GUDs were significantly lower in proximity to cover; in addition, shrubs were preferred over low-laying trees as the source of cover. Camera trap photos revealed solitary foraging, highest in the late afternoon and early morning. We demonstrated that surrounding a food patch with 3 or 4 fences increased the cottontails' GUDs. Similar to natural habitats, urban landscapes offer heterogeneous environments that force their inhabitants to allocate their foraging activity according to their perceived stresses. Studying effect of habitat complexity on foraging responses provides useful tools to study ecological interactions and can help minimize the damage that cottontails cause within urban environments such as city parks and private gardens.

show abstract

Selection of food patches by sympatric herbivores in response to concealment and distance from a refuge

Crowell

Shipley

Camp

et al. 2016

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummarySmall herbivores face risks of predation while foraging and are often forced to trade off food quality for safety. Life history, behaviour, and habitat of predator and prey can influence these trade‐offs. We compared how two sympatric rabbits (pygmy rabbit, Brachylagus idahoensis; mountain cottontail, Sylvilagus nuttallii) that differ in size, use of burrows, and habitat specialization in the sagebrush‐steppe of western North America respond to amount and orientation of concealment cover and proximity to burrow refuges when selecting food patches. We predicted that both rabbit species would prefer food patches that offered greater concealment and food patches that were closer to burrow refuges. However, because pygmy rabbits are small, obligate burrowers that are restricted to sagebrush habitats, we predicted that they would show stronger preferences for greater cover, orientation of concealment, and patches closer to burrow refuges. We offered two food patches to individuals of each species during three experiments that either varied in the amount of concealment cover, orientation of concealment cover, or distance from a burrow refuge. Both species preferred food patches that offered greater concealment, but pygmy rabbits generally preferred terrestrial and mountain cottontails preferred aerial concealment. Only pygmy rabbits preferred food patches closer to their burrow refuge. Different responses to concealment and proximity to burrow refuges by the two species likely reflect differences in perceived predation risks. Because terrestrial predators are able to dig for prey in burrows, animals like pygmy rabbits that rely on burrow refuges might select food patches based more on terrestrial concealment. In contrast, larger habitat generalists that do not rely on burrow refuges, like mountain cottontails, might trade off terrestrial concealment for visibility to detect approaching terrestrial predators. This study suggests that body size and evolutionary adaptations for using habitat, even in closely related species, might influence anti‐predator behaviors in prey species.

show abstract

Movements and Home Range Dynamics of Cottontail Rabbits in Mississippi

Cited by 39 publications

References 16 publications

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

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

Foraging and habitat use of eastern cottontails (Sylvilagus floridanus) in an urban landscape

Selection of food patches by sympatric herbivores in response to concealment and distance from a refuge

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About