DOCSLIB.ORG

Managing Pocket Gophers Fact Sheet No

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Managing Pocket Gophers Fact Sheet No Managing Pocket Gophers Fact Sheet No. 6.515 Natural Resources Series|Wildlife by W.F. Andelt and R.M. Case* The northern pocket gopher usually is The four pocket gopher species found in Quick Facts Colorado are distributed almost entirely in dark-colored with a whitish chin and belly different areas (Figure 1), possibly because whereas the Botta's pocket gopher is often • Four species of pocket of different ecological requirements reddish-brown with a blackish chin and gophers are found in reddish belly. The plains and yellow-faced or competition. Plains pocket gophers Colorado. (Geomys bursarius) are abundant in sandy pocket gopher species are often difficult and silty soils of the plains but are not to tell apart. The plains pocket gopher has • Pocket gophers reduce abundant in compacted soils. The northern two distinct grooves on the front surface productivity of portions pocket gopher (Thomomys talpoides) of each upper incisor where as the yellow- of alfalfa fields and native occurs in upland areas of the eastern faced pocket gopher has one distinct grasslands by 20 to 50 plains to shallow gravel in mountainous groove. percent. areas to thin soils of the alpine tundra. It is the most common species in mountain • Damage by pocket gophers rangelands and aspen forests. Botta's can be reduced by exclusion, (formerly called valley) pocket gopher cultural methods, habitat (Thomomys bottae) is found primarily in well- modification, trapping, and developed soils of warm valleys in southern toxicants applied by hand or Colorado. The yellow-faced pocket gopher with a mechanical device. (Pappogeomys castanops) inhabits a portion of southeastern Colorado where the plains pocket gopher is found. However, the yellow-faced pocket gopher is confined to drier sites. Pocket gophers attain the highest densities on light-textured soils with good herbage production. Shallow Figure 1: Distribution map of Botta’s (Thomomys soils limit pocket gophers due to tunnel bottae) and Plains (Geomys bursarius) pocket cave-ins and poor insulation from warm gophers.1 summer and cold winter temperatures. Distinguishing among the four pocket gopher species in Colorado is moderately easy. The northern and Botta's pocket gophers have smooth upper incisors with a single indistinct groove near the inner border and have smaller bodies and proportionately smaller front feet than the plains and yellow-faced pocket gophers. *W.F. Andelt, Colorado State University Cooperative Extension wildlife specialist and associate professor, fishery and wildlife biology; and R.M. Case, forestry, fisheries and wildlife, University of Nebraska. S. © Colorado State University Bokan, Small Acreage Coordinator, Boulder County, K. Extension. 11/95. Revised 2/16. Crumbaker, Ag and Natural Resources Agent, Larimer Figure 2: Distribution map of Northern www.ext.colostate.edu County, T. Hoesli, Grand County Extension County (Thomomys talpoides) and Yellow-faced Director, D. Lester, Park County Extension County (Pappogeomys castanops) pocket gophers.1 Director, & I. Shonle Gilpin County Extension Director. Reviewed 2/2016 Biology, Reproduction 10 young (typically three to four) after a and Behavior gestation period of about 20 days. Usually, only one adult is found in each burrow Pocket gophers feed on roots they system except during breeding and while encounter from digging, from vegetation raising young. Six to eight plains pocket they pull into the tunnel from above, and gophers per acre are considered high vegetation above ground near the tunnel. densities whereas northern pocket gophers They like above-ground vegetation when occasionally reach densities of 20 per it is green and succulent. Many trees and acre. Young pocket gophers usually begin shrubs are clipped just above ground, dispersing from the natal burrow in June especially under snow cover when about one-third grown. Figure 6: Mound produced by a pocket gopher Pocket gophers construct burrow systems by loosening the soil with their Damage and Control claws and incisors, and then use their forefeet and chest to push the soil out of the Pocket gophers can reduce the burrow. They do not use cheek pouches to productivity of alfalfa fields and native carry soil. The soil is deposited in fan- grasslands on which they are found by 20 shaped mounds 12 to 18 inches wide and 4 to 50 percent. If gophers are present on 10 to 6 inches high. percent of a field, they may reduce overall forage productivity of the field by 2 to 5 Burrow systems consist of a main percent. Gopher mounds dull and plug tunnel, generally 4 to 18 inches below sickle bars when harvesting hay or alfalfa. the soil surface, and a variable number of Gophers sometimes damage trees by lateral burrows extending from the main. girdling or clipping stems and by pruning Figure 7: Fan-shaped mound with closed burrow is typical of pocket gophers Lateral burrows end with a soil mound or roots. Gophers may, at times, destroy soil plug at the surface. Burrows are about underground utility cables and irrigation nonlethal measures such as habitat 2 to 3 1/2 inches in diameter, depending pipes. on the size of the gopher. A burrow system modification, resistant crop varieties, crop may be linear to highly branched, may rotation, flood irrigation, or cultivated contain up to 200 yards of tunnels, and may Gophers are not protected by state or buffer strips which may be as cost effective have a hundred or more mounds. federal laws but they do play an important as lethal measures and should minimize role in ecosystem function. When selecting adverse environmental impacts. a damage-control program, consider Ecological Value Pocket gophers are beneficial in several ways. Their burrowing activities increase soil fertility by adding organic matter Figure 3: Pocket gopher mound and its relation to the tunnel system. in the form of plant materials and feces. Burrows increase soil aeration, water The soil from burrow building forms infiltration, reduce compaction, mixing eskers, long snake-like mounds of soil organic material into subsurface soil layers looking like above-ground soil-filled tubes.. and increase the rate of soil formation Eskers are named due to their similar Figure 4 by bringing up subsoil, subjecting it to appearance to the ridges deposited by weatherization. glacial melt water streams. Figures 4 and 5: Two examples of eskers--these are only seen as the snow melts, and are a result of burrowing activity under the snow. Pocket gophers are prey for owls, hawks, Pocket gopher mounds are built badgers, coyotes, foxes, bobcats, skunks, of excavated soil. The gophers usually weasels, bullsnakes and rattlesnakes. construct one to three mounds per day although the rate varies. One gopher brings about 2 1/4 tons of soil to the surface each year. Mound-building activity usually is greatest in spring and fall. Pocket gophers usually breed in the spring and produce one litter of one to Figure 5 Exclusion Other Pocket gophers can be excluded from Shooting pocket gophers is valuable plots of ornamental trees and impractical because they seldom shrubs with a 1/4 to 1/2-inch mesh wander above ground. hardware cloth fence buried at least 18 inches. The bottom of the fence should be Protect buried utility cables and bent at a 90-degree angle so that a 6-inch irrigation lines by enclosing with apron of wire projects horizontally toward lead, PVC, or other conduit materials the gopher. Place the fence in shallow soil exceeding 2.9 inches in diameter. at least 2 feet from the nearest plants to Pocket gophers can damage cables Figure 8: Trap placement in burrow systems: (A) avoid root injury. This method is of limited Place two traps set in opposite directions in main armored with soft metals (lead, practicality because of expense and labor. tunnel; (B) set single trap in lateral tunnel from aluminum) if the diameters are less Cylindrical plastic Vexar mesh tubes placed which soil plug has been removed. Wire each than 2.9 inches. Crushed rock or trap to a stake. over the entire seedling, including bare gravel greater than 1 inch in diameter root, can reduce damage to newly planted placed around cables may protect for plains pocket gophers because they seedlings. them. easily survive on grasses. In orchards and shelterbelts, forb control will likely limit Ornamental beds and vegetable beds gopher damage. can be protected by lining the beds with Figure 8. The tunnels either can be left 1/4" hardware cloth. The easiest way to do Flood irrigation can effectively control open or covered after setting traps. Check this is to create a raised bed and staple the gophers, especially in fields that are traps twice daily because gophers often hardware cloth to the bottom. However, in- leveled to remove high spots that might visit the traps within a few hours. If a trap ground beds can be dug out to a depth that serve as refuges. The wet-flooded soil is not visited within 48 hours, move it to will accommodate the roots of the plants generally prevents diffusion of gasses in a new location. Trapping usually is most you wish to grow, lined with hardware and out of the burrow and sticks to the successful in the spring and fall when cloth, and then refilled with the soil. It is pocket gopher's fur and claws creating an gophers are actively building tunnels. recommended to put a fence at least one inhospitable environment. foot high, around the beds, to keep the gophers from going over the barrier. Rodenticides Trapping Crop Management Lethal trapping is one of the best Using and handling rodenticides methods to reduce pocket gopher numbers safely on small to moderate-sized fields (less Alfalfa varieties with several large When dealing with any rodent problem, than 50 acres) and to remove remaining roots rather than a single tap root suffer utilize all management techniques to animals after a poison control program.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Genetic Variation Within a Broadly Distributed Chewing Louse Genus (Thomomydoecus)
    University of Northern Iowa UNI ScholarWorks Honors Program Theses Honors Program 2020 Genetic variation within a broadly distributed chewing louse genus (Thomomydoecus) Clarissa Elizabeth Bruns University of Northern Iowa Let us know how access to this document benefits ouy Copyright ©2020 Clarissa Elizabeth Bruns Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.uni.edu/hpt Part of the Entomology Commons, and the Genetics Commons Recommended Citation Bruns, Clarissa Elizabeth, "Genetic variation within a broadly distributed chewing louse genus (Thomomydoecus)" (2020). Honors Program Theses. 433. https://scholarworks.uni.edu/hpt/433 This Open Access Honors Program Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Honors Program at UNI ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Program Theses by an authorized administrator of UNI ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. GENETIC VARIATION WITHIN A BROADLY DISTRIBUTED CHEWING LOUSE GENUS (THOMOMYDOECUS) A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Designation University Honors with Distinction Clarissa Elizabeth Bruns University of Northern Iowa May 2020 This Study by: Clarissa Elizabeth Bruns Entitled: Genetic distribution within a broadly distributed chewing louse genus (Thomomydoecus) has been approved as meeting the thesis or project requirement for the Designation University Honors with Distinction ________ ______________________________________________________ Date James Demastes, Honors Thesis Advisor, Biology ________ ______________________________________________________ Date Dr. Jessica Moon, Director, University Honors Program Abstract No broad study has been conducted to examine the genetics of Thomomydoecus species and their patterns of geographic variation. Chewing lice and their parasite-host relationships with pocket gophers have been studied as a key example of cophylogeny (Demastes et al., 2012).
    [Show full text]
  • 2013 Draft Mazama Pocket Gopher Status Update and Recovery Plan
    DRAFT Mazama Pocket Gopher Status Update and Recovery Plan Derek W. Stinson Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Wildlife Program 600 Capitol Way N Olympia, Washington January 2013 In 1990, the Washington Wildlife Commission adopted procedures for listing and de-listing species as endangered, threatened, or sensitive and for writing recovery and management plans for listed species (WAC 232-12-297, Appendix A). The procedures, developed by a group of citizens, interest groups, and state and federal agencies, require preparation of recovery plans for species listed as threatened or endangered. Recovery, as defined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is the process by which the decline of an endangered or threatened species is arrested or reversed, and threats to its survival are neutralized, so that its long-term survival in nature can be ensured. This is the Draft Washington State Status Update and Recovery Plan for the Mazama Pocket Gopher. It summarizes what is known of the historical and current distribution and abundance of the Mazama pocket gopher in Washington and describes factors affecting known populations and its habitat. It prescribes strategies to recover the species, such as protecting populations and existing habitat, evaluating and restoring habitat, and initiating research and cooperative programs. Target population objectives and other criteria for down-listing to state Sensitive are identified. As part of the State’s listing and recovery procedures, the draft recovery plan is available for a 90-day public comment period. Please submit written comments on this report by 19 April 2013 via e-mail to: [email protected], or by mail to: Endangered Species Section Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 600 Capitol Way North Olympia, WA 98501-1091 This report should be cited as: Stinson, D.
    [Show full text]
  • Special Publications Museum of Texas Tech University Number 63 18 September 2014
    Special Publications Museum of Texas Tech University Number 63 18 September 2014 List of Recent Land Mammals of Mexico, 2014 José Ramírez-Pulido, Noé González-Ruiz, Alfred L. Gardner, and Joaquín Arroyo-Cabrales.0 Front cover: Image of the cover of Nova Plantarvm, Animalivm et Mineralivm Mexicanorvm Historia, by Francisci Hernández et al. (1651), which included the first list of the mammals found in Mexico. Cover image courtesy of the John Carter Brown Library at Brown University. SPECIAL PUBLICATIONS Museum of Texas Tech University Number 63 List of Recent Land Mammals of Mexico, 2014 JOSÉ RAMÍREZ-PULIDO, NOÉ GONZÁLEZ-RUIZ, ALFRED L. GARDNER, AND JOAQUÍN ARROYO-CABRALES Layout and Design: Lisa Bradley Cover Design: Image courtesy of the John Carter Brown Library at Brown University Production Editor: Lisa Bradley Copyright 2014, Museum of Texas Tech University This publication is available free of charge in PDF format from the website of the Natural Sciences Research Laboratory, Museum of Texas Tech University (nsrl.ttu.edu). The authors and the Museum of Texas Tech University hereby grant permission to interested parties to download or print this publication for personal or educational (not for profit) use. Re-publication of any part of this paper in other works is not permitted without prior written permission of the Museum of Texas Tech University. This book was set in Times New Roman and printed on acid-free paper that meets the guidelines for per- manence and durability of the Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Council on Library Resources. Printed: 18 September 2014 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Special Publications of the Museum of Texas Tech University, Number 63 Series Editor: Robert J.
    [Show full text]
  • Applying Taxonomy to Wildlife Research and Management Module Overview
    TheThe SpeciesSpecies QuestionQuestion ApplyingApplying TaxonomyTaxonomy ToTo WildlifeWildlife ResearchResearch AndAnd ManagementManagement September 1, 2006 Dear Educator, Colorado has long been committed to the conservation of all wildlife species, whether hunted, or fished, or viewed. One of the nation’s great wildlife restoration success stories—the American Peregrine Falcon—had its beginnings here in the early 1970’s. A Colorado biologist rappelled over cliffs more than 500 feet high, dangled from a thin rope and dodged swooping Peregrines to retrieve their DDT-thinned eggs. He tucked them into his vest and made all-night drives across the state for artificial incubation and hatching. Other successes, such as the restoration and recovery of prairie grouse, lynx, river otter and a number of native fishes, also have their roots in the efforts of Colorado Division of Wildlife professionals. Science-based management decisions are essential to securing species at risk, as well as conserving all the state’s wildlife species. The numbers of scientific disciplines that influence and inform wildlife management are staggering. Advances in taxonomy and molecular biology, in particular, have affected how biologists think about and identify species and subspecies. We invite you and your students to explore new developments in the frontiers of science with us as we harness innovative technologies and ideas and use them to maintain healthy, diverse and abundant wildlife. Sincerely, Bruce L. McCloskey Director Acknowledgments Funding for this project was provided by US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Program Grant No. R-11-1, Great Outdoors Colorado Trust Fund (GOCO), and the sportsmen of Colorado. The Colorado Division of Wildlife gratefully acknowledges the following individuals: For content advice and critical review: Field-test Educators (cont.): Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Zp Rodent Bait Ag
    1 RESTRICTED USE PESTICIDE Due to Hazards to Non-target Species For retail sale to and use only by Certified Applicators or persons under their direct supervision and only for those uses covered by the Certified Applicator’s certification. ZP RODENT BAIT AG For use in rangeland, pastures, non-crop rights-of-way, alfalfa, timothy, barley, potatoes, wheat, sugar beets, sugarcane, grape vineyards, fruit and nut tree orchards, macadamia nut orchards, in and around buildings, and other sites to SPECIMENcontrol the species listed in the use directions . Active Ingredient Zinc Phosphide………………… 2.0% Other Ingredients…………………….. 98.0% Total…………………………… 100.0% KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN CAUTION FIRST AID HAVE LABEL WITH YOU WHEN SEEKING TREATMENT ADVICE (1-877-854-2494) If you experience signs and symptoms such as nausea, abdominal pain, tightness in chest, or weakness, see a physician immediately.LABEL For information on health concerns, medical emergencies, or pesticide incidents, call the National Pesticide Information Center at 1-800-858-7378. IF SWALLOWED: Call a Poison Control Center, doctor, or 1-877-854-2494 immediately for treatment advice or transport the person to the nearest hospital. Do not give any liquid to the patient. Do not administer anything by mouth. Do not induce vomiting unless told to do so by the poison control center or doctor. IF ON SKIN OR CLOTHING: Take off contaminated clothing. Rinse skin immediately with plenty of water for 15-20 minutes. Call a poison control center, doctor, or 1-877-854-2494 immediately for treatment advice. IF INHALED: Move person to fresh air.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Mammalian Mitochondrial DNA Evolution: a Comparison of the Cytochrome B and Cytochrome C Oxidase II Genes
    J Mol Evol (1995) 40:260-272 jouRA,oMOLECULAR VOLUTION © Springer-VerlagNew York Inc. 1995 Mammalian Mitochondrial DNA Evolution: A Comparison of the Cytochrome b and Cytochrome c Oxidase II Genes Rodney L. Honeycutt,1 Michael A. Nedbal, 1 Ronald M. Adkins, 1'* Laura L. Janecek 1'2 i Department of Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University, 210 Nagle Hall, College Station, TX 77843, USA 2 Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, University of Georgia, Aiken, SC 29801, USA Received: 10 June 1994 / Accepted: 10 October 1994 Abstract. The evolution of two mitochondrial genes, Introduction cytochrome b and cytochrome c oxidase subunit II, was examined in several eutherian mammal orders, with spe- The mitochondrial cytochrome b (COB) and cytochrome cial emphasis on the orders Artiodactyla and Rodentia. c oxidase subunit II (COII) genes have been used in When analyzed using both maximum parsimony, with several recent molecular systematic studies of rodents either equal or unequal character weighting, and neigh- (DeWalt et al. 1993; Ma et al. 1993; Thomas and Martin bor joining, neither gene performed with a high degree of 1993), ungulates (Irwin et al. 1991; Irwin and Wilson consistency in terms of the phylogenetic hypotheses sup- 1992; Miyamoto et al. 1994), marine mammals (Irwin ported. The phylogenetic inconsistencies observed for and Arnason 1994), primates (Ruvolo et al. 1991; Diso- both these genes may be the result of several factors tell et al. 1992; Adkins and Honeycutt 1994), and euthe- including differences in the rate of nucleotide substitu- rian mammal orders (Adkins and Honeycutt 1991, 1993; tion among particular lineages (especially between or- Honeycutt and Adldns 1993).
    [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]
  • 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]