FW 403 (001) Fall 2024 Urban Wildlife Management

The idea of pest management has always been a topic in urban wildlife. Depending on opinion, every species known to man could be considered a nuisance animal. Canadian geese are no exception. From school yards, to neighborhood ponds, they are everywhere. Especially during the winter months in the southern United States, as that is their home range for the winter. Urban goose management is one of the biggest struggles in urban wildlife management, and the authors of this paper did their best to lay it out.

The authors laid out each individual idea of urban goose management in the paper. What the plan entails, how to carry out a successful execution of the plan, and the perceived results. They compared and contrasted several methods based on effectiveness, and legality. They also did a really good job of giving multiple different approaches to managing urban geese populations. If someone was in search of good ideas, this article would be a phenomenal place to start.

The biggest problem they laid out is the down right removal of the birds. Shooting geese in a school parking lot isn’t exactly legal, or the best idea. They laid that out really well. One thing that I have a problem with in the study is that they provide no statistical data to back up each method. Yes, they provide different methods, but there is no concrete evidence to compare and contrast with. The entire basis of science is having evidence to prove a hypothesis. The author’s intentions may not have been to make it scientific study, but there is no concrete evidence in writing that supports that claim. 

In the article there is a study included from a high school who had unsanitary conditions on their sports areas due to goose feces and feathers. They do a good job of explaining that the results of what they implemented were effective, but again no concrete evidence. This article really lacks, but it is definitely a good way to start thinking about management practices.

https://academic.oup.com/jipm/article/13/1/28/6883996

Coyotes and White-Tailed Deer are two of the most “conspicuous” wildlife species in urban areas. They have constantly been in a predator-prey relationship since their ranges overlapped. Coyotes typically predate on fawns and scavenge on carrion from adults. This study hypothesized that “both deer and coyote detections will increase with distance to urban center; and decrease with housing density, road density, and human visitation” (Magle et. al, 2014). The researchers had a suspicion that human disturbance will cause more impact to the coyotes directly. The white-tail deer require quality vegetation and have to be selective on habitat traits to survive. Coyotes can have ranges that lack all green space as long as there is adequate food supply being other animals. They also hypothesized that “coyote and deer detections will increase with proximity to water, habitat-patch area, and canopy cover” (Magle et. al, 2014).

Methods

Using camera traps, the researchers followed three, 50km transects going away from Chicago’s urban center. These transects cover many forms of civilization being urban, suburban, exurban, and forest. Each transect contained 10, 5km sections that contained at least 2 stations, but not more than 4 in locations that contained potential habitat. 4 times a year a camera was deployed at each station for 30 days. They applied coyote attracting lures to each location. Using GIS, they quantified landscape attributes that can be used to understand the animals’ presence around human disturbances.

Results

1055/4679 photos were of deer and coyotes. 93 cameras total were operating during majority of the study. 22/93 of the cameras were never triggered by deer or coyotes. Deer were positively correlated to canopy cover and negatively correlated to distance to water source. Seasonal colonization of deer were negatively affected by housing density, patch area, and photos of humans and dogs on cameras. Coyotes detection had a positive correlation to season and canopy cover and distance from urban center. Coyotes displayed a negative affect when humans and dogs were reported on cameras. The presence of deer had no affect on the coyotes as to favor or not favoring their appearance. Deer did have a correlation with coyote appearance and was negatively affected if a coyote had been around recently. Urban center distance to locations where animals were reported on camera had no significant relationship. Deer were most active around dawn and dusk but coyotes were more active around midnight and miday. Hypothesis were supported by their research that both species would select patches on basic requirements. Deer appeared to show a pattern that in a habitat limited area, such as urban landscapes, they do not perceive threats as cautiously as they would in a rural environment. They are more willing to take risk to forage in urban landscapes where predators have been than they would in rural areas.

1. S. B. Magle, L. S. Simoni, E. W. Lehrer, J. S. Brown, Urban predator–prey association: Coyote and deer distributions in the Chicago Metropolitan Area. Urban Ecosystems. 17, 875–891 (2014).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320714002791?ref=pdf_download&fr=RR-2&rr=8c11bf51087b236b

Human development has affected large carnivores for centuries. As human development expands these predators have been extirpated from their once vast ranges. Cougars were once found throughout North America but are now restricted almost exclusively to the western part of the continent. Despite this, large predators have shown the ability to persist through a human-dominated landscape with many anthropogenic features. This study aimed to prove that cougars are capable of adjusting their behavior in order to survive and expand their population into these modified environments.

Over the last 20 years, Alberta, Canada has experienced gradual urbanization and population growth. Due to its rural nature and forested landscape it still supports a relatively stable cougar population in the west-central region. Researchers used telemetry collars on 42 cougars to track use of the landscape around anthropogenic features. These features included private lands, towns and industrial infrastructure from the forestry and natural gas industries. Individuals were split into two classes based on their home-range, Rural and Wilderness. Land cover maps with forest edges and continuous forest layers were generated for the landscape. Using GIS, roads, pipelines, seismic lines, and oil and gas well locations were included, buildings were added from satellite images. 

Exponential resource selection functions were used to pinpoint major landscape characteristics that influenced cougar selection. Through a 2-step approach, individual cougar responses were calculated separately and compared amongst themselves, to estimate functional response. Temporal changes were considered with runs of the model for night and day activity. Functional response was assessed through a plot of the top coefficients for each habitat type and the availability of it within each cougar’s home range. The study yielded variable results but some themes were consistent. Cougars selected most consistently for edge and avoided areas of high building density. Cougars were more likely to interact with anthropogenic features at night rather than during the day. Wilderness cougars avoided pipelines, seismic lines, and well-sites at a much higher rate than rural cougars, who may be used to them. Overall, these functional responses show that “cougars demonstrated reduced sensitivity in their selection of habitat near some anthropogenic features” in areas of high human development.

I think the classification of rural and wilderness cougars is a key highlight of this study. Animals that are more exposed to people will behave differently than more isolated species of the same species, so this is something they could not leave out. The anthropogenic features were well laid out and did a good job of describing the urban aspects of the landscape. I think agricultural infrastructure could’ve been focused on as well, especially in areas where cougars may kill livestock. The split of day and night also provides a deeper layer to the results though I am curious if they could have expanded further into exact periods such as dusk and dawn. The data analysis is well done and allowed the researchers to really justify their conclusions. 

Their discussion section does a nice job of relating their findings to those of other similar studies of cougars in other areas of the world. The study highlights that while cougars do avoid human development and activity, they may be able to adjust their selective behavior to coexist with it. The researchers suggest that ongoing conservation will only be supported if these selection thresholds are identified and kept in check. Humans must learn to live with large carnivores around them as their habitats experience increasing decline.

Knopff A.A, Knopff K.H, Boyce M.S, St. Clair C.C. 2014. Flexible habitat selection by cougars in response to anthropogenic development. Biological Conservation 178:136–145. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320714002791?ref=pdf_download&fr=RR-2&rr=8c11bf51087b236b 

Pollinators are some of the world’s most important species, as they provide ecological services needed for agriculture, plant growth, and seed transportation. In urban areas, more and more pollinators are facing difficulties finding plants for pollination, especially native pollinators. This is due to degraded habitat, insecticides/pesticides, urban infrastructure, and human caused pollution. Riparian edges in and around urban areas are facing extreme degradation, as polluted runoff flows into these areas, people plant non-native or invasive species in these areas, or people use herbicides there. These areas are especially important for pollinators, whether they be migratory or native. This is especially important to me, as I work with bees, and am interested in working in the entomology field.

In a research article, Pollinators and urban riparian vegetation: important contributors to urban diversity conservation, from 2022, researchers did an observational study in which they recorded data comparing riparian vegetation and bee and butterfly abundance and richness. This study took place in Chongqing, China, along the Qingshui stream and the Phoenix Stream, (QS and PS from here on out). The study took place over a year, with observations occurring during each season, 11 times total. Plants were noted and identified on-site, with pollinators being collected in nets and taken back for proper identification. Using the Shannon-Wiener Index, richness index, and the Pielou Index, the researchers analyzed the richness and abundance of bees and butterflies along the two streams, and compared that data with the type of plants where they were found.

They found that the richness and abundance of native plants was very similar along both streams, but that composition of plants was very different. Unsurprisingly, higher bee and butterfly abundance and richness was observed during the spring and summer months, with it falling off a bit in the fall and winter months.  They found that bee and butterfly richness was significantly correlated with an abundance of native flowering vegetation. They also found that the habitat heterogeneity was more complex for butterflies than for bees. A section of QS had been destroyed due to herbicide use halfway through the experiment, and they observed an immediate decline in bee and butterfly populations along this section of the stream.

This paper shows the importance of preserving riparian buffers and edges in urban areas, but also preserving the integrity of these areas. Pollinators are extremely important to urban areas, as well as rural, and one way we can continue to promote them is through planting more native species. I think one way we could do this is by simply planting more native plants along sidewalks to increase pollinator presence, (at least in Raleigh), or by planting native pollinator plants in our gardens.

Zhang, X., Zhang, L., Wang, Y. et al. Pollinators and urban riparian vegetation: important contributors to urban diversity conservation. Environ Sci Eur 34, 78 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-022-00661-9

In the paper, Configuration and location of small urban gardens affect colonization by monarch butterflies, researchers conducted an observational experiment in order to see how urban gardens affect monarch butterfly migration, and how citizens and naturalists can more efficiently assist in the migration process. The main focus of these gardens was placement of milkweed species, where at least one Asclepias species was planted, either common, butterfly, swamp, or a combination thereof. The experiment took place on the east coast in the cities of Lexington and  Richmond, Virginia, and Berea, Kentucky. The experiment took place in 2017 and 2018, both years between the months of April- September. This period was split into April-July and June-September so that June and July had more data than the other months, as this is the peak butterfly migration period through this area of the US.

The experiment included 22 pre-existing registered Monarch Waystations, which were monitored in agreement with the property and land owners, and 15 gardens spread out that each had adjusted factors. Of the pre-registered Monarch Waystations, these were treated all the same, and were given the label of “structured” or “unstructured”, with “structured” meaning that the milkweeds were planted in an orderly array, and “unstructured” meaning they were mixed with other grasses, forbes, nectar-bearing plants, and other flowers. The gardens were set up in 5.5 x 5.5 meter plots, with three different set treatments. The first treatment was the “perimeter milkweeds”, where the flowers were placed in a 1 meter wide perimeter around the garden, evenly spaced out, with the other types of nectaring and foliage plants in the middle of the plot. The second treatment was essentially the inverse of that, referred to as the “interior milkweeds”, where the milkweeds were planted on the interior of the plot, evenly spaced, with the other plants along the perimeter. The third treatment was labeled as “mixed”, where the milkweeds were randomly dispersed around the garden with the other plants. Water, soil, nutrients, and weeds were all control factors, though predators were unable to be. The plants were each checked for pupae and larval spottings then left to continue pupating. 

How the gardens were set up.

At the end of the experiment, the scientists compiled the number of monarch pupas, eggs, and larva along with the type of treatment they were found on, and compared the data. They found that monarch butterflies were 2.5-4 times more likely to be drawn to the milkweed plants that were around the perimeter of the gardens rather than on the inside or mixed. They were also more drawn to the milkweeds that were separated from other plants, or that were not touching other plants. At the Monarch Waystations, the researchers found that the Monarchs were 5 x more likely to use a structured Waystation than an unstructured one. 

I think this paper is really interesting, as it applies directly to where I live, and also my area of interest. Monarch butterflies are an endangered species that have recently seen an 80% decrease in population in the last 25 years. This means that we must make efforts to attempt to support them on their migrational journey. Urban areas affect these populations of butterflies via light pollution, sometimes drawing them towards those urban areas, or causing them to migrate at night. If more Monarchs find themselves in urban areas, then urban areas need to be able to have plans and projects in place to assist this migration, even if it is simply through encouraging citizens to create and cultivate more Monarch-focused gardens that are planted efficiently. 

Baker, Adam M., and Daniel A. Potter. “Configuration and location of small urban gardens affect colonization by monarch butterflies.” Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 7 (2019): 474.