Unravelling the secrets of lesser florican: a study of their home range and habitat use in Gujarat, India

被引:1
|
作者
Ram, Mohan [1 ]
Gadhavi, Devesh [2 ]
Sahu, Aradhana [3 ]
Srivastava, Nityanand [4 ]
Rather, Tahir Ali [2 ]
Bhatia, Kapil [1 ]
Jhala, Lahar [1 ]
Zala, Yashpal [1 ]
Gadhvi, Indra [5 ]
Modi, Vidhi [2 ]
Jhala, Dushyantsinh [2 ]
Patel, Akshita [2 ]
Baraiya, Sneha [1 ]
Devaliya, Dhaval [1 ]
机构
[1] Wildlife Div, Junagadh 362135, GJ, India
[2] Corbett Fdn, PO Tera, Kutch 370660, GJ, India
[3] Wildlife Circle, Junagadh 362001, GJ, India
[4] Chief Wildlife Warden, Gandhinagar 382010, GJ, India
[5] MK Bhavnagar Univ, Dept Marine Sci, Bhavnagar 364002, GJ, India
关键词
TERRITORY SIZE; CONSERVATION; ECOLOGY; AREA; AGRICULTURE; PREFERENCES; TELEMETRY; SELECTION; LIGHT; MODEL;
D O I
10.1038/s41598-023-46563-5
中图分类号
O [数理科学和化学]; P [天文学、地球科学]; Q [生物科学]; N [自然科学总论];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
The home range of a species is determined by a complex interplay of extrinsic and intrinsic factors, which can have profound impacts on the species' resource use. Understanding these dynamics is especially important for conserving critically endangered species. In this study, we used satellite telemetry to investigate the home range of the critically endangered lesser florican (Sypheotides indicus) in Gujarat, India. We analysed GPS locations from 10 lesser floricans deployed with GPS/GSM transmitters between 2020 and 2022. The average home range size (95% KDE) was 10.73 +/- 10.70 km2 (mean +/- SD), while the average core area (50% KDE) was 1.95 +/- 1.56 km2 (mean +/- SD). The monthly and daily distances covered were 286.29 +/- 599.42 km and 10.11 +/- 19.78 km, respectively. Our analysis indicated that suitable habitats and movement patterns were the most important factors explaining the variation in home range size. Specifically, our results suggest that lesser floricans prefer multi-use agro-grassland habitat systems with heterogeneous structures to accommodate different life history requirements. This preference may reflect the depletion and degradation of grasslands across the species' range. Therefore, managing grassland habitats amidst croplands should be one of the key conservation strategies for the lesser florican.
引用
收藏
页数:14
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Influence of time-in-residence on home range and habitat use of bobcats
    Conner, M
    Plowman, B
    Leopold, BD
    Lovell, C
    JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT, 1999, 63 (01): : 261 - 269
  • [22] BOBCAT HABITAT USE AND HOME RANGE SIZE IN RELATION TO PREY DENSITY
    LITVAITIS, JA
    SHERBURNE, JA
    BISSONETTE, JA
    JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT, 1986, 50 (01): : 110 - 117
  • [23] BALD EAGLE HOME RANGE AND HABITAT USE IN THE COLUMBIA RIVER ESTUARY
    GARRETT, MG
    WATSON, JW
    ANTHONY, RG
    JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT, 1993, 57 (01): : 19 - 27
  • [24] Home range and habitat use by pacas in a montane tropical forest in Bolivia
    Benavides, Camila
    Arce, Alejandro
    Pacheco, Luis F.
    ACTA AMAZONICA, 2017, 47 (03) : 227 - 235
  • [25] Home range and habitat use of Red-shouldered Hawks in Georgia
    Howell, DL
    Chapman, BR
    WILSON BULLETIN, 1997, 109 (01): : 131 - 144
  • [26] Home range and habitat use by the serotine bat, Eptesicus serotinus, in England
    Robinson, MF
    Stebbings, RE
    JOURNAL OF ZOOLOGY, 1997, 243 : 117 - 136
  • [27] Variation in home range and use of habitat in the striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis)
    Bixler, A
    Gittleman, JL
    JOURNAL OF ZOOLOGY, 2000, 251 : 525 - 533
  • [28] Home range and habitat use by desert mule deer in altered habitats
    Alcala-Galvan, Carlos H.
    Krausman, Paul R.
    CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME, 2013, 99 (02): : 65 - 79
  • [29] Home Range, Habitat Use and Survival of Coyotes in Western South Carolina
    Schrecengost, Joshua D.
    Kilgo, John C.
    Ray, H. Scott
    Miller, Karl V.
    AMERICAN MIDLAND NATURALIST, 2009, 162 (02): : 346 - 355
  • [30] SUMMERTIME HOME RANGE AND HABITAT USE OF PILEATED WOODPECKERS IN WESTERN OREGON
    MELLEN, TK
    MESLOW, EC
    MANNAN, RW
    JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT, 1992, 56 (01): : 96 - 103