S Porrini

Habitat use and home range traits of resident and relocated hares (Lepus europaeus, Pallas)

The aim of the study was to identify the habitat preferences and home range of resident and relocated brown hares during the nohunting period. The trial was carried out in a protected area and in a free-hunting territory (FHT), both located in the Florence province. During the captures, 21 hares were equipped with a necklace radio-tag: seven hares (resident group) were released in the same area of capture and 14 hares (relocated group) were relocated in six different locations within the FHT. The effect of the place of release was analysed by ANOVA and/or nonparametric methods. Results showed that the home ranges of the resident group were characterized by a greater amount of fallow land and shrub land than of the relocated group (P<0.05). Home range sizes and maximum distances from the releasing sites were greater in the relocated group. Resident hares preferred landscape characterized by a higher density of patches (152 vs. 70 n/100 ha), patch richness (43 vs. 12 n/100 ha), and patch area (4703 vs. 8142 m2) than the relocated hares (P<0.01). The landscape structure indices, the home range sizes and the maximum distance from the releasing sites suggest that the relocated hares, even if released in suitable habitats, will move from their releasing point to look for better habitats. The landscape with the most complexity is preferred by the resident hares. This result should be considered when a project is programmed to reintroduce this lagomorph into a territory, or when it is necessary to improve the dynamics of a natural population.

Pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) hens of different origin. Dispersion and habitat use after release

Abstract Because of the importance of pheasants as a game bird species in many European Countries, information on the success of the restocking programs is interesting for evaluation. For this reason the survival, behaviour and habitat selection of 10 wild translocated and 20 released ring-necked pheasants (10 offspring of wild captured and 10 from the farmed strain, both farm-reared) was studied using radio-telemetry during March-August (fixes were grouped in 3 categorized periods: March 2 - April 18; April 19 - May 28; May 29 - August 16). All the captive reared pheasants were reared according to the new disciplinary rules set forth by the Toscana region for the production of pheasants destined to be released in the wild as part of a game repopulation program. The study was carried out in a hilly area of the Tuscany characterised by 18.1% woodland (core: 1654895E, 4850468N). Results showed that live weights were higher in the farm-reared pheasants (either directly captured or offspring of the captured, P<0.05). The tarsus length statistically differed between the farmed offspring of the captured pheasants and the farm strain (P<0.05). The survival rates and breeding success of the surviving subjects were very high and did not differ between groups (survival rates: 50.0%, 70.0% and 80.0%, and breeding success: 60.0%, 28.6% and 50.0%, for the captive-reared offspring of captured wild pheasants, the captive-reared farm pheasants and the captured wild pheasants, respectively). The dispersion increased with time in the wild translocated pheasants (576 m, 889 m and 1209 m) while the offspring of the captured wild pheasants and the farm strain remained in the vicinity of the releasing site. The wild pheasants showed an increasing distance from the country houses, contrary to the offspring of captured wild pheasants and the farm strain. Artificial feeding stations were better used by the farm-reared pheasants, which remained in the vicinity of the artificial feeding points. The results of our study showed that pheasants, reared according to the disciplinary rules stated for the production of pheasants for wildlife reproduction programs, although more expensive, can guarantee the genetic identity with the resident populations and are able to provide good survival rates and breeding success of the released pheasants, of course when restocking is carried out in areas suitable for pheasant wildlife.

How Many Pheasants (Phasianus colchicus L.) can be Removed? A Study on Small- Protected Areas in Italy~!2008-12-22~!2009-02-05~!2009-04-21~!

In Italy the maintenance and the increase of wild pheasant populations is mainly obtained in small-Protected Areas (PA) suitable for wildlife reproduction. In these areas a part of the resident population is regularly captured and transferred to the hunting zones in the winter time. The aim of the study is to determine the right number of pheasant to be removed from this protected area without causing damage and thus maintaining a balance in the resident population. Since 2000, flush counts census were conducted in 30 PAs in the Florence province during the summer time (post-reproduction period), using dogs experienced at rooting out the pheasants. We made estimates for each PA in the number of adult males, adult females and sexually undifferentiated young pheasants. We calculated post-reproduction density and the ratios of young/adults and males/females. These parameters were used to construct a model to predict the pheasants catches in the next winter. The study showed that the minimum census surface covered must be more than 9% of the total area studied. Smaller coverage gave biased estimations of pheasant numbers to be caught. The best generic model, to be used for surfaces between 297 and 1385 ha, located in Mediterranean habitats, was the following: total number of pheasants to be captured and relocated = -10.3 + 0.15*total number of female pheasants estimated in the protected area + 0.14* total number of young pheasants estimated in the protected area + 0.04*total surface of the protected area (R = 0.48).

How many pheasants (Phasianus colchicus L.) can be removed? A study on small protected areas in Italy

In Italy the maintenance and the increase of wild pheasant populations is mainly obtained in small-Protected Areas (PA) suitable for wildlife reproduction. In these areas a part of the resident population is regularly captured and transferred to the hunting zones in the winter time. The aim of the study is to determine the right number of pheasant to be removed from this protected area without causing damage and thus maintaining a balance in the resident population. Since 2000, flush counts census were conducted in 30 PAs in the Florence province during the summer time (post-reproduction period), using dogs experienced at rooting out the pheasants. We made estimates for each PA in the number of adult males, adult females and sexually undifferentiated young pheasants. We calculated post-reproduction density and the ratios of young/adults and males/females. These parameters were used to construct a model to predict the pheasants catches in the next winter. The study showed that the minimum census surface covered must be more than 9% of the total area studied. Smaller cover- age gave biased estimations of pheasant numbers to be caught. The best generic model, to be used for surfaces between 297 and 1385 ha, located in Mediterranean habitats, was the following: total number of pheasants to be captured and relocated = -10.3 + 0.15*total number of female pheasants estimated in the protected area + 0.14* total number of young pheasants estimated in the protected area + 0.04*total surface of the protected area (R 2 = 0.48).