Draft - TSpace Repository: Home · 2016-02-26 · Draft 2 13 Space use of a reintroduced population...
Transcript of Draft - TSpace Repository: Home · 2016-02-26 · Draft 2 13 Space use of a reintroduced population...
Draft
Space use of a reintroduced population of Capra pyrenaica
in a protected natural area
Journal: Canadian Journal of Zoology
Manuscript ID cjz-2015-0166.R2
Manuscript Type: Article
Date Submitted by the Author: 15-Dec-2015
Complete List of Authors: Refoyo Román, Pablo; Complutense University of Madrid, Zoology and Physical Antropology Olmedo, Cristina; Complutense University of Madrid, Zoology and Physical Antropology Muñoz, Benito; Complutense University of Madrid, Zoology and Physical Antropology
Keyword: Capra pyrenaica, Iberian Ibex, density-dependent, Reintroduction, National Park, Spain
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjz-pubs
Canadian Journal of Zoology
Draft
1
Space use of a reintroduced population of Capra 1
pyrenaica in a protected natural area 2
P. Refoyo (Corresponding author); C. Olmedo and B. Muñoz. 3
4
P. Refoyo. Department of Zoology and Physical Anthropology, Complutense University of Madrid. C/ José Antonio 5
Novais, 12, E-28040 Madrid. PHONE: +34 91 394 50 31 FAX: 34 91 394 49 47 [email protected] (Corresponding 6
author) 7
C. Olmedo. Department of Zoology and Physical Anthropology, Complutense University of Madrid. C/ José Antonio 8
Novais, 12, E-28040 Madrid. [email protected] 9
B. Muñoz. Department of Zoology and Physical Anthropology, Complutense University of Madrid. C/ José Antonio 10
Novais, 12, E-28040 Madrid. [email protected] 11
12
Page 1 of 25
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjz-pubs
Canadian Journal of Zoology
Draft
2
Space use of a reintroduced population of Capra pyrenaica in a protected natural area 13
P. Refoyo (Corresponding author); C. Olmedo and B. Muñoz. 14
ABSTRACT 15
In Europe, wild ungulates have undergone major expansion and population growth during recent decades. In certain 16
cases, the high density achieved by these populations has led to excessive pressure on the environment, which 17
eventually becomes a limiting factor for the population itself. One of these reintroductions was performed with the 18
Iberian ibex (Capra pyrenaica (Schinz, 1838)) in the National Park of the Sierra de Guadarrama (Spain). This 19
reintroduced population was monitored during six field seasons (2000, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2010, and 2014) by direct 20
observation of the animals along transects using the distance sampling method to determine the degree of expansion 21
over the years and the use of different habitats according to different seasons. The abundances obtained for each field 22
season showed a significant increase from 4.16 ind./km to 8.65 ind./km, showing a linear relationship between the 23
abundance and the extent of the area occupied by the species. We observed that differences between habitat 24
availability and use were significant for all seasons.. Our data can be used as an example of the process of colonisation 25
of a population of wild ungulates and their impact on vegetation in order to better manage future reintroductions. 26
27
Keywords: Capra pyrenaica, Iberian Ibex, density-dependent, Reintroduction, National Park, Spain. 28
29
Page 2 of 25
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjz-pubs
Canadian Journal of Zoology
Draft
3
INTRODUCTION 30
The introduction or reintroduction of ungulates is closely linked to human activities and movements (Christie and 31
Andrews 1966), Some of these reintroductions have been successful, as the case of the Oryx (Oryx sp.) In Oman or 32
ibex ((Capra ibex) in the Alps or Capra pyrenaica in Peneda-Gerês National Park in northern Portugal (Moço et al., 33
2006), however others have failed as the attempts to introduce reindeer (Rangifer tarandus) in Matthews Island (Bering 34
Sea) (Soriguer et al., 1998). In all cases, these reintroductions should be done as suggested by international 35
organizations (IUCN 1998) that highlights the importance of theparameter of parameters of the population evolution 36
(Converse et al. 2013) and their relationship with the environment (Chapman 1928; Odum 1986). 37
This study goes into detail about the dispersion and use of space of a wild ungulate’s reintroduced population in a 38
Natural Protected Area. 39
40
In Europe, wild ungulates have undergone major expansion and population growth in recent decades, mainly going from 41
marginal areas to occupying a large part of the territory (Apollonio et al. 2010). There have been numerous 42
reintroductions of ungulates in protected natural areas (Geremia et al. 2011) that have enabled better protection of 43
these populations. 44
45
However, these protected natural spaces become restricted areas from where individuals cannot leave without 46
increasing the risk of their survival. This situation leads to a high concentration of ungulates in very limited areas and 47
causes high pressure on vegetation, which becomes a limiting factor affecting the dynamics of the population (Gaillard 48
et al. 2000; Bonenfant et al. 2009). On the other hand, a high density has significant costs for the population (Côté et al. 49
1995; Loehle 1995; Stillman et al. 1997; Krause et al. 2002; Fortin et al. 2009), and it can have important implications in 50
terms of social behaviour (Bateman et al. 2012), survival, and reproduction (Gaillard et al. 1998, 2000; Eberhardt 2002; 51
Festa-Bianchet et al. 2003). 52
53
In our case, the Iberian ibex (Capra pyrenaica (Schinz, 1838)) was distributed in the major mountain ranges of the 54
middle, eastern and southern of the Peninsula until the late nineteenth century. Excessive pressure exerted by men 55
produced its disappearance in much of the territory (Cabrera 1914; Perez et al. 2002). 56
57
The reintroduction of the Iberian ibex in Sierra de Guadarrama National Park began in 1990 with specimens of Capra 58
pyrenaica victoriae Cabrera, 1911 subspecies from a preserve adjacent to the National Hunting Reserve of Gredos and 59
Las Batuecas National Hunting Reserve. A total of 67 specimens (41 females and 26 males) were reintroduced by the 60
time it was finalized in 1992. The average age of the population was around 5 years, and the sex ratio of the introduced 61
specimens favored females at a proportion close to 1.6:1 (41 females and 26 males). However, among juveniles (under 62
5 years), the sex ratio favored males 1:1.4. On the contrary, there was a predominance of females in the individuals 63
older than 5 years in a ratio close to 2:1 (Refoyo et al., 2014). These ratios were in accordance with those used 63 for 64
other ibex reintroductions (Girard et al. 1998). 65
66
Page 3 of 25
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjz-pubs
Canadian Journal of Zoology
Draft
4
Emigration and range expansion have been documented in several large ungulate populations when forage quantity or 67
quality has decreased due to density-dependent resource consumption (Lemke et al. 1998; Aanes et al. 2000; Larter et 68
al. 2000; Ferguson et al. 2001; Amarasekare 2004). There are also many studies of modern animal movement relative 69
to partial migration (Hebblewhite and Merrill 2009; Rivrud et al. 2010); however, most of these studies have focused on 70
natural populations, and few have bothered to analyse the process of land occupation of a reintroduced population, as 71
in our case. 72
73
The relationship between habitat selection and the abundance and distribution of species in a particular area has also 74
been widely discussed by several authors (Johnson 1980; Rosenzweig 1981) and constitutes an integral part of 75
effective management and conservation (Boyce and McDonald 1999). Habitat selection occurs over large areas when 76
we consider higher order scales of selection (Johnson 1980; Kittle et al. 2008; Peters et al. 2013), but also very small 77
spatial scales (e.g. warblers in a tree: MacArthur 1958). Similarly, habitat selection can vary over time (e.g. seasons) 78
(Singer 1979; Jenkins and Wright 1988; Macandza et al. 2012) as the forage base is progressively depleted (Brown and 79
Rosenzweig 1986; Van Beest et al. 2010). Nevertheless, there have not been many studies focusing on the effective 80
impact on the core area considering the seasonal movements of the species. 81
82
The aim of this work was to establish changes of the occupied area of the reintroduced Iberian ibex during settlement 83
and colonisation. Our goals were: (1) to determine if there has been an increase in the area of distribution of the species 84
during the settlement process, (2) to determine whether there are relationships between the area of occupation and the 85
detected population increase during the settlement process, (3) to establish if the occupation of the area by ibex differs 86
seasonally and to determine if the pressure on the different plant communities in the park continues throughout the year, 87
and (4) to confirm if there is habitat selection regardless of availability in each season. 88
89
Our data can be used as an example of the process of colonisation of a population of wild ungulates. 90
91
MATERIALS AND METHODS 92
Study area 93
We monitored Iberian ibex in the National Park of the Sierra de Guadarrama. This National Park (Figure 1) has an area 94
of 33.960 ha and it is located in the center of the Iberian peninsula, in the eastern part of the Central System. The area 95
shows a marked difference in altitude (between 2.200 and 1.100 m), alternating between very steep rocky areas (“Las 96
Pedrizas”) and areas of gentle topography. In general, they are very old rocks (from Paleozoic and Mesozoic) such 97
asgneisses, marbles and schists. Sierra de Guadarrama’s climate is typically continental with significant temperature 98
variations between seasons and very dry summers. The average temperature of the coldest month is -0.7°C and 16.4°C 99
in the warmest month, (January and July respectively). The annual rainfall is 1,325 mm with a high seasonal variation, 100
being July (24.9 mm) and November (176.5 mm) the driest months On average, the days of snowfall are 78 and 142 the 101
frost days a year.. The vegetation growing period is 5 months, although is less in the peaks above 2,000 meters .. Its 102
Page 4 of 25
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjz-pubs
Canadian Journal of Zoology
Draft
5
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
vegetation includes shrubs (Cytisus purgans, Juniperus communis nana) and grassland (Festuca indigesta, Nardus
stricta, Festuca rubra) in highland areas, areas of Mediterranean shrubs (Cistus ladanifer, Rosmarinus officinalis,
Thymus vulgaris, Lavandula stoechas) in steeply sloped areas, and forests (Quercus ilex, Q. pyrenaica, Pinus spp.) in
the valleys and hillsides.
The most common disturbance outside the National Park are farmers and urban uses while has an elevated recreational
pressure inside it.
.
Within the study area, according to the official classification provided by the National Park, there are 63 different plant
communities in accordance with their floristic composition. Given the variability of this classification, we decided
to group them to facilitate the statistical analysis of use versus availability (Table S1), setting out nine different
vegetation types (wet forest, thermophilic forest, rain forest, wooded areas, wet shrub, thermophilic shrub, wet
grassland, thermophilic grassland, and rocky areas with vegetation) (Table 1). 114
115
Capra pyrenaica 116
The Iberian ibex (Capra pyrenaica (Schinz, 1838) is an endemic wild ungulate of the Iberian Peninsula. It is distributed 117
in the major mountain ranges of the eastern and southern regions of the peninsula, as well as in Macizo de Gredos 118
(Herrero and Pérez 2008), thanks to numerous reintroductions during the second half of the 20th century (Refoyo et al. 119
2014). 120
121
In 1990 the reintroduction of the Iberian ibex began in the National Park of Sierra de Guadarrama with specimens of the 122
Capra pyrenaica victoriae (Cabrera 1911) from a preserve adjacent to the National Hunting Reserve of Gredos and Las 123
Batuecas National Hunting Reserve. A total of 67 ibex specimens (41 females and 26 males) were reintroduced in the 124
National Park until 1992 (Refoyo 2014). 125
126
Abundance and Density monitoring 127
Since reintroduction, the population was monitored during six field seasons (2000, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2010, and 2014) 128
by direct observation of the animals along transects using the distance sampling method (Buckland et al. 1993) This 129
method is useful when using the projected distance (Buckland et al. 2001), although some authors believe that the 130
transect method is not suitable to perform this kind of estimate for ungulates in very hilly areas (Carloti et al. 2015) due 131
to the difficulty of estimating the perpendicular distance value. We also calculated kilometric abundance indices (KAIs) 132
to abundance. .KAIs expresses the ratio of the total number of individuals observed along a transect by the total 133
transect length covered at each site. 134
135
For each contact, we recorded (using 8x40 to 10x50 binoculars) the number of individuals, habitat, sex, age of the 136
individuals, and the perpendicular distance to the transect line using a laser distance meter (Bushnell Yardage Pro 137
Sport). The study area progressively increased as the presence of the species was detected in new areas by forest 138
rangers (Forest rangers carry out regular monitoring of the presence of the species throughout the National Park 139
boundaries through monthly transects on foot and by car, and by the establishment of observation points. They note all 140
Page 5 of 25
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjz-pubs
Canadian Journal of Zoology
Draft
6
the contacts detected of the species, including the detection of fecal samples); it occupied 4 590 ha during the field 141
seasons in 2000, 2003, 2005 and 2007, 5,764 ha during the 2010 field season, and 7 770 ha during the field season in 142
2014. The number of monitored kilometers varied each year with the increase of the surface (79 km in 2000, 2003, 143
2005, and 2007; 89 km in 2010; and 97 km in 2014). There were slight differences among the field seasons due to the 144
inaccessibility of certain areas and the difficulty of retrieving each of the preset transects. The same eight researchers 145
participated in all seasons. In 2000, 2003, 2005, and 2007 there were 22 transects, which had an average length of 3.64 146
km; in 2010 there were 2 more transects (24), which had an average length of 3.80 km; and in 2014 there were 5 more 147
transects (29), which had an average length of 3.29 km. There were slight differences among the field seasons due to 148
the inaccessibility of certain areas and the difficulty of retrieving each of the preset transects (Figure 1). All transects 149
were sampled on successive and climatically suitable days, either in the morning (2–3 hours after sunrise) or afternoon 150
(2–3 hours before sunset). The Distance 6.0 programme was used to calculate the population density (Thomas et al. 151
2009). This software was specifically designed to obtain animal population densities by the linear transect method 152
through observations from fixed points (Burnham et al. 1980). To adjust contacts to better distribution functions, 153
truncations distance (maximum detection distance of observation) was changed from 160 m to 350 m. 154
To determine the use that the species has on the different areas of the park throughout the year, the different field 155
seasons established for monitoring the population were adjusted to seasonal conditions, i.e. spring (June 2000, 2003, 156
and 2007), autumn (October 2005 and 2010), and summer (August 2014). We did not select any winter census data 157
since much of the territory was covered with snow and the availability of different habitats was reduced, forcing 158
population migration, which has already been detected in other wild ungulates (Garrott et al. 2003; Jacobson et al. 2004; 159
Wang et al. 2006). 160
161
Occupied area 162
Each of the obtained contacts in every field season was georeferenced and digitalised for subsequent treatment with 163
ArcMap 10.2 (Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. (Esri)) . We used a GPS for contact georeferencing (it 164
marks a point on the observer's position, i.e. a "waypoint"), scoring the distance from the contact to the observer (using 165
laser distance meters) and its relative orientation to geographic north. Later, and using Geographic Information Systems 166
(GIS) tools, we were able to relocate the obtained waypoints in the places where the contacts were detected. 167
168
To set the used and dispersal area, every contact was used considering the group size obtained during each field 169
season as an individual record of the population, indicative of the location preferences of the specimens. To establish 170
the degree of the population expansion, the distance of each contact was calculated in every campaign with respect to 171
the release point. To determine the occupied area, a kernel distribution analysis was performed (Silverman 1986; 172
Worton 1989). The occupied area for each field season included 50%, 75%, and 95% of the population. Because, the 173
occupation of space has relationship with the breeding habits of the species (in autumn the species conforms larger 174
groups so the occupied area tends to be lower, while in summer and spring has a greater occupation of the territory 175
since the groups were disgregated after the reproductive period) we consider only the no reproductive period (spring 176
and summer) . 177
178
Page 6 of 25
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjz-pubs
Canadian Journal of Zoology
Draft
7
Kernel density estimation is a popular method for using a sample of points to estimate the distribution that generated 179
those points (Fortmann-Roe et al. 2012). This estimation technique is employed in ecology (Millspaugh et al. 2006) to 180
measure the intensity or probability of use throughout an animal's species distribution (Burt 1940), and also to measure 181
joint space use of multiple animals (Fieberg and Kochanny 2005; Daermon 2012). This technique is based on locations 182
obtained by telemetry (Gitzen et al. 2006). 183
184
Woody plants are known to be highly sensitive to herbivory because browsers can limit their regeneration (Perea and 185
Gil 2015). To determine the effects of ibex populations on vegetation in each season, an intersection was performed 186
between the vegetation layer and the kernel generated using the ArcMap 10.2 intersection tool (Environmental Systems 187
Research Institute, Inc. (Esri)). By this tool, it can be possible to know the total ha of each habitat present in the animal's 188
species distribution and its use over the years. 189
190
Statistical analysis 191
Different statistical analyses were performed using the General Regression Module of Statistica 7.0 (StatSoft Inc., 192
Tulsa, Oklahoma). To determine the expansion of the species, we performed a regression analysis considering the 193
distances of each contact to the release point in every field season. In order to identify the expansion of the species and 194
the differences between years, we conducted post-hoc tests. We selected Fisher's Least Significant Difference (LSD) 195
test. To determine differences in the use of the environment and availability, non-parametric analysis (chi-squared) was 196
performed. 197
RESULTS 198
The distance sampling models (key function and series expansion) that were selected for density estimations for the 199
three analyses were the same (semi-normal), but the statistical results were different. Truncating distance and interval 200
numbers are shown in Table 2. The density obtained for each field season showed a significant increase from 6.57 201
ind./km2 in 2000 (Refoyo 2014) to 44.82 ind./km2 in the last field season (2014) (Pablo Refoyo, Complutense University 202
of Madrid). Between the reintroduction and 2000, we noticed a population increase of 23%, followed by a 36% increase 203
between 2000 and 2003. Finally, the population increased by 19% annually from 2003 to 2007 (Refoyo et al. 2014); 204
between 2007 and 2014, the population increased by 9% annually (Table 2). 205
206
The area occupied by the species has been increasing over the past 15 years. If we consider the more intensively 207
occupied area (50% of the population), it has produced an increase of 150% from 715 ha in 2000 to 2130 ha in 2014. 208
This increase is greater (300%) if we consider 75% of the area occupied by the population, but only an increase of 209
100% when the occupation is 95% of the population (Table 3). 210
211
A linear relationship was detected between the abundance found in each field seasons and the extent of the area 212
occupied by the species within the National Park (Figure 2), especially with regard to the core area with the greater 213
presence of the species (area with 50% of contacts) (F: 90.059; p = 0.011). Density scores explain 97% of the variance 214
Page 7 of 25
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjz-pubs
Canadian Journal of Zoology
Draft
8
of the occupied area during these years. This relationship holds when we consider 75% of the population (F: 26.675; p = 215
0.04) and explains 93% of the variance of the occupied area. This does not occur when considering 95% of the 216
population (F: 7.030; p = 0.12) (Figure 3). 217
218
The expansion of the species has occurred especially since 2010, i.e. during the last two field seasons (Figure 4). The 219
average distance to the release point at which the specimens were observed during each field season showed a 220
significant relationship (F: 10.845, df: 5: p< 0.001) that was greater than that from the 2010 field seasons (Scheffé test: 221
MS = 3003E3, df = 557; p < 0.001), i.e. when the population showed a higher density than 42 ind./km2 (Table 3). 222
223
During the spring, the area occupied by 50% of the population was 907 ha, which is about 11% of the studied area, 224
indicating a high concentration of the species. The vegetation in this area is broom with a surface of different degrees of 225
outcropping rock (61.5%), followed by pine (14%) and rocky areas (11%). In summer, the area occupied with a higher 226
concentration of specimens increased considerably and extended to 1 926 ha, more than double the species' 227
occupation in spring. In summer, it was found that the species mainly occupies the highlands of the study area. The 228
predominant vegetation in the area of greatest use is broom with rocky outcrops (71%), followed by pine forests (16%). 229
230
During the autumn, the occupied surface with a higher concentration of specimens was reduced by 20% compared to 231
the spring and stood at 764 ha. This decrease coincided with the behaviour of the species, as it tends to concentrate for 232
the breeding season (autumn–winter) and at lower altitudes than in spring, possibly influenced by climatic factors. The 233
vegetation of this area was similar to that in the spring, although the proportion of broom was reduced (44%) and the 234
use of pine (19%) and rocky areas (20%) was increased; the proportion of pasture land was maintained with respect to 235
the spring. In summary, the species is concentrated in less extensive areas in autumn, so pressure on it increases, and 236
is more extensive during the summer. The vegetation types that suffer more pressure from the species are broom, 237
followed by pine forests (Table 4). 238
239
When analysing the availability in relation to the use with respect to the season, we can see that the differences 240
between availability and use are significant for all seasons; however, while for spring (chi-squared = 47.17288; df = 7; p 241
<0.000) and summer (chi-squared = 74.74612; df = 7, p <0.000) the significance was high, in the case of autumn it was 242
not (chi-squared = 17.30653; df = 7; p <0.015525). In spring, scrub and wet grassland were more used than available, 243
while the thermophilic scrub, woodland areas, and thermophilic forests were infra-used. During summer, scrub areas 244
and wet grassland were used much more than available, while the scrublands, rocky areas, and thermophilic forest as 245
well as woodland areas were less used than was expected. In autumn, the differences between the observed and 246
expected were reduced, although bushes and rainforests were more used than expected (Table 4). 247
DISCUSSION 248
Values obtained in this work exceed the densities obtained for other populations of the genus Capra (Refoyo et al. 249
2014). Although due to the lack of data we do not know if these values are higher or not comparing with the data 250
Page 8 of 25
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjz-pubs
Canadian Journal of Zoology
Draft
9
before the extinction. This population increase was higher than in other populations of the species as well as (Perez et 251
al., 2002) in other populations of genus Capra (Dupré et al. 2001, Carnevali et al. 2009) with increases about 3-6%, or in 252
others ungulates as roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) with increases about 4% (Calenge et al., 2005); possibly because 253
the species was reintroduced in a protected area without natural predators, with temperate climatic conditions (Toïgo et 254
al. 1997; Scillitani 2011) and without domestic flocks. 255
256
This increase is related to the increase in the area occupied by the species, initially only in relation to the main core 257
(core area), but later in a general way in recent years. As suggested by Vander Wal et al. (2014), saturation of 258
encounters and avoidance suggests that the benefits of social behaviour may become costs when two individuals share 259
a large extent of their home range. Besides, individuals compete over resources within a shared space (Rieucau and 260
Giraldeau 2011). On the other hand, a higher density could cause an increase in aggressive interactions as occurs with 261
other gregarious ungulates (Weckerly 1999). These factors could force the dispersion of some specimens and enhance 262
the rate of colonisation of new territories (Fuller 2007), as has happened with other ungulate populations (Messier et al. 263
1988). 264
265
Our results suggest that the population is properly settled in the area of reintroduction, as has also been found by other 266
authors (Messier et al. 1988), at least until they reach excessive densities. In this situation, there is a low dispersion of 267
the specimens that results in an excessive concentration in very specific areas, which is a factor that negatively affects 268
the vegetation (Refoyo et al. 2014) This low dispersion matches with the indicated by Pedrotti (1995) for the Alpine ibex 269
in the Alpi Orobie or for other ungulates as the roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) in mediterranean areas (Rossell et al., 270
1996; Calenge et al., 2005). 271
272
The benefits of social behaviour may become costs (Vander Wal et al. 2014) when the densities reach very high values 273
(44 ind./km2). For populations of group-living species, social structure likely has important demographic consequences 274
and can lead to dynamics that are qualitatively different from those of homogeneous populations (Bateman et al. 2012) 275
and that could force the species to faster dispersion. This pattern of increase to high density followed by expansion into 276
a new range is similar to that described for other ungulates (Larter et al. 2000). 277
278
It was found that the differential use of the different habitats present in the study area occurred depending on the time of 279
year, coinciding with what has been found for the species in the populations located in the Sierra de Gredos and Sierra 280
Nevada, where grasses are eaten more regularly in spring and early summer, but as the year progresses, woody 281
species gain prominence (Martinez 2002). Something similar happens in Puertos de Tortosa-Beceite, where woody 282
plants, in all seasons, are consumed in greater quantities than herbaceous plants, with emphasis in winter (88% of the 283
diet). Herbaceous plants are consumed more in spring and early summer (Martínez 1994). Petrotti (1995) indicates that 284
winter ranges characterize ibex as an insular species, especially by females and tend to remain in their traditional 285
ranges while increasing their density (Gauthier et al. 1994). 286
287
Page 9 of 25
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjz-pubs
Canadian Journal of Zoology
Draft
10
Overall, in areas with abundant grasses (Gredos and Sierra Nevada) the species feeds on them, leaving woody plants 288
for winter when snow forces animals to a lower altitude. However, in areas with abundant woody plants (oak, pine, etc.) 289
the species feeds mainly on them (Cazorla, Beceite, and Tortosa), leaving grasses for times where these are abundant 290
(spring). 291
292
Differences detected between the availability and use of different habitats by the species may be due to the availability 293
of different trophic resources. As has been suggested in many studies, weather conditions are factors that affect the 294
processes of seasonal migration of many wild ungulates, mainly due to trophic resources (Gaillard et al. 2000; Clutton-295
Brock and Coulson 2002; Garrott et al. 2003; Jacobson et al. 2004; Wang et al. 2006). Range expansion may delay 296
responses to food limitation, such as diminished survival and fecundity, until new areas can no longer be colonised to 297
provide additional forage (Messier et al. 1988; Larter et al. 2000), forcing the population to migrate (Fuller et al. 2007). 298
Ungulate populations generally become more sensitive to density-independent factors that affect resource availability as 299
they approach high densities (Saether 1997; Gaillard et al. 1998, 2000). 300
301
Finally, the high density of ungulates can cause excessive pressure on vegetation (Palacios et al. 1989; Álvarez and 302
Ramos 1991; Perea et al. 2014). High densities of ibex in a protected area may threaten certain endangered plant 303
species (Perea et al. 2015), so continuous monitoring of the population is a very effective tool to know the evolution of it 304
and establish the control measures that are necessary to reduce the population to environmentally acceptable levels. 305
306
The Iberian ibex population increase has been the cause of changes in the fauna and flora of the National Park of Sierra 307
de Guadarrama. Our data allow us to demonstrate the importance of monitoring reintroduced populations and 308
establishing the need to control the reintroduced populations to avoid these alterations in a protected area. It is 309
necessary to properly manage reintroduced populations in order to allow the coexistence of the different species in 310
protected areas. 311
Protected areas are essential for the reintroductions of Iberian ibex because they improve the probability of success 312
(Pérez et al, 2002; Moço et al., 2006; Carnevali et al., 2009; Goldstein and Rominger 2011; Refoyo et al., 2012), 313
however, as it is demonstrated in this work, the new reintroductions should consider the low dispersion of the specimens 314
as their seasonal distribution to reduce effects on threatened plant species. It is also essential to know the capacity of 315
the environment and the establishment of control measures to prevent the population to acquire densities that the 316
environment can not support. 317
Acknowledgments 318
This study was possible thanks to the collaboration of those in charge of the former Regional Park of the Cuenca Alta 319
del Manzanares, now the National Park of the Sierra de Guadarrama, and the technical staff of the company Estudios 320
Territoriales Integrados, S.L., who collaborated with us in data collection. 321
Page 10 of 25
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjz-pubs
Canadian Journal of Zoology
Draft
11
References 322
Aenas, R., Saether, B.E., and Oritsland.N.A. 2000. Fluctuations of an introduced population of Svalbard reindeer: the 323
effects of density dependence and climatic variation. Ecography, 23: 437-443 324
Álvarez, G., and Ramos, J. 1991. Estrategias alimentarias (Cervus elaphus L.) en Montes de Toledo. Doñana, Acta 325
Vertebrata, 18 (1): 63-99 326
Amarasekare. P. 2004. The role of density-dependent dispersal in source sink dynamics- J. Theor. Biol. 226: 159-168 327
Apollonio, M., Anderson, R., and Putman, R. 2010. European Ungulates and their Management in the 21st Century. 328
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (Reino Unido). 329
Bateman, A.W., Ozgul, A., Coulson, T., and Clutton-Brock, T.H.. 2012. Density dependence in group dynamics of a 330
highly social mongoose, Suricata suricatta. J. Anim. Ecol.81: 628–639 331
Bonenfant, C., Gaillard, J.M., Coulson, T., Festa-Bianchet, M., Loison, A., Garel, M., Loe, L.E., et al. 2009. Empirical 332
evidence of density-dependence in populations of large herbivores. Adv. Ecol. Res. 41: 313–357. 333
Available:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S006525040900405X. 334
Boyce, M.S., and McDonald, L.L. 1999. Relating populations to habitats using resource selection functions. Trends. 335
Ecol, Evol. 14: 268–272 336
Brown, J.S., and Rosenzweig. M.L. 1986. Habitat selection in slowly regenerating environments. J. Theor. Biol. 123: 337
151–171 338
Buckland, S.T., Anderson, D.R., Burnham, K.P., and Laake.J.L. 1993. Distance sampling: estimating abundance of 339
biological populations. Chapman and Hall, London, UK. pp. 446. 340
Buckland, S.T., Anderson, D.R., Burnham, K.P., Laake, J.L., Borchers, D.L., and Thomas, L. 2001. Introduction to 341
distance sampling. Oxford University Press, New York 342
Burnham, K.P., Anderson, D.R., and Laake, J.L. 1980. Estimation density from line transect sampling of biological 343
population. Wildl. Monogr. 72: 1–202. 344
Burt, W.H. 1940. Territorial behavior and populations of same small mammals in southern Michigan. Univ. Mich. Mus. 345
Zool. Misc. Publ. No. 45: 1-58. 346
Calenge, C., Maillard, D., Invernia, N., and Gaudin, J.C. 2005. Reintroduction of roe deer Capreolus capreolus into a 347
Mediterranean habitat: female mortality and dispersion. Wildl. Biol. 11(2):153-161. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2981/0909-348
6396(2005)11[153:RORDCC]2.0.CO;2 349
Carnevali, L., Pedrotti, I., Riga, F., and Toso, S. 2009. Ungulates in Italy: Status, distribution, abundance, management 350
and hunting of Ungulate populations in Italy - Report 2001-2005. Biol. Conserv. Fauna, 117: 1-168. 351
Page 11 of 25
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjz-pubs
Canadian Journal of Zoology
Draft
12
Carloti, L., Fattorini, L., and Nelli. L. 2015. The use of block counts, mark-resight and distance sampling to estimate 352
population size of a mountain-dwelling ungulate. Popul. Ecol.57 (2). DOI 10.1007/s10144-015-0481-6 353
Clutton-Brock, T.H., and Coulson, T. 2002. Comparative ungulate dynamics: the devil is in the detail. Philos. Trans. R. 354
Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. No.357: 1285-1298 355
Côté, I.M., and Poulin, R. 1995. Parasitism and group size in social animals: a metaanalysis. Behav. Ecol. 6: 159 –165. 356
doi:10.1093/beheco/6.2.159. 357
Chapman, R.N. 1928. The quantitative analysis of enviromental factors. Ecology, 9: 11-122. 358
Christie, A.H.C., and Andrews, J.R.H. 1966. Introduced ungulates in New Zealand. Tuatara, 12: 82– 88 359
Converse, S.J., C.T. Moore and Armstrong, D.P. 2013. Demographics of reintroduced populations: Estimation, 360
modeling, and decision analysis. J. Wildl. Manage. 77: 1081–1093. 361
Cross, P.C., Creech, T.G., Ebinger, M.R., Manlove, K., Irvine, K.M., Henningsen, J., Rogerson, J.D., et al. 2013. Female 362
elk contacts are neither frequency nor density dependent. Ecology, 94: 2076–2086 363
Daermon, G., Calenge, C., Lison, A., Jullien, J.M., Maillard, D., and Lopez, J.F. 2012. Spatial distribution and habitat 364
selection in coexisting species of mountain ungulates. Ecography, 35, 44-53.doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0587.2011.06664.x 365
Dupré, E., Pedrotti, I and Arduino, S. 2001. Alpine ibex conservation strategy. The Alpine ibex in the Italian Alps: status, 366
potential distribution and management options for conservation and sustainable development. WWF, Large Herbivore 367
Initiative, Istituto Oikos, Varese, Italy. pp. 65. 368
Eberhardt, L.L. 2002. A paradigm for population analysis of long-lived vertebrates. Ecology 83: 2841-2854 369
Ferguson, M.A., Gauthier, D.L., and Messier, F. 2001. Range shift and winter foraging ecology of a population of Arctic 370
tundra caribou. Can. J. Zool. 79: 746-758 371
Festa-Bianchet, M., Gaillard, J.M., and Côté, S,D. 2003. Variable age structure and apparent density dependence in 372
survival of adult ungulates. J. Anim. Ecol.72: 640-649 373
Fieberg, J., and Kochanny, C.O. 2005. Quantifying home-range overlap: the importance of the utilization distribution. J. 374
Wildl. Manage.69: 1346-1359 375
Fortin, D., and Fortin, M.E. 2009. Group-size-dependent association between food profitability, predation risk and 376
distribution of free-ranging bison. Anim. Behav.78: 887–892. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.06.026. 377
Fortmann-Roe, S., Starfield, R., and Getz, W,M. 2012. Contingent Kernel Density Estimation. PLoS ONE, 7(2): e30549. 378
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0030549 379
Fuller, J.A., Garrott, R.A., and White, P.J. 2007 Emigration and Density Dependence in Yellowstone Bison. J. Wildl. 380
Manage.71 (6): 1924–1933. ISSN 0022-541X, 2007 381
Page 12 of 25
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjz-pubs
Canadian Journal of Zoology
Draft
13
Gaillard, J.M., Festa-Bianchet, M., and Yoccoz, N.G. 1998. Population dynamics of harge herbivores:v variable 382
recruitment with constant adulto survival. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13: 58-63 383
Gaillard, J.M., Festa-Bianchet, M., Yoccoz, N.G., Loison, A., and Toïgo, C. 2000. Temporal variation in fitness 384
components and population dynamics of large herbivores. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 31: 367–393. 385
doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.31.1.367 386
Garrott, R.A., Eberhardt, L.L., White, P.J., and Rotella, J. 2003. Climate-induced variation in vital rates of an 387
unharvested large-herbivore population. Can. J. Zool. 81: 33-45 388
Gauthier, D., Chatain, G., Choisy, J.P., Crampe, J.P., Martinot, J.P., Michallet, J., Terrier, G., Tron, L. and Villaret, J.C. 389
1994. L’organisation des réintroductions de bouquetin en France - la charte du bouquetin. Atti Inc. Gruppo Stambecco 390
Europa. Parco Nazionale Gran Paradiso. 14 pp. 391
Geremia, C., White, P.J., Wallen, R.L., Watson, F.G.R., Treanor, J.J., Borkowski, J., Potter, C.S., et al. 2011. Predicting 392
Bison Migration out of Yellowstone National Park Using Bayesian Models. PLoS ONE, 6: e16848. 393
doi:16810.11371/journal.pone.0016848. 394
Girard, I., D. Gauthier and Martinot, J.P. 1998. Evolution d é mographique des populations de bouquetin des Alpes ( 395
Capra ibex ibex ) pr é sentes dans le Parc national de la Vanoise ou r é introduites à partir de celui-ci. Gibier Faune 396
sauv. 15 (Hors Série 2): 417– 431. 397
Goldstein, E.J. and Rominger, E.M 2011. Desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis mexicana). Delisting Investigation 398
Report. Wildlife Management Division. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Santa Fe. NM. pp. 15. 399
Gitzen, R.A., Millspaugh, J.J., and Kernohan, B.J. 2006. Bandwidth Selection for Fixed-Kernel Analysis of Animal 400
Utilization Distributions J. Wildl. Manage.70: 5, 1334-1344 401
Hebblewhite, M., and Merrill, E.H. 2009. Trade-offs between predation risk and forage differ between migrant strategies 402
in a migratory ungulate. Ecology, 90: 3445–3454 403
Herrero, J., and Pérez, J.M. 2008. Capra pyrenaica. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3. 404
<www.iucnredlist.org>. [accessed 15 February 2015] 405
Krause, J., and Ruxton, G. 2002. Living in groups. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 406
Kittle, A.M., Fryxell, J.M., Desy, G.E., and Hamr, J. 2008. The scale-dependent impact of wolf predation risk on resource 407
selection by three sympatric ungulates. Oecologia, 157:163–175 408
Jacobson, A.R., Provenzale, A.P., Von Hardenberg, A., Bassano, B., and Festa-Bianchet, M. 2004. Climate forcing and 409
density dependence in a mountain ungulate population. Ecology, 85: 1598-1610 410
Jenkins, K.J., and Wright, R,G. 1988. Resource partitioning and competition among cervids in the Northern Rocky 411
Mountains. J. Appl. Ecol. 25:11–24 412
Page 13 of 25
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjz-pubs
Canadian Journal of Zoology
Draft
14
Johnson, D.H. 1980. The comparison of usage and availability measurements for evaluating resource preference. 413
Ecology, 61: 65–71 414
Largo, E., J.M. Gaillard, M. Festa-Bianchet, C. Toïgo, B. Bassano, H. Cortot, G. Farny, B. Lequette, D. Gauthier and 415
Martinot, J.P. 2008. Can ground counts reliably monitor ibex Capra ibex populations? Wildl. Biol. 14: 489-499. 416
Larter, N.C., Sinclair, A.R.E., Ellsworth, T., Nishi, J., and Gates, C,C. 2000. Dynamics of reintroduction in an indigenous 417
larger ungulate: the wood bison of northern Canada. Anim. Conserv.4: 299-309 418
Lemke, T.O., Mack, J.A., and Houston, D.B. 1998. Winter range expansion by the northern Yellowstone elk herd. 419
Intermountain Journal on Sciences, 4:1-9 420
Loehle, C. 1995. Social barriers to pathogen transmission in wild animal populations. Ecology, 76: 326–335. 421
Macandza, V.A., Owen-Smith, N., and Cain, I. 2012. Dynamic spatial partitioning and coexistence among tall grass 422
grazers in an African savanna. Oikos, 121:891–898 423
MacArthur, R.H. 1958. Population ecology of some warblers of northeastern coniferous forests. Ecology, 39, 599–619 424
Martínez, T. 1994. Dieta estacional de la cabra montés (Capra pyrenaica) en los Puertos de Tortosa y Beceite (área 425
mediterránea del nordeste de España). Ecología, 8: 373-380 426
Martínez, T. 2002. Summer feeding strategy of Spanish ibex Capra pyrenaica and domestic sheep Ovis aries in south-427
eastern Spain. Acta Theriol. 47 (4): 479-490. 428
Messier, F., Huot, J., Le Henaff, D., and Luttich, S. 1988. Demography of the George River caribou herd: evidence of 429
population regulation by forage exploitation and range expansion. Arctic, 41: 279–287. 430
Millspaugh, J.J., Nielson, R., McDonald, L., Marzluff, J., Gitzen, R., Rittenhouse, C.D., Hubbard, M.W., et al. 2006. 431
Analysis of resource selection using utilization distributions. J. Wildl. Manage.70: 384–395. 432
Moço, G., Guerreiro, M., Ferreira, A. F., Rebelo, A., Loureiro, A., Petrucci-Fonseca, F. and Pérez, J. M. 2006. The ibex 433
Capra pyrenaica returns to its former Portuguese range. Oryx, 40(3): 351-354 434
Morris, D.W. 2003. Toward an ecological synthesis: a case for habitat selection. Oecologia, 136:1–13 DOI 435
10.1007/s00442-003-1241-4 436
Odum, E. P. 1986. Fundamentos de Ecología. Nueva Editorial Interamericana S. A., México D. F. pp. 422. 437
Palacios, F., Martínez, T., and Garzón, P. 1989. Data on the autumn diet of the red deer (Cervus elaphus L. 1758) in the 438
Montes de Toledo (Central Spain). Doñana, Acta Vertebrata, 16 (1): 157-163 439
Perea, R., Girardello, M., and San Miguel, A. 2014. Big game or big loss? High deer densities are threatening woody 440
plant diversity and vegetation dynamics. Biodivers. Conserv.23: 1303-1318 441
Page 14 of 25
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjz-pubs
Canadian Journal of Zoology
Draft
15
Perea, R., Perea García-Calvo, R., Díaz Ambrona, C.G., and San Miguel, A. 2015. The reintroduction of a flagship 442
ungulate Capra pyrenaica: Assessing sustainability by surveying woody vegetation. Biol. Conserv.181: 9-17. DOI: 443
10.1016/j.biocon.2014.10.018. 444
Pérez, J.M., Granados, J.E., Soringuer, R.C., Fandos, P., Márquez, F.J. and Crampe, J.P. 2002. Distribution, status and 445
conservation problems of the Spanish Ibex, Capra pyrenaica (Mammalia: Artiodactyla). Mammal Rev, 32 (1): 26-39. 446
Peters, W., Hebblewhite, M., DeCesare, N., Cagnacci, F., and Musiani, M. 2013. Resource separation analysis with 447
moose indicates threats to caribou in human altered landscapes. Ecography, 36: 487–498 448
Pedrotti L., 1995. La reintroduzione dello stambecco (Capra ibex ibex) nelle Alpi Orobie. Ph.D. Thesis in Natural and 449
Environmental Sciences. Milan State University, 270 pp) 450
Refoyo, P., Olmedo, C., Polo, I., Fandos, P., and Muñoz, B. 2014. Demographic trends of a re–introduced Iberian ibex 451
Capra pyrenaica victoriae population in central Spain. Mammalia, 79 (2): 139-145. Doi: 10.1515/mammalia-2013-0141 452
Rieucau, G., and Giraldeau, L.A. 2011. Exploring the costs and benefits of social information use: an appraisal of 453
current experimental evidence. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. No. 366: 949–957 454
Rivrud, I.M., Loe, L.E., and Mysterud, A. 2010. How does local weather predict red deer home range size at different 455
temporal scales? J. Anim. Ecol. 79: 1280–1295. 456
Rosenzweig, M.L. 1981. A theory of habitat selection. Ecology, 62: 327–335 457
Rossell, C. M., Carretero, A., Cahill, S., and Pasquina, A. 1996. Seguimiento de una reintroducción de corzo (Capreolus 458
capreolus) en ambiente mediterráneo. Dispersión y área de campeo. Doñana, Acta Vertebrata, 23: 109-122. 459
Saether, B.E. 1997. Envioronmental stochasticity and population dynamics of large herbivores: a search for 460
mechanisms. Trends Ecol. Evol. 12: 143-149 461
Saether, B.E., Engen, S., and Lande, R. 1999. Finite metapopulation models with density-dependent migration and 462
stochastic local dynamics. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 266: 113-118 463
Scillitani, L. 2011. Ecology of Alpine ibex (Capra ibex ibex Linnaeus, 1758) in relation to management actions in the 464
Marmolada massif, Italy. PhD Thesis. Universita degli Studi di Padova, Padova, Italy. 465
Silverman, B. 1986. Density estimation for statistics and data analysis. Chapman and Hall, London, UK. 466
Singer, F.J. 1979. Habitat partitioning and wildfire relationships of cervids in Glacier National Park, Montana. J. Wildl. 467
Manage.43: 437–444 468
Soriguer, R.C., Márquez, F.J. and Pérez, J.M. 1998. Las translocaciones (introducciones y reintroduciones) de especies 469
cinegéticas y sus efectos medioambientales. Galemys, 10 (2): 19-35. 470
Page 15 of 25
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjz-pubs
Canadian Journal of Zoology
Draft
16
Stillman, R.A., Goss-Custard, J.D., and Caldow, R.W.G. 1997. Modelling interference from basic foraging behaviour. J. 471
Anim. Ecol. 66: 692–703. 472
Thomas, L., Laake, J.L., Strindberg, S., Marques, F.F.C., Buckland, S.T., Borchers, D.L., Anderson, D,R,, et al. 2009. 473
Distance 6.0. Beta 4. Research Unit for Wildlife Population Assessment, University of St. Andrews, Saint Andrews, UK. 474
Available form http://www.ruwpa.st-and.ac.uk/distance . [accessed 20 April 2015]. 475
476
Toïgo, C., Gaillard, J.M., and Michallet, J. 1997. Adult survival pattern of the sexually dimorphic Alpine ibex (Capra ibex 477
ibex). Can. J. Zool. 75: 75 – 79. 478
IUCN. 1998. Guidelines for reintroductions. Available form Http//:www.uicnsscrsg.org [accessed 15 May 2015] 479
Van Beest, F.M., Mysterud, A., Loe, L.E., and Milner. J.M. 2010. Forage quantity, quality and depletion as scale-480
dependent mechanisms driving habitat selection of a large browsing herbivore. J. Anim. Ecol. 79: 910–922 481
Vander der Wal, E., Yip, H., and McLoughlin, P.D. 2012. Sex-based differences in density-dependent sociality: an 482
experiment with a gregarious ungulate. Ecology, 93: 206–212 483
Vander der Wal, E., Laforge, M.P., and McLoughlin, P.D. 2014. Density dependence in social behaviour: home range 484
overlap and density interacts to affect conspecific encounter rates in a gregarious ungulate. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 485
68:,383–390 DOI 10.1007/s00265-013-1652-0 486
Vincent, J.P., Gaillard, J.M., and Bideau, E., 1991. Kilometric index as biological indicator for monitoring forest roe deer 487
populations Acta Theriol, 36, pp. 315–328 488
Weckerly, F.W. 1999. Social bonding and aggression in female Roosevelt elk. Can. J. Zool. 77:1379–1384 489
Wang, G., Hobbs, N.T., Boone, R.B., Illius, A.W., Gordon, I.J., Gross, J.E., and Hamlin, K.J. 2006. Spatial and temporal 490
variability modify density dependence in populations of large herbivores. Ecology, 87:95-102 491
Worton, B. 1989. Kernel methods for estimating the utilization distribution in home-range studies. Ecology, 70: 164-168. 492
Page 16 of 25
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjz-pubs
Canadian Journal of Zoology
Draft
17
493
494
495
496
Table 1: Available area in ha and % of total surface of the National Park for each
established habitat and Total area. We group the habitat into nine different vegetation
types (Table S1) (wet forest, thermophilic forest, rain forest, wooded areas, wet shrub,
thermophilic shrubs, wet grassland, thermophilic grassland, and rocky areas with
vegetation). 497
Habitat Available area
Ha %
Wet forest 14.2 0.18
Thermophilic forest 873.1 11.24
Rain forest 1099.6 14.15
Wooded area 767.7 9.88
Thermophilic scrub 496.9 6.39
Wet brushwood 2682.7 34.53
Rocky area 1453.4 18.70
Wet grassland 312.5 4.02
Xerophilous grassland 55.5 0.71
Urban Areas 14.6 0.19
Total 7770.2 100
498
499
Page 17 of 25
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjz-pubs
Canadian Journal of Zoology
Draft
18
Table 2. Evolution of the number of animals and density of Iberian ibex (Capra 500
pyrenaica, Schinz, 1838) between 2000 and 2014 in Sierra de Guadarrama National 501
Park. KIAs. Abundace index; f(0) value of probability density function at zero for line 502
transects = 1/u (u = W*p; W = width of line transect; p = probability of observing an 503
object in defined area. Truncating distance (m) = maximum detection distance. 504
Year Number
of
animals
KIAs
(ind/km)
Density
(ind/km2)
Coefficient
of variation
(CV%)
Truncating
distance (m)
Interval
numbers
f(0) p Degrees
of
freedom
95% confidence
interval
2000 359 4.16 6.67 38.47 350 3 0.0098 0.29 39 3.149 14.146
2003 773 5.69 16.83 25.50 300 3 0.0090 0.36 117 10.238 27.669
2005 1065 6.06 23.2 25.70 300 4 0.011 0.30 62 13.992 38.447
2007 1523 5.74 33.16 25.06 160 6 0.014 0.44 32 20.129 55.016
2010 2437 11.09 42.29 20.62 240 6 0.013 0.40 198 28.190 63.430
2014 3324 8.65 42.88 20.81 200 4 0.012 0.39 216 28.5 64.3
505
506
Page 18 of 25
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjz-pubs
Canadian Journal of Zoology
Draft
19
Table 3: Occupied area (ha) by 50%, 75% and 95% of the species distribution using the 507
Kernel distribution by years (in parenthesis monitoring season). 508
509
Field seasons Ocuppied area (ha)
50% 75% 95%
2000 (spring) 715 1,375 4,590
2003 (spring) 1,004 1,866 4,590
2005 (autumn) 1,101 1,956 4,590
2007 (spring) 1,169 2,255 4,590
2010 (autumn) 1,609 3,255 5,764
2014 (summer) 2,130 5,472 7,770
510
511
512
Page 19 of 25
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjz-pubs
Canadian Journal of Zoology
Draft
20
513
Table 4: Total available area by Habitat present in the National Park and available area 514
by Habitat used by ibex (Capra pyrenaica, Schinz, 1838) populations in each seasons 515
(in ha and %). 516
Habitat Available area
Habitat used
Spring
Habitat used
Summer
Habitat used
Autumn
Ha % Ha % ha % ha %
Wet forest 14.2 0.18 0 0 0 0 0 0
Thermophilic
forest 873.1 11.24 46.77 5.16 4.00 0.21 56.87 7.45
Rain forest 1099.6 14.15 124.90 13.78 301.09 15.82 147.94 19.38
Wooded area 767.7 9.88 0.36 0.04 69.47 3.65 43.82 5.74
Thermophilic
scrub 496.9 6.39 26.10 2.88 13.51 0.71 28.93 3.79
Wet brushwood 2682.7 34.53 557.42 61.5 1345.60 70.7 338.70 44.37
Rocky area 1453.4 18.70 75.68 8.35 39.02 2.05 84.05 11.01
Wet grassland 312.5 4.02 75.14 8.29 119.33 6.27 63.05 8.26
Xerophilous
grassland 55.5 0.71 0 0 0 0 0 0
Urban Areas 14.6 0.19 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 7770.2 100 906.38 100 1903.25 99.41 763.36 100
517
518
Page 20 of 25
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjz-pubs
Canadian Journal of Zoology
Draft
21
Figure 1: Study area with the boundaries of the National Park of Sierra de Guadarrama; 519
Samples area, Transects and Reintroduction point. 520
Figure 2: Occupied area for each field seasons included 50%, 75% and 95% of the 521
population by Kernel distribution The occupied area is represented in gradient gray with 522
darker maximal values (95%). and clearer lower (50%). It is also indicated the 523
reintroduction point. 524
Figure 3: Relationship between abundance index (KAI,s) in no reproductive field 525
seasons and occupied area by 50, 75 and 95% of the population by Kernel distribution. 526
Figure 4: Relationship between Field seasons and distance form releasing point found in 527
each field seasons and the extent of the area occupied by the species within the National 528
Park (post-hoc Scheffé test: MS = 3003E3, df = 557; p < 0.001 (Distance/field seasons) 529
530
531
Page 21 of 25
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjz-pubs
Canadian Journal of Zoology
Draft
22
Figure 1: Study area with the boundaries of the National Park of Sierra de Guadarrama; 532
Samples area, Transects and Reintroduction point. 533
534
Page 22 of 25
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjz-pubs
Canadian Journal of Zoology
Draft
23
Figure 2: Occupied area for each field seasons included 50%, 75% and 95% of the 535
population by Kernel distribution The occupied area is represented in gradient gray with 536
darker maximal values (95%). and clearer lower (50%). It is also indicated the 537
reintroduction point. 538
539
Page 23 of 25
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjz-pubs
Canadian Journal of Zoology
Draft
24
540
Figure 3: Relationship between abundance index (KAI,s) in no reproductive field 541
seasons and occupied area by 50, 75 and 95% of the population by Kernel distribution. 542
543
544
50% 75% 95%3 4 5 6 7 8 9
KAI,s
Field seasons
2000 2003 2007 2014
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
Occupied area (ha)
Ika;(core area 50%): r2 = 0,9783; r = 0,9891; p = 0,0109
Ika; (core area75%): r2 = 0,9303; r = 0,9645; p = 0,0355
Ika; (core area 95%): r2 = 0,7785; r = 0,8823; p = 0,1177
Page 24 of 25
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjz-pubs
Canadian Journal of Zoology
Draft
25
545
Figure 4: Relationship between Field seasons and distance form releasing point found in 546
each field seasons and the extent of the area occupied by the species within the National 547
Park (post-hoc Scheffé test: MS = 3003E3, df = 557; p < 0.001 (Distance/field seasons) 548
549
Current effect: F(5, 557)=10,845, p=,00000Vertical bars denote 0,95 confidence intervals
2000 2003 2005 2007 2010 2014
Field seasons
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
DISTANCE (m.)
Page 25 of 25
https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjz-pubs
Canadian Journal of Zoology
Table S1. Habitat grouped into nine different vegetation types (wet forest, thermophilic forest, rain forest, wooded
areas, wet shrub, thermophilic shrub, wet grassland, thermophilic grassland, and rocky areas with vegetation).
Habitat ha
Wet
fore
st TOTAL 14.2
Pyrenean oak trees with <5% of rock outcropping with a cover of 25%–50% with grassland 13.2
Pyrenean oak trees with 5%–25% of rock outcropping with a 25%–50% covered with grassland 1
Th
erm
ophili
c f
ore
st
TOTAL 873.1
Mixed pine forests of an adult repopulation of Pinus pinaster and P. nigra with 25%–50% of rock outcropping; >50% pine
cover with brushwood 195.4
Mixed pine forests of Pinus pinaster and an adult repopulation of P. nigra with 5%–25% of rock outcropping; 20%–50%
pine cover with brushwood 5.2
Mixed natural pine forests of Pinus pinaster, P. sylvestris and P.nigra with 5%–25% of rock outcropping; >50% pine cover
with brushwood 2.7
Mixed pine forest of Pinus pinaster, P. sylvestris and a repopulation of P. nigra with 25%–50% of rock outcropping; >50%
repopulation pine's cover with brushwood and grassland 284.6
Mixed pine forests of Pinus sylvestris and natural P. nigra with 25%–50% of rock outcropping; >50% pine cover with 20%–
50% trees 291.6
Mixed pine forests of Pinus sylvestris and an adult repopulation of P. nigra with 25%–50% of rock outcropping; >50% pine
cover with brushwood 80.7
Natural pine forests of Pinus pinaster with 25%–50% of rock outcropping; 20%–50% pine cover with brushwood and rock
rose 5.6
Pine forest of a heterogeneus repopulation of Pinus pinaster with 25%–50% of rock outcropping; 20%–50% pine cover with
brushwood and rock rose 7.3
Rain
fore
st
TOTAL 1099.6
Natural pine forests of Pinus sylvestris with 25%–50% of rock outcropping; >50% pine cover with brushwood and broom 694.6
Natural pine forests of Pinus sylvestris with 5%–25% of rock outcropping; >50% pine cover with brushwood 128.4
Natural pine forests of Pinus sylvestris with 25%–50% of rock outcropping; >50% pine cover with brushwood and ferns 41.8
Pine forests of an adult repopulation of Pinus sylvestris with 5%–25% of rock outcropping; >50% pine cover with
brushwood 11.4
Pine forests of a repopulation of Pinus sylvestris with <5% of rock outcropping; >50% repopulation cover with
brushwood,broom and Pinus uncinata 1.6
Pine forests of a repopulation of Pinus sylvestris with <5% of rock outcropping; >50% pure with broom, pasture and Pinus
uncinata 0.2
Pine forests of a repopulation of Pinus sylvestris with 25%–50% of rock outcropping; >50% repopulation cover with >50%
of grassland 21
Pine forests of a repopulation of Pinus sylvestris with rock outcropping; 25%–50% of failed repopulations with brushwood,
broom and grassland 196.8
Pine forests of a repopulation of Pinus sylvestris with rock outcropping; 5%–25% of repopulation cover with brushwood 3.8
Wooded a
reas
TOTAL 767.7
Rocky area with cover grade >50% with trees, 5%–20% brushwood with holm oak 184.2
Rocky area with cover grade >50% with trees, 5%–20% brushwood with holm oak and rockrose 43.9
Rocky area with cover grade >50% with trees, 5%–20% brushwood with juniper 273.2
Rocky area with cover grade >50% with trees, 5%–20% brushwood with Pinus sylvestris 88
Rocky area with cover grade >50% with trees, 5%–20% brushwood with Pinus sylvestris and Pinus uncinata. 178.4
Th
erm
ophili
c s
cru
b
TOTAL 1950.3
Lavenders, thyme and other acidophilus plants of small size with rock outcropping; 5%–25% pure with patches of grass,
with Pyrenean oak and ash 26.1
Juniper with 25%–50% rock outcropping with 25%–50% cover with brushwood, lavenders and ferns. 28.6
Rockroses with rock outcropping; 25%–50% pure with patches of grassland 131.7
Rockroses with rock outcropping; 25%–50% pure with patches of pastures and junipers. 295.5
Rockroses with rock outcropping; 5%–25% mosaic with trees and/or shrub species (>50%) with patches of wasteland, with
oaks and ferns
15
Rocky area with cover grade >50% without wooded thicket, with brushwood and rockroses 217.7
Rocky area with cover grade >50% without wooded thicket, with rockroses and junipers 858.4
Rocky area with cover grade >50% without wooded thicket, with brooms 332.2
Rocky area with cover grade >50% without wooded thicket, with brooms and bearberry 45.1
Wet
bru
shw
ood
TOTAL 2682.7
Acidophilous mountainous brushwood with predominance of legumes with rock outcropping; 25%–50% mosaic of trees
and shrub species (>50% brushwood) with patches of grassland and Pinus sylvestris 7
Brooms and other bushes with rock outcropping; <5% of grassland 52
Brooms and other bushes with rock outcropping; <5% pure 14.9
Brooms and other bushes with rock outcropping; 25%–50% with grassland 565.2
Brooms and other bushes with rock outcropping; 25%–50% of grassland, with kermes oak and holm oak 116.7
Brooms and other bushes with rock outcropping with 25%–50% of grassland with juniper 275.7
Brooms and other bushes with rock outcropping with 25%–50% of grassland with Pinus sylvestris 80.7
Brooms and other bushes with rock outcropping; 25%–50% pure 566
Brooms and other bushes with rock outcropping; 5%–25% with grassland 282.2
Brooms and other bushes with rock outcropping; 5%–25% with grassland and ferns 484.4
Brooms and other bushes with rock outcropping; 5%–25% with grassland and with juniper 48
Brooms and other bushes with rock outcropping; 5%–25% pure 189.9
Wet
gra
ssla
nd
TOTAL 312.5
Cervum grazes (Nardus stricta) and wet grasslands with rock outcropping; 5%–25% pure with scrub and /or ferns and
brooms 103
Cervum grazes (Nardus stricta) and wet grasslands with rock outcropping; 5%–25% pure with with scrub and/or ferns 27.8
Cervum grazes (Nardus stricta) and wet grasslands with pure rock outcropping <5% 2.8
Brachypodium sp. with rock outcropping; <5% pure with scrubs and/or ferns with brooms 67.1
Brachypodium sp. with rock outcropping; 25%–50% pure with scrubs and/or ferns with brooms 50.6
Brachypodium sp. with rock outcropping; 5%–25% mixed of scrubs and/or ferns 15.3
Brachypodium sp. with rock outcropping; 5%–25% mixed of scrubs and/or ferns, with brooms 16.5
Brachypodium sp. with rock outcroppings; 5%–25% pure with scrubs and/or ferns 29.4
Xero
philo
us g
rassla
nd
TOTAL 55.5
Mesophyll grassland with rock outcropping; <5% pure with trees 4.1
Mesophyll grassland with rock outcropping; <5% pure with scrubs and/or ferns 6.8
Mesophyll grassland with rock outcropping; 5%–25% pure, with scrub and/or ferns and woodland 2.8
Xerophytic grassland with rock outcropping; <5% pure with brushwood and/or ferns and woodland 5.1
Xerophytic grassland with rock outcropping; 25%–50% pure with scrub and/or fern 32.5
Xerophytic grassland with rock outcropping; 5%–25% pure with lavenders and pure with juniper
4.2
Urb
an a
reas
TOTAL 14.6
Sports areas 5.2
Family houses and townhouses 5.8
Urban areas and urbanized areas 2.7
Other (camping, cemeteries,…) 0.9
OVERALL TOTAL 7770.2