Survey of Large Mammals in Small Portion of Freeman Center

Phillip Allison, Kimberly Aston, Wesley Collins, Hazel Lara, and Kyle Lassiter
Department of Biology, Texas State University, San Marcos, Texas 78666
E-mail: tl1190@txstate.edu
INTRODUCTION
Population surveys are critical to the field of wildlife management in that they provide
very useful information about the area being surveyed. The results can be used to determine the
conditions of a species, whether a certain species needs more management, as well as indicators
for the conditions of the habitat. When looking at the conditions of a species, they can normally
be determined by evaluating species richness and species diversity. Species richness is the
number of different species in a given area and can be used to describe a community without
taking abundance into account. A common goal of many conservation studies is to maximize
species richness. Species diversity is a measurement that includes species richness, abundance,
and distribution (Gotelli 2001). These measurements can be found by using many different
survey methods.
For large mammals, there are several surveying methods including both capture and
index methods. Capture methods include live traps such as Tomahawks, baits and lures, and
camera traps. Index methods are anything that does not include counting the animal itself such as
scat, scent stations, and track observations. Camera trapping has become a popular method to
examine populations because it is effective, non-invasive, causes minimal disturbance, and can
withstand various weather conditions. They are useful in recording time and weather along with

species diversity, habitat use and behavior. Motion-sensor camera traps are triggered by
movement causing the camera to take a snapshot image of the organism in view. These
photographs can then be used to determine information about the populations of the area
(Rowcliffe 2008). Scent stations along with track observations are also a very reliable tool to
determine population diversity and richness. In this method, a station is set, normally on a stake,
where an attracting scent is placed onto the stake and the station in order to lure in desired
species. Sand or mud is placed around the scent station in order to preserve the tracks made by
the organism for later identification. It is a useful index method due to its uniformity, reliability,
and low cost. Scent stations do not give information about individual recognition, but more of
what different species are within the area (Linhart 1975).
Many large mammal surveys have been done in regards to conservation. Scientists are
able to gain a vast amount of information from these studies that could further help with
management techniques that will better the overall conditions of the area. If a species is absent or
in low abundance or there is an overabundance, managers may deem management be conducted
to build a population up or cull individuals to lower numbers. Our objectives for this study are to
determine what species are present and to see if there is any need for active management for a
certain species.
METHODS
Our survey points were based off of Figure 1 which, gives a full layout of each site.
Taking the total area of the study sight (260 ha) ten random points were assigned using the
ArcGIS program (See Table 3). These sites were entered into a random number generator to

determine whether a camera trap station or tracking station was installed. Camera traps with
scent stations and a hanging CD, used as a visual lure, were set at stations 1,2,4,5, and 8 to get
the best species richness and diversity sample we can. Two game cameras, either a Bushnell
game camera or Moultrie BirdCam, were placed facing at a 90 degree angles from the scent
station. CD lures were placed outside the view of the cameras on a tree or fence line. Our
cameras were set with a flash range of about 21.33m and the sensitivity set to the second highest
setting in order to detect intermediate mammals. Track stations were set at sites 3,6,7,9, and 10.
A hole was dug where a section of Biofoam in a box was placed and oriented to be flush with the
ground. Loose soil was then placed in a circle around the Biofoam station to provide extra
substrate to discover tracks in.
In total four different scents were used fox call, creek walker, Predageter, and fermented
egg. We first used the fox call and creek walker scents until the fermented fatty acid scent was
obtained and mixed with Predageter and the other scents to attract a large variety of mammal
species. The scent was placed on a stake or on a tree, rock, or downed log located in the central
point of targeted area. We set the cameras and track stations on either a Thursday or Friday and
let them sit for two nights checking track stations each day and removing the SD cards from the
cameras after the two nights to be checked for pictures. Our starting date was Friday February 28
and continued every weekend for five weeks (Figure 4). Total man hours spent in the field was
69.75 hours. Camera and track stations were active 100 nights for 2050 hours and 50 nights for
1025 hours, respectively and 150 nights for 3075 hours collectively. The species, site at which it
was recorded, and whether by camera or track was documented into a table (Table 1). The

Shannon-Wiener Index;

, was used to quantify species diversity. Species

evenness was determined using Pielous evenness equation:

STUDY SITE
Freeman Center is a 1696.8 hectare ranch situated on the eastern edge of the Balcones
fault just west of San Marcos, TX. The karst topography and unique hydrology in the region
provide a diverse habitat for wildlife, with many upland and lowland areas (Bowles 1993). Water
is concentrated and abundant in some areas, but severe drought can plague the region as well.
Additionally, the area is home to a number of endangered species, such as the Golden-Cheeked
Warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia). Historically, the ranch was open grassland with species of
oaks and other woody species sporadically interspersed throughout. Common grasses included
side-oats grama (Bouteloua curtipendula), big bluestem (Andropogon geradii), and little
bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium). Before European settlement, the area was inhabited by
Native Americans as early as 12000 years ago (Freeman n.d.). Plains bison roamed the vast
grasslands and fire was a major part of the ecology of the region. When Europeans came to the
area, the bison were extirpated and fire was eliminated as a natural process. Since then, the ranch
has been used for agricultural purposes as a cattle, sheep, and goat ranch.
The ranch has historically been overgrazed, and the encroachment of woody vegetation
into grassland is evidence of succession caused from overgrazing of cattle. When the grass was
grazed down to a point that the grazing rate was higher than grass growth rate, there was no
available fuel for fire to occur. Without fire, woody species took over the landscape and the
canopy prevented grasses from establishing (Fuhlendorf 1996). King Ranch Bluestem
(Bothriochloa ischaemum) is an invasive grass that is also abundant at the ranch, and is of

concern to property managers across the state because it is not palatable to animals and
outcompetes native grasses in terms of drought resistance and seed dispersal, however research
shows that growing season controlled burns may have some negative effect on the species
(Simmons 2007). The reduction of grasslands in the area has also led to major erosion problems
in an area very sensitive to this type of disturbance. Currently the ranch is stocked with both
cattle and sheep at around 18.18 hectares per animal unit, and there are plans to restore some of
the grassland. Prescribed burning and brush removal are the primary methods of restoring
grasslands, along with managing wildlife and livestock numbers.
In the area being study on the ranch, the soil at sites 4, 8, and 9 is classified a
Rumple-Comfort association. The parent material for this soil is weathered limestone, and it is a
shallow soil at 45.72-101.6 centimeters before hitting lithic bedrock. Rumple-comfort is a well
drained soil and the slope is between 1 and 8 % grades. Sites 1-7, and 10 contain the
Comfort-Rock outcrop. This soil is formed from weathered limestone, and is about half as deep
before hitting bedrock as Rumple-comfort association. This soil is well drained, and is littered
with cobbled limestone boulders and rocks. Grades are also 1-8% in this soil (NRCS). Due to
past overgrazing leading to erosion, much of the topsoil has been eroded, leaving exposed parent
material. Grasses do not grow in these areas, but woody plants such as huisache (Vachellia
farnesiana var. farnesiana), mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa), coastal live oak (Quercus
virginiana), plateau live oak (Quercus fusiformis), agarita (Mahonia trifoliata),Texas persimmon
(Diospyros texana), and ashe juniper (Juniperus ashei) are able to grow in these places. The
dominant woody species in the study area are huisache, mesquite, live oak, and juniper. For a
brief description of the vegetation for each site see Table 5. Dense cedar brakes and oak thickets

are used as cover by many species of wildlife, however these woody species generally are of
poor nutritional value aside from some species (oaks, mesquites, junipers, and persimmons)
providing seasonal mast for wildlife. Overall, the study area contains many resources for wildlife
and the potential for a high abundance of large mammals is high.

RESULTS
During the duration of the sampling, there was success in getting both track station and
photographic evidence of the presence of several species of large mammals expected to be
present at Freeman Center. The volume of data gathered while sampling was only sufficient to
run the Shannon-Wiener Index. Our results showed an index of H=1.9894 which tells us there
is low diversity and a Pielous Evenness of J=0.956 indicating high evenness. Overall, there
were eight total species of large mammals detected with detections of large mammals occurring
at five out of the 10 study sites (see Table 1, Figure 1).
Table 1: L
ist of large mammal species found on camera or track stations at Freeman Center
Species

Site
1

Site
2

Site
3

Site
4

Site
5

Site
6

Site
7

Site
8

Site
9

Site
10

TOTA
L

Didelphis virginiana

Canis latrans

Dasypus novemcinctus

Urocyon cinereoargenteus

Procyon lotor

Lynx rufus

Mephitis mephitis

Sus scrofa

TOTAL

19

Note-Shaded rows indicate track stations; non-shaded rows indicate camera stations

DISCUSSION
All of the animals present at the sites would be expected to be present considering the
habitat and location of the ranch, however four notable mammals were missing from the
observations was Odocoideus virginianus, Bassariscus astutus, Lepus californicus, and
Sylvilagus floridanus (Figure 2). Despite their absences from the observations, it is known that
these species are present and some are pretty common sighting at the center, so there may have
been some problems with the study design. Additionally, there were some major differences in
the number of species detected between sites. Many of the sites had no species recorded (Table
1). While there may have been some missed detections due to unknown problems, it is also
possible that some of these sites were in areas where the habitat is of poor quality. Data from
vegetation sampling, and a longer period of large mammal sampling would be necessary to
determine whether there may need to be habitat improvements in some of the areas around the
sites.

Figure 1: Total number of times species detected.

Over the course of the survey, several problems were encountered and noted to explain
why there may have been a low incidence of detection for some mammals. The primary issue
that the group agreed on was that there was a lot of human traffic in the survey area, which likely
confounded the results from what they would have been with less traffic. The group also found it
necessary to make some changes in the field from our initial plans. Because of issues in
procuring the fermented egg scent, a cocktail of lures were used at all of the sites, which
included Fox Call, Creek Walker, Predageter, and a small amount of Fermented egg.
Additionally, corn was used at the camera traps and cat food at all of the sites after the first week
of trapping. Towards the end of the study, compact discs were also hung at the camera trap
stations using fishing line, in order to potentially attract animals due to their curiosity of the
shiny object. There were problems with the Moultrie BirdCams used in the beginning of the
sampling and seven of them were replaced with Bushnell Trophy cams, however there were not

enough to replace all 10 bird cams. There was one unknown detection, which occurred at site 10.
The unknown animal physically shredded the Biofoam, leaving no evidence of what species it
was. The lack of detection of white-tailed deer may have been because the lures being used were
mainly for attracting predators, whose presence could keep a prey species like deer from visiting
the sites. There was also a potential issue caused by sampling design.
There is a higher probability of not detecting an animal that visits a scent station when
using one camera instead of two, so the research group elected to use two cameras at five scent
stations that were independent from the track stations. While there may have been an increased
detection percentage while using two cameras, there was no way of knowing if an animal visited
a track station and neglected to step on the Biofoam. All of these problems likely led to some
missed detections, however because the goal of the project was just to obtain data on species
richness the misses may have had a small effect considering the detection of most of the species
of large mammals known to inhabit the area in modern times.
Since there is historical data from previous sampling at Freeman Center, it may be
worthwhile to use the information gathered from this study to compare to older data and not
changes. If large mammal species richness has changed in a way that appears negative, then
potential causes need to be ascertained and a management decision may need to be implemented
to in order to alter the species richness of an area to that of a more natural condition.

LITERATURE CITED

Bowles, David E., and Thomas L. Arsuffi. "Karst Aquatic Ecosystems of the Edwards Plateau
Region of Central Texas, USA: A Consideration of Their Importance, Threats to Their
Existence, and Efforts for Their Conservation." Aquatic Conservation: Marine and
Freshwater Ecosystems 3.4 (1993): 317-29. Print
Freeman Center. (n.d.). : Texas State University. Retrieved February 13, 2014, from
http://www.txstate.edu/freemanranch/
Fuhlendorf, Samuel D., Fred E. Smeins, & William E. Grant. "Simulation of a Fire-sensitive
Ecological Threshold: A Case Study of Ashe Juniper on the Edwards Plateau of Texas,

USA."

Ecological Modelling 90.3 (1996): 245-55. Print.

Gotelli, N. J. & R. K. Colwell. 2001. Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the
measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecology Letters 4:379-391.
Linhart, S. B., & F. F. Knowlton. 1975. Determining the relative abundance of coyotes by scent
station lines. Wildlife Society Bulletin 3:119-124.
NRCS. United States Department of Agriculture. Retrieved February 13, 2014.
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/site/national/home/
Rooney,T. P., & D. M. Waller. 2003. Direct and indirect effects of white-tailed deer in forest
ecosystems, Forest Ecology and Management, 2:165-176

Rowcliffe, J. M., J. Field, S. T. Turvey, & C. Carbone. 2008. Estimating animal density using
camera traps without the need for individual recognition. Journal of Applied Ecology
45:1228-1236.

Simmons, M. T., Windhager, S., Power, P., Lott, J., Lyons, R. K., & Schwope, C. (2007).
Selective and Non-Selective Control of Invasive Plants: The Short-Term Effects of
Growing-S
eason Prescribed Fire, Herbicide, and Mowing in Two Texas Prairies. Restoration
Ecology, 15(4), 662-669.
Web Soil Survey - Home. (n.d.). Web Soil Survey - Home. Retrieved February 11, 2014, from
http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm
APPENDIX
Table 2: List of possible large mammals to be sighted at Freeman Ranch

Possible Large Mammals

List
Family

Common Name

Scientific Name

Canidae

Coyote

Canis latrans

Grey Fox

Urocyon cinereoargenteus

Red Fox

Vulpes vulpes

Cervidae

White-tailed Deer

Odocoileus virginianus

Didelphidae

Virginia Opossum

Didelphis virginiana

Felidae

Bobcat

Lynx rufus

Cougar

Puma concolor

Black-tailed Jackrabbit

Lepus californicus

Eastern Cotton Tail

Sylvilagus floridanus

Mephitidae

Striped Skunk

Mephitis mephitis

Procyonidae

Ring-tailed Cat

Bassariscus astutus

Racoon

Procyon lotor

Feral Hog

Sus scrofa

Leporidae

Suidae

Figure 2: Total number of species seen at sites with species seen.

Table 3: GPS coordinates of each survey point in decimal degrees

Freeman
Ranch Survey Point
Coordinates
Point

Latitude (N)

Longitude (W)

29.93611

98.015

29.933855

98.013766

29.937904

98.013611

29.941111

98.013611

29.935556

98.01

29.934444

98.006530

29.935

98.002975

29.9375

98.002778

29.933981

97.999350

10

29.933611

97.9925

Table 4: Data chart for recording conditions when installing and checking cameras and checking track stations

Large Mammal
Data Sheet
Date

Site
Number

Participants
Vegetation
Weather
Disturbance
Other
Observations

Table 5: Describes the general vegetation at each site

Point
1
2
3
4
5

6
7
8
9
10

Vegetation Description
Mesquite-Live Oak Savanna*
Mesquite-Live Oak Savanna*
Mesquite-Live Oak Savanna*
Mesquite-Live Oak Savanna
Mesquite-Live Oak Savanna*
Edge Between Mesquite-Live Oak Savanna and
Juniper-Live Oak Woodland
Mesquite-Live Oak Savanna**
Mesquite-Live Oak Savanna
Edge of a small Juniper-Live Oak Woodland
Small Grassland within a large, dense
Juniper-Live Oak Woodland

Tim
e

*Denotes points in a pasture that has not been grazed or had woody vegetation removed
for the at least the past 10 years
**Denotes points in the Fernando pasture that had much of the woody vegetation removed
in the early 2000s aside from champion Live Oak

Figure 4: Schedule for setting up and checking cameras and trap stations