Seasonal habitat selection of cougars Puma concolor by sex and reproductive state in west‐central Alberta, Canada

Abstract

Resource selection studies are commonly used to assess the landscape features that animals select or avoid in their environment. Selection for certain landscape features and landcover types may vary by sex and reproductive status of an individual, and habitat selection studies should incorporate these factors. Cougars Puma concolor are a wide-ranging species that live in a diversity of habitats with varying levels of human disturbance. Geographic positioning satellite telemetry collars were deployed on 55 males, single females and females with kittens. We used a two-stage resource selection function to assess the seasonal habitat characteristics used by adult cougars in west-central, Alberta, Canada, near the northern extent of the species range, from 2016 to 2018. A latent selection diference function was used to compare diferences in habitat selction between groups. All groups selected for similar habitat types including edge habitat, close proximity to water, sloped terrain, forested habitat and avoided roads. During the summer, close proximity to water and wetland land cover were among the most selected features for all groups. Forest and edge habitats also were important for single females and males. During the winter, forested habitat was one of the most important covariates for all groups along with close proximity to water, edge habitat and slope for single females and males. Selection for slope and avoidance of open agricultural land were among the most important for females with kittens. Our results provide insights into those landscape variables that are important for cougars at the northern extent of their geographical range.

Fine‐scale resource selection and behavioral tradeoffs of eastern wild turkey broods

“…Resource requirements vary spatially and temporally based on individual phenology, which in turn affects resource selection (Nedergaard et al 1990, Parrish 2000, Yeldell et al 2017 b ) and the scale of selection (McShea 2000, Davis et al 2014). For instance, reproductive phenology may influence the relative value of different vegetation characteristics for the individual; females raising offspring are often limited in mobility and may value vegetation structure with more cover to reduce predation risk (Benson and Chamberlain 2007, Pearson and Knapp 2016), whereas non‐reproductively active females may value vegetation with greater forage availability (Smereka et al 2020). Thus, the value of vegetation characteristics may vary based on phenology, resulting in different resource selection patterns and tradeoffs (Blomberg et al 2013, Gibson et al 2016).…”

Stepping stones to extirpation: Puma patch occupancy thresholds in an urban‐wildland matrix

“…The only landcover variable that positively impacted occupancy was the percentage of open habitat, such as grassland, pasture, or cultivated land. Puma habitat models consistently identify open, flat, or sparsely vegetated habitats as underused relative to availability, presumably because these cover types are incompatible with their stalk‐and‐pounce hunting style (Dickson & Beier, 2002; Logan & Irwin, 1985; Smereka et al, 2020). Our results largely support this generality, yet these same cover types and associated edges are preferred by black‐tailed deer ( Odocoileus hemionus columbianus ), the primary puma prey species in this region (Allen, 2014; Hopkins, 1989), as well as various synanthropic species (Bateman & Fleming, 2012).…”

Nearby night lighting, rather than sky glow, is associated with habitat selection by a top predator in human-dominated landscapes

“…Land cover and conditions within mountain lion territories are related to foraging opportunities and protection. Previous studies largely agree that mountain lions positively select steeper terrain, shrub and forest cover, and proximity to water, and avoid open habitats and all anthropogenic features like residential areas [16,18,19,27,35,38]. We included: (i) distance to the nearest major highway [39]; and (ii) distance to the nearest minor road [40] (whereas main roads are avoided by mountain lions, likely due to their high traffic flows, secondary roads may be positively selected because they allow movement at a low energetic cost [32,35,37] ).…”

“…Mountain lion habitat selection is very flexible, leading them to inhabit diverse areas, from high mountains to marshlands, from deserts to tropical forests [16][17][18]. Some investigators have suggested that mountain lions avoid residential development and human infrastructure, like roads [18][19][20]. However, like other large carnivores in North America and Europe [21,22], habitat restoration and conservation actions have facilitated mountain lion population persistence and even recoveries of their previously occupied range in increasingly human-dominated landscapes [15,23].…”