Space use and movement patterns of translocated bighorn sheep

被引:1
作者
Ty J. Werdel
Jonathan A. Jenks
John T. Kanta
Chadwick P. Lehman
Teresa J. Frink
机构
[1] South Dakota State University,Department of Natural Resource Management, Edgar S. Mcfadden Biostress Lab
[2] Kansas State University,Department of Horticulture and Natural Resources
[3] South Dakota Game,Department of Applied Sciences, Burkhiser Complex
[4] Fish and Parks,undefined
[5] South Dakota Game,undefined
[6] Fish and Parks,undefined
[7] Chadron State College,undefined
来源
Mammalian Biology | 2021年 / 101卷
关键词
Bighorn sheep; Black hills; Home-range; Movement patterns; Resource selection; Translocation;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Ungulate species have consistently been a major focus of reintroductions to their native ranges. Bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) are an ecologically sensitive species, and have experienced population declines throughout their historic range; bighorn sheep inhabited the Black Hills region of South Dakota but were extirpated from the area due to anthropogenic impacts in the early 1900s. To continue to restore populations to the area, we translocated 26 bighorn sheep from Alberta, Canada to the Deadwood Region of the Black Hills. Bighorn sheep were fitted with VHF or GPS collars and monitored throughout the duration of the study (Feb 2015–Jan 2017). Our objectives were to evaluate movement patterns post-release of bighorn sheep in the translocated Deadwood bighorn sheep herd. We utilized 3 types of home-range analyses based on collar data; kernel density estimation (KDE), minimum convex polygon (MCP), and Brownian Bridge Movement Models (BBMM) were used to estimate home-ranges year 1, year 2, and for the duration of the study. Home-range size utilizing KDE (95%; x¯\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\overline{x}$$\end{document} = 41.41 km2, SE = 10.50), minimum convex polygon (95%; x¯\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\overline{x}$$\end{document} = 55.73 km2, SE = 15.04), and BBMM (95%; x¯\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\overline{x}$$\end{document} = 32.95 km2, SE = 4.67) differed among methods. Year 1 home-range sizes (95% BBMM; x¯\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\overline{x}$$\end{document} = 40.01 km2) were larger than year 2 (95% BBMM; x¯\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\overline{x}$$\end{document} = 4.08 km2) home-range sizes. Travel distances were also larger in year 1 (x¯\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\overline{x}$$\end{document} = 431.80 km) than year 2 (x¯\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\overline{x}$$\end{document} = 368.77 km). Our results indicate that after an acclimation period, which included individual dispersal, the translocated Deadwood bighorn sheep herd settled into smaller home-ranges near the release site.
引用
收藏
页码:329 / 344
页数:15
相关论文
共 160 条
  • [1] Barg JJ(2005)Describing breeding territories of migratory passerines: suggestions for sampling, choice of estimator, and delineation of core areas J Anim Ecol 74 139-149
  • [2] Jones J(1997)Sexual segregation in mountain sheep: resources or predation? Wildlife Monographs 134 3-50
  • [3] Robertson RJ(2017)Initial movements of reintroduced Elk in the Missouri Ozarks Am Midl Nat 178 1-16
  • [4] Bleich VC(2006)Effects of sampling regime on the mean and variance of home range size estimates Journal of Animal Ecology 75 1393-1405
  • [5] Bowyer RT(1960)The bighorn sheep in the United States, its past, present, and future Wildlife Monogr 4 3-174
  • [6] Wehausen JD(1943)Territoriality and home range concepts as applied to mammals J Mammal 24 346-352
  • [7] Bleisch AD(2006)The package adehabitat for the R software: tool for the analysis of space and habitat use by animals Ecol Model 197 1035-538
  • [8] Keller BJ(2006)Movements, connectivity, and resource selection of Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep J Mammal 87 531-330
  • [9] Bonnot TW(1986)Seasonal dispersion of overlapping mountain sheep ewe groups J Wildlife Manag 50 325-586
  • [10] Hansen LP(1988)Seasonal range selection in bighorn sheep: conflicts between forage quality, forage quantity, and predator avoidance Oecologia 75 580-635