DOCSLIB.ORG

In Wind Cave National Park, South Dakota Monte George Garrett Iowa State University

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
In Wind Cave National Park, South Dakota Monte George Garrett Iowa State University Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Retrospective Theses and Dissertations Dissertations 1-1-1982 Dispersal of black-tailed prairie dogs (Cynomys ludovicianus) in Wind Cave National Park, South Dakota Monte George Garrett Iowa State University Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd Part of the Agriculture Commons Recommended Citation Garrett, Monte George, "Dispersal of black-tailed prairie dogs (Cynomys ludovicianus) in Wind Cave National Park, South Dakota" (1982). Retrospective Theses and Dissertations. 18303. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd/18303 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Dissertations at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Retrospective Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Dispersal of black-tailed prairie dogs (Cynomys ludovicianus) in Wind Cave National Park, South Dakota by Monte George Garrett A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department: Animal Ecology Major: Wildlife Biology Signatures have been redacted for privacy Signatures have been redacted for privacy Iowa State University Ames, Iowa 1982 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv ABSTRACT vii INTRODUCTION 1 METHODS AND MATERIALS 6 The Study Area 6 Definition of Terms 9 Procedures 12 Trapping and observation of prairie dogs 12 Aging prairie dogs by tooth wear 14 Radiotelemetering of dispersing prairie dogs 14 Vegetation analyses 17 Statistical procedures 18 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 19 Attributes of Dispersers 19 Dispersal season 19 Sex and age of dispersers 22 Distance of dispersal 27 Condition of dispersers 32 Success of dispersers 38 Factors Affecting Dispersal 42 Density in relation to food supply 43 Shortage of available mates 48 III Eviction from the coterie territory 50 Harrassment of adults by juvenile prairie dogs 54 Genetic factors 56 Conclusions 59 MANAGEMENT OF PRAIRIE DOG DISPERSAL 63 LITERATURE CITED 69 iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This 3-year investigation of prairie dogs was supported by a grant from the National Park Service (CX-1200-0-B020). Numerous individuals offered guidance and assistance throughout the study period. They are as follows: Committee members: William Franklin, my major advisor, offered advice and was a continuous source of enthusiasm. I am thankful for the encouragement and freedom that he extended me during all phases of this project. Erwin Klaas, William Clark, and George Thomson provided me with equipment, vehicle, and help with my experimental design. In addition, they offered stimulating coursework during my academic program at ISU. Park personnel: Lester McClanahan, Wind Cave National Park Superintendent, was very helpful in providing research facilities and allowing me unrestricted freedom in the park while radiotelemetering prairie dogs. I thank Rich Klukas, park research biologist, for locating my study colony, and providing advice and assistance in data collection. Bruce Freet, Tim Oliverius, Dean Shilts, Joe Allen, Pam Allen, Danny Simms, and Jean Donnell were also very helpful. v Field assistants: I thank Kurt McAninch and Joan Graden for their dedication and loyalty in the collection of data. These two individuals each logged in excess of 500 hr in the study blind observing prairie dog behavior. In addition, the following persons assisted in field work: Susie Garrett*, Layne Coppock, Terry Johns, Ahmad Abdunabi, Robert Kohlsdorf, Diane Wright, Donna Lewis, Mike Laycock, Doug Shown*, Randy Hayman*, John McDill*, Reed Lewis*, Tim Oliverius*, Steve White*, Ansel Woodenknife*, Jim Dahlberg*, Rich Lasky*, and Deb Buitron* (astericks denote those assisting in the capture of dispersing prairie dogs). other acknowledgements: It is doubtful that this project would have been successful without the constant advice and consultation of John Hoogland. -He "showed me the ropes", providing me with technical assistance and interpretation of the behavior of this marvelous study animal. I wish best luck to John and his coterie. Greg Jones provided technical assistance in the building of my telemetry antennaes. Jewell Popp helped me in the identification of prairie plants so necessary for my vegetation analysis. Steve and Gwen Archer, Deb Buitron, Layne Coppock, Deb Hussey, Preston "Two-lips" Hardison, Reid and Donna Lewis, Doug Shown, Danny Simms, Steve White, and vi Ansel and Teri Woodenknife provided me with lively companionship during the study period. Finally, I thank my son, Shannon, for the capacity to tolerate a part-time papa, and my wife, Susie, who was my sole field assistant during the 1979 field season, and has been my best friend for more than 10 years. vii ABSTRACT An investigation of black-tailed prairie dogs (Cynomys ludovicianus) was conducted to gather baseline information on dispersal activities and to identify factors responsible for dispersal behavior. Study was conducted in Wind Cave National Park from 1979 to 1981. Dispersing prairie dogs were radiotracked to determine distance of movements and survivorship, and a study colony was intensively monitored to determine proximate factors that cause dispersal. Exchange of individuals between coteries (family groups) within the study colony (intracolony dispersal) occurred during all times of year, while dispersal away from established colonies (intercolony dispersal) occurred only during a predictable period in late spring. Both males and females dispersed, but males were predominantly yearlings while females also included many older individuals. Intercolony dispersers appeared to be in good physical condition, moved an average distance of 2.4 km from the point of capture, and survivors immigrated into existing colonies; no new colonies were established by radiocollared animals. The mortality rate of intercolony dispersers was significantly greater compared with residents of the study colony. viii Several proximate factors seem to be related to dispersal. Prairie dogs prefer the new vegetative growth at colony peripheries. An inverse relationship exists between animal density relative to this food resource and the relative change in animal numbers during the dispersal season, although this may not be a linear relationship. There was no relationship between absolute coterie density and change in animal numbers. Other factors include the shortage of unrelated females in the coterie, harassment of females by juveniles, and probably genetic influences. The initiation of new prairie dog colonies in Wind Cave National Park may be related to factors that disturb the native" vegetation. Major differences between newly established colonies and undisturbed prairie seem to be physical characteristics of the site, such as the height of vegetation and the proportion of bare ground. This may be directly influenced by park management practices (e.g., limiting the size of the ungulate herds, controlled burns), and should be an important consideration when implementing management plans. 1 INTRODUCTION Dispersal is a natural biological process. The continued occupancy of the same site by both parents and offspring, utilizing a limited resource base, may threaten survival. The effects of dispersal on the species include the maintenance of genetic variability, facilitation of gene flow among populations, and the spread of the species over large geographical areas (Gaines and McClenaghan 1980). Although dispersal may be risky to the individual, benefits accruing to the disperser suggest a strong selective force underlying this behavior. These benefits may include qualitative and quantitative advantages as well as increased long-term survival (Lidicker 1962). Howard (1960) contended that the best measure of dispersal is the distance an individual's genes are transmitted rather than merely the distance the animal moves. But, probably because of the difficulties in recovering marked animals, I find little information on the ultimate fate of dispersers. Emigration of surplus individuals in sciurids has been reported for thirteen-lined ground squirrels (Spermophilus tridecemlineatus) (McCarley 1966), Arctic ground squirrels (5. undulatus) (Carl 1971), Uinta ground squirrels (~. armatus) (Slade and Balph 1974)1 yellow-bellied marmots (Marmota flaviventris) (Armitage and Downhower 1974), 2 Richardson's ground squirrels (~. richardsonii) (Michener and Michener 1977), and California ground squirrels (§. Beecheyi) (Dobson 1979). Dispersal probably functions in population regulation, but there is disagreement among investigators as to the mechanism behind this behavior (Chitty 1967, Christian 1970, Krebs et a1. 1973, Lidicker 1975, Krebs 1978). The purpose of this study was to investigate the dispersal activities of the black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus). This large colonial ground squirrel is indigenous to the North American shortgrass prairie. Its range was originally bounded by the Rocky Mountains on the west and the tal1grass prairie on the east. Growth of colonies is restricted by tall vegetation and topographic barriers (King 1955, Koford 1958). Prairie dogs are strictly colonial, and only rarely are individuals reported away from established colonies (Koford 1958:15; Smith 1958:30). A primary benefit of prairie dog coloniality is reduced predation, while costs include increased competition for burrows and mates,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Black-Tailed Prairie Dogs
    Black-tailed Prairie Dogs Land Stewardship Information Series Prairie Dogs in Jeffco Identification Black-tailed prairie dogs (Cynomys ludovicianus) are medium-sized burrowing rodents with tan fur and whitish bellies. They are about 12-15 inches long and weigh between 2-4 pounds. The tips of their short tails have black markings. Ecosystem Black-tailed prairie dogs are found at elevations below 6000 feet, east of the foothills. They feed mainly on grasses and forbs but will occasionally feed on insects. They clip taller plants close to the ground to provide a clear view of their surroundings. The clipped grass is left on the ground or may be used to line underground chambers. Prairie dogs dig tunnels below the soil surface. The tunnels are about 6 feet underground and can be about 15 yards long with two or more entrances. The system provides shelter, protection from predators, and nesting sites. The tunnel entrances are mound-shaped which prevents water from draining in and provides an elevated perch to watch their surroundings. Prairie dogs are active during the day. They do not hibernate but will stay in their burrows during extremely cold or hot days. A healthy prairie dog town will have diverse and balanced native vegetation. In urban areas, many prairie dog towns are fragmented and confined by human development.As a result of this confinement, vegetation can become denuded and the resulting disturbance allows invasive and noxious weeds to predominate. These changes affect how the prairie Quick Facts ecosystem functions and can fundamentally change the plants and animals that live there.
    [Show full text]
  • Nepotism in Prairie Dogs (Cynomys Ludovicianus) Varies with Competition but Not with Kinship
    Anim . Behar ., 1986, 34, 263-270 Nepotism in prairie dogs (Cynomys ludovicianus) varies with competition but not with kinship JOHN L . HOOGLAND* Department of Biology, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08544, U .S .A . Abstract. Behavioural interactions among black-tailed prairie dogs (Cynomys ludovicianus) of the same sex clearly show nepotism (the favouring of kin) . Males and females consistently interact more amicably with kin than with non-kin . Nepotism in this context is striking for two reasons . First, individuals do not interact more amicably with close kin such as offspring and full-siblings than with more distant kin such as half-siblings, full-nieces, half-nieces, and half-nephews . Second, nepotism varies inversely and dramati- cally with changes in competition for either oestrous females (among males) or nesting burrows and breeding rights (among females) . Nepotism is the preferential treatment of genetic document, has been reported for only a few species relatives (Alexander 1974; Sherman 1980a), and including sweat bees (Lasioglossum °ephyrum : parental care is one obvious expression of nepo- Greenberg 1979 ; Buckle & Greenberg 1981), Beld- tism . Hamilton (1964) predicted that nepotism ing's ground squirrels (Spermophilus beldingi : Sher- beyond parental care should vary directly with the man 1980b), two species of primates (Clutton- coefficient of genetic relatedness (r) under the Brock & Harvey 1976 ; Kurland 1977; Massey appropriate conditions ; that is, individuals should 1977). and humans (Wilson 1978 ; Alaxander 1979; cooperate with close genetic relatives more than Chagnon 1979) . Nepotism evidently does not cor- with distant relatives . Altmann (1979) later pointed relate with r in carpenter ants (Camponotus spp .) or out that if the recipient's benefit varies directly with perhaps in other insect species in which individuals the donor's investment, then individuals should live in huge colonies (Wilson 1971 : Carlin & channel all assistance to closest kin only .
    [Show full text]
  • Controlling Plague in Gunnison's Prairie Dogs
    COLORADO PARKS & WILDLIFE Plague in Gunnison’s Prairie Dogs MAY 2014 Controlling Plague in Gunnison’s Prairie Dogs Plague, caused by a non-native bacteria and carried by fleas can kill all prairie dogs in a colony, leading to local extinctions that threaten the overall survival of the Gunnison’s prairie dog (Cynomys gunnisoni) in Colorado. Unmanaged plague has the potential to reduce populations of the Gunnison’s prairie dog to the point that a listing as federally endangered or threatened becomes more likely. Such a listing would not only underscore the need for additional conservation, it could also limit land uses for agriculture and recreation. The Gunnison’s prairie dog serves key roles in southwest Colorado’s biological landscapes: • A food source for many wildlife species including raptors and mammalian carnivores. • Prairie dog colonies serve as habitat for mountain plover, burrowing owl, badger, weasel, snakes and other wildlife species. Research Objectives Since the Gunnison’s prairie dog is an important species in the state’s ecosystem, Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) has determined that controlling plague in this species is a priority conservation action. The CPW goal is to develop plague management tools to help manage and stabilize Gunnison’s prairie dog populations on public lands and in cooperation with willing landowners. CPW Plague Control Research Success The U.S. Geological Survey’s National Wildlife Health Center developed a sylvatic plague vaccine (SPV) and tested the vaccine in the lab in 2010. That laboratory research demonstrated that the vaccine is safe and protects prairie dogs from plague. Field trials are necessary to confirm these findings in the wild.
    [Show full text]
  • Prairie Dog (Cynomys Ludovicianus) in Canada
    Species at Risk Act Management Plan Series Management Plan for the Black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) in Canada Black-tailed Prairie Dog June 2009 About the Species at Risk Act Management Plan Series What is the Species at Risk Act (SARA)? SARA is the Act developed by the federal government as a key contribution to the common national effort to protect and conserve species at risk in Canada. SARA came into force in 2003, and one of its purposes is “to manage species of special concern to prevent them from becoming endangered or threatened.” What is a species of special concern? Under SARA, a species of special concern is a wildlife species that could become threatened or endangered because of a combination of biological characteristics and identified threats. Species of special concern are included in the SARA List of Wildlife Species at Risk. What is a management plan? Under SARA, a management plan is an action-oriented planning document that identifies the conservation activities and land use measures needed to ensure, at a minimum, that a species of special concern does not become threatened or endangered. For many species, the ultimate aim of the management plan will be to alleviate human threats and remove the species from the List of Wildlife Species at Risk. The plan sets goals and objectives, identifies threats, and indicates the main areas of activities to be undertaken to address those threats. Management plan development is mandated under Sections 65–72 of SARA (http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/approach/act/default_e.cfm). A management plan has to be developed within three years after the species is added to the List of Wildlife Species at Risk.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 1. Species: Gunnison's Prairie
    1. Species: Gunnison’s Prairie Dog (Cynomys gunnisoni (gunnisoni = pop. 1)) 2. Status: Table 1 summarizes the current status of this species or subspecies by various ranking entity and defines the meaning of the status. Table 1. Current status of Cynomys gunnisoni Entity Status Status Definition NatureServe G5T2 Species is Imperiled At high risk of extinction or elimination due to restricted range, few populations or occurrences, steep declines, severe threats, or other factors. CNHP S2 Species is Imperiled At high risk of extinction or elimination due to restricted range, few populations or occurrences, steep declines, severe threats, or other factors. Colorado SGCN, Tier 1 Species of Greatest Conservation Need State List Status USDA Forest R2 Sensitive Region 2 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species Service USDI FWSb N/A N/A a Colorado Natural Heritage Program. b US Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service. The 2012 U.S. Forest Service Planning Rule defines Species of Conservation Concern (SCC) as “a species, other than federally recognized threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species, that is known to occur in the plan area and for which the regional forester has determined that the best available scientific information indicates substantial concern about the species' capability to persist over the long-term in the plan area” (36 CFR 219.9). This overview was developed to summarize information relating to this species’ consideration to be listed as a SCC on the Rio Grande National Forest, and to aid in the development of plan components and monitoring objectives. 3. Taxonomy Genus/species Cynomys gunnisoni is accepted as valid (ITIS 2015).
    [Show full text]
  • A Prairie Dog for Mr. Jefferson
    A Prairie Dog For Mr. Jefferson In late 1803, after the completion of the Louisiana Purchase transfer ceremonies at the Cabildo in New Orleans, President Thomas Jefferson wasted no time in tasking Meriwether Lewis with putting together an expedition to map and explore the United States’ newly acquired lands west of the Mississippi River. Lewis chose William Clark as his co-leader for the mission, and the Lewis and Clark Expedition was underway. The two captains of this historic excursion, which lasted over two years (May 1804 to September 1806), were also charged with finding a practical route across the western half of the continent and to take steps to establish an American presence and sovereignty in the new territory before Britain or other European powers could, in any way, lay claim to it. In the course of their quest, these two undaunted explorers experienced unforgiving terrain and weather, treacherous streams, starvation, extreme physical peril, disease and both hostile and friendly Native Americans. Still, the approximately 8,000-mile journey was considered a great success and provided new geographic, ecological, social, botanical and zoological information about previously uncharted regions of North America. Left to right: Meriwether Lewis, prairie dog and William Clark By early 1805, the expedition team had built an encampment on the Missouri River in present-day North Dakota known as Fort Mandan, and they had already prepared a shipment of zoological specimens. According to Paul Russell Cutright in his book, Lewis & Clark, Pioneering Naturalists (1969), this shipment included: “1 tin box containing insects, mice &c and a unique collection of skins, horns, and bones of such animals as pronghorn, mule deer, prairie dog, white- tailed jack rabbit, coyote, long-tailed weasel, badger, elk, and bighorn sheep” There is nothing unusual in this except for the fact that the captains made the decision to consign to Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Report from the Burrow Forecast of the Prairie Dog
    Report from the Burrow Forecast of the Prairie Dog A Report from WildEarth Guardians By Dr. Lauren McCain February 2, 2009 MISSION STATEMENT WILDEARTH GUARDIANS protects and restores the wildlife, wild places and wild rivers of the American West. Inquiries about this report and WILDEARTH GUARDIANS’ work can be made directly to: Lauren McCain WILDEARTH GUARDIANS 1536 Wynkoop St., Suite 301 Denver, CO 80202 303-573-4898 ext. 528 [email protected]. Cartography: Kurt Menke, Bird’s Eye View GIS GIS Data: Travis Livieri, Southern Rockies Ecosystem Project, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service Front cover photo: © Rich Reading Back cover photo: © Russell Graves Outside Reviewers: Lindsey Sterling Krank, Jonathan Proctor, Richard Reading, Erin Robertson (Review does not constitute an endorsement of the 2009 Report from the Burrow.) © WILDEARTH GUARDIANS All rights reserved. No part of this report may be used in any manner whatsoever without written permission from the publisher, WILDEARTH GUARDIANS, except in the case of brief quotations. REPORT FROM THE BURROW 2009: FORECAST OF THE PRAIRIE DOG This year, on Inauguration Day, we begin a new era that more broadly defines who can achieve the American dream. Two weeks later, a nation of prairie dogs hopes for a small piece of that dream by sharing Groundhog Day with their famous cousins—by celebrating Prairie Dog Day. On February 2nd, WildEarth Guardians and other friends of prairie dogs continue creating a new era of renewal and safety for prairie dog colonies. The Black-tailed prairie dog. © R. Reading animals have suffered greatly during previous administrations.
    [Show full text]
  • Utah Prairie
    RAC AGENDA – March 2015 Revised February 17, 2015 1. Welcome, RAC Introductions and RAC Procedure - RAC Chair 2. Approval of Agenda and Minutes ACTION - RAC Chair 3. Wildlife Board Meeting Update INFORMATIONAL - RAC Chair 4. Regional Update INFORMATIONAL - DWR Regional Supervisor 5. Utah Prairie Dog Management Plan ACTION - NRO – Martin Bushman – Assistant Attorney General - CRO – Chris Keleher – Deputy Director, Species Recovery Program - NERO – Adam Kavalunas – Utah Prairie Dog Biologist - SERO – Jessica Van Woeart – Sensitive Species Biologist - SRO – Kevin Bunnell – Southern Region Supervisor 6. R657-70 Taking Utah Prairie Dog – New Rule ACTION R657-19 Taking Nongame Mammals – Amendments R657-3 Collection, Importation, Transportation and Possession of Animals - Amendments - NRO – Martin Bushman – Assistant Attorney General - CRO – Chris Keleher – Deputy Director, Species Recovery Program - NERO – Adam Kavalunas – Utah Prairie Dog Biologist - SERO – Jessica Van Woeart – Sensitive Species Biologist - SRO – Kevin Bunnell – Southern Region Supervisor Region Specific Items – to be presented in the specified region only. CRO Central Region Managers – Question and Answer Session INFORMATION John Fairchild, Central Region Supervisor Meeting Locations SR RAC – March 3rd, 6:30 PM CR RAC – March 3rd, 6:30 PM Cedar City Middle School CR Conference Center 2215 W. Royal Hunte Dr., Cedar 1115 N. Main Street, Springville SER RAC – March 3rd, 6:30 PM NR RAC – March 3rd, 6:30 PM John Wesley Powell Museum Brigham City Community Center 1765 E. Main St., Green River 24 N. 300 W., Brigham City NER RAC – March 3rd, 6:30 PM Board Meeting – March 5th, 9:00 AM Wildlife Resources NER Office DNR, Boardroom 318 N. Vernal Ave, Vernal 1594 W.
    [Show full text]
  • Prairiemonitoring Dogpacket
    texas parks & wildlife By Marsha E. May, Vicki Sybert and Heather Cardella Texas Black-tailed PrairieMonitoring DogPacket lack-tailed prairie dogs Unfortunately throughout their (Cynomys ludovicianus) are an range there has been a drastic de- Bicon of the grasslands. These cline in the population. Black-tailed animals were once common in short prairie dog colonies currently occupy and mixed grass prairies throughout less than 1% of their historic range the western mid-west, including (See Map on pg 2). Historically, mil- Texas, Oklahoma, Arizona, Colo- lions of acres of Texas grassland were rado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, covered by prairie dog towns, today New Mexico, South Dakota, North they cover less than 150,000 acres. Dakota and Wyoming, as well as The major factor affecting population Canada and Mexico. Field notes from decline is loss of habitat due to con- early explorers, museum specimens, version of native prairies to cropland. and turn-of-the-century accounts in Other factors include poisoning, the literature contain information recreational shooting, the pet trade upon which the historical range of and Sylvatic Plague. the black-tailed prairie dog in Texas Prairie dogs are an important part is based (Bailey 1905). Although of the ecosystem, their digging aerates these accounts provide useful in- and promotes soil formation, they formation, they are not scientifi- clip back brush maintaining the short cally accurate estimates of the total grass prairie and they are a keystone number of acres that were inhabited. species providing food and shelter for Offering Texans Bailey (1905) described the range of as many as 170 different animals.
    [Show full text]
  • Distributional Analysis of Gunnison's Prairie Dog (Cynomys Gunnisoni
    Distributional Analysis of Gunnison‟s Prairie Dog (Cynomys gunnisoni) on the Navajo Nation and Reservation of the Hopi Tribe Final Report Distributional Analysis of Gunnison‟s Prairie Dog (Cynomys gunnisoni) on The Navajo Nation and Reservation of the Hopi Tribe Kristine Johnson, Zoology Coordinator Teri B. Neville, GIS Coordinator Natural Heritage New Mexico Museum of Southwestern Biology University of New Mexico & David Mikesic, Zoologist Navajo Natural Heritage Program The Navajo Nation & Darren Talayumptewa Department of Natural Resources The Hopi Tribe Submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Tribal Landowner Incentive Program 20 April 2010 Cover photo by David Mikesic Table of Contents Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................... v Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 The Navajo Nation and The Hopi Tribe ..................................................................................... 1 Gunnison‟s Prairie Dogs ............................................................................................................. 1 Landscape-Scale Prairie Dog Survey.......................................................................................... 3 Methods..........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Species Status Statement. Distribution Gunnison's Prairie
    Version 2020-04-20 Gunnison’s Prairie Dog (Cynomys gunnisoni) Species Status Statement. Distribution Gunnison’s prairie dog occurs in Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona. While the historical range for this species includes large portions of these states, it is now primarily restricted to the Four Corners region. Utah contains an estimated 3% of the species’ total range, with active colonies east and south of the Colorado River (Seglund et al. 2006, Lupis et al. 2007). Recent genetic work has split Gunnison’s prairie dog into two subspecies: Cynomys gunnisoni gunnisoni and C. g. zuniensis (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2013). Subspecies zuniensis occurs in the lower-elevation, “prairie” southwestern portion of the range (including all of the Utah animals), while subspecies gunnisoni occurs in the higher-elevation, “montane” northeastern portion of the range. Table 1. Utah counties currently occupied by this species. Gunnison's Prairie Dog GRAND SAN JUAN Abundance and Trends Gunnison’s prairie dog populations are cyclical. The species is highly susceptible to sylvatic plague outbreaks, and populations often increase before crashing as the result of the disease (summarized in Seglund et al. 2006). Despite these local fluctuations in abundance, occupancy surveys in Utah, New Mexico, and Arizona in 2007 and 2010, and Colorado in 2005, 2007 and 2010, showed stable population trends. These results allowed the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine that the species did not warrant protection under the Endangered Species Act in 2013 (USFWS 2013). The UDWR has since conducted occupancy surveys in 2013 and 2016, and found stable occupancy across years with a substantial increase in 2016 (UDWR Files).
    [Show full text]
  • Gunnison' Prairie
    UTAH GUNNISON’S PRAIRIE DOG AND WHITE-TAILED PRAIRIE DOG CONSERVATION PLAN FINAL DRAFT SARAH G. LUPIS, KEVIN D. BUNNELL, TODD A. BLACK, TERRY A. MESSMER AND THE GUNNISON’S AND WHITE TAILED PRAIRIE DOG PLANNING TEAM UTAH DIVISION OF WILDLIFE RESOURCES SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH NOVEMBER 2007 RECOMMENDED CITATION Lupis, S. G., K. D. Bunnell, T. A. Black, and T. A. Messmer. 2007. Utah Gunnison’s prairie dog and white-tailed prairie dog conservation plan: Draft #5. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We received significant input from a number of sources or their publications. We especially wish to acknowledge the following people and organizations: Brian Maxfield, Anthony Wright, Mary Conner, and Adam Kozlowski, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources; Bart Zwetzig, Tammy Wallace, Steve Madsen, and Pam Riddle, U.S. Bureau of Land Management; Amy Seglund, Colorado Division of Wildlife; Bill Andelt, Colorado State University; Sarah Lindsey, Utah Natural Heritage Program; and Bill VanPelt, Arizona Fish and Game. TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE List of Figures................................................................................................................................. ii List of Tables .................................................................................................................................iii Background..................................................................................................................................... 3 Life History................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]