Browsing by Subject "Key Deer"

Filter results by typing the first few letters
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Effects of translocation and deer-vehicle collision mitigation on Florida Key deer
    (2009-06-02) Parker, Israel David
    Urban development and habitat fragmentation threaten recovery and management of the endangered Florida Key deer (Odocoileus virginianus clavium). Urban development has reduced deer dispersal from their core habitat resulting in deer ?overabundance? and has increased deer-human interactions (mostly deer-vehicle collisions [DVCs]). Conversely, deer populations on outer islands have declined in recent years due to limited deer dispersal from source populations. In order to expand the Key deer?s range and reduce DVCs within their core habitat, wildlife managers determined translocations and DVC mitigation were needed. Thus, the objectives of my thesis were to determine (1) effects of translocation on the establishment of outer-island local populations, and (2) effects of United States 1 Highway (US 1) improvements (i.e., exclusion fencing, underpasses, deer guards, and extra lane creation) on DVCs and deer movements. I evaluated the efficacy of translocations by comparing annual survival and seasonal ranges between resident and translocated deer and by analyzing reproduction of translocated deer. Translocated females (yearlings and adults) had lower annual survival than resident deer. Conversely, males (yearlings and adults) demonstrated higher annual survival than resident males. Due to low sample sizes and large variation, these numbers are potentially less important than the high overall survival (only 4 of 38 died). Seasonal ranges were generally smaller for resident deer than translocated deer. I attribute differences in ranges to differences in habitat quality between the core habitat and destination islands and to use of soft releases. Presence of fawns and yearlings indicated successful reproduction of translocated deer. Overall, the project was successful in establishing populations on the destination islands. The US 1 Highway improvements reduced DVCs along the fenced section of US 1 (2003, n = 2; 2004, n = 1; 2005, n = 0); however, overall DVCs increased on Big Pine Key (1996?2000, x? = 79; 2003, n = 91; 2004, n = 84; 2005, n = 100). Data suggest DVCs shifted to the unfenced segment of US 1. However, monthly deer surveys also suggested an increase in deer numbers that may explain overall DVC increases observed in my study.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Estimating density of Florida Key deer
    (Texas A&M University, 2006-08-16) Roberts, Clay Walton
    Florida Key deer (Odocoileus virginianus clavium) were listed as endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in 1967. A variety of survey methods have been used in estimating deer density and/or changes in population trends for this species since 1968; however, a need to evaluate the precision of existing and alternative survey methods (i.e., road counts, mark-recapture, infrared-triggered cameras [ITC]) was desired by USFWS. I evaluated density estimates from unbaited ITCs and road surveys. Road surveys (n = 253) were conducted along a standardized 4-km route each week between January 1999??December 2000 (total deer observed, n = 4,078). During this same period, 11 ITC stations (1 camera/42 ha) collected 5,511 deer exposures. Study results found a difference (P < 0.001) between methods with road survey estimates lower (76 deer) than ITC estimates (166 deer). Comparing the proportion of marked deer, I observed a higher (P < 0.001) proportion from road surveys (0.266) than from ITC estimates (0.146). Lower road survey estimates are attributed to (1) urban deer behavior resulting in a high proportion of marked deer observations, and (2) inadequate sample area coverage. I suggest that ITC estimates are a reliable and precise alternative to road surveys for estimating Key deer densities on outer islands. I also evaluated density estimates from 3 road survey methods. Road survey methods (n = 100) were conducted along a standardized 31-km route where markresight, strip-transect, and distance sampling data were collected between June 2003?? May 2004. I found mark-resight estimates to be lower ( x = 384, 95% CI = 346??421) than strip-transect estimates ( x = 854, 95% CI = 806??902) and distance estimates ( x = 523, 95% CI = 488??557). I attribute low mark-resight estimates to urban deer behavior resulting in a higher proportion of marked deer observations along roadways. High strip-transect estimates also are attributed to urban deer behavior and a reduced effective strip width due to dense vegetation. I propose that estimates using distance sampling eliminate some of these biases, and recommend their use in the future.