Preserving Habitat for Athene cunicularia floridana (Florida Burrowing Owl): Challenges and Solutions from Cape Coral, Florida, USA
Hubert B. Stroud1 and Mary K. Kilmer2,*
1Department of Criminology, Sociology, and Geography, Arkansas State University, PO Box 2410, State University, AR 72411, USA. 2Department of Biology and Environmental Health, Missouri Southern State University, 3950 East Newman Road, Joplin, MO 64801, USA. *Corresponding author.
Urban Naturalist, No. 19 (2018)
Abstract
Urban/suburban development generally results in a loss of native habitat and a concomitant decrease in biodiversity. However, for species able to adapt or adjust to human environments, such as Athene cunicularia (Burrowing Owl), potential exists to protect and preserve suitable habitat in developing areas, thus aiding in species preservation. In many areas, suburban lands represent the dominant available habitat for this species. Cape Coral, Florida, USA is a suburban community that currently contains 10–35% of the entire state-wide population of Florida Burrowing Owls—a state-listed threatened species—while also being one of the fastest-growing cities in the US. Thus, this city faces the challenge of protecting habitat for a threatened species within a framework of rapid development. Here we present the solutions employed by Cape Coral as an example for other suburban communities facing similar issues.
Download Full-text pdf
Site by Bennett Web & Design Co.
Urban Naturalist
1
H.B. Stroud and M.K. Kilmer
22001188 URBAN NATURALIST No. 19N:1o–. 1149
Preserving Habitat for Athene cunicularia floridana (Florida
Burrowing Owl): Challenges and Solutions from Cape
Coral, Florida, USA
Hubert B. Stroud1 and Mary K. Kilmer2,*
Abstract - Urban/suburban development generally results in a loss of native habitat and a
concomitant decrease in biodiversity. However, for species able to adapt or adjust to human
environments, such as Athene cunicularia (Burrowing Owl), potential exists to protect
and preserve suitable habitat in developing areas, thus aiding in species preservation. In
many areas, suburban lands represent the dominant available habitat for this species. Cape
Coral, Florida, USA is a suburban community that currently contains 10–35% of the entire
state-wide population of Florida Burrowing Owls—a state-listed threatened species—while
also being one of the fastest-growing cities in the US. Thus, this city faces the challenge of
protecting habitat for a threatened species within a framework of rapid development. Here
we present the solutions employed by Cape Coral as an example for other suburban communities
facing similar issues.
Introduction
Urban development and habitat loss
As the 20th century progressed, a population shift occurred in the US, with large
portions of the population moving out of densely populated urban areas and into
suburban communities; by the 1960s, previously sparsely occupied rural land was
being subdivided for sale at an unprecedented rate (Stroud 1995). Suburban areas,
by their nature, have relatively low population density and tend to sprawl across
vast acreages, which means that a greater amount of land is converted from its
original use than is the case for denser urban development. This sprawling pattern
of development reduces habitat for both plants and animals and is detrimental
for many species. Not surprisingly, suburban development is closely related to a
decrease in biodiversity (McKinney 2002). While many species are harmed by
development, some species, known as urban exploiters, adapt well and thrive in
urban environments, including smaller species, such as Columbia livia Gmelin
(Rock Dove) (Kark et al. 2007) and Rattus spp. (rats) (McKinney 2002), and larger
species, such as Lynx rufus (Schreiber) (Bobcat) and Canis latrans Say (Coyote)
(reviewed in Bateman and Fleming 2012).
Suburban environments are unique in that they represent a moderately disturbed
habitat. The intermediate-disturbance hypothesis suggests that biodiversity would
1Department of Criminology, Sociology, and Geography, Arkansas State University, PO
Box 2410, State University, AR 72411, USA. 2Department of Biology and Environmental
Health, Missouri Southern State University, 3950 East Newman Road, Joplin, MO 64801,
USA. *Corresponding author - Kilmer-M@mssu.edu.
Manuscript Editor: Mark Laska
Urban Naturalist
H.B. Stroud and M.K. Kilmer
2018 No. 19
2
be relatively high in these areas; the hypothesis is supported by greater animal and
plant species diversity of many taxa in these areas compared to more-natural areas
(reviewed in McKinney 2002). Edge species (termed “urban adaptors”) can often
thrive in these areas, particularly if utilization of urban areas provides some sort
of ecological release (Rebolo-Ifrán et al. 2017). Thus, suburban developments can
provide potential habitat for threatened species that are also urban adaptors, while
simultaneously allowing for development of land (McKinney 2002). One potential
“urban adaptor” is Athene cunicularia Molina (Burrowing Owl), a species historically
found in open habitats such as grasslands and deserts, but which is currently
found in suburban areas such as Cape Coral, FL, USA. In this study, we provide
an overview of Burrowing Owl ecology and use Cape Coral as an example of the
potential for suburban areas to provide valuable habitat for this threatened species.
Athene cunicularia (Burrowing Owl), as an Urban Adaptor
The Burrowing Owl is well known for both its wide distribution and its adaptability
to environmental change (Berardelli et al. 2010). Throughout the US, much
of the original Burrowing Owl habitat has been lost due to conversion of grasslands
to agricultural land and urban and suburban development (Berardelli et al.
2010, Millsap and Bear 2000, Restani et al. 2008). This loss has resulted in welldocumented
declines in Burrowing Owl populations throughout the US (Desmond
and Savidge 1996, Sauer et al. 2007, Stroud and Self 2008) and Canada, where it
is currently listed as a species of concern (IUCN Red List 2017). Interestingly, this
decline in populations has been accompanied by a shift in populations to open suburban
environments, such as golf courses and vacant building-sites.
Food availability has been found to be crucial to the survival of Burrowing
Owls in natural habitats (Haley 2002), and it stands to reason that this would also
be true in anthropogenic environments. Several studies have compared the diet of
rural and urban Burrowing Owls. Trulio and Higgins (2012) conducted a detailed
analysis of the diet of Athene cunicularia Molina ssp. hypugaea Bonaparte (Western
Burrowing Owl). and concluded that although invertebrates were represented
in greater numbers than vertebrates, the biomass provided by vertebrates (specifically
rodents) made up ~70% of the Western Burrowing Owl diet. Urban settings
tend to have limited rodent populations; thus, the authors suggest increasing the
rodent population especially during the breeding season. It is worth noting that
Trulio and Higgins (2012) did not find a difference between relative proportions of
invertebrate and vertebrate prey in rural and urban populations but did find a difference
in prey composition. Myrkalo et al. (2009) obtained a similar result in Athene
cunicularia Mollina ssp. floridana (Ridgway) (Florida Burrowing Owl). Although
the comparison was limited to a single rural and a single urban population, those
authors found similar invertebrate:vertebrate-prey ratios between the 2 populations
but differences in diet composition, with urban populations consuming more avian
prey (Mrykalo et al. 2009).
Burrowing Owls have been particularly successful in urban settings. A survey
in Cape Coral in 2000 found a large number of Burrowing Owl nests on vacant
Urban Naturalist
3
H.B. Stroud and M.K. Kilmer
2018 No. 19
residential lots (Millsap and Bear 2000), a result mirrored in other urban settings
in Florida (Bowen 2001). Further support for the Burrowing Owl as an urban adaptor
was provided by Rebolo-Ifrán et al. (2017) who found that urban landscapes
in Argentina had average densities 7 times greater than nearby rural habitats. Not
only were average densities greater in urban habitats, but breeding success was
also greater in these areas. Forty-five percent of nests in rural sites were affected by
breeding failure, while only 27% of nests in urban sites exhibited such failure (Rebolo-
Ifrán et al. 2017). Millsap and Bear (2000) also found an increase in breeding
success along an urban gradient but noted that this increase ceased as development
approached 60% of total land area. These results, along with observations by local
wildlife biologists, indicate that Burrowing Owls seem to be urban adaptors and
are possibly even urban exploiters (J. Herman, Department of Biological Sciences,
Florida Gulf Coast University, Ft. Meyers, FL, USA, pers. comm.). However, it is
possible that their presence in urban habitats is simply a result of the loss of natural
habitat, rather than a true preference for developed areas (De Sante et al. 1997,
Rosenberg and Haley 2004).
Burrowing Owl ecology and conservation status
As the common name of the species implies, Burrowing Owls make their homes
by either occupying the abandoned burrows of small mammals (most common in
Western Burrowing Owls [Desmond and Savidge 1996]) or by burrowing a hole or
tunnel in the ground (most common in Florida Burrowing Owls [Millsap 1997]).
Burrowing Owls hunt on the ground during the day and use their underground
burrow for nesting and raising young (Sibley 2000). Burrowing Owls prefer treeless,
open grassland and sandy well-drained soil, but can adapt to other habitats,
particularly when their favored habitat is no longer available (Green and Anthony
1989, Williford et al. 2009). Although Burrowing Owls most often dig their own
burrows, they can also take advantage of abandoned Cynomys sp. (prairie dog) colonies,
and Marmota monax L. (Groundhog), Sciuridae (squirrel), and Geomyidae
(gopher) holes (Green and Anthony 1989), and will occasionally use humanmade
structures such as pipes or post holes (Williford et al. 2009). The historic range of
the Burrowing Owl was primarily dependent upon grassland habitat inhabited by
burrowing mammals and extended across the western-half of the US (Fig. 1) and
from the Canadian prairie provinces to South America. Burrowing Owls are also
found in Florida and the Caribbean islands (Poulin et al. 2011).
In the US state of Florida, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
has designated Florida Burrowing Owl as a threatened species (FWC 2017).
This designation was updated in January 2017, following roughly 3 decades of the
species having the designation of species of “special concern”. This upgraded designation
indicates that Burrowing Owl populations within the state are considered
to be at increased risk. The Florida Burrowing Owl is protected under Chapter 39
of the Florida Administrative Code. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act also protects
this species due to the presence of populations within both the US and Mexico.
Urban Naturalist
H.B. Stroud and M.K. Kilmer
2018 No. 19
4
Distribution of Florida Burrowing Owls
The historical habitat of the Florida Burrowing Owl existed primarily across
native prairies of central Florida. Extensive portions of this habitat have been
converted to agricultural and urban land usage, and the species now has a patchy
distribution in Florida. Burrowing Owls were either forced to relocate or simply
moved to the suitable habitat that was being created outside the historic range (Millsap
and Bear 2000).
There have been a few notable surveys of Florida Burrowing Owls, some of
which are rigorous and scientific in nature, while others were less sophisticated but
nevertheless provide insight into the Burrowing Owl population. Although population
data are limited, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission has
estimated the statewide Florida Burrowing Owl population at between 3000 and
10,000 pairs (C. Faulhaber, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission,
Tallahassee, FL, USA, pers. comm.; FWC 2011; Millsap 1997). Below, we highlight
some of the details of the most important censuses to date.
The earliest published survey in which Florida Burrowing Owl populations were
quantified occurred between 1987 and 1990 and consisted of twice-weekly surveys
between the months of January and March in a 35.5-km2 area in Cape Coral, FL,
USA (Millsap and Bear 2000). The survey included areas across the spectrum of
Figure 1. Historical range of Athene cunicularia (Burrowing Owl) and Athene cunicularia
ssp. floridana (Florida Burrowing Owl). The Burrowing Owl is a permanent resident in
parts of the US and a temporary summer resident in other parts. Map created by M.K.
Kilmer with GIS layers from US Census Bureau and US Geological Survey National Gap-
Analysis Program.
Urban Naturalist
5
H.B. Stroud and M.K. Kilmer
2018 No. 19
urban development within Cape Coral, ranging from areas with <2% development
to those with >80% development. That survey tracked breeding attempts at 264
unique nest sites within the study area and found that maximum population densities
were ~7 pairs of owls per km2, with an estimate of roughly 1000 breeding pairs
within Cape Coral. Interestingly, nesting-site density and number of young fledged
per nest increased linearly along a developmental gradient to ~60% development;
at levels of development >60%, both of the previous metrics had an inverse relationship
with development (Millsap and Bear 2000). That survey was conducted
in a limited area; thus, it is difficult to extrapolate the results to the entire metapopulation
of Florida Burrowing Owls.
Perhaps the most comprehensive survey of Florida Burrowing Owls was conducted
as part of the Florida Burrowing Owl Project, coordinated through the
University of Central Florida in 1999. That survey was based on the methods used
by De Sante et al. (1997) to census Burrowing Owls in California, which employed
random and nonrandom block sampling based on where Burrowing Owls
had been historically known to breed. The 1999 survey by Bowen included 1035
historic and current breeding-owl locations in 62 Florida counties (Bowen 2001,
2006). While relatively comprehensive in geographic coverage, Bowen’s 1999
census consisted primarily of roadside surveys that inherently limited the results
to owl burrows visible from the road. When possible, Bowen attempted to correct
for this bias by conducting walking surveys to interior locations, but this correction
was limited to properties where owners allowed access (Bowen 2001). More
than 50 surveyors were involved in that study; 1 census team was assigned to each
county that was found to contain occupied burrows. Despite its shortcomings, the
survey by Bowen (2001) found owls at 946 territories within 32 of the 62 counties
surveyed. A total of 1757 adults and 759 juvenile owls were recorded, and a large
proportion of individuals (~780) were found on vacant residential lots in Southwest
Florida (Bowen 2001).
The most recent survey of Florida Burrowing Owls occurred in June 2017 but
was limited in scope to the population within Cape Coral, FL, USA, making it
more comparable to the Millsap and Bear (2000) surveys. The survey was much
more limited in time, consisting of a single day, but had a relatively high level of
participation, with over 50 volunteers. The participants were divided into small
teams that counted the number of owls within unique quadrants of the city (J.
Heller, Environmental Planner, City of Cape Coral, Cape Coral, FL, USA, pers.
comm.). All roads within the study area were sampled and, given the dense network
of roads, volunteers were able to observe the entire landscape. Thus, there were no
problems associated with interior locations as there were with the Bowen census in
1999. The June 2017 survey found ~3800 owls within the city, though this number
consisted of both adults and juveniles, rather than just adult pairs, as observed by
Millsap and Bear (2000). Adults represented 1400–2400 of the owls counted (H.
Phillips, Senior Environmental Recreation Specialist, Rotary Park, City of Cape
Coral, Cape Coral, FL, USA, pers. comm.). However, this census consisted of many
volunteer observers with limited amounts of training in survey techniques, which
Urban Naturalist
H.B. Stroud and M.K. Kilmer
2018 No. 19
6
may have impacted the results (C. Bear, Coordinator of Programs and Services,
Randell Research Center, Pine Land, FL, USA, pers. comm.). Volunteers were unable
to consistently differentiate adults and juveniles; thus, it is most appropriate to
use the total number of owls counted as the defining metric in this survey. It should
be noted that the June 2017 survey was part of an ongoing analysis of Burrowing
Owls in Cape Coral being carried out by researchers at Florida Gulf Coast University
(J. Herman, pers. comm.). Although the survey was flawed in some respects, it
provided a “snapshot” of current populations of Florida Burrowing Owls in Cape
Coral and indicated that populations were stable or even possibly increasing within
Cape Coral. Although this result is encouraging news, there is no consensus as to
the success of the Cape Coral population at this time. Plans are already being made
to survey the Burrowing Owl population every year or 2 over the next few years to
determine if a trend is present (J. Herman, pers. comm.).
A direct comparison of surveys of this species is not possible because completed
studies have varied in their timing, geographic distribution, and survey
methods. However, the numbers of owls located, particularly within developed
areas such as Cape Coral, compared to overall statewide estimates (3000–10,000
pairs), indicates that residential areas are currently serving as important habitat
for this species. Based on survey results, the population of Florida Burrowing
Owls in Cape Coral is considered the largest and densest population within the
state of Florida and possibly east of the Mississippi River (Bowen 2001; J. Herman,
pers comm.; H. Phillips, pers. comm.). It seems clear that the success of this
population (and other urban populations) could be the key to maintaining a stable
Florida Burrowing Owl population (J. Heller, pers. comm., Stroud and Self 2008).
Unfortunately, although Cape Coral represents important habitat for Florida Burrowing
Owls, it is also a rapidly growing city with a population that has increased
from ~11,000 in 1970 to over 180,000 today (Blissman 2005; W. Daltry, Senior
Planner, City of Cape Coral, Cape Coral, FL, USA, pers. comm.). This >1000%
increase makes Cape Coral the 11th-largest city in the state of Florida and the fastest
growing city in the US (Sharf 2017).
Development of the Urban Habitat: Cape Coral, Florida
The development of Cape Coral began in 1957 when the Rosen brothers purchased
a section of coastal land across the Caloosahatchee River from Fort Myers,
FL, USA (Dodrill 1993, Stroud 1995). Nearly all vegetation was removed over
an area of ~24,281 ha (~60,000 ac) through bulldozing and leveling (central and
northern portions), and dredge and fill operations (southern portions). As much as
90% of the original tree canopy was removed during the clearing and development
process (Stroud 1995), creating an area that closely matched the preferred habitat
of Florida Burrowing Owls. Concomitant with the development of Cape Coral, The
Florida Burrowing Owl began a range expansion, moving into suburban and urban
areas (Ligon 1963), though it is unclear if this expansion represented a range shift,
due to loss of preferred habitat in the center of the state or simply an opportunistic
colonization of the newly emerging habitat.
Urban Naturalist
7
H.B. Stroud and M.K. Kilmer
2018 No. 19
To date, Cape Coral has a large number of vacant lots that are ideal habitat for
Florida Burrowing Owls (J. Heller, pers. comm.). Only ~35% of the more than
135,000 residential building sites are occupied by homes, though this number is
rapidly declining in some areas. Burrowing Owls can coexist moderately well with
humans as long as housing densities are not too high. Moderate levels of urbanization
may actually provide more prey availability and protection from predators
than nearby undeveloped areas, allowing urban populations to be more successful
than those in undeveloped areas (Orth and Kennedy 2001, Rebolo-Ifrán et al. 2017,
Weseman and Rowe 1987). However, at high levels of development, this success
may be offset by several negative factors, including higher mortality from humancaused
agents (Orth and Kennedy 2001). Fewer nesting pairs are found in areas
of Cape Coral that are approaching full development, in part, because of limited
space available for nesting sites. Other problems include more traffic and a higher
incidence of owls being hit by cars. There is also greater potential for harassment
from humans and more frequent attacks by Felis silvestris catus L. (Domestic Cat)
and Canis lupus familiaris L. (Domestic Dog) (P. Donaldson, volunteer, Cape Coral
Friends of Wildlife, Cape Coral, FL, USA, pers. comm.). Pesticides are often used
on developed lots within Cape Coral. Burrowing Owls can be directly affected by
chronic exposure to pesticides, particularly if these pesticides become concentrated
in eggs (Garciá-Hernández et al. 2006) or indirectly affected if the insecticides used
impact the available food supply (Gervais and Anthony 2003).
The level of human development that is acceptable to Florida Burrowing Owl
populations is not fully understood, though Millsap and Bear (2000) found an increase
in population density and nest success up to a development level of roughly
60%. This level of development was supported in 2007 by a local planning technician
who suggested that owls appear to be the most successful in neighborhoods
that are between 50% and 75% developed (L. Blydenburgh, Planning Technician,
City of Cape Coral, Cape Coral, FL, USA, pers. comm.). More recently, the environmental
planner at Cape Coral pointed to the difficulty of establishing a preferred
level of development. He emphasized the importance of open space and the ability
of owls to survive even in areas of the city that are more or less fully developed.
Obviously, more research is needed to determine this important urban metric (J.
Heller, pers. comm.; J. Herman, pers. comm.).
Preserving Burrowing Owl Habitat in Cape Coral, Florida
Current strategies
Though development is inevitable in Cape Coral, city planners are attempting
to protect and preserve current Florida Burrowing Owl populations through a variety
of strategies (Table 1). First, in recent years, the city has mapped the owls’
exact burrow locations and is working to establish clearly marked protection zones
(Fig. 2). This process is crucial because the city mows grass in vacant lots, and
clearly identifying the protection zone allows mowers to avoid occupied nesting areas;
the area inside the protection zones is mowed by hand (J. Heller, pers. comm.).
Urban Naturalist
H.B. Stroud and M.K. Kilmer
2018 No. 19
8
Table 1. Current and proposed conservation strategies to protect Athene cunicularia floridana (Florida
Burrowing Owl).
Strategy Status Projected effect
Map burrows, establish protection zones Current Reduce impact of mowing on burrows,
decrease harassment of burrows
Limit use of pesticides Current Reduce direct and indirect impacts to owl
populations
Restrict development in areas with Current Maintain sufficient habitat for current
occupied burrows population
Increased educational outreach Current Increase awareness of species and
ecological importance, decrease harassment
of burrows
Increase ties with local organizations Current Increase awareness and education, increase
volunteer efforts to protect species
Establish starter burrows, remove sod Proposed Entice owls to desired locations
from small areas
Lot buy-back by city Proposed Protect suitable habitat from development
Provide additional resources for Proposed Decrease harassment of owls and
enforcement of current statutes destruction of burrows
Figure 2. Example of protection zone (PVC pipes) around an occupied nesting burrow with
T-perch near burrow in Cape Coral, FL, USA. Photograph © Hubert Stroud.
Urban Naturalist
9
H.B. Stroud and M.K. Kilmer
2018 No. 19
Furthermore, city officials are encouraging homeowners not to use pesticides
during the owl’s nesting season (J. Heller, pers. comm.; Stroud and Self 2008).
Second, both the city and the state have enacted restrictions on development
in areas with burrows serving as occupied nesting areas. Although current restrictions
do not prohibit building on a lot with an existing owl burrow, a protection
zone must be established that extends 3 m (10 ft) in all directions from the burrow
entrance. If it is not possible to construct a project and maintain the required
protection zone, the developer must request a permit from the Florida Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission to destroy the nest. Currently, the state permit
prevents destruction of the nest while owls are actively incubating eggs or rearing
flightless chicks. Although the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
protects the owl population and the burrows from harassment (Fig. 3), enforcement
Figure 3. Photograph
of sign in
Cape Coral, FL,
USA, indicating
the protected status
of Athene cunicularia
floridana
(Florida Burrowing
Owl) nesting sites.
Photograph © Judy
Stroud.
Urban Naturalist
H.B. Stroud and M.K. Kilmer
2018 No. 19
10
is difficult because many of the nests in Cape Coral occupy privately owned building
sites (P. Donaldson, pers. comm.; H. Phillips, pers. comm.). Ensuring resources
for enforcement of current statutes or initiating more state and local legislation to
protect the owl will be a critical step in preserving the owl population, both in Cape
Coral and in other communities.
Third, the City of Cape Coral has increased its efforts to educate individuals
about the value of Florida Burrowing Owl populations. Following their surveys,
Millsap and Bear (2000) noted that cases of harassment declined shortly after the
implementation of a formal, mandatory education program about the owls. The city
website for Cape Coral provides detailed information about the Florida Burrowing
Owl, including how to protect burrows during construction, details concerning federal
and state protection laws, and information on how individuals can help protect
owls and view them in an appropriate manner. Additionally, a volunteer program
has been established with a local organization, the Cape Coral Friends of Wildlife.
This organization has a group of people that monitor and maintain burrows
throughout the city (B. McNee, Volunteer, Cape Coral Friends of Wildlife, Cape
Coral, FL, USA, pers. comm.). Any destructive or inappropriate encroachment
activities are reported to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
(City of Cape Coral 2017; J. Heller, pers. comm.).
The city maintains close ties with other groups and agencies, including nearby
universities, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, and the Cape
Coral Friends of Wildlife, to survey, map and monitor populations of Florida Burrowing
Owl. The recent survey, conducted in June 2017, represented a joint effort
between faculty and students from Florida Gulf Coast University, volunteers from
the Cape Coral Friends of Wildlife, City of Cape Coral Department of Community
Development staff, and volunteers from the general population (B. McNee,
Volunteer, Cape Coral Friends of Wildlife, Cape Coral, FL, USA, pers. comm.; S.
Luaces, Graduate Student, Department of Biological Sciences, Florida Gulf Coast
University, Fort Myers, FL, USA, pers. comm.).
Future strategies
Options are available to communities interested in preserving the Burrowing
Owl and its habitat. Although owls tend to burrow on vacant lots or take over existing
unoccupied burrows, they can be enticed to inhabit starter burrows created by
removing a portion of lawn turf, starting a tunnel and placing a T-perch near the
tunnel entrance (Fig. 4). Owls in need of a new home have demonstrated a willingness
to move into such starter burrows, particularly owls that are becoming a part of
the breeding population for the first time, or, which have been displaced by ongoing
development (Richie 2011). By offering starter burrows on lawns, Cape Coral citizens
can encourage owls to move onto portions of developed land and prevent owls
from burrowing on lots that are slated for future alteration or disturbance. Although
data are anecdotal and more research is needed, it appears that starter burrows are
particularly appealing to displaced owls (J. Heller, pers. comm.).
An additional way in which landowners can help to preserve Florida Burrowing
Owl habitat is to buy multiple adjacent lots, only one of which is developed
Urban Naturalist
11
H.B. Stroud and M.K. Kilmer
2018 No. 19
into a home site. Additional lots could be lawn or open space, which could serve
as owl habitat. This option would have the additional benefit of reducing overall
development densities within a community and is an ambitious idea for individual
citizens because lots in Cape Coral are relatively expensive; however, it may be
practical for the city to take an active role in land acquisition or to participate in
a buy-back program for tax-delinquent property. This land could be used to meet
open-space needs or other public uses while also providing habitat for Florida
Burrowing Owls. Even providing a scattering of vacant lots is beneficial. At
Marco Island, for example, just a few vacant parcels plus the use of burrows in
yards of developed lots and in city parks has been sufficient to maintain over 100
pairs of owls (C. Chustz, Environmental Specialist, City of Marco Island, Marco
Island, FL, USA, pers. comm.).
Conclusions
The Florida Burrowing Owl population is slowly disappearing from the state’s
interior due to growth and development associated with an ever-expanding human
population. This decline prompted the state to recently reclassify the Florida Burrowing
Owl as a threatened species (FWC 2017). Fortunately, new potential habitat
has emerged within areas cleared for suburban development. One of the most important
developments is Cape Coral, a large pre-platted subdivision with extensive
Figure 4. Photograph showing T-perch—emplacement near occupied nesting burrow in
Cape Coral, FL, USA. Photograph © Judy Stroud.
Urban Naturalist
H.B. Stroud and M.K. Kilmer
2018 No. 19
12
areas of cleared land. Unfortunately, as these communities approach build-out and
ideal nesting conditions diminish, the owl population may be negatively affected.
Although it is unknown what results full development may have, monitoring in
communities such as Cape Coral and Marco Island provides information that could
help to improve management strategies over time.
Burrowing Owls appear to be urban adaptors and have the potential to co-exist
with sizeable human populations. The key to maintaining these owl populations
seems to be for humans to be sensitive to Burrowing Owl requirements and to accommodate
current nesting owls by maintaining areas of open space when possible.
Providing open space for owls would also benefit other wildlife populations as well
as humans by creating more livable communities for all inhabitants. Greater public
awareness included as part of a general education program geared toward preservation
of Burrowing Owls can also go a long way toward protecting the birds for
future generations to enjoy.
Cape Coral provides an excellent example of preservation of crucial habitat for
a threatened species within a suburban area that is undergoing rapid land-development.
This community is also a model for cities that seek to balance necessary
development with the needs of species within the urban network. As development
increases throughout the world (and habitat stress on species increases), the lessons
learned in Cape Coral can provide valuable insights into how we can maintain
biodiversity in the face of a rapidly expanding human population.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Justin Heller, an environmental planner with the City of
Cape Coral, FL, for his assistance in locating burrowing owl nest sites and for his insightful
comments concerning the care and protection of the burrowing owl population at Cape
Coral. We would also like to thank 2 anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful comments
and feedback that helped to improve this manuscript. Finally, we would like to thank Judy
Stroud for her excellent photographs of the burrowing owl.
Literature Cited
Bateman, P.W., and P.A. Fleming. 2012. Big-city life: Carnivores in urban environments.
Journal of Zoology 287:1–23.
Berardelli, D., M.J. Desmond, and L. Murray. 2010. Reproductive success of Burrowing
Owls in suburban and grassland habitats in Southern New Mexico. The Wilson Journal
of Ornithology 122(1):51–59.
Blissman, P. 2005. Cape Coral: An environmentally progressive community. Loretto Earth
Network News 13(1):1–5.
Bowen, P.J. 2001. Demography and distribution of the Burrowing Owl in Florida. Florida
Field Naturalist 29(4):113–126.
Bowen, P.J. 2006. Florida Burrowing Owl project. Available online at http://www.members.
aol.com/pjbowen/owls.html. Accessed 18 March 2015.
City of Cape Coral Florida. 2017. City of Cape Coral’s Burrowing Owl building permit
procedures. Available online at http://www.capecoral.net/department/community_development/
environmental/docs/Building_Permit_Procedures_for_Burrowing_Owls.
pdf. Accessed 20 April 2017.
Urban Naturalist
13
H.B. Stroud and M.K. Kilmer
2018 No. 19
Desmond, M.J., and J.A. Savidge. 1996. Factors affecting Burrowing Owl densities and
numbers in Western Nebraska. American Midland Naturalist 136(1):143–148.
De Sante, D.F., E.D. Rublen, S.L. Adamany, K.M. Burton, and S. Amin. 1997. A census
of the Burrowing Owls in Central California in 1991. Pp. 38–48, In J.L. Lincer and
K. Steenhof (Eds.). The Burrowing Owl, its Biology and Management: Including the
Proceedings of the First International Symposium. Raptor Research Report No. 9. The
Raptor Research Foundation, Inc., Hastings, MN, USA. 367 pp.
Dodrill, D.E. 1993. Selling the Dream. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, AL, USA.
328 pp.
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). 2011. Florida Burrowing Owl
biological status review report. Available online at http://myfwc.com/media/2273286/
FL-Burrowing-Owl-BSR.pdf. Accessed 10 May 2017.
FWC. 2017. Florida’s endangered and threatened species. Available online at http://myfwc.
com/media/1515251/threatened-endangered-species.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2017.
Garcia-Hernandez, J., Y. Sapozhnikova, D. Schlenk, A.Z. Mason, O. Hinojosa-Huerta, J.J.
Rivera-Díaz, N.A. Ramos-Delgado, and G. Sánchez-Bon. 2006. Concentration of contaminants
in breeding-bird eggs from the Colorado River Delta, Mexico. Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry 25(6):1640–1647.
Gervais, J.A., and R.G. Anthony. 2003. Chronic organochlorine contaminants, environmental
variability, and the demographics of a Burrowing Owl population. Ecological
Applications 13(5):1250–1262.
Green, G., and R. Anthony. 1989. Nesting success and habitat relations of the Burrowing
Owl in the Columbia Basin, Oregon. The Condor 91(2):347–354.
Haley, K.L. 2002. The role of food limitation and predation on reproductive success of Burrowing
Owls in southern California. M.Sc. Thesis. Oregon State University, Corvallis,
OR, USA.
Kark, S, A. Iwaniuk, A. Schalimtzek, and E. Banker 2007. Living in the city: Can anyone
become an “urban exploiter”? Journal of Biogeography 34:638–651.
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) 2017. IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species, 2017-1: Athene cunicularia. Available online at http://www.iucnredlist.
org/details/22689353/0. Accessed 12 May 2017.
Ligon, J.D. 1963. Breeding-range expansion of the Burrowing Owl in Florida. The Auk.
80(3):367–368.
McKinney, M.L. 2002. Urbanization, biodiversity, and conservation. BioScience
52(10):883–890.
Millsap, B.A. 1997. Florida Burrowing Owl. Pp. 579–587, In J.A. Rodgers Jr., H.W. Kale
II, and H.T. Smith (Eds.). Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida. Volume V. Birds. University
Press of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.736 pp.
Millsap, B.A., and C. Bear. 2000. Density and reproduction of Burrowing Owls along an
urban development gradient. Journal of Wildlife Management 64(1):33–41.
Mrykalo, R.J., M.M. Grigion, and R.J. Sarno. 2009. A comparison of available prey and
diet of Florida Burrowing Owls in urban and rural environments: A first study. Condor
111:556–559.
Orth, P.B., and P.L. Kennedy 2001. Do land-use patterns influence nest-site selection by Burrowing
Owls in Northeastern Colorado? Canadian Journal of Zoology 79:1038–1045.
Poulin, R.G., D. Todd, E.A. Haug, B.A. Millsap, and M.S. Martell. 2011. Burrowing Owl
(Athene cunicularia), version 2.0. Number 61, In P.G. Rodewald (Ed.) The Birds of
North America. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. Available online at
https://doi.org/10.2173/bna.61. Accessed 10 May 2017.
Urban Naturalist
H.B. Stroud and M.K. Kilmer
2018 No. 19
14
Rebolo-Ifran, N., J.L. Tella, and M. Carrete. 2017. Urban conservation hotspots: Predation
release allows grassland-specialist Burrowing Owl to perform better in the city. Nature
Scientific Reports 7:3527. DOI:10.1038/s41598-017-03853-z.
Restani, M., J.M. Davies, and W.E. Newton. 2008. Importance of agricultural landscapes
to nesting Burrowing Owls in the Northern Great Plains, USA. Landscape Ecology
23(8):977–987.
Richie, N. 2011. The Florida Burrowing Owl. Coastal Breeze News. 24 March 2011.
Available online at https://www.coastalbreezenews.com/articles/the-florida-burrowingowl-
2/. Accessed 7 September 2018.
Rosenberg, D.K., and K.L. Haley, 2004. The ecology of Burrowing Owls in the agroecosystems
of the Imperial Valley, California. Studies in Avian Biology-Series 27:120–135.
Sauer, J.R., J.E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2007. The North American breeding bird survey:
Results and analysis 1966–2006. US Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research
Center, Laurel, MD, USA. Available online at https://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/. Accessed
10 May 2017
Sharf, S. 2017. America’s fastest growing cities. Forbes Magazine. 10 February 2017.
Available online at https://www.forbes.com/sites/samanthasharf/2017/02/10/americasfastest-
growing-cities-2017/#c31245c31245. Accessed 4 June 2017.
Sibley, D.A. 2000. The Sibley Guide to Birds, 1st Edition. National Audubon Society, Chanticleer
Press, Inc., New York, NY, USA. 545 pp.
Stroud, H.B. 1995. The Promise of Paradise: Recreation and Retirement Communities in
the United States since 1950. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD, USA.
220 pp.
Stroud, H.B., and J. Self. 2008. Protecting Cape Coral’s Burrowing Owl population. The
Florida Geographer 39:36–50.
Trulio, L.A., and P. Higgins 2012. The diet of Western Burrowing Owls in an urban landscape.
Western North American Naturalist 72(3):348–356.
Wesemann, T., and M. Rowe. 1987. Factors influencing the distribution and abundance of
Burrowing Owls in Cape Coral, Florida. Integrating man and nature in the metropolitan
environment: Proceedings of the National Symposium on Urban Wildlife. 4–7 November,
Columbia, MD, USA. 258 pp.
Williford, D., M.C. Woodin, and M.K. Skoruppa. 2009. Factors influencing selection of
road culverts as winter-roost sites by Western Burrowing Owls. Western North American
Naturalist 69(2):149–154.