First assessment of the potential introduction by hunters of eastern cottontail rabbits (Sylvilagus floridanus) in Spain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context Humans have introduced lagomorph species in areas outside their native ranges for their meat, fur or value as game species. Assessing the rate of success of lagomorph introductions is vital to address the ecological damage they may cause. Cases of failed lagomorph introductions in apparently suitable areas may also shed light on mechanisms that may deter invasion, which are useful in developing strategies for population control. In Spain, it has been suggested that hunters introduced the non-native eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus) to compensate for the recent drastic declines of the native European rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus). Aims Our main goals were to investigate (1) whether Sylvilagus rabbits have indeed been introduced by hunters across Spain, and (2) whether the species has become established in Spanish ecosystems. Methods We interviewed 311 hunters or naturalists across Spain. The questionnaires inquired about the characteristics of game management in each locality, including the frequency of rabbit restocking, and particularly whether Sylvilagus rabbits had been released in the surveyed localities. In addition, we sampled 192 rabbit populations (n = 3974 individuals) across Spain by using molecular analysis to determine whether Sylvilagus rabbits were present in these areas. Key results Our interview results suggest that Sylvilagus rabbits may have been released in 6% of the 311 localities surveyed. However, molecular analyses failed to confirm their persistence, because all samples belonged to O. cuniculus. Conclusions We infer that Sylvilagus rabbits failed to establish themselves in Spain, although interviewees reported their introduction. Several reasons may explain the unsuccessful establishment of this species, such as a low propagule pressure, competition with native species, predation, inability to cope with local pathogens and unsuitable climatic conditions. Implications The risk of future introductions of non-native game species can be reduced through the implementation of stricter regulations of animal releases into the wild. Long-term monitoring networks should be developed to help identify non-native game species before they become established and spread to neighbouring areas, thereby preventing any ecological or economic impacts these species may cause.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".