Hedgehogs on the move: Testing the effects of land use change on home range size and movement patterns of free-ranging Ethiopian hedgehogs
Hedgehogs on the move: Testing the effects of land use change on home range size and movement patterns of free-ranging Ethiopian hedgehogs
Mohammad A. Abu Baker 0 1
Nigel Reeve 1
April A. T. Conkey 1
David W. Macdonald 1
Nobuyuki Yamaguchi 0 1
0 Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Qatar University , Doha, Qatar, 2 Independent consultant, 2 Paxton Gardens, Woking , United Kingdom , 3 Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute and Department of Animal , Rangeland , & Wildlife Sciences, Texas A&M University ±Kingsville, Kingsville, Texas, United States of America, 4 Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Department of Zoology, The Recanati± Kaplan Centre, University of Oxford , Tubney House, Tubney, Oxford , United Kingdom
1 Editor: Danilo Russo, Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II , ITALY
Degradation and alteration of natural environments because of agriculture and other land uses have major consequences on vertebrate populations, particularly on spatial organization and movement patterns. We used GPS tracking to study the effect of land use and sex on the home range size and movement of a typical model species, the Ethiopian hedgehogs. We used free-ranging hedgehogs from two areas with different land use practices: 24 from an area dominated by irrigated farms (12 ♂♂, 12 ♀♀) and 22 from a natural desert environment within a biosphere reserve (12 ♂♂, 10 ♀♀). Animals were significantly heavier in the resource-rich irrigated farms area (417.71 ±12.77SE g) in comparison to the natural desert area (376.37±12.71SE g). Both habitat and sex significantly influenced the home range size of hedgehogs. Home ranges were larger in the reserve than in the farms area. Total home ranges averaged 103 ha (±17 SE) for males and 42 ha (±11SE) for females in the farms area, but were much larger in the reserve averaging 230 ha (±33 SE) for males and 150 ha (±29 SE) for females. The home ranges of individuals of both sexes overlapped. Although females were heavier than males, body weight had no effect on home range size. The results suggest that resources provided in the farms (e.g. food, water, and shelters) influenced animal density and space use. Females aggregated around high-resource areas (either farms or rawdhats), whereas males roamed over greater distances, likely in search of mating opportunities to maximize reproductive success. Most individual home ranges overlapped with many other individuals of either sex, suggesting a non-territorial, promiscuous mating. Patterns of space use and habitat utilization are key factors in shaping aspects of reproductive biology and mating system. To minimize the impacts of agriculture on local wildlife, we recommend that biodiversity-friendly agro-environmental schemes be introduced in the Middle East where the transformation from dry lands to `islands of fertility' is often extreme.
Data Availability Statement: All relevant data are
within the paper and its Supporting Information
Funding: This project was made possible by a
NPRP award (NPRP 5-083-1-019) to Nobuyuki
Yamaguchi from the Qatar National Research Fund
(a member of The Qatar Foundation).
Competing interests: The authors have declared
that no competing interests exist.
Anthropogenic land use practices and their influence on an organism's ecology is not only of
academic interest (e.g. influencing the outcome of interspecific competition) but also key for
wildlife conservation as land use change is often considered the greatest threat to terrestrial
1, 2, 3
]. In this context, it is crucial for ecologists and conservationists to
understand behavioral and ecological responses of organisms to different types of land use. However,
few empirical studies have investigated the responses of terrestrial mammals to changes in
land use through direct comparisons of behavioral parameters between areas with different
types of land use [
]. This lack of knowledge is most marked in arid environments, which
occupy approximately one third of the world's terrestrial area, yet, have been neglected in
terms of ecological and conservation studies of land use and its influence on local wildlife .
Throughout the Arabian Desert and Gulf Region, the `economic miracle' of oil and natural
gas extraction during the last few decades has triggered an extreme transformation of much of
the formerly barren desert into urban areas, small and large-scale agricultural farms, and
industrial developments [
]. In Qatar, where no permanent, surface fresh water source exist,
small-scale farming and livestock grazing was centered around low-land areas locally known
as `rawdhat' within which substantial quantities of water gather after rain events. During the
last few decades, many farms have been established around those rawdhats, where natural,
passive and seasonal irrigation has been replaced by modern artificial irrigation systems that
provides water all year round. This dramatic change in land use is expected to influence local
resource availability and distribution, which in turn is likely to influence the space use and
habitat selection of various wildlife inhabiting in the region . One hypothesis is that such
newly-created, productive landscape in the arid environment is expected to provide water and
other resources for local wildlife to flourish [
]. However, few studies have identified the
effects of agricultural and other anthropogenic practices on the ecology and behavior of
vertebrates in the Arabian deserts [
]. Qatar has recently experienced dramatic social and
physical changes through the rise in standards of living, a construction boom, and an increase in
population size. These changes were accompanied by significant industrialization and
development both locally, such as private farms and desert camps, and at a national level such as
highways and ports [
]. The country provides an excellent natural laboratory for investigating
the possible effects of changes in land use on local wildlife in an arid environment.
The Ethiopian hedgehog, Paraechinus aethiopicus is a small nocturnal insectivore that
inhabits the arid regions of North Africa, the Arabian Peninsula (including Qatar), and
Southwest Asia [
]. Yet, little is known about its ecology and behavior [
]. As a common
solitary mammal with apparently no territoriality, P. aethiopicus is a good model species to study
the influence of change in land use on mammalian space use in arid environments [
A home range defines the area traversed by an animal in its normal activities of foraging,
seeking shelter, mating and caring for young [
]. Determining this area and mapping its size
and shape, is one of the essential steps in understanding patterns of resource use with a
behavioral ecology perspective. Factors that influence home range size, such as land use practices,
resource distribution, habitat characteristics, and population density, need more investigation
19, 20, 21
]. Home range size and movement patterns are also critical for understanding the
factors behind the different reproductive strategies, mating systems, and social structures that
animals employ. Home range must be sufficient to provide not only an adequate food supply,
but also other requirements such as shelter and potential mates [
22, 23, 24
In this paper, we report on the differences in space use patterns by free-ranging Ethiopian hedgehogs within two study sites with contrasting land use practices: a nature reserve and an area dominated by agricultural farms. Specifically, we tested for sex and habitat-specific
2 / 18
differences in home range size and movement patterns. We used GPS telemetry to compare: 1.
home range sizes, 2. length of daily distance travelled, and 3. percent home range overlap for
male and female hedgehogs. We used the results to deduce the changes in behavior and
ecology of hedgehogs associated with recent changes in land use in arid environments.
Materials and methods
The study was conducted at two sites in northern Qatar (30 km apart) with different land use
practices: around Qatar University Farm (25Ê 48.4' N, 51Ê 20.8' E) and Rawdat Al Faras
Agricultural Research Station (25Ê 49.35' N, 51Ê 19.95' E) (hereafter farms area), and Al Reem
Biosphere Reserve (25Ê 53.8' N, 51Ê 03.00' E) (hereafter reserve area) from April to June of 2014
and 2015. The farms area consisted of c. 15 km2 of arid area including 11 active farms that
receive regular irrigation. Each farm is fenced and partitioned into agricultural fields with
asphalt roads. Plantations of date palm, olives, citrus, and other ornamental and windbreak
evergreen trees (e.g. eucalyptus and pine) are found in the farms (Fig 1). Arid plains surround
the farms with the surface predominantly covered by desert pavement with exposed loose
gravel. The vegetation included isolated short acacia trees with some ephemeral grass patches
emerging after the rains in cooler months (usually between November and March). The study
sites in the reserve covered an area of c. 15 km2 in the western part of the Al Reem Biosphere
Reserve (c. 1,190 km2) in the northwestern corner of Qatar. It is characterised by gravel plain
ecosystems interspersed with seasonal riverbeds (run-off wadis) and low-land areas locally
known as `rawdhat' or `marab', representing the typical pre-irrigation land use found in Qatar.
The area is degraded by overgrazing by camel and sheep and accommodates a suite of small
scale agricultural settlements and recreational winter camps [
]. The majority of the reserve
area is barren stone desert and rarely covered by vegetation, whilst the water run-off-systems
(wadis) and rawdhats provide vegetated bush to shrubby microsystems mainly of Astralagus
spinosus, Lycium shawii, and Vachellia (Acacia) tortilis that reach up to 2 m in height (Fig 1).
Hedgehogs were hand-captured during the night on linear transects along led roads within the
farms or dirt roads within the reserve, or accidentally captured while tracking tagged animals.
All animals were individually color-marked, sexed, and weighed. Population densities were
estimated using the total number of individual hedgehogs that were captured and marked
during the study (minimum number alive) within the defined search areas in each site. GPS tags
(8 GPS BUG and 12 GPS PinPoints, Biotrack Ltd., Wareham, UK) were glued to the spines on
the backs of 46 adult hedgehogs, 24 in the farms area (12 ♂♂, 12 ♀♀) and 22 in the reserve area
(12 ♂♂, 10 ♀♀) following the methods described in Warwick et al. (2006)  and Abu Baker
et al. (2016) [
] as shown in Fig 2. A small VHF Pip radio tag (Biotrack Ltd., Wareham, UK)
was attached to the GPS tag upon deployment to track the animals and retrieve the GPS tags
for data download. The combined weight of the tags averaged 10-12g (c. 2.5±3.5% of the
animals' weights). Animals were tagged in groups of 4±8 at a time within both sites
simultaneously and tracked using hand-held flexible three-element Yagi aerials and Sika receivers
(Biotrack Ltd., Wareham, UK) and captured 4±6 days after deployment to download the data
and recharge the GPS tag battery for further data collection whenever needed. The procedure
was approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, Qatar University
(reference number: QU-IACUC 008/2012). Permission to conduct the fieldwork in Al Reem
Biosphere Reserve was obtained from the General Directorate of Nature Reserves (S2 File), and
no endangered species or habitats were involved in the study.
3 / 18
Fig 1. The study sites in the north of Qatar: Al Reem Biosphere Reserve and one of the irrigated farms in
Rawdat Al Faras area.
Fig 2. Attachment of a GPS tag to the back of a marked hedgehog.
4 / 18
All GPS tags were programmed to record the animals' locations once every 15 minutes dur
ing the night (18:00 h± 06:00 h) and once per hour during the day (06:00h ± 18:00h) (S1 File).
This schedule was designed to provide a detailed monitoring of the hedgehogs' movement dur
ing the night (their active period) and minimize the failed attempts by the tag to acquire a
location during the day when the animals are resting in shelters, which would reduce the battery
life and thus fix success substantially [
]. Sampling over several nights at constant intervals
also allowed us to overcome problems with autocorrelation [
Home range calculation and data analysis
Location data from individual hedgehogs were used to calculate home range size and daily
distances travelled. Incremental analysis was performed on each home range based on 100%
Minimum Convex Polygons (MCP100) and 95% Kernel Contours (K95) to determine the
minimum number of locations needed for home ranges to reach an asymptote [
location data passed the initial screening, home range sizes were estimated using MCP100 and
K95. Because those methods may overestimate home range size when outlier locations are
27, 30, 29
], core areas (areas of intensive use) were also estimated using 50% home
ranges (MCP50 and K50). The distance that an animal travelled during the night was
estimated by summing the straight line distances between each location (t) and location (t+1)
between 18:00 and 06:00 where (t) is a scheduled time for a fix and (t+1) is the time for the
next scheduled fix (i.e. 15 min after (t). To investigate the spatial overlap patterns between
individual hedgehogs, percentage overlap of home ranges was conducted using whole areas
(MCP100 and K95) and core areas (MCP50 and K50). Overlap analysis was used to determine
the percentage overlap between each pair of home ranges within (male-male and
femalefemale) and between (male-female and female-male) sexes for the two sites separately. All
location data analysis was done using Ranges8 software (v2.5, Anatrack Ltd., Warehan1, UK:
Kenward et al. 2008 [
General Linear Models were used to test for the effect of habitat (reserve versus farms) and
sex on the hedgehog home-range size. Sex, body weight, and site were included in the model.
The relationship between home range size and body weight was tested using linear regression.
Differences in hedgehog body weights between the two sites and sexes were compared using a
t-test. Possible differences in percent overlap in home ranges (MCP50, MCP100, K50, and
K95) between neighboring individuals, sites, and sex combinations (MM, FF, MF, FM) were analyzed using ANOVA. All statistical analyses were carried out using SYSTAT 13 (Systat Software Inc., San Jose, USA).
Population densities and body weights
Total hedgehog captures were 42 (27 ♂ and 15 ♀) in the farms area and 30 (19 ♂ and 11 ♀)
within the reserve area. Hedgehog densities were estimated at 33.1 individuals/km2 within the
farms area and 13.1 individuals/km2 within the reserve area. Sex ratio seemed biased (though
not significantly) toward males in both sites at 1.8♂:1♀ in the farms area (Chi-squared test:
χ2 = 2.6, p = 0.1) and 1.73♂:1♀ in the reserve area (χ2 = 1.6, p = 0.2). Body weights were
significantly larger in the farms area (mean body weight ±SE was 417.71 ±12.77 g, n = 24) than those
in the reserve area (376.37±12.71 g, n = 22) (t-test: t = 2.3, df = 44, p = 0.027). Although females
were heavier than males on average in both sites, the differences were not statistically
significant. In the reserve area, body weights averaged 360±20.11 g for males (n = 10) and 395±15.54
g for females (n = 12), (t-test: t = 1.35 df = 18 p = 0.196), whilst in the farms area, weights
5 / 18
averaged 401.25±8.86 g for males (n = 12) and 434.17±23.53 g for females (n = 12), (t-test:
t = 1.31 df = 14 p = 0.211).
A total of 46 home ranges of adult hedgehogs were mapped based on 11190 usable GPS fixes
with the average fix success rate of 62% (46% for the GPS BUG and 79% for the GPS PinPoints,
80% in the reserve area and 61% in the farms area). The number of fixes recorded per animal
ranged between 70 and 526 tracked over 3±9 days, all of which were included into the analyses
after screening by incremental analysis. The number of fixes did not have a significant effect
on home range size in 100% MCP based on either pooled sample set (Linear Regression:
F1,44 = 0.21, p = 0.65, n = 46) or within each site (reserve area: F1,20 = 0.181, p = 0.19, farms
area: F1,22 = 0.08, p = 0.77). Incremental analysis suggested that an average of 115 (±7 SE) fixes
(minimum of 45) were required to reach a reliable determination of home range size.
Home range size
Hedgehog home ranges varied in size and shape between study sites and sexes (Table 1, Fig 3).
Home ranges were significantly larger in the reserve area than in the farms area, except K50
(Table 2). Home range sizes for males were significantly larger than those of females based on
MCP100 and MCP50 but not K95 or K50 (Table 2). On the other hand, body weight did not
have a strong influence on home range size (Table 2). Regression analysis showed that body
weight did not affect home range size for either a pooled sample set (MCP100: F1,44 = 3.76,
p = 0.059, Kernel95: F1,44 = 1.46, p = 0.23) or for each site separately (reserve area: MCP100
F1,20 = 0.003, p = 0.95, farms area: MCP100 F1,22 = 2.88, p = 0.1). On average, hedgehog home
ranges (MCP100) spanned over 1.46 farms in the farms area (1.42 in ♀♀, 1.50 in ♂♂) and 1.90
rawdhats in the reserve area (1.70 in ♀♀, 2.08 in ♂♂) (see Fig 3), there was no statistically
significant differences between the sites and sexes (ANOVA Site F1,42 = 2.15, p = 0.074, Sex F1,42
= 0.97, p = 0.33, Site × Sex F1,42 = 0.4, p = 0.53). Hedgehog home ranges (MCP100) overlapped
with farms in the farms area by an average of 48.6% (range: 11.7±100%, average: 67.4 in ♀♀,
range: 8.4±66.7%, average: 29.7 in ♂♂, t-test: t = 3.49, df = 22, p = 0.002), and with rawdhats by
42.1% in the reserve area (range: 14.3±85.4%, average: 43.8 in ♀♀, range: 1.77±79.8%, average:
40.4 in ♂♂, t-test: t = 0.30, df = 20, p = 0.76). Female home ranges overlapped in greater
proportions with the farms (or rawdhats) than did those of males (ANOVA Site F1,42 = 0.71,
p = 0.405, Sex F1,42 = 7.05, p = 0.011, Site × Sex F1,42 = 4.9, p = 0.032), and this trend is very
strong in the farms area (Fig 4).
Hedgehogs travelled greater distances in the reserve area (average daily distance travelled =
5402±320 m, n = 22, range: 3343±9252 m) than in the farms area (3286±220 m, n = 24, 1475±
5100, Table 2, Fig 5). Average daily distance travelled was larger for males than females
(Table 2, Fig 5), whilst body weight had no significant effect on daily distance travelled based
Mean ± SE (ha)
Range of values (ha)
Mean ± SE (ha)
Range of values (ha)
Fig 3. Home ranges of male (blue) and female (red) Ethiopian hedgehogs expressed as minimum
convex polygons and Kernel contours from Al Reem Biosphere Reserve and the irrigated farms area.
on either a pooled sample (Table 2) or two sites being analyzed separately using regression
analysis (reserve area: F1,20 = 0.71, p = 0.4, farms area: F1,22 = 0.3, p = 0.62).
Home range overlap
All animals of both sexes overlapped in their home ranges with those of other animals. However, percent overlaps decreased when core areas (MCP50, n = 208 combinations of overlap and Kernel50, n = 370) were considered in comparison to the total home range (MCP100, n = 612 and K95, n = 615) (Fig 6). Home range overlap was proportionally larger in the reserve
7 / 18
This study provides the first investigation of space use in the Ethiopian hedgehog, Paraechinus
aethiopicus, based on the largest number of individual home ranges of free-ranging hedgehogs
ever monitored in a single study (Table 4). Habitat richness (i.e. food availability) was shown
8 / 18
Fig 4. Percent overlap of male and female Ethiopian hedgehogs home ranges (expressed as
minimum convex polygons) with rawdhats and farms in Al Reem Biosphere Reserve and the irrigated
to affect home-range size in a number of species [
32, 33, 34
]. Our results demonstrated that
hedgehog home ranges and daily distance travelled varied significantly between areas of
different land use practices and between sexes. Specifically, home ranges were larger in natural desert
habitats than irrigated farms and for males than females despite no sexual size dimorphism.
Individual home ranges overlapped with several others of both sexes. Body weight was not a
predictor of home range size in this study within and among sexes or habitats. Our results show
that hedgehogs living in more natural arid environments in the reserve area were almost 10%
lighter in body weight, and exhibited larger home ranges than those living in the farms area,
this is likely related to the lower productivity (i.e. less energy intake) of the former habitat, as
well as hedgehogs having to travel more (i.e. more energy expenditure) (see Table 2 and Fig 5).
Spacing patterns of Ethiopian hedgehogs
Mammals living in habitats with low primary productivity are expected to have larger home
ranges to meet their bioenergetic demands [
]. Ethiopian hedgehogs in Qatar exhibited the
second largest home range size of any hedgehogs studied so far, exceeded only by the Daurian
hedgehog, Mesechinus dauuricus from Mongolia (Table 4). Based on our GPS tracking results,
the hedgehogs aggregated in areas that appeared to have high vegetation cover represented by
the irrigated farms in the farms area and the `rawdhats' in the reserve area (Fig 3). They lived
in the farms area at more than twice the density and with less than half the home range area
compared to those in the reserve area, probably a result of differences in resource availability.
The hedgehog populations were structured in the form of small, open metapopulations within areas of higher productivity (farms and `rawdhats') separated by open bare spaces. The individuals (mostly males) moved in and out of those populations in search of resources.
9 / 18
Fig 5. Home range sizes and daily distance travelled (mean ± SE) of male and female Ethiopian
hedgehogs from two sites in northern Qatar.
Although there was no significant sexual size dimorphism in terms of body weight, males' home ranges were larger than those of females. If body sizeÐa metabolically based parameter Ðwas the best predictor of home range size, predicted male home range size is given by the following equation [48, 49].
male home range size female home range size
This assumes that resources used by females and males have the same pattern of availability
and that the sexes are not cohabiting or, if they are, that they are not depleting each other's
]. As little information is available concerning these two assumptions for
hedgehogs, we assume that they are plausible. Then, by following the foregoing equation, the
predicted size of a male's home range would be c. 94% and c. 93% of that of females for farms area
and reserve area, respectively. However, observed average male home range size was c. 1.5
times as large as that of females in the reserve area, and c. 2.5 times in the farms area. The
10 / 18
Fig 6. Percent home range overlap (mean ± SE) of hedgehogs in the two sites. FF female with another
female, FM female with a male, MM male with another male, MF male with a female.
Kristiansson (1984) [
Boitani and Reggiani (1984) [
E. europaeus concolor Schoenfeld and Yom-Tov (1985) [
Schoenfeld and Yom-Tov (1985) [
Mongolia, semiarid steppe and grasslands
E. europaeus Morris (1988) [
Mesechinus dauuricus Murdoch et al. (2006) [
Denmark, arable land, forests, and grassland
United Kingdom, residential area
Ireland, rural area
Mongolia, semiarid steppe and grasslands
Finland, urban area
Spain, agricultural plots and pine stands
Qatar: irrigated farms desert reserve
Riber (2006) [
Dowding et al. (2010) [
Haigh et al. (2011) [
Zapletal et al. (2012) [
Rautio et al. (2013) [
GarcÂõa-RodrÂõguez and Puig-Montserrat
spatial behavior of males is driven by the need to increase their fitness, which required moving
greater distances to find more mates (e.g. [
]). As a solitary small mammal, receptive females
are expected to be widely dispersed over the low productive, patchy habitats of the desert [
]. This pattern is expected in a non-territorial mammal with a promiscuous mating
53, 54, 55, 56
]. Ethiopian hedgehogs have a 6-month breeding season between February
and July with two peaks of mating and 2±3 litters [
14, 57, 58
]. Our findings suggest that during
the study periods, which were in the breeding season, male P. aethiopicus roamed over large
areas to court as many females as possible to increase their reproductive success. This sexual
dimorphism in home range size is consistent with previous observations in other small
insectivorous mammals, including hedgehogs (e.g. Algerian hedgehog, Atelerix algirus ; greater
hedgehog tenrec, Setifer setosus [
]; Daurian hedgehogs, Mesechinus dauuricus [
hedgehog, Erinaceus europaeus, [
35, 37, 41, 43, 45, 59, 60
]; short-beaked echidnas, Tachyglossus
], see Table 3).
Our results also suggest that the activity centers (or core area) of hedgehog home ranges of
both sexes were restricted to the patches (or `islands') of higher-quality habitats (i.e. the
rawdhats and farms) that provide both foraging and nesting opportunities (see Kernel home
ranges in Fig 3). However, both males and females do travel outside of those `islands' (see
MCP home ranges in Fig 3). This roaming behavior appears to be more detectable in males as
12 / 18
their ranges spanned over more farms/rawdhats and were significantly larger than those of
females based on MCP methods (e.g. roaming area) whilst they were not so based on Kernel
methods (e.g. core area), (Table 3). The results showed that male home ranges spanned over
more farms and/or rawdhats, but the percentage of overlap between home ranges and farms
and/or rawdhats was greater for females. In other words, it is likely that the size of the core
area for males for survival is similar to that for females, but males tend to roam out further
from this core area presumably seeking mating opportunities with as many receptive females
as possible. Due to the males' larger home ranges, females' ranges had a greater area of overlap
with those of males than with other females (Table 3, Fig 6). This may increase the males'
chances to encounter receptive females. Individual hedgehog home ranges overlapped with
those of other animals of both sexes, even in core areas, this is consistent with previous
suggestions that hedgehogs are not territorial (e.g. [
]). The apparent lack of territoriality may
reduce the cost associated with territorial defense and allow the males to roam further beyond
their core areas in search of receptive females [
Land use change and its effects on hedgehogs
The results suggest that the sites influenced hedgehog home range size more than any other
variable that we analyzed, including sex (Tables 1 and 2). The presence of irrigated farms in an arid
environment clearly increased the food and nesting resources, and influence the spatial patterns
of Ethiopian hedgehogs. In such areas, both males and females appeared to become heavier
and maintained smaller home ranges in comparison to those living in more natural arid
environments. A female's heavier weight and small home range size probably resulted from the
increased availability of water, food and shelter, as well as their distribution patterns. Modern
agricultural activities in the region have increased the availability of some key resources,
including water, food (e.g. invertebrates, bird eggs, frogs and small geckos), and shelter for local
wildlife, as well as increasing the habitat heterogeneity which provides plenty of shelter and refuge
17, 63, 64
]. Such environmental enrichment often provides congregation or `rendezvous'
spots such as garbage dumbs and prey `hot spots' that animals associate with the presence of
food or individuals may have better chances of finding mates, communicating and/or
exchanging information, and influenced space use of hedgehogs [
]. Our results showed that
female home range size was significantly smaller but bodyweight greater in the farms area than
that in the more natural desert habitat in the reserve area. Considering that female home range
size is largely determined by the availability of food and shelter (e.g. ), this may suggest that
such resources are available at a greater density in the farms area. Also, female movement in the
farms area appears to be dependent on the distribution of irrigated farms and mostly restricted
within their boundaries or between closest farms (Fig 3), further supporting the idea that
irrigated farms provide resource centers for female hedgehogs. Then, a male's optimal weight,
home range size, and movement may be determined by the resources and its reproductive
success, which is mainly influenced by spatial patterns and mating opportunities with the females.
Perhaps, as expected, male hedgehog movements were also dependent on the presence of the
farms (Figs 3 and 4) probably not only because of the increased availability of food and shelter
in farms, but also because of the higher concentration of females there [
51, 53, 65, 66
our results suggest that rawdhats probably had always played the similar role as resource centers
for local hedgehogs (and other organisms) in arid environments before the more productive
modern irrigated farms replaced them. Our results also suggested that free-ranging male
Ethiopian hedgehog in the open desert can keep a home range more than twice as large as that in the
farms area. Such a large home range may benefit the male's reproductive success, and yet they
did not do so in the farms area (Fig 5). This may be due to the larger population size in the
13 / 18
farms area, it is also possible that maintaining a large home range in the farms area is costly for
the males in terms of survival, further research may provide answers.
Degradation and alteration of the natural environments through land use activities (i.e. agri
cultural expansion) have major consequences on wildlife and movement patterns [
particularly in arid environments where the transformation of the land from a dry land to `islands of
fertility' is extreme. As spatial expression of animal behavior, home range and daily movement
correspond with resource availability and distribution, including potential mates, and directly
influence their survival and reproduction [
47, 68, 69, 70
]. As far as Ethiopian hedgehogs in
Qatar are concerned, our results may suggest that the recent change in agricultural land use is
not immediately threatening its survival although it undoubtedly influences its behavior and
ecology. However, this change in agricultural land use may have resulted in a shift of optimal
body weight and home range size of this desert-adapted small hedgehog towards heavier
weight and smaller home ranges. Considering the growing human population and facing the
possibility of food shortages in the Middle Eastern and North African region, it would be
extremely difficult, politically and socially, to keep arid environments pristine. Consequently,
the region's biodiversity will be influenced by changing anthropogenic land use. This increases
the need to understand the responses of indigenous wildlife to such changes, and to try to
minimize anthropogenic effects on these species.
Land use and agro-environmental policies should be implemented to balance farming
intensity and habitat conservation for wildlife. In general, biodiversity-friendly farming
schemes should increase habitat heterogeneity and/or the presence of islands or corridor
reserves to support the local wildlife [
63, 64, 71, 72
]. We recommend that such
biodiversityfriendly agro-environmental schemes be introduced in the Middle East to minimize the
impacts of agriculture on wildlife species, space use, and habitat utilization patterns, which are
key factors in shaping aspects of the reproductive biology and mating systems [
limited resource availability in the Ethiopian hedgehog's arid environment resulted in larger
home ranges and distances travelled that centered on irrigated farms and rawdhats, it also
drove the males to invest their much-needed energy into the search of receptive females across
larger areas to increase their mating opportunities. The space use promiscuous mating system
in Ethiopian hedgehogs reveals an interplay of space use, habitat utilization, and reproductive
strategy. The results add to our knowledge of mammalian space use and reproductive
investment, particularly to the behavioral ecology of the little-known Ethiopian hedgehogs. Further
research is necessary to increase our understanding of this desert-adapted small hedgehog,
including the effect of space use on its reproductive strategies such as mate choice [
S1 File. Minimal data set showing the schedule of data collection.
S2 File. Permission letter from the General Directorate of Nature Reserve to conduct the
study in Al Reem Biosphere Reserve.
We are grateful to the Ministry of Environment of Qatar and the staff at Rawdat Al Faras Agricultural Research Station, Mr. Abu Baker Eltayeb and the staff at the Qatar University Farm,
14 / 18
General Directorate of Nature Reserves, Mr. Nawaf Al Nu'imi and the staff in Al Reem Bio
sphere Reserve for granting us access to the study sites and for logistical support, and Mr. Ivan
Mohedano-Mendez for assisting in the fieldwork.
Conceptualization: Mohammad A. Abu Baker, Nobuyuki Yamaguchi.
Data curation: Mohammad A. Abu Baker.
Formal analysis: Mohammad A. Abu Baker.
Funding acquisition: Nobuyuki Yamaguchi.
Investigation: Mohammad A. Abu Baker, Nobuyuki Yamaguchi.
Methodology: Mohammad A. Abu Baker, Nobuyuki Yamaguchi.
Project administration: Mohammad A. Abu Baker, Nobuyuki Yamaguchi.
Resources: Mohammad A. Abu Baker, Nobuyuki Yamaguchi.
Software: Mohammad A. Abu Baker, Nobuyuki Yamaguchi.
Supervision: Mohammad A. Abu Baker, Nobuyuki Yamaguchi.
Validation: Mohammad A. Abu Baker, Nigel Reeve, April A. T. Conkey, David W. Macdonald, Nobuyuki Yamaguchi.
Visualization: Mohammad A. Abu Baker, Nobuyuki Yamaguchi.
Writing ± original draft: Mohammad A. Abu Baker, Nobuyuki Yamaguchi.
Writing ± review & editing: Mohammad A. Abu Baker, Nigel Reeve, April A. T. Conkey,
David W. Macdonald, Nobuyuki Yamaguchi.
15 / 18
16 / 18
17 / 18
1. Didham RK , Tylianakis JM , Gemmell NJ , Rand TA , Ewers RW . Interactive effects of habitat modification and species invasion on native species decline . Trends in Ecology and Evolution . 2007 ; 22 : 489 ± 496 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree. 2007 . 07 .001 PMID: 17673330
2. Msuha MJ , Carbone C , Pettorelli N , Durant SM . Conserving biodiversity in a changing world: land use change and species richness in northern Tanzania . Biodiversity and Conservation . 2012 ; 21 : 2747 ± 2759 .
3. SaÂlek M , Drahnikova L , Tkadlec E. Changes in home range sizes and population densities of carnivore species along the natural to urban habitat gradient . Mammal Review . 2015 ; 45 : 1± 14 .
4. Viggers KL , Hearn JP . The kangaroo conundrum: home range studies and implications for land management . Journal of Applied Ecology . 2005 ; 42 : 99 ± 107 .
5. Newsome TM , Ballard GA , Dickman CR , Fleming PJS , Van de Ven R . Home range, activity and sociality of a top predator, the dingo: a test of the Resource Dispersion Hypothesis . Ecography. 2013 ; 36 : 914 ± 925 .
6. Durant SM , Wacher T , Bashir S , Woodroffe R , Ornellas PD , Ransom C , et al. Fiddling in biodiversity hotspots while deserts burn? Collapse of the Sahara's megafauna . Diversity and Distributions . 2014 ; 20 : 114 ± 122 .
7. Al-Soliman TM . Environmental impacts and the need for a national environmental policy in Saudi Arabia . Journal of Architectural and Planning Research . 1993 ; 10 : 219 ± 241 .
8. Richer R. Conservation in Qatar: Impacts of Increasing Industrialization . Doha, Qatar: Center for International and Regional Studies, Occasional Paper no. 2 . Georgetown University; 2009 .
9. Shapira I , Sultan H , Shanas U . Agricultural farming alters predator±prey interactions in nearby natural habitats . Animal Conservation . 2008 ; 11 : 1 ± 8 .
10. Balba AM . Management of problem soils in arid ecosystems . Boca Raton: CRC Press; 1995 .
11. Krupp F , Al-Jumaily M , Bariche M , Khalaf M , Malek M , Streit B. The Middle Eastern Biodiversity Network: generating and sharing knowledge for ecosystem management and conservation . ZooKeys . 2009 ; 31 : 3± 15 .
12. Khorozyan I , Stanton D , Mohammed M , Al-Ra'il W , Pittet M. Patterns of co-existence between humans and mammals in Yemen: some species thrive while others are nearly extinct . Biodiversity and Conservation . 2014 ; 23 : 1995 ± 2013 .
13. Sillitoe P , Alshawi AA , Hassan AKA . Challenges to conservation: land use change and local participation in the Al Reem Biosphere Reserve, West Qatar . Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine . 2010 ; 6 : 28 ± 59 . https://doi.org/10.1186/ 1746 -4269-6-28 PMID: 20964818
14. Harrison DL , Bates PJJ . The Mammals of Arabia . Sevenoaks: Harrison Zoological Museum; 1991 .
15. Corbet GB . The family ErinaceidaeÐa synthesis of its taxonomy, phylogeny, ecology and zoogeography . Mammal Review . 1988 ; 18 : 117 ± 172 .
16. Reeve N. Hedgehogs . London: T and AD Poyser Ltd.; 1994 .
17. Abu Baker MA , Reeve N , Mohedano I , Conkey AAT , Macdonald DW , Yamaguchi N. Caught basking in the winter sun: Preliminary data on winter thermoregulation in the Ethiopian hedgehog, Paraechinus aethiopicus , in Qatar. Journal of Arid Environments . 2016 ; 125 : 52 ± 55 .
18. Burt WH . Territoriality and home range concepts as applied to mammals . Journal of Mammalogy . 1943 ; 24 : 346 ± 352 .
19. BoÈrger L , Dalziel BD , Fryxell JM . Are there general mechanisms of animal home range behaviour? A review and prospects for future research . Ecology Letters . 2008 ; 11 : 637 ± 650 . https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1461- 0248 . 2008 . 01182 . x PMID : 18400017
20. Kie JG , Matthiopoulos J , Fieberg J , Powell RA , Cagnacci F , Mitchell MS et al. The home-range concept: are traditional estimators still relevant with modern telemetry technology? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B , Biological Sciences . 2010 ; 365 : 2221 ± 2231 . https://doi.org/10. 1098/rstb. 2010 .0093 PMID: 20566499
21. Fieberg J , BoÈrger L. Could you please phrase ``home rangeº as a question? Journal of Mammalogy . 2012 ; 93 : 890 ± 902 .
22. Clutton-Brock TH , Harvey PH . Mammals, resources and reproductive strategies . Nature . 1978 ; 273 : 191 ± 195 . PMID: 347308
23. Fisher DO , Lara MC . Effects of body size and home range on access to mates and paternity in male bridled nailtail wallabies . Animal Bevaviour . 1999 ; 58 : 121 ± 130 .
24. Fisher DO , Owens IPF . Female home range and size and the evolution of social organization in macropod marsupials . Journal of Animal Ecology . 2000 ; 69 : 1083 ± 1098 .
Warwick H , Morris P , Walker D . Survival and weight changes of hedgehogs (Erinaceus europaeus) translocated from the Hebrides to mainland Scotland . Lutra . 2006 ; 49 : 89 ± 102 .
26. Glasby L , Yarnell RW . Evaluation of the performance and accuracy of Global Positioning System bug transmitters deployed on a small mammal . European Journal of Wildlife Research . 2013 ; 59 : 915 ± 919 .
27. Harris S , Cresswell WJ , Forde PG , Trewhella WJ , Woollard T , Wray S . Home-range analysis using radio-tracking data: a review of problems and techniques particularly as applied to the study of mammals . Mammal Review . 1990 ; 20 : 97 ± 123 .
28. Rooney SM , Wolfe A , Hayden TJ . Autocorrelated data in telemetry studies: time to independence and the problem of behavioural effects . Mammal Review . 1998 ; 28 : 89 ± 98 .
29. Kenward RE . A manual for wildlife radio tagging . London: Academic Press; 2001 .
White GC , Garrott RA . Analysis of radio-tracking data . Acad Press, NY; 1990 .
31. Kenward RE , Walls SS , South AB , Casey NM . Ranges 8: For the analysis of tracking and location data. Ð Anatrack Ltd ., Wareham , UK 2008 . (online manual http://www .anatrack.com/ranges_home.php.
32. Cassini MH , Krebs JR . Behavioural responses to food addition by hedgehogs . Ecography . 1994 ; 17 : 289 ± 296 .
33. Lucherini M , Lovari S . Habitat richness affects home range size in the red fox Vulpes vulpes . Behavioural Processes . 1996 , 36 : 103 ± 106 . PMID: 24896422
34. Lovari S , Sforzi A , Mori E. Habitat richness affects home range size in a monogamous large Rodent . Behavioural Processes . 2013 , 99 : 42 ± 46 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc. 2013 . 06 .005 PMID: 23796772
35. Reeve NJ . The home range of the hedgehog as revealed by a radio tracking study . Symposia of the Zoological Society of London . 1982 ; 49 : 207 ± 230 .
36. Kristiansson H . Ecology of a hedgehog Erinaceus europaeus population in southern Sweden ( Ph.D. thesis) . Lund: University of Lund; 1984 .
37. Boitani L , Reggiani G . Movements and activity patterns of hedgehogs (Erinaceus europaeus) in Mediterranean coastal habitats . Zeitschrift fur Saeugetierkunde . 1984 ; 49 : 193 ± 206 .
38. Schoenfeld M , Yom-Tov Y. The biology of two species of hedgehogs, Erinaceus europaeus concolor and Hemiechinus auritus aegyptius , in Israel. Mammalia . 1985 ; 49 : 339 ± 355 .
39. Morris PA . A study of home range and movements in the hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus) . Journal of Zoology . 1988 ; 214 : 433 ± 449 .
40. Murdoch JD , Sodnompil B , Buyandelger S , Kenny D , Reading RP. Ecology of the Daurian hedgehog (Hemiechinus dauuricus) in Ikh Nart Nature Reserve, Mongolia: preliminary findings . Mongolian Journal of Biological Sciences . 2006 ; 4 : 25 ± 32 .
41. Riber AB . Habitat use and behaviour of European hedgehog Erinaceus europaeus in a Danish rural area . Acta Theriologica . 2006 ; 51 : 363 ± 371 .
42. Dowding CV , Harris S , Poulton S , Baker PJ . Nocturnal ranging behavior of urban hedgehogs, Erinaceus europaeus, in relation to risk and reward . Animal Behaviour . 2010 ; 80 : 13 ± 21 .
43. Haigh A , O'Riordan RM , Butler F . Habitat selection, philopatry and spatial segregation in rural Irish hedgehogs (Erinaceus europaeus) . Mammalia . 2013 ; 77 : 163 ± 172 .
44. Zapletal M , Batdorj S , Atwood J , Murdoch JD , Reading RP. Home range characteristics and habitat selection by Daurian hedgehogs (Mesechinus dauuricus) in Ikh Nart Nature Reserve, Mongolia . Mongolian Journal of Biological Science . 2012 ; 10 : 41 ± 50 .
45. Rautio A , Valtonen A , Kunnasranta M. The effects of sex and season on home range in European hedgehogs at the northern edge of the species range . Annales of Zoologici Fennici . 2013 ; 50 : 107 ± 123 .
46. GarcÂõa-RodrÂõguez S , Puig-Montserrat X . Algerian hedgehog (Atelerix algirus Lereboullet, 1842) habitat selection at the northern limit of its range . Galemys . 2014 ; 26 : 49 ± 56 .
47. McNab BK . Bioenergetics and the determination of home range size . American Naturalist . 1963 ; 97 : 133 ± 140 .
48. Calder WA . Size, Function, and Life History . Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1984 .
49. Sandell M. The mating tactics and spacing patterns of solitary carnivores . In: Gittleman JL, editors. Carnivore behaviour, ecology, and evolution. London: Chapman and Hall; 1989 . pp. 164 ± 182 .
50. Yamaguchi N , Macdonald DW . The burden of co-occupancy: intraspecific resource competition and spacing patterns in American mink, Mustela vison . Journal of Mammalogy . 2003 ; 84 : 1341 ± 1355 .
51. Macdonald DW . The ecology of carnivore social behaviour . Nature . 1983 ; 301 : 379 ± 384 .
52. Zapletal M , Sodnompil B , Atwood JL , Murdoch JD , Reading RP. Fine-scale habitat use by Daurian hedgehogs in the Gobi-steppe of Mongolia . Journal of Arid Environments . 2015 ; 114 : 100 ± 103 .
53. Clutton-Brock TH . Mammalian mating systems . Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B . 1989 ; 236 : 339 ± 372 .
54. Steinmann AR , Priotto JW , Castillo EA , Polop JJ . Size and overlap of home range in Calomys musculinis (Muridae: Sigmodontinae) . Acta Theriologica . 2005 ; 50 : 197 ± 206 .
55. Blondel D , Pino V , Phelps SM . Space use and social structure of long-tailed singing mouse (Scotinomys xerampetinus) . Journal of Mammalogy . 2009 ; 90 : 715 ± 723 .
56. Levesque DL , Rakotondravony D , Lovegrove BG . Home range and shelter site selection in the greater hedgehog tenrec in the dry deciduous forest of Western Madagascar . Journal of Zoology . 2012 ; 287 : 161 ± 168
57. Yamaguchi N , Al-Hajri A , Al-Jabiri H . Timing of breeding in free-ranging Ethiopian hedgehogs, Paraechinus aethiopicus, from Qatar . Journal of Arid Environments . 2013 ; 99 : 1 ± 4 .
58. Abu Baker MA , Mohedano I , Reeve N , Yamaguchi N. Observations on the postnatal growth and development of captive Ethiopian hedgehogs, Paraechinus aethiopicus , in Qatar. Mammalia . 2016 ; 80 : 515 ± 520 .
59. Micol T , Doncaster C , Mackinlay L. Correlates of local variation in the abundance of hedgehogs Erinaceus europaeus , Journal of Animal Ecology . 1994 ; 63 : 851 ± 860 .
60. Doncaster C , Rondinini C , Johnson P. Field test for environmental correlates of dispersal in hedgehogs Erinaceus europaeus . Journal of Animal Ecology . 2001 ; 70 : 33 ± 46 .
61. Sprent J , Nicol SC . Influence of habitat on home-range size in the short-beaked echidna . Australian Journal of Zoology . 2012 ; 60 : 46 ± 53 .
62. Brown JL. The evolution of diversity in avian territorial systems . Wilson Bulletin . 1964 ; 76 : 160 ± 169 .
63. Hof AR , Bright PW . The value of agri-environment schemes for macro-invertebrate feeders: hedgehogs on arable farms in Britain . Animal Conservation . 2010 ; 13 : 467 ± 473 .
64. Moorhouse TP , Palmer SCF , Travis JMJ , Macdonald DW . Hugging the hedges: Might agri-environment manipulations affect landscape permeability for hedgehogs? Biological Conservation . 2014 ; 176 : 109 ± 116 .
65. Gehrt SD , Fritzell EK . Resource distribution, female home range dispersion and male spatial interactions: group structure in a solitary carnivore . Animal Behaviour . 1998 ; 55 : 1211 ± 1227 . https://doi.org/ 10.1006/anbe. 1997 .0657 PMID: 9632506
66. Sweitzer RA . Breeding movements and reproductive activities of porcupines in the Great Basin Desert . Western North American Naturalist. 2003 ; 63 : 1± 10 .
67. Macdonald DW , Feber RE . Wildlife Conservation on Farmland . Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015 .
68. Manly BF , McDonald LL , Thomas DL , McDonald TL , Erikson WP . Resource selection by animals: statistical design and analysis for field studies . New York: Chapman and Hall; 2002 .
69. Dahle B , Swenson JE . Home ranges in adult Scandinavian brown bears (Ursus arctos): effect of mass, sex, reproductive category, population density and habitat type . Journal of Zoology . 2003 ; 260 : 329 ± 335 .
70. Stirrat SC . Seasonal changes in home-range area and habitat use by the agile wallaby (Macropus agilis) . Wildlife Research . 2003 ; 30 : 593 ± 600 .
71. Green RE , Cornell SJ , Scharlemann JPW , Balmford A . Farming and the fate of wild nature . Science . 2005 ; 307 : 550 ± 555 . https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1106049 PMID: 15618485
72. Fischer J , Brosi B , Daily GC , Ehrlich PR , Goldman R , Goldstein J et al. Should agricultural policies encourage land sparing or wildlife-friendly farming? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment . 2008 ; 6 : 380 ± 385 .
73. Gaulin SJ , Fitzgerald RW . Home-range size as a predictor of mating system in Microtus . Journal of Mammalogy . 1988 ; 69 : 311 ± 319 .
74. Moran S , Turner PD , Reilly CO . Multiple paternity in the European hedgehog . Journal of Zoology . 2009 ; 278 : 349 ± 353 .