Download Cain – Monitoring Results: Mammals

Responses of Large Mammals to Forest
Thinning Treatments in Southwest
Jemez Mountains, New Mexico
James W. Cain III1, Robert Parmenter2, Mark A.
Peyton2, Sarah R. Kindschuh3, Kamal
Humagain4, Caleb Roberts4, Robert Cox4
1U.S.
Geological Survey, New Mexico Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit,
Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Conservation Ecology, New Mexico State University
2Valles Caldera National Preserve
3Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Conservation Ecology, New Mexico State University
4Department of Natural Resources Management, Texas Tech University
Monitoring
Objectives:
Forest Landscape Restoration Act (PL 11111, Sec. 4003(c)), the natural resources
monitoring program objectives are:
(1) contribute toward the restoration of the
structure and composition of pre-firesuppression old growth stands,
(2) reduce the risk of uncharacteristic
wildfire, and/or maintain or re-establish
natural fire regimes,
(3) improve fish and wildlife habitat,
including endangered, threatened and
sensitive species,
(4) maintain or improve water quality and
watershed function, and
(5) prevent, remediate, or control invasions
of exotic species.
Monitoring
Objectives:
Forest Landscape Restoration Act (PL 11111, Sec. 4003(c)), the natural resources
monitoring program objectives are:
(1) contribute toward the restoration of the
structure and composition of pre-firesuppression old growth stands,
(2) reduce the risk of uncharacteristic
wildfire, and/or maintain or re-establish
natural fire regimes,
(3) improve fish and wildlife habitat,
including endangered, threatened and
sensitive species,
(4) maintain or improve water quality and
watershed function, and
(5) prevent, remediate, or control invasions
of exotic species.
Large Mammal Monitoring
Southwest Jemez Mountians CFLRP
• GOAL
– To monitor the responses of mule deer, elk, black bear,
and mountain lion to forest restoration treatments
associated with the Southwest Jemez Mountains CFLRP
Project
Thinning and Burns
• RX BURN: San Juan, Thompson Ridge, Virgin
Mesa, Banco Bonito, Pino (wild ignition)
• THIN: Los Griegos, Paliza, Thompson Ridge,
Banco Bonito (ongoing), Las Conchas,
Redondo
• WILDFIRE: Las Conchas, Guacamalla,
Thompson ridge
OBJECTIVES
• Habitat Selection and Space Use
– Determine habitat selection and space use
patterns of large mammals in relation to forest
restoration treatments
– Determine if and when mule deer, elk, black
bear, and mountain lions begin to use treatment
areas
• Time between restoration activities and changes in
use patterns
• Timing of use of treated areas seasonally
OBJECTIVES
• Forage quantity and quality
– Assess changes in abundance of key forage species in
response to treatments including lag effects
• Herbaceous forage (elk)
• Browse (mule deer)
• Mast producing species (mule deer & bear)
– Estimate forage quality in treated and untreated
areas
• Treatment type, time since treatment, vegetation type,
aspect, fire history
METHODS
• Fit mule deer and elk with telemetry collars
– Elk (adult female)
• 15 GPS (store on board) and 17 VHF collars placed on elk in 2012
– Dropped-off in winter 2014-2015
• 10 fitted with GPS/Iridium collars in 2014 (Pueblo of Jemez)
• 35 GPS (store on board) placed on elk in December 2014
– Mule deer (adult female)
• 12 mule deer fitted with GPS (store on board) in 2012-2014
• 10 fitted with GPS/Iridium collars in 2014 (Pueblo of Jemez)
– Elk will be recaptured Fall 2016 for GPS collar replacement
METHODS
• 7 mountain lions to be captured
– GPS/Iridium Collars
– 4 lions captured to date
• Capture efforts will continue
METHODS
• 36 black bears captured and fitted with
GPS/Iridium collars 2012-2014
• 13 black bears will be captured in summer
2015
METHODS
• Mule deer and Elk
– 5-6 hr GPS fix interval
– VHF signals to be relocated ≥ 2 days per week
• Mortality monitoring
• Mountain lion and Black bear
– 3 hr GPS fix interval
– Mortality monitoring via GPS data transmission
and VHF (when necessary)
METHODS
• Habitat Selection and Space Use
– Habitat characteristics
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Elevation, aspect and slope
Vegetation type, woody cover
Treated/untreated, treatment type (thin, burn, untreated)
Proportion of sampling unit treated
Time since treatment
Forage biomass and nutritional quality
Distance to roads, campgrounds, developed areas
Predation risk index based on location data from black bear and
mountain lion—Elk and mule deer models
– Model Resource Selection Probability Functions (RSPFs)
for each species and individual animals
– Average individual-level coefficients to estimate
population-level model for each species
Vegetation Monitoring
• Assess changes in abundance and quality of key forage species in
response to treatments
– Randomly located transects stratified by:
• Treatment type (including pre-treatment and untreated) within treated and
untreated areas
• Vegetation type (P-J, Ponderosa, Mixed Conifer, Grasslands, Aspen, Oak)
• Fire history
• Aspect
– Estimate biomass of grasses, key browse and mast producing species
– Estimate forage quality for mule deer and elk
• Collection of key forage plants
– Nitrogen, ADF, NDF, digestibility, tannin (browse)
• Assess changed in vegetation structure and composition
• Herbaceous forage data (biomass and nutritional quality) useful
for livestock management as well as big game
Vegetation Monitoring
• Line-transect method
• Grasses, shrubs and trees measurement
0m
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200m
2m
1m
1 m2
Point at 5 m
Point at 20 m
DBH
Herbaceous biomass
Shrub measurement
Trees measurement
Herbaceous Biomass (kg/ha)
Thinned
Veg Type
Open canopy
Closed canopy
Open canopy
Closed canopy
Mean (SE)
Mean (SE)
512.0 (94.0)
Mean (SE)
667.7 (93.8)
Mean (SE)
453.2 (27.9)
552.2 (141.0)
168.8 (54.7)
517.7 (41.8)
556.4 (36.6)
542.0 (33.1)
319.4 (77.8)
Mixed Conifer
Ponderosa
P-J
Untreated
Black bear use of thinned areas:
(34,013 of 53,153 locations recorded in CFLRP
Project area since 2012)
• Proportion of locations by individual bear in thinned
areas:
• Range 0 – 45%
• All except one bear 1-6%
• Mean (SD) = 3% (9%)
Black
bear use
Black
bear use
Mule deer use of thinned areas:
(20,214 of 23,638 locations recorded in CFLRP
Project area since 2012)
• Proportion of locations by individual deer in
thinned areas:
• Range 0 – 19%
• 18 of 19 deer 0-5%
• Mean (SD) = 2% (5%)
Mule
deer use
Mule
deer use
Elk use of thinned areas:
(37,933 of 47,681 locations recorded in CFLRP
Project area since 2012)
• Proportion of locations by individual elk in
thinned areas:
• Range 0 – 29%
• 19 of 20 elk 0-5%
• Mean (SD) = 2% (6%)
Elk use
Elk use
Expected outcomes and timeframe:
•Lag period between treatment and forage response (biomass and nutritional)
•
Longer lag for browse and mast producing species than herbaceous forage
•
1-2 years for herbaceous forage, 3-5 years for browse
•
Timeline accelerated or slowed by precipitation
•Expected use of thinned areas to reflect overall patterns in dietary preference
•
As spatial extent and time since treatment of thinned areas increases,
expect use to increase particularly in mule deer and bears
Observed outcomes:
•Most thinning at higher elevations and limited in spatial extent
•
Correspondingly, use of thinned areas was low for most animals
•
Animals with thinned areas in or near home ranges used them, but not
exclusively
•
Use more evident in some elk with home ranges near thinned areas
•
Some bear use in early spring
•
Limited mule deer use