Can hedgehogs and foxes coexist?

In nature

On a landscape scale, they can coexist. Both use suburban habitats (which provide refuge to the western European hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus) from its predator, the Eurasian badger (Meles meles) (Young et al., 2006; J. of Zoology)). Foxes use urban areas where rich anthropogenic food resources sustain e.g. the red fox (Vulpes vulpes) (even though in sharing the human diet, the fox is exposed to food-borne contaminants and PCBs, see Dip et al. 2003). How far will a hedgehog disperse? Will it cross one or several ecotones as would a fox? If there aren’t badgers, then probably yes.
See this YouTube video.

In zoomorphic metaphor

Fox and hedgehog as co-workers has been tackled by Graham Sewell in his, of sorts, ‘natural history of workplace collusion’ (2008); collusion defined as the accommodation- up to a point- of the opposition upon seeing some merit in their position, be it monism in the case of a hedgehog or, in the case of a fox, pluralism. Sewell befittingly cites Lukes (2002): there can be more than one type of fox or hedgehog, including the fox that wishes he was a hedgehog (and probably vice versa). 

And so: In nature, they can coexist as opportunists in human suburbia – human food saves the fox a hunt and human megalopolitania shelters the hedgehog from the badger – and in metaphor, as collusionary complots in the human rat-race.

Foxy blogging isolatoes

Foxes are, I believe, synonymous with what blogger Steve Hardy calls ‘creative generalists’. They probably inhabit and seek to inhabit ecotones, as defined by blogger David Gessner (http://ecotoneblog.blogspot.com/), ‘places where borders are crossed, where both animals and humans live differently and more dangerously than on their own home turfs’. As the editor of Ecotone, Gessner admirably explores ecotones in human society and culture and describes those within them, often ‘isolatoes’ (citing Melville) who ‘pulse between retreat from and engagement with the world’.

Ecotone conservation

An ecotonal species can be defined as one significantly more frequent in ecotones than in either of the adjacent communities and as having a wide habitat range (based on Lloyd et al., 2000). Baker et al. (2002), studying avian communities in SE Australia, described birds as ecotone neutral, ecotone shy, and ecotone conspicuous. They found no evidence, however, of entirely ‘ecotonal species’. Species need to be more than just conspicuous at the edge, they warned, to be ‘ecotonal’.

The real function of areas that are increasingly ecotonal needs to be carefully evaluated. Ecotones may be a source of evolutionary novelty according to a 1997 article in Science by Smith et al. One example of morphological divergence between forest-ecotone populations includes longer wing length (for aerodynamic efficiency in an open area) in greenbuls in an ecotone. The conservation of ecotones would safeguard their role in generating behavioral diversity, morphological divergence, and ultimately, biodiversity. However, ecotonal regions are often considered unimportant as they are mosaics of 'pure' habitat types (Smith et al., 2005 in Tropical Rainforests: Past, Present and Future). How does a conservationist decide that a landscape is overly homogenous (without ecotones) or overly heterogeneous (with ecotones)? By the presence and abundance of 'fluid ecotypes'?

Are mainly pest species capable of inhabiting human-induced ecotones?

Characteristics we associate with animal pests include several –isms: opportunism, commensalism, and generalism. What else do pest species have in common and do they share these traits with edge-using species? To what extent is the pest (relative to non-pest) faunal assembly independent of ecotonal characteristics?

In ecotones of the temperate zone, we find deer, rabbits, possums, rats, goats, raccoons, and squirrels while rats, shrews, rooks, squirrels, and monkeys abound in tropical ecotones.

How much existing wildlife habitat currently consists of ecotones and edges? And what proportion of biodiversity is currently supported within ecotones?

If the majority of animal species are unable to change their behavior rapidly enough in response to continuing habitat degradation- and successfully exploit human-induced ecotones- then should we be broaching the questions of Myers and Knoll (2001, p. 5390): ‘Does the future include a proliferation of opportunistic species or emergent novelties?’ and ‘will the environmental constraints humans place on surviving populations channel innovation toward properties we associate with pests?’

Meanwhile, the value of ecotones, edges, and unprotected areas to wildlife conservation is being increasingly recognized (see The Ecology and Management of Aquatic-Terrestrial Ecotones by Naiman and Decamps) or, perhaps, emphasized, in light of the loss of primary habitat.

I believe that most species possess a latent capacity to invade and exploit ecotones; however, each ecotone is unique and needs to be considered in the context of the broader spatial dynamics of its landscape.

--------------------

For an intelligible, although somewhat quixotic, account of habitat shifting by birds see this article in Orion Magazine.

Prospects for agro-tourism where primates inhabit agricultural ecotones

There are many examples of the successful use of transitional zones by primates: Colobus guereza, which can subsist off non-native plants, in Entebbe, Uganda; Alouatta palliata finding refuge in shade coffee plantations in Nicaragua; Macaca silenus consuming tea berries in the Anaimalai Hills, India; and Procolobus kirkii pruning coconuts in plantations on Zanzibar. Financial losses accrued by farmers as a result of crop-raiding by these species could be countered with agro-tourism, the expansion of ecotourism to rural communities where visitors are exposed to regional farming and fishing practices. Agro-tourism probably has greater appeal where visitors can see monkeys.

The initiation of agro-tourism in these areas would have several benefits, including (1) initially discouraging primates from crops as people would be present more often, (2) eventually habituating primates to visitors, and (3) generating revenue that funds a tourism scheme with (4) some of the profit used for planting fast-growing food trees for monkeys.

A query pending further investigation is if the success of agro-tourism depends more on the region's proximity to a national park or to a major city? It is more likely that monkeys are present where there is a nearby forest and, if monkeys are indeed of appeal to visitors, then agro-tourism will have more success in an agricultural ecotone adjacent to monkey habitat. Where forest is close, monkeys have forest food and will therefore visit farms occasionally rather than using them as their chief foraging ground. Agro-tourism is likely to aid in the resolution of human-wildlife conflicts taking place at the borders of protected forested areas exploited by these 'fluid ecotypes'.