Premium
Home range dynamics of the yellow‐footed rock‐wallaby ( Petrogale xanthopus celeris ) in central‐western Queensland
Author(s) -
SHARP ANDY
Publication year - 2009
Publication title -
austral ecology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.688
H-Index - 87
eISSN - 1442-9993
pISSN - 1442-9985
DOI - 10.1111/j.1442-9993.2008.01882.x
Subject(s) - biology , home range , range (aeronautics) , foraging , ecology , habitat , macropus , sympatric speciation , marsupial , materials science , composite material
Analyses of the interspecific differences in macropod home range size suggest that habitat productivity exerts a greater influence on range size than does body mass. This relationship is also apparent within the rock‐wallaby genus. Lim reported that yellow‐footed rock‐wallabies ( Petrogale xanthopus xanthopus ) inhabiting the semi‐arid Flinders Ranges (South Australia) had a mean home range of 170 ha. While consistent with the hypothesis that species inhabiting less productive habitats will require larger ranges to fulfil their energetic requirements, the ranges reported by Lim were considerably larger than those observed for heavier sympatric macropods. The aim of the current study was to document the home range dynamics of P. x. celeris in central‐western Queensland and undertake a comparison with those reported for their southern counterparts. Wallaby movements were monitored at Idalia National Park, between winter 1992 and winter 1994. Male foraging ranges (95% fixed kernel; 15.4 ha, SD = ±7.8 ha) were found to be significantly larger than those of female wallabies (11.3 ha, SD = ±4.9 ha). Because of varying distances to the wallabies' favoured foraging ground (i.e. an adjacent herb field), the direction in which the wallabies moved to forage also significantly affected range size. Mean home range size was estimated to be 23.5 ha (SD = ±15.2 ha; 95% fixed kernel) and 67.5 ha (SD = ±22.4 ha; 100% minimum convex polygon). The discrepancy between these two estimates resulted from the exclusion of locations, from the 95% kernel estimates, when the wallabies moved to a water source 1.5 km distant from the colony site. The observed foraging and home ranges approximated those that could be expected for a macropod inhabiting the semi‐arid zone (i.e. 2.4 times larger‐than‐predicted from body mass alone). Possible reasons for the disparity between the current study and that of Lim are examined.