2011
DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-1795.2011.00472.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Survival of translocated wild rabbits: importance of habitat, physiological and immune condition

Abstract: European wild rabbit populations are declining in Mediterranean ecosystems, where the species is of special conservation interest, and translocations are one of the most-used tools to recover populations. We evaluated the effects of habitat and physiological and immune condition on the short-and long-term survival of translocated adult wild rabbits. Rabbits were released in four different habitat treatments frequently used in conservation programmes: additional shelter, additional food, additional shelter plus… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
13
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 47 publications
(80 reference statements)
0
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…a larger sample size) warrants further investigation, particularly considering that post-release survival was high for this reintroduction (by comparison, previously Panfylova et al (2016) reported just 19% female survival 6 months post-release). Social effects could then be incorporated with evidence for other individual-level effects on survival (Goldenberg et al, 2019), such as exploratory tendency or boldness (Bremner-Harrison, Prodohl & Elwood, 2004;May, Page & Fleming, 2016;Germano et al, 2017;Richardson et al, 2019), or physiological condition (Adams et al, 2010;Cabezas, Calvete & Moreno, 2011) to help inform conservation strategies and select individuals with the best suite of characteristics that might predict a successful translocation (see Parlato & Armstrong, 2013).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…a larger sample size) warrants further investigation, particularly considering that post-release survival was high for this reintroduction (by comparison, previously Panfylova et al (2016) reported just 19% female survival 6 months post-release). Social effects could then be incorporated with evidence for other individual-level effects on survival (Goldenberg et al, 2019), such as exploratory tendency or boldness (Bremner-Harrison, Prodohl & Elwood, 2004;May, Page & Fleming, 2016;Germano et al, 2017;Richardson et al, 2019), or physiological condition (Adams et al, 2010;Cabezas, Calvete & Moreno, 2011) to help inform conservation strategies and select individuals with the best suite of characteristics that might predict a successful translocation (see Parlato & Armstrong, 2013).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Our results did not properly achieve the second of our goals—to study the potential for releasing rabbits in subterranean tube warrens as a method for achieving successful restocking. According to the restocking results, we might consider those shelters as useful, but as only one of many influential factors in these dynamics (Cabezas et al ). The second goal might be achieved using indexes such as warren activity (Fernández‐Olalla et al ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We carried out a variety of different types of actions in each estate, including pasture improvement using phosphorus fertilizers in the areas surrounding the restocking zones (50 ha in each estate; Cabezas et al ), as described in Table . The restocking using subterranean tube warrens focused on creating areas of high wild rabbit density and good habitat (Calvete ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In these 9 enclosures, the rabbits were released in autumn and provided with the same kind of food ad libitum. The number of rabbits released was corrected by a short-term mortality rate of 66% estimated in adjacent predator exclusion fences (Guerrero-Casado et al, 2013b), similar to those estimated in other translocation exclusion fences (Cabezas et al, 2011). The number of rabbits/ha could be calculated as (adjusted R²=0.73; F(1,8)…”
Section: Rabbit Abundancementioning
confidence: 99%