Advertisement

Mammalian Biology

, Volume 74, Issue 1, pp 1–8 | Cite as

A comparison of trapping- and radiotelemetry-based estimates of home range of the neotropical opossum Philander frenatus

  • Paula Koeler LiraEmail author
  • Fernando Antonio dos Santos Fernandez
Original Investigation

Abstract

Home ranges of individuals of the gray four-eyed opossum Philander frenatus were studied by capture-mark-recapture (CMR) and radiotelemetry, within a set of eight Atlantic Forest fragments surrounded by a grassland matrix in the state of Rio de Janeiro, southeastern Brazil. Trapping sessions were carried out in all the forest fragments and in the grassland matrix. Adult individuals were fitted with radio-collar transmitters and monitored throughout the night. Locations were obtained by the “homing-in on the animal” method. Home-range sizes of the individuals with five or more captures or locations were estimated through the minimum convex polygon method. Home-range sizes estimated by radiotelemetry ranged from 0.6 to 7.4 ha (n = 8), and by CMR ranged from 0.1 to 12.1 ha (n = 17); home-range sizes estimated by radiotelemetry did not differ significantly from those based on CMR. However, comparing radiotelemetry with different CMR designs, the former estimates were larger than those based on either CMR using a single grid or CMR using two grids, but not larger than those based on multiple-grid CMR. In specific cases, animals monitored via radiotelemetry for only one or two nights showed larger home ranges than most individuals for which home ranges were estimated by CMR. Two individuals for which home-range sizes were estimated by both techniques showed larger home ranges when data from radiotelemetry were used. These data indicated that CMR can provide results comparable to radiotelemetry when multiple grids, spread across the landscape, are used, although this necessitates an intensive trapping effort. On the other hand, single- and double-grid CMR tend to underestimate home-ranges compared to radiotelemetry.

Keywords

Didelphimorphia Home range Live trapping Radio-tracking Atlantic Forest 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adler, G.H., Endries, M., Piotter, S. 1997. Spacing patterns within populations of a tropical forest rodent, Proechimys semispinosus, on five Panamanian islands. J. Zool. (Lond.) 241, 43–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alho, C.J.R., Pereira, L.A., Paula, A.C. 1986. Patterns of habitat utilization by small mammal populations in cerrado biome of central Brazil. Mammalia 50, 447–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bergallo, H.G. 1994. Ecology of small mammal community in an Atlantic Forest area in southeastern Brazil. Stud. Neotrop. Fauna Environ. 29, 197–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bergstrom, B.J. 1988. Home ranges of three species of chipmunks (Tamias) as assessed by radiotelemetry and grid trapping. J. Mammal. 69, 190–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bradshaw, S.D., Bradshaw, F.J. 2002. Short-term movements and habitat use of the marsupial honey possum (Tarsipes rostratus). J. Zool. (Lond.) 258, 343–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brito, D., Oliveira, L.C., Mello, M.A.R. 2004. An overview of mammalian conservation at Poço das Antas Biological Reserve, southeastern Brazil. J. Nat. Conserv. 12, 219–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burt, W.H. 1943. Territoriality and home range concepts as applied to mammals. J. Mammal. 24, 346–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cáceres, N.C., Monteiro-Filho, E.L.A. 2006. Uso do espaço por marsupiais: fatores influentes, comportamento e heterogeneidade espacial. In: Cáceres, N.C., Monteiro-Filho, E.L.A. (Eds.), Os Marsupiais do Brasil: Biologia, Ecologia e Evolução. Editora da Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso do Sul, Campo Grande, pp. 203–215.Google Scholar
  9. Cerqueira, R., Fernandez, F.A.S., Quintela, M.F.S. 1990. Mamíferos da Restinga de Barra de Maricá, Rio de Janeiro. Pap. Avulsos Zool. 37, 141–157.Google Scholar
  10. Emmons, L.H., Feer, F. 1997. Neotropical Rainforest Mammals. A Field Guide, second ed. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  11. Endries, M.J., Adler, G.H. 2005. Spacing patterns of a tropical forest rodent, the spiny rat (Proechimys semispinosus), in Panama. J. Zool. 265, 147–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Feliciano, B.R., Fernandez, F.A.S., Freitas, D., Figueiredo, M.S.L. 2002. Population dynamics of small rodents in grassland between fragments of Atlantic Forest in southeastern Brazil. Mamm. Biol. 67, 304–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fernandez, F.A.S. 1989. Dinâmica de populações e uso do espaço e do tempo em uma comunidade de pequenos mamíferos na restinga de Barra de Maricá, Rio de Janeiro. M.Sc. Dissertation, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, São Paulo, 177pp.Google Scholar
  14. Fernandez, F.A.S., Evans, P.R., Dunstone, N. 1996. Population dynamics of the wood mouse Apodemus sylvaticus (Rodentia: Muridae) in a Sitka spruce successional mosaic. J. Zool. (Lond.) 239, 717–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fonseca, G.A.B., Herrmann, G., Leite, Y.L.R., Mittermeier, R.A., Rylands, A.B., Patton, J.L. 1996. Lista anotada dos mamíferos do Brasil. Occ. Pap. Cons. Biol. 4, 1–38.Google Scholar
  16. Gentile, R., D’andrea, P.S., Cerqueira, R. 1997. Home ranges of Philander frenata and Akodon cursor in Brazilian restinga (coastal shrubland). Mastozool. Neotrop. 4, 105–112.Google Scholar
  17. Gurnell, J., Gipps, J.H.W. 1989. Inter-trap movement and estimating rodent densities. J. Zool. (Lond.) 217, 241–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harris, S., Cresswell, W.J., Forde, P.G., Trewhella, W.J., Woollard, T., Wray, S. 1990. Home range analysis using radio-tracking data: a review of problems and techniques particularly as applied to the study of mammals. Mammal. Rev. 20, 97–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jacob, A.A., Rudran, R. 2003. Radiotelemetria em estudos populacionais. In: Cullen, Jr., L., Rudran, R., Valladares-Padua, C.B. (Eds.), Métodos de estudos em Biologia da Conservação e manejo da vida silvestre. Editora da Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, pp. 285–342.Google Scholar
  20. Jones, E.N., Sherman, L.J. 1983. A comparison of meadow vole home ranges derived from grid trapping and radiotelemetry. J. Wildl. Manage. 47, 558–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lira, P.K., Fernandez, F.A.S., Carlos, H.S.A., Curzio, P.L. 2007. Use of a fragmented landscape by three species of opossum in south-eastern Brazil. J. Trop. Ecol. 23, 427–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Magnusson, W.E., Francisco, A.L., Sanaiotti, T.M. 1995. Home range and territoriality in Bolomys lasiurus (Rodentia: Muridae) in an Amazonian savanna. J. Trop. Ecol. 11, 179–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mohr, C.O. 1947. Table of equivalent populations of North America small mammals. Am. Midl. Nat. 37, 223–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Paglia, A.P., De Marco Jr., P., Costa, F.M., Pereira, R.F., Lessa, G. 1995. Heterogeneidade estrutural e diversidade de pequenos mamíferos em um fragmento de mata secundária de Minas Gerais, Brasil. Rev. Bras. Zool. 12, 67–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Patton, J.L., Silva, M.N.F. 1997. Definition of species of pouched four-eyed opossums (Didelphidae, Philander). J. Mammal. 78, 90–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pires, A.S., Fernandez, F.A.S. 1999. Use of space by the marsupial Micoureus demerarae in small Atlantic Forest fragments in Southeastern Brazil. J. Trop. Ecol. 15, 279–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ribble, D.O., Wurtz, A.E., McConnell, E.J., Buegge, J.J., Welch Jr., K.C. 2002. A comparison of home ranges of two species of Peromyscus using trapping and radiotelemetry data. J. Mammal. 83, 260–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Santori, R.T., Astúa de Moraes, D., Grelle, C.E.V., Cerqueira, R. 1997. Natural diet at a Restinga Forest and laboratory food preferences of the opossum Philander frenata in Brazil. Stud. Neotrop. Fauna Environ. 32, 12–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sunquist, M.E., Austad, S.N., Sunquist, F. 1987. Movement patterns and home range in the commun opossum (Didelphis marsupialis). J. Mammal. 68, 173–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Viveiros de Castro, E.B., Fernandez, F.A.S. 2004. Determinants of differential vulnerabilities of small mammals in Atlantic Forest fragments in Brazil. Biol. Conserv. 119, 73–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. White, G.C., Garrott, R.A. 1990. Analysis of Wildlife Radio-Tracking Data. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
  32. Wolff, J.O. 1985. The effects of density, food and interspecific interference on home range size in Peromyscus leucopus and Peromyscus maniculatus. Can. J. Zool. 63, 2657–2662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Deutsche Gesellschaft für Säugetierkunde 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paula Koeler Lira
    • 1
    Email author
  • Fernando Antonio dos Santos Fernandez
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratório de Ecologia e Conservação de Populações, Departamento de Ecologia, Instituto de BiologiaUniversidade Federal do Rio de JaneiroRio de JaneiroBrazil

Personalised recommendations