Why are Utah Prairie Dogs Vigilant?

Manno, Theodore G.

doi:10.1644/06-mamm-a-230r.1

Cited by 12 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On average, prairie dogs in this system spent 18% of their time exhibiting vigilance behaviour. We counted all instances in which an animal's head was raised and scanning for disturbances as vigilance behaviour (as in Vosburgh & Irby, 1998;Manno, 2007;Pauli & Buskirk, 2007), and as such may have overestimated the amount of vigilance compared to some previous researchers, who excluded scanning when prairie dogs were also masticating (e.g., Hoogland, 1979Hoogland, , 1995Loughry, 1993;Kildaw, 1995). Nonetheless, the rate of vigilance we recorded is fairly low compared to previous values from the literature.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 76%

“…When a focal animal was lost from view or submerged into a burrow during a focal sample, that 2 min sample was terminated, and the next sample was initiated as normal. Behavioural categories included: foraging (prairie dog on all fours, chewing food), vigilance or alert behaviour (prairie dog had head raised, scanning for disturbances, which included both 'posting', or scanning on two legs, and quadrupedal scanning), resting, digging, amicable social behaviour (which included grooming, playing, 'kissing', and anal sniffing), and agonistic social behaviour (which included fighting, territorial disputes, fleeing from other prairie dogs, and interment in a burrow, categories modified from Hoogland, 1995;Vosburgh & Irby, 1998;Foster-McDonald et al, 2006;Manno, 2007;Pauli & Buskirk, 2007). Prairie dogs were typically observed from across roads, and always at a distance at which behaviours were unaffected by study personnel, which could be determined readily (Magle et al, 2005).…”

Section: Prairie Dog Behavioural Observationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of urbanization on the behaviour of a keystone species

Magle¹,

Angeloni²

2011

Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Habitat fragmentation and urbanization not only cause extirpation of species, but also alter the behaviour of species in human modified areas. We evaluated behavioural characteristics of the black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus), a keystone species, in the urban landscape of Denver, CO, USA. Specifically, we investigated the proportion of vigilance, foraging, and social behaviour within a system of urban colonies that varied in area, degree of connectivity, and time since isolation. Overall, rates of vigilance were lower than are typically reported for black-tailed prairie dogs in grassland habitats. Colonies that were more isolated exhibited higher levels of vigilance, but colonies isolated for a longer period of time exhibited reduced vigilance. Thus, while urban stimuli may increase alertness in the most isolated colonies, we suggest that black-tailed prairie dogs might eventually adjust to these stimuli and relax their vigilance responses. Because behaviour varies based on age of fragments, we provide evidence that black-tailed prairie dog populations are responding to urbanization through behavioural changes that may be adaptive. The ability to understand how landscape-level factors influence black-tailed prairie dog behaviour provides important information about the response of keystone species to urban settings and can aid conservation and management efforts in fragmented systems.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 76%

Section: Prairie Dog Behavioural Observationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of urbanization on the behaviour of a keystone species

Magle¹,

Angeloni²

2011

Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, Arctic ground squirrels ( Spermophilus parryi ) have ‘floater’ males that travel in between the territories of dominants (Carl 1971) and some male yellow‐bellied marmots ( Marmota flaviventris ) are peripheral or isolate (Armitage 1974). Sexually immature males that are 1–2 yr old live in the territory of an older, dominant male in black‐tailed, Gunnison’s and Utah prairie dog colonies ( C. ludovicianus , Cynomys gunnisoni , Cynomys parvidens ) (Hoogland 1995; Manno 2007).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why are Male Columbian Ground Squirrels Territorial?

Manno

Dobson

2008

Ethology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Male territorial defence is a component of many vertebrate mating systems and is often regarded as a tactic for acquiring mates. Traditionally considered within the context of overt site‐specific defence, territoriality actually may have several components which encompass a variety of behavioural tactics (e.g. post‐copulatory mate‐guarding, defence of resources that females need, defence of area around females) that underlie a mating system. The purpose of our study was to evaluate such influences on the territorial behaviour of male Columbian ground squirrels in southwestern Alberta, Canada. Males were dominant and territorial if they defended a minimum convex polygon activity range by chasing other males more within the activity range than they were chased. Subordinate males had no territory and were chased throughout their ranges, but they competed for mates by increasing chases in their activity range when nearby females were oestrous. Dominant males exhibited conditional breeding tactics, tending to chase other dominant males from their territory when nearby females were oestrous, but travelling outside their activity ranges to chase subordinate males when females were not oestrous. Although females mated first with a dominant male on whose territory they resided (and in order from oldest to youngest if several territories overlapped), mating pairs were not exclusive, as females usually mated with additional males. Males also guarded females after copulation and defended females directly just before oestrus, rather than defending territory per se during those times. Thus, males possess a repertoire of behaviours that complement site‐specific territoriality, and territory ownership serves to facilitate a first mating with females that live on the territory.

show abstract

“…A maximum of 10 individuals (Utah Prairie Dog Recovery Team ) comprised each relocated group to avoid overcrowding in the artificial burrows and nest‐boxes. Groups typically contained 1 adult male, 2 or 3 adult females, and the remaining individuals were juveniles of both sexes to mimic the social structure described by Manno (). We assigned each coterie group to a burrow system within a relocation site.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Prairie dog coteries typically contain several closely related females, young non‐reproductive male offspring, and a single reproductive male. Individuals display increased anti‐predator vigilance, performed by scanning the immediate vicinity and warning other individuals, when fewer family members are present (Manno ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of coterie relocation on release-site retention and behavior of Utah prairie dogs

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Utah prairie dogs (Cynomys parvidens) have been extirpated in 90% of their historical range. Because most populations in Utah occur on private land, this threatened species is continually in conflict with landowners. The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources has been relocating Utah prairie dogs from private to public land since the 1970s, but relocations have been largely unsuccessful because of high mortality. Utah prairie dogs are highly social animals, but they are usually relocated without regard to their family group, or coterie. We predicted that relocating Utah prairie dogs with other coterie members would improve their survival rate and result in post‐release behavior similar to non‐relocated animals. We chose to investigate release‐site retention as a measure of relocation success because we were unable to separate emigration from mortality. We relocated Utah prairie dogs from the Cedar Ridge Golf Course in Cedar City, Utah to 2 prepared sites near Bryce Canyon National Park, Utah in 2010 and 2011. We relocated prairie dogs as groups of coterie members or in a control group of individuals trapped with no regard to relatedness. Two months after relocation, we set traps to recapture animals to estimate release‐site retention. We quantified activity budgets prior to and following relocation on study animals as well as from a previously established relocated prairie dog population on public land. The best predictor of release‐site retention and recapture rate was the animal's weight at initial capture. Larger animals had high retention but low recapture rates. We found no differences in site retention or behavior between prairie dogs relocated with coteries and controls. Relocated individuals behaved more like prairie dogs on public lands than animals in the urban source population, but behaviors were still different from prairie dogs on public lands. We recommend relocating large, adult Utah prairie dogs rather than juveniles or relocating juveniles later in the trapping season to increase relocation success rate. We also suggest that future research should focus on developing additional release methods to reduce dispersal and increase site retention. © 2014 The Wildlife Society.

show abstract

Why are Utah Prairie Dogs Vigilant?

Cited by 12 publications

References 38 publications

Effects of urbanization on the behaviour of a keystone species

Effects of urbanization on the behaviour of a keystone species

Why are Male Columbian Ground Squirrels Territorial?

The effect of coterie relocation on release-site retention and behavior of Utah prairie dogs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About