Contrasting urban ecology of two hedgehog species in Central European contact zone

Abstract

Background

Understanding how closely related species coexist in shared environments provides key insights into their ecological differentiation and adaptive potential. In Central Europe, the European hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus, EE) and the Northern white-breasted hedgehog (E. roumanicus, ER) meet in an extensive contact zone that includes large urban areas. Using a seven-year dataset from the Prague Wildlife Rehabilitation Centre, we compared the two species in terms of spatial distribution, seasonal activity, and rehabilitation outcomes to assess their ecological patterns in an urban environment.

Results

The species exhibited distinct spatiotemporal patterns. While the EE was mainly confined to the southwestern part of the city, the ER dominated in the east, suggesting a dispersal barrier associated with the Vltava River. The EE showed a later and narrower reproductive period, consistent with one annual litter, whereas the ER showed earlier juvenile admissions and a pattern consistent with two litters per year. The EE further showed increased late-season admissions and lower release rates, while the ER had higher rehabilitation success.

Conclusions

These differences suggest an ecological asymmetry between the EE and the ER within the Prague contact zone, with the ER showing signs of greater tolerance of urban conditions and the EE appearing more constrained under local urban conditions. Our findings demonstrate that wildlife rehabilitation center data can serve as an important source of comparative ecological information and help reveal how closely related species respond to human-dominated environments when interpreted with caution.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1186/s40850-026-00279-x.

Background

Wildlife rehabilitation centers are increasingly important not only as providers of care for injured animals [1, 2, 3], but also as sources of extensive biological data [4]. Records from wildlife rehabilitation centers can provide unique insights into wildlife ecology and biology [5]. This is particularly relevant for closely related species living in sympatry, in which ecological differences may be subtle and difficult to detect through direct observation, especially when the species are morphologically similar. Such species may nevertheless differ in habitat use, timing of seasonal activity, and response to human-modified habitats [6–11]. Large datasets from wildlife rehabilitation centers may help uncover these patterns and the processes that shape them, which can provide broader insights into coexistence, niche segregation, and species-specific responses to urbanization [5, 12].

Among the mammalian taxa most commonly admitted to wildlife rehabilitation centers in urban and suburban areas are hedgehogs [3, 13, 14], which are particularly vulnerable to human-related threats [15, 16]. Hedgehog records from rehabilitation centers have been used in numerous studies across Europe [17–21]. However, these have predominantly been concerned with the animal management aspects of the facilities, describing admission trends, causes, and outcomes. Despite the importance of such findings, the scarce expansion of their interpretation towards the biology and ecology of the species leaves a large proportion of the datasets’ potential unexplored. With large amounts of data collected, hedgehogs serve as an ideal model for evaluating the utility of wildlife rehabilitation center records to uncover biological and ecological patterns within populations.

The Western European hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus, EE) has been the focus of most hedgehog-related research, while the Northern white-breasted hedgehog (Erinaceus roumanicus, ER), remains comparatively understudied. The ranges of the two species meet in Central Europe, creating opportunities for comparative studies within the contact zone [22]. Czechia in particular hosts the broadest area of overlap of the EE and the ER distribution (Fig. 1), creating ideal conditions for investigating the ecological differences between the two species. Although hybridization between the EE and the ER in Central Europe is very rare [22, 30, 31], both species exhibit high variability in phenotypic traits [32], making species identification challenging.

Fig. 1.

Distribution of the two hedgehog species and overview of locations of hedgehog cases analyzed in this study. a) distribution of the European hedgehog species (blue = Western European hedgehog (EE), red = Northern white-breasted hedgehog (ER), contact zones of the EE and the ER = purple). Czechia is indicated by the teal outline. b) overview of cases with known geographic coordinates analyzed within this study from outside of Prague. The light green color indicates the Central Bohemian region, the beige color represents the city of Prague, and the teal color indicates other regions of Czechia where the analyzed cases were located. The two species are distinguished by color, with the EE cases in blue and the ER cases in red. c) map of Prague with all cases with known geographic coordinates from within the city of Prague analyzed in this study. The blue points represent the EE cases; the red points indicate the ER cases. The blue line represents the Vltava River, and the white star is the location of the Prague Wildlife Rehabilitation Centre. The basemap depicts the ESA land cover categories. The distribution shapefiles were extracted from IUCN SSC Small Mammal Specialist Group [23] for the EE and from IUCN [24] for the ER, and the ESA land cover originates from the ESA WorldCover 2021 project [25]. The European countries shapefiles were sourced from the rnaturalearth package (version 1.1.0) [26], the Prague and Vltava River shapefiles originate from the RCzechia package (version 1.12.8) [27]. The maps were created using R (version 4.5.1) [28] and edited in Inkscape (version 1.4.2) [29]

At the same time, previous studies suggest that the two species are not ecologically identical. In Central Europe, the ER has been associated with lower-altitude areas, signs of more recent population growth, and higher gene flow than the EE [22]. More recent genetic data further indicate that the two species differ in landscape-genetic structure, with EE showing a more stable spatial pattern and ER exhibiting additional cryptic substructure, suggesting that they may respond differently to landscape features and anthropogenic barriers [33]. The species also differ in parasite assemblages, particularly in intestinal parasites, which may reflect differences in trophic niche [34]. In contrast, morphometric analyses indicate that individuals from sympatric populations become more similar in cranial morphology, suggesting convergence under shared ecological pressures [35]. Earlier literature has further suggested differences in hibernation and reproductive timing, with the ER showing earlier activity onset than the EE [32]. Together, these findings indicate that the two species may differ in how they respond to the same environmental conditions, making their comparison within a shared urban environment particularly informative.

In this context, the Prague Wildlife Rehabilitation Centre provides a valuable opportunity to compare the two species within the same urban environment, because species recognition at this center had been previously validated [22, 34]. Using a seven-year dataset, we examined whether two sympatric hedgehog species, the Western European hedgehog and the Northern white-breasted hedgehog, differ in key ecological patterns in a large Central European city. Specifically, we asked: (1) whether the two species differ in their spatial distribution across Prague, (2) whether they differ in the seasonal timing of admissions of juveniles and adults, and (3) whether rehabilitation outcomes differ between species after accounting for season of admission and reason for admission. We expected that the ecological differences between the two species would be indicated by non-random spatial segregation, contrasting seasonal admission patterns, and differences in rehabilitation outcomes in their records. Together, these questions allow us to assess whether opportunistic wildlife rehabilitation data can reveal biologically meaningful differences between the two species in an urban contact zone.

Methods

Records from 4,253 cases involving the EE and the ER admitted by the Prague Wildlife Rehabilitation Centre in 2017–2023 were obtained. As the center is responsible for caring for injured and handicapped animals found in Prague, most of the records (n = 3,692; 86.8%) originated from within the city of Prague, a large urban area in Czechia in Central Europe with a temperate continental climate. The city lies within the contact zone of the two hedgehog species and is bisected by the Vltava River. The large built-up areas comprising the city center progressively transition into more vegetated areas towards the periphery (Fig. 1c). Some of the cases (n = 513; 12.1%) came from the surrounding Central Bohemian region, and the remaining cases (n = 48; 1.1%) were of animals found in unspecified locations outside of Prague (see Fig. 1b). Each record contained species identification (conducted by Z.P.), sex, age estimate, location and date of admission, reason for admission, fate of the individual, and date of death or release. Since the animals were not marked, individual identification was impossible, and in theory, the same individual may have been admitted on multiple occasions. The hedgehogs were grouped into two age categories – young (before first hibernation) and adult (after first hibernation). Since sex was only known in 14% of the cases, it was not included in any analyses.

Distribution of the two species

For the assessment of the geographic distribution of the two species, GPS coordinates were extracted from online maps (mapy.cz) based on the addresses given in the records. Cases without determinable coordinates (n = 59; 1.4%) were removed. Since the Vltava River may act as a dispersal barrier for hedgehogs in Prague, each of the 3,644 records from Prague with GPS coordinates was assigned to a corresponding bank of the Vltava River (western, eastern). To assess the distribution of the two species on the two sides of the river, we compared the proportion of cases of each species on each of the Vltava Banks.

Seasonal trends in admission

To evaluate the monthly trends in admissions in the two species, the whole dataset of 4,253 cases was used. The number of cases of each species and age category were visualized in a linear graph in monthly intervals, using relative numbers due to the uneven sample size (2,985 ER; 1,268 EE). As we aimed to visualize the patterns across years and age groups, the baseline (100%) was defined for each species and year separately as the total number of cases of the given species in the given year (e.g. the number of the EE young cases in January 2017 was expressed as a percentage of all EE cases recorded in 2017).

Observed interspecific differences in release rates

To analyze the interspecific differences in the outcome of the rehabilitation, the fate of admitted animals was classified as release, euthanasia, or unassisted death. Cases with undefined outcome were excluded from the analysis. These included animals still under treatment and animals kept in permanent care, as the dataset did not distinguish between these two situations, as well as those for which the outcome was not stated. The final dataset used for the analysis comprised 3,789 cases.

We evaluated interspecific differences in release rates and their variability across different seasons of admission and reasons for admissions. For this purpose, we categorized the cases into four seasons – spring (March to May), summer (June to August), fall (September to November), and winter (December to February). Reasons for admission were grouped according to the system used by Lukešová et al. [13] with minor modifications. As some of the categories were underrepresented in our dataset, we only recognized those with more than 10 cases in each of the two species and included the rest in the category of other reasons. This resulted in a total of eight categories - awakened hibernator (AWH), exhaustion and starvation (EXH), hoglet (HOG; encompassing all young animals), infections and parasites (INF), injuries (INJ), injury by another animal (INA), road and rail traffic (TRA), other reasons (OTH; including falls, poisoning, entanglement, oil contamination, intrusion into buildings, removal from unsuitable or dangerous conditions, confiscation of illegally kept hedgehogs, hedgehogs found active during the day, and unspecified reasons). These categories were treated as mutually exclusive, and each case was assigned to the category that best represented the primary reason for admission.

Proportions of the different outcomes across the categories (seasons of admission, reason for admission) were visualized for each species separately in a stacked bar chart. To assess interspecific differences in release rates, outcomes were subsequently recoded as a binary variable (1 = release, 0 = unassisted death or euthanasia).

Model-based interspecific differences in release rates

Outcomes were then analyzed using a generalized linear model (GLM) with a binomial error distribution and logit link function. Binary outcome was used as the response variable, while species, season of admission, and reason for admission were included as explanatory variables. Interactions between species and season of admission, and between species and reason for admission, were incorporated to test whether their effects differed among species. A three-way interaction among all variables (species, season of admission, reason for admission) was not included due to low sample sizes in some category combinations, which could reduce the reliability of the model. The relationships among the explanatory variables were evaluated using Cramér’s V performed in the rcompanion package (version 2.5.2) [36]. The associations were considered negligible if V < 0.1, weak if V = 0.1–0.3, moderate is V = 0.3–0.5, and strong if V > 0.5 [37].

Estimated marginal means (EMMs) were derived from the GLM using the emmeans package (version 2.0.3) [38]. Estimated marginal release probabilities (EMRPs) were extracted for each species a) averaged across all other predictors, b) for each season of admission averaged across all reasons for admission, c) for each reason for admission, averaged across all seasons of admission, and d) for each combined level of season of admission and reason for admission. The estimated marginal release probabilities for all but d) were visualized in a bar chart. Pairwise comparisons of the estimated marginal release probabilities were used to identify statistically significant interspecific differences, using the 0.05 level of significance.

Changes in interspecific differences in release rates over time

Additionally, we evaluated the changes in release rates over time in the two species. Annual release rates were calculated for each species separately as the proportion of cases resulting in release out of all cases with known outcome in the given year and expressed as percentages. As we wanted to see if variation in release rates across years was linked to temporal changes in the reasons for admission, we plotted the percentual representation of each reason for admission for each species and year in a barplot.

Results

Distribution of the two species

The cases of the two species were unevenly distributed throughout Prague, with the Northern white-breasted hedgehog (ER) cases spanning across most of the city and those of the Eastern European hedgehog (EE) concentrated in its southwestern part (Fig. 1c). When the distribution of the cases was evaluated in relation to the Vltava River, most of the ER (76.6%) were found on the eastern bank of the river, whereas the EE cases originated predominantly (64.8%) from the western bank.

Seasonal trends in admission

Young represented most of the admitted hedgehogs in both species (71.6% in the ER, 67.6% in the EE). However, while the EE young typically showed one peak in fall (September-October), the ER young tended to have one peak in summer (June-July) and one in fall (September-October) (Fig. 2). Adults of both species were most commonly found in May. While the number of adult ER cases generally declined in fall, the number of adult EE cases rose and even reached a second peak in September-October in some years (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2.

Linear graph of monthly admissions of adults and young, with the two species distinguished by color. The baseline (100%) was set for every year and every species separately as the total number of cases of the given species within the given year, regardless of age. Monthly admissions were then expressed as the percentages of the respective baselines (EE = Western European hedgehog, ER = Northern white-breasted hedgehog)

Observed interspecific differences in release rates

Overall, release was the most common outcome (56.0%), followed by unassisted death (37.5%) and euthanasia (6.5%) (see Fig. 3 and Table S1 in Additional file 1 for details). When the outcome was considered as a binary variable (release vs. death), the release rate was higher in the ER (60.5%) than the EE (47.9%).

Fig. 3.

Observed outcomes in the different categories. The gray bar indicates the overall outcome frequencies for the entire dataset. The colorful bars show outcome frequencies for each of the evaluated categories, with no pattern for the Western European hedgehog (EE) and with a lined pattern for the Northern white-breasted hedgehog (ER). The reasons for admission are abbreviated (AWH = awakened hibernator, EXH = exhaustion and starvation, HOG = hoglets, INF = infections and parasites, INJ = injuries, INA = injury by another animal, TRA = road and rail traffic, OTH = other reasons)

The observed release rate was the lowest in spring in both species (45.7% in the ER; 35.2% in the EE), while the highest value was detected in winter in the ER (68.9%) and in summer in the EE (55.3%). The interspecific differences were apparent across all seasons, with the ER showing higher release rates than the EE by roughly 10% in spring, summer, and fall, and by approximately 30% in winter (Fig. 3, Table S1 in Additional file 1).

Both species showed the highest observed release rates in other reasons (OTH) (79.2% in the EE, 85.7% in the ER) and the lowest in road and traffic accidents (TRA) (24.3% in the EE, 19.6% in the ER). The direction of the interspecific difference in release rates varied across reasons for admissions, with the ER showing higher release rates in awakened hibernators (AWH), exhaustion and starvation (EXH), hoglets (HOG), injuries (INJ), and OTH and the EE in infections and parasites (INF), injury by another animal (INA), and TRA. The most striking interspecific difference was observed in INF, where the EE release rate (28.2%) more than doubled that of the ER (12.0%) (Fig. 3, Table S1 in Additional file 1).

Model-based interspecific differences in release rates

The GLM predicted an overall higher probability of release for the ER (46.6%) compared to the EE (44.1%), although this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.5393) (see Fig. 4 and Table S2 and S3 in Additional file 1 for details). Unlike the observed release rates presented above, these values are model-based and adjusted for the other explanatory variables included in the analysis.

Fig. 4.

Predicted release probabilities derived from the generalized linear model for each category of response variables. Blue bars indicate the Western European hedgehog (EE), red bars indicate the Northern white-breasted hedgehog (ER). The reasons for admission are abbreviated (AWH = awakened hibernator, EXH = exhaustion and starvation, HOG = hoglets, INF = infections and parasites, INJ = injuries, INA = injury by another animal, TRA = road and rail traffic, OTH = other reasons)

Contrastingly to the observed release rates, the GLM did not show a consistent trend across the seasons, with the predicted probability of release higher in the EE in spring and summer, and in the ER in fall and winter. However, the interspecific differences were not statistically significant except for winter (p = 0.0172), where the probability of release in the ER was approximately 20% higher than in the EE (Fig. 4, Table S3 in Additional file 1).

The GLM results displayed directions of interspecific differences identical to the directions shown by observed release rates in all reasons for admission and estimated the highest release probabilities in OTH in both species (79.1% in the EE, 86.5% in the ER). While the lowest release probability in the EE was estimated in TRA (21.8%), in alignment with the observed release rates, the estimated release probability was the lowest in the ER in INF (12.4%). However, the interspecific differences were only statistically significant in EXH (p < 0.0001) and HOG (p = 0.0007) (Fig. 4, Table S3 in Additional file 1).

Cramér’s V showed a weak association between species and season of admission (V = 0.1882) as well as between species and reason for admission (V = 0.1086), while a moderate association was found between season of admission and reason for admission (V = 0.4326). When the interaction of these two factors was considered, the GLM revealed statistically significant interspecific differences in release probabilities for EXH in all seasons (p = 0.0326 in spring, 0.0311 in summer, 0.0031 in fall, <0.0001 in winter), HOG in fall (p < 0.0001) and winter (p = 0.0004), and INJ in winter (p = 0.0261), with the estimated probability of release higher in ER in all cases (Table S4 in Additional file 1).

Changes in interspecific differences in release rates over time

The annual release rates showed disparate trends in the two species. While the values for the ER remained at approximately 60% across the study period with only minor deviations (ranging from 53.3% to 65.2%), the release rates in the EE changed substantially throughout the years, starting at 65.4% in 2017 and declining to 31.7% by 2023 (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5.

Temporal changes of annual release rates across the seven studied years in the two species (EE = Western European hedgehog, ER = Northern white-breasted hedgehog)

Overall, the percentual representation of the different reasons for admission did not show substantial differences between the species (Fig. S1 and Table S5 in Additional file 1). Across all seven years and both species, HOG was the most frequent reason for admission (representing between 47.2% and 78.8% of the cases), followed by EXH (ranging between 8.4% and 22.7%). All other reasons consistently attained values below 10%, except for TRA in the EE in 2023 (10.6%). Although the percentual representation of HOG gradually decreased throughout the study period (from 78.8% to 47.2% in the EE, from 71.1% to 55.8% in the ER), this trend was similar in both species. The release to death ratios in this category also remained relatively consistent throughout the study period in both species, the only exception being the 0.34 release to death ratio in the EE in 2023 in contrast with the ratios 0.88–2.72 in all other instances.

Discussion

Using records from the Prague Wildlife Rehabilitation Centre, we found interspecific differences in spatial distribution, seasonal timing of admissions, and rehabilitation outcomes. Together, these patterns are consistent with ecological differences between the Western European hedgehog (E. europaeus; EE) and the Northern white-breasted hedgehog (E. roumanicus; ER) within the same urban environment and provide a basis for their interpretation in the context of the Central European contact zone. Although sympatric character displacement is often discussed in morphological terms [39], ecological differentiation between closely related sympatric species may also be reflected in how they partition resources, space, and time [40]. Our results are consistent with this broader view, as the two hedgehog species differed in spatial distribution, seasonal timing, and rehabilitation outcomes despite only limited morphological differentiation under sympatric conditions.

Interspecific differences in spatial distribution across Prague

The contrasting distribution of the two species across Prague may reflect differences in their varying microhabitat and natural food preferences or their different ability to cope with anthropogenic pressure. The known ecological differences between the two species, such as the preference of the ER for areas with lower altitude and higher temperatures compared to the EE [22, 32], may contribute to the observed variation. However, direct comparative ecological data for the two species remain limited, particularly from urban areas within the Central European contact zone and are therefore insufficient to explain the observed pattern in depth. Additionally, the distribution patterns and higher relative representation of the ER in Prague compared to the EE could be shaped by interspecific interactions. In sympatry, closely related species often show spatial segregation that reflects not only landscape features, but also ecological differentiation and interspecific interactions. Such patterns have been described in a range of small mammals [41–43], where differences in habitat use, dispersal, or competitive ability can shape local distribution within shared landscapes, including urban areas [44, 45].

The concentration of the EE in the southwest and the domination of the ER in the eastern portion of the city (Fig. 1) could also indicate the separation of the two species by the Vltava River. As the river traverses the city from the south to the north, it may represent a barrier to the eastward dispersal of the EE and the westward spreading of the ER [46]. With the width exceeding 100 meters across a large proportion of its length in Prague, it may be difficult to cross for hedgehogs. Furthermore, although there are 20 bridges across the river, only three of them are pedestrian-only, which could reduce their accessibility to hedgehogs. This finding is consistent with the results of studies that identified large rivers as barriers to the dispersal of small mammals [47–49], including hedgehogs [50, 51].

Interspecific differences of seasonal timing of admissions

As the number of animals (particularly young) admitted to the rehabilitation center commonly increases during the breeding season and after young are born [52–54], reproductive patterns can be inferred from the observed temporal variation in admissions. Consequently, the interspecific difference in the number of admission peaks per year between the EE and the ER suggests a different reproductive pattern in the two species. The ER young displayed one peak in summer and one in fall, implying the presence of two litters per year. On the contrary, the single peak in the EE young admissions in fall suggests that this species only has one litter per year.

The earlier onset of reproduction in the ER could reflect that this species awakens from hibernation earlier compared to the EE, as has been previously reported [32]. The timing and duration of hibernation are strongly influenced by climatic conditions through their effect on seasonal availability of natural food resources [55]. In milder parts of southern Europe and in areas with an oceanic climate, where resource availability is prolonged, hibernation tends to be shorter and the breeding season extended [17, 19] whereas in northern and more continental regions, prolonged winter resource scarcity restricts reproductive activity and usually results in a single litter per year [55, 56]. Such phenological divergence has been interpreted in other sympatric systems as a mechanism reducing temporal overlap in resource use and reproductive activity, thereby facilitating coexistence between ecologically similar species [57]. Although available data suggest only minor differences in body size and diet composition between the hedgehogs in Czechia [35], the observed asynchronous hibernation and reproduction may represent a temporal niche segregation mechanism that reduces interspecific competition for food and minimizes the risk of hybridization. Such a shift in seasonal activity could further indicate a broader ecological tolerance or competitive advantage of the ER under the conditions of Central European urban habitats. However, because these inferences are based on admission patterns rather than direct field observations, they should be interpreted cautiously.

Interspecific differences in rehabilitation outcome

The two species also differed in rehabilitation outcome, with the ER showing higher release rates than the EE. This difference was not uniform across all cases, but varied with season of admission, reason for admission, and their interaction. The strongest interspecific contrasts were observed in winter, among animals admitted for exhaustion and starvation, and in hoglets. One possible explanation is that the EE may remain active later into the year and enter rehabilitation in poorer physical condition, which could reduce its probability of release. This interpretation is consistent with the higher frequency of late-season admissions in the EE, which was equally observed by Lukesova et al. [58], who attributed it to the fact that hedgehogs of lower weight are forced to forage during winter to gain sufficient weight to survive hibernation. However, this finding cannot be tested directly using our dataset, as the severity of the admitted condition was not quantified.

Shifts in case composition alone are unlikely to explain the annual variation in rehabilitation outcome observed in the two species, as the temporal distribution of admission categories remained broadly similar across the seven-year study period. It may have been influenced by a number of other factors, such as management and personnel changes at the center or public awareness and interest in wildlife. Part of the study period overlapped with the COVID-19 pandemic, which substantially altered human mobility and daily routines and may therefore have affected both the detection and reporting of hedgehogs as well as the operation of the rehabilitation center itself. Although scarcely considered, the impact of the pandemic on the number of rehabilitation center admissions has been observed [14]. However, while these factors could contribute to the varying rehabilitation outcome across years, it is unlikely that they would affect the two species disproportionately. The interspecific differences may also reflect broader ecological differences in how the two species cope with the urban environment of Prague, including possible interspecific interactions, although stochastic variation cannot be excluded. At the same time, rehabilitation center records represent an opportunistic and non-random subset of the population, and release outcomes may therefore reflect not only species-specific ecology, but also the composition and severity of admitted cases. Direct extrapolation of these patterns to population-level processes should therefore be made with caution.

Conclusions

The present study shows that the Western European hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus) and the Northern white-breasted hedgehog (E. roumanicus) differ in spatial distribution, seasonal timing of admissions, and rehabilitation outcomes within the same urban environment in Prague. Taken together, these patterns are consistent with ecological differentiation between the two species in the Central European contact zone, even though the precise mechanisms underlying them cannot be resolved directly from rehabilitation-center records alone. Rather than pointing to a single cause, the observed contrasts likely reflect a combination of differences in phenology, environmental preferences, and interactions with the urban landscape. At the same time, our findings demonstrate that standardized records from wildlife rehabilitation centers, despite being based on opportunistic admissions, can provide valuable comparative ecological information and reveal fine-scale interspecific patterns that would be difficult to capture through conventional field monitoring. When interpreted with appropriate caution, such datasets can contribute to a broader understanding of how closely related species respond to shared human-dominated environments, thus extending the role of wildlife rehabilitation centers beyond wildlife care.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Authors’ contributions

The concept of the study was outlined by EC and BČB. Funding was acquired by BČB. ZP compiled the dataset of hedgehog records. EC and AK designed the methodology and analyzed the data. The original draft was prepared by EC and BČB, and the final manuscript was reviewed, edited, and approved by all authors.

Funding

The study was supported by the internal grant agency of Czech University of Life Sciences Prague (IGA 20263145).

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Declarations

Ethical approval

All data used in this study were provided by the Prague Wildlife Rehabilitation Centre, whose establishment and operations are authorized by the Ministry of the Environment of the Czech Republic, in accordance with Act No. 114/1992 Coll. (Act of the Czech National Council on Nature and Landscape Protection).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.