Premium
Habitat preferences of small mammals in tropical open‐forest of the Northern Territory
Author(s) -
FRIEND GORDON R.,
TAYLOR JOHN A.
Publication year - 1985
Publication title -
australian journal of ecology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 1442-9993
pISSN - 0307-692X
DOI - 10.1111/j.1442-9993.1985.tb00879.x
Subject(s) - species richness , ecology , understory , biology , abundance (ecology) , habitat , plant litter , dry season , vegetation (pathology) , litter , fauna , herbivore , geography , ecosystem , canopy , medicine , pathology
Pattern analysis was used to investigate the habitat preferences of five small mammal species in tropical open‐forest of the Northern Territory. Fifty‐one sites were classified by faunal abundance and the groups examined for significant differences in vegetation structural attributes and plant species in both dry and wet seasons. The omnivore Isoodon macrourus showed strong association with floristic and vegetation structural attributes only in the dry season, when areas with a dense understorey of small trees and shrubs and a high percentage of leaf litter cover were favoured. Of the two primarily carnivorous species, Antechinus bellus was related strongly with floristic and structural attributes in both seasons and showed a consistent preference for areas with relatively dense low‐level foliage (< 2m). By contrast, Dasyurus hallucatus was associated more with the structurally simple open‐forest types. Of the two mainly herbivorous species Mesembdomys gouldii showed associations only withfioristics in both seasons, while the habitat relationships of Trichosurus arnhemensis were very weak due to its low abundance in the study area. The number and strength of animal/habitat relationships were greatest in the dry season. Forest types with dense mid‐level foliage and abundant hollow logs and leaf litter had the greatest mammal richness and abundance; these areas may be critical to the survival of local mammal populations. A comparison of site‐groups, defined independently on the basis of fauna, floristics or structure, showed that animal groups overlapped one to six of the habitat groups. The animal's perception of s‘habitat’ may thus differ from that of humans, or that defined by measurement of habitat attributes.