DOCSLIB.ORG

Reintroducing San Joaquin Kit Fox to Vacant Or Restored Lands: Identifying Optimal Source Populations and Candidate Foxes

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Reintroducing San Joaquin Kit Fox to Vacant Or Restored Lands: Identifying Optimal Source Populations and Candidate Foxes REINTRODUCING SAN JOAQUIN KIT FOX TO VACANT OR RESTORED LANDS: IDENTIFYING OPTIMAL SOURCE POPULATIONS AND CANDIDATE FOXES PREPARED FOR THE U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT CONSERVATION PROGRAM 2800 COTTAGE WAY, SACRAMENTO, CA 95825 Prepared by: Samantha Bremner-Harrison1 & Brian L. Cypher California State University, Stanislaus Endangered Species Recovery Program P.O. Box 9622 Bakersfield, CA 93389 1Current address: School of Animal, Rural and Environmental Sciences Nottingham Trent University, Brackenhurst Campus Southwell NG25 0QF 2011 Kit fox relocation report_ESRP.doc REINTRODUCING SAN JOAQUIN KIT FOX TO VACANT OR RESTORED LANDS: IDENTIFYING OPTIMAL SOURCE POPULATIONS AND CANDIDATE FOXES TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... i Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 6 Behavioral variation and suitability ........................................................................................................... 6 Objectives .................................................................................................................................................. 8 Methods .............................................................................................................................. 9 Study sites .................................................................................................................................................. 9 Urban study site – Bakersfield, Kern County ....................................................................................... 9 Natural lands population – Lokern Natural Area .................................................................................10 Kit fox capture and handling ................................................................................................................10 Experiment One ........................................................................................................................................11 Behavioral observations .......................................................................................................................12 Survival, reproductive and movement data ..........................................................................................14 Experiment Two .......................................................................................................................................14 Survival, reproductive and movement data ..........................................................................................15 Trapping and Handling data .....................................................................................................................15 Data organization and statistical analyses.................................................................................................16 Results .............................................................................................................................. 16 Trapping and radio-collaring ....................................................................................................................16 Experiment One ...................................................................................................................................16 Bakersfield ...........................................................................................................................................17 Lokern ..................................................................................................................................................17 Experiment Two...................................................................................................................................19 Observational Data ...................................................................................................................................22 Boldness Scores - Experiment One ......................................................................................................22 Boldness scores - Experiment Two ......................................................................................................24 Boldness scores – Trap and Handling Behavior ..................................................................................26 Comparison of boldness scores from Experiments 1and 2 and trap/handling data ..............................26 Comparison of boldness scores between habitats ................................................................................29 Comparison of boldness scores within habitats ...................................................................................34 Boldness scores and survival ...............................................................................................................37 Boldness scores and reproduction ........................................................................................................41 Boldness scores and distance moved ...................................................................................................43 Data Summary .....................................................................................................................................44 Discussion......................................................................................................................... 46 Comparisons of Boldness Measures .........................................................................................................46 Boldness and Kit Fox Reintroductions ................................................................................................46 Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 48 Literature Cited .............................................................................................................. 49 Appendix A ...................................................................................................................... 51 i TABLE OF TABLES Table 1: Behavioral ethogram used in Experiment One observation. ............................................................................ 13 Table 2: Behavioral ethogram used for Experiment Two focal observations ................................................................. 15 Table 3: San Joaquin kit fox pups trapped at natal dens in the Bakersfield and Lokern study sites for Experiment One observations. ......................................................................................................................................................... 17 Table 4: Pups radio-collared for Experiment One for survival, movement and reproductive data................................. 19 Table 5: Urban San Joaquin kit foxes observed for Experiment Two. ........................................................................... 21 Table 6: Natural lands San Joaquin kit foxes observed for Experiment Two. ................................................................ 22 Table 7: Individual fox boldness scores obtained from Experiment One novel object tests in Bakersfield and Lokern. 23 Table 8: Shy and bold behavior classification for Experiment Two Novel Object Tests. .............................................. 24 Table 9: Experiment Two boldness scores – Bakersfield and Lokern populations. ....................................................... 25 Table 10: Trap/Handling Behavior Data – Bakersfield. ................................................................................................. 26 Table 11: Boldness scores obtained from Experiments One and Two, and Trap/Handling Data. .................................. 27 Table 12: Comparison of Experiment One boldness data collected from San Joaquin kit foxes in urban and natural lands habitats (t-test assuming unequal variances). .............................................................................................. 29 Table 13: Range of Experiment One boldness data collected from San Joaquin kit foxes in urban and natural lands habitats. ................................................................................................................................................................ 29 Table 14: Comparison of overall percent occurrence time spent on behavioral activities by San Joaquin kit foxes in urban vs natural lands habitats. ............................................................................................................................. 30 Table 15: Comparison of Experiment Two boldness scores in urban vs natural lands San Joaquin kit foxes. ............... 33 Table 16: Range of Experiment Two boldness scores collected from San Joaquin kit foxes in urban and natural lands habitats. ................................................................................................................................................................ 33 Table 17: Comparison of Trap/Handling boldness scores in urban vs natural lands San Joaquin kit foxes. .................. 34 Table 18: Range of Trap/Handling boldness scores collected from San Joaquin kit foxes in urban and natural lands habitats. ................................................................................................................................................................ 34 Table 19: Descriptive statistics of boldness scores
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Dental and Temporomandibular Joint Pathology of the Kit Fox (Vulpes Macrotis)
    Author's Personal Copy J. Comp. Path. 2019, Vol. 167, 60e72 Available online at www.sciencedirect.com ScienceDirect www.elsevier.com/locate/jcpa DISEASE IN WILDLIFE OR EXOTIC SPECIES Dental and Temporomandibular Joint Pathology of the Kit Fox (Vulpes macrotis) N. Yanagisawa*, R. E. Wilson*, P. H. Kass† and F. J. M. Verstraete* *Department of Surgical and Radiological Sciences and † Department of Population Health and Reproduction, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis, California, USA Summary Skull specimens from 836 kit foxes (Vulpes macrotis) were examined macroscopically according to predefined criteria; 559 specimens were included in this study. The study group consisted of 248 (44.4%) females, 267 (47.8%) males and 44 (7.9%) specimens of unknown sex; 128 (22.9%) skulls were from young adults and 431 (77.1%) were from adults. Of the 23,478 possible teeth, 21,883 teeth (93.2%) were present for examina- tion, 45 (1.9%) were absent congenitally, 405 (1.7%) were acquired losses and 1,145 (4.9%) were missing ar- tefactually. No persistent deciduous teeth were observed. Eight (0.04%) supernumerary teeth were found in seven (1.3%) specimens and 13 (0.06%) teeth from 12 (2.1%) specimens were malformed. Root number vari- ation was present in 20.3% (403/1,984) of the present maxillary and mandibular first premolar teeth. Eleven (2.0%) foxes had lesions consistent with enamel hypoplasia and 77 (13.8%) had fenestrations in the maxillary alveolar bone. Periodontitis and attrition/abrasion affected the majority of foxes (71.6% and 90.5%, respec- tively).
    [Show full text]
  • San Joaquin Kit Fox Habitat Use in Urban Bakersfield
    SAN JOAQUIN KIT FOX HOME RANGE, HABITAT USE, AND MOVEMENTS IN URBAN BAKERSFIELD by Nancy Frost A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of Humboldt State University In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science In Natural Resources: Wildlife December 2005 ABSTRACT San Joaquin kit fox home range, habitat use, and movements in urban Bakersfield Nancy Frost Habitat destruction and fragmentation has led to the decline of the federally endangered and state threatened San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica). Kit foxes in the San Joaquin Valley occur in and adjacent to several urban areas. The urban kit fox population in Bakersfield has the potential to contribute to recovery efforts, however, little is known about habitat use in the urban environment. Habitat use in the urban landscape was examined in 28 radiocollared adult kit foxes between 1 May 1997 and 15 January 1998. The area of the urban environment needed to meet kit foxes’ ecological requirements varied among the sexes and fluctuated throughout the year. Mean home range size was 1.72 km2 (100% minimum convex polygon estimate) and mean concentrated use area (core area; 50% fixed kernel estimate) size was 0.16 km2. Females had a greater median number of core areas than did males, but core area size did not differ between the sexes. Mean home range size was significantly larger during the dispersal season than during the pair formation and breeding seasons. Home range size was greater for males than females during the breeding season. To assess the extent to which kit foxes were concentrated around limited resources, the percentage of overlap between adjacent kit foxes’ home ranges and core areas was determined.
    [Show full text]
  • San Joaquin Kit Fox (Vulpes Macrotus Mutica)
    Mammals San Joaquin Kit Fox (Vulpes macrotus mutica) San Joaquin Kit Fox (Vulpes macrotus mutica) Status State: Threatened Federal: Endangered Population Trend Global: Declining State: Declining Within Inventory Area: Unknown Data Characterization The location database for the San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotus mutica) within its known range in California includes 22 data records from 1975 to 1999. Of these records, none of the 7 documented within the past 10 years were of sufficient precision to be accurately located within the survey areas. Three of these 7 records are located within the ECCC HCP/NCCP inventory area. These records represent sighting within non-native grassland, grazed, and agricultural habitat. This database includes records of individual sightings and locations of occupied, vacant, and natal dens. A moderate amount of literature is available for the San Joaquin kit fox because of its endangered status. Long-term studies have been conducted on the ecology and population dynamics of this species in core population centers at the Elk Hills and Buena Vista Naval Petroleum Reserves in Kern County and on the Carrizo Plain Natural Area in San Luis Obispo County. Numerous surveys have been conducted in the northern portion of the range, including Contra Costa County. Quantitative data are available on population size, reproductive capacity, mortality, dispersal, home-range movement patterns, and habitat characteristics and requirements. A number of models have been developed to describe the species’ population dynamics. A recovery plan for the San Joaquin kit fox has been published. Range The San Joaquin kit fox is found only in the Central Valley area of California.
    [Show full text]
  • World Wildlife Fund Swift Fox Report
    SWIFT FOX CONSERVATION TEAM Swift Fox in Valley County, Montana. Photo courtesy of Ryan Rauscher REPORT FOR 2009-2010 SWIFT FOX CONSERVATION TEAM: REPORT FOR 2009-2010 COMPILED AND EDITED BY: Kristy Bly World Wildlife Fund May 2011 Preferred Citation: Bly, K., editor. 2011. Swift Fox Conservation Team: Report for 2009-2010. World Wildlife Fund, Bozeman, Montana and Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Helena 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 5 Swift Fox Conservation Team Members ............................................................................................. 6 Swift Fox Conservation Team Participating Cooperators .................................................................... 7 Swift Fox Conservation Team Interested Parties ................................................................................. 8 STATE AGENCIES Colorado Status of Swift Fox Activities in Colorado, 2009-2010 Jerry Apker ............................................................................................................................. 10 Kansas Swift Fox Investigations in Kansas, 2009-2010 Matt Peek ................................................................................................................................ 11 Montana Montana 2009 and 2010 Swift Fox Report Brian Giddings ......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • KIT FOX Vulpes Macrotis
    A-28 KIT FOX Vulpes macrotis Description The small-bodied kit fox closely resembles the swift fox (Vulpes velox) but has larger ears and a more angular appearance. The skull is long and delicate, and The kit fox is the broader at the eyes and more slender at the nose than other North American daintiest of three Vulpes. The ears are set close to the midline of the skull (McGrew 1979, species of Vulpes in Sheldon 1992). The kit fox measures 730 to 840 mm in total length; including a North America 260 to 323 mm tail, 78 to 94 mm ears, and 113 to 137 mm hindfeet. Adult (Fitzgerald et al. weight ranges from 1.5 to 2.5 kg. Females are 15 percent lighter on average 1994). than males (Fitzgerald et al. 1994), but there is no other obvious sexual dimorphism. Tail length averages about 40 percent of total body length—a distinguishing trait, along with the large ears, from swift foxes (Sheldon 1992). The kit fox has a light-colored pelage, variable between grizzled-gray, yellow- gray and buff-gray. The shoulders, flanks and chest range from buff to orange. Guard hairs are tipped black or banded. The underfur is lighter buff or white, and relatively heavy and coarse. The legs are slender and thickly furred. The sides of the muzzle are blackish or brownish, and the tip of the tail is black. The soles of the feet are protected by stiff tufts of hair. Because of its relative coarseness, a kit fox pelt has little market value (O'Farrell 1987).
    [Show full text]
  • Feasibility and Strategies for Translocating San Joaquin Kit Foxes to Vacant Or Restored Habitats
    FEASIBILITY AND STRATEGIES FOR TRANSLOCATING SAN JOAQUIN KIT FOXES TO VACANT OR RESTORED HABITATS PREPARED FOR THE CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT CONSERVATION PROGRAM U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION AND U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE SACRAMENTO, CA 95825 Prepared by: Samantha Bremner-Harrison and Brian L. Cypher California State University, Stanislaus Endangered Species Recovery Program 1900 N. Gateway #101 Fresno, CA 93727 November 2007 FEASIBILITY AND STRATEGIES FOR REINTRODUCING SAN JOAQUIN KIT FOXES TO VACANT OR RESTORED HABITATS Samantha Bremner-Harrison and Brian L. Cypher California State University, Stanislaus Endangered Species Recovery Program TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ...............................................................................................................i 1. Introduction................................................................................................................... 1 2. Literature review of animal reintroductions and translocations ............................. 2 2.1. Introduction and definitions ............................................................................................. 2 2.2. Common issues associated with reintroduction programs............................................. 3 2.2.1. Expense....................................................................................................................................... 3 2.2.2. Available habitat ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Endangered Species Facts San Joaquin Kit
    Endangered SpecU.S. Environmental iesFacts Protection Agency San Joaquin Kit Fox Vulpes macrot is mutica Description and Ecology Status Endangered, listed March 11, 1967. Critical Habitat Not designated. current distribution records include the Antioch area of Contra Costa County. Appearance The average male San Joaquin kit fox measures about 32 inches in length (of which 12 inches is the Habitat Because the San Joaquin kit fox requires dens length of its tail). It stands 12 inches high at the shoulder, for shelter, protection and reproduction, a habitat’s soil and weighs about 5 pounds. The female is a little smaller. type is important. Loose-textured soils are preferable, but The San Joaquin kit fox is the smallest canid species in North modification of the burrows of other animals facilitates America (but the largest kit fox subspecies). Its foot pads denning in other soil types. The historical native vegetation of are also small and distinct from other canids in its range, the Valley was largely annual grassland (“California Prairie”) averaging 1.2 inches long and 1 inch wide. The legs are long, and various scrub and subshrub communities. Vernal pool, the body slim, and the large ears are set close together. The alkali meadows and playas still provide support habitat, but B. Moose Pet erson, U.S. Fish Serviceand Wildlife B. Moose Pet nose is slim and pointed. The tail, typically carried low and have wet soils unsuitable for denning. Some of the habitat has been converted to an agricultural patchwork of row The San Joaquin kit fox is straight, tapers slightly toward its distinct black tip.
    [Show full text]
  • Desert Kit Fox CESA Petition 3-10-13
    BEFORE THE CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME COMMISSION A Petition to List the Desert Kit Fox (Vulpes macrotis arsipus) as Threatened under the California Endangered Species Act Photo © CDFG 2012 CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, PETITIONER March 10, 2013 Citation: Kadaba, Dipika, Ileene Anderson, Curt Bradley and Shaye Wolf 2013. A Petition to List the Desert Kit Fox (Vulpes macrotis arsipus) as Threatened under the California Endangered Species Act. Submitted to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife – March 2013. Pgs. 58. Table of Contents Executive Summary..............................................................................................................................4 I. Population Trends.......................................................................................................................5 II. Range and Distribution ...............................................................................................................5 III. Abundance ...................................................................................................................................8 IV. Life History..................................................................................................................................8 A. Species Description ...................................................................................................................8 B. Taxonomy...................................................................................................................................9 C. Reproduction
    [Show full text]
  • Os Nomes Galegos Dos Carnívoros 2019 2ª Ed
    Os nomes galegos dos carnívoros 2019 2ª ed. Citación recomendada / Recommended citation: A Chave (20192): Os nomes galegos dos carnívoros. Xinzo de Limia (Ourense): A Chave. https://www.achave.ga"/wp#content/up"oads/achave_osnomes!a"egosdos$carnivoros$2019.pd% Fotografía: lince euroasiático (Lynx lynx ). Autor: Jordi Bas. &sta o'ra est( su)eita a unha licenza Creative Commons de uso a'erto* con reco+ecemento da autor,a e sen o'ra derivada nin usos comerciais. -esumo da licenza: https://creativecommons.or!/"icences/'.#n #nd//.0/deed.!". Licenza comp"eta: https://creativecommons.or!/"icences/'.#n #nd//.0/"e!a"code0"an!ua!es. 1 Notas introdutorias O que cont n este documento Neste documento fornécense denominacións galegas para diferentes especies de mamíferos carnívoros. Primeira edición (2018): En total! ac"éganse nomes para 2#$ especies! %&ue son practicamente todos os carnívoros &ue "ai no mundo! salvante os nomes das focas% e $0 subespecies. Os nomes galegos das focas expóñense noutro recurso léxico da +"ave dedicado só aos nomes das focas! manatís e dugongos. ,egunda edición (201-): +orríxese algunha gralla! reescrí'ense as notas introdutorias e incorpórase o logo da +"ave ao deseño do documento. A estrutura En primeiro lugar preséntase a clasificación taxonómica das familias de mamíferos carnívoros! onde se apunta! de maneira xeral! os nomes dos carnívoros &ue "ai en cada familia. seguir vén o corpo do documento! unha listaxe onde se indica! especie por especie, alén do nome científico! os nomes galegos e ingleses dos diferentes mamíferos carnívoros (nalgún caso! tamén, o nome xenérico para un grupo deles ou o nome particular dalgunhas subespecies).
    [Show full text]
  • Competitive Interactions Between Coyotes and San Joaquin Kit Foxes
    COMPETITIVE INTERACTIONS BETWEEN COYOTES AND SAN JOAQUIN KIT FOXES BRIAN L. CYPHER AND KENNETH A. SPENCER Enterprise Advisory Services, Inc., P.O. Box 178, Tupman, CA 93276 Present address of KAS: Colorado State University, Center for Ecological Management of Military Lands, Fort Hunter Liggett, CA 93928 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jmammal/article/79/1/204/841958 by guest on 30 September 2021 Competitive interactions between coyotes (Canis latrans) and federally endangered San Joaquin kit foxes (Vuipes macrotis mutica) were investigated at the Naval Petroleum Re­ serves in California (NPRC) during 1984-1995. Coyotes and kit foxes used similar food items, indicating the potential for exploitative competition. Leporids were the primary prey for coyotes in all years, but small rodents were the primary prey for kit foxes in most years, although leporids were primary prey in other years. Coyotes were the main cause of mortality to kit foxes at NPRC, indicating that interference competition may be occur­ ring. Population trends of kit foxes appeared to be strongly i!1.fluenced by food availability, but competition from coyotes also may have affected population dynamics of kit foxes. Mechanisms employed by kit foxes, such as resource partitioning, greater dietary breadth, and year-round den use, may facilitate coexistence with coyotes. However, use of anthro­ pogenic food sources by coyotes may intensify competitive interactions during periods of low prey availability. Key words: Vulpes macrotis mutica, kit fox, Canis tatrans, coyote, endangered species, competition, California The San Joaquin kit fox (Vuipes macrotis tition. Coyotes also have been identified as mutica) is a federally endangered and Cal­ an important source of kit fox mortality ifornia tlueatened species occurring in the (Cypher and Scrivner, 1992; Disney and southern San Joaquin Valley and adjacent Spiegel, 1992; Ralls and White, 1995), and Salinas, Valley in California.
    [Show full text]
  • Gray Fox Urocyon Cinereoargenteus Long Pointed Ears
    YOUTH MAGAZINE OF THE TEXAS WILDLIFE ASSOCIATION FEBRUARY 2018 CRITTER CONNECTIONS All About Foxes Foxglove Penstemon The foxglove penstemon (Penstemon cobaea), prairie beardtongue, or false foxglove is a flower found on hillsides and rocky areas in Texas from the Rolling Plains and Blackland Prairie ecoregions, south to the Gulf of Mexico. They are native or natural to the United States and grow in many other states from Nebraska to Texas. The bell shaped flowers can be different colors, from white, to dark pink, to light purple. The stems are usually 30cm or 12in tall, but can grow to be twice that size. They will grow flowers two years after the seeds are planted. False Name Even though this plant is sometimes called a foxglove, it is a pretender. It is not related to the true foxglove plants which grow in Europe and were brought over to the United States. People call it a false foxglove because it looks a lot like the plants in the true foxglove family. The name foxglove comes from old English words which mean fox’s glove, but scientists don’t really understand why it was named that. Why do you think it is called a foxglove? Pretty for Pollinators The flowers are long and tube or bell shaped and are made of five lobes, two large at the top and three smaller lobes at the bottom. They create a perfect stage for pollinators such as bees to land on the flower and walk inside to drink nectar. There are even dark lines inside the flower showing pollinators where to find the nectar.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantity and Distribution of Suitable Habitat for Endangered San Joaquin Kit Foxes: Conservation Implications
    Copyright © 2013 by the IUCN/SSC Canid Specialist Group. ISSN 1478-2677 Research Report Quantity and distribution of suitable habitat for endangered San Joaquin kit foxes: conservation implications Brian L. Cypher*1, Scott E. Phillips1 and Patrick A. Kelly1 1 California State University - Stanislaus, Endangered Species Recovery Program, Department of Biological Sciences, One University Circle, Turlock, California 95382, USA. * = Correspondence author. Email: [email protected] Keywords: California, endangered species, habitat modelling, habitat suitability, San Joaquin kit fox, Vulpes macrotis mutica. Abstract The San Joaquin kit fox Vulpes macrotis mutica is endemic to central California, and is listed as Federally Endangered and California Threatened, primarily due to profound habitat loss. This loss continues and habitat protection is urgently needed to conserve and recover this species. To identify lands to target for habitat protection, we used a GIS-based map-algebra model to determine the distribution of remaining suitable habitat for San Joaquin kit foxes. The primary variables used in the model included land use/land cover, vegetation density and terrain ruggedness. Suitability was categorized as high, medium or low based on habitat attributes relative to the presence and persistence of kit fox populations. Model results indicated that only 4,267km2 of high suitability habitat and 5,569km2 of medium suitability habitat remain for San Joaquin kit foxes, and much of this habitat is highly fragmented. High suitability habitat primarily is concentrated in the southern portion of the kit fox range with some also scattered along the western edge. Persistent kit fox populations appear to occur only in areas with relatively large patches of high suitability habitat or a mix of high and medium suitability habitat.
    [Show full text]