Proceedings of the fifth mountain lion workshop: 27

More documents

Recommendations

Info

40 PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIFTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP MOUNTAIN LION RESEARCH IN TEXAS: PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE Louis A. Harveson. Ceasar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute, Texas A&M University-Kingsville, Campus Box 218, Kingsville, TX 78363, and Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-2258. Michael E. Tewes. Ceasar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute, Texas A&M University-Kingsville, Campus Box 218, Kingsville, TX 78363. Nova J. Silvy. Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-2258 Jimmy Rutledge. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 4200 Smith School Road, Austin, TX 78744-3911 Key words: Demography, Ecological Studies, Food Habits, Mountain Lion, Puma concolor, Rio Grande Plains, Texas, Trans- Pecos, Trend Data Abstract Although mountain lions (Puma concolor) have been reported in all 10 ecological regions of Texas, research has been limited to the Trans-Pecos Region of west Texas. The Trans-Pecos Region has produced >75% of the statewide mountain lion mortalities in the last 10 years. Researchers have focused on mountain lion food habits, spatial patterns, population dynamics, parasites, and behavior. Currently, there are 2 research projects in Texas regarding mountain lion ecology (one in the Trans- Pecos Region and the other in the Rio Grande Plains of south Texas). In this manuscript, we provide a review of mountain lion ecology in Texas, discuss ongoing research of mountain lions in south Texas, and identify research priorities for mountain lions in Texas. In Texas, mountain lions (P.c. stanleyana) are classified as a nongame animal with no regulations on their harvest. Russ (1997) discusses the public controversy regarding the status of the mountain lion in Texas. Since 1982 the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) has been recording the number of reported mountain lion sightings and mortalities throughout the state. Reports of sightings and mortalities both have increased since the mountain lion database was initiated (Fig. 1). During the past 10 years, the Trans-Pecos region alone has produce >75% of the mountain lion mortalities throughout the state. # of Mountain Lion Reports for Texas Until recently, all ecological studies on mountain 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 1983 1984 Mortalities Sightings 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 Year Figure 1. Reported mountain lion sightings and mortalities in Texas, as compiled by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 1983-1995. 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 lions have occurred on federal land in the Trans-Pecos region of west Texas (Big Bend National Park [BBNP]: McBride 1976, Pence et al. 1976, Leopold and Krausman 1986, Davin 1987, McBride and Ruth 1988, Davin 1989, Waid 1990, Packard 1991, Ruth 1991; Carlsbad Caverns and Guadalupe Mountains National Parks [CACA-GUMO]: Smith et al. 1986). Researchers have focused on mountain lion food habits, spatial patterns, population dynamics, parasites, and behavior. Our goal was to provide a compilation of data on the ecology of mountain lions in Texas, since the majority of mountain lion literature in Texas is in the form of a thesis, dissertation, or government report. PAST RESEARCH Food Habits Mountain lion food habits have been addressed in many studies (McBride 1976, Leopold and Krausman 1986, Smith et al. 1986, Waid 1990). Scat analysis, stomach contents, and kills identified in the field have been used to determine food habits of mountain lions in west Texas. As in most regions, mountain lions primarily use large prey species (mule deer [Odocoileus hemionus], white-tailed deer [O. virginianus], javelina [Tayassu tajacu], elk [Cervus elaphus]) and supplement their diet with a variety of small animals (porcupine [Erethizon dorsatum], striped skunk [Mephitis], black-tailed jack rabbit [Lepus californicus], ground squirrel [Spermophilus spp.], coyote [Canis latrans], gray fox [Urocyon cinereoargenteus], raccoon [Procyon lotor], ringtail [Bassariscus astutus], Rio Grande turkey [Meleagris gallopavo], and turkey vulture [Cathartes aura]). Mountain
PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIFTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP 41 lion depredation on cattle, sheep, goats, hogs, horses, and burros 100% has also been reported by McBride (1976) and Smith et al. (1986). 80% Kills. Composition of mountain lion kills varied 60% among studies (Fig. 2). McBride (1976) reported a high incident of livestock kills during 14 years of field work and 40% that these accounted for 55% of the total kills found, whereas, Smith 20% et al. (1986) found livestock to be only 4% of the total kill composition. McBride's (1976) results were based around the work 0% of a predator control officer; hence, results are biased toward livestock Scat n=1881 depredation. Stomach Native n=78 big game Kills n=509 species were predominant in all studies (McBride 1976, Smith et al. 1986, Waid 1990); deer Deeroccurrence Javelina ranged between Porcupine 42-89% and javelina occurrence Livestock ranged between Unknown 0-37%. Other Figure 5. Stomach Percent Contents. composition Stomach of mountain contents lion (Fig. composite 3) are probably scat samples, a less stomach biased indicator contents, of and true kill food collected habits, from but again the the Trans-Pecos mountain Region, lion samples Texas (McBride from McBride 1976, Leopold (1976) may and be biased Krausman toward 1986, livestock Smith et (28%) al. 1986, depredation and Waid reports. 1990). Smith et al. (1986) report mountain lion stomach contents consisted of equal parts of livestock (36%) and deer (36%); however, the sample size (n=24) precludes sound conclusions. Scat Analysis. Fecal samples probably are the least biased indicator of mountain lion food habits, and the occurrence of small animals may be more likely to be recorded. Deer species occurrence range (Fig.4) from 43- 70%, javelina from 0-31%, livestock from 0-14%, porcupine from 2-16%, and other small species from 1-24% (McBride 1976, Leopold and Krausman 1986, Smith et al. 1986). Composite Samples. We pooled food habits data (McBride 1976, Leopold and Krausman 1986, Smith et al. 1986, Waid 1990) together to form a composite sample for mountain lion scat, stomach, and kills collected in the Trans- Pecos Region of Texas (Fig. 5). Again, the kill and stomach contents analysis are weighted heavily towards the biased livestock occurrence form McBride (1976). The composite scat samples, however, comes from a large number of samples (n=1881) in and around livestock operations and may be a more accurate portrayal of mountain lion food habits in west Texas. Demography and Spatial Patterns Age Distribution. Previous researchers (McBride 1976, Pence et al. 1976, Smith et al. 1986, Davin 1987, McBride and Ruth 1988, Davin 1989, Waid 1990, Packard 1991, Ruth 1991) have radio-collared 21 male and 23 female mountain lions in west Texas. Mountain lion radio-telemetry data from the BBNP were redundant since many of the animals were followed by subsequent researchers. We attempted to address the survival of the radio-collared mountain lions in west Texas, but data were incomplete in the published form. We did, however, evaluate the age distribution at time of capture from all the studies. Thirteen (8 M, 5 F) mountain lions were estimated to be #1 yr old, 14 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% McBride (1976) n=482 Smith et al. (1986) n=27 Waid (1990) n=54 Deer Javelina Other Livestock Figure 2. Percent composition of mountain lion kills collected from the Trans-Pecos Region. Texas; data from McBride (1976), Smith et al. (1986), and Waid (1990). 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% McBride (1976) n=54 Smith et al. (1986) n=24 Deer Javelina Porcupine Livestock Unknown Figure 3. Percent occurrence of mountain lion stomach contents collected from the Trans-Pecos Region, Texas; data from McBride (1976), and Smith et al. (1986). 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% McBride (1976) n=54 Smith et al. (1986) n=318 McBride (1976) n=54 Leopold and Kruasman (1986) and Waid (1990) n=979 Smith et al. (1986) n=318 Deer Javelina Porcupine Livestock Unknown Other Figure 4. Percent occurrence of mountain lion scat samples collected from the Trans-Pecos Region, Texas; data from McBride (1976), Leopold and Krausman (1986), Smith et al. (1986), and Waid (1990).
Page 1: PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIFTH MOUNTAIN L
Page 4 and 5: © Copyright 1997 The Southern Cali
Page 6 and 7: PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIFTH MOUNTAIN L
Page 12 and 13: 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIFTH MOUNTAIN
Page 20 and 21: 10 PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIFTH MOUNTAI
Page 100 and 101:
90 PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIFTH MOUNTAI
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
100 PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIFTH MOUNTA
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
show all

Proceedings of the fifth mountain lion workshop: 27

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?