The impact of sarcoptic mangeSarcoptes scabieion the British foxVulpes vulpespopulation

Abstract

1. Disease epizootics can significantly influence host population dynamics and the structure and functioning of ecological communities. Sarcoptic mange Sarcoptes scabiei has dramatically reduced red fox populations Vulpes vulpes in several countries, including Britain, although impacts on demographic processes are poorly understood. We review the literature on the impact of mange on red fox populations, assess its current distribution in Britain through a questionnaire survey and present new data on resultant demographic changes in foxes in Bristol, UK. 2.A mange epizootic in Sweden spread across the entire country in < 10 years resulting in a decline in fox density of up to 95%; density remained lowered for 15-20 years. In Spain, mange has been enzootic for > 75 years and is widely distributed; mange presence was negatively correlated with habitat quality. 3. Localized outbreaks have occurred sporadically in Britain during the last 100 years. The most recent large-scale outbreak arose in the 1990s, although mange has been present in south London and surrounding environs since the 1940s. The questionnaire survey indicated that mange was broadly distributed across Britain, but areas of perceived high prevalence (> 50% affected) were mainly in central and southern England. Habitat type did not significantly affect the presence/absence of mange or perceived prevalence rates. Subjective assessments suggested that populations take 15-20 years to recover. 4. Mange appeared in Bristol's foxes in 1994. During the epizootic phase , mange spread through the city at a rate of 0.6-0.9 km/month, with a rise in infection in domestic dogs Canis familiaris c. 1-2 months later. Juvenile and adult fox mortality increased and the proportion of females that reproduced declined but litter size was unaffected. Population density declined by > 95%. 5. In the enzootic phase (1996-present), mange was the most significant mortality factor. Juvenile mortality was significantly higher than in the pre-mange period, and the number of juveniles classified as dispersers declined. Mange infection reduced the reproductive potential of males and females: females with advanced mange did not breed; severely infected males failed to undergo spermatogenesis. In 2004, Bristol fox population density was only 15% of that in 1994.

Terrestrial non-volant small mammals in agro-silvicultural landscapes of Southeastern Brazil

“…sity conservation, depending on the management scheme used. In some areas of the world, the implementation of agro-ecosystems have increased habitat spatial heterogeneity with the maintenance of both agriculture and native patches in the landscape, which have been beneficial for many mammals, including mice and bats (Macdonald et al, 2007). This positive effect is often associated with habitat complementation processes in which different patches contain different resources necessary to the population survival (Dunning et al, 1992).…”

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

“…Studies conducted on plants, insects, birds and mammals have shown that organic farming practices can counteract the negative effects of agriculture intensification (Beecher et al, 2002;Fischer et al, 2011;Holzschuh et al, 2006;Macdonald et al, 2007;Roschewitz et al, 2005). However, the magnitude of their effects seems to vary greatly, particularly among taxa and across landscapes (Batáry et al, 2011;Bengtsson et al, 2005;Winqvist et al, 2012).…”

Wildflower areas within revitalized agricultural matrices boost small mammal populations but not breeding Barn Owls

“…Kleijn and Sutherland 2003;Knop et al 2006;Whitthingham 2007). Until very recently, their role in enhancing biomass along food chains has not been a major focus of research (Shore et al 2005;Aschwanden et al 2007;Askew et al 2007;MacDonald et al 2007;Reid et al 2007). This is surprising because ecosystem functionalities largely depend upon major fluxes of biomass and energy from the lower to the upper trophic levels; a few dominant producer and consumer species usually constitute the basic architecture of an ecological community.…”