Does availability of anthropogenic food enhance densities of omnivorous mammals? An example with coyotes in southern California
Does availability of anthropogenic food enhance densities of omnivorous mammals? An example with coyotes in southern California
复制标题
DOI：
10.1034/j.1600-0587.2001.240310.x
复制
发表时间：
2001-06-01
期刊：
影响因子：
5.9
通讯作者：
Sauvajot, RM
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Fedriani, JM;Fuller, TK;Sauvajot, RM
为了评估在人性化景观中，土狼（Canis latranans）的丰度是否受到人为食物可得性的影响，我们比较了美国加利福尼亚州圣莫尼卡山脉（Santa Monica Mountains）内三个相邻地区（后称为NA、CA和SA）在不同人类压力下的差异。我们量化了土狼对人为食物的使用，并评估了这三个地区的当地密度。总共分析了761只土狼的粪便；经鉴定的食物种类可分为11种（7种本地食物和4种人为食物）。尽管小哺乳动物（狐形动物和啮齿动物）在所有地区和季节都是土狼的主要猎物，但多向列联表的对数线性模型表明，在研究区域内，土狼对人为食物的消耗存在显著差异。因此，在最人性化的地区（CA，该地区24%为居民栖息地），人为食物（垃圾、牲畜、家用水果）季节性地占土狼饮食总项目的14%至25%，而在最人性化的地区（NA， 2%为居民栖息地），人为食物仅占季节性项目的0%至3%。通过脚踏陷阱调查和粪便基因分型估计的土狼密度在不同地区之间也有很大差异。人类活动严重影响的CA区土狼密度最高（2.4-3.0 ind. km（-2)），而人类活动最少的NA区土狼密度显著低于10.3-0.4 ind. km(-2)）。在人类压力处于中等水平的第三个地区（SA； 10%居住），与其他地区相比，人为食物在土狼饮食中的重要性（4-6%）和土狼密度（1.6-2.0 ind.km(-2)）都处于中等水平。我们的数据表明，在加州圣莫尼卡山脉，人为食物的补贴增加了土狼的密度，改变了它们的饮食。我们纳入了文献数据，以表明世界各地的杂食性哺乳动物都在使用人为食物。然而，令人惊讶的是，外来输入对这些物种的潜在影响还没有得到很好的理解。因此。在人文景观中，这一现象有待进一步研究。
To evaluate whether the abundance of coyotes Canis latrans was influenced by the availability of anthropogenic foods in a humanized landscape, we compared three neighboring areas thereafter referred to as NA, CA, and SA) under contrasting human pressures within the Santa Monica Mountains of California, USA. We quantified the use of anthropogenic foods by coyotes and assessed local densities within these three regions. Overall, 761 coyote feces were analyzed; identified food items were categorized into 11 food types (7 native and 4 anthropogenic). Though small mammals (lagomorphs and rodents) were the main prey of coyotes in all areas and seasons, log-linear modeling of multiway contingency tables indicates that consumption of anthropogenic foods by coyotes varied significantly throughout study areas. Thus, in the most humanized area (CA; 24% of this region is residential habitat), anthropogenic foods (trash, livestock, domestic Fruit) comprised seasonally between 14 and 25% of total items in coyote diets, whereas in the least humanized area (NA; 2% residential) anthropogenic foods only comprised seasonally between 0 and 3% of items. Coyote density, estimated by foot-hold trapping surveys and by genotyping feces, was also highly variable between areas. The heavily human-impacted CA area had the highest coyote density (2.4-3.0 ind. km(-2)), whereas coyote density was significantly lower 10.3-0.4 ind. km(-2)) in the least humanized area (NA). In the third region (SA; 10% residential), with an intermediate level of human pressure, both importance of anthropogenic foods in coyote diet (4-6%) and coyote density (1.6-2.0 ind. km(-2)) were intermediate compared to the other regions. Our data suggest that subsidization by anthropogenic foods augments coyote densities and alters their diets in the Santa Monica Mountains, California. We include data from literature to show that anthropogenic foods are used by omnivorous mammals throughout the world. Surprisingly, however, the potential effects of allochthonous inputs on such species are not well-understood. Thus. Further research on this phenomenon in humanized landscapes is needed.