2010 class projects
Download
1 / 32

es.esrm.4582010classprojects - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 255 Views
  • Uploaded on

2010 Class Projects. The influence of introduced fish on native amphibians, Betsy Howell, Olympic National Forest Modeling the distribution of the marbled murrelet, Martin Raphael, Pacific Northwest Research Station Listing petition for the Sierra Nevada red fox, John Perrine, Cal Poly

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'es.esrm.4582010classprojects' - Michelle


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
2010 class projects l.jpg

2010 Class Projects

The influence of introduced fish on native amphibians, Betsy Howell, Olympic National Forest

Modeling the distribution of the marbled murrelet, Martin Raphael, Pacific Northwest Research Station

Listing petition for the Sierra Nevada red fox, John Perrine, Cal Poly

Relationships between Black-tailed prairie dogs and Ferruginous Hawks nesting in Kansas, Stan Roth, Kansas Biological Survey

Golden paintbrush augmentation site selection at Fort Casey State Park, Rob Fimbel, Washington State Parks


The influence of introduced fish on native amphibians betsy howell olympic national forest l.jpg

  • Literature Review: The Effects of Fish Stocking on Amphibians

  • General Task: Read through the papers I’ve collected and begin to assemble the information into a narrative form for presentation (a report, essentially).

  • Questions to answer: What are the effects of fish stocking on different species of amphibians and what are the extents of those effects? Conventional wisdom is that there are numerous negative effects of this management activity; what are some ways to reverse of minimize effects of nonnative fish?

  • Specific Tasks:

  • Organize information from the papers into groups (one scientific paper may yield pieces of information pertinent to several of these categories):

    • History of fish stocking in the Northwest (Oregon, Washington, northern California; some of Idaho?)

    • Interactions between nonnative fish and frogs and toads

    • Interactions between nonnative fish and salamanders

    • Differences in effects on (and responses by) larval and adult amphibians (including use of chemical cues)

    • Differences in impacts between different introduced fish species

    • Other effects besides predation (disease transfer, competition for food, etc.)

    • Results when nonnative fish are removed from a system

    • Other factors causing declines in amphibian populations

    • Recommendations for the conservation of native amphibians (eg. removal of fish, eliminating stocking programs, etc.)

  • Begin to coalesce these pieces of information into chapters, with references cited.

  • Use the “Literature Cited” sections of each paper to determine other papers we may want to get and incorporate.

The influence of introduced fish on native amphibians, Betsy Howell, Olympic National Forest


Modeling the distribution of the marbled murrelet l.jpg

Modeling the distribution of the AmphibiansMarbled Murrelet

Martin G. Raphael

Pacific Northwest Research Station


Slide4 l.jpg
Goal Amphibians

  • The Effectiveness Monitoring program for the Marbled Murrelet has 2 components:

    • Status and Trend of murrelet populations

    • Status and Trend of murrelet nesting habitat


Nesting habitat l.jpg
Nesting Habitat Amphibians

Previous work shows that murrelets nest in old forest stands

They select large trees with large limbs that serve as nesting platforms

They nest along the coast within 25 miles (southern range) to 50 miles (northern) of shore


Methods l.jpg
Methods Amphibians

Select potential covariates

Screen covariates to make sure none are highly correlated

Assemble GIS coverages of each covariate

Assemble GIS database for known nesting sites to serve as training data for model development

Assemble GIS database for testing sites to evaluate model performance


Modeling platform l.jpg
Modeling Platform Amphibians

The modeling team evaluated a number of model options and we selected “Maxent” because it consistently performed better in head-to-head comparisons with other approaches (Ecological Niche Factor Analysis, Resource Selection Functions)

http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~schapire/maxent/ and the literature that is linked on that site.


Maxent l.jpg
Maxent Amphibians

Maxent uses the principle of “maximum entropy”


Slide9 l.jpg

This is the MAXENT dialog screen, used to select input files, output file name,

and optional modeling parameters. One may also select or deselect variables

from the list of environmental layers.


Maxent output warmer colors denote higher likelihood of presence l.jpg
Maxent output (warmer colors denote higher files, output file name,likelihood of presence)


Issues l.jpg
Issues files, output file name,

Selection of training versus testing data (we have known nests and a set of “occupied” detections)

How best to evaluate model performance (AUC from ROC plot, area-adjusted frequency, etc.)

Setting a threshold for a binary map (reducing the continuous probability distribution to 2 levels – suitable and unsuitable)


Listing the red fox l.jpg
Listing the Red Fox? files, output file name,

  • The Sierra Nevada red fox, along with the Cascade and Rocky Mountain red foxes (V. v. cascadensis and V. v. macroura, respectively), likely derived from a lineage isolated south of the continental ice sheets during the Wisconsonian glaciation. When the glaciers retreated this southern refugial population became isolated in the subalpine and boreal habitats of the western mountain ranges (Aubry 1983). In contrast, the modern-day low-elevation red foxes in California are widely believed to have originated from various populations throughout eastern and northern North America, which may include European lineages due to introductions in the 17th and 18th centuries (Churcher 1959; Roest 1977; Aubry 1983; Lewis et al. 1999; Kamler and Ballard 2002).

  • Genetic evidence for the persistence of the critically endangered Sierra Nevada red fox in California. John D. Perrine John P. Pollinger Benjamin N. Sacks Reginald H. Barrett Robert K. Wayne Conserv Genet (2007) 8:1083–1095


The listing process l.jpg
The Listing Process files, output file name,

  • Petitions

    • Federal code for agencies PART 424—LISTING ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES

    • The listing manual and policy guides

      • http://training.fws.gov/bart/Resources/ES_Listing_and_Candidate_Assessment/ESA_Folder/ESAcd.htm#lnk04


Prairie dogs and ferruginous hawks l.jpg
Prairie Dogs and Ferruginous Hawks files, output file name,

  • Investigating nest site sustainability (reproduction by years active) by reviewing digital records of nest sites collected during the past 3 decades

  • Relating nest site productivity to features of the landscape like vegetation, distance to human activities, size and persistence of dog towns, using available gis coverages


Robert fimbel chief resource stewardship l.jpg

Robert Fimbel files, output file name,

Chief, Resource Stewardship

Golden paintbrush augmentation site selection at Fort Casey State Park


Agency mission l.jpg
Agency Mission files, output file name,

The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission acquires, operates, enhances, and protects a diverse system of recreational, cultural, historical, and natural sites.


Current status of golden paintbrush l.jpg
Current status of golden paintbrush files, output file name,

Federally Threatened (1997)

Endangered in Washington

Red List in British Columbia

List 1-Extirpated in Oregon


Historic and current range l.jpg
Historic and Current Range files, output file name,

Puget Lowlands of BC

and Washington

29 historic

collection sites

11 extant populations

Willamette Valley of Oregon (extirpated)


Primary causes for decline l.jpg
Primary causes for decline files, output file name,

Development of prairies

Agricultural

Residential

Invasion by

woody plants

Weeds

Herbivory


Biology of golden paintbrush castilleja levisecta greenm l.jpg
Biology of Golden files, output file name, paintbrush: Castilleja levisecta Greenm.

Grassland species


Biology of golden paintbrush castilleja levisecta greenm21 l.jpg
Biology of Golden files, output file name, paintbrush: Castilleja levisecta Greenm.

Grassland species

Short-lived perennial herb


Biology of golden paintbrush castilleja levisecta greenm22 l.jpg
Biology of Golden files, output file name, paintbrush: Castilleja levisecta Greenm.

Grassland species

Short-lived perennial herb

Hemi-parasite


Biology of golden paintbrush castilleja levisecta greenm23 l.jpg
Biology of Golden files, output file name, paintbrush: Castilleja levisecta Greenm.

Grassland species

Short-lived perennial herb

Hemi-parasite

Obligate outcrosser


Biology of golden paintbrush castilleja levisecta greenm24 l.jpg
Biology of Golden files, output file name, paintbrush: Castilleja levisecta Greenm.

Grassland species

Short-lived perennial herb

Hemi-parasite

Obligate outcrosser

Bee pollinated


Fort casey state park l.jpg
Fort Casey State Park files, output file name,

422 acres


Fort casey state park26 l.jpg
Fort Casey State Park files, output file name,

422 acres

Fort build atop coastal bluffs ca. 1900


Fort casey state park27 l.jpg
Fort Casey State Park files, output file name,

422 acres

Fort build atop coastal bluffs ca. 1900

Mean 5 year flowering paintbrush populations = 99-03: ~200 04-08: ~900


Fort casey state park28 l.jpg
Fort Casey State Park files, output file name,

422 acres

Fort build atop coastal bluffs ca. 1900

Mean 5 year flowering paintbrush populations = 99-03: ~200 04-08: ~900

Paintbrush occurs adjacent to coastal bluff


Slide29 l.jpg

Activities files, output file name,

Population monitoring (1998 – present)

Brush removal (spring 2002)

Trial exclosures (2000-present)

Population augmentation using plugs (2003 – present)


Slide30 l.jpg

Questions files, output file name,

What plant(s) is (are) golden paintbrush commonly associated with? without?

How might we best select paintbrush augmentation sites (ordination of existing data)?

What, if any, site preparation should be considered (we are using plugs)?


Resources l.jpg
Resources files, output file name,

10x10m grid (shapefile) of the bluff top and EXCEL spreadsheet describing species present and their cover.

42 – 1m2 quadrats (shapefile) within 10x10m grid, surrounding golden paintbrush plants, that identify adjacent species and their cover classes (detailed paintbrush associates that compliments 10x10m info).

Consultant survey report and prairie assessment report.


Slide32 l.jpg

Robert A. Fimbel, Ph.D. files, output file name,Chief, Natural Resources StewardshipWashington State Parks and Recreation Commission1111 Israel RoadOlympia, WA 98504360-902-8592 tel360-902-8517 [email protected]


ad