understanding the relationships between habitat suitability
Transcription
understanding the relationships between habitat suitability
BOBCATS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE: UNDERSTANDING THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN HABITAT SUITABILITY, CONNECTIVITY AND ABUNDANCE IN A CHANGING LANDSCAPE By GREGORY CABELL REED B.S., Montana State University 2009 Thesis Submitted to the University of New Hampshire in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science In Natural Resources: Wildlife Ecology December 2013 This thesis has been examined and approved. ________________________________________________ Thesis Director, Dr. John A. Litvaitis, Professor of Wildlife Ecology, University of New Hampshire ________________________________________________ Dr. Rebecca J. Rowe, Assistant Professor, University of New Hampshire ________________________________________________ Catherine Callahan, GIS Specialist, New Hampshire Fish and Game Department _______________________________ Date ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Funding for this project was provided through NH Wildlife Restoration program grant W-97-R-1 in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................. iii LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. vi LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... viii ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... xi CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................1 Objectives ................................................................................................................5 CHAPTER 2 – MODELING BOBCAT HABITAT SUITABILITY ACROSS NEW HAMPSHIRE: A HIERARCHICAL APPROACH ............................................................6 Methods..................................................................................................................10 Study Areas ................................................................................................10 Factors Affecting Statewide Distribution ..................................................11 Habitat Features that Influence Selection within Home Range .................14 Modeling Habitat Selection .......................................................................15 Environmental Variables ...............................................................15 Habitat Suitability Modeling..........................................................16 Model Extrapolation and Validation ..............................................18 Results ....................................................................................................................20 Factors Affecting Statewide Distribution ..................................................20 Habitat Features that Influence Selection within Home Range .................23 Habitat Suitability Maps ............................................................................25 Discussion ..............................................................................................................28 Incidental Sightings to Explore Distribution .............................................28 Fine-Scale Habitat Selection ......................................................................31 Implications of Multi-Scale Habitat Selection ...........................................33 CHAPTER 3 – MODELING CONNECTIVITY FOR CARNIVORES IN A DEVELOPED LANDSCAPE: WHAT IS THE BEST APPROACH? .............................36 Modeling Connectivity ..............................................................................37 Evaluating Connectivity Models................................................................39 Focal Species in Connectivity Models .......................................................41 Objectives ..................................................................................................42 Methods..................................................................................................................42 iv Study Areas ................................................................................................42 Resistance Layers.......................................................................................43 Expert-Opinion ..............................................................................45 Resource Selection Probability Functions .....................................47 Connectivity Modeling and Assessment ....................................................47 Circuit Theory ................................................................................47 Brownian Bridge Movement Models.............................................49 Extrapolation of Connectivity Models .......................................................51 Bobcats as Surrogates ................................................................................52 Results ....................................................................................................................54 Resistance Layers.......................................................................................54 Connectivity Modeling and Assessment ....................................................56 Circuit Theory ................................................................................56 Brownian Bridge Movement Models.............................................57 Extrapolation of Connectivity Models .......................................................57 Bobcats as Surrogates ................................................................................61 Discussion ..............................................................................................................64 Assessment of Connectivity Methods ........................................................64 Statewide Connectivity Models .................................................................68 Surrogate Species .......................................................................................70 Conclusions ................................................................................................71 CHAPTER 4 – POPULATION ESTIMATE FOR BOBCATS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE BASED ON HOME-RANGE SIZE AND COMPOSITION ............................................74 Methods......................................................................................................77 Home-range Estimation .................................................................77 Population Estimation ....................................................................77 Results ........................................................................................................79 Home-range Estimation .................................................................79 Population Estimate .......................................................................81 Discussion ..................................................................................................83 Potential Population Estimate ........................................................84 Implications of Home-range Size ..................................................86 Comparison to New England States ..............................................88 LITERATURE CITED ......................................................................................................92 APPENDICIES ................................................................................................................107 APPENDIX A ..................................................................................................................108 APPENDIX B ..................................................................................................................110 APPENDIX C ..................................................................................................................111 APPENDIX D ..................................................................................................................113 APPENDIX E ..................................................................................................................114 v LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 2-1 Habitat variables, justification for inclusion, data source, and resolution for GIS layers used to model bobcat habitat selection at second and third order ...............17 2-2 Models for Second Order-Home Range used three variables, average monthly (Nov-March) maximum snow depth (Snow_Max), average monthly (Nov-March) mean snow depth (Snow_Mean), and elevation (Elevation). Sightings reported between 2007 and 2013 were used to model the relationship between probability of use and the habitat variables ..............................................................................21 2-3 Parameter estimates from the best third-order habitat suitability model. Models were made utilizing GPS-location data from 18 collared bobcats in New Hampshire from 2009-2011 ...................................................................................24 2-4 Rank correlations (Spearman) and expected vs. observed regression for the best RSPF model. The model was validated with k-fold cross-validation utilizing 5 folds........................................................................................................................25 3-1 Variables used to model probability of detection and occupancy at camera sites along Highway 101 from January-April 2013. Temporal variables measured differences in deployment order and duration, and were used to model differences in the probability of detection. Probability of occupancy was modeled using habitat and modeling variables. Habitat variables were measured in the field during camera deployment. Modeling variables utilized connectivity scores, with low scores indicating poor connectivity and high scores indicating good connectivity ............................................................................................................54 3-2 Spearmen correlations between BBMM and circuit theory models for all bobcats and separate individuals, and all roads and major roads. Significant correlations are highlighted in bold, and indicate agreement between BBMM models and circuit theory models..............................................................................................58 3-3 Gray fox occupancy model set. Model selection was based on AIC weight (AICw). The number of parameters (K), Akaike’s Information Criterion adjusted for small sample sizes (AICc), and the difference in AICc score (∆AICc) are also reported. Ψ = the probability of occupancy, p = detection probability .................62 3-4 Fisher occupancy model set. Model selection was based on AIC weight (AICw). The number of parameters (K), Akaike’s Information Criterion adjusted for small sample sizes (AICc), and the difference in AICc score (∆AICc) are also reported. Ψ = the probability of occupancy, p = detection probability .....................................63 vi TABLE PAGE 3-5 Coyote occupancy model set. Model selection was based on AIC weight (AICw). The number of parameters (K), Akaike’s Information Criterion adjusted for small sample sizes (AICc), and the difference in AICc score (∆AICc) are also reported. Ψ = the probability of occupancy, p = detection probability .....................................63 3-6 Raccoon occupancy model set. Model selection was based on AIC weight (AICw). The number of parameters (K), Akaike’s Information Criterion adjusted for small sample sizes (AICc), and the difference in AICc score (∆AICc) are also reported. Ψ = the probability of occupancy, p = detection probability .....................................64 4-1 Sex, age, weight, study area, number of usable locations, home range (95% utilization distribution) and core area (50% utilization distribution) of bobcats in the study. Bobcats from the southwest study area were captured and collared in 2009-10, and bobcats in the southeast were captured and collared in 2011 ..........81 4-2 Population estimates of bobcats in New Hampshire generated using home range requirements and habitat suitability. Total population estimate is the sum of resident adults and kittens. A survival rate from May/June to October/November of 0.85 (Knick 1990) was assumed for adults, and a survival rate of 0.36 (Rolley 1985) for kittens .....................................................................................................82 4-3 The current status of bobcat populations in the six New England states. Table was adapted from Broman (2012) and Roberts and Crimmins (2010). Information was obtained from state wildlife agencies. Whether there is currently a harvest, monitoring techniques, estimates of potential abundance, suitable habitat area (km2), and overall population status are included. Monitoring methods included harvest analysis (HA), incidental harvest (IH), monitored individuals (MI), public sightings (PS), and vehicle collisions ....................................................................90 vii LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 2-1 Geographic range of bobcats (from Hansen 2007; top). Study areas where bobcats were monitored in southwest (2009-2010) and southeast New Hampshire (20102011; bottom left) along with names of geographic regions in New Hampshire. Road density in the state generated with a 1-km2 moving window (bottom middle). Mean monthly snow depth (SNODAS, Callahan) from November-March 2007-2012 (bottom right) .......................................................................................12 2-2 Probability of habitat use given the average monthly mean snow depth between November-March 2007-2012.................................................................................21 2-3 Bobcat habitat suitability in New Hampshire modeled at second-order selection using incidental observations collected from 2007-2013 and mean monthly snow depth measured from 2007-2012 ...........................................................................22 2-4 Parameters estimated for each of the habitat variables used to fit the best model of third-order habitat selection. Estimates are bounded by two standard deviations. Dummy variables were used for all land cover and aspect variables, and therefore comparison between these categorical variables and the numerical variables (road density, forest edge, slope, ruggedness) should not be used to determine the relative effect of each variable ...............................................................................24 2-5 Graph of bin number vs. area-adjusted frequency of withheld locations from kfold cross-validation...............................................................................................25 2-6 Bobcat habitat suitability in New Hampshire modeled at third-order selection using GPS-telemetry data collected from 2009-2011 from 18 collared bobcats ...26 2-7 Bobcat habitat-suitability in New Hampshire based on two spatial scales. Incidental observations were used to model second-order selection. GPStelemetry locations from 18 collared bobcats were used to model third-order habitat selection. These analyses were then combined to generate the scaleintegrated map of habitat selection. Major freeways are shown, and the White Mountain region of northern New Hampshire is labeled for reference .................27 3-1 GPS locations from marked bobcats in the southwest and southeastern portions of New Hampshire. Bobcats were monitored from 2009-2011. Major highways and names of regions are shown for reference .............................................................44 viii FIGURE PAGE 3-2 Resistance scores for riparian areas are a function of distance from stream (top left). Resistance scores for slopes are resistance a function of percent slope (top right). Resistance scores for roads are a function of traffic volume, and separated into three classes-low, medium, and high (lower left). Land cover variables were assigned resistance scores from 1-10 with 1 being lowest resistance and 10 being the highest (lower right) Figures were recreated from NH Audubon and NHFG (2010) .....................................................................................................................46 3-3 Comparison of circuit theory and least cost pathways. (A) Cost surface layer used for modeling. The white patches in the lower left and upper right corners are the source patch patches. Resistance is shown using a gray scale. Areas with low resistance are light grey, areas of high resistance are dark grey, and black areas are barriers to movement. (B) Least cost modeled corridor is shown in white. (C) Output from circuit theory. Areas of blue are have a lower probability of utilization, while areas of red have a higher chance. Areas in yellow show extremely high utilization points and thus identify ‘pinch-points’ of movement. These areas are constrictions in the landscape where organisms are forced to travel, highlighting the area of highest conservation value. A real world example of such points may be an undeveloped underpass on a major freeway system (from McRae et al. 2008) .......................................................................................48 3-4 Modeling scheme used to test connectivity predictions for bobcats. RSF generated using all location except from Bobcat #47, with his locations overlaid. This served as the ‘conductivity’ layer (top left). Sampling protocol adopted from Anderson et al. (2012) to map connectivity in bobcat home range with minimal source/ground bias (top right). Output from circuit theory using top as source/bottom as ground, bottom as source/top as ground, left as source/right as ground, and right as source/left as ground (middle panels – L to R). Cumulative circuit theory map with actual path of bobcat #47 (bottom left). Actual path overlaid with 100 random paths, rotated and shifted (bottom right) ..................................................50 3-5 Resistance models used for mapping bobcat connectivity. The resource selection probability function (RSPF) model was generated using GPS-telemetry data from collared bobcats (right). The expert opinion model was generated independently by agency biologists (NHFG and NH Audubon 2010) ..........................................55 3-6 Plot depicting the difference between actual and random path mean scores for resource selection probability function and expert opinion connectivity models. The connectivity score for the actual path was standardized to 0 for each individual bobcat. The difference between the mean connectivity score of random paths and actual paths was then plotted. If connectivity was successfully predicted, the mean score of the random paths will be less (below zero) than the actual path ..............................................................................................................56 ix FIGURE PAGE 3-7 Connectivity models for New Hampshire generated using RSPF habitat suitability models and Program Circuitscape (left). Areas with highest ‘conductance’ or movement are in yellow and lowest are in dark blue. Connectivity scores for major roads in New Hampshire (right) ..................................................................59 3-8 Connectivity models for New Hampshire generated using expert-opinion resistance models and Program Circuitscape (left). Areas with highest ‘conductance’ or movement are in yellow, and lowest are in dark blue. Connectivity scores for major roads in New Hampshire (right) ............................60 4-1 Habitat suitability map generated from incidental observations and marked bobcats. Pixels in the map have been re-scaled to the size of the average marked females home range (23.8 km2) and habitat suitability scores (range 0-1) of the aggregated cells were averaged (left). Home-ranged size cells were classified as either occupied (≥0.5) or unoccupied (<0.5) based on average habitat suitability scores. Occupied cells were summed to obtain an estimate of resident female bobcat territories ....................................................................................................82 x ABSTRACT BOBCATS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE: UNDERSTANDING THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN HABITAT SUITABILITY, CONNECTIVITY AND ABUNDANCE IN A CHANGING LANDSCAPE By Gregory C. Reed University of New Hampshire, September 2013 I examined bobcat habitat suitability in New Hampshire at the landscape and local-scale using incidental sightings and telemetry locations, respectively. By modeling habitat selection at two scales I was able to make inferences about bobcat distribution, while still getting detailed information about home range and habitat requirements. Bobcats appeared to be limited by greater snow depths at large scales, and human development at finer scales. Because bobcats may be limited by development, mainly roads, I modeled connectivity using empirical and expert-opinion based methods. Empirical methods performed better than expert-opinion methods when assessed at the home-range scale. When models were extrapolated statewide, major differences were apparent and this could be assessed using genetic methods. Habitat suitability and home range requirements were used to estimate a potential resident carrying capacity and associated reproduction for bobcats at the birth pulse (n=2237) and six months later (n=1386). xi xii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Habitat fragmentation and loss are worldwide concerns (e. g., Noss 1987, Theobald et al. 2011) because isolation of populations of plants and animals makes them susceptible to stochastic extinctions (e. g., Andren 1994, Keller and Waller 2002). These effects may be most severe among large carnivores that have extensive home ranges, exist at low densities, and have low reproductive rates (Crooks 2002, Singleton et al. 2002). Increasing habitat connectivity, so that individuals may move between separated patches of suitable habitat, may mitigate these effects (Taylor et al. 1993, Tischendorf and Fahrig 2000). There are two leading solutions to the problem of conserving connectivity: set aside large tracts of suitable land for conservation, or maintain corridors connecting protected land or highly suitable habitat. Most current efforts to increase or maintain connectivity focus on corridor design. Corridors have become a widely cited approach for assuring connectivity in humanaltered landscapes (e. g., Beier and Noss 1998, Hilty and Merenlender 2004, GilbertNorton et al. 2010). Essentially, a corridor is a linear strip of land that is surrounded by lower quality habitat (the matrix) to facilitate movement between suitable patches of habitat to another, thus enhancing population viability (Beier and Noss 1998). However, 1 despite the widespread endorsement of corridors as a conservation tool, limited evidence exists of their success (e.g., Haddad et al. 2003). Much of the criticism of corridors has focused on three arguments: i.) ecological disadvantages of corridors outweigh the benefits; ii.) the amount of money required to design, implement, and protect corridors; and iii.) lack of empirical evidence of their success (Simberloff and Cox 1987, Hobbs 1992, Simberloff et al. 1992, Bennett 1999). Among the disadvantages of corridors, Simberloff and Cox (1987) suggested that corridors can act as transmission zones for diseases, provide pathways for invasive species, and subject animals to increased risks of edge effects. Given these costs it has been argued that without demonstrated success of corridors, monies could be better spent on enhancing existing habitats. Increasingly, benefits of corridors have been observed, including: areas for dispersal (Beier 1995), assuring gene flow (Keller and Waller 2002), re-colonization of uninhabited habitat patches (Hanski and Gilpin 1991), paths for migration (Berger 2004), movement paths for climate change induced displacement (Heller and Zavaleta 2009), and avoidance of direct mortality from roads (Clevenger and Waltho 2000). Empirical evidence on the value of corridors has been shown within experimental mesocosms and field studies (Haddad and Baum 1999, Haddad and Tewksbury 2005, Levey et al. 2005, Damschen et al. 2006). Additionally, Gilbert-Norton et al. (2010) used a meta-analysis of 78 studies, and determined that corridors increased movement by 50%. Despite the focus on corridors, this approach to increasing connectivity may not be a panacea for all organisms, especially those that do not fit within a core patch/ matrix 2 framework. Many species exist across landscapes because of generalist tendencies, with habitat preferences and selection being displayed across a gradient. These species are still susceptible to barriers and isolation, and thus connectivity must be considered, but modeling corridors through the landscape may not be ideal. Focal species, particularly large carnivores, are often used to plan for connectivity (Beier 1993, Noss and Daly 2006, Servheen et al. 2001, Singelton et al. 2002), but caution is warranted given diverse habitat requirements and movement capabilities of animals that should benefit from corridors (Beier et al. 2008, Chetkiewicz and Boyce 2009). However, given the time, money, and data requirements needed to design empirically defensible connectivity schemes, we may not be able to abandon the use of focal species (Haddad and Tewksbury 2006, Cushman et al. 2010a). Bobcats may be an appropriate animal to evaluate the focal species approach because they are a wide-ranging carnivore (Beier 1993, Cushman et al. 2006, Servheen et al. 2001, Singleton et al. 2002) and rely on specific habitat features (Litvaitis 1986, Broman 2012), yet are considered a generalist species (Anderson and Lovallo 2003) that are adapted to many different biomes across their geographic range. In New England, they select early-successional forests, scrub-shrub, and wetlands, and avoid agricultural lands, developments, and high road densities (Litvaitis 2001, Litvaitis et al. 2006, Litvaitis and Tash 2008, Donovan et al. 2011, Broman 2012). Despite their sensitivity to development and roads (Crooks 2002, Riley 2006), bobcats can adapt to living in fragmented environments (Tigas et al. 2002). Therefore, they should show some behavioral response to roads and development resulting in obvious selection of pathways that can be used to map connectivity. 3 Before understanding and conserving connectivity for a species it is imperative to understand its distribution and habitat preferences. This information can be attained via sightings, identifying sign (tracks, scat, etc.), telemetry or GPS collars, and trapping. While this information can provide the researcher or manager with knowledge of where an organism has been; to understand which resources it is selecting for, a comparison must be made between what is being used and what is being unused or avoided. Currently, this is most often done with resource selection (probability) functions (RSF or RSPF; Manly et al. 2002, Boyce et al. 2002, Johnson et al. 2004, Johnson et al. 2006), which use the logistic model to compare sites of ‘used’ or ‘unused’, or ‘used’ or ‘available’ to determine which resources an animal utilizes compared to what is available on the landscape. This resource use informs how the landscape affects the animals’ processes and movements, and to do what degree we can facilitate conservation of those resources. Bobcats in New Hampshire have experienced dramatic fluctuations in abundance since European settlement (Litvaitis et al. 2006) due to anthropogenic land alterations (Litvaitis 1993, Litvaitis 2001). Harvest records, paired with knowledge of land use, show a dramatic increase in bobcat numbers through the mid-20th century followed by an abrupt decline in the 1970s (Litvaitis et al. 2006), which led to a closure on harvest in 1988. Since that time, bobcat abundance seems to be increasing based on incidental captures and sightings (Litvaitis et al. 2006, Roberts and Crimmins 2010, Broman 2012), yet more formal and detailed information on current habitat selection and potential connectivity is lacking. 4 OBJECTIVES The goals of this research are: (1) to create a multi-scale habitat-suitability model for bobcats in New Hampshire using incidental sightings and telemetry locations, (2) compare predictive connectivity models designed with circuit theory using two types of resistance layers; expert opinion and RSFs, (3) validate corridor modeling techniques and use of focal species with field data, and (4) estimate the potential carrying capacity of the state given bobcat habitat and home range requirements 5 CHAPTER II MODELING BOBCAT HABITAT SUITABILITY ACROSS NEW HAMPSHIRE: A HIERARCHICAL APPROACH Where an organism is found in space and time is a function of its life-history strategies (Southwood 1977), and by studying an animal’s habitat selection we can gain insight into the ecological processes that influence its life. These habitat choices are made hierarchically (Johnson 1980, Weins 1987, Orains and Wittenberg 1991). Johnson (1980) described four orders of habitat selection, all of which must allow an animal to meet its most basic life-history requirements. First-order selection confers the animal’s physical or geographic range; second-order selection is the choosing of a home range within that geographic range; third-order is the selection of various habitat components within the given home range; finally, fourth-order is the procurement of food or shelter from that habitat component (Johnson 1980). Because of the intrinsic linkages across spatial scales; it is important to study multiple orders of selection when studying the habitat suitability of an animal (Bergin 1992, Luck 2002, Johnson et al. 2004, DeCesare et al. 2012). Bobcats (Lynx rufus) are the most widespread and abundant felid in North America due to their ability to adapt to a wide variety of habitats (Anderson and Lovallo 2003). They inhabit every state in the continental United States except Delaware, and have a range that spans from central Mexico to Florida in the south and from British Columbia to Nova Scotia in the north (Sunquist and Sunquist 2002). In southern regions, 6 they are limited by competitive interactions with other felid species (Sanchez-Cordero 2008), and to the north, by limited adaptations to low temperatures (Gustafson 1984, Mautz and Pekins 1989) and deeper snow (McCord 1974, Hamilton 1982). This avoidance of greater snow depths has generally separated them from lynx (Lynx canadensis; Buskirk 2000); however, there are instances of sympatric populations and hybridization has been reported (Schwartz et al. 2004, Homyack et al. 2008). Additionally, bobcats are limited by large-scale agriculture in the Midwest and intense urban development in portions of the eastern United States, at the landscape level. Absent these limiting factors, they select home ranges across a broad array of habitats in areas that contain broken and rugged topography, with a thick and dense understory. Additionally, unfragmented or natural habitat is needed to support core areas (Riley 2006). Within home ranges, habitat selection is largely influenced by high prey abundance (Litvaitis et al. 1986) and breeding opportunities (Lovallo and Anderson 2003). Females are more often associated with better quality habitats; specifically areas that support high prey densities, rocky and cliffy areas for escape cover and denning, and avoidance of roads (Bailey 1981, Hamilton 1982, Lovallo 1999). These areas generally have a dense understory that allows for stalking and hunting of prey. Males seek to maximize breeding opportunities, establishing home ranges that overlap 2-3 female home ranges (Lovallo and Anderson 2003). Within their home range, males may also choose areas where they can hunt successfully, such as near deer yards in winter (Fox 1990) or adjacent to agricultural areas in spring (Broman 2012). 7 New Hampshire is completely contained within the current geographic range of bobcats (Fig. 2-1). The southern boundary of lynx distribution also falls within New Hampshire, and the two distributions overlap in the northern portion of the state. Historically, the northern portion of the state was dominated by lynx, whereas bobcats were most common in the southwestern portion of the state (Seton 1925). After European colonization, land was cleared for agriculture and timber harvests allowing bobcats to expand their range northward into lynx habitat (Seton 1925, Litvaitis 1993). As farms were abandoned, there was an abundance of early-successional forests, and the prey densities associated with them, resulting in a large increase in the bobcat population (Litvaitis 2006). Bobcats were abundant across the state, with particularly large harvests in the north. However, forests are maturing into later successional classes (Morin and Woodall 2012), potentially changing habitat suitability for bobcats and lynx in the northern portion of the state. In addition to changes in land-use practices, New Hampshire is experiencing rapid growth, especially in the southeastern portion of the state and along major transportation corridors (Sunquist and Hewes 2010). Crooks (2002) found that bobcats are moderately sensitive to habitat fragmentation. Similarly, Riley (2006) noted that bobcats situated their home ranges in predominantly natural areas opposed to urban areas. Finally, Lee et al. (2012) found that highways and urban areas could genetically isolate populations of bobcats. Our ability to understand bobcat habitat selection in New Hampshire is further complicated by three things. First, the state of New Hampshire has dramatically different climates because of the range of elevations; from sea-level to the alpine tundra. This 8 range in elevation results in drastic differences in snow pack across the state (Fig. 2-1). Second, population density and the associated development, also vary across the state. In the south, the Merrimack Valley and Seacoast region have major urban areas, whereas Coos County, in the north, is predominantly rural and sparsely populated. Finally, we need an appropriate way to integrate models of habitat suitability that occur at different scales. Currently, most methods used to analyze wildlife habitat focus on broad scale distributions (i.e. species distribution modeling) or fine scale telemetry studies. Recently, however, efforts have been made to integrate analyses of selection at multiple scales into one cohesive map of habitat suitability (Johnson et al. 2004, DeCesare et al. 2012). Integrating maps of habitat suitability across scales requires appropriate data to fit those scales, a potential constraint when resources are limited. While GPS technology and analytical techniques are advancing, relevant information on habitat use and distribution can still be obtained from less technical approaches and can then be used to inform our knowledge of habitat selection at a broader scale. Use of incidental observations, hunter surveys, and citizen surveys to define habitat selection have been increasing among studies of carnivores (e.g., Cooper et al. 2012, Linde et al. 2010), and have been a vital part of tracking population and distribution of birds for many decades (e.g., breeding bird surveys). Although application of occurrence data presents challenges (e.g., inaccurate reports leading to errors) they can still be useful for relatively common species if a priori guidelines are followed (McKelvey et al. 2008). In New Hampshire, bobcats have experienced dramatic population declines (Litvaitis et al. 2006) precipitated by major changes in land use practices (Litvaitis 1993, 9 Litvaitis 2001). However, recent observations suggest bobcats are rebounding in abundance and expanding into previously sparsely populated areas (Litvaitis et al. 2006, Broman 2012), warranting an investigation into habitat use across scales. Objectives for this chapter were: i.) identify how environmental factors limit the distribution of bobcats in New Hampshire, ii.) identify local features that influence habitat selection within home ranges, and iii.) combine habitat suitability maps to generate one hierarchical model of habitat selection for the state that can be used in abundance estimates and connectivity modeling. METHODS Study Areas To understand bobcat habitat suitability in New Hampshire habitat analyses were conducted at two scales. Incidental sightings were solicited statewide for landscape scale analysis, while fine scale habitat selection was assessed using bobcats outfitted with GPS collars in two portions of the state (Fig. 2-1, see Chapter III for detailed description). New Hampshire has experienced many changes in land use throughout its history. After European settlement, the state was dominated by agriculture, with only 47% of the state forested in 1880 (Litvaitis 1993). Farm abandonment in the 18th and 19th century resulted in forest regeneration, with an abundance of early-successional forests in the mid-20th century. By 1960 87% of New Hampshire was forested (Sunquist and Hewes 2010), however those forests matured into later-successional, closed-canopy forests, resulting in dramatic effects on wildlife species (Litvaitis 1993, Litviatis 2001). While 10 forest stands continue to mature (Morin and Woodall 2012), overall forest cover has decreased to 82%. This decline is continuing and forest cover is expected to be 78.5% by 2030 due to rapid human development and increases in population (Sunquist and Hewes 2010). Development is most pronounced in the southeastern portion of the state and along transportation corridors (Sunquist and Hewes 2010) where road density is dramatically higher than in the northern portion of the state (Fig. 2-1). In addition to these anthropogenic effects on habitat, the state spans a range of climatic conditions resulting in different levels of environmental suitability for bobcats. New Hampshire is positioned at the northern extent of bobcat’s geographic range (Fig. 21). Elevation ranges from sea level, along the coast in the southeastern portion of that state, up to 1917 m. on the summit of Mt. Washington. These differences result in a large gradient of snow levels throughout the state, with areas in the White Mountains and northern portion of the state receiving significantly more snow than coastal areas, as well as the Connecticut and Merrimack River valleys (Fig. 2-1). Factors Affecting Statewide Distribution To investigate environmental factors influencing bobcat distribution throughout the state (second-order selection), I relied on bobcat locations that were opportunistically collected statewide since 2007 via reports to New Hampshire Fish and Games employees, and a project website (http://mlitvaitis.unh.edu/Research/BobcatWeb/bobcats.html). Broman (2012) used a subset of this data to model habitat selection at the third-order, but found the data to be biased when compared to telemetry based methods and thus 11 inappropriate for use at this scale. Therefore, these locations were used to model landscape level effects on bobcat habitat selection at second-order selection. Fig. 2-1. Geographic range of bobcats (from Hansen 2007; top). Study areas where bobcats were monitored in southwest (2009-2010) and southeast New Hampshire (20102011; bottom left) along with names of geographic regions in New Hampshire. Road density in the state generated with a 1-km2 moving window (bottom middle). Mean monthly snow depth (SNODAS; Callahan 2013) from November-March 2007-2012 (bottom right). 12 The accuracy of incidental observation is a cause for concern when attempting to model habitat use or geographic range of a species (e.g. McKelvey et al. 2008, Broman 2012). Species can either be misidentified or located imprecisely, compromising their use in habitat analysis. To address this, reported bobcat sightings were verified for accuracy either by a submitted picture or a detailed and accurate description. Reported sightings were then scored on a scale of 1-3. Sightings that received a score of 1 contained either an address verifiable on Google Earth or geographic coordinates. Sightings received a score of 2 if the description was less precise, but an estimate of location could still be made. Sightings with a score of 3 contained a very general location (i.e., the town sighted or location based on major landmarks). Only locations with a score of 1 or 2 and from January 2007- January 2013 were utilized for analysis. Additionally, location data solicited from the public are often spatially biased to developed areas (e.g. Snall et al. 2011). To address this, each sighting was buffered by the radius of the maximum home-range size of marked bobcats (9.6 km, see ResultsChapter IV). The maximum home-range was used to insure that all possible areas suitable for home ranges were sampled. Next, 10,000 random points were then generated throughout the state. Points contained within home range buffers were considered ‘used’, and ones that were not within the range were considered ‘unused’. This sampling scheme eliminates the clusters of incidental observations and ensures an even distribution of points across the study area. Resulting locations were used in Type I design, as described by Manly et al. (2002), in which used and available resources are sampled for the entire study area and individual animals are not identified. Given the coarse-scale habitat analysis, the screening of reports, the commonality of bobcats, and the sampling scheme 13 utilized, I believed using this approach is useful to describe statewide distribution of bobcats (second-order habitat selection). Habitat Features that Influence Selection within Home Ranges Bobcats were trapped and collared during the winters of 2008-09 and 2009-2010 in the southwestern and southeastern portions of the state, respectively (Fig. 2-1). Bobcats were fitted with either Siritrak drop-off collars (Internal Release, 220g, Siritrack Limited, Havelock North, New Zealand) or Lotek Wildcell collars (Wildlcell, 270g, Lotek Wireless, Newmarket, Ontario). All study animals were handled in accordance with the University of New Hampshire Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (Protocol #081201, Appendix A). Siritrack collars were retrieved after collar release, or the bobcat was re-captured if the release mechanism failed. Lotek collars sent locations via short message services (SMS) to a ground station located at the University of New Hampshire. Location error, habitat-induced GPS fix bias, and issues of independence are important considerations when using GPS technology (Frair et al. 2004, Lewis et al. 2007, Hebblewhite et al. 2007, Frair et al. 2010). Mallet (2013) measured location error for both types of collars in Maine and found that location error averaged 17.8 m during the leaf-on season, and 12.9 m during the leaf-off season. Both are within the highest resolution (30m) used for habitat layers. Additionally, locations were screened to ensure accurate data while still utilizing the greatest amount of data possible, following Lewis et al. (2007). All locations generated from 3D fixes were kept, and locations generated from 2D fixes were kept if the dilution of precision was less than or equal to 5.0 (Lewis et al 14 2007). Mallet (2013) found overall fix success was 87% and 95% for Lotek collars and 80% and 100% for Sirtrack track collars during leaf-on and leaf-off seasons, respectively. Hebblewhite et al. (2007) recommend weighting locations when GPS-bias is >10%. Given the different study areas and types of collars, GPS locations were weighted after model building to assess potentials effects of habitat-induced GPS fix bias. Linear logistic model coefficients for forest (closed conifer = 1.83; deciduous = 1.1; mixed forest = 0.27) and slope (percent slope = 0.03; percent slope * conifer = 0.046; percent slope * deciduous = 0.056; percent slope * mixed=0.014) obtained from Frair et al. (2004) were used to weight GPS locations. Temporal independence should also be considered. However, correlation in GPS studies has been found up to 30 days (Cushman 2010) and withholding this amount of data would have resulted in destructive sampling (Swihart and Slade 1985, Broman et al. 2012), so I elected to utilize all locations despite autocorrelation. Resulting locations served as ‘used’ points in model generation. An equal number of ‘available’ points were randomly generated within individual home ranges. These points were used to compare habitat selection at the third-order selection, where individuals are defined, following Design III by Manley et al. (2002). Modeling Habitat Selection Environmental Variables. Three GIS layers were used to model second-order habitat selection (Table 2-1). Due to the potential bias associated with using sightings data, only large scale topographic and climatic layers were used. Two snow depth layers were compiled from the NOAA National Weather Service's National Operational Hydrologic Remote Sensing Center’s (NOHRSC) Snow Data Assimilation System (SNODAS; NOHRSC 2004). These layers consisted of the average of the maximum 15 monthly snow depth and the average of the mean monthly snow depth from November through March in the years 2008-2012. Elevation was also included as a potential variable because bobcats show preference for lower elevations (Lovallo and Anderson 1996) and less productive forests may limit bobcats at higher ecosystems. Given the large number of potential explanatory variables available to describe habitat selection, exploratory data analysis was used to test an initial suite of different approaches (Appendix B); including the use of the National Land Cover Database 2006 (Fry et al. 2011), an Ecological Land Unit dataset (The Nature Conservancy 2008), and an unfragmented habitat layer (NHFG) combined with variables measuring proximity to important habitat features. From these analyses ten variables were selected for model development of third-order habitat selection (Table 2-1), including; National Land Cover Database 2006 (Fry et al. 2011), distance to forest edge, distance to stream, elevation, slope, aspect, a vector ruggedness measurement (VRM, Sappington et al. 2007), distance to road (km), road density (km/km2), and traffic density (unit/km2). Fitting of Habitat Suitability Model. Resource selection probability functions (RSPF), as defined by Manley et al. (2002), were used to model habitats at both orders. Following Manly et al. (2002), a RSPF was fitted using generalized linear models and the R (R Core Team 2012) package ResourceSelection for second and third order, respectively (Lele et al. 2013). Typically, the RSPF is approximated with the proportional RSF by exponentiating the parameters fitted with the logistic function (Johnson et al. 2006). Lele (2009; see also Lele and Keim 2006) demonstrated that the stable estimations of parameters in an RSPF can be obtained by using weighted distributions. The 16 advantages of this approach are a potentially better fit model, compared to the exponential RSF, and output values represent the true probability of selection. Table 2-1. Habitat variables, justification for inclusion, data source, and resolution for GIS layers used to model bobcat habitat selection at second and third order. Habitat Variable (units) Justification Source Resolution Second Order Selection Snow - max (mm) Avoidance of deep snow depth SNODAS1 1km Snow - mean (mm) Avoidance of deep snow depth SNODAS1 1km Elevation (m) 2 Lower productivity at high elev. DEM 30m Land Cover* Represents habitat NLCD 20063 30m Elevation (m) Avoidance of deep snow depth DEM2 30m 2 30m 2 30m Third Order Selection Aspect (flat, north, south) Slope (degrees) Sun exposure influences snow Terrain for dens, escape cover VRM** Terrain for dens, escape cover Distance to edge (km) Prey densities, travel corridors Distance to stream (km) Prey densities, travel corridors Distance to road (km) Avoidance of roads 2 Road density (km/km ) Avoidance of roads 2 Traffic Density (unit/km ) Avoidance of roads DEM DEM 2 DEM 30m NLCD 2006 3 30m GRANIT 4 30m GRANIT 4 30m GRANIT 4 30m GRANIT 4 30m *Collapsed into development, deciduous forests, coniferous forest, mixed-woods, shrub/scrub, agriculture, wetlands, and open water **Vector Ruggedness measurement (Sappington et al. 2007) 1 Snow Data Assimilation System 2 USGS Digital Elevation Model 3 2006 National Land Cover Dataset 4 New Hampshire Geographically Referenced Analysis and Information Transfer System Second-order habitat models were fit using the three explanatory variables (snowmean, snowmax, and elevation) into single variable models because of collinearity. Models were then re-fit using quadratic terms in case the relationship between selection and the variable was non-linear. The best model was selected using Akaike’s Information 17 Criterion (Akaike 1973) adjusted for small sample sizes (AICc, Burnham and Anderson 2002). Recommendations by Hosmer and Lemeshow (2000) were used to fit third-order habitat suitability models with logistic regression. First, to avoid collinearity, all continuous variables were compared using Pearson’s Correlation coefficient. If variables were highly correlated (r>0.7), and biologically redundant they were not included in the same model. Next, univariate models were fit for all variables and only statistically important (P>0.25) variables were kept (Hosmer and Lemeshow 2000). This conservative approach to significance was used to insure that all biologically relevant variables were included. I then fit a multivariate logistic model using a manual forward-stepping procedure (Squires et al. 2012, Hosmer and Lemeshow 2000) starting will a null model that only contained land cover variables. Each variable was added to the null model sequentially according to its univariate strength, measured by Wald statistics. To determine if a variable was retained, likelihood-ratio tests between sequential models were utilized (P<0.05) because each subsequent model was nested in the previous one. Variables excluded after univariate tests were then added to the model to determine if they improved model fit. During model fitting procedures, attention was paid to any large changes or reversals of sign in the coefficient estimates to insure a stable model was built. Model Extrapolation and Validation. The top second-order model was generated using a used-versus-unused design, so standard logistic regression validation techniques were used, including; confusion matrices, Kappa statistic, and Receive Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves, as recommended by Boyce et al. (2002). 18 The top third-order model was tested using k-fold cross-validation following Boyce et al. (2002), with refinements by Johnson et al. (2006). This entailed partitioning the data into five folds and using four folds as ‘training’ sets and the fifth fold as a ‘validation’ set. The ‘training’ sets were used to re-fit the model, and then the estimated parameters were spatially applied in ArcMap 10.0. The resulting raster grid was divided into 10 ordinal ‘bins’ using quantile breakpoints. The number of ‘validation’ points in each bin was divided by the area of the bin to get area-adjusted frequencies. The Spearman correlation between this area-adjusted score and bin number was then computed (Boyce et al. 2002). Next the proportion of observed ‘validation’ points in each bin was compared to the expected proportions for each bin using linear regression. Expected proportions for each bin were computed by multiplying the midpoint RSPF score of each bin by the area of the bin and then dividing by the sum of these products for each bin. The two final models were then mapped in ArcMap 10.0 using ‘Raster Calculator’. All habitat variables present in the RSPF were represented by raster layers in ArcMap 10.0. The model equation was then used to extrapolate the RSPF for New Hampshire at both levels of selection. Continuous variables were capped at the minimum and maximum values measured, so that models were not extrapolated outside the observed data (DeCesare et al. 2012). 19 RESULTS Factors affecting statewide distribution of bobcats Bobcat habitat suitability was modeled at second-order selection using incidental observations (Fig. 2-3). A total of 729 sightings were reported between December 2007 and January 2013 to the project website or NHFG. After screening, 665 were deemed sufficiently accurate to assign GPS coordinates. These locations were buffered by the largest home-range radius of male bobcats (9.6 km). The model with average monthly (Nov-March) mean snow depth with a quadratic term was considered the best model as judged by AICc (Table 2-2). Probability of bobcat use declined with increased mean monthly snow depth (Fig. 2-2). The model predicted well for used sites (sensitivity = 0.96 ± 0.002), but poorly for unused sites (specificity = 0.50 ± 0.013). A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve showed Area Under the Curve (AUC) score of 0.90 suggests a good predictive model. However, the model received a moderate kappa statistic of 0.51 (± 0.013) because of the high false positive. 20 Table 2-2. Models for Second Order-Home Range used three variables, average monthly (Nov-March) maximum snow depth (Snow_Max), average monthly (Nov-March) mean snow depth (Snow_Mean), and elevation (Elevation). Sightings reported between 2007 and 2013 were used to model the relationship between probability of use and the habitat variables. Model K AICc ∆AICc AICw log(L) Snow_Mean2 3 5409.80 0.00 0.80 -2701.90 Snow_Mean 2 5412.59 2.79 0.20 -2704.29 Snow_Max2 3 5645.24 235.44 0.00 -2819.62 Snow_Max 2 5688.49 278.69 0.00 -2842.24 2 Elevation 3 6058.92 649.12 0.00 -3026.46 Elevation 2 6515.31 1105.51 0.00 -3255.65 Fig. 2-2. Probability of habitat use given the average monthly mean snow depth between November-March 2007-2012. 21 Fig. 2-3. Bobcat habitat suitability in New Hampshire modeled at second-order selection using incidental observations collected from 2007-2013 and mean monthly snow depth measured from 2007-2012. 22 Habitat Features that Influence Selection within Home Ranges Bobcat habitat suitability was modeled at third-order selection using GPStelemetry locations (Fig. 2-6). Variables used included NLCD 2006 (Fry et al. 2011; layers collapsed to open water, light development, heavy development, barren, evergreen forests, deciduous forests, mixed forests, shrub/scrub, agriculture, and wetlands), distance to forest edge (excluding open water/forest edge), elevation, slope, aspect, and a vector ruggedness measurement (VRM, Sappington et al. 2007). Bobcats selected for forests, shrub/scrub, and wetlands, and selected against developed areas, agricultural areas, and open water (Table 2-3, Fig. 2-4). They showed avoidance of high road density, and selected areas closer to forest edge. They preferred more rugged and steeper sloped areas, with southern facing slopes. Finally, there was selection for areas closer to streams, but no significant relationship to elevation at this order of selection. The third-order model validated well. K-fold cross validations with 5 folds were all highly correlated (Table 2-4, Fig. 2-5). A mean spearman correlation of rs = 0.968 (σ = 0.014) indicated that bin number and area-adjusted frequency of used points were highly correlated. All slopes (b1) were significantly different from 0, indicating the model performed better than neutral model where use would be equal to availability. All slopes (b1) were not significantly different from 1, indicating the model was proportional to use. Additionally, none of the intercepts (b0) were significantly different from zero (Table 23) which is expected for a model that was proportional to use. Model fit for expected vs. observed regression was moderately strong (range = 0.634-0.774) indicating a good fitting model. 23 Table 2-3. Parameter estimates from the best third-order habitat suitability model. Models were made utilizing GPS-location data from 18 collared bobcats in New Hampshire from 2009-2011. Habitat Variable β estimate SE P value (Intercept) 0.32 0.16 0.0453 agricultural -0.02 0.13 0.8881 deciduous 0.06 0.06 0.3205 developed -0.50 0.10 < 0.0001 evergreen 0.11 0.08 0.1619 open water -0.76 0.24 0.0017 shrub/scrub 0.67 0.32 0.0349 wetlands 2.29 0.68 0.0007 aspect-flat -1.50 0.40 0.0002 aspect-south 0.19 0.05 0.0006 distance to forest edge -0.23 0.03 < 0.0001 VRM 0.15 0.06 0.0127 slope 0.10 0.03 0.0044 road density -0.27 0.03 < 0.0001 elevation 0.00 0.06 0.9868 distance to stream -0.07 0.03 0.0256 Fig. 2-4. Parameters estimated for each of the habitat variables used to fit the best model of third-order habitat selection. Estimates are bounded by two standard deviations. Dummy variables were used for all land cover and aspect variables, and therefore comparison between these categorical variables and the numerical variables (road density, forest edge, slope, ruggedness) should not be used to determine the relative effect of each variable. 24 Table 2-4. Rank correlations (Spearman) and expected vs. observed regression for the best RSPF model. The model was validated with k-fold cross-validation utilizing 5 folds. Rank Correlation Expected vs. Observed Regression Fold rs p b0 b1 R2 1 2 3 4 5 0.988 0.976 0.964 0.964 0.952 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.020 0.038 0.016 0.031 0.020 0.796 0.624 0.836 0.689 0.795 0.774 0.634 0.735 0.670 0.730 Fi g. 2-5. Graph of bin number vs. area-adjusted frequency of withheld locations from k-fold cross-validation. Habitat Suitability Maps. The resulting models of second and third order selection were combined by multiplying them together using Raster Calculator in ArcMap 10 (Fig. 2-7; Johnson et al. 2004), and includes the two relevant scales of selection for this area. It can be seen that there is a strong selection for more southern areas of the state or lower elevations, and an avoidance of areas of deeper snow in the White Mountains and northern portion of the state. Additionally, highly developed areas are avoided, especially along the I-93 corridor and throughout the Merrimack Valley. Outside of these areas, it seems that most of the state is moderate to good habitat for bobcats. 25 Fig. 2-6. Bobcat habitat suitability in New Hampshire modeled at third-order selection using GPS-telemetry data collected from 2009-2011 from 18 collared bobcats. 26 Fig. 2-7. Bobcat habitat-suitability in New Hampshire based on two spatial scales. Incidental observations were used to model second-order selection. GPS-telemetry locations from 18 collared bobcats were used to model third-order habitat selection. These analyses were then combined to generate the scale-integrated map of habitat selection. Major freeways are shown, and the White Mountain region of northern New Hampshire is labeled for reference. 27 DISCUSSION An animal’s habitat requirements that are both geographically relevant and biologically detailed can be generated by analyzing habitat selection at multiple scales. Application of these methods to the analysis of bobcat habitat suitability in New Hampshire improved results when compared to single scale analyses. For instance, measuring bobcat response to snow depth is difficult to do with fine-scale analysis because there is little heterogeneity within a bobcat home range. However, snow depth and overall winter severity can change suitability drastically over a relatively small area (Fox 1990). Extrapolation of the telemetry-based model resulted in the northern portion of the state looking like the best habitat (Fig 2-6), however, when snow was taken into account this area became one the poorest regions in the state (Fig 2-7). Likewise, the habitat map based on incidental sightings depicted the entire southern portion of New Hampshire to be suitable habitat (Fig 2-3). However, when the telemetry-based model was added, the highly developed areas in the Merrimack Valley and Seacoast were seen to be low suitability. Using only one method of mapping bobcat habitat suitability would have resulted in incorrect conclusions about suitability in the state. By using incidental sightings, coupled with telemetry data, a map that more realistically reflected bobcat habitat suitability was made, which could then be used to assess connectivity (Chapter III) and statewide abundance (Chapter IV). Incidental Sightings to Assess Distribution. Incidental sightings offer an inexpensive method to track broad-scale habitat use (Palma et al. 1999) and allowed us to extrapolate fine-scale data statewide. This was especially important because bobcats in New Hampshire are near the northern extent of their geographic range (Anderson and 28 Lovallo 2003). Since European settlement, their geographic range has expanded northward (Seton 1925), potentially limiting lynx populations (Parker et al. 1983, Hoving et al. 2005). Recently, though, breeding lynx have been documented within the state (NHFG 2011) in areas where the two species ranges overlap. Additionally, large changes in habitat use are possible across relatively small distances within a state. Fox (1990), studying bobcats in New York, found that home ranges in the Catskills (µ=36.0 km2 and µ=31.0 km2, for males and females respectively) were much smaller compared to those in the Adirondacks (µ= 325.7 km2 and µ=86.4 km2). He believed this was largely due to differences in winter severity. New Hampshire has a similar change in climate across the state. Due to this, any fine-scale habitat suitability data had to be examined in the context of the larger climatic features of the state. Consistent with previous studies (McCord 1974, Koehler and Hornocker 1989) second-order habitat maps indicated that bobcats avoided areas of deeper snow pack (Figs. 2-2). However, historic harvest records in the northern portion of the state saw some of the highest number of bounties (Litvaitis et al. 2006). Due to high snow depths, this area is considered the poorest habitat when analyzed at second-order selection (Fig. 2-3). The dissimilarities could be due to a number of reasons. First, we know the abundance of early-successional habitat has decreased (Litvaitis 2003), and that forests have matured (Morin and Woodall 2012), potentially leading to lower prey densities. Because bobcat abundance is related to their prey (Litvaitis 1986) we should expect a population decline. Throughout the early to mid1900s, land alterations may have increased prey populations significantly enough to 29 support bobcats, despite the greater snowfall. Once those prey populations declined, bobcat abundance likely did as well. The alternate explanation is that our sightings data is not sufficient to track changes in bobcat habitat use in the northern portion of the state. We know the human population density is much lower there, providing fewer opportunities for sightings. Additionally, decreased interest in our study from the northern portion of the state may have led to less reported sightings. However, data from hunter surveys and road-killed bobcats also show few occurrences (Tate, unpublished data). And while both of these metrics have similar biases as sightings data, taken together they could highlight an overall trend in the state. Furthermore, while the sightings may be biased, they still highlight that snow depth can limit bobcats, and thus habitat is of poorer quality compared to other parts of the state. And while bobcats certainly exist in the area, they will be more susceptible to starvation during intense winters, so specific monitoring and management of their population may be warranted. Outside of the northern portion of the state and the White Mountains, the state seemed to be relatively high-quality habitat in all areas. Only one variable was used in modeling, however, so few conclusions about bobcat habitat use could be made from this type of data if it was used independently. Bobcat home ranges are also limited by development (Riley et al. 2003, Riley et al. 2006), yet an analysis of how development limits bobcats was not possible because the incidental sightings data was associated with roads and people’s houses (Broman 2012). Furthermore, Broman (2012) showed that if fine-scale analysis is done using these data incorrect conclusions about bobcat habitat could be made. The bias that accompanies much of the occurrence data we have is a 30 major drawback (Philips et al. 2009, Broman 2012). However, careful use of occurrence data to map broad-scale distributions can be useful, as seen here. Fine-Scale Habitat Selection. The third-order habitat selection model gave a more detailed view of habitat use by bobcats, and is comparable to other habitat studies in the area (Donovan et al. 2011). Similar to Broman (2012) the greatest selection was for wetlands (Fig. 2-4). Wetlands may function as superior hunting areas for bobcats because they offer good cover for stalking, as well as higher prey densities along their edges. Additionally, they may act as a refuge from human development, due to their protected status. Bobcats also showed selection for scrub/shrub habitat. Similar to wetlands, these areas offer good hunting opportunities because of the combination of good cover and high prey densities. Deciduous and evergreen forests were shown to be selected for, but not significantly. The majority of bobcat locations were in forest habitats (>72%), and bobcats selected for areas closer to forest edges. Edge habitats presumably offer higher prey abundance whereas forests can provide good cover, therefore while there was not strong selection for forests, they are still crucial to bobcat habitat suitability. Bobcats selected against development and high road densities, which was expected from past studies (Crooks 2002, Riley et al. 2003, Riley 2006). However, incidental observations indicate that bobcats occasionally use habitat features adjacent to or in developed areas. Whereas bears and coyotes have adapted to anthropogenic changes on the landscape (e.g. Grinder and Krausman 2001, Beckamnn and Berger 2003), bobcats have always been considered to have a “shy and secretive nature” (e.g., Pollack 1951) and avoided humans. Through reported sightings and accompanying pictures it seems some individual bobcats have adapted to human settlements. They have been documented 31 exploiting bird feeders to prey on birds and squirrels in the winter (http://mlitvaitis.unh.edu/Research/BobcatWeb/bobcats.html). Additional studies on the differences in tolerance for development, and related life history metrics could help us better understand how bobcats will adapt to increased development in the future. Topography played a role in determining third-order habitat selection. The model demonstrates that bobcats are selecting areas that have steeper slopes and greater overall ruggedness, corroborating bobcat use of rough, broken habitat, interspersed with ledges (McCord 1974, Broman 2012). South-facing slopes are being selected for, while flat areas are being selected against compared to northern aspects, further providing evidence that bobcats use areas with higher sun exposure and decreased snow depth (Koehler and Hornocker 1989, McCord 1974). Finally, both elevation and distance to stream were included in the final model, but explained little variability, even though in previous studies these have been shown to be influential (Kolowski and Woolf 2002). Comparisons between the third-order habitat selection map (Fig. 2-6) and historical records of bobcat harvests (see Litvaitis et al. 2006) highlight many agreements, but also some potential problems when the third-order map is extrapolated beyond the study areas and surrounding region. First, the northern portion of the state is shown to be the best habitat by the third order map. It is an area largely devoid of roads, one of the key limiting factors for bobcats, and has an abundance of wetlands, making it good habitat throughout most of the year. However, based on current sightings reports, there do not seem to be an abundance of bobcats in the area. Furthermore, the secondorder habitat (Fig. 2-3) showed that bobcats may be limited by snow depth in this area. During severe winters, bobcats are probably limited in their mobility (McCord 1974) and 32 thus ability to catch prey, making the area unsuitable at this time of the year. This disagreement is one instance in which the third-order habitat maps fails when extrapolated outside of its context. Second, areas in the southeastern portion of the state, where both road and population density are highest (Sunquist and Hewes 2010), are intermixed areas of very high and low suitability according to the third-order habitat map. Bobcats were mostly absent from the southeast based on historical records, however they have been reported there lately. Given the relative abundance of wetlands and early successional habitat, this area may provide good sources of prey for bobcats. However, while the area may be suitable in many spots, it could also function as a population sink, given the high road density (Nielsen and Woolf 2002) that often leads to higher mortalities (Litvaitis and Tash 2008). Extrapolating the third-order habitat map to this area may not fully capture the degree to which increased road densities effect bobcats in this area. Throughout the rest of southern New Hampshire historic records and current assessments largely agree on bobcat habitat suitability. Harvest rates show that the majority of bobcats were found in in the southwestern portion of the state west of the Merrimack River, as well as the western border of the state along the Connecticut River with sporadic higher densities around Lake Winnipesauke and to the northeast of Concord. The third-order habitat map largely recognizes these as highly suitable habitat, and numerous sightings have also come from these areas. Implications of Multi-Scaled Habitat Selection. It is imperative to consider the issue of scale when modeling habitats (Boyce 2006), and extra care must be used when 33 extrapolating beyond study areas (Johnson et al. 2004, DeCesare et al. 2012). For this particular study, the third-order habitat suitability map is justified in the southern portion of the state, where the two study areas took place. However, extrapolation to the rest of the state was not justified without taking into account selection at larger scales. New Hampshire varies considerably in both elevation and climate, important drivers of bobcat ecology that cannot be considered at the third-order level of selection. Conversely, the second-order habitat model developed with sightings made sense across the state in regards to snow depth, but lacked the fine scale detail needed for decision making. By combining the second and third-order models to make a scale-integrated resource selection probability function better informed habitat selection and subsequent management decisions at an appropriate scale can be made (Johnson et al. 2004, DeCesare et al. 2012). The use of incidental observations allowed insights gained using GPS technology to be applied at a more regional scale, which is especially important for bobcats at the edge of their range because changes in climate will directly affect them. In the past 50 years more precipitation in New England is falling as rain instead of snow due to increasing temperatures (Huntington et al. 2004). These trends are expected to continue (Huntington et al. 2009). Because bobcats are limited by snow, this may result in them range expansion northward into lynx territory. Increased range overlap between bobcats and lynx could lead to more instances of hybridization (Schwartz et al. 2004, Homyack et al. 2008) or increased interspecific competition (Buskirk et al 2000). Incidental sightings may help track these changes in distribution. However, understanding the mechanisms 34 that drive the movements, as well competitive interactions, will require more fine-scale data. Finally, New Hampshire’s human population is growing, and therefore the amount of suitable bobcat habitat will likely decline, while previous areas of connectivity may be severed. Measures must be taken to ensure that areas of high quality habitat, such as wetlands and scrub/shrub, are maintained. Furthermore, areas that contain good habitat features, but also high road suitability must be monitored closely for changes in the population. Incidental sightings will aid in describing where bobcats are, but data describing movement and survival will be more useful, especially in these potential sink habitats. Additionally, an abundance of occurrences does not ensure a healthy population, so other measures of bobcat status should be used. These areas may be most susceptible to large changes in population numbers because of increased risk associated with developed areas. In light of this, areas of high suitability that also have relatively less developments, such as the southwestern region of the state, may contain the most stable source populations. 35 CHAPTER III MODELING CONNECTIVITY FOR CARNIVORES IN A DEVELOPED LANDSCAPE: WHAT IS THE BEST APPROACH? Connectivity conservation plays a major role in the conservation and management of many species today (Crooks and Sanjayan 2006). It has been incorporated in numerous state wildlife action plans (e.g., New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan 2010, California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project: A Strategy for Conserving a Connected California, Washington Wildlife Habitat Connectivity Working Group), become the driving force behind nongovernmental organizations (e.g., Yukon to Yellowstone Conservation Initiative, Quabbin-to-Cardigan Partnership), and plays an integral role in management plans for endangered or imperiled species (e.g., Noss 1987, Ferreras 2001). At its most basic level, connectivity conservation serves as a focused type of land conservation, most often with a special emphasis on conserving land fragmented by development and roads (Theobald et al. 2010). Conserving land for connectivity, whether through easements or outright protections, or altering highway transportation thruways, is an expensive proposition in the best of circumstances. Therefore, we must be sure that our efforts to improve connectivity follow proven and tested methods. Recent advancements in the ability to assess connectivity via genetic methods has substantially advanced our understanding of landscape integrity (Cushman et al. 2009, Schwartz et al. 2009, Wasserman et al. 2012); however genetic methods are not always 36 available or applicable to the temporal or spatial scale with which connectivity must be considered (Cushman et al. 2010). Because of this, analysis of telemetry-based data with geographic information systems may be a better asset when exploring the current status of fragmentation (Cushman et al. 2010, Squires et al. 2013). Furthermore, if more finescale movements by individuals are protected, dispersal could be better facilitated, and it is reasonable to assume that gene flow will remain high as well. Unfortunately, both genetic and GPS methods are expensive, and not always applicable. Often, it is necessary to make connectivity plans for multiple species, and do it inexpensively, and expert-opinion or literature review efforts provide the most feasible opportunity (Beier et al. 2008). Additionally, focal species are often implemented in further attempts to cut costs by reducing workloads. While these economic realities are unavoidable, we should make an effort to assess the validity of these methods. Modeling Connectivity Connectivity is the ability of organisms to move between separated patches of suitable habitat based on the structure of the landscape (Taylor et al 1993), and corridors have become a widely cited approach for assuring connectivity in human-altered landscapes (e. g., Beier and Noss 1998, Hilty et al. 2006, Gilbert-Norton et al. 2010). Proposed benefits of corridors include: areas for dispersal (Beier 1995), assuring gene flow (Keller and Waller 2002), re-colonization of uninhabited habitat patches (Hanski and Gilpin 1991), paths for migration (Berger 2006), movement paths for climate change induced displacement (Heller and Zavaleta 2009), and avoidance of direct mortality along roadways (Clevenger and Waltho 2000). 37 Despite the apparent benefits of corridors, they may not be applicable for all organisms and their associated landscapes. Many connectivity projects seek to connect large tracts of public land through an intervening matrix of poor or less suitable habitat. Unfortunately, in many regions these large areas of undeveloped or protected land do not exist, and ways to increase connectivity may not be so straightforward. In New Hampshire, for example, bobcats (Lynx rufus) inhabit a variety of land covers with varying intensities of development interspersed, with relatively small blocks of protected land. Therefore, identifying one or two major connections between protected lands may not be a relevant conservation strategy in such landscapes. Instead, it may be more appropriate to identify where connectivity exists. Such an approach could consider multiple spatial scales. For example, at the home range level, bobcats are in danger of vehicular collisions during daily forays. While at the landscape scale, considerations to assure successful dispersal and gene flow among populations are needed. An integration of these factors, with attention to differing spatial concerns, is necessary to mitigate fragmentation for bobcats and wide –ranging species. Developing connectivity conservation strategies requires a balance between assumptions, data availability, on-the-ground feasibility, and appropriate modeling techniques. Noss and Daly (2006) identified three approaches toward corridor design: intuitive, empirical, and modeling. An intuitive approach uses existing knowledge, expert opinion, or even best guesses to locate important areas of connectivity. Intuitively designed corridors are routinely implemented because they can be designed quickly, are often considered cost effective, and can be applied to numerous animals for which habitat preferences are known. Conversely, empirical approaches use data to inform decisions on 38 connectivity. As a result, an empirical design can be more easily defended and may be considered more accurate. Empirically designed connectivity plans often rely on a focal species, an organism with specific habitat preferences chosen to represent the movement needs of a broad group of species (Beier et al. 2008). They need information on habitat associations, which can be based on telemetry, camera trapping, sightings, or sign surveys (Noss and Daly 2006). Finally, modeling involves the inclusion of either intuitive or empirical approaches to inform the parameters used in a model. Models are usually based on movement (Colchero et al. 2011), genetics (Cushman et al. 2009), permeability analysis (Singleton et al. 2002), least-cost pathways (Squires et al. 2013), sourcedestination points (Cushman et al. 2009, Schwartz et al. 2009), resistant kernels (Compton et al. 2007), or circuit theory (Anderson et al. 2012). All connectivity models attempt to represent an organism’s potential movements across the landscape given a variety of environmental factors and then identify the areas that minimize those movement ‘costs’. Given the abundance of options to choose from when planning for connectivity conservation it is important to highlight the potential strengths and weakness of each tool. Evaluating Connectivity Models Models of connectivity have been assessed in the field (Hilty and Merenlender 2004, Driezen et al. 2007, Leoniak et al. 2012) and using GPS-location data (Pullinger and Johnson 2010), although more widespread validation is needed. Given the increased use of GPS-telemetry data in connectivity modeling, more opportunities to compare and validate different models of resistance and connectivity are available. Although, dispersal events are rare and difficult to observe, identifying movements within home ranges may 39 help identify potential large-scale areas of connectivity. In fragmented areas, animals may avoid roads, development, or other landscape features. This may provide a smallscale version of how dispersing animals move through a modified landscape. Using location data, movement paths can be inferred by connecting subsequent locations (Cushman et al. 2010) or by using Brownian bridge movement models (BBMM; Horne et al. 2007, Sawyer et al. 2009, Lewis et al. 2011, Sawyer et al 2013). These approaches move beyond simple point-location data, and acknowledge that we are concerned with animal movement. Additionally, they provide answers to connectivity issues occurring in present time that may not be observed with genetic data. Connecting subsequent locations provides the easiest way to assess how well our connectivity models work, but the limitations are numerous, including; dependency on acceptable GPS fix rates, the need for small amounts of time between fixes, and inherent inaccuracies of assuming straightline movement between locations. However, Cushman et al. (2010) demonstrated the usefulness when parameterizing elephant movement models in relation to human development. Building upon connections of subsequent locations, BBMMs use location data to model potential movement paths as utilization distributions, which takes into account the error in connecting paths. They have been used to map migratory corridors (Horne et al. 2007, Sawyer et al. 2009), identify barriers to movement (Sawyer et al. 2013), and locate road crossings (Lewis et al. 2011). Similar to these methods, I believe they can aid in validating connectivity models by comparing utilization distribution (UD) scores with modeled connectivity scores from Circuitscape. Applying these types of validation techniques helps address some of the uncertainty present in connectivity modeling. 40 Focal Species in Connectivity Modeling Focal species, particularly large carnivores, are often used to plan for connectivity conservation (Beier 1993, Noss and Daly 2006, Servheen et al. 2001, Singelton et al. 2002). However, given the diverse habitat requirements and movement capabilities of animals, care must be taken when evaluating the use of focal species (Beier et al 2008, Chetkiewicz and Boyce 2009). Given the time, expense, and data requirements needed to design empirically defensible corridors, we may not be able to abandon the use of focal species (Haddad and Tewksbury 2006, Cushman et al. 2010). Bobcats may be an appropriate animal to evaluate the focal species approach because they are a wide-ranging carnivore (Beier 1993, Cushman et al. 2008, Servheen et al. 2001, Singleton et al. 2002) and rely on specific habitat features (Litvaitis et al. 1986, Broman 2012). In New England, they select early-successional forests, scrub-shrub, and wetland habitat types, and avoid agriculture, development, and high road densities (Litvaitis 2001, Litvaitis et al. 2006, Litvaitis and Tash 2008, Donovan et al. 2011, Broman 2012). Despite their sensitivity to development and roads (Crooks 2002, Riley 2006), bobcats can adapt to living in fragmented environments (Tigas et al. 2002). Therefore, they should show some behavioral response to roads and development resulting in clear areas of suitable and unsuitable habitats that can be used to assess connectivity for similar species. Objectives The objectives for this study were: i.) compare methods used to design connectivity conservation plans, ii.) validate connectivity modeling for bobcats at the 41 home range scale using telemetry-based data and Brownian bridge movement models, iii.) extrapolate validated connectivity models statewide and identify potential bottlenecks of movement, and iv.) assess the applicability of using bobcats as surrogate mesocarnivores in connectivity planning. METHODS Study Areas New Hampshire is the second most forested state in the nation at 82% forest cover, but has fallen from a high of 87% in 1960, and is expected to fall to 78.5% by 2030 due to rapid human development and increases in population (Sunquist and Hewes 2010). This is most pronounced in the southeastern portion of the state and along transportation corridors (Sunquist and Hewes 2010). Major transportation corridors included Interstate Highways 89, 93, and 95, and State Highways 3, 16, and 101. All operate as divided expressways. Heaviest development is concentrated in these regions, especially the seacoast and Merrimack Valley. This alteration from a predominantly rural to an increasingly fragmented state provides an excellent opportunity to observe the effects of fragmentation on habitat suitability and connectivity. Connectivity models were made using bobcats that were outfitted with GPS collars (n=18) in two portions of the state, the southwest and southeastern portion (Fig. 31). The first study area was selected because of a high historic occurrence of bobcats. The second study area was chosen to determine how differing levels of road and population density affected bobcats, in addition to there being an abundance of recent sightings in 42 the area. Road densities are 1.14 km/km2 and 1.21 km/km2 for the southwest and southeastern studies areas, respectively. The southwestern study area had a higher mean elevation (308.3 m), compared to SA2 (186.0 m.). Both study areas contain a mix of forest types including eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), white pine (Pinus strobus), American beech (Fagus grandifola), yellow birch (Betula allegheniensis), paper birch (Betula papyrifera), northern red oak (Quercus rubra), red maple (Acer rubrum), sugar maple (Acer saccharum), and white oak (Quercus alba). Wetlands, agriculture areas, and varying levels of development are also present in both areas. Resistance Layers Two types of resistance layers were compared: an expert-opinion layer developed from an independently generated model (by members of New Hampshire Fish and Game and New Hampshire Audubon) and the inverse of a habitat suitability map generated from GPS-telemetry data from bobcats modeled with Resource Selection Probability Functions (Chapter II). Expert-opinion layers are often used in connectivity planning (e.g., Singleton et al. 2004, LaRue and Nielsen 2008) because of their low cost and wide applicability. Recently, resource selection functions (RSF), have been used to generate a cost layer for a species, providing an empirically-based layer to model corridors (Chetkiewicz and Boyce 2009, Pullinger and Johnson 2010, Squires et al. 2013). When applied to connectivity modeling, the inverse of the habitat suitability map generated from the RSF is used as the ‘cost layer’ (Chetkiewicz et al. 2006). This method assumes traversing less suitable habitat is avoided, and that animals have some prior knowledge or at least the ability to infer the relative cost of moving through a landscape and choose the path that maximizes chance of survival (Driezen et al. 2007). Unlike expert opinion 43 Fig. 3-1. GPS locations from marked bobcats in the southwest and southeastern portions of New Hampshire. Bobcats were monitored from 2009-2011. Major highways and names of regions are shown for reference. 44 models, RSFs that utilize GPS-telemetry data can be expensive, time intensive, and may be only applicable to the organism for which data are available. Despite these limitations, it is believed that they are a better representation of an animal’s movement through its habitat and are a superior method when resources are allowable. Expert Opinion. Resistance layers based on expert-opinions and literature review were independently developed by biologists at New Hampshire Fish and Game (NHFG) and New Hampshire Audubon (NHA). For a complete description of methods, see NH Audubon and NHFG (2010). Briefly, the expert opinion-based resistance layer used five habitat variables to model resistance (Fig. 3-2), with each receiving a relative influence (or weight) score: land cover = 40%, distance to roads = 40%, distance to riparian = 10%, and slope = 10%. Resistance layers were parameterized with logistic functions: riparian (Equation 1), slope (Equation 2), and distance to road (Equations 3, 4, 5). Resistance by roads was determined by average annual daily traffic (AADT) and divided into three class; low (>100 AADT; equation 3), medium (100-2999 AADT; equation 4), and high (3000+; equation 5). Each cover type (NLCD 2001, with modifications from NLCD 2006) was assigned a resistance score (Fig. 3-2). Additionally, a ridgeline modifier was added that subtracted two points from all ridgeline resistance scores. 45 Equation #1: Equation #2: Equation #3: Equation #4: Equation #5: Fig. 3-2. Resistance scores for riparian areas are a function of distance from stream (top left). Resistance scores for slopes are resistance a function of percent slope (top right). Resistance scores for roads are a function of traffic volume, and separated into three classes-low, medium, and high (lower left). Land cover variables were assigned resistance scores from 1-10 with 1 being lowest resistance and 10 being the highest (lower right) Figures were recreated from NH Audubon and NHFG (2010). 46 Resource Selection Probability Functions. Resource selection probability functions were fit at the second and third-order of habitat selection using incidental observations and GPS-telemetry data, respectively (see Chapter II). These models were refit to test predictability using location data from each individual bobcat. This entailed withholding data from one bobcat, fitting the model using the data from the remaining seventeen bobcats, and then using the data from the withheld bobcat to validate the resistance model. By using the withheld bobcats’ location data to validate each connectivity model, I had a quasi-independent method of testing connectivity models. Individual RSPF models were fit using the package ResourceSelection (Lele et al. 2013) in the statistical program R (R Core Team 2012). Each individual model then served as a ‘conductance’ layer in connectivity modeling using the program Circuitscape (McRae and Shah 2009), with the assumption that areas of higher suitability would have greater conductance than areas of lower suitability. Functionally, the conductance layer is the inverse of a resistance layer. Connectivity Modeling and Assessment Circuit Theory. Circuit theory, through the program Circuitscape (McRae and Shah 2009), uses algorithms that were originally developed for electrical circuit theory, but have the potential to be applied to a variety of connectivity conservation issues (McRae et al. 2008, Fig. 3-3). Circuitscape incorporates multiple ‘random walk’ pathways into one model, so instead of modeling a single path, as in least-cost path modeling, Circuitscape displays the relative cost of moving through the entire landscape. McRae and Beier (2007) applied this to the gene flow of a plant and an animal population and found that it performed better than isolation by distance and least-cost-path methods. 47 This could be beneficial in identifying potential ‘pinch-points’ of movement through high-cost area because random walkers will select these points at a higher probability. This approach may be more applicable to organisms that inhabit a variety of habitats with few large blocks of protected land. F ig. 3-3. Comparison of circuit theory and least cost pathways. (A) Cost surface layer used for modeling. The white patches in the lower left and upper right corners are the source patch patches. Resistance is shown using a gray scale. Areas with low resistance are light grey, areas of high resistance are dark grey, and black areas are barriers to movement. (B) Least cost modeled corridor is shown in white. (C) Output from circuit theory. Areas of blue are have a lower probability of utilization, while areas of red have a higher chance. Areas in yellow show extremely high utilization points and thus identify ‘pinch-points’ of movement. These areas are constrictions in the landscape where organisms are forced to travel, highlighting the area of highest conservation value. A real world example of such points may be an undeveloped underpass on a major freeway system (from McRae et al. 2008). Using program Circuitscape (McRae and Shah 2009), connectivity was modeled for both resistance layers. To ensure that source (start points) and ground (end points) did not bias the connectivity maps, methods used by Anderson et al. (2012) were adopted with some modification for bobcats (Fig. 3-4). A minimum-convex polygon (MCP) was generated around all bobcat locations. The centroid of this was determined in GIS and the length from the centroid of the MCP to the furthest point on the MCP was used as a radius to generate a circle around the locations. A second circle was added at twice the 48 radius of the initial circle. Squares were then generated around both circles. The inner square served as the unbiased analysis area. The outer square defined the full analysis area. Program CircuitScape was run four times through this area: once using the top side of the square as a source and the bottom as the ground, once using the bottom side as a source and the top as the ground, and similarly from left to right and right to left. The average of these four outputs was used to make the cumulative map. Using this method resulted in an analysis area unbiased by source or ground points (Anderson et al. 2012). Bobcat locations were sequentially connected to produce a movement path, referred to as the actual path. Segments that were not the result of two consecutive GPS fixes were removed. The actual path was then randomly rotated and shifted 100 times to generate 100 random paths using the Geospatial Modeling Environment program (GME; Beyer 2008). Mean conductivity scores were then computed for each path using GME (Beyer 2008). A one sample t-test was used to test if the actual paths were significantly different from the mean conductivity score of the random paths, indicating bobcats were using areas predicted by the connectivity model. Brownian Bridge Movement Models. Brownian bridge movement models were generated for each individual bobcat using the package BBMM (Nielsen et al. 2013) in the statistical program R. Location error was set to 20 m based on collar tests done by Mallet (2013). Only consecutive locations were used to estimate BBMMs. Utilization distribution scores were then summed to get cumulative distribution functions for each individual, and only areas with scores within 95% utilization distribution were used in the analysis. 49 Fig. 3-4. Modeling scheme used to test connectivity predictions for bobcats. RSPF generated using all location except from Bobcat #47, with his locations overlaid. This served as the ‘conductivity’ layer (top left). Sampling protocol adopted from Anderson et al. (2012) to map connectivity in bobcat home range with minimal source/ground bias (top right). Output from circuit theory using top as source/bottom as ground, bottom as source/top as ground, left as source/right as ground, and right as source/left as ground (middle panels – L to R). Cumulative circuit theory map with actual path of bobcat #47 (bottom left). Actual path overlaid with 100 random paths, rotated and shifted (bottom right). 50 A roads layer was overlaid onto individual BBMMs and circuit theory models (both expert opinion and RSPF). The roads layer was divided into sampling points, spaced every 100 m. Values for BBMM utilization distributions, expert-opinion based circuit theory, and RSPF based circuit theory models were obtained for each point in GIS. Spearmann pairwise correlations were then derived between BBMM scores and the two connectivity models at the road points. Significant negative correlations between BBMM UD scores and circuit theory scores were used to evaluate agreement between the two modeling procedures. As the BBMM UD score decreases, the level of estimated use for that area increases, therefore a negative correlation between the BBMM UD and connectivity scores indicates that areas of high use and high connectivity are correlated. Extrapolation of Connectivity Models After model validation and methods comparison took place at the home range level, the models were extrapolated to the rest of New Hampshire. The RSPF resistance layer utilizing both second and third-order selection (see Chapter II) was used. The expert-opinion model was designed to be applicable statewide and no alterations were necessary. Due to differences in spatial extent of some layers (i.e., being constrained to either New Hampshire or the continental U.S.), the RSPF layer and expert-opinion layer were buffered by random pixels with scores between 0 and 1 (Koen et al. 2010). This assured that the sources and ground points did not bias the connectivity model (Koen et al. 2010). Program Circuitscape was run to and from each cardinal direction (as described in previous section). Connectivity scores were then extracted to major roads in GIS and divided into degrees of connectivity. Segments of roads that resulted in bottleneck that could be limiting connectivity were identified. 51 Bobcats as a Surrogate-Species The use of bobcats as a surrogate species to model connectivity was tested by using remote cameras and the extrapolated connectivity models. During January to April 2013, 29 sites were sampled with remote trail cameras 1-5 times with a mean sampling time of 11.5 days (range 2-18 days) along New Hampshire Route 101. Camera sampling time varied due to camera malfunctions and site visit logistics. The sampling area spanned from Epping, NH to Auburn, NH where Route 101 is a four-line divided expressway with a traffic volume of ~40,000 vehicles per day (NH DOT Traffic Volume). This size road represents a potential barrier to movement for bobcats and other forest carnivores (Riley et al. 2006), and therefore serves as suitable location to test connectivity models. Sites were systematically distributed at approximately 1 km intervals and were mapped in ArcMap 10.0 before being located in the field. Each site served as a potential crossing point, and it was believed that areas with higher connectivity scores would better explain carnivore presence. Sites were accessed by auxiliary roads that bisected Route 101. Only sites located in forested areas were used to limit the types of habitats sampled, and because they provided structure to mount cameras and baits. Sites were located between 15-50 m from the highway, depending on highway shoulder width and available vegetation. Four habitat measurements were taken for each site (Table 3-1) to assess whether animals were responding to site specific habitat features versus the landscape level features measured by the connectivity models. These variables were whether the road was visible from the site, if the site was adjacent to a stream, whether there was an open or closed-canopy forest, and the distance to the road. 52 Camera sites were baited with both coyote urine and catnip oil, and a compact disc was hung nearby to act as a visual attractant. Coyote urine was sprayed at the base of a tree 3-5 m from and within view of the camera. Catnip oil was contained in 15 ml. test tubes and zip-tied to a sapling or branch 3-5 m from and within view of the camera. Compact discs were tied to adjacent branches, out of view of the camera to limit incidental camera activation. All animals that triggered the camera were noted, but data analysis focused on carnivore species; including, bobcats, coyotes (Canis latrans), gray foxes (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) fishers (Martes pennanti), raccoons (Procyon lotor), and opossums (Didelphi virginiana). Consecutive days within a session were collapsed to represent one event (i.e. Long et al. 2011, Tempa et al. 2011); therefore only one detection was counted for each species in each sampling occasion. Probability of occupancy and detection was modeled in program Presence (Hines 2006). Singleseason models were run for each species for which there was sufficient data (coyotes, gray foxes, fishers, and raccoons). Model fitting followed a stepwise procedure and was judged using AIC. First, species specific differences in probability of detection across sites and sampling periods were tested against the null model with probability of occupancy held constant. Next, the best fitting model for probability of detection was then re-fit with all possible variables that affect occupancy, including connectivity scores. Models only included one variable to model the probability of detection and one variable to model probability of occupancy. Predictive capability of circuit theory models was determined by whether they were included in top models. 53 Table 3-1. Variables used to model probability of detection and occupancy at camera sites along Highway 101 from January-April 2013. Temporal variables measured differences in deployment order and duration, and were used to model differences in the probability of detection. Probability of occupancy was modeled using habitat and modeling variables. Habitat variables were measured in the field during camera deployment. Modeling variables utilized connectivity scores, with low scores indicating poor connectivity and high scores indicating good connectivity. Category Variable Justification Units Range Temporal # of prior sessions Knowledge of trap Count 1-4 Camera days Sampling time Count 2 to 18 Session Temporal variation Count 1-5 Road visible Avoidance of roads Category yes or no Adjacent to stream Potential corridors Category yes or no Canopy Provides cover Category open or closed Distance to road Tolerance of roads Meters Habitat Modeling Circuit theory – EO Circuit theory - RSPF 15-47 Measure of connectivity Unitless 0-5 Measure of connectivity Unitless 0-5 RESULTS Resistance Layers The resistance layer developed by NHFG and NH Audubon (2010) was used as the expert opinion-based approach (Fig. 3-5). The empirically-based resistance layer (Fig. 3-5) was modeled using resource selection probability functions described in Chapter II. This layer showed habitat selection by bobcats, and resistance was assumed to be negatively correlated with selection. 54 Fig. 3-5. Resistance models used for mapping bobcat connectivity. The resource selection probability function (RSPF) model was generated using GPS-telemetry data from collared bobcats (right). The expert opinion model was generated independently by agency biologists (NHFG and NH Audubon 2010). 55 Connectivity Modeling and Assessment Circuit Theory. Connectivity modeling at the home-range level using Circuitscape was completed for all 18 collared bobcats using both the individual RSPFs layers for each bobcat, and the expert opinion layer. Scores of actual and random paths were extrapolated using GME. Circuit theory modeling using RSPFs resulted in 16 out of 18 actual paths scoring higher than random paths (p<0.05; Fig. 3-6; Appendix C), indicating actual bobcat paths had greater connectivity compared to random paths. The expert-opinion model resulted in 12 of 18 (p<0.05; Fig. 3-6; Appendix C) actual bobcat paths scoring higher than random paths. Fig. 3-6. Differences between actual and random path mean scores for resource selection probability function and expert opinion connectivity models. The connectivity score for the actual path was standardized to 0 for each individual bobcat. The difference between the mean connectivity score of random paths and actual paths was then plotted. If connectivity was successfully predicted, the mean score of the random paths will be less (below zero) than the actual path. 56 Brownian Bridge Movement Models. Brownian bridge movement models were generated using location data from each individual bobcat with the R package BBMM. Maximum amount of time between points was 5 hours and 7 hours for Lotek and Siritrack collars, respectively. Location error was set to 20 m (Mallet 2013). BBMM models and Circuitscape models were overlaid in GIS, and scores for each were extracted from 10,292 points along roads within 95% UD of each bobcat. Spearman correlations (Table 3-2) for RSPF models utilizing all locations revealed a significant negative correlation for all roads (rs = -0.12, p < 0.0001) and major roads (3330 points, rs = -0.09, p < 0.0001). Spearman correlations (Table 3-2) for expert opinion models utilizing all locations did not have a significant negative correlation for all roads (rs = 0.02, p < 0.1686) and major roads (rs = 0.04, p < 0.0333). Individual RSPF models were significantly negatively correlated for 12 of 18 bobcats when utilizing points on all roads, and 9 of 17 bobcats for points that were only on major roads. Individual expert-opinion models were significantly negatively correlated for 5 of 18 bobcats when utilizing points on all roads, and 4 of 17 bobcats for points that were only on major roads. One bobcat (41) had no major roads within its home range, so it was not included in this analysis. Extrapolation of Connectivity Models. Circuitscape models were extrapolated to the entire state using both resistance layers (Figs. 3-7 & 3-8). Models showed similar low flow through most of the Merrimack Valley, the southeastern portion/coastal portion of the state, and other highly developed areas. The RSPF model showed relatively high flow throughout the state, with the exception of the White Mountains and the northern portion of the state. Potential bottlenecks of movement were between Concord and Manchester, between Lake 57 Winnipesaukee and the White Mountains, and along the southeastern corner of the White Mountains. The expert opinion model showed highest flow through the northern part of the state, the White Mountains, and along the western edge. Circuitscape models extracted to the roads (Figs. 3-7 & 3-8) highlighted the lack of connectivity in heavily developed areas, and along higher traffic volume roads, with the latter seen in expert opinion model in particular. Table 3-2. Spearmen correlations between BBMM and circuit theory models for all bobcats and separate individuals, and all roads and major roads. Significant correlations are highlighted in bold, and indicate agreement between BBMM models and circuit theory models. RSPF Expert Opinion ID Roads-All p-Val Roads-Major p-Val Roads-All p-Val Roads-Major p-Val All -0.12 <0.0001 -0.09 <0.0001 0.02 0.1686 0.04 0.0333 26 -0.15 <0.0001 -0.11 0.0737 0.23 <0.0001 0.23 0.0002 27 -0.07 0.0127 0.07 0.1321 0.07 0.0090 0.18 0.0002 28 0.21 0.0001 0.13 0.1308 0.15 0.0042 0.03 0.7637 29 0.07 0.2995 0.30 0.0026 0.08 0.2529 0.02 0.8353 30 -0.19 <0.0001 0.08 0.1099 -0.13 <0.0001 0.15 0.0015 31 0.00 0.9356 -0.55 <0.0001 0.06 0.2955 0.13 0.2463 32 -0.21 <0.0001 -0.19 0.0284 -0.16 <0.0001 -0.41 <0.0001 33 -0.05 0.4726 0.08 0.5610 0.08 0.2695 -0.07 0.5915 34 -0.28 <0.0001 -0.24 0.0003 -0.13 0.0003 -0.25 0.0001 39 -0.16 0.0010 -0.12 0.2025 -0.11 0.0285 0.04 0.6490 40 -0.08 0.0020 -0.05 0.2379 -0.04 0.1297 0.01 0.7863 41 0.22 0.0159 N/A N/A 0.07 0.4582 N/A N/A 42 -0.29 <0.0001 -0.35 <0.0001 -0.05 0.1164 -0.06 0.2736 43 -0.22 <0.0001 -0.32 0.0006 -0.05 0.2543 -0.31 0.0010 44 -0.26 <0.0001 -0.31 <0.0001 -0.19 0.0002 -0.16 0.0194 45 0.19 0.0022 -0.03 0.8379 -0.01 0.8526 -0.12 0.4100 46 -0.13 0.0865 -0.01 0.9433 -0.04 0.5654 -0.36 0.0337 47 -0.06 0.4224 -0.34 0.0106 0.09 0.2693 0.15 0.2748 58 Fig. 3-7. Connectivity models for New Hampshire generated using RSPF habitat suitability models and Program Circuitscape (left). Areas with highest ‘conductance’ or movement are in yellow and lowest are in dark blue. Connectivity scores for major roads in New Hampshire (right). 59 Fig. 3-8. Connectivity models for New Hampshire generated using expert-opinion resistance models and Program Circuitscape (left). Areas with highest ‘conductance’ or movement are in yellow, and lowest are in dark blue. Connectivity scores for major roads in New Hampshire (right). 60 Bobcats as Surrogates. Data from 952 camera trap nights yielded independent detections of; gray fox = 28, raccoon = 27, fisher = 19, coyotes = 17, opossum = 7, red fox = 2, and bobcat = 1. Pictures were also captured of moose (Alces alces), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus), ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus), grey squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis), and red squirrels (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus). Analysis was only performed on gray foxes, raccoons, fishers, and coyotes. For gray foxes, the top model held the probability of occupancy constant, and detectability varied by the number of days per trapping session (Table 3-3). However, 8 of the 10 models were less than 2 AIC from the top model, including the null model. This indicates that the habitat variables did a poor job explaining the variance seen in gray fox probability of detection and occupancy. For fisher, the top model contained the RSPF based connectivity model for probability of occupancy, and the number camera days for the probability of detection (Table 3-4). Multiple other models in the model set received some weight, including the null model. For coyotes, the top model contained distance to road for probability of occupancy, and the session number for probability of detection (Table 3-5). This model received the majority of weight in the model set (0.82, Table 3-5). The next top model contained the expert opinion connectivity model. The RSPF connectivity model had no support. 61 For raccoons, the top model contained road visibility for probability of occupancy, and the session number for probability of detection (Table 3-6). Two other models were less than 2 AICc from the top model, including a model containing the RSPF connectivity model and a model that held probability of occupancy constant. This indicates little support for the connectivity models. Table 3-3. Gray fox occupancy model set. Model selection was based on AIC weight (AICw). The number of parameters (K), Akaike’s Information Criterion adjusted for small sample sizes (AICc), and the difference in AICc score (∆AICc) are also reported. Ψ = the probability of occupancy, p = detection probability. Model K AICc ∆AICc AICw Detection ψ(.) p(days) 3 108.05 0 0.51 ψ(.) p(.) 2 109.27 1.22 0.28 ψ(.) p(order) 3 110.13 2.08 0.18 ψ(.) p(session) 6 114.13 6.08 0.02 Occupancy ψ(.) p(days) 3 108.05 0 0.25 ψ(eo) p(days) 4 109.24 1.19 0.14 ψ(stream) p(days) 4 109.24 1.19 0.14 ψ(rspf) p(days) 4 109.25 1.2 0.14 ψ(dt_rd) p(days) 4 109.59 1.54 0.12 ψ(canopy) p(days) 4 109.76 1.71 0.11 ψ(rd_vis) p(days) 4 109.87 1.82 0.10 62 Table 3-4. Fisher occupancy model set. Model selection was based on AIC weight (AICw). The number of parameters (K), Akaike’s Information Criterion adjusted for small sample sizes (AICc), and the difference in AICc score (∆AICc) are also reported. Ψ = the probability of occupancy, p = detection probability. Model K AICc ∆AICc AICw Detection ψ(.) p(days) 3 92.79 0 0.4453 ψ(.) p(.) 2 93.3 0.51 0.3451 ψ(.) p(order) 3 94.55 1.76 0.1847 ψ(.) p(session) 6 98.56 5.77 0.0249 Occupancy ψ(rspf) p(days) 4 90.28 0 0.4931 ψ(.) p(days) 3 92.79 2.51 0.1406 ψ(canopy) p(days) 4 93.53 3.25 0.0971 ψ(dt_road) p(days) 4 93.66 3.38 0.091 ψ(stream) p(days) 4 94.06 3.78 0.0745 ψ(rd_vis) p(days) 4 94.78 4.5 0.052 ψ(eo) p(days) 4 94.79 4.51 0.0517 Table 3-5. Coyote occupancy model set. Model selection was based on AIC weight (AICw). The number of parameters (K), Akaike’s Information Criterion adjusted for small sample sizes (AICc), and the difference in AICc score (∆AICc) are also reported. Ψ = the probability of occupancy, p = detection probability. Model K AICc ∆AICc AICw Detection 79.84 0 0.9151 ψ(.) p(session) 7 85.29 5.45 0.06 ψ(.) p(order) 2 87.69 7.85 0.0181 ψ(.) p(.) 3 89.63 9.79 0.0068 ψ(.) p(days) 3 Occupancy ψ(dt_road) p(session) 7 70.13 0 0.8198 ψ(eo) p(session) 7 73.38 3.25 0.1614 ψ(.) p(session) 6 79.84 9.71 0.0064 ψ(stream) p(session) 7 81.11 10.98 0.0034 ψ(rd_vis) p(session) 7 81.18 11.05 0.0033 ψ(rspf) p(session) 7 81.39 11.26 0.0029 ψ(canopy) p(session) 7 81.53 11.4 0.0027 63 Table 3-6. Raccoon occupancy model set. Model selection was based on AIC weight (AICw). The number of parameters (K), Akaike’s Information Criterion adjusted for small sample sizes (AICc), and the difference in AICc score (∆AICc) are also reported. Ψ = the probability of occupancy, p = detection probability. Model K AICc ∆AICc AICw Detection ψ(.) p(session) 7 100.84 0.00 0.48 ψ(.) p(.) 2 102.17 1.33 0.25 ψ(.) p(order) 3 102.72 1.88 0.19 ψ(.) p(days) 3 104.12 3.28 0.09 Occupancy ψ(rd_vis) p(session) 7 96.92 0 0.39 ψ(rspf) p(session) 7 98.15 1.23 0.21 ψ(.) p(session) 6 98.84 1.92 0.15 ψ(stream) p(session) 7 100.25 3.33 0.07 ψ(canopy) p(session) 7 100.75 3.83 0.06 ψ(eo) p(session) 7 100.83 3.91 0.06 ψ(dt_road) p(session) 7 100.84 3.92 0.06 DISCUSSION Improving connectivity in fragmented habitats is important to bobcats because they can be limited in their home range movements by roads and developed areas (Crooks 2002, Broman 2012, Chapter II), and are susceptible to vehicle collisions (Tash and Litvaitis 2008). This may result in landscape-level effects where bobcat populations become isolated due to unsuccessful dispersal, limiting gene flow (e.g., Lee et al. 2012). Assessment of Connectivity Methods Using subsequent GPS-locations to make movement paths for collared bobcats resulted in a relatively straightforward way to assess connectivity models. If the predicted 64 connectivity models, made using Circuitscape, were meaningful, actual paths would receive higher scores compared to random paths. This would demonstrate that areas predicted to have greater movement potential were corroborated with actual movements. RSPF models accurately predicted for 16 out of 18 bobcats, while expert opinion model predicted 12 out of 18 bobcats; a clear majority for each method used. Despite the relative success of both models, the RSPF method did a better a job modeling movement compared to expert opinion models. This should not be surprising, given the added detail that was incorporated in that model and previous literature showing improvement that empirical data has over expert opinion models (Clevenger et al. 2002, Johnson et al. 2010). While the expert opinion model was based on five variables influencing habitat, the RSPF model was built using eight, and this added detail is probably part of the observed difference in accuracy. Additional variables included; distance to forest edge, aspect, and a measurement of ruggedness (VRM), all of which are important variables in bobcat habitat selection (Chapter II), and may influence connectivity as well. Regardless of the marked improvement in the RSPF model, the expert-opinion model should not be discounted when making resistant layers. For certain management scenarios, such as state wildlife action plans, it would be cost and time prohibitive to collect empirical data for all species. Individual based expert-opinion models may be better than attempting to make a connectivity plan with only one or a handful of focal species. When the opportunity exists though, empirical data should be utilized. In this particular study, nothing special was changed to make the connectivity model. If data for species-specific habitat use is available, it should be utilized to make the resistance 65 model, or at least validate the expert-opinion model. These steps will help ensure better performing connectivity models. In addition to using locations to construct paths, models of movement using Brownian bridges offer an alternative and complimentary approach to assessing connectivity (Horne et al. 2007, Sawyer et al. 2009, Lewis et al. 2011, Sawyer et al. 2013). When using locations to construct pathways, measures of uncertainty between locations are not taken into account. Browning bridge movement models (BBMMs) were designed with knowledge of this uncertainty and resulted in utilization distributions, as opposed to distinct paths. This may improve assessments because animals rarely travel in a straight line between GPS fixes, most likely resulting in an inaccurate prediction of a road crossing. However, if an animal routinely crosses a road in a similar spot, that will become apparent in its utilization distribution. When an animal is sensitive to roads, it must make a choice of where to cross. This can be influenced by habitat, topographic features, and anthropogenic features (Waller and Servheen 2005, Dodd et al. 2007, Lewis et al. 2011), therefore bottlenecks of movement should be found in fragmented landscapes. If those spots of high predicted movement by the BBMM are correlated with high circuit theory scores the model can be assessed. Results from correlations between BBMMs and connectivity scores were moderately successful, indicating that connectivity models did a good job of predicting inter-home range movement. Under the RSPF model, there was significant correlation between Circuitscape scores and BBMM UD’s for the study population, and 11 of 18 individual bobcats. While a majority of the individual connectivity models predicted correctly, a ~61% success rate is not optimal. 66 After the original analyses were completed, comparisons were made between the bobcats that were predicted correctly and those that weren’t. I found that there was no significant difference between sex, age, home range size, or number of locations used. I then predicted that connectivity models may be more successful in modeling bobcat movements in home ranges that contain more land cover altered by anthropogenic means. I assumed that these landscapes are more likely to contain areas where bobcats are forced to travel around development, creating bottlenecks of movement. In areas with less development bobcat movements would not be as constrained. While there is a difference between the mean percentage of human-altered land covers (either developed or agriculture) when comparing the two types of bobcat home ranges (µ = 15.1%, σ = 9.6% vs. µ = 9.6%, σ = 4.7%) it was not significant (ANOVA: F=1.99, p=0.18). This could be a function of the small sample size. Despite this, it still appears that the RSPF models did a relatively good job of predicting individual movement within home ranges, and validation techniques such as this one should be employed when modeling connectivity. There were much fewer significant correlations for individual bobcats between BBMM and Circuitscape scores when the expert-opinion model was used (five out of eighteen). All five correctly predicted by the expert opinion model were also predicted by the RSPF model, which shows some agreement between resistance layers. And while it worked comparatively well at the path level analysis, it falls short when identifying potential bottlenecks at road crossings. Again, this is most likely due to the added detail that the RSPF model contains compared to the expert opinion model. It remains to be seen whether the poor performance of the expert opinion model at the home range level would carry over to landscape level connectivity. 67 Statewide Connectivity Models It is important to assess models before we implement them, and identifying movement at the home range level can aid in make wildlife crossing safer, resulting in less mortalities. However, the greatest benefits and aspirations of connectivity conservation are to protect and build linkages at the landscape level. This has a much better chance of assuring gene flow, and will help ensure long term survival of a species. Unfortunately, testing landscape level connectivity is very difficult to do in real time. Genetic methods can tell us about connectivity over time (e.g., McRae and Beier 2008), and whether there are dispersers or migrants between populations (e.g., Spong and Creel 2001), but using genetics to assess the real-time validity of connectivity plans is more difficult. Furthermore, using GPS data to assess how an animal disperses through habitats can also be difficult, although not impossible (Driezen et al. 2007). Juveniles, and ones that will disperse between good patches of habitat, can be difficult to mark and follow. This is why using home range movements to assess models should be used when available, but ultimately genetic or field methods designed for landscape connectivity will perform better and can more fully validate models. Increased accuracy for road-kill locations would improve connectivity assessment. These data are of relatively small cost, and if carcasses are spatially referenced, they can aid in determining where mortalities are occurring. This may highlight potential roadside features that contribute to vehicular collisions. Furthermore, genetic data can be collected from carcasses to assess gene flow for the population. 68 Efforts to extrapolate statewide models of connectivity using expert opinion and RSPF resistant layers resulted in some similarities. Both models showed an avoidance of roads. Therefore, agreement between models shows low flow through New Hampshire’s densest populations such as those near the I-93 and I-95 transportation corridors in the Merrimack Valley and Seacoast portions of the state (Figs. 4-1, 4-7, 4-8). However, the expert opinion model put a much stronger influence on roads, and therefore areas between major cities in southeastern New Hampshire have lower flow in the expert opinion model compared to the RSPF. Bobcats in these more densely populated areas may function as sinks in the population (Chapter II). Use of connectivity models to plan road crossing structures may mitigate the negative effects of roads in this area. Major differences between the two models also existed when extrapolated statewide. Most notably, there was disagreement through the northern part of the state and the White Mountains. The expert opinion model predicts little resistance in these areas and therefore the highest flow is predicted. Whereas the RSPF model predicted this to be the lowest quality habitat, and therefore there is virtually no connectivity predicted through this area. This highlights an important distinction between the types of two models. The expert opinion model was built to show resistance on the landscape – not habitat suitability. The RSPF model was built to model habitat suitability and only functions as a good resistance layer if the assumption that bobcats will move through areas of high suitability more often than low suitability is met. In the instance of northern portion of the state and the White Mountains, during times with deep snowpack, this area may be very poor habitat, however during the rest of the year it probably offers much less resistance to movement. Assessment of the accuracy of these approaches is probably best 69 done with genetic studies. Wasserman et al. (2010) found that genetic flow was best described by elevation in American marten (Martes americana) in Idaho, and not with their empirically-based habitat map. This means that the added detail found within the empirical RSPF may be better at predicting within home range movements, but this may not extend out to landscape-level genetic connectivity. Surrogate Species Species with large area requirements are often selected to be surrogate or focal species in connectivity conservation (Bani et al. 2002, Beier et al. 2008, Epps et al. 2011); however there is debate about their usefulness and application in the conservation community (e.g. Lindenmeyer et al. 2002, Wiens et al. 2008). The use of bobcats as a surrogate species received moderate support from camera trapping data and occupancy analysis. Bobcats only appeared to be a good surrogate for fishers, which agrees with findings by Leoniak et al. (2012) in northern New Hampshire. Both raccoon and coyote occupancy was better predicted by whether the road was visible from the camera site or the distance from the camera to the road, respectively. None of the models of gray fox occupancy were significantly better than the null. These findings may be due to a small sample size, and limited camera trapping field season. Alternatively, the finding could be a function of the species biology. Fishers require the most specific habitat features of the group, requiring coniferous or mixed wood stands and avoiding open areas (Powell et al. 2002). In contrast, coyotes, raccoons, and gray foxes are considered habitat generalists, and so significant overlap between them and bobcats may not be so readily observed. 70 Furthermore, coyotes, raccoons and gray foxes have been shown to be very tolerant of human presence. And while any conservation connectivity program should attempt to benefit all species, these animals are not in dire need of conservation action. Noss and Daly (2006) recommended that connectivity plans focus on species for which habitat loss and fragmentation are of greater concern. So while, connectivity models for bobcats were only successful in predicting fisher occupancy, this is the species for which further connectivity measures would most likely be focused. This is highlighted by its inclusion in the NH Connectivity Plan, while the other species were not (NH Audubon & NHFG 2010). Nonetheless, given this available data, it is hard to conclude that bobcats may be a viable, stand-alone surrogate for connectivity planning in the northeast. They may be a good choice to represent medium-sized carnivores when a suite of species is employed, as in the analysis done by NHFG and NH Audubon (2010). However more extensive field testing needs to be done before they can realistically be chosen as surrogate. Conclusions We must find solutions to our increasingly fragmented landscape, and connectivity conservation promises to be a great tool for reaching that goal. However, given the limited resources involved, careful planning is necessary. By looking at bobcat connectivity in New Hampshire a number of important concepts were explored; expertopinion vs. empirical connectivity models, validation of connectivity models, extrapolation of models, the use of surrogate species as a conservation tool. 71 Empirical models of connectivity can be more successful in modeling bobcat movement at the home-range scale. This was shown using path level analysis and Brownian bridge movement models, two techniques that can be used to assess connectivity models. If the goal is to mitigate deaths from vehicle collisions the empirical model may be a better choice. This could have direct implications when attempting to make connectivity plans for imperiled species or those for which any mortality has a strong effect on the overall health of the population. When models were extrapolated statewide, differences in model output became more apparent. Expert-opinion models showed high connectivity throughout western New Hampshire and into the northern region, agreeing with what is considered historically good bobcat habitat (see Chapter II). Conversely, the empirical model showed high connectivity throughout most of southern New Hampshire, and to the north through lower elevation areas, but low connectivity through the White Mountains and the northern most part of the state. The expert opinion model may better depict overall connectivity and thus gene flow in the state. When planning for connectivity the overall goal may help determine which type of resistance layer is best to use. As for using bobcats as a surrogate species, neither model was adept at describing occupancy at roads for the full suite of mammalian carnivores in southern New Hampshire. However, overlap potentially exists between bobcats and fishers. Additional investigation into this topic is warranted given its wide-spread use in conservation and its moderate demonstrated successes, nevertheless based off this data, bobcats cannot be endorsed as a surrogate that will function for a range of species in connectivity modeling. 72 Finally, further validation of the two connectivity models could best be done using genetic techniques. The empirical model may help plan areas to mitigate direct mortality to bobcats at road crossings, which will increase connections between populations. However, to measure the true effect of fragmentation by development in New Hampshire, an analysis of gene flow is needed. This will demonstrate whether fragmentation is having a negative effect on species persistence in the state. This could easily be implemented using genetic data from bobcats killed by vehicle collisions or incidental captures that have been spatially referenced. 73 CHAPTER IV POPULATION ESTIMATE FOR BOBCATS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE BASED ON HOME RANGE SIZE AND COMPOSITION Estimating population size has been identified as the greatest challenge in bobcat management (Bluett et al. 2001, Anderson and Lovallo 2003). In a survey of state wildlife managers, Bluett et al. (2001) found that abundance, along with distribution, were recognized as the most important research needs. Unfortunately, exact population counts for bobcats are nearly impossible, and other assessments are generally inaccurate (Anderson and Lovallo 2003). Bobcats are a territorial species and live a solitary life (Sunquist and Sunquist 2002). Their home-range size is closely tied to prey species (Litvaitis et al. 1986), so in areas of low productivity they likely exist at low densities (e.g., Litvaitis et al. 1986, Fox 1990). Additionally, they often inhabit rugged landscapes with a dense understory vegetation (Young 1958, Anderson and Lovallo 2003), making sampling problematic. All of these factors contribute to the difficulty in making an accurate population estimate. Estimates of population size help establish a baseline for future management actions. Efforts to track or estimate populations of bobcats by state agencies are most often accomplished through hunter/trapper surveys (31 states) and/or harvest data (26 states) (Bluett et al. 2001). Rolley (1987) found that these measures only detect large changes in populations (i.e., >50%), and therefore are often unreliable. Other inexpensive 74 methods of tracking populations include scents station surveys (Diefenbach 1994), track counts along transects (Thompson 1989), and scat-based inventories (Long et al. 2007). However, these methods only offer a crude analysis of population trends, and often cannot be used to directly estimate population size. Recently, use of camera surveys (Heilbrun et al. 2006, Larrucea et al. 2007) and genetic methods (Ruell et al. 2009) in a mark-recapture framework have provided accurate estimates of density, but only at a relatively small spatial scale. Extrapolating these densities to areas relevant to management (e.g., statewide or smaller management units) encounter the same difficulties of extrapolating habitat-suitability measurements (Chapter II). Additionally, these studies were in areas with dense bobcat populations. Their applicability to populations at more northerly latitudes may not be feasible. As a consequence of the difficulties in measuring bobcat populations, methods utilizing home-range requirements and habitat suitability maps are often employed when estimating population size (Lovallo 1999, and Nielsen and Woolf 2002, Donovan et al. 2012, Broman 2013). The basic premise of these methods involves first determining the exclusive home range or territory area requirements of the study species. Burt (1943) described a territory as the exclusive and protected area of an animal’s home range. Next, a habitat suitability map is made, with areas of suitable and unsuitable habitat clearly defined. If the study animal has an exclusive home range, as female bobcats do (Bailey 1974, Berg 1981, Lawhead 1984, Anderson 1987, Donovan et al. 2011), the amount of suitable habitat is simply divided by the exclusive home range size. In addition, spatial configurations can be addressed in GIS by aggregating suitability scores to the size of an 75 exclusive home range, and then summing the number of suitable pixels (Boyce and McDonald 1999). These methods are relatively easy to implement, especially if fine scale habitat and home-range information have been collected. They can also give a statewide estimate of populations if considerations of spatial scale have been factored into the habitat suitability map. Finally, they allow for changes in population estimates as habitat alteration occurs or if more accurate estimates of home range size are obtained. Populations of bobcats have been increasing range-wide (Roberts and Crimmins 2010) and incidental sightings demonstrated a possible increase in New Hampshire, as well (Litvaitis et al. 2006, Broman 2012). However, prior to these studies there was minimal data on the bobcat population in New Hampshire because harvest seasons were suspended in 1989. Due to their apparent population increase, a GPS-telemetry study was initiated in 2008 to analyze habitat use and estimate abundance. Using habitat-suitability maps and home-range requirements for 11 bobcats (10 male and 1 female) in southwestern New Hampshire, Broman (2012) estimated there were between 465 and 952 resident bobcats in the state. An additional 7 bobcats (3 males and 4 female) from the southwestern study area were used to generate a second-generation habitat suitability model (Chapter II). With the availability of this revised habitat suitability map (Chapter II), I constructed estimates of bobcat abundance in New Hampshire and compared these to estimates generated in adjacent states. The objective of this study is to; i.) estimate home-ranges for bobcats and compare findings to adjacent states, ii.) update the population estimate given the additional home-range data and the habitat-suitability map 76 generated in Chapter II, and iii.) compare population estimates with those of neighboring states in the New England area. METHODS Home-Range Estimation Home ranges were generated using a fixed kernel density estimator (Seamen and Powell 1996) with least squares cross-validation within the Home Range Extension (Hooge and Eichenlaub 1997) of ArcView 3.3 (Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, CA, USA). Through simulations, Seaman and Powell (1996) found that fixed kernel density estimators gave the least biased prediction of home ranges. Home ranges were modeled at 50% and 95% utilization distributions (UD), and core areas were defined as 50% UD. All home-range estimations utilized a minimum of 30 locations. Mean home ranges were computed for each sex, and these figures were used to estimate the population of resident bobcats. Additionally, home ranges were used to define ‘available’ locations for individual bobcats in RSPF analysis (Chapter II). Population Estimation Population estimates for adult resident bobcats and associated reproduction were made using home-range area requirements and habitat suitability models. First, a population estimate of resident adult female bobcats was made based on observed homerange sizes, distribution, and the habitat-suitability model generated in Chapter II. Consistent with past studies, (Bailey 1974, Berg 1981, Lawhead 1984, Anderson 1987, Donovan et al. 2011), no intrasexual overlap was observed for marked females, and I 77 used this assumption to make the population estimate. I followed recommendations by Donovan et al. (2011, 2012) that only females be used for population estimates. Additionally, Anderson and Lovallo (2003) assert that estimating mean intrasexual home range overlap when not all bobcats within a study area are captured is meaningless. Finally, Chamberlain and Leopold (2001) recommend not making estimates of spatial organization unless relatedness among individuals is known. Because of this, the estimate of the resident female population and observed sex ratio were used to estimate the number of male bobcats. Following this, an estimation of kittens was made, and contributed to overall population estimate at two time periods throughout the year. To estimate the resident female bobcat population, I first resampled the scaleintegrated habitat suitability map (Chapter II) so that each pixel was equivalent to mean home-range size of marked female bobcats. In the process of resampling, each pixel was assigned the mean score of the aggregated pixels it contained. Any pixel that had a mean habitat suitability score ≥0.5 was considered an occupied territory. To estimate resident male bobcat population a 50:50 sex-ratio was assumed (Rolley 1985). Tate (New Hampshire Fish and Game furbearer biologist, personal communication) collected incidentally captured and road-killed bobcats in New Hampshire from 2008-2013. In that sample 71 female and 84 male bobcats were collected, not different from an assumed 50:50 sex ratio (X2 (1, 155) = 1.090, p = 0.291). Using the assumption that males and females are approximately equal in the population, the total estimated female population was doubled to estimate the potential resident adult bobcat population. 78 To estimate the number of kittens per year the mean number of placenta scars was calculated from the same incidental captures and road-kill carcasses; µ= 2.09 (Tate, personal communication). It was assumed that there was 100% breeding success for resident females, therefore the mean placental scar was multiplied by the number of estimated females. This number gave the estimated number of kittens immediately following birth in May-June. An additional population estimate was made for late fall using observed survival rates from past studies. An observed survival rate for adult bobcats from May 1 – October 31 from Knick (1990) of 0.85 was used to estimate adult bobcats still alive in October/November. This was one of the few studies to estimate survival rate by season for an unexploited bobcat population, however Chamberlain (1999) made a similar yearround survival estimate of 0.80 for an unexploited population of bobcats in Mississippi. An observed survival rate from 0 to 0.5 years of age from Rolley (1985) of 0.36 was used to estimate the number of kittens still alive in October/November. Total population estimate represents the number of resident adults and kittens within the population, and does not include potential transients. RESULTS Home Range Estimation Eighteen collared bobcats were used to estimate home-range size and describe habitat selection; 11 from the southwestern study area and 7 from the southeastern study area (Table 4-1; for addition details on individual bobcats see Appendix D). Thirteen 79 male bobcats, utilizing 89-1138 locations, were used to determine mean home-range size of 81.6 km2 (SD = 70.2). One male bobcat had a home range over twice the size of the next largest male and when his home range was removed the mean size dropped to 64.1 km2 (SD = 31.8). Five female bobcats, utilizing 152 to 909 locations, had a mean home range of 23.84 km2 (SD = 7.24) (Table 4-2). Female bobcats exhibited no intrasexual overlap in home ranges. Male bobcats had observed intrasexual home range overlap from ~0 to 95%; however, Lovallo and Anderson (2002) do not recommend estimating mean intrasexual home range overlap when not all bobcats within a study area are captured. Therefore, only mean female home-range size was utilized for the habitat arearequirement method, with the estimate for males and kittens based off the estimate of female bobcats. Population Estimate Estimates of resident female bobcat territories resulted in a prediction of 547 (Fig. 4-1, Table 4-2). The total potential resident adult population was estimated by doubling the number of females, resulting in a total resident population estimate of 1094 (Table 42). Kittens were calculated by multiplying female bobcats by the observed mean number of placental scars, µ= 2.09 (Tate unpublished date), resulting in an estimate of 1143 (Table 4-2). Adding resident adults and kittens gives a total population estimate of 2237 (Table 4-2). This estimate is valid for the time immediately following bobcat births in May/June. Population estimate for October/November was made by multiplying the resident adult bobcat estimate by the 0.85 survival rate (Knick 1990) and the kitten estimate by the 0.36 survival rate (Rolley 1985). This resulted in 972 resident adults and 80 414 kittens surviving their first six months, and a total population of approximately 1386 bobcats (Table 4-2). Table 4-1. Sex, age, weight, study area, number of usable locations, home range (95% utilization distribution) and core area (50% utilization distribution) of bobcats in the study. Bobcats from the southwest (SW) study area were trapped and collared in 200910, and bobcats in the southeast (SE) were trapped and collared in 2011. ID Sex Study Area Age Weight (kg) Locations 95% UD 50% UD 26 Male SW 4 13.5 860 72.59 5.26 27 Male SW 2 8.5 848 126.59 5.72 28 Female SW 10 12.3 433 29.69 2.47 29 Male SW 7 16.8 233 54.37 14.03 30 Male SW 5 14.5 705 103.05 9.79 31 Male SW 9 12.7 94 61.57 10.45 32 Male SW 8 14.1 205 56.41 2.33 33 Male SW 5 11.5 89 59.83 9.98 34 Male SW 3 16.0 416 80.18 8.59 39 Male SW 3 11.5 381 28.69 1.85 40 Male SW 5 12.3 319 292.07 47.8 41 Male SE 3 12.8 252 16.36 1.37 42 Male SE 5 14.5 1138 27.27 0.94 43 Male SE 4 11.5 371 81.95 7.64 44 Female SE 4 9.1 884 14.05 1.29 45 Female SE 1 7.8 818 24.74 1.2 46 Female SE 1 6.0 909 19.28 0.67 47 Female SE 4 7.7 152 31.46 5.07 81 Fig. 4-1. Habitat suitability map generated from incidental observations and marked bobcats. Pixels in the map have been re-scaled to the size of the average marked females home range (23.8 km2) and habitat suitability scores (range 0-1) of the aggregated cells were averaged (left). Home-ranged size cells were classified as either occupied (≥0.5) or unoccupied (<0.5) based on average habitat suitability scores. Occupied cells were summed to obtain an estimate of resident female bobcat territories. Table 4-2. Population estimates of bobcats in New Hampshire generated using home range requirements and habitat suitability. Total population estimate is the sum of resident adults and kittens. A survival rate from May/June to October/November of 0.85 (Knick 1990) was assumed for adults, and a survival rate of 0.36 (Rolley 1985) for kittens. Time Female Male Resident Adults Kittens Total May/June 547 547 1094 1143 2237 October/November 486 486 972 414 1386 82 DISCUSSION Potential Population Estimate Observations on exclusive home-range size requirements, coupled with the scaleintegrated habitat suitability map enabled me to make predictions about the potential bobcat population for the state at the present time. These methods utilize a variety of assumptions and can be difficult to verify. Furthermore, this estimate is of the potential number of bobcats the state could support given the current habitat configuration, not an actual census of the population. Without determining if bobcats are present in territories estimated to be occupied, I cannot say for certain what the actual population is in New Hampshire. Despite this, the estimates give a straightforward assessment of the population, allowing decision-makers to consider the implications of future land use and management decisions on the population. I used the observed mean home range size of marked female bobcats to re-scale the habitat suitability map. Each home range sized pixel was then classified as either suitable or unsuitable, and then summed to get an estimate of 547 female bobcat territories in the state. Obviously, these potential home ranges have not been sampled themselves, so total occupancy of these home ranges is not known. However, this could be validated by using spatially referenced sightings, road kills, incidental captures, or remote cameras. I chose to use female bobcats because they are most important to the population demographically, and zero home range overlap was observed between marked females. 83 Identification of exclusive area requirements is important when using these methods of population estimation (Boyce and McDonald 1999), and this estimates could not be reliably attained for male bobcats. Therefore, to get an estimate of male bobcats a 50:50 sex-ratio was assumed and corroborated with road kill and incidental sightings data. Furthermore, our own trapping record had a sex ratio of 2.6:1 males to females. Despite this, accurate assessments of sex ratios are difficult to obtain (Anderson and Lovallo 2003). And while sex ratios are usually 1:1 at birth (Anderson 1987, Stys and Leopold 1993) susceptibly to trapping, and thus survival differ between sexes can alter this ratio (Fuller et al. 1995). Males are believed to be more susceptible to harvest because they have bigger home ranges and traverse a larger area increasing their probability of being trapped (Anderson and Lovallo 2003). This may also increase their risk of mortality from vehicle collisions. Because of this, the data from incidental captures and vehicle mortalities may not be a true reflection of the sex ratio. However, given this is a relatively unexploited population the ratio may be skewed towards males. Lembeck and Gould (1979) observed a sex ratio of 2:1 males to females in the unexploited population of bobcats they studied in southern California. Furthermore, Zezulak and Schwab (1979) suggest that in dense populations of bobcats, males may have competitive advantages. Based on this, I feel that sex ratio of 1:1 is justified, but the estimate of adult bobcats could be dramatically different if the sex ratio is inaccurate. To estimate bobcat litter size I used observed placental scars. Bobcat litter size is estimated a variety of ways, based on; corpora lutea, placental scars, embryos, and live litters. These estimates often differ (Anderson and Lovallo 2002), are affected by age (Koehler and Aubry 1994), and prey availability (Knick 1990) which complicates 84 extrapolations beyond resident adults. Furthermore, pregnancy rates can decrease markedly during times of lower prey availability (Knick 1990). This will be an important consideration during severe winters in New Hampshire. Nonetheless, the litter rate used, 2.09, was smaller than the average of 2.7 that Anderson (1987) computed across 21 studies. Estimates of kitten survival over the first half year (S = 0.362) were made from Rolley (1985). Unfortunately, estimates of survival during this time are difficult to obtain. Rolley’s estimates come from a harvested population in Oklahoma, which differs in management and geography from New Hampshire, but it coincides with estimates from Blackenship and Swank in Texas (S = 0.26; 1979) and Hoppe in Michigan (S = 0.33; 1979). Bobcats experience the lowest survival rate during their first year, and therefore it was important to estimate this effect on the population. Furthermore, bobcats at 0.5 years bobcats are about to enter their first winter, the most energetically taxing season for them. It is also the time of most trapping seasons, so an estimate of population is useful for this time. It is important to note that this estimate does not explicitly consider transient bobcats. Transient bobcats, usually yearlings or subadults, do not have a defined home range and most often have recently dispersed from their natal home range (Blankenship et al. 2006). While transients can be either male or female, Blankenship et al. (2006) suggested that the majority are male. Males may spend more time as transients because females exhibit greater philopatry, often establishing home ranges in or adjacent to their natal home range. The population model only considered resident females, but used this number to predict male bobcats based on sex ratios. So while, transients were not 85 explicitly considered in female population estimate, there may be some present in the male estimate, which should be considered when attempting to apply the population estimate. It should also be noted that more detailed methods of habitat area-requirement population estimates are available (e.g., Downs et al 2008, Donovan et al. 2012). Donovan et al. (2012) used a technique, maximum clique analysis, to estimate female bobcat potential carrying capacity for a study area in Vermont. This method found the maximum number of non-overlapping, suitable pseudo-home ranges in a defined area using the program Clique (Niskanen and Ostergard 2003). Potential home ranges are allowed to vary in size and shape, which is a more realistic representation of populations. However, the technique is computationally intense, and suffers from many of the same limitations of any habitat-area requirement method. Namely, our ability to estimate exclusive territories for individuals, as well as, correctly gauge habitat requirements based largely on land cover, topographic, and anthropogenic features. Given that the two methods have similar constraints and assumptions, I chose to go with the more straightforward approach. In the end, both methods provide a baseline estimate to measure the effects of future land use changes and management actions on the population. Implications of Home Range Size In the two study areas, male and female bobcats utilized home ranges with a mean of 81.6 km2 and 23.8 km2, respectively. Removing the largest male home ranges from the samples (292.1 km2) resulted in a reduction to 64.1 km2 (SD = 31.8). Although 86 differences are apparent, these values are contained within estimates in Vermont (70.9 km2 and 22.9 km2; Donovan et al. 2011), Maine (95.7 km2, 31.2 km2; Litvaitis et al. 1986), and Wisconsin (60.4 km2, 28.5 km2; Lovallo and Anderson 1996). Home range sizes are believed to be functions of the energetic needs of an animal (McNab 1963, Harestad and Bunnel 1979). Supporting this, Litvaitis et al. (1986) found that bobcat home range size in Maine was inversely correlated with snowshoe hare density, the main prey item in the study area. However, it is clear from the supporting chapter, that habitat suitability, and thus most likely prey availability, changes across the state. Relatively small linear distances can have large effects on home-range size if climatic variables influencing vegetation and prey are markedly different. For example, Fox (1990) found vastly different home range sizes between the Catskills (36.0 km2 and 31.0 km2, for males and females, respectively) of southern New York and the Adirondacks in northern New York (325.7 km2 and 86.4 km2, for males and females, respectively). He attributed this difference partly due to a greater energy stress for populations in the Adirondacks. Likewise, Knick (1990) saw home ranges in Idaho increase from 20.4 km2 and 11.6 km2 (males and females, respectively; 1982-1984) to 123.0 km2 and 69.7 km2 (males and females, respectively; 1984-1985) when lagomorph populations decreased between years. Therefore, more research into what types of prey, and with what frequency they are being consumed would help facilitate comparisons across study areas and states. New England cottontails, one of the bobcats main prey items historically, have decreased dramatically. Past data on stomach contents (Litvaitis et al. 2006) and current data from road-killed bobcats (unpublished, Litvaitis) in New Hampshire suggests that 87 they prey on a large variety of animals, mostly made up of small mammals. Anecdotal evidence from sightings information suggests that turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo) may also be a food source, although to what importance is unknown (Litvaitis, personal communication). Additionally, bobcats have been witnessed stalking birds and small mammals at bird feeders during winter months (Litvaitis, personal communication). These behaviors could signify bobcat’s adaptation to changing landscapes and prey availably, and further study would aid in understanding of how increased development may affect bobcats in the future. However, these samples and our knowledge of bobcat home-ranges in New Hampshire are largely focused on the southern region of the state. Home-range size and prey availability in the north is likely substantially different than in the rest of state. Fox (1990) observed a sex ratio skewed towards males in northern New York, which he attributed to their greater ability to hunt white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) compared to females. Bobcats in northern New Hampshire may also prey more on deer and utilize large home ranges, at this time, which should be considered in any management decisions. However, if snow depths decline and the region becomes more productive, stark differences home-range size may be reduced. Comparison to New England States The current status of bobcats in other New England states compiled by Broman (2012) and Roberts and Crimmins (2010) was used to make comparisons between states (Table 4-3). Of the six states, only three (Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont) currently have a harvest. In each of these states the population is monitored using an analysis of the 88 harvest. All of the states use multiple methods to monitor abundance and trends over time. Vehicle collisions were used by every state, and 5 of the 6 states used public sightings. Improvements of these methods through spatial verification and documentation, as well as more a systematic approach to their implementation could improve their validity and application. Only 3 of the 6 states made estimations of the population, however, Roberts and Crimmins (2010) recommend following trends over time as an adequate way to manage bobcat populations. Finally, of the states reporting an overall trend in population, 4 of the 6 noted a stable or increasing population. Going forward, changes in land use practices, climate, or management could influence both bobcat home range size and habitat use, thereby altering the potential carrying capacity. For example, severe winters with deep snow packs may cause losses in potential prey items and force bobcats to increase home range size, limiting the number of territories. Additionally, a growing human population will result in decreased habitat suitability and may cause the overall carrying capacity to decline. Perhaps more useful than a one-time estimate of population, would be an analysis of the population trend over time. Habitat analysis could be redone as road densities, land covers, and management practice change. Additionally, trends in sightings data, whether submitted by the general public or through the use of hunter surveys could provide a means to assess the changes in population abundance through time. As development throughout the state increases habitat suitability may decrease causing the overall carrying capacity to decline. 89 Table 4-3. The current status of bobcat populations in the six New England states. Table was adapted from Broman (2012) and Roberts and Crimmins (2010). Information was obtained from state wildlife agencies. Whether there is currently a harvest, monitoring techniques, estimates of potential abundance, suitable habitat area (km2), and overall population status are included. Monitoring methods included harvest analysis (HA), incidental harvest (IH), monitored individuals (MI), public sightings (PS), and vehicle collisions. State Harvest Monitoring Abundance Habitat Status Connecticut Closed IH, PS, VC Unknown 11,655 Increasing New Hampshire Closed IH, MI, PS, VC 1,508-2,237 13,126 Increasing Maine Open HA, VC Unknown 40,000 Stable Massachusetts Open HA, PS ,VC 1,200 12,501 Unknown Rhode Island Closed PS, VC Unknown Unknown Unknown Vermont Open 23,310 Increasing HA, IH, MI, PS, VC 2,500-3,500 By understanding an animal’s spatial and habitat requirements, we can make an estimate of population size. For bobcats, this addresses one of the greatest needs of management agencies and can inform decisions about conservation status, harvest management, and the effects on prey species. Additionally, we can make comparisons between population status and home-range size across regions to get a proxy for the habitat and prey available, as well as the overall health of the population. 90 LITERATURE CITED Akaike, H. 1973. Information theory as an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. Pages 267-281 in B. N. Petrov and F. Csaki, eds. Second international symposium on information theory. Akademiai Kiado, Budapest, Hungary. Anderson, E.M., 1987. Bobcat behavioral ecology in relation to resource use in southeastern Colorado. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. Anderson, M.G., M. Clark, and A. Olivero Sheldon. 2012. Resilient Sites for Terrestrial Conservation in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Region. The Nature Conservancy, Eastern Conservation Science. Anderson, E.M. and M.J. Lovallo. 2003. Bobcat and Lynx. Pages 758-786. In: G.A. Feldhamer, B.C. Thompson, and J.A. Chapman, eds. Wild Mammals of North America: Biology, Management, and Conservation. Johns Hopkins University Press. Andren, H. 1994. Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different proportions of suitable habitat: a review. Oikos, 71:355–366. Bailey, T. N. 1974. Social organization in a bobcat population. Journal of Wildlife Management 38:435–446. Bailey, T. N. 1981. Factors of bobcat social organization and some management implications. Pages 984-1000. In: J. A. Chapman and D. Pursley, eds. Proceedings of the Worldwide Furbearer Conference. Worldwide Furbearer Conference, Frostburg, Maryland. Bani, L., M. Baietto, L. Bottoni, and R. Massa. 2002. The use of focal species in designing a habitat network for a lowland area of Lombardy, Italy. Conservation Biology 16:826–831. Beckmann, J. P., and J. Berger. 2003. Rapid ecological and behavioural changes in carnivores: the responses of black bears (Ursus americanus) to altered food. Journal of Zoology 261:207–212. Beier, P. 1993. Determining minimum habitat areas and habitat corridors for cougars. Conservation Biology 7:94–108. Beier, P. 1995. Dispersal of juvenile cougars in fragmented habitat. Journal of Wildlife Management 59:228–237. Beier, P., D. R. Majka, and W. D. Spencer. 2008. Forks in the road: choices in procedures for designing wildland linkages. Conservation Biology 22:836-851. 91 Beier, P., and R. F. Noss. 1998. Do habitat corridors provide connectivity? Conservation Biology 12:1241–1252. Berger, J. 2004. The Last Mile: How to sustain long-distance migration in mammals. Conservation Biology 18:320–331. Bennett, A. F. 1999. Linkages in the landscape: the role of corridors and connectivity in wildlife conservation. World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland. Berg, W.E., 1981. Ecology of bobcats in northern Minnesota. Natural Wildlife Federation Science Technology Series 6: 62–69. Bergin, T. M. 1992. habitat selection by the western kingbird in western Nebraska: A hierarchical analysis. The Condor 94:903–911. Beyer, H.L. 2012. Geospatial Modelling Environment (Version 0.7.1.0). http://www.spatialecology.com/gme. Blankenship, T.L., A. Haines, M.E. Tewes, and N.J. Silvy. 2006. Comparing survival and cause specific mortality between resident and transient bobcats. Journal of Wildlife Biology 12:297-303. Blankenship, T. L. and W. G. Swank. 1979. Population dynamic aspects of the bobcat in Texas. Pages 116-122. In: P. C. Escherlich and L. Blum, eds. Proceedings of the 1979 bobcat research conference (Science and Technology Series 6) National Wildlife Federation, Washington, D.C. Bluett, R. D., G. F. Hubert , and A. Woolf . 2001. Perspectives on bobcat management in Illinois. Pages 67–73. In: Woolf, A., C. K. Nielsen, and R. D. Bluett, eds. Proceedings of the symposium on current bobcat research and implications for management, The Wildlife Society 2000 Conference. Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University. Boyce, M. S. 2006. Scale for resource selection functions. Diversity and Distributions 12:269–276. Boyce, M. S., and L. L. McDonald. 1999. Relating populations to habitats using resource selection functions. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 14:268–272. Boyce, M. S., P. R. Vernier, S. E. Nielsen, and F. K. Schmiegelow. 2002. Evaluating resource selection functions. Ecological Modeling 157:281–300. Broman, D. J. A. 2012. A comparison of bobcat (Lynx rufus) habitat suitability models derived from radio telemetry and incidental observations. Master’s Thesis. University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH. 92 Burnham, K. P. and D. R. Anderson. 2002. Model selection and multi-model inference. Springer-Verlag, New York. Burt, W. H. 1943. Territoriality and home range concepts as applied to mammals. Journal of Mammalogy 24:346–352. Buskirk, S. W., L. F. Ruggiero, and C. J. Krebs. 2000. Habitat fragmentation and interspecific competition: Implications for lynx conservation. Pages 83–100 In: L. F. Ruggiero, K. B. Aubry, and S. W. Buskirk, editors. Ecology and Conservation of Lynx in the United States. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA. Callahan, C. 2013. [SNODAS season snow depth files]. Unpublished data. Chamberlain, M. J., and B. D. Leopold. 2001. Spatio-temporal relationships among adult bobcats in central Mississippi. Pages 45–55. In: A. Woolf, C. K. Nielsen, and R. D. Bluett, eds., Proceedings of a symposium on current bobcat research and implications for management. The Wildlife Society 2000 Conference, Nashville, Tennessee. Chamberlain, M. J., B. D. Leopold, L. W. Burger, Jr., B. W. Plowman, and L. M. Conner.1999. Survival and cause-specific mortality of adult bobcats in central Mississippi. Journal of Wildlife Management 63:613-620. Chetkiewicz, C.-L. B., and M. S. Boyce. 2009. Use of resource selection functions to identify conservation corridors. Journal of Applied Ecology 46:1036–1047. Clevenger, A. P. and N. Waltho. 2000. Factors influencing the effectiveness of wildlife underpasses in Banff National Park, Alberta, Canada. Conservation Biology 14:4756. Clevenger, A. P., J. Wierzchowski, B. Chruszcz, and K. Gunson. 2002. GIS-Generated, expert-based models for identifying wildlife habitat linkages and planning mitigation passages. Conservation Biology 16:503–514. Colchero, F., D. a. Conde, C. Manterola, C. Chávez, A. Rivera, and G. Ceballos. 2011. Jaguars on the move: modeling movement to mitigate fragmentation from road expansion in the Mayan Forest. Animal Conservation 14:158–166. Compton, B. W., K. McGarigal, S. A. Cushman, and L. R. Gamble. 2007. A resistantkernel model of connectivity for amphibians that breed in vernal pools. Conservation Biology 21:788–99. Cooper, S. E., C. K. Nielsen, and P. T. McDonald. 2012. Landscape factors affecting relative abundance of gray foxes, Urocyon cinereoargenteus, at large scales in Illinois, USA. Wildlife Biology 18:366–373. 93 Crooks, K. R. 2002. Relative sensitivities of mammalian carnivores to habitat fragmentation. Conservation Biology 16:488–502. Crooks, K. R., and M. A. Sanjayan, editors. 2006. Connectivity conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Cushman, S. A., M. Chase, and C. Griffin. 2010a. Mapping landscape resistance to identify corridors and barriers for elephant movement in Southern Africa. Pages 349–367. In: S. A. Cushman and F. Huettmann, eds. Spatial complexity, informatics, and wildlife conservation. Springer Japan, Tokyo. Cushman, S. A., K. S. McKelvey, J. Hayden, and M. K. Schwartz. 2006. Gene flow in complex landscapes: testing multiple hypotheses with causal modeling. The American Naturalist 168:486–99. Cushman, S. A., K. S. McKelvey, and M. K. Schwartz. 2009. Use of empirically derived source-destination models to map regional conservation corridors. Conservation Biology 23:368–76. Damschen, E. I., N. M. Haddad, J. L. Orrock, J. J. Tewksbury, and D. J. Levey. 2006. Corridors increase plant species richness at large scales. Science 313:1284–1286. DeCesare, N. J. et al. 2012. Transcending scale dependence in identifying habitat with resource selection functions. Ecological Applications 22:1068–1083. Diefenbach, D. R., M. J. Conroy, R. J. Warren, W. E. James, L. A. Baker, and T. Hon. 1994. A test of the scent-station survey technique for bobcats. Journal of Wildlife Management 58:10–17. Dodd, N. L., J. W. Gagnon, S. Boe, and R. E. Schweinsburg. 2007. Assessment of elk highway permeability by using global positioning system telemetry. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:1107–1117. Donovan, T. M., M. Freeman, H. Abouelezz, K. Royar, A. Howard, and R. Mickey. 2011. Quantifying home range habitat requirements for bobcats (Lynx rufus) in Vermont, USA. Biological Conservation 144:2799–2809. Donovan, T. M., G. S. Warrington, W. S. Schwenk, and J. H. Dinitz. 2012. Estimating landscape carrying capacity through maximum clique analysis. Ecological Applications 22:2265–76. Downs, J. a., R. J. Gates, and A. T. Murray. 2008. Estimating carrying capacity for sandhill cranes using habitat suitability and spatial optimization models. Ecological Modelling 214:284–292. 94 Driezen, K., F. Adriaensen, C. Rondinini, C. P. Doncaster, and E. Matthysen. 2007. Evaluating least-cost model predictions with empirical dispersal data: A case-study using radiotracking data of hedgehogs (Erinaceus europaeus). Ecological Modelling 209:314–322. Epps, C. W., B. M. Mutayoba, L. Gwin, and J. S. Brashares. 2011. An empirical evaluation of the African elephant as a focal species for connectivity planning in East Africa. Diversity and Distributions 17:603–612. Ferreras, P. 2001. Landscape structure and asymmetrical inter-patch connectivity in a metapopulation of the endangered Iberian lynx. Biological Conservation 100:125– 136. Fox, L.B. 1990. Ecology and population biology of bobcat, Felis rufus in New York. Dissertation. State University of New York, Syracuse. 184 pp. Frair, J. L., J. Fieberg, M. Hebblewhite, F. Cagnacci, N. J. DeCesare, and L. Pedrotti. 2010. Resolving issues of imprecise and habitat-biased locations in ecological analyses using GPS telemetry data. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences 365:2187–200. Frair, J. L., S. E. Nielsen, E. H. Merrill, S. R. Lele, M. S. Boyce, R. H. M. Munro, G. B. Stenhouse, and H. L. Beyer. 2004. Removing GPS collar bias in habitat selection studies. Journal of Applied Ecology 41:201–212. Fry, J., G. Xian, S. Jin, J. Dewitz, C. Homer, L. Yang, C. Barnes, N. Herold, and J. Wickham. 2011. Completion of the 2006 National Land Cover Database for the conterminous United States. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 77:858-864. Fuller, T. K., S. L. Berendzen, T. A. Decker, and J. E. Cardoza. 1995. Survival and cause-specific mortality rates of adult bobcats (Lynx rufus). American Midland Naturalist 134:404-408. Gilbert-Norton, L., R. Wilson, J. R. Stevens, and K. H. Beard. 2010. A meta-analytic review of corridor effectiveness. Conservation Biology 24:660–668. Grinder, M. I., and P. R. Krausman. 2001. Home range, habitat use, and nocturnal activity of coyotes in an urban environment. Journal of Wildlife Management 65:887–898. Gustafson, K. A. 1984.The winter metabolism and bioenergetics of the bobcat in New York. M.S. Thesis. State University of New York, Syracuse. 112 pp. Haddad, N. M., D. R. Bowne, A. Cunningham, B. J. Danielson, D. J. Levey, S. Sargent, and T. Spira. 2003. Corridor use by diverse taxa. Ecology 84:609–615. 95 Haddad, N. M., and K. A. Baum. 1999. An experimental test of corridor effects on butterfly densities. Ecological Applications 9:623–633. Haddad, N. M., and J. J. Tewksbury. 2005. Low-quality habitat corridors as movement conduits for two butterfly species. Ecological Applications 15:250–257. Haddad, N. M. and J. J. Tewksbury. 2006. Quantifying connectivity: balancing metric performance with data requirements. Pages 390-415. In: Crooks, K. and Sanjayan, M. A., Eds. Connectivity conservation. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, UK. Hamilton, D. A. 1982. Ecology of the bobcat in Missouri. M.S. Thesis. University of Missouri, Columbia. 132 pp. Hansen, K. 2007. Bobcat - master of survival. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 17. Hanski, I. and M. Gilpin. 1991. Metapopulation dynamics: brief history and conceptual domain. Biological Journal of the Linnaean Society 42:3-16. Harestad, A. S., and F. L. Bunnel. 1979. Home range and body weight--a reevaluation. Ecology 60:389–402. Hebblewhite, M., M. Percy, and E. H. Merrill. 2007. Are all global positioning system collars created equal? Correcting habitat-induced bias using three brands in the central Canadian Rockies. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:2026–2033. Heilbrun, R. D., N. J. Silvy, M. J. Peterson, and M. E. Tewes. 2006. Estimating bobcat abundance using automatically triggered cameras. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34:69– 73. Heller, N. E., and E. S. Zavaleta. 2009. Biodiversity management in the face of climate change: A review of 22 years of recommendations. Biological Conservation 142:14– 32. Hilty, J. A., and A. M. Merenlender. 2004. Use of riparian corridors and vineyards by mammalian predators in northern California. Conservation Biology 18:126–135. Hines, J. E. 2006. PRESENCE- Software to estimate patch occupancy and related parameters. USGS-PWRC. http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/software/presence.html. Hobbs, R. J. 1992. The role of corridors in conservation: Solution or bandwagon? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 7:389–392. Homer, C., J. Dewitz, J. Fry, M. Coan, N. Hossain, C. Larson, N. Herold, A. McKerrow, J.N. VanDriel, and J.Wickham. 2007. Completion of the 2001 National Land Cover 96 Database for the conterminous United States. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 73: 337-341. Homyack, J. A., J. H. Vashon, C. Libby, E. L. Lindquist, D. F. Mcalpine, K. L. Pilgrim, and M. K. Schwartz. 2008. Canada lynx-bobcat (Lynx canadensis × L . rufus) hybrids at the southern periphery of lynx range in Maine, Minnesota and New Brunswick. American Midland Naturalist 159:504–508. Hooge, P. N., and B. Eichenlaub. 1997. Animal movement extension to ArcView. Version 1.1. Alaska Science Center, Biological Science Office, U.S. Geological Survey, Anchorage, Alaska, USA. Hoppe, R. T. 1979. Population dynamics of Michigan bobcat (Lynx rufus) with reference to age structure and reproduction. Pages 111-115 In: P. C. Escherlich and L. Blum, eds. Proceedings of the 1979 bobcat research conference (Science and Technology Series 6) National Wildlife Federation, Washington, D.C. Horne, J. S., E. O. Garton, S. M. Krone, and J. S. Lewis. 2007. Analyzing animal movements using Brownian bridges. Ecology 88:2354–63. Hosmer, D. W. and S. Lemeshow. 2000. Applied Logistic Regression. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Hoving, C.L., R.A. Joseph, and W.B. Krohn. 2003. Recent and historical distributions of Canada lynx in Maine and the Northeast. Northeastern Naturalist 10:363–382. Huntington, T. G., G. A. Hodgkins, B. D. Keim, and R. W. Dudley. 2003. Changes in the proportion of precipitation occurring as snow in New England (1949-2000). Journal of Climate 17:2626–2636. Huntington, T. G. A. D. Richardson, K. J. McGuire, and K. Hayhoe. 2009. Climate and hydrological changes in the northeastern United States: recent trends and implications for forested and aquatic ecosystems. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 39:199-212. Johnson, D. H. 1980. The comparison of usage and availability measurements for evaluating resource preference. Ecology 61:65–71. Johnson, C. J., S. E. Nielsen, E. H. Merrill, L. Trent, M. S. Boyce, E. Science, M. Program, N. British, and P. George. 2006. Resource selection functions based on use – availability data : theoretical motivation and evaluation methods. Journal of Wildlife Management 70:347–357. Johnson, C. J., D. R. Seip, and M. S. Boyce. 2004. A quantitative approach to conservation planning: using resource selection functions to map the distribution of mountain caribou at multiple spatial scales. Journal of Applied Ecology 41:238–251. 97 Keller, L. F., and D. M. Waller. 2002. Inbreeding effects in wild populations. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 17:19–23. Knick, S. T. 1990. Ecology of bobcats relative to exploitation and a prey decline in southeastern Idaho. Wildlife Monographs 1:3–42. Koehler, G. M. and K. B. Aubry.1994. Lynx. Pages 74–98. In: The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx and wolverine in the western United States. Eds. L. F. Ruggiero, K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, L. J. Lyon, W. J. Zielinski. General Technical Report RM-254, USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC. Koehler, G. M., and M. G. Hornocker. 1989. Influences of seasons on bobcats in Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:197–202. Koen, E. L., C. J. Garroway, P. J. Wilson, and J. Bowman. 2010. The effect of map boundary on estimates of landscape resistance to animal movement. PloS one 5:e11785. Retrieved May 31, 2013. Kolowski, J. M., and A. Woolf. 2002. Microhabitat use by bobcats in southern Illinois. The Journal of Wildlife Management 66:822–832. Lawhead, D. N. 1984. Bobcat Lynx rufus home range, density and habitat preference in south-central Arizona. The Southwestern Naturalist 29:105–113. LaRue, M. a., and C. K. Nielsen. 2008. Modelling potential dispersal corridors for cougars in midwestern North America using least-cost path methods. Ecological Modelling 212:372–381. Lee, J. S., E. W. Ruell, E. E. Boydston, L. M. Lyren, R. S. Alonso, J. L. Troyer, K. R. Crooks, and S. Vandewoude. 2012. Gene flow and pathogen transmission among bobcats (Lynx rufus) in a fragmented urban landscape. Molecular Ecology 21:1617– 31. Lele, S. R., J.L. Keim, and P. Solymos 2013. ResourceSelection: Resource selection (probability) functions for use-availability data. R package version 0.2-2. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ResourceSelection Lele, S. R. and J.L. Keim. 2006. Weighted distributions and estimation of resource selection probability functions. Ecology 87:3021–3028. Lele, S. R. 2009. A new method for estimation of resource selection probability function. Journal of Wildlife Management 73:122–127. 98 Lembeck, M., and G. I. Gould. 1979. Dynamics of harvested and unharvested bobcat populations in California. Bobcat research conference proceedings. National Wildlife Federation Scientific Technical Series 6:53–54. Leoniak, G., S. Barnum, J. L. Atwood, K. Rinehart, and M. Elbroch. 2012. Testing GISgenerated least-cost path predictions for Martes pennanti (Fisher) and its application for identifying mammalian road-crossings in northern New Hampshire. Northeastern Naturalist 19:147–156. Levey, D. J., B. M. Bolker, J. J. Tewksbury, S. Sargent, and N. M. Haddad. 2005. Effects of landscape corridors on seed dispersal by birds. Science 309:146–8. Lewis, J. S., J. L. Rachlow, E. O. Garton, and L. A. Vierling. 2007. Effects of habitat on GPS collar performance: using data screening to reduce location error. Journal of Applied Ecology 44:663–671. Lewis, J. S., J. L. Rachlow, J. S. Horne, E. O. Garton, W. L. Wakkinen, J. Hayden, and P. Zager. 2011. Identifying habitat characteristics to predict highway crossing areas for black bears within a human-modified landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning 101:99–107. Linde, S. A., S. D. Roberts, T. E. Gosselink, and W. R. Clark. 2012. Habitat modeling used to predict relative abundance of bobcats in Iowa. Journal of Wildlife Management 76:534–543. Lindenmayer, D. B., A. D. Manning, P. L. Smith, H. P. Possingham, J. Fischer, I. Oliver, and M. A. M. C. Carthy. 2002. The focal-species approach and landscape restoration: a critique. Conservation Biology 16:338–345. Litvaitis, J. A. 1993. Successional of early response to historic changes vertebrates in land use. Conservation Biology 7:866–873. Litvaitis, J. A. 2001. Importance of early successional habitats to mammals in eastern forests. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:466–473. Litvaitis, J. A., J. A. Sherburne, and J. A. Bissonette. 1986. Bobcat habitat use and home range size in relation to prey density. Journal of Wildlife Management 50:110–117. Litvaitis, J. A., and J. P. Tash. 2008. An approach toward understanding wildlife-vehicle collisions. Environmental Management 42:688–97. Litvaitis, J. A., J. P. Tash, and C. L. Stevens. 2006. The rise and fall of bobcat populations in New Hampshire: Relevance of historical harvests to understanding current patterns of abundance and distribution. Biological Conservation 128:517– 528. 99 Long, R. A., T. M. Donovan, P. MacKay, W. J. Zielinski, and J. S. Buzas. 2007. Effectiveness of scat detection dogs for detecting forest carnivores. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:2007–2017. Long, R. A., T. M. Donovan, P. MacKay, W. J. Zielinski, and J. S. Buzas. 2011. Predicting carnivore occurrence with noninvasive surveys and occupancy modeling. Landscape Ecology 26:327–340. Lovallo, M. J. 1999. Multivariate models of bobcat habitat selection for Pennsylvania landscapes. Dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA. 292 pp. Lovallo, M. J., and E. M. Anderson. 1996. Bobcat relative and in home ranges roads Wisconsin. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24:71–76. Luck, G. W. 2002. The habitat requirements of the rufous treecreeper (Climacteris rufa). 1. Preferential habitat use demonstrated at multiple spatial scales. Biological Conservation 105:383–394. Mallet, D. 2013. Spatial responses of Canada lynx to changing snowshoe hare densities. Master’s Thesis, University of Maine, Orono. (In progress) Manly B. F. J., L. L. McDonald, D. L. Thomas, T. L. McDonald, and W. P. Erickson. 2002. Resource selection by animals: statistical design and analysis for field studies. Kluwer, Dordrecht. Mautz, W. W., and P. J. Pekins. 1989. Metabolic rate of bobcats as influenced by seasonal temperatures. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:202–205. McCord, C. M. 1974. Selection of winter habitat by bobcats (Lynx rufus) on the Quabbin Reservation. Journal of Mammalogy 55:428–437. McNab, B. K. 1963. Bioenergetics and the determination of home range size. The American Naturalist 97:133–140. McRae, B. H., B. G. Dickson, T. H. Keitt, and V. B. Shah. 2008. Using circuit theory to model connectivity in ecology, evolution, and conservation. Ecology 89:2712–2724. McRae, B. H., and P. Beier. 2007. Circuit theory predicts gene flow in plant and animal populations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104:19885–90. McRae, B. H., and Shah, V. B. 2009. Circuitscape user’s guide. Web. The University of California, Santa Barbara. Web. Accessed 3 March 2012. http://www.circuitscape.org. 100 McKelvey, K. S., K. B. Aubry, and M. K. Schwartz. 2008. Using anecdotal occurrence data for rare or elusive species: the illusion of reality and a call for evidentiary standards. BioScience 58:549–555. Morin, R.S.; Woodall, C.W. 2012. New Hampshire’s forest resources, 2011. Research Note. NRS-140. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 4 pp. National Operational Hydrologic Remote Sensing Center. 2004. Snow Data Assimilation System (SNODAS) Data Products at NSIDC, November-March 2007-2012. Boulder, Colorado, US: National Snow and Ice Data Center. http://dx.doi.org/10.7265/N5TB14TC Nielsen, C. K., and A. Woolf. 2002. Survival of unexploited bobcats in southern Illinois. Journal of Wildlife Management 66:833–838. Nielson, R. M., H. Sawyer and T. L. McDonald. 2013. BBMM: Brownian bridge movement model. R package version 3.0. http://CRAN.Rproject.org/package=BBMM New Hampshire Fish and Game. 2011. Canada lynx documented in northern New Hampshire. http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Newsroom/News_2011/news_2011_Q4/lynx_docum ented_120911.html New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan. 2010. NH Fish and Game Department, Concord, NH. http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Wildlife/wildlife_plan.htm NH DOT Traffic Volume. State of New Hampshire, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic. Web. Accessed 15 May 2013. http://www.nh.gov/dot/org/operations/traffic/tvr/locations/index.htm NH Audubon & NHFG. 2010. Connectivity model for New Hampshire. Concord, New Hampshire: NH Fish & Game Department, GIS Program. Niskanen, S., and P. R. J. Ostergard. 2003. Cliquer user’s guide, version 1.0. Technical report T48. Communications Laboratory, Helsinki University of Technology, Espoo, Finland. html://users.tkk.fi/pat/cliquer.html/ Noss, R. F. 1987. Corridors in real landscapes: A reply to Simberloff and Cox. Conservation Biology 1:159–164. Noss, R. F. and K. M. Daly. 2006. Incorporating connectivity into broad-scale conservation planning. Pages 587-619. In: K. Crooks and M. A. Sanjayan, Eds. Connectivity conservation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 2006. 101 Orians, G. H., and J. F. Wittenberger. 1991. Spatial and temporal scales in habitat selection. The American Naturalist 137:S29–S49. Palma, L., P. Beja, and M. Rodrigues. 1999. The use of sighting data to analyse Iberian lynx habitat and distribution. Journal of Applied Ecology 36:812–824. Parker, G. R., J. W. Maxwell, L. D. Morton, and G. E. J. Smith. 1983. The ecology of lynx (Lynx canadensis) on Cape Breton Island. Canadian Journal of Zoology 61:770-786. Phillips, S. J., M. Dudík, J. Elith, C. H. Graham, A. Lehmann, J. Leathwick, and S. Ferrier. 2009. Sample selection bias and presence-only distribution models: implications for background and pseudo-absence data. Ecological Applications 19:181–97. Pollack, E. M. 1951. Food habits of the bobcat in the New England states. Journal of Wildlife Management 15:209–213. Powell, R. A., S. W. Buskirk, W. J. Zielinski. 2003. Fisher and Marten. Pages 635-649. In: G.A. Feldhamer, B.C. Thompson, and J.A. Chapman, eds. Wild Mammals of North America: Biology, Management, and Conservation. Johns Hopkins University Press. Pullinger, M. G., and C. J. Johnson. 2010. Maintaining or restoring connectivity of modified landscapes : evaluating the least-cost path model with multiple sources of ecological information. Landscape Ecology 25:1547–1560. R Core Team. 2012. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL http://www.R-project.org/. Riley, S. P. D. 2006. Spatial ecology of bobcats and gray foxes in urban and rural zones of a national park. Journal of Wildlife Management 70:1425–1435. Riley, S. P. D., J. P. Pollinger, R. M. Sauvajot, E. C. York, C. Bromley, T. K. Fuller, and R. K. Wayne. 2006. A southern California freeway is a physical and social barrier to gene flow in carnivores. Molecular ecology 15:1733–41. Riley, S. P. D., R. M. Sauvajot, T. K. Fuller, E. C. York, D. A. Kamradt, C. Bromley, and R. K. Wayne. 2003. Effects of urbanization and habitat fragmentation on bobcats and coyotes in southern California. Conservation Biology 17:566–576. Roberts, N. M., and S. M. Crimmins. 2010. Bobcat population status and management in north america: evidence of large-scale population increase. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management 1:169–174. 102 Rolley, R. E. 1985. Dynamics of a harvested bobcat population in Oklahoma. Journal of Wildlife Management 49:283–292. Rolley, R. E. 1987. Bobcat. Pages 672-681 In: M. Novak, J. A. Baker, M. E. Obbard, and B. Malloch, eds. Wild furbearer conservation and management in North America. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Toronto, Canada. Ruell, E., S. Riley, M. Douglas, J. Pollinger, and K. R. Crooks. 2009. Estimating bobcat population sizes and densities using scat and capture-recapture sampling. Journal of Mammalogy 90: 129-135. Sánchez-Cordero, V., D. Stockwell, S. Sarkar, H. Liu, C. R. Stephens, and J. Giménez. 2008. Competitive interactions between felid species may limit the southern distribution of bobcats, Lynx rufus. Ecography 31:757–764. Sappington, J. M., K. M. Longshore, and D. B. Thompson. 2007. Quantifying landscape ruggedness for animal habitat analysis: A case study using bighorn sheep in the Mojave Desert. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:1419-1426. Sawyer, H., M. J. Kauffman, A. D. Middleton, T. a. Morrison, R. M. Nielson, and T. B. Wyckoff. 2013. A framework for understanding semi-permeable barrier effects on migratory ungulates. Journal of Applied Ecology 50:68–78. Sawyer, H., M. J. Kauffman, R. M. Nielson, and J. S. Horne. 2009. Identifying and prioritizing ungulate migration routes for landscape-level conservation. Ecological Applications 19:2016–25. Schwartz, M. K., J. P. Copeland, N. J. Anderson, J. R. Squires, R. M. Inman, K. S. McKelvey, K. L. Pilgrim, L. P. Waits, and S. A. Cushman. 2009. Wolverine gene flow across a narrow climatic niche. Ecology 90:3222–32. Schwartz, M. K., K. L. Pilgrim, K. S. McKelvey, E. L. Lindquist, J. J. Claar, S. Loch, and L. F. Ruggiero. 2004. Hybridization between Canada lynx and bobcats: genetic results and management implications. Conservation Genetics 5:349–355. Seaman, D. E. and R. A. Powell. 1996. An evaluation of the accuracy of kernel density estimators for home range analysis. Ecology 77:2075-2085. Servheen, C., J. S. Waller, and P. Sandstrom. 2001. Identification and management of linkage zones for grizzly bears between the large blocks of public land in the Northern Rocky Mountains. Seton, E. T. 1925. Lives of game animals. Doubleday, Doran. and Co., Garden City, New York, vol. 1, pp. 1-640. 103 Simberloff, D., and J. Cox. 1987. Consequences and costs of conservation corridors. Conservation Biology 1:63–71. Simberloff, D., J. A. Farr, J. Cox, and D. W. Mehlman. 1992. Movement corridors: conservation bargains or poor investments? Conservation Biology 6:493–504. Singleton, P. H., W. L. Gaines, and J. F. Lehmkuhl. 2002. Landscape permeability for large carnivores in Washington: a geographic information system weighted-distance and Least-cost corridor assessment. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-549. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 89 pp. Singleton, P. H., W. L. Gaines, and J. F. Lehmkuhl. 2004. Landscape permeability for grizzly bear movements in Washington and southwestern British Columbia Landscape permeability for grizzly bear movements in Washington and southwestern British Columbia. Ursus 15:90–103. Snäll, T., O. Kindvall, J. Nilsson, and T. Pärt. 2011. Evaluating citizen-based presence data for bird monitoring. Biological Conservation 144:804–810. Southwood, T. R. E. 1977. Habitat, the templet for ecological strategies? Journal of Animal Ecology 46:337-365. Spencer, W.D., P. Beier, K. Penrod, K. Winters, C. Paulman, H. Rustigian-Romsos, J. Strittholt, M. Parisi, and A. Pettler. 2010. California essential habitat connectivity project: a strategy for conserving a connected California. Prepared for California Department of Transportation, California Department of Fish and Game, and Federal Highways Administration. Spong, G., and S.Creel. 2001. Deriving dispersal distances from genetic data. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 268: 2571-2574. Squires, J. R., N. J. DeCesare, L. E. Olson, J. a. Kolbe, M. Hebblewhite, and S. a. Parks. 2013. Combining resource selection and movement behavior to predict corridors for Canada lynx at their southern range periphery. Biological Conservation 157:187– 195. Stys, E. D. and B. D. Leopold. 1993. Reproductive biology and kitten growth of captive bobcats in Mississippi. Proceedings of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 47:80-89. Sunquist D. and J. Hewes. 2010. Population growth and land use change in the Granite State. The Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests. Concord, New Hampshire. Web. Accessed 25 February 2012. http://www.forestsociety.org/. 104 Sunquist M. and Sunquist F. 2002. Wild cats of the world. University Chicago Press. pp 452. Swihart, R. K. and N. A. Slade. 1985. Testing for independence of observations in animal movements. Ecology 66:1176-1184. Taylor, P. D., L. Fahrig, K. Henein, and G. Merriam. 1993. Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 68:571–573. Tempa, T., N. Norbu, P. Dhendup, and T. Nidup. 2011. Results from a camera trapping exercise for estimating tiger population size in the lower foothills of Royal Manas National Park. UWICE and RMNP: RGoB. Lamai Gompa, Bumtang. Theobald, D. M., Crooks, K. R., and Norman, J. B. 2011. Assessing effects of land use on landscape connectivity: loss and fragmentation of western U.S. forests. Ecological Applications 21:2445–58. Thompson, I. D., I.J. Davidson, S. O’Donnell, and F. Brazeau. 1989. Use of track transects to measure the relative occurrence of some boreal mammals in uncut forest and regeneration stands. Canadian Journal of Zoology 67: 1816–1823. Tigas, L. a., D. H. Van Vuren, and R. M. Sauvajot. 2002. Behavioral responses of bobcats and coyotes to habitat fragmentation and corridors in an urban environment. Biological Conservation 108:299–306. Tischendorf, L., and L. Fahrig. 2000. On the usage and measurement of landscape connectivity. Oikos 90:7–19. Waller, J. S., and C. Servheen. 2005. Effects of transportation infrastructure on grizzly bears in northwestern Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management 69:985–1000. Washington Wildlife Habitat Connectivity Working Group (WHCWG). 2010. Washington Connected Landscapes Project: Statewide Analysis. Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife, and Transportation, Olympia, WA. Wasserman, T. N., S. a. Cushman, J. S. Littell, A. J. Shirk, and E. L. Landguth. 2013. Population connectivity and genetic diversity of American marten (Martes americana) in the United States northern Rocky Mountains in a climate change context. Conservation Genetics 14:529-541. Wells, C. and Rasku, J. The Quabbin-to-Cardigan Partnership: A public-private partnership conserving the Monadnock Highlands of New Hampshire and Massachusetts. Quabbin-to-Cardigan Partnership. Web. Accessed 25 February 2012. http://q2cpartnership.org/default.aspx. 105 Wiens, J. A., G. D. Hayward, R. S. Holthausen, and J. Michael. 2008. Using surrogate species and groups for conservation planning and management. BioScience 58:241– 252. Wiens, J. A., J. T. Rotenberry, and B. Van Horne. 1987. Habitat occupancy patterns of North American shrubsteppe birds: the effects of spatial scale. Oikos 48:132–147. Yellowstone to Yukon. Web. Accessed 25 February 2012. http://y2y.net Young, S. P. 1958. The bobcat of North America. Telegraph Press, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 193 pp. Zezulak, D. S. and R. G. Schwab. 1979. A comparison of density, home range, and habitat utilization of bobcat populations at Lava Beds and Joshua Tree National Monuments, California. Pages 74-79 In: P. C. Escherich and L. Blum, eds. Proceedings of the 1979 bobcat research conference (Science and Technology Series 6). National Wildlife Federation, Washington, D.C. 106 APPENDICES 107 APPENDIX A. University of New Hampshire Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee letter of approval for bobcat trapping and collaring. 108 109 APPENDIX B. University of New Hampshire Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee letter of approval for using remotely-triggered cameras to monitor bobcat populations. 110 APPENDIX C. Given the large number of potential explanatory variables available to describe habitat selection, an initial suite of different approaches were used to model bobcat habitat selection. The first two models used the National Land Cover Database 2006 (Fry et al. 2011; layers collapsed to open water, light development, heavy development, barren, evergreen forests, deciduous forests, mixed forests, shrub/scrub, agriculture, and wetlands) as the main variable, and also included distance to forest edge (excluding open water/forest edge), distance to stream, elevation, slope, aspect, and a vector ruggedness measurement (VRM, Sappington et al. 2007). The two models differed in the variable used for roads. One model used a distance to roads measure, whereas the other used road density (with a 1 km window). The third model tested used land forms, instead of land cover, in an attempt to model bobcat habitat. The landform data was made available from the Ecological Land Unit dataset (The Nature Conservancy 2008). The fourth model used ‘distance to’ measures to all land cover variables that may influence habitat selection. Land cover variables were extracted from NLCD 2006 (Fry et al. 2011), and included distance to: forest edge, shrub/scrub, wetland, stream, and development. Additionally, an unfragmented land variable was used that delineated any natural, unfragmented land (NH Wildlife Action Plan 2005). K NLCD - rd den NLCD - rd den, no elev NLCD - dt to rds NLCD - dt to rds, no elev Land Forms Proximity 17 16 17 17 22 12 AICc Delta AICc AICc Wt. Cum. Wt. 24021.41 24023.36 24041.80 24042.81 24363.14 24428.42 0.00 1.95 20.39 21.40 341.74 407.01 111 0.73 0.27 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.73 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 LL -11993.69 -11995.67 -12003.88 -12005.39 -12159.54 -12202.20 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 3.5 0.5 1.5 2.5 Spearman Correlation r^2=0.935, StDev=0.046 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Land Cover (rd denstiy) w/o Elevation M odel 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Bin Number Land Form M odel Proximity M odel Spearman Correlation r^2=0.599, StDev=0.156 1 1.5 10 Bin Number 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2 Area Adjusted Frequency 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1 Spearman Correlation r^2=0.935, StDev=0.048 0.5 1.5 Spearman Correlation r^2=0.914, StDev=0.028 2.5 Land Cover (dist to road) w/o Elevation M odel Area Adjusted Frequency Bin Number 2.5 Bin Number 0.5 Area Adjusted Frequency Area Adjusted Frequency 2.5 1.5 Spearman Correlation r^2=0.954, StDev=0.026 1 Area Adjusted Frequency Land Cover (rd denstiy) M odel 0.5 Area Adjusted Frequency Land Cover (dist to road) M odel 9 10 8 9 10 Spearman Correlation r^2=0.952, StDev=0.034 1 Bin Number 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 Bin Number Fig 1.Results of k-fold cross-validation of the six models tested. Correlation between the area adjusted frequency of used locations in each bin compared to bin number as determined by the Spearman rank correlation coefficient, as well as standard deviation for the five folds tested within each model is displayed. 112 APPENDIX D Scores for ‘actual’ paths and the mean of ‘random’ paths. One-sided t-tests used to compare differences between ‘actual’ and ‘random’ paths existed. Bobcats that exhibited significant differences, and thus successfully predicted connectivity, are in bold. RSPF Expert Opinion ID Actual Random Std.Dev T Stat p Val Actual Random Std.Dev T Stat p Val 26 4.31 4.23 0.07 11.44 <0.0001 4.11 4.17 0.18 -3.42 0.9995 27 4.35 4.15 0.14 14.50 <0.0001 5.06 4.70 0.29 12.38 <0.0001 28 5.31 5.21 0.08 14.28 <0.0001 4.18 4.29 0.24 -4.62 1.0000 29 4.21 4.18 0.11 2.66 0.0045 4.22 4.31 0.31 -2.79 0.9969 30 4.24 4.08 0.10 16.19 <0.0001 4.46 4.28 0.19 9.67 <0.0001 31 4.18 4.16 0.12 1.44 0.0761 4.19 4.47 0.31 -9.20 1.0000 32 4.11 4.03 0.10 8.04 <0.0001 4.40 4.34 0.17 3.68 0.0002 33 4.16 4.12 0.12 3.82 0.0001 4.81 4.64 0.16 10.63 <0.0001 34 4.35 4.20 0.08 19.26 <0.0001 4.76 4.47 0.27 10.47 <0.0001 39 4.20 4.10 0.07 13.54 <0.0001 4.31 4.36 0.19 -3.04 0.9985 40 4.08 4.13 0.07 -7.41 1.0000 4.28 5.01 0.66 -11.09 1.0000 41 4.68 4.54 0.15 8.81 <0.0001 5.00 4.91 0.24 3.91 0.0001 42 5.18 4.16 0.50 20.50 <0.0001 4.16 3.87 0.54 5.42 <0.0001 43 4.45 4.36 0.07 14.09 <0.0001 5.01 4.71 0.19 16.40 <0.0001 44 5.97 4.84 0.64 17.66 <0.0001 3.86 3.43 0.21 20.27 <0.0001 45 4.33 4.18 0.09 16.78 <0.0001 4.91 4.48 0.28 15.06 <0.0001 46 4.57 4.43 0.07 21.11 <0.0001 5.06 4.71 0.17 21.05 <0.0001 47 4.27 4.13 0.10 13.48 <0.0001 4.55 4.38 0.26 6.35 <0.0001 113 Bobcat ID 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Study Site Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southwest Southeast Southeast Southeast Southeast Southeast Southeast Southeast Capture Location Gilsum Westmoreland Hancock Antrim Nelson Harrisville Harrisville Alstead Jaffrey Alstead Walpole Gilamanton Gilford Gilamanton Gilford Barrington Barrington Milton Sex M M F M M M M M M M M M M M F F F F Age at Capture 4 2 10 7 5 9 8 5 3 3 5 3 5 4 4 1 1 4 Weight At Date of Capture Date of Collar (kg) Capture Recovery 13.5 11/22/2009 On bobcat 8.5 1/13/2010 On bobcat 12.3 1/16/2010 2/17/2011 16.8 1/19/2010 9/26/2010 14.5 2/3/2010 ??? 12.7 2/13/2010 11/4/2010 14.1 2/13/2010 9/9/2010 11.5 2/22/2010 9/16/2010 16.0 3/1/2010 1/15/2011 11.5 3/8/2010 12/25/2010 12.3 3/12/2010 11/4/2010 12.8 1/7/2011 On bobcat 14.5 1/11/2011 On bobcat 11.5 1/23/2011 On bobcat 9.1 1/25/2011 On bobcat 7.8 1/28/2011 12/26/2011 6.0 2/11/2011 3/7/2012 7.7 3/5/2011 8/4/2011 Usable Locations 860 848 433 233 705 94 205 89 416 381 319 252 1138 371 884 818 845 152 Last Known Fate Alive - Not Recaptured Alive - Not Recaptured Recaptured; Collar Removed Recaptured; Collar Removed Dead - Incidental Capture Alive - Collar dropped off Alive - Collar dropped off Alive - Collar dropped off Recaptured; Collar Removed Recaptured; Collar Removed Alive - Collar dropped off Alive - Not Recaptured Alive - Not Recaptured Alive - Not Recaptured Alive - Not Recaptured Recaptured; Collar Removed Recaptured; Collar Removed Dead - Vehicle Collision APPENDIX E. Status of bobcats used for analysis in southeastern and southwestern New Hampshire. 114