Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
COUGAR ECOLOGY AND BEHAVIOR IN A WILDLAND-URBAN ENVIRONMENT IN
WESTERN WASHINGTON
Brian N. Kertson, Ph.D. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
HUMANS AS A LIMITING FACTOR
Habitat loss*
Competition for prey biomass
Disease Over-harvest
Social tolerance*
WASHINGTON AND PEOPLE
• Increasing human population
-WA 2030: 8.4 million
• Habitat loss
-WA: 27 km² per year
• High levels of interaction
COUGARS IN A RAPIDLY URBANIZING WORLD
1) Spatial ecology and behavior in the Wildland-Urban Interface and residential areas
2) Understand the role of cougar population characteristics in use of residential areas
3) Develop management recommendations
COUGAR WILDLAND-URBAN ECOLOGY
STUDY AREA
• 3,500 km2
• Topographically complex
• Densely forested, wet
• Gradient of residential development
Seattle
GPS COLLARS
• Vectronics GPS Plus-1D
• 6 fixes/day
• Globalstar satellite uplink or UHF download on demand
UTILIZATION DISTRIBUTION (UD)
SPATIAL ANALYSES
• Resource Utilization Functions (RUFs)
-Home range, wildland, and
residential
-Population and individual
• Movements rates (m/hr)
-Location, Time, L x T
Y = β0 + β1x1+ β2x2 + β3x3 + βnxn ……
WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE (WUI)
RESIDENTIAL USE
• Residential use common
• Overlap:
-93% of cats (n = 27)
Average:
-Volume = 16.86% ± 17.05
-Area = 18.35% ± 16.75
AVERAGE USE RELATIVE TO WUI
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Sex Age Social
UD
Re
sid
en
tial
Ove
rlap
(%
) DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS
Male (n = 17)
Adult (n = 24)
Subadult (n = 9)
Resident (n = 21)
Transient (n = 12)
f1,28 = 0.6990, P = 0.41 f1,28 = 6.990, P = 0.01 f1,28 = 0.0004, P = 0.98
Female (n = 16)
INTERACTION RATE
• Marked cougars (n = 32):
-1.6 interactions per 1,000 radio days
• Adjusted rate:
-1.9 interactions per 1,000 radio days
• 2,323 observations ≤ 500 m from development:
-Interactions in 0.0073% of observations
WILDLAND VS. RESIDENTIAL SPACE USE
*n = 19 cougars, 24 cougar-yrs
MOVEMENTS
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Diel Crepuscular Nocturnal
Mo
vem
en
t R
ate
(m
/hr)
Movement Period
Wildland
Residential
Time: f2,53 = 4.180, P = 0.02 Loc. : f1,53 = 1.141, P = 0.29 L x T: f2,53 = 0.500, P = 0.61
WILDLAND-URBAN ECOLOGY
• Adaptable
• Cover, prey, and connectivity
• Suitable habitat interspersed with development
• Use residential areas like wildlands
• Full suite of normal behaviors
• Low interaction rates → high coexistence
RESIDENTIAL THRESHHOLDS
Residential Density (km2)
Location n 50% CDF 95% CDF 99% CDF
Westside 14 0.890 177.6 846.0
Cle Elum 20 0.030 19.6 89.0
Okanogan 19 0.083 19.8 99.0
Northeast 15 0.113 2.6 9.9
*81.6% of use in areas < 1 residence/km2
COUGAR WILDLAND-URBAN ECOLOGY
• Cougars use of residential areas will continue:
-Connectivity, cover, and prey
• Cougars and people are coexisting
• Education and landscape planning is key
CARNIVORE CONSERVATION MUST BE MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Wildlife Professionals
Education and Outreach Landscape and Urban Planners
LANDSCAPE PLANNING
Low density, diffuse High density, concentrated
Kertson et al. 2011
PROPELLING COUGAR MANAGEMENT
…………..FORWARD
Do cougar population characteristics influence use of residential areas and
interactions with people?
POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS
• Vital rates
• Immigration/emigration
• Population growth
• Age structure
• Sex ratios
• Density
• 13 captures
-3 adult M
-3 subadult M
-4 adult F
-3 subadult F
• 85% use residential
F13
F4
F8
RESIDENTIAL USE
• Cougar space use
-Utilization distribution
• Residential vs. wildland
Measure overlap in ArcMap
(Kertson et al. 2013)
MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS
• Maintain cougar population viability and minimize risks
-How to manage pops in wildland-urban landscapes
-Improved outreach and education
• Cougars in wildland-urban landscapes
-Source or sink?
-Demographic or behavioral differences
STATISTICAL ANALYSES
• ANOVA fixed-effects
-Study area
-Period (pre/post closure)
-Study area x Period
• t – tests
-Population characteristics
• Multiple regression
-Residential use ~ population characteristics
NEXT STEPS
Questions?