scholarly journals Spatial Segregation between Red Foxes (Vulpes vulpes), European Wildcats (Felis silvestris) and Domestic Cats (Felis catus) in Pastures in a Livestock Area of Northern Spain

Diversity ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (7) ◽  
pp. 268
Author(s):  
Alberto Rodríguez ◽  
Fermín Urra ◽  
Fernando Jubete ◽  
Jacinto Román ◽  
Eloy Revilla ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Vulpes Vulpes ◽  
Spatial Segregation ◽  
Felis Catus ◽  
Forest Edges ◽  
Felis Silvestris ◽  
Domestic Cats ◽  
Northern Spain ◽  
Red Foxes ◽  
Species Pairs ◽  
Anthropogenic Modifications

Red foxes, European wildcats and domestic cats share cattle pastures for hunting in La Pernía Valley, northern Spain. To understand the mechanisms that allow the coexistence of these mesopredators in a habitat characterized by its anthropogenic modifications, we recorded sightings of these species in pastures in the summers of 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019. We tested if the species preferred specific areas of pastures and if they exhibited any spatial segregation in the use of pastures. Red foxes did not show consistent preferences for any area of the pastures. European wildcats preferred pasture areas closer to streams and forest edges, whereas domestic cats preferred areas closer to buildings and paved roads whilst avoiding forest edges. All species pairs showed strong spatial segregation with less than 7% overlap. We hypothesize that spatial segregation is the mechanism used by European wildcats and domestic cats to avoid dangerous interactions with other predators and which characterizes their preference of specific areas on pastures, using areas near places that may protect them from other predators. Ultimately, the influence of fox presence (and probably that of other larger potential predators) on the use of pastures by European wildcats and domestic cats is decreasing the number of interactions between them and may help to prevent hybridization in this area.

scholarly journals Hairs of wild Felis silvestris silvestris and domestic Felis catus – are they distinctive after all? (Carnivora: Felidae)

2021 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-79
Author(s):  
Lisa Lehmann ◽  
Clara Stefen
Keyword(s):  
Hair Shaft ◽  
Felis Catus ◽  
Species Differentiation ◽  
Hair Length ◽  
Felis Silvestris ◽  
Domestic Cats ◽  
Banding Patterns ◽  
Felis Silvestris Silvestris ◽  
Wild Cats ◽  
First Time

This study addressed the question whether it is possible to clearly differentiate between wild and tabby domestic cats on the basis of hairs (guard hairs in particular). The colour banding pattern of individual hairs is studied in this context for the first time. Also, hair length and width, as well as parameters of the hair cuticle were checked for differences, as it is well known that wild cats have long hairs and a fine, silky fur. Several banding patterns were observed, some shared between both cat forms, but with different frequencies. But this is not enough for species differentiation and more specimens need to be studied to get a better idea of the variation in this trait. The cuticle pattern even in the same region of the hairs (medium and shield-free part of the hair shaft) varies considerably and statistically significant differences were found only for few measured parameters: hair length, hair width and scale perimeter. Nevertheless, even most of them are not sufficient to determine wild or domestic cats. However, as expected, the hairs of wild cats are statistically significantly longer than those of tabby domestic cats, and hairs longer than 50 mm can be clearly attributed to wild cats.

Diet Of Foxes And Cats, With Evidence Of Predation On Yellow-Footed Rock-Wallabies (Petrogale Xanthopus Celeris) By Foxes In Southwsetern Queensland.

2001 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 47 ◽  
Author(s):  
SJ Lapidge ◽  
S Henshall
Keyword(s):  
Content Analysis ◽  
Stomach Content ◽  
Vulpes Vulpes ◽  
Control Program ◽  
Stomach Content Analysis ◽  
Felis Catus ◽  
Red Foxes ◽  
Feral Cats ◽  
Feral Animal Control ◽  
Feral Animal

INTRODUCED red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) and feral cats (Felis catus) were shot on Lambert, Acton and Caranna Pastoral Stations in southwestern Queensland (25�20'S; 145�24'E) (Fig. 1) as part of a feral animal control program undertaken before and during the experimental reintroduction of yellowfooted rock-wallabies (Petrogale xanthopus celeris) to Lambert Station. Animals were encountered during regular fieldtrip spotlight surveys or as part of a macropod harvesting program. Sixty-eight V. vulpes (20?, 10?, 38 sex unknown) and 32 F. catus (10?, 12?, 10 sex unknown) were shot between February 1998 and October 2000; stomach content analysis was carried out on 27 V. vulpes (18?, 9?) and 23 F. catus (11?, 12?). Animals not sexed or examined were shot in the absence of the first author.

Wild Red Foxes (Vulpes vulpes) as Sentinels of Parasitic Diseases in the Province of Soria, Northern Spain

2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (12) ◽  
pp. 743-749 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lourdes Lledó ◽  
Consuelo Giménez-Pardo ◽  
José Vicente Saz ◽  
José Luis Serrano
Keyword(s):  
Vulpes Vulpes ◽  
Parasitic Diseases ◽  
Northern Spain ◽  
Red Foxes

A comparison of the diets of feral cats Felis catus and red foxes Vulpes vulpes on Phillip Island, Victoria.

2005 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 89 ◽  
Author(s):  
R Kirkwood ◽  
P Dann ◽  
M Belvedere
Keyword(s):  
Vulpes Vulpes ◽  
Felis Catus ◽  
Similar Species ◽  
Red Foxes ◽  
Feral Cats ◽  
Profound Impact ◽  
Dietary Components

THE introduction of feral cats (Felis catus) and red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) to Australia in the 1800s had a profound impact on resident ecosystems. Both predators colonised successfully and now are distributed across most of mainland Australia (Saunders et al. 1995; Abbott 2002). They consume mainly ground-dwelling mammals (Coman 1973; Croft and Hone 1978; Jones and Coman 1981; Lapidge and Henshall 2002; Hutchings 2003), but where these are scarce, birds, reptiles, insects and human refuse may become important dietary components (e.g., Bubela et al. 1998; Paltridge 2002). Although they prey on similar species, when compared at the same location differences in diet between the predators are evident (Triggs et al. 1984; Catling 1988; Risbey et al. 1999).

Havens for threatened Australian mammals: the contributions of fenced areas and offshore islands to the protection of mammal species susceptible to introduced predators

2018 ◽  
Vol 45 (7) ◽  
pp. 627 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Legge ◽  
John C. Z. Woinarski ◽  
Andrew A. Burbidge ◽  
Russell Palmer ◽  
Jeremy Ringma ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Vulpes Vulpes ◽  
Population Declines ◽  
Domestic Cats ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Red Foxes ◽  
Mammal Species ◽  
Naturally Occurring ◽  
Introduced Predators ◽  
Landscape Scales

Context Many Australian mammal species are highly susceptible to predation by introduced domestic cats (Felis catus) and European red foxes (Vulpes vulpes). These predators have caused many extinctions and have driven large distributional and population declines for many more species. The serendipitous occurrence of, and deliberate translocations of mammals to, ‘havens’ (cat- and fox-free offshore islands, and mainland fenced exclosures capable of excluding cats and foxes) has helped avoid further extinction. Aims The aim of this study was to conduct a stocktake of current island and fenced havens in Australia and assess the extent of their protection for threatened mammal taxa that are most susceptible to cat and fox predation. Methods Information was collated from diverse sources to document (1) the locations of havens and (2) the occurrence of populations of predator-susceptible threatened mammals (naturally occurring or translocated) in those havens. The list of predator-susceptible taxa (67 taxa, 52 species) was based on consensus opinion from >25 mammal experts. Key results Seventeen fenced and 101 island havens contain 188 populations of 38 predator-susceptible threatened mammal taxa (32 species). Island havens cover a larger cumulative area than fenced havens (2152km2 versus 346km2), and reach larger sizes (largest island 325km2, with another island of 628km2 becoming available from 2018; largest fence: 123km2). Islands and fenced havens contain similar numbers of taxa (27 each), because fenced havens usually contain more taxa per haven. Populations within fences are mostly translocated (43 of 49; 88%). Islands contain translocated populations (30 of 139; 22%); but also protect in situ (109) threatened mammal populations. Conclusions Havens are used increasingly to safeguard threatened predator-susceptible mammals. However, 15 such taxa occur in only one or two havens, and 29 such taxa (43%) are not represented in any havens. The taxon at greatest risk of extinction from predation, and in greatest need of a haven, is the central rock-rat (Zyzomys pedunculatus). Implications Future investment in havens should focus on locations that favour taxa with no (or low) existing haven representation. Although havens can be critical for avoiding extinctions in the short term, they cover a minute proportion of species’ former ranges. Improved options for controlling the impacts of cats and foxes at landscape scales must be developed and implemented.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document