Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Habitat selection by critically endangered Florida panthers across the diel period: implications for land management and conservation

2010; Wiley; Volume: 14; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1111/j.1469-1795.2010.00415.x

1469-1795

David P. Onorato, Marc Criffield, Mark Lotz, Michael Cunningham, R. McBride, Erin H. Leone, Oron L. Bass, Eric C. Hellgren,

Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies

Animal ConservationVolume 14, Issue 2 p. 196-205 Habitat selection by critically endangered Florida panthers across the diel period: implications for land management and conservation D. P. Onorato, D. P. Onorato Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Naples, FL, USASearch for more papers by this authorM. Criffield, M. Criffield Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Naples, FL, USASearch for more papers by this authorM. Lotz, M. Lotz Division of Habitat and Species Conservation, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Naples, FL, USASearch for more papers by this authorM. Cunningham, M. Cunningham Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Gainesville, FL, USASearch for more papers by this authorR. McBride, R. McBride Rancher's Supply Inc., Ochopee, FL, USASearch for more papers by this authorE. H. Leone, E. H. Leone Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Gainesville, FL, USASearch for more papers by this authorO. L. Bass Jr, O. L. Bass Jr South Florida Natural Resource Center, Everglades National Park, Homestead, FL, USASearch for more papers by this authorE. C. Hellgren, E. C. Hellgren Cooperative Wildlife Research Lab, Southern Illinois University-Carbondale, Carbondale, IL, USASearch for more papers by this author D. P. Onorato, D. P. Onorato Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Naples, FL, USASearch for more papers by this authorM. Criffield, M. Criffield Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Naples, FL, USASearch for more papers by this authorM. Lotz, M. Lotz Division of Habitat and Species Conservation, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Naples, FL, USASearch for more papers by this authorM. Cunningham, M. Cunningham Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Gainesville, FL, USASearch for more papers by this authorR. McBride, R. McBride Rancher's Supply Inc., Ochopee, FL, USASearch for more papers by this authorE. H. Leone, E. H. Leone Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Gainesville, FL, USASearch for more papers by this authorO. L. Bass Jr, O. L. Bass Jr South Florida Natural Resource Center, Everglades National Park, Homestead, FL, USASearch for more papers by this authorE. C. Hellgren, E. C. Hellgren Cooperative Wildlife Research Lab, Southern Illinois University-Carbondale, Carbondale, IL, USASearch for more papers by this author First published: 22 December 2010 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2010.00415.xCitations: 34 Correspondence Dave P. Onorato, Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Naples, FL 34114, USA. Tel: +1 239-417-6352; Fax: +1 239-417-6361Email: [email protected] Editor: Matthew Gompper Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Abstract Decisions regarding landscape management, restoration and land acquisition typically depend on land managers' interpretation of how wildlife selects habitat. Such assessments are particularly important for umbrella species like the endangered Florida panther Puma concolor coryi, whose survival requires vast wildlands. Some interpretations of habitat selection by panthers have been criticized for using only morning locations in defining habitat use. We assessed habitat selection using a Euclidean distance analysis and location data collected throughout the diel period from GPS collars deployed on 20 independent Florida panthers. We corroborated aspects of earlier analyses by demonstrating the selection of forested habitats by panthers. We also confirmed the selection of open habitats (i.e. marsh–shrub–swamps, prairie grasslands), a novel result. Habitat selection did not vary by sex or season but varied by time of day. Panthers were located closer to wetland forests in the daytime and used prairie grasslands more at night. Our assessment of the effect of patch size on selection of forest habitat revealed that panthers were not solely reliant on large patches (>500 ha) but utilized patches of all sizes (≤1, >5–10, >1000 ha, etc.). Our results emphasize the importance of collecting panther location data throughout the diel period when assessing habitat selection. Conservation strategies for panthers should consider a mosaic of habitats, a methodology that will protect other sensitive flora and fauna in South Florida. Supporting Information Figure S1. Map depicting the 100% minimum convex polygon (MCP) home ranges for 20 independent Florida panthers fitted with GPS collars in South Florida, February 2005–February 2009. These ranges were used to determine habitat available to panthers, which was then used in assessments of habitat selection by Euclidean distance analysis. The breeding range of the Florida panther (lightly shaded green; Kautz et al. 2006) and major public land holdings (darker shading) are also noted. Table S1. Land cover classes from Kautz et al. (2007), reclassified for the analysis of habitat selection by Florida panthers. The forest patch category was used to define patches of habitat inclusive of forests (0=nonforested; 1=forested). Forest land cover classes not found within the study area (e.g., bottomland hardwood forest) were not included. As a service to our authors and readers, this journal provides supporting information supplied by the authors. Such materials are peer-reviewed and may be re-organized for online delivery, but are not copy-edited or typeset. Technical support issues arising from supporting information (other than missing files) should be addressed to the authors. Filename Description ACV_415_sm_supplinfo.doc347.5 KB Supporting info item Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article. References Aebischer, N.J., Robertson, P.A. & Kenward, R.E. (1993). Compositional analysis of habitat use from animal radio-tracking data. Ecology 74, 1313–1325. Beier, P., Choate, D. & Barrett, R.H. (1995). Movement patterns of mountain lions during different behaviors. J. Mammal. 76, 1056–1070. Beier, P., Vaughan, M.R., Conroy, M.J. & Quigley, H. (2006). Evaluating scientific inferences about the Florida panther. J. Wildl. Mgmt. 70, 236–245. Belden, R.C., Frankenberger, W.B., McBride, R.T. & Schwikert, S.T. (1988). Panther habitat use in Southern Florida. J. Wildl. Mgmt. 52, 660–663. Benson, J.F., Lotz, M.A. & Jansen, D. (2008). Natal den selection by Florida panthers. J. Wildl. Mgmt. 72, 405–410. Beyer, H.L. (2004). Hawth's analysis tools for ArcGIS. Available at http://www.spatialecology.com (accessed 17 November 2009) Bolen, E.G. & Robinson, W.L. (1999). Wildlife ecology and management. 4th edn. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall. Bruggeman, J.E., Garrott, R.A., White, P.J., Watson, F.G.R. & Wallen, R. (2007). Covariates affecting spatial variability in bison travel behavior in Yellowstone National Park. Ecol. Appl. 17, 1411–1423. Comiskey, E.J., Bass, O.L. Jr, Gross, L.J., McBride, R.T. & Salinas, R. (2002). Panthers and forests in South Florida: an ecological perspective. Conserv. Ecol. 6, 18. Conner, L.M. & Plowman, B.W. (2001). Using Euclidean distances to assess nonrandom habitat use. In Radio tracking and animal populations: 275–290. J.J. Millspaugh & J.M. Marzluff (Eds). San Diego: Academic Press. Conner, L.M., Smith, M.D. & Burger, L.W. (2003). A comparison of distance-based and classification-based analyses of habitat use. Ecology 84, 526–531. Cox, J.J., Maehr, D.S. & Larkin, J.L. (2006). Florida panther habitat use: new approach to an old problem. J. Wildl. Mgmt. 70, 1778–1785. Davis, J.H.J. (1943). The natural features of southern Florida. Tallahassee: Florida Geological Survey. Davis, W.B. & Schmidly, D.J. (1994). The mammals of Texas. Austin: Texas Parks and Wildlife Press. Dickson, B.G. & Beier, P. (2002). Home-range and habitat selection by adult cougars in southern California. J. Wildl. Mgmt. 66, 1235–1245. Dickson, B.G., Jenness, J.S. & Beier, P. (2005). Influence of vegetation, topography, and roads on cougar movement in southern California. J. Wildl. Mgmt. 69, 264–276. Dodd, N.L., Gagnon, J.W., Boe, S. & Schweinsburg, R.E. (2007). Assessment of elk highway permeability by using Global Positioning System telemetry. J. Wildl. Mgmt. 71, 1107–1117. Duever, M.J., Carlson, J.E., Meeder, J.F., Duever, L.C., Gunderson, L.H., Riopelle, L.A., Alexander, T.R., Myers, R.L. & Spangler, D.P. (1986). The big cypress national preserve. New York: National Audubon Society. Franklin, W.L., Johnson, W.E., Sarno, R.J. & Iriarte, J.A. (1999). Ecology of the Patagonia puma Felis concolor patagonica in southern Chile. Biol. Conserv. 90, 33–40. Gabor, T.M., Hellgren, E.C. & Silvy, N.J. (2001). Multi-scale habitat partitioning in sympatric suiforms. J. Wildl. Mgmt. 65, 99–110. Gross, L. (2005). Why not the best? How science failed the Florida panther. PLoS Biol. 3, e333. Hatten, J.R., Averill-Murray, A. & Van Pelt, W.E. (2005). A spatial model of potential jaguar habitat in Arizona. J. Wildl. Mgmt. 69, 1024–1033. Hornocker, M.G. (1970). An analysis of mountain lion predation upon mule deer and elk in the Idaho Primitive Area. Wildl. Monogr 21, 1–39. Ilse, L.M. & Hellgren, E.C. (1995). Resource partitioning in sympatric populations of collared peccaries and feral hogs in Southern Texas. J. Mammal. 76, 784–799. Johnson, D.H. (1980). The comparison of usage and availability measurements for evaluating resource preference. Ecology 61, 65–71. Kautz, R., Kawula, R., Hoctor, T., Comiskey, J., Jansen, D., Jennings, D., Kasbohm, J., Mazzotti, F., McBride, R., Richardson, L. & Root, K. (2006). How much is enough? Landscape-scale conservation for the Florida panther. Biol. Conserv. 130, 118–133. Kautz, R., Stys, B. & Kawula, R. (2007). Florida vegetation 2003 and land use change between 1985–89 and 2003. Fla. Sci. 70, 12–23. Knopff, K.H., Knopff, A.A., Warren, M.B. & Boyce, M.S. (2009). Evaluating global positioning system telemetry techniques for estimating cougar predation parameters. J. Wildl. Mgmt. 73, 586–597. Labisky, R.F., Hurd, C.C., Oli, M.K. & Barwick, R. (2003). Foods of white-tailed deer in the Florida Everglades: the significance of Crinum. Southeast. Nat. 2, 261–270. Land, E.D., Shindle, D.B., Kawula, R.J., Benson, J.F., Lotz, M.A. & Onorato, D.P. (2008). Florida panther habitat selection analysis of concurrent GPS and VHF telemetry data. J. Wildl. Mgmt. 72, 633–639. Laundré, J.W. & Loxterman, J. (2007). Impact of edge habitat on summer home range size in female pumas. Am. Midl. Nat. 157, 221–229. Logan, K.A. & Irwin, L.L. (1985). Mountain lion habitats in the Big Horn Mountains, Wyoming. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 13, 257–262. Logan, K.A. & Sweanor, L.L. (2001). Desert puma: evolutionary ecology and conservation of an enduring carnivore. Washington: Island Press. Maehr, D.S. & Cox, J.A. (1995). Landscape features and panthers in Florida. Conserv. Biol. 9, 1008–1019. Maehr, D.S. & Deason, J.P. (2002). Wide-ranging carnivores and development permits: constructing a multi-scale model to evaluate impacts on the Florida panther. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 3, 398–406. McBride, R. (2001). Current panther distribution, population trends, and habitat use: report of field work, fall 2000-winter 2001. Vero Beach: United States Fish and Wildlife Service, South Florida Ecosystem Office. McBride, R.T., McBride, R.T., McBride, R.M. & McBride, C.E. (2008). Counting pumas by categorizing physical evidence. Southeast. Nat. 7, 381–400. Mills, L.S. (2007). Conservation of wildlife populations: demography, genetics and management. Malden: Blackwell Publishing. Moe, T.F., Kindberg, J., Jansson, I. & Swenson, J.E. (2007). Importance of diel behaviour when studying habitat selection: examples from female Scandinavian brown bears (Ursus arctos). Can. J. Zool. 85, 518–525. Moyer, M.A., McCown, J.W. & Oli, M.K. (2008). Scale-dependent habitat selection by female Florida black bears in Ocala National Forest, Florida. Southeast. Nat. 7, 111–124. Onorato, D., Belden, C., Cunningham, M., Land, D., McBride, R. & Roelke, M. (2010). Long-term research on the Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi): historical findings and future obstacles to population persistence. In Biology and conservation of wild felids: 453–469. D. Macdonald & A. Loveridge (Eds). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Skarin, A., Danell, O., Bergstrom, R. & Moen, J. (2008). Summer habitat preferences of GPS-collared reindeer Rangifer tarandus tarandus. Wildl. Biol. 14, 1–15. Taylor, R.B. & Hellgren, E.C. (1997). Diet of feral hogs in the western South Texas Plains. Southwest. Nat. 42, 33–39. Thatcher, C.A., Van Manen, F.T. & Clark, J.D. (2006). Identifying suitable sites for Florida panther reintroduction. J. Wildl. Mgmt. 70, 752–763. Thatcher, C.A., Van Manen, F.T. & Clark, J.D. (2009). A habitat assessment for Florida panther population expansion into central Florida. J. Mammal. 90, 918–925. Thurfjell, H., Ball, J., Åhlén, P.-A., Kornacher, P., Dettki, H. & Sjöberg, K. (2009). Habitat use and spatial patterns of wild boar Sus scrofa (L.): agricultural fields and edges. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 55, 517–523. USFWS. (2008). Florida panther recovery plan (Puma concolor coryi), third revision. Atlanta: United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Waller, J.S. & Servheen, C. (2005). Effects of transportation infrastructure on grizzly bears in northwestern Montana. J. Wildl. Mgmt. 69, 985–1000. Young, S.P. & Goldman, E.A. (1946). The puma, mysterious American cat. Part I. History, life habits, economic status, and control. Washington: The American Wildlife Institute. Citing Literature Volume14, Issue2April 2011Pages 196-205 ReferencesRelatedInformation