Mammal Study
Online ISSN : 1348-6160
Print ISSN : 1343-4152
ISSN-L : 1343-4152
Volume 33, Issue 3
Displaying 1-6 of 6 articles from this issue
Original papers
  • Roku Goda, Masaki Ando, Hiroaki Sato, Ei’ichi Shibata
    2008 Volume 33 Issue 3 Pages 93-97
    Published: 2008
    Released on J-STAGE: July 17, 2009
    JOURNAL FREE ACCESS
    The relationship between the number of fecal pellet groups found in line transects and estimates of deer density based on block counts on Mt. Ohdaigahara in central Japan was examined and the validity of fecal pellet group counts for obtaining an index of sika deer population density was assessed. Sika deer population densities estimated by block count were 13.0/km2 in spring, 18.3/km2 in summer and 19.0/km2 in autumn. Fecal pellet group counts showed low positive correlations with deer density in spring and autumn (0.69 in spring and 0.68 in autumn), but not in summer, indicating that deer density may not be predictable then. We suggest that fecal pellet group count reflects deer density in spring or autumn, and might be feasible as an index of deer population density.
    Download PDF (843K)
  • Yoshikazu Sato, Yumi Kobayashi, Tsuyoshi Urata, Seiki Takatsuki
    2008 Volume 33 Issue 3 Pages 99-109
    Published: 2008
    Released on J-STAGE: July 17, 2009
    JOURNAL FREE ACCESS
    We examined the home range and habitat use of three female brown bears (Ursus arctos) in the Urahoro region, eastern Hokkaido, Japan, where crop depredation by bears has increased since 1996. The average annual home range size calculated by the minimum convex polygon method was 43.04 ± 9.52 km2 (mean ± SD, N = 5). Summer (June–September) home ranges were larger than spring (April–May) and fall (October–December) ranges. The home range of brown bears in the region was larger than those in other areas of Hokkaido, such as the Oshima and Shiretoko Peninsulas. This suggests that habitat quality and population density are lower in the Urahoro region than in other areas. One of two bears for which we examined habitat preferences depended on crop fields during the late summer, whereas the other bear remained in the forest throughout the year. Brown bears in this area preferred mixed forest and avoided deciduous broadleaf forest and conifer plantations.
    Download PDF (1379K)
Short communications
feedback
Top