KeywordsElk -- Habitat -- Arizona.
Mule deer -- Habitat.
Cattle -- Habitat -- Arizona.
Deer -- Habitat -- Arizona.
MetadataShow full item record
PublisherThe University of Arizona.
RightsCopyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.
Degree ProgramGraduate College
Renewable Natural Resources
Degree GrantorUniversity of Arizona
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
White-tailed deer habitats in the central Black HillsDePerno, C. S.; Jenks, J. A.; Griffin, S. L.; Rice, L. A.; Higgins, K. F. (Society for Range Management, 2002-05-01)White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus dacotensis Zimm.) numbers in the central Black Hills have declined since the middle 1970s. Population status has been documented by a decline in hunter success, deer reproductive success, and fawn survival. Most management agencies believe habitat deterioration is the primary cause of population decline in the Black Hills. We evaluated habitat selection for a white-tailed deer herd in the central Black Hills of South Dakota and Wyoming. From July 1993-July 1996, 73 adult and yearling doe and 12 adult and yearling buck white-tailed deer were radiocollared and visually monitored. Habitat Information was collected at 4,662 white-tailed deer locations and 1,087 random locations. During winter, white-tailed deer selected ponderosa pine- (Pinus ponderosa P. C. Lawson) deciduous and burned pine cover types. Overstory-understory habitats selected included pine/grass-forb, pine/bear-berry (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi (L.) Spreng.), pine/snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus L.), burned pine/grass-forb, and pine/shrub habitats. Structural stages selected included sapling-pole pine stands with 70% canopy cover, burned pine sapling-pole and saw-timber stands with 40% canopy cover. During summer, white-tailed deer selected pine-deciduous, aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.), aspen-coniferous, spruce (Picea glauca (Moench) Voss), and spruce-deciduous cover types. Overstory-understory habitats selected included pine/juniper Juniperus communis L.), aspen/shrubs, spruce/juniper, and spruce/shrub habitats. Structural stages selected included pine, aspen, and spruce sapling pole stands with all levels (0-40%, 41-70%,71-100%) of canopy cover. Results supported low habitat quality as a factor involved with the decline of the deer population. We recommend that habitat management techniques, such as aspen regeneration and prescribed burns, be used to Improve the habitat base in the central Black Hills.
Influence of local and landscape factors on distributional dynamics: a species-centred, fitness-based approachFlesch, Aaron D.; Univ Arizona, Sch Nat Resources & Environm, Desert Lab (ROYAL SOC, 2017-07-05)In spatially structured populations, distributional dynamics are driven by the quantity, connectivity and quality of habitat. Because these drivers are rarely measured directly and simultaneously at relevant scales, information on their relative importance remains unclear. I assessed the influence of both direct and indirect measures of local habitat quality, and of landscape habitat amount and connectivity on long-term territory occupancy dynamics of non-migratory pygmy owls. Direct measures of local habitat quality based on territory-specific reproductive output had greater effects on distribution than landscape factors, but only when spatio-temporal fluxes in performance linked to environmental stochasticity and intraspecific competition were considered. When habitat quality was measured indirectly based on habitat structure, however, landscape factors had greater effects. Although all landscape factors were important, measures of landscape connectivity that were uncorrelated with habitat amount and based on attributes of matrix structure and habitat configuration that influence dispersal movements had greater effects than habitat effective area (amount weighted by quality). Moreover, the influence of connectivity (but not habitat effective area) depended on local habitat quality. Such results suggest the relative importance of local habitat quality in driving distribution has been underestimated and that conservation strategies should vary spatially depending on both local and landscape contexts.