PUMA BIOLOGY. Cougar Biology Preface: Sources/Literature I. Taxonomy and Nomenclature II. Historic Record to Present III. Physical Traits: Growth Rates.

PUMA BIOLOGY PUMA BIOLOGY

Cougar BiologyCougar Biology• Preface: Sources/Literature• I. Taxonomy and Nomenclature• II. Historic Record to Present• III. Physical Traits: Growth Rates and Tracks• IV. Reproduction• V. Population and Metapopulation Dynamics• VI. Predation• VII. Habitat Models• VIII. Remote Camera Surveys

Cougar BiologyCougar Biology• Preface: Literature Sources

– Shaw, H. G. 1990. Mountain Lion Field Guide. Special Report No. 9, Arizona Game and Fish Department.

– Logan, K. A. and L. L. Sweanor, 2000. Puma in Ecology and Management of Large Mammals in North

America. Prentice-Hall, Inc.– Logan, K. A. and L. L. Sweanor. 2001. Desert Puma:

Evolutionary Ecology of an Enduring Carnivore. Island Press, Washington, D. C.

– Cougar Management Guidelines Working Group. 2005. Cougar Management Guidelines. WildFutures,

Bainbridge Island, WA.

Cougar BiologyCougar Biology• Preface: Literature Sources• http://www.mountainlion.net/

• Shaw, H.G. 1971. Ecology of the Mountain Lion in Arizona. Proj. No. W-78-R-15, Wk. Pl. 2, Job 13. Progress Rep., Arizona Game and Fish Dept., 7pp.

• SUMMARY

• Fifty-four dog-hunting days and 25 trapping days were spent in the vicinity of the Sycamore Canyon study area. No lions were caught. Tracks and other sign indicated that as many as four lions were using the area. The only fresh lion kill found in the study area was a coyote. A freshly-killed yearling cow elk was found outside of the study area near the Beaver Creek watersheds. Helicopter surveys of prey species yielded 84 elk, 363 mule deer, 16 white-tailed deer, and12 turkeys. Turkey counts were definitely low. At least 200 turkeys were using the area during mid-winter as determined from ground observations. Due to the large number of livestock operators with permits on the Sycamore area, extremely difficult hunting conditions, and the current low density of lions, a change of study areas has been recommended.

Cougar BiologyCougar Biology

• I. Taxonomy and Phylogeny– Family Felidae– Genus Felis by Linneaus in 1771– Jardine reclassified as Puma in 1834– More recent work reclassified as Felis– WozenCraft 1993 reinstituted Puma– Now accepted as Puma concolor– Puma is apparently an Incan word

Cougar BiologyCougar Biology• I. Taxonomy and Phylogeny

– 13 subspecies recognized based on cranial morphology (Goldman 1946)

• Goldman, E. A. 1946. Classification of the races of Puma, Part 2. Pages 177-302 in S. P. Young and E. A. Goldman, eds., The Puma, Mysterious American Cat. The American Wildlife Institute, Washington, D.C.

– Significant genetic diversity in South America, consistent with subspecies level taxonomy

– North America single subspecies genetic homogeneity relative to South America

– Cougar may have evolved in South America ~ 5 to 6 mya– Closest living relative is the cheetah

Cougar BiologyCougar Biology• II. Historic Record to Present

– Previously, largest geographic distribution of any land mammal in the new world

• From northern British Columbia to tip of Tierra del Fuego and coast to coast

– By late 1800’s eliminated from most of eastern U.S. range– 1900’s has seen diverse management strategies in the

western U.S.• Bounty• No-bounty• Hunting• Protected

Cougar BiologyCougar Biology• II. Historic Record

– Current distribution and populations• Throughout much of Central and South America• Relatively large populations in 11 Western States, and British

Columbia• Also, Alberta, South Dakota and Florida• Records from extreme southeast Alaska• Dispersing individuals in the mid-west• Captive releases occasionally in the east

– W.A.G. North American population ~30 to 40,000• Sum of estimated populations from (Logan, K. A. and L. L. Sweanor,

2000. Puma in Ecology and Management of Large Mammals in North America. Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Estimated Cougar Populations by State or Province(Logan, K. A. and L. L. Sweanor, 2000. Puma in Ecology and Management of Large Mammals in North America. Prentice-

Hall, Inc.) *Guesses

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

State or Province

Est

imat

ed P

opul

atio

n S

ize

Cougar BiologyCougar Biology

• III. Physical Traits: Growth Rates and Tracks • Both sexes reach adult weight by about 20 months• Males are significantly larger than females by 20 days of

age

Growth Rate By Sex

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130

Age (Months)

We

igh

t (K

g)

Cougar BiologyCougar Biology

• III. Physical Traits: Growth Rates and Tracks • Males’ heel pads significantly wider than females’ for both

front and hind• Front heel pads are larger than hind in both sexes, but

difference is significantly greater in males (although there is a lot of overlap)

F M

Sex

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

RH

Hee

l

Right Hind Heel Width (cm) for Cougar older than 20 Months

F M

Sex

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

RF

Hee

l 118

174

145

128

71

Right Front Heel Width (cm) for Cougar Older than 20 Months

F M

Sex

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

Dif

fHee

l

Difference in Front and Hind Heel Width for Cougar Older than 20 Months

Cougar BiologyCougar Biology• IV. Reproduction

– Polygamous and promiscuous• One male will breed with several females• One female will breed with more than one male

– Breeding Age• Females: 18 to 24 months• Males: ~ 20 to 24 months

– Estrus cycle• ~37 days captive study• ~21 days wild population• Estrus period 6 to 8 days

– Gestation• 82 to 103 days• Mean 91 days

Cougar BiologyCougar Biology• IV. Reproduction

– Litter size• 1 to 6 cubs• Average is 3

– Reproductive seasons• Can be born at anytime• Birth pulses:

– Utah and Nevada: June to September– New Mexico: July to September

– Time between successful litters (to 12 months or independence)

• ~20 months– Time after failed litters

• 20 to 300 days

Cougar BiologyCougar Biology

• IV. Reproduction– Life time production

• Females may have up to 5 litters in their lifetime

Cougar BiologyCougar Biology

• V. Population and Metapopulation Dynamics– A. Population Dynamics

• Growth Rates: the “r” in (Nt = N0ert)

– 1 + r ~ λ in Nt = N0 λ t

• Protected puma populations in open habitats in New Mexico have demonstrated an exponential growth rate (r) of 0.17 to 0.25

• r seen to drop to as low as 0.05 when population approaches carrying capacity

• Hunted populations in Alberta demonstrated r’s of 0.04 to 0.08

Cougar Population Growth

(Nt=N0ert

)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Years

Po

pu

lati

on

Siz

e

r=0.17r=0.20r=0.25Deer

Cougar Population Growth Rates

(Nt=N0ert)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Years

Po

pu

lati

on

Siz

e

r=0.04r=0.08r=0.17

Projected Population Sizes, Starting from 10, of Different Growth Rates

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0.04 0.08 0.17 0.2 0.25 0.33

Exponential Growth Rates (r)

Po

pu

lati

on

Siz

e

Deer for comparison

Cougar BiologyCougar Biology

• V. Population and Metapopulation Dynamics– B. Resilience

• New Mexico Study: ~55% reduction in population was replaced in 31 months

Cougar BiologyCougar Biology

• V. Population and Metapopulation Dynamics– C. Metapopulation Dynamics

• Recruitment from immigration– Very important in cougar populations– Low density and patchy habitat– 1,000 to 2,200 Km2 area needed to sustain a non-migratory

cougar population for 100 years with 98% certainty (Beier, P. 1993. Determining minimum habitat areas and habitat corridors for cougars. Conservation Biology 7: 94-108)

– Immigrants may comprise up to 50% of annual recruitment in subpopulations in New Mexico

Cougar BiologyCougar Biology

• V. Population and Metapopulation Dynamics– C. Metapopulation Dynamics

• Dispersal by Gender (Logan and Sweanor 2001)– Females tend to be phylopatric– ~70% emigrants are male– Females ~35 Km (22 miles)

• Establish home ranges overlapping with or adjacent to nascent home range

– Males ~102 Km (77 miles)

Cougar BiologyCougar Biology• VI. Predation

– A. Strategy• Tend to be generalists: taking the most abundant and

vulnerable prey

– B. Diet• Latitudinal gradient in prey size and cougar body size

– <15kg in tropical areas: diet very diverse– >15kg in temperate areas: diet dominated by ungulates

• Mule Deer• White-Tailed Deer• Elk• Moose

Cougar BiologyCougar Biology

• VI. Predation– B. Diet

• New Mexico Study (Logan and Sweanor 2001)– Dominated by mule deer (90%+) by frequency and biomass but

also very diverse

Number of Cougar Prey Items Found by Species(Logan, K. A. and L. L. Sweanor. 2001. Desert Puma: Evolutionary Ecology of an Enduring Carnivore. Island Press,

Washington, D. C.)

479

13 10 5 5 3 3 3 1 1 1 10

100

200

300

400

500

600

Prey Species

Num

ber

Frequency of Prey Items in Feces and Four Stomachs(Logan, K. A. and L. L. Sweanor. 2001. Desert Puma: Evolutionary Ecology of an Enduring Carnivore. Island Press,

Washington, D. C.)

716

46 35 17 16 6 6 6 5 3 1 1 1 1

167

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Mul

e Dee

r

Rodents

Leporid

s

Puma

Badger

Birds

Prongho

rn

Skunk

Bighor

nOry

x

Box Tu

rtle

Coyote

Jave

lina

Ringta

il

Veget

atio

n

Items

Fre

qu

en

cy

Cougar BiologyCougar Biology• VI. Predation

– C. Characteristics of Prey Capture• Visual predators• Use cover for stalking and ambush• Typically kill ungulates with bite to neck or throat• Cache kills under vegetation, cover with dirt and debris• Characteristic feeding pattern:

– Clip hair– Remove vital organs first (heart, lungs, liver)– Eviscerate– Eat large muscle groups– Head and face

• May stay with prey item for one to many days– Single day feeding may be more common that previously thought –

Linda Sweanor pers. comm.

Cougar BiologyCougar Biology

• VI. Predation– D. Effects on Desert Mule Deer Populations

• Cougar predation effects on deer population depends on climatic and habitat characteristics

• Relatively wet years, cougar predation affects deer population growth rate BUT deer population continues to INCREASE

• During drought years (especially consecutive years) cougar predation accelerates deer population decline

Cougar BiologyCougar Biology

• VI. Predation– D. Effects on Desert Mule Deer Populations

• Primary mechanism– Appears to be predation rates on fawns– Wet years:

• High fawn production. • Fawns absorb critical amount of cougar predation

– Dry years: • Fawn production drops• Cougar predation increases on reproductive adult deer • Deer concentrate at water sites, and travel to unfamiliar

areas, increasing susceptibility to predation

Management Considerations for Management Considerations for the Midwestthe Midwest

• I. Habitat Models

• II. Remote Camera Surveys

Habitat ModelsHabitat Models

• Utility of habitat modeling for mid-western states– To direct survey work– Anticipate most likely areas for establishment

of resident populations– Establish framework for possible future

management needs

Habitat ModelsHabitat Models

• Procedure (From Cougar Management Guidelines)– 1. Map cougar habitat in accessible and

modifiable form• GIS software

Habitat ModelsHabitat Models• 1. Map cougar habitat layers in accessible

and modifiable form– GIS Layers

• Vegetation• Topography• Land use• Ungulate population distribution• Roads• Population Centers• Land Ownership• Documented cougar occurrence• Nearest source populations

Habitat ModelsHabitat Models• 2. Combine layers to produce single map

layer showing:– Habitat quality– Habitat patch size– Connectivity

Remote CamerasRemote Cameras• 1. General Considerations

– Pros:• Powerful tool for producing (mostly) unambiguous

presence/absence data• Precise date and time• Condition of the animal• May assist with sex and age determination• Doesn’t charge overtime• Works 24/7 and 365d/year• May provide survey data on a number of species

simultaneously

Remote CamerasRemote Cameras• 1. General Considerations

– Cons:• Because of low cougar density, requires high

density of cameras monitored over long periods of time to produce confident presence/absence data even on a local scale

• NEED for estimating “capture” probabilities with known populations

• Expense: $260 to $1,400 per camera• Targets for theft and vandalism

Remote CamerasRemote Cameras• 2. Specific Considerations

– Trigger speed– Trigger Sensitivity

• Adjustable?

– Detection Distance– Flash Distance– Storage Capacity– Photo Quality– Power Supply– Weather Resistance

Remote CamerasRemote Cameras• 3. Choosing a Camera

– Many options available

• Recommend: Cuddeback “Expert”• Fastest trigger speed• Adjustable trigger sensitivity• 25ft detection range• 40ft flash range (no flash option available)• Stores digital images on flashcard (3 Megapixel)

– Can store 500+ images depending on size of card

• Also takes video• 4 D-cell batteries

– Long battery life (depends on number of night-time photos)

• ~$366/camera

2 meters

8-10’

NothingZone

Wrong way to set a remote camera. Effective sampling zone is about 6 ft.

2 meters

Wrong way to set a remote camera. Effective sampling zone is about 6 ft.

Better

2 meters

Total Photos by Species

2856

968

274196 156 132 120

62 37 37 35 23 19 19 15 13 7 5 5 4 3 2 2 1 1 10

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Deer

Bigho

rn

Skunk Fox

Squirr

el BatQ

uail

Cougar

Coyot

e

Jack

Rabbit

Bobca

t

Ringta

il

Cotto

ntail

Jave

lina

Owl

Roadru

nner

Wood

rat

Bear

Raven

Vultu

re

Badge

r

Racco

on

Rattle

snak

e

Hawk

Spotte

d Sku

nk

Unkno

wn

Species

To

tal P

ho

tos