The Florida panther (Felis concolor coryi), a subspecies of the widespread mountain lion, is currently an endangered species throughout all of its range in Southern Florida. Throughout this paper, I will examine the different habitats that the panther inhabits, the conservation issues involving the Florida panther including the introduction of the Texas cougar for breeding purposes, and the morphological differences that separate the Florida panther as a subspecies. I will also cover some of the influences that man has on the Florida panther ( i.e. roads, citrus crops, residential areas, etc.) and what can be done to stop the diminish of the Florida panthers range. Currently, the population of wild Florida panthers is somewhere between 30-60 individuals. Drastic actions need to be implemented to conserve the panther for the future.
Felis concolor coryi is one of the 15 subspecies of cougars in North America and there are another 12 subspecies of cougars in South America. The Florida panther was formerly widespread throughout Florida and the southeastern U.S. and was contiguous in distribution to other cougar subspecies. Since the early nineteenth century, the panther has been genetically isolated from other subspecies of cougars. Reasons for the isolation are development and geological processes that have occurred which I will discuss later in the paper. The morphological features that separate the Florida Panther from the other subspecies of panthers is a flatter skull, darker color and longer legs. Also a whorl of hair or a cowlick in the middle of the back was found in 83% of 35 Florida panthers and only in 4.8% of other subspecies (Hedrick 1995). Also it can be said that the Florida panther has adapted to hot, damp, thickly vegetated Southern ecosystems.
Currently the expansion of urban, residential, and agricultural land uses in South Florida is rapidly eliminating and fragmenting the habitat availability to panthers. Private land owners in Southwest Florida represent about 50% of occupied panther range, however adequate soil and drainage conditions make these lands suitable for a variety of agricultural and urban uses (Maehr & Cox 1995). The other 50% of land is publicly owned such as the Big Cypress National Preserve, Everglades National Park, Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve, Big Cypress Seminole Indian Reservation, and Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge. These areas are made up by Dry prairies, pine forests, sand pines, Oak scrubs, mixed pine hardwood forests, hardwoods, hammocks, freshwater marshes, cypress forests, hardwood swamps, shrub swamps, grass/agricultural land, shrub and brush areas and barren or developed areas.
In one study, 23 Florida panthers were tagged and followed throughout all of their ranges throughout the previous listed areas. Adult male panthers may have home ranges over an area of 200 square miles, while females range over 70 to 80 square miles. Four cover types: Freshwater marsh, cypress swamp, hardwood swamp and grass and agricultural land; accounted for 62% of the panthers home range areas. The cover types that made up the relatively larger proportion of home range sites were hardwood hammock, mixed hardwood-pine, freshwater marsh, cypress swamp and hardwood swamp. Hardwood hammocks had the greatest potential for supporting white-tailed deer, which are an important prey of Panthers. The cover types that were primarily avoided were mangrove swamps, barren land and water and grass and agricultural land (Maehr & Cox 1995).
The largest most contiguous tract of panther habitat is centered in the Big Cypress National Preserve and Everglades National Park. It also extends into private lands throughout much of Collier, Lee, Monroe, and Hendry counties. In the study, only seven of the 23 collared panther’s ranges were found within BCNP and ENP. Therefore, the other 16 panthers probably occurred in private lands. This emphasizes the importance of the Panther being protected by the Endangered Species Act, however private landowner compliance must be initiated. The vast amount of private lands occupying panther habitat is the largest block for the conservation effort. These private areas are the most capable of supporting stable panther populations.
Currently, there are a few conservation efforts in affect for the Florida panthers. The Florida panther has been listed as an endangered species since 1967. The endangered species act was enacted in 1973. Recent provisions to the act have enabled certain habitats to be protected, as well as the section of the ESA that states that private landowners who have endangered or threatened species present cannot alter or change the land. This can prove to be beneficial, however in some circumstances, private landowners will destroy the suitable habitat (s.a. hardwood hammock areas) to ensure an endangered species doesn’t occupy the land. Also work continues for the development of a captive panther population. Plans call for the taking up to six kittens per year over the next 3 to 6 years from selected adults in the wild to achieve the desired genetic representation (npwrc.com, 1999). Three kittens of each sex were brought into captivity in 1991. In 1992, two kittens of each sex were added.
Another major conservation effort that was initiated in the early 1990’s was to introduce Texas cougars (Felis concolor stanleyana) into South Florida. This was intended to restore the genetic integrity of the Florida Panther, and to eliminate the phenotypic characters that are presumed to derive from inbreeding that results from low populations of isolated individuals. Currently, the Florida Panther appears to be suffering from low fitness, mainly in males (reproductive areas) and increased heart defects, which shows less genetic variation than other mountain lion subspecies. Currently the present natural population of Florida Panthers is completely isolated and has no chance of gene exchange with the closest US subspecies, the Texas cougar, which occurs nearly 2000 km away in west Texas. The Florida panther has been subjected to reduced outbreeding opportunities for centuries. This is because of the panthers inhabiting a peninsula, and more recently by anthropogenic landscape changes, the population of Florida panthers has been further isolated. With the introduction of Texas cougars, not only would the population of Florida panthers be restored, but also the genetic individuality, which is needed to prevent genetic bottleneck regressions, could be avoided. Many experts also say that the cross breeding between the two subspecies would create a new subspecies. The concept of outbreeding depression cannot predict which aspects of life history will be affected—it merely predicts that some component of fitness will be compromised (Maehr & Caddick 1995).
Another implication for the conservation of the Florida panther is the reintroduction of the panther into areas of northern Florida such as the Osceola National Forest. A study on deer was conducted that could be a supporting prey supply for the Florida panthers. Another major problem with the demise of the Florida panther was becoming road kill. Recent achievements include 36 wildlife crossings throughout state road 84 to I-75. These crossings have already showed some panther use. This is expected to greatly reduce panther mortality/injury.
In conclusion, the greatest threat to the persistence of the Florida panther is the continued elimination and fragmentation of preferred habitat. If private landowners continue to alter there lands for agricultural and urbanization purposes, the demise of the Florida panther is most likely. Private lands must be included in long-term panther management plans, and compelling incentives must be offered to landowners for this trend to change. Managers of currently occupied public lands must be encouraged as well to maintain habitat quality where panthers are living (FPNWR) and try to improve the conditions where panther density is low (BCNP, ENP). With the introduction of Texas cougars and the organizations such as the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge doing captive breeding and raising kittens for future release, provides viable components for Florida panther conservation. With continued efforts to better understand the Florida panther, and proper educational organizations, we can possibly ensure the Florida panthers existence for centuries to come.
Bibliography
Cramer, Patricia C; Portier, Kenneth M. “Modeling Florida Panther Movements in Response to Human Attributes of the Landscape and Ecological Settings.” Ecological Modelings. Vol. 140, pp.51-80. May 30, 2001.
Hedrick, Philip W. “Gene Flow and Genetic Restoration: The Florida Panther as a Case Study.” Conservation Biology. Vol. 9 pp.996-1007. Jan. 30, 1995.
Kilgo, John C. & R.F. Labisky, and D.E. Fritzen. “Influences of Hunting on the Behavior of White-Tailed Deer: Implications for Conservation of the Florida Panther.” Conservation Biology. Vol. 12 no.6 pp.1359k-1364. December 1998.
Maehr, David S. & G.B. Caddick. “Demographics and Genetic Introgression in the Florida Panther.” Conservation Biology. Vol. 9 no.5 pp.1295-1298. Oct. 1995.
Maehr, David S. & J.A. Cox. “Landscape Features and Panthers in Florida.” Conservation Biology. Vol.9 no.5 pp.1008-1019. Oct. 1995.
“Florida Panther Facts And Information.” http://www.floridapanther.org/facts.html
“Endangered and Threatened Species Recovery Program.” http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/distr/others/recoprog/states/speces/f….
Next Article
Previous Article
Return to Topic Menu
It is 8:22:35 AM on Monday, November 23, 2009. Last Update: Saturday, May 4, 2002