Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Impacts of Non-Domesticated Vertebrates on California Grasslands

  • Chapter
Grassland structure and function

Part of the book series: Tasks for vegetation science ((TAVS,volume 20))

Abstract

The potential importance of animals in structuring natural communities has been explicitly recognized at least as far back as Darwin (1890), who estimated the volume of English soil turned over by earthworms. In spite of this, there is a latent tendency among plant-oriented ecologists to harbor the view that animals, while being responsive to the plant community, are not likely to have much effect upon it. Fortunately, this bias is rapidly disappearing as natural communities become better understood. This paper concerns a subset of this larger issue, namely, the impacts of vertebrate animals in California grassland communities. No one would deny the profound effects on this community-type imposed by grazing livestock. But what about non-domesticated vertebrates?

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Bartholomew B (1970) Bare zone between California shrub and grassland communities: the role of animals, Science 170, 1210–1212.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Batzli GO and Pitelka FA (1970) Influence of meadow mouse populations on California grassland. Ecology 51, 1027–1039.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batzli GO and Pitelka FA (1971) Condition and diet of cycling populations of the California vole, Microtus californicus, Jour. Mamm. 52, 141–163.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Childs HE Jr and Howard WE (1955) The vertebrate fauna of the San Joaquin Experimental Range, Calif. For. Range Exp. Sta. Misc. Paper no. 19, 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cockburn A and Lidicker WZ Jr (1983) Microhabitat heterogeneity and population ecology of an herbivorous rodent, Microtus californicus, Oecologia 59, 167–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawley MJ (1983) Herbivory, the dynamics of animal-plant interactions. Blackwell Sci. Publ, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darwin C (1890) The formation of vegetable mould, Appleton, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans FC and Holdenreid R (1943) A population study of the Beechey ground squirrel in central California. Jour. Mamm. 24, 231–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitch HS (1947) Ecology of a cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus auduboni) population in central California, Calif. Fish Game 33, 159–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitch HS (1948) Ecology of the California ground squirrel on grazing lands. Amer. Midl. Nat 39, 513–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitch HS and Bentley JR (1949) Use of California annual-plant forage by range rodents. Ecology 30, 306–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford RG and Pitelka FA (1984) Resource limilation in populations of the California vole, Ecology 65, 122–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gettinger RD (1984a) A field study of activity patterns of Thomomys bottae. Jour. Mamm. 65, 76–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gettinger RD (1984b) Energy and water metabolism of free-ranging pocket gophers, Thomomys bottae, Ecology 65, 740–751.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gill AE (1977) Food preferences of the California vole, Microtus californicus, Jour. Mamm. 58, 229–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grinnell J (1923) The burrowing rodents of California as agents in soil formation, Jour. Mamm. 4, 137–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grinnell J and Dixon J (1918) Natural history of the ground squirrels of California, Mon. Bull. State Comm. Hort. 1, 597–708.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heady HF (1975) Rangeland management. New York, McGraw- Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heske EJ, Ostfeld RS, and Lidicker WZ Jr (1984) Competitive interactions between Microtus californicus and Reithrodontomys megalotis during two peaks of Microtus abundance, Jour. Mamm. 65, 271–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howard WE (1953) Rodent control on California ranges. Jour. Range Mgt. 6, 423–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howard WE and Childs HE Jr (1959) Ecology of pocket gophers with emphasis on Thomomys bottae mewa, Hilgardia 29, 277–358.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard WE, Wagnon KA, and Bentley JR (1959) Competition between ground squirrels and cattle for range forage. Jour. Range Mgt. 12, 110–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krohne DT (1982) The demography of low-litter-size populations of Microtus californicus, Canad. Jour. Zool. 60, 368–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lidicker WZ Jr (1973) Regulation of numbers in an island population of the California vole, a problem in community dynamics. Ecol. Monog. 43, 271–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lidicker WZ Jr (1976) Experimental manipulation of the timing of reproduction in the California vole, Res. Pop. Ecol. 18, 14–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lidicker WZ Jr (1978) Regulation of numbers in small mammal populations-historical reflections and a synthesis. In Snyder DP, ed. Populations of small mammals under natural conditions, pp. 122–141. Pymatuning Lab. Ecol. Spec. Pub. No. 5 ( Univ. Pittsburgh ).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lidicker WZ Jr (1985a) Dispersal. In Tamarin RH. ed. Biology of New World Microtus, pp. 420–454. Amer. Soc. Mamm. Spec Pub. no. 8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lidicker WZ Jr (1985b) Population structuring as a factor in understanding microtine cycles, Acta Zool. Fenn. 173, 23–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller MA (1953) Experimental studies on poisoning pocket gophers, Hilgardia 22, 131–166.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Miller MA (1957) Burrows of the Sacramento Valley pocket gopher in food-irrigated alfalfa fields, Hilgardia 26, 431–452.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostfeld RS and Klosterman LL (1986) Demographic substructure in a California vole population inhabiting a patchy environment. Jour. Mamm 67, 693–704

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paris OH (1963) The ecology of Armadillidium vulgare (Isopoda: Oniscoidea) in California grassland: food, enemies, and weather. Ecol. Monog. 33, 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paris OH and Pitelka FA (1962) Population characteristics of the terrestrial isopod Armadillidium vulgare in California grassland, Ecology 43, 229–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patton JL and Feder JH (1981) Microspatial genetic heterogeneity in pocket gophers: nonrandom breeding and drift, Evolution 35, 912–920.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson OP (1985) Predation. In Tamarin, RH. ed. Biology of New World Microtus, pp 536–566. Amer. Soc. Mamm. Spec. Pub. no. 8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichman OH and Smith SC (1985) Impact of pocket gopher burrows on overlying vegetation, Jour. Mamm. 66, 720–725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reichman OJ, Whitham TG, and Ruffner GA (1982) Adaptive geometry of burrow spacing in two pocket gopher populations, Ecology 63, 687–695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seastedt TR (1985) Maximization of primary and secondary productivity by grazers, Amer. Nat. 126, 559–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Storer TI (1942) Control of injurious rodents in California, Calif. Agr. Ext. Serv. Circ. no. 79, 1–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Storer TI (1949) Control of field rodents in California, Calif. Agr. Ext. Serv. Circ. no. 138, 1–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Storer TI (1958) Controlling field rodents in California, Calif. Agr. Ext. Serv. Circ. No. 434, 1–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Storer TI, Evans FC, and Palmer FG (1944) Some rodent populations in the Sierra Nevada of California, Ecol. Monog. 14, 165–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor WP (1935) Some animal relations to soils. Ecology 16, 127–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tilman D (1983) Plant succession and gopher disturbance along an experimental gradient, Oecologia 60, 285–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vleck D (1981) Burrow structure and foraging costs in the fossorial rodent, Thomomys bottae, Oecologia 49, 431–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California, 94720, USA

    W. Z. Lidicker Jr.

Authors
  1. W. Z. Lidicker Jr.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Stanford University, Stanford, Calif., USA

    Harold A. Mooney

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1989 Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Lidicker, W.Z. (1989). Impacts of Non-Domesticated Vertebrates on California Grasslands. In: Huenneke, L.F., Mooney, H.A. (eds) Grassland structure and function. Tasks for vegetation science, vol 20. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-3113-8_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-3113-8_12

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-010-7900-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-009-3113-8

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation