Spelling suggestions: "subject:"wildlife management|cology|zoology"" "subject:"wildlife management|cology|noology""
1 |
Ecology of coyotes (Canis latrans) in the greater Detroit area of southeastern MichiganDodge, William B., Jr. 24 May 2016 (has links)
<p>Coyote distribution and habitat use, diet and foraging behavior, and space use patterns were investigated in the greater Detroit area of southeastern Michigan. We found evidence of coyotes on 24 of 30 (80%) suburban and 7 of 11 (64%) urban plots. Overall fifty-eight percent of coyote evidence was found within edge habitats, with den sites and tracks the only types of evidence found strictly in interior habitats. Land cover around evidence points included more wooded land cover than expected in suburban areas, suggesting the importance of tree cover for coyote occupancy, and more open space and wooded land cover than expected in urban areas, highlighting their avoidance of heavily populated areas. Coyote diet was assessed through identification of remains of food items recovered in coyote scat. White-tailed deer, eastern cottontail rabbit, and small rodents were the most consumed prey in both urban and suburban areas. Coyote consumption of white-tailed deer biomass was 7.2% greater than expected in suburban areas and 10.0% less than expected in urban areas and the difference was significant (<i>P</i> < 0.004). More white-tailed deer, raccoon, and woodchuck biomass was consumed compared to other studies, likely due to high use of road-kill. In suburban areas, coyote selection for road-killed white-tailed deer was positive regardless of white-tailed deer or rabbit abundance. Coyotes in urban areas used a foraging strategy that incorporated both prey selection and switching, with no strong discernable pattern. Radio-telemetry technology was used to gather relocations of coyotes for analysis of home range and cores areas frequented by coyotes. Smaller home ranges were made up of greater proportions of urban land than natural land cover, although there was variation. Core areas were dominated by relatively large patches of natural land cover and had greater connectivity compared to home range areas. Radio-telemetry data suggested that coyotes were selective in their use of space, avoiding urban land in favor of natural land cover. </p>
|
2 |
Habitat and spatial ecology of the Western Screech-Owl ( Megascops kennicottii) in the Davis Mountains of West TexasOlivas, Corin Michelle 20 November 2015 (has links)
<p> Western Screech-Owls (<i>Megascops kennicottii</i>) are small, nocturnal owls that occur year-round throughout most of the Trans-Pecos region in West Texas, and are associated with deciduous woodlands and riparian habitats. Roadside nocturnal callback surveys, were established along well-defined trails within the Davis Mountains Preserve, and took place from May until August for two years to ascertain the relative abundance of Western Screech-Owls within the property. Abundance indices (birds detected/visit/station) were calculated for both survey seasons. Radiotelemetry was incorporated to determine certain life-history information, while habitat was characterized from both survey and telemetry sites. Occupancy models with detection probabilities were created using Program PRESENCE based on collected presence-absence data. Based on criteria for suitable screech-owl habitat previously defined in the literature, several models were also generated within ArcGIS to compare with the field data and to help predict areas of occupancy within the property. Owl abundance averaged 1.05 owls/point in 2013 and 0.82 owls/point in 2014. Six owls were marked during the study, and 3 of 6 locations were confirmed as daytime roosting sites. Statistically, there were no significant differences between occupied survey sites and telemetry sites, with only the percentage of canopy being significantly different with a mean difference of 9.32, <i> t</i><sub>42</sub> = -2.36, <i>p</i> = 0.023. Both owls and transmitters were discovered in dense juniper-oak mottes on north-facing slopes, indicating a preference for dense, short, closed canopy areas for roosting. Overall vegetative ground cover for the two seasons averaged 54% and 48%, respectively. It was concluded that none of the included covariates in the models influenced either occupancy or detection probabilities, though detectability demonstrated an overall trend based on time of night. GIS models did not reveal any variable that strongly influenced owl occupancy but did correspond with results from previous literature.</p>
|
3 |
Factors influencing alert and escape responses of California Towhees to recreationists| Implications for buffer areasMace, Cristhian 07 July 2015 (has links)
<p>Recreational activities have been shown repeatedly to have negative effects on wildlife. Appropriate management to minimize the effects of such activities, especially to species of conservation concern, is therefore a goal of utmost importance. This study characterized the visual ecology and anti-predator behaviors of the California Towhee, <i>Melazone crissalis</i>, in the context of parameterizing models for estimating the size and shape of wildlife buffer areas. Contrary to expectation, explicitly incorporating species-specific data on the towhee's visual system and individual-level data on physiological condition and life history traits did not significantly alter estimated buffer area requirements relative to models based solely on behavior. Similarly, towhees exhibited no differences in average alert or flight initiation distances with respect to direct versus tangential approaches. In contrast, data collected across a variety of habitat types in the field suggest that minimum approaching distances for the birds were highly dependent upon local vegetation parameters that included percent cover, density, and height. In general, more vegetative cover was associated with smaller alert and flight initiation distances. Together, these results suggest that a simple management solution (e.g., calculating buffer areas based on mean alert distance alone) may be adequate for this species, but that local habitat conditions will need to be taken into consideration for optimal management solutions. </p>
|
Page generated in 0.0999 seconds