CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 89Wildlife Ecology and ConservationWildlife-Road Interactions and ConservationSpecies Distribution and Climate Change

Interfacing models of wildlife habitat and human development to predict the future distribution of puma habitat

Open access
BURDETT, CHRISTOPHER L., CROOKS, KEVIN R., THEOBALD, DAVID M., WILSON, KENNETH R., BOYDSTON, ERIN E., LYREN, LISA M., FISHER, ROBERT N., VICKERS, T. WINSTON +2 more·2010·Ecosphere
DOI 10.1890/es10-00005.1
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The impact of human land uses on ecological systems typically differ relative to how extensively natural conditions are modified. Exurban development is intermediate‐intensity residential development that often occurs in natural landscapes. Most species‐habitat models do not evaluate the effects of such intermediate levels of human development and even fewer predict how future development patterns might affect the amount and configuration of habitat. We addressed these deficiencies by interfacing a habitat model with a spatially‐explicit housing‐density model to study the effect of human land uses on the habitat of pumas (Puma concolor) in southern California. We studied the response of pumas to natural and anthropogenic features within their home ranges and how mortality risk varied across a gradient of human development. We also used our housing‐density model to estimate past and future housing densities and model the distribution of puma habitat in 1970, 2000, and 2030. The natural landscape for pumas in our study area consisted of riparian areas, oak woodlands, and open, conifer forests embedded in a chaparral matrix. Pumas rarely incorporated suburban or urban development into their home ranges, which is consistent with the hypothesis that the behavioral decisions of individuals can be collectively manifested as population‐limiting factors at broader spatial scales. Pumas incorporated rural and exurban development into their home ranges, apparently perceiving these areas as modified, rather than non‐habitat. Overall, pumas used exurban areas less than expected and showed a neutral response to rural areas. However, individual pumas that selected for or showed a neutral response to exurban areas had a higher risk of mortality than pumas that selected against exurban habitat. Exurban areas are likely hotspots for puma‐human conflict in southern California. Approximately 10% of our study area will transform from exurban, rural, or undeveloped areas to suburban or urban by 2030, and 35% of suitable puma habitat on private land in 1970 will have been lost by 2030. These land‐use changes will further isolate puma populations in southern California, but the ability to visualize these changes had provided a new tool for developing proactive conservation solutions.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1890/es10-00005.1

Cites

65 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Research by Burdett et al. indicated that pumas avoided intensively developed suburban or urban areas, showed a negative response to exurban development with variable individual responses, and responded neutrally to rural development with variable individual responses.

    “Research by Burdett et al. [42] indicated that pumas avoided intensively developed suburban or urban areas, showed a negative response to exurban development (but individual responses were variable), and responded neutrally to rural development (again, individual responses were variable).”

    From Landscape Analysis of Adult Florida Panther Habitat (2015) · cites this paper as [42]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 67 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. support from the Summerlee Foundation, The Nature Conservancy, The Irvine Company, California Depart- ment of Parks and Recreation, and California Depart- ment of Fish and Game. We thank Trish Smith at The Nature Conservancy for her assistance with the field research, and the many technicians who conducted the field work, including Jim Bauer, Carole Bell, Gillian Geye, Sam Yamomoto, Stacie Hathaway, Ken Logan, Barry Martin, Blue Milsap, Mike Puzzo, Linda Swea- nor, Greta Turschak, Cliff Wiley, Susan Winston, and Eric York. We especially recognize the legacy of Eric York, 1970-2007, who was an inspiration to felid researchers throughout the world. The use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes and - dorsement by the U.S. Government. LITERATURE CITED
  2. Burnham, K. P., and D. R. Anderson. 2002. Model selection and model inference. Second edition. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA.
  3. Cougar Management Guidelines Working Group. 2005. Cougar management guidelines. Opal Creek Press, Salem, Oregon, USA.
  4. DellaSala, D. A., N. L. Staus, J. R. Strittholt, A. Hackman, and A. Iacobelli. 2001. An updated protected area database for the United States and Canada. Natural Areas Journal 21:124-135.
  5. Jackson, P., and K. Nowell. 1996. Problems and possible solutions in management of felid preda- tors. Journal of Wildlife Research 1:304-314.
  6. Logan, K. A., and L. L. Irwin. 1985. Mountain lion habitats in the Big Horn Mountains, Wyoming. Wildlife Society Bulletin 13:257-262.
  7. Torres, S. G., T. M. Mansfield, J. E. Foley, T. Lupo, and A. Brinkhaus. 1996. Mountain lion and human activity in California: testing speculations. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24:451-460.
  8. Travis, W. R. 2007. New geographies of the American west. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
BURDETT, C. L., CROOKS, K. R., THEOBALD, D. M., WILSON, K. R., BOYDSTON, E. E., LYREN, L. M., FISHER, R. N., VICKERS, T. W., MORRISON, S. A., & BOYCE, W. M.
Affiliations
  • Colorado State University (US)
  • United States Geological Survey (US)
  • University of California, Davis (US)
  • The Nature Conservancy (US)
Corresponding author
BURDETT, CHRISTOPHER L.
ORCID
Venue
Ecosphere
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-07
Volume
1
Issue
1
Pages
1-21
ISSN
2150-8925 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1890/es10-00005.1
OpenAlex
W2068253457
Cited by
89
References
67
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 2
FWCI
2.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
Ecosphere (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
University of California, Davis
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife-Road Interactions and Conservation
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecological Modeling › Species Distribution and Climate Change
Keywords
Puma concolor, exurban development, anthropogenic land use, housing density, ecological niche modeling, habitat loss, population isolation, conservation planning, Southern California, riparian zones, chaparral, urban sprawl

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review