Abstract
Private landowners play a pivotal role in determining whether or not rare species persist in regions where privately owned land is extensive. The range of the gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) is confined to the Southeastern U.S., a region predominantly under private ownership, and thus the status of this species is largely dependent upon land management decisions made by private landowners. We sent an anonymous mail survey to 2,584 individuals to examine factors affecting gopher tortoise occurrence on private lands in Mississippi (adjusted response rate of 23%). Few respondents (19%) reported currently having tortoises on their property, although many had them in the past (30%). Tortoises were persisting primarily on larger properties with longleaf pine that were not managed chiefly for timber production. In general, respondents were largely unaware of habitat requirements of tortoises or effects of various land management practices on them, and few reported using management techniques that benefit tortoises, such as prescribed burning. Most respondents (57%) knew of wildlife incentive programs, but were hesitant to enroll because they did not want to commit to managing their property in a particular manner (34%). We suggest actions that could improve the likelihood of tortoise persistence in this region, as well as changes that could be made to incentive programs to increase landowner participation. These suggestions should be relevant to the conservation of other rare species on private lands in other regions.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Arano KG, Cushing TL, Munn IA (2002) Forest management expenses of Mississippi’s nonindustrial private forest landowners. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 26:93–98
Aresco MJ, Guyer C (1999a) Burrow abandonment by gopher tortoises in slash pine plantations of the Conecuh National Forest. Journal of Wildlife Management 63:26–35
Aresco MJ, Guyer C (1999b) Growth of the tortoise Gopherus polyphemus in slash pine plantations of southcentral Alabama. Herpetologica 55:499–506
Auffenberg W, Franz R (1982) The status and distribution of the gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus). In: Bury RB (ed) North American tortoises: conservation and ecology. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Wildlife Research Report 12, Washington DC, pp 95–126
Babbie E (2007) The practice of social research. Thomson Wadsworth, Belmont, p 511
Bean MJ, Wilcove DS (1997) The private-land problem. Conservation Biology 11:1–2
BenDor T, Westervelt J, Aurambout JP, Meyer W (2009) Simulating population variation and movement within fragmented landscapes: an application to the gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus). Ecological Modelling 220:867–878
Berish JED, Wendland LD, Gates CA (2000) Distribution and prevalence of upper respiratory tract disease in gopher tortoises in Florida. Journal of Herpetology 34:5–12
Butler JA, Sowell S (1996) Survivorship and predation of hatchling and yearling gopher tortoises, Gopherus polyphemus. Journal of Herpetology 30:455–458
Chomitz KM, da Fonseca GAB, Alger K, Stoms DM, Honzák M, Landau EC, Thomas TS, Thomas WW, Davis F (2006) Viable reserve networks arise from individual landholder responses to conservation incentives. Ecology and Society 11:40
Clark J (1996) Biodiversity laws: state experiences. Environmental Management 20:919–923
Cox J, Inkley D, Kautz R (1987) Ecology and habitat protection needs of gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) populations found on lands slated for large-scale development in Florida. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission Nongame Wildlife Program Technical Report No. 4, Tallahassee, p 75
Creighton JH, Baumgartner DM, Blatner KA (2002) Ecosystem management and nonindustrial private forest landowners in Washington State, USA. Small-scale Forest Economics, Management, and Policy 1:55–69
Daley SS, Cobb DT, Bromley PT, Sorenson CE (2004) Landowner attitudes regarding wildlife management on private land in North Carolina. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32:209–219
Diemer JE (1986) The ecology and management of the gopher tortoise in the Southeastern United States. Herpetologica 42:125–133
Dunning JB, Danielson BJ, Pulliam HR (1992) Ecological processes that affect populations in complex landscapes. Oikos 65:169–175
Fink A (2003) The survey handbook, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, p 165
Foin TC, Riley SPD, Pawley AL, Ayres DR, Carlsen TM, Hodum PJ, Switzer PV (1998) Improving recovery planning for threatened and endangered species. Bioscience 48:177–184
Hadlock TD, Beckwith JA (2002) Recommendations to improve recovery of endangered species in the United States. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 7:37–53
Haines TK, Busby RL, Cleaves DA (2001) Prescribed burning in the South: trends, purpose, and barriers. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 25:149–153
Hermann SM, Guyer C, Waddle JH, Nelms MG (2002) Sampling on private property to evaluate population status and effects of land use practices on the gopher tortoise, Gopherus polyphemus. Biological Conservation 108:289–298
Hudson B (2007) Promoting and establishing the recovery of endangered species on private lands: a case study of the gopher tortoise. Duke Environmental Law and Policy Forum 18:163–213
Jackson DR, Milstrey EG (1989) The fauna of gopher tortoise burrows. In: Diemer JE, Jackson DR, Landers JL, Layne JN, Wood DA (eds) Gopher tortoise relocation symposium proceedings, Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission, Nongame Wildlife Program Technical Report 5, pp 86–98
Jacobson SK (2009) Communication skills for conservation professionals, 2nd edn. Island Press, Washington DC, p 480
Jarrett A, Gan J, Johnson C, Munn IA (2009) Landowner awareness and adoption of wildfire programs in the Southern United States. Journal of Forestry 107:113–118
Jones JC, Dorr B (2004) Habitat associations of gopher tortoise burrows on industrial timberlands. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32:456–464
Kammin LA, Hubert PD, Warner RE, Mankin PC (2009) Private lands programs and lessons learned in Illinois. Journal of Wildlife Management 73:973–979
Knight RL (1999) Private lands: the neglected geography. Conservation Biology 13:223–224
Lahaut VMHCJ, Jansen HAM, Van de Mheen D, Garretsen HFL, Verdurmen JEE, Van Dijk A (2003) Estimating non-response bias in a survey on alcohol consumption: comparison of response waves. Alcohol and Alcoholism 38:128–134
Landers JL, Van Lear DH, Boyer WD (1995) The longleaf pine forest of the Southeast: requiem or renaissance? Journal of Forestry 93:39–44
Lin I, Schaeffer NC (1995) Using survey participants to estimate the impact of nonparticipation. Public Opinion Quarterly 59:236–258
Manfredo MJ, Teel TL, Henry KL (2009) Linking society and environment: a multilevel model of shifting wildlife value orientations in the western United States. Social Science Quarterly 90:407–427
Massof RW (2005) Application of stochastic measurement models to visual function rating scale questionnaires. Ophthalmic Epidemiology 12:103–124
McCoy ED, Mushinsky HR (1992) Studying a species in decline: gopher tortoises and the dilemma of “correction factors”. Herpetologica 48:402–407
McCoy ED, Mushinsky HR (2007) Estimates of minimum patch size depend on the method of estimation and the condition of the habitat. Ecology 88:1401–1407
Mehmood SR, Zhang D (2005) Determinants of forest landowner participation in the Endangered Species Act Safe Harbor program. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 10:249–257
Miller KK, McGee TK (2001) Toward incorporating human dimensions information into wildlife management decision-making. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 6:205–221
Poudyal NC, Hodges DG (2009) Factors influencing landowner interest in managing wildlife and avian habitat on private forestland. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 14:240–250
Reidl SC, Mushinsky HR, McCoy ED (2008) Translocation of the gopher tortoise: difficulties associated with assessing success. Applied Herpetology 5:145–160
Rodewald AD (2003) The importance of land uses within the landscape matrix. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31:586–592
Slovic P (1993) Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Analysis 13:675–682
Smith AA, Moote MA, Schwalbe CR (1993) The Endangered Species Act at 20: an analytical survey of federal endangered species protection. Natural Resources Journal 33:1027–1075
Smith WB, Miles PD, Perry CH, Pugh SA (2007) Forest resources of the United States, 2007. General technical report WO-78. USDA Forest Service, Washington DC, p 336
SPSS, Inc., (2009) Version 17.0. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs
Stein SM, McRoberts RE, Nelson MD, Mahal L, Flather CH, Alig RJ, Comas S (2009) Private forest habitat for at risk species: where is it and where might it be changing? Journal of Forestry 108:61–70
US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (1990) Gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) recovery plan. USFWS, Jackson, p 28
Wilcove DS, Lee J (2004) Using economic and regulatory incentives to restore endangered species: lessons learned from three new programs. Conservation Biology 18:639–645
With KA, Crist TO (1995) Critical thresholds in species’ responses to landscape structures. Ecology 76:2446–2459
Acknowledgments
We thank The Nature Conservancy for providing funding. We also thank the Mississippi Museum of Natural Science and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for their assistance in implementation of this research. In addition, we would like to thank the private landowners who participated in this study, and the anonymous reviewers who suggested improvements to earlier drafts of this material.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Underwood, V.J., Ober, H.K., Miller, D.L. et al. Contributions of Private Landowners to the Conservation of the Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus). Environmental Management 49, 846–854 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-012-9821-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-012-9821-x