Demographic analysis of a black bear population in the Great Dismal Swamp

作者: Eric C. Hellgren , Michael R. Vaughan

DOI: 10.2307/3809597

关键词:

摘要: During April 1984-August 1986, 101 black bears (Ursus americanus) (71 M, 30 F) were captured 120 times in the Great Dismal Swamp (GDS) National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) and surrounding area, a forested wetland eastern Virginia northeastern North Carolina. Males dominated capture sample (P 9 years old male (n = 5). Litter size 12, : 2.1), suspected modal age at primiparity (4 yr), interbirth interval (approx 2 yr) indicative of good-quality habitat. Estimated annual survival rates 0.87 for females (-1.5 0.59 males (?2.5 yr). Causes mortality included legal illegal harvest, vehicle collisions, depredation permit kills, research, intraspecific predation. bear density was 0.52-0.66 bears/km2, corresponding to 286-368 555-km2 study area. Present population management (protection from hunting no public vehicular access) should be continued GDSNWR. The small effective (N, 56) GDS indicated need dispersal genetics other southeastern populations determine degree isolation extent genetic variability. Black conservation strategies southeast are critical due increasing habitat fragmentation. J. WILDL. MANAGE. 53(4):969-977 ecology wetlands has been subject limited (Hamilton 1978, Smith 1985). Islands habitats, primarily swamps pocosins (Sharitz Gibbons 1982), provide last remaining refuges on Atlantic Coastal Plain (Monschein 1981, Zeveloff 1983). Large hardwood excellent denning Marchinton 1980, Hellgren Vaughan 1989), diverse food supplies, protection disturbance Monschein 1981). However, dynamics remain poorly understood. GDS, an 850-km2 Carolina border, supports breeding extreme 1973 establishment GDSNWR, which occupies core swamp, placed responsibility U.S. Fish Service (USFWS). estimates evaluation suitability proper GDSNWR ide tified (Bur. Sport Fish. Wildl. 1974), yet bear-related research not met this need. Management is hunting. population, although afforded sanctuary refuge unhunted since early 1970's, exploited private swamp land rate 9.4 bears/year (Anonymous 1984). potential act as reservoir reproduction unknown. In recent years, clearing privately-owned agricultural or residential development accelerated, making vital population. Information such sex distribution, primiparity, birth rate, survival, necessary predict results bearrelated actions. Our objective characterize GDS. We acknowledge cooperation USFWS, Department Game Inland Fisheries, Resources Commission, Fisheries Sciences, Polytechnic Institute State University. Particularly helpful D. Schwab, R. Mc1 address: Campus Box 218, Caesar Kleberg Research Institute, Texas A&I University, Kingsville, TX 78363.

参考文章(19)
Kenneth H. Pollock, A Capture-Recapture Design Robust to Unequal Probability of Capture Journal of Wildlife Management. ,vol. 46, pp. 752- ,(1982) , 10.2307/3808568
R. L. Lochmiller, W. E. Grant, A SODIUM BICARBONATE-ACID POWERED BLOW-GUN SYRINGE FOR REMOTE INJECTION OF WILDLIFE Journal of Wildlife Diseases. ,vol. 19, pp. 48- 51 ,(1983) , 10.7589/0090-3558-19.1.48
F.L. Bunnell, D.E.N. Tait, Mortality Rates of North American Bears Arctic. ,vol. 38, pp. 316- 323 ,(1985) , 10.14430/ARCTIC2151
Gary C. White, David L. Otis, Kenneth P. Burnham, David R. Anderson, Statistical inference from capture data on closed animal populations Wildlife Monographs. pp. 3- 135 ,(1978)
Charles H. Willey, Aging Black Bears from First Premolar Tooth Sections The Journal of Wildlife Management. ,vol. 38, pp. 97- ,(1974) , 10.2307/3800203
Tracey T. Trent, Orrin J. Rongstad, Home Range and Survival of Cottontail Rabbits in Southwestern Wisconsin Journal of Wildlife Management. ,vol. 38, pp. 459- ,(1974) , 10.2307/3800877
Richard M. Bartmann, Gary C. White, Len H. Carpenter, Robert A. Garrott, Aerial Mark-Recapture Estimates of Confined Mule Deer in Pinyon-Juniper Woodland Journal of Wildlife Management. ,vol. 51, pp. 41- 46 ,(1987) , 10.2307/3801626
Dennis M. Heisey, Todd K. Fuller, Evaluation of survival and cause-specific mortality rates using telemetry data Journal of Wildlife Management. ,vol. 49, pp. 668- 674 ,(1985) , 10.2307/3801692