DOCSLIB.ORG

SPECIES REPORT Sierra Nevada Red Fox (Vulpes Vulpes Necator)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
SPECIES REPORT Sierra Nevada Red Fox (Vulpes Vulpes Necator) SPECIES REPORT Sierra Nevada Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes necator) U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE August 14, 2015 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 4 ACRONYMS AND SUBSTITUTIONS USED ............................................................................. 4 SPECIES AND SUBSPECIES DESCRIPTION ............................................................................ 5 TAXONOMY AND GENETICS ................................................................................................... 6 Taxonomic History and Relationship to Other Fox Subspecies ........................................... 6 Genetics ...................................................................................................................................... 7 RANGE AND DISTRIBUTION .................................................................................................... 8 Historical Range ........................................................................................................................ 8 Map 1: SNRF Historical Range in California .................................................................... 9 Current Distribution ............................................................................................................... 10 Map 2: SNRF Sighting Areas............................................................................................. 12 Table 1: SNRF Sighting Areas ........................................................................................... 13 ECOLOGY ................................................................................................................................... 14 Habitat ..................................................................................................................................... 14 Feeding ..................................................................................................................................... 16 Reproduction ........................................................................................................................... 16 Demographic Information...................................................................................................... 17 SIGHTING AREA STATUS AND TRENDS ............................................................................. 17 General ..................................................................................................................................... 17 Lassen Sighting Area .............................................................................................................. 18 Sonora Pass Sighting Area ..................................................................................................... 19 Oregon Sighting Areas ........................................................................................................... 21 POTENTIAL STRESSORS ON THE SUBSPECIES .................................................................. 21 Logging and Vegetation Management ...................................................................................... 23 Wildfire and Fire Suppression .................................................................................................. 27 Grazing ...................................................................................................................................... 30 Hunting and Trapping ............................................................................................................... 32 Salmon Poisoning Disease and Elokomin Fluke Fever ............................................................ 34 Other Diseases .......................................................................................................................... 37 Small Population Size and Isolation ......................................................................................... 38 Hybridization With Other Subspecies ...................................................................................... 42 Climate Change ......................................................................................................................... 43 2 Competition and Predation From Coyotes ................................................................................ 48 Predation by Domestic Dogs .................................................................................................... 51 Vehicles..................................................................................................................................... 52 Cumulative and Synergistic Impacts of Potential Stressors ..................................................... 55 Table 2: Summary of Potential Stressors to the Subspecies ................................................. 57 EXISTING REGULATORY MECHANISMS ............................................................................ 58 Federal Regulations .................................................................................................................. 58 State Regulations ...................................................................................................................... 62 CURRENT MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION ............................................................ 63 CHANGES SINCE 90-DAY FINDING ....................................................................................... 63 OVERALL SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. 64 REFERENECS CITED ................................................................................................................. 65 3 INTRODUCTION We, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, intend this report to summarize the best available scientific and commercial information available on the Sierra Nevada red fox (SNRF, Vulpes vulpes necator). We will use this information as a basis for actions relevant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (“Act”, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Prior to each such action, we will revise the report as necessary to reflect new information that may have become available. Citations in this report incorporate use of the term “Id.”, which is short for “Idem,” (meaning “the same”) and indicates that the information provided is supported by the same material as in the previous citation. If the information source is the same, but the page number is different, then the “Id.” citation may indicate the new page. For instance: “Id. at 540.” On April 27, 2011, we received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) to list the SNRF as an endangered or threatened species under the Act. We published a 90-day finding in the Federal Register (FR) on January 3, 2012 (77 FR 45), in which we determined that the petition had presented substantial information to indicate that listing may be warranted. As required by the Act, we then undertook a status review of the SNRF, and have incorporated our findings into this report. ACRONYMS AND SUBSTITUTIONS USED ºC degrees Celsius ºF degrees Fahrenheit ac acres Act The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) CBD Center for Biological Diversity CCR California Code of Regulations CDFG California Department of Fish and Game (now CDFW) CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife (formerly CDFG) CESA California Endangered Species Act EFF Elokomin fluke fever et al. “and others” ft feet FR Federal Register GHG greenhouse gas ha hectares kg kilograms km kilometers km2 square kilometers lb pounds m meters mi miles mi2 square miles mm millimeters 4 montane fox any of three mountain dwelling subspecies of red fox: the SNRF, the Cascade red fox (V. v. cascadensis), or the Rocky Mountain red fox (V. v. macroura) OAR Oregon Administrative Rules ODFW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife ORV Off road vehicle OSV Over-snow vehicle (snow machine) p. page pp. pages SNFPA Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment SNRF Sierra Nevada red fox (Vulpes vulpes necator) SPD Salmon poisoning disease U.S. United States U.S.C. United States Code (Codebook of Federal laws) we The United States Fish and Wildlife Service SPECIES AND SUBSPECIES DESCRIPTION Red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) are small, slender, doglike carnivores (3.5 to 7 kilograms (kg), 8 to 15 pounds (lb)), with elongated snouts, pointed ears, and large bushy tails (Aubry 1997, p. 55; Perrine 2005, p. 1; Perrine et al. 2010, p. 5). Diagnostic features, by which red foxes can be distinguished from other small canines, include black markings on the backs of their ears, black shins, and white tips on their tails (Statham et al. 2012, p. 123). The fur of most red foxes is primarily yellowish to reddish brown (Perrine et al. 2010, p. 5). This is the “red” color phase. At least two additional color phases exist: the “cross” phase and the “black” phase (Aubry 1997, p. 55; Perrine et al. 2010, p. 5). The cross phase is primarily grayish-brown, with darker lines along the back and shoulders, crossing behind the neck. The black phase (also called the silver phase) is primarily black, with occasional silver guard hairs. Coat color is genetically determined, but all three color phases may occur in the same litter (Aubry 1983, p. 107; Perrine et al. 2010, p. 5). Cross and black phases are generally rare, but tend to be more common in cold mountainous areas (Aubry 1997, p. 55; Perrine et al. 2010, p. 5). SNRF average about 4.2 kg (9.3 lb) for males and 3.3 kg (7.3
Load more

Recommended publications
  • LUNAR INTERACTIONS ABSTRACTS of PAPERS PRESENTED at the CONFERENCE on INTERACTIONS of the INTERPLANETARY PLASMA with the MODERN and ANCIENT MOON
    LUNAR INTERACTIONS ABSTRACTS OF PAPERS PRESENTED AT THE CONFERENCE ON INTERACTIONS OF THE INTERPLANETARY PLASMA with the MODERN AND ANCIENT MOON ORGANIZED BY THE I. N 3 LUNAR SCIENCE INSTITUTE m I 3 AND THE I- 2 SPACE PHYSICS DEPARTMENT RICE UNIVERSITY sponsored by the NATIONAL AERONAUTICS m m AND 0 .. I-( OIW mrl SPACE ADMINISTRATION ZX CV OH IOI H WclU AND THE uux- V&H 0 NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION g,,,, wm. WWO@W u u ? ZZLOX€e HW5H vlOHU ffiMHrnfC 4 ffi H 2.~4~4a Edited by 3 dz ,.aV)ffiuJO ffiwcstn WPt.4" DAVID R. CRISWELL ,!a !a Pl r 4 W Pa4 %- rn ZW. and Or=4OcC+J fO Hi4 r WWF I rnU2.M ffiBZ* JOHN W. FREEMAN UUW4aJ I amor 0 alffiwffi E REPRODUCTION RESTRICTIONS OVERRIDDEN 2Z~OZ E 2 2 .: u Bmscientific ma Technical Information FaciLitX -eu $4 to) Copyright O 1974 by the Lunar Science Institute Conference held at George Williams College Lake Geneva Campus Williams Bay, Wisconsin 30 September - 4 October 1974 Compiled by and available from The Lunar Science Institute 3303 Nasa Road 1 Houston, Texas 77058 PREFACE The field of lunar science has essentially completed a period of exponential growth promoted by the national efforts of the 1960's to land on the moon. As normally happens in a diverse scientific community, the interpretations of specialized lunar data have reflected the precepts in the various specialized fields. Constant promotion of the broadest overviews between these diverse fields is appropriate to identify processes or phenomenon recog- nized in one avenue of investigation which may have great importance in explaining the data of other specialities.
    [Show full text]
  • Dental and Temporomandibular Joint Pathology of the Kit Fox (Vulpes Macrotis)
    Author's Personal Copy J. Comp. Path. 2019, Vol. 167, 60e72 Available online at www.sciencedirect.com ScienceDirect www.elsevier.com/locate/jcpa DISEASE IN WILDLIFE OR EXOTIC SPECIES Dental and Temporomandibular Joint Pathology of the Kit Fox (Vulpes macrotis) N. Yanagisawa*, R. E. Wilson*, P. H. Kass† and F. J. M. Verstraete* *Department of Surgical and Radiological Sciences and † Department of Population Health and Reproduction, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis, California, USA Summary Skull specimens from 836 kit foxes (Vulpes macrotis) were examined macroscopically according to predefined criteria; 559 specimens were included in this study. The study group consisted of 248 (44.4%) females, 267 (47.8%) males and 44 (7.9%) specimens of unknown sex; 128 (22.9%) skulls were from young adults and 431 (77.1%) were from adults. Of the 23,478 possible teeth, 21,883 teeth (93.2%) were present for examina- tion, 45 (1.9%) were absent congenitally, 405 (1.7%) were acquired losses and 1,145 (4.9%) were missing ar- tefactually. No persistent deciduous teeth were observed. Eight (0.04%) supernumerary teeth were found in seven (1.3%) specimens and 13 (0.06%) teeth from 12 (2.1%) specimens were malformed. Root number vari- ation was present in 20.3% (403/1,984) of the present maxillary and mandibular first premolar teeth. Eleven (2.0%) foxes had lesions consistent with enamel hypoplasia and 77 (13.8%) had fenestrations in the maxillary alveolar bone. Periodontitis and attrition/abrasion affected the majority of foxes (71.6% and 90.5%, respec- tively).
    [Show full text]
  • Tazewell County Warren County Westmoreland~CO~Tt~~'~Dfla
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file, please contact us at NCJRS.gov. Tazewell County Warren County Westmoreland~CO~tt~~'~dfla Bedford Bristol Buena Vista Charl~esville ~ake clnr(~ F:Org I Heights Covington Danville Emporia Fairfax Falls ~.~tur.~~l~).~ ~urg Galax Hampton HarrisonburgHopj~ll~l Lexingtor~ynchburgl~'~assa ~ anassas Martinsville Newport News Norfolk Norton PetersbutrgPoque~o~ .Portsmouth Radford Richmond Roano~l~~ Salem ~th Bostor~t~nto SuffoLk Virginia Beach Waynesboro Williamsburg Winchester ~a~:~ingham Ceuul~ Carroll County Charlotte County Cra~ Col~ty Roar~ County~cco~Lac= Albemarle County Alleghany County Amelia County#~rlb~ ~NJ~/Ly,~ll~iatt~ County Arlington CountyAugula County Bath i~nty BerJ~rd Cd~t B.I.... ~1 County Botetourt County Brunswick County Buchanal~C~ut~ ~~wrtty Caroline County Charles City C~nty Ch~erfield~bunty C~rrke Co~t CT~-~eperCounty Dickenson County Dinwiddie County~ ~~~ r-'luvanneCounty Frederick County C~ucester (~unty C~yson (j~nty Gre~=~ County Greensville County Halifax County Hanover County ~ .(D~I~ I~liry Cottnty Highland County Isle of *~.P-.o.~t~l~me~y C~ ~county King George County King William County~r .(~,t~ ~ (~'~ Loudoun County Louisa County M~ Mat~s Cot]1~l~~ qt... ~ Montgomery County New Kent County North~ur~d County N~y County Page County Pittsylvania CouniY--Powhatan]~.~unty Princ~eorg, oC'6-~ty Prince William County Rappahannock County Richmol~l 0~)1~1=I~Woo~ Gi0ochtandCounty Lunenburg County Mecklenburl~nty Nelson Count Northampton CountyOrange County Patrick CountyPdn¢~
    [Show full text]
  • Brown Bear (Ursus Arctos) John Schoen and Scott Gende Images by John Schoen
    Brown Bear (Ursus arctos) John Schoen and Scott Gende images by John Schoen Two hundred years ago, brown (also known as grizzly) bears were abundant and widely distributed across western North America from the Mississippi River to the Pacific and from northern Mexico to the Arctic (Trevino and Jonkel 1986). Following settlement of the west, brown bear populations south of Canada declined significantly and now occupy only a fraction of their original range, where the brown bear has been listed as threatened since 1975 (Servheen 1989, 1990). Today, Alaska remains the last stronghold in North America for this adaptable, large omnivore (Miller and Schoen 1999) (Fig 1). Brown bears are indigenous to Southeastern Alaska (Southeast), and on the northern islands they occur in some of the highest-density FIG 1. Brown bears occur throughout much of southern populations on earth (Schoen and Beier 1990, Miller et coastal Alaska where they are closely associated with salmon spawning streams. Although brown bears and grizzly bears al. 1997). are the same species, northern and interior populations are The brown bear in Southeast is highly valued by commonly called grizzlies while southern coastal populations big game hunters, bear viewers, and general wildlife are referred to as brown bears. Because of the availability of abundant, high-quality food (e.g. salmon), brown bears enthusiasts. Hiking up a fish stream on the northern are generally much larger, occur at high densities, and have islands of Admiralty, Baranof, or Chichagof during late smaller home ranges than grizzly bears. summer reveals a network of deeply rutted bear trails winding through tunnels of devil’s club (Oplopanx (Klein 1965, MacDonald and Cook 1999) (Fig 2).
    [Show full text]
  • Ecology of Cougars (Puma Concolor) in North-Central Montana
    Ecology of Cougars (Puma concolor) in north-central Montana: Distribution, resource selection, dynamics, harvest, and conservation design Chippewa Cree Tribal Wildlife Program In cooperation with World Wildlife Fund Northern Great Plains Program Bozeman, Montana Final Report April 2012 Kyran Kunkel1, Tim Vosburgh2, and Hugh Robinson3 1World Wildlife Fund; presently University of Montana, Gallatin Gateway, MT; 2Chippewa Cree Tribal Wildlife Program; presently Bureau of Land Management, Lander, WY; 3University of Montana; presently Panthera, New York, NY Space for Cougar photo Photo credit: Kyran Kunkel 1 Ecology of Cougars (Puma concolor) in north-central Montana: Distribution, resource selection, dynamics, harvest, and conservation design Kyran Kunkel, Tim Vosburgh, and Hugh Robinson Chippewa Cree Tribal Wildlife Program in cooperation with World Wildlife Fund, Final Report April 2012 Citation: Kunkel, K, T. Vosburgh, and H. Robinson. 2012. Ecology of cougars (Puma concolor) in north-central Montana. Final Report to the US Fish and Wildlife Service. World Wildlife Fund Northern Great Plains Program 202 S. Black, Ste 3 Bozeman, MT 59715 P.O. Box 7276 Bozeman, Montana 59771 (406) 582-0236 To learn more, visit www.worldwildlife.org/ngp/ ©2010 WWF. All rights reserved by the World Wildlife Fund, Inc. 2 1. Introduction opportunity. Information about cougar recolonization and ecol- Increasing attention is being directed to ecological ogy of established populations will greatly enhance restoration in North American grasslands (Forrest et understanding and management of cougars in the al. 2004), particularly with respect to species that grasslands and prairie breaks of north-central Mon- have been lost or eliminated from these systems. tana. This is especially important because cougars Some species, notably wolf (Canis lupus), bear (Ursus have been little studied in this type of landscape (Wil- spp.), and cougar are expanding in Montana through liams 1992) and very little work has been conducted reintroductions and natural recolonization.
    [Show full text]
  • History and Status of the American Black Bear in Mississippi
    History and status of the American black bear in Mississippi Stephanie L. Simek1,5, Jerrold L. Belant1, Brad W. Young2, Catherine Shropshire3, and Bruce D. Leopold4 1Carnivore Ecology Laboratory, Forest and Wildlife Research Center, Mississippi State University, Box 9690, Mississippi State, MS 39762, USA 2Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks, 1505 Eastover Drive, Jackson, MS 39211, USA 3Mississippi Wildlife Federation, 517 Cobblestone Court, Suite 2, Madison, MS 39110, USA 4Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Aquaculture, Mississippi State University, Box 9690, Mississippi State, MS 39762, USA Abstract: Historically abundant throughout Mississippi, American black bears (Ursus americanus) have declined due to habitat loss and overharvest. By the early 1900s, the bear population was estimated at ,12 individuals, and Mississippi closed black bear hunting in 1932. However, habitat loss continued and by 1980 suitable habitat was estimated at 20% (20,234 km2) of historic levels (101,171 km2) with the decline continuing. Although black bear abundance is currently unknown, a recent increase in occurrence reports and documented reproduction suggests the population may be increasing. There have been 21 reported nuisance complaints since 2006, of which 7 were apiary damage. Additionally, 31 bear mortalities were reported since 1972; 80% were human caused. Government and private organizations have emphasized education on bear ecology and human–bear coexistence, while habitat restoration through land retirement programs (e.g.,
    [Show full text]
  • Ecology of the European Badger (Meles Meles) in the Western Carpathian Mountains: a Review
    Wildl. Biol. Pract., 2016 Aug 12(3): 36-50 doi:10.2461/wbp.2016.eb.4 REVIEW Ecology of the European Badger (Meles meles) in the Western Carpathian Mountains: A Review R.W. Mysłajek1,*, S. Nowak2, A. Rożen3, K. Kurek2, M. Figura2 & B. Jędrzejewska4 1 Institute of Genetics and Biotechnology, Faculty of Biology, University of Warsaw, Pawińskiego 5a, 02-106 Warszawa, Poland. 2 Association for Nature “Wolf”, Twardorzeczka 229, 34-324 Lipowa, Poland. 3 Institute of Environmental Sciences, Jagiellonian University, Gronostajowa 7, 30-387 Kraków, Poland. 4 Mammal Research Institute, Polish Academy of Sciences, Waszkiewicza 1c, 17-230 Białowieża, Poland. * Corresponding author email: [email protected]. Keywords Abstract Altitudinal Gradient; This article summarizes the results of studies on the ecology of the European Diet Composition; badger (Meles meles) conducted in the Western Carpathians (S Poland) Meles meles; from 2002 to 2010. Badgers inhabiting the Carpathians use excavated setts Mustelidae; (53%), caves and rock crevices (43%), and burrows under human-made Sett Utilization; constructions (4%) as permanent shelters. Excavated setts are located up Spatial Organization. to 640 m a.s.l., but shelters in caves and crevices can be found as high as 1,050 m a.s.l. Badger setts are mostly located on slopes with southern, eastern or western exposure. Within their territories, ranging from 3.35 to 8.45 km2 (MCP100%), badgers may possess 1-12 setts. Family groups are small (mean = 2.3 badgers), population density is low (2.2 badgers/10 km2), as is reproduction (0.57 young/year/10 km2). Hunting by humans is the main mortality factor (0.37 badger/year/10 km2).
    [Show full text]
  • DMAAC – February 1973
    LUNAR TOPOGRAPHIC ORTHOPHOTOMAP (LTO) AND LUNAR ORTHOPHOTMAP (LO) SERIES (Published by DMATC) Lunar Topographic Orthophotmaps and Lunar Orthophotomaps Scale: 1:250,000 Projection: Transverse Mercator Sheet Size: 25.5”x 26.5” The Lunar Topographic Orthophotmaps and Lunar Orthophotomaps Series are the first comprehensive and continuous mapping to be accomplished from Apollo Mission 15-17 mapping photographs. This series is also the first major effort to apply recent advances in orthophotography to lunar mapping. Presently developed maps of this series were designed to support initial lunar scientific investigations primarily employing results of Apollo Mission 15-17 data. Individual maps of this series cover 4 degrees of lunar latitude and 5 degrees of lunar longitude consisting of 1/16 of the area of a 1:1,000,000 scale Lunar Astronautical Chart (LAC) (Section 4.2.1). Their apha-numeric identification (example – LTO38B1) consists of the designator LTO for topographic orthophoto editions or LO for orthophoto editions followed by the LAC number in which they fall, followed by an A, B, C or D designator defining the pertinent LAC quadrant and a 1, 2, 3, or 4 designator defining the specific sub-quadrant actually covered. The following designation (250) identifies the sheets as being at 1:250,000 scale. The LTO editions display 100-meter contours, 50-meter supplemental contours and spot elevations in a red overprint to the base, which is lithographed in black and white. LO editions are identical except that all relief information is omitted and selenographic graticule is restricted to border ticks, presenting an umencumbered view of lunar features imaged by the photographic base.
    [Show full text]
  • Periodic Status Review for the Steller Sea Lion
    STATE OF WASHINGTON January 2015 Periodic Status Review for the Steller Sea Lion Gary J. Wiles The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife maintains a list of endangered, threatened, and sensitive species (Washington Administrative Codes 232-12-014 and 232-12-011, Appendix E). In 1990, the Washington Wildlife Commission adopted listing procedures developed by a group of citizens, interest groups, and state and federal agencies (Washington Administrative Code 232-12-297, Appendix A). The procedures include how species listings will be initiated, criteria for listing and delisting, a requirement for public review, the development of recovery or management plans, and the periodic review of listed species. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is directed to conduct reviews of each endangered, threatened, or sensitive wildlife species at least every five years after the date of its listing. The reviews are designed to include an update of the species status report to determine whether the status of the species warrants its current listing status or deserves reclassification. The agency notifies the general public and specific parties who have expressed their interest to the Department of the periodic status review at least one year prior to the five-year period so that they may submit new scientific data to be included in the review. The agency notifies the public of its recommendation at least 30 days prior to presenting the findings to the Fish and Wildlife Commission. In addition, if the agency determines that new information suggests that the classification of a species should be changed from its present state, the agency prepares documents to determine the environmental consequences of adopting the recommendations pursuant to requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 POLAR BEAR (Ursus Maritimus): Chukchi/Bering Seas Stock STOCK
    Revised: 01/01/2010 POLAR BEAR (Ursus maritimus): Chukchi/Bering Seas Stock STOCK DEFINITION AND GEOGRAPHIC RANGE Polar bears are circumpolar in their distribution in the northern hemisphere. They occur in several largely discrete stocks or populations (Harington 1968). Polar bear movements are extensive and individual activity areas are enormous (Garner et al. 1990, Amstrup et al. 2000). The parameters used by Dizon et al. (1992) to classify stocks based on the phylogeographic approach were considered in the determination of stock separation in Alaska. Several polar bear stocks are known to be shared between countries (Amstrup et al. 1986, Amstrup and DeMaster 1988). Lentfer hypothesized that in Alaska two stocks exist, the Southern Beaufort Sea (SBS) and the Chukchi/Bering seas (CBS), based upon: (a) variations in levels of heavy metal contaminants of organ tissues (Lentfer 1976, Figure 1. Map of the Southern Beaufort Sea and the Chukchi/ Lentfer and Galster 1987); (b) morphological Bering seas polar bear stocks. characteristics (Manning 1971, Lentfer 1974, Wilson 1976); (c) physical oceanographic features which segregate the Chukchi Sea and Bering Sea stock from the Beaufort Sea stock (Lentfer 1974); and (d) movement information collected from mark and recapture studies of adult female bears (Lentfer 1974, 1983) (Figure 1). Information on contaminants (Woshner et al. 2001, Evans 2004a, Evans 2004b, Kannan et al. 2005, Smithwick et al. 2005, Verreault et al. 2005, Muir et al. 2006, Smithwick et al. 2006, Kannan et al. 2007, Rush et al. 2008) and movement data using satellite collars (Amstrup et al. 2004, Amstrup et al. 2005) continue to support the presence of these two stocks.
    [Show full text]
  • Notes on the Biology of the Tibetan Fox (Vulpes Ferrilata)
    Harris et al. Biology of Tibetan fox Canid News Copyright © 2008 by the IUCN/SSC Canid Specialist Group. ISSN 1478-2677 The following is the established format for referencing this article: Harris et al. 2008. Notes on the biology of the Tibetan fox. Canid News 11.1 [online] URL: http://www.canids.org/canidnews/11/ Biology_of_Tibetan_fox.pdf. Research Report Notes on the biology of the Tibetan fox Richard B. Harris1*, Wang Zhenghuan2, Zhou Jiake1, and Liu Qunxiu2 1 Department of Ecosystem and Conservation Sciences, College of Forestry and Conservation, Univer- sity of Montana, Missoula, Montana, USA. 2 School of Life Science, East China Normal University, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China. * Correspondence author. Email: [email protected] Keywords: body size; brown bear; China; mating; Ursus arctos; Vulpes ferrilata; whelping Abstract Introduction We report on three aspects of the biology of Until recently, biological data on the Tibetan Tibetan foxes Vulpes ferrilata for which existing fox was gained mostly from anecdotal reports, literature is either absent or misleading. Our observations of their sign, or hunting records two field studies in western China each in- (e.g. Gong and Hu 2003; Schaller and Gisnberg volved capture (and subsequent radio- 2004; Wang et al. 2003, 2004, 2007). Because marking) of foxes, allowing us to refine exist- Tibetan foxes live in remote, mountainous en- ing information on body size and mass. Ti- vironments and are rarely observed in the betan foxes we captured were somewhat lar- wild, some aspects of their biology have been ger and heavier than the current literature difficult to document.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix I Lunar and Martian Nomenclature
    APPENDIX I LUNAR AND MARTIAN NOMENCLATURE LUNAR AND MARTIAN NOMENCLATURE A large number of names of craters and other features on the Moon and Mars, were accepted by the IAU General Assemblies X (Moscow, 1958), XI (Berkeley, 1961), XII (Hamburg, 1964), XIV (Brighton, 1970), and XV (Sydney, 1973). The names were suggested by the appropriate IAU Commissions (16 and 17). In particular the Lunar names accepted at the XIVth and XVth General Assemblies were recommended by the 'Working Group on Lunar Nomenclature' under the Chairmanship of Dr D. H. Menzel. The Martian names were suggested by the 'Working Group on Martian Nomenclature' under the Chairmanship of Dr G. de Vaucouleurs. At the XVth General Assembly a new 'Working Group on Planetary System Nomenclature' was formed (Chairman: Dr P. M. Millman) comprising various Task Groups, one for each particular subject. For further references see: [AU Trans. X, 259-263, 1960; XIB, 236-238, 1962; Xlffi, 203-204, 1966; xnffi, 99-105, 1968; XIVB, 63, 129, 139, 1971; Space Sci. Rev. 12, 136-186, 1971. Because at the recent General Assemblies some small changes, or corrections, were made, the complete list of Lunar and Martian Topographic Features is published here. Table 1 Lunar Craters Abbe 58S,174E Balboa 19N,83W Abbot 6N,55E Baldet 54S, 151W Abel 34S,85E Balmer 20S,70E Abul Wafa 2N,ll7E Banachiewicz 5N,80E Adams 32S,69E Banting 26N,16E Aitken 17S,173E Barbier 248, 158E AI-Biruni 18N,93E Barnard 30S,86E Alden 24S, lllE Barringer 29S,151W Aldrin I.4N,22.1E Bartels 24N,90W Alekhin 68S,131W Becquerei
    [Show full text]