Study

An experimental study of translocation success and habitat improvement in wild rabbits

  • Published source details Cabezas S. & Moreno S. (2007) An experimental study of translocation success and habitat improvement in wild rabbits. Animal Conservation, 10, 340-348

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Release translocated/captive-bred mammals into area with artificial refuges/breeding sites

Action Link
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Provide supplementary food during/after release of translocated mammals

Action Link
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Translocate to re-establish or boost populations in native range

Action Link
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation
  1. Release translocated/captive-bred mammals into area with artificial refuges/breeding sites

    A controlled study in 1999–2002 in a shrubland site in Huelva, Spain (Cabezas & Moreno 2007) found that providing artificial warrens to translocated European rabbits Oryctolagus cuniculus did not increase their abundance relative to those translocated without provision of artificial warrens. Over the three-year study, average rabbit pellet density in translocation plots where warrens were provided (4.4 pellets/m2) was not significantly different to that in plots where warrens were not provided (5.0 pellets/m2). The study was conducted in four 4-ha square plots (1–6 km apart) in Doñana National Park. Eight artificial warrens, with internal galleries and multiple entrances, were built in each of two plots. Two batches of rabbits, each totalling 64–67 animals, were translocated into each of two plots (one with and one without warrens) each winter from 1999–2000 to 2001–2002. Translocation plots were switched after the first winter, such that translocations in the second and third winter were into plots where no translocations were made in the first winter. Between September 1999 and November 2002, rabbit abundance was estimated every two months by counting the number of pellets in 33 fixed-position 0.5-m diameter sampling points/plot. Wild rabbits were present in all plots prior to translocations beginning.

  2. Provide supplementary food during/after release of translocated mammals

    A controlled study in 1999–2002 in a shrubland site in Huelva, Spain (Cabezas & Moreno 2007) found that providing supplementary food during translocation of European rabbits Oryctolagus cuniculus did not increase their abundance relative to unfed translocated rabbits. Over three years, the average rabbit abundance in translocation plots where food was provided (8.9 pellets/m2) was not significantly different than in plots where translocated rabbits were not fed (5.0 pellets/m2). The study was conducted in four 4-ha plots (1–6 km apart). Each year, in autumn, herbaceous crops (barley Hordeum vulgare and oats Avena sativa) were sown in two plots to provide supplementary feeding. Batches of 64–67 rabbits were translocated into each of two plots (one with and one without supplementary food) each winter from 1999–2000 to 2001–2002. Translocation plots were switched after the first year, such that translocations in the second and third year were into plots where no translocations were made in the first year. Between September 1999 and November 2002, rabbit abundance was estimated every two months by counting the number of pellets in 33 fixed-position 0.5-m diameter sampling points/plot. Wild rabbits were present in all plots prior to translocations beginning.

  3. Translocate to re-establish or boost populations in native range

    A controlled study in 1999–2002 in a shrubland site in Huelva, Spain (Cabezas & Moreno 2007) found that translocation of European rabbits Oryctolagus cuniculus increased rabbit abundance. Average rabbit abundance over the study was higher in translocation plots (5.0 pellets/m2) than in non-translocation plots (1.9 pellets/m2). The study was conducted in two 4-ha plots (≥1 km apart) in Doñana National Park. Annually, over three years, two batches of 32–34 rabbits were translocated into one plot and no translocations occurred in the other plot. The first two batches were translocated in November 1999 and February 2000. Plots were then switched such that the second and third pairs of translocations (December 2000 and February 2001, and January and March 2002) were released into what was the non-translocation plot for the first batch. Between September 1999 and November 2002, rabbit abundance was estimated every two months by counting the number of pellets in 33 fixed‐position 0.5-m diameter sampling points/plot. Wild rabbits were present in all plots prior to translocations beginning.

Output references

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, terrestrial mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 17

Go to the CE Journal

Subscribe to our newsletter

Please add your details if you are interested in receiving updates from the Conservation Evidence team about new papers, synopses and opportunities.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust