A Comparison of Noninvasive Survey Methods For
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
University of Kentucky UKnowledge Theses and Dissertations--Forestry and Natural Forestry and Natural Resources Resources 2012 A COMPARISON OF NONINVASIVE SURVEY METHODS FOR MONITORING MESOCARNIVORE POPULATIONS IN KENTUCKY Bryan Matthew omT University of Kentucky, [email protected] Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits oy u. Recommended Citation Tom, Bryan Matthew, "A COMPARISON OF NONINVASIVE SURVEY METHODS FOR MONITORING MESOCARNIVORE POPULATIONS IN KENTUCKY" (2012). Theses and Dissertations--Forestry and Natural Resources. 10. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/forestry_etds/10 This Master's Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Forestry and Natural Resources at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations--Forestry and Natural Resources by an authorized administrator of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. STUDENT AGREEMENT: I represent that my thesis or dissertation and abstract are my original work. Proper attribution has been given to all outside sources. I understand that I am solely responsible for obtaining any needed copyright permissions. I have obtained and attached hereto needed written permission statements(s) from the owner(s) of each third-party copyrighted matter to be included in my work, allowing electronic distribution (if such use is not permitted by the fair use doctrine). I hereby grant to The nivU ersity of Kentucky and its agents the non-exclusive license to archive and make accessible my work in whole or in part in all forms of media, now or hereafter known. I agree that the document mentioned above may be made available immediately for worldwide access unless a preapproved embargo applies. I retain all other ownership rights to the copyright of my work. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of my work. I understand that I am free to register the copyright to my work. REVIEW, APPROVAL AND ACCEPTANCE The document mentioned above has been reviewed and accepted by the student’s advisor, on behalf of the advisory committee, and by the Director of Graduate Studies (DGS), on behalf of the program; we verify that this is the final, approved version of the student’s dissertation including all changes required by the advisory committee. The undersigned agree to abide by the statements above. Bryan Matthew Tom, Student Dr. John J. Cox, Major Professor Dr. David B. Wagner, Director of Graduate Studies ABSTRACT OF THESIS A COMPARISON OF NONINVASIVE SURVEY METHODS FOR MONITORING MESOCARNIVORE POPULATIONS IN KENTUCKY Harvest data are typically used to evaluate mesocarnivore population dynamics in many states, including Kentucky. While relatively easy to collect, these data are subject to reporting biases, and inferences about population trends can often only be made at coarse spatial scales. Gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), bobcat (Lynx rufus), and coyote (Canis latrans) populations in Kentucky are managed primarily through harvest data used to establish future harvest quotas. Increasingly, noninvasive survey methods have been used to characterize a number of population parameters for a variety of species; however, successful use of these methods is often site-specific. We assessed the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of two noninvasive survey methods, scat detection dogs and rub-pad hair snares, for surveying mesocarnivore species at two sites in the mixed- mesophytic forest of northeastern Kentucky. We sampled 100 hair snares covering approximately 100km2 and 27 transects covering approximately 27km2 from which 7 hair samples and 261 scat samples were collected respectively. Hair snares cost $397/sample at 6.4 hours/day, while scat detection dogs cost $47/sample at 4.9 hours/day. Genetic methods were used to identify biological samples to species and individual. Our findings should prove useful to state wildlife managers in comparatively evaluating methods for future mesocarnivore monitoring. KEYWORDS: Mesocarnivore, Noninvasive, Genetic, Hair Snare, Scat Detection Dog Bryan M. Tom __________________________ 1 August, 2012 __________________________ A COMPARISON OF NONINVASIVE SURVEY METHODS FOR MONITORING MESOCARNIVORE POPULATIONS IN KENTUCKY By Bryan Matthew Tom Dr. John J. Cox _____________________________________________________ Director of Thesis Dr. David B. Wagner _____________________________________________________ Director of Graduate Studies 1 August, 2012 _____________________________________________________ A COMPARISON OF NONINVASIVE SURVEY METHODS FOR MONITORING MESOCARNIVORE POPULATIONS IN KENTUCKY ________________________________________ THESIS ________________________________________ A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in the College of Agriculture at the University of Kentucky By Bryan Matthew Tom Lexington, Kentucky Director: Dr. John J. Cox, Adjunct Assistant Professor of Wildlife and Conservation Biology Co-Directors: Dr. Michael J. Lacki, Professor of Wildlife Ecology and Management and Dr. Paul J. Kalisz, Associate Professor of Forest Soils Lexington, Kentucky 2012 Copyright © Bryan Matthew Tom 2012 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First, I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. John Cox, for giving me the chance to further my professional development. He always made the time to provide guidance and never sugar coated any concerns or situations. Furthermore, I would like to thank my committee members, Dr. Michael Lacki and Dr. Paul Kalisz. They were always available to address any questions and I appreciate their roles in preparing this manuscript. I must also thank Dr. David Wagner for his guidance and “lead by example” professionalism. I also need to thank the “Big Dog”, Dr. Jeff Larkin, for teaching me leadership in the field and believing in me despite my loyalties to certain unnamed professional sporting affiliations. I am forever indebted to Dr. Dave Weisrock for adopting me as an official lab member and offering his facilities to a rookie molecular biologist. I also need to thank Dr. Eric O’Neill for his endless patience and expert advice. I am certain my laboratory experience would not have been nearly as rewarding or successful without his guidance. I would also like to thank all of the Weisrock lab members, especially Justin Kratovil and Josh Williams for their time and patience while training me for basic molecular techniques and proper bench etiquette. I would like to thank Dr. Todd Steury of Ecodogs for accommodating our research needs and ensuring our satisfaction at all stages of the detection dog process. Also, I need to thank Mr. Lucas Epperson for his exemplary performance in the field and for the hours of irrelevant debates we used to pass the down time. I would also like to thank the fine Kentucky sportsmen that volunteered their effort to collect my training aid samples: Mr. Ron Frasier, Mr. John Fortune, and Mr. Patrick Ritchy. iii From KDFWR, I would like to thank Laura Patton and Danna Baxley for assisting with training aid collection and addressing any local wildlife related concerns I encountered. From the USFS, I would like to thank Mr. Jeff Lewis for accommodating our study site needs and Dr. Kristy Pilgrim for expediently evaluating our gray fox DNA samples. I am very grateful to the USDA for providing the funding for my research. I am indebted to Mr. Byron Marlowe and especially Mr. Wade Ulrey for their assistance in the field. I could not have done it without them. Additionally, I want to thank all the graduate students that offered their experiences and suggestions for strengthening my research: Andrea Shipley, John Hast, and Sean Murphy. Finally, I am extremely thankful to my family for all of their love and support during my adventures in Kentucky. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... iii LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ vii LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... viii CHAPTER 1: ECOLOGICAL ROLE OF MESOCARNIVORES ............................... - 1 - Mesopredator Release ................................................................................................. - 2 - Allometric Ecology ................................................................................................... - 11 - Trophic Linkage ........................................................................................................ - 15 - Project Species Accounts .......................................................................................... - 18 - Gray Fox ................................................................................................................ - 18 - Bobcat .................................................................................................................... - 20 - Coyote .................................................................................................................... - 22 - Ecological Interactions .............................................................................................. - 23 - CHAPTER 2: MONITORING MESOCARNIVORES ............................................... - 27 - Methods to Determine Species Distribution ............................................................. - 28 - Habitat Modeling