DOCSLIB.ORG

Introduction

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Introduction New England Cottontail (Sylvilagus transitionalis) Assessment 2004 John A. Litvaitis Department of Natural Resources University of New Hampshire Durham, New Hampshire 03824 and Walter J. Jakubas Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Wildlife Resource Assessment Section Bangor, Maine 04401 NEW ENGLAND COTTONTAIL ASSESSMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................5 NATURAL HISTORY.............................................................................................6 Description..................................................................................................6 Population Densities...................................................................................9 Home Range and Dispersal .......................................................................9 Food Habits ..............................................................................................10 Cover Requirements.................................................................................12 Reproduction ............................................................................................13 Mortality....................................................................................................15 Diseases...................................................................................................16 Interactions with other species .................................................................18 MANAGEMENT ..................................................................................................21 Regulatory Authority .................................................................................21 Past Goals and Objectives .......................................................................21 Past Management ....................................................................................21 Current Management................................................................................24 HABITAT ASSESSMENT....................................................................................26 Past Habitat..............................................................................................26 Current Habitat .........................................................................................27 Habitat Projections & Future Management...............................................29 POPULATION ASSESSMENT............................................................................31 Past Populations.......................................................................................31 Current Populations..................................................................................33 Population Projections & Future Management .........................................37 USE AND DEMAND ASSESSMENT ..................................................................41 Past Use and Demand .............................................................................41 Current Use and Demand.........................................................................41 Nonconsumptive Use.....................................................................41 Consumptive Use ..........................................................................42 Use and Demand Projections...................................................................42 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................44 LITERATURE CITED ..........................................................................................47 2 NEW ENGLAND COTTONTAIL ASSESSMENT APPENDIX A .....................................................................................................55 Interactions between New England and eastern cottontail rabbits APPENDIX B .....................................................................................................59 Summary information on all sites surveyed for the presence of New England cottontails in southern Maine. APPENDIX C ....................................................................................................72 Minimum population estimate for New England cottontail in Maine LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Distribution of recently defined sister species of cottontails in the eastern United States (modified from Chapman et al. 1992) ...........7 Figure 2. Skull characteristics that separate New England and eastern cottontails, including the supraorbital process (a) and the nasal frontal suture (b). Adapted from Godin (1977) ................................8 Figure 3. Suggested pattern of events that influenced the abundance of early-successional habitat in New England from 1650 until present (modified from Litvaitis 1993)............................................27 Figure 4. Historic and current distributions of New England cottontails. Historic distribution is a compilation of Hall and Kelson (1959), Johnston (1972), Jackson (1973), and C. Stevens (Univ. NH, unpublished data). Current distribution is an approximation based on preliminary results of recent surveys by Walter et al. (2001) and Litvaitis et al. (2003b) ..................................................32 Figure 5. Historic (circa 1960) and current ranges of New England cottontails in Maine. Current range encompasses approximately17% of the historic range (from Litvaitis et al. 2003a)............................................................................................33 Figure 6. An illustration of a metapopulation showing patches of habitat in a fragmented landscape and how New England cottontail (NEC) might move between patches of suitable habitat. ..........................34 Figure 7. Current distribution of New England cottontails and potential areas for restoration relative to Wildlife Management Districts in southern Maine ..............................................................................40 Figure 8. Expansion of eastern cottontails into New England (from Probert and Litvaitis 1995) .............................................................56 3 NEW ENGLAND COTTONTAIL ASSESSMENT LIST OF TABLES Table 1. New England cottontail harvest estimates under hunter effort from 1935 to 1983, and harvest regulations from 1955 to 2001.....22 Table 2. Differences in landscape (L) and patch-specific (P) features associated with patches occupied by New England cottontails (NEC) versus vacant patches of habitat in southern Maine (Litvaitis et al. 2003).......................................................................28 Table 3. Percent of timberland dominated by seedling/sapling-sizes trees in six counties that approximate the historic range of New England cottontails in Maine. Data were the result of U.S.D.A. Forest Service inventories conducted in 1971 (Powell and Dickson 1984) and 1995 (Griffith and Alerich 1996) ......................29 4 NEW ENGLAND COTTONTAIL ASSESSMENT INTRODUCTION Since 1968, the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) has aggressively pursued development and refinement of wildlife species assessments and implementation of cost-effective comprehensive programs that support selected goals and objectives for the next 15 years. Assessments are based on available information and the judgments of professional wildlife biologists responsible for individual species or groups of species. Precise data may not always be available or are too limited for meaningful statistical analysis; however, many trends and indications are sometimes clear and deserve management consideration. The assessment has been organized to group information in a user-meaningful way. The Natural History section discusses biological characteristics of the species that are important to its management. The Management section contains history of regulations and regulatory authority, past management, past goals and objectives, and current management. The Habitat and Population sections address historic, current, and projected conditions for the species and its habitat. A Summary and Conclusions section summarizes the major points of the assessment. 5 NEW ENGLAND COTTONTAIL ASSESSMENT NATURAL HISTORY Description Cottontails are true rabbits. Unlike hares, rabbits are born naked with their eyes shut, and placed in a fur-lined nest constructed by the female. Hares, on the other hand, are born covered with fur, eyes open, and the young are placed in a modest depression on the ground (Chapman 1975). Cottontails are members of the family Leporidae, which includes four North American genera: Sylvilagus, the cottontails; Lepus, the hares and jackrabbits; Brachylagus, the pygmy rabbit of the Great Basin; and Romerolagus, the volcano rabbit (R. diazi) found only on volcanic slopes in central Mexico (Chapman and Litvaitis 2003). In New England, we have two species of cottontail. The most common cottontail in southern New England is the eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus). This is the species of cottontail typically seen feeding on lawns and in other open areas. The eastern cottontail is not native to New England but was introduced by hunting clubs and natural resource agencies (Johnson 1972). Our only native cottontail is the New England cottontail (Sylvilagus transitionalis). The New England cottontail (NEC) was first described by Otram Bangs at the turn of the nineteenth century (Bangs 1895), and is recognized as a distinct species (Holden and Eabry 1970). Recently, the taxonomic status of NEC has been revised to recognize two sister species
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Behavior and Ecology of the Riparian Brush Rabbit at the San Joaquin
    BEHAVIOR AND ECOLOGY OF THE RIPARIAN BRUSH RABBIT AT THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE AS DETERMINED BY CAMERA TRAPS A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of California State University, Stanislaus In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Ecology and Sustainability By Celia M. Tarcha May 2020 CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL BEHAVIOR AND ECOLOGY OF THE RIPARIAN BRUSH RABBIT AT THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE AS DETERMINED BY CAMERA TRAPS By Celia M. Tarcha Signed Certification of Approval page is on file with the University Library Dr. Patrick A. Kelly Date Professor of Zoology Dr. Michael P. Fleming Date Associate Professor of Biology Education Dr. Marina M. Gerson Date Professor of Zoology Matthew R. Lloyd Date U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service © 2020 Celia M. Tarcha ALL RIGHTS RESERVED DEDICATION For my family, living and departed, who first introduced me to wildlife and appreciating inconspicuous beauty. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to express my deepest gratitude to my committee members, Matt Lloyd, Dr. Fleming, Dr. Gerson, and Dr. Kelly, for their time and effort towards perfecting this project. I would also like to thank Eric Hopson, refuge manager of San Joaquin River National Wildlife Refuge for his insight and field support. Thank you as well to refuge biologists Fumika Takahashi and Kathryn Heffernan for their field surveys and reports. Additional thanks to Camera Bits Inc. for their donation of the Photomechanic license. I would like to thank the CSU Stanislaus Department of Biological Sciences for their help and support. Thank you to Bernadette Paul of the Endangered Species Recovery Program for her equipment management and support.
    [Show full text]
  • Overview of Rabbit Hemorrhagic Disease
    Overview of Rabbit Hemorrhagic Disease Dr. Amber Itle Dr. Susan Kerr [email protected] [email protected] 360-961-4129 360-789-7664 Previous isolated U.S. cases in owned domestic rabbits 2000 (IA) The 2001 2019 (UT, IL, NY) Washington 2005 (IN) State Outbreak2008, 2010, 2018 (OH, PA) Rabbits at Risk Tame/owned & feral domestic rabbits (European rabbits, Oryctolagus cuniculus) Rabbits (Probably) Not at Risk WILD RABBITS Snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus) European brown hare (Lepus europaeus) Black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus) White-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus townsendi) Volcano rabbit (Romerolagus diazzi) Pygmy rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis) Eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus) Nuttall's or mountain cottontail (Sylvilagus nuttallii) World Animal Health Information Database OIE World Organisation for Animal Health www.oie.int/wahis_2/public/wahid.php/Diseaseinformation/WI We’re famous! Timeline of RHD Cases in WA, 2019 • Index case: Single owned domestic rabbit, Orcas Island July 9 • RISK FACTOR: Rodents, farm hygiene • Case 2: Feral domestic rabbits die off, Orcas Island July 11 July • Suspect cases: Feral domestic rabbitJuly die-Dec.,-off, Lopez 2019:Island 18-24 Owned and feral • Case 3: 14/25 domestic owned meat rabbits die, Orcas Island July 24 • RISK FACTOR: Vegetationdomestic cut for bedding andrabbits forage tested • Case 4: 2/5 domestic ownednegative rabbits die, feral King, domestic Skagit, die-off San Juan Aug 2 • RISK FACTOR: Direct contactPierce, with ferals andthrough Clallam cages Co. • Case 5: 11/33 domestic
    [Show full text]
  • Educator's Guide
    Educator’s Guide the jill and lewis bernard family Hall of north american mammals inside: • Suggestions to Help You come prepared • essential questions for Student Inquiry • Strategies for teaching in the exhibition • map of the Exhibition • online resources for the Classroom • Correlations to science framework • glossary amnh.org/namammals Essential QUESTIONS Who are — and who were — the North as tundra, winters are cold, long, and dark, the growing season American Mammals? is extremely short, and precipitation is low. In contrast, the abundant precipitation and year-round warmth of tropical All mammals on Earth share a common ancestor and and subtropical forests provide optimal growing conditions represent many millions of years of evolution. Most of those that support the greatest diversity of species worldwide. in this hall arose as distinct species in the relatively recent Florida and Mexico contain some subtropical forest. In the past. Their ancestors reached North America at different boreal forest that covers a huge expanse of the continent’s times. Some entered from the north along the Bering land northern latitudes, winters are dry and severe, summers moist bridge, which was intermittently exposed by low sea levels and short, and temperatures between the two range widely. during the Pleistocene (2,588,000 to 11,700 years ago). Desert and scrublands are dry and generally warm through- These migrants included relatives of New World cats (e.g. out the year, with temperatures that may exceed 100°F and dip sabertooth, jaguar), certain rodents, musk ox, at least two by 30 degrees at night. kinds of elephants (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • The Logan Plateau, a Young Physiographic Region in West Virginia, Kentucky, Virginia, and Tennessee
    The Logan Plateau, a Young Physiographic Region in West Virginia, Kentucky, Virginia, and Tennessee U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1620 . II • r ,j • • ~1 =1 i1 .. ·~ II .I '1 .ill ~ I ... ... II 'II .fi :. I !~ ...1 . ~ !,~ .,~ 'I ~ J ·-=· ..I ·~ tJ 1;1 .. II "'"l ,,'\. d • .... ·~ I 3: ... • J ·~ •• I -' -\1 - I =,. The Logan Plateau, a Young Physiographic Region in West Virginia, Kentucky, Virginia, and Tennessee By WILLIAM F. OUTERBRIDGE A highly dissected plateau with narrow valleys, steep slopes, narrow crested ridges, and landslides developed on flat-lying Pennsylvanian shales and subgraywacke sandstone during the past 1.5 million years U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1620 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR DONALD PAUL HODEL, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1987 For sale by the Books and Open-File Reports Section, U.S. Geological Survey, Federal Center, Box 25425, Denver, CO 80225 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Outerbridge, William F. The Logan Plateau, a young physiographic region in West Virginia, Kentucky, Virginia, and Tennessee. (U.S. Geological Survey bulletin ; 1620) Bibliography: p. 18. Supt. of Docs. no.: I 19.3:1620 1. Geomorphology-Logan Plateau. I. Title. II. Series. QE75.B9 no. 1620 557.3 s [551.4'34'0975] 84-600132 [GB566.L6] CONTENTS Abstract 1 Introduction 1 Methods of study 3 Geomorphology 4 Stratigraphy 9 Structure 11 Surficial deposits 11 Distribution of residuum 11 Depth of weathering 11 Soils 11 Landslides 11 Derivative maps of the Logan Plateau and surrounding area 12 History of drainage development since late Tertiary time 13 Summary and conclusions 17 References cited 18 PLATES [Plates are in pocket] 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Climate of the Southeast United States
    N$%"',$! C!"#$%& A++&++#&,% R&."',$! T&/),"/$! I,0*% R&0'1% S&1"&+ C!"#$%& '( %)& S'*%)&$+% U,"%&- S%$%&+ VARIABILITY, CHANGE, IMPACTS, AND VULNERABILITY Edited by: Keith T. Ingram Kirstin Dow Lynne Carter Julie Anderson Climate of the Southeast United States Variability, Change, Impacts, and Vulnerability © 2013 Southeast Climate Consortium All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. Reproduction of this report by electronic means for personal and noncommercial purposes ȱĴȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱǯȱȱȱȱȱ ¢ȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱ ȱ ȱȱȱ Ĵȱȱȱȱǯ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱǯ Printed on recycled, acid-free paper ȱȱȱȱȱȱ Citation: ǰȱ ǯǰȱ ǯȱ ǰȱǯȱǰȱ ǯȱǰȱǯȱŘŖŗřǯȱȱȱȱȱ ȱDZȱ¢ǰȱǰȱǰȱȱ¢ǯȱȱDZȱ ȱǯ Keywords:ȱȬĴȬȱǰȱǰȱǰȱȱ¢ǰȱ ǰȱǰȱȱǰȱ¢ǰȱȱ ǰȱȱǰȱ climate impacts, climate modeling, climate variability, coastal, drought, education, electric ȱǰȱ¡ȱ ǰȱĚǰȱȱǰȱ£ǰȱȱȱǰȱ ȱ ǰȱǰȱȬȱǰȱǰȱǰȱǰȱȱȱ ǰȱȱęǰȱȱǰȱǰȱȱǰȱǰȱȬ ȱ intrusion, sea level rise, silviculture, social vulnerability, Southeast, storm surge, tropical ǰȱǰȱ¢ǰȱǯǯȱȱ ǰȱȬȱǰȱ ȱǰȱ ǰȱ ę ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱ¢ȱǰȱǰȱǰȱȱ Tribal Government or Non-governmental entity. Front Cover Images: ȱǰȱ ǰȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȂȱȱǻǼǯȱȱȱ¢ȱ ȱȱȱȱDZȱ ȱ¢ȱȱȱ ȱǰȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱDzȱ¢ȱȱ ȱȱ ȱȱȱǰȱȱ ǯȱDzȱȱȱȱǰȱ¢ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱDzȱȱ ȱȱȱǻǼȱȱȱ ȱǰȱ ¢ȱȱDzȱȱĚ ȱȱȱȱȱǰȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ ȱDzȱȱȱȱǰȱǰȱǰȱȱĴǯ About This Series This report is published as one of a series of technical inputs to the Third National ȱȱǻǼȱǯȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱŗşşŖǰȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ and Congress every four years on the status of climate change science and impacts. The NCA informs the nation about already observed changes, the current status of the climate, and anticipated trends for the future. The NCA report process integrates ęȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱęȱȱ ęȱȱȱȱ ǯȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ- ȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱǯǯȱ£ǰȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱ ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȂȱǯ ȱȱȱŘŖŗŗǰȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¡ȱȱ ǰȱȱ¢ǰȱȱȱȱǰȱȬȱ£- ǰȱȱǰȱȱȱǰȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱ Ĵȱȱȱȱȱǯȱ ȱǰȱȱȱȱǰȱȱ ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱǰȱ ȱȱȱȱȱ input reports highlighting past climate trends, projected climate change, and impacts ȱęȱȱȱȱǯȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱ- ing this technical input.
    [Show full text]
  • 2011 COLUMBIA BASIN PYGMY RABBIT REINTRODUCTION and GENETIC MANAGEMENT PLAN Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
    2011 COLUMBIA BASIN PYGMY RABBIT REINTRODUCTION AND GENETIC MANAGEMENT PLAN Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Addendum to Washington State Recovery Plan for the Pygmy Rabbit (1995) Penny A. Becker, David W. Hays & Rodney D. Sayler EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This plan addresses the recovery strategy for the federal and state endangered Columbia Basin pygmy rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis) in shrub-steppe habitat of central Washington. It is a consolidated update of the 2010 genetic management plan and the 2007 reintroduction plan for the pygmy rabbit. Technical background for the plan, covering the history, biology, and ecology of pygmy rabbits, has been reviewed extensively in a 5-Year Status Review (USFWS 2010) and an amendment to the federal Draft Recovery Plan (USFWS 2011) for the Columbia Basin distinct population segment of the pygmy rabbit. Currently, there are no wild pygmy rabbit populations known to occur in Washington’s Columbia Basin. As a result, the recovery strategy relies on the reintroduction of captive-bred pygmy rabbits originating from the joint captive population maintained since 2001 at Northwest Trek, Oregon Zoo, and Washington State University, in conjunction with the release of wild pygmy rabbits captured from other populations within the species’ historic distribution. The reintroduction plan was formulated with information gleaned from studies of pygmy rabbits in the wild, results of the 2002-04 pilot-scale reintroductions in southeastern Idaho, results of a trial 2007 release of animals into Washington, and comparable reintroduction efforts for other endangered species. Beginning in the spring of 2011, pygmy rabbits were reintroduced at Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Sagebrush Flat Wildlife Area.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report
    2016 ANNUAL REPORT 2016 Annual Report 1 Our Mission Ohio Wildlife Center is dedicated to fostering awareness and appreciation of Ohio’s native wildlife through rehabilitation, education and wildlife health studies. Table of Contents Our Work The Center operates the state’s largest, free native 2 Our Mission and Work wildlife animal hospital, which assessed and treated 3 Message from the Board Chair 4,525 wildlife patients from 54 Ohio counties in 2016. Now a statewide leader in wildlife animal rescue and and Executive Director rehabilitation, the Center includes a 20-acre outdoor 4 2016 Fast Facts for Wildlife Hospital Education Center and Pre-Release Facility in Delaware County. The free Wildlife Hospital is located in the lower 5 2016 Fast Facts for Education level of Animal Care Unlimited at 2661 Billingsley 6 Foundation Grants and Partnerships Road in Columbus. 7 Volunteer Impact A focal point of the Education Center is the permanent sanctuary for 59 animals, ranging from coyote and fox 8 The Barbara and Bill Bonner Family to hawks, owls, raccoons, turtles and a turkey. There Foundation Barn are 42 species represented and seven animal ambassador 9 Power of Partnerships species listed as threatened or species of concern in Ohio. 10 2016 Events The Pre-Release Facility is comprised of multiple flight enclosures, a waterfowl enclosure, a songbird aviary, 11 Financials and species-specific outdoor housing designed to 12 Wildlife Hospital Admissions support the final phase of rehabilitation for recovering hospital patients. Animals reside at the Pre-Release 14 Board of Trustees Facility with care and oversight as they acclimate to the 15 Thank you! elements.
    [Show full text]
  • The Volcano Rabbit—A Shrinking Distribution and a Threatened Habitat
    The volcano rabbit— a shrinking distribution and a threatened habitat J. Hoth, A. Velazquez, F. J. Romero, L. Leon, M. Aranda and D. J. Bell The first systematic search for the volcano rabbit, a Mexican endemic, found no evidence of the species outside the central region of the transverse neovolcanic axis around Mexico City, and reveals that the rabbit has now disappeared from areas of this central zone where it has been reported in the recent past. It depends for its survival on the pine forest—bunch grass ecosystem, and this is being destroyed by conversion to agriculture, over-grazing, fire-burns, poor forestry management and encroaching property developments. The authors make recommendations for the immediate protection of the remaining areas of core habitat and for further research. The volcano rabbit, or 'zacatuche', Romerolagus the uncontrolled burning of 'zacaton' grasses to diazi is believed to be amongst the most primitive promote new growth of grazing pasture for cattle of the living species of rabbits and hares (O. and sheep, plus the exploitation of zacaton for the Lagomorpha; Family: Leporidae) (De Poorter manufacture of household brushes (Thornback and Van der Loo, 1981; Corbet, 1983; Barrera, and Jenkins, 1982; Granados, 1981). The aims 1966). of the present study were, firstly, to characterize the habitat of known populations of R. diazi in Prior to the present study no systematic search for terms of altitude, temperature, climate and this Mexican endemic had ever been carried out, dominant vegetation types, and secondly, to yet its distribution is repeatedly described as being conduct an extensive search for the species in restricted to scattered areas of sub-alpine pine- these and other areas of equivalent habitat across 'zacaton' (bunch grass) and alder-'zacaton' the entire transverse neovolcanic axis.
    [Show full text]
  • Developing Sources of Native Grass Seed for Revegetation in Florida by Mary J
    Developing Sources of Native Grass Seed for Revegetation in Florida By Mary J. Williams, Janet Grabowski, and Brandee Williams ing, From Dusty Trails to Waning Wetlands.i In this article, we On the Ground provide some background for this effort and its current status. • As with much of the eastern United States, the na­ tive plant communities present in Florida when Euro­ History of “Improvements” in Florida pean settlers arrived have been converted to crop­ Unlike most of the eastern United States, which was heav­ land, pastureland, and industrial forest production. ily wooded when European settlers arrived, early settlers • Increasingly, both public and private entities have in Florida were confronted with almost 34 million acres of been making efforts to restore some of the con­ native range vegetation.1 The native vegetation on Florida verted acreage to a semblance of the original rangelands included grasses and grasslike species (e.g., sedges plant community for reasons of water quality, wild­ and rushes), forbs, and shrubs suitable for grazing and brows­ life habitat, and aesthetics. ing use by livestock and wildlife. An overstory of trees was • The lack of a commercial source of seed for Florida found on some range sites, whereas others were composed of ecotypes of native grasses is one of the main costs mostly herbaceous plants. Currently, only about seven million associated with current revegetation efforts. acres of native rangeland remain in the state. • A long-term program, by the USDA, NRCS, In Florida, inadvertent loss of the native rangeland veg­ Brooksville Plant Materials Center and various etation through improper grazing management often neces­ cooperating public and private institutions, has sitated “improvements” to maintain adequate forage produc­ fostered the development of a commercial, native tion.
    [Show full text]
  • Cottontail Rabbits
    Cottontail Rabbits Biology of Cottontail Rabbits (Sylvilagus spp.) as Prey of Golden Eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) in the Western United States Photo Credit, Sky deLight Credit,Photo Sky Cottontail Rabbits Biology of Cottontail Rabbits (Sylvilagus spp.) as Prey of Golden Eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) in the Western United States U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regions 1, 2, 6, and 8 Western Golden Eagle Team Front Matter Date: November 13, 2017 Disclaimer The reports in this series have been prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) Western Golden Eagle Team (WGET) for the purpose of proactively addressing energy-related conservation needs of golden eagles in Regions 1, 2, 6, and 8. The team was composed of Service personnel, sometimes assisted by contractors or outside cooperators. The findings and conclusions in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Suggested Citation Hansen, D.L., G. Bedrosian, and G. Beatty. 2017. Biology of cottontail rabbits (Sylvilagus spp.) as prey of golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) in the western United States. Unpublished report prepared by the Western Golden Eagle Team, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Available online at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ServCat/Reference/Profile/87137 Acknowledgments This report was authored by Dan L. Hansen, Geoffrey Bedrosian, and Greg Beatty. The authors are grateful to the following reviewers (in alphabetical order): Katie Powell, Charles R. Preston, and Hillary White. Cottontails—i Summary Cottontail rabbits (Sylvilagus spp.; hereafter, cottontails) are among the most frequently identified prey in the diets of breeding golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) in the western United States (U.S.).
    [Show full text]
  • An Assessment of Autumn Olive in Northern U.S. Forests Research Note NRS-204
    United States Department of Agriculture An Assessment of Autumn Olive in Northern U.S. Forests Research Note NRS-204 This publication is part of a series of research notes that provide an overview of the invasive plant species monitored on an extensive systematic network of plots measured by the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program of the U.S. Forest Service, Northern Research Station (NRS). Each research note features one of the invasive plants monitored on forested plots by NRS FIA in the 24 states of the midwestern and northeastern United States. Background and Characteristics Autumn olive (Elaeagnus umbellata), a shrub of the Oleaster family (Elaeagnaceae), is native to eastern Asia and arrived in the United States in the 1830s. This vigorous invader was promoted for wildlife, landscaping, and erosion control. Tolerant of poor quality sites and full sun, it was often used for mine reclamation. Autumn olive disrupts native plant communities that require infertile soil by changing soil fertility through fixing nitrogen. Where it establishes, it can form dense thickets that shade out native plants (Czarapata 2005, Kaufman and Kaufman 2007, Kurtz 2013). Aside from the negative impact, autumn olive has important culinary and medicinal properties (Fordham et al. 2001, Guo et al. 2009). Figure 1.—Autumn olive flowers. Photo by Chris Evans, Description University of Illinois, from Bugwood.org, 1380001. Growth: woody, perennial shrub to 20 feet, often multi- stemmed; simple, alternate leaves with slightly wavy margins, green upper leaf surfaces, and silvery bottoms; shrubs leaf out early in the spring and retain leaves late in the fall.
    [Show full text]
  • Gestation Period of the Laboratory Reared Volcano Rabbit
    Exp. Anim.34(1), 63-66, 1985 •\ Note•\ Gestation Period of the Laboratory Reared Volcano Rabbit (Romerolagus diazi) Tetsuya MATSUZAKI, Masao KAMIYA* and Hiroshi SUZUKI** Central Institute for Experimental Animals, 1430, Nogawa , Miyamae, Kawasaki 213, Japan, *Department of Parasitology , Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Hokkaido University, Sapporo 060, and **Department of Virology, Institute for Tropical Medicine, Nagasaki University, Nagasaki 852. (Received 21 March 1984 / Accepted 24 August 1984) The period of gestation of the volcano rabbit (Romerolagus diazi) was measured. Females were cohabited within one hour after confirmation of coitus or were separated from the males after cohabiting overnight . In 12 females which gave birth 20 times in total, the gestation period was 39 days in 35% , 40 d ays in 50% and 41 days in 15% ; 85% of animals showed a gestation period of 39 or 40 days. Each species of mammals has a specific separated from the males within one hour gestation period but it has been confirmed after confirmation of coitus or from the only in species which are reared by man. day when the females were removed after As previously reported [5], the author suc- cohabiting overnight (5 : 00p. m. to 9 : 00a .m.) ceeded in laboratory rearing and reproduc- by counting the day of confirmation of tion of wild volcano rabbits (Romerolagus coitus as day 0. diazi) obtained from Mexico, and reprodu- Table 1 shows the period of gestation ction is being continued to develop volcano calculated for 12 females which underwent rabbits into laboratory animals. This report a total of 20 deliveries. These dams were gives the results of a study.
    [Show full text]