DOCSLIB.ORG

Species Assesment for Wolverine (Gulo Gulo)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Species Assesment for Wolverine (Gulo Gulo) SPECIES ASSESMENT FOR WOLVERINE (GULO GULO ) IN WYOMING prepared by 1 2 DR. GARY P. BEAUVAIS AND LAIN JOHNSON 1 Director, Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, University of Wyoming, 1000 E. University Ave, Dept. 3381, Laramie, Wyoming 82071; 307-766-3023 2 Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, University of Wyoming, 1000 E. University Ave, Dept. 3381, Laramie, Wyoming 82071; 307-766-3023 Copyright Clinton D. Long, The Wolverine Foundation, Inc. prepared for United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Wyoming State Office Cheyenne, Wyoming January 2004 Beauvais and Johnson – Gulo gulo January 2004 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 3 NATURAL HISTORY ........................................................................................................................... 4 Morphological Description ...................................................................................................... 4 Taxonomy and Distribution ..................................................................................................... 6 Taxonomy........................................................................................................................... 6 Distribution......................................................................................................................... 6 Habitat Requirements............................................................................................................. 8 General ............................................................................................................................... 8 Spring and Summer.......................................................................................................... 10 Winter............................................................................................................................... 11 Landscape-scale Habitat Use ........................................................................................... 11 Stand-scale Habitat Use ................................................................................................... 12 Area Requirements........................................................................................................... 12 Movement and Activity Patterns ............................................................................................13 General ............................................................................................................................. 13 Reproduction and Survivorship..............................................................................................15 Breeding Behavior............................................................................................................ 15 Breeding Phenology ......................................................................................................... 16 Fecundity and Survivorship ............................................................................................. 17 Population Demographics......................................................................................................18 Limiting Factors ............................................................................................................... 18 Metapopulation Dynamics ............................................................................................... 19 Genetic Concerns ............................................................................................................. 19 Food Habits...........................................................................................................................20 Food Items........................................................................................................................ 20 Foraging Strategy ............................................................................................................. 21 Foraging Variation ........................................................................................................... 21 Community Ecology...............................................................................................................22 Predators and Competitors ............................................................................................... 22 Parasites and Disease ....................................................................................................... 23 Symbiotic and Mutualistic Interactions............................................................................ 23 CONSERVATION .............................................................................................................................. 23 Conservation Status ..............................................................................................................23 Federal Endangered Species Act...................................................................................... 23 Bureau of Land Management........................................................................................... 23 Forest Service................................................................................................................... 24 State Wildlife Agencies.................................................................................................... 24 Heritage Ranks ................................................................................................................. 25 Biological Conservation Issues..............................................................................................25 Abundance........................................................................................................................ 25 Trends............................................................................................................................... 26 Abundance and Distribution Trends.......................................................................................26 Habitat Trends ........................................................................................................................28 Page 1 of 46 Beauvais and Johnson – Gulo gulo January 2004 Range Context.................................................................................................................. 28 Extrinsic Threats and Reasons for Decline ...................................................................... 29 Anthropogenic Impacts...........................................................................................................29 Invasive Species......................................................................................................................29 Genetic Factors .......................................................................................................................29 Stochastic and Environmental Factors....................................................................................29 Natural Predation....................................................................................................................30 Intrinsic Vulnerability ...................................................................................................... 30 Habitat Specificity and Fidelity..............................................................................................30 Territoriality and Area Requirements.....................................................................................31 Dispersal Capability................................................................................................................31 Reproductive Capacity............................................................................................................32 Sensitivity to Disturbance.......................................................................................................32 Protected Areas ................................................................................................................ 32 Population Viability Analyses (PVAs) ............................................................................ 33 CONSERVATION ACTION ................................................................................................................ 34 Existing or Future Conservation Plans...................................................................................34 Existing Regulatory Mechanisms..................................................................................... 34 Existing Management Plans............................................................................................. 34 Existing Conservation Strategies ..................................................................................... 34 Conservation Elements..........................................................................................................35 Key Elements ................................................................................................................... 35 Inventory and Monitoring ................................................................................................ 35 Habitat Preservation and Restoration............................................................................... 36 Captive Propagation and Reintroduction ......................................................................... 36 INFORMATION NEEDS ....................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • MINNESOTA MUSTELIDS Young
    By Blane Klemek MINNESOTA MUSTELIDS Young Naturalists the Slinky,Stinky Weasel family ave you ever heard anyone call somebody a weasel? If you have, then you might think Hthat being called a weasel is bad. But weasels are good hunters, and they are cunning, curious, strong, and fierce. Weasels and their relatives are mammals. They belong to the order Carnivora (meat eaters) and the family Mustelidae, also known as the weasel family or mustelids. Mustela means weasel in Latin. With 65 species, mustelids are the largest family of carnivores in the world. Eight mustelid species currently make their homes in Minnesota: short-tailed weasel, long-tailed weasel, least weasel, mink, American marten, OTTERS BY DANIEL J. COX fisher, river otter, and American badger. Minnesota Conservation Volunteer May–June 2003 n e MARY CLAY, DEMBINSKY t PHOTO ASSOCIATES r mammals a WEASELS flexible m Here are two TOM AND PAT LEESON specialized mustelid feet. b One is for climb- ou can recognize a ing and the other for hort-tailed weasels (Mustela erminea), long- The long-tailed weasel d most mustelids g digging. Can you tell tailed weasels (M. frenata), and least weasels eats the most varied e food of all weasels. It by their tubelike r which is which? (M. nivalis) live throughout Minnesota. In also lives in the widest Ybodies and their short Stheir northern range, including Minnesota, weasels variety of habitats and legs. Some, such as badgers, hunting. Otters and minks turn white in winter. In autumn, white hairs begin climates across North are heavy and chunky. Some, are excellent swimmers that hunt to replace their brown summer coat.
    [Show full text]
  • Food Habits of Black Bears in Suburban Versus Rural Alabama
    Food Habits of Black Bears in Suburban versus Rural Alabama Laura Garland, Auburn University, School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences, Auburn, AL 36849 Connor Ellis, 18832 #1 Gulf Boulevard Indian Shores, FL 33785 Todd Steury, Auburn University, School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences, Auburn, AL 36849 Abstract: Little is known about the food habits of black bears (Ursus americanus) in Alabama. A major concern is the amount of human influence in the diet of these bears as human and bear populations continue to expand in a finite landscape and bear-human interactions are increasing. To better understand dietary habits of bears, 135 scats were collected during late August to late November 2011–2014. Food items were classified into the cat- egories of fruit, nuts/seeds, insects, anthropogenic, animal hairs, fawn bones, and other. Plant items were classified down to the lowest possible taxon via visual and DNA analysis as this category composed the majority of scat volumes. Frequency of occurrence was calculated for each food item. The most commonly occurring foods included: Nyssa spp. (black gum, 25.2%), Poaceae family (grass, 24.5%), Quercus spp. (acorn, 22.4%), and Vitis spp. (muscadine grape, 8.4%). Despite the proximity of these bear populations to suburban locations, during our sampling period we found that their diet primarily comprised vegetation, not anthropogenic food; while 100% of scat samples contained vegetation, only 19.6% of scat samples contained corn and no other anthropogenic food sources were detected. Based on a Fisher’s exact test, dietary composition did not differ between bears living in subur- ban areas compared to bears occupying more rural areas (P = 0.3891).
    [Show full text]
  • Species Assessment for the Humboldt Marten (Martes Americana Humboldtensis)
    Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office Species Assessment for the Humboldt Marten (Martes americana humboldtensis) R. Hamlin, L. Roberts, G. Schmidt, K. Brubaker and R. Bosch Photo credit: Six Rivers National Forest Endangered Species Program U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office 1655 Heindon Road Arcata, California 95521 (707) 822-7201 www.fws.gov/arcata September 2010 i The suggested citation for this report is: Hamlin, R., L. Roberts, G. Schmidt, K. Brubaker and R. Bosch 2010. Species assessment for the Humboldt marten (Martes americana humboldtensis). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office, Arcata, California. 34 + iv pp. ii Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1 BIOLOGICAL INFORMATION .......................................................................................... 1 Species Description ................................................................................................... 1 Taxonomy.................................................................................................................. 1 Life History ............................................................................................................... 4 Reproduction .................................................................................................. 5 Diet ................................................................................................................ 5 Home Range
    [Show full text]
  • American Marten (Martes Americana) Species Assessment Prepared For
    American Marten (Martes Americana) Species Assessment Prepared for the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forest September 2005 Prepared by Matt Vasquez1 with contributions by Leslie Spicer1, 2005 1 Biological Science Technician (Wildlife), Gunnison Ranger District Reviewed and Edited by Clay Speas, Forest Fisheries Biologist and Tom Holland, Forest Wildlife Biologist Cover photos taken by remote cameras at track plate and bait stations on the Gunnison Ranger District, Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forest. Last Revised: September 28, 2005 Page 1 of 23 Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forest American Marten (Martes Americana) Species Assessment TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................ 5 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS .............................................................................................................. 5 HABITAT CRITERIA USED IN FOREST-WIDE HABITAT EVALUATION ................................... 6 2001 MIS Habitat Criteria...................................................................................................................... 6 Rationale ............................................................................................................................................... 6 2005 MIS Habitat Criteria...................................................................................................................... 6 Rationale ............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Interagency Wildlife Task Group
    California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Interagency Wildlife Task Group WOLVERINE Gulo gulo Family: MUSTELIDAE Order: CARNIVORA Class: MAMMALIA M159 Written by: V. Johnson Reviewed by: H. Shellhammer Edited by: J. Harris, R. Duke DISTRIBUTION, ABUNDANCE, AND SEASONALITY A scarce resident of North Coast mountains and Sierra Nevada. Sightings range from Del Norte and Trinity cos. east through Siskiyou and Shasta cos., and south through Tulare Co. A few possible sightings occur in the north coastal region as far south as Lake Co. Habitat distribution in California is poorly known for the North Coast and northern Sierra Nevada. In north coastal areas, has been observed in Douglas-fir and mixed conifer habitats, and probably uses red fir, lodgepole, wet meadow, and montane riparian habitats. Most sightings in this region range from 500-1500 m (1600-4800 ft). In the northern Sierra Nevada, have been found in mixed conifer, red fir, and lodgepole habitats, and probably use subalpine conifer, alpine dwarf-shrub, wet meadow, and montane riparian habitats. Elevations in the northern Sierra Nevada mostly fall in the range of 1300-2300 m (4300-7300 ft). Habitats used in the southern Sierra Nevada include red fir, mixed conifer, lodgepole, subalpine conifer, alpine dwarf-shrub, barren, and probably wet meadows, montane chaparral, and Jeffrey pine. Elevations in the southern Sierra Nevada mostly are from 2000-3400 m (6400-10,800 ft). May travel extensively. There are indications that wolverines may be increasing in California (Grinnell et al. 1937, Ingles 1965, Yocom 1973, 1974, Johnson 1977, Schempf and White 1977, California Department of Fish and Game 1980a).
    [Show full text]
  • Wolf Interactions with Non-Prey
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln USGS Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center US Geological Survey 2003 Wolf Interactions with Non-prey Warren B. Ballard Texas Tech University Ludwig N. Carbyn Canadian Wildlife Service Douglas W. Smith US Park Service Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsnpwrc Part of the Animal Sciences Commons, Behavior and Ethology Commons, Biodiversity Commons, Environmental Policy Commons, Recreation, Parks and Tourism Administration Commons, and the Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology Commons Ballard, Warren B.; Carbyn, Ludwig N.; and Smith, Douglas W., "Wolf Interactions with Non-prey" (2003). USGS Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. 325. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsnpwrc/325 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the US Geological Survey at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in USGS Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. 10 Wolf Interactions with Non-prey Warren B. Ballard, Ludwig N. Carbyn, and Douglas W. Smith WOLVES SHARE THEIR ENVIRONMENT with many an­ wolves and non-prey species. The inherent genetic, be­ imals besides those that they prey on, and the nature of havioral, and morphological flexibility of wolves has the interactions between wolves and these other crea­ allowed them to adapt to a wide range of habitats and tures varies considerably. Some of these sympatric ani­ environmental conditions in Europe, Asia, and North mals are fellow canids such as foxes, coyotes, and jackals. America. Therefore, the role of wolves varies consider­ Others are large carnivores such as bears and cougars.
    [Show full text]
  • FISHER Pekania Pennanti
    WILDLIFE IN CONNECTICUT WILDLIFE FACT SHEET FISHER Pekania pennanti Background J. FUSCO © PAUL In the nineteenth century, fishers became scarce due to forest logging, clearing for agriculture, and overexploitation. By the 1900s, fishers were considered extirpated from the state. Reforestation and changes in land-use practices have restored the suitability of the fisher’s habitat in part of its historic range, allowing a population to recolonize the northeastern section of the state. Fishers did not recolonize suitable habitat in northwestern Connecticut, since the region was isolated from a source population. Fishers were rare in western Massachusetts, and the developed and agricultural habitats of the Connecticut River Valley were a barrier to westward expansion by fishers in northeastern Connecticut. A project to reintroduce this native mammal into northwestern Connecticut was initiated by the Wildlife Division in 1988. Funds from reimbursement of trapping wild turkeys in Connecticut for release in Maine were used to purchase fishers caught by cooperating trappers in New Hampshire and Vermont. In what is termed a "soft release," fishers were penned and fed at the release site for a couple of weeks prior to being released. Through radio and snow tracking, biologists later found that the fishers that were released in northwestern Connecticut had high survival rates and successfully reproduced. As a result of this project, a viable, self-sustaining population of this native mammal is now established in western Connecticut. Fishers found throughout eastern Connecticut are a result of natural range expansion. In 2005, Connecticut instituted its first modern day regulated trapping season for fishers. Most northern states have regulated fisher trapping seasons.
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 Fur Harvester Digest 3 SEASON DATES and BAG LIMITS
    2021 Michigan Fur Harvester Digest RAP (Report All Poaching): Call or Text (800) 292-7800 Michigan.gov/Trapping Table of Contents Furbearer Management ...................................................................3 Season Dates and Bag Limits ..........................................................4 License Types and Fees ....................................................................6 License Types and Fees by Age .......................................................6 Purchasing a License .......................................................................6 Apprentice & Youth Hunting .............................................................9 Fur Harvester License .....................................................................10 Kill Tags, Registration, and Incidental Catch .................................11 When and Where to Hunt/Trap ...................................................... 14 Hunting Hours and Zone Boundaries .............................................14 Hunting and Trapping on Public Land ............................................18 Safety Zones, Right-of-Ways, Waterways .......................................20 Hunting and Trapping on Private Land ...........................................20 Equipment and Fur Harvester Rules ............................................. 21 Use of Bait When Hunting and Trapping ........................................21 Hunting with Dogs ...........................................................................21 Equipment Regulations ...................................................................22
    [Show full text]
  • VOLATILE COMPOUNDS from ANAL GLANDS of the WOLVERINE, Gulo Gulo
    Journal of Chemical Ecology, Vol. 12, No. 9, September 2005 ( #2005) DOI: 10.1007/s10886-005-6080-9 VOLATILE COMPOUNDS FROM ANAL GLANDS OF THE WOLVERINE, Gulo gulo WILLIAM F. WOOD,1,* MIRANDA N. TERWILLIGER,2 and JEFFREY P. COPELAND3 1Department of Chemistry, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA 95521, USA 2Alaska Cooperative Fish & Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Biology & Wildlife, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK 99775, USA 3USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula, MT 59801, USA (Received February 12, 2005; revised March 24, 2005; accepted April 20, 2005) Abstract—Dichloromethane extracts of wolverine (Gulo gulo, Mustelinae, Mustelidae) anal gland secretion were examined by gas chromatographyYmass spectrometry. The secretion composition was complex and variable for the six samples examined: 123 compounds were detected in total, with the number per animal ranging from 45 to 71 compounds. Only six compounds were common to all extracts: 3-methylbutanoic acid, 2-methylbutanoic acid, phenylacetic acid, a-tocopherol, cholesterol, and a compound tentatively identified as 2-methyldecanoic acid. The highly odoriferous thietanes and dithiolanes found in anal gland secretions of some members of the Mustelinae [ferrets, mink, stoats, and weasels (Mustela spp.) and zorillas (Ictonyx spp.)] were not observed. The composition of the wolverine’s anal gland secretion is similar to that of two other members of the Mustelinae, the pine and beech marten (Martes spp.). Key WordsVWolverine, Gulo gulo, Mustelinae, Mustelidae, scent marking, fear-defense mechanism, short-chain carboxylic acids. INTRODUCTION The wolverine (Gulo gulo) is the largest terrestrial member of the Mustelidae and is part of the subfamily, Mustelinae, which includes ferrets, fishers, martens, mink, stoats, weasels, and zorillas.
    [Show full text]
  • Wolverine (Gulo Gulo) in Yukon
    COSEWIC Assessment and Update Status Report on the Wolverine Gulo gulo Eastern population Western Population in Canada EASTERN POPULATION – ENDANGERED WESTERN POPULATION – SPECIAL CONCERN 2003 COSEWIC COSEPAC COMMITTEE ON THE STATUS OF COMITÉ SUR LA SITUATION DES ENDANGERED WILDLIFE IN ESPÈCES EN PÉRIL CANADA AU CANADA COSEWIC status reports are working documents used in assigning the status of wildlife species suspected of being at risk. This report may be cited as follows: COSEWIC 2003. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the wolverine Gulo gulo in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 41 pp. Previous report: Dauphiné, T.C. 1989. Update COSEWIC status report on the wolverine Gulo gulo in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 31 pp. Kelsall, J.P. 1982. COSEWIC status report on the wolverine Gulo gulou in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 50 pp. Production note: COSEWIC would like to acknowledge Brian G. Slough for writing the update status report on the wolverine Gulo gulo prepared under contract for Environment Canada. For additional copies contact: COSEWIC Secretariat c/o Canadian Wildlife Service Environment Canada Ottawa, ON K1A 0H3 Tel.: (819) 997-4991 / (819) 953-3215 Fax: (819) 994-3684 E-mail: COSEWIC/[email protected] http://www.cosewic.gc.ca Également disponible en français sous le titre Évaluation et Rapport du COSEPAC sur la situation du carcajou (Gulo gulo) au Canada – Mise à jour. Cover illustration: Wolverine — Illustration by Lee Mennell, Yukon Territory. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2003 Catalogue No.
    [Show full text]
  • Monitoring Wolverines in Northeast Oregon
    Monitoring Wolverines in Northeast Oregon January 2011 – December 2012 Final Report Authors: Audrey J. Magoun Patrick Valkenburg Clinton D. Long Judy K. Long Submitted to: The Wolverine Foundation, Inc. February 2013 Cite as: A. J. Magoun, P. Valkenburg, C. D. Long, and J. K. Long. 2013. Monitoring wolverines in northeast Oregon. January 2011 – December 2012. Final Report. The Wolverine Foundation, Inc., Kuna, Idaho. [http://wolverinefoundation.org/] Copies of this report are available from: The Wolverine Foundation, Inc. [http://wolverinefoundation.org/] Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife [http://www.dfw.state.or.us/conservationstrategy/publications.asp] Oregon Wildlife Heritage Foundation [http://www.owhf.org/] U. S. Forest Service [http://www.fs.usda.gov/land/wallowa-whitman/landmanagement] Major Funding and Logistical Support The Wolverine Foundation, Inc. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Oregon Wildlife Heritage Foundation U. S. Forest Service U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Wolverine Discovery Center Norcross Wildlife Foundation Seattle Foundation Wildlife Conservation Society National Park Service 2 Special thanks to everyone who provided contributions, assistance, and observations of wolverines in the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest and other areas in Oregon. We appreciate all the help and interest of the staffs of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Wildlife Heritage Foundation, U. S. Forest Service, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wildlife Conservation Society, and the National Park Service. We also thank the following individuals for their assistance with the field work: Jim Akenson, Holly Akenson, Malin Aronsson, Norma Biggar, Ken Bronec, Steve Bronson, Roblyn Brown, Vic Coggins, Alex Coutant, Cliff Crego, Leonard Erickson, Bjorn Hansen, Mike Hansen, Hans Hayden, Tim Hiller, Janet Hohmann, Pat Matthews, David McCullough, Glenn McDonald, Jamie McFadden, Kendrick Moholt, Mark Penninger, Jens Persson, Lynne Price, Brian Ratliff, Jamie Ratliff, John Stephenson, John Wyanens, Rebecca Watters, Russ Westlake, and Jeff Yanke.
    [Show full text]
  • Grizzly Bear Fact Sheet
    Identify Grizzly from Black Bears Grizzly bears typically weigh 100-200 kg (females) to 200-300 kg (males) which is slightly more than black bears. Grizzly bears have a shoulder hump, range in colour from blonde to black and may have silver or light- tipped guard hairs on their head, hump and back. A grizzly bear’s ears are rounded and appear smaller than the black bear, while the black bear has more pointed, noticeable ears and no shoulder hump. Grizzly bear claws are longer than those of black bears and may have a light-coloured stripe. In grizzly bear ISBN: 978-0-7785-8683-8 (Printed Version) tracks, the tips of the front claws usu- 978-0-7785-8683-8 (Online Version) ally leave imprints in front of the paw Printed July 2009 pad, and the toes are set in a nearly straight line. In black bear tracks, the claw imprints are difficult to see, and the front toes form an obvious arc. Reproduction Range Grizzly bear numbers are limited by a slow reproductive rate. This is Grizzly bears can be found caused by a relatively high age of first reproduction, small litter siz- in Alberta from the Montana es, and long periods between litters. In Alberta, most female grizzlies border, along the mountains do not have their first litter until they are at least four years old and and foothills and continuing usually have only one or two cubs. The cubs are born in January or north through the western February and stay with their mother for two to five years.
    [Show full text]