Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Biodiversity action plan wikipedia , lookup
Latitudinal gradients in species diversity wikipedia , lookup
Introduced species wikipedia , lookup
Habitat conservation wikipedia , lookup
Ficus rubiginosa wikipedia , lookup
Fauna of Africa wikipedia , lookup
Island restoration wikipedia , lookup
Unified neutral theory of biodiversity wikipedia , lookup
Eastern hemlock removal affect small mammal abundance at Harvard Forest Allyson L. 1 Degrassi , Aaron M. 2 Ellison and Nicholas J. 1 Gotelli 1Department of Biological Science, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 2 Harvard Forest, Harvard University, Petersham, MA TRAPPING SET UP: Data Collection A • 49 Sherman live traps covering B an area of 0.49ha (Fig. 2) were placed in The eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) is a foundation species that each plot and set in June and July (Fig. 3). controls ecological structure by creating stable local conditions for other resident species; therefore, the loss of foundation species can 10m potentially influence the structure of animal communities. Hemlock forest are declining due to the effects of logging and invasive sap-sucking insect Adelges tsugae (hemlock woolly adelgid: HWA). 90m Loss of hemlocks have been known to impact ant, bird, and salamander populations. Loss of hemlocks may impact community composition of rodents and shrews. INTRODUCTION • • 60 50 Hemlock Number of Captures RESULTS Peromyscus maniculatus (deer mouse) PEMA Peromyscus leucopus (white-footed mouse) PELE Napaeozapus insignis (woodland jumping mouse) NAIN Tamias striatus (eastern chipmunk) TAST Glaucomys volans (southern flying squirrel) GLVO Logged 120 100 80 60 40 120 100 80 Hemlock Hardwood Girdled Logged 60 40 20 0 Full 20 Half Moon Phase New 0 Full Half New Moon Phase Figure 7. Number of total species captured during full, half, and new moon phases per plot. CONCLUSION Clethrionomys gapperi (red-backed vole) CLGA Microtus pinetorum (woodland vole) MIPI Blarina brevicauda (short-tailed shrew) BLBR Sorex fumeus (smokey shrew) SOFU Sorex cinereus (cinereus shrew) SOCI Deer mice (PEMA) and red-backed voles (CLGA) were the most abundant animals 100 93 • Rodent and shrew community variation among the different hemlock plots (Fig. 6). • Shifts in species abundance (Fig. 6) suggests hemlocks may drive a competitive interaction between the Peromyscus spp. and o p r Clethrionomys. • Peromyscus spp. and shrews may be able to utilize ecosystem services provided by hemlocks more effectively than other species. 92 FUTURE PLANS 80 Abundance 2) Hardwood Control 60 37 40 30 22 21 20 14 2 1 1 SOFU NAIN MIPI 0 PEMA Figure 1. Vegetation differences among the control and experimental plots. Hardwood Girdled Treatment Number of captures differed moon phases Figure 4. Captured animals included mice (blue), voles (green), shrews (purple), and larger rodents (squirrels and chipmunks) (orange). 4) Logged Plot 20 0 METHODS 3) Girdled Plot 30 Figure 3. Moon phase calendar used to determine trapping nights. • To measure small mammal abundance and diversity in Harvard Forest’s Long-Term Experimental Research Hemlock (HF-HeRE) plots. 1) Hemlock Control 74 individuals 7 species Figure 6. Species abundance per plot. Figure 2. Sherman trap layout within all plots. HF-HeRe • Replicated two-block experimental design 1. hemlock control, hemlocks dominate 2. hardwood control, hardwoods dominate 3. girdled treatment, hemlocks have been girdled to simulate the effect of HWA invasion 4. logged treatment, hemlocks have been removed to simulate the effect of commercial logging (Fig. 1). 40 10 70m OBJECTIVE 104 individuals 7 species 87 individuals 7 species Number of Captures • 120 individuals 9 species Abundance • Girdled and logged plots had higher abundances CLGA PELE GLVO BLBR TAST Species Rank Figure 5. Overall species rank abundance (number of individuals collected) among all plots. SOCI 1) Mark-Recapture 2) Microhabitat Association 3) Foraging Behavior ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank: 1) NSF LTER and Harvard Forest for research and financial support, 2) Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) UVM and Harvard Universities, 3) my undergraduate field assistant and REU student Elizabeth Kennet (UVM) for all her help this summer, and 4) Chris Degrassi for his technical assistance.