Differing vigilance among gray squirrels (Sciuridae carolinensis) along an urban–rural gradient on Long Island
- 1.7k Downloads
Urbanization has had far-reaching effects on the wildlife that have adapted to this novel landscape. Not only have wildlife endured shifts in ecosystem function as a result of urbanization, but in many areas there has been a fundamental behavioral change. This “urban wildlife syndrome” – the collection of observable traits of wildlife species undergoing urbanization – prompted us to examine the effect of urbanization on vigilance of eastern gray squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis). We hypothesized that squirrels in more urban locations, due to presumed higher squirrel density and familiarization with humans, would be less vigilant than squirrels in more rural sites. We assigned study sites (i.e. city parks) to one of four rank categories of urbanization based upon human population density. In contrast to our original hypothesis, squirrels in urban sites were more vigilant than squirrels in less urban areas. In fact this difference was punctuated by an approximate 42 % reduction between moderately urban and semi-rural habitats. Squirrel density had a positive, yet weak, effect on vigilance time. Elevated intraspecific aggression, unpredictable changes in vehicular and pedestrian traffic, and associated noise levels and disturbance in urban settings where squirrels occur, may be responsible for more variable and heightened states of vigilance in the urban setting.
KeywordsUrban–rural gradient Squirrels Vigilance Foraging
We thank the Biology Department at Hofstra University for supporting this project. We also thank Melissa Grigione for critically reviewing the MS in its later stages.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare they there is no conflict of interest.
- Adams LW, Van Druff LW, Luniak M (2005) Managing urban habitats and wildlife. In: Braun CE (ed) Techniques for wildlife investigations and management. Allen, Lawrence, pp 714–739Google Scholar
- Bekoff M (2007) The emotional lives of animals: a leading scientist explores animal joy, sorrow, and empathy, and why they matter. New World Library, Novato, CA, 215 ppGoogle Scholar
- Brown JS (1999) Vigilance, patch use and habitat selection: foraging under predation risk. Evol Ecol Res 1:49–71Google Scholar
- Conover MR (1997) Wildlife management by metropolitan residents in the United States: practices, perceptions, costs, and values. Wildl Soc Bull 25:306–311Google Scholar
- Distefano E (2005) Human–wildlife conflict worldwide: a collection of case studies, analysis of management strategies and good practices. Food and Agricultural Organization of the UnitedGoogle Scholar
- Hazen B, Poche RM (1992) California ground squirrel field efficacy study using 0.005% chlorophacinone bait. Proceedings of the Fifteenth Vertebrate Pest Conference, Lincoln, NebraskaGoogle Scholar
- Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1995) Biometry: the principles and practice of statistics in biological research, 3rd edn. W.H. Freeman, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
- U.S. Census Bureau. New York by Place and County Subdivision: Population, Housing Units, Area, and Density. U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary. http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/
- VanDruff LW, Bolen EG, San Julian GJ (1996) Management of urban wildlife. In: Bookhout TA (ed) Research and management techniques for wildlife and habits. Allen, Lawrence, pp 507–530Google Scholar
- Woodroffe R, Thirgood S, Rabinowitz A (eds) (2005) People and wildlife: conflict or coexistence? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar