Envirothon Mammals 2010
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Chautauqua County Envirothon Wildlife Review
Chautauqua County Envirothon Wildlife Review • William Printup, Civil Engineering • Wendy Andersen, Permitting Allegheny National Forest Slide 1 Wildlife Learning Objectives For successful completion of the wildlife section, contestants should be able to: 1. Assess suitability of habitat for given wildlife species 2. Identify signs of wildlife 3. Cite examples of food chains based on specific site conditions 4. Analyze/Interpret site factors that limit or enhance population growth, both in the field and with aerial photos 5. Interpret significance of habitat alteration due to human impacts on site 6. Evaluate factors that might upset ecological balance of a specific site 7. Identify wildlife by their tracks, skulls, pelts, etc. 8. Interpret how presence of wildlife serves as an indicator of environmental quality 9. Identify common wildlife food Slide 2 WILDLIFE OUTLINE I. Identification of NYS Species (http://www.dec.ny.gov/23.html) • A. Identify NYS wildlife species by specimens, skins/pelts, pictures, skulls, silhouettes, decoys, wings, feathers, scats, tracks, animal sounds, or other common signs • B. Identify general food habits, habitats, and habits from teeth and/or skull morphology • C. Specific habitats of the above • II. Wildlife Ecology • A. Basic ecological concepts and terminology • B. Wildlife population dynamics • 1) Carrying capacity • 2) Limiting factors • C. Adaptations of wildlife • 1) Anatomical, physiological and/or behavioral • D. Biodiversity • 1) Genetic, species, ecosystem or community Slide 3 Outline Continued.. • III. Wildlife Conservation and Management • A. Common management practices and methods • 1) Conservation • 2) Protection • 3) Enhancement • B. Hunting regulations • C. Land conflicts with wildlife habitat needs • D. Factors influencing management decisions • 1) Ecological • 2) Financial •3) Social • E. -
David L.Reed
Curriculum Vitae David L. Reed DAVID L. REED (February 2021) Associate Provost University of Florida EDUCATION AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Management Development Program, Graduate School of Education, Harvard Univ. 2016 Advanced Leadership for Academic Professionals, University of Florida 2016 Ph.D. Louisiana State University (Biological Sciences) 2000 M.S. Louisiana State University (Zoology) 1994 B.S. University of North Carolina, Wilmington (Biological Sciences) 1991 PROFESSIONAL EXERIENCE: Administrative (University of Florida) Associate Provost, Office of the Provost 2018 –present Associate Director for Research and Collections, Florida Museum 2015 – 2020 Provost Fellow, Office of the Provost 2017 – 2018 Assistant Director for Research and Collections, Florida Museum 2012 – 2015 Academic Curator of Mammals, Florida Museum, University of Florida 2014 – present Associate Curator of Mammals, Florida Museum, University of Florida 2009 – 2014 Assistant Curator of Mammals, Florida Museum, University of Florida 2004 – 2009 Research Assistant Professor, Department of Biology, University of Utah 2003 – 2004 NSF Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of Biology, University of Utah 2001 – 2003 Courtesy/Adjunct Graduate Faculty, Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, UF 2009 – present Graduate Faculty, School of Natural Resources and the Environment, UF 2005 – present Graduate Faculty, Genetics and Genomics Graduate Program, UF 2005 – present Graduate Faculty, Department of Biology, UF 2004 – present ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD: Associate Provost, Office of the Provost, University of Florida July 2018-present Artificial Intelligence • Serve on and organize the AI Executive Workgroup dedicated to highest priority aspects of the AI Initiative. • Organize and host (Emcee) the all-day AI Retreat in April 2020. Had over 600 participants. • Establish AI Workgroups on nearly a dozen topics • Establish and Chair the AI Academic Workgroup focused on the AI Certificate, new and existing AI courses, the development of new certificates, minors, tracks and majors. -
GOALS for CANON ENVIROTHON CURRICULUM to Develop A
GOALS FOR CANON ENVIROTHON CURRICULUM To develop a teacher friendly, hands on natural resources curriculum. To provide activities and lessons for teams new to the Envirothon, while challenging experienced teams. Use of these curriculum materials will result in: . •Increased Envirothon participation at the local, regional, and State/Provincial levels. •Increased team scores at the Canon Envirothon Contest in the four natural resource categories: soils and land use, aquatic ecology, forestry, and wildlife. Canon Envirothon SOILS/LAND USE CORE ACTIVITY OUTLINE The key points for each Envirothon topic are “fleshed out” into core activities. • Each of the key points is included in one or more of the core activities. • Each core activity contains extended activities, as well as the top resources and professional contacts. Key vocabulary words are also included. • The National Science Standards suggest evaluations for each activity should encourage the students to process the data they collect during the activity, and provide solutions based on the data. This ties each activity into the issues portion of the contest. • Evaluation is based on the information provided for each core activity and from the data students collect. This allows students to make educated decisions and create solutions for the key issues. • Core activities will be evaluated using a performance based assessment. Soils/Land Use Curriculum Soils/Land Use Envirothon Key Points 1S Recognize soil as an important and dynamic resource. 2S Recognize and understand the features of a soil profile. 3S Describe basic soil properties and soil formation factors. 4S Understand the origin of soil parent materials. 5S Identify soil constituents (clay, organic matter, sand and silt). -
Museum of Natural History
p m r- r-' ME FYF-11 - - T r r.- 1. 4,6*. of the FLORIDA MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY THE COMPARATIVE ECOLOGY OF BOBCAT, BLACK BEAR, AND FLORIDA PANTHER IN SOUTH FLORIDA David Steffen Maehr Volume 40, No. 1, pf 1-176 1997 == 46 1ms 34 i " 4 '· 0?1~ I. Al' Ai: *'%, R' I.' I / Em/-.Ail-%- .1/9" . -_____- UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA GAINESVILLE Numbers of the BULLETIN OF THE FLORIDA MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY am published at irregular intervals Volumes contain about 300 pages and are not necessarily completed in any one calendar year. JOHN F. EISENBERG, EDITOR RICHARD FRANZ CO-EDIWR RHODA J. BRYANT, A£ANAGING EMOR Communications concerning purchase or exchange of the publications and all manuscripts should be addressed to: Managing Editor. Bulletin; Florida Museum of Natural Histoty, University of Florida P. O. Box 117800, Gainesville FL 32611-7800; US.A This journal is printed on recycled paper. ISSN: 0071-6154 CODEN: BF 5BAS Publication date: October 1, 1997 Price: $ 10.00 Frontispiece: Female Florida panther #32 treed by hounds in a laurel oak at the site of her first capture on the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge in central Collier County, 3 February 1989. Photograph by David S. Maehr. THE COMPARATIVE ECOLOGY OF BOBCAT, BLACK BEAR, AND FLORIDA PANTHER IN SOUTH FLORIDA David Steffen Maehri ABSTRACT Comparisons of food habits, habitat use, and movements revealed a low probability for competitive interactions among bobcat (Lynx ndia). Florida panther (Puma concotor cooi 1 and black bear (Urns amencanus) in South Florida. All three species preferred upland forests but ©onsumed different foods and utilized the landscape in ways that resulted in ecological separation. -
Identification of Fauna Associated with Gopher Tortoise Burrows at Florida Atlantic
Identification of fauna associated with Gopher Tortoise burrows at Florida Atlantic University Preserve and Jonathan Dickinson State Park Laura De Souza Dr. Evelyn Frazier and Jessica Huffman Research Proposal Application for the Honors Thesis Program July 2018 1 Introduction The gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) is endemic to the southeastern United States, and threatened throughout its distribution from extreme eastern Louisiana, to southern South Carolina and Florida1,2. The gopher tortoise is an herbivorous chelonian with a life span of up to 60 years according to Florida Fish and Wildlife. Individuals may become reproductively mature typically around 7 years of age and females egg clutch range from 1-15 eggs in each reproductive season3 where they are mating and laying eggs. Gopher tortoise are originally said to be mating and courting from the month April-June, and laying eggs from May to June4 . However, evidence are being shown that due to warmer temperature, areas in Florida such as Jupiter shows mounting evens from February to December, carcasses of hatching from January to December, and all year round courtship4. The gopher tortoises excavate burrows that can be up to 4 m deep and 12 m long. Chelonians, are ectothermic and rely on their environment to regulate internal body temperatures. Tortoises of the genus Gopherus have been observed using thermoregulatory behaviors such as seeking shade, frothing, rapid breathing, and basking 5. Tortoises and other species have been observed going outside of the burrows to bask and warm up their bodies along with multiple other ectothermic species such as snakes, frogs, and lizards. When temperatures were too extreme, the tortoises, reptiles, mammals, amphibians, and insects would seek shelter in the shade of the burrows 6. -
Non-Point Source (NPS) Pollution and Low Impact Development (LID)
Envirothon Study Guide Non-point source (NPS) Pollution and Low Impact Development 201(LID)2 1 This Study GuideEnvirothon is to be Study used Guide to help - Forestry Envirothon teams prepare for the Ontario Envirothon Program. 2012 Ontario Envirothon Preface This report was written by Nousheen Ahmed, Stephen Jeschke, Clarissa Jewell and Tyler Miller in partial fulfillment of the Credit for Product II course in the third year of the Ecosystem Management Technology Program 2011 at Sir Sandford Fleming College. This study guide was written for Kristina Quinlan of the Ontario Forestry Association. This study guide focuses on nonpoint source pollution and low impact development, and ties these two issues to the core topics of aquatics, forests, soils and wildlife. The guide contains background information on these topics in addition to case studies, activities, references and a glossary. Also included in this package are informational videos designed to teach students about water quality issues and learn about different monitoring and identifying that can be used in the field. The objective of this study guide is to provide Ontario Envirothon participants with information on the 2012 topic “Nonpoint Source Pollution and Low Impact Development”. Activities, case studies and sample questions are highlighted throughout the study guide to ensure a comprehensive understanding of nonpoint source pollution and low impact development issues. We would like to thank our faculty advisor, Sara Kelly, for her guidance and input throughout the course of this project. We would also like to thank Kristina Quinlan for her support as a mentor in creating this guide. We sincerely hope that this study guide will be of value to Ontario Envirothon students in the future. -
Prescribed Burning Effects, Scrub, Refugia, Survival, Small Mammals
International Journal of Ecosystem 2014, 4(3): 135-149 DOI: 10.5923/j.ije.20140403.06 Small Mammal Use of Refugia, Population Recovery, and Survival Following Prescribed Burning in Scrubby Flatwoods Ecosystem, Florida, USA Jose L Silva-Lugo Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611, USA Abstract This study was conducted in Cedar Key Scrub State Reserve, Florida, USA, with the purpose of establishing: (1) if small mammals used wetlands as refugia following prescribed fire, (2) if small mammals returned to burned areas after the regrowth of the vegetation, and (3) if prescribed burning had a negative effect on the survival of the species. Few studies have addressed these topics in the literature, which are important for management and restoration purposes. The design consisted of two treatments and two control sites (scrub) with 100 traps each and a wetland next to each site with two transects (10 traps each) between the scrub and the wetland. A total of 182 individuals of Florida mouse (Podomys floridanus), cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus), cotton mice (Peromyscus gossypinus), and golden mouse (Ochrotomys nuttalli) were marked to monitor movements between the scrub and the wetlands, but only Florida mouse and cotton rat had sufficient data for analysis. The survival analysis was carried out by using Cormack-Jolly-Seber model and the program MARK. In treatment sites, Florida mouse and cotton rat were captured primarily in the scrub (69%) before burning, they used the vegetation surrounding wetlands as refugia for 11 months after burning, and they returned to the scrub after that. -
Parasitism of Cuterebra (Diptera: Oestridae) on Rodents of Islands of the Gulf of California, Mexico
Vol. 8(9), pp. 92-98, September 2016 DOI: 10.5897/JPVB2016.0243 Article Number: 2965AE060076 Journal of Parasitology and ISSN 2141-2510 Copyright © 2016 Vector Biology Author(s) retain the copyright of this article http://www.academicjournals.org/JPVB Full Length Research Paper Parasitism of Cuterebra (Diptera: Oestridae) on rodents of islands of the Gulf of California, Mexico Arnaud, G.1*, Rodríguez-Moreno, A.2, Cordero-Tapia, A.1 and Sandoval, S.¹ 1Centro de Investigaciones Biológicas del Noroeste, Av. Instituto Politécnico Nacional 195, Col. Playa Palo de Santa Rita Sur, La Paz, Baja California Sur, México 23096. 2Instituto de Biología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Received 29 March, 2016; Accepted 26 July, 2016 The genus, Cuterebra is an obligate dermal parasite of New World mammals that can cause problems with rodent reproduction. 2812 rodents of nine species from nine Gulf of California Islands were sampled for the presence of Cuterebra sp. Only two species of rodents were parasitized by Cuterebra sp. on two islands (Montserrat and Danzante): the canyon mouse, Peromyscus caniceps (n = 261) with a prevalence of 17.97% and the white-footed woodrat, Neotoma bryanti (n = 4) with a prevalence of 7.5%. The presence of a single parasite per individual was common (ẍ = 78.5%). Since P. caniceps is listed by the Mexican government as a conservation at risk species, the parasitism of Cuterebra sp. represents a potential risk to the viability of this endemic rodent population. This is the first record of Cuterebra sp. as parasite of rodents in the Gulf of California Islands, and P. -
Florida Envirothon Study Packet Aquatic Section
Florida Envirothon Study Packet Aquatic Section Contents CONTENTS WATER CYCLE FACTS .............................................................................................................. 1 The Hydrologic Cycle......................................................................................................... 1 AQUIFER FACTS......................................................................................................................... 5 Classification ........................................................................................................................ 5 Recharge .............................................................................................................................. 5 Shallow Aquifer................................................................................................................... 6 Deep Aquifer........................................................................................................................ 6 Major Florida Aquifers ....................................................................................................... 7 Human Impacts ................................................................................................................... 8 Management Techniques ................................................................................................... 9 RIVER SYSTEM FACTS ............................................................................................................ 11 River Features ................................................................................................................... -
Human-Black Bear Conflict a Review of the Most Common Management Practices
HUMAN-BLACK BEAR CONFLICT A REVIEW OF THE MOST COMMON MANAGEMENT PRACTICES A black bear in Lake Tahoe, NV. Photo courtesy Urbanbearfootage.com 1 A black bear patrols downtown Carson City, NV. Photo courtesy Heiko De Groot 2 Authors Carl W. Lackey (Nevada Department of Wildlife) Stewart W. Breck (USDA-WS-National Wildlife Research Center) Brian Wakeling (Nevada Department of Wildlife; Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies) Bryant White (Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies) 3 Table of Contents Preface Acknowledgements Introduction . The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation and human-bear conflicts . “I Hold the Smoking Gun” by Chris Parmeter Status of the American Black Bear . Historic and Current distribution . Population estimates and human-bear conflict data Status of Human-Black Bear Conflict . Quantifying Conflict . Definition of Terms Associated with Human-Bear Management Methods to Address Human-Bear Conflicts . Public Education . Law and Ordinance Enforcement . Exclusionary Methods . Capture and Release . Aversive Conditioning . Repellents . Damage Compensation Programs . Supplemental & Diversionary Feeding . Depredation (Kill) Permits . Management Bears (Agency Kill) . Privatized Conflict Management Population Management . Regulated Hunting and Trapping . Control of Non-Hunting Mortality . Fertility Control . Habitat Management . No Intervention Agency Policy Literature Cited 4 Abstract Most human-black bear (Ursus americanus) conflict occurs when people make anthropogenic foods (that is, foods of human origin like trash, dog food, domestic poultry, or fruit trees) available to bears. Bears change their behavior to take advantage of these resources and in the process may damage property or cause public safety concerns. Managers are often forced to focus efforts on reactive non-lethal and lethal bear management techniques to solve immediate problems, which do little to address root causes of human-bear conflict. -
Biological Invasions and Deletions: Community Change in South Florida
BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION Biological Conservation 87 (1999) 341±347 Biological invasions and deletions: community change in south Florida Elizabeth A. Forys a,*, Craig R. Allen b aEckerd College, Environmental Science, St Petersburg, FL 33711, USA bDepartment of Zoology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA Received 28 September 1995; received in revised form 27 May 1998; accepted 2 June 1998 Abstract This study used the endangered and exotic fauna of south Florida, USA, to test three non-exclusive hypotheses about community change. Over one third of the vertebrate fauna of south Florida is either endangered or exotic. We assumed that in the future, many of the currently endangered species will become extinct, while established exotics become more widespread and abundant. Using species' distributions, body mass data, and niche classi®cations, we compare the past (without exotics) and our predicted future (with exotics, without endangered species) vertebrate communities to determine if the future fauna would be on average smaller, more generalized feeders, or if there would be direct niche replacement. The results of the comparisons indicate that none of the hypotheses explained all of the expected changes in the vertebrate fauna of south Florida, and that the future vertebrate fauna of south Florida is likely to be very dierent from that of the recent past. These changes are symptomatic of the profound ecosystem- level changes occurring here. Hypotheses generated by systemic-level investigations are more likely to increase our understanding of invasions and extinctions. # 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: South Florida; Endangered species; Exotic species; Invasive species; Community structure 1. -
Managing Forests for Fish and Wildlife
Wildlife Habitat Management Institute Managing Forests for Fish and Wildlife December 2002 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Leaflet Number 18 Forested areas can be managed with a wide variety of objectives, ranging from allowing natural processes to dictate long-term condition without active management of any kind, to maximizing production of wood products on the shortest rotations possible. The primary purpose of this document is to show how fish and wildlife habitat management can be effectively integrated into the management of forestlands that are subject to periodic timber harvest activities. For forestlands that are not managed for production of timber or other forest products, many of the principles U.S. Forest Service, Southern Research Station in this leaflet also apply. Introduction Succession of Forest Vegetation Forests in North America provide a wide variety of In order to meet both timber production and wildlife important natural resource functions. Although management goals, landowners and managers need commercial forests may be best known for production to understand how forest vegetation responds following of pulp, lumber, and other wood products, they also timber management, or silvicultural prescriptions, or supply valuable fish and wildlife habitat, recreational other disturbances. Forest vegetation typically opportunities, water quality protection, and other progresses from one plant community to another over natural resource benefits. In approximately two-thirds time. This forest succession can be described in four of the forest land (land that is at least 10% tree- stages: covered) in the United States, harvest of wood products plays an integral role in how these lands are managed. Sustainable forest management applies Fish and Wildlife Air and Water biological, economic, and social principles to forest Wood Products Habitat Quality regeneration, management, and conservation to meet the specific goals of landowners or managers.