05.08.2013 Views

Proceedings of the Ninth Mountain Lion Workshop - Carnivore ...

Proceedings of the Ninth Mountain Lion Workshop - Carnivore ...

Proceedings of the Ninth Mountain Lion Workshop - Carnivore ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Paths derived from puma movement patterns predicted that pumas would cross highways<br />

785% more <strong>of</strong>ten, rivers 430% more <strong>of</strong>ten, and dense residential developments, 373%<br />

more <strong>of</strong>ten than was documented. A large majority (86.8%) <strong>of</strong> puma paths that crossed<br />

highways were within 300 m <strong>of</strong> creeks or rivers and associated highway bridges, and we<br />

occasionally noted puma tracks passing beneath <strong>the</strong>se bridges.<br />

Table 4. Percent puma paths crossing potential obstacles in California’s Western Sierra<br />

Nevada; projected from GPS collar data 2002-2006. Puma ID: S = subadult, A = adult, J<br />

= juvenile, M = male, F = female. Expected crossings calculated as <strong>the</strong> percentage <strong>of</strong><br />

1000 points randomly generated using each puma’s movement parameter distribution,<br />

situated across <strong>the</strong> potential obstacle from an actual puma location point within a<br />

highway, river, or residential area buffer zone.<br />

Puma ID % Highway % River crossings % Residential area<br />

crossings<br />

crossings<br />

Expected Observed Expected Observed Expected Observed<br />

Exurban Zone<br />

SM119 37.1 7.6 36.1 3.3 32.9 16.4<br />

SM130 31.0 4.5 31.8 5.8 28.6 3.9<br />

AM852a 31.3 0.0 31.8 0.0 27.0 9.6<br />

SM852b 29.8 0.2 NA NA NA NA<br />

AF200 30.7 3.4 NA NA 24.2 7.2<br />

AF797 31.8 5.1 NA NA 26.7 8.5<br />

Undeveloped Zone<br />

JM150 33.5 3.7 32.2 11.4 NA NA<br />

AM160 36.8 7.3 36.7 12.6 NA NA<br />

AM190 40.0 10.0 41.1 14.1 34.9 1.1<br />

AF180 26.2 0.0 NA NA NA NA<br />

AF819 NA NA 30.6 16.0 NA NA<br />

AF868 NA NA 31.3 0.0 NA NA<br />

Mean % difference<br />

expected/observed<br />

785.2* 429.7* 373.2*<br />

*Difference between observed and expected values for all pumas pooled using paired Student’s t-test, α =<br />

0.05.<br />

Parcel size use<br />

For developed-zone animals, Table 5 and Fig. 2 display <strong>the</strong> percentage <strong>of</strong> puma locations<br />

by property parcel size class, versus <strong>the</strong> percent land coverage <strong>of</strong> those parcel classes in<br />

<strong>the</strong> animals’ home range areas. Paired t-tests indicated that pumas used <strong>the</strong> smaller parcel<br />

size classes <strong>of</strong> 0.10 to 5.00 acres (0.04 to 2.02 ha), 5.01 to 10.00 acres (2.03 to 4.05 ha),<br />

and 10.01 to 20.00 acres (4.05 to 8.09 ha), less than <strong>the</strong> land coverage <strong>of</strong> those parcel<br />

classes in <strong>the</strong> pumas’ home range areas (t = 3.688, df = 5, p = 0.014; t = 4.466, df = 5, p =<br />

0.006; t = 2.612, df = 5, p = 0.048). Puma use <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 20.01- to 40.00-acre (8.10- to 16.19ha)<br />

parcel class did not differ from <strong>the</strong> spatial coverage <strong>of</strong> this class in <strong>the</strong> animals’ home<br />

<strong>Proceedings</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Ninth</strong> <strong>Mountain</strong> <strong>Lion</strong> <strong>Workshop</strong><br />

137

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!