Evaluating Global Positioning System Telemetry Techniques for Estimating Cougar Predation Parameters

Abstract Using clusters of locations obtained from Global Positioning System (GPS) telemetry collars to identify predation events may allow more efficient estimation of behavioral predation parameters for the study and management of large carnivore predator–prey systems. Applications of field- and model-based GPS telemetry cluster techniques, however, have met with mixed success. To further evaluate and refine these techniques for cougars (Puma concolor), we used data from visits to 1,735 GPS telemetry clusters, 637 of which were locations where cougars killed prey >8 kg in a multi-prey system in west-central Alberta. We tested 1) whether clusters were reliably created at kill locations, 2) the ability of logistic regression models to identify kill occurrence (prey >8 kg) and multinomial regression models to identify the prey species at a kill cluster, and 3) the duration of monitoring required to accurately estimate kill rate and prey composition. We found that GPS collars programmed to attempt location fixes every 3 hours consistently identified locations where prey >8 kg were handled, and cluster creation was robust to GPS location acquisition failures (poor collar fix success). The logistic regression model was capable of estimating cougar kill rate with a mean 5-fold cross validation error of <10%, provided the appropriate probability cutoff distinguishing kill clusters from non-kill clusters was selected. Logistic models also can be used to direct visits to clusters, reducing field efforts by as much as 25%, while still locating >95% of all kills. The multinomial model overpredicted occurrence of primary prey (deer) in the diet and underpredicted consumption of alternate prey (e.g., elk and moose) by as much as 100%. We conclude that a purely model-based approach should be used cautiously and that field visitation is required to obtain reliable information on species, sex, age, or condition of prey. Ultimately, we recommend a combined approach that involves using models to direct field visitation when estimating behavioral predation parameters. Regardless of the monitoring approach, long continuous monitoring periods (i.e., >100 days of a 180-day period) were necessary to reduce bias and imprecision in kill rate and prey composition estimates.

[1]  H. Robinson,et al.  Cougar predation and population growth of sympatric mule deer and white-tailed deer , 2002 .

[2]  M. Kulldorff,et al.  A Space–Time Permutation Scan Statistic for Disease Outbreak Detection , 2005, PLoS medicine.

[3]  O. Liberg,et al.  Summer kill rates and predation pattern in a wolf–moose system: can we rely on winter estimates? , 2008, Oecologia.

[4]  David R. Anderson,et al.  Model selection and multimodel inference : a practical information-theoretic approach , 2003 .

[5]  Mark Hebblewhite,et al.  Statistical Methods for Identifying Wolf Kill Sites Using Global Positioning System Locations , 2008 .

[6]  M. Bonsall,et al.  Enemy-mediated apparent competition: empirical patterns and the evidence , 2000 .

[7]  J. F. Benson,et al.  Florida Panther Habitat Selection Analysis of Concurrent GPS and VHF Telemetry Data , 2008 .

[8]  J. F. Gilliam,et al.  FUNCTIONAL RESPONSES WITH PREDATOR INTERFERENCE: VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE HOLLING TYPE II MODEL , 2001 .

[9]  Mark Hebblewhite,et al.  Spatial decomposition of predation risk using resource selection functions: an example in a wolf /elk predator /prey system , 2005 .

[10]  M. Boyce,et al.  Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system. , 2007, Ecology letters.

[11]  O. Liberg,et al.  Wolf Movement Patterns: a Key to Estimation of Kill Rate? , 2007 .

[12]  Mark Hebblewhite,et al.  Development and application of a ratio estimator to estimate wolf kill rates and variance in a multiple-prey system , 2003 .

[13]  J. Laundré,et al.  Aging mountain lions using gum-line recession , 2000 .

[14]  Håkan Sand,et al.  Using GPS technology and GIS cluster analyses to estimate kill rates in wolf—ungulate ecosystems , 2005 .

[15]  Alastair Franke,et al.  Prediction of wolf (Canis lupus) kill-sites using hidden Markov models , 2006 .

[16]  Stan Boutin,et al.  Power analysis of wolf-moose functional responses , 1999 .

[17]  J. F. Benson,et al.  Natal Den Selection by Florida Panthers , 2008 .

[18]  S. Creel,et al.  Relationships between direct predation and risk effects. , 2008, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[19]  Rory P. Wilson,et al.  The potential costs of flipper-bands to penguins , 2002 .

[20]  Dennis L. Murray,et al.  Assessing differential prey selection patterns between two sympatric large carnivores , 2003 .

[21]  Rolf O. Peterson,et al.  THE EFFECT OF PREY AND PREDATOR DENSITIES ON WOLF PREDATION , 2002 .

[22]  L. Ginzburg,et al.  The nature of predation: prey dependent, ratio dependent or neither? , 2000, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[23]  M. Mills,et al.  Predator--Prey Relationships: The Impact of Lion Predation on Wildebeest and Zebra Populations , 1992 .

[24]  P. Beier,et al.  MOVEMENT PATTERNS OF MOUNTAIN LIONS DURING DIFFERENT BEHAVIORS , 1995 .

[25]  D. Hosmer,et al.  Applied Logistic Regression , 1991 .

[26]  Rolf O. Peterson,et al.  ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF WOLVES ON UNGULATE PREY , 2003 .

[27]  H. Robinson,et al.  Cougar Prey Selection in a White-Tailed Deer and Mule Deer Community , 2008 .

[28]  M. Boyce,et al.  Evaluating resource selection functions , 2002 .

[29]  Stan Boutin,et al.  Predation and Moose Population Dynamics: A Critique , 1992 .

[30]  M. Festa‐Bianchet,et al.  Cougar predation on bighorn sheep in southwestern Alberta during winter , 1997 .

[31]  Charles R. Anderson,et al.  Estimating cougar predation rates from GPS location clusters , 2003 .

[32]  John Bell,et al.  A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models , 1997, Environmental Conservation.

[33]  J. Cahill,et al.  The herbivory uncertainty principle : Visiting plants can alter herbivory , 2001 .