Intra- and Interannual Changes in Habitat Selection by the Muskrat
Intra- and Interannual Changes in Habitat Selection by the Muskrat
复制标题
麝香鼠栖息地选择的年内和年际变化
DOI：
10.2307/3800816
复制
发表时间：
1978
影响因子：
2.3
通讯作者：
K. Danell
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
K. Danell
1970-1976年，我们在瑞典北部的一个浅湖中研究了麝鼠（Ondatra zibethica）对栖息地的选择，这反映了房屋的位置。该浅湖富含水生植物（莎草带、水马尾（Equisetumfluviatile）和芦苇（Schoenoplectus lacustris））。这些房子建在水里或非常靠近水，是用房子附近可用的植物材料建造的。大多数房屋被发现在0.3米深的水中，它们通常位于当地的高地上。高峰年居住房屋的空间分布在6月下旬呈随机分布，10月下旬呈传染性分布。浅水莎草带在5月和6月利用最多，但在较深的水马尾带储量充足时，大部分被放弃。在10月下旬，外层灌木带也进行了开采，尽管与一年中的其他部分一样，开采程度很小。芦苇的利用是由季节流行水深而不是种群大小决定的。10月下旬，随着麝鼠种群数量的增加，水马尾带的利用逐渐增加，但仅达到一定水平后，便改用莎草带。j . WILDL。管理。42(3):540—49麝鼠以前局限于北美，1905年被引入欧洲。它目前在欧洲和亚洲的分布范围比前者在美国和加拿大的自然分布范围更大（Hoffmann，在litt.）。1950年左右，该物种进入瑞典北部，并很快占领了大片地区（Marcstrom 1964, Danell 1977a），在那里，与芬兰（Artimo 1960）一样，它在植被繁茂的地区最为丰富，通常在湖中筑巢，在河岸挖洞（Danell 1978b）。为了研究麝鼠对瑞典湖泊植物（Danell 1977b）和动物生命的影响，需要详细了解影响其栖息地选择的因素。因为麝鼠在整个无冰季节建造它们的房子，然后放弃其中一些，后来可能又重新占据它们，所以人们认为，在任何给定时刻，有人居住的房子的分布反映了整个种群的栖息地选择习惯。单独的房屋寿命很短，因为它们会被春天的洪水摧毁，而洞穴可以持续使用很多年。然而，检查洞穴是否有人居住比较困难，因此最好选择一个只有房屋的湖泊。这一要求在湖岸很浅的湖泊中得到满足，麝鼠只在那里建造房屋（Danell 1978b）。本次调查的目的是研究湖泊中麝鼠的栖息地选择，特别注意在无冰季节表现出的任何季节差异，以及由于种群大小而产生的任何差异，即在麝鼠密度低和高的年份之间。这项研究是在瑞典北部一个浅湖进行的，为期7年（1970-76年），那里的麝鼠种群没有受到诱捕的干扰。本研究由瑞典国家环境保护委员会研究委员会赞助（合同6-3/73-76）。我还要感谢l - o。Eriksson， A. Gothberg， V. Marcstrom， K. Sjoberg和T. Sorlin为540 J. Wildl。管理。42(3):1978这个内容下载从157.55.39.223结婚,2016年8月24日04:43:10 UTC都使用http://about.jstor.org/terms麝鼠栖息地选择Danell 541 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... ..... .. .. . . . .. .. .. . . . .. .. . . .... .... ... ... ... ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I) I ~:: ~ Ii:?I；Y;~ ~ ~ q b9 t: czsjup:她的F - 5 7 b ~ ~ ~ ~”40 H + E FE菲……iX 65 W。我 ~ . ... . .... .... ... ... .... .... .... ... ... . . . . .
Habitat selection by the muskrat (Ondatra zibethica), as reflected by house location, was studied over a 7-yr period (1970-1976) in a shallow lake, rich in emergent aquatic plants (belts of sedges, water horsetail (Equisetumfluviatile), and bulrush (Schoenoplectus lacustris)), in northern Sweden. The houses were built in or very close to the water, and were constructed with the plant material available near the house site. Most houses were found in about 0.3 m of water and they were often situated on locally elevated points. The spatial distribution of inhabited houses during the peak year was random in late June, but contagious in late October. The shallow sedge belt was most utilized in May and June, but was to a large extent abandoned later on, when the deeper water horsetail belt became well stocked. In late October the outer bulrush belt was also exploited, although only to a minor extent, as during other parts of the year. Utilization of bulrush was determined by the seasonally-prevailing water depth rather than population size. The water horsetail belt was utilized increasingly in late October with the increase in the muskrat population, but only up to a certain level, after which the sedge belt was utilized instead. J. WILDL. MANAGE. 42(3):540--49 The muskrat, previously confined to North America, was introduced into Europe in 1905. Its present range in Europe and Asia covers an area greater than the former, natural distribution area in USA and Canada (Hoffmann, in litt.). Around 1950 the species entered northern Sweden and soon occupied vast areas (Marcstrom 1964, Danell 1977a), where, as in Finland (Artimo 1960), it is most abundant in well-vegetated localities, usually building its houses in lakes and digging burrows in riverbanks (Danell 1978b). For studies concerning the impact of muskrats on plant (Danell 1977b) and animal life in Swedish lakes a detailed knowledge of the factors influencing its habitat selection was needed. Because muskrats build their houses throughout the ice-free season, then abandon some of them and later perhaps reoccupy them, it was assumed that the distribution of inhabited houses at any given moment reflected the habitat selection habits of the population as a whole. The individual houses are short-lived, as they are destroyed by the spring flood, while burrows can persist in use for many years. H wever, it is more difficult to check whether burrows are inhabited or not, so it was therefore desirable to choose a lake at which only houses were present. This requirement is fulfilled in lakes with very shallow shores, where muskrats only construct houses (Danell 1978b). The aim of this investigation was to study habitat selection by the muskrat in a lake, paying special attention to any seaso al differences shown during the ice-free season, as well as to any differences due to population size, i.e., between years with low and high muskrat densities. The study was carried out during a 7yr period (1970-76) in a shallow lake in northern Sweden, where the muskrat population had not been disturbed by trapping. This study was sponsored by the Research Committee of the Swedish National Environment Protection Board (contract 6-3/73-76). I am further indebted to L.-O. Eriksson, A. Gothberg, V. Marcstrom, K. Sjoberg, and T. Sorlin for 540 J. Wildl. Manage. 42(3):1978 This content downloaded from 157.55.39.223 on Wed, 24 Aug 2016 04:43:10 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms MUSKRAT HABITAT SELECTION Danell 541 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... ..... .. .. . . . .. .. .. . . . .. .. . . .... .... ... ... ... ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I) i~:: ~ Ii:?I; Y;~~q~q b9 t :czsjup:HER F-' ~ ~ b~~5HHE "40 H+E FE FE......... iX 65 W. I~ . ... . .... .... ... ... .... .... .... ... ... . . . . .