4.5 Article

Soil movement by burrowing mammals: A review comparing excavation size and rate to body mass of excavators

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0309133316662569

关键词

Biogeomorphology; burrow; digging; denning; ecosystem engineer; mammal disturbance; sediment movement

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of South Africa [94103]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mammal burrowing plays an important role in soil translocation and habitat creation in many environments. As a consequence, many burrowing mammals have at some point been studied in an ecosystem engineering context. From a geomorphological point of view, one of the focus areas of burrowing mammal research is on the amount of soil that is excavated and the rate at which this happens. As such, reviews exist on the volumes and rates of sediment removal by burrowing mammals in specific environments or for specific groups of species. Here, a standardised comparison of mammal burrowing across a broad range of burrowing mammal species and environments is provided, focussing on both burrow volume and excavation rate. Through an ISI Web of Science-based literature search, articles presenting estimates of burrow volumes and/or excavation rate were identified. Relationships between species body size and burrow volume/excavation rate were explored and the influence of sociality and method of burrow volume estimation were assessed. The results show that, although larger species construct larger burrows, it is the smaller species that remove more sediment per unit time at larger, site-level spatial scales. Burrow volume estimates are, however, independent of species sociality (solitary versus group-living) and method of burrow volume estimation (excavation-based versus mound-based). These results not only confirm previously established relationships between species body size and burrow volume, but, more importantly, they also add to this, by exploring larger scale impacts of burrowing mammals along a body size gradient.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据