개과동물-북아메리카.

[대 박]

전처럼.. 글들은 여기서 일부의 내용을 발췌한것이며

해석해놓은 내용도 역시 그 일부의 일부분만을 해석해놓은 간략한 해석입니다.

코요테의 신체측정표입니다.

콜로라도의 코요테에 비해 메인주의 코요테가 꽤나 크군요.

체중만 말하자면

콜로라도 86마리 수컷평균 11.6킬로

메인주 28마리 수컷평균 15.8킬로입니다.

Relative abundance

Coyotes are abundant throughout their range (Table 4.1.3)
and are increasing in distribution as humans continue to
modify the landscape. Elimination of wolves may also
have assisted coyote expansion. Coyote density varies
geographically with food and climate, and seasonally due
to mortality and changes in pack structure and food
abundance. Local control temporarily reduces numbers
on a short-term basis, but coyote populations generally
are stable in most areas

현재 북미에서 가장 번성하는 개과답게 서식지도 넓고 개체수도

안정적이라고 합니다. 파나마에서까지 살줄은 미처 몰랐네요.

표들은 각 국가별로 코요테가 흔한동물인지 아닌지를 나타내는표와

미쿡몇주의 시기별 코요테의 밀도를 나타낸 표입니다.

Food

 Coyotes are opportunistic, generalist predators that
eat a variety of food items, typically consuming items in
relation to changes in availability. Coyotes eat foods ranging
from fruit and insects to large ungulates and livestock.
Livestock and wild ungulates may often be represented in
coyote stomachs and scats as carrion, but predation on
large ungulates (native and domestic) does occur (Andelt
1987). Predation by coyotes on neonates of native ungulates
can be high during fawning (Andelt 1987). Coyotes in
suburban areas are adept at exploiting human-made food
resources and will readily consume dog food or other
human-related items.

Damage to livestock or game

Coyotes are a major predator of domestic sheep and lambs. In areas with predator
control, losses to coyotes were 1.0–6.0% for lambs and 0.1–
2.0% for ewes (USFWS 1978). In areas with no predator
control, losses to coyotes were 12–29% of lambs and 1–8%
of ewes (McAdoo and Klebenow 1978; O’Gara et al. 1983).

However, coyote predation is not always the major cause of
losses. In 1999, the value of sheep reported lost to predators
was estimated at US$16.5 million (USDA 2000). In 1999,
predators killed an estimated 273,600 sheep and lambs,
with coyotes causing 60.7% of those losses (USDA 2000).
Of the 742,900 sheep and lambs reported lost in 1999, only
165,800 (22.3%) were killed by coyotes (USDA 2000).

However, not all losses are necessarily reported.
Predation by coyotes on game species can be very high,
particularly among fawns (Andelt 1987). Losses due to
predation can be 40–90% of the ungulate fawn crop, with
coyotes being one of the major predators (Andelt 1987).
Predation by coyotes on adult ungulates is less pronounced
compared to neonatal predation. The effect that coyote
predation has on the adult segment of ungulate populations
is poorly understood, but in some situations increased
predation may be correlated with winter severity.

코요테의 먹이감은 매우 다양하며 과일과 조그만곤충에서 큰 우제목,가축에
이른다 하며 심지어 코요테위속에 썩은고기와 배설물까지 들어있는 경우도 있다 합니다.
그리고 코요테가 큰 우제목이나 가축을 사냥하는 경우는 아주 어린새끼를 사냥하는
경우라 합니다. 도시에 사는 코요테들은 사람들이 만든, 개밥같은 음식을 먹으며
살아간다 합니다.

코요테는 가축양들의 주요포식자로 간주되어 왔는데,사냥같은것을 통해
포식자조절을 할시에 코요테에 의한 손해는 새끼양 1~6%, 암양 0.1~2% 였으며
조절을 하지 않을시엔 새끼양 12~29%, 암양 1~8%의 손실을 보았다 합니다.

1999년 포식자들에 의한 양손실량은 1650만 달러에 달했으며 그중
273600마리의 양이 당했다 합니다. 그중 코요테는 60.7%를 차지했다 합니다.

그리고 역시 1999년에 742900마리의 양들이 당했는데 그중 22.3%를 코요테의 소행이라 합니다.

그런데 1999년에 벌어진 양의 손실량은 같은 출저인데 당한 수치가 틀리네요.
지역에 의한 차이는 나와있진 않는데..음..

그리고 한다는말이 모든 손실이 코요테에 의한것은 아니라고 하는군요..ㅎㅎ
그리고 사람들이 사냥하는 동물들에 의한 포식비율도 매우 높다는데
우제목새끼들의 경우 40~90%에 달하는 포식비율이지만
성체 우제목들의 경우에는 사냥이 적고 자료도 매우 적다는듯 하군요.
다만 먹이가 부족해지는 겨울에는 증가하는 경우가 가끔 있다 합니다.

Social behaviour
Coyotes are considered less social than wolves (but see Gese
et al. 1996b, c). The basic social unit is the adult, heterosexual

pair, referred to as the alpha pair. Coyotes form heterosexual
pair bonds that may persist for several years,

but not necessarily for life. Coyotes may maintain pair bonds and
whelp or sire pups up to 10–12 years of age. Associate
animals may remain in the pack and possibly inherit or
displace members of the breeding pair and become alphas
themselves. Associates participate in territorial maintenance
and pup rearing, but not to the extent of the alpha pair.
Other coyotes exist outside of the resident packs as transient
or nomadic individuals. Transients travel alone over larger
areas and do not breed, but will move into territories when
vacancies occur.

One factor that may affect coyote sociality is prey size or
prey biomass. In populations where rodents are the major
prey, coyotes tend to be in pairs or trios (Bekoff and Wells
1986). In populations where elk and deer are available, large
packs of up to 10 individuals may form (Bekoff and Wells
1986; Gese et al. 1996b, c).
Coyotes are territorial with a dominance hierarchy within
each resident pack (Bekoff 1982; Bekoff and Gese 2003, and
references therein). In captivity, coyotes show early
development of aggressive behaviour and engage in
dominance fights when 19–24 days old (Bekoff et al. 1981).

The early development of hierarchical ranks within litters
appears to last up to 4.5 months (Bekoff 1977). Territoriality
mediates the regulation of coyote numbers as packs space
themselves across the landscape in relation to available food
and habitat (Knowlton et al. 1999). The dominance hierarchy
influences access to food resources within the pack (Gese et
al. 1996b, c).

Competition
Direct and indirect competition between coyotes and
wolves, and pumas (Puma concolor) has been documented.
Coyotes have been killed by wolves and may avoid areas
and habitats used by these larger carnivores. Direct
predation and competition for food and space with wolves
may limit coyote numbers in some areas under certain
conditions (Peterson 1995).
In some areas, coyotes may not tolerate bobcats (Lynx
rufus; but see Major and Sherburne 1987) and red foxes
(Vulpes vulpes; e.g., Major and Sherburne 1987), but
appear to be more tolerant when food is abundant (Gese
et al. 1996d). Coyotes will also kill smaller canids, mainly
swift fox (V. velox), kit fox (V. macrotis), and gray fox
(Urocyon cinereoargenteus). Coexistence between these
canids may be mediated by resource partitioning (e.g.,
White et al. 1995; Kitchen et al. 1999).

Natural sources of mortality

Coyotes of various ages have different mortality rates depending on the level of
persecution and food availability (Knowlton et al. 1999).
Pups (<1 year old) and yearlings (1–2 years old) tend to
have the highest mortality rates. For individuals >1 year
of age, mortality rate varies geographically (Knowlton
1972). Knowlton (1972) reported high survival from 4–8
years of age. About 70–75% of coyote populations are 1–
4 years of age (Knowlton et al. 1999).
Predation by large carnivores and starvation may be
substantial mortality factors, but their effects on coyote
populations are poorly understood. Increased mortality is
often associated with dispersal as animals move into
unfamiliar areas and low-security habitats (Knowlton et
al. 1999).

코요테는 늑대보단 덜 사회적인것으로 간주되어왔으며 마치 늑대처럼 무리중

한쌍의 암수가 대장을맡으며 

잡아먹는 먹이에 따라 무리의 규모가 달라지는데

설치류들을 잡아먹을땐 두세마리가 무리를 이루지만

엘크나 사슴등의 우제목사냥이 필요할시엔 10마리에 달하는 큰무리가 형성되기도 한다는군요.

 그리고 경쟁자는 늑대,퓨마이며

천적과 사망률은 1실미만의 새끼나 1~2살의 시기에 가장높으며
커다란 포식자나 기아에 의한것이 주된사망요인이라 합니다.

현재 가장 희귀한 개과동물중 하나인 붉은늑대의 신체측정표및 개체수,분포도입니다.

체중은 70마리 수컷평균 28.5킬로군요.

원래 넒은 서식범위를 지닌 붉은늑대였으나..사람들로 인해 1980년 멸종까지 되었다가

동물원 개체와 다시 복구하였다 합니다만

아직도 개체수는 저기서 보이는것처럼 150마리수준이거나 200마리 수준정도라는군요.

Food

 Mammals such as nutria (Myocastor coypus), rabbits
(Sylvilagus spp.), and rodents (Sigmodon hispidus,
Oryzomys palustris, Ondatra zibethicus) are common in
south-east Texas and appear to have been the primary
prey of red wolves historically (Riley and McBride 1972;
Shaw 1975). In north-eastern North Carolina, whitetailed
deer (Odocoileus virginianus), raccoon (Procyon
lotor), and rabbits are the primary prey species for the
reintroduced population, comprising 86% (Phillips et al.
2003) of the red wolves’ diets

Damage to livestock or game

Historically, the red wolf was believed to be a killer of livestock and a threat to
local game populations, despite lack of data to support
such a belief. As of September 2002, the reintroduced
population in north-eastern North Carolina has been
responsible for only three depredations since 1987 (USFWS
unpubl.).

Social behaviour
Like grey wolves, red wolves normally live in extended
family units or packs (Phillips and Henry 1992; Phillips et
al. 2003). Packs typically include a dominant, breeding
pair and offspring from previous years. Dispersal of
offspring typically occurs before individuals reach two
years of age (Phillips et al. 2003). Group size in the
reintroduced population typically ranges from a single
breeding pair to 12 individuals (Phillips et al. 2003; USFWS
unpubl.). Red wolves are territorial and, like other canids,
appear to scent mark boundaries to exclude non-group
members from a given territory (Phillips et al. 2003;
USFWS unpubl.). Home range size varies from 46–226km2,
with variation due to habitat type (Phillips et al. 2003).

먹이는 예전 붉은늑대가 살았던 텍사스에선 뉴트리아,토끼,설치류등을 주로 먹는다하며
현재 늑대가 살고있는 노스캐롤라이나에선 흰꼬리사슴,토끼,라쿤이
전체 먹이의 85%를 차지하는 주요먹이라 합니다.

역사적으로 붉은늑대는 가축과 사냥감의 개체수를 위협하는 존재라 여겨져왔으나
자료가 부족한 관계로 지지하긴 어렵다 하며 1987년에 다시 재도입된 녀석들의 경우
2002년 까지 오로지 3건의 약탈만이 있었다 합니다.

사회성은 회색늑대처럼 큰무리를 이루어 산다하며 무리규모는 2마리에서 12마리수준이며
영역은 46~226제곱킬로미터정도라는군요.

Competition
The degree of competition for prey and habitat between
red wolves, coyotes and red wolf × coyote hybrids, is
uncertain. Studies to determine this are currently underway
(see Current or planned research projects below). In
contrast, competition for mates between red wolves and
coyotes or red wolf x coyote hybrids appears to be significant
(Kelly et al. 1999) (see Conservation status: Threats below).
Red wolves may also compete, to a lesser degree, with
black bears (Ursus americanus). The destruction of red
wolf dens by black bears has been observed, although it is
unknown if these dens had already been abandoned
(USFWS unpubl.). Conversely, wolves have also been
observed killing young bears (USFWS unpubl.).

Natural sources of mortality

Natural mortality accounts for approximately 21% of known mortality. There are no
known major predators of red wolves, although
intraspecific aggression accounts for approximately 6% of
known red wolf mortalities (USFWS unpubl.).

붉은늑대의 경쟁자는 불확실하게 코요테와, 코요테와 붉은늑대의 교잡종으로
보고 있다 하며 붉은늑대와 코요테의 교잡종은 경쟁자가 될수있으나 더 낮은 위치로
보인다 하며 다른 경쟁자로는 흑곰이있는 흑곰이 늑대가 이미 떠난 빈굴을 부수는게
보고되었으며 반대로 어린 흑곰이 늑대에게 죽임을 당한일도 있다 합니다.

 
사망률중 자연적요인은 21%이며 붉은늑대의 천적은 없는것으로 보이지만
같은 종간의 다툼이 사망률의 6%를 차지한다 합니다.

회색여우의 신체측정표및 분포도입니다.

체중은 수컷 18마리 평균 4킬로군요.

Food

Gray foxes have been identified as the most
omnivorous of all North American fox species (Fritzell

and Haroldson 1982). They consume primarily rabbits
(Sylvilagus spp.) and rodents during cold winter months,
then greatly diversify their diets in spring and summer to
include insects, particularly Orthoptera (e.g., grasshoppers),
birds, natural fruits and nuts, and sometimes carrion.
Fruit and nut consumption often increases in the autumn
as availability of these foods increases (Fritzell and
Haroldson 1982).

Social behaviour
Monogamy with occasional polygyny is probably most
typical in gray foxes (Trapp and Hallberg 1975), but few
quantitative data are available, and it is not known if
breeding pairs remain together during consecutive years.
The basic social unit is the mated pair and their offspring
of the year (Trapp and Hallberg 1975; Greenberg and
Pelton 1994). Offspring typically disperse at 9–10 months
of age, and although long distance dispersal (over 80km)
has been reported (Sheldon 1953; Sullivan 1956), young
foxes may also return to and settle down near their natal
ranges (Nicholson et al. 1985). Gray foxes exhibit some
territoriality, as home ranges of adjacent family groups
may overlap, but core areas appear to be used exclusively
by a single family (Chamberlain and Leopold 2000). Home
range size ranges from 0.8km² (Yearsley and Samuel 1982)
to 27.6km² (Nicholson 1982), and size may vary with
habitat quality and food availability.
Gray foxes scent mark by depositing urine and faeces
in conspicuous locations (Fritzell and Haroldson 1982).
They also communicate vocally via growls, alarm barks,
screams, and “coos” and “mewing” sounds during
greetings (Cohen and Fox 1976). Gray foxes engage in
allogrooming with adults grooming juveniles and each other (Fox 1970).ach

Natural sources of mortality

In addition to coyotes and bobcats, golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) and mountain
lions (Felis concolor) kill gray foxes (Grinnell et al. 1937; Mollhagen et al. 1972).

회색여우는 북미 모든 여우중 가장 잡식성으로 알려졌으며
대개 토끼를 먹는다하며 겨울엔 설치류를 먹는다 합니다.

그외 계절별로 곤충,새,설치루,과일,호두등 다양하게 먹는군요.

사회성은 일부일처제와 일부다처제가 대부분이라 합니다.

영역의 너비는 0.8~27제곱키로라 합니다.

회색여우의 천적은 코요테,밥캣,검독수리,퓨마,회색늑대라 합니다.

섬 여우의 신체측정표및 개체수, 분포도 입니다. 상당히 좁은지역에 국한되어 사는군요.

Food

Island foxes are omnivorous and feed on a wide
variety of insects, vertebrates, fruits, terrestrial molluscs
and even near-shore invertebrates (Laughrin 1973, 1977;
Collins 1980; Kovach and Dow 1981; Crooks and van
Vuren 1995; Moore and Collins 1995; Roemer et al.
2001b). The relative abundance of insects, mammals and
plant material in the fox diet has been found to differ by
habitat type (Laughrin 1977; Crooks and van Vuren 1995;
Roemer et al. 2001b), and by island, depending upon
availability of food items (Laughrin 1973; Collins and
Laughrin 1979). For example, on San Miguel Island where
deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus) densities are high,
they form a large proportion of the diet of the island fox
(Collins 1980). On Santa Cruz Island, Jerusalem crickets
(Stenopelmatus fuscus) are a principal prey whereas on
San Clemente Island, Jerusalem crickets are absent from
the fauna and therefore unavailable. In contrast, the fruits
of the coastal prickly pear cactus (Opuntia littoralis) are a
principal food on San Clemente Island, especially during
winter, but the cactus was nearly eradicated from Santa
Cruz Island (Goeden et al. 1967) and thus comprises only
a small portion of the fox diet there. The frequency of bird
remains in the scat of island foxes is usually low (3–6%)
but on San Miguel Island bird remains were found in 22%
of scats (n=208) examined (Laughrin 1977; Collins and
Laughrin 1979; Crooks and van Vuren 1995). For an
exhaustive list of foods consumed by island foxes and the
inter-habitat and inter-island variability see Laughrin (1973, 1977), Collins and Laughrin (1979) and Moore and Collins (1995).

Social behaviour
Island foxes typically exist as socially monogamous pairs
that occupy discrete territories (Crooks and van Vuren
1996; Roemer et al. 2001b). It is not uncommon for fullgrown
young to remain within their natal range into their
second year or for independent, territory-holding offspring
to visit their parents in their former natal range (Roemer
et al. 2001b).
The home range size of the island fox is one of the
smallest recorded for any canid. On Santa Cruz Island,
fox home ranges varied by season and habitat type,
generally ranging between 0.15 and 0.87km2 (Crooks and
van Vuren 1996; Roemer et al. 2001b). Mean annual home
range on Santa Cruz Island was 0.55km2 (n=14, Roemer et
al. 2001b). On San Clemente Island, mean home range size
was larger (0.77km2, n=11), perhaps due to the lower
productivity of this more southerly island (Thompson et
al. 1998). On Santa Cruz Island, fox home ranges expanded
when territorial neighbours were killed by golden eagles,
suggesting that density of foxes and the spatial distribution
of neighbours may influence territory size (Roemer et al.
2001b).

Competition
The only known competitors of island foxes are island
spotted skunks (Spilogale gracilis amphiala) on Santa
Cruz and Santa Rosa Islands (von Bloeker 1967; Laughrin
1977; Crooks and van Vuren 1995; Roemer et al. 2002)
and feral cats on all three southern Channel Islands
(Laughrin 1977; Kovach and Dow 1981).

다른 여우들처럼 섬여우도 다양한먹이군인데 곤충,채소,과일,
육상 연체동물,물가근처의 무척주동물들등을 먹는다합니다.

그리고 섬별로 선호도 역시 다른경우가 있나보군요.

사회성은 다른여우들처럼 일부일처제이며 각각 영역을지니고 있습니다.
0.15~0.87 제곱킬로미터의 영역넓이를 지닌다하는데
섬마다 영역 넓이가 다른모양이네요.

그리고 경쟁자는 스컹크정도라 합니다.

Natural sources of mortality

Hyperpredation by golden eagles has been identified as a primary mortality factor for
island foxes on the northern Channel Islands, and is likely
responsible for the recent catastrophic population declines
of those three subspecies (Roemer 1999; Roemer et al.
2001a, 2002.). The presence of an exotic omnivore, the
feral pig (Sus scrofa), enabled eagles to colonise the islands,
increase in population size, and overexploit the fox.
Evidence from 28 fox carcasses from Santa Cruz and San
Miguel Islands implicated eagles in nearly 90% of the
mortalities, and a logistic model of hyperpredation showed
that pigs would have been necessary to support a large,
resident eagle population (Figure 4.4.4) (Roemer 1999;
Roemer et al. 2001a, 2002). Further, the preval‎ence of
other potential mortality factors, such as disease and
parasites, were found to be incongruent with the pattern
of fox population declines (Roemer et al. 2000a, 2001a).
Red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis) may kill kits
(Laughrin 1977). Interspecific aggression is another source
of natural mortality.

사망률중 거의 대부분이 검독수리에 의한것인데
검독수리는여우의 개체수를 조절하며 미구엘섬에서는
검독수리에 의한 사망률이 거의 90%에 달한다 하는군요.

그리고 검독수리에게 당하는게 여우만이 아닌 돼지도 그런모양.. 인가 보군요.
밑에 그래프가 있습니다.

 돼지,섬 여우의 숫자와 그에 따른 검독수리의 숫자 그래프입니다.

Kit fox 의 신체측정표,분포도입니다.

체중은 멕시코의 8마리 수컷 평균 2.29킬로군요.

Food

Kit foxes primarily consume rodents, leporids, and
insects. Primary prey includes kangaroo rats (Dipodomys
spp.), prairie dogs (Cynomys spp.), black-tailed jackrabbits
(Lepus californicus), and cottontails (Sylvilagus spp.). Other
items consumed include birds, reptiles, and carrion
(Egoscue 1962; Jiménez-Guzmán and López-Soto 1992;
White et al. 1995; List 2003; Cypher et al. 2000). Plant
material is rarely consumed, although cactus fruits are
occasionally eaten (Egoscue 1956).

Social behaviour
Kit foxes are primarily monogamous with occasional
polygyny (Egoscue 1962). Pairs usually mate for life
(Egoscue 1956). Young from previous litters, usually
females, may delay dispersal and remain in natal home
ranges where they may assist with raising the current litter
(List 1997; Koopman et al. 2000). Kit foxes are not strongly
territorial and home ranges may overlap, although core
areas generally are used exclusively by one family group
(White and Ralls 1993; Spiegel 1996). Home range size is
variable, even within similar vegetation types, and ranges
from 2.5km² (Knapp 1978) to 11.6km² (White and Ralls
1993).
Kit foxes sometimes bark at approaching predators or
to recall pups, and they sometimes emit a “hacking growl”
during intraspecific encounters. Foxes in dens or captivity
make a closed-mouth vocalisation during times of anxiety
(Egoscue 1962). Scent-marking by kit foxes has not been
investigated

Natural sources of mortality

Predation, mainly by coyotes, usually is the main source of mortality for kit
foxes and commonly accounts for over 75% of deaths
(Ralls and White 1995; Spiegel 1996; Cypher and Spencer
1998). Other predators include bobcats, red foxes, badgers,
feral dogs, and large raptors (O’Farrell 1987).

먹이는 설치류,토끼류,곤충류이며
주요먹이는 캥거루쥐 프레리도그등이라 합니다.
물론 다른여우들처럼 과일도 먹는 잡식성입니다.

사회성은 일부일처제가 대부분이고 간혹 일부다처제를보인다는군요.
영역너비는2.5~11.6제곱킬로미터라 합니다.

주요천적은 코요테인데 사망률중 75%를 차지한다는군요.
그외 밥캣, 붉은여우,오소리,떠돌이개, 큰 파충류등도 천적에 포함된다 합니다.

Swift fox의 신체측정표및 분포도 입니다.

체중은 뉴멕시코의 18마리 수컷평균 2.24킬로군요.

Food

Swift foxes are opportunistic foragers which feed on
a variety of mammals, but also birds, insects, plants, and
carrion (Kilgore 1969; Hines 1980; Cameron 1984; Uresk
and Sharps 1986; Hines and Case 1991; Zimmerman 1998;
Kitchen et al. 1999; Moehrenschlager 2000; Sovada et al.

item in several studies (Kilgore 1969 [winter]; Cameron
1984; Zumbaugh et al. 1985). In South Dakota, mammals
accounted for 49% of prey occurrences with prairie dogs
(Cynomys ludovicianus) as the primary prey item (Uresk
and Sharps 1986). Sovada et al. (2001b) in Kansas, and
Hines and Case (1991)

in Nebraska, found that murid
rodents were the most frequently occurring prey in swift
fox diets. Several studies have reported a high frequency
of insects, but insects likely constituted a small portion of
biomass (Kilgore 1969). Birds and bird eggs have been
identified as a food of swift foxes (Kilgore 1969; Uresk and
Sharps 1986; Sovada et al. 2001a). Swift fox studies typically
have reported a relatively high frequency of plant materials
found in samples, but most often in relatively small amounts
per sample. However, several studies identified prickly
pear cactus fruit, wild plums, and sunflower seeds as a
food resource (Kilgore 1969; Hines and Case 1991; Sovada
et al. 2001b).
2001b). Leporids have been reported as a primary prey

Social behaviour

The typical social group consists of a mated pair with
pups. Occasionally, the social group is a trio or group of
two males and two or three females, with one breeding
female and non-breeding helpers (Kilgore 1969; Covell
1992; Sovada et al. 2003; Tannerfeldt et al. 2003). Pups
remain with the parents until dispersal, which commences
in August or September in Oklahoma (Kilgore 1969),
September/October in Colorado and Kansas (Covell 1992;
Sovada et al. 2003) and August in Canada (Pruss 1994).
Moehrenschlager (2000) reported that only 33% (n=12) of
juveniles had left natal home ranges at 9.5 months of age
while all recaptured individuals aged 18 months or older
had dispersed (n=7).

Published estimates of swift fox home ranges are quite
variable and difficult to compare because different
techniques and criteria have been used to estimate homerange
size (Tannerfeldt et al. 2003). Hines and Case (1991)
reported an average home range size of 32.3km² (range=

7.7–79.3km²) for seven swift foxes in Nebraska using the
minimum convex polygon method, but four animals were
followed for fewer than five nights in winter or very early
spring. Andersen et al. (2003) reported a similar average
MCP home-range size of 29.0km² (range=12.8–34.3km²)
on the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site in south-eastern
Colorado (1986 to 1987) for five swift foxes with >34
locations over a minimum period of seven months. A
slightly smaller estimate (MCP) of average home range,
25.1km² (SE=1.9, range=8.7–43.0km²), was determined
for 22 swift foxes with >60 locations in western Kansas
(Sovada et al. 2003). Zimmerman et al. (2003) estimated
average MCP home-range size of 10.4km² (range=7.3–
16.9km2) for five swift foxes in Montana.

 Using the 95%
adaptive kernel method, Kitchen et al. (1999) reported
average home-range size of 7.6km² for foxes (with >60
locations per season) on the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site
during 1997 to 1998. In western Kansas, Sovada et al.
(2003) reported a mean ADK estimate of 19.5km² for 22
foxes (SE=1.4).

Pechacek et al. (2000) estimated mean 95%
ADK home range sizes of 11.7km² and 100% MCP estimates
of 7.7km² for 10 swift foxes in south-eastern Wyoming.
Early studies suggested that swift foxes were not
territorial (Hines 1980; Cameron 1984),

although more
recent data have provided evidence of territoriality.
Andersen et al. (2003) reported nearly total exclusion of an
individual swift fox’s core activity area to other same-sex
individuals. Pechacek et al. (2000) and Sovada et al. (2003)
found areas used by mated pairs had minimal overlap with
areas used by adjacent pairs, and core areas were exclusive.
In Canada, Moehrenschlager (2000) reported swift fox
home ranges overlapped by 77.1% among mates and 21.4%
between neighbours.
Avery (1989) described the vocal repertoire of the swift
fox from recordings made of captive foxes. He identified
eight different vocalisations: courting/territorial call,
agonistic chatter, submissive whine, submissive chatter,
precopulatory call, growls, excited yip/bark, and social
yips

Competition
Predation by and interspecific competition with coyotes
(Canis latrans) and expansion of red fox (Vulpes vulpes)
populations may be the two most serious limiting factors
to swift fox recolonisation of suitable habitat identified
within the species’ historic range (Moehrenschlager et al.
2004). Coyote killing of swift foxes significantly affected
the reintroduction efforts of swift foxes in Canada (Scott-
Brown et al. 1987; Carbyn et al. 1994).

Since coyotes
frequently do not consume swift foxes, their killing may
primarily be a form of interference competition (Sovada et
al. 1998). Since red foxes and swift foxes have greater
dietary overlap than swift foxes and coyotes in sympatric
areas of Canada (A. Moehrenschlager unpubl.), the
potential for exploitative competition is highest between
the two fox species. Moreover, contrasted to coyotes, red
foxes tend to be found in higher densities, with smaller
home ranges, and they move as individuals rather than as
pairs or groups.

Therefore, in sympatric populations there
is greater chance of red fox-swift fox encounters than
coyote-swift fox encounters. Preliminary results from an
experimental study examining the swift fox-red fox
relationship suggest that red foxes can be a barrier
preventing swift fox populations from expanding into
unoccupied, but suitable areas (M. A. Sovada unpubl.). In
Canada, red fox dens were significantly closer to human
habitation than coyote dens while swift fox dens were
found at all distances (Moehrenschlager 2000). As coyotes
avoid high human activity areas, red foxes may utilise
these sites to begin their invasion of swift fox home ranges.
While coyotes reduce swift fox numbers through direct,
density-dependent killing within the swift fox range, red
foxes could potentially exclude swift foxes through a
combination of interference and exploitative competition.

Natural sources of mortality

Coyotes have been identified as the principal cause of swift fox mortality (Covell 1992;
Carbyn et al. 1994; Sovada et al. 1998; Kitchen et al. 1999;
Moehrenschlager 2000; Andersen et al. 2003). Other
predators of swift foxes that have been identified include
golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) and American badgers
(Taxidea taxus) (Carbyn et al. 1994; Moehrenschlager
2000; Andersen et al. 2003).

다른 여우들처럼 Swift fox는 벌레,작은포유류,새,식물,썩은고기등 다양하게 먹으며
사우스 다코타에선 동물사냥중 49%가 프레리도그였다 합니다.

초식의 경우많이 하는때도 있지만 대개는 적은양이라 하는듯 하군요.

사회성은 짝을 이루어새끼와 사는개 대부분이고 가끔 2마리수컷과2~3마리의 암컷무리가
관찰되기도 한다는군요. 영역너비는 서식지별로 다르군요.

캐나다에선 영역이 짝들은 77.1%가 일치하며 이웃여우들과는 21.4%가 일치한다는군요.
그리고 8개의 신호를 이용해 신호전달을 한다 합니다.

그리고 경쟁자는 코요테와 붉은여우인데 이녀석들에게 잡아먹히는일이있다 하며
천적은 코요테를 비롯하여 검독수리,오소리등이 거론된다 합니다.

[Laurence]

왠 논문을

[대 박]

항상 감사합니다.^^

[보다리]

왠지....'허리둘레 20인치 여전사' 인가 먼가하는 필이.....

[황희정승]

여우가 생각보다 엄청 작고 가볍네요;; 전 수컷이라면 당연히 10kg쯤은 나갈거라 생각했는데 ㄷㄷㄷㄷ

[대 박]

감사합니다.^^

아마 많은분들이 여우의 무게를 그정도로 생각하실듯 합니다. 그런데 이건 비단 여우만의 문제가 아닌
인터넷에서 동물들의 과장된수치가 널리 통용되고 있다는 생각이 듭니다.

10킬로의 개과동물이면 거의 조그만 코요테만한 수준이니..가우어도 평균 1.2톤 뭐 이런수준이 아닌
평균 900킬로이하..정도의 수준..사자의 몸무게도 200~250킬로가 아닌 170~180킬로수준정도이니 말입니다.

아무르 호랑이는 평균 300키로 라고 하지만 지금 평균은 170키로대 과거평균도 220키로정도로 추산되는걸 보면 말이죠.

[대 박]

그리즐리도 평균 500키로라고 하는말도 있지만 미국그리즐리들은
미국서부 평균 225킬로, 열로스톤 220~230킬로 몬태나 270킬로대. 정도 이니 말입니다.

물론 커다란 평균 350킬로에 달하는 그리즐리들도 있습니다만 아직도 500키로엔 택도 없지요.
가장 거대한 불곰인 코디악들 조차도 완전히 성숙한 수놈들의 평균이 450키로대 수준이니 말입니다.
즉 전체 성체 수컷평균은 한 410키로정도..되겠지요.


아 그리고 여우하면 붉은여우가 생각나게 마련인데 이녀석들의 덩치는 평균 10키로에는 못미치지만 다른 여우들에비해 제법 큰편입니다.
그것도 일조하는듯 합니다.^^