Search

Urbanization often results in biodiversity loss and homogenization, but this result is not universal and there is substantial variability in the spatiotemporal effects of urbanization on wildlife across cities and taxa. Areas with lower population and housing density are some of the fastest-growing regions in the western United States; thus, more research in these areas could offer additional insight into the effects of urbanization on wildlife and the potential importance of wild spaces in maintaining a diverse biotic community surrounding developed areas. To address this need, we conducted a study to identify the effects of urbanization (i.e. housing density) on mammals along a housing density gradient from wilderness to suburbia in Missoula, Montana. We deployed 178 motion-activated trail cameras at random sites within urban/suburban, exurban, rural, and wild regions from May to October 2019 to 2020. We identified all mammals >150 g, then evaluated how housing density influenced: (i) occupancy and (ii) species richness using multispecies occupancy models; (iii) relative abundance using Poisson models; and (iv) diel activity patterns using kernel density estimation and logistic regression. Urbanization was the strongest driver of mammal distribution, with a linear decline in mammal species richness as housing density increased. Urbanization also had strong effects on occupancy and detection rates, with larger-bodied mammals generally having stronger negative associations. Overall, mammal relative abundance was highest in suburban regions; however, this effect was largely driven by White-tailed Deer. Natural environmental factors explained most changes in mammal nocturnal activity; however, urbanization strongly affected nocturnality in some species, with Black Bear and White-tailed Deer becoming more nocturnal and Red Fox and Northern Raccoon becoming less nocturnal as housing density increased. While our study confirms that some mammals can live and thrive in developed areas, it emphasizes the importance of maintaining wild areas for those species that cannot. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Small mammals are important to the functioning of ecological communities with changes to their abundances used to track impacts of environmental change. While capture–recapture estimates of absolute abundance are preferred, indices of abundance continue to be used in cases of limited sampling, rare species with little data, or unmarked individuals. Improvement to indices can be achieved by calibrating them to absolute abundance but their reliability across years, sites, or species is unclear. To evaluate this, we used the US National Ecological Observatory Network capture–recapture data for 63 small mammal species over 46 sites from 2013 to 2019. We generated 17,155 absolute abundance estimates using capture–recapture analyses and compared these to two standard abundance indices, and three types of calibrated indices. We found that neither raw abundance indices nor index calibrations were reliable approximations of absolute abundance, with raw indices less correlated with absolute abundance than index calibrations (raw indices overall R 2 < 0.5, index calibration overall R 2 > 0.6). Performance of indices and index calibrations varied by species, with those having higher and less variable capture probabilities performing best. We conclude that indices and index calibration methods should be used with caution with a count of individuals being the best index to use, especially if it can be calibrated with capture probability. None of the indices we tested should be used for comparing different species due to high variation in capture probabilities. Hierarchical models that allow for sharing of capture probabilities over species or plots (i.e. joint-likelihood models) may offer a better solution to mitigate the cost and effort of large-scale small mammal sampling while still providing robust estimates of abundance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We used fecal analyses to document the diet of ocelots (Leopardus pardalis) and puma (Puma concolor) at 2 sites in central Panama. We detected puma on Barro Colorado Island (BCI) nearly every month during the study but never found evidence of jaguars (Panthera onca) at either site. Both ocelots and puma fed predominantly on mammalian prey, but consumed a diversity of species. Collared peccaries (Pecari tajacu) and Central American red brocket (Mazama temama) were the most important food items for puma, whereas Central American agoutis (Dasyprocta punctata) and sloths (Choloepus hoffmanni and Bradypus variegatus) were the most important for ocelots. Considerable overlap in diet was found between populations and species, but the diet of puma on BCI was significantly different from the 2 ocelot populations in containing more large prey, suggesting that dietary differences between these predator species are chiefly related to their relative body size. Comparing across larger scales, both populations of ocelots in our study are larger prey than elsewhere in their range, suggesting that their fundamental niche includes more medium-sized prey than their realized niche in other sites. Puma on BCI are proportionally more peccaries and deer than in most other populations. These unusual diets in the wake of a recent decline or local extinction of jaguars are consistent with a prey shift in response to competitive release. Key words: Barro Colorado Island, Carnivora, competitive release, diet, felid, predation