A comparative analysis of mountain lion (Puma concolor ......Yellowstone is quite the contrary as it...
1
Methods: Data was obtained in two different ways depending on study site. • In Snoqualmie cougars are captured, fitted with a GPS collar and then tracked to determine kill sites. Two or more GPS pings in one area is indicative of a predation (Anderson et al. 2003)and aſter observing a “cluster” of GPS points a team was sent in to collect data. • In Yellowstone, researchers would take advantage of heavy snow to track cougar movement until dis- covering a predation site where data would be recorded. Once all data was collected methods were as followed: • Overlay predation sites onto slope and vegetation GIS layers to determine slope and percent canopy cover for each site. • Use Google Earth imaging closest to date of predation to categorize kill site habitat with either “open”, “edge” or “closed”. • Analyze data using MANOVA, ANOVA and Chi-squared tests. First comparing individual cougars in Snoqualmie, and then compare Snoqualmie to Yellowstone. A comparative analysis of mountain lion (Puma concolor) predation site properties between Yellowstone National Park and Snoqualmie National Forest School of Environmental and Forest Sciences, College of the Environment, University of Washington Connor J. Meyer Introduction: Mountain lions (Puma concolor) are found widely dispersed throughout the western hemisphere, boasting a range from the Canadian Yukon to the southern tip of South America (Hornocker et al. 2009). eir generalist nature and extreme adaptability allows them to survive in many different landscapes with other top predators, including wolves (Canis lupus), bears (Ursus spp.) and jaguars (Panthera onca). With wolves re-colonizing the west, cougars and wolves will once again compete for niche space in ecosystems in which wolves have been absent for ~70 years. Both species are able to subsist in the same ecosystem, however, in Washington State, wolves will likely displace cougars as they re-colonize, leading to a potential increase in human-cougar interactions and perhaps an decline in cougar population numbers. For my project I set out to compare predation site properties between two different ecosystems in which cougars are found, with the hopes of predicting how cougars in the west may react to wolves. e western study site is located in parts of Snoqualmie National Forest, King County and Snohomish County. Yellowstone National Park will serve as the wolf-present study site. ese two locations differ in more than just wolf presence and absence, as Snoqualmie is characterized by large swaths of forest with patches of clear cuts and an extensive road network. Yellowstone is quite the contrary as it is a large open landscape with occasional patches of forest. By comparing slope, canopy cover at two different radii and sorting the kill habitat into one of three (open, edge, closed) categories I hope to determine if cougars are using similar attributes of the landscape. is would help inform a prediction as to how much re-colonizing wolves are going to affect already existing cougar populations. Results: Part I: Snoqualmie Acknowledgments: First and foremost I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. John Marzluff, for his guidance and advice on my senior thesis. For the cougar data and GIS layers related to Snoqualmie National Forest as well as advice throughout I would like to thank Dr. Brian Kertson, M.S. student Clint Robins, and the entire volunteer research team. For supplying and allowing me to use the Yellowstone National Park cougar data I would like to thank Dr. Daniel Stahler and the entire Yellowstone Cougar Project research team. For the Yellowstone GIS layers I would like to thank Dr. Monika Moskall, Intermap, Precision Forestry Cooperative, Ania Jakola, Caileigh Shoot and Jonny Dunne. References: Anderson Jr., C. R., & Lindzey, F. G. (2003). Estimating cougar predation rates from GPS location clusters. e Journal of Wildlife Management, 307-316. Elbrock, M. L., Lendrum, P. E., Newby, J., Quigley, H., & ompson, D. J. (2015). Recolonizing wolves influence the realized niche of resident cougars. Zoological Studies, 41. Hornocker, M., & Negri, S. (2009). Cougar: Ecology and Conservation. Chicago: e University of Chicago Press. Kertson, B. N., Spencer, R. D., Marzluff, J. M., Hepinstall-Cymerman, J., & Grue, C. E. (2011). Cougar space use and movements in the wildland-urban landscapes of Western Washington. Ecological Applications, 2866-2881. Laundre, J., & Hernandez, L. (2000). Habitat composition of successful kill sites for lions in southeastern Idaho and northwestern Utah. In proceedings of the sixth mountain lion workshop. Ruth, T. K., & Murphy, K. (2009). Competition with Other Carnivores for Prey. In M. Hornocker, & S. Negri, Cougar: Ecology and Conservation (pp. 164-172). Chicago: e University of Chicago Press. Part II: Snoqualmie vs. Yellowstone Primary ANOVA tesng shows that slope (p=0.037), percent canopy cover at 15 meters (p-value= 0.053) and percent canopy cover at 200 meters (0.038) all vary when comparing individual cougars in Snoqualmie Naonal Forest. Although all are stascally significant, in actuality percent canopy cover does not look significantly different (i.e. at a 15 meter radius, four of the six cougars have made nearly all kills within 100% cover). MANOVA tesng that paired slope and canopy cover also showed that there is variability between individual cougar predaon sites in Snoqualmie. With a p-value of 0.012 for the 200 meter radius and a p-value of 0.0091 for the 15 meter radius. The chi-squared test on the number of kills in either open, edge or closed cover areas, there is lile variaon as cougars tend to perform the most kills in areas deemed closed (p-value=0.16) Figure 1: Three Box and whisker plots, each showing Individual cougar ID (n=6) (characterized by leer informing gender F, and a unique number) ploed against a 95% confidence interval of slope (leſt), canopy cover (%) within a 15 meter radius of each kill site (middle) and canopy cover (%) within a 200 meter radius of each kill site (right). A satellite image of F17 predation sites location in Snoqualmie National Forest. Courtesy of Google Earth. YNP cougar predation sites overlayed upon a slope layer. ANOVA testing showed that slope (p-value= 2.51x10 -10 ), percent canopy cover at 15 meters (p-value= 6.11x10 -7 ) and percent canopy cover at 200 meters (p-value= 6.65x10 -14 ) were varied drastically when comparing the two different habitats. Perhaps showing exactly how versatile of a predator cougars are, the percent canopy cover at the 15 meter range varied from 0% all the way up to kills made in full cover (100%). Almost every recorded kill in Snoqualmie occurred at a slope greater than those in Yellowstone. MANOVA testing showed similar results, both the 15 meter (p-value= 2.47 x10 -13 ) and the 200 meter (p-value= 2.2x10 -16 ) were response variables along with slope. e categorization of kill sites also proved to vary between the two sites as the p-value was 0.006. Discussion: Predation site properties were shown to vary both within a single study site and between both study sites. Cougars in Snoqualmie make kills in areas where slope varied significantly, although all were shown to have a high percentage of canopy cover. is could be due to niche differentiation or the solitary nature of cougars that is not conducive to sharing space between individuals. Based on previous studies, I would have expected cougars in Yel- lowstone to have made kills in areas that had more canopy cover and an increased slope (Elbroch et al. 2015; Ruth et al. 2009) compared to Snoqualmie due to wolf presence. However, the Yellowstone killsites proved to be on flatter ground with an average incline of 14.82 degrees while Snoqualmie had a mean incline of 61.32 degrees. Yellowstone kills were also made in areas with less overall percent canopy cover. is is most likely due a lack of avail- able canopy cover and the fact that this data was collected in the winter, when snow forces cougars to make kills closer to edges (Laudre et al. 2000). e habitat in which the Yellowstone kills were made is also conducive to wolf presence , therefore cougar predation site characteristics may be more closely linked to climate and landscape features than the presence of a competitor. Although cougars in Snoqualmie and Yellowstone use the landscape in different ways, predation site properties at the two study sites shows just how versatile and adaptable cougars can be. With the ability to make a kill near a suburban backyard (Snoqualmie; Kertson et al. 2011) or the middle of an open plain (Yellowstone) cougars clearly demonstrate their ability to remain a part of thelandscape. As wolves re-colonize Washington, I believe that they will displace cougars to a degree, but the Yellowstone data shows that cougars are very adept at continuing to make kills in areas conducive to wolf presence, therefore cougars should be able to adequately compete with wolves and remain within their current range. Kill site investigation team led by M.S. student Clint Robins (right) aſter success- fully processing a kill. Photo courtesy of Sasha Hendricks Figure 2: Three Box and whisker plots, each showing data collecon locaon ploed against a 95% confidence interval of slope (leſt), canopy cover (%) within a 15 meter radius of each kill site (middle) and canopy cover (%) within a 200 meter radius of each kill site (right). Future Research: • Under-story canopy cover may be more indicative of how cou- gars are using the landscape, a study looking at the under-story cover at each kill site may give more insight into cougar hunting strategy. • Re-colonization of wolves gives researchers a rare opportunity to study how the two predators interact and how one may displace the other. A study site looking at both species’ movement and kill- sites would be ideal for determining how each affect the others niche differentiation. • GPS collaring of cougars in Yellowstone will provide more data as well as allow for nesting of individual cougar kills. Typical predation site in Snoqualmie National Forest. Photo courtesy of Connor Meyer Google Earth imaging showing the two study sites , the distance between them as well as the visible difference in land-cover between the two points. Courtesy of Google Earth A cougar (F17) captured and processed in Snoqualmie National Forest. Photo courtesy of Brian Kertson.
Transcript of A comparative analysis of mountain lion (Puma concolor ......Yellowstone is quite the contrary as it...
Methods:Data was obtained in two different ways depending on study site. • In Snoqualmie cougars are captured, fitted with a GPS collar and then tracked to determine kill sites. Two or more GPS pings in one area is indicative of a predation (Anderson et al. 2003)and after observing a “cluster” of GPS points a team was sent in to collect data. • In Yellowstone, researchers would take advantage of heavy snow to track cougar movement until dis-covering a predation site where data would be recorded.
Once all data was collected methods were as followed: • Overlay predation sites onto slope and vegetation GIS layers to determine slope and percent canopy cover for each site. • Use Google Earth imaging closest to date of predation to categorize kill site habitat with either “open”, “edge” or “closed”. • Analyze data using MANOVA, ANOVA and Chi-squared tests. First comparing individual cougars in Snoqualmie, and then compare Snoqualmie to Yellowstone.
A comparative analysis of mountain lion (Puma concolor) predation site properties between Yellowstone National Park and Snoqualmie National Forest
School of Environmental and Forest Sciences, College of the Environment, University of WashingtonConnor J. Meyer
Introduction: Mountain lions (Puma concolor) are found widely dispersed throughout the western hemisphere, boasting a range from the Canadian Yukon to the southern tip of South America (Hornocker et al. 2009). Their generalist nature and extreme adaptability allows them to survive in many different landscapes with other top predators, including wolves (Canis lupus), bears (Ursus spp.) and jaguars (Panthera onca). With wolves re-colonizing the west, cougars and wolves will once again compete for niche space in ecosystems in which wolves have been absent for ~70 years. Both species are able to subsist in the same ecosystem, however, in Washington State, wolves will likely displace cougars as they re-colonize, leading to a potential increase in human-cougar interactions and perhaps an decline in cougar population numbers. For my project I set out to compare predation site properties between two different ecosystems in which cougars are found, with the hopes of predicting how cougars in the west may react to wolves. The western study site is located in parts of Snoqualmie National Forest, King County and Snohomish County. Yellowstone National Park will serve as the wolf-present study site. These two locations differ in more than just wolf presence and absence, as Snoqualmie is characterized by large swaths of forest with patches of clear cuts and an extensive road network. Yellowstone is quite the contrary as it is a large open landscape with occasional patches of forest. By comparing slope, canopy cover at two different radii and sorting the kill habitat into one of three (open, edge, closed) categories I hope to determine if cougars are using similar attributes of the landscape. This would help inform a prediction as to how much re-colonizing wolves are going to affect already existing cougar populations.
Results: Part I: Snoqualmie
Acknowledgments: First and foremost I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. John Marzluff, for his guidance and advice on my senior thesis. For the cougar data and GIS layers related to Snoqualmie National Forest as well as advice throughout I would like to thank Dr. Brian Kertson, M.S. student Clint Robins, and the entire volunteer research team. For supplying and allowing me to use the Yellowstone National Park cougar data I would like to thank Dr. Daniel Stahler and the entire Yellowstone Cougar Project research team. For the Yellowstone GIS layers I would like to thank Dr. Monika Moskall, Intermap, Precision Forestry Cooperative, Ania Jakola, Caileigh Shoot and Jonny Dunne.
References:Anderson Jr., C. R., & Lindzey, F. G. (2003). Estimating cougar predation rates from GPS location clusters. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 307-316.Elbrock, M. L., Lendrum, P. E., Newby, J., Quigley, H., & Thompson, D. J. (2015). Recolonizing wolves influence the realized niche of resident cougars. Zoological Studies, 41.Hornocker, M., & Negri, S. (2009). Cougar: Ecology and Conservation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Kertson, B. N., Spencer, R. D., Marzluff, J. M., Hepinstall-Cymerman, J., & Grue, C. E. (2011). Cougar space use and movements in the wildland-urban landscapes of Western Washington. Ecological Applications, 2866-2881.Laundre, J., & Hernandez, L. (2000). Habitat composition of successful kill sites for lions in southeastern Idaho and northwestern Utah. In proceedings of the sixth mountain lion workshop.Ruth, T. K., & Murphy, K. (2009). Competition with Other Carnivores for Prey. In M. Hornocker, & S. Negri, Cougar: Ecology and Conservation (pp. 164-172). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Part II: Snoqualmie vs. Yellowstone
Primary ANOVA testing shows that slope (p=0.037), percent canopy cover at 15 meters (p-value= 0.053) and percent canopy cover at 200 meters (0.038) all vary when comparing individual cougars in Snoqualmie National Forest. Although all are statistically significant, in actuality percent canopy cover does not look significantly different (i.e. at a 15 meter radius, four of the six cougars have made nearly all kills within 100% cover). MANOVA testing that paired slope and canopy cover also showed that there is variability between individual cougar predation sites in Snoqualmie. With a p-value of 0.012 for the 200 meter radius and a p-value of 0.0091 for the 15 meter radius. The chi-squared test on the number of kills in either open, edge or closed cover areas, there is little variation as cougars tend to perform the most kills in areas deemed closed (p-value=0.16)
Figure 1: Three Box and whisker plots, each showing Individual cougar ID (n=6) (characterized by letter informing gender F, and a unique number) plotted against a 95% confidence interval of slope (left), canopy cover (%) within a 15 meter radius of each kill site (middle) and canopy cover (%) within a 200 meter radius of each kill site (right).
A satellite image of F17 predation sites location in Snoqualmie National Forest. Courtesy of Google Earth.
YNP cougar predation sites overlayed upon a slope layer.
ANOVA testing showed that slope (p-value= 2.51x10-10), percent canopy cover at 15 meters (p-value= 6.11x10-7) and percent canopy cover at 200 meters (p-value= 6.65x10-14) were varied drastically when comparing the two different habitats. Perhaps showing exactly how versatile of a predator cougars are, the percent canopy cover at the 15 meter range varied from 0% all the way up to kills made in full cover (100%). Almost every recorded kill in Snoqualmie occurred at a slope greater than those in Yellowstone. MANOVA testing showed similar results, both the 15 meter (p-value= 2.47 x10-13) and the 200 meter (p-value= 2.2x10-16) were response variables along with slope. The categorization of kill sites also proved to vary between the two sites as the p-value was 0.006.
Discussion:Predation site properties were shown to vary both within a single study site and between both study sites. Cougars in Snoqualmie make kills in areas where slope varied significantly, although all were shown to have a high percentage of canopy cover. This could be due to niche differentiation or the solitary nature of cougars that is not conducive to sharing space between individuals. Based on previous studies, I would have expected cougars in Yel-lowstone to have made kills in areas that had more canopy cover and an increased slope (Elbroch et al. 2015; Ruth et al. 2009) compared to Snoqualmie due to wolf presence. However, the Yellowstone killsites proved to be on flatter ground with an average incline of 14.82 degrees while Snoqualmie had a mean incline of 61.32 degrees. Yellowstone kills were also made in areas with less overall percent canopy cover. This is most likely due a lack of avail-able canopy cover and the fact that this data was collected in the winter, when snow forces cougars to make kills closer to edges (Laudre et al. 2000). The habitat in which the Yellowstone kills were made is also conducive to wolf presence , therefore cougar predation site characteristics may be more closely linked to climate and landscape features than the presence of a competitor. Although cougars in Snoqualmie and Yellowstone use the landscape in different ways, predation site properties at the two study sites shows just how versatile and adaptable cougars can be. With the ability to make a kill near a suburban backyard (Snoqualmie; Kertson et al. 2011) or the middle of an open plain (Yellowstone) cougars clearly demonstrate their ability to remain a part of thelandscape. As wolves re-colonize Washington, I believe that they will displace cougars to a degree, but the Yellowstone data shows that cougars are very adept at continuing to make kills in areas conducive to wolf presence, therefore cougars should be able to adequately compete with wolves and remain within their current range.
Kill site investigation team led by M.S. student Clint Robins (right) after success-fully processing a kill. Photo courtesy of Sasha Hendricks
Figure 2: Three Box and whisker plots, each showing data collection location plotted against a 95% confidence interval of slope (left), canopy cover (%) within a 15 meter radius of each kill site (middle) and canopy cover (%) within a 200 meter radius of each kill site (right).
Future Research:• Under-story canopy cover may be more indicative of how cou-gars are using the landscape, a study looking at the under-story cover at each kill site may give more insight into cougar hunting strategy. • Re-colonization of wolves gives researchers a rare opportunity to study how the two predators interact and how one may displace the other. A study site looking at both species’ movement and kill-sites would be ideal for determining how each affect the others niche differentiation.• GPS collaring of cougars in Yellowstone will provide more data as well as allow for nesting of individual cougar kills.
Typical predation site in Snoqualmie National Forest. Photo courtesy of Connor Meyer
Google Earth imaging showing the two study sites , the distance between them as well as the visible difference in land-cover between the two points. Courtesy of Google Earth
A cougar (F17) captured and processed in Snoqualmie National Forest. Photo courtesy of Brian Kertson.
