Study

The effect of coterie relocation on release-site retention and behavior of Utah prairie dogs

  • Published source details Curtis R., Frey S.N. & Brown N.L. (2014) The effect of coterie relocation on release-site retention and behavior of Utah prairie dogs. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 78, 1069-1077.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Release translocated/captive-bred mammals into area with artificial refuges/breeding sites

Action Link
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Release translocated/captive-bred mammals in areas with invasive/problematic species eradication/control

Action Link
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Release translocated/captive-bred mammals in family/social groups

Action Link
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation
  1. Release translocated/captive-bred mammals into area with artificial refuges/breeding sites

    A replicated, before-and-after study in 2010–2011 in two grassland sites in Utah, USA (Curtis et al. 2014) found that translocated Utah prairie dogs Cynomys parvidens released into an area with artificial burrows after the control of native predators tended to leave the release site and spent more time being vigilant than before. Only 50 out of 779 (6%) were still present at the release sites two months after release. After translocation in both family groups and groups of unrelated individuals, prairie dogs spent more time being vigilant (48%) than they had done before translocation (22%). In July 2010 and 2011, prairie dogs (379 and 400) were caught on a golf course using baited Tomahawk wire box-traps. Individuals were marked with hair dye and ear tags and released the same day at two sites with artificial burrow systems, with up to 10 animals/burrow. Each site had four release areas at least 200 m apart, each containing five burrows, 4 m apart. Each burrow consisted of a 30 × 45 × 30 cm box, buried 1.8m deep, and with two entrances (10-cm diameter and 4-m long) made from plastic tubing. Extra holes were left in the box and tubing to allow burrow expansion. Burrow entrances were protected from predators by mesh cages. At each site, two release areas were used for family groups and two were used for non-related groups. Predator removal of coyote Canis latrans and badgers Taxidea taxus was conducted for several weeks before and after prairie dog release. In September 2010 and 2011, prairie dogs were trapped, using 100 traps/site, during two sessions of four days each to determine numbers remaining at the site.

    (Summarised by: Ricardo Rocha)

  2. Release translocated/captive-bred mammals in areas with invasive/problematic species eradication/control

    A replicated, before-and-after study in 2010–2011 in two grassland sites in Utah, USA (Curtis et al. 2014) found that translocated Utah prairie dogs Cynomys parvidens released after the control of native predators into an area with artificial burrows showed low release site fidelity and different pre- and post-release behaviour. After translocation in both family groups and groups of unrelated individuals, prairie dogs spent more time being vigilant (48%) than they had done before translocation (22%). Only 50 out of 779 were still present at the release sites two months after release. In July 2010 and 2011, three hundred and seventy-nine and 400 prairie dogs were caught on a golf course using baited Tomahawk wire box-traps. Individuals were marked with hair dye and ear tags and released the same day at two sites with artificial burrow systems, with up to 10 animals/burrow. Each site had four release areas at least 200 m apart, each containing five burrows, 4 m apart. Each burrow consisted of a 30 × 45 × 30 cm box, buried 1.8m deep, and with two entrances (10-cm diameter and 4-m long) made from plastic tubing. Extra holes were left in the box and tubing to allow burrow expansion. Burrow entrances were protected from predators by mesh cages. At each site, two release areas were used for family groups and two were used for non-related groups. Predator removal of coyote Canis latrans and badgers Taxidea taxus was conducted for several weeks before and after prairie dog release. In September 2010 and 2011, prairie dogs were trapped, using 100 traps/site, during two sessions of four days each to determine site retention.

    (Summarised by: Ricardo Rocha)

  3. Release translocated/captive-bred mammals in family/social groups

    A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in 2010–2011 in two grassland sites in Utah, USA (Curtis et al. 2014) found no differences in the release site fidelity or post-release behaviour of translocated Utah prairie dogs Cynomys parvidens released in family groups or in groups composed of non-related individuals. Similar numbers of prairie dogs released in family groups (24 out of 386, 6%) and in non-related groups (26 out of 393, 7%) were still present at the release sites two months after release. Additionally, the post-release behaviour did not differ between groups, but both groups behaved differently post-release than pre-release (data presented as model results). In July 2010 and 2011, three hundred and seventy-nine and 400 prairie dogs were caught on a golf course using baited Tomahawk wire box-traps. Individuals were marked with hair dye and ear tags and released the same day at two sites with artificial burrow systems, with up to 10 animals/burrow. Each site had four release areas at least 200 m apart, each containing five burrows, 4 m apart. Each burrow consisted of a 30 × 45 × 30 cm box, buried 1.8m deep, and with two entrances (10-cm diameter and 4-m long) made from plastic tubing. Burrow entrances were protected from predators by mesh cages. At each site, two release areas were used for family groups and two for non-related groups. Predator removal of coyote Canis latrans and badgers Taxidea taxus was conducted for several weeks before and after prairie dog release. In September 2010 and 2011, prairie dogs were trapped, using 100 traps/site, during two sessions of four days each to determine site retention.

    (Summarised by: Ricardo Rocha)

Output references
What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 18

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.


Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust