Transcript Slide 1

PUMA BIOLOGY
Cougar Biology
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Preface: Sources/Literature
I. Taxonomy and Nomenclature
II. Historic Record to Present
III. Physical Traits: Growth Rates and Tracks
IV. Reproduction
V. Population and Metapopulation Dynamics
VI. Predation
VII. Habitat Models
VIII. Remote Camera Surveys
Cougar Biology
• Preface: Literature Sources
– Shaw, H. G. 1990. Mountain Lion Field Guide. Special
Report No. 9, Arizona Game and Fish Department.
– Logan, K. A. and L. L. Sweanor, 2000. Puma in Ecology
and Management of Large Mammals in North America.
Prentice-Hall, Inc.
– Logan, K. A. and L. L. Sweanor. 2001. Desert Puma:
Evolutionary Ecology of an Enduring Carnivore. Island
Press, Washington, D. C.
– Cougar Management Guidelines Working Group. 2005.
Cougar Management Guidelines. WildFutures, Bainbridge
Island, WA.
Cougar Biology
• Preface: Literature Sources
• http://www.mountainlion.net/
• Shaw, H.G. 1971. Ecology of the Mountain Lion in Arizona. Proj. No. W-78R-15, Wk. Pl. 2, Job 13. Progress Rep., Arizona Game and Fish Dept., 7pp.
• SUMMARY
• Fifty-four dog-hunting days and 25 trapping days were spent in the vicinity of
the Sycamore Canyon study area. No lions were caught. Tracks and other
sign indicated that as many as four lions were using the area. The only fresh
lion kill found in the study area was a coyote. A freshly-killed yearling cow elk
was found outside of the study area near the Beaver Creek watersheds.
Helicopter surveys of prey species yielded 84 elk, 363 mule deer, 16 whitetailed deer, and12 turkeys. Turkey counts were definitely low. At least 200
turkeys were using the area during mid-winter as determined from ground
observations. Due to the large number of livestock operators with permits on
the Sycamore area, extremely difficult hunting conditions, and the current
low density of lions, a change of study areas has been recommended.
Cougar Biology
• I. Taxonomy and Phylogeny
– Family Felidae
– Genus Felis by Linneaus in 1771
– Jardine reclassified as Puma in 1834
– More recent work reclassified as Felis
– WozenCraft 1993 reinstituted Puma
– Now accepted as Puma concolor
– Puma is apparently an Incan word
Cougar Biology
• I. Taxonomy and Phylogeny
– 13 subspecies recognized based on cranial morphology
(Goldman 1946)
• Goldman, E. A. 1946. Classification of the races of Puma, Part 2.
Pages 177-302 in S. P. Young and E. A. Goldman, eds., The Puma,
Mysterious American Cat. The American Wildlife Institute,
Washington, D.C.
– Significant genetic diversity in South America, consistent
with subspecies level taxonomy
– North America single subspecies genetic homogeneity
relative to South America
– Cougar may have evolved in South America ~ 5 to 6 mya
– Closest living relative is the cheetah
Cougar Biology
• II. Historic Record to Present
– Previously, largest geographic distribution of any land
mammal in the new world
• From northern British Columbia to tip of Tierra del Fuego and coast to
coast
– By late 1800’s eliminated from most of eastern U.S. range
– 1900’s has seen diverse management strategies in the
western U.S.
•
•
•
•
Bounty
No-bounty
Hunting
Protected
Cougar Biology
• II. Historic Record
– Current distribution and populations
• Throughout much of Central and South America
• Relatively large populations in 11 Western States, and British
Columbia
• Also, Alberta, South Dakota and Florida
• Records from extreme southeast Alaska
• Dispersing individuals in the mid-west
• Captive releases occasionally in the east
– W.A.G. North American population ~30 to 40,000
• Sum of estimated populations from (Logan, K. A. and L. L. Sweanor,
2000. Puma in Ecology and Management of Large Mammals in
North America. Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Estimated Cougar Populations by State or Province
(Logan, K. A. and L. L. Sweanor, 2000. Puma in Ecology and Management of Large Mammals in North America. PrenticeHall, Inc.) *Guesses
6000
4000
3000
2000
1000
Br
iti
State or Province
ah
o
Id
a
rn
i
Ca
lif
o
on
ta
na
*
a
M
um
bi
Co
l
sh
Ne
va
da
n
O
re
go
g*
in
W
yo
m
to
n
W
as
hi
ng
Ut
ah
Te
xa
s*
Ar
iz
on
a
Co
lo
ra
do
Ne
*
w
M
ex
ic
o*
er
ta
Al
b
ak
ot
ut
h
D
Fl
or
id
a
a*
0
So
Estimated Population Size
5000
Cougar Biology
• III. Physical Traits: Growth Rates and Tracks
• Both sexes reach adult weight by about 20 months
• Males are significantly larger than females by 20 days of
age
Growth Rate By Sex
80
75
70
65
60
Weight (Kg)
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Age (Months)
80
90
100
110
120
130
Cougar Biology
• III. Physical Traits: Growth Rates and Tracks
• Males’ heel pads significantly wider than females’ for both
front and hind
• Front heel pads are larger than hind in both sexes, but
difference is significantly greater in males (although there
is a lot of overlap)
Right Hind Heel Width (cm) for Cougar older than 20 Months
6.0
5.5
RHHeel
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
F
M
Sex
Right Front Heel Width (cm) for Cougar Older than 20 Months
7.0
145
174
RFHeel
6.0
118
5.0
4.0
128
71
F
M
Sex
Difference in Front and Hind Heel Width for Cougar Older than 20 Months
1.2
1
DiffHeel
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
F
M
Sex
Cougar Biology
• IV. Reproduction
– Polygamous and promiscuous
• One male will breed with several females
• One female will breed with more than one male
– Breeding Age
• Females: 18 to 24 months
• Males: ~ 20 to 24 months
– Estrus cycle
• ~37 days captive study
• ~21 days wild population
• Estrus period 6 to 8 days
– Gestation
• 82 to 103 days
• Mean 91 days
Cougar Biology
• IV. Reproduction
– Litter size
• 1 to 6 cubs
• Average is 3
– Reproductive seasons
• Can be born at anytime
• Birth pulses:
– Utah and Nevada: June to September
– New Mexico: July to September
– Time between successful litters (to 12 months or
independence)
• ~20 months
– Time after failed litters
• 20 to 300 days
Cougar Biology
• IV. Reproduction
– Life time production
• Females may have up to 5 litters in their lifetime
Cougar Biology
• V. Population and Metapopulation Dynamics
– A. Population Dynamics
• Growth Rates: the “r” in (Nt = N0ert)
– 1 + r ~ λ in Nt = N0 λ t
• Protected puma populations in open habitats in New
Mexico have demonstrated an exponential growth rate (r)
of 0.17 to 0.25
• r seen to drop to as low as 0.05 when population
approaches carrying capacity
• Hunted populations in Alberta demonstrated r’s of 0.04 to
0.08
Cougar Population Growth
(Nt=N0ert)
350
300
Population Size
250
r=0.17
r=0.20
r=0.25
Deer
200
150
100
50
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Years
7
8
9
10
Cougar Population Growth Rates
(Nt=N0ert)
60
50
Population Size
40
r=0.04
r=0.08
r=0.17
30
20
10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Years
7
8
9
10
Projected Population Sizes, Starting from 10, of Different Growth Rates
350
Deer for comparison
300
Population Size
250
200
150
100
50
0
0.04
0.08
0.17
0.2
Exponential Growth Rates (r)
0.25
0.33
Cougar Biology
• V. Population and Metapopulation Dynamics
– B. Resilience
• New Mexico Study: ~55% reduction in population was
replaced in 31 months
Cougar Biology
• V. Population and Metapopulation Dynamics
– C. Metapopulation Dynamics
• Recruitment from immigration
– Very important in cougar populations
– Low density and patchy habitat
– 1,000 to 2,200 Km2 area needed to sustain a non-migratory
cougar population for 100 years with 98% certainty (Beier, P.
1993. Determining minimum habitat areas and habitat corridors
for cougars. Conservation Biology 7: 94-108)
– Immigrants may comprise up to 50% of annual recruitment in
subpopulations in New Mexico
Cougar Biology
• V. Population and Metapopulation Dynamics
– C. Metapopulation Dynamics
• Dispersal by Gender (Logan and Sweanor 2001)
– Females tend to be phylopatric
– ~70% emigrants are male
– Females ~35 Km (22 miles)
• Establish home ranges overlapping with or adjacent to
nascent home range
– Males ~102 Km (77 miles)
Cougar Biology
• VI. Predation
– A. Strategy
• Tend to be generalists: taking the most abundant and
vulnerable prey
– B. Diet
• Latitudinal gradient in prey size and cougar body size
– <15kg in tropical areas: diet very diverse
– >15kg in temperate areas: diet dominated by ungulates
• Mule Deer
• White-Tailed Deer
• Elk
• Moose
Cougar Biology
• VI. Predation
– B. Diet
• New Mexico Study (Logan and Sweanor 2001)
– Dominated by mule deer (90%+) by frequency and biomass but
also very diverse
Number of Cougar Prey Items Found by Species
(Logan, K. A. and L. L. Sweanor. 2001. Desert Puma: Evolutionary Ecology of an Enduring Carnivore. Island Press,
Washington, D. C.)
600
500
479
Number
400
300
200
100
13
10
5
5
3
3
3
1
1
1
Prey Species
Ri
ng
ta
il
Le
po
rid
G
ol
s
de
n
Ea
gl
e
er
Ba
dg
Sk
u
nk
te
St
rip
ed
Co
yo
ry
x
O
a
Pu
m
Bi
gh
or
n
Pr
on
gh
or
n
Po
rc
up
in
e
M
ul
e
De
er
0
1
Frequency of Prey Items in Feces and Four Stomachs
(Logan, K. A. and L. L. Sweanor. 2001. Desert Puma: Evolutionary Ecology of an Enduring Carnivore. Island Press,
Washington, D. C.)
800
716
700
600
Frequency
500
400
300
167
200
100
46
35
17
16
6
6
6
5
3
1
1
1
1
Items
O
ry
x
Tu
rt
le
C
oy
ot
e
Ja
ve
lin
a
R
in
gt
Ve
ai
l
ge
ta
ti o
n
B
ox
M
ul
e
D
ee
r
R
od
en
L e ts
po
rid
s
Pu
m
a
B
ad
ge
r
B
ird
Pr
s
on
gh
or
n
Sk
un
k
B
ig
ho
rn
0
Cougar Biology
• VI. Predation
– C. Characteristics of Prey Capture
•
•
•
•
•
Visual predators
Use cover for stalking and ambush
Typically kill ungulates with bite to neck or throat
Cache kills under vegetation, cover with dirt and debris
Characteristic feeding pattern:
–
–
–
–
–
Clip hair
Remove vital organs first (heart, lungs, liver)
Eviscerate
Eat large muscle groups
Head and face
• May stay with prey item for one to many days
– Single day feeding may be more common that previously thought –
Linda Sweanor pers. comm.
Cougar Biology
• VI. Predation
– D. Effects on Desert Mule Deer Populations
• Cougar predation effects on deer population depends on
climatic and habitat characteristics
• Relatively wet years, cougar predation affects deer
population growth rate BUT deer population continues to
INCREASE
• During drought years (especially consecutive years)
cougar predation accelerates deer population decline
Cougar Biology
• VI. Predation
– D. Effects on Desert Mule Deer Populations
• Primary mechanism
– Appears to be predation rates on fawns
– Wet years:
• High fawn production.
• Fawns absorb critical amount of cougar predation
– Dry years:
• Fawn production drops
• Cougar predation increases on reproductive adult deer
• Deer concentrate at water sites, and travel to unfamiliar
areas, increasing susceptibility to predation
Management Considerations for
the Midwest
• I. Habitat Models
• II. Remote Camera Surveys
Habitat Models
• Utility of habitat modeling for mid-western
states
– To direct survey work
– Anticipate most likely areas for establishment
of resident populations
– Establish framework for possible future
management needs
Habitat Models
• Procedure (From Cougar Management
Guidelines)
– 1. Map cougar habitat in accessible and
modifiable form
• GIS software
Habitat Models
• 1. Map cougar habitat layers in accessible
and modifiable form
– GIS Layers
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Vegetation
Topography
Land use
Ungulate population distribution
Roads
Population Centers
Land Ownership
Documented cougar occurrence
Nearest source populations
Habitat Models
• 2. Combine layers to produce single map
layer showing:
– Habitat quality
– Habitat patch size
– Connectivity
Remote Cameras
• 1. General Considerations
– Pros:
• Powerful tool for producing (mostly) unambiguous
presence/absence data
• Precise date and time
• Condition of the animal
• May assist with sex and age determination
• Doesn’t charge overtime
• Works 24/7 and 365d/year
• May provide survey data on a number of species
simultaneously
Remote Cameras
• 1. General Considerations
– Cons:
• Because of low cougar density, requires high
density of cameras monitored over long periods of
time to produce confident presence/absence data
even on a local scale
• NEED for estimating “capture” probabilities with
known populations
• Expense: $260 to $1,400 per camera
• Targets for theft and vandalism
Remote Cameras
• 2. Specific Considerations
– Trigger speed
– Trigger Sensitivity
• Adjustable?
– Detection Distance
– Flash Distance
– Storage Capacity
– Photo Quality
– Power Supply
– Weather Resistance
Remote Cameras
• 3. Choosing a Camera
– Many options available
• Recommend: Cuddeback “Expert”
•
•
•
•
•
Fastest trigger speed
Adjustable trigger sensitivity
25ft detection range
40ft flash range (no flash option available)
Stores digital images on flashcard (3 Megapixel)
– Can store 500+ images depending on size of card
• Also takes video
• 4 D-cell batteries
– Long battery life (depends on number of night-time
photos)
• ~$366/camera
Wrong way to set a remote camera.
Effective sampling zone is about 6 ft.
Nothing
Zone
8-10’
2 meters
Wrong way to set a remote camera.
Effective sampling zone is about 6 ft.
Better
2 meters
2 meters
274
196 156
132 120
62
37
37
35
23
19
oa Ow
l
dr
un
n
W er
oo
dr
at
Be
ar
R
av
en
Vu
l tu
r
Ba e
dg
e
R
ac r
c
R
at oon
t le
sn
ak
e
Sp
o t Ha
w
te
k
d
Sk
U unk
nk
no
w
n
1000
R
3000
Fo
Sq x
ui
rre
l
Ba
t
Q
ua
C il
ou
ga
C r
o
Ja yo
ck te
R
ab
b
Bo it
bc
at
R
in
gt
ai
C
ot
l
to
nt
Ja ail
ve
lin
a
ee
r
Bi
gh
or
n
Sk
un
k
D
Total Photos
Total Photos by Species
2856
2500
2000
1500
968
500
19
Species
15
13
0
7
5
5
4
3
2
2
1
1
1