HABITAT STRUCTURE AND DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABILITY OF A HABITAT SPECIALIST: THE ROCK MOUSE (Peromyscus difficilis)

Carlos Galindo Leal, Charles J. Krebs

Resumen


Abstract: We used a gradient ofhabitats in manzanita-oak shrubland in Durango, Mexico, to analyze demographic variability and microhabitat use patterns ofthe rock mouse (Peromyscus difficilis). We tested two hypotheses: First, demographic parameters of habitat specialists should be closely associated with habitat structure. Second, popu!ations with higher breeding densities should have higher adult survival, less recruitment and more stable densities. In addition, we analyzed the habitat structure correlates of demographic stability. Demographic characteristics were more dissimilar in those grids with the greatest differences in vegetation characteristics. The areas with highest breeding densities had low juvenile and subadult recruitment in the breeding season. Most populations were relatively stable during the first year of study, but one declined to extinction during the second year. There were differences in microhabitat use among sexes and ages, as well as among resident and ransient individuals, particularly in the breeding season.

Resumen: Utilizamos un gradiente de hábitats en el matorral de manzanita y encino en Durango, México, para analizar la variabilidad demográfica del ratón de las rocas Peromyscus difficilis). Examinamos dos hipótesis. Primera, los parámetros demográficos de los especialistas de hábitat deben de estar muy relacionados con la estructura del hábitat.
Segunda, las poblaciones con densidades altas de individuos reproductores deben tener mejor sobrevivencia de adultos, menor reclutamiento y mayor estabilidad. Además, analizamos la correlación entre la estructura del hábitat y la estabilidad demográfica. Las características demográficas fueron menos similares en aquellas áreas en donde existieron mayores diferencias en las características de la vegetación. Las áreas con densidades más altas de individuos reproductores tuvieron un bajo reclutamiento de individuos jóvenes y subadultos durante la época reproductiva. La mayoría de las poblaciones estuvieron relativamente estables durante el primer año de estudio, sin embargo, durante el segundo año, una población disminuyó hasta extinguirse.

Key Words: Peromyscus difficilis, demography, habitat structure, habitat specialists, Durango, Michilia Biosphere Reserve.


Palabras clave


Peromyscus difficilis, demografia, estructura del habitat, Durango, Reserva de la Biosfera Michilia

Texto completo:

PDF

Referencias


Adler,G. H., and M. L. Wilson. 1987. Demography of a habitat generalist, the white-footed mouse in a heterogeneous environment. Ecology, 68:1785-1796.

Alvarez, T., and O. J. Polaco. 1984. Estudio de los mamíferos capturados en La Michilía, sureste de Durango, México. Anales Escuela Nacional de Cíencias Biologicas, Mexico, 28:99-148.

Anderson, P. K.1970. Ecological structure and gene flow in small mammals. Symposium Zoological Society of London, 26:295-325.

Barry, W. J. 1976. Environmental effects on food hoarding in deermice (Peromyscus). Journal of Mammalogy, 57:731-746.

Bell, S. S., E. D. McCoy, and H. R. Mushinsky. 1990. Habitat structure: the physical arrangement of objects in space. Chapman and Hall, London. 438 pp.

Bondrup-Nielsen, S. 1987. Demography of Clethrionomys gapperi in different habitats. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 65:277-283.

Brown, J. H., and G. A. Lieberman. 1973. Resource utilization and coexistence of seedeating desert rodents in sand dune habitats. Ecology,54:788-797.

Carleton, M.D. 1989. Systematics and Development. Pp. 7-141, in: Advances in the study of Peromyscus (Rodentia) (G. L. Kirkland, and J. N. Layne, eds.). Texas Tech University Press, Lubbock Texas, 366 pp.

Cody, M. L. 1985. An Introduction to habitat selection in birds. Pp. 3-56, in: Habitat selection in birds (M.L. Cody, ed.). Academic Press, Orlando.

Galindo-Leal, C. 1990. Live-trapping vs. snap-trapping of deer mice: a comparison of methods. Acta Theriologica, 35:357-363.

Galindo-Leal, C. 1991. Effects of habitat and food on demographic classes and population dynarnics of a habitat specialist, the rock mouse. Ph.D. Thesis. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, RC. Canada

Galindo-Leal, C. 1996. Microhabitat differentiation among demographic classes ofthe rock mouse (Peromyscus difJicilis). Vida Silvestre Neotropical, 51:22-32

Galindo-Leal, C. 1997. Botfly infestation of rock mice (Peromyscus difJicilis):ecological consequences of sex differences. Journal of Mammalogy, (in press)

Galindo-Leal, C., and C. J. Krebs. 1987. Population regulation of deer mice: the role of females. Journal of Animal Ecology 56:11-23.

Halama, K. 1., and R. D. Dueser. 1994. Of mice and habitats: Tests for density-dependent habitat selection. Oikos, 69: 107-114.

Hannson, L. 1994. Spatial dynamics in relation to density variations of rodents in a forested landscape. Polish Ecologial Studies, 20:193-201.

Hoffmeister, D. F. 1986. Marnmals of Arizona. University of Arizona Press: Arizona Garne and Fish Dept., Arizona 602 pp.

Holbrook, S. J. 1978. Habitat relationships and coexistence of four sympatric species of Peromyscus in northwestern New Mexico. Journal of Mammalogy, 59:18-26.

Jameson, E. W. 1950. Determining fecundity in male small mammals. Journal of Mammalogy, 31:433-436.

Kaufman, D. W., and G. A. Kaufman. 1989. Population Biology. Pp. 233-270, in: Advances in the study of Peromyscus (Rodentia) (G. L. Kirkland, and J. N. Layne, eds.), Texas Tech University Press, Lubbock Texas. 366 pp.

Kirkland, G. L. and J. N. Layne (eds.). 1989. Advances in the study of_Peromyscus (Rodentia). Texas Tech University Press. Lubbock, Texas. 366 pp.

Krebs, C. J. 1989. Ecological methodology. Harper and Row, Publishers. New York. 654 pp.

Krebs, C. J., and R. Boonstra. 1984. Trappability estimates for mark-recapture data. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 62:2440-2444.

Krohne, D. T. 1989. Demographic characteristics of Peromyscus leucopus inhabiting a natural dispersal sink. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 67:2321-2325.

Krohne, D. T., and R. Baccus. 1985. Genetic and ecological structure of a population of Peromyscus leucopus. Journal of Mammalogy, 66:529-537.

M'Closkey, R. T. 1975. Habitat dimensions of white-footed mice, Peromyscus leucopus. American Midland Naturalist, 93:158-167.

Merritt, J. F. 1974. Factors influencing the local distribution of Peromyscus californicus in northern California. Journal of Mammalogy, 55:102-114.

Montgomery, W. 1. 1989. Peromyscus and Apodemus: patterns of similarity in ecological equivalents. Pp. 293-366, in: Advances in the study of Peromyscus (Rodentia) (G.L. Kirkland, and J.N. Layne, eds.), Texas Tech University Press, Lubbock, Texas, 366 pp.

Ostfeld, R. S., and L. L. Klosterman. 1986. Demographic substructure in California vole population inhabiting a patchy environment. Journal of Mammalogy, 67:693-704.

Ostfeld, R. S., W. Z. Lidicker, and E. J. Heske. 1985. The relationship between habitat heterogeneity, space use and demography in a population of California voles. Oikos, 45:433-442.

Parmenter, R. R., and J. A. MacMahon. 1983. Factors determining the abundance and distribution of rodents in a shrub steppe ecosystem: the role of shrubs. Oecologia, 59: 145-156.

Petticrew, B. G., and R. M. F. S. Sadleir. 1974. The ecology of deer mouse Peromyscus maniculatus in a coastal coniferous forest. 1. Population dynamics. Canadian Journal of Zoology,52:107-118.

Pulliam, R. H. 1988. Sources, sinks and population regulation. American Naturalist, 132:652-661.

Rosenzweig, M. L. 1973. Habitat selection experiments with a pair of coexisting heteromyid rodent species. Ecology, 54:111-117.

Sadleir, R. M. F. S. 1974. The ecology of deer mouse Peromyscus maniculatus in a coastal coniferousforest. 11. Reproduction. Canadian Journal of Zoology,52:119-131.

Smith, C. C., and O. J. Reichman. 1984. The evolution of food caching by birds and mammals. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 15:329-354.

Soule, M. 1973. The epistasis cycle: a theory of marginal populations. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4: 165-187.

Sullivan, T. P. 1979. Demography of populations of deer mice in coastal forest and clear-cut (logged) habitats. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 57:1636-1648.

Swank, S. E., and W. E. Oechel. 1991. lnteractions among the effects of herbivory, competition, and resource limitation on chaparral herbs. Ecology,72:104-115.

Taitt, M. J., and C. J. Krebs. 1985. Population dynamics and cycles. pp. 567-620, in: Biology of new world Microtus. (R. H. Tamarin, ed.), American Society of Mammalogists. Special Publication. 8.

Thompson, S. D. 1982. Structure and species composition of desert heteromyid rodent species assemblages: effects of a simple habitat manipulation. Ecology, 63:1313-1321.

Van Horne, B. 1981. Demography of Peromyscus maniculalus populations in seral stages of coastal coniferous forest in southeast Alaska. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 59:1045-1061.

Van Horne, B. 1986. Summary: when habitats fail as predictorsthe researcher's viewpoint. Pp. 257-258, in: Wildlife 2000: modeling habitat relationships ofterrestrial vertebrates (J. Verner, M. L. Morrison, and C. J. Ralph, eds.). Univ. Madison Press. Madison, Wisconsin.

Verner, J., M. L. Morrison, and C. J. Ralph. (Eds.). 1986. Wildlife 2000: modeling habitat relationships of terrestrial vertebrates. Univ. Madison Press. Madison, Wisconsin.

Wilkinson, L.1988. SYSTAT: The System for Statistics. Evanston. 11.SYSTAT, ¡nc. Wilson, D. E. 1968. Ecological distribution of the genus Peromyscus. Southwestern Naturalist, 13:267-274.

Wolff, J. O. 1989. Social Behavior. Pp. 271-291, in: Advances in the study of Peromyscus (Rodentia) (G. L. Kirkland, and J. N. Layne, eds). Texas Tech University Press, Lubbock, Texas, 366 pp.

Zar,.I. H. 1984. Biostatistical Analysis. 2nd ed. Prentice Hall, Inc. U.S.A. pp.718.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.22201/ie.20074484e.1997.2.1.72

Enlaces refback

  • No hay ningún enlace refback.