Associations between a feral equid and the Sonoran Desert ecosystem Asociaciones Entre un Equino Salvaje y el Ecosistema del Desierto Sonorense

IF 4.3 1区 生物学 Q1 ECOLOGY
Esther S. Rubin, Dave Conrad, Larisa E. Harding, Brianna M. Russo
{"title":"Associations between a feral equid and the Sonoran Desert ecosystem\n Asociaciones Entre un Equino Salvaje y el Ecosistema del Desierto Sonorense","authors":"Esther S. Rubin,&nbsp;Dave Conrad,&nbsp;Larisa E. Harding,&nbsp;Brianna M. Russo","doi":"10.1002/wmon.1083","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The effect of non-native herbivores on ecosystems and diversity has become a global concern in conservation. Management challenges associated with non-native free-roaming equids have existed for decades in a wide range of ecosystems yet have been difficult to resolve. Although much of the challenge is associated with non-biological considerations, empirical ecological research is crucial for guiding sound management decisions. We conducted a field study on the associations between feral burros (<i>Equus asinus</i>) and elements of the Sonoran Desert ecosystem in Arizona, USA, during 2017–2019. We identified areas with and without established burro herds, and collected data on vegetation, ungulate sign, small mammals, birds, and herpetofauna at multiple, randomly selected grids within these areas, while accounting for vegetation community and distance to water. We predicted that burros would be associated with differences in vegetation metrics such as lower ground cover, smaller perennial plant size, and lower plant density, foliage density, recruitment, and species richness among perennial native plants susceptible to burro foraging or trampling. We further predicted that these differences would be accompanied by lower density or relative abundance and lower species richness of small mammals, birds, and herpetofauna. Finally, because burro distribution has been documented to be associated with water in this arid landscape, we predicted that effects would be most pronounced near water. The results of our study did not consistently support our predictions, perhaps because of small sample sizes or, in several cases, inherent complexities associated with seasonal burro habitat use and plant phenology patterns. However, our study documented that the presence of this feral equid is associated with a number of key differences that may be ecologically important and have the potential to alter community structure in this sensitive arid ecosystem. In areas with established burro herds, we documented lower ground cover, plant density, foliage density, or smaller plant size in several species, and changes were often influenced by distance from water. For example, density of Engelmann's prickly pear cactus (<i>Opuntia engelmannii</i>) was 94% lower and Anderson wolfberry (<i>Lycium andersonii</i>) plants were 49% smaller in areas with established burro herds. In areas with burros, we also recorded lower density of white bursage (<i>Ambrosia dumosa</i>) in areas distant from water. Of notable concern was that our metric of recruitment indicated 63% lower recruitment in saguaro cactus (<i>Carnegiea gigantea</i>) and that foliage densities of yellow paloverde (<i>Parkinsonia microphylla</i>) and desert ironwood (<i>Olneya tesota</i>) were lower in areas with established burro herds. Data on some plant species did not support our predictions. For example, white bursage and Anderson wolfberry plants were found at similar densities in areas with and without established burros near water, but they occurred at lower densities far from water in areas with established burros. Our data revealed that in 4 of 7 small mammal species evaluated (Bailey's pocket mouse [<i>Chaetodipus baileyi</i>], desert pocket mouse [<i>C. penicillatus</i>], deer mice [<i>Peromyscus</i> spp.], and Merriam's kangaroo rat [<i>Dipodomys merriami</i>]), density was associated with an interaction between burros and distance to water, with lower densities close to water in burro areas. Contrary to predictions, 3 of these species (Bailey's pocket mouse, desert pocket mouse, and deer mice) exhibited higher densities in burro areas than in non-burro areas at grids farther from water. Density of a fifth species (Arizona woodrat [<i>Neotoma devia</i>]) was 68% lower in burro areas than in non-burro areas, and the densities of 2 species were not associated with burros. Across species, we did not find consistent patterns in our analysis of bird group density, with some species exhibiting a negative effect associated with burros and others exhibiting a positive effect. When we categorized birds by hypothesized nesting and foraging vulnerabilities (low, medium, high), vulnerability levels did not predict the effect of burros. However, all categories exhibited a negative burro effect distant from water but not close to water, contrary to our expectations. Relative abundance of common side-blotched lizards (<i>Uta stansburiana</i>) was 26% lower in areas with established burros, but data on other herpetofauna species did not support our predictions, with some species exhibiting higher relative abundance in areas with established burros. Our data did not reveal an association between burros and bird, small mammal, or herpetofauna species richness, but species richness of native perennial plants was higher in burro areas close to water. We recommend that future bird studies focus on riparian birds and nest success, and possibly evaluate potential effects in relation to other aspects of bird ecology such as feeding guilds or nesting ecology, and that future herpetofauna studies use survey methods that can better account for detection. Although some results did not support our predictions, our study documented negative associations between burros and a number of native plant species, and density in some small mammal species. These associations are important and of concern in and of themselves because changes in long-lived keystone plant species and in small mammal densities indicate that the long-term sustainability of portions of this ecosystem may be affected, and it is likely that these changes can have additional indirect effects on plants and wildlife in this ecosystem. Field data on ungulate sign (fecal groups and tracks) suggested that the associations detected in our study were related to burros and not cattle (<i>Bos taurus</i>) or native ungulates such as mule deer (<i>Odocoileus hemionus</i>) or bighorn sheep (<i>Ovis canadensis</i>). Our results indicate that the presence of established burro herds was associated with changes, primarily in the plant community that is critical for ecosystem function, and we suggest that current management of this feral equid may not be adequate for maintaining the long-term viability of this arid and fragile ecosystem.</p>","PeriodicalId":235,"journal":{"name":"Wildlife Monographs","volume":"215 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/wmon.1083","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wildlife Monographs","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wmon.1083","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The effect of non-native herbivores on ecosystems and diversity has become a global concern in conservation. Management challenges associated with non-native free-roaming equids have existed for decades in a wide range of ecosystems yet have been difficult to resolve. Although much of the challenge is associated with non-biological considerations, empirical ecological research is crucial for guiding sound management decisions. We conducted a field study on the associations between feral burros (Equus asinus) and elements of the Sonoran Desert ecosystem in Arizona, USA, during 2017–2019. We identified areas with and without established burro herds, and collected data on vegetation, ungulate sign, small mammals, birds, and herpetofauna at multiple, randomly selected grids within these areas, while accounting for vegetation community and distance to water. We predicted that burros would be associated with differences in vegetation metrics such as lower ground cover, smaller perennial plant size, and lower plant density, foliage density, recruitment, and species richness among perennial native plants susceptible to burro foraging or trampling. We further predicted that these differences would be accompanied by lower density or relative abundance and lower species richness of small mammals, birds, and herpetofauna. Finally, because burro distribution has been documented to be associated with water in this arid landscape, we predicted that effects would be most pronounced near water. The results of our study did not consistently support our predictions, perhaps because of small sample sizes or, in several cases, inherent complexities associated with seasonal burro habitat use and plant phenology patterns. However, our study documented that the presence of this feral equid is associated with a number of key differences that may be ecologically important and have the potential to alter community structure in this sensitive arid ecosystem. In areas with established burro herds, we documented lower ground cover, plant density, foliage density, or smaller plant size in several species, and changes were often influenced by distance from water. For example, density of Engelmann's prickly pear cactus (Opuntia engelmannii) was 94% lower and Anderson wolfberry (Lycium andersonii) plants were 49% smaller in areas with established burro herds. In areas with burros, we also recorded lower density of white bursage (Ambrosia dumosa) in areas distant from water. Of notable concern was that our metric of recruitment indicated 63% lower recruitment in saguaro cactus (Carnegiea gigantea) and that foliage densities of yellow paloverde (Parkinsonia microphylla) and desert ironwood (Olneya tesota) were lower in areas with established burro herds. Data on some plant species did not support our predictions. For example, white bursage and Anderson wolfberry plants were found at similar densities in areas with and without established burros near water, but they occurred at lower densities far from water in areas with established burros. Our data revealed that in 4 of 7 small mammal species evaluated (Bailey's pocket mouse [Chaetodipus baileyi], desert pocket mouse [C. penicillatus], deer mice [Peromyscus spp.], and Merriam's kangaroo rat [Dipodomys merriami]), density was associated with an interaction between burros and distance to water, with lower densities close to water in burro areas. Contrary to predictions, 3 of these species (Bailey's pocket mouse, desert pocket mouse, and deer mice) exhibited higher densities in burro areas than in non-burro areas at grids farther from water. Density of a fifth species (Arizona woodrat [Neotoma devia]) was 68% lower in burro areas than in non-burro areas, and the densities of 2 species were not associated with burros. Across species, we did not find consistent patterns in our analysis of bird group density, with some species exhibiting a negative effect associated with burros and others exhibiting a positive effect. When we categorized birds by hypothesized nesting and foraging vulnerabilities (low, medium, high), vulnerability levels did not predict the effect of burros. However, all categories exhibited a negative burro effect distant from water but not close to water, contrary to our expectations. Relative abundance of common side-blotched lizards (Uta stansburiana) was 26% lower in areas with established burros, but data on other herpetofauna species did not support our predictions, with some species exhibiting higher relative abundance in areas with established burros. Our data did not reveal an association between burros and bird, small mammal, or herpetofauna species richness, but species richness of native perennial plants was higher in burro areas close to water. We recommend that future bird studies focus on riparian birds and nest success, and possibly evaluate potential effects in relation to other aspects of bird ecology such as feeding guilds or nesting ecology, and that future herpetofauna studies use survey methods that can better account for detection. Although some results did not support our predictions, our study documented negative associations between burros and a number of native plant species, and density in some small mammal species. These associations are important and of concern in and of themselves because changes in long-lived keystone plant species and in small mammal densities indicate that the long-term sustainability of portions of this ecosystem may be affected, and it is likely that these changes can have additional indirect effects on plants and wildlife in this ecosystem. Field data on ungulate sign (fecal groups and tracks) suggested that the associations detected in our study were related to burros and not cattle (Bos taurus) or native ungulates such as mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) or bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis). Our results indicate that the presence of established burro herds was associated with changes, primarily in the plant community that is critical for ecosystem function, and we suggest that current management of this feral equid may not be adequate for maintaining the long-term viability of this arid and fragile ecosystem.

Abstract Image

野马与索诺拉沙漠生态系统之间的关联 Asociaciones Entre un Equino Salvaje y el Ecosistema del Desierto Sonorense
非本地食草动物对生态系统和多样性的影响已成为全球保护领域的一个关注点。几十年来,在各种生态系统中都存在着与非本地自由漫步马科动物相关的管理挑战,但一直难以解决。尽管大部分挑战与非生物学因素有关,但经验性生态研究对于指导合理的管理决策至关重要。我们在 2017-2019 年期间对美国亚利桑那州野驴(Equus asinus)与索诺兰沙漠生态系统要素之间的关联进行了实地研究。我们确定了有野驴群和没有野驴群的区域,并在这些区域内随机选取多个网格收集植被、有蹄类动物标志、小型哺乳动物、鸟类和爬行动物的数据,同时考虑到植被群落和与水的距离。我们预测,毛驴将与植被指标的差异有关,如较低的地面覆盖率、较小的多年生植物大小、较低的植物密度、叶片密度、新植率以及易受毛驴觅食或践踏的多年生本地植物的物种丰富度。我们进一步预测,这些差异将伴随着小型哺乳动物、鸟类和爬行动物密度或相对丰度的降低以及物种丰富度的降低。最后,由于有记录表明毛驴的分布与这一干旱地貌中的水有关,因此我们预测水附近的影响将最为明显。我们的研究结果并没有始终如一地支持我们的预测,这可能是因为样本量较小,或者在某些情况下,与毛驴栖息地的季节性使用和植物物候模式相关的固有复杂性。不过,我们的研究表明,这种野生马科动物的存在与一些关键差异有关,这些差异可能具有重要的生态意义,并有可能改变这一敏感干旱生态系统的群落结构。在有野驴群的地区,我们记录到一些物种的地面覆盖率、植物密度、叶片密度较低,或植物体型较小,而这些变化往往受到距离水源远近的影响。例如,在有驴群的地区,恩格尔曼刺梨仙人掌(Opuntia engelmannii)的密度降低了 94%,安德森枸杞(Lycium andersonii)的植株变小了 49%。在有毛驴的地区,我们还记录到远离水源的地区白刺(Ambrosia dumosa)密度较低。值得注意的是,我们的繁殖指标显示,在有毛驴群的地区,萨瓜罗仙人掌(Carnegiea gigantea)的繁殖率降低了 63%,而黄桷树(Parkinsonia microphylla)和沙漠铁树(Olneya tesota)的叶片密度也较低。一些植物物种的数据并不支持我们的预测。例如,在水边有驴群和没有驴群的地区,白刺和安德森枸杞的密度相似,但在远离水边有驴群的地区,白刺和安德森枸杞的密度较低。我们的数据显示,在评估的 7 种小型哺乳动物中,有 4 种(贝利袋鼠[Chaetodipus baileyi]、沙漠袋鼠[C. penicillatus]、鹿鼠[Peromyscus spp.]和梅里亚姆袋鼠[Dipodomys merriami])的密度与毛驴和水域距离之间的相互作用有关,在毛驴区域靠近水域的密度较低。与预测相反,其中 3 个物种(贝利袖珍鼠、沙漠袖珍鼠和鹿小鼠)在离水较远的网格中,毛驴区的密度高于非毛驴区。第五个物种(亚利桑那林鼠[Neotoma devia])在毛驴区的密度比非毛驴区低 68%,有两个物种的密度与毛驴无关。在对不同物种的鸟类群体密度进行分析时,我们没有发现一致的模式,有些物种表现出与毛驴相关的负面影响,有些则表现出正面影响。当我们按照假设的筑巢和觅食脆弱性(低、中、高)对鸟类进行分类时,脆弱性水平并不能预测驴子的影响。然而,与我们的预期相反,所有类别的鸟类在远离水域的地方都表现出毛驴的负面影响,而在靠近水域的地方则没有。普通侧斑蜥蜴(Uta stansburiana)的相对丰度在有驴子的地区降低了 26%,但其他爬行动物物种的数据并不支持我们的预测,有些物种在有驴子的地区表现出更高的相对丰度。我们的数据并未显示驴子与鸟类、小型哺乳动物或爬行动物物种丰富度之间的关系,但在靠近水域的驴子区域,本地多年生植物的物种丰富度较高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Wildlife Monographs
Wildlife Monographs 生物-动物学
CiteScore
9.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
3
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Wildlife Monographs supplements The Journal of Wildlife Management with focused investigations in the area of the management and conservation of wildlife. Abstracting and Indexing Information Academic Search Alumni Edition (EBSCO Publishing) Agricultural & Environmental Science Database (ProQuest) Biological Science Database (ProQuest) CAB Abstracts® (CABI) Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Database (ProQuest) Global Health (CABI) Grasslands & Forage Abstracts (CABI) Helminthological Abstracts (CABI) Natural Science Collection (ProQuest) Poultry Abstracts (CABI) ProQuest Central (ProQuest) ProQuest Central K-543 Research Library (ProQuest) Research Library Prep (ProQuest) SciTech Premium Collection (ProQuest) Soils & Fertilizers Abstracts (CABI) Veterinary Bulletin (CABI)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信