11 resultados para juvenile habitat
em Digital Archives@Colby
Resumo:
Predator-prey relationships are an important aspect of the natural world, and, because of its relevance to survival and natural selection, is an interesting relationship to study. In amphibian larvae, level of activity and landscape use are often what determines the survival as prey. I studied the anti-predator behavior of the North American bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) tadpoles when presented with dragonfly (Aeshna) larvae, a known predator of tadpoles. Tadpoles were acclimated to four different habitats with varying degrees of habitat cover, and were transferred to a new habitat with a degree of cover equal to one of the acclimation tanks. A restrained predator, and thus its chemical cue, was introduced, and the behavior, particularly the use of the habitat cover to hide from the perceived risk of predation was observed. A significantly higher frequency of inactivity was found in tank I than in II and III, and inactivity followed a general trend of decreasing with increasing habitat cover. Difference in tank cover was not found to have a significant effect on swimming behavior, but did have a significant effect on hiding behavior, which increased with higher availability. Foraging decreased significantly with the addition of a predator, but did not vary significantly with different levels of cover. Hiding behavior and reducing conspicuous behaviors (like foraging) are probably the behaviors that afford the tadpole the most success at eluding a predator in their natural environment.
Resumo:
http://digitalcommons.colby.edu/atlasofmaine2009/1020/thumbnail.jpg
Resumo:
http://digitalcommons.colby.edu/atlasofmaine2006/1007/thumbnail.jpg
Resumo:
http://digitalcommons.colby.edu/atlasofmaine2005/1009/thumbnail.jpg
Resumo:
http://digitalcommons.colby.edu/atlasofmaine2009/1028/thumbnail.jpg
Resumo:
http://digitalcommons.colby.edu/atlasofmaine2008/1019/thumbnail.jpg
Resumo:
http://digitalcommons.colby.edu/atlasofmaine2005/1021/thumbnail.jpg
Resumo:
http://digitalcommons.colby.edu/atlasofmaine2005/1024/thumbnail.jpg
Resumo:
http://digitalcommons.colby.edu/atlasofmaine2008/1017/thumbnail.jpg
Resumo:
The range of the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus), once covering most of North America, has been drastically reduced by an estimated 95% due to habitat loss and extermination by humans. The wolf was extirpated from Maine in the 1800’s. Wolf reintroductions have been suggested for Maine, but there is some debate about how much land is suitable for wolves. I developed a wolf habitat suitability analysis using ArcGIS and data from the Maine Office of GIS and the United States National Atlas. The model incorporates land cover, presence of major roads and railways, conservation land, industrial, non-industrial, and public woodlot ownership, distance from major points of population, deer population, and slope. The model results show areas of high and low wolf suitability in Maine. The model suggests that the best potential habitat for wolves in Maine is situated in the northwest of the state. Possible future reintroductions or natural colonization from other areas would have the highest likelihood of survival in these areas.
Resumo:
“Conservation Lands” include both public and private lands that are devoted to the protection of wildlife and natural resources. “Listed Species” include federally and state endangered and threatened animals that are in danger of extermination in the state of Maine. The purpose of this study is to determine how well conservation lands are protecting the habitats of listed species. GAP data was used for 13 terrestrial vertebrate species indicating the presence or absence of suitable habitats. This data was compiled in GIS, generating a layer showing the number of listed species an area is suitable for. The areas that were suitable for at least one habitat were compared to answer three questions: (1) Is there is a difference between the presence and absence of listed species on protected lands and lands that are not protected? (2) Is there is a difference between the presence and absence of listed species on public lands managed by the state and the federal government and private land? (3) Is there is a difference between the presence and absence of listed species on lands protected under easements and lands that are protected fee simple? We found significant differences between all three categories. Conservation lands, private lands, and lands held under easement protect the habitat of listed species most effectively. We believe that this is due to the large number of private land trusts in the state of Maine and the effective management strategies of state lands.