| |
| DOI: | 10.1023/A:1018515309254 |
|---|
| Web URL(s): | https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1018515309254
Last checked: 10/04/2017 |
|---|
| Publication Type:
| Refereed |
|---|
| Author(s): | Schiller, Andrew;
Horn, Sally P. |
|---|
| Author Affiliation: | Department of Geography, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN |
|---|
| Title: | Wildlife conservations in urban greenways of the mid-southeastern United States |
|---|
| Source: | Urban Ecosystems. Vol. 1, No. 2, June 1997, p. 103-116. |
|---|
| Publishing Information: | Andover, Hants U.K.: Chapman and Hall |
|---|
| # of Pages: | 14 |
|---|
| Related Web URL: | http://www.springerlink.com/content/w722452gg431q888/
Last checked: 09/02/2010
Notes: Abstract only |
|---|
| Keywords: | TIC Keywords: Cover; Distribution; Futures; Greenbelts; Land surveys; Land use; Urban habitat; Wildlife; Wildlife conservation; Wildlife corridors
|
|---|
| Abstract/Contents: | "Goals related to wildlife conservation are stated or implied in many urban greenway plans, but the actual wildlife conservation value of urban greenways is unclear. We surveyed 72 km. of greenway consisting of 38 different greenway segments in six cities in the mid-southeastern United States to determine the presence or absence of red fox (Vulpes vulpes), grey fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), and to assess characteristics of the greenways and adjacent lands that might promote or limit the presence of these species in each greenway. We focused on fox and deer because these mammals, while habitat generalists, require diverse habitats within close proximity, and are more sensitive to human disturbance and have larger territories than the majority of urban wildlife in this region. Thus, they can serve as indicator species for these habitat values in urban greenways in the southeastern United States. Field observations and scent station inventories revealed that only 18 of the 38 greenway segments had either fox or deer, 12 had only fox, 6 had fox and deer, and none had deer alone. Greenway segments with more forest cover, wider corridors, greater amounts of adjacent natural or seminatural habitat, and forest connectivity between greenways and nonadjacent natural areas were more likely to have fox or deer present. Characteristics associated with fox and deer presence were not independent of each other. Because greenways with such characteristics tend to be surrounded by less urban areas, adjacent land use is a good predictor of fox and deer presence in the surveyed greenways. Whether greenways that are beneficial to fox and deer can be developed in urban settings is strongly site specific, because the greenway variables that appear most essential to these species are often dictated by the preexisting urban form and the vegetation in the vicinity of the greenway. Because the wildlife conservation value of urban greenways depends greatly on factors external to the greenway, greenways that have fox and deer present today may be particularly vulnerable to future changes in surrounding land use." |
|---|
| Language: | English |
|---|
| References: | 42 |
|---|
| Note: | Tables
Graphs |
|---|
| ASA/CSSA/SSSA Citation (Crop Science-Like - may be incomplete):
Schiller, A., and S. P. Horn. 1997. Wildlife conservations in urban greenways of the mid-southeastern United States. Urban Ecosystems. 1(2):p. 103-116. |
| Fastlink to access this record outside TGIF: https://tic.msu.edu/tgif/flink?recno=168526 |
| If there are problems with this record, send us feedback about record 168526. |
| Choices for finding the above item: |
|---|
| DOI: 10.1023/A:1018515309254 |
| Web URL(s):
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1018515309254
Last checked: 10/04/2017 |
| 
MSU catalog number: b4896713 |
| Find from within TIC:
Digitally in TIC by record number. |
| Request through your local library's inter-library loan service (bring or send a copy of this TGIF record) |
