SAN JOAQUIN KIT FOX HOME RANGE, HABITAT USE, AND MOVEMENTS IN URBAN BAKERSFIELD by Nancy Frost A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of Humboldt State University In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science In Natural Resources: Wildlife December 2005 ABSTRACT San Joaquin kit fox home range, habitat use, and movements in urban Bakersfield Nancy Frost Habitat destruction and fragmentation has led to the decline of the federally endangered and state threatened San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica). Kit foxes in the San Joaquin Valley occur in and adjacent to several urban areas. The urban kit fox population in Bakersfield has the potential to contribute to recovery efforts, however, little is known about habitat use in the urban environment. Habitat use in the urban landscape was examined in 28 radiocollared adult kit foxes between 1 May 1997 and 15 January 1998. The area of the urban environment needed to meet kit foxes’ ecological requirements varied among the sexes and fluctuated throughout the year. Mean home range size was 1.72 km2 (100% minimum convex polygon estimate) and mean concentrated use area (core area; 50% fixed kernel estimate) size was 0.16 km2. Females had a greater median number of core areas than did males, but core area size did not differ between the sexes. Mean home range size was significantly larger during the dispersal season than during the pair formation and breeding seasons. Home range size was greater for males than females during the breeding season. To assess the extent to which kit foxes were concentrated around limited resources, the percentage of overlap between adjacent kit foxes’ home ranges and core areas was determined. Mean home range overlap was greater than 71% for family group members and less than 16% for unrelated individuals, which was less than that reported for the nearby rural population. Overlap of adjacent kit foxes’ core areas indicated that kit foxes were concentrated around key urban habitat patches. Core area overlap was greater for members of the same family group than core area overlap of neighboring males and females or neighboring males. iii To determine which attributes of the urban environment were used by kit foxes and may support the population over time, habitats used disproportionately were compared to what was available in home ranges and the urban landscape. Kit foxes used open and sump (water catchment basins) habitats more than their availability in both the home range area and study area. There was more open and sump habitat in home ranges than in the study area. Kit fox core areas contained a disproportionately high amount of sumps that had food and den sites and restricted public access. Sump and open habitats were more suitable for denning and consequently, were used more than their availability in the study area. Kit foxes primarily used subterranean dens but also used pipes and other man-made structures. Dens were located farther from roads than expected and in habitat patches that were larger than the median habitat patch in the study area. To identify which urban habitats kit foxes used for resting, foraging, and traveling, kit fox movements and travel paths through adjacent habitat patches were examined. Kit foxes moved an average speed of 1.33 km/h. Minimum speed for females was greatest from approximately 0330 - 0730 h and for males was greatest from approximately 1830 - 2230 h. Kit foxes used sump and open habitats for resting. Kit foxes also foraged in these habitats, as well as in transition and commercial habitats. Habitats used for traveling included manicured open and open habitats, in which total distance traveled per movement session was longest. Overall median speed was greatest in residential habitat. Kit foxes were observed crossing roads and using culverts and bridges to move under roads. Demographic characteristics and weights of the kit foxes that were captured were used to assess habitat quality. Two of the 28 radiocollared kit foxes died during 6,036 days of active radiotransmitters. Radiocollared kit foxes had 15 litters, comprised of 2.8 + 0.45 (range = 1 – 7) pups. Urban kit fox weight was similar to that for rural kit foxes. iv The availability of sump and open habitats appeared to shape the distribution and abundance of the urban population. Therefore, retaining sump and open habitats throughout Bakersfield may promote the continued existence of the urban kit fox population. v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank all those who contributed to the successful completion of this research project, especially my advisor, Dr. R. T. Golightly, for sharing with me both his advice and expertise. In addition, I thank my other committee members, Drs. T. L. George and D. W. Kitchen for their support and constructive comments that greatly improved the quality of this thesis. My thanks go out to my professors and fellow students at Humboldt State University who contributed greatly to my educational growth. I would like to thank the San Joaquin chapter of The Wildlife Society for the research grant and the Eureka Rotary Club and the Stockton Sportsmen's Club for scholarships. I would like to thank the California Department of Fish and Game, especially M. Potter and R. Reed, for assisting with this project by providing a vehicle and hiring three scientific aids, T. Chilton, J. Storlie, and R. Siebdrath, whose hard work, dedication, and willingness to learn contributed immensely to this project. I appreciate the volunteer efforts of M. Otten, G. Warrick, B. Vanherweg, B. Cypher, J. Hinshaw, and K. Brown. I thank the Department of Energy, Chevron USA, and Enterprise Advisory Services, Inc., especially J. Killen and B. Cypher, for the loan of telemetry equipment, radio collars, kit fox handling equipment, and traps. I would also like to thank P. Hoffman from the City of Bakersfield Water Resources Department and A. Abe from the City of Bakersfield Recreation and Parks Department for arranging access to city sumps and parks, respectively. Furthermore, I wish to thank J. Tobar, with the City of Bakersfield's Management Information Services Department, for the City of Bakerfield geographic information system coverages. I thank Dr. C. Hammans of the Coffee Road Animal Hospital and D. Kroger from the California Living Museum for their generous participation in the successful rehabilitation of an injured kit fox pup. I wish to acknowledge the Bakersfield SPCA for vi "rescuing" one of my study animals that made its way to the third story of a parking garage and could not find the exit. My thanks go to A. Sullivan, J. Redmond, and M. Cantrell of the Sundale golf course, D. E. Keith Trucking, and K. S. Fabrication for allowing access to their property for implementation of the study. I wish to acknowledge Kelly Pipe Company for their cooperative efforts in helping me retrieve a kit fox pup that went for an unexpected "ride" in one of their pipes that was delivered from Bakersfield to Santa Fe Springs, California. Special thanks go to my husband, S. Telthorst, for his tremendous support, encouragement, and participation in this research project. Finally, I dedicate this thesis to S. Telthorst and my late mother, S. Castle, whose support and lifelong example of patience, perseverance, and persistence imparted me with the skills necessary to pursue and fulfill my dreams. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game, California Department of Transportation, and Humboldt State University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (protocol #96/97.W.62) issued the necessary permits and memorandum of understanding for this project. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT .........................................................................................................................iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS....................................................................................................vi LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................x LIST OF FIGURES ...............................................................................................................xi LIST OF APPENDICES .......................................................................................................xii INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................1 STUDY AREA ......................................................................................................................5 METHODS............................................................................................................................9 Trapping ....................................................................................................................9 Locations ...................................................................................................................9 Home Range ............................................................................................................12 Habitat Use ..............................................................................................................15 Movements ..............................................................................................................17 Demographics ..........................................................................................................19 RESULTS............................................................................................................................21