1 / 59

Endemic Small Mammals of Southeastern Alaska: Evolutionary Diversity, Ecology, & Conservation

Endemic Small Mammals of Southeastern Alaska: Evolutionary Diversity, Ecology, & Conservation. Winston P. Smith USDA Forest Service, PNW Research Station Forestry Sciences Laboratory Juneau, AK 99801-8545 USA. Acknowledgments :.

cissy
Download Presentation

Endemic Small Mammals of Southeastern Alaska: Evolutionary Diversity, Ecology, & Conservation

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Endemic Small Mammals of Southeastern Alaska: Evolutionary Diversity, Ecology, & Conservation Winston P. Smith USDA Forest Service, PNW Research Station Forestry Sciences Laboratory Juneau, AK 99801-8545 USA

  2. Acknowledgments: ____________________________________________________________________ WRANGELL, THORNE BAY and CRAIG Ranger Districts, Tongass National Forest. UAM: Joe Cook, Steve MacDonald, Chris Conroy, John Demboski, Karen Stone, and Amy Runck. SPECIAL THANKS: Jeff Nichols, field crew leader and analytical support; Scott Gende,analytical support and comments on presentation and completion reports. Lillian Petershoare and JFSL Library.

  3. Background – Setting: • _________________________________________________________________ • Unique attributes - dynamic recent geological history - naturally fragmented and isolated habitat - largest NF and largest remaining temperate rainforest - spatial and temporal heterogeneity • Limited information on natural history • Depauperate small mammal fauna • High potential for endemism

  4. Background – Planning: • _________________________________________________________________ • Extensive clearcut logging since 1954: - 50% of most productive forest on some islands – 40+% of some watersheds - >300 yrs to develop old forest features • TLMP - endemic small mammals ranked as highest risk of extinction; • Conservation strategy - metapopulation framework- lacks empirical foundation

  5. Land Mammal Fauna • _________________________________________________________________ • 87 islands + 24 mainland localities • 45 land mammal species - 65 small (<10kg) mammal taxa:15 endemic 11 confined 36 widely distributed, 3 unknown; • Mammal fauna – nestedstructure with varying genetic divergence: - colonization rather than extinction; - significant relationship between isolation and species richness; - competition influenced similar species (e.g., bears, shrews);

  6. Land Mammal Fauna • _________________________________________________________________ - neo-endemics (flying squirrel) and paleo- endemics (marten); - number of endemics on outer islands suggests glacial refugia; - some taxa have affinities with eastern NA forms (e.g., flying squirrel, marten); • Most species – Upper Lynn Canal; • Most endemics – Mainland Subregion; • Ermine show highest degree of endemism with 5 subspecies representing 3 clades. (map)

  7. Mustela erminea Distribution in SE Alaska MacDonald and Cook 1996 M. e. arctica Juneau * M. e. salva CANADA N M. e. alascensis M. e. celenda M. e. seclusa .

  8. Peromyscus keeni1 Distribution in SE Alaska MacDonald and Cook 1996 *Island Endemics P. k. algidus *P. k. sitkensis P. k. macrorhinus * Juneau CANADA N *P. k. hylaeus . *P. k. oceanicus 1Hogan et al. 1993

  9. Island Biogeography Processes: colonization & extinction Variables: island size, distance from mainland, vagility island island immigration island island Continent immigration island island island island

  10. Community Dynamics and Structure S = 4 S = 7 island island Continent S = 9 S = 3 island Species Richness(S) island S = 12 S = 14 equilibrium Colonization island island Extinction S = 3 S = 5 island Island area island

  11. Faunal Extinctions island island N Refugia island island Glacial Advance Continent island island island island

  12. Regional Colonization island island N Refugia Glacial Retreat island island Continent island island island island

  13. Southern red-backed vole Photo by P. Myers

  14. Natural History:Red-backed vole __________________________________________________________ • Nearctic Distribution-in SE Alaska, southern mainland and nearshore islands; • Mesic forest habitat specialist; • Omnivorous, but primarily eats fungi (mycophagous) in the Pacific Northwest; • Sensitive to overstory removal and fire in western coniferous forests; • Influenced by landscape context, but little evidence of edge effects. (map)

  15. Clethrionomys gapperi Distribution in SE Alaska MacDonald and Cook 1996 *Island Endemics Juneau * CANADA N C. g. stikinensis *C. g. wrangeli *C. g. solus C. g. phaeus C. g. saturatus

  16. Prince of Wales Flying Squirrel • Markedly different from PNW populations • Nocturnal, active year- round • 1 litter (2-4 young)/year • Reputed old-growth habitat specialist • Mycophagist in PNW • Vulnerable to isolation in managed landscapes (map)

  17. Glaucomys sabrinus Distribution in SE Alaska MacDonald and Cook 1996 G. s. zaphaeus G. s. alpinus • Juneau * CANADA N G. s. griseifrons .

  18. Research Objectives: ___________________________________ • Estimate density of red-backed voles and flying squirrels among habitats; • Contrast seasonal abundance, age and sex composition, body condition, survival, and reproductive condition of voles and squirrels among habitats; • Examine habitat use and density relative to microsite and stand-level vegetative and structural features.

  19. Study Area (voles): ________________________________________________ • Wrangell Island • 4 habitats: - 3 unmanaged habitats in largely unmanaged landscapes; - thinned young growth stands within watershed with ~40% POG clearcut .

  20. Gap-Phase Old-Growth Forest Structurally heterogeneous, vertically and horizontally - large (>150 cm), old (>800 yr) trees. Northerly exposure <500 m elevation Fine scale disturbance Sitka spruce/ western hemlock

  21. Multi-Cohort Old-Growth Forest Southerly exposure; Catastrophic disturbance per 100-200 yr; Heterogeneous stands of even-aged patches ; Uniform diameter, dense canopy forest: 100-102ha.

  22. Unmanaged Peatland-scrub/ Mixed-conifer Forest Structurally complex, biologically diverse communities. Spatially heterogeneous: from open muskeg to forest over a scale of 101 – 102 m. 2 replicates in 1 watershed.

  23. Thinned Young Growth (25 yr-old) -pre-commercial thinning 2-3 yr prior to study initiation; -2 replicates within the same watershed. Dense understory of herbaceous and woody plants and slash.

  24. Study Design: ______________________________________ • Two replicates each of 4 habitats; • Replicates within the same watershed but >800 m apart; • 1-ha grid (11 X 11) + 8 assessment lines per replicate with 2 traps per station (n = 242); • Live trap spring 1999-2000 and early autumn 1998-2000.

  25. Study Area (squirrels): _________________________________________________ • North-Central Prince of Wales Island • 2 habitats: 1) POG (mostly gap-phase) and 2) peatland-scrub/mixed-conifer; • 1) two ends of a continuum of forest cover; 2) peatland-scrub/mixed-conifer - little commercial, but potential ecological value.

  26. Study Design: ____________________________________________ • Three replicates each of 2 habitats in largely unmanaged landscapes; • Replicates in the same watershed but >1 km apart; • 13-ha grid (10 X 10 array of traps); • Live trap spring and early autumn 1998-2000.

  27. RESULTS: Demography

  28. Mean Effective Area Sampled: Wrangell Red-backed Voles • First estimates for red-backed voles, which precludes comparison of density with earlier studies; • Effective area sample was an order of magnitude larger than grid; • Effective area sampled was significantly greater in gap-phase old-growth than in other habitats – relative comparisons among habitats are therefore invalid.

  29. Wrangell Red-backed Vole Density Spring1999 - 2000 • Density higher in 1999 than 2000 with significant differences in multi-cohort and gap-phase old-growth; • Density lower in peatland/mixed-conifer in both years but significant only in 1999.

  30. Wrangell Red-backed Vole Density Autumn1998 - 2000 • Density higher in 1998 than 1999 or 2000 with significant differences in all habitats; • Peatland/mixed-conifer consistently had lowest densities of voles with significant differences in 1999 and 2000; • Some evidence that thinned YG may serve as a habitat sink.

  31. Wrangell Red-backed Vole Population Attributes among Habitats • Age and sex ratios were similar among habitats; • Summer survival and percentage of reproductive females were significantly lower in YG than other habitats – winter survival also was lower but not statistically significant.

  32. Prince of Wales Flying Squirrel Seasonal Movements • Mean maximum distance moved was similar between habitats and seasons, averaging about 110 yards; • Home ranges also were similar between seasons and and habitats and ranged from about 5.5 acres to about 9.5 acres.

  33. POW Flying SquirrelDensity Spring1999 - 2000

  34. POW Flying SquirrelDensity Autumn 1998 - 2000 Reproductive

  35. POW Flying SquirrelSurvival and Productivity

  36. Densities in the Pacific Northwest

  37. Why? Hypotheses • Competitive release • Reduced predation pressure • Diet

  38. RESULTS: Habitat Relations

  39. Logistic Regression Model – Spring 1999-2000:Red-backed Voles • Deciduous shrub cover (+) within 1.5 meters of the forest floor was the most significant variable influencing vole microhabitat selection overall: - by a factor of 2 in multi-cohort OG and 3 in peatland/mixed-conifer. • Moss cover (-), density of stumps(+) and density of small snags and saplings (+) were correlates of microhabitat use in gap-phase, thinned YG, and peatland/mixed-conifer.

  40. Logistic Regression Model - Autumn 1999-2000:Red-backed Voles • Deciduous cover again had the greatest influence on microhabitat selection overall: - cover between 0.3 – 1.5 m had 2-fold (-) in gap-phase; - cover < 0.3 m had 5-fold (+) in gap- phase and 5-fold (-) in peatland/mixed- conifer.

  41. Discriminant Model- Spring 1999-2000:Red-backed Vole

  42. Discriminant Model- Autumn 1999-2000:Red-backed Vole

  43. Red-backed Vole Density &Decayed Downed Wood Explained about 90% of variation in density Vole density (ha) Decay IV (volume/ha)

  44. Red-backed Vole Density & Conifer Seedling Cover Explained about 85% of variation in vole density Vole density (ha) Conifer cover (%) <30 cm

  45. Spring 1999-2000 ________________________________ Decayed wood class IV (+) Soft snags 10-49 cm dbh (-) Coarse woody debris (+) Decayed wood class III (+) Conifer cover 0.3 –1.5 m (-) Conifer cover <0.3 m (-) Water ground cover (+) Moss ground cover (-) Trees 10-49 cm dbh (-) Autumn 1999-2000 ________________________________ Decayed wood class IV (+) Soft snags 10-49 cm dbh (-) Coarse woody debris (+) Decayed wood class III (+) Conifer cover 0.3 –1.5 m (-) Conifer cover <0.3 m (-) Trees 5-10 cm dbh (-) Habitat Correlates of Density: Red-backed Vole

  46. Logistic Regression Model:Northern Flying Squirrel • Density of trees >74 cm dbh and cover of Vaccinium most influenced microhabitat use during spring and autumn: - in peatland/mixed-conifer large tree density increased capture probability by a factor of 3 during spring and 17 in autumn; • Most influential habitat feature in gap-phase OG was ground cover of water was inversely correlated with microhabitat use.

  47. Discriminant Function Model:Northern Flying Squirrel

  48. Glaucomys sabrinusDensity and Live Trees >74 cm DBH Explained about 65% of variation in squirrel density Squirrels/ha Trees >74 cm dbh/ha

  49. Spring 1998-2000 _____________________________________________ Moss ground cover (+) Decayed wood class I (+) Decayed wood class I (+) Decayed wood class IV (+) Autumn 1998-2000 ______________________________________________________ Trees >74 cm dbh (+) Trees 5-10 cm dbh (-) Trees 10-49 cm dbh (-) Ecological Correlates of Density: Northern Flying Squirrel

  50. CONCLUSIONS

More Related