Florida Panther Habitat Selection Analysis of Concurrent GPS and VHF Telemetry Data

Abstract

Florida panthers (Puma concolor coryi) are listed as an endangered subspecies in the United States and they exist in a single Florida population with <100 individuals; all known reproduction occurs south of Lake Okeechobee. Habitat loss is the biggest threat to this small population and previous studies of habitat selection have relied on very high frequency (VHF) telemetry data collected almost exclusively during diurnal periods. We investigated habitat selection of 12 panthers in the northern portion of the breeding range using 1) Global Positioning System (GPS) telemetry data collected during nocturnal and diurnal periods and 2) VHF telemetry data collected only during diurnal periods. Analysis of both types of telemetry data yielded similar results as panthers selected upland (P < 0.001) and wetland (P < 0.001) forested habitat types. Our results indicated that forests are the habitats selected by panthers and generally support the current United States Fish and Wildlife Service panther habitat ranking system. We suggest that future studies with greater numbers of panthers should investigate panther habitat selection using GPS telemetry data collected throughout the range of the Florida panther and with location attempts scheduled more evenly across the diel period. Global Positioning System radiocollars were effective at obtaining previously unavailable nocturnal telemetry data on panthers; however, we recommend that panther researchers continue to collect VHF telemetry data until acquisition rates and durability of GPS collars improve. (JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 72(3):633–639; 2008)

Space and habitat use of moose in southwestern Sweden

“…As such, after visual comparison with kernel-based methods, we determined that the 100% minimum convex polygon (MCP) was the appropriate method to delineate moose home ranges. According to the resource selection literature it is more correct to include unused areas than to exclude areas that are known to be used by moose (Porter and Church 1987;Manly et al 2002;Land et al 2008). Excluding areas known to be used by radio-collared individuals is problematic from a resource selection perspective (Porter and Church 1987;Manly et al 2002).…”

First known satellite collaring of a viverrid species: preliminary performance and implications of GPS tracking Malay civets (Viverra tangalunga)

“…For those species large enough to bear a tag, battery life can be an issue, such that longterm behavioural patterns are unable to be determined. The balance between data resolution and study longevity must be considered when planning studies (Kochanny et al 2002;Land et al 2006;Tomkiewicz et al 2010).…”

Does genetic introgression improve female reproductive performance? A test on the endangered Florida panther

“…Immobilization and capture protocols are described in detail elsewhere (FWC 2008;Land et al 2008;McCown et al 1990;Taylor et al 2002). Age of captured panthers (if unknown) was estimated using a combination of tooth wear, pelage characteristics, size, and developmental stage of teats and reproductive organs.…”

“…Although transient males tend to roam widely, no females have been verified north of Caloosahatchee River since 1972 (Land et al 2008). The climate of south Florida is tropical (Henry et al 1994), with a wet season extending roughly from June to November and a dry season from December to May.…”