DOCSLIB.ORG

Geomys Bursarius) in the Grassland Physiographic Regions of Indiana

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Geomys Bursarius) in the Grassland Physiographic Regions of Indiana 2010. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 119(1):87–94 DISTRIBUTION OF THE PLAINS POCKET GOPHER (GEOMYS BURSARIUS) IN THE GRASSLAND PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS OF INDIANA Vanessa S. Quinn: Department of Biology/Chemistry, Purdue University-North Central, Westville, Indiana 46391 USA Chia-Chun Tsai and Patrick A. Zollner: Department of Forestry and Natural Resources, Purdue University, West Lafayette ABSTRACT. We conducted surveys for plains pocket gophers (Geomys bursarius) in nine counties in central and northern Indiana. The estimated mean (6 1 SD) population from road surveys was 512 6 440 individuals which is lower than previous surveys. Gophers were not found in Warren and Tippecanoe counties where they were historically present and showed a decline in Benton and northern Jasper counties. The decline in northern Jasper County may have been in part due to the timing and intensity of our survey work. Northern Newton County shows mounding activity presumably indicating healthy populations. More than a dozen clusters of mounds were observed along the eastern edge of White County in an area where mounding activity was not previously detected. Finally, we analyzed the spatial pattern of gopher mounds detected during this and three previous surveys in Indiana to delineate eight putative Indiana subpopulations. The geographic extent of these subpopulations incorporates 404 km of roads within suitable habitat. Keywords: Density, distribution, Geomys bursarius, plains pocket gopher, program DISTANCE The plains pocket gophers (Geomys bursar- ways and line-transects on selected public lands ius) is a species of special concern in Indiana with suitable habitat; (2) to determine burrow- due to a limited distribution in grassland ing activity using the sign-count inventory physiographic regions of northwest Indiana method (Reid et al. 1966); and (3) to combine (Fig. 1; Heaney & Timm 1983; Thorne 1989). data on observed mound locations from all This species was likely distributed throughout gophers surveys within Indiana (Conaway northwest Indiana prior to 1900 (Evermann & 1947; Tuszynski 1971; Thorne 1989) to define Butler 1894). Three surveys conducted since putative subpopulations based upon geograph- 1947 have shown declining populations. Con- ic proximity of mounds. away (1947) conducted a limited survey show- ing discontinuous and scattered Indiana popu- METHODS lations within the range of pre-settlement Study area.—We searched portions of nine populations. The second, and more thorough, Indiana counties within the Iroquois Till Plains survey found gophers in several northwestern region of northwestern Indiana (Gray 2000; Indiana counties with the majority of popula- Benton, Carroll, Cass, Jasper, Newton, Pulaski, tions located in Jasper and Newton counties Tippecanoe, Warren and White counties; (Tuszynski 1971). The most recent survey Fig. 1) for gopher mounding activity from identified population distribution as declining May–August 2008. The grassland physiograph- relative to previous surveys (Thorne 1989). We ic regions of Indiana are the only portions of report results of a survey conducted in the the state where gophers have been located summer of 2008 in the grassland physiographic (Conaway 1947; Tuszynski 1971; Thorne 1989). regions of northwest Indiana in addition to Within this region we searched areas occurring those sites where gophers were previously within potentially suitable habitat (cover class- identified. Our objectives were (1) to determine es of 21 {open}, 31 {barren}, 52 {shrub}, 71 the current distribution of gophers in Indiana {grassland/herbaceous}, or 81 {pasture/hay}) using surveys of roadside and railroad right-of- from USGS Indiana landcover data (USGS 2002). These designations corresponded to Correspondence: e-mail: [email protected] vegetative conditions in which gophers were 87 88 PROCEEDINGS OF THE INDIANA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE Figure 1.—Location of Iroquois Till Plains region of northwestern Indiana (inset) is the shaded area. The potential plains pocket gopher habitat is indicated by dark shading within the Iroquois Till Plains region. QUINN ET AL.—PLAINS POCKET GOPHER 89 documented to occur during the 1988 survey survey was completed). The number of mounds (Thorne 1989). observed was recorded, and the perpendicular Road survey.—During May–June 2008 we distance from the foot transects to each mound surveyed roadsides located within suitable was recorded in meters. cover-types in the grassland physiographic Data analyses.—Distance sampling analysis: region of northwestern Indiana (Fig. 1) for Data on mound occurrence from both roadside signs of above-ground activity indicated by surveys and walking transects were geo-refer- mounding (Andersen 1988; Jones et al. 1983, enced. We used the program DISTANCE 5.0 1985). Mounds are visible from a vehicle and (Burnham et al. 1980; Buckland et al. 2000; have a unique shape and texture (Thorne 1989). Thomas et al. 2002) to estimate mound density Fresh mounds can be distinguished by their (accounting for decreasing detection probabil- characteristic triangular, or deltaic, shape with ity as a function of distance from observer) for a round patch of soil located at the apex roadside and foot transect surveys. DIS- (Macdonald 2006). Examination of the USGS TANCE estimated density based on the detec- cover types (USGS 2002) within Iroquois Till tion probability and the effective strip width. Plain physiographic province indicated approx- The effective strip width is the distance from imately 1341 km of targeted survey roads the transect at which the number of animals within the Iroquios till plain (see Study area detected beyond this point exactly equals the above) indicating suitable habitat. We searched number of animals missed within this distance the right of way and surrounding habitat for (Buckland et al. 2000). We fit data with mounds on all road segments within our study different combinations of four types of key area that were not on primary high speed roads functions and three types of series expansion (greater than 55 mph). Searches were conduct- with no constraints on monotonocity. We first ed by a passenger while the driver maintained a used the complete data set of all mounds (n 5 speed of 30–40 km/hr. Once mounds were 544) for analysis. None of the models had a sighted a TrimbleH GeoXTTM handheld GPS good fit to the distribution as indicated by a unit from the GeoExplorerH 2004 series (ETrim- high P-value (P , 0.00001; Zar 2009). We ble Navigation Limited) was used to georefer- pooled the data by grouping observations on ence the position of the vehicle with a precision the same transect as a cluster (n 5 135). We less than one meter. A laser range finder also truncated our data set by deleting all (Bushnell Yardage Pro Sport 450, in yards) or observations closer than three yards (n 5 3) as a measuring tape (in feet and inches) was used to well as the 10% of observations furthest from measure distance from the center of the road to the transect (n 5 14; suggested by Swann et al. the center of the mounds. We recorded date, 2004). The pooled data were analyzed using distance, name of the road, land use type, and ‘‘cluster’’ option in DISTANCE and gained took photos of mounds to confirm any ques- better fits (P 5 0.79). After selecting the best tionable mounding activity (i.e., mounds made combination of key functions and series expan- by gophers, moles, woodchucks, or coyotes). sions, we compared densities of clusters and Mounds without the characteristic shape (Mac- densities of mounds estimated by different donald 2006) were omitted. types of size-biased regression methods provid- Transect survey.—We implemented an addi- ed by DISTANCE. tional 30 walking transects within polygons of Subpopulation definition: First, we estimated suitable habitat on public lands. Within these gopher maximum dispersal distance as the public lands we selected the 30 largest polygons square root of home range size multiplied by (ranging from 0.7–0.9 km2) of suitable habitat 40 (Bowman et al. 2002). We used the upper from the USGS landcover which indicated bound of spring and summer average home these public lands contained polygons of range size in Minnesota (66 6 23 m2; Zinnel potentially suitable habitat ranging in size from 1992) and found a maximum dispersal distance 0.2 6 0.1 km2. Within each of the 30 selected of 378 m. polygons transects were located by intersecting Next, we combined all known mound loca- the centroid of the polygon with a random tions from all survey periods into a single point along its perimeter. The total length of coverage (Fig. 2). Using this coverage we the 30 transects was 16 km (0.5 6 0.2 km). We calculated the distance (299 6 539 m) to the walked each transect once in July (after road nearest occurrence of another mound in any 90 PROCEEDINGS OF THE INDIANA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE Figure 2.—Location of all plains pocket gopher mounds observed within the Iroquois Till Plains region and northern Newton County while conducting road, transect, and historic location surveys during the summer of 2008. other survey for each observed mound. We surveys. Where these buffers overlapped (indi- calculated the mean 6 one standard deviation cating a neighboring mound nearer than (944 6 655 m) distance to the nearest mound 2254 m) and included at least three distinct for those mounds further than estimated mound observations we classified those dispersal distance from their nearest neighbor. mounds as belonging to a putative subpopula- We used the upper 95% confidence interval tion of gophers in Indiana. Finally, we took all (2254 m) of this latter distribution to create a of the mound locations defining putative buffer around each mound location from all subpopulations and generated the minimum QUINN ET AL.—PLAINS POCKET GOPHER 91 convex polygon that encompassed all of those multiplied this density estimate by the area of points. We buffered that polygon by 2 km potential habitat and estimated 512 6 440 (approximate estimated distances between geo- gophers in the surveyed area.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Quantifying Exposure of Wyoming's Wildlife To
    QUANTIFYING EXPOSURE OF WYOMING’S WILDLIFE TO ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN THE F ACE OF EXPANDING PRODUCTION Prepared by Douglas Keinath1 and Matthew Kauffman2 1 Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, University of Wyoming, 1000 E. University Ave., Dept. 3381, Laramie, Wyoming 82071 USA; E-mail: [email protected] 2 U.S. Geological Survey, Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Zoology and Physiology, University of Wyoming, 1000 E. University Ave., Dept. 3166, Laramie, Wyoming 82071, USA; E-mail: [email protected] December 30, 2014 Suggested citation for this report: Keinath, D. and M. Kauffman. 2014. Quantifying exposure of Wyoming’s wildlife to energy development in the face of expanding production. Report prepared by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie Wyoming and Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit for the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming and the U.S. Geological Survey, Fort Collins, Colorado. December 30, 2014. TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables and Figures ..................................................................................................................... 3 Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... 4 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 4 Methods ......................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Amphibian Biodiversity Recovery in a Large-Scale Ecosystem Restoration
    Herpetological Conservation and Biology 1(2):101-108 Submitted: 10 May 2006; Accepted: 12 November 2006 AMPHIBIAN BIODIVERSITY RECOVERY IN A LARGE-SCALE ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION 1,2 1 1 3 ROBERT BRODMAN , MICHAEL PARRISH , HEIDI KRAUS AND SPENCER CORTWRIGHT 1Biology Department, Saint Joseph’s College, Rensselaer, Indiana, 47978, USA 2Corresponding author, e-mail: [email protected] 3Biology Department, Indiana University Northwest, Gary, Indiana, 46408 USA. Abstract.—Amphibians are important components of ecosystem function and processes; however, many populations have declined due to habitat loss, fragmentation and degradation. We studied the effect of wetlands ecosystem restoration on amphibian population recovery at Kankakee Sands in northwest Indiana, USA. We also tested predictions about colonization in relation to proximity to existing nature preserves and species characteristics. Prior to restoration activities (1998), the amphibian community at Kankakee Sands consisted of fourteen populations of seven species at seven breeding sites. By 2001, this community increased to 60 populations at 26 sites; however, species richness had not increased. By 2002 the community increased to 143 populations of eight species at 38 sites, and by 2003 there were 172 populations of ten species at 44 sites. Abundance index values increased 15-fold from 1998-2003. These increases best fit the exponential growth model. Although survival through metamorphosis was substantial during wetter than average years (2002 and 2003), during other years restored wetlands dried before larvae of most species transformed. Amphibian colonization was greatest near a nature preserve with the greatest amphibian diversity. The earliest colonists included fossorial species and those species whose habitat includes wet and mesic sand prairie.
    [Show full text]
  • Lasalle Fish & Wildlife Area's Hardwood Forests, Fields And
    LaSalle Fish & Wildlife Area’s hardwood forests, fields and marshes were once part of Grand Kankakee Marsh. 20 July/August 2017 EVERGLADES MINUS THE GATORS Telling the Grand Kankakee Marsh story helps restore it OutdoorIndiana.org 21 Quis eos voloreperion ped quam qui te eumenis am cone officidebis mos estis volut officitata imusdae vernatem quam, (Top, bottom) Eastern prickly pear (Opuntia humifusa), a cactus found at Kankakee Sands, is attractive, useful and edible; it also serves as food and cover for wildlife. Black-eyed Susan and tall grasses flourish at Kankakee Sands, which was once part of Grand Kankakee Marsh; the area packs a vast array of plants and wildlife in its more than 7,000 acres. 22 July/August 2017 By Nick Werner, OI staff To this day, many do not know of the marsh, let alone its Photography by Frank Oliver importance. Even some of the re-enactors who attend Aukiki are unaware, Hodson said. But a century later, the Kankakee’s story is rising from the ground like a ghost in a cemetery, searching for answers about fter the downpour ceased, four its demise. The spirit of the marsh has benefited from cold- women in bonnets and long case conservationists like Hodson. Archaeologists, farmers, dresses sang frontier-era folk hunters and even filmmakers have also played a role. Togeth- er, they are re-examining the region’s history, hoping to cor- songs in French. rect past mistakes. Their methods include creation of public Do they know? John Hodson wondered. A awareness, as well as land preservation, wetland restoration Probably not, he decided.
    [Show full text]
  • Louisiana's Animal Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN)
    Louisiana's Animal Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) ‐ Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Animals ‐ 2020 MOLLUSKS Common Name Scientific Name G‐Rank S‐Rank Federal Status State Status Mucket Actinonaias ligamentina G5 S1 Rayed Creekshell Anodontoides radiatus G3 S2 Western Fanshell Cyprogenia aberti G2G3Q SH Butterfly Ellipsaria lineolata G4G5 S1 Elephant‐ear Elliptio crassidens G5 S3 Spike Elliptio dilatata G5 S2S3 Texas Pigtoe Fusconaia askewi G2G3 S3 Ebonyshell Fusconaia ebena G4G5 S3 Round Pearlshell Glebula rotundata G4G5 S4 Pink Mucket Lampsilis abrupta G2 S1 Endangered Endangered Plain Pocketbook Lampsilis cardium G5 S1 Southern Pocketbook Lampsilis ornata G5 S3 Sandbank Pocketbook Lampsilis satura G2 S2 Fatmucket Lampsilis siliquoidea G5 S2 White Heelsplitter Lasmigona complanata G5 S1 Black Sandshell Ligumia recta G4G5 S1 Louisiana Pearlshell Margaritifera hembeli G1 S1 Threatened Threatened Southern Hickorynut Obovaria jacksoniana G2 S1S2 Hickorynut Obovaria olivaria G4 S1 Alabama Hickorynut Obovaria unicolor G3 S1 Mississippi Pigtoe Pleurobema beadleianum G3 S2 Louisiana Pigtoe Pleurobema riddellii G1G2 S1S2 Pyramid Pigtoe Pleurobema rubrum G2G3 S2 Texas Heelsplitter Potamilus amphichaenus G1G2 SH Fat Pocketbook Potamilus capax G2 S1 Endangered Endangered Inflated Heelsplitter Potamilus inflatus G1G2Q S1 Threatened Threatened Ouachita Kidneyshell Ptychobranchus occidentalis G3G4 S1 Rabbitsfoot Quadrula cylindrica G3G4 S1 Threatened Threatened Monkeyface Quadrula metanevra G4 S1 Southern Creekmussel Strophitus subvexus
    [Show full text]
  • Pocket Gophers Habitat Modification
    Summary of Damage Prevention and Control Methods POCKET GOPHERS HABITAT MODIFICATION Rotate to annual crops Apply herbicides to control tap‐rooted plants for 2 consecutive years Flood land Rotate or cover crop with grasses, grains, or other fibrous‐rooted plants EXCLUSION Figure 1. Plains pocket gopher. Photo by Ron Case. Small wire‐mesh fences may provide protection for ornamental trees and shrubs or flower beds Plastic netting to protect seedlings Protect pipes and underground cables with pipes at least 3 inches in diameter or surround them with 6 to 8 inches of coarse gravel. FRIGHTENING Nothing effective REPELLENTS None practical Figure 2. Pocket gophers get their name from the pouches TOXICANTS on the sides of their head. Image by PCWD. Zinc phosphide Chlorophacinone OBJECTIVES 1. Describe basic pocket gopher biology and FUMIGANTS behavior 2. Identify pocket gopher signs Aluminum phosphide and gas cartridges 3. Explain different methods to control pocket gophers SHOOTING white, but generally align with soil coloration. The great variability in size and color of pocket gophers is Not practical attributed to their low dispersal rate and limited gene flow, resulting in adaptations to local TRAPPING conditions. Thirty‐five species of pocket gophers, represented by Various specialized body‐grip traps 5 genera occupy the western hemisphere. Fourteen Baited box traps species and 3 genera exist in the US. The major features differentiating these genera are the size of SPECIES PROFILE their forefeet, claws, and front surfaces of their chisel‐like incisors. Southeastern pocket gopher (Geomys pinetis) is the only species occurring in IDENTIFICATION Alabama. Pocket gophers are so named because they have fur‐ Geomys (Figure 3) have 2 grooves on each upper lined pouches outside of the mouth, one on each incisor and large forefeet and claws.
    [Show full text]
  • Sand Hills Pocket Gopher Geomys Lutescens
    Wyoming Species Account Sand Hills Pocket Gopher Geomys lutescens REGULATORY STATUS USFWS: No special status USFS R2: No special status USFS R4: No special status Wyoming BLM: No special status State of Wyoming: Nongame Wildlife CONSERVATION RANKS USFWS: No special status WGFD: NSS3 (Bb), Tier II WYNDD: G3, S1S3 Wyoming Contribution: HIGH IUCN: Least Concern STATUS AND RANK COMMENTS Sand Hills Pocket Gopher (Geomys lutescens) is assigned a range of state conservation ranks by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database due to uncertainty concerning its abundance in Wyoming and lack of information on population trends in the state. Also, note that the Global rank (G3) is provisional at this time – NatureServe (Arlington, Virginia) has not yet formalized a Global rank for this species. NATURAL HISTORY Taxonomy: Sand Hills Pocket Gopher was formerly considered a subspecies of Plains Pocket Gopher (G. bursarius) and given the sub-specific designation G. b. lutescens 1. It is now considered a full species based on a combination of genetic information and morphology 2 . Though two subspecies of G. lutescens have been suggested, none are widely recognized 3. It is suspected to hybridize with G. bursarius in some localities 4. Description: Like all pocket gophers, Sand Hills Pocket Gopher is adapted to fossorial life with large foreclaws, a heavy skull, strong jaw muscles, and relatively inconspicuous ears and eyes. It is similar in general appearance to the formerly synonymous G. bursarius, which has a sparsely- haired tail and relatively short pelage that can vary substantially in color from buff to black 5. However, G. lutescens is somewhat smaller and lighter in pelage color than G.
    [Show full text]
  • Kankakee Sands Ornate Box Turtle (Terrapene Ornata) Population & Ecosystem Assessment
    I LLINOI S UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN PRODUCTION NOTE University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library Large-scale Digitization Project, 2007. Kankakee Sands Ornate Box Turtle (Terrapene ornata) Population & Ecosystem Assessment Final Report Illinois Natural History Survey Center for Biodiversity Technical Report No. 2003 (35) Submitted in Fulfillment of Requirements of Wildlife Preservation Fund Grant: IDNR RC03L21W And The Nature Conservancy Grant: Nature Conserv 1131626100 4 December 2003 Christopher A. Phillips, Andrew R. Kuhns, and Timothy Hunkapiller Illinois Natural History Survey, 607 E.Peabody Drive, Champaign, IL 61820 Introduction The Kankakee Sands Macrosite is a complex of high-quality natural lands including wet/mesic sand prairie, oak barrens/savanna, and sedge meadows in northeast Illinois and northwest Indiana. A project is currently underway which targets over 7,500 acres of cropland and degraded grassland/savanna for restoration into a mosaic of native grasslands, savannas and wetlands which will ultimately restore connectivity to a landscape-scale system exceeding 40,000 acres. The Nature Conservancy, with assistance from professionals from IL DNR, IN DNR, INHS, and state universities, is in the process of completing a viability study for the Kankakee Sands Macrosite. One of the target species in the ornate box turtle (Terrapene ornata). It is easy to see why the ornate box turtle is considered a target species of sand prairies and savannas of the Kankakee Sands ecosystem. The turtle is associated with open habitats characterized by rolling topography with grasses and low shrubs as the dominant vegetation. Disturbance factors such as fire, grazing, and the presence of plains pocket gopher maintain the open structure of prairie and savannas which benefit the turtle.
    [Show full text]
  • VERTEBRATE ASSOCIATES of BLACK-TAILED PRAIRIE DOGS in OKLAHOMA 41 Vertebrate Associates of Black-Tailed Prairie Dogs in Oklahoma
    VERTEBRATE ASSOCIATES OF BLACK-TAILED PRAIRIE DOGS IN OKLAHOMA 41 Vertebrate Associates of Black-Tailed Prairie Dogs in Oklahoma Jack D. Tyler Department of Biology, Cameron University, Lawton, OK 73505 John S. Shackford 429 E. Oak Cliff Drive, Edmond, OK 73034 During surveys of black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) towns in Oklahoma in 1966-1967 and 1986-1989, 72 vertebrate associates were regularly encountered as well as 25 others that were found less often. The status of several species had apparently changed during this 23-year interval. Six avian species appeared to have increased in number, but declines in populations of seven other birds, five mammals, and one reptile were indicated. ©2002 Oklahoma Academy of Science INTRODUCTION The black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys afield at all seasons except during severe ludovicianus) originally ranged throughout cold spells, when prairie dogs were inactive. western Oklahoma (1,2). During the first We used several methods in attempting half of the 20th century, however, land- to locate Black-footed ferrets (Mustela owners eradicated most of the colonies, nigripes). These included examining prairie precipitating a drastic decline in prairie dog dog burrows for “trenching” (a ferret activity) numbers from millions [Bailey (1) estimated in winter,”“squeaking” while spotlighting at 800 million in Texas alone in 1905] to only a night, and inspecting unused irrigation pipes few thousand. The objectives of this study stacked near dogtowns with the aid of a were to document the occurrence of verte- flashlight. However, we found no evidence brate species found in Oklahoma prairie dog of this rare species in Oklahoma.
    [Show full text]
  • Curriculum Vita Kenneth T
    CURRICULUM VITA KENNETH T. WILKINS Personal Faculty office: Department of Biology, Baylor University, Waco, Texas 76798-7388 (254) 710-2911, FAX: (254) 710-2969 Administrative office: Graduate School, Baylor University, Waco, Texas 76798-7264 (254) 710-3588, FAX: (254) 710-3870 e-mail: [email protected] Education B.S., Biology, University of Texas at Arlington, 1974 M.S., Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University, 1977 Ph.D., Zoology, University of Florida, 1982 Professional Experience Associate Dean of Graduate Studies and Research, Baylor Graduate School; Professor (tenured), Depts. of Biology and Geology, and in Institute of Biomedical Studies, Baylor University, June 2006-present. Courses taught: Mammalogy, Comparative Chordate Anatomy, Vertebrate Biology, Vertebrate Paleontology, Graduate Seminars in Biology, Graduate Proseminars in Interdisciplinary Scholarship. Associate Dean of Graduate Studies and Research, Baylor Graduate School; Professor (tenured) and Interim Graduate Program Director (Biology), Depts. of Biology and Geology, and in Institute of Biomedical Studies, Baylor University, September 2003-May 2006. Courses taught: Mammalogy, Comparative Chordate Anatomy, Vertebrate Natural History, Vertebrate Paleontology, Graduate Seminars in Biology, Graduate Proseminars in Interdisciplinary Teaching and Interdisciplinary Scholarship. Associate Dean of Graduate Studies and Research, Baylor Graduate School; Professor (tenured), Depts. of Biology and Geology, and in Institute of Biomedical Studies, Baylor University, September 2000-2003. Courses taught: Mammalogy (taught in Waco and at Chapala Ecology Station in Mexico), Comparative Chordate Anatomy, Vertebrate Natural History, Vertebrate Paleontology, Graduate Seminars in Biology, Graduate Proseminars in Interdisciplinary Teaching and Interdisciplinary Scholarship. Associate Dean of the Graduate School; Professor (tenured), Depts. of Biology and Geology, and in Institute of Biomedical Studies, Baylor University, June 1998-2000.
    [Show full text]
  • Distribution of Baird's Pocket Gopher (Geomys Breviceps) in Arkansas; with Additional County Records Douglas A
    Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science Volume 50 Article 10 1996 Distribution of Baird's Pocket Gopher (Geomys breviceps) In Arkansas; with Additional County Records Douglas A. Elrod University of North Texas Gary A. Heidt University of Arkansas at Little Rock Mark R. Ingraham University of North Texas Earl G. Zimmerman University of North Texas Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas Part of the Zoology Commons Recommended Citation Elrod, Douglas A.; Heidt, Gary A.; Ingraham, Mark R.; and Zimmerman, Earl G. (1996) "Distribution of Baird's Pocket Gopher (Geomys breviceps) In Arkansas; with Additional County Records," Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science: Vol. 50 , Article 10. Available at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol50/iss1/10 This article is available for use under the Creative Commons license: Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0). Users are able to read, download, copy, print, distribute, search, link to the full texts of these articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact [email protected]. I Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 50 [1996], Art. 10 Distribution ofBaird's Pocket Gopher (Geomys breviceps) InArkansas With Additional County Records ? Douglas A.Elrod, Gary A.Heidt, Mark R. Ingraham and Earl G.
    [Show full text]
  • Survey of the Current Distribution of the Southeastern Pocket Gopher ( Geomys Pinetis ) in Georgia
    SURVEY OF THE CURRENT DISTRIBUTION OF THE SOUTHEASTERN POCKET GOPHER ( GEOMYS PINETIS ) IN GEORGIA Final Report to Georgia Department of Natural Resources Southern Wildlife Consults June 20, 2008 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The southeastern pocket gopher ( Geomys pinetis ) is listed as a high priority species for conservation in Georgia. Reports from the early 1980s suggested that the species’ distribution had been significantly reduced from its historic distribution in the state. Because the species was locally abundant in suitable habitats, but absent from large parts of historical range, habitat loss was considered a primary factor driving the distribution reduction. However, little information is available on current distribution and availability of suitable habitat. The overall goal of this project was to assess the current distribution and habitat associations of the southeastern pocket gopher in Georgia. Specific goals were to determine the current occupancy status of historic southeastern pocket gopher localities known from museum and publication records, to develop habitat models of pocket gopher presence or absence based habitat characteristics at occupied and random locations, and to apply the predictive model across the potential distribution in Georgia to identify additional areas where suitable habitat conditions exist. We obtained a compiled a list of 297 historic southeastern pocket gopher locations in Georgia from Paul Skelley at the Florida State Collection of Arthropods. We surveyed 272 (97% of useable locations) of the historical pocket gopher localities in 41 counties during a roadside survey from June-August 2006. We documented current pocket gopher activity at 65 (24%) of the historic locations in 18 counties. Using a kernel density estimator in the GIS, we identified 5 high pocket gopher density areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Conrad Station Savanna Trail Is a 1.5 Mile Sided Towhee, Wild Turkey
    Welcome to Conrad Station Savanna, The northern most part of the trail takes you TRAIL GUIDE owned and managed by the Indiana briefly out of the savanna, and into a tallgrass What to look for at Conrad Station Savanna Chapter of The Nature Conservancy. The prairie restoration. The depression along the The plant and animal species in Conrad Station north side of the trail is a small ephemeral 380 acres of Conrad Station contribute to Savanna are abundant and diverse. They are wetland, which holds water seasonally. A second uniquely adapted to the dry sandy soils and the conservation of Kankakee Sands, sign located further along the trail in the shade of occasional fires that keep savannas open and a large prairie-savanna complex in the savanna trees describes how The Nature sunny. Some of the commonly seen or heard northwest Indiana and northeast Illinois Conservancy manages the savanna at Conrad species are listed below. Let us know if you find Conrad Station Savanna that encompasses more than 30,000 acres Station Savanna as well as the unique plants and something of interest! at Kankakee Sands of land protected by the Conservancy and animals that live here. Birds: Orchard oriole, barred owl, blue grosbeak, its conservation partners. The southeastern part of the trail skirts the edge brown thrasher, vesper sparrow, field sparrow, lark sparrow, bobwhite quail, red-headed woodpecker, Hiking Conrad Station Savanna of a 75 acre prairie restoration completed in 1997. It was one of the first restorations planted rose-breasted grosbeak, scarlet tanager, rufous The Conrad Station Savanna Trail is a 1.5 mile sided towhee, wild turkey.
    [Show full text]