Current Research 2005–2006 - Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research ...

© Charity LawsonCurrent Research 2005–2006

This year’s cover features our recently completed $2 million Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Center, whichis located within the Stephen J. “Tio” and Janell Kleberg Wildlife Research Park at Texas A&MUniversity-Kingsville. The facility provides a venue for conferences, symposiums, seminars, meetings,and social activities that supports the Institute’s mission to provide science based information forenhancing the conservation and management of wildlife in South Texas and related environments.Caesar Kleberg Wildlife ResearchInstituteEditor Alan M. Fedynich, Ph.D.Reports in this issue of Current Research often represent preliminary analyses, and interpretations maybe modified once additional data are collected and examined. Therefore, these reports should not becited in published or non-published works without the approval of the appropriate investigator.Use of trade names does not infer endorsement of product by TAMUK.December 2006

Report of Current ResearchSeptember 1, 2005 to August 31, 2006Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research InstituteCollege of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Human SciencesTexas A&M University-KingsvilleKingsville, TexasDr. Rumaldo Z. JuárezPresidentMr. Steven CrandallVice President for Financeand AdministrationDr. Kermeta J. “Kay” ClaytonProvost and Vice PresidentDr. Ron RosatiDean, College of Agriculture,Natural Resources andHuman SciencesDr. Fred C. BryantLeroy G. Denman, Jr. EndowedDirector of Wildlife ResearchT. Dan FriedkinDavid Garza LagüeraHenry R. HammanGeorge C. “Tim” HixonKaren HunkeCKWRI Advisory BoardA. C. “Dick” Jones, IVDavid Winfield KillamStephen J. “Tio” KlebergKenneth E. LeonardJames A. McAllenBarry Coates RobertsDiane King ScovellStuart W. StedmanArthur “Buddy” Temple, III*Ben F. Vaughan, III*ChairmanA Member of the Texas A&M University System

NAMED ENDOWMENTSEndowed CentersRichard M. Kleberg, Jr. Center for Quail ResearchEndowed ChairsStuart W. Stedman – Deer ResearchLeroy G. Denman, Jr. – DirectorQuail Research (not yet named)Endowed ProfessorshipsAlgur H. and Virginia Meadows – Semi-Arid Lands ResearchEndowed FellowshipsSam Walton – Quail ResearchElliott and Adelle Bottom – Quail ResearchAlice Kleberg Reynolds – Quail ResearchWalter Fondren, III – Shorebirds and Wading Birds ResearchJess Y. Womack, II – Wetlands and Wetland Birds ResearchBetty and George Coates – Habitat Restoration and Enhancement ResearchEndowed LectureshipsDavid W. Killam – Deer ResearchNamed EndowmentsT. Dan Friedkin – Deer ResearchF. Peter Zoch – Habitat EnhancementAlfred C. Glassell, Jr. – Quail ResearchFrank and Mary Grace Horlock – Wildlife ResearchJack Brittingham – Deer ResearchR. M. Kleberg Fund – Native Plant DevelopmentGraduate ScholarshipsBob and Rebecca PalmerAl E. LeonardPhil M. Plant

NAMED FACILITIES AND COMPONENTSTio and Janell Kleberg – Wildlife Research ParkBuddy Temple – Wildlife Pathology and Diagnostic BuildingDuane M. Leach – Avian Research FacilityAlbert and Margaret Alkek – Ungulate Research FacilityCurtis and HP Pinnel – AuditoriumPetra Vela Kenedy – Conference RoomThe Leonard Family – Native Plant GardenHenry and Anne Hamman – Bobcat BronzeWater Feature – in honor of Erma Colston Riedel, given by the Colston FamilyT. Dan Friedkin Family – PorticoGateway – in honor of Tio and Janell Kleberg, given by Tim and Karen HixonFrank and Mary Yturria – Mesquite Conference TableCactus Garden – in honor of Larry Sheerin/Ed Randall, given by Betty Lou Sheerin and Ellen RandallBordas Escarpment Theme Area – in honor of Radcliffe and Sue Killam, given by the David Killam FamilyLee and Ramona Bass – South Texas Oak Motte Theme AreaJim McAllen Family – Unique South Texas PlantsGarden Benches – given by Robert Hewitt; Betty and Bob KelsoSouth Texas Brushlands Theme – in honor of Tio and Janell Kleberg, given by Danny and Shirley ButlerBuddy and Ellen Temple – Native Plant TrellisNative Prairie Theme – in honor of Faye and Raye King, given by Diane King ScovellSpanish Doors – in honor of Jack and Loyce Funk, given by the Funk FamilySpanish Doors – given by Ruth E. SullivanIn Memory and Honor...Many people choose to send unsolicited gifts in honor of cherished friends or family.We have received gifts to honor...Tobin ArmstrongTim and Karen HixonJess Y. Womack, IIWilliam A. BienhornAnne HarrisCol. Sam W. Hoskins, Jr.Simpson KampmanTodd MartinJohn Shivers, Jr.Our spirits are lifted by these gifts. Please accept our thanks to all of you who support and encourage us.

CKWRI PERSONNELScientists and StaffMs. Lorena H. Alvarez, Administrative AssistantMr. Juan A. Arredondo, Jr., Research TechnicianDr. Bart M. Ballard, Assistant ProfessorMrs. Yolanda Ballard, Office ManagerDr. Ralph Bingham, BiometricianMr. Joshua L. Blum, Research TechnicianDr. Leonard A. Brennan, ProfessorDr. Fred C. Bryant, DirectorMrs. Stephanie A. Campbell, Research AssociateDr. Susan M. Cooper, Assistant ProfessorMr. Kacy B. Crain, Research TechnicianDr. Charles A. DeYoung, Research ScientistDr. Randy W. DeYoung, Research ScientistMr. George Farek, Research AssistantDr. Alan M. Fedynich, Associate ProfessorDr. Timothy E. Fulbright, ProfessorMrs. Venie Fulbright, Research AssociateDr. Lon I. Grassman, Jr., Research ScientistMs. Deanna L. Greer, Accounting ClerkMs. Robin L. Harkey, Research AssociateDr. Scott E. Henke, ProfessorDr. Fidel Hernández, Associate ProfessorDr. David G. Hewitt, Associate ProfessorMrs. Liisa Hewitt, Assistant Development OfficerMs. Nancy Jennings, Conference SpecialistMs. Merritt Kenedy, Research AssociateMs. Charity A. Kraft, Public Relations SpecialistDr. William P. Kuvlesky, Jr., Associate ProfessorMr. Thomas M. Langschied, Research AssociateMr. Mark Madrazo, Groundskeeper IIMs. Tina Martin-Nims, Research AssociateMs. Paula D. Maywald, South Texas Natives ProjectCoordinatorMrs. Erin L. Monaco, Lab Technician IIDr. J. Alfonso Ortega-Santos, Assistant ProfessorMr. Keith A. Pawelek, Research AssociateMs. Shyla Rabe, Lab Technician IIMr. Robert Ramirez, Accounting Clerk IIIDr. G. Allen Rasmussen, Research ScientistMr. Eric J. Redeker, Research ScientistMrs. Christyn L. Reopelle, Purchasing SpecialistMr. Lee Rindlisbacher, Research AssociateMrs. Selinda A. Rojas, Secretary IMrs. Shannon R. Rusk, Research AssociateMr. Forrest S. Smith, Native Plant Collections ManagerDr. Michael E. Tewes, ProfessorMrs. Rebecca S. Trant, Administrative OfficerMrs. Firely V. Vincent, Purchasing Assistant IMr. Stephen L. Webb, Research AssociateGraduate StudentsMr. Michael A. ActkinsonMr. James T. AndersonMs. Arlene ArnoldMs. Elizabeth M. BatesMr. Kyle A. BrazilMr. Antonio CantuMr. Arturo CasoMs. Suzanne ContrerasMr. Jorge D. CortezMs. Johanna Delgado-AcevedoMr. Stephen J. DeMasoMs. Megan DominguezMr. Jason A. EstrellaMr. Juan A. FloresMr. Aaron M. FoleyMr. Jorge GarciaMr. David Garcia-SolorzanoMr. Eric GrahmannMr. David W. GravesMr. Rafael Guarernos-AltamiranoMr. Aaron M. HainesMr. Filiberto Herrera-CedanoMr. J. Dale JamesMr. Jan E. JaneckaMs. Mari-Vaughn V. JohnsonMr. Dale F. KaneMs. Amy E. KrestaMr. Jon A. LarsonMr. Cody W. LawsonMr. John S. LewisMr. David B. LongMr. Jorge A. Lopez GarciaMr. Alejandro Lozano-CavazosMr. Jorge A. Lozano RendonMr. Timothy J. LudwickMs. Anna S. LundMr. Ricardo MaldonadoMr. Jorge A. Martinez SalazarMr. Jonathan D. MoczygembaMrs. Erin L. MonacoMr. Matthew MooreMr. Nathan A. NewmanMr. Javier Ochoa EspinozaMr. Casey E. PhillipsMr. Brent PierceMr. Michael J. RaderMr. Matthew M. ReidyMr. Eric ReyesMr. Mark K. RichmanMs. Amanda RippleMr. J. Lane RobersonMs. Denise M. RuffinoMr. Joshua P. RuskMs. Yara Sanchez-JohnsonMr. Joseph P. SandsMr. Jason L. ScottMs. Autumn J. SmithMr. William C. StaseyMs. Terri B. TeaschnerMr. Garrett R. TimmonsMr. Aaron D. TjelmelandMr. Joseph H. Treadway, Jr.Mr. Joshua W. TurnerMr. Stephen L. WebbMs. Erin M. WehlandMr. Dean W. WiemersMrs. Carin B. Kistler WilliamsMs. A. Christy WyckoffMr. John H. Young

DONORS, CONTRIBUTORS, AND SPONSORSSustaining Donors*William and Cathy AbernethyAlbert and Margaret AlkekFoundationRoger AmadonMr. and Mrs. E. C. AndersonCarolyn AppletonEdward and Ruth AustinMarc BarrettOz BarrettBarrier Equipment, Inc.Lee and Ramona BassPerry and Nancy Lee BassDennis BermanSarah Campbell Blaffer FoundationElliott B. and Adelle BottomMr. and Mrs. John B. BrentJack BrittinghamBrown FoundationFred and Janis BryantJoe BryonDanny and Shirley ButlerGeorge and Anne Butler FoundationPresnell and Stephanie CageDavid CarrollBrady F. CarruthChris ChorleyEddie ClarkDr. Charles A. Clements, D.D.S.Elizabeth Huth Coates CharitableFoundation of 1992Mr. and Mrs. John CochranThe Colston FamilyPeter and Lynn ConewayLoring Cook FoundationCharles DeYoungJames R. Dougherty, Jr. Foundation,Inc.Edinburg Improvement AssociationJimmy Dale EvansFluor FoundationFondren FoundationRachel FordRobert Kyle FordT. Dan FriedkinTommy FunkThe Funk FamilyDavid Garza LagüeraAlfred Glassell, Jr.Rick GrayThe Guerra BrothersGary and Ollabelle HallCharlie HammHenry and Anne HammanCharles HaymoreDick HeathRobert HewittChristopher HillMargaret Mellon HitchcockFoundationWilliam M. and Rosalie HitchcockTim and Karen HixonHoblitzelle FoundationGil HodgeNed S. HolmesHoward W. HorneHouston EndowmentDr. Phil and Karen HunkeMr. and Mrs. David M. JohnsonA. C. “Dick” Jones, IVPete Jones/Wachovia BankJohn Wilson KelseyWendy and Mavis P. Kelsey, Jr.Betty KelsoThe John G. and Marie StellaKenedy Memorial FoundationDavid W. KillamKillam Family Foundation TrustLuther KingThe King Ranch FamilyCaesar Kleberg Foundation forWildlife ConservationTio and Janell KlebergE. Ross Kyger, III, M.D.L&H Packing Co.Mr. and Mrs. Garland M. Lasater, Jr.Tim LavenderRolanette and Berdon LawrenceClaude LemieuxKen LeonardNeal LeonardRichard and Pam LeshinMeredith LongCullen LooneyThe Lynch FamilyJack MartinJim and Frances McAllenMeadows FoundationMestena, Inc.Jack and Marcia Modesett, Jr.Reed MorianRay A. MurskiIso NezajHarry F. Noyes, III and ManaLouisa FalconHerman OhlenbuschCarl Olson, Sr.Bob and Rebecca PalmerStephen and Laura PeralesThe Petty FoundationDr. and Mrs. Glenn PfisterHP PinnellPinnell FoundationMr. and Mrs. Randy PullinEdward and Ellen RandallMr. and Mrs. Carl RawieEmilysue Pinnell ReichertAlice Gertrudis King KlebergReynolds FoundationMike ReynoldsJohn R. RichardsonBarry Coates RobertsTim RooneyRon RosatiFayez SarofimTom SchmidtDiane ScovellMr. and Mrs. Scott ShafferBetty Lou SheerinPat ShelbyJim ShoughBruce SmithThe William A. and MadelineWelder Smith FoundationSouth Texas Celebrity Weekend, Inc.Stag Sales CompanyStuart W. and Eliza StedmanLuis Stumberg FoundationRichard SugdenRuth E. SullivanCharles W. TateBuddy and Ellen TempleT.L.L. Temple FoundationTexas A&M University-KingsvilleJess TurnerWalter UmphreyBen F. Vaughan, IIIDaphne DuPont VaughanBryan C. WagnerBen and Pat WallaceThe Walton Family FoundationGeorge Waterhouse, M.D.Leo J. and Karen Welder*Sustaining Donors generously contributed to our Endowment or Tio and Janell Kleberg Wildlife Research Park.

William D. WelderNeva and Wesley West FoundationJim WikertCharles WilliamsRichard WilliamsCharlie Winn and Winn Exploration,Inc.The Womack FamilyGene M. WoodfinFrank and Mary YturriaMimi ZochContributorsAldrete Ranch, Ltd.Albert and Margaret AlkekFoundationJames C. ArcidiaconoDaniel C. Arnold, ShadywoodFoundationIsaac ArnoldMarshall Ashmore, SeparatePropertyEdward Austin, Jr., Las VivoritasMgmt., LLCLes BallardMarcus T. Barrett, IIIOz BarrettErnest L. Bartlett, Jr.Lucile S. Baumgardner (In Memoryof John Shary Shivers, Jr.)Stanton Bell, Bell Hydrogas, Inc.Leslie N. BerrymanCurtis BonnerThe William and Wendy BootheFamily FoundationJames BozkaJohn and Anne BrentJames G. Brooks, Jr., M.D.Christopher and Shannon BushDaniel Y. and Shirley ButlerDanny and Richard Butler, YturriaLand & Cattle Co.George and Anne Butler FoundationR. W. CalvertGus T. CanalesTomasita Canales Heirs (PTR)Eddie ClarkJoe and Kathryn ColemanJoe E. Coleman, The William A. andMadeline Smith FoundationGus Comiskey, Comiskey Service &Inv. Corp.M. M. ConeWilliam P. ConnerSusan K. CrainMike Curran, Curran Holdings, Inc.Thomas F. Darden (In Memory ofJohn Shary Shivers, Jr.)John A. DaughertyE. Ted DavisKenneth DavisSam and Laura Dawson (In Memoryof John Shary Shivers, Jr.)Bill and Vicki E. DeLong, DeLongConsulting Service (In Memoryof John Shary Shivers, Jr.)Robert DullnigCharles W. and Leslie Duncan, IIIByron DyerGayle M. Earls (In Memory of JohnShary Shivers, Jr.)Timothy J. EhrmanJohn Fambrough, FambroughProperties, Inc./PalomaJames Fatheree, Greater HoustonChapter of Quail UnlimitedJohn Field and Diane King ScovellJerry E. FingerFinser Corporation (In Memory ofJohn Shary Shivers, Jr.)First Citizens National Bank (InMemory of John Shary Shivers,Jr.)L. Robin French, Codorniz Club, Inc.T. Dan Friedkin, FriedkinCompanies, Inc.Cornelia C. Friedman (In Memoryof John Shary Shivers, Jr.)Alfred Glassell, Jr.Robert J. GoodwinLon Grassman, Jr.Mr. and Mrs. Jack L. Gregory (InMemory of John Shary Shivers,Jr.)Helen K. GrovesManuel GuerraH.B. RentalsLeeRoy and Joan Hahnfeld (InMemory of John Shary Shivers,Jr.)HalliburtonFrederic C. Hamilton, Jr., TheFrederic C. Hamilton FamilyFoundationGeorge and Mary JosephineHamman FoundationHenry HammanGrant P. HarpoldGreenwood M. HarrisJ. P. and Lynn HendrixCharlie and Nancy HerringtonJohn D. HillisTim and Karen Hixon FoundationKay HollimonAnne HoltA. W. Hoode, Jr.Howard W. Horne, Sr.Hornsby 1992 Partnership, Ltd.Houston Zoo, Inc.J. M. HugginsIndependent Community Bankers ofAmericaInkley TrustMary Canales JaryPhillip J. John, Jr.George T. Johns (In Memory ofJohn Shary Shivers, Jr.)Johnny and Elizabeth Johnson (InMemory of John Shary Shivers,Jr.)Michael J. and Terry J. Jorde (InMemory of John Shary Shivers,Jr.)George JudsonLuther King, Luther King CapitalManagementKleberg-Kenedy SWCDV. Scott KneeseGraham B. KnightThomas H. KoopsCharles H. KrallE. Ross Kyger, IIIDavid Leonard (In Memory of JohnShary Shivers, Jr.)Mr. and Mrs. Trey LipsitzDavid G. and Letty Lew LloydMeredith J. LongLos Ninos EnterprisesRichard and Norma Loughridge (InMemory of John Shary Shivers,Jr.)Richard M. Lucas, Jr.Paula Michael MannRodney H. MargolisKay Compton MastercraftPierce and Beatrice McGrathChristopher and Lindsey McMillan(In Memory of John SharyShivers, Jr.)Frank and Sheryl McMillan (InMemory of John Shary Shivers,Jr.)Milford Board of EducationPalmer and Judy MoeHilmar G. MooreGeddings C. MoorefieldGeoff and Christine MorrisonMonica MorrisonChristopher T. MoserDon and Gwen Mullins

Dennis E. MurphreeNancy B. NegleyOccidental Petroleum Corp.Charitable FoundationPatrick C. OxfordRobert PalmerJeffrey A. Parsons (In Memory ofJohn Shary Shivers, Jr.)Richard D. and Judith W. PerkinsThe Scott Petty FoundationPoint Defiance Zoological Society-The Zoo SocietyWilliam Porter, Porter & HedgesR. Harold PotterCharles PowellPrinted Prod. & Service, Inc. (InMemory of John Shary Shivers,Jr.)Randy L. PullinQuail Unlimited, South TexasChapterQuail Unlimited, Texas State CouncilSteve A. RabenEd Randall, IIIMr. and Mrs. Jack Rattikin, Jr. (InMemory of John Shary Shivers,Jr.)Katherine L. ReillyBruce G. ReppertJ. Russell Ruhmann, Ruhmann Farm& Ranch, LLCSan Chicago CorporationJohn T. Saunders, Jr.Albert K. Schoenbucher FamilyTrust (In Memory of John SharyShivers, Jr.)Fred J. Schwarz (In Memory of JohnShary Shivers, Jr.)Jerry SecrestPatrick ShelbyJohn Shivers (In Memory of JohnShary Shivers, Jr.)Harvey Smith, Jr.Rick SnipesOscar Sotelo, M.D.South Texas Celebrity Weekend, Inc.Sportsmen’s Club of Fort Worth (InMemory of John Shary Shivers,Jr.)J. S. and Wendy Nolen Stanley (InMemory of John Shary Shivers,Jr.)Stuart Stedman, Neva and WesleyWest FoundationWilliam D. StevensJeffrey StoneGeorge StrickhausenStudent Wildlife Society, TAMUKThomas and Deborah Sturdivant (InMemory of John Shary Shivers,Jr.)Peter SwensonKevin P. and Mairin Terry (InMemory of John Shary Shivers,Jr.)Karl H. TheisCole Thompson, The Hays CountyRanch, Ltd.Town & Country Bank (In Memoryof John Shary Shivers, Jr.)Jess Turner, Delta TradersUnion State BankArch and Patsy Van Meter (InMemory of John Shary Shivers,Jr.)Ben F. Vaughn, IIIBen and Rachel Vaughn FoundationPeter R. Vig, CommunitiesFoundation of TexasTerry and Carole WatersW. E. Watt Family Partnership, Ltd.Ralph and Joyce Welton (In Memoryof John Shary Shivers, Jr.)Westside Pools & Service, Inc. (InMemory of John Shary Shivers,Jr.)Richard J. WilliamsC. C. WinnY.O. RanchJohn H. YoungFrank D. YturriaProject Sponsors andCooperatorsAlberta Ingenuity FundTim AndersonAudubon TexasBill BallJoe Barnhart FoundationLee and Ramona Bass FoundationCarlos Y. Benavides, IIBladerunner FarmsElliot B. and Adelle BottomFellowship in Quail ResearchThe Gordon and Mary CainFoundationElizabeth Huth Coates CharitableFoundationComanche RanchConocoPhillipsDallas ZooLarry J. DohertyDucks Unlimited, Inc.Art DuncanEarthspan, Inc.ExxonMobil FoundationExxonMobil Production CompanyInternship ProgramFaith RanchFalcon Point RanchFeline Research Program of CKWRIJoe FinleyThe Fondren FoundationFreeport-McMorRanT. Dan FriedkinDr. James GallagherGulf Coast Joint Venture, U.S. Fishand Wildlife ServiceGeorge and Mary JosephineHamman FoundationDr. Wade HarrellDavid L. HatcherHilliard Family FoundationTim HixonTim and Karen Hixon FoundationHouston EndowmentHouston Safari ClubInstituto Nacional deInvestigaciones AgricolasForestales, y PecuariasInstituto Politecnico National,Centro de BiotecnologiaGenomica, Reynosa, MexicoInternational Bank of CommerceE. “Kika” de la Garza PlantMaterials Center/USDA-NRCSKing Ranch Family TrustKing Ranch, Inc.Kitakyushu Museum of NaturalHistory and Human HistoryRichard M. Kleberg, Jr. Center forQuail ResearchRobert J. Kleberg, Jr. and Helen C.Kleberg FoundationKMG-Bernuth, Inc.Lawrence Family FoundationMagnolia Charitable TrustHugh L. McColl, Jr.McIntyre Ranching Co., Ltd.Amy Shelton McNutt CharitableTrustAmy Shelton McNutt MemorialFundMeadWestvacoMerck-Merial National VeterinaryScholars ProgramAlice Kleberg Reynolds MeyerFoundationMississippi Department of Wildlife,Fisheries, and Parks

Mississippi State UniversityMorris Animal FoundationNational Fish and WildlifeFoundationNational Institutes of HealthNational Science FoundationNational University of Mexico(UNAM)National Wild Turkey FederationNational Wild Turkey Federation,Texas State ChapterThe Nature ConservancyDennis NixonSamuel Roberts Noble FoundationNordic NaturalsOklahoma City ZooRobert PerezDr. David PhalenPoint Defiance ZooGladys Porter ZooPronatura NoresteMyra Stafford Pryor CharitableTrustPurina Mills, LLCQuail Associates ProgramQuail Unlimited, Alamo ChapterQuail Unlimited, East Texas ChapterQuail Unlimited, Greater HoustonChapterQuail Unlimited, South TexasChapterQuail Unlimited, Texas State CouncilRancho BlancoThe Rice FoundationRio FarmsThe Rosewood FoundationCarl RushDonald C. Ruthven, IIISan Antonio Livestock Exposition,Inc.San Chicago and Tio Moya HuntingLeasesSan Tomas Hunting CampA. R. Sanchez, Jr.Santa Maria Ranch, Inc.El Sauz RanchSierra Endangered Cat HavenDr. Ana Sifuentes RincónDr. Nova SilvyJoe Skeen FoundationBob and Vivian Smith FoundationThe William A. and MadelineWelder Smith FoundationSouth Texas Celebrity Weekend, Inc.South Texas Quail Research ProjectStuart W. StedmanThe Strake FoundationTexas A&M UniversityTexas A&M University, Tom SlickFellowshipTexas A&M University College ofVeterinary MedicineTexas A&M University-Kingsville,College of Graduate StudiesTexas A&M University-Kingsville,Department of Animal andWildlife SciencesTexas A&M University-Kingsville,University Research CouncilTexas Agricultural ExperimentStationTexas Animal Health CommissionTexas Department of TransportationTexas Parks and Wildlife DepartmentTexas Veterinary MedicalFoundationTexas Water Development Board/Harlingen Irrigation District/Cameron County No. 1Thrall FamilyThe Trull FoundationUnion Ganadera Regional de NuevoLeonUniversity of GeorgiaU.S. Bureau of ReclamationU.S. Department of Housing andUrban DevelopmentU.S. Department of JusticeU.S. Environmental ProtectionAgencyU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceU.S. NavyUSAID/ACE/ALOUSDA APHIS-Veterinary ServicesUSDA APHIS-Wildlife Services-National Wildlife ResearchCenterUSDA ARS Knipling-BushlandU.S. Livestock Insects ResearchLaboratoryUSDA CREES/HSIUSDA CREES/TAESUSDA National Park Service/GCCESU/TAESUSDA National Research InitiativeUSDA Natural ResourcesConservation ServiceBen F. Vaughan, IIIRob and Bessie Welder WildlifeFoundationJack R. and Loris J. WelhausenExperimental StationNeva and Wesley West FoundationFrank YturriaQuail Associates SponsorsEdward H. Austin, Jr.John S. BaceLee M. BassAlbert M. Biedenharn, BiedenharnCattle Co.Elliott BottomLewis E. Brazelton, IIIJohn B. Brent, Anacahuita RanchPresnall C. CageGus T. CanalesDr. Lou A. CarterJohn D. CharbonnettMorton CohnJoe E. ColemanJames W. CollinsGus Comiskey, Jr.John A. Daugherty, Jr.Bill Davis, San Chicago RanchBradbury Dyer, IIIW. S. FarishJerry E. FingerJames G. FloydMichael E. FrazierBobby and Marcia French, WilliamM. Fuller FoundationL. Robin French, Codorniz Club,Inc.Alfred C. Glassell, Jr.Henry HammanRobert S. Hewitt, O’Connor &Hewitt FoundationNed S. HolmesKaren and Phil HunkeA. C. Jones, IVStephen J. KlebergGarland LasaterC. Berdon LawrenceMeredith J. LongRobert McNairWilliam S. NaylorWalter NegleyWilliam B. Osborn, IIIRobert L. Parker, Jr., Parker DrillingManagement Service, Inc.Quail Unlimited, South TexasChapterEllen B. RandallMike ReynoldsClive RunnellsFord Smith, Sr., Ford SmithInvestmentsStuart W. Stedman, Faith Ranch LPDr. Robert StewartNicholas SwykaHollis TaylorBuddy Temple

Cole Thomson, The Hays CountyRanch, Ltd.Ben Vaughan, IIIWilliam Vogt, Jr., Solid Game, Inc.Jim C. WaltonW. T. Webber, Jr., WebberFoundationIsabel and Wallace S. WilsonSouth Texas Wintering BirdsSponsorsEdward H. Austin, Jr.Marcia French, William M. FullerFoundationKaren HixonPatricia H. KeeseeJanell KlebergRichard M. Kleberg, King RanchFamily TrustJulie Kelleher StacyEllen C. TempleMrs. Peter Zoch, IIIDeer Associates SponsorsWilliam Ozborn BarrettLou A. CarterJoe Marlin HilliardDan Allen Hughes, Jr.Kim KingBarry RobertsJohn T. Saunders, Jr.Harvey SmithStuart StedmanCharles WilliamsC. A. WinnCharles WinnTom WinnSouth Texas Natives SponsorsBehmann Brothers FoundationGus T. CanalesMr. and Mrs. William J. Cato, SKFoundationConocoPhillipsEnbridge Energy Company, Inc.ExxonMobil Production CompanyWill S. HarteJoan and Herb Kelleher CharitableFoundationRobert J. Kleberg, Jr. and Helen C.Kleberg FoundationLarry J. Martin, Westwind Ranch,Inc.Hugh L. McColl, Jr.National Fish and WildlifeFoundationNative American SeedMyra Stafford Pryor Charitable TrustRancho Blanco Corp.Rio FarmsStone BrothersTexas Agricultural ExperimentStationTexas Department of TransportationUSDA Agricultural ResearchService, Weslaco10

TABLE OF CONTENTSFOREWORD.............................................................. 2NAMED ENDOWMENTS........................................... 3NAMED FACILITIES AND COMPONENTS.............. 4CKWRI PERSONNEL................................................ 5DONORS, CONTRIBUTORS, ANDSPONSORS............................................................... 6IN-PROGRESS RESEARCHWHITE-TAILED DEERMovements and Survival of TranslocatedWhite-tailed Deer..................................................... 16Effects of Protein, Energy, and Water onPelleted Feed Consumption by Deer........................ 16Physiological Effects of Gossypol inCottonseed on Male Deer......................................... 16Altruism and Recognition in AntipredatorDefense of Deer Fawns............................................ 17Effects of Density and SupplementalFeeding on Breeding Success of Bucks................... 17Yearling Antler Points as a Predictor ofMature White-tailed Deer Antler Size..................... 18Use of Deer Feeders by Non-targetAnimals.................................................................... 18Evaluating the Use of Spotlight Countsand Camera Surveys................................................. 19Effects of Deer Density and Feed on FawnGrowth and Survival................................................ 19Evaluation of the Cementum Annuli AgingTechnique Using South Texas Deer........................ 20Physical Variation Among Mississippi DeerPopulations: Genetics or Environment?................. 20Deer Density and Supplemental FeedingEffects on Plant Biomass and Quality..................... 21Factors Affecting the Breeding Success ofWhite-tail Bucks...................................................... 21Effects of Deer Density and SupplementalFeeding on Plant Density and Morphology............. 22Does Genetic Relatedness Affect Dispersaland Spatial Dynamics in Male Deer?....................... 23Effect of Deer Density on Behavior andFeed Consumption at Feeder Sites........................... 23A Test of Localized Management in aHigh-Density White-tailed Deer Herd..................... 24Cover, Deer Density, and SupplementalFeed Effects on Stem Count Indices........................ 24Antler Growth of White-tailed Deer inSouth Texas............................................................. 25Effects of Deer Density and SupplementalFeed on Female Deer Nutrition............................... 25Vegetation Response to Three White-tailedDeer Densities and Supplemental Feeding.............. 26Estimating Browse Use at Three DeerDensities with the Stem Count Method................... 27BOBWHITESNorthern Bobwhite Population andBreeding Ecology in South Texas........................... 28Influence of Invasive Exotic Grasses onNorthern Bobwhites in South Texas........................ 28Effects of Raptor Abundance on NorthernBobwhite Survival and Habitat Use........................ 29Genetic Variation of Northern Bobwhitesin South Texas......................................................... 29Assessments of Quail Productivity in SouthTexas: The Quail Associates Program.................... 30Effect of Brush Canopy on VariablesAssociated with Bobwhite Productivity................... 3011

Restoring Bobwhite Populations inFragmented Landscapes........................................... 31Dispersal, Habitat Area, and EffectivePopulation Size of Bobwhites.................................. 32Utilization of Buffelgrass-DominatedLandscapes by Northern Bobwhites........................ 32WILD CATS AND OTHER CARNIVORESThe First Ocelots Tracked via SatelliteTelemetry................................................................. 34Mountain Lion Distribution Based on theGenetic Algorithm for Rule-Set Procedure.............. 34Evaluating Recovery Strategies for anOcelot Population in the United States.................... 34Ecological Patterns of the Margay at “ElCielo” Biosphere Reserve........................................ 35Phylogenetic Relationships of Ocelotsfrom the Tamaulipan Biotic Province...................... 35Population Viability Analysis of aMountain Lion Population in Texas........................ 36Ocelot and Bobcat Use Patterns of TwoHigh-Quality Isolated Habitat Patches.................... 36Genetic Variation of Sympatric Ocelotand Bobcat Populations........................................... 37Conservation Genetics of Wild and CaptiveClouded Leopards in Thailand................................. 37Assessment of the Distribution of Ocelotsin Tamaulipas, Mexico............................................. 38Analysis of Ocelot Spatial Data fromSouthern Texas......................................................... 38Genetic Structure of Mountain LionPopulations in Texas................................................ 39Non-invasive Scat Survey of the AsiaticDhole in Thailand.................................................... 39Coexistence of the Ocelot and Jaguarundiin Northeast Mexico................................................. 39Microsatellite Variation in the Bobcat inSouthern Texas......................................................... 40Population and Habitat Viability Analysisfor Ocelots in Southern Texas.................................. 40The Use of Whole Genome AmplifiedDNA for Sequencing................................................ 41The Effect of Drought on Ocelot andBobcat Prey Populations.......................................... 41High Genetic Diversity in Wild LeopardCats in Thailand....................................................... 41Historical Patterns in Genetic Variation ofOcelot in the Tamaulipan Biotic Province............... 42Genetic Diversity and Structure of Ocelotsin Texas and Northern Mexico................................ 42Estimating Carnivore Population Sizeand Distribution Using Scat Surveys....................... 43A Landscape Analysis of Mountain LionDistribution and Abundance.................................... 43Assessing Estimates of Effective PopulationSize of Ocelot Populations in Texas........................ 44Conservation Genetics of Wild andCaptive Cats in Thailand.......................................... 44Evaluating the Benefits and Costs ofOcelot Recovery Strategies in Texas....................... 44HABITAT ENHANCEMENT AND RELATIONSHIPSCompetition Along Roadsides: KlebergBluestem Versus Windmillgrasses........................... 46Seeding Trials of Selected Native PlantReleases for South Texas......................................... 46Restoring Native Grasses and BeeWild®Bundleflower in Buffelgrass Pastures...................... 46Brownseed Paspalum Evaluation forRangeland Seed Mixes............................................. 47Disturbance as Aid to Invasion by ExoticPlant Species............................................................ 4712

Evaluation of South Texas Native Plantsfor Horticultural Use................................................ 48Evaluation of Native Plant Germplasmfor Ecotype Development........................................ 48Reseeding Texas Right-of-Ways: DrillSeeding Versus Broadcast Seeding.......................... 49Seven Native Grasses are NearingCommercial Availability.......................................... 50Replacing Bermudagrass with NativeWindmillgrasses Along Right-of-Ways................... 50Seed Increase of South Texas NativesPlant Releases........................................................... 51Efficacy of Herbicide Use on Exotic Treesin Southern Texas..................................................... 51Evaluating Windmillgrass for RevegetatingTexas Right-of-Ways............................................... 52The Effects of Carbon Addition onGuineagrass.............................................................. 52Field Management and Seed ProductionPotential of Plains Bristlegrass................................. 53Establishing Roadside Vegetation withSoil Retention Blankets............................................ 53BIOLOGY, ECOLOGY, AND MANAGEMENTRio Grande Wild Turkey as Affected byCattle on a Merrill Grazing System......................... 54Evaluating Electric Fencing to ReduceSorghum Depredation by Feral Pigs........................ 54Bird Migration Chronology and StopoverHabitat Use in Southern Texas................................ 54Use of Ground Penetrating Radar to MapPocket Gopher Burrow Systems.............................. 55Impacts of Rainfall on a Breeding RaptorAssemblage on South Texas Rangelands................ 55Evaluating Density Estimation Techniquesfor Feral Pigs in Southern Texas.............................. 56The Impact of Overwinter Nutrition onRio Grande Wild Turkey Productivity..................... 56The South Texas Wintering BirdsProgram.................................................................... 57Movements and Habitat Use of NilgaiAntelope in Southern Texas..................................... 57Survival and Dispersal of Juvenile ReddishEgrets in the Laguna Madre of Texas...................... 58Assessment of the Maritime Pocket Gopherat Naval Air Station Corpus Christi......................... 58Seasonal Habitat Use by Female RioGrande Wild Turkeys in South Texas...................... 58Conservation Genetics of the Hog-nosedSkunk in Southern Texas......................................... 59Eurasian Collared-Dove Breeding Ecologyin Urban Areas of South Texas................................ 59Roosting Ecology of Wild Turkeys on theKing Ranch in South Texas..................................... 60A Landscape-Genetic Approach to theManagement of Feral Pigs....................................... 61Genetic Variability Among ReddishEgrets in North America and Mexico...................... 61Nest-Site Habitat Relationships ofSympatric Raptors in South Texas........................... 61Role of the North America Brown TreeSnake Control Team................................................. 62Effect of Landscape Changes on NestingColonies of White-winged Doves............................ 62Rio Grande Wild Turkey Poult Ecologyin South Texas.......................................................... 63Genetics of Maritime Pocket Gophers onNavel Air Station Corpus Christi............................. 63Nesting Ecology of the Rio Grande WildTurkey in South Texas............................................. 64Chemical Attractants for Feral Pigs inSouth Texas.............................................................. 6413

Avian Migration Patterns in the LowerTexas Gulf Coast...................................................... 65GPS Technology to Document InteractionsBetween Feral Hogs and Domestic Swine............... 73CONTAMINANTS, DISEASES, AND PARASITESBlood Parasites in Reddish Egrets fromthe Texas Gulf Coast................................................ 66Potential Impacts of Common FelineDiseases on Ocelots from Texas.............................. 66Susceptibility to and Recovery fromAflatoxin in Granivorous Birds................................ 66A Landscape-Genetic Approach to AssistFox Oral Rabies Vaccination Strategies.................. 67Helminth Community Structure andPattern in a Columbid Community.......................... 67Multiple Paternity in Feral Pigs: TheImplications for Disease Transmission.................... 68Blood Parasites in Wood Storks from theSoutheastern United States...................................... 69Assessing Striped Skunk Ecology to Aid inDeveloping a Rabies Vaccination Program............. 69Survey for Trichomonas gallinae in aColumbid Community in South Texas..................... 70Disease Assessment of Ocelots and OtherCarnivores in Texas and Northeast Mexico............. 70Measuring Immune Function in AvianSpecies...................................................................... 70Assessing the Abomasal Parasite CountTechnique in Deer from Southern Texas................. 71Community Ecology of Gizzard Wormsin Blue-winged Teal................................................. 71Survey for Chagas Disease in Suburbanand Rural Environments........................................... 72Development of an At-Risk Map forBaylisascaris procyonis in Texas............................. 72Survey of Cecal Worms from Bobwhitesin South Texas.......................................................... 73COMPLETED RESEARCHBOBWHITESQuail Productivity and Quail-HabitatRelationships in South Texas................................... 74Refining the Morning Covey-Call Surveyto Estimate Bobwhite Abundance............................ 74Habitat-Suitability Bounds for BobwhiteNesting Cover on Semiarid Rangelands.................. 74A Computerized Distance-MeasuringSystem for Line Transect Aerial Surveys................ 75Bobwhite Population Irruptions: Testingan Age-Specific Reproduction Hypothesis.............. 75Simulating the Effect of Predator Controlon Northern Bobwhites............................................ 76Analyzing Population Restoration Effortsfor the Endangered Masked Bobwhite..................... 77Evaluation of Survey Methods forDetermining Bobwhite Abundance.......................... 77BIOLOGY, ECOLOGY, AND MANAGEMENTSeed Quality of Windmillgrass Ecotypesat Two Locations in South Texas............................. 78Habitat Use and Movements of FemalePintails Along the Central Coast of Texas............... 78Evaluation of Electric Fencing to InhibitFeral Pig Movements............................................... 78LC-MS for Direct Quantification ofIophenoxic Acid in Serum....................................... 79Spatial Distribution of Male White-tailedDeer Relative to Supplemental Feed........................ 79Feral Hog Interaction with DomesticFemale Swine in Southern Texas............................. 80Carbon and Nitrogen Stable IsotopeFractionation in White-tailed Deer.......................... 8014

Possible Mechanisms for Buffelgrass toInvade Native Plant Communities........................... 81Productivity of a Breeding RaptorCommunity in South Texas..................................... 82ABSTRACT EXTERNAL AUTHORSAND CO-AUTHORS................................................ 92PAPERS PUBLISHED 2005–IN PRESS................. 94The Roundworm Baylisascaris procyonisin Raccoons from Duval County, Texas.................. 82Energy Budgets of Female PintailsWintering on the Texas Gulf Coast......................... 83Surveying for Ocelots and JaguarundisAround Choke Canyon Reservoir............................ 83Assessment of Fish-Flavored Baits toDeliver Pharmaceuticals to Feral Pigs..................... 84Serosurvey of Infectious Agents in Deerfrom Northeastern Mexico....................................... 84Maintenance Energy Requirements forFemale Wild Turkeys During Winter...................... 85Environmental Influences on Seed Qualityof Windmillgrass Ecotypes in South Texas............. 85Assessment of the Net-Gun CaptureTechnique for White-tailed Deer............................. 86PIGOUT® Vegetable Versus Fish-FlavoredBaits for Feral Pigs.................................................. 86Rapid Whole Genome Amplification ofDNA from Felids..................................................... 87Effects of Rainfall and Temperature onDeer Supplemental Feed Consumption................... 87Differences in Decomposition Rates ofBuffelgrass and Tanglehead..................................... 88Stable Isotopes to Estimate SupplementalFeed Consumption by White-tailed Deer................ 89LANDSAT Imagery to Identify PotentialOcelot Habitat in Tamaulipas, Mexico.................... 89Serologic Survey of Feral Hogs in Easternand Southern Texas.................................................. 90Molecular Identification of Babesia bovisand B. bigemina in Deer from Mexico.................... 9015

WHITE-TAILED DEERMovements and Survival of TranslocatedWhite-tailed DeerBrent Pierce, David G. Hewitt, Randy W. DeYoung, TylerA. Campbell, Scott Mitchell, and Fred C. BryantWhite-tailed deer managers may wish to movedeer among properties to augment low-density populations,increase genetic diversity of small or isolatedpopulations, or address perceived genetic deficiencies.For such a program to be successful, translocated deermust survive in the new environment, remain on thereceiving property, and produce healthy offspring.Despite transplants of hundreds of deer each yearunder a program administered by the state of Texas,the long-term survival and performance of relocatedindividuals and their offspring are unknown.The objective of this project is to use marked deer,radio telemetry, and genetic techniques to study themovement, survival, and reproductive success of deertranslocated in March 2005 from Webb County to CalhounCounty, Texas. During the first 16 months aftertranslocation, 7 of 20 radio-collared deer died. Threeradio-collared deer have left the partially high fencedproperty since they were translocated; 1 has returnedwhile the other 2 remain close by. At least half of thedoes raised fawns during the first summer (2005) afterthe translocation. The results of this study will providewildlife managers with information to assess thevalue of transplanting deer based on realistic expectationsof success.Effects of Protein, Energy, and Water onPelleted Feed Consumption by DeerRicardo Maldonado, Juan A. Flores, and Charles A. DeYoungA common deer management practice in SouthTexas is the feeding of “protein pellets.” The nameimplies that protein is the nutrient most lacking forfree-ranging deer. However, commercial deer feedscontain a variety of nutrients, including energy. It ispossible that energy in supplemental feed contributesto increases in deer performance. Our objective is totest consumption levels of a standard 20% crude proteindeer feed containing adequate energy versus a16% crude protein feed with a higher level of energy.We are also testing the effect of water availability onconsumption at feeder sites.This study began in the summer of 2003. Fortysixfeeder sites are distributed over about 23,000acres on the Sweden Ranch in Duval County, Texas.To exclude hogs and javelinas, each feeder site wasfenced with a 54-foot diameter circle of hog panelsheld up by t-posts. Each site has 2 tube feeders of 400-pound capacity. One-half of the sites are providedwith water in a 55 gallon plastic barrel that supplies asmall trough. One-third of the sites have the 2 feedsside-by-side, one-third of the sites have high proteinfeed only, and one-third of the sites have high-energyfeed only.Preliminary results suggest no significant differencebetween the consumption of the feeds. Wateralso appeared to have no effect on the amount or thetype of feed that was consumed. However, the amountof rain appears to be correlated to the amount of feedbeing used.Cooperative funding was provided by Purina Mills, LLC.Physiological Effects of Gossypol inCottonseed on Male DeerKrisan M. Kelley, Robert D. Kaiser, III, David Laughlin,David G. Hewitt, Randy L. Stanko, Don A. Draeger,and Jimmy RutledgeThere are many ranchers in Texas that use dietarypellets in their supplemental feeding program forwhite-tailed deer. Pelleted feed, however, can beexpensive because the feed is not only consumed bydeer, but by non-target wildlife such as pigs, raccoons,and small mammals. Some ranchers have found iteasier to feed white-tailed deer cottonseed because it isless expensive and non-target wildlife will not readilyeat it. However, there is concern that feeding wholecottonseed to deer could affect their reproductive abil-16

IN-PROGRESS RESEARCHsures are being analyzed using DNA techniques, andbreeding patterns of bucks are being inferred from parentageassignments to fawns.Preliminary results indicate that breeding successwas similar among buck age classes in enclosures thathad high deer density and supplemental feed. Thefirst year of our study did not yield sufficient data onbreeding patterns in the medium density and low densitytreatments. We have obtained over 200 additionaldeer samples in the second year, which should give ussufficient data for comparisons among all treatments.Findings from this study will give us a better understandingof how different white-tailed deer densitiesand supplemental feeding programs may affect buckbreeding patterns and success.Cooperative funding was provided by the Comanche Ranch,T. Dan Friedkin, Faith Ranch, and the Neva and WesleyWest Foundation.Yearling Antler Points as a Predictor ofMature White-tailed Deer Antler SizeJohn S. Lewis, Mickey W. Hellickson, David G. Hewitt,and Fred C. BryantMost intensive deer management programsinclude the harvest of bucks with low potential tobecome trophy animals. One common criterionused to delineate culls is the number of antler pointsof yearling bucks. The most common managementstrategy is harvesting young bucks with spike antlers(1 point on at least 1 side). Studies of captivedeer have demonstrated that yearling spikes have, onaverage, smaller antlers when they mature than theirfork-antlered counterparts. However, free-rangingbucks live in a highly variable environment, and thereis a poor understanding of the spike/fork relationshipin the wild. Our objective is to compare antler sizeof bucks at 2–5 years of age that were either spikesor fork-antlered yearlings using data from the SouthTexas Buck Capture Project.Current results suggest that spike-antlered yearlingbucks have antlers that are 13–22 inches smallerthan fork-antlered bucks at 2–5 years of age. Thisconclusion is based on known-age, tagged yearlings.These differences are based on averages, and there ismuch variability in antler size within groups, such thatAverage antler size of known-age deer captured at 2.5years and older that had spike antlers as yearlings andthose that had fork antlers as yearlings, averaged across5 ranches in South Texas.the largest spike-antlered yearlings are often above theaverage of the fork-antlered yearling group. Whenrecaptured at >5 years of age, 11% of 2-point yearlingshad gross Boone & Crockett (GBC) scores >140, 30%of yearling bucks with 3–5 points had GBC scores>140, and 50% of yearling bucks with >6 points hadGBC scores >150. Findings will be useful in designingharvest criteria to meet deer management goals.Cooperative funding was provided by A. R. Sanchez, Jr.;Carlos Y. Benavides, II; International Bank of Commerce;Carl Rush; King Ranch, Inc.; and Texas Parks and WildlifeDepartment.Use of Deer Feeders by Non-targetAnimalsJuan A. Flores, Ricardo Maldonado, and Charles A. DeYoungSupplemental feeding of white-tailed deer is amanagement practice that commonly occurs throughoutSouth Texas. Numerous other animals consumethe deer feed, including birds, mammals, and ants.Little information exists on what wildlife species consumedeer feed and how much they eat or waste. Withmore data collection regarding non-target animal useof feeders, it may be possible to design delivery systemsthat limit or prevent exploitation of deer feed bynon-target species.This study is using the experimental designdescribed in the research summary “Effects of Protein,Energy, and Water on Pelleted Feed Consumption by18

IN-PROGRESS RESEARCHDeer” elsewhere in this report. Feed sites are monitoredby direct visual observation and infrared videocameras to estimate visitation and consumption ratesof non-target wildlife.Preliminary results are showing a high visitationrate by non-target species. At some feeder sites, dailyvisitation rates for non-target species are as high as75% of the overall visits. Although many of the visitingspecies do not consume much, visitation recordssuggest deer feed is having a broad ecological impact.Cooperative funding was provided by Purina Mills, LLC.Evaluating the Use of Spotlight Countsand Camera SurveysAaron M. Foley, Nathan A. Newman, Mark K. Richman,Garrett R. Timmons, Charles A. DeYoung, Timothy E.Fulbright, David G. Hewitt, and Don A. DraegerBeing able to estimate deer populations accuratelyis an important aspect of deer management. The useof infrared trail cameras and spotlight counts to surveydeer has increased in recent years. Unfortunately,these techniques have not been evaluated under a varietyof management conditions.This study is being conducted on the Comancheand Faith ranches in Dimmit and Maverick counties,Texas. Each ranch has 6 adjacent 200-acre high-fencedenclosures. On each ranch, there is a pair of enclosureswith approximately 40 deer (high density), a pair with© Larry DittoWe are comparing the accuracy of deer surveys wheredensities are known.about 25 deer (medium density), and a pair with about10 deer (low density). One enclosure at each densitytreatment has supplemental feed for deer. Spotlightsurveys in all enclosures are being conducted duringOctober, whereas camera surveys are being conductedin winter before antler drop.Spotlight counts in October for 2 years have producedvariable estimates of deer versus the expectednumber of deer in each enclosure. There was no trendtoward a difference in estimates of deer in enclosuresthat contained supplemental feed and enclosures withoutsupplemental feed at the same deer density. Camerasurveys for 12 consecutive days in February indicatedan underestimate of the expected deer population formost enclosures. Preliminary camera data resulted indoe-to-buck ratio estimates that were 70–80% lowerthan expected. This was possibly due to dominance ofbucks around baited camera locations.Cooperative funding was provided by the Comanche Ranch,T. Dan Friedkin, Faith Ranch, and the Neva and WesleyWest Foundation.Effects of Deer Density and Feed on FawnGrowth and SurvivalMark K. Richman, Aaron M. Foley, Nathan A. Newman,Garrett R. Timmons, Charles A. DeYoung, Timothy E.Fulbright, David G. Hewitt, and Don A. DraegerFawn production is a key demographic factor indeer management. High rates of fawn growth willresult in fawns with greater survival and lead to largeradult deer. The objective of this study is to examinethe effects of density and supplemental feeding treatmentson white-tailed deer fawn growth and survival.Six adjacent 200-acre high-fenced enclosures wereestablished on both the Comanche and Faith ranchesin South Texas. Each ranch has 2 enclosures withapproximately 10 acres per deer, 2 with about 8 acresper deer, and 2 with 5 acres per deer. Supplementalfeed is provided in 1 enclosure at each density on eachranch. Fawns and yearlings were sampled by drop netcapture and harvesting.Deer mass and total body length were influencedby supplemental feed and density treatments. Deer inthe supplemental feed treatment developed a significantlydifferent length-to-mass ratio, meaning that the19

IN-PROGRESS RESEARCHdeer were heavier for a given skeletal frame size, butno significant effects attributable to deer density werefound. No significant effects of feed or density treatmentswere detected on hindfoot lengths. However,significant effects due to deer density and availabilityof supplemental feed were detected on femur lengths.Femur-to-hindfoot length ratios were significantlyaffected by deer density, but not supplemental feed.No significant effects of feed and density weredetected on fawn survival. However, deer in enclosurescontaining supplemental feed had fawn-to-doeratios that were twice as high as those deer in enclosureswithout supplemental feed (0.54:1 compared0.27:1). Based on the above preliminary data from205 fawns and yearlings, density dependent growthrates and supplemental feeding effects occurred.Cooperative funding was provided by the Comanche Ranch,T. Dan Friedkin, Faith Ranch, and the Neva and WesleyWest Foundation.Evaluation of the Cementum Annuli AgingTechnique Using South Texas DeerMickey W. Hellickson, John S. Lewis, David G. Hewitt,and Fred C. BryantAging deer accurately is important for both managementand research purposes. Current techniquesdo not allow accurate separation into individual ageclasses beyond 2 years of age. Our objectives are to(1) obtain a large sample of known-age incisor teethto test the accuracy of the cementum annuli techniqueand (2) refine this technique where inaccuracies arefound. Study sites include 4 areas in Webb County, 1in Brooks County, and 1 in Kleberg County.To date, 112 known-age I-1 incisor teeth and 118known-age I-2 or I-3 incisor teeth have been collectedfrom wild deer >2 years old. A blind test of thecementum annuli technique using the above incisorteeth and 2 experienced observers indicated an overallaccuracy of 61%, while 93% were aged ±1 year of theactual age. Aging accuracy tended to decrease as incisorage increased and was 71, 65, 56, 48, 46, 65, and61% for 2-, 3-, 4-, 5-, 6-, 7-, and >8-year-old incisors,respectively. Aging accuracy varied from 57% for I-1 incisors to 65% for I-2 and I-3 incisors. Observersassigned different ages to 47% of deer when both I-1 and I-2 or I-3 incisors were present. Aging accuracyby observer varied from 60–62%. A directionalbias toward under aging incisors occurred, indicatinga need to modify the technique to improve accuracy.The cementum annuli aging technique (61% accurate)appears to be slightly more accurate than the Severinghaustooth replacement and wear aging technique(48% accurate).Cooperative funding was provided by A. R. Sanchez, Jr.;Carl Rush; Carlos Y. Benavides, II; Freeport-McMorRan;International Bank of Commerce; King Ranch, Inc.; andTexas Parks and Wildlife Department.Physical Variation Among Mississippi DeerPopulations: Genetics or Environment?Randy W. DeYoung, Bronson K. Strickland, andStephen DemaraisAccuracy of the cementum annuli aging technique, byage class, based on 118 known-age deer incisors obtainedfrom study sites in South Texas from 1998–2005.There has been considerable debate about the relativecontribution of genetic and environmental factorson the physical development (e.g., body mass,antler size) of white-tailed deer. We are using a naturalexperiment to examine the performance of similargenetic stocks in different geographical regions ofMississippi that vary widely in habitat type and soilquality. Deer were nearly extirpated from Mississippiand many parts of the southeastern U.S. in the early1900s, but rebounded because of vigorous managementefforts that included trapping and transplanting20

IN-PROGRESS RESEARCHand harvest restrictions. During the restoration of deerin Mississippi (1931–1965), the Leaf River Refugewas a major source for transplants; the descendantsof these deer are currently found statewide. We areusing genetic analyses to compare deer populations atselected sites to those of the Leaf River deer population.We can then compare body weights and antlersize of harvested deer.Preliminary data indicate clear differences amongpopulations in body weights of yearling (1.5 yrs) andadult (>2.5 yrs) does (5–14 lbs). Furthermore, antlersize of mature (>2.5 yrs) bucks in 4 of 6 populationsdiffered from those bucks from Leaf River (14–20Boone & Crockett inches). We are unable to identifythe precise source of the physical differences amongpopulations. However, the presence of biologicallymeaningful differences among these populations 30to 50 years after they were established suggests thatfactors other than genetic ancestry, such as habitatand soil quality, play an important role in the physicalcharacteristics of white-tailed deer populations.Cooperative funding was provided by Mississippi Departmentof Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks and Mississippi StateUniversity.Deer Density and Supplemental FeedingEffects on Plant Biomass and QualityEric Grahmann, Reagan T. Gage, Ryan L. Darr, TimothyE. Fulbright, Charles A. DeYoung, David G. Hewitt,Stephen L. Webb, Garrett R. Timmons, Mark K. Richman,Aaron M. Foley, Nathan A. Newman, and Don A. Draeger© David HewittBrowse surveys help us understand how differing deerdensities influence the quality and quantity of forage.There has been recent debate concerning the effectsof supplemental feeding and high white-tailed deerdensities on vegetation communities. This experimentis to test whether supplemental feeding of white-taileddeer results in increased forb biomass. Additionally,this study will evaluate the influence of deer densityand supplemental feeding on vegetation response.This research is being conducted on the Comancheand Faith ranches in Dimmit County, Texas. Eachranch consists of 6, 200-acre enclosures of which 2enclosures each have targeted deer densities of high(40 deer/enclosure), medium (25 deer/enclosure), andlow (10 deer/enclosure). One enclosure in each pair ofdensity treatments has supplemental feed. Plant biomassfrom March and July–August is being estimatedeach year. Crude protein and detergent fiber analysesare being conducted on samples to determine thetrends of these variables within plant communities.In 2004, browse, forb, and grass biomass was similarin enclosures irrespective of supplemental feeding.Additionally, biomass of these plant groups wassimilar among the 3 deer density treatments. In 2005,forb biomass was greater in low deer density enclosureswhere deer were supplementally fed comparedto enclosures where deer were not supplementally fed.Forb biomass was similar in the paired enclosures withmedium and high deer densities. Before these findingscan be fully interpreted, additional data will need to becollected.Cooperative funding was provided by the Comanche Ranch,T. Dan Friedkin, Faith Ranch, and the Neva and WesleyWest Foundation.Factors Affecting the Breeding Success ofWhite-tail BucksRandy W. DeYoung, David G. Hewitt, Jason A. Sumners,Rodney L. Honeycutt, Mickey W. Hellickson, Kenneth L.Gee, and Mitchell A. LockwoodOur research into the breeding success of whitetailbucks using genetic parentage techniques hasrevealed that some long-held assumptions about21

IN-PROGRESS RESEARCHDoes Genetic Relatedness Affect Dispersaland Spatial Dynamics in Male Deer?Stephen L. Webb, Jason A. Sumners, David G. Hewitt,Mickey W. Hellickson, Randy W. DeYoung, Robert A.Gonzales, and Kenneth L. Gee© Wyman MeinzerEfforts are underway to understand how relatednessamong individuals influences dispersal patterns of bucks.Many studies have focused on white-tailed deerdispersal, movements, home ranges, and breedingstrategies. Until recently, these studies have usedvisual observations, radio telemetry, or capture-markrecapturetechniques. However, few studies haveapplied both genetic and spatial techniques to studywhite-tailed deer.In white-tailed deer, yearling males are the mostlikely to disperse, whereas females tend to stay closeto where they were born. Male-biased dispersal hasstrong implications for gene flow and the amount ofinbreeding in a population. Therefore, we initiatedthis study to examine (1) how male white-tailed deerare structured spatially and genetically before and afterdispersal, (2) if males in association with one anotherare more related, and (3) how spatial distance influencesrelatedness among bucks.We captured and radio-collared 23 and 27 yearlingmale deer on the Callaghan and King ranches,respectively, from 1998–1999. An additional 48mature (>4 years of age) male deer were captured onthe Callaghan Ranch and fitted with radio collars from2002–2004. DNA samples were collected from eachdeer at the time of capture. DNA will be extracted,amplified, genotyped, and analyzed to determine relatednessof deer with overlapping and non-overlappinghome ranges. Regression analysis will be conductedto determine if spatial distance among deer is correlatedto genetic relatedness.This research will allow us to determine if geneticrelatedness of male white-tailed deer influences dispersaland spatial dynamics. These data will also provideinformation regarding why and how far male deerdisperse as well as the genetic consequences this mayhave on a population over time.Cooperative funding was provided by the San AntonioLivestock Exposition, Inc.; the Samuel Roberts NobleFoundation; King Ranch, Inc.; and Texas Parks and WildlifeDepartment.Effect of Deer Density on Behavior andFeed Consumption at Feeder SitesNathan A. Newman, Aaron M. Foley, Mark K. Richman,Garrett R. Timmons, Charles A. DeYoung, David G.Hewitt, Timothy E. Fulbright, and Don A. DraegerSome managers believe that increasing deer densitywill increase use of supplemental feed and elevateoverall deer herd nutrition. However, research isneeded on the optimal deer density that will providedeer with the best nutrition, considering both supplementalfeed and native forage.Research is being conducted on the Comanche andFaith ranches near Carrizo Springs, Texas. Cameraswere placed at feeder sites within 200-acre enclosurescontaining approximately 10, 25, and 40 white-taileddeer, respectively, on each ranch. Feed consumptionand feeder visitation rate by sex and age of deer andrate of antagonistic behaviors are being monitored.Preliminary findings suggest that ComancheRanch deer consumed feed at a higher rate in theenclosure with a high deer density than those in themedium and low deer density enclosures. However,at the Faith Ranch deer consumed feed at a higherrate in the medium density treatment. This was possiblydue to a temporary imbalance in target densitiesthat occurred in some enclosures at the Faith Ranch.Regardless of density treatment, more does were seenconsuming supplemental feed than bucks and fawns atboth ranches. In all density treatments, there seemedto be an increase in supplement consumption for does23

IN-PROGRESS RESEARCH© Steve BentsenUnderstanding how deer interact with each other atfeeders is essential for intensive management strategies.in September and October, while buck consumptionseemed to peak around October and November. At theFaith Ranch, 80% of deer seen on camera at feeder sitesactually ate feed, compared to 70% at the ComancheRanch. The results of this study will aid in our understandingof the trade-offs between deer density, nativeforage use, and supplemental feed consumption.Cooperative funding was provided by the Comanche Ranch,T. Dan Friedkin, Faith Ranch, and the Neva and WesleyWest Foundation.A Test of Localized Management in aHigh-Density White-tailed Deer HerdBradley F. Miller, Randy W. DeYoung, Tyler A. Campbell,Benjamin R. Laseter, W. Mark Ford, and Karl V. MillerBrowsing pressure by white-tailed deer withinforest regeneration areas can have profound impactson forest stand structure, stand composition, andforest biodiversity. Because traditional managementstrategies, including hunting, are not solvingthe over-browsing problem in many areas, localizedmanagement has been proposed as a possible solution.Localized management involves the “surgical”removal of one or more doe social groups in an areadeemed sensitive to browsing pressure. White-taildoes generally remain near their birth site and do notdisperse, thereby forming social groups composed ofseveral generations of female relatives. It is thoughtthat the area will not be re-colonized for many years ifall does in a local area are removed. Although localizedmanagement appears to be a promising techniqueto alleviate browsing pressure caused by overabundantdeer, localized management has only been tested inlow-density deer herds.We are using a combination of radio telemetryand genetic methods to evaluate the effectiveness oflocalized management in the Appalachian Mountainsof West Virginia, an area of high deer density.Preliminary data indicate that does are structured intosocial groups consisting of female relatives, indicatingthat doe dispersal is limited, which satisfies oneassumption of localized management. However, deerre-colonized a 300-acre removal area within 3 years.The post-removal deer were genetically dissimilar tothe pre-removal deer, suggesting that immigrant deerdispersed into and colonized the removal area. Thus,it appears that localized management may not be auseful technique in areas of high deer density.Cooperative funding was provided by the USDA NationalResearch Initiative, MeadWestvaco, and the University ofGeorgia.Cover, Deer Density, and SupplementalFeed Effects on Stem Count IndicesReagan T. Gage, Eric Grahmann, Ryan L. Darr, Stephen L.Webb, Timothy E. Fulbright, David G. Hewitt, Charles A.DeYoung, Jimmy Rutledge, Ty Bartoskewitz, Daniel Kunz,Alan T. Cain, Evan McCoy, and Don A. DraegerThe Stem Count Index is used by the Texas Parksand Wildlife Department to estimate use of browseplants and to determine if herbivore densities arewithin carrying capacity of the habitat. Plants in thismethod are categorized into 3 classes, based on palatability(high, medium, low). A question regarding thismethod is whether or not availability of shrubs in eachpalatability class influences the index.To address this question, we estimated canopycover of shrubs in each palatability class duringsummer 2005. We then conducted stem counts toindex use of each palatability class during January2006. This research was conducted on the Comancheand Faith ranches near Carrizo Springs in South Texas.24

IN-PROGRESS RESEARCHEach ranch has 6, 200-acre enclosures. On each ranch,there is a pair of enclosures with low, medium, andhigh deer densities. One of each pair of enclosures hassupplemental feed.Deer density was the only factor that affected theestimated number of bites on first and second choicebrowses. None of the variables tested affected theestimated number of bites on third choice browses.Based on these data, it appears that the Stem CountIndex method reflects deer density and that availabilityof first, second, and third choice plants has littleinfluence on the outcome of results.Cooperative funding was provided by the Comanche Ranch,T. Dan Friedkin, Faith Ranch, the Neva and Wesley WestFoundation, and Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.Antler Growth of White-tailed Deer inSouth TexasJohn S. Lewis, Mickey W. Hellickson, David G. Hewitt, andFred C. BryantWhite-tailed deer antler growth is regulated bynutrition during the antler growth period, deer age,and genetics. Nutrition in South Texas is primarilyaffected by rainfall because of the relationshipbetween moisture and forage abundance. One studyfound mature buck antler growth was most correlatedwith April rainfall. Our objectives are to randomlycapture up to 150 bucks annually for 9 years on eachof 5 areas to estimate age and determine gross Booneand Crockett Club score (GBC). We will determinehow age and rainfall impact antler growth of deer inSouth Texas.To date, we have 3,104 antler records of capturedbucks >1 year of age. Of these, 804 were aged bytooth wear at >5 years, and 11.2, 4.8, and 1.6% ofthese mature deer had GBC scores >150, 160, and 170inches, respectively. On average, antler characteristicsdo not change dramatically once bucks reach 5 yearsof age. Because age may be underestimated fromtooth wear, aging bias could influence this conclusion.Known-age bucks show a larger increase from 6 to 7years of age than bucks whose age was estimated fromtooth wear, however, the sample size of known-age 7-year-old deer is small.Preliminary analyses do not suggest spring rainfallhas a large influence on antler size. Supplementalfeeding may dampen the effect of spring rainfall onantler size, although even on a ranch with little supplementalfeed, buck antler sizes have not shown a consistentrelationship with rainfall.Cooperative funding was provided by A. R. Sanchez, Jr.;Carlos Y. Benavides, II; International Bank of Commerce;Carl Rush; King Ranch, Inc.; and Texas Parks and WildlifeDepartment.Effects of Deer Density and SupplementalFeed on Female Deer NutritionGarrett R. Timmons, Aaron M. Foley, Nathan A. Newman,Mark K. Richman, David G. Hewitt, Charles A. DeYoung,Timothy E. Fulbright, Susan M. Cooper, and Don A. DraegerWhite-tailed deer are an important natural resourcein South Texas with significant social and economicvalue. To sustain and increase the value of deer herds,nutrition and deer density are commonly managed.Number of bucks, average number of antler points, and average antler size (inches) of bucks captured in the South TexasDeer Capture Project from 1998–2005, presented by deer age class as estimated from tooth replacement and wear.Age Class1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8+Number of bucks 691 605 464 533 358 177 148 128Antler points 3.7 7.3 8.4 9.0 9.5 9.5 9.6 8.9Gross B&C score 40.7 80.4 102.2 117.7 129.3 129.9 128.8 123.2Inside spread 6.7 12.0 14.2 15.6 16.7 16.9 16.4 16.3Basal circumference 2.2 3.1 3.6 4.0 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.2Main beam length 7.9 14.3 17.2 19.2 20.6 20.8 20.6 20.325

IN-PROGRESS RESEARCHVegetation Response to Three White-tailedDeer Densities and Supplemental FeedingReagan T. Gage, Eric Grahmann, Ryan L. Darr, TimothyE. Fulbright, Charles A. DeYoung, David G. Hewitt,Stephen L. Webb, Garrett R. Timmons, Mark K. Richman,Aaron M. Foley, Nathan A. Newman, and Don A. Draeger© David HewittTame does are being monitored to determine use of foragein enclosures with and without supplemental feed.Because the health of a deer herd is strongly tied to thenutritional status of its mature does, we are evaluatingthe effects of deer density and supplemental feedingon female deer.The study site has 4 paired, 200-acre enclosures; 2enclosures have low deer density (10 deer) and 2 havea high deer density (40 deer). Supplemental feed in 1enclosure for each deer density treatment is providedfree-choice. By counting bites of forages consumedby radio-collared tame does in the enclosures, we canidentify the species of plants selected, and the amountof each plant consumed.Preliminary data indicate the forb component ofdiets appears to be higher in low density and fed treatmentscompared to high density and unfed treatments.Nutritional analysis of forages consumed is currentlyunderway. When these findings are incorporated withenergy expenditure data calculated from activity monitors,we will be able to make more accurate conclusionsof treatment effects on the nutritional status ofdoes. Fecal samples taken from the tame does will becompared to wild deer within enclosures to provideanother diet assessment measure.Along with the expected forage species consumed,certain diet items not emphasized in previous studiessuch as fruits, have also been identified. Findings fromthis study will add to our knowledge of how deer meettheir nutritional requirements in South Texas.Cooperative funding was provided by the Comanche Ranch,T. Dan Friedkin, Faith Ranch, and the Neva and WesleyWest Foundation.Supplemental feeding has been viewed as a wayof allowing deer populations to exceed carrying capacitywhile reducing negative effects on the vegetationcommunity. However, supplemental feeding may leadto excessive consumption of highly palatable plants,allowing deer to achieve satiation in a relatively shorttime. This experiment will determine if supplementalfeeding results in reduced canopy cover of highly palatableforbs and shrubs using 6, 200-acre controlleddensityenclosures on 2 South Texas ranches.White-tailed deer in paired enclosures containlow, medium, and high carrying capacities. A pelletedprotein supplement is being provided in half of theA. Canopy cover of palatable browse plants was notaffected by deer density in 2004 and 2005.B. Forb canopy cover was lower at moderate and highdeer densities than at low deer densities.26

IN-PROGRESS RESEARCHenclosures on each ranch. The canopy cover of forbsand shrubs is being estimated in addition to forb speciesrichness during summer.Preliminary results indicate that supplementalfeeding of white-tailed deer does not affect thecanopy cover of palatable forb and browse species.Additionally, moderate and high deer densities resultedin reduced forb canopy cover regardless of supplementalfeeding. These findings suggest that excessiveuse of forbs by white-tailed deer at moderate or highdeer densities could lead to reduced forage abundance,ultimately degrading the quality of white-tailed deerhabitat in South Texas.Bitten (%)403020100Second Choice BrowseBeforeDensitiesAdjusted2004-FebLow Medium High2004-Aug2005-FebSampling date2005-Aug2006-JanCooperative funding was provided by the Comanche Ranch,T. Dan Friedkin, Faith Ranch, and the Neva and WesleyWest Foundation.Estimating Browse Use at Three DeerDensities with the Stem Count MethodTimothy E. Fulbright, Jimmy Rutledge, Charles A. DeYoung,David G. Hewitt, Ty Bartoskewitz, Daniel Kunz, Alan T.Cain, Evan McCoy, and Don A. DraegerThe Stem Count Method is used by the TexasParks and Wildlife Department to estimate use ofbrowse plants and determine whether herbivore densitiesare within the carrying capacity of the habitat. Inthe method, browse species are classed according topalatability with first choice plants the most palatableand third choice plants the least palatable. Our objectiveis to determine intensity of use of browse by theStem Count Method in 200-acre enclosures with low,medium, and high densities of deer.Research is being conducted on the Comancheand Faith ranches near Carrizo Springs, Texas. Pairsof enclosures on each ranch contain a target densityof 10, 25, or 40 deer. One of each pair of enclosureshas supplemental feed. Use of first, second, and thirdchoice browse species was estimated in the enclosuresat each ranch in February and August of 2004 and2005, and January 2006.Use of first and second choice browse species didnot differ between enclosures where deer were supplementallyfed and enclosures where deer were not supplementallyfed on the 5 sampling dates. Use of thirdchoice browse was greater in enclosures where deerThe percentage of bites on second choice browse plantswas strongly related to white-tailed deer density.were not supplementally fed only in February 2005.Use of first, second, and third choice browse specieswas generally greatest in high deer density enclosures.Use of second choice browse species was strongly correlatedwith deer density.The Stem Count Method appears to be a reliableindex of deer densities. Thus far, results show no evidencethat supplemental feeding affects the indices ofuse estimated by the Stem Count Method.Cooperative funding was provided by the Comanche Ranch,T. Dan Friedkin, Faith Ranch, and the Neva and WesleyWest Foundation.27

BOBWHITESNorthern Bobwhite Population andBreeding Ecology in South TexasWilliam C. Stasey, Fidel Hernández, Leonard A. Brennan,and William E. PalmerThis research will address 3 ecological conceptsusing long-term data from the South Texas QuailResearch Project. First, we will examine Errington’sprinciple of inversity (i.e., density-dependent reproduction).Density-dependent reproduction primarilyhas been observed in northern latitude populations.However, it is unknown whether this phenomenonexists in bobwhite populations inhabiting the southwesternportions of the species’ range where theweather is more unpredictable. We hypothesize thatdensity-dependent reproduction does not exist, or it ismasked by the influence of weather in southwesternpopulations of bobwhites.Second, we will examine the relationship betweenprior nesting success and subsequent nesting behavior.It has been hypothesized that avian species can modifytheir nesting behavior dependent upon prior nest fate,specifically, that nest depredation will cause the birdto re-nest substantially farther from the depredatednest. We will determine whether this phenomenon ispredator species-specific and will examine if bobwhitehens preferentially choose nest sites in areas of lowpredator density.Rainfall exerts a strong influence on northernbobwhite populations in southern Texas. Therefore,we will develop a population model for bobwhites inSouth Texas based on rainfall/survivability curves andrainfall/reproduction curves. This model will allowus to evaluate the influence of rainfall on bobwhitepopulations, and it will allow us to make predictionsregarding fall recruitment and survival based on rainfallhistory.Cooperative funding was provided by the Texas StateCouncil, South Texas, Greater Houston, East Texas, andAlamo chapters of Quail Unlimited; George and MaryJosephine Hamman Foundation; Robert J. Kleberg, Jr.and Helen C. Kleberg Foundation; Amy Shelton McNuttCharitable Trust; Amy Shelton McNutt Memorial Fund;Bob and Vivian Smith Foundation; and The William A. andMadeline Welder Smith Foundation.Influence of Invasive Exotic Grasses onNorthern Bobwhites in South TexasJoseph P. Sands, Leonard A. Brennan, Donald C. Ruthven, III,William P. Kuvlesky, Jr., and Fidel HernándezSince 1950, extensive amounts of South Texasrangelands have been subjected to mechanical brushmanagement practices such as root plowing. Manyof these treated rangelands were seeded with buffelgrassand Lehmann lovegrass, which are introducedperennial bunchgrasses native to Africa. Both specieshave also spread to non-treated rangelands. There isgrowing concern that exotic grasses adversely affectecosystem functioning. Additionally, little researchhas been conducted investigating the direct impacts ofthese grasses on northern bobwhites.From March 2004 to present, we trapped andradio-marked 225 northern bobwhites and conductedrelocations during the breeding season on the ChaparralWildlife Management Area in LaSalle and Dimmitcounties, Texas. Habitat use versus availability dataindicated that northern bobwhite use of microhabitatsdeclined as exotic grass coverage approached 25–30%.Exotic grasses had a 57% probability of being found atnest sites (n = 25), but exotic grass coverage was notgenerally a driver of nest site selection. Additionally,we compared coverage of grass, individual grass species,forbs, litter, and bare ground in plots with heavy,moderate, and light buffelgrass compositions (n = 5/treatment). In plots with light buffelgrass cover, percentcoverage of forbs and bare ground increased by248% and 132%, respectively, over plots with heavybuffelgrass cover, and 55% and 18%, respectively,over plots with moderate buffelgrass cover.Results suggest that northern bobwhite avoidanceof microhabitats with high exotic grass compositionsmay be an indicator of potential reductions of usablespace available within mixed brush shrublands andsemi-desert grasslands in South Texas.Cooperative funding was provided by Texas Parks andWildlife Department, Texas State Council of QuailUnlimited, South Texas Chapter of Quail Unlimited, and theQuail Associates Program.28

IN-PROGRESS RESEARCHEffects of Raptor Abundance on NorthernBobwhite Survival and Habitat UseJoshua W. Turner, Fidel Hernández, Bart M. Ballard, andClint W. BoalThe role of raptor predation as a limiting factorof northern bobwhite populations has been a controversialaspect of quail management for many years.Predation by raptors often is considered the primarysource of mortality of adult bobwhites; however, directpredation studies on bobwhites have found varyingresults.Game managers often have perceived predatorsas competitors for a common resource and, therefore,have advocated the use of predator control. However,the actual effect that raptors have on populations ofgame animals is unknown. Studies on the responsesof avian predators to changing game bird numbers arerelatively scarce. The objectives of this study will beto (1) characterize raptor migration patterns in southernTexas, (2) document seasonal changes in habitatuse (i.e., woody cover) by bobwhites in relation to theraptor migration period, and (3) evaluate the relationshipbetween habitat use, raptor abundance, and bobwhitesurvival.This study is being conducted on 3 sites in BrooksCounty, Texas. Our study will involve a 5-year dataset(2000–2004) for northern bobwhite survival andhabitat use and a 4-year dataset (2001–2004) for raptorabundance. Northern bobwhite survival and habitatuse will be estimated from radio-collared individuals.Raptor abundance and migration patterns will beestimated from raptor surveys that will be conductedevery 15 days.The results from our study will provide basic andapplied information, including characterization of temporalpatterns of raptor migration and how bobwhitesmay use woody cover to minimize predation vulnerability.This information will be useful to biologists indeveloping quail management programs.Cooperative funding was provided by the Texas StateCouncil, South Texas, Greater Houston, and East Texaschapters of Quail Unlimited; George and Mary JosephineHamman Foundation; Robert J. Kleberg, Jr. and Helen C.Kleberg Foundation; Amy Shelton McNutt Charitable Trust;Amy Shelton McNutt Memorial Fund; Bob and Vivian SmithFoundation; and The William A. and Madeline Welder SmithFoundation.Genetic Variation of Northern Bobwhitesin South TexasErin M. Wehland, Randy W. DeYoung, Ana Sifuentes Rincón,Michelle A. Garcia, and Leonard A. BrennanOver the last several decades, northern bobwhitepopulations have been declining over most of theirrange. These declines have been linked to changesin land-use patterns that have caused habitat loss andfragmentation.In South Texas, northern bobwhite populationsfluctuate dramatically in response to climatic conditions.During years in which drought occurs, someareas may not have bobwhites because of local extinctions.However, these areas are quickly repopulatedduring years of high rainfall as increased bobwhitesurvival and nest success results in a large influx ofjuveniles from neighboring properties. It is possiblethat habitat fragmentation may affect movementpatterns of quail resulting in a failure to re-colonizevacant areas. To investigate this idea, we examinedgenetic variation among 21 quail populations fromSouth Texas.DNA was extracted from muscle tissue and feathersof northern bobwhites, and a portion of the mitochondrial(mtDNA) “control region” was sequenced.These sequences were analyzed using computerprograms to assess genetic diversity and geographicdistribution.We found that bobwhites in South Texas havemoderate-to-high levels of genetic variability with© Steve BentsenResearch is being conducted on the genetics of northernbobwhites to aid in their management.29

IN-PROGRESS RESEARCHlittle evidence of populations being isolated from eachother. These findings are consistent with expectationsfor the known demographic history and absence ofgeographic barriers in the region.The results of this study can be used to gauge theeffects of habitat alteration in other portions of bobwhiterange and to assess any future changes in SouthTexas populations. Further analyses will incorporatesamples from fragmented populations to investigatethe effects of altering habitat patch size and continuityon population genetic diversity and populationconnectivity.Cooperative funding was provided by the Richard M.Kleberg, Jr. Center for Quail Research, Quail AssociatesProgram, and South Texas Celebrity Weekend, Inc.© Larry DittoAge and sex ratios are used by researchers to assess thepopulation health of northern bobwhites.Assessments of Quail Productivity in SouthTexas: The Quail Associates ProgramKyle A. Brazil, Erin M. Wehland, Tina Martin-Nims,Leonard A. Brennan, Fidel Hernández, andFred C. BryantThe Quail Associates Program (QAP) was foundedin 2001 to provide hunters, landowners, and managersthe opportunity to understand how quail productivity,body condition, and population density on their propertycompares with quail populations on other propertiesin South Texas.During the 2005–2006 hunting season, QAP membersreturned hunting data and/or quail wings from 25ranches from across South Texas. Members of theQAP provided 5,024 quail wings, which were used todetermine age and sex ratios.The widespread precipitation that began duringthe summer of 2002 and continued through 2004 ledto high quail productivity across all of South Texas.However, South Texas entered a drought in 2005,which was reflected by the productivity estimatesfor this time period. Quail productivity for 2005was 0.94:1.0 (juvenile:adult), compared to 3.50:1.0for 2004 and a 5-year average of 2.52:1.0. The sexcomposition for 2005 was 54% male and 46% female.Average weight of juvenile and adult birds was 154grams (5.43 ounces) and 161 grams (5.68 ounces),respectively. The average number of coveys found perhour of hunting was 2.61.The QAP enables landowners and managers to seehow their property ranks in relation to other ranchesin South Texas. Furthermore, wildlife researchers areable to use the long-term data from QAP to identifytrends in quail population demographics and designresearch projects to determine the cause of thesetrends. This information can then be used by biologiststo develop management schemes that maximizequail productivity and abundance in South Texas.Cooperative funding was provided by the members of theQuail Associates Program and the Richard M. Kleberg, Jr.Center for Quail Research.Effect of Brush Canopy on VariablesAssociated with Bobwhite ProductivityStephen J. DeMaso, Fidel Hernández, Leonard A. Brennan,and Nova J. SilvyHabitat selection by northern bobwhites has beenquantified by previous research. Production and survival(i.e., fitness) in bobwhite populations are importantparameters to monitor as they relate to changes inabundance and viability in those populations.We used nesting data of northern bobwhites fromthe South Texas Quail Research Project to predict ifhabitat attributes at the nest site, along with the dateof hatch, could predict the nest’s fate. We used logisticregression and the Akaike information criteria to30

0.01.22.43.54.75.97.18.39.4IN-PROGRESS RESEARCHobjectively rank a priori models and select the appropriate“best approximating” model.Models using brush canopy coverage (macrohabitat)as a predictor variable were not significant at ourlevels of brush canopy coverage. The “best approximating”model using the microhabitat variables wasY = -6.798 + 0.030(hatch date) + 0.010(nest canopyheight) + 2.511(bunchgrass density). However, themodel only explained less than 22% of the variation inbobwhite nest fate.To determine the importance of individual variablesin the selected model, we conducted simulations.Simulation results suggest that nest hatching after day190 (9 July) increases the probability of a nest beingsuccessful. Also, as nest canopy height increases over22.5 inches and the number of bunchgrass clumps persquare yard increases over 0.5 the probability of a nestbeing successful increases.These results suggest that concealment of bobwhitenests is an important part of nests being successful.South Texas receives the highest rainfall duringPredicted ProbabilityPredicted ProbabilityPredicted Probability10.90.80.70.60.50.40.30.20.1010.90.80.70.60.50.40.30.20.1010.90.80.70.60.50.40.30.20.101000.01060.21121180.41240.61300.81361421.01481.215410.61.416011.816613.01.617214.21.817815.416.52.018419017.72.2Simulation results of the northern bobwhite nest fatemodel, 2000–2004, South Texas.19618.92.420220.12.620821.32Bunchgrass Density (no. clumps/yards )21422.42.822023.63.0226Hatch Date (Julian day)24.83.223226.0Nest Canopy Height (Inches)23827.23.424428.33.625029.53.825630.726231.94.026833.14.227434.34.428035.428636.64.629237.84.829839.05.0May and June, therefore, bobwhites nesting after thisrainfall period have the benefit of lush ground coverand vegetation growth that aid in concealing nestsfrom predators.Cooperative funding was provided by the Texas StateCouncil, South Texas, Greater Houston, East Texas, andAlamo chapters of Quail Unlimited; George and MaryJosephine Hamman Foundation; Robert J. Kleberg, Jr.and Helen C. Kleberg Foundation; Amy Shelton McNuttCharitable Trust; Amy Shelton McNutt Memorial Fund;Bob and Vivian Smith Foundation; and The William A. andMadeline Welder Smith Foundation.Restoring Bobwhite Populations inFragmented LandscapesJason L. Scott, Fidel Hernández, Leonard A. Brennan, andBart M. BallardHabitat fragmentation (division and isolation ofonce continuous habitat) has been identified as a factorcontributing to declining bobwhite populations in certainregions of Texas. Our objective is to determineif bobwhites can be restored on large habitat patches(i.e., >1,000 acres) using habitat management andtranslocations of wild bobwhites.Bobwhites were translocated to 2 ranches inCaldwell and Fayette counties after each ranch hadundergone bobwhite-specific management practices.Females were fitted with radio collars to monitormovements, nesting attempts, and to determine survivalrates. Data will be compared to a ranch that doesnot have quail-specific management or translocatedquail (control site).In 2005, 140 bobwhites were translocated, of which72 were radio-collared. Survival rates (April–August)were 39% and 40% (compared to 31% and 27% in2004) for Caldwell County and Fayette County sites,respectively. In 2005, nesting behavior was observedat both sites. At the Caldwell site, 1 of 5 nests hatchedsuccessfully, compared to 6 of 10 in 2004. Nestingbehavior was not observed at the Fayette site in 2004,however, 3 of 6 nests hatched successfully in 2005.Average home range sizes were 1,375 and 733 acresfor Caldwell and Fayette sites, compared to 1,805 and388 acres in 2004. Data are currently being analyzedfor the final field season of this project. To date, over550 bobwhites have been released.31

IN-PROGRESS RESEARCH© Jason HardinTranslocated female bobwhites are being monitored todetermine their survival and reproductive success.This study has wide-ranging implications as bobwhitesare faced with declining habitat on continuallysmaller tracts of land. The results of this study willassist biologists and managers in assessing potentialrestoration efforts of this species.Cooperative funding was provided by Texas Parks andWildlife Department, Alice Kleberg Reynolds MeyerFoundation, Larry J. Doherty, David L. Hatcher, KMG-Bernuth, Inc., Audubon Texas, and anonymous donors.Dispersal, Habitat Area, and EffectivePopulation Size of BobwhitesDavid Garcia-Solorzano, Leonard A. Brennan, FidelHernández, Randy W. DeYoung, Robert M. Perez,and Stephen J. DeMasoAlthough the northern bobwhite is one of the moststudied birds in the world, many important aspects ofthis species’ life history remain unknown. For example,we have yet to unravel basic aspects of bobwhitesociology and demography that have direct and indirectimplications for management.The development of new molecular markers andmolecular techniques offers a powerful new tool forstudying the population biology of wildlife species.Coupled with recent advances in automated geneticanalysis, these new markers provide the potential forlarge-scale genetic examination of populations.The objective of this study is to use moleculargenetic (DNA) tools to provide the first reliable estimatesof dispersal, habitat area (neighborhood size),and effective number of breeders for northern bobwhitesin South Texas. Information obtained in meetingthe above objective will supplement bobwhiteresearch projects at the Encino Division of the KingRanch and the Chaparral Wildlife Management Area.By estimating dispersal, habitat area, and effectivepopulation sizes for northern bobwhites in SouthTexas, we also will provide a basis for understandingmanagement and population restoration potential inother parts of Texas where available habitat is significantlyfragmented.Cooperative funding was provided by Texas Parks andWildlife Department and Richard M. Kleberg, Jr. Center forQuail Research.Utilization of Buffelgrass-DominatedLandscapes by Northern BobwhitesAaron D. Tjelmeland and Timothy E. FulbrightBuffelgrass-dominated habitats support fewernorthern bobwhites and other grassland birds thannative grasslands. Dense buffelgrass stands mayimpede bobwhite movement and decrease bobwhitefood supply by choking out valuable forbs anddecreasing abundance of insects. We explored waysto improve buffelgrass pastures for bobwhite habitatby examining relationships between bobwhites andbuffelgrass.Beginning in October 2004, we maintained 20–30radio transmitters on bobwhites at El Panal Ranch inStarr County, Texas. The study area consists of 3 adjacentbuffelgrass conservation reserve program (CRP)pastures (

IN-PROGRESS RESEARCHroads and oil and gas exploration pads where chickscould easily move and forage.In typical buffelgrass-dominated landscapes, foragingand brood-rearing habitat are likely reducedbecause certain bobwhite food items are missing.Additionally, nesting habitat is reduced because ofheavy grazing. Areas of brush and areas open nearthe ground can provide bobwhites with foraging andbrood-rearing habitat. We recommend excludinggrazing from areas about 20–40 acres in size spacedthroughout the landscape to provide sufficient nestingcover for bobwhites.Cooperative funding was provided by the Jack R. and LorisJ. Welhausen Experimental Station, San Antonio LivestockExposition, Inc., and the E. “Kika” de la Garza PlantMaterials Center/USDA-Natural Resources ConservationService.U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service/Bob Savannah33

WILD CATS AND OTHER CARNIVORESThe First Ocelots Tracked via SatelliteTelemetryAaron M. Haines, Lon I. Grassman, Jr., Michael E. Tewes,and Jan E. JaneckaDuring spring 2005, a 17.6 lb (8 kg) adult femaleocelot from the Willacy County population was fittedwith a 0.4 lb (200-gram) GPS-PosrecTM collar tomonitor its movements within 2 conservation easementsin the area. In the past, ocelots have been studiedwith radio telemetry in southern Texas. However,this was the first study that has monitored an ocelot viasatellite, and was a pilot project to evaluate the effectivenessof a Global Positioning Systems (GPS) unit intracking ocelots within dense thornshrub forest.We obtained 61% of GPS fixes from the collaredocelot. The ocelot preferred closed habitat, even withGPS bias against closed habitat (due to more fixesoccurring in open habitat because of increased satellitereception), and used small patches and corridorsof dense thornshrub.Because of the success of this pilot study, weattached a second GPS collar to a male ocelot duringspring 2006. We anticipate the retrieval of data bysummer 2006. Future research will use GPS telemetryto examine the ecology of ocelots along roadways insouthern Texas.Cooperative funding was provided by the Tim and KarenHixon Foundation, Frank Yturria, the Feline ResearchProgram of the CKWRI, and the Magnolia CharitableTrust.Mountain Lion Distribution Based on theGenetic Algorithm for Rule-Set ProcedureJohn H. Young and Michael E. TewesThe extent of the historical range of mountainlions in Texas is unknown, but they likely occurredthroughout the state. A variety of studies have beenconducted on mountain lions, with most occurring inspecific localities: Big Bend National Park, Big BendRanch State Park, and private ranches in southernTexas. However, there has been no attempt to extrapolatedistribution or density estimates to the entire state.Detailed information on the distribution of a speciesis important in making informed conservation decisions.To develop and guide sound management decisionsfor mountain lions, it is imperative to understandwhere they may or may not occur within Texas.Genetic algorithms have been used to investigatetaxonomy, identify distribution of species, and provideinsight into a species’ habitat preferences. TheGenetic Algorithm for Rule-Set Procedure (GARP) isa quantitative method for modeling ecological nichesand predicting geographic distributions from primarypoint occurrence data. It is one of several approachesused to estimate distribution based on occurrencerecords and environmental data.Mountain lion localities obtained from TexasWildlife Damage Management Service, voluntarilyreported harvest records, and museum specimen datadating from the early 1900s will be input into GARPto develop a map predicting mountain lion distributionin Texas. This research will provide informationfor developing management objectives and goals formountain lions based on their distribution.Cooperative funding was provided by Texas Parks andWildlife Department and the Feline Research Program ofthe CKWRI.Evaluating Recovery Strategies for anOcelot Population in the United StatesAaron M. Haines, Michael E. Tewes, Linda L. Laack,William E. Grant, and John H. YoungConservation concerns for ocelots include lossof dense thornshrub habitat, mortality resulting fromocelot-vehicle collisions, and genetic erosion. In thisstudy, we are using population viability analysis (PVA)to evaluate 4 recovery strategies (supplementation ofadditional ocelots, reduced road mortality, habitatprotection and restoration, and linkage of 2 breedingpopulations) for ocelot conservation management.34

IN-PROGRESS RESEARCHWe are using the VORTEX program to conductour PVA for an ocelot population located in CameronCounty, Texas. Each model scenario is simulated 500times over a 100-year period. We are comparing theeffectiveness of recovery strategies and combinationsthereof with estimates of extinction probability andfinal population size.Model scenarios with no recovery strategies predictan extinction probability of 65% for the Cameronpopulation within 100 years. Model outputs suggestprotection and restoration of thornshrub habitat arethe most effective recovery strategies, followed bypopulation linkage and reduced road mortality, withthe supplementation of ocelots being the least effectivestrategy.Using an adaptive management approach, futureactions need to be taken to monitor ocelot populationsand habitats and help reduce the high probability ofextinction predicted in our PVA for the ocelot populationin Cameron County. Additionally, protection andrestoration of ocelot habitat cannot be accomplishedwithout the participation of landowners and effortsshould be made to incorporate them into ocelot conservationplans.Cooperative funding was provided by Section 6 of theTexas Parks and Wildlife Department and the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service, the Houston Safari Club, and the FelineResearch Program of the CKWRI.Ecological Patterns of the Margay at “ElCielo” Biosphere Reservemi² (4.03 km²) and 0.28 mi² (0.96 km²) for females.Additionally, we found that peak activity of margaysoccurs between 1800 hours and 0400 hours, therebyconfirming that margays are nocturnal. We hope toincrease our sample size and learn more about themargay population in the ECBR.Cooperative funding was provided by the OklahomaCity Zoo, Dallas Zoo, Gladys Porter Zoo, and the FelineResearch Program of the CKWRI.Phylogenetic Relationships of Ocelotsfrom the Tamaulipan Biotic ProvinceJan E. Janecka, Chris W. Walker, Michael E. Tewes, ArturoCaso, Linda L. Laack, and Rodney L. HoneycuttThe remaining populations of ocelots in the U.S.are reduced to 2 isolated populations in southernTexas, with the next closest population occurring incentral Tamaulipas, Mexico. The species is listed asendangered, and recovery of populations in Texas mayeventually require translocations from larger “source”populations.We sequenced the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA)control region from individual ocelots occurring inTexas and northern Mexico. These data are beingcompared to existing sequences from ocelots in southernMexico, Central America, and South America.Findings indicate that nucleotide diversity islower in ocelots from Texas than from Mexico. TheseArturo Caso, Sasha Carvajal, Patricia Downey, ArnulfoMoreno, and Michael E. TewesLittle is known about the ecology of the margay.Prior to this study, only 1 individual had been radiocollaredand studied (in Belize in 1986). The northernmostdistribution of the margay is at the “El Cielo”Biosphere Reserve (ECBR) in Tamaulipas, Mexico. In2002, we started this project to evaluate the ecologicalpatterns of margays in the ECBR population. The goalof this study is to determine home range values andactivity patterns of margays using radio telemetry.To date, we have captured 8 margays (5 males and3 females), which were fitted with radio collars andtracked. Mean home range estimates for males is 1.55© Charles SpiekermanOcelots are being studied to provide information that can beused to develop sound conservation plans for this species.35

IN-PROGRESS RESEARCHfindings suggest a loss of genetic variation in ocelotsfrom Texas. This is possibly due to isolation causedby habitat fragmentation and increased genetic drift.Phylogenetic analyses show a closer relationshipamong populations in Texas and northern Mexicothan those from Central and South America. Thus,the best “source” population involving ocelot translocationsto Texas would be northern Mexico, as thisregion appears to form a discrete management unitthat includes Texas.Cooperative funding was provided by the Feline ResearchProgram of the CKWRI.© Branson ReynoldsPopulation Viability Analysis of aMountain Lion Population in TexasJohn H. Young, Michael E. Tewes, and Aaron M. HainesMountain lions are important ecologically. Theycan influence prey population dynamics (thereby indirectlyaffecting prey herbivory of plant communities),act as a selective force on prey, and compete with othercarnivores for prey. Because they require expansiveinterconnected habitats, conservation strategies thatbenefit mountain lions also benefit other wildlife.Population viability analysis has been used todetermine impacts of human development, proposeconservation reserve design, assess habitat fragmentation,and evaluate impacts of habitat loss on mountainlions in various parts of the U.S. Our goal is to conducta population viability analysis of mountain lionsto determine the potential for mountain lions to persistunder current management practices in Texas anddetermine how they would respond under hypotheticalmanagement guidelines.Our objectives are to (1) assess population persistenceof mountain lions in Texas and predict futurepopulation size, (2) identify population parametersimportant in determining population persistence andmanagement, (3) estimate the impact of unregulatedharvest on mountain lion persistence and future populationsize in Texas, and (4) evaluate proposed managementalternatives (e.g., reducing or eliminating harvestof mountain lions on wildlife management areas) todetermine their effectiveness in maintaining mountainlion populations. Information from this research willMountain lion populations are being evaluated to ensurethat this species remains in Texas landscapes.enable wildlife managers to make informed decisionsregarding the impact of unlimited mountain lion harvestand help guide future management actions.Cooperative funding was provided by Texas Parks andWildlife Department and the Feline Research Program ofthe CKWRI.Ocelot and Bobcat Use Patterns of TwoHigh-Quality Isolated Habitat PatchesMichael E. Tewes, Lon I. Grassman, Jr., Aaron M. Haines,and Jan E. JaneckaWe are studying ocelot and bobcat spatial ecologyon 2 conservation easements located on the YturriaRanch in Willacy County, Texas. Our objectives areto understand habitat use patterns of ocelots on andaround the conservation easements, and to obtainbobcat use patterns to assess potential competitionbetween the 2 species. In addition, this research mayidentify other small tracts or locations where ocelotsoccur. Ocelot and bobcat use patterns within andbetween the conservation easements, as well as tractselsewhere, will be documented and used to refine densityestimates.Live trapping for ocelots in the conservation easementsoccurred during spring 2005 and 2006. This initialtrapping effort resulted in the capture of 11 ocelots.Eight of these were adults; radio collars were attached36

IN-PROGRESS RESEARCHto them to monitor their movements. Additionally, 2bobcats were captured and both were radio-collared.Future research will focus on trapping bobcatsoutside the conservation easements and continuationof radio tracking activities. We will further develop anocelot management plan that incorporates conservationstrategies and opportunities for private lands.Cooperative funding was provided by Frank Yturria, theTim and Karen Hixon Foundation, and the Feline ResearchProgram of the CKWRI.Genetic Variation of Sympatric Ocelotand Bobcat PopulationsJan E. Janecka, Lon I. Grassman, Jr., Aaron M. Haines,Terry L. Blankenship, Michael E. Tewes, Arturo Caso,and Rodney L. Honeycutt© Wyman MeinzerResearch is focusing on genetic variation in co-occurringpopulations of ocelots and bobcats.Ecology and population history can strongly influencegenetic variation of populations. Ocelots andbobcats occur sympatrically in southern Texas andhave similar ecological niches. However, the populationstatus and habitat use of these felids are markedlydifferent. We are examining patterns of genetic variationfor 3 ocelot populations and 4 bobcat populationsto understand the impact that historical ecological differenceshave on genetic variation.We sequenced a 419 base pair segment of the controlregion of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and foundless variation in ocelot populations compared to bobcatpopulations in Texas. The ocelot population in northernMexico has genetic variation comparable to thatfound in bobcat populations in Texas. There are lowerlevels of gene flow among ocelot populations, whereasbobcats from the same study sites exhibit high geneflow among proximate populations.Low levels of genetic variation in ocelots suggestless dispersal between habitat patches and lower effectivepopulation sizes relative to bobcats occupyingsimilar areas. Bobcats use a greater range of habitattypes than ocelots in southern Texas, likely contributingto higher levels of bobcat gene flow and morelimited population differentiation. Findings suggestthat translocation of ocelots from Mexico into the U.S.would help restore mtDNA variation in endangeredocelot populations.Cooperative funding was provided by the Rob and BessieWelder Wildlife Foundation, Tim and Karen HixonFoundation, and the Feline Research Program of theCKWRI.Conservation Genetics of Wild and CaptiveClouded Leopards in ThailandJan E. Janecka, Lon I. Grassman, Jr., Whichan Eiadthong,and Michael E. TewesThe application of genetics to conservation biologyhas provided insight into the status, history, andconservation of threatened populations and has aidedcaptive breeding programs. However, there is limitedecological information on the clouded leopard and noknowledge on population genetics of this species. Inaddition, the Thailand Zoological Parks Organizationhas a captive breeding program, but it does not haveany genetic information on their clouded leopards.We genotyped 10 microsatellite loci and sequenceda 430 base pair portion of the control region of themitochondrial genome in 6 wild clouded leopardsfrom 2 localities in Thailand and 14 captive cats fromthe Khao Khieo Open Zoo. The highest levels ofheterozygosity were observed in Phu Khieo WildlifeSanctuary, and the lowest in Khao Yai National Parkwith intermediate levels of heterozygosity in the KhaoKhieo Open Zoo captive population. Four mitochondrialDNA (mtDNA) haplotypes were observed in the2 wild populations sampled: 2 in Phu Khieo and 2 inKhao Yai.37

IN-PROGRESS RESEARCHpopulations north of the Sierra of Tamaulipas to determineif there is a linkage between ocelot populationsin Texas and northern Mexico.We will set remote sensing cameras and wire livetrapson several ranches located north of the Sierra ofTamaulipas. From the data collected, we will be ableto assess possible relationships between ocelot populationsin Texas and those in Mexico. This informationwill also be used to identify important areas for futureocelot translocation or habitat restoration programs.© Feline Research Program of CKWRIHill evergreen forest in Thailand represents primeclouded leopard habitat.Currently, we are analyzing additional markers.We are also comparing our data to that from catsoriginating in other regions of Asia, including Cambodia,Sumatra, and Borneo to examine phylogeneticrelationships. Additionally, we are obtaining samplesof clouded leopards from our study areas via scat collection.The data on the genetic diversity of cloudedleopards will be critical for conservation planning toensure the persistence of this species.Cooperative funding was provided by Kitakyushu Museumof Natural History and Human History, Sierra EndangeredCat Haven, Point Defiance Zoo, and the Feline ResearchProgram of the CKWRI.Assessment of the Distribution of Ocelotsin Tamaulipas, MexicoArturo Caso, Sasha Carvajal, and Michael E. TewesIn northeastern Mexico, 90% of the native vegetation(Tamaulipan thorn shrub) has been cleared due tohuman activities such as ranching, farming, and urbandevelopment. However, there are still remnants ofnative vegetation, but mostly on private cattle ranches.One of the side effects of deforestation is habitat lossfor endangered species, such as the ocelot. The Sierraof Tamaulipas is probably the northern-most area inMexico where viable ocelot populations exist. Therefore,it is important to assess other possible ocelotCooperative funding was provided by the Feline ResearchProgram of the CKWRI, Dallas Zoo, and PronaturaNoreste.Analysis of Ocelot Spatial Data fromSouthern TexasMichael E. Tewes, Aaron M. Haines, Lon I. Grassman, Jr.,and Jan E. JaneckaSpatial information is needed to help researchersunderstand the ecology of a species. This is particularlyimportant for species that are listed as threatenedor endangered. It is necessary to determine howindividuals move throughout the habitat, how theyestablish home ranges, and how they relate to otherco-occurring individuals so that useful conservationstrategies can be developed.From March 1982 through August 1990, 25 radiocollaredocelots (13 females, 12 males) were monitoredwithin the Lower Rio Grande Valley of southernTexas. The objectives of this study are to (1) calculatehome range size of ocelots and (2) analyze movementpatterns and overlap of individual ocelots.Analysis will be conducted for male and femaleadult and subadult ocelots. We will estimate homerange size. In addition, we will calculate daily movements,dispersal distances, and percentage of overlapbetween individual ocelots to identify potential paternaland mating relationships. Results from this studywill give researchers a better understanding of howocelots use the southern Texas landscape and whattype of relationships occur between individuals.Cooperative funding was provided by the Feline ResearchProgram of the CKWRI, the Tim and Karen HixonFoundation, and the Magnolia Charitable Trust.38

IN-PROGRESS RESEARCHGenetic Structure of Mountain LionPopulations in TexasJan E. Janecka, Lon I. Grassman, Jr., Michael E. Tewes,John H. Young, and Rodney L. HoneycuttWe are examining the genetic structure of mountainlion populations from 6 areas of Texas. Analysisof 18 microsatellite loci in 89 mountain lions hasrevealed moderate levels of genetic variation, whichis characteristic of mountain lion populations in NorthAmerica. The long-term effective population size forthe mountain lion in Texas was estimated to be 5,607individuals.The patterns in genetic variation suggest mountainlions in Texas exist as metapopulations and fallinto a minimum of 2 management units. This studysupports structuring management of mountain lions inTexas based on subpopulations. Additionally, moreactive monitoring and management is needed to definemountain lion populations based on meaningful biologicaland genetic subdivisions.Cooperative funding was provided by Texas Parks andWildlife Department and the Feline Research Program ofthe CKWRI.Non-invasive Scat Survey of the AsiaticDhole in ThailandJan E. Janecka, Lon I. Grassman, Jr., Whichan Eiadthong,and Michael E. TewesAdvances in genetics have provided methods toextract DNA for population studies using samplesof scat and hair. These methods allow non-invasivesampling of populations via collection of scat. We areusing this technique to estimate the distribution andabundance of the Asiatic dhole in Phu Khieo WildlifeSanctuary, Thailand.We traveled to our study site in the winter of2005–2006 and walked 32.3 miles (52 km) of transectssearching for scats. This resulted in the collection of32 samples of scat believed to be dhole. These samplesare currently being analyzed at Kasetsart University,Bangkok, Thailand. We are using dhole-specificprimers to amplify a portion of the cytochrome bsequence to confirm identification of species. Also,we will genotype each sample at 8 microsatellite locito identify individual animals.Using the findings of the genetic data, we willbe able to estimate the distribution and abundance ofdhole in the study area. Additionally, we will applythis technique to survey areas in Thailand were dholeshave not been studied to gain a better understanding ofthe status and distribution of this endangered canid inThailand.Cooperative funding was provided by Sierra EndangeredCat Haven, Point Defiance Zoo, and the Feline ResearchProgram of the CKWRI.Coexistence of the Ocelot and Jaguarundiin Northeast MexicoArturo Caso and Michael E. TewesEcological patterns of co-occurring ocelots andjaguarundis have not been documented. Consequently,little is known about the coexistence of these endangeredfelines. We started a field project at the LosEbanos Ranch in Tamaulipas, Mexico in 1991 thatcontinues to date. In this study, we are assessing homerange size, habitat use, and activity patterns of ocelotsand jaguarundis.We have captured 20 jaguarundis (12 males; 8females) and 34 ocelots (17 males; 17 females). Todate, we have found no differences between sexes orspecies for ocelot and jaguarundi home range values.© Feline Research Program of CKWRIGraduate students Aaron Haines and Arturo Caso takingphysical measurements of an anesthetized ocelot.39

IN-PROGRESS RESEARCHMean home range size for male and female ocelots is3.1 mi 2 (8.1 km 2 ) and 3.4 mi 2 (8.8 km 2 ), respectively.Mean home range size of male and female jaguarundisis 3.4 mi 2 (8.9 km 2 ) and 3.2 mi 2 (8.3 km 2 ), respectively.Home ranges of both species overlapped. Ocelots arepredominantly nocturnal (75% nocturnal activity),whereas jaguarundis are mainly diurnal (85% diurnalactivity). Ocelots use mature forest (98%) moreintensively than pasture-grassland (2%); however,jaguarundis use mature forest (53%) and pasturegrassland(47%) with similar intensities. Althoughhome ranges of both species overlapped extensively,differences in activity patterns and habitat use mayallow these carnivores to coexist in the same area.Cooperative funding was provided by the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service, Dallas Zoo, and the Feline ResearchProgram of the CKWRI.Microsatellite Variation in the Bobcat inSouthern TexasJan E. Janecka, Lon I. Grassman, Jr., Michael E. Tewes,Arturo Caso, and Rodney L. HoneycuttThis study investigates the genetic structure ofbobcat populations in southern Texas. While littleis known about the genetic structure of these bobcatpopulations, ecological studies suggest that the bobcatin southern Texas is nearly panmictic (a populationwhere all individuals are potential partners) and this© Larry DittoKnowledge of the genetic structure of bobcats will aid inthe development of better management strategies.should be reflected by high levels of gene flow amongdifferent geographic localities sampled throughoutthis region.Thus far, microsatellite variation of 10 loci hasbeen examined in 73 samples from 6 bobcat populationsin Texas. We have observed high levels ofgenetic variation and gene flow between populationseven in fragmented landscapes. The data from thisproject will increase our understanding of populationstructure and dynamics of a generalist felid and how ithas responded to anthropogenic factors.Cooperative funding was provided by the Feline ResearchProgram of the CKWRI.Population and Habitat Viability Analysisfor Ocelots in Southern TexasAaron M. Haines, Michael E. Tewes, Linda L. Laack,Jon Horne, and John H. YoungPopulation and habitat viability analysis (PHVA)uses information from ecological studies to predictthe persistence of populations. PHVAs can be usedto identify factors that are critical for the conservationof a species or population. It has been used for predictingeffects of various management strategies onendangered populations.We gathered data over a 20-year period on ocelotsthat will be used to estimate mortality, sex ratios, fecundity,dispersal, distribution, and habitat use. Geneticdata will provide information on dispersal, variation,and effective population size. These parameters willbe used to construct a PHVA model of the ocelot populationsin southern Texas and northern Mexico.The specific goals of this project are to (1) analyzespatial patterns, density, and habitat use of ocelotsin southern Texas; (2) assess the persistence of ocelotpopulations in southern Texas; and (3) develop a predictivemodel for the effects of selected recovery strategiesand conservation problems. This model can beused as a blueprint for the management and recoveryof the ocelot.Cooperative funding was provided by Section 6 of theTexas Parks and Wildlife Department and the U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service, Houston Safari Club, and the FelineResearch Program of the CKWRI.40

IN-PROGRESS RESEARCHThe Use of Whole Genome AmplifiedDNA for SequencingJan E. Janecka, Lon I. Grassman, Jr., Whichan Eiadthong,Rodney L. Honeycutt, and Michael E. TewesWe are evaluating a method for rapidly amplifyingwhole genomes via a Phi29 DNA polymerase mediatedstrand displacement reaction (SDR) for subsequentpolymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplificationand sequencing. We sequenced a portion of the mitochondrialDNA control region from extracted DNAand SDR product of 3 felid species.The SDR amplicon provided DNA templateequivalent to extracted DNA for PCR amplification of433 base pairs of the control region. Control regionsequences obtained from SDR product were identicalwith those obtained from extracted DNA. Wholegenome amplification has applications for populationgenetics in situations where sample quantity or timelimits analyses.Cooperative funding was provided by the Feline ResearchProgram of the CKWRI.The Effect of Drought on Ocelot andBobcat Prey PopulationsMichael E. Tewes and Lon I. Grassman, Jr.The effect of drought and non-drought seasons onsmall mammal populations is critical to understandingocelot physical and population responses. In southernTexas, drought conditions can cause major declines inreproduction, decreased transient survival, increaseddispersal, and increased mortality in ocelots and bobcats.Past research has identified prey species in scatsfrom sympatric (co-occurring) ocelots and bobcats,suggesting the possibility of significant competitionbetween these predators.Our objectives are to (1) describe the spatial patternsand habitat use of ocelot prey and their potentialinteractions with ocelots, (2) assess overlap in activitypatterns among ocelots, bobcats, and their prey, (3)evaluate environmental factors affecting ocelot andbobcat competition for prey, (4) develop a model of theprey community and vertebrate predators with ocelots© Alan FedynichLon Grassman, Jr. uses Sherman live-traps to capturerodents to assess prey availability for ocelots and bobcats.and bobcats as the focal species, and (5) develop preymanagement strategies that will assist the survival ofremnant ocelot populations in southern Texas.We are using Sherman live-traps to determinespatial patterns of rodent diversity and abundance.Trap timers will be attached to box traps for ocelotsand bobcats and Sherman traps for rodents to evaluatepredator-prey activity patterns. Additionally, transectsalong ranch roads and senderos will be driven at sunsetto count cottontail rabbits.Our study will provide information regarding preyecology and management for ocelot recovery, particularlyrelated to competition with bobcats. This informationcan be used to formulate strategies that willhelp the ocelot population in Texas.Cooperative funding was provided by the Tim and KarenHixon Foundation, Frank Yturria, Texas Parks and WildlifeDepartment, and the Feline Research Program of theCKWRI.High Genetic Diversity in Wild LeopardCats in ThailandJan E. Janecka, Lon I. Grassman, Jr., Akihiro Yamane,Rodney L. Honeycutt, and Michael E. TewesGenetic diversity of the wild leopard cat has notbeen studied despite this species’ wide distribution andabundance in southeast Asia. Therefore, this study was41

IN-PROGRESS RESEARCHundertaken to examine genetic diversity of the wildleopard cat population from the Phu Khieo WildlifeSanctuary in Thailand.Twelve microsatellite loci in 24 leopard cats fromPhu Khieo Wildlife Sanctuary had high levels ofgenetic variation. Our analyses indicate that leopardcats in this population have a high effective populationsize, high gene flow, and their microsatellite variationhas not yet been affected by habitat fragmentation. Inaddition, we have obtained samples of wild leopardcats from other areas of Thailand and Southeast Asiaand are examining them to assess genetic variation.This research will provide us with a better understandingof the patterns in genetic variation and populationstructure of this widely distributed speciesoccurring in Southeast Asia. Information obtainedin this study can then be used to develop appropriatemanagement plans that will aid in the conservation ofthe leopard cat.Cooperative funding was provided by the KitakyushuMuseum of Natural History and Human History and theFeline Research Program of the CKWRI.Historical Patterns in Genetic Variation ofOcelot in the Tamaulipan Biotic ProvinceJan E. Janecka, Lon I. Grassman, Jr., Rodney L. Honeycutt,and Michael E. TewesThis research examines the genetic variation of ocelotsin southern Texas and northern Mexico. Reducedgenetic variation is characteristic of the ocelot populationsremaining in southern Texas. Loss of geneticvariation is correlated with significant reductions offitness in many species, and may increase the probabilityof extinction in small populations. One importantobjective of this project is to determine the levelof genetic variation in Texas ocelot populations beforethe major population reductions in the 20th century.Samples from a museum were taken of 15 ocelotsthat were originally collected in Texas from1895–1956. From these, we sequenced a 410 basepair region of the control region of the mitochondrialgenome.Results indicate that levels of variation werecomparable to those in existing ocelot populations inMexico. We are currently genotyping these samples at© Feline Research Program of CKWRIA 103 year-old ocelot skull that was used in the ocelotgenetic analyses.12 microsatellite loci. Using both mitochondrial andnuclear markers, we will compare the genetic diversitypresent before major population reductions to thegenetic diversity observed in contemporary ocelotpopulations. Also, we will examine the historicalconnectivity of ocelot populations between northernMexico and southern Texas. Information obtained inthis study will allow us to examine the rate of geneticerosion and model recovery strategies that involvegenetic augmentation.Cooperative funding was provided by the Rob and BessieWelder Wildlife Foundation, the Tim and Karen HixonFoundation, and the Feline Research Program of theCKWRI.Genetic Diversity and Structure of Ocelotsin Texas and Northern MexicoJan E. Janecka, Michael E. Tewes, Lon I. Grassman, Jr.,Aaron M. Haines, Arturo Caso, Linda L. Laack, David B.Shindle, and Rodney L. HoneycuttOcelot populations in the U.S. have been drasticallyreduced and fragmented over the past centuryand are a high conservation priority. We are examiningthe effects of demographic reductions and habitatfragmentation on microsatellite locus variation ofocelot populations occurring in south-central U.S. andnortheastern Mexico.42

IN-PROGRESS RESEARCHAnalysis of 15 microsatellite loci in 113 ocelotshas revealed low-to-moderate levels of genetic variation.Genic, genotypic, Fst, and assignment tests indicatesignificant differentiation of 3 populations andlow levels of gene flow. Model-based cluster analysissupports a division of ocelot populations from 3localities into 6 clusters.Our analyses suggest ocelot populations in Texasare currently isolated and have undergone significantdivergence in response to recent reductions of effectivepopulation size and increased habitat fragmentation.One population has lost a significant amount ofgenetic diversity, which suggests a severe populationbottleneck has occurred. Continued genetic erosionand demographic isolation will limit future recoveryof the ocelot in the U.S.Cooperative funding was provided by the Tim and KarenHixon Foundation and the Feline Research Program of theCKWRI.It is difficult to estimate population size of elusivecarnivores such as mountain lions and ocelotsthat occur at low densities, yet these species are a highmanagement priority in Texas. The size and distributionof populations have to be described accuratelyto make informed management decisions. The latestmethods for estimating population size include noninvasivesurveys such as using scat samples to geneticallyidentify individuals. Population size can then beestimated from the data using mark-recapture or rarefactionmodels.We have sequenced portions of cytochrome b inocelot, bobcat, mountain lion, jaguarundi, and coyoteand developed a panel of microsatellite loci that willbe used for individual identification of animals usingscat samples. Scat will be collected and populationsize of sympatric felids will be estimated on severalstudy areas located in Texas. These methods will beespecially applicable for the monitoring of endangeredocelot populations.Cooperative funding was provided by the Tim and KarenHixon Foundation and the Feline Research Program of theCKWRI.Estimating Carnivore Population Sizeand Distribution Using Scat SurveysJan E. Janecka, Lon I. Grassman, Jr., Aaron M. Haines,and Michael E. Tewes© Feline Research Program of CKWRIUsing scat to genetically identify individuals is a way of“recapturing” the animal for mark-recapture studies.A Landscape Analysis of Mountain LionDistribution and AbundanceJohn H. Young, Michael E. Tewes, and Eric J. RedekerMountain lion populations are difficult to estimate.This results from populations that have low densities,and individuals within the populations that are secretiveand have large home ranges. Forest cover, urbanareas, and roads are important factors that influencemountain lion movements and habitat use. Featuresthat influence mountain lion distribution and densityinclude topographic heterogeneity and the amount offorested cover and riparian zones. Although researchin Texas has been conducted into what types of habitatmountain lions occupy and their habitat preferences,studies have not investigated the usability of this informationin estimating potential mountain lion habitatthat occurs in Texas.Our objectives are to (1) evaluate habitat parametersderived from the literature that can help predictthe capability of areas to support mountain lions, (2)determine which factors or combination of factorsbest estimate mountain lion habitat and distribution inTexas, and (3) identify potential mountain lion habitatand probable linkages among habitats to assist indefining the population and developing habitat con-43

IN-PROGRESS RESEARCHalso examine the strengths and weaknesses of geneticestimates of effective population size. This informationwill be useful in planning recovery strategies forendangered species.Cooperative funding was provided by the Rob and BessieWelder Wildlife Foundation, the Tim and Karen HixonFoundation, and the Feline Research Program of theCKWRI.Courtesy Texas Parks and Wildlife/Mike PittmanBasic ecological information about mountain lions isneeded to manage their populations effectively.servation measures for Texas. This study should beof value to state agencies and private landowners inmanaging mountain lion populations in Texas.Cooperative funding was provided by Texas Parks andWildlife Department and the Feline Research Program ofthe CKWRI.Assessing Estimates of Effective PopulationSize of Ocelot Populations in TexasJan E. Janecka, Lon I. Grassman, Jr., Michael E. Tewes,and Rodney L. HoneycuttAn accurate estimate of effective population sizecan provide important information for the managementof endangered species. Several methods havebeen proposed for estimating effective population sizeand, theoretically, they provide reasonable estimates.However, many of these estimates are dependent onunreasonable assumptions and large sample sizes.In this study, we are examining the application ofgenetic approaches to estimate effective populationsize in ocelot populations in the U.S. We are comparingthe genetic estimates of effective populationsize from microsatellite data with estimates obtainedfrom ecological data in a well-described ocelot population.We will then apply the most reasonableapproach to estimate the effective population size ofa less described ocelot population in Texas. We willConservation Genetics of Wild andCaptive Cats in ThailandJan E. Janecka, Lon I. Grassman, Jr., Whichan Eiadthong,and Michael E. TewesPopulation genetics research has become animportant tool for wildlife conservation and captivebreeding programs. However, there is limited ecologicalinformation on the clouded leopard, Asiaticgolden cat, marbled cat, and leopard cat, and there isno knowledge about the population genetics of thesespecies. In addition, Thailand Zoological Parks Organizationmaintains and breeds native wild cats thathave not been genetically analyzed.We analyzed DNA of wild and captive cloudedleopards, Asiatic golden cats, leopard cats, and a marbledcat at 10 microsatellite loci. The data will be usedto examine levels of genetic variation and structure inthese species and will be used to provide importantgenetic information for captive breeding programs.Cooperative funding was provided by the KitakyushuMuseum of Natural History and Human History and theFeline Research Program of the CKWRI.Evaluating the Benefits and Costs ofOcelot Recovery Strategies in TexasAaron M. Haines, Michael E. Tewes, Lon I. Grassman, Jr.,and Jan E. JaneckaOcelots are listed as endangered within the U.S. Arecent population viability analysis of ocelots withinthe U.S. evaluated the effectiveness of ocelot recoverystrategies. The objective of this study is to develop abenefit-cost analysis of these ocelot recovery strate-44

IN-PROGRESS RESEARCHgies (habitat protection and restoration, reduced roadmortality, translocation, and combinations thereof).We are developing cost estimates of ocelot recoverystrategies and various estimates of the monetaryvalue of an individual ocelot based on reported valuesfor other endangered species. The net benefits and benefit-costratios (BCRs) are calculated for each recoverystrategy. The net benefits and BCRs increase with anincrease in the estimated value of an individual ocelot.Low cost recovery strategies such as translocationand roadway underpass crossing structures are economicallybeneficial when ocelot values are moderate($500,000–$2,000,000 per individual ocelot). Whenocelots have a high (≥ $2 million per individual) monetaryvalue, expensive recovery strategies that lead tothe largest increase in the ocelot population have thehighest net benefits and BCRs.A contingent valuation is needed for ocelots in theU.S. In addition, efforts to reduce the cost of ocelothabitat protection and restoration by working withprivate landowners should be pursued. These effortsmay include offering economic incentives to privatelandowners, and working with landowners that havehunting leases to manage for habitat that will benefitboth game species and ocelots.Cooperative funding was provided by the Feline ResearchProgram of the CKWRI.U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service/Bob Savannah45

HABITAT ENHANCEMENT AND RELATIONSHIPSCompetition Along Roadsides: KlebergBluestem Versus WindmillgrassesAnna S. Lund, Timothy E. Fulbright, and John Lloyd-ReilleyInterspecific competition occurs between 2 ormore species that compete for a limiting resource. Thiscompetition, in turn, negatively affects other species byreducing growth rates and population sizes. Hoodedwindmillgrass, shortspike windmillgrass, fringedwindmillgrass, and slimspike windmillgrass are severalnative grasses found along South Texas roadways.Mixed in with these native species is Kleberg bluestem,an introduced grass that has been used as foragefor livestock and for roadside stabilization. The focusof this study will be to determine patterns of interspecificcompetition between these native and introducedgrass species on Texas roadside right-of-ways.Data will be collected in Kleberg, Jim Wells, andLive Oak counties using the Daubenmire method forestimating canopy cover. The Daubenmire frame willbe placed along the edge of the road and data will berecorded in 1-foot increments going away from theroad’s edge for 10 feet.Results obtained in this study will aid in ourunderstanding of which windmillgrass species is mostcompetitive with Kleberg bluestem. Species that aremost resistant to competition from Kleberg bluestemare more desirable for planting along roadways thanthose susceptible to replacement.Cooperative funding was provided by the Texas Departmentof Transportation and E. “Kika” de la Garza Plant MaterialsCenter/USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service.Seeding Trials of Selected Native PlantReleases for South TexasForrest S. Smith, William R. Ocumpaugh, Paula D. Maywald,Jim Mutz, and Keith A. PawelekRestoration of native plants from seed in SouthTexas is of great interest to many landowners, landmanagers, and state and federal agencies. Effectiveplanting and establishment techniques must be developedas part of the selection, seed increase, and releaseof useful native plant germplasms. Currently, seasonof seeding, seeding rates, and seed coatings are beingstudied to determine the most effective combinationsfor successful rangeland reseeding.Twelve native grass releases developed for SouthTexas were planted during spring 2006 in a replicatedseeding trial at Rancho Blanco, near Laredo. Eachspecies was seeded at 10, 20, and 30 PLS (pure liveseeds)/ft²; these rates represent light, standard, andheavy seeding rates. Four 10 ft by 10 ft plots of eachspecies were broadcast seeded at each rate, mechanicallycovered, and irrigated as needed. Additionally,an Arizona cottontop plot was planted to compare theeffects of seed coatings. Seedling emergence, percentagecover, plant survival, stand vigor, and competitiveability against exotic species will be measured at 3, 6,12, 24, and 36 months after seeding. Additional adjacentplots will be planted in early August and again inlate October using the same treatments.Dilley slender grama, La Salle Arizona cottontop,and Mariah hooded windmillgrass had the highest30-day seedling emergence among all species inthe spring 2006 planting. Coated seed of Arizona cottontophad greater 30-day seedling emergence thanuncoated seed. Results from this project will be usedto recommend specific guidelines for planting eachnative grass release.Cooperative funding was provided by Rancho Blanco andSouth Texas Natives.Restoring Native Grasses and BeeWild®Bundleflower in Buffelgrass PasturesAaron D. Tjelmeland, Timothy E. Fulbright, andJohn Lloyd-ReilleyBuffelgrass, a native of Africa, is a common componentof exotic grasslands in semiarid environments.This invasive species covers millions of acres in SouthTexas, Arizona, Mexico, and Australia. Areas dominatedwith buffelgrass support lower abundance and46

IN-PROGRESS RESEARCHvariety of grassland birds, including bobwhites. Theobjective of this research is to determine the effectivenessof planting a native grass mix and BeeWild®Bundleflower in areas dominated by buffelgrass.Plots were established and mowed in October 2004at the Bomer Wildlife Management Area in DuvalCounty, Texas. The herbicide imazapyr (Arsenal®)was sprayed on the buffelgrass when it reached a heightof about 6 inches. In spring 2005, a native grass seedmix of silver bluestem, shortspike windmillgrass, andfour-flower trichloris was broadcast on selected plotsand BeeWild® Bundleflower was drilled to a depth of0–0.5 inches.Preliminary results indicated that >90% of buffelgrassplants were killed by the imazapyr treatment.Only the native species shortspike windmillgrassbecame established on plots that were planted with thenative grass mix. Cover of shortspike windmillgrasswas about 30%. Bundleflower initially became established,but as drought conditions worsened, most ofthe aboveground parts of the plants died. After rainsoccurred in June 2006, many bundleflower plantsresprouted from roots.Information from this study can be used to helpdevelop effective methods of restoring diversity tobuffelgrass-dominated landscapes. This will givelandowners more restoration options that can fit withtheir management goals.Cooperative funding was provided by the E. “Kika” de laGarza Plant Materials Center/USDA-Natural ResourcesConservation Service, the Jack R. and Loris J. WelhausenExperimental Station, and the San Antonio LivestockExposition, Inc.of harvested seed ranged from 33–57%, but seed fillwas poor.In 2005, these same 6 accessions were also sent tothe East Texas PMC in Nacogdoches. All accessionshad good-to-fair field performance. Germination ofthe seed harvested ranged from 33–88%, but again,seed fill was poor.The 5 top performing accessions were also plantedin seed increase fields at Rio Farms in 2004. Unfortunately,despite good forage production, there was verypoor seed production in 2005. The July 2005 harvesthad

IN-PROGRESS RESEARCHobjective of this study is to determine the relationshipbetween the abundance of exotic plant species and soilchemical and physical properties, plant community,and intensity and frequency of disturbance on 3 U.S.Navy bases in Corpus Christi, Texas.Advanced technologies such as GeographicInformation Systems (GIS) and Global PositioningSystems (GPS) will be used to describe the vegetationcommunities and exotic trees found on the studysites. Vegetation sampling transects will be randomlyassigned GPS waypoints. Transects will be proportionallydistributed accordingly, based on the numberof acres in the vegetation community. Canopy coverand frequency of exotic plants, native plants, bareground, and litter will be estimated for each transect.A soil sample will be collected along each transect todetermine if exotic plant species prefer certain soilcharacteristics. Records on type, intensity, and frequencyof disturbance will be kept for each transect.The distance from each transect to roads and otherareas of intense human activity will be recorded.Results from this study will shed light on the vegetationcommunities, soils, and disturbance characteristicsof sites that are the most susceptible to exoticplant invasion. This information will help land managersdevelop management approaches to minimizeinvasion of exotic plant species.Cooperative funding was provided by the U.S. Navy.Evaluation of South Texas Native Plantsfor Horticultural UsePaula D. Maywald, Robin L. Harkey, Shelly D. Maher,Stephanie A. Campbell, Forrest S. Smith, Keith A. Pawelek,and John Lloyd-ReilleyThe use of native plants in horticultural plantingsis becoming popular in South Texas. Several SouthTexas native plant species have been identified thatmay be of use for horticultural plantings in SouthTexas and across the state. Several attributes of thesenative plants make them useful in horticultural plantings,including extreme drought tolerance, attractionof wildlife and butterflies, and overall aesthetic value.We have sent promising accessions of severalspecies to horticulturists throughout Texas for evaluation.These species include clammyweed, perennial© Forrest SmithClammyweed is one of the species South Texas Natives isevaluating for use in horticultural plantings in Texas.lazy daisy, Indian blanket, yellow Indiangrass, sideoatsgrama, big bluestem, little bluestem, Arizona cottontop,eastern gamagrass, and two-flower trichloris.Plants of each species were sent to evaluators at theTexas Agricultural Experiment Station in Dallas, SanAntonio Botanical Gardens, Corpus Christi BotanicalGardens, the World Birding Center in Mission, and theTexas Agricultural Experiment Station in Uvalde.Following completion of the evaluations, selectionswill be made for horticultural release. Formalrelease documents will then be prepared, detailinginformation on propagation, planting guidelines, andarea of adaptation. Seed and plant material will thenbe made available to interested horticulturists for commercialproduction of each suitable species.Cooperative funding was provided by the numerous donorsof South Texas Natives.Evaluation of Native Plant Germplasmfor Ecotype DevelopmentForrest S. Smith, William R. Ocumpaugh, Paula D. Maywald,Keith A. Pawelek, Robin L. Harkey, Stephanie A. Campbell,John Lloyd-Reilley, and Shelly D. MaherEvaluation sites have been established to assessand select collections for development of nativeplant releases for South Texas. Our sites are locatedat Rio Farms (Hidalgo County), Rancho Blanco48

IN-PROGRESS RESEARCH(Webb County), Texas Agricultural Experiment Station(TAES) at Uvalde (Uvalde County), BladerunnerFarms (Atascosa County), TAES at Beeville(Bee County), and the South Texas Natives farm inKingsville (Kleberg County).Each site represents different environmental conditionsand soils. The evaluation at multiple locationswithin the various ecoregions of South Texashelps ensure that superior plant material (that whichis adapted to and performs well across South Texas) isidentified and selected for release.Transplants of each collection are planted in replicatedplots at each evaluation site that occurs withinthe species’ natural range of distribution. Each collectionis evaluated monthly during the growing seasonfor important commercial and ecological traits suchSummary of South Texas Natives outside evaluationsof native plant collections in South Texas (B = TAESBeeville, BF = Bladerunner Farms, KF = KingsvilleFarm, RB = Rancho Blanco, RF = Rio Farms, U = TAESUvalde).Plant No. collections Evaluationspecies being evaluated locationsGrassesSideoats grama 32 RB, RF, B, UArizona cottontop 36 RB, RF, UPink pappusgrass 61 RB, RF, UWhiplash pappusgrass 9 RB, RF, USlim tridens 58 RB, UHairy grama 4 BF, B, KF, RFSlender grama 5 BF, B, KF, RBTexas grama 6 BF, B, KF, RBBrownseed paspalum 18 B, RFCrinkleawn 12 RFBig bluestem 38 RFYellow Indiangrass 24 RF, ULittle bluestem 75 RF, BFFour flower trichloris 47 RF, RF, UTexasgrass 5 RFForbsPartridge pea 7 RFWooly croton 6 RFClammyweed 5 RF, RBAwnless bush sunflower 24 RF, UOrange zexmenia 23 RF, U, BPrairie acacia 6 BDalea spp. RF, RBRedseed plantain 7 BHookers plantain 6 Bas survival, vigor, seed production, forage production,plant height, lodging, seed shatter, and uniformity.Seed is also harvested from each collection for seedquality and germination testing.Analyses of field evaluation data, germinationtests, and collection attributes are used to select thebest performing accessions of each species. Currently,546 collections of 24 native grass and forb speciesare under evaluation. In 2006, selections of Arizonacottontop, slender grama, Texas grama, and hairygrama were made and submitted for approval to theState Seed and Plant Board. In 2007, pink pappusgrass,slim tridens, orange zexmenia, crinkleawn, andsideoats grama selections will be made and consideredfor release.Cooperative funding was provided by the numerous donorsof South Texas Natives.Reseeding Texas Right-of-Ways: DrillSeeding Versus Broadcast SeedingAnna S. Lund, Timothy E. Fulbright, and John Lloyd-ReilleyAccording to the Texas Department of Transportation(TxDOT), seeding is the primary method of establishingvegetation on roadside right-of-ways. Thereare 2 common techniques suggested by TxDOT forrevegetating roadsides—broadcast seeding and drillseeding. Broadcast seeding is the process of scatteringseeds on a prepared seedbed, while the drill seedingmethod buries seeds in the soil. A common problemwith the broadcasting method is that a proportion ofthe seeds does not develop due to lack of sufficient soilcontact. However, drilling allows a greater proportionof seeds to establish a root system because it placesthem directly in the soil.This study will concentrate on evaluating and comparingthe methods of broadcast seeding and drill seeding.Research is being conducted in Kleberg Countyon both clay and sandy soils. Each experiment consistsof 4 plots that have been broadcasted with seedsand 4 plots that have been drilled with seeds. Greensprangletop, Bermudagrass, hooded windmillgrass,and shortspike windmillgrass are the species chosenfor study. Each plot will be surveyed at 30, 60, and 90days to estimate the percentage of canopy cover.49

IN-PROGRESS RESEARCHInformation gathered from this study will aidTxDOT in their efforts to establish 70% canopy coverwithin their 90-day standard time period. By documentingand providing the necessary data showingthe effectiveness of drilling versus broadcast seeding,TxDOT can mandate contractors to use the best plantingmethod and successfully revegetate Texas roadsideright-of-ways.Cooperative funding was provided by the Texas Departmentof Transportation and E. “Kika” de la Garza Plant MaterialsCenter/USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service.Seven Native Grasses are NearingCommercial Availability© Timothy FulbrightThe point analysis method is being used by graduatestudent Anna Lund to measure grasses along roadsides.John Lloyd-Reilley, Paula D. Maywald, William R.Ocumpaugh, Timothy E. Fulbright, Shelly D. Maher,Forrest S. Smith, Albert Quiroga, and George FarekThe goal of South Texas Natives (STN) is to provideeconomically viable sources of native plantsand seed adapted to South Texas and provide effectiveplanting strategies for restoring plant communities.Since 2001, the STN project has collected 1,775accessions: 1,557 from the South Texas Plain Ecoregionand 218 from the Coastal Sand Plain Ecoregion.In 2005, the seed nursery at the E. “Kika” de la GarzaPlant Materials Center (PMC) was expanded to grow679 accessions representing 35 species. We currentlyhave over 50 species in the evaluation stage and 9 speciesin the seed increase stage.STN, PMC, and Texas Agricultural ExperimentStation (TAES) at Beeville have jointly submitted proposalsto the TAES Plant Review Committee and theState Seed and Plant Board, recommending the releaseof 7 grass species. These species are “Welder” shortspikewindmillgrass, “Mariah” hooded windmillgrass,“Catarina” plains bristlegrass, “Dilley” slender grama,“Atascosa” Texas grama, “Chaparral” hairy grama,and “La Salle” Arizona cottontop.The accessions that were chosen are a result ofintensive field evaluations and germination trials in thelab. We selected accessions that produced plants andseeds that meet ecological and physiological qualitiesdesired for public and private landowners seeking torestore their land with native plants.Cooperative funding was provided by the USDA NaturalResources Conservation Service and numerous donors ofSouth Texas Natives.Replacing Bermudagrass with NativeWindmillgrasses Along Right-of-WaysAnna S. Lund, Timothy E. Fulbright, and John Lloyd-ReilleyThe E. “Kika” de la Garza Plant Materials Centerhas conducted extensive research on 2 grasses thatare native to Texas—hooded windmillgrass (HW)and shortspike windmillgrass (SW). Both speciesshow characteristics that are needed to compete withintroduced species. These native grasses germinatequickly, reach full height within 6 months, and thrive inSouth Texas temperatures with minimal precipitation.Bermudagrass is an introduced species that is recommendedby the Texas Department of Transportation(TxDOT) as a component of the standard seed mixturefor revegetating Texas roadside right-of-ways.The objective of this study is to compare establishmentof 4 accessions (HW: 9085301 and 9085313;SW: 9085260 and 9085283) with establishment of Bermudagrass.This experiment is being conducted alongroadsides in Andrews, Kleberg, and Baylor counties.The study sites consist of 5 plots. Each is seeded witha single species and is replicated 4 times on clay andsandy soils. Following seedling emergence, percent-50

IN-PROGRESS RESEARCHage of canopy cover will be estimated using the pointintercept method at 30, 60, and 90 days. A mowingtreatment typical of TxDOT’s will be incorporatedinto the study in 2007 to document further the performanceof HW and SW.This study will provide TxDOT with data neededto modify their specifications for revegetating Texasroadside right-of-ways using native HW and SW.Windmillgrasses adapted to climate conditions andregular mowing maintenance by TxDOT should provemore conducive to Texas roadside right-of-ways thanexotic plant species.Cooperative funding was provided by the Texas Departmentof Transportation and E. “Kika” de la Garza Plant MaterialsCenter/USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service.Seed Increase of South Texas NativesPlant ReleasesPaula D. Maywald, John Lloyd-Reilley, William R.Ocumpaugh, Forrest S. Smith, Keith A. Pawelek, AlbertQuiroga, George Farek, Stephanie A. Campbell, Robin L.Harkey, Shelly D. Maher, Andy Scott, and David DougetSouth Texas Natives (STN), the E. “Kika” de laGarza Plant Materials Center (PMC), and the TexasAgricultural Experiment Station (TAES) have established18 seed increase fields in South Texas to havesuitable quantities of seed of native plant releases availablefor commercial seed producers. Thirteen fields atRio Farms, near Monte Alto, are used to grow Arizonacottontop, little bluestem, big bluestem, sideoatsgrama, brownseed paspalum, hooded windmillgrass,and shortspike windmillgrass. At BladerunnerFarms, near Poteet, 4 fields are used to produce slendergrama, hairy grama, and Texas grama. TAES atBeeville maintains 1 field of plains bristlegrass. Eachfield varies in size, according to the seed productionpotential of each species. Most species require fieldsof up to 1 acre in size to produce enough seed for commercialdemands. The fields are rigorously inspectedfor weeds, insects, and disease to ensure that qualityseed is produced for distribution. Our ecotype blendsof each species are made up of multiple collections.Therefore, each collection must be grown in isolationto prevent hybridization and loss of important nonlocallyexpressed traits.Seed production protocol, insect and diseaseidentification and control, seed yield and quality byseason, and other data are collected from the seedincrease fields. The seed produced is also used forseeding experiments and demonstration plantings bySTN, PMC, and TAES. Seed from our increase fieldsis commercially tested by outside laboratories andcatalogued for distribution to interested commercialproducers upon formal release of the species.Cooperative funding was provided by South TexasNatives, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, USDANatural Resources Conservation Service, Rio Farms, andBladerunner Farms.Efficacy of Herbicide Use on Exotic Treesin Southern TexasDean W. Wiemers, Timothy E. Fulbright, William P. Kuvlesky,Jr., J. Alfonso Ortega-Santos, G. Allen Rasmussen, andRichard R. RiddleThe infestation of exotic trees in coastal areas ofTexas and other locations across the state is an increasingproblem. Exotic trees proliferate quickly and cangrow in inundated areas where native trees have difficultygrowing. The exotic trees of interest in this studyare Brazilian pepper, Chinese tallow, and Chinaberry.These trees have created woodlands in areas that werepreviously native prairies.The objective of this study is to determine theefficacy of tebuthiuron (Spike 80 DF) and triclopyr© Dean WiemersThe herbicide triclopyr effectively kills Brazilian pepper,an exotic tree that has invaded South Texas.51

IN-PROGRESS RESEARCH(Remedy) in controlling Brazilian pepper, Chinesetallow, and Chinaberry. Tebuthiuron, which is a soilappliedherbicide, is being administered as a spot treatment.Triclopyr is being applied using a low-volumebasal treatment. A back sprayer is used for the herbicideapplications. A randomized, complete blockexperimental design with 10 blocks for each species isbeing used for the study. Each block consists of 3 treesof the same species. One tree is randomly selected toreceive tebuthiuron, another tree is randomly selectedto receive triclopyr, and the final tree is the control (noherbicide treatment). Application rates are based onrecommended amounts found in the Texas CooperativeExtension handbook on chemical weed and brushcontrol and the herbicide label guidelines.Preliminary data indicate that triclopyr has a veryhigh control ratio. The limited precipitation in 2006has slowed the efficacy of tebuthiuron. This studywill provide landowners with information to controlthe invasion of these exotic tree species.Cooperative funding was provided by the U.S. Navy.Evaluating Windmillgrass for RevegetatingTexas Right-of-WaysAnna S. Lund, Timothy E. Fulbright, and John Lloyd-ReilleyRoadsides are commonly seeded with vegetationto reduce erosion, which typically includes introducedspecies. The Texas Department of Transportation(TxDOT) has revised their standard mixture forrevegetating soils on Texas roadside right-of-ways.Although many introduced species were replaced withnative species, the TxDOT-required seed mixtures stillinclude aggressive, exotic grasses.The focus of this study is to compare the standardmixture of species required by TxDOT to nativehooded windmillgrass and shortspike windmillgrass.The study will take place on various soil textures in3 geographic locations throughout Texas. Each studysite will consist of 4 standard mixture plots, 4 plotscontaining native species only, and 4 plots combiningboth standard and native mixes. The point interceptmethod will be used to evaluate ground cover of eachplot to determine if TxDOT’s standard of 70% landcoverage within 90 days is obtained. This study willalso document the performance of these grasses underthe typical TxDOT mowing regimen.Because windmillgrass germinates quickly,spreads vegetatively, and survives in arid conditions,we predict that hooded windmillgrass and shortspikewindmillgrass will out-compete introduced species,particularly Bermudagrass. Information from thisresearch will help facilitate changes to TxDOT’s currentstandard seed mixture used to revegetate roadsideright-of-ways in North, West, and South Texas. Thesechanges should include replacing introduced grass specieswith native species that can establish and thrivealong the harsh roadway conditions in Texas.Cooperative funding was provided by the Texas Departmentof Transportation and E. “Kika” de la Garza Plant MaterialsCenter/USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service.The Effects of Carbon Addition onGuineagrass© Timothy FulbrightWindmillgrasses offer potential to replace exotic grassesin roadside plantings.Dean W. Wiemers, Timothy E. Fulbright, William P. Kuvlesky,Jr., J. Alfonso Ortega-Santos, G. Allen Rasmussen, andRichard R. RiddleExotic grasses, such as guineagrass, prefer soilshigh in nitrogen. Many native grass species have relativelylow nitrogen requirements and may be able toout-compete guineagrass on sites low in nitrogen. Ourobjective is to test the hypothesis that reducing soil52

IN-PROGRESS RESEARCHnitrogen levels will inhibit growth of guineagrass andallow native plants to become re-established in areasthat have been invaded by guineagrass.Eight study blocks were created at 2 U.S. Navybases in Corpus Christi, Texas, on sites dominatedby guineagrass. Blocks were divided into 3 plots.One plot within each block will serve as an untreatedexperimental control. Within each block, 2 plots willbe mowed and then several weeks later sprayed withglyphosphate. Once the guineagrass is dead, carbon,in the form of sucrose, will be added to 1 of each pairof mowed plots. There will be 6 applications monthlyof sucrose. Each application will consist of 22 poundsof sucrose on each plot. The initial application ofsucrose will be tilled into the soil, and the 5 remainingapplications will be spread on the surface. Monthlysoil samples will be taken to monitor changes in nitrateand ammonium. Our findings should provide landownerswith a method to reduce guineagrass in areasamenable to mechanical manipulation.Cooperative funding was provided by the U.S. Navy.Field Management and Seed ProductionPotential of Plains BristlegrassJorge A. López García, William R. Ocumpaugh, J. AlfonsoOrtega-Santos, John Lloyd-Reilley, and James P. MuirGrasses native to South Texas are important notjust for soil and water conservation but also for theirrole in providing habitat for wildlife such as bobwhitequail and turkey. Additionally, native grasses can beused to stabilize soils on roadsides and pipeline rightof-ways.Several accessions of plains bristlegrass maybe valuable for revegetation. Although ranchers, governmentagencies, and non-governmental conservationorganizations are interested in seed of this grassspecies, the technology to produce adequate quantitiesof quality seed has not been fully developed. Theobjective of this study is to document seed productionresponses of several plains bristlegrass accessions tofertilization treatments.Five nitrogen fertilizer levels were applied to 5plains bristlegrass accessions in experiments locatedin Beeville, Texas; the experiment was repeated inStephenville, Texas. Seed production potential canbe explained by the length and amount of seed heads;therefore, these 2 variables were measured.We identified accessions 648 and 677 with thehighest potential for seed production in terms of seedhead length. However, accessions with higher potentialbased on amount of seed heads were 715 and 820.As nitrogen fertilizer rates increased, the number ofseed heads increased at the Stephenville test site. Ourpreliminary results showed that the Stephenville site ismore promising for producing seed of plains bristlegrassthan the Beeville site.Establishing Roadside Vegetation withSoil Retention BlanketsAnna S. Lund, Timothy E. Fulbright, and John Lloyd-ReilleySoil retention blankets (SRBs) are mats that aid inerosion prevention. The Texas Department of Transportation(TxDOT) considers SRBs to be the best soilstabilizing devices and encourages use of them wheresoil erosion could be a problem.Listed in TxDOT’s 2004 manual, A Guide toRoadside Vegetation Establishment, are products thatthey have approved for erosion control. The NorthAmerican Green® single net straw blanket was chosenfor this study based on its design. It is comprised of100% agricultural straw stitched with degradablethread. This SRB has the ability to assist with vegetationestablishment for up to 12 months on roadsideslopes.Our study is being conducted and replicated onclay and sandy soil sites located in Kingsville, Odessa,and Seymour, Texas. Each study site consists of 20plots with the following species: hooded windmillgrass(accession numbers 9085301 or 9085313), shortspikewindmillgrass (accession numbers 9085260 or9085283), and Bermudagrass. The SRBs were appliedto half of the 10 ft by 20 ft plots after the seeds weredrilled into the soil. We predict the SRBs will promotea rapid, dense growth of vegetative cover, whichis required by TxDOT’s standards.Cooperative funding was provided by the Texas Departmentof Transportation and E. “Kika” de la Garza Plant MaterialsCenter/USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service.53

BIOLOGY, ECOLOGY, AND MANAGEMENTRio Grande Wild Turkey as Affected byCattle on a Merrill Grazing SystemJorge A. Martinez Salazar, J. Alfonso Ortega-Santos,William P. Kuvlesky, Jr., David G. Hewitt, Stephen J.DeMaso, Mickey W. Hellickson, and Robert ShrumRio Grande wild turkeys have been important componentsof the Rio Grande Plains and Lower CoastalPrairie ecosystems for thousands of years. The turkeypopulation has periodically increased and decreased.Decreased population levels are likely caused by variousfactors such as habitat fragmentation, dry weather,livestock overgrazing, unregulated hunting, and predation.The objectives of this research are to (1) monitorthe movements of wild turkeys on pastures wherethe Merrill grazing system is being used, (2) determineif turkeys prefer pastures being used by cattle or preferthose being rested from grazing, and (3) determine theeffect of cattle grazing on turkey nesting behavior.This research is being conducted on the Encinoand Norias divisions of the King Ranch. Wild turkeyhens are being captured, radio-collared, and monitored.Currently, we are monitoring 32 hens. Cattlemovements in the grazing system will be obtained fromranch records. The location of turkeys and cattle willbe used to assess the relationship between both species.Home range size and location of each monitoredturkey in areas with and without cattle will be comparedto determine if home range size varies and if theturkeys move in response to the presence of cattle.Cooperative funding was provided by Texas Parks andWildlife Department, National Wild Turkey Federation,and Texas State Chapter of the National Wild TurkeyFederation.Evaluating Electric Fencing to ReduceSorghum Depredation by Feral PigsMatthew M. Reidy, David G. Hewitt, and Tyler A. CampbellFeral pigs occur throughout the southern U.S. andhave become a widespread nuisance and pest. Theyhave been known to cause soil erosion, transmit variousdiseases to domestic livestock, and damage agriculturalcrops. Electric fencing is an effective tool forreducing feral pig movements in captive and field trialsusing isolated bait stations. However, it is unknownwhether electric fencing will be cost-effective on alarger scale such as agricultural cropland.We constructed 5 electric fences and selected 5unprotected control areas adjacent and parallel to theedge of a large, isolated sorghum field surrounded byrangeland in Kleberg County in spring 2006. Duringprevious growing seasons, this field exhibited extensiveferal pig damage. The fences were approximately2,000 feet in length and consisted of 2 strands of electricfence wire positioned 8 and 18 inches above theground. We will compare feral pig damage of unprotectedareas in a sorghum field to those areas protectedby the electric fence barrier. With this study, we hopeto provide information on the cost-effectiveness ofusing electric fencing to limit feral pig damage to agriculturalfields.Cooperative funding was provided by USDA APHIS-WildlifeServices-National Wildlife Research Center.Bird Migration Chronology and StopoverHabitat Use in Southern TexasArlene Arnold, Bart M. Ballard, and Thomas M. LangschiedMigration is energetically costly; therefore, birdsneed a source of abundant, high-energy foods to travelsuch long distances. Adequate numbers and quality ofstopover sites are necessary to refuel and rest. In theabsence of adequate stopover habitat, competition forresources may reduce food intake and inhibit migration.The Texas Coast is a critical migration corridorfor millions of migratory birds each fall and spring.Our objectives are to identify habitats important forterrestrial migratory birds in southern Texas based onbird density and species richness information, and estimatespecies-specific migration chronology throughsouthern Texas.54

IN-PROGRESS RESEARCHWe propose to allocate 100 transects among 10terrestrial habitats characterized by physiognomiccharacteristics and dominant plant species. Eachtransect will be sampled once during the spring migratoryperiod (15 April to 15 May) and once each duringthe fall migratory period (1 September to 15 October).To assess migration chronology and species turnoverrates, 2 transects within each habitat will be sampledrepetitively each week from 1 March to 31 May andfrom 15 August to 31 October.This study will support ongoing radar monitoringby providing species-specific information on habitatuse and migration chronology. Currently, proposedland use changes along the lower Texas Coast areincreasing and recommendations to minimize impactson resident and migratory birds are hampered by limitedinformation. This study will provide informationthat will help guide development to reduce impacts oncritical migratory bird habitat.Cooperative funding was provided by Texas Parks andWildlife Department.Use of Ground Penetrating Radar to MapPocket Gopher Burrow SystemsJorge D. Cortez, Scott E. Henke, Eric J. Redeker, Dean W.Wiemers, Timothy E. Fulbright, and Richard R. RiddleFossorial animals spend most of their lives intheir underground burrows. Therefore, knowledgeof burrow systems is an integral part of understandingthese species. Mapping of the burrow systems canprovide social and behavioral information on a population.Previously, burrow systems were mapped out bydigging up the burrow systems or pumping foam intothe tunnels and digging up the foam. Both methodsare detrimental to the animal because the end resultleaves the burrow system inhabitable.Ground penetrating radar is an innovative methodof mapping underground burrow systems. This noninvasivemethod uses radar to penetrate the burrow systems.The resulting information is then presented asdigital images. Using data from the ground penetratingradar system, tunnel length, tunnel depth, numberof tunnel branches, and proximity to other burrow systemscan be determined. Ground penetrating radar is anondestructive alternative to digging and would breaknew ground on studying the underground habitat offossorial mammals.Cooperative funding was provided by Texas Parks andWildlife Department.Impacts of Rainfall on a Breeding RaptorAssemblage on South Texas RangelandsDale F. Kane, Michael A. Actkinson, William P. Kuvlesky, Jr.,Clint W. Boal, and Leonard A. BrennanWe studied the effects of rainfall on a raptor breedingassemblage that included the red-tailed hawk,white-tailed hawk, Harris’ hawk, crested caracara,and great horned owl during spring and early summer2003–2005. Above average precipitation occurred onthe study area during fall 2002 and extended throughthe 2003 and 2004 breeding seasons, whereas a droughtbegan during summer 2004 and continued through the2005 breeding season.Preliminary results indicate that nest successvaried among species each year, though nest successwas generally higher in 2003 (0.5–1.0) and 2004(0.3–0.9) than during 2005 (0.1–0.4). The percentageof successful white-tailed hawk nests was significantlyhigher in 2004 (54%) than 2005 (22%). Thepercentage of successful great horned owl nests wasalso significantly higher in 2004 (95%) compared to2005 (40%). Mean egg productivity for white-tailedhawks was significantly higher in 2004 than 2005.© Larry DittoWhite-tailed hawks are part of the raptor community thatbreeds in South Texas habitats.55

IN-PROGRESS RESEARCHSimilarly, mean egg productivity for red-tailed hawkswas significantly higher in 2004 compared to 2005.Mean fledgling productivity for white-tailed hawkswas significantly higher in 2003 versus 2005 and wassignificantly higher in 2004 than 2005.Results indicate that hawk productivity decreaseswith decreasing rainfall. This decline is probably areflection of deteriorating habitat conditions andreduced availability of prey during drought conditionsin southern Texas.Cooperative funding was provided by Earthspan, Inc., theElizabeth Huth Coates Charitable Foundation, and theGeorge and Mary Josephine Hamman Foundation.Evaluating Density Estimation Techniquesfor Feral Pigs in Southern TexasMatthew M. Reidy, David G. Hewitt, and Tyler A. CampbellFeral pigs are a concern for land managers becausethey cause environmental and economic damage.Examples include soil disturbance (which may promoteerosion), agricultural crop destruction, and transmissionof disease to domestic livestock. Populationestimates for feral pigs are critical in determining efficientmanagement strategies. However, density estimationtechniques used for native ungulate speciessuch as white-tailed deer are inaccurate and unreliablein determining feral pig populations. New techniquesusing motion sensing cameras and ingestible biologicalmarkers help reduce cost, manpower, and timenecessary to obtain density estimates of free-rangingwildlife and may prove useful for feral pigs.We will evaluate 5 population estimation andindexing techniques on the Welder Wildlife Refuge inSan Patricio County, Texas during spring and summer2006. We will compare new techniques such as passiveand active tracking indexes using motion sensitivecameras to traditional techniques such as spotlight andaerial surveys. Furthermore, we will perform markrecapture analysis using tetracycline as a biologicalmarker, which is an antibiotic that produces a fluorescentmark on growing bone. Finally, passive andactive tracking indexes, aerial surveys, and spotlightcounts will be repeated after removing pigs (which ispart of the mark-recapture technique). We will thencompare and contrast all 5 methods taking into account© Wyman MeinzerFeral pigs are known to cause damage to agriculturalcrops and negatively impact wildlife habitat.the cost, time, manpower, and accuracy of each estimationtechnique. With this study, we hope to identifyan effective method for determining population sizefor feral pigs on a given area.Cooperative funding was provided by USDA APHIS-WildlifeServices-National Wildlife Research Center.The Impact of Overwinter Nutrition onRio Grande Wild Turkey ProductivityMegan Dominguez, David G. Hewitt, William P. Kuvlesky, Jr.,and Stephen J. DeMasoThe Rio Grande wild turkey is a valuable gamebird in South Texas. Some researchers have proposedthat overwinter nutrition may be a reason for fluctuationsin turkey productivity, but this aspect has notbeen sufficiently examined. This study focuses on(1) determining if the physiological condition of hensduring winter affects poult production, (2) assessingthe importance of wild turkey food classes on overwinterphysiological condition of hens, and (3) determiningthe physiological condition of hens that mustbe met for them to reproduce.Field research is being conducted on Rio Grandewild turkeys on 3 divisions of the King Ranch. Labstudies are taking place with captive turkeys, whichwill be used to determine a threshold in physiologicalcondition that permits reproduction to occur. The56

IN-PROGRESS RESEARCHwild turkey hens’ condition will be determined usinga number of indices from both physical measurementsand blood analysis.During the first 2 years of this study, 135 hens weremarked with radio transmitters and tracked throughoutthe breeding season. Of these, 43 hens were foundnesting (35%). If our findings indicate nutrition influenceswild turkey productivity in South Texas, it willbe possible at the end of this study to recommend habitatmanagement strategies to improve the natural foodsupply during winter months.Cooperative funding was provided by Texas Parks andWildlife Department, National Wild Turkey Federation, andKing Ranch, Inc.The South Texas Wintering BirdsProgram304 bird species have been reported to the STWBwebsite, with some additional historical records datingback to 1995.During this past season, the top 5 most reportedspecies were golden-fronted woodpecker, northernmockingbird, great-tailed grackle, ruby-crowned kinglet,and northern cardinal. Some of the rarer speciesor least reported species included wood duck, scaledquail, prairie falcon, green kingfisher, black phoebe,black-tailed gnatcatcher, and spotted towhee. Whilethe regular bird reporting season goes from October31 to May 31, we continue to encourage participantsto report birds they encounter at other times of the yearto help increase our understanding of South Texas birddistribution and abundance.Cooperative funding was provided by The FondrenFoundation, King Ranch Family Trust, The Trull Foundation,and numerous other donors of the South Texas WinteringBirds Program.Thomas M. Langschied and Fred C. BryantThe South Texas Wintering Birds Program(STWB), a cooperative project between CKWRI andCornell Laboratory of Ornithology, completed its firstwinter season (October 31–March 31). This programis a citizen science project designed to get more people(particularly landowners) interested in birds and toencourage them to use a web-based reporting systemthat is managed by CKWRI.This past winter, participants submitted 175 birdchecklists and reported 216 bird species. Over 150bird species were reported each month except forNovember. Additionally, the number of checklists submittedto the website has steadily increased. Overall,Number of checklists submitted by month from 31October 2005 to 31 March 2006.Movements and Habitat Use of NilgaiAntelope in Southern TexasJonathan D. Moczygemba, Jorge A. Lozano Rendon, DavidG. Hewitt, Tyler A. Campbell, J. Alfonso Ortega-Santos,Mickey W. Hellickson, and Justin FieldsThe nilgai antelope was successfully introducedinto South Texas in 1941 to occupy an ecological roleintermediate between native ungulates and livestock.Nilgai now range freely throughout much of coastalSouth Texas. Current statewide estimates are greaterthan 30,000 individuals. Nilgai are beneficial becausethey are hunted for recreation and are commerciallyharvested for venison. Negative aspects of nilgaiinclude damage to fences and competition for foragewith deer and cattle.Anecdotal reports from landowners suggest thatnilgai move long distances and that their home rangesmay encompass properties of multiple landowners.Such movement patterns could make nilgai difficultto manage. To address these issues, we initiated aresearch project with the following objectives: (1)determine nilgai home range size, (2) determine movementpatterns of nilgai in relation to habitat characteristics,and (3) document nilgai movements in relationto hunting and grazing pressure.57

IN-PROGRESS RESEARCHUnderstanding juvenile survival may provideinformation on factors limiting population growth.Additionally, we hope to improve our knowledge ofmovements and identify important habitats used bythe radioed individuals as they disperse during theirfirst year. Information gained from this study will beused to refine management goals for colonial waterbirdsalong the Texas Coast as well as strengthen theNorth American Reddish Egret Recovery Plan.This study is being conducted on the King and ElSauz ranches near Norias and Raymondville, Texas.To date, 32 nilgai (18 females and 14 males) have beencaptured and radio-collared. We will track the radiocollarednilgai for 2 years. In the first 2 months ofthe study, we have documented nilgai moving 10–15miles from their original capture location.Cooperative funding was provided by King Ranch, Inc. andthe San Chicago and Tio Moya hunting leases.Survival and Dispersal of Juvenile ReddishEgrets in the Laguna Madre of TexasElizabeth M. Bates and Bart M. Ballard© David HewittResearch is being conducted on the elusive nilgai thatinhabits rangelands of South Texas.The reddish egret is our rarest species of heronwith only about 2,000 pairs found in North America.This bird is also our least studied species of heron.The resulting large gap in our knowledge limits ourability to provide informed management decisions.The reddish egret was hunted to near extinction in thelate 1800s for its ornamental plumes and the populationhas been slow to recover.This study will examine survival and dispersal ofjuvenile reddish egrets after fledging. Radio transmittersattached to leg bands will be placed on juvenilereddish egrets throughout the Laguna Madre. Theywill be monitored during the first year of life.Assessment of the Maritime Pocket Gopherat Naval Air Station Corpus ChristiJorge D. Cortez, Scott E. Henke, Dean W. Wiemers,Timothy E. Fulbright, and Richard R. RiddleThe maritime pocket gopher is a genetically distinctsubspecies of pocket gopher that only occurs indeep sandy soils located in Nueces and Kleberg countiesof southern Texas. The U.S. Fish and WildlifeService has considered recommending the maritimepocket gopher for “threatened” status within theEndangered Species Act.Because a large proportion of this gopher’s currentdistribution occurs on Navy property, active managementfor maritime pocket gopher populations onNaval Air Station Corpus Christi and Waldron NavalAuxiliary Landing Field plays a key role in the conservationof this species. Therefore, our objectives are toassess the distribution, abundance, and habitat preferencesof maritime pocket gophers on the previouslymentioned Navy properties. Information obtained inthis study can be used to develop more effective managementstrategies for this species.Cooperative funding was provided by the U.S. Navy.Seasonal Habitat Use by Female RioGrande Wild Turkeys in South TexasCody W. Lawson, William P. Kuvlesky, Jr., David G. Hewitt,Bart M. Ballard, Stephen J. DeMaso, and Eric J. RedekerHabitat use of Rio Grande wild turkey hens inSouth Texas has not been adequately quantified.Therefore, we initiated a 3-year research project begin-58

IN-PROGRESS RESEARCHning in 2003 to quantify habitat use of wild turkeyhens during the breeding and non-breeding seasons onthe King Ranch.Seasonal habitat use of wild turkey hens is beingdetermined at a landscape scale and focuses on oakwoodlands, rangelands, and mixed brush communities,which are classified using satellite imagery andGIS (Geographic Information Systems) methods.Data being collected includes (1) cone of vulnerability,which is the area that the hen is vulnerable to avianpredation; (2) disc of vulnerability, which is the areathat the hen is vulnerable to terrestrial predation; (3)herbaceous cover and composition; and (4) woodyplant composition.Home ranges for each radio-marked hen have beenoverlaid onto vegetation maps to calculate hen habitatuse. Preliminary results indicate that during thebreeding season radio-marked hens used rangelandssignificantly more than other vegetation communitytypes. During the non-breeding season, hens used oakwoodlands significantly more than other vegetationcommunity types.Our preliminary findings suggest that hens shiftfrom using open areas during the breeding season tomore heavily wooded areas during the non-breedingseason. Results of our study could facilitate turkeyhabitat management in South Texas by providinglandowners with recommendations that can be used toimprove seasonally-important habitat for Rio Grandewild turkey hens.Cooperative funding was provided by Texas Parks andWildlife Department, National Wild Turkey Federation,and Texas State Chapter of the National Wild TurkeyFederation.viability are unknown. Although hog-nosed skunkswere thought to be comprised of up to 12 subspecies,a recent study concluded that only a single speciesof hog-nosed skunk is found in North Americaand is divided into 3 subspecies. Unfortunately, thestudy could not offer insights into South Texas populationsbecause of a lack of samples. Recent findings ofseveral road-killed specimens offer the opportunity tostudy in more detail the conservation genetics of hognosedskunks in South Texas.We have extracted DNA from all available hognosedskunks and are attempting to collect additionalspecimens. We plan to assess the genetic variabilityof the contemporary samples of hog-nosed skunks aswell as genetic similarity to other subspecies of thehog-nosed skunk. The genetic analyses should providevaluable information regarding the recent demographichistory of this little-known species.Cooperative funding was provided by Texas Parks andWildlife Department.Eurasian Collared-Dove Breeding Ecologyin Urban Areas of South TexasTimothy J. Ludwick, Alan M. Fedynich, Glenn H. Perrigo,and T. Wayne SchwertnerThe Eurasian collared-dove is an exotic, invasivespecies that is native to India and Pakistan. It is believedthat about 50 Eurasian collared-doves were releasedConservation Genetics of the Hog-nosedSkunk in Southern TexasJohn H. Young, Randy W. DeYoung, Michael E. Tewes,Arturo Caso, Duane Schlitter, and James R. FugateThe hog-nosed skunk is a little-known speciesthat specializes in digging or “rooting” for insects.Numerous reports suggest that the species has experiencedsevere declines in association with changesin land-use practices since the early 1900s. However,the effects of the decline on population health and© Glenn PerrigoLittle is known about the breeding ecology of the urbandwellingEurasian collared-dove in southern Texas.59

IN-PROGRESS RESEARCHby a pet breeder in the Bahamas in the 1970s. Thisspecies has subsequently established itself in NorthAmerica and has expanded its geographic range. Thusfar, they seem to prefer urban areas within their rangeof expansion. Because of their ability to disperse rapidlyand establish breeding populations, this speciesis now found across many areas of North America.Unfortunately, little is known about the ecology of thisinvasive species, particularly regarding habitat selection,breeding ecology, and potential for competitionwith native species of doves.We initiated this study to learn about Eurasiancollared-dove breeding ecology and examine thepotential for competition with urban-dwelling nativedove species (white-winged dove, mourning dove,and Inca dove) that co-occur in southern Texas. Ateach of 5 study sites, we are surveying dove densities.We are conducting nest searches within 75 meters(82 yards) of density survey points where doves havebeen found. Data include characteristics of nest sites,nesting progress (nest construction, egg laying, incubation,nestlings, etc.), and productivity. Habitat isbeing measured at both large and small scales usinga combination of Geographic Information Systems(GIS) mapping, ground surveys, individual tree measurements,and photographs at the nest site.This study will provide biologists with a betterunderstanding of Eurasian collared-dove breedingecology in southern Texas. Also, information obtainedwill help determine if this exotic species is one to beconcerned about or if it is just a non-threatening additionto the abundant avifauna in Texas.Cooperative funding was provided by Texas Parks andWildlife Department.Roosting Ecology of Wild Turkeys on theKing Ranch in South TexasAmanda N. Ripple, Casey E. Phillips, William P. Kuvlesky,Jr., David G. Hewitt, J. Alfonso Ortega-Santos, Stephen J.DeMaso, and Mickey W. HellicksonRio Grande wild turkeys are an important componentof the Rio Grande Plains and Lower CoastalPrairie ecosystems in South Texas. Although historicallyabundant, populations declined severely in theearly 20th century because of habitat degradation and© David HewittRoosting behavior of Rio Grande wild turkeys is beingstudied by researchers at CKWRI.indiscriminant hunting. Several published papersindicate that Texas has the largest Rio Grande turkeypopulation in North America; however, informationabout wild turkey ecology in South Texas is limited.Additionally, research examining roosting ecology hasbeen largely ignored.General characteristics of roost trees have beendescribed in a qualitative manner, but roost site habitatcomponents have not been extensively quantifiedwithin the context of macrohabitat. The objective ofthis study is to investigate microhabitat and macrohabitatcomponents of occupied roost sites and randomsites on 3 divisions of the King Ranch. Macrohabitatanalysis will involve GIS (Geographic InformationSystems) mapping of roost sites on a landscape scaleof resolution to determine key habitat componentsthat influence use of roost sites, such as distance toroads, water, other roost sites, and nearby open areas.Microhabitat analysis will be used to determine preferredhabitat characteristics (e.g., specific roost trees)of turkeys within roost sites.This project will be one of the most extensivestudies quantifying roosting habitats of the Rio Grandewild turkey within South Texas. Results from thisresearch will provide wildlife managers with informationthat will aid in the management of Rio Grandewild turkeys.Cooperative funding was provided by Texas Parks andWildlife Department, National Wild Turkey Federation,and Texas State Chapter of the National Wild TurkeyFederation.60

IN-PROGRESS RESEARCHA Landscape-Genetic Approach to theManagement of Feral PigsJohanna Delgado-Acevedo, Randy W. DeYoung, andTyler A. CampbellFeral pigs are the descendants of domestic pigs thatescaped from captivity or were intentionally releasedby humans into the wild. Estimates place annual lossesresulting from agricultural damage at about $200/pig.Feral pigs are also susceptible to diseases that affectlivestock, humans, and wildlife (e.g., foot and mouth,brucellosis, and pseudorabies), raising concern overthe potential for disease.Population reduction (trapping or shooting) isused for controlling feral pigs. However, this is crudeand inefficient because pigs from neighboring areasquickly re-colonize managed areas. To achieve longtermcontrol, re-colonization of managed areas mustbe prevented. Therefore, one must either (1) manageat the scale of local populations or (2) identify andtarget dispersal corridors to prevent emigration. Thenew discipline of landscape genetics, using a combinationof genetic methods with Geographic InformationSystems (GIS) technologies, offers a powerful tool forthe large-scale management of wildlife and may beuseful to address issues related to feral pigs.We are using a combination of genetic markersand GIS tools to define feral pig population structure,dispersal rates, and movement patterns at the landscapescale in South Texas. The results will be usedto formulate management plans for scenarios rang-ing from alleviating agroecosystem damage to copingwith disease concerns.Cooperative funding was provided by USDA APHIS-WildlifeServices-National Wildlife Research Center.Genetic Variability Among ReddishEgrets in North America and MexicoElizabeth M. Bates, Randy W. DeYoung, Bart M. Ballard,and Dale E. GawlikThe reddish egret occurs along the Gulf Coast andto a lesser extent the Pacific Coast of Mexico. Reddishegrets experienced a severe population decline in theearly 20th century due to unregulated harvest by plumehunters. This species has since recovered because ofprotective regulations. The North American populationof reddish egrets consists of about 2,000 pairs. Itis listed as a species of concern and is designated as athreatened species by the state of Texas.This study will use mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA)sequences from feather samples to evaluate the demographichistory of the population and describe theeffects of population reduction on patterns of geneticvariation. Genetic data will also be used to estimateexchange among populations at several spatial scales,including among colonies, among regions such as theupper Laguna Madre and the lower Laguna Madre, andamong Texas, Florida, and Mexico. This informationwill provide insight as to populations that may requirespecial management and strengthen the developmentof a concerted reddish egret recovery plan.Nest-Site Habitat Relationships ofSympatric Raptors in South TexasMichael A. Actkinson, William P. Kuvlesky, Jr., Clint W. Boal,Leonard A. Brennan, and Fidel Hernández© Wyman MeinzerFeral pigs are known to cause millions of dollars in lossesto agricultural crops each year across the U.S.The raptors in South Texas have received limitedscientific attention, particularly in relation to nestinghabitat preferences. In this study, nesting habitats werequantified for sympatric (co-occurring) white-tailedhawks, red-tailed hawks, and crested caracaras in theCoastal Sand Plain of South Texas. Several variables61

IN-PROGRESS RESEARCHwere measured to identify the important features thatseparate nesting habitats of each raptor species as wellas nesting habitat characteristics from the surroundingavailable habitat.Nest tree height, along with woody plant and nativegrass cover, was the best discriminator of nest sitesamong the raptor species. For the white-tailed hawk,nest sites were best discriminated from random sites ofthe surrounding habitat by their lower nest substrates,less woody cover, and lower vertical cover. Taller nesttrees, more woody cover, and taller vertical cover separatedred-tailed hawk nest sites from random habitatsites. Nest sites of the crested caracara were similarto random sites, but contained more woody and forbcover and less bare ground cover. Our findings provideinformation on the nesting habitat preferences ofthese 3 raptor species and details how they partitionhabitat resources.Cooperative funding was provided by Earthspan, Inc. andthe Elizabeth Huth Coates Foundation.Role of the North America Brown TreeSnake Control TeamScott E. Henke and Robert Pitman© Steve BentsenOne of the raptor species that is commonly found in SouthTexas is the crested caracara.The brown tree snake is a rear-fanged, mildlyvenomous snake native to northeastern Australia andPapua New Guinea. Sometime during World War II,the snake was transported to Guam. Studies in themid-1980s concerning the disappearing native birdfauna on Guam attributed the decline to the browntree snake. This snake has been listed as a dangerousinvasive species by the U.S. government because of itspotential negative impacts on native fauna. The U.S.government is responsible for control of the browntree snake on Guam and preventing it from enteringHawaii and the continental U.S.The goal of the North America Brown Tree SnakeControl Team (NABTSCT) is to prevent the browntree snake from being introduced into North America.The NABTSCT consists of a network of specialistsfrom federal, state, and private agencies who are identifyingpotential routes of entry of brown tree snakes,developing materials about these snakes to educate thepublic, and forming a rapid response network that willrespond to a potential sighting of a brown tree snake.With a website, www.nabtsct.net, the NABTSCT canfacilitate the sharing of information to participatingmembers. The web site serves as a centralized informationwarehouse, thus ensuring members receive andshare information in a timely and efficient manner.Cooperative funding was provided by the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service.Effect of Landscape Changes on NestingColonies of White-winged DovesYara Sánchez-Johnson, Fidel Hernández, David G. Hewitt,Jay A. Roberson, and T. Wayne SchwertnerLand use changes in northeastern Mexico haveresulted in a large decline in white-winged dove habitatin that region. As a result, several historical whitewingeddove nesting colonies have disappeared, whileothers are currently at risk. The objectives of ourstudy were to (1) document all known nesting coloniesof white-winged doves in Tamaulipas, Mexico and (2)understand how landscape changes have affected nestingcolonies of white-winged doves.From an initial list of 50 white-winged dove nestingcolonies thought to exist in Tamaulipas, only 31colonies were recorded, of which 12 were active and19 were inactive. Most of the 19 nesting coloniesnot found were sections of larger colony complexesor duplicate names. Using aerial photo images from62

IN-PROGRESS RESEARCHthe 1970s and current imagery, landscape componentswere identified and delineated within a 1 mile (1.6km), 1.8 mile (3 km), and 3.1 mile (5 km) radius ofeach colony.Comparisons between images from the 1970s andcurrent images indicated that the proportion of agriculturaland water landscape components increased in conjunctionwith a decrease in proportion of native brush.However, the proportion of urbanization was not differentbetween time periods. Landscape compositionof colonies during the 1970s did not differ betweenthose colonies that remained active to the present andthose that subsequently became inactive. However, incomparing landscape composition between time periodsfor colonies that became inactive, we documenteda reduction of native brush. Our results suggest thatchange in status (from active to inactive) of colonies innortheastern Mexico has been influenced by a reductionin the quantity of native brush.Cooperative funding was provided by white-winged dovestamp funds from Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.There is little information on the ecology of RioGrande wild turkey poults. This project began inspring 2005 to study wild turkey poult ecology inSouth Texas. Specifically, the objectives of this studyare to quantify poult survival and habitat use, and evaluatethe availability of insects (poult food source) onstudy areas located on the King Ranch.In 2005, 19 turkey poults were captured and outfittedwith radio transmitters to monitor their movementsto determine habitat use. In 2006, 4 turkey poults werecaptured and radioed. The lower number of poults in2006 was due to limited nesting and, consequently,low poult production in response to drought conditionson the study area. Habitat features were determinedduring 2005 and 2006 at radioed poult locationsor at locations where a radioed hen with a brood wasobserved as well as at random points paired with eachturkey location. Insects were collected at poult locationsand at paired random points using pitfall trapsand sticky traps.During 2005, poult survival averaged 3–4 daysand only 1 radioed poult survived 7 days. During2006, poult survival averaged 9 days and 1 radioedpoult survived 15 days. Preliminary findings indicateeither that poult mortality is very high during the first2 weeks of life, or that capture methodology or wearinga radio transmitter predisposes poults to highermortality rates. During 2005, insects representing thetaxonomic groups Homoptherans, Coleopterans, andDipterans were more abundant on areas where poultswere feeding than at random locations. Disappearancedistance and distance to nearest woody cover werelower in habitats used by poults compared to randomsites, which indicated that cover was an importantvariable of poult habitat.Cooperative funding was provided by Texas Parks andWildlife Department, National Wild Turkey Federation,and Texas State Chapter of the National Wild TurkeyFederation.Rio Grande Wild Turkey Poult Ecologyin South TexasRafael Guarneros-Altamirano, William P. Kuvlesky, Jr.,David G. Hewitt, J. Alfonso Ortega-Santos, Stephen J.DeMaso, Bart M. Ballard, and Mickey W. HellicksonGenetics of Maritime Pocket Gophers onNavel Air Station Corpus ChristiJorge D. Cortez, Scott E. Henke, John Patton, Dean W.Wiemers, Timothy E. Fulbright, and Richard R. RiddleHabitat loss and fragmentation can have catastrophiceffects on wildlife populations, particularlysmall, isolated populations. The maritime pocket© Jorge CortezMounds of the endangered maritime pocket gopher foundin the Flour Bluff region of South Texas.63

IN-PROGRESS RESEARCHgopher is geographically restricted to the Flour Bluffregion of coastal South Texas. Urbanization of theFlour Bluff region has inhibited dispersal and furtherisolated populations of this species, which can lead toreduced genetic variability and gene flow.We are collecting blood from captured maritimepocket gophers at Navel Air Station Corpus Christi.Genetic analysis of the samples will help determinethe differences within and among populations. Theapplication of genetic methods is expected to shed lighton the genetic status of this geographically restrictedpocket gopher.Cooperative funding was provided by the U.S. Navy.Nesting Ecology of the Rio Grande WildTurkey in South TexasEric Reyes, William P. Kuvlesky, Jr., David G. Hewitt,J. Alfonso Ortega-Santos, Stephen J. DeMaso, andMickey W. HellicksonLittle is known about the nesting ecology of RioGrande wild turkey hens in South Texas. Therefore,we initiated a 3-year research project beginning fall2003 to quantify wild turkey nesting ecology on theKing Ranch. Radio-transmitters were attached to 139wild turkey hens on 3 study sites (Laureles, Encino,and Norias divisions of the King Ranch) during thewinters of 2003–2004 and 2004–2005 to determinetheir movements and use of habitats.Compared to other studies conducted elsewhereon Rio Grande wild turkey populations, hens in SouthTexas experienced lower nesting rates (35%) and nestsuccess rates (40%). Spring dispersal distances of hensthat nested moved farther from their winter center ofactivity (⎺x = 4,266 yards) than hens that dispersed, butdid not nest successfully (⎺x = 3,159 yards). Juvenilesdispersed almost 2 km (⎺x = 5,395 yards) farther thanadults (⎺x = 3,239 yards). Nesting season home rangesdid not vary significantly among study sites, but theaverage home range was smaller on the LaurelesDivision (⎺x = 679 acres) than on the Encino (⎺x = 1,346acres) and Norias divisions (⎺x = 1,216 acres). Nestingseason home ranges were smaller during 2004 (⎺x =440 acres) than in 2005 (⎺x = 1,381 acres) and juvenileshad smaller nesting season home ranges (⎺x = 803acres) than adults (⎺x = 1,108 acres). Hens that did notnest had larger nesting season home ranges (⎺x = 1,045acres) than the hens that nested (⎺x = 463 acres). Basedon these findings, nesting activities of wild turkeys inSouth Texas appear to be influenced by precipitation,habitat conditions, and age of birds.Cooperative funding was provided by Texas Parks andWildlife Department, National Wild Turkey Federation,and Texas State Chapter of the National Wild TurkeyFederation.Chemical Attractants for Feral Pigs inSouth TexasTyler A. Campbell and David B. Long© Tom UrbanUnderstanding nest success and failure is essential foraddressing management needs of wild turkeys.Feral pigs are a major threat to U.S. agricultureand wildlife because they cause soil erosion, damagecrops, compete with wildlife for food, and are a reservoirfor diseases that can be transmitted to livestock,wildlife, and humans. More efficient feral pig controltechniques are needed. Little evidence exists regardingsuitable feral pig attractants; such attractantswill increase feral pig trapping efficiency and can beincorporated into a bait to administer pharmaceuticals(e.g., vaccines, poisons, birth control chemicals). Ourobjective is to evaluate chemical attractants for feralpigs in South Texas.We will evaluate 11 potential attractants plus acontrol. Flavors to be tested include anise, bubblegum,64

IN-PROGRESS RESEARCHbutterscotch, berry, strawberry, caramel, apple, “pigfrenzy,” blended cheese, and banana. Additionally,BOARMATE®, a synthetic pheromone used to heatchecksows for receptiveness to artificial insemination,will be included in the experimental trials. We will usemotion-detecting cameras at bait sites to determinespecies-specific visitation to and contact with attractants.Other behaviors, such as attempted removal orconsumption, will also be recorded. We will conductfield trials over 30 nights in each of 3 seasons (summer,winter, and spring).Information generated from this study will provideresource managers with a better understanding ofwhich attractants are the most effective on feral pigs.Attractants can then be used in delivering pharmaceuticalsto feral pigs.The Texas Gulf Coast serves as a major migratoryroute for millions of birds. Migration is an energeticallydemanding activity that requires most birds touse stopover areas along their migration route. Thesestopover areas provide birds an area to rest and refuelin order to complete their migration. Consequently,substantial alteration of stopover habitats may impactmany species at a continental scale. Therefore, anunderstanding of migratory bird use of stopover habitatsalong the Texas Gulf Coast is important to themanagement and conservation of these species.Migratory patterns of birds will be examined alongthe lower Texas Coast using radar and visual surveys.Radar sampling will be used to (1) characterize thetiming, magnitude, and dispersion of bird migration;(2) detect important migration stopover areas; and(3) assess the effects of weather on flight patterns ofmigratory birds.This study will help biologists understand howmigratory birds use the landscape and how the birdsare distributed throughout the landscape. Such informationis needed to help guide future developmentalong the lower Texas Coast in order to minimize negativeimpacts to bird populations migrating throughthis region.Cooperative funding was provided by Texas Parks andWildlife Department.Cooperative funding was provided by USDA APHIS-WildlifeServices-National Wildlife Research Center.Avian Migration Patterns in the LowerTexas Gulf CoastSuzanne Contreras, Bart M. Ballard, William P. Kuvlesky, Jr.,Leonard A. Brennan, Kathy Boydston, and Michael Morrison65

CONTAMINANTS, DISEASES, AND PARASITESBlood Parasites in Reddish Egrets fromthe Texas Gulf CoastElizabeth M. Bates, Alan M. Fedynich, Bart M. Ballard,and Clay GreenBlood parasites have been known to cause morbidityand mortality in a number of avian host species.Plasmodium relictum, P. elongatum, P. herodiadis,Leucocytozoon ardeae, and Trypanosoma avium havebeen reported in various species of wading birds fromNorth America. However, the reddish egret has notbeen sufficiently examined to determine whether it isinfected with blood parasites and, if so, what potentialeffect infections may have on this rare species.Therefore, this study was initiated to determine speciescomposition, prevalence, and abundance of bloodparasites occurring in reddish egrets during the breedingseason in Texas.During spring 2006, blood smears were made from44 juvenile reddish egrets collected from 7 breedingcolonies along the central and lower coasts of Texas.Two blood smears were made from each bird. Smearswere fixed in methanol and stained with Diff-Quik®.Each smear will be examined for 5 minutes at 400xmagnification to look for microfilarids (larval nematodes).Each smear will be examined for an additional10 minutes at 1,000x magnification to search for bloodprotozoans. Findings will help determine whether ornot blood parasites occur in the Texas population ofreddish egrets.Potential Impacts of Common FelineDiseases on Ocelots from TexasKatherine Fogelberg and Michael E. TewesOcelot research has focused on the ecologicalaspects of preserving this species. However, littleattention has been given to disease and its potentialimpact upon the future viability of this endangeredcat. This research provides the opportunity to lookat diseases and, using the VORTEX computer modelingsystem, give some initial insight into the possibleimpact some commonly occurring feline viral diseasesmight have on an isolated subpopulation of ocelots inSouth Texas.The Yturria Ranch subpopulation of ocelots isserving as the focus of this initial study. Serum samplesfrom 7 free-ranging ocelots were tested to determinethe level of exposure to 4 common feline viruses:feline panleukopenia (FPV), feline immunodeficiencyvirus (FIV), feline leukemia virus (FeLV), and felineinfectious peritonitis (FIP). Using the results fromthese tests, parameters will be established for use inthe VORTEX computer modeling software, which willprovide a better understanding of the potential impactan outbreak of one of the above diseases might haveon this small subpopulation of ocelots.It is important to understand the ecological aspectsinvolved in saving ocelots from extinction. The pictureis not complete without taking into account thepossibility of a disease outbreak. Our project shouldprovide a starting point for future research on thisimportant topic.Cooperative funding was provided by the Merck-MerialNational Veterinary Scholars Program, the Texas VeterinaryMedical Foundation, The National Institutes of Health T35Training Grant, the College of Veterinary Medicine at TexasA&M University, the Morris Animal Foundation, and theDepartment of Animal and Wildlife Sciences at Texas A&MUniversity-Kingsville.Susceptibility to and Recovery fromAflatoxin in Granivorous BirdsCarin Kistler Williams, Scott E. Henke, and Alan M. FedynichAflatoxin is a toxic secondary metabolite producedby fungal organisms in the genus Aspergillus. Itadversely affects liver function and the immune systemof species across all taxa. However, species can differwidely in their susceptibility to the toxin, making itdifficult to predict how one species may be affectedcompared to another species. This project addressesthat issue by taking a comparative approach, basedon body size. Large, medium, and small-bodied birds66

IN-PROGRESS RESEARCHfrom 2 avian taxonomic families will be used to assessthe influence of body size on susceptibility to aflatoxinpoisoning. Rock pigeons, white-winged doves, andInca doves will represent the Columbidae family, andsavannah sparrows, lark sparrows, and chipping sparrowswill represent the Emerizidae family.Forty-eight birds of each species will be captured.Half of the birds will serve as controls (receiveno aflatoxin), while the remaining half will be dosedwith aflatoxin. At day 3, 10, and 21 after aflatoxinexposure, 8 birds of each species from the treatmentand control group will be examined. Aflatoxin toxicitywill be assessed by histopathologies, blood chemistries,and immune system suppression. We will lookfor a relationship between each of these 3 factors andbird body size. In addition, we will examine the recoveryprocess after exposure to aflatoxin. The results ofthis study can be used to predict aflatoxin susceptibilityamong avian species.Cooperative funding was provided by Ben F. Vaughan, III,and Tim Hixon.A Landscape-Genetic Approach to AssistFox Oral Rabies Vaccination StrategiesAngeline Zamorano, Randy W. DeYoung, Brian T.Mesenbrink, and J. Jeffrey RootA distinct gray fox strain of rabies is maintainedin populations of gray fox in west-central Texas. Thisdisease poses a significant health risk to wildlife,domestic animals, and humans. An oral vaccine isbeing dispensed in baits as a way to combat gray foxrabies. These baits are broadcast over the geographicarea selected for rabies control. At present, the grayfox oral rabies vaccine (ORV) zone in Texas extendsfrom the Mexican border to west-central Texas, requiringextensive effort and cost to manage (about 2 millionORV baits were distributed during 2003).In addition to the logistical challenges of suchlarge-scale management actions, current rabies controlefforts are hindered by a lack of knowledge regardingthe ecology and movements of gray fox in the ORVzone. For instance, it is not known why breaks in theORV zone (e.g., rabid animals detected outside thepresent vaccination area) are more likely to occur incertain geographic areas.We are conducting genetic analyses to assess populationboundaries and movements of gray fox at thelandscape scale. Objectives of this study include (1)identification of landscape features influencing populationboundaries, (2) estimation of dispersal rates,and (3) identification of gender-specific dispersaltendencies.In cooperation with Texas Wildlife Services andthe Texas Department of State Health Services, wehave collected nearly 400 DNA samples from grayfox, which may represent the largest DNA collectionfrom this species ever acquired.Cooperative funding was provided by USDA APHIS-National Wildlife Research Center and the National ScienceFoundation Research Experience for UndergraduatesProgram.Helminth Community Structure andPattern in a Columbid CommunityAutumn J. Smith and Alan M. FedynichCurrently, several species of columbids residein South Texas, of which 2 are exotic, invasive species(Eurasian collared-dove and rock dove) and theremainder native species. The rock dove was introducedinto North America in 1603 from Europe. TheEurasian collared-dove’s center of origin is India, andthis species was introduced into North America in1972. There is concern that exotic hosts bring withthem parasites that may not be harmful to themselves,© Autumn SmithLittle is known about parasite communities within groupsof co-occurring dove species.67

IN-PROGRESS RESEARCHbut may negatively affect closely related native hosts.This could provide a selective advantage to the invadinghost species by negatively impacting potentialnative competitors. Alternatively, an invasive speciesthat enters a new area may be exposed to new parasites,which could limit the invasive species’ establishmentand influence their range expansion.The columbid community in South Texas providesan opportunity to identify and compare helminthparasite communities with emphasis on exchange ofhelminths among exotic and native hosts. We plan tocollect 50 birds each of 6 columbid species (Eurasiancollared-dove, rock dove, mourning dove, grounddove, Inca dove, and white-winged dove) duringsummer 2006 and examine them for helminths.This study will allow us to learn about factors thatinfluence helminth community structure and patternswithin a columbid community, determine if invasivespecies take on or reflect the helminth communitiesof closely related endemic host species, and evaluatewhich host species are primary reservoirs for potentiallypathogenic parasites in South Texas.Cooperative funding was provided by the College ofGraduate Studies at Texas A&M University-Kingsville.Multiple Paternity in Feral Pigs: TheImplications for Disease TransmissionAngeline Zamorano, Johanna Delgado-Acevedo, Randy W.DeYoung, Tyler A. Campbell, and David G. HewittFeral pigs are descendents of domestic pigs thatwere released or escaped and have adapted to the wild.Feral pigs have been present in Texas for more than200 years, but have recently increased in number; currentestimates exceed 1.5 million. Because feral pigsare susceptible to diseases that affect not only wildlife,but also livestock and humans, feral pig managementis becoming increasingly important. However, moreinformation on pig ecology and behavior is neededbefore effective management strategies can be formulated.The goal of this study is to obtain informationon the mating behavior of feral pigs and evaluate theimplications thereof for disease transmission.We are collecting tissue samples from pregnantsows and their embryos and conducting genetic analysesto estimate the number of sires for each litter. WeElectorpherograms of allele sizes (in base-pairs) at amicrosatellite locus for a litter of feral pigs. The mother’sgenotype appears at the top (116/116); alleles 118, 122,and 124 in the offspring genotypes were contributed bythe sire. The presence of more than 2 paternal alleles isevidence that at least 2 different boars sired this litter.have obtained tissue samples from 12 free-rangingpregnant sows and 75 embryos (⎺x = 6.3 embryos persow; range: 4–10 embryos). We found evidence formultiple paternity (siring of offspring by more than 1male) in 4 of 12 litters (33%). This information allowsestimates of mating contact among breeding pigs,during which diseases can be transmitted.With the apparent high rate of promiscuity (33% ofsows bred by more than 1 male), the transmission ratesof diseases that are spread by direct contact (includingpseudorabies and brucellosis) are likely increased.Sampling will continue until 20–25 litters have beenobtained. These findings should provide valuableinformation that will be useful for planning feral pigmanagement in relation to disease transmission.Cooperative funding was provided by Texas A&M University-Kingsville University Research Council and USDA APHIS-National Wildlife Research Center.68

IN-PROGRESS RESEARCHlook at 2 aspects of the immune system—cell-mediatedimmunity and humoral immunity.We plan to incubate spleen cells of birds that havebeen exposed to a sublethal dose of aflatoxin in mediacontaining the antigen concanavalin A (ConA). Incadoves, white-winged doves, rock pigeons, chippingsparrows, lark sparrows, and savannah sparrows willbe used in this experiment. Half of the birds of eachspecies will be given a sublethal dose of aflatoxin(treatment) and the other half will not be treated (control).Spleen cells will be cultured and incubated in thepresence of ConA, which stimulates cells to proliferate(cell-mediated immunity) and to produce antibodies(humoral immunity). The degree of cell proliferationand antibody production will be compared betweentreatment and control birds. Information obtained inthis study will help determine how the immune systemof certain avian species reacts to aflatoxin poisoning.Cooperative funding was provided by Ben F. Vaughan, III,and Tim Hixon.Assessing the Abomasal Parasite CountTechnique in Deer from Southern TexasFernando Chavana, Robert D. Kaiser, III, Salvador De Alba,David B. Long, Tyler A. Campbell, Alan M. Fedynich, AaronM. Foley, Nathan A. Newman, Mark K. Richman, GarrettR. Timmons, Charles A. DeYoung, Timothy E. Fulbright,David G. Hewitt, and Don A. DraegerThe abomasal parasite count (APC) technique iscurrently being used in North America as an index ofwhite-tailed deer herd health. There are 5 possiblecategories based on number of parasites found, whichrange from Category A, where low numbers of parasitesindicate the deer population is below carryingcapacity to Category E, where high numbers suggestexcessive deer density. The method was developedin the southeastern U.S. Consequently, it is uncertainwhether this method is applicable in semiarid regions.A long-term deer study in southwest Texas (experimentaldesign described in “Effects of Density andSupplemental Feeding on Breeding Success of Bucks”elsewhere in this report) provides an opportunity toassess the APC technique under known white-taileddeer densities and supplemental feeding treatments.Abomasums from 32 deer collected during 2005 are© David LongWe are evaluating the abomasal parasite count techniquefor estimating white-tailed deer densities in arid regions.being examined for parasites using the APC technique.Thus far, at least 2 species of nematodes havebeen found, one of which is Haemonchus contortus.Upon conclusion of this study, we hope to be able todetermine whether the APC technique is applicable insouthwestern Texas.Cooperative funding was provided by USDA APHIS-WildlifeServices-National Wildlife Research Center, ExxonMobilFoundation, Comanche Ranch, T. Dan Friedkin, FaithRanch, and the Neva and Wesley West Foundation.Community Ecology of Gizzard Wormsin Blue-winged TealDavid W. Graves, Alan M. Fedynich, and Bart M. BallardA principal focus of community ecology is to determineif assemblages of species demonstrate recognizablepatterns and, if found, determine the processesby which these patterns are generated. The transcontinentalblue-winged teal provides an ideal model toexamine helminth community structure (prevalenceand abundance) and patterns (distribution patterns,diversity, numerical dominance, and affinities) of gizzardworms. Fifty blue-winged teal were collected byshooting in southern Texas during fall 1998 as theywere migrating to southern wintering areas in Centraland South America. Fifty blue-winged teal were similarlycollected during spring 1999 as they were return-71

IN-PROGRESS RESEARCHing to their northern breeding grounds. Blue-wingedteal were frozen until necropsy after which helminthparasites were identified and counted.Three nematode species (Amidostomum acutum,Epomidiostomum uncinatum, and Streptocara crassicauda)and a cestode (Gastrotaenia cygni) were found.Data from the fall 1998 sample has thus far been examined.Prevalence for each of the above species was 86,38, 38, and 12%, respectively. There were 344, 114,67, and 6 individuals of A. acutum, S. crassicauda, E.uncinatum, and G. cygni, respectively. Mean abundanceof A. acutum, S. crassicauda, E. uncinatum, andG. cygni was 6.9 ± 1.1 (mean ± standard error), 2.3 ±1.0, 1.3 ± 0.3, and 0.1 ± < 0.1, respectively.Based on the above preliminary results, the gizzardworm community in fall-collected blue-wingedteal is relatively species-poor and dominated by asingle species (A. acutum). Currently, we are analyzingthe dataset of the gizzard worms found in bluewingedteal collected during spring 1999.Survey for Chagas Disease in Suburbanand Rural EnvironmentsScott E. Henke, Autumn J. Smith, Tyler A. Campbell, andAlan M. FedynichChagas disease is caused by the parasitic protozoanTrypanosoma cruzi. Worldwide it is estimatedthat about 17 million people are infected with thisblood parasite, of which 50,000 will die each year.Although Chagas disease is more pronounced in Southand Central America, the disease can occur throughoutthe southern half of the U.S. Wild mammals are animportant reservoir for T. cruzi, however, transmissioncycles involving domestic dogs occur annually in portionsof South Texas, resulting in illness or death.Transmission of T. cruzi to humans occurs wheninfected Triatomine bugs (called kissing bugs or reduviidbugs) take a blood meal, usually on the face andoften around the lips. After feeding, the infected kissingbug defecates, thereby releasing the parasite into thewound. The parasite also can gain entry into humansby direct contact with permeable membranes, such asthose found around the eyes. Once inside a humanhost, reproduction of the protozoan occurs in cells,after which new parasites enter the blood stream.Our objectives are to determine the prevalenceof Chagas disease and determine who is at risk. Wewill collect reduviid bugs in a variety of habitats andattempt to isolate T. cruzi. In addition, we will interviewveterinarians to determine if they have had recentcases of Chagas disease in animals. This research willaid veterinarians and physicians in determining whereChagas disease can be found and help to assess who isat risk of becoming infected and developing this protozoandisease.Development of an At-Risk Map forBaylisascaris procyonis in Texas© Alan FedynichThe “kissing” bug is a vector for the parasitic protozoanTrypanosoma cruzi, which causes Chagas disease.Amy E. Kresta, Scott E. Henke, William E. Grant, DannyB. Pence, and D. Lynn DraweBaylisascaris procyonis is a large parasitic roundwormthat occurs in the small intestine of raccoons.The larval stage of this parasite can infect many mammalsincluding humans. Typically, the egg of theparasite exits the infected raccoon in the feces. Theembryonated egg is then ingested by a mammal, afterwhich it hatches; the larva then migrates to and entersthe central nervous system where it can cause neurologicaldisorders and blindness. Our objective is todetermine the prevalence of B. procyonis in raccoonsfrom Texas, and to determine habitat characteristicsassociated with infected raccoons.72

IN-PROGRESS RESEARCHTo date, nearly 600 raccoons throughout Texashave been examined for B. procyonis, of which about6% were positive for the parasite. We found that cities(San Antonio, Bryan, Austin, Dallas, Houston, CorpusChristi, Victoria, and Kingsville) were the most obvioushabitat feature associated with the prevalence of B.procyonis. A map showing soil type, rainfall, humidity,and land features is being developed to identifycharacteristics where individuals are at the greatestrisk of exposure to this parasite.Cooperative funding was provided by the Rob and BessieWelder Wildlife Foundation and the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency.Survey of Cecal Worms from Bobwhitesin South TexasClinton S. McMonagle, Alan M. Fedynich, andLeonard A. BrennanBobwhites provide recreational opportunities andare a component of the ecosystem. Their importancehas spurred interest in the need to determine morefully the factors that negatively affect this species,particularly parasites and parasite-induced diseases.There has been some suggestion that quail cecalworms may play a major role in negatively impactingquail. Previous endoparasite surveys of bobwhitesin Texas have found high numbers of Auloncephaluslindquisti, which occur in the intestines and ceca. Thisnematode exploits its host by feeding on host digestivematerial. The objective of our study is to determineprevalence, intensity, and abundance of cecal parasitesin bobwhites from southern Texas.We used viscera from 65 bobwhites that weresaved by hunters during February 2003. Viscera fromeach individual bird was frozen until necropsy. Uponthawing of viscera and inspection, ceca from 9 birdswere unusable or missing. For usable samples (n =56), ceca were cut length-wise, contents washed into abowl, and material examined for parasites. Of these,38 (68%) bobwhites were infected with cecal worms,whereas 18 (32%) bobwhites were not infected.Currently, cecal worms are being identified tospecies and counted. The resulting dataset will beanalyzed to determine if parasite species and parasitenumbers vary between host age and between gender.Findings from this study will help in our understandingof the potential impacts of cecal worms on northernbobwhites in southern Texas.Cooperative funding was provided by the Quail AssociatesProgram and the Richard M. Kleberg, Jr. Center for QuailResearch.GPS Technology to Document InteractionsBetween Feral Hogs and Domestic SwineA. Christy Wyckoff, Scott E. Henke, Tyler A. Campbell,David G. Hewitt, and Kurt VerCauterenFeral hogs are known reservoirs for a variety ofdiseases. Several diseases, such as pseudorabies andswine brucellosis, have been or will soon be eradicatedfrom domestic swine. However, feral hogs posea potential threat of reintroducing these diseases backinto domestic swine. This study was initiated to learnmore about possible interactions between feral hogsand domestic swine in relation to the possibility of diseasetransmission.Beginning in May of 2004, 78 adult feral hogs weretrapped and outfitted with Global Positioning Systems(GPS) collars. Collars were programmed to collect 24location points per week. However, due to the hog’sability to get the collar off, and because of hunter harvest,collars were worn by hogs for varying amountsof time, ranging from several days to 1.5 years. Wedefined any location estimate that occurred within 100meters (109 yards) of a domestic swine facility as adomestic-feral hog interaction event. This criterion isconservative in that collars generated the location estimatesevery 4 hours, 4 days per week. Thus, the locationsthat were recorded from collars were a fractionof the actual activity of collared feral hogs.During the last 2 years, 2,716 location points offeral hogs have been collected from 9 GPS collars.Of these locations, 82 (3%) were within the definedinteraction zone. Although our data are preliminary,evidence suggests that feral hogs interact with domesticswine and, therefore, represent a real threat of reintroducingdiseases back into domestic swine.Cooperative funding was provided by USDA APHIS-Wildlife Services-National Wildlife Research Center andUSDA APHIS-Veterinary Services.73

COMPLETED RESEARCHBOBWHITESQuail Productivity and Quail-HabitatRelationships in South TexasKyle A. Brazil, Leonard A. Brennan, and Fidel HernándezThe goal of this study was to gain a first approximationof how northern bobwhite productivity is relatedto vegetation conditions at the landscape scale. Weaddressed the role of maintaining nesting habitat in theform of bunchgrasses on quail productivity. Habitatvariables (bunchgrass density, woody cover, screeningcover) measured on 9 study sites in summer 2004 and14 study sites in summer 2005 were compared to productivity(juvenile:adult ratios) for 2004 and 2005.• Bobwhite productivity in 2004 increased withincreasing bunchgrass density, peaked at 920suitable nesting clumps/hectare (372/acre), anddeclined as suitable nesting clumps/hectareexceeded 920 (372/acre). Rainfall was aboveaverage from 2002 through 2004.• There was no relationship between suitable nestingclump density and productivity in 2005. Rainfallin South Texas was well below average in 2005.• These results indicate that bobwhite productivityin years with average or above average precipitationin South Texas increases with increasingbunchgrass density. However, it may also be possiblefor bunchgrasses to become thick enough tohinder maximum productivity.Cooperative funding was provided by the members of theQuail Associates Program and the Richard M. Kleberg, Jr.Center for Quail Research.Refining the Morning Covey-Call Surveyto Estimate Bobwhite AbundanceJoshua P. Rusk, Jason L. Scott, Fidel Hernández, andFred C. BryantMorning covey-call surveys have been mentionedas a practical and efficient way to estimate abundanceof northern bobwhites. However, many protocol specificssuch as radius of audibility and probability ofcalling are not based on empirical data. Other limitationsalso exist such as variation in observers’ detectioncapacity and calling behavior of birds in coveys.These shortcomings limit the reliability of this surveytechnique. Our objectives were to (1) obtain an empiricalestimate of radius of audibility, (2) documentobserver variability in estimating number of coveysheard, and (3) document calling behavior.• We found no difference in radius of audibility forareas with low brush coverage (6%; 1,045 yards;n = 4 observers) and high brush coverage (30%;1,018 yards).• We calculated an overall radius of audibility of984 yards pooled across sites.• We documented considerable observer variability(n = 12 observers) in detecting coveys.• A call was emitted from 67% (n = 30 coveys) ofcoveys during 2004, whereas a call came from88% (n = 17 coveys) of coveys during 2005.• Seventy percent of the coveys in which a call washeard in 2004 and 93% in 2005 included morethan 1 bird calling per covey.• We recommend obtaining site-specific radius ofaudibility and using a core number of observersthat remain consistent from year-to-year.Cooperative funding was provided by the Elliot B. andAdelle Bottom Fellowship in Quail Research, South TexasCelebrity Weekend, Inc., and contributors to the South TexasQuail Research Project.Habitat-Suitability Bounds for BobwhiteNesting Cover on Semiarid RangelandsJuan A. Arredondo, Jr., Fidel Hernández, Fred C. Bryant,Ralph L. Bingham, and Ronnie HowardAlthough the qualitative aspects of bobwhite habitathave been known for many decades, researchershave neglected to characterize habitat quantitatively(i.e., habitat selection). Thus, biologists have beencapable of identifying components that comprise bob-74

COMPLETED RESEARCHwhite habitat but only have been able to speculate onhow much of each component was necessary.We documented preference-avoidance behaviorof nesting bobwhites in Brooks County, Texas duringMay–August, 2004 and 2005. We measured 5 vegetationfeatures (nesting substrate height and width, suitablenest clump density, herbaceous canopy coverage,and radius of complete obstruction) at nest sites (n =105) and random points (n = 204).• Bounds of suitability for nesting substrate heightand width were 6.6–12.3 inches and ≥8.8 inches,respectively.• Bobwhites selected nest sites with a suitable nestclump density of ≥295 nest clumps/acre, herbaceouscanopy coverage ≥36.7%, and a radius ofcomplete obstruction between 3.4–14.3 feet.• This knowledge will provide the necessary foundationfor managers to manipulate landscapes inorder to create suitable nesting conditions.Cooperative funding was provided by the George and MaryJosephine Hamman Foundation; Amy Shelton McNuttCharitable Trust; The William A. and Madeline Welder SmithFoundation; Bob and Vivian Smith Foundation; RobertJ. Kleberg, Jr. and Helen C. Kleberg Foundation; TexasState Council of Quail Unlimited, the South Texas, GreaterHouston, and East Texas chapters of Quail Unlimited; andprivate contributions.A Computerized Distance-MeasuringSystem for Line Transect Aerial Surveys• The system estimated distances relatively accurately(± 1 yard) under conditions with minimalmagnetic interference.• In addition, training for use of the system involved0.5 hr and minimal time (< 5 seconds) was requiredfor data entry during surveys.• The system is a promising method for estimatingdistances to detections during aerial surveys ofbobwhites and has potential to be used for otherterrestrial species in which aerial line transects arebeing used.Cooperative funding was provided by the Elliot B. andAdelle Bottom Fellowship in Quail Research, South TexasCelebrity Weekend, Inc., and contributors to the South TexasQuail Research Project.Bobwhite Population Irruptions: Testingan Age-Specific Reproduction HypothesisFidel Hernández, Krisan M. Kelley, Juan A. Arredondo, Jr.,Froylán Hernández, David G. Hewitt, Fred C. Bryant,and Ralph L. BinghamAge-specific reproduction has been suggested forthe northern bobwhite and has been hypothesized as afactor contributing to population irruptions. However,little research has been conducted on the subject. Weconducted a laboratory and field study to determine ifage-specific reproduction occurred in bobwhites.Our objectives were to compare 7 reproductivemeasures (percentage of hens nesting, date of firstincubated nest, egg-laying rate, nesting rate, clutchJoshua P. Rusk, Eric J. Redeker, Fidel Hernández, Fred C.Bryant, and David G. HewittSurvey methods that incorporate detection probabilities(e.g., distance sampling) recently have beenrecommended for reliable density estimates (60–80detections). In extensive landscapes inhabited bywildlife, aerial surveys often are used to traverse linetransects when using distance sampling. However,the validity of underlying assumptions (e.g., accuratedistance measurement of detections) is unknown foraerial surveys. We developed a computerized distance-measuringsystem for use in aerial surveys ofnorthern bobwhites and tested its accuracy.© Steve BentsenResearch has focused on the potential effect of age-specificreproduction in northern bobwhites.75

size, egg mass, and egg hatchability) between firstyearand second-year breeders and determine if reproductionwas affected by diet quality. The laboratorystudy consisted of an experiment with age and dietquality (low protein [12%] and high protein [24%])as experimental factors. The field study represented a6-year dataset (2000–2005) of bobwhite reproductionfrom the South Texas Quail Research Project.COMPLETED RESEARCH• We documented similar productivity (i.e., percentageof hens laying, egg-laying rate, and eggmass) and timing of laying (i.e., date of first egg)between first-year (n = 33) and second-year bobwhites(n = 27) in our laboratory study. However,hens on the high-protein diet exhibited a greateregg-laying rate than hens on the low-protein diet.• Under field conditions, we also documented nodifference in productivity (percentage of hensnesting, nesting rate, clutch size, egg hatchability)and timing of nesting (date of first incubated nest)between age classes.• Our findings do not support age-specific reproductionin bobwhites. Bobwhite irruptions shouldnot be influenced by population age-structure as itrelates to age-specific reproduction.Cooperative funding was provided by the Texas StateCouncil, South Texas, Greater Houston, East Texas, andAlamo chapters of Quail Unlimited; George and MaryJosephine Hamman Foundation; Robert J. Kleberg, Jr.and Helen C. Kleberg Foundation; Amy Shelton McNuttCharitable Trust; Amy Shelton McNutt Memorial Fund;Bob and Vivian Smith Foundation; and The William A. andMadeline Welder Smith Foundation.Simulating the Effect of Predator Controlon Northern BobwhitesMichael J. Rader, Leonard A. Brennan, Fidel Hernández,and Nova J. SilvyWe examined the relative impact of altering nestpredation rate, nesting habitat, and weather (i.e.,temperature and precipitation) on northern bobwhitepopulation dynamics in a hypothetical, subtropicalrangeland ecosystem in South Texas using a simulationmodel. Model parameters were largely based on datacollected from a 3-year nest predator study employinginfrared camera technology, and from ongoing© Larry DittoModels indicate that good habitat is an important featurefor successful northern bobwhite populations.field research using a radio-marked population of wildnorthern bobwhites.• Under simulated predator control, populationsincreased by about 55% from the baseline scenario,while under simulated reduced nest-clumpavailability, populations decreased by about 75%from the baseline scenario.• Comparisons of the time-series for each scenarioshowed reduced nest-clump availability, low precipitation,and high temperature reduced bobwhitedensities to a larger degree than an empiricallyobservednest predation rate.• Reduced nest-clump availability resulted in themost substantial decline of bobwhite densities.Predator control was able to maintain increaseddensities in this scenario, but populations stilldeclined significantly.• Long-term, intensive predator control increasedbobwhite densities that were reduced by nest predation,low precipitation, and high temperature toabove baseline levels.• Model results suggest managers might focus onmaintaining adequate nest-clump availability, andthen consider intensive predator control duringperiods of environmental stress to increase bobwhitedensities and meet management objectives.Cooperative funding was provided by the South TexasQuail Associates Program, South Texas Chapter of QuailUnlimited, San Tomas Hunting Camp, and the Richard M.Kleberg, Jr. Center for Quail Research.76

COMPLETED RESEARCHAnalyzing Population Restoration Effortsfor the Endangered Masked BobwhiteRandy W. DeYoung, Fidel Hernández, William P. Kuvlesky,Jr., Leonard A. Brennan, Sally A. Gall, Ronald A. Van DenBussche, and Fred S. GutheryThe masked bobwhite is an endangered subspeciesof the northern bobwhite and is endemic to Sonora,Mexico and southern Arizona. The only known wildpopulation thought to number less than 2,000 birds isfound in Mexico.A captive masked bobwhite flock has been maintainedsince the late 1960s to provide stock for restorationefforts. Unfortunately, long-term efforts havebeen unsuccessful in re-establishing a viable populationin the U.S. In 1999, approximately 30 birds fromthe wild population in Sonora were released on theBuenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge (BANWR) insouthern Arizona. Wild birds have been observed inthe vicinity since 1999. We conducted genetic analysesof the captive flock, the 1999 Sonoran stock, and19 wild-caught BANWR masked bobwhites.• Findings indicated that the Sonoran and BANWRpopulations have experienced a recent geneticbottleneck; some genetic variation has been lostbecause of small population size.• An analysis using a Bayesian approach, whereprior information on populations is used, indicatedthat the BANWR birds have mixed ancestry,consisting of approximately 72% captive and 28%Sonoran stock.• The high percentage of Sonoran ancestry in theBANWR bobwhites 4–5 generations after theSonoran release is significant because thousandsof captive birds were released during 1999–2004.This indicates that the descendants of wild birdswere more successful than those of captive birds.• As captive releases have rarely been successful inestablishing viable populations of upland birds,we recommend efforts should be directed towardthe conservation of the Sonoran population, whichcould then serve as a source for future restorationactivities.Evaluation of Survey Methods forDetermining Bobwhite AbundanceJoshua P. Rusk, Fidel Hernández, Leonard A. Brennan,David G. Hewitt, Fred C. Bryant, and Eric J. RedekerVarious survey methods exist for obtaining reliableestimates of wildlife population size, but theirvalidity and accuracy often are unknown. Distancesampling has gained popularity as a survey techniquethat has a strong theoretical foundation. The objectivesof this study were to (1) compare 3 methods forestimating northern bobwhite density (i.e., distancesampling with walking transects, distance samplingwith helicopter transects, and morning covey-call surveys)and (2) evaluate underlying assumptions of thesurvey methods.Our study was conducted on 3 study sites in BrooksCounty, Texas during October–December 2001–2005.Comparison between walked transects and morningcovey-call surveys involved the entire 5-year dataset,whereas helicopter transects involved only the latter2 years.• Density estimates obtained from helicoptertransects were similar to walked transect estimatesboth years. Thus, they appear to be a viable alternativeto walked transects.• We documented a mean detection probabilityon the helicopter transect line of 70% (n = 20coveys).• Morning covey-call surveys yielded similar densityestimates to walked transects in only 2 of 5years, when estimates of walked transects werethe least precise.• We detected a positive relationship between coveydensity and number of coveys heard calling, whichsuggests this technique may still be valid to depictgeneral trends.Cooperative funding was provided by the Elliot B. andAdelle Bottom Fellowship in Quail Research, South TexasCelebrity Weekend, Inc., and contributors to the South TexasQuail Research Project.Cooperative funding was provided by the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service and the Richard M. Kleberg, Jr. Center forQuail Research.77

BIOLOGY, ECOLOGY, AND MANAGEMENTSeed Quality of Windmillgrass Ecotypesat Two Locations in South TexasFiliberto Herrera-Cedano, William R. Ocumpaugh, J. AlfonsoOrtega-Santos, John Lloyd-Reilley, G. Allen Rasmussen,and Shelly D. MaherHooded windmillgrass and shortspike windmillgrassare perennial grasses that have potential forplanting on highly erodible sites and other groundcover applications. However, both species displayspikelets with unfilled seed and dormancy, resulting inpoor germination. This study examined 4 windmillgrassecotypes: hooded windmillgrass H-301 and H-313 and shortspike windmillgrass S-260 and S-283.We compared the ecotypes for filled seeds, seed viability,and germination at production sites in Beevilleand Kingsville.• Seed and germination rates of windmillgrass ecotypeswere better at the Beeville production sitethan at the Kingsville production site.• Hooded windmillgrass ecotypes had more filledseeds and had greater germination rates comparedto shortspike windmillgrass ecotypes.• Viability of the filled seed was not affected by productionsite.Cooperative funding was provided by Texas AgriculturalExperiment Station.Habitat Use and Movements of FemalePintails Along the Central Coast of TexasJames T. Anderson, Bart M. Ballard, David S. Lobpries,and Thomas E. MoormanUp to 78% of northern pintails in the CentralFlyway spend the winter along the Texas Coast.However, wintering habitat favored by pintails in thisregion has notably declined over the last 3 decades.We initiated this research to address the lack of basicinformation on the winter ecology and habitat use ofpintails along the Texas Coast. We attached radiotransmitters to 315 female pintails to determine theirhabitat use and movements throughout winter. Weobtained a daytime and nighttime location for eachradioed female pintail every 5 days.• During this study, 7,022 locations of radio-markedpintails were obtained, of which 95–98% occurredin freshwater wetlands.• Over half of all locations occurred in rice fields(both current and fallow).• Flooded range, small grain agriculture, lakes, andestuaries showed the least preference by pintails,each accounting for

COMPLETED RESEARCHwith wild, free-ranging feral pigs. In both trials, sourcorn was used as a motivating factor to cross the barrier.Electrical current in the fences averaged 7,000volts, and voltages were maintained by solar and batterypowered chargers.• In the captive trial, we found a 1-strand electricfence at 8 inches above the ground reduced feralpig movements by 59%, a 2-strand fence at 8 and18 inches reduced movements by 71%, and a 3-strand fence at 8, 18, and 28 inches reduced movementsby 69%.• In the field trial, the most promising fence (2strands at 8 and 18 inches) reduced the movementof adult feral pigs by 88% and all feral pigs,including piglets, by 64%.• Electric fencing has the potential to reduce problemsassociated with feral pigs. However, it is nota foolproof method and integrated managementtechniques incorporating sustained hunting, trapping,and fencing should be used.Cooperative funding was provided by USDA APHIS-WildlifeServices-National Wildlife Research Center.LC-MS for Direct Quantification ofIophenoxic Acid in SerumMelinda C. Wiles and Tyler A. CampbellIophenoxic acid (IA) is an organic, iodinecontainingcompound used as a marker in bait acceptancestudies involving wildlife. Previous methods ofquantification involve indirect inference by measuringserum iodine. Our objective was to examine the use ofliquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS)as an alternative and direct method of quantifying IA.• IA was spiked into canine, feline, bovine,equine, and domestic swine sera, extracted, andquantified.• The limit of detection was 25 ng/ml, and the limitof quantification was 50 ng/ml.• Inter- and intra-assay accuracy and precision werecalculated.• Analysis of serum collected from free-ranging feralpigs, raccoons, and opossums following ingestionof IA-marked baits confirmed the appropriatenessof this method for bait acceptance studies.Cooperative funding was provided by USDA APHIS-WildlifeServices-National Wildlife Research Center.Spatial Distribution of Male White-tailedDeer Relative to Supplemental FeedStephen L. Webb, David G. Hewitt, Dean D. Marquardt,and Mickey W. HellicksonNutrient intake of white-tailed deer is lowest inlate summer and winter. During these times, supplementalfeed may be important to the deer’s physicalwell being. If white-tailed deer move closer to foodsources as food becomes scarce, then supplementalfood may influence movements and home range characteristicsof deer. To examine how deer were distributedaround supplemental feeders, 48 mature malewhite-tailed deer were radio-collared and tracked fromNovember 2002–September 2004.• The average density of feeders within deer homeranges was 47% and 18% lower in years 1 and 2,respectively, than the average density of feederson the study area.• During year 1, 57% of deer did not have any feederswithin their home range. Twenty percent ofdeer in year 2 did not have any feeders within theirhome range.© David HewittBecause of the remoteness of some research areas, thehelicopter is used to monitor radio-collared deer.79

COMPLETED RESEARCH• Averaged across years, 86% of deer locationswere within 1,000 m (1,100 yards) of a feeder,and >99% were within 1,500 m (1,650 yards) of afeeder. The farthest deer located from a feeder atany time was 1,532 m (1,685 yards), and the closestdeer was at the feeder.• In both years, there was no difference among seasonsin the distance between deer locations andfeeders. Furthermore, there was no differencebetween the distances deer were found from feederscompared to the distances of random pointsfrom feeders.• We conclude feeders had little effect on deer spatialdynamics. Therefore, other habitat componentsmight have had a stronger influence on deerthan feeders alone.Cooperative funding was provided by the San AntonioLivestock Exposition, Inc. and the Hilliard FamilyFoundation.Feral Hog Interaction with DomesticFemale Swine in Southern TexasA. Christy Wyckoff, Scott E. Henke, Tyler A. Campbell,David G. Hewitt, and Kurt VerCauterenThe population of feral hogs in Texas is estimatedto be between 1.5–2 million animals, and it is expandingin distribution and abundance. Feral hogs areknown carriers of many diseases, and their presencenear domestic swine may pose a disease transmissionthreat, though this relationship has not been documentedin the literature.To determine the potential frequency of interactionevents between feral hogs and neighboringdomestic swine, 6 pens were built in areas known tobe frequented by feral hogs. Within each of 3 pens,we placed a domestic sow, which was given food andwater daily. Within the other 3 pens (control pens),we placed only food and water, which was provideddaily. We monitored each pen daily for feral hog visitationby quantifying feral hog tracks around the penand through photographic observation using motionsensing cameras. The study pens were monitored fora 60-day period.• Feral hogs visited pens with domestic sows during49% of the nights; whereas, they visited the controlpens 5% of the nights.• Photos from motion sensing cameras showed thatferal hogs occasionally attempted to climb into thepens to gain access.• This experiment demonstrates that feral hogs areattracted to domestic swine and regularly interactwith them in close proximity.• We conclude that feral hogs pose a significantthreat for transmission of diseases to domesticswine in South Texas.Cooperative funding was provided by USDA APHIS-WildlifeServices-National Wildlife Research Center.Carbon and Nitrogen Stable IsotopeFractionation in White-tailed DeerRyan L. Darr and David G. Hewitt© Tom UrbanThere is growing concern that feral hogs will transmitdisease agents to domestic swine.No previous studies have investigated the use ofcarbon (δ 13 C) and nitrogen (δ 15 N) stable isotopes toexplore white-tailed deer foraging ecology. Levels ofisotopic fractionation and enrichment between diet anddeer tissues must be defined before stable isotopes areapplied in foraging ecology studies. Isotopic enrichmentquantities were measured during a 4-month controlledfeeding experiment with 6 white-tailed deer.• Corn and alfalfa have different isotopic signatures,80

COMPLETED RESEARCHso they were fed in varying proportions during thestudy. The isotopic signatures of hair, antler, redblood cells, serum, and feces were compared withthe diets at the end of the feeding experiment.• Crude enrichment between diet and tissue rangedbetween -4.46 ppt (parts per thousand) and 5.85ppt for δ 13 C and from 1.48 ppt to 5.72 ppt forδ 15 N.• Unlike many past studies with other species, wegenerated linear relationships to determine enrichmentlevels among deer fed diets with differingisotopic signatures.• Additionally, our research found no significant signaturevariation among antler sections or amongantler components. This result is imperative forusing antlers in future isotopic analysis studies.• Data on antler variation and enrichment formulasderived from this study provide a basis for precisefuture studies on white-tailed deer and cervid foragingecology.Cooperative funding was provided by the ExxonMobilProduction Company Internship Program.Possible Mechanisms for Buffelgrass toInvade Native Plant CommunitiesMari-Vaughn V. Johnson and Timothy E. FulbrightIt is not known what makes buffelgrass such aneffective invader of native plant communities. Weinvestigated 2 possible mechanisms of buffelgrasssuccess: (1) soil alteration by buffelgrass (nutrientdepletion or poisoning of the soil) and (2) greaterresponse of buffelgrass to nutrient availability. First,we conducted a controlled reciprocal transplant studybetween buffelgrass and the native grass tanglehead.We collected soil from around the roots of each plantspecies. Tanglehead was chosen because it has beenfound invading buffelgrass pastures. Second, we grewbuffelgrass, tanglehead, Kleberg bluestem, hoodedwindmillgrass, and Arizona cottontop in 5 differentnutrient regimes.Relationship between isotope ratios in a white-taileddeer’s diet and isotope ratios in the deer’s antler. Theserelationships can be used to estimate an animal’s diet bymeasuring isotope ratios in the animal’s tissue.• Both buffelgrass and tanglehead achieved greaterheights, greater root mass, and greater shoot mass,and produced more tillers in soils previously occupiedby buffelgrass as compared to soils previouslyoccupied by tanglehead. This suggests that buffelgrassis not poisoning the soil with a recalcitrantchemical or depleting nutrients in a lasting way.• All species responded most aggressively to theaddition of nitrogen, phosphorous, and micronutrients,though they were also aggressive in responseto the addition of a combination of nitrogen andphosphorous.• Tanglehead exhibited a small response to nutrientaddition compared to buffelgrass. Hooded windmillgrassexhibited the largest response to nutrientaddition, but remained shorter than buffelgrassunder all treatments.81

COMPLETED RESEARCH• We conclude that buffelgrass success is notstrongly linked to its nutrient acquisition ability,but rather to its fast growth under a variety of conditions,which allows it to out-compete other speciesfor space.Cooperative funding was provided by U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency STAR, College of Graduate Studies atTexas A&M University-Kingsville, the Jack R. and LorisJ. Welhausen Experimental Station, and the Tom SlickFellowship from Texas A&M University.Productivity of a Breeding RaptorCommunity in South Texas© Forrest SmithStudies have examined the characteristics of buffelgrassthat allow it to invade native grasslands in South Texas.Michael A. Actkinson, William P. Kuvlesky, Jr., Clint W. Boal,Leonard A. Brennan, and Fidel HernándezThe breeding ecology of a raptor community in theCoastal Sand Plain of South Texas was studied during2003 and 2004. Reproductive data were obtained frompopulations of the widely distributed red-tailed hawkand great horned owl, as well as subtropical raptorssuch as the crested caracara, Harris’ hawk, and whitetailedhawk.• Breeding seasons of the red-tailed hawk and greathorned owl began earlier, lasted longer, and had agreater range in hatching and fledging dates thanfound in published reports.• Breeding phenology of the white-tailed hawk andcrested caracara was similar to what has beenreported elsewhere.• Few Harris’ hawk nests were observed. Thebreeding season of Harris’ hawks appeared to persistlonger than the other species.• White-tailed hawks, red-tailed hawks, and Harris’hawks suffered greater egg and nestling lossesthan great horned owls and crested caracaras.• Nest success (≥1 young fledged) was 93, 61, 62,51, and 36% for the great horned owl, crestedcaracara, red-tailed hawk, white-tailed hawk, andHarris’ hawk, respectively.• Our data support the north-south trade-off hypothesis,whereby a widespread species such as thered-tailed hawk in southern latitudes has longerbreeding seasons, but smaller clutch sizes thanthose in more northern regions. In contrast, speciesrestricted to subtropical regions, such as thecrested caracara and white-tailed hawk, haveconsistent breeding patterns throughout their geographicrange.Cooperative funding was provided by Earthspan, Inc. andthe Elizabeth Huth Coates Charitable Foundation.The Roundworm Baylisascaris procyonisin Raccoons from Duval County, TexasDavid B. Long, Tyler A. Campbell, and Scott E. HenkeBaylisascaris procyonis is a large roundwormthat primarily uses the raccoon as its host, but it hasalso been found in over 90 species of North Americanwildlife. In non-raccoon hosts, including humans,this parasitic nematode causes severe neurological disease,often damaging visceral and ocular tissues. It isbelieved that the raccoon roundworm is uncommon insemiarid, hot environments and is probably limited bysoil types and low raccoon densities. Our objectivewas to determine roundworm presence in raccoonsfrom a previously unstudied semiarid region of Texas.• We captured 19 raccoons during 180 trap-nightsusing cage-style traps. Of these raccoons, 14 weremale, 5 were female, 15 were adult, and 4 werejuvenile.82

COMPLETED RESEARCH• The raccoon roundworm was found in 3 individuals(16%), of which, 2 raccoons had 4 roundwormsand 1 raccoon had 1 roundworm.• In total, 8 species of helminths were found, andonly 1 raccoon (an adult female) was free fromintestinal parasites.• To reduce the risk of raccoon roundworm rangeexpansion and transmission to other species(including humans) in semiarid regions of Texas,it may be necessary to limit supplemental feedingactivities and/or restrict feed consumption byraccoons at feeders.Cooperative funding was provided by USDA APHIS-WildlifeServices-National Wildlife Research Center.• These findings suggest that pintails winteringalong the Central Texas Coast have access tohigher quality foods and are required to spend lesstime foraging while still maintaining a positiveenergy balance compared to birds wintering alongthe lower Texas Coast.Cooperative funding was provided by The Gordon andMary Cain Foundation, Ducks Unlimited, Inc., and TheRice Foundation.Surveying for Ocelots and JaguarundisAround Choke Canyon ReservoirLon I. Grassman, Jr. and Michael E. TewesEnergy Budgets of Female PintailsWintering on the Texas Gulf CoastJason A. Estrella and Bart M. BallardThe northern pintail is a dabbling duck that hasshown a considerable population decline over the lastseveral decades. Current estimates are well belowlong-term averages and population objectives. Recentresearch along the lower Texas Coast showed that dietquality was poor and birds departed wintering areaswith reduced body reserves. Our objective was to estimateenergy budgets of female northern pintails winteringin the Rice Prairie Region of Texas to determineif birds could maintain or build energy reserves priorto spring migration in this important wintering area.• We estimated time budgets from 698 flocks ofnorthern pintails along the Central Texas Coast.• Female pintails allocated their activities differentlythroughout the 24-hour period where foraging(36% of time) and resting (40% of time)comprised most of the day.• Estimated daily energy expenditure was 138.6kcal/day on an average day based on publishedenergy estimates for observed activities.• Based on the energy provided by the diet of collectedfemale northern pintails, on average,pintails were required to consume approximately4 ounces of food per day to maintain body massacross winter.This study assessed the presence of ocelot andjaguarundi in the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation managementarea surrounding Choke Canyon Reservoir,located in McMullen and Live Oak counties, Texas.Photo-capture sampling methodology was used tosurvey for ocelot and jaguarundi on the study area.From this information, we could (1) estimate populationdensity of ocelot and jaguarundi, (2) develop recommendationsand management options to conservedocumented felids and their habitat on the study area,and (3) develop an ArcView GIS (Geographic InformationSystems) map that has habitat cover categoriesand camera trap locations.• From 26 June 2004 through 25 September 2005,© Feline Research Program of CKWRICamera trap locations (yellow circles) around ChokeCanyon Reservoir.83

COMPLETED RESEARCHwe conducted camera surveys, which accountedfor 4,353 trap-nights at 110 locations on the ChokeCanyon Reservoir study area.• During the study, cameras took 906 photographsof 17 wildlife species.• Although ocelot cover type (>75% horizontalcanopy cover) occupied 32% of the vegetationaround Choke Canyon Reservoir, no ocelots werephoto-captured.• No jaguarundis were photo-captured, however,bobcats were photo-captured 122 times (14%occurrence).• Other species that were photo-captured includedwhite-tailed deer (31%) and raccoon (15%).• To plan for potential ocelot recovery in this regionof Texas, wildlife managers should continue toallow brush to grow unless necessary to clear orotherwise disturb.Cooperative funding was provided by the U.S. Bureau ofReclamation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the FelineResearch Program of the CKWRI.Assessment of Fish-Flavored Baits toDeliver Pharmaceuticals to Feral PigsTyler A. Campbell, Steven J. Lapidge, and David B. LongFew studies have evaluated oral delivery systemsof pharmaceuticals (e.g., vaccines) to feral pigs in theU.S. Our objective was to assess, through a field trial,the percentage of feral pigs and non-target animals thatremove and consume PIGOUT® fish-flavored baitsintended to transport pharmaceuticals to feral pigs inSouth Texas.• We hand-placed 1,178 iophenoxic acid (IA)-marked baits over a 4,253 acre property andmonitored species-specific bait removal and consumptionusing track stations, automated camerasystems, and serum IA values from capturedanimals.• Ninety percent of baits were removed by animals72 hours after placement.• For baits that we could determine species-specificremoval, 51% were taken by raccoons, 22% weretaken by feral pigs, and 20% were taken by collaredpeccaries.© Tyler CampbellFish-flavored baits were evaluated to determine if theywould attract feral pigs.• We found elevated serum IA values in 74% oftrapped feral pigs, 89% of raccoons, and 43% ofopossums.• PIGOUT® fish-flavored baits were successfulin marking a substantial proportion of feral pigs.However, the observed removal rates of baitssuggest that most of the baits were taken by nontargetspecies. Therefore, use of this bait would beunsuitable for many pharmaceutical applicationsin its current form for feral pigs.Cooperative funding was provided by USDA APHIS-WildlifeServices-National Wildlife Research Center.Serosurvey of Infectious Agents in Deerfrom Northeastern MexicoAntonio Cantu, J. Alfonso Ortega-Santos, Zeferino Garcia-Vazquez, Scott E. Henke, and John E. GeorgeThe emergence of new and re-emergence ofpast pathogenic infectious diseases is causing concern.Tick-borne diseases, and viral and bacterialdiseases such as bovine viral diarrhea virus (BVDV)and brucellosis may be linked to wildlife serving asreservoirs for spreading diseases. Some results indicatethat white-tailed deer are exposed to Leptospira,BVDV, and infectious bovine rhinotracheitis (IBR).Therefore, deer may play a significant role in thetransmission of bovine disease agents. The objec-84

COMPLETED RESEARCHtive of this study was to conduct a serologic surveyof white-tailed deer in northern Mexico to (1) determinethe prevalence of Brucella, Leptospira, IBR, andBVDV and (2) determine risk factors associated withdisease transmission.• Prevalence values in deer for antibodies to Leptospira,IBR, BVDV, and Brucella were 5.6, 41.1,63.5, and 0%, respectively.• Factors such as deer density, cattle grazing system,ranch activity, and habitat type had strength ofassociation with seropositivity.• Findings indicate that white-tailed deer areexposed to Leptospira, IBR, and BVDV.• White-tailed deer may play a role in disease transmissionwhen cohabiting with cattle in northeasternMexico.Cooperative funding was provided by USDA ARS Knipling-Bushland U.S. Livestock Insects Research Laboratory,Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales, Agricolasy Pecuarias, and Union Ganadera Regional de NuevoLeon.Maintenance Energy Requirements forFemale Wild Turkeys During WinterCristela Gonzalez, Megan Dominguez, and David G. HewittKnowledge of an animal’s maintenance energyrequirement is necessary in understanding its nutritionalecology. Although energetic requirements ofwild turkeys in northern environments have been studied,requirements can vary with latitude. Therefore,we conducted this study using female Rio Grandewild turkeys to determine metabolizable energy (ME)intake that would be necessary for body mass maintenanceduring winter in South Texas.• We randomly assigned 34 birds to 4 treatmentsdiffering in the amount of food given and, therefore,the rate of body mass loss. We plotted bodymass change against ME intake to calculate theME intake at zero body mass loss.• Metabolizable energy intake of wild turkey henswas 131.7 kcals/kg 0.75 /day for body mass homeostasis.This energy intake represents energy necessaryfor basal metabolism, moderate movement,and thermoregulation.• This ME requirement was greater than the estimatefrom a similar experiment in a study thatwas conducted with juvenile eastern wild turkeys(117.4 kcals/kg 0.75 /day) and nearly identical to thefield metabolic rate of juvenile eastern wild turkeys(130.7 kcals/kg 0.75 /day).• Because of greater activity and thermoregulationcosts likely to be included in measurementsof field metabolic rates, it appears that metabolicrates of Rio Grande wild turkeys may be greaterthan that of eastern wild turkeys.Cooperative funding was provided by the NationalWild Turkey Federation and Texas Parks and WildlifeDepartment.Environmental Influences on Seed Qualityof Windmillgrass Ecotypes in South TexasFiliberto Herrera-Cedano, William R. Ocumpaugh, J. AlfonsoOrtega-Santos, John Lloyd-Reilley, G. Allen Rasmussen,and Shelly D. Maher© David HewittFemale turkeys require sufficient food quality and quantityto survive the winter in South Texas.Hooded windmillgrass and shortspike windmillgrassare native grasses with potential for use in restorationor improvement of wildlife habitat. However,the greatest hindrance is the lack of scientific informationabout seed production in both grasses. The objectiveof this study was to characterize variability in seedquality as affected by temperature and precipitation inSouth Texas. This study evaluated hooded windmill-85

COMPLETED RESEARCHgrass ecotypes H-301 and H-313 and shortspike windmillgrassecotypes S-260 and S-283.• Seed fill, seed dormancy, and seed germination ofwindmillgrass ecotypes were greatest in the driestyear of the study.• Both hooded windmillgrass ecotypes showedgreater seed germination than shortspike windmillgrassecotypes.• Windmillgrass ecotypes are well adapted to variableenvironments. Additionally, seed quality,even when variability existed, was acceptable.Cooperative funding was provided by the Texas AgriculturalExperiment Station.Assessment of the Net-Gun CaptureTechnique for White-tailed DeerStephen L. Webb, John S. Lewis, David G. Hewitt, MickeyW. Hellickson, and Fred C. BryantCapture of white-tailed deer requires substantialtime, personnel, and monetary investment. Therefore,a capture technique that meets the needs of researcherswithout causing harm to research animals is a prerequisiteof a successful capture program. Since 1998,more than 3,600 male deer have been captured as partof the South Texas Deer Capture Project. During datacollection on captured deer, any injuries or mortalitieswere noted. We then ranked the seriousness ofthe injury on a scale from 0 to 4. Additionally, as partof other research projects, deer were fitted with radiocollars. Following deer with radio collars allowed usto assess capture related mortalities.• We documented 50 types of injuries, whichincluded cuts, broken legs, jaws, and pedicles,puncture wounds, and injuries to the eye, hoof,teeth, and tongue.• The most common type of injury was broken antlers(n = 167).• Twenty deer died as the result of capture, eitherfrom exhaustion or injuries.• No radio-collared deer died from capture relatedstress from 2002–2004. Only 5 of 48 deer diedof natural causes, but these were not attributed tocapture. Mortalities occurred 2.5–16 months aftercapture.• These findings are important due to the tremendousamount of time and money spent each yearto capture white-tailed deer for research studies.Because male deer are economically important inSouth Texas, it is necessary to know what effectbroken antlers and injuries have on survival andharvest.Cooperative funding was provided by A. R. Sanchez, Jr.;Carlos Y. Benavides, II; International Bank of Commerce;Carl Rush; King Ranch, Inc.; and Texas Parks and WildlifeDepartment.PIGOUT® Vegetable Versus Fish-FlavoredBaits for Feral PigsTyler A. Campbell and David B. Long© David HewittCapturing and marking deer for research studies can bedangerous for both the deer and the researchers.PIGOUT® baits are highly specific to feral pigs inAustralia, where they are used to control populationsthat exceed 20 million animals. Very little research hasbeen conducted on feral pig baits in the U.S., despiteburgeoning feral pig populations. Our objective wasto assess, through a field trial, wildlife and livestockvisitation and removal rates of 4 baits intended forferal pigs.Our baits consisted of fish-flavored PIGOUT®(Bait A), vegetable-flavored PIGOUT® (Bait B), fishflavoredPIGOUT® with raccoon repellent (Bait C),and vegetable-flavored PIGOUT® with raccoon repel-86

lent (Bait D). We hand-placed 80 baits of each type(A-D) and monitored visitation and removal by wildlifeand livestock with automated camera systems for≤4 nights.COMPLETED RESEARCH• Cumulative bait removal rates for Baits A-D were93, 97, 98, and 97%, respectively.• Our data suggest overall removal rates of 46% forferal swine, 21% for raccoons, 17% for cattle, 8%for collared peccaries, 2% for coyotes, and 6%other species.• Our findings indicated that cattle removed more ofBait D than expected, and coyotes removed moreof Bait A than expected.• Our data suggest that when targeting feral pigs,fish-flavored baits may be most appropriate whennon-target species include herbivores, and thatvegetable-flavored baits may be most appropriatewhen non-target species include omnivores andcarnivores.Cooperative funding was provided by USDA APHIS-WildlifeServices-National Wildlife Research Center.Rapid Whole Genome Amplification ofDNA from FelidsJan E. Janecka, Lon I. Grassman, Jr., James N. Derr,Rodney L. Honeycutt, Whichan Eiadthong, andMichael E. TewesA major hindrance to conservation genetics studiesof wild cats is the acquisition of DNA samples requiredfor examining natural populations. Often, research iscomplicated further by restrictions associated with thetransport of biological materials from legally-collectedspecimens. We assessed a method of rapidly amplifyingwhole genomes, both nuclear and mitochondrial,with the use of a strand displacement reaction (SDR)and the Phi29 DNA polymerase enzyme.• Genotypes of 6 felid species derived from genomeamplifications were scored identically to the originalDNA. We observed only 1 allelic dropoutevent among 67 heterozygotes.• The Phi29 enzyme was able to amplify the genomesin samples up to 19 years old and samples withdegraded DNA.© Feline Research Program of CKWRIEthidium bromide stained 1% agarose gel showingmolecular markers PCR amplified from extracted DNA.• We extracted DNA and used SDR to amplify thegenomes of 48 individuals of 5 felid species inThailand in less than 3 days.• We confirmed the SDR amplification of targetDNA with 1 microsatellite for 47 of 48 samples (5species).• This technique is especially valuable to investigatorsconducting research on threatened and endangeredspecies where the exportation of biologicalmaterials is prohibited.Cooperative funding was provided by the Feline ResearchProgram of the CKWRI.Effects of Rainfall and Temperature onDeer Supplemental Feed ConsumptionRebecca Miller, Stephen L. Webb, Nathan A. Newman, DavidG. Hewitt, Timothy E. Fulbright, Charles A. DeYoung,Garrett R. Timmons, Mark K. Richman, Aaron M. Foley,and Don A. DraegerIn South Texas, rainfall is directly related to nutritionalvalues of forage, thereby influencing deer carryingcapacity. Summer is a particularly stressfultime for bucks, which are producing antlers, and forfemales, which are raising fawns and lactating. Therefore,many landowners have implemented supplementalfeeding programs to help ensure nutritional qualityof deer diets throughout the year.87

This study was conducted on the ComancheRanch, which is located in South Texas. On this ranch,there are 3, 200-acre high-fenced enclosures, whichhave supplemental feed available for deer. The enclosurescontained 1 deer/20 acres (low density), 1 deer/8acres (medium density), and 1 deer/5 acres (high density).Feed consumption of deer was measured in 2free-choice feeders and weekly consumption ratescalculated. We investigated the effect of rainfall andtemperature on feed consumed throughout the year ineach of the 3 enclosures.COMPLETED RESEARCH• Feed consumption was negatively correlated to thesum of rainfall 3, 4, and 5 weeks prior to consumptionin the fall, spring, and winter, respectively.• During summer, feed consumption was positivelycorrelated to the sum of rainfall 5 weeks prior.• Consumption was negatively correlated to temperaturein fall and winter, but positively correlatedin spring and summer.• These data provide evidence of the influence ofweather conditions on white-tailed deer feedconsumption.• Understanding seasonal patterns of feed consumptionin relation to rainfall and temperature will aidwildlife managers in estimating total annual consumptionof feed by white-tailed deer based ondeer density.Cooperative funding was provided by the Comanche Ranch,T. Dan Friedkin, Faith Ranch, and Neva and Wesley WestFoundation.Differences in Decomposition Rates ofBuffelgrass and TangleheadMari-Vaughn V. Johnson and Timothy E. FulbrightReplacement of native species by exotic speciesmay include changes in nutrient ratios in growing anddecomposing plant tissues. This may affect rates ofherbivory, rates of decomposition, and competitiveadvantages. An invasive plant may establish a strongpositive feedback loop, enforcing nitrogen cycling thatmeets its own needs more effectively than the nitrogenneeds of native plant species. These changes may leadto a loss of biodiversity and to long-term alterations ofthe soil and nitrogen cycle.© Timothy FulbrightTanglehead is a native species that may be able to outcompeteexotic species such as buffelgrass.In this study, we examined nutrient cycling contributionsof native tanglehead and exotic buffelgrass.We decomposed root and shoot tissues of tangleheadand buffelgrass (4 total tissue types) for a year andevaluated decomposition rates, cellulose, hemicellulose,and carbon-to-nitrogen ratios.• Tanglehead shoots decomposed the slowest of all4 tissue types; buffelgrass shoots decomposed themost quickly. There was no difference in decompositionrates of the roots.• We found tanglehead had more hemicellulose inits roots and shoots than buffelgrass had in thesame tissues.• In their shoot tissue, tanglehead had more cellulosethan buffelgrass, but buffelgrass roots hadmore cellulose than tanglehead roots.• Buffelgrass roots and shoots had more lignin thanthe respective tanglehead tissues.• Buffelgrass had much lower carbon-to-nitrogenratios in both tissue types compared to tanglehead,which accounts for its much faster decompositiontime.• We conclude that the 2 grasses decompose at differentrates, which may have long-term effects onnutrient cycling.Cooperative funding was provided by U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency STAR, College of Graduate Studies atTexas A&M University-Kingsville, the Jack R. and LorisJ. Welhausen Experimental Station, and the Tom SlickFellowship from Texas A&M University.88

COMPLETED RESEARCHStable Isotopes to Estimate SupplementalFeed Consumption by White-tailed DeerRyan L. Darr, David G. Hewitt, Timothy E. Fulbright,Charles A. DeYoung, Aaron M. Foley, Garrett R. Timmons,Mark K. Richman, Nathan A. Newman, Stephen L. Webb,and Don A. DraegerCarbon (δ 13 C) and nitrogen (δ 15 N) stable isotopeanalysis has received little attention as a potentialmethod for investigating white-tailed deer foragingecology. The isotopic ratios of hair and antler wereused to create linear formulas for estimating supplementalfeed consumption of white-tailed deer on 2ranches in South Texas. These formulas allowed forthe development of equations to estimate the percentageof supplemental feed that was consumed byindividual deer.• Stable isotope analysis allows the estimation ofsupplemental feed use in an individual deer’s diety = -0.0323x + 4.98given that (1) the isotopic signature of tissues fromdeer without access to supplemental feed is knownand (2) the isotopic signature of the supplementalfeed differs from that of natural forages.• Isotopic signatures in the tissues of deer withoutaccess to supplemental feed can provide an indirectdetermination of the dominant deer forages ina given area.• Diets of individual deer on Ranch A were composedof 6–60% supplemental feed, whereas dietsof deer on Ranch B contained 46–81% supplementalfeed.• This research will require a larger sample of deerwithout access to supplemental feed and a feedwith an isotopic signature that greatly varies fromthat of available forages.• Stable isotopes provide a useful method to investigatethe foraging ecology of white-tailed deer andother species that are suitable for management.Cooperative funding was provided by the Comanche Ranch,T. Dan Friedkin, Faith Ranch, the Neva and Wesley WestFoundation, and the ExxonMobil Production CompanyInternship Program.13 C Antler15 N AntlerPercent Supplemental Feed Ranch Ay = 0.0386x - 21.67Percent Supplemental Feed Ranch ARelationship between percentage supplemental feed in awhite-tailed deer’s diet and the ratio of carbon and nitrogenisotopes in the deer’s antler. Using these relationships,the percentage of supplemental feed in a deer’s diet canbe estimated from analysis of an antler sample.LANDSAT Imagery to Identify PotentialOcelot Habitat in Tamaulipas, MexicoAaron M. Haines, Arturo Caso, Michael E. Tewes, andEric J. RedekerThe greatest threat to ocelot conservation isthe lack of suitable habitat, which consists of densewoody cover. Techniques that can accurately identifyocelot habitat from remotely sensed imagery could aidocelot conservation. In addition, the successful managementof ocelots within neighboring Mexico may beimportant in maintaining viable populations of ocelotswithin the U.S.The objectives of this study were to develop acover map identifying ocelot habitat within a biologicalresearch area (Los Ebanos Ranch) in Tamaulipas,Mexico, and ground truth this cover map to measureits accuracy in identifying ocelot habitat.• Using a LANDSAT ETM 7 image acquired inApril of 2000, we delineated supervised classificationtraining sites based on known ocelot habitat89

COMPLETED RESEARCHLos Ebanos Ranch Boundary>75% Woody Cover© Feline Research Program of CKWRIGIS map showing areas on the study site that had habitatsuitable for ocelots.defined as >75% woody cover using ArcGIS 9software.• Using the training sites delineated in ArcGIS 9,spectral signatures were developed for supervisedclassification within the ERDAS IMAGINE 8.7software program, which produced a cover mapthat identified areas with >75% woody cover.• We created random points within the cover mapand measured its accuracy by ground-truthing.• The cover map had an accuracy of >85%, therebyqualifying the cover map as acceptable for landuse classification.• This technique can be used to delineate covertypes for other species, thus giving biologists theability to conduct habitat selection analysis, identifyimportant conservation areas, and developrecovery strategies to link habitat patches.Cooperative funding was provided by the Feline ResearchProgram of the CKWRI and the Dallas Zoo.Serologic Survey of Feral Hogs in Easternand Southern TexasA. Christy Wyckoff, Scott E. Henke, Tyler A. Campbell,David G. Hewitt, and Kurt VerCauterenThe pork industry has spent millions of dollars toeradicate significant diseases from domestic swine.Pseudorabies (PR), swine brucellosis, and ClassicalSwine Fever (CSF) have been or will soon be eradicatedfrom the domestic swine industry; however, PRand brucellosis are both present in feral hog populations.CSF has been eradicated from both domesticand wild populations since the late 1970s. A fourthdisease, Porcine Respiratory and ReproductiveSyndrome (PRRS), is an emerging disease in domesticswine (since the late 1980s) and has only recentlybeen found in feral hog populations. Our purpose wasto determine the prevalence of antibodies to the aboveinfectious disease agents in feral hogs occurring ineastern and southern Texas.• Blood from 344 feral hogs was collected and analyzedfor the presence of antibodies to infectiousagents that cause PR, brucellosis, and CSF. Only148 blood samples were collected for testing thepresence of PRRS virus antibodies.• Serologic prevalence of antibodies to agents causingPR, brucellosis, CSF, and PRRS was 28, 13, 0,and 1%, respectively.• Antibody prevalence rates to agents causing PRand brucellosis were similar to other serologic surveysconducted on feral hog populations aroundthe nation.• Our findings indicate that CSF retains its eradicatedstatus; however, PRRS appears to be anewly emerging disease in feral hog populations,with potential for transmission between domesticanimals and susceptible wildlife.Cooperative funding was provided by USDA APHIS-WildlifeServices-National Wildlife Research Center and the TexasAnimal Health Commission.Molecular Identification of Babesia bovisand B. bigemina in Deer from MexicoAntonio Cantu, J. Alfonso Ortega-Santos, Juan Mosqueda,Zeferino Garcia-Vazquez, Scott E. Henke, and John E. GeorgeThe suitability of white-tailed deer as hosts forcattle ticks (Boophilus) has been well documented.These ticks have a wide host range and transmitBabesia bovis and B. bigemina, the agents responsiblefor bovine babesiosis. Although this disease and itsvectors have been eradicated from the U.S. and somestates in northern Mexico, it is still a problem in other90

states of Mexico. It is not known whether wild cervidslike white-tailed deer act as reservoirs for agents thatcause bovine babesiosis. The purpose of this studywas to determine the presence of B. bovis and B. bigeminaand antibodies against them in white-tailed deerin the states of Nuevo Leon and Tamaulipas, Mexico.• Eleven blood samples were positive for B. bigeminaand 4 for B. bovis out of the 20 samplestested.• Specific antibodies against B. bigemina and B.bovis were found in serum samples.• This is the first report of the presence of B. bovisand B. bigemina in white-tailed deer and underscoresthe importance of these cervids as possiblereservoirs for bovine babesiosis.Cooperative funding was provided by USDA ARS Knipling-Bushland U.S. Livestock Insects Research Laboratory,Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales, Agricolasy Pecuarias, and Union Ganadera Regional de NuevoLeon.COMPLETED RESEARCHCourtesy Texas Parks and Wildlife ©200591

ABSTRACT EXTERNAL AUTHORS AND CO-AUTHORSMr. Ty Bartoskewitz, Texas Parks and WildlifeDr. Terry L. Blankenship, Rob and Bessie WelderWildlife FoundationDr. Clint W. Boal, U.S. Geological Survey, BiologicalResearch Division, Texas Cooperative Fish andWildlife Research UnitMs. Kathy Boydston, Texas Parks and WildlifeDr. Dulce Brousset, Department of Wildlife andEthology, UNAM, MexicoMr. A. Lawrence Bryan, Jr., Savannah River EcologyLaboratoryMr. Alan T. Cain, Texas Parks and WildlifeDr. Tyler A. Campbell, USDA APHIS-WildlifeServices-National Wildlife Research Center TexasField StationMr. Sasha Carvajal, Pronatura Noreste Monterrey,Nuevo Leon, MexicoDr. Stephen Demarais, Department of Wildlife andFisheries, Mississippi State UniversityDr. James N. Derr, Department of VeterinaryPathology, Texas Agricultural Station, TAMUMr. David Douget, Bladerunner Farms, Inc.Ms. Patricia Downey, Oklahoma State UniversityMr. Don A. Draeger, Comanche RanchDr. D. Lynn Drawe, Rob and Bessie Welder WildlifeFoundationDr. Mike Dunbar, USDA APHIS-Wildlife Services-National Wildlife Research CenterDr. Whichan Eiadthong, Kasetsart University,Bangkok, ThailandMr. Justin Fields, King Ranch, Inc.Ms. Katherine Fogelberg, College of VeterinaryMedicine, TAMUDr. W. Mark Ford, USDA Forest Service, NortheasternResearch StationMr. James R. Fugate, Texas Parks and WildlifeMs. Sally A. Gall, U.S. Department of the Interior,Fish and Wildlife Service, Buenos Aires NationalWildlife RefugeDr. Michelle A. Garcia, Department of Animal andWildlife Sciences, TAMUKDr. Zeferino Garcia-Vasquez, Centro Nacional deInvestigacion Disciplinaria en ParasitologiaVeterinariaDr. Dale E. Gawlik, Florida Atlantic UniversityMr. Kenneth L. Gee, Samuel Roberts Noble FoundationDr. John E. George, USDA Agriculture ResearchServices, Knipling-Bushland U.S. LivestockInsects Research LaboratoryDr. Robert A. Gonzales, Samuel Roberts NobleFoundationDr. William E. Grant, Department of Wildlife andFisheries Sciences, TAMUDr. Clay Green, Texas State UniversityDr. Fred S. Guthery, Department of Natural ResourceEcology and Management, Oklahoma StateUniversityDr. Mickey W. Hellickson, King Ranch, Inc.Mr. Froylán Hernández, Texas Parks and WildlifeDr. Rodney L. Honeycutt, Department of Wildlife andFisheries Sciences, TAMUDr. Jon Horne, University of IdahoMr. Ronnie Howard, Freeport-McMoran, San TomasHunting CampMr. Daniel Kunz, Texas Parks and WildlifeMs. Linda L. Laack, U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceDr. Steven J. Lapidge, Invasive Animals CooperativeResearch Centre, AustraliaDr. Benjamin R. Laseter, Warnell School of ForestResources, University of GeorgiaDr. Susan Lingle, Department of Psychology andNeuroscience, University of Lethbridge andDepartment of Biological Sciences, University ofAlbertaMr. John Lloyd-Reilley, E. “Kika” de la Garza PlantMaterials Center/USDA-Natural ResourcesConservation ServiceMr. David S. Lobpries, Texas Parks and WildlifeMr. Mitchell A. Lockwood, Texas Parks and WildlifeMs. Shelly D. Maher, E. “Kika” de la Garza PlantMaterials Center/USDA-Natural ResourcesConservation ServiceMr. Dean D. Marquardt, Texas Parks and WildlifeMr. Evan McCoy, Texas Parks and WildlifeMr. Brian T. Mesenbrink, USDA APHIS-WildlifeServices-National Wildlife Research CenterMr. Bradley F. Miller, Warnell School of ForestResources, University of GeorgiaDr. Karl V. Miller, Warnell School of ForestResources, University of GeorgiaMr. Scott Mitchell, Texas Parks and WildlifeDr. Thomas E. Moorman, Ducks Unlimited, Inc.Dr. Arnulfo Moreno, Instituto Tecnologico de Cd.Victoria, MexicoDr. Michael Morrison, Texas A&M UniversityDr. Juan Mosqueda, Centro Nacional de InvestigacionDisciplinaria en Parasitologia VeterinariaDr. James P. Muir, Texas A&M University ExperimentStation at StephenvilleMr. Jim Mutz, Rancho Blanco Corp.Mr. Gary Nunley, USDA APHIS-Wildlife ServicesDr. William R. Ocumpaugh, TAMU AgriculturalExperiment Station, BeevilleDr. William E. Palmer, Tall Timbers Research Station,Tallahassee, FLDr. John Patton, Purdue University92

Dr. Sergio M. Pellis, Department of Psychology andNeuroscience, University of LethbridgeDr. Danny B. Pence, Department of Pathology, TexasTech University Health Sciences CenterMr. Robert M. Perez, Texas Parks and WildlifeDr. Glenn H. Perrigo, Department of Biology, TAMUKMr. Robert Pitman, U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceMr. Albert Quiroga, E. “Kika” de la Garza PlantMaterials Center/USDA-Natural ResourcesConservation ServiceDr. Drew Rendall, Department of Psychology andNeuroscience, University of LethbridgeMr. Richard R. Riddle, U.S. NavyMr. Jay A. Roberson, Texas Parks and WildlifeDr. J. Jeffrey Root, USDA APHIS-Wildlife Services-National Wildlife Research CenterMr. Donald C. Ruthven, III, Texas Parks and WildlifeMr. Jimmy Rutledge, Texas Parks and WildlifeDr. Duane Schlitter, Texas Parks and WildlifeDr. T. Wayne Schwertner, Texas Parks and WildlifeMr. Andy Scott, Rio Farms, Inc.Mr. David B. Shindle, The Conservancy of SouthwestFloridaDr. Ana Sifuentes Rincón, Instituto PolitecnicoNational, Centro de Biotecnologia Genomica,Reynosa, MexicoDr. Nova J. Silvy, Department of Wildlife andFisheries Sciences, TAMUDr. Randy L. Stanko, Department of Animal andWildlife Sciences, TAMUKDr. Bronson K. Strickland, Department of Wildlifeand Fisheries, Mississippi State UniversityMr. Jason A. Sumners, Department of Wildlife andFisheries Sciences, TAMUDr. Ronald A. Van Den Bussche, Department ofZoology, Oklahoma State UniversityDr. Kurt VerCauteren, USDA APHIS-WildlifeServices-National Wildlife Research CenterMr. Chris W. WalkerDr. Melinda C. Wiles, Texas Veterinary MedicalDiagnostic LaboratoryMr. W. Finbarr Wilson, Department of Psychology andNeuroscience, University of LethbridgeDr. Akihiro YamaneMr. Robert ShrumMr. Cody J. ZabranskyMs. Angeline ZamoranoTAMUK Undergraduate StudentsMr. Fernando ChavanaMr. Ryan L. DarrMr. Salvador De AlbaMr. Reagan T. GageMs. Cristela GonzalezMr. Robert D. Kaiser, IIIMs. Krisan M. KelleyMr. David LaughlinMr. Clinton S. McMonagleMs. Rebecca Miller93

PAPERS PUBLISHED 2005–IN PRESSAnsley, R. J., and G. A. Rasmussen. 2005. Managingnative invasive juniper species using fire. WeedTechnology 19:517–522.Arredondo, J., Jr., and F. Hernández. 2005. Waiting forthe rain. South Texas Wildlife 9(3):1–2.Ballard, B. M. Linking waterfowl ecology and management:A Texas Gulf Coast perspective. In Frontiersin Wildlife Science: Linking Ecological Theoryand Management Applications, T. E. Fulbright andD. G. Hewitt, editors. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL(In Press).Ballard, B. M., J. E. Thompson, and M. J. Petrie. 2006.Carcass composition and digestive tract dynamicsof northern pintails wintering along the lower Texascoast. Journal of Wildlife Management (In Press).Bates, E., and B. Ballard. 2005. The charismatic reddishegret. South Texas Wildlife 9(1):1–2.Blankenship, T. L., A. M. Haines, M. E. Tewes, and N. J.Silvy. 2006. Comparing survival and cause-specificmortality rates between resident and transient bobcatsLynx rufus. Wildlife Biology (In Press).Brennan, L. A. 2005. Research on insectivorous birds:A few of Don Dahlsten’s contributions. Pages 2–10in Proceedings of the 2004 Western Forest InsectWork Conference and the Western InternationalForest Disease Work Conference.Brennan, L. A. 2006. Letter to the Editor. Journal ofWildlife Management (In Press).Brennan, L. A., and F. Hernández. 2005. How quailresearch helps quail management. Quail UnlimitedMagazine 24(6):72–74.Brennan, L. A., and F. Hernández. 2005. How quailresearch helps quail management. Covey Rise.December Issue, pages 12–13.Brennan, L. A., and F. Hernández. 2005. QuailUnlimited supports quail research in South Texas.Quail Unlimited. October Issue.Brennan, L. A., and W. P. Kuvlesky, Jr. 2005. NorthAmerican grassland birds: an unfolding conservationcrisis? Journal of Wildlife Management69:1–13.Brennan, L. A., F. Hernández, and F. C. Bryant. 2005.Quail Unlimited supports quail research in SouthTexas. Quail Unlimited Magazine 24(5):50–55.Brennan, L. A., F. Hernández, W. P. Kuvlesky, Jr., and F.S. Guthery. Upland game bird management: Linkingtheory and practice in South Texas. In Frontiers inWildlife Science: Linking Ecological Theory andManagement Applications, T. E. Fulbright and D.G. Hewitt, editors. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL(In Press).Brennan, L. A., S. DeMaso, F. Guthery, H. Hardin,C. Kowaleski, S. Lerich, R. Perez, M. Porter, D.Rollins, M. Sams, T. Trail, and D. Wilhelm. 2005.Where have all the quail gone? The Texas QuailConservation Initiative: A proactive approach torestoring quail populations by improving wildlifehabitat. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department,Austin, TX.Brown, R. D., and S. M. Cooper. 2006. The nutritional,ecological and ethical arguments againstbaiting and feeding deer. Wildlife Society Bulletin34(2):519–524.Bryant, F. 2005. Reflections on 2005. South TexasWildlife 9(4):3–4.Campbell, T. A. 2005. Pseudorabies mission accomplished.So, what’s next? South Texas Wildlife9(3):3–4.Campbell, T. A., and D. G. Hewitt. 2005. Nutritionalvalue of guajillo as a component of male white-taileddeer diets. Rangeland Ecology and Management58:58–64.Campbell, T. A., S. J. Lapidge, and D. B. Long. 2006.Using baits to deliver pharmaceuticals to feral swinein southern Texas. Wildlife Society Bulletin (InPress).Campbell, T. A., B. R. Laseter, W. M. Ford, and K. V.Miller. 2005. Population characteristics of a centralAppalachian white-tailed deer herd. WildlifeSociety Bulletin 33:212–221.Campbell, T. A., B. R. Laseter, W. M. Ford, R. H. Odom,and K. V. Miller. 2006. Abiotic factors influencingwhite-tailed deer browsing in West Virginia.Northern Journal of Applied Forestry 23:20–26.Campbell, T. A., C. A. Langdon, B. R. Laseter, W.M. Ford, J. W. Edwards, and K. V. Miller. 2006.Movement of female white-tailed deer to bait sitesin West Virginia, USA. Wildlife Research 33:1–4.Cash, V. W., and T. E. Fulbright. 2005. Nutrient enrichment,tannins, and thorns: effects on browsing on94

shrub seedlings. Journal of Wildlife Management69:525–526.Caso, A., S. Carvajal-Villarreal, P. Downey, and A.Moreno. 2005. Técnica de captura y manejo delmargay (Leopardus wiedii) en la Reserva de laBiosfera El Cielo. Pages 538–542 in Historia naturalde la reserva de la Biosfera “El Cielo,” Tamaulipas,México, G. Sánchez-Ramos, P. Reyes-Castillo,and R. Dirzo, editors. Universidad Autónoma deTamaulipas, Instituto de Ecología A. C., UNAM.Constantine, N. L., T. A. Campbell, W. M. Baughman,T. B. Harrington, B. R. Chapman, and K. V. Miller.2005. Small mammal distributions relative to corridoredges within intensively managed southern pineplantations. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry29:148–151.Cooper, S. M. 2006. Reducing feral hog activity neardeer feeders: comparing cottonseed and pelletedsupplement. Pages 79–85 in Advancing WildlifeManagement in the Southwest, New Challengesfor the 21st Century. Proceedings of The WildlifeSociety Southwestern Section, Alpine, TX.Cooper, S. M., J. C. Cathey, and S. S. Sieckenius. Videoscale:A novel device to measure supplemental feedconsumption by wildlife. Wildlife Society Bulletin(In Press).Cooper, S. M., A. L. Wappel, and C. A. Hamilton. Partialalbinism in the hispid pocket mouse, Chaetodipushispidus in South Texas. Texas Journal of Science(In Press).Cooper, S. M., M. K. Owens, R. M. Cooper, and T. F.Ginnett. 2006. Effect of supplemental feedingon spatial distribution and browse utilization bywhite-tailed deer. Journal of Arid Environments66:716–726.DeYoung, C. A. 2005. Feeding cottonseed to deer.Inside Deer Research 2(2):4.DeYoung, C. A., M. W. Hellickson, and T. A. Campbell.2005. Buck movements: dominant floaters andother theories. Inside Deer Research 2(1):2–3.DeYoung, C. A., D. L. Drawe, T. E. Fulbright, D. G.Hewitt, S. W. Stedman, D. R. Synatzske, and J.G. Teer. Density dependence in deer populations:relevance for management in variable environments.In Frontiers in Wildlife Science: LinkingEcological Theory and Management Applications, T.E. Fulbright and D. G. Hewitt, editors. CRC Press,Boca Raton, FL (In Press).DeYoung, R. 2005. Genetic insights into buck breedingsuccess. Inside Deer Research 2(1):1–2.DeYoung, R. 2005. Using genetic methods to manageferal pigs. South Texas Wildlife 9(1):3–4.DeYoung, R. 2005. Genetic breeding success andfawn recruitment: A long-term view. Inside DeerResearch 2:(2)1–2.DeYoung, R. The application of genetic techniques tothe management of wildlife populations in the 21stcentury. In Frontiers in Wildlife Science: LinkingEcological Theory and Management Applications, T.E. Fulbright and D. G. Hewitt, editors. CRC Press,Boca Raton, FL (In Press).DeYoung, R. W., and L. A. Brennan. 2005. Moleculargenetics in wildlife science, conservation, andmanagement. Journal of Wildlife Management69:1360–1361.DeYoung, R. W., and R. L. Honeycutt. 2005. Themolecular toolbox: genetic techniques in wildlifeecology and management. Journal of WildlifeManagement 69:1362–1384.DeYoung, R. W., S. Demarais, R. L. Honeycutt, K. L.Gee, and R. A. Gonzales. 2006. Social dominanceand male breeding success in white-tailed deer:instability, unpredictability, and individual heterogeneity.Wildlife Society Bulletin 34:131–136.Doan-Crider, D., and D. G. Hewitt. 2005. El Oso NegroMexicano Regresa de Manera Natural. Biodiversitas63:2–5.Elston, J. J., E. A. Klinksiek, and D. G. Hewitt. 2005.Digestive efficiency of collared peccaries and wildpigs. The Southwestern Naturalist 50:515–519.Fedynich, A. M., R. S. Finger, B. M. Ballard, J. M.Garvon, and M. J. Mayfield. 2005. Helminths ofRoss’ and greater white-fronted geese winteringin South Texas, USA. Comparative Parasitology72:33–38.Flanders, A. A., W. P. Kuvlesky, Jr., D. C. Ruthven, III,R. E. Zaiglan, R. L. Bingham, T. F. Fulbright, F.Hernández, and L. A. Brennan. 2006. Impacts ofexotic grasses on South Texas breeding bird communities.The Auk 123:171–182.Fulbright, T. E. 2005. Cattle grazing to improvedeer habitat: Unanswered questions. Inside DeerResearch 2:(2)2–3.Fulbright, T. E., and J. A. Ortega-Santos. 2006. WhitetailedDeer Habitat: Ecology and Management onRangelands. Texas A&M University Press, CollegeStation, TX.Fulbright, T. E., and J. A. Ortega-Santos. 2006.Livestock grazing and wildlife management in NorthAmerica. Sècheresse 17:1–6.95

Fulbright, T. E., J. A. Ortega-Santos, A. Lozano-Cavazos,and L. E. Ramírez-Yanez. Establishing vegetationon migrating inland sand dunes in Texas. RangelandEcology and Management (In Press).Fulbright, T. E., J. Alfonso Ortega-S., A. Rasmussen,and E. J. Redeker. Applying ecological theoryto habitat management: the altering effect of climate.In Frontiers in Wildlife Science: LinkingEcological Theory and Management Applications, T.E. Fulbright and D. G. Hewitt, editors. CRC Press,Boca Raton, FL (In Press).Gonzalez Valenzuela, E. A., M. A. Hussey, and J. A.Ortega Santos. 2005. Nutritive value of desmanthusassociated with kleingrass during the establishmentyear. Rangeland Ecology and Management58:308–314.Gonzalez Valenzuela, E. A., J. M. Avila C., J. A. OrtegaSantos, and M. A. Gonzalez P. 2005. Effect ofcutting height on kenaf (Hibiscus cannabinus L.)yield in Northeastern Mexico. Tecnica Pecuaria enMexico 43(1):93–100.Grassman, L. I., Jr., J. Janecka, and M. E. Tewes. 2006.Ecological separation of Martes flavigula with 5sympatric mesocarnivores in northcentral Thailand.Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium,Lisbon, Portugal (In Press).Grassman, L. I., Jr., M. E. Tewes, and N. J. Silvy.2005. Ranging, habitat use and activity patterns ofbinturong Arctictis binturong and yellow-throatedmarten Martes flavigula in north-central Thailand.Wildlife Biology 11:49–57.Grassman, L. I., Jr., M. E. Tewes, and N. J. Silvy.2005. Armoring the Camtrakker camera-trap ina tropical Asian forest. Wildlife Society Bulletin33:349–352.Grassman, L. I., Jr., A. M. Haines, J. E. Janecka, and M.E. Tewes. 2006. Activity periods of photo-capturedmammals in northcentral Thailand. Mammalia (InPress).Grassman, L. I., Jr., A. M. Haines, J. E. Janecka, andM. E. Tewes. 2006. Activity patterns of birds inThailand as determined by camera-trapping. TigerPaper (In Press).Grassman, L. I., Jr., A. M. Haines, M. E. Tewes, and N.J. Silvy. 2005. Stouffer wildlife timers as an indexof vertebrate activity periods in a tropical forest.Wildlife Society Bulletin 33:1174–1177.Grassman, L. I., Jr., K. Kreetiyutanont, M. E. Tewes, andN. J. Silvy. 2005. Translocation of a captive-raisedleopard cat (Prionailurus bengalensis) in north centralThailand. Natural History Bulletin of the SiamSociety 52:49–54.Grassman, L. I., Jr., M. E. Tewes, N. J. Silvy, and K.Kreetiyutanont. 2005. Spatial organization anddiet of the leopard cat (Prionailurus bengalensis)in north-central Thailand. Journal of Zoology(London) 266:45–54.Grassman, L. I., Jr., M. E. Tewes, N. J. Silvy, and K.Kreetiyutanont. 2005. Ecology of three sympatricfelids in a mixed evergreen forest in north-centralThailand. Journal of Mammalogy 86:29–38.Grassman, L. I., Jr., M. E. Tewes, N. J. Silvy, and K.Kreetiyutanont. 2005. Spatial ecology and diet ofthe dhole Cuon alpinus (Canidae, Carnivora) in northcentral Thailand. Mammalia 69:11–20.Guthery, F. S., L. A. Brennan, M. J. Peterson, and J. J.Lusk. 2005. Information theory and wildlife science:critique and viewpoint. Journal of WildlifeManagement 69:457–465.Haines, A. M., L. Grassman, Jr., and M. E. Tewes. 2005.The first ocelot tracked via satellite telemetry. CatNews 43:18.Haines, A. M., M. E. Tewes, and L. L. Laack. 2005.Survival and sources of mortality in ocelots. Journalof Wildlife Management 69:255–263.Haines, A. M., A. Caso, M. E. Tewes, and E. J. Redeker.2005. Using Landsat imagery to identify potentialocelot habitat in Tamaulipas, Mexico. Proceedings ofthe 20th Biennial Workshop on Aerial Photography,Videography, and High Resolution Digital Imageryfor Resource Assessment #71, Weslaco, TX.Haines, A. M., L. I. Grassman, Jr., M. E. Tewes, and J.E. Janecka. 2006. First ocelot (Leopardus pardalis)monitored with GPS telemetry. European Journalof Wildlife Research (In Press).Haines, A. M., J. E. Janecka, M. E. Tewes, L. I. Grassman,Jr., and P. Morton. 2006. The importance of privatelands for ocelot Leopardus pardalis conservation inthe United States. Oryx 40:1–5.Haines, A. M., M. E. Tewes, L. L. Laack, W. E. Grant,and J. H. Young. 2005. Evaluating recovery strategiesfor an ocelot population in the United States.Biological Conservation 126:512–522.Haines, A. M., M. E. Tewes, L. L. Laack, J. S. Horne,and J. H. Young. 2006. Habitat based populationviability analysis of ocelots in southern Texas.Biological Conservation (In Press).Hardin, J. B., L. A. Brennan, F. Hernández, E. J. Redeker,and W. P. Kuvlesky, Jr. 2005. Empirical tests ofhunter-covey interface models. Journal of WildlifeManagement 69:498–514.96

Heilbrun, R. D., N. J. Silvy, M. J. Peterson, and M. E.Tewes. 2006. Estimating bobcat abundance usingautomatically triggered cameras. Wildlife SocietyBulletin 34:69–73.Henke, S. E., and D. M. Ruffino. 2006. A skunk byany other name would smell as sweet. South TexasWildlife 10(1):3–4.Henke, S. E., T. A. Campbell, and A. M. Fedynich.Wildlife disease management: an insurmountableproblem? In Frontiers in Wildlife Science: LinkingEcological Theory and Management Applications, T.E. Fulbright and D. G. Hewitt, editors. CRC Press,Boca Raton, FL (In Press).Hernández, F. 2005. Figment quail. Texas Wildlife.October Issue 21:22.Hernández, F. 2005. Graduate student spotlight: JoshRusk. The Bobwhite Post 8(1):1.Hernández, F. 2005. Quail call: upcoming wildlifemeetings of interest. The Bobwhite Post 8(1):4.Hernández, F., L. A. Harveson, F. Hernández, andC. E. Brewer. 2006. Habitat characteristics ofMontezuma quail foraging areas in the Trans-PecosMountains and Basins Ecoregion. Wildlife SocietyBulletin (In Press).Hernández, F., J. A. Arredondo, F. Hernández, F. C.Bryant, and L. A. Brennan. 2006. Abnormal eggsand incubation behavior in northern bobwhite.Wilson Journal of Ornithology 118:114–116.Hernández, F., W. P. Kuvlesky, Jr., R. W. DeYoung, L.A. Brennan, and S. A. Gall. 2006. Recovery of rarespecies: case study of the masked bobwhite. Journalof Wildlife Management 70:617–631.Hernández, F., J. A. Arredondo, F. Hernández, F. C.Bryant, L. A. Brennan, and R. L. Bingham. 2005.Influence of weather on population dynamics ofnorthern bobwhite. Wildlife Society Bulletin33:1071–1079.Hernández, F., K. M. Kelley, J. A. Arredondo, F.Hernández, D. G. Hewitt, F. C. Bryant, and R. L.Bingham. 2006. Population irruptions in quail: testingan age-specific reproduction hypothesis. Journalof Wildlife Management (In Press).Herrera-Cedano, F., W. Ocumpaugh, J. A. Ortega-Santos,J. J. Lloyd-Reilley, G. A. Rasmussen, and S. Maher.2006. Improving germination in windmillgrassecotypes. Rangeland Ecology and Management(In Press).Hewitt, D. G. 2005. Fawns and food: Fuel for SouthTexas deer management. Inside Deer Research2(1):3–4.Hewitt, D. G., and D. L. Doan-Crider. Digestible energyas an organizing principle for bear ecology andmanagement in northern Mexico. In Frontiers inWildlife Science: Linking Ecological Theory andManagement Applications, T. E. Fulbright and D.G. Hewitt, editors. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL(In Press).Hewitt, D. G., and B. Pierce. 2005. Trapping, transporting,and transplanting deer: Preliminary analysis ofa TTT program. Inside Deer Research 2(2):3.Janecka, J. E., T. L. Blankenship, D. H. Hirth, M. E.Tewes, C. W. Kilpatrick, and L. I. Grassman, Jr.2006. Kinship and social structure of bobcats (Lynxrufus) inferred from microsatellite and radio-telemetrydata. Journal of Zoology (London) (In Press).Janecka, J. E., T. L. Blankenship, D. H. Hirth, C. W.Kilpatrick, L. I. Grassman, Jr., and M. E. Tewes.Evidence for male-biased dispersal in bobcats usingrelatedness analysis. Journal of Wildlife Biology(In Press).Janecka, J. E., L. I Grassman, Jr., J. N. Derr, R. L.Honeycutt, W. Eiadthong, and M. E. Tewes. 2006.A method for rapid whole genome amplificationof DNA and applications to conservation genetics.Wildlife Society Bulletin (In Press).Janecka, J. E., C. W. Walker, M. E. Tewes, A. Caso, L. L.Laack, and R. L. Honeycutt. 2006. Phylogeneticsof ocelot from the Tamaulipan Biotic Province andimplications for ocelot recovery. The SouthwesternNaturalist (In Press).Kinkel, D. D., and S. E. Henke. 2006. Impact of undergraduateresearch on academic performance, educationalplanning, and career development. Journalof Natural Resources and Life Science Education(In Press).Kraft, C. A. 2005. 25th anniversary symposiumFrontiers in Wildlife Science. South Texas Wildlife9(4):1–2.Kraft, C. A. 2006. Celebrating the 25th anniversary ofCKWRI. South Texas Wildlife 10(2):1.Kuvlesky, W. P., Jr., L. A. Brennan, B. M. Ballard, andT. M. Langschied. Avian ecology at the landscapescale in South Texas: Applying metapopulationtheory to grassland bird conservation. In Frontiersin Wildlife Science: Linking Ecological Theoryand Management Applications, T. E. Fulbright andD. G. Hewitt, editors. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL(In Press).Laack, L. L., M. E. Tewes, A. M. Haines, and J.Rappole. 2005. Reproductive life history of ocelotsLeopardus pardalis in southern Texas. ActaTheriologica 50:505–514.97

Langschied, T., and F. Bryant. 2005. CKWRI kicks offSouth Texas Wintering Birds program. South TexasWildlife 9(2):1–2.Lloyd, E., K. Kreetiyutanont, J. Pharbnasuk, L. I.Grassman, Jr., and C. Borries. 2006. Phayre’sleaf monkeys mob a clouded leopard at Phu KhieoWildlife Sanctuary (Thailand). Mammalia (InPress).Long, D. B., T. A. Campbell, and S. E. Henke. 2006.Baylisascaris procyonis (Nematoda: Ascaridoidea)in raccoons (Procyon lotor) from Duval County,Texas. Texas Journal of Science 58:281–285.Ludwick, T. J., and A. M. Fedynich. 2006. Make wayfor the Eurasian collared-dove. South Texas Wildlife10(1):1–2.McCoy, J. E., D. G. Hewitt, and F. C. Bryant. 2005.Dispersal by yearling male white-tailed deer andimplications for management. Journal of WildlifeManagement 69:366–376.McDonald, C. G., S. Demarais, T. A. Campbell, H.F. Janssen, V. G. Allen, and A. M. Kelly. 2005.Physical and chemical characteristics of antlersand antler breakage in white-tailed deer. TheSouthwestern Naturalist 50:356–362.McLean, R. G., L. Clark, M. R. Dunbar, K. C.VerCauteren, and T. A. Campbell. 2005. Wildlifedisease research at the APHIS National WildlifeResearch Center. Pages 123–135 in Proceedingsof the 108th Annual Meeting of the United StatesAnimal Health Association.Medellín, R. A., C. Manterola, M. Valdéz, D. G. Hewitt,D. Doan‐Crider, and T. E. Fulbright. 2005. History,ecology, and conservation of the pronghorn antelope,bighorn sheep, and black bear in Mexico.Pages 387–404 in Biodiversity, Ecosystems, andConservation in Northern Mexico, J. E. Cartron,G. Ceballos, and R. S. Felger, editors. OxfordUniversity Press, New York, NY.Ortega-S., J. A. 2005. Sostenibilidad de pastizales através del uso multiple. Memorias del II SimposioInternacional de Manejo de Pastizales, Zacatecas,Mexico. Electronic Publication.Ortega-S., J. A., and F. C. Bryant. 2005. Cattle managementto enhance wildlife habitat in South Texas.Wildlife Management Bulletin No. 6, Caesar KlebergWildlife Research Institute.Pruitt, K., and D. G. Hewitt. 2005. Declining dovesand domestic grain: Lessons from the Rio GrandeValley. Texas Wildlife, April, page 44.Rader, M. J., L. A. Brennan, F. Hernández, and N. J.Silvy. The northern bobwhite nest predator contextin South Texas. Journal of Wildlife Management(In Press).Rasmussen, G. A. 2005. What we learned from thecareers of Henry A. Wright and Charles J. Scifres infire as a tool for managing wildlife habitats in Texas:A symposium for land managers. September 14–16,Kerrville, TX.Rasmussen, A. 2005. Greetings from South Texas!July Society for Range Management. http://www.rangelands.org/MRN/July.MRN05. ElectronicPublication.Rasmussen, A. 2006. A look at the SRM’s mission.Member Resource News. April. Society for RangeManagement. http://www.rangelands.org/MRN/April.MRN06.pdf. Electronic Publication.Ruffino, D. M., and S. E. Henke. 2005. Assessment ofTexas medical providers concerning rabies vaccines.Pages 375–386 in Proceedings of the 11th WildlifeDamage Management Conference, D. L. Nolteand K. A. Fagerstone, editors. Wildlife DamageManagement Working Group of The WildlifeSociety, Ft. Collins, CO.Rusk, J., and F. Hernández. 2005. The million dollarquestion. The Bobwhite Post 8(1):1–2.Sepúlveda, M., F. Hernández, D. G. Hewitt, W. P.Kuvlesky, Jr., G. Waggerman, and R. L. Bingham.2006. An evaluation of auditory counts for estimatingbreeding populations of white-winged doves.Journal of Wildlife Management (In Press).Strickland, B. K., D. G. Hewitt, C. A. DeYoung, andR. L. Bingham. 2005. Digestible energy requirementsfor maintenance of body mass of white-taileddeer in southern Texas. Journal of Mammalogy86:56–60.Tewes, M. E. 2006. Wild cats of Texas. Texas WildlifeAssociation Magazine.Tewes, M. E., and L. I. Grassman, Jr. 2005. Jaguarundi—mysterious valley cat. Texas Wildlife Extra. TexasWildlife Association 42:42.Tewes, M. E., and M. G. Hornocker. Effects ofdrought on wild cats and their prey. In Frontiers inWildlife Science: Linking Ecological Theory andManagement Applications, T. E. Fulbright and D.G. Hewitt, editors. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL (InPress).Veron, G., P. Gaubert, N. Franklin, A. P. Jennings, andL. I. Grassman, Jr. 2006. A reassessment of thedistribution and taxonomy of the endangered ottercivet, Cynogale bennettii (Carnivora: Viverridae) ofSouth-east Asia. Oryx 40:42–49.98

Webb, S. L. 2005. Management for mature bucks isnot out of reach of the small landowner. QualityWhitetails 12:80–82.Webb, S. L., and D. G. Hewitt. 2006. Water needsof South Texas wildlife. Texas Wildlife, January,page 22.Webb, S. L., and D. G. Hewitt. 2006. Water needsof South Texas wildlife. South Texas Wildlife9(2):2–4.Webb, S. L., C. J. Zabransky, R. S. Lyons, and D. G.Hewitt. 2006. Water use and quality of wildlifewatering sources during summer in Texas. TheSouthwestern Naturalist 51:368–375.Webb, S. L., A. M. Fedynich, S. K. Yeltatzie, T. L.DeVault, and O. E. Rhodes, Jr. 2005. Survey ofblood parasites in black vultures and turkey vulturesfrom South Carolina. The Southeastern Naturalist4:355–360.Welch, T. A., and L. A. Brennan. 2006. The Newhartsyndrome. Quail Unlimited Magazine (In Press).Wiles, M. C., and T. A. Campbell. 2006. Liquid chromatography-electrosprayionization mass spectrometryfor direct identification of iophenoxic acid in serum.Journal of Chromatography B 832:144–157.Williams, C. L., A. M. Fedynich, D. B. Pence, and O.E. Rhodes, Jr. 2005. Evaluation of allozyme andmicrosatellite variation in Texas and Florida mottledducks. The Condor 107:155–161.Wyckoff, A. C., S. E. Henke, T. A. Campbell, D. G.Hewitt, and K. C. VerCauteren. 2006. Is trappingsuccess of feral hogs dependent upon weather conditions?Proceedings of the 22nd Vertebrate PestConference (In Press).Wyckoff, A. C., S. E. Henke, T. A. Campbell, D. G. Hewitt,and K. C. VerCauteren. 2006. Preliminary serologicsurvey of selected diseases and movements of feralswine in Texas. Pages 23–32 in Proceedings of the11th Wildlife Damage Management Conference,D. L. Nolte and K. A. Fagerstone, editors. WildlifeDamage Management Working Group of TheWildlife Society, Ft. Collins, CO.99

Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research InstituteTexas A&M University-KingsvilleMSC 218700 University BoulevardKingsville, Texas 78363-8202(361) 593-3922http://www.ckwri.tamuk.eduCaesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute is a component of Texas A&M University-Kingsvilleprinted on recycled paper