DOCSLIB.ORG

Responses of the Florida Mouse (Podomys Floridanus) to Habitat Management

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Responses of the Florida Mouse (Podomys Floridanus) to Habitat Management University of Central Florida STARS Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019 2005 Responses Of The Florida Mouse (podomys Floridanus) To Habitat Management Jason DePue University of Central Florida Part of the Biology Commons Find similar works at: https://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd University of Central Florida Libraries http://library.ucf.edu This Masters Thesis (Open Access) is brought to you for free and open access by STARS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019 by an authorized administrator of STARS. For more information, please contact [email protected]. STARS Citation DePue, Jason, "Responses Of The Florida Mouse (podomys Floridanus) To Habitat Management" (2005). Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019. 545. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd/545 RESPONSES OF THE FLORIDA MOUSE (PODOMYS FLORIDANUS) TO HABITAT MANAGEMENT by JASON R. DEPUE B.S. Bob Jones University, 2001 A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in the Department of Biology in the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Central Florida Orlando, Florida Fall Term 2005 © 2005 Jason R. DePue ii ABSTRACT The Florida mouse (Podomys floridanus), a species restricted to the Lake Wales Ridge and the Atlantic Coastal Ridge, is recognized by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission as a species of special concern, highlighting its status as a species that is threatened by habitat loss statewide. Publicly owned lands offer protection for the species, but management is generally focused on protecting biodiversity in general and not a particular species. The response of the Florida mouse to land management practices such as mechanical treatment and prescribed fires is poorly documented. This research examined the population responses of Florida mice on three public lands in central Florida, namely, Bullfrog Creek Mitigation Park in Hillsborough County, Split Oak Mitigation Park in Orange County, and Chuluota Wilderness in Seminole County. Florida mice numbers increased or recovered to pre-burn levels within six months following prescribed burns in 2003 and 2004 on the Bullfrog Creek site. Florida mice dropped in numbers following a fire on the Split Oak site, but were increasing when the study ended. The steady decrease in numbers of mice at the Chuluota Wilderness site remained unaffected by habitat modification. Management of public lands that support Florida mice should continue to utilize prescribed fire to maintain upland habitats. When possible, prescribed fires should be limited to the spring and early summer months and applied to only a portion of the total available area in any year. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This thesis is dedicated to my wonderful and caring wife, who has assisted in every aspect of this paper. She has spent many hours helping me in the field, setting up the experiment and collecting data. Her knowledge of software programs and goal setting has been invaluable. Her love and support helped guide and direct me through this process and I am privileged to have her as my wife. I am forever grateful for her. I would like to thank all the members of my thesis committee for their time and direction; Dr. Walter Taylor, Dr. Reed Noss, and Dr. Jack Stout. I would especially like to thank Dr. Jack Stout, who spent many hours correcting and shaping this document. Specials thanks to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the staff of Seminole County Natural lands program for allowing me to conduct research on their properties. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................ vii LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................viii INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 Resource Management............................................................................................ 2 DESCRIPTION OF STUDY SITES .................................................................................. 7 Bullfrog Creek Mitigation Park (BFMP)................................................................ 7 Split Oak Forest Mitigation Park (SOMP)............................................................ 12 Chuluota Wilderness Area (CWA) ....................................................................... 16 METHODS AND MATERIALS...................................................................................... 20 Live Trapping........................................................................................................ 20 Live Trap Arrangement......................................................................................... 22 Burrow Trapping....................................................................................... 22 Random and Transect Trapping................................................................ 23 Habitat Assessment............................................................................................... 23 Gopher Tortoise Surveys ...................................................................................... 24 RESULTS ......................................................................................................................... 26 Bullfrog Creek Mitigation Park (BFMP).............................................................. 26 Live Trapping............................................................................................ 26 Population Dynamics................................................................................ 27 Habitat Assessment................................................................................... 31 Gopher Tortoise Surveys .......................................................................... 32 Split Oak Forest Mitigation Park (SOMP)............................................................ 34 Live Trapping............................................................................................ 34 Population Dynamics................................................................................ 35 Habitat Assessment................................................................................... 39 Gopher Tortoise Surveys .......................................................................... 41 Chuluota Wilderness Area (CWA) ....................................................................... 41 Grid Trapping............................................................................................ 41 Transect Trapping ..................................................................................... 42 Population Dynamics................................................................................ 42 v Habitat Assessment................................................................................... 46 Gopher Tortoise Surveys .......................................................................... 51 DISCUSSION................................................................................................................... 53 Response to Prescribed Fire.................................................................................. 53 Response to Roller Chopping ............................................................................... 55 Population Dynamics............................................................................................ 57 Habitat Use............................................................................................................ 60 CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................... 63 LIST OF REFERENCES.................................................................................................. 64 vi LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Summary statistics for live trapping of small mammals at BFMP from March 2003 to December 2004. .................................................................................. 26 Table 2: Total number of burrows used by male and female Florida mice at BFMP....... 27 Table 3: Minimum Convex Polygon calculations for Florida mice at BFMP................. 30 Table 4: Percent cover of live vegetation on the oak hammock and mesic flatwoods communities at BFMP. Highlighted transects indicate the presence of the Florida mouse................................................................................................... 31 Table 5: Summary statistics for live trapping of small mammals at SOMP from June 2003 to January 2005. ............................................................................................... 34 Table 6: Minimum Convex Polygon calculations for Florida mice at SOMP................. 39 Table 7: Comparisons of percent cover of live vegetation between transects T1 and T3 (scrubby flatwoods) and transects T2 and T4 (mesic flatwoods) in unit 16 at SOMP............................................................................................................... 40 Table 8: Summary statistics for live trapping of small mammals at CWA from July 2002 to December 2004. ........................................................................................... 42 Table 9: Minimum Convex Polygon calculations for Florida mice at CWA. ................. 46 Table 10: Percent cover of live vegetation comparisons between the overgrown scrub (units 7 and 8) and the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ordway- Swisher Biological Station Weekend Lab Field Manual for Wildlife Techniques (WIS 4945C)
    Ordway- Swisher Biological Station Weekend Lab Field Manual For Wildlife Techniques (WIS 4945c) Tentative schedule of activities for Ordway Field trip This schedule is meant to give you a rough outline of the weekend field trip. However it is likely that changes will be made based on conditions in the field, weather, and logistics. The 1s and 2s are to indicate the groups that will be assigned to each activity. Friday Saturday Sunday 7:00 -10:00 1. Small mammals 2. Small mammals 2. Bird/meso-mam. 1. Bird/meso-mam. 10:00-12:30 1. Amphibians 2.Insect lab 2. Insect lab 1. Amphibian 12:30 - 1:30 Lunch/break Clean camp/ Clean Traps/ Depart 2:00-3:30 Arrival/ set up 1 & 2. camp Frogs, gopher 3:30 -4:30 1. S. mammal set tortoise, P. gopher up 2. Amphibians, 4:30-6:00 meso-mammal 2. Small Mammal traps setup 1. Meso mammals /Squirrels 6:00-7:00 Dinner Dinner 7:30- 10:00 1. Call backs, FLIR, 1. Call backs, FLIR, (gators) spotlighting spotlighting 7:45- 10:00 2. Gators 2. Gators (Spotlight) Field Notebook Using a field notebook Being a wildlife professional means that you are a naturalist who makes observations about the natural environment and the interaction among animals, plants and the land. It is through these types of observations that you will develop an understanding of the natural world. These observations can also help us ask questions that lead to scientific research. From Darwin to Leopold on to the present the best method for recording observations, thoughts and activities in the field has been the field notebook.
    [Show full text]
  • Mammal Species Native to the USA and Canada for Which the MIL Has an Image (296) 31 July 2021
    Mammal species native to the USA and Canada for which the MIL has an image (296) 31 July 2021 ARTIODACTYLA (includes CETACEA) (38) ANTILOCAPRIDAE - pronghorns Antilocapra americana - Pronghorn BALAENIDAE - bowheads and right whales 1. Balaena mysticetus – Bowhead Whale BALAENOPTERIDAE -rorqual whales 1. Balaenoptera acutorostrata – Common Minke Whale 2. Balaenoptera borealis - Sei Whale 3. Balaenoptera brydei - Bryde’s Whale 4. Balaenoptera musculus - Blue Whale 5. Balaenoptera physalus - Fin Whale 6. Eschrichtius robustus - Gray Whale 7. Megaptera novaeangliae - Humpback Whale BOVIDAE - cattle, sheep, goats, and antelopes 1. Bos bison - American Bison 2. Oreamnos americanus - Mountain Goat 3. Ovibos moschatus - Muskox 4. Ovis canadensis - Bighorn Sheep 5. Ovis dalli - Thinhorn Sheep CERVIDAE - deer 1. Alces alces - Moose 2. Cervus canadensis - Wapiti (Elk) 3. Odocoileus hemionus - Mule Deer 4. Odocoileus virginianus - White-tailed Deer 5. Rangifer tarandus -Caribou DELPHINIDAE - ocean dolphins 1. Delphinus delphis - Common Dolphin 2. Globicephala macrorhynchus - Short-finned Pilot Whale 3. Grampus griseus - Risso's Dolphin 4. Lagenorhynchus albirostris - White-beaked Dolphin 5. Lissodelphis borealis - Northern Right-whale Dolphin 6. Orcinus orca - Killer Whale 7. Peponocephala electra - Melon-headed Whale 8. Pseudorca crassidens - False Killer Whale 9. Sagmatias obliquidens - Pacific White-sided Dolphin 10. Stenella coeruleoalba - Striped Dolphin 11. Stenella frontalis – Atlantic Spotted Dolphin 12. Steno bredanensis - Rough-toothed Dolphin 13. Tursiops truncatus - Common Bottlenose Dolphin MONODONTIDAE - narwhals, belugas 1. Delphinapterus leucas - Beluga 2. Monodon monoceros - Narwhal PHOCOENIDAE - porpoises 1. Phocoena phocoena - Harbor Porpoise 2. Phocoenoides dalli - Dall’s Porpoise PHYSETERIDAE - sperm whales Physeter macrocephalus – Sperm Whale TAYASSUIDAE - peccaries Dicotyles tajacu - Collared Peccary CARNIVORA (48) CANIDAE - dogs 1. Canis latrans - Coyote 2.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Seminole State Forest Soils Map
    EXHIBIT I Management Procedures for Archaeological and Historical Sites and Properties on State-Owned or Controlled Lands Management Procedures for Archaeological and Historical Sites and Properties on State-Owned or Controlled Properties (revised February 2007) These procedures apply to state agencies, local governments, and non-profits that manage state- owned properties. A. General Discussion Historic resources are both archaeological sites and historic structures. Per Chapter 267, Florida Statutes, ‘Historic property’ or ‘historic resource’ means any prehistoric district, site, building, object, or other real or personal property of historical, architectural, or archaeological value, and folklife resources. These properties or resources may include, but are not limited to, monuments, memorials, Indian habitations, ceremonial sites, abandoned settlements, sunken or abandoned ships, engineering works, treasure trove, artifacts, or other objects with intrinsic historical or archaeological value, or any part thereof, relating to the history, government, and culture of the state.” B. Agency Responsibilities Per State Policy relative to historic properties, state agencies of the executive branch must allow the Division of Historical Resources (Division) the opportunity to comment on any undertakings, whether these undertakings directly involve the state agency, i.e., land management responsibilities, or the state agency has indirect jurisdiction, i.e. permitting authority, grants, etc. No state funds should be expended on the undertaking until the Division has the opportunity to review and comment on the project, permit, grant, etc. State agencies shall preserve the historic resources which are owned or controlled by the agency. Regarding proposed demolition or substantial alterations of historic properties, consultation with the Division must occur, and alternatives to demolition must be considered.
    [Show full text]
  • Management of Amphibians, Reptiles, and Small Mammals in North America
    Abstract.-Small mammals were captured in live Small Mammals in traps in 6 mature-forested streamside management Streamside Management zones of 3 widths, narrow (c 25 m), medium (30-40 m), and wide (50-90 m), which traversed young, Zones in Pine Plantations1 brushy pine plantations. More small mammals were captured in the narrow zones (165) than in the me- dium (82), or wide zones (65). James G. Dickson2and J. Howard Williamson3 Many second-growth pine-hardwood hance habitat diversity and "edge," Study Areas and Methods stands in southern forests are being offer suitable habitat for wildlife spe- cut and replaced by pine plantations, cies associated with mature stands, Study areas consisted of 6 pine plan- especially on industrial land. From serve as travel corridors for animals, tations on the western edge of the 1971 to 1986, the amount of and may permit genetic interchange southern coastal plains in eastern Midsouth timberland in pine planta- between otherwise isolated popula- Texas. Mature pine and hardwood tions increased from 6 to 8% (Birdsey tions of animals. Retention of SMZ trees on the areas had previously and McWilliams 1986). White-tailed for reduction of non-point pollution been harvested. The plantations had deer adapt well to young brushy and for wildlife has been widely rec- been planted to loblolly pine (Pinus clearcuts with ample forage and soft ommended. taeda) seedlings 5 to 6 years before mast. Also, many species of birds are These mature hardwood strips can this study was begun and were vege- abundant in this diverse brushy habi- be good squirrel habitat.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Trapping Results of the Endangered Key Largo Cotton Mouse and Key Largo Woodrat
    Trapping results of the endangered Key Largo cotton mouse and Key Largo woodrat Daniel U. Greene and Jeffery A. Gore Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Fish and Wildlife Research Institute Introduction • Sub-species • Endemic KLCM: Peromyscus gossypinus allapaticola • Historically ranged throughout the island • Over two-thirds of historic habitat lost KLWR: Neotoma floridana smalli Population Decline • Concern for population declines in all rodent species in Key Largo since 1970’s • Habitat loss and proposed developments led to Federal listing under the ESA on August 31,1984 • Land purchase: – Majority of North Key Largo protected under State & Federal management Present Habitat • Managed by: – Dagny Johnson Key Largo Hammock Botanical SP – Crocodile Lake NWR • 790-945 ha of upland hardwood hammocks – 851 ha used Habitat Quality • Habitat - range of disturbances • Farming, hurricanes, fire • Fragmentation • 2 inactive military sites • Aquaculture • Residences • Waste transfer station • Large raccoon and feral cat populations • Exotic species • Pythons/boas, iguanas, fire ants, invasive plants Objectives • Develop a standardized methodology for reliably assessing population trends – Based on results from 2007 – Feasible given the personnel & budgetary constraints » Allow for long-term monitoring – 2008-Present – test method • Describe population structure – Fulfill needs in Multi-Species Recovery Plan Methods Stratified Random Design • Randomly selected 34 7 x 7 trapping grids with 10 m spacing (0.36 ha each, 12.24 ha total) Proportional allocation Young - 95 ha (Disturbed >1971) » 6 grids Medium - 325 ha (Disturbed 1940-71) » 12 grids Old - 430 ha (Disturbed <1940) » 16 grids Methods Trapping • 3 sessions in 2007 – 1 March - 11 May – 4 July - 7 Sept. – 29 Oct.
    [Show full text]
  • Cotton Mouse Peromyscus Gossypinus Kingdom: Animalia FEATURES Phylum: Chordata the Cotton Mouse’S Body Is About Four Inches Long
    cotton mouse Peromyscus gossypinus Kingdom: Animalia FEATURES Phylum: Chordata The cotton mouse’s body is about four inches long. Class: Mammalia The back has brown fur with black hairs intermixed. Order: Rodentia The belly fur is gray-white. The top of the tail is the same color as the back while the underside is the Family: Cricetidae same color as the belly. The feet are white. ILLINOIS STATUS common, native BEHAVIORS The cotton mouse may be found in the southern tip of Illinois. It lives in swampy woodlands and related brushy areas, bluffs and upland forests. This rodent consumes mostly insects, slugs, spiders and plant material. It climbs well and can swim. The cotton mouse is believed to breed throughout the year. The average litter size is three or four. The nest is placed above ground when possible. Young are born helpless but are ready to live on their own in about four weeks. Sexual maturity is attained about two months after birth. The status of this species in Illinois is unclear. It was not seen from 1909 until the early 1990s when populations were again discovered. It may have been present but misidentified during this time period, or it may have moved into the state again in the early 1990s. ILLINOIS RANGE © Illinois Department of Natural Resources. 2021. Biodiversity of Illinois. Unless otherwise noted, photos and images © Illinois Department of Natural Resources. © R. W. Van Devender, Mammal Images Library of the American Society of Mammalogists © R. W. Van Devender, Mammal Images Library of the American Society of Mammalogists © Illinois Department of Natural Resources.
    [Show full text]