ABSTRACT
The ectoparasite fauna for island foxes (Urocyon littoralis) on Santa Cruz Island (California, USA) in April (wet season) and September (dry season) 1998 was evaluated. Three taxa of ectoparasites were identified. These were fleas (Pulex irritans), lice (Neotrichodectes mephitidis), and ticks (Ixodes pacificus). Ectoparasite abundances varied seasonally. Typical of insular endemic species, island foxes may be especially vulnerable to the introduction of novel disease organisms and their vectors.
Subject(s)
Ectoparasitic Infestations/veterinary , Foxes , Animal Diseases/epidemiology , Animal Diseases/parasitology , Animals , California/epidemiology , Ectoparasitic Infestations/epidemiology , Female , Ixodes , Male , Phthiraptera , Seasons , Sex Characteristics , SiphonapteraABSTRACT
Although many studies employ allometric relationships to demonstrate possible dependence of various traits on body mass, the relationship between home range size and body mass has been perhaps the most difficult to understand. Early studies demonstrated that carnivorous species had larger home ranges than herbivorous species of similar mass. These studies also argued that scaling relations (e.g., slopes) of the former were steeper than those of the latter and explained this in terms of the distribution of food resources, which are more uniformly distributed for most herbivores than for carnivores. In contrast to these studies, we show that scaling relations of home ranges for carnivorous mammals do not differ significantly from those of herbivorous and omnivorous species and that all three exhibit slopes that are significantly steeper than predicted on the basis of energetic requirements. We also demonstrate that home range size is constrained to fit within a polygonal constraint space bounded by lines representing energetic and/or biophysical limitations, which suggests that the log-linear relationship between home range area and mass may not be the appropriate function to compare against the energetically predicted slopes of 0.75 or 1.0. It remains unclear, however, why the slope of the relationship between home range area and body mass, whether based on raw data or on constraint lines, always exceeds that predicted by the energetic needs hypothesis.
