Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T13:46:13.009Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The steppe marmot—its past and future

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 July 2009

Dmitri I. Bibikov
Dmitri I. Bibikov
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Morphology and Ecology, Leninsky pr 33, Moscow 117071, USSR.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The steppe marmot of European Russia has suffered from hunting pressure and agricultural development in the past. Now it is regaining its former range by colonizing abandoned farming areas and this process is being helped by reintroduction programmes. Once secure these marmots show considerable potential for increase and could form the basis for a useful and substantial harvest in the future.

Type
Research Article
Information
Oryx , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , January 1991 , pp. 45 - 49
Copyright
Copyright © Fauna and Flora International 1991

References

Bibikov, D.I. 1988. Some ecological and behavioural characteristics of marmots in a population with low numbers, and in the process of its restoration. Actual Problems of Morphology and Ecology of Higher Vertebrates. Institute of Animal Morphology and Ecology, Moscow. Acad. Sci. USSR, part 2, 553–581.Google Scholar
Bibikov, D.I., and Dezhkin, A.V. 1988. European steppe marmot rehabilitation. Priroda, No 3, 46–49.Google Scholar
Popov, V.A. 1960. Mammals of the Volga-Kama Area. USSR Acad. of Sci. Kazan' Branch, Kazan', 210–222.Google Scholar
Zimina, R.P. and Gerasimov, I.P. 1971. Marmota periglacial expansion during the late Pleistocene (in Middle Europe). Bull. Moscow Naturalist Society, Biology Section. 76, 37–49.Google Scholar
Zimina, R.P. and Gerasimov, I.P. 1973. The periglacial expansion of marmots (Marmota) in Middle Europe during the late Pleistocene. J. Mammol. 54, 327–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar