Find research datasets worth reusing

Search datasets from major research repositories and use ShareScore to quickly assess how well each record supports discovery, access, and reuse.

159

datasets available to search

ShareScore release 0.9.0

Dataset results

159 results for “Vulpes”

Learn how ShareScore rates datasets ↗

zenodo32/100

Subspecies and Distribution. V. v. vulpes Linnaeus, 1758 — N Europe (Scandinavia). V. v. abietorum Merriam, 1900 — SW Canada (Alberta & British Columbia). V. v. aegyptiacus Sonnini, 1816 — Egypt, Israel, and Lybia. V. v. alascensis Merriam, 1900 — Alaska and NW Canada (NW Territories & Yukon). V. v. alpheraky: Satunin, 1906 — Kazakhstan. V. v. anatolica Thomas, 1920 — Turkey. V. v. arabica Thomas, 1902 — Arabian peninsula. V. v. atlantica Wagner, 1841 — Algeria (forested Atlas Mts). V. v. bangsi Merriam, 1900 — NE Canada (Labrador). V. v. barbara Shaw, 1800 — NW Africa (Barbary Coast). V. v. beringiana Middendorff, 1875 — NE Siberia (shore of Bering Strait). V. v. cascadensis Merriam, 1900 — NW USA (Cascade Mountains, Oregon & Washington). V. v. caucasica Dinnik, 1914 — SW Russia (Caucasus). V. v. crucigera Bechstein, 1789 — Europe through N & C Russia. V. v. daurica Ognev, 1931 — E Russia (Amur, Siberia & Transbaikalia). V.v. deletrix Bangs, 1898 — NE Canada (Newfoundland). V. v. dolichocrania Ognev, 1926 — SE Siberia (S Ussuri). V. v. flavescens Gray, 1843 — N Iran. V. v. fulva Desmarest, 1820 — E USA. V. v. griffith: Blyth, 1854 — Afghanistan and N Pakistan. V.v. harrimani Merriam, 1900 — Alaska (Kodiak I). V. v. hoole Swinhoe, 1870 — S China (Fujian to Sichuan). V. v. ichnusae G. S. Miller, 1907 — Corsica and Sardinia. V. v. induta G. S. Miller, 1907 — Cyprus. V. v. jakutensis Ognev, 1923 — E Siberia (S of Yakutsk). V. v. japonica Gray, 1868 — Japan. V. v. karagan Erxleben, 1777 — Mongolia, Kazakhstan, and Kirgizstan. V. v. kenaiensis Merriam, 1900 — Alaska (Kenai Peninsula). V. v. kurdistanica Satunin, 1906 — Armenia and NE Turkey. V. v. macroura Baird, 1852 — USA (Mountain States). V. v. montana Pearson, 1836 — Himalayas form China (Yunnan) to C Pakistan. V. v. mecator Merriam, 1900 — SW USA (California & Nevada). V. v. ochroxantha Ognev, 1926 — E Russian Turkestan, Aksai, Kirgizstan, Semirechie. V. v. palaestina Thomas, 1920 —Jordan and Lebanon. V.v. peculiosa Kishida, 1924 — Korea. V. v. pusilla Blyth, 1854 — NW India to Irak. V.v. regalis Merriam, 1900 — N Great Plains of Canada and USA. V. v. rubricosa Bangs, 1898 — E Canada. V.v. schrencki Kishida, 1924 — N Japan (Hokkaido) and NE Russia (Sakhalin). V. v. silacea G. S. Miller, 1907 — Iberian Peninsula. V.v. splendidissima Kishida, 1924 — E Russia (N & C Kurile Is). V. v. stepensis Brauner, 1914 — steppes of S Russia. V. v. tobolica Ognev, 1926 — Russia (lower basin of Ob River) V. v. tschiliensis Matschie, 1907 — NE China. Foxes of European origin were introduced into E USA and Canada in the 17" century, subsequently mixed with local subspecies. Also introduced to Australia in 1800s, and the Falkland Islands (Malvinas). in Canidae

Subspecies and Distribution. V. v. vulpes Linnaeus, 1758 — N Europe (Scandinavia). V. v. abietorum Merriam, 1900 — SW Canada (Alberta & British Columbia). V. v. aegyptiacus Sonnini, 1816 — Egypt, Israel, and Lybia. V. v. alascensis Merriam, 1900 — Alaska and NW Canada (NW Territories & Yukon). V. v. alpheraky: Satunin, 1906 — Kazakhstan. V. v. anatolica Thomas, 1920 — Turkey. V. v. arabica Thomas, 1902 — Arabian peninsula. V. v. atlantica Wagner, 1841 — Algeria (forested Atlas Mts). V. v. bangsi Merriam, 1900 — NE Canada (Labrador). V. v. barbara Shaw, 1800 — NW Africa (Barbary Coast). V. v. beringiana Middendorff, 1875 — NE Siberia (shore of Bering Strait). V. v. cascadensis Merriam, 1900 — NW USA (Cascade Mountains, Oregon & Washington). V. v. caucasica Dinnik, 1914 — SW Russia (Caucasus). V. v. crucigera Bechstein, 1789 — Europe through N & C Russia. V. v. daurica Ognev, 1931 — E Russia (Amur, Siberia & Transbaikalia). V.v. deletrix Bangs, 1898 — NE Canada (Newfoundland). V. v. dolichocrania Ognev, 1926 — SE Siberia (S Ussuri). V. v. flavescens Gray, 1843 — N Iran. V. v. fulva Desmarest, 1820 — E USA. V. v. griffith: Blyth, 1854 — Afghanistan and N Pakistan. V.v. harrimani Merriam, 1900 — Alaska (Kodiak I). V. v. hoole Swinhoe, 1870 — S China (Fujian to Sichuan). V. v. ichnusae G. S. Miller, 1907 — Corsica and Sardinia. V. v. induta G. S. Miller, 1907 — Cyprus. V. v. jakutensis Ognev, 1923 — E Siberia (S of Yakutsk). V. v. japonica Gray, 1868 — Japan. V. v. karagan Erxleben, 1777 — Mongolia, Kazakhstan, and Kirgizstan. V. v. kenaiensis Merriam, 1900 — Alaska (Kenai Peninsula). V. v. kurdistanica Satunin, 1906 — Armenia and NE Turkey. V. v. macroura Baird, 1852 — USA (Mountain States). V. v. montana Pearson, 1836 — Himalayas form China (Yunnan) to C Pakistan. V. v. mecator Merriam, 1900 — SW USA (California & Nevada). V. v. ochroxantha Ognev, 1926 — E Russian Turkestan, Aksai, Kirgizstan, Semirechie. V. v. palaestina Thomas, 1920 —Jordan and Lebanon. V.v. peculiosa Kishida, 1924 — Korea. V. v. pusilla Blyth, 1854 — NW India to Irak. V.v. regalis Merriam, 1900 — N Great Plains of Canada and USA. V. v. rubricosa Bangs, 1898 — E Canada. V.v. schrencki Kishida, 1924 — N Japan (Hokkaido) and NE Russia (Sakhalin). V. v. silacea G. S. Miller, 1907 — Iberian Peninsula. V.v. splendidissima Kishida, 1924 — E Russia (N & C Kurile Is). V. v. stepensis Brauner, 1914 — steppes of S Russia. V. v. tobolica Ognev, 1926 — Russia (lower basin of Ob River) V. v. tschiliensis Matschie, 1907 — NE China. Foxes of European origin were introduced into E USA and Canada in the 17" century, subsequently mixed with local subspecies. Also introduced to Australia in 1800s, and the Falkland Islands (Malvinas).

opennotspecifiedJan 2009View details →

zenodo32/100

On following pages: 24. Arctic Fox (Alopex lagopus); 25. Swift Fox (Vulpes velox); 26. Kit Fox (Vulpes macrotis). in Canidae

On following pages: 24. Arctic Fox (Alopex lagopus); 25. Swift Fox (Vulpes velox); 26. Kit Fox (Vulpes macrotis).

opennotspecifiedJan 2009View details →

dryad32/100

Data from: Variation in red fox Vulpes vulpes diet in five continents

Understanding variation in the diet of widely distributed species can help us to predict how they respond to future environmental and anthropogenic changes. We studied the diet of the red fox Vulpes vulpes, one of the world's most widely distributed carnivores. We compiled dietary data from 217 studies at 276 locations in five continents to assess how fox diet composition varied according to geographic location, climate, anthropogenic impact and sampling method. The diet of foxes showed substantial variation throughout the species' range, but with a general trend for small mammals and invertebrates to be the most frequently occurring dietary items. The incidence of small and large mammals and birds in fox diets was greater away from the equator. The incidence of invertebrates and fruits increased with mean elevation, while the occurrence of medium-sized mammals and birds decreased. Fox diet differed according to climatic and anthropogenic variables. Diet richness decreased with increasing temperature and precipitation. The incidence of small and large mammals decreased with increasing temperature. The incidence of birds and invertebrates decreased with increasing mean annual precipitation. Higher Human Footprint Index was associated with lower incidence of large mammals and higher incidence of birds and fruit in fox diet. Sampling method influenced fox diet estimation: estimated percentage of small and medium-sized mammals and fruit was lower in studies based on stomach contents, while large mammals were more likely to be recorded in studies of stomach contents than in studies of scats. Our study confirms the flexible and opportunistic dietary behaviour of foxes at the global scale. This behavioural trait allows them to thrive in a range of climatic conditions, and in areas with different degrees of human-induced habitat change. This knowledge can help place the results of local-scale fox diet studies into a broader context and to predict how foxes will respond to future environmental changes. <div></div>

opencc-zeroMay 2022View details →

zenodo32/100

Distribution. Now restricted to the Channel Country of SW Queensland and the Lake Eyre Basin in NE South Australia. Descriptive notes. Head-body 95-120 mm, tail 105-160 mm, ear 23-29 mm, hindfoot 32-37 mm; weight 30-50 g. The Fawn Hopping Mouse has body form typical of hopping mice, with very long hindfeet, long tail with distal brush of longer hairs, very long ears, and large protruberant eyes. Dorsal fur is of variable color, from pale pinkish fawn to gray; ventral fur white. Unlike most other hopping mice, it has no throat pouch, but males have a glandular area of naked skin on the chest. Habitat. Occurs in low shrublands and tussock grasslands on stony ("gibber") plains and claypans. Shows marked habitat segregation from the Dusky Hopping Mouse (N. fuscus), which is closely associated with sandy substrates. Food and Feeding. The Fawn Hopping Mouse is mostly granivorous, but also eats other plant material (stems, leaves) and occasionally invertebrates. It uses succulent, salt-adapted plants around edges of claypans as a source of water. Breeding. Reproduction is probably largely opportunistic and aseasonal, with high reproductive output from near-continuous breeding after periods of high rainfall; reported littersize is 1-5, most commonly three; gestation period 38-43 days for nonlactating females. Females may mature later than other hopping mice, with reproductive maturity reached at about six months. Activity patterns. Terrestrial and nocturnal. Fawn Hopping Mice shelter during day in burrow systems that are typically simpler and shallower than those of other hopping mice. Movements, Home range and Social organization. Fawn Hopping Mice generally live singly or in small groups; typically uncommon within range, but population density may increase by an order of magnitude following periods of high rainfall. Status and Conservation. Classified as Near Threatened on The IUCN Red List. The Fawn Hopping Mouse has shown marked decline in range (estimated at greater than 50%), and presumably population size, since European settlement of Australia. This is mostlikely due to predation by the introduced house cat and Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes), and to habitat degradation associated with pastoralism. Bibliography. Brazenor (1934), Burbidge et al. (2008), Finlayson (1939), Gould (1853), Jackson & Groves (2015), Murray et al. (1999), Ogilby (1892), Thomas (1921h), Van Dyck & Strahan (2008), Waite (1898), Watts & Aslin (1981), Woinarski et al. (2014), Wood Jones (1925). in Muridae

Distribution. Now restricted to the Channel Country of SW Queensland and the Lake Eyre Basin in NE South Australia. Descriptive notes. Head-body 95-120 mm, tail 105-160 mm, ear 23-29 mm, hindfoot 32-37 mm; weight 30-50 g. The Fawn Hopping Mouse has body form typical of hopping mice, with very long hindfeet, long tail with distal brush of longer hairs, very long ears, and large protruberant eyes. Dorsal fur is of variable color, from pale pinkish fawn to gray; ventral fur white. Unlike most other hopping mice, it has no throat pouch, but males have a glandular area of naked skin on the chest. Habitat. Occurs in low shrublands and tussock grasslands on stony ("gibber") plains and claypans. Shows marked habitat segregation from the Dusky Hopping Mouse (N. fuscus), which is closely associated with sandy substrates. Food and Feeding. The Fawn Hopping Mouse is mostly granivorous, but also eats other plant material (stems, leaves) and occasionally invertebrates. It uses succulent, salt-adapted plants around edges of claypans as a source of water. Breeding. Reproduction is probably largely opportunistic and aseasonal, with high reproductive output from near-continuous breeding after periods of high rainfall; reported littersize is 1-5, most commonly three; gestation period 38-43 days for nonlactating females. Females may mature later than other hopping mice, with reproductive maturity reached at about six months. Activity patterns. Terrestrial and nocturnal. Fawn Hopping Mice shelter during day in burrow systems that are typically simpler and shallower than those of other hopping mice. Movements, Home range and Social organization. Fawn Hopping Mice generally live singly or in small groups; typically uncommon within range, but population density may increase by an order of magnitude following periods of high rainfall. Status and Conservation. Classified as Near Threatened on The IUCN Red List. The Fawn Hopping Mouse has shown marked decline in range (estimated at greater than 50%), and presumably population size, since European settlement of Australia. This is mostlikely due to predation by the introduced house cat and Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes), and to habitat degradation associated with pastoralism. Bibliography. Brazenor (1934), Burbidge et al. (2008), Finlayson (1939), Gould (1853), Jackson & Groves (2015), Murray et al. (1999), Ogilby (1892), Thomas (1921h), Van Dyck & Strahan (2008), Waite (1898), Watts & Aslin (1981), Woinarski et al. (2014), Wood Jones (1925).

opennotspecifiedNov 2017View details →

zenodo32/100

Fig. 2 Mitochondrial haplotype network using the 590 in Differentiation of North African foxes and population genetic dynamics in the desert-insights into the evolutionary history of two sister taxa, Vulpes rueppellii and Vulpes vulpes

Fig. 2 Mitochondrial haplotype network using the 590-bp concatenated sequences from Cyt-b and D-loop and a total of 46 sequences (same as in Fig. 1, except for C. lupus not being used as an outgroup in the TCS network). a Neighbour-Net network based on uncorrected patristic distances as implemented in SPLITSTREE. Canis lupus (DQ480504) was used as an outgroup. Numbers indicate bootstrap values. Scale bar represents 0.01 sequence divergence. Highlighoed are the four species, the three V. vulpes clades and the location within the network of the V. vulpes sample from Egypt. Colour patterns are concordant with Fig. 1 and b. b Statistical parsimony network assuming a 95 % parsimony threshold, as constructed by TCS. Symbol size and branch lengths are proportional to the number of shared individuals per haplotype and the number of mutational steps amongst haplotypes, respectively. Numbers in black background also refer to the number of mutation steps between species and V. vulpes clades. Symbols and colours are concordant with Fig. 1 and a. Haplotype codes, sample origin and corresponding accession numbers are available in Online Resource Table S1

opennotspecifiedAug 2015View details →

zenodo32/100

Fig. 3 in Differentiation of North African foxes and population genetic dynamics in the desert-insights into the evolutionary history of two sister taxa, Vulpes rueppellii and Vulpes vulpes

Fig. 3 Population structure analyses of V. vulpes using 32 microsatellite loci analysed with STRUCTURE software. a STRUCTURE HARVESTER output. Mean values of likelihood [L(K)] on ohe lefo, and Delta K values using the Evanno method (Evanno et al. 2005) on ohe righo. b Structure bar plot of Bayesian assignment of 35 individuals to two (K =2, lefo graphic) and three clusters (K =3, righo graphic). Horizonoal bars represent individuals, while colours wiohin a bar represent probability of assignment of each individual to a cluster. Country of origin for each individual is indicated between each structure bar plots

opennotspecifiedAug 2015View details →

dryad32/100

Data from: The challenges of recognising individuals with few distinguishing features: identifying red foxes Vulpes vulpes from camera-trap photos

Over the last two decades, camera traps have revolutionised the ability of biologists to undertake faunal surveys and estimate population densities, although identifying individuals of species with subtle markings remains challenging. We conducted a two-year camera-trapping study as part of a long-term study of urban foxes: our objectives were to determine whether red foxes could be identified individually from camera-trap photos, and highlight camera-trapping protocols and techniques to facilitate photo identification of species with few or subtle natural markings. We collected circa 800,000 camera-trap photos over 4945 camera days in suburban gardens in the city of Bristol, UK: 152,134 (19 %) included foxes, of which 13,888 (9 %) contained more than one fox. These provided 174,063 timestamped capture records of individual foxes; 170,923 were of foxes ≥ 3 months old. Younger foxes were excluded because they have few distinguishing features. We identified the individual (192 different foxes: 110 males, 49 females, 33 of unknown sex) in 168,417 (99 %) of these capture records; the remainder could not be identified due to poor image quality or because key identifying feature(s) were not visible. We show that carefully designed survey techniques facilitate individual identification of subtly-marked species. Accuracy is enhanced by camera-trapping techniques that yield large numbers of high resolution, colour images from multiple angles taken under varying environmental conditions. While identifying foxes manually was labour-intensive, currently available automated identification systems are unlikely to achieve the same levels of accuracy, especially since different features were used to identify each fox, the features were often inconspicuous, and their appearance varied with environmental conditions. We discuss how studies based on low numbers of photos, or which fail to identify the individual in a significant proportion of photos, risk losing important biological information, and may come to erroneous conclusions.

opencc-zeroDec 2018View details →

dryad32/100