Skip to main content
Log in

Cougar den site selection in the Southern Yellowstone Ecosystem

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Mammal Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Den sites are critical resources that ultimately influence the population dynamics of many species. Little is known about cougar den selection, even though dens likely play important roles in cougar fitness and kitten survivorship. Thus, we aimed to describe cougar den site selection in the Southern Yellowstone Ecosystem (SYE) at two scales (third- and fourth-order resource selection) and within an ecological framework that included environmental characteristics, as well as some measure of prey availability and anthropogenic landscape features. We documented 25 unique dens between 2002 and 2013, and gathered data on microsite characteristics and paired random points for 20 dens. The timing of dens was clumped in summer, with 56 % of 25 dens beginning in June or July. Unexpectedly, female cougars in our study system exhibited third-order selection for den areas in less rugged terrain, but did not exhibit selection for greater or lesser access to hunting opportunity, roads, water, or specific habitat classes, as compared with the remainder of their home ranges. Instead, our findings suggested that third-order selection for den areas was much less important than fourth-order selection: cougar den sites were characterized by high concealment and substantial protective structure. Therefore, our results provided evidence in support of land practices that promote and protect downed wood and heavy structure on forest floors—these will best provide opportunities for cougars to find suitable den sites and maintain parturition behaviors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson CR, Lindzey FG (2003) Estimating cougar predation rates from GPS location clusters. J Wildlife Manag 67:307–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beier P, Choate D, Barrett RH (1995) Movement patterns of mountain lions during different behaviors. J Mammal 76:1056–1070

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benson JF, Lotz MA, Jansen D (2008) Natal den selection by Florida panthers. J Wildlife Manag 72:405–410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beyer HL (2009-2012) Geospatial Modelling Environment (Version 0721) (software) URL: http://www.spatialecology.com/gme

  • Bleich VC, Pierce BM, Davis JL, Davis VL (1996) Thermal characteristics of mountain lion dens. Great Basin Nat 56:276–278

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonney RC, Moor HD, Jones DM (1981) Plasma concentrations of oestradiol-17 beta and progesterone and laparoscopic observations of the ovary in the puma (Felis concolor) during oestrus pseudopregnancy and pregnancy. J Reprod Fertil 63:523–531

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information theoretic approach. 2nd ed, Springer-Verlag

  • Durant SM (1998) Competition refuges and coexistence: an example from Serengeti carnivores. J Anim Ecol 67:370–386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elbroch LM, Wittmer HU (2012) Puma spatial ecology in open habitats with aggregate prey. Mamm Biol 77:377–384

    Google Scholar 

  • Elbroch LM, Lendrum PE, Newby J, Quigley H, Craighead D (2013) Seasonal foraging ecology of non-migratory cougars in a system with migrating prey. PLoS ONE 8:e83375

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Elbroch LM, Lendrum PE, Allen ML, Wittmer HU (2014) No where to hide: Pumas, black bears, and competition refuges. Behav Ecol. doi:10.1093/beheco/aru189

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernández N, Palomares F (2000) The selection of breeding dens by the endangered Iberian lynx (Lynx pardinus): implications for its conservation. Biol Conserv 94:51–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foster VC, Sarmento P, Sollmann R, Tôrres N, Jácomo ATA, Negrões N, Fonseca C, Silveira L (2013) Jaguar and puma activity patterns and predator-prey interactions in four Brazilian biomes. Biotropica 45:373–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grigione MM, Beier P, Hopkins RA, Neal D, Padley WD, Schonewald CM, Johnson ML (2002) Ecological and allometric determinants of home–range size for mountain lions (Puma concolor). Anim Cons 5:317–324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heffelfinger J (2010) Age criteria for Southwestern game animals. Special Report #19 Arizona Game and Fish Department

  • Hutchinson GE (1957) Concluding remarks: Cold Spring Harbor symposium. Quant Biol 22:415–427

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jansen BD, Jenks JA (2012) Birth Timing for Mountain Lions (Puma concolor); Testing the Prey Availability Hypothesis. PLoS ONE 7:e44625

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson DH (1980) The comparison of usage and availability measurements for evaluating resource preference. Ecology 61:65–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kauffman MJ, Varley N, Smith DW, Stahler DR, MacNulty DR, Boyce MS (2007) Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator-prey system. Ecol Lett 10:690–700

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kie JG, Matthiopoulos J, Fieberg J, Powell RA, Cagnacci F, Mitchell MS, Gaillard JM, Moorcroft PR (2010) The home-range concept: are traditional estimators still relevant with modern telemetry technology? Philos T R Soc B 365:2221–2231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laack LL, Tewes ME, Haines AM, Rappole JH (2005) Reproductive life history of ocelots Leopardus pardalis in southern. Texas Acta Theriol 50:505–514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laundré JW, Hernández L, Streubel D, Altendorf K, González CL (2000) Aging mountain lions using gum-line recession. Wildl Soc B 28:963–966

    Google Scholar 

  • Lendrum PE, Elbroch M, Quigley H, Thompson DJ, Jimenez M, Craighead D (2014) Home range characteristics of a subordinate predator: selection for refugia or hunt opportunity? J Zool 294:59–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Logan KA, Sweanor LL (2001) Desert Puma Evolutionary Ecology and Conservation of an Enduring Carnivore. Island Press, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Maehr DS, Land ED, Roof JC, McCown JW (1989) Early maternal behavior in the Florida panther (Felis concolor coryi). Am Midl Nat 122:34–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maehr DS, Land ED, Roof JC, McCown JW (1990) Day beds natal dens and activity of Florida panthers. Proc Ann Conf Southeastern Fish Wildl Agencies 44:310–318

    Google Scholar 

  • Mann HB, Whitney DR (1947) On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. Ann Math Stat 18:50–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marston RA, Anderson JE (1991) Watersheds and vegetation of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Cons Biol 5:338–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noon BR (1981) Techniques for sampling avian habitats. In Capen DE (ed) The use of multivariate statistics in studies of wildlife habitat, USDA For Ser GenTech Rep RM-57, pp 42–50

  • Podgórski T, Schmidt K, Kowalczyk R, Gulczynska A (2008) Microhabitat selection by Eurasian lynx and its implications for species conservation. Acta Theriol 53:97–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pruss SD (1999) Selection of natal dens by swift fox (Vulpes velox) on the Canadian prairies. Can J Zool 77:646–652

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quigley K (2000) Immobilization and biological sampling protocols. Moscow, Hornocker Wildlife Institute/Wildlife Conservation Society

    Google Scholar 

  • Quigley H, Hornocker M (2010) Cougar population dynamics. In: Hornocker M Negri S (eds) Cougar: Ecology and Conservation University of Chicago Press Chicago pp 59–75

  • Ross S, Kamnitzer R, Munkhtsog B, Harris S (2010) Den-site selection is critical for Pallas’s cats (Otocolobus manul). Can J Zool 88:905–913

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruth TK (2004) Ghost of the Rockies: the Yellowstone cougar project. Yellowstone Sci 12:13–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruth TK, Murphy K (2010) Competition with other carnivores for prey. In: Hornocker M Negri S (eds) Cougar: Ecology and Conservation University of Chicago Press Chicago, pp 163–174

  • Sappington JM, Longshore KM, Thompson DB (2007) Quantifying landscape ruggedness for animal habitat analysis: a case study using bighorn sheep in the Mojave Desert. J Wildlife Manag 71:1419–1426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sikes RS, Gannon WL, Animal Care and Use Committee of the American Society of Mammalogists (2011) Guidelines of the American Society of Mammalogists for the use of wild mammals in research. J Mamm 92:235–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Squires JR, Decesare NJ, Kolbe JA, Ruggiero LF (2008) Hierarchical den selection of Canada lynx in western Montana. J Wildlife Manag 72:1497–1506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sunquist M, Sunquist F (2002) Wild Cats of the World. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Meer E, Mpofu J, Rasmussen GSA, Fritz H (2013) Characteristics of African wild dog natal dens selected under different interspecific predation pressures. Mamm Biol 78:336–343

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanak AT, Fortin D, Thaker M, Ogden M, Owen C, Greatwood S, Slotow R (2013) Moving to stay in place: Behavioral mechanisms for coexistence of African large carnivores. Ecology 94:2619–2631

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Worton BJ (1989) Kernel methods for estimating the utilization distribution in home-range studies. Ecology 70:164–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank our collaborators, including K. Murphy (Bridger-Teton NF), S. Cain (Grand Teton NP), T. Fuchs (WY Game and Fish), and E. Cole (National Elk Refuge), and our supportive funders, the Summerlee Foundation, The Richard King Mellon Foundation, The Charles Engelhard Foundation, The Laura Moore Cunningham Foundation, Tim and Karen Hixon Foundation, National Geographic Society, The Norcross Wildlife Foundation, Inc., Earth Friends Conservation Fund, the Cougar Fund, The Bay Foundation, Michael Cline Foundation, Eugene V. & Clare E. Thaw Charitable Trust, Connemara Fund, Hogan Films, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Community Foundation of Jackson Hole, The Oregon Zoo Foundation, Mr. and Mrs. G. Ordway, Mr. and Mrs. M. Manship, Mr. and Mrs. N. Jannotta, Mr. L. Westbrook, Mr. and Mrs. S. Robertson, Mr. R. Comegys, and several anonymous foundation and individual donors. Also, thank you to A. Kusler, J. Fitzgerald, and J. Kay for field assistance collecting data at dens and random points.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to L. M. Elbroch.

Additional information

Communicated by: Krzysztof Schmidt

L. M. Elbroch and P. E. Lendrum contributed equally to the work

Appendix A

Appendix A

Table 3 Ranked model comparisons, including number of parameters (K), AICc scores, delta AICc, and model weight (w i ) for third-order resource selection; including VRM (terrain ruggeness), RoadDist (distance to nearest road), WaterDist (distance to nearest water river or lake), Aspect, and Veg (habitat type)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Elbroch, L.M., Lendrum, P.E., Alexander, P. et al. Cougar den site selection in the Southern Yellowstone Ecosystem. Mamm Res 60, 89–96 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13364-015-0212-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13364-015-0212-6

Keywords

Navigation