Cited by 75Wildlife Ecology and ConservationRabies epidemiology and controlAnimal Ecology and Behavior Studies

Distribution and density estimates for urban foxes ( Vulpes vulpes ) in Melbourne: implications for rabies control

Marks, Clive A., Bloomfield, Tim E.·1999·Wildlife Research

Abstract

The distribution and density of red fox populations was investigated in metropolitan Melbourne from 1990 to 1993. Distribution data were collected from sightings reported by members of the public, from spotlight and active den surveys, and from trapping and road kills. Archival data suggested that resident populations of foxes have been present within the inner metropolitan area since the early 1940s. Contemporary fox populations were found to be extensively distributed throughout the urban area, with few 1-km 2 grids within a 5-km radius of the Central Business District not containing foxes. Density estimates were based on nearest-neighbour analysis of active natal dens in four field sites. Observations of cubs over a 4-year period at 17 dens within the field sites revealed a mean litter size of 4.36 cubs. Mean 4-year density estimates for each field site, immediately after the breeding season, were 0.47–2.55 dens km -2, which was estimated to represent 3–16 foxes km -2. Density estimates may be conservative, as family groups may contain more than one non-breeding adult. The implications of these data are discussed with respect to the potential role of the urban fox in the epidemiology of rabies. It was concluded that fox populations at the field sites were of sufficient density to maintain a sylvatic epizootic of rabies.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1071/wr98059

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Urban environments may enhance conspecific tolerance and social behaviours in foxes.

    “Thus, urban environments may enhance conspecific tolerance and social behaviours in foxes (Macdonald 1979, 1983; Marks and Bloomfield 1999; Dorning and Harris 2019).”

    From Red fox viromes in urban and rural landscapes (2020) · cites this paper as Marks and Bloomfield 1999

  • Urban foxes live at higher densities than rural counterparts.

    “Urban areas support surprisingly high densities of foxes. For example, there are up to sixteen individuals per km2 in Melbourne (Marks and Bloomfield 1999), compared to just 0.2 individuals per km2 in rural areas (Saunders, Gentle, and Dickman 2010).”

    From Red fox viromes in urban and rural landscapes (2020) · cites this paper as Marks and Bloomfield 1999

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Marks, C. A., & Bloomfield, T. E.
Venue
Wildlife Research
Published
1999-09-17
Volume
26
Issue
6
Pages
763-775
ISSN
  • 1035-3712 (ISSN-L)
  • 1448-5494
OpenAlex
W1991775789
Cited by
75
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 3
FWCI
1.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Wildlife Research (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Virology › Rabies epidemiology and control
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Animal Ecology and Behavior Studies
Keywords
red fox, population density, rabies epidemiology, rabies control, litter size, urban wildlife, Melbourne

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review