Open Access

Diet adaptability by a generalist herbivore: the case of brown hare in a Mediterranean agroecosystem

  • Christos Sokos1, 2Email author,
  • Konstantinos Andreadis1 and
  • Nikolaos Papageorgiou1
Zoological Studies201554:27

DOI: 10.1186/s40555-014-0095-2

Received: 9 December 2013

Accepted: 23 December 2014

Published: 4 February 2015

Abstract

Background

Brown hares (Lepus europaeus) were collected before and after autumn rains from a mixed farmland and scrubland area. The age and sex of each specimen were determined, and microhistological technique was applied to analyze the stomach contents.

Results

Hares consumed a higher number of plant species in comparison with other studies in continental European farmlands. A different pattern in diet of hare was found, where from a partial herbivory, frugivory, and granivory during the dry period, hares turn to primarily herbivory during the wet period. An expansion of diet breadth and an increase in food consumption was found in the dry season. Farming contributes to the enrichment of diet especially during the dry season. Diet composition was differed between ages, but no significant difference was found between the two sexes.

Conclusions

Hare is a facultative generalist herbivore that adapts its diet to the seasonal vegetation changes. In Mediterranean ecosystems, the seeds, fruits, and grapes are important additions to the diet. Results suggest that during the dry period juveniles cannot exploit all the available food resources, such as fruits and seeds, as effectively as adults.

Keywords

Herbivore Feeding ecology Dietary breadth Forage quality Dietary specialization

Background

The main characteristics of Mediterranean ecosystems that are important for wildlife are the prolonged dry, hot period and high biodiversity (Blondel et al. 2010; Sokos et al. 2012). Flexibility in foraging is a typical response of herbivores to cope with seasonal differences in food availability and quality in the Mediterranean (Rueda et al. 2008). Mammals such as the brown hare (hereafter hare) have higher genetic diversity (Antoniou et al. 2013), a longer reproductive period (Antoniou et al. 2008), and a more diverse diet (Kontsiotis et al. 2011) in the Mediterranean than in more northern ecosystems of its distribution.

Studies about hare diet have found that factors which cause variability are the size of the studied area (Karmiris and Nastis 2010, Kontsiotis et al. 2011), the season (Chapuis 1990), and the vegetation of the area studied (Hulbert and Iason 1996; Kontsiotis et al. 2011). Moreover, when stomach contents are analyzed, high individual variability in the diet has been recorded (Katona et al. 2010). However, this variability has been poorly studied, even though differences in diet between sexes and ages are possible. For example, a greater propensity to disperse has been found in young male hares (Avril et al. 2011); males are more active in their movements and with larger home ranges than females (Zaccaroni et al. 2013), and microhabitat use may differ (Litvaitis 1990). The different physiological status between sexes and ages can also influence diet variability (Iason and Waterman 1988).

Additionally, in Mediterranean lowland farmland areas, the diet ecology of the hare is almost unknown. However, hare is an important species for hunting economy (Sokos et al. 2003) and has fundamental roles in natural processes such as seed dispersal (Izhaki and Ne’eman 1997) and being prey for threatened predator species (Delibes-Mateos et al. 2009). Information on hare diet would assist evaluations on the suitability of different ecotopes for hare and to design appropriate habitat improvement actions and agri-environmental measures (Sokos et al. 2012).

The hypothesis was made that hares adjust their diet in the wet and dry seasons and that adults and males consume more plant species or fewer, depending on differentiation in movements, experience, nutritional needs, and preferred plant availability. Therefore, this study aimed to (1) identify the plant taxa consumed by hare and (2) investigate any differences in diet composition and stomach content weight in relation to season, sex, and age. Moreover, the high plant diversity of the study area provides the opportunity to test how generalist the hare is in its diet.

Methods

Study area

The study took place in SW Hellas, 65 km southwest of the city of Patras. The investigation concentrated on a 12-km2 area of Kyllini Peninsula (37.884812°, 21.138229°). The area comprises an isolated hilly landscape with altitudes ranging from 20 to 130 m. The climate is classified as Mediterranean with dry summers and mild and rainy winters, without snowfall. The mean annual precipitation is 817 mm, and the mean annual air temperature is 16.8°C. In this lowland Mediterranean area, the growing season for most plant species begins after the autumn rains.

The Kyllini Peninsula belongs to the vegetation subzone Quercion ilicis (Dafis 1973) and the vegetation comprises shrub-dominated maquis. Farmland covers 68.5% and shrubland 31.5%. Agricultural fields of about 0.5 ha and shrublands create a diverse mosaic. The main cultivations are olive groves 60%, water melons 10%, citrus 8%, winter cereals 6%, maize 2%, tomatoes 2%, vineyards 1%, other annual crops 2.5%, plowed fields 3.5%, and set-aside 5%, whereas livestock grazing is limited, and the only wild herbivore present in the area is the hare (Sokos and Andreadis 2000).

Reference slide collection

A reference collection of slides of plant epidermis (leaves, stems, fruits, seeds) was prepared using Hertwig solution for discolouration and glycerin for preservation (Baumgartner and Martin 1939; Holechek 1982). Diagrams were drawn of all slides, and photographs were taken. A total of 162 plant species was collected (37 woody plants, 107 herbs, and 18 cultivated plant species) after vegetation survey of the area using sampling plots, thus the most plant species were recorded during the studied period (Sokos and Andreadis 2000).

Hare collection

Using a cynegetic index abundance, the population density was estimated at five hares/km2 (Sokos and Andreadis 2000). Hares were harvested by legally licensed volunteer hunters. The authors declare that this study is based on legal hunting methods according the Hellenic Hunting Law (68719/3105/15-07-1997, Decision of the Ministry of Agriculture). A total of n = 48 hares have been obtained by morning hunting during three hunting seasons 1997 to 1998, 1998 to 1999, and 1999 to 2000. Each hare was dissected to obtain one eye and the stomach. The organs were preserved for further analysis in 10% formalin. Hares were divided into two age classes: juveniles with dried eye lens weights <235 mgr and adults with dried eye lens ≥235 mgr (Suchentrunk et al. 1991).

Micro-histological analysis of stomach contents

Each hare stomach was dissected, and small quantities of its contents were removed systematically from five points along the stomach axis. This method was applied as stomach content includes both newly grazed and re-ingested material that differentiates from the entrance of the stomach to the exit (pylorus). This is caused mainly due to caecotrophy during the day. As this study aimed to determine hare diet composition during all the feeding period, it was thought more appropriate to acquire samples from five different positions rather than one mixed sample (Sokos and Andreadis 2000; Kontsiotis et al. 2011).

Each content sample was washed through a sieve with pore size 0.5 mm (Brüll 1976; Frylestam 1986). The sample was then spread evenly on a glass slide, heat was applied together with Hertwig’s solution, and finally, a coverslip was placed over the sample (Frylestam 1986). In the area of the coverslip (22 × 22 mm), 20 systematically chosen fields were examined. Each field was defined by the microscope using × 100 magnifications. The plant fragments observed in each field were used to identify the plant species (Holechek and Gross 1982b; Homolka 1987). Unidentified fragments were recorded according to their characteristics.

The method was tested using four caged rabbits, which had previously been fed known quantities of two or three different herb species and about 5 h after these were euthanized. Moreover, the first three hare stomachs were reanalyzed to ensure that the researcher’s (first author) experience did not affect the results (Holechek and Gross 1982a).

Relatively large pieces of food originating from fruits (such as grapes and Pyrus amygdaliformis) and seeds could not be placed under the coverslip. For this reason, these were separated from the stomach contents, dried, weighed, and expressed as a percentage of the total dry weight of the stomach content. Sparks and Malechek (1968) and Holechek and Gross (1982b) refer that for microhistological analyses, percentage frequency of occurrence can be expressed as percentage weight and vice versa. Thus, the percentage frequency of fruit or seed occurrence was estimated using the equation Fi = (fi * w1/100 + wi) * 100/(w1 + wi), where Fi: the total frequency of occurrence of fruit or seed, fi: the frequency of occurrence of fruit or seed found by microhistological analysis, w1: the dry weight of quantity analyzed, and wi: the dry weight of the fruit or seed quantity that was separated.

Ecological and statistical analyses

Diversity in diet was estimated using the Shannon-Wiener function (H΄ Log Base 10), as it is more sensitive to changes of rare species (Krebs 1999). Food niche breadth (B) was estimated using Levins’ index (Krebs 1999). The standardized Levins’ index (BA) was also used with the formula: BA = (B − 1)/(n − 1), where B is the Levins’ index, and n is the total number of plant taxa (lowest niche breadth = 0; highest niche breadth = 1). This estimate is more useful for comparing diets among different areas and seasons that may vary in the number of available palatable plant species. Additionally, some plant species are more abundant than others; therefore, the Hurlbert’s niche breadth (B΄) was calculated only for herbs, incorporating the availability of herb species found as median of cover and frequency of occurrence in frame quadrats applied in the study area (Sokos and Andreadis 2000).

Following the Bray-Curtis method (Krebs 1999), a dendrogram of diet data was made using Biodiversity Pro software, version 2 (McAleece et al. 1997). To test for overall differences in diet composition, statistical comparisons were made using ANOSIM two-way crossed analyses on Bray-Curtis dissimilarity matrices (program Primer-e) using 999 permutations (Clarke and Warwick 1994). Where significant differences occurred, the plant taxa most responsible for the difference were determined using a two-way similarity of percentages analysis, SIMPER (Primer-e, Clarke and Warwick 1994).

Diet parameters were tested by either one or two factors between subjects ANOVA (Zar 1996). The non-parametric test Mann-Whitney U was used when the assumptions of using the parametric tests were not met. Statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS 20.0 data analysis software. The level of significance was set to be α = 0.05.

Results

In total, 48 hares were collected during the period of 3 years; differences did not happen in natural vegetation and cultivations of the studied area, thus the hares of different years were grouped for further analyses. The hares were classified according the stage of vegetation, thus 26 hares were classified in the transitional period of vegetation from summer to winter (named dry season: 20 September to 9 November) where 1) winter plant species have not yet grown sufficiently, taking into account each studied year’s plant phenology, and 2) summer plant species and fruits have not yet died down or desiccated completely. The remaining 22 hares were collected in the growing period for winter herbs and many shrub species (named wet season: 19 November to 6 January).

Identification of all examined fragments to species level was not possible (caecotrophy during the day is a reason). Moreover, morphological characteristics of some plant species which belong to the same genus or family are very similar and identification is difficult (Westoby et al. 1976; Homolka 1986). To lower the risk of incorrect identifications, species with high similarity, such as sprouting winter grasses, were grouped.

Microhistological analysis recognized 36 plant taxa (recognizable in the level of species, genus or family), of which 26 were dicotyledons and 10 were monocotyledons. Careful comparisons with the reference collection permitted the estimation that hares consumed about 63 plant species (58 plant species of the 162 examined microhistologically, and 5 more species which were not in the reference slide collection). The leaves and stems mostly eaten were from winter grasses (Avena sativa, Avena sp., Dasypyrum villosum, Bromus sterilis, Dactylis glomerata, Hordeum vulgare, Triticum aestivum, Lolium multiflorum), summer grasses (Echinochloa crus-galli, Eleusine indica, Paspalum distichum), and other grasses and forbs (Table 1). Significant quantities of Pyrus amygdaliformis fruits and seeds of cereals and other grasses were also observed (Table 1).
Table 1

Mean frequency of occurrence (F%) and percentage of hare stomachs containing a certain plant taxa ( n %)

Species or group of species

Dry season ( n= 26)

Wet season ( n= 22)

Total ( n= 48)

F%

n%

F%

n%

F%

n%

Monocotyledons

36.34

100

50.57

100

42.86

100

 Grasses

32.38

100

49.52

100

40.24

100

  Winter grasses

17.31

84.62

43.44

100

29.29

91.67

  Summer grasses

6.63

61.54

0.12

18.18

3.65

41.67

 Cynodon dactylon

2.12

53.85

3.49

81.82

2.75

66.67

   Brachypodium sp.

3.02

15.38

1.18

9.09

2.18

12.50

   Setaria sp.

1.94

15.38

  

1.05

8.33

   Cynosurus echinatus

0.35

15.38

1.03

18.18

0.66

16.67

   Sorgum halepense

0.19

23.08

  

0.10

12.50

  Unidentified grasses

0.82

46.15

0.26

18.18

0.56

33.33

 Other monocotyledons

3.96

38.46

1.05

27.27

2.62

33.30

   Cyperus rotundus

2.67

7.69

  

1.45

4.17

   Allium roseum

0.48

23.08

0.95

36.36

0.69

29.16

  Unidentified monocotyledon

0.81

7.69

0.1

9.09

0.48

8.33

Dicotyledons

36.29

100

43.4

90.91

39.55

95.80

Medicago sp.

  

20.24

45.45

9.28

20.83

Convolvulus arvensis

5.27

46.15

7.96

36.36

6.50

41.67

Amaranthus sp.

9.30

46.15

  

5.04

25.00

Urospermum picroides

2.76

7.69

0.92

9.09

1.92

8.33

 Brassicaceae

  

2.77

36.36

1.27

16.67

Malva sp.

0.63

7.69

0.82

18.18

0.72

12.50

 Cichoriaceae

1.37

23.08

  

0.74

12.50

Sonhcus sp.

  

1.49

9.09

0.68

4.17

Solanum nigrum

0.66

3.84

  

0.36

4.17

Verbascum sp.

0.50

7.69

0.219

18.18

0.37

 

Senecio vulgaris

0.33

3.84

1.05

27.27

0.66

 

Trifolium sp.

0.33

7.69

0.05

9.09

0.20

8.33

Vicia sp.

0.08

7.69

0.14

9.09

0.11

8.33

Ornithopus compressus

0.22

7.69

  

0.12

4.17

Anthemis arvensis

0.16

7.69

  

0.09

4.17

Daucus carota

  

0.18

9.09

0.08

4.17

Calendula arvensis

  

0.10

4.54

0.05

4.17

Oxalis pes-caprae

  

0.06

4.54

0.03

4.17

 Unidentified dicotyledon 1

0.11

3.84

0.05

4.54

0.08

8.33

 Unidentified dicotyledon 2

6.74

15.38

0.28

18.18

3.78

16.67

 Unidentified dicotyledon 3

1.07

23.07

  

0.58

12.50

 Unidentified dicotyledon 4

  

0.96

4.54

0.44

4.17

 Unidentified dicotyledon 5

0.75

23.07

0.33

4.54

0.55

16.67

 Unidentified dicotyledons

6.01

76.92

5.78

90.91

5.90

83.33

Fruits, seeds, and barks

25.91

92.31

5.54

81.82

16.57

87.50

Pyrus amygdaliformis

4.56

15.38

1.72

18.18

3.26

16.67

Vitis vinifera

2.70

7.69

  

1.46

4.17

Olea europaea

0.27

7.69

  

0.15

4.17

 Unidentified dicotyledons

8.47

76.92

3.30

63.64

6.10

70.83

 Grasses

9.91

38.46

  

5.37

20.83

Unidentified

1.47

69.23

0.49

18.18

1.02

45.83

 Taxa number

29

27

36

 Mean ± SE of taxa number

7.07 ± 0.4

6.54 ± 0.54

6.83 ± 0.33

 H΄

1.247

0.86

1.188

 Mean ± SE of H΄

0.68 ± 0.023

0.56 ± 0.048

0.63 ± 0.027

 B

12.84

4.1

8.46

 Mean ± SE of B

3.76 ± 0.19

3.03 ± 0.31

3.42 ± 0.18

 BA

0.36

0.106

0.186

 Mean ± SE of BA

0.34 ± 0.017

0.27 ± 0.027

0.31 ± 0.016

 B΄

0.177

0.076

-a

 Mean ± SE of B΄

0.136 ± 0.032

0.114 ± 0.025

0.126 ± 0.021

Mean frequency of occurrence (F%) and percentage of hare stomachs containing a certain plant taxa (n%) in the dry and wet seasons. Diversity and food niche breadth indices were calculated according to the mean frequencies of occurrence. Hurlbert’s niche breadth (B΄) was applied only to herbs.

aB΄ was not calculated for the pooled data, due to the difference of availability of herb species between the two seasons.

The most common plant species found between hares (above 25% of specimens) were winter grasses, Cynodon dactylon, Convolvulus arvensis, summer grasses, Allium roseum, and Amaranthus sp. Overall diversity in the diet was higher in the dry season (29 taxa and H΄ = 1.247) than in the wet season (27 taxa and H΄ = 0.87). Similarly, the overall dietary breadth indices were higher in the dry season (Table 1).

The number of plant taxa consumed by each individual animal does not differ with season, age or sex (p > 0.176). However, diversity in diet H΄ and dietary breadth indices B and BA were higher in dry than wet seasons (p < 0.046), higher in juveniles than adults in the dry season (p < 0.014), and higher in adults than juveniles in the wet season (p < 0.05). Hurlbert’s niche breadth (B΄) was used only for herbs (monocotyledons and dicotyledons) and did not reveal any significant differences concerning season, age, or sex (p > 0.101).

In the dry season, monocotyledons and dicotyledons have similar abundances in diets followed by fruits, seeds, and barks (Table 2). In the wet season, hares ate more monocotyledons. In the dry season, juveniles ate more dicotyledons than adults (F1,25 = 11.9, p = 0.002), and the adults ate more fruits and seeds (F1,25 = 11.9, p = 0.0001). Stomach content dry weight was higher in the dry season, in adults and females, but the difference was significant only for season (U test, p = 0.021).
Table 2

Mean ± SE of frequency of occurrence (F%) for the main food categories

Hare groups

Monocotyledons

Dicotyledons

Fruits, seeds, and barks

Stomach content dry weight

Dry

    

 Sex

    

 Males

35.37 ± 4.1

46.5 ± 8.5

15.56 ± 7.6

13.8 ± 3.03

 Females

36.97 ± 5.4

29.9 ± 5

32.36 ± 4

19.1 ± 2.3

 Age

    

 Juveniles

38.2 ± 4.9

49.3 ± 5.6c

10.2 ± 3.08e

14.8 ± 2.03*

 Adults

34.2 ± 4.1

21.1 ± 5d

44.21 ± 3.55f

19.6 ± 2.75

Total

36.36 ± 3.2a

36.27 ± 4.7

25.9 ± 4.1g

17.8 ± 1.93i

Wet

    

 Sex

    

 Males

36.5 ± 7.7

59.52 ± 6.8

2.4 ± 0.065

9.75 ± 0.43

 Females

56.3 ± 5.4

37.8 ± 5.7

5.6 ± 1.13

12.78 ± 0.92

 Age

    

 Juveniles

52.6 ± 10.8

41.9 ± 11.7

5.51 ± 1.5

10.25 ± 1.29

 Adults

49.8 ± 5.7

44.6 ± 5.85

4.73 ± 1.3

13.36 ± 0.9

Total

50.85 ± 5.2b

43.6 ± 5.5

5 ± 0.96h

12.23 ± 0.8j

Mean ± SE of frequency of occurrence (F%) for the main food categories in the diet of 48 examined hares, and stomach content dry weight (g) per season, age, and sex.

*Two leverets were excluded from the stomach content dry weight analysis as their stomachs contained milk.

In each column, the paired letters (ab, cd, ef, gh, ij) indicate significant differences at the 0.05 level.

The results of the Bray-Curtis method for the diet of the hares according to the seasons, ages, and sexes can be seen in Figure 1. Juveniles of the dry season had the lowest similarity values in diet when compared to the other groups. Adult females of the dry season begin the consumption of winter grasses and cereals earlier and thus increase the similarity with wet season groups.
Figure 1

Dendrogram of Bray-Curtis percentage similarities for the diet composition (categories Wet juv. mal. and Dry ad. mal. were not included in sample). Juveniles of dry season had the lowest similarity values.

The ANOSIM two-way crossed analysis found a significant difference in the dietary composition between seasons (Global R = 0.299, p = 0.002) and a marginal difference between ages (Global R = 0.158, p = 0.054). The dietary composition between sexes was not significantly different (Global R = 0.183, p = 0.098). The SIMPER analysis showed that the dissimilarity in diet between dry and wet seasons was a result of an increased prevalence of winter grasses and Medicago sp. in wet season and a decreased prevalence of seeds of grasses and cereals, C. arvensis, Amaranthus sp., and fruits of Pyrus amygdaliformis in comparison with the dry season. In the case of ages, the dissimilarity was caused by the higher consumption by adults of winter grasses, seeds, and fruits of Pyrus amygdaliformis and a lower consumption of Amaranthus sp. and summer grasses in comparison with juveniles.

Discussion

According to Holechek (1982), the microhistological analysis gives satisfactory results. However, one weakness is the differential fragmentation and digestion between plant species which influences the frequencies of occurrence. Thus, it is possible to observe an overestimation of grasses (McInnis et al. 1983). This was one of the reasons that stomach analysis was preferred over fecal analysis, as it is considered a more accurate method of determining the diet of herbivores, although Homolka (1986) did not find significant differences. However, if hares consume a considerable amount of seed and fruits, then diet is better studied using stomach contents (Green et al. 2013).

In many stomachs, a considerable amount of large food pieces by fruits and seeds were observed. Separating and dry weighting fruit and seed content permitted a more accurate estimation of their consumption. This may explain the reason why a higher percentage of fruit and seed in diet of hare in the dry season was found compared to other studies in Mediterranean (Sfougaris et al. 2006; Paupério and Alves 2008; Kontsiotis et al. 2011).

Diet analysis revealed that hares in the study area consume mainly wild plant species (except cereals and grapes). Many studies have revealed that hares that feed in farmlands prefer wild herbs over cultivated plants (Brüll 1976; Frylestam 1986; Reichlin et al. 2006). The mosaic landscape permits hares to access many wild plant species, so any impact to agricultural production is limited at this period. Moreover, farming contributes to the enrichment of a hare’s diet with plants such as C. arvensis and Amaranthus spp. These plant species can be found growing within the irrigated crops such as watermelon. Grapes from the vineyards were also consumed. In one pregnant adult female’s stomach, large pieces of grapes (6 g dry weight) were found, and these comprised 20.7% of the total dry weight of the stomach content.

The number of identified plant taxa per stomach was 6.8 and was higher than in a study in Denmark where the mean number of plant taxa found in each stomach was 3 (Hansen 1996). This information is not provided by other authors. Although we examined a smaller number of hare stomachs in comparison with other studies in more northern European farmlands (Frylestam 1986; Hansen 1996; Reichlin et al. 2006; Katona et al. 2010), we found a higher number of plant species eaten by hares. In comparison with studies carried out in the Mediterranean, we found more plant taxa than Karmiris and Nastis (2010) in their small shrubland study area (300 ha). On the contrary, Sfougaris et al. (2006) and Kontsiotis et al. (2011) found a remarkably higher number of identified plant taxa when examining the autumn and winter diet of 318 and 217 hares, respectively. However, these hares were collected from broad geographical, mainly upland, study areas of thousands of km2. The larger number of plant taxa they recorded is probably caused by the larger number of hares examined and the larger study areas, as the standardized Levins’ niche dietary breadth index (BA) calculated by Kontsiotis et al. (2011) was lower than that of this study. The Shannon-Wiener function (H΄) calculated in this study was approximately two times higher than that of studies conducted in continental climates (Puig et al. 2007; Katona et al. 2010), whereas it was similar with that of other studies conducted in the Mediterranean (Karmiris and Nastis 2010; Kontsiotis et al. 2011).

Grasses (Poaceae) constituted the bulk of the diet, and similar results were found in continental Europe (e.g., Katona et al. 2010) and mountainous and shrubland areas in the Mediterranean. In our farmland study area, grasses (leaves and stems) accounted for 40.24% of the diet and seeds of grasses accounted for 5.37%. Sfougaris et al. (2006) refer a total percentage of 36% of grasses in examined stomachs. Kontsiotis et al. (2011) refer that in examined stomachs, leaves and stems accounted for 24% of the diet and seeds accounted for 2.1%. In two studies where feces were examined (Paupério and Alves 2008; Karmiris and Nastis 2010), a considerably higher total percentage of grasses was found, about 65%.

In this study, a higher percentage of grass seeds (5.37%) was found to be eaten during the dry period. This is probably due to the cereal stubble fields present in the study area and the applied method of separating large food pieces. Indeed, one hare stomach contained a huge piece of starch (16 g dry weight) by grass seeds that comprised 40.5% of the total dry weight of the stomach content. A high percentage of grass seeds (9%) was also found in stomachs examined by Katona et al. (2010).

Hares adapt their diet according to vegetation in each season. ANOSIM analysis indicated that the diet composition between the two seasons differs significantly, and SIMPER analysis showed that seeds, fruits, C. arvensis, and Amaranthus spp. consumed in the dry season were replaced by winter grasses and Medicago spp. in the wet season. Higher consumption of grasses in winter has been found in continental Europe (e.g., Reichlin et al. 2006), whereas in year-round studies in Mediterranean mountainous and shrubland areas, the consumption of grasses was also found to increase slightly in winter (Paupério and Alves 2008; Karmiris and Nastis 2010).

Foraging theory refers an expansion of diet breadth (Pianka 2000) and an increase in food consumption (Sinclair et al. 1982; Rogers and Sinclair 1997) when the availability of nutritious food decreases. Similarly, diet breadth may be dependent on the distribution of preferred plant species in space. When few preferred plant species are available in sufficient quantity and distributed evenly in space, herbivores do not need to search and to consume more plant species (Stephens and Krebs 1986; Shipley et al. 2009). In this study, an expansion of diet breadth in the dry season was found, mainly due to the consumption of seeds and fruits. Moreover, stomach content dry weight was higher in the dry than in the wet season, indicating an increase in food consumption. These two events are indications of the nutritional reduction of herbaceous plants at the end of the dry season. Indeed, most herbs are in a mature stage in the end of the dry season, something that decreases their forage quality. Simultaneously, fruits of woody plants ripen, and seeds of many grasses and cereals provide nutritious food.

Moreover, in our study area, hare food resources are patchier during the dry season than in the wet season where grasses, the main food source, grow abundantly throughout the study area after the rains. In the dry season, cereal fields, fruit trees, vineyards, and irrigated crops are all potential feeding grounds and each contains different plant species. It is assumed that each individual hare cannot visit all these feeding grounds in one night. Therefore, dietary niche breadth expands further in the dry season in comparison with the wet season but only when overall values are compared and not the mean values of individual hares (70.5% overall diet expansion vs. 20.6% diet expansion of mean individuals, according to BA in Table 1).

The expansion of diet breadth to include woody plants has previously been found for hare in colder climates, when the ground is covered by snow and herbaceous vegetation availability is decreased (Rödel et al. 2004; Green et al. 2013). We found evidence that a similar diet breadth expansion occurs in Mediterranean climates during the warm and dry seasons, but in this case, the limiting factor is the drought that decreases the foraging quality of herbs. Indeed, the improved diet of hares following the rainy season may be reflected in reproduction rates. Until the end of October, none of the females collected were pregnant, whereas at the end of autumn, after the rains, 50% of the collected females were pregnant and during the winter this number increased to 85%. A similar pattern was found in Crete by Antoniou et al. (2008).

Comparison of dietary parameters between age and sex classes is possible due to the relatively small study area considered, the similar landscape mosaic and vegetation across the study area, and the ability of hares to disperse more than 500 m each night to find their preferred food (Homolka 1985; Kuijper and Bakker 2008) and to cover a nocturnal distance ranging between 1.39 and 6.02 km within their home range (Pepin and Cargnelutti 1994). A higher diversity in diet H΄ and dietary breadth was found in juveniles than in adults in the dry season. Juveniles ate more dicotyledons than adults, and the adults ate more fruits and seeds. This indicates that juveniles cannot exploit all available food resources such as fruits and seeds. A reason may be is that fruits and seeds have more limited and patchy distributions. This is expected as juveniles have less knowledge of resource distribution (Gillingham and Bunnell 1989; Dahl 2005; Shipley et al. 2009) and, in some cases, are excluded by dominant hares (Lindlof 1978; Monaghan and Metcalfe 1985). The opposite seems to hold in the wet season when juveniles consume mainly nutritious and abundant winter grasses and have a narrower niche breadth than adults.

A second reason for fruit avoidance by juveniles may be because of the high concentration of secondary compounds contained in fruits (Jordano 2000). Iason and Waterman (1988) found that reproductively active females and leverets of Lepus timidus ate smaller proportions of heather Calluna vulgaris, than non-reproducing females and males, due to secondary compounds contained in this plant. However, in this study no differences were found between the sexes. Similarly, Homolka (1987) found no significant difference in diet composition between males and females.

Demeter and Matrai (1988) did not find differences in stomach content weights according to sex and age in Hungary, although Eley (1970) did find higher weights of female cape hares (Lepus capensis) than males. In this study, higher stomach content weights of adults and females were found, but they were not statistically significant. More female specimens collected in the wet season were pregnant and their higher energy requirements may force them to higher consumption (Hackländer et al. 2002).

The high plant diversity recorded in the area studied allows the examination of how specialist or generalist in diet the hare can be. Mammalian herbivores are classified as specialists if at least 60% of their diet consists of a single, distinctive plant genus or family (Shipley et al. 2009). In this study, the highest percentage of one single family was 49.52%, the Poaceae, during the winter. Therefore, the grasses, even when their availability and palatability is high, do not render the hare as a specialist. However, in other studies, the hare behaves as a specialist on grasses consuming more than 60% (Hansen 1996; Katona et al. 2010). According to (Shipley et al. 2009), the hare could be characterized as a facultative generalist as it is able to survive with a restricted diet breadth but prefers a broad dietary niche when the plant diversity is available.

Conclusions

The hare found to be a facultative generalist herbivore that adapts its diet to the seasonal vegetation changes. From a partial herbivory, frugivory, and granivory diet during the dry period, hares turn to primary herbivory during the wet period thus seeming to confirm the foraging theory for expansion of diet breadth and increase in food consumption when the availability of nutritious food decreases in the dry season due to the dying down of herbs. Therefore, in Mediterranean ecosystems, the seeds, fruits, and grapes are important additions to the diet. Stomach diet analysis seems to be more accurate in cases of frugivory and granivory than feces analysis, but additional studies are required to confirm this. During the wet season, hares probably feed on higher quality forage, and this factor appears to regulate reproduction rates; again, future studies should confirm this in Mediterranean lowland areas. Farming contributes to the enrichment of hares’ diet, with cereals and grapes and other plant species that can be found growing within irrigated summer crops. Results suggest that during the dry period juveniles cannot exploit all the available food resources, such as fruits and seeds, as effectively as adults.

Declarations

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Laboratory of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries, School of Forestry and Natural Environment, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
(2)
Research Division, Hunting Federation of Macedonia and Thrace, Ethnikis

References

  1. Antoniou A, Kotoulas G, Magoulas A, Alves PC (2008) Evidence of autumn reproduction in female European hares (Lepus europaeus) from southern Europe. Eur J Wildl Res 54:581–587View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Antoniou A, Magoulas A, Platis P, Kotoulas G (2013) Assessing the genetic landscape of a contact zone: the case of European hare in northeastern Greece. Genetica 141:1–18View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Avril A, Leonard Y, Letty J, Peroux R, Guitton J-S, Pontier D (2011) Natal dispersal of European hare in a high-density population. Mam Biol 76:148–156Google Scholar
  4. Baumgartner LL, Martin AC (1939) Plant histology as an aid in squirrel food habits studies. J Wildl Manage 3:266–268View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Blondel J, Aronson J, Bodiou JY, Boeuf G (2010) The Mediterranean Region, Biological diversity in space and time. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  6. Brüll V (1976) Nahrungsbiologishe Studien am Feldhasen in Schleswig - Holstein. In: Proceedings of the Poznan Symposium on the Ecology and Management of European hare populations. Ein Beitrag zu Äsungsverbesserung, Poland, p 1974Google Scholar
  7. Chapuis JL (1990) Comparison of the diets of two sympatric lagomorphs, Lepus europaeus (Pallas) and Oryctolagus cuniculus (L.) in an agroecosystem of the Ile-de-France. Z Säugetierkd 55:176–185Google Scholar
  8. Clarke KR, Warwick RM (1994) Change in Marine Communities: an Approach to Statistical Analysis and Interpretation. Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Plymouth, UKGoogle Scholar
  9. Dafis S (1973) Classification of vegetation in Greece, School of Forestry and Natural Environment. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, ThessalonikiGoogle Scholar
  10. Dahl F (2005) Distinct seasonal habitat selection by annually sedentary mountain hares (Lepus timidus) in the boreal forest of Sweden. Eur J Wildl Res 51:163–169View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Delibes-Mateos M, Farfan MA, Olivero J, Marquez AL, Vargas JM (2009) Long-term changes in game species over a long period of transformation in the Iberian Mediterranean landscape. Environ Manage 43:1256–1268View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Demeter E, Matrai K (1988) Foods of the brown hare in a large scale cultivated plain area during November. Vadbiologia 2:85–90Google Scholar
  13. Eley J (1970) Stomach contents, weights and volumes of cape hare. E Afr Wildl J 8:270View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Frylestam B (1986) Agricultural land effects on the winter diet of brown hares (L. europaeus Pallas) in Southern Sweden. Mammal Rev 16:157–161View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Gillingham MP, Bunnell FL (1989) Effects of learning on food selection and searching behaviour of deer. Can J Zool 67:24–32View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Green K, Davis NE, Robinson WA, McAuliffe J, Good RB (2013) Diet selection by European hares (Lepus europaeus) in the alpine zone of the Snowy Mountains, Australia. Eur J Wildl Res 59:693–703View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Hackländer K, Tataruch F, Ruf T (2002) The effect of diet quality on lactation energetics in the European hare (Lepus europaeus). Physiol Biochem Zool 75:19–28View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Hansen K (1996) Impact of modern farming on food supply of hares (Lepus Europaeus, Pallas) during the summer period. In: Proceedings of the I European Congress of Mammalogy. Lisboa: Museu Nacional de Historia Natural, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  19. Holechek JL, Gross BD (1982a) Evaluation of different calculation procedures for microhistological analysis. J Range Manage 35:721–723View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Holechek JL, Gross BD (1982b) Training needed for quantifying simulated diets from fragmented range plants. J Range Manage 35:644–647View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Holechek JL (1982) Sample preparation techniques for microhistological analysis. J Range Manage 35:267–268View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Homolka M (1985) Spatial activity of hares (Lepus europaeus). Fol Zool 34:217–226Google Scholar
  23. Homolka M (1986) Comparison of two methods applied to study the food of Lepus europaeus. Fol Zool 35:199–206Google Scholar
  24. Homolka M (1987) Problems associated with investigations into the diet of the European hare. Fol Zool 36:193–202Google Scholar
  25. Hulbert IA, Iason GR (1996) The possible effects of landscape change on diet composition and body weight of mountain hares Lepus timidus. Wildl Biol 2:269–273Google Scholar
  26. Iason GR, Waterman PG (1988) Avoidance of plant phenolics by juvenile and reproducing female mountain hares in summer. Funct Ecol 2:433–440View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Izhaki I, Ne’eman G (1997) Hares (Lepus spp.) as seed dispersers of Retama raetam (Fabaceae) in a sandy landscape. J Arid Environ 37:343–354View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Jordano P (2000) Fruits and frugivory. In: Fenner M (ed) Seeds: the Ecology of Regeneration in Natural Plant Communities. Commonwealth Agric. Bur. Intl, Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
  29. Karmiris IE, Nastis AS (2010) Diet overlap between small ruminants and the European hare in a Mediterranean shrubland. Cent Eur J Biol 5:729–737View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Katona K, Biro ZS, Szemethy L, Demeš T, Nyeste M (2010) Spatial, temporal and individual variability in the autumn diet of European hare (Lepus europaeus). Acta Zool Acad Sci Hung 56:89–101Google Scholar
  31. Kontsiotis VJ, Tsiompanoudis A, Bakaloudis DE (2011) The influence of habitat structure on the European brown hare Lepus europaeus food habits in mountainous areas of Northern Greece. Mammalia 75:389–394View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Krebs CJ (1999) Ecological Methodology, 2nd edn. Addison-Welsey Educational Publishers Inc., Menlo Park, CAGoogle Scholar
  33. Kuijper DPJ, Bakker JP (2008) Unpreferred plants affect patch choice and spatial distribution of European brown hares. Acta Oecol 34:339–344View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Lindlof B (1978) Aggressive dominance rank in relation to feeding by European hare. Viltrevy 10:146–157Google Scholar
  35. Litvaitis JA (1990) Differential habitat use by sexes of snowshoe hares (Lepus americanus). J Mammal 71:520–523View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. McAleece N, Gage JDG, Lambshead PJD, Paterson GLJ (1997) BioDiversity Professional Statistics Analysis Software. Jointly developed by the Scottish Association for Marine Science and the Natural History. Museum, LondonGoogle Scholar
  37. McInnis ML, Vavra M, Krueger WC (1983) A comparison of four methods used to determine the diets of large herbivores. J Range Manage 36:302–306View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Monaghan P, Metcalfe NB (1985) Group foraging in wild brown hares: effects of resource distribution and social status. Anim Behav 33:993–999View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Paupério J, Alves PC (2008) Diet of the Iberian hare (Lepus granatensis) in a mountain ecosystem. Eur J Wildl Res 54:571–579View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Pepin D, Cargnelutti B (1994) Individual variations of daily activity patterns in radiotracked European hares during winter. Acta Theriol 39:399–409View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Pianka ER (2000) Evolutionary Ecology, 6th edn. Benjamin-Cummings, Addison-Wesley-Longman, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  42. Puig S, Videla F, Cona MI, Monge SA (2007) Diet of the brown hare (Lepus europaeus) and food availability in northern Patagonia (Mendoza, Argentina). Mamm Biol 72:240–250Google Scholar
  43. Reichlin T, Klansek E, Hackländer K (2006) Diet selection by hares (Lepus europaeus) in arable land and its implications for habitat management. Eur J Wildl Res 52:109–118View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  44. Rödel HG, Völkl W, Kilias H (2004) Winter browsing of brown hares: evidence for diet breadth expansion. Mamm Biol 69:410–419Google Scholar
  45. Rogers AR, Sinclair ARE (1997) Diet choice and nutrition of captive snowshoe hares (Lepus americanus): interactions of energy, protein, and plant secondary compounds. Ecoscience 4:163–169Google Scholar
  46. Rueda M, Rebollo S, Gálvez-Bravo L, Escudero A (2008) Habitat use by large and small herbivores in a fluctuating Mediterranean ecosystem: implications of seasonal changes. J Arid Environ 72:1698–1708View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  47. Sfougaris A, Toulia S, Giannakopoulos A (2006) Botanical composition of the diet of the hare (Lepus Europaeus) in the Thessaly, Greece. In: Proceedings of the 4th Pan-Hellenic Rangelands Conference. Hellenic Society for Range and Pasture Management, Volos, Hellas, 10–12 November 2004Google Scholar
  48. Shipley LA, Forbey JS, Moore BD (2009) Revisiting the dietary niche: when is a mammalian herbivore a specialist? Integr Comp Biol 49:274–290View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Sinclair ARE, Krebs CJ, Smith JNM (1982) Diet quality and food limitation in herbivores: the case of the snowshoe hare. Can J Zool 60:889–897View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  50. Sokos C, Andreadis K (2000) Elements of Ecology and Biology of the Brown Hare (Lepus Europaeus) in NW Peloponnese with Emphasis on the Impact of Farming on the Composition of Food. Dissertation, School of Forestry and Natural Environment, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, GreeceGoogle Scholar
  51. Sokos C, Mamolos AP, Kalburtji KL, Birtsas PK (2012) Farming and wildlife in Mediterranean agroecosystems. J Nat Conserv 21:81–92View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  52. Sokos C, Skordas K, Birtsas P (2003) Valuation of hunting and management of brown hare (Lepus Europaeus) in rangelands. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Pan-Hellenic Rangelands Conference. Hellenic Society for Range and Pasture Management, Karpenissi, Hellas, 4–6 September 2002Google Scholar
  53. Sparks DR, Malechek JC (1968) Estimating percentage dry weight in diets using a microscopic technique. J Range Manage 21:264–265View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  54. Stephens DW, Krebs JR (1986) Foraging Theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  55. Suchentrunk F, Willing R, Hartl GB (1991) On eye lens weights and other age criteria of the brown hare (Lepus europaeus Pallas 1778). Z Säugetierkd 56:365–374Google Scholar
  56. Westoby M, Rest GR, Web JA (1976) Problems with estimating herbivore diets by microscopically identifying plant fragments from stomachs. J Mammal 57:167–172View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  57. Zaccaroni M, Biliotti N, Buccianti A, Calieri S, Ferretti M, Genghini M, Riga F, Trocchi V, Dessì-Fulgheri F (2013) Winter locomotor activity patterns of European hares (Lepus europaeus). Mammal Biol 78(6):482–485Google Scholar
  58. Zar JH (1996) Biostatistical Analysis. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New JerseyGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Sokos et al.; licensee Springer. 2015

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited.