Advertisement

Urban Ecosystems

, Volume 21, Issue 6, pp 1029–1041 | Cite as

Bird and mammal use of vernal pools along an urban development gradient

  • Carly J. Eakin
  • Malcolm L. HunterJr
  • Aram J. K. Calhoun
Article

Abstract

Vernal pools in the northeastern US are of conservation concern primarily because of their role as habitat for specialized pool-breeding amphibians, but their use by birds and mammals may also be of interest, especially from the perspective of the impact of urbanization. We describe camera-trapped wildlife (CTW) at 38 vernal pools along an urban development gradient in greater Bangor, Maine, USA. We detected 20 mammal and 39 bird taxa (29 contacted pool water; 39 detected at >1 site). Land cover type within 1000 m (%), within-pool vegetation (%), and amphibian egg mass numbers explained a substantial portion of the variance (40.8%) in CTW assemblage composition. Submerged vegetation within pools and cover by water and impervious surfaces within 1000 m of pools were key site characteristics defining assemblages. We scored the urban-affiliation of taxa and modeled the relationship between weighted assemblage scores for each site and impervious cover. Impervious cover within 1000 m of pools was positively (p < 0.01) related to site urban-affiliation scores. Use probability for red fox increased and snowshoe hare decreased with impervious cover at 1000 m. These results indicate that within-pool vegetation and land cover types at 1000 m influenced bird and mammal assemblages that used study pools and greater impervious cover at 100 and 1000 m was correlated with a shift in assemblages from being dominated by urban-avoider to urban-adapted species. We encourage land use planners and managers to consider the influence of land use practices within 1000 m of vernal pools on birds and mammals, especially near amphibian breeding pools.

Keywords

Vernal pool Camera trap Urban gradient Urban wildlife Subsidized wildlife Urban wetlands 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful for support for this study provided by McIntire-Stennis, the Hatch Act, and the National Science Foundation under grant no. 313627. We thank A. Mortelliti for assistance with occupancy modeling, H. Greig, R. Holberton, and M. Kinnison for help with study and analysis design, and D. Dunham for hundreds of hours of visually scanning trail camera photos for animals. This is a Maine Agricultural and Forest Experiment Station Publication Number 3611. This project was supported by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Hatch project number #ME021705 through the Maine Agricultural & Forest Experiment Station.

Supplementary material

11252_2018_782_MOESM1_ESM.docx (48 kb)
Online Resource Table 1 (DOCX 48 kb)
11252_2018_782_MOESM2_ESM.png (44 kb)
Online Resource Fig. 1 (PNG 44 kb)
11252_2018_782_MOESM3_ESM.png (63 kb)
Online Resource Fig. 2 (PNG 63 kb)
11252_2018_782_MOESM4_ESM.png (62 kb)
Online Resource Fig. 3 (PNG 61 kb)
11252_2018_782_MOESM5_ESM.png (35 kb)
Online Resource Fig. 4 (PNG 34 kb)

References

  1. Aronson MFJ, La Sorte FA, Nilon CH et al (2014) A global analysis of the impacts of urbanization on bird and plant diversity reveals key anthropogenic drivers. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 281:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beissinger SR, Osborne DR (1982) Effects of urbanization on avian community organization. Condor 84:77–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berven KA (1990) Factors affecting population fluctuations in larval and adult stages of the wood frog (Rana sylvatica). Ecology 71:1599–1608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Black C, Zedler PH (1992) Seed dispersal by a generalized herbivore: rabbits as dispersal vectors in a semiarid California vernal pool landscape. Am Midl Nat 128:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blair RB (1996) Land use and avian species diversity along an urban gradient source. Ecol Appl 6:506–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blair RB (2001) Birds and butterflies along urban gradients in two ecoregions of the United States: is urbanization creating a homogeneous fauna? In: Lockwood JL, McKinney ML (eds) Biotic homogenization, pp 33–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Borcard D, Gillet F, Legendre P (2011) Canonical ordination. In: Numerical ecology with R. Springer, New York, pp 153–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boren JC, Engle DM, Palmer MW et al (1999) Land use change effects on breeding bird community composition. J Range Manag 52:420–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multi-model inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  10. Calhoun AJK, Mushet DM, Bell KP et al (2017) Temporary wetlands: challenges and solutions to conserving a “disappearing” ecosystem. Biol Conserv 211:3–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chace JF, Walsh JJ (2006) Urban effects on native avifauna: a review. Landsc Urban Plan 74:46–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chamberlain MJ, Conner LM, Leopold BD (2002) Seasonal habitat selection by raccoons (Procyon lotor) in intensively managed pine forests of Central Mississippi. Am Midl Nat 147:102–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Childs HEJ (1953) Selection by predation on albino and normal spadefoot toads. Evolution (N Y) 7:228–233Google Scholar
  14. Chupp AD, Roder AM, Battaglia LL, Pagels JF (2013) A case study of urban and peri-urban mammal communities: implications for the management of National Park Service areas. Northeast Nat 20:631–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Clergeau P, Savard JPL, Mennechez G, Falardeau G (1998) Bird abundance and diversity along an urban-rural gradient: a comparative study between two cities on different continents. Condor 100:413–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Colburn EA (2004) Vernal pools: natural history and conservation. McDonald and Woodward, Blacksburg and GranvilleGoogle Scholar
  17. Cox RR, Hanson MA, Roy CC et al (1998) Mallard duckling growth and survival in relation to aquatic invertebrates. J Wildl Manag 62:124–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Croonquist MJ, Brooks RP (1991) Use of avian and mammalian guilds as indicators of cumulative impacts in riparian-wetland areas. Environ Manag 15:701–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Crouch WB, Paton PWC (2000) Using egg-mass counts to monitor wood frog populations. Wildl Soc Bull 28:895–901Google Scholar
  20. Dorazio RM, Royle JA, Söderström B, Glimskär A (2006) Estimating species richness and accumulation by modeling species occurrence and detectability. Ecology 87:842–854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Faulkner S (2004) Urbanization impacts on the structure and function of forested wetlands. Urban Ecosyst 7:89–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB (2007) Landscape modification and habitat fragmentation: a synthesis. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 16:265–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fischer JD, Cleeton SH, Lyons TP, Miller JR (2012) Urbanization and the predation paradox: the role of trophic dynamics in structuring vertebrate communities. Bioscience 62:809–818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fiske I, Chandler R, Miller D, et al (2017) Package “unmarked.” 116Google Scholar
  25. Friesen LE, Eagles PFJ, Mackay RJ (1995) Effects of residential development on forest-dwelling neotropical migrant songbirds. Conserv Biol 9:1408–1414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fuller TK, DeStefano S (2003) Relative importance of early-successional forests and shrubland habitats to mammals in the northeastern United States. For Ecol Manag 185:75–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gotelli NJ, Colwell RK (2001) Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecol Lett 4:379–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gray MJ, Miller DL, Hoverman JT (2009) Ecology and pathology of amphibian ranaviruses. Dis Aquat Org 87:243–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hanowski J, Danz N, Lind J (2006) Response of breeding bird communities to forest harvest around seasonal ponds in northern forests, USA. For Ecol Manage 229 (1-3):63-72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hansen AJ, Knight RL, Marzluff JM et al (2005) Effects of exurban development on biodiversity: patterns, mechanisms, and research needs. Ecol Appl 15:1893–1905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Homan RN, Windmiller BS, Reed JM (2004) Critical thresholds associated with habitat loss for two vernal pool-breeding amphibians. Ecol Appl 14:1547–1553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hunter M Jr, Westgate M, Barton P et al (2016) Two roles for ecological surrogacy: indicator surrogates and management surrogates. Ecol Indic 63:121–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Johnson DH (1980) The comparison of usage and availability measurements for evaluating resource preference. Ecology 61:65–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lawler JJ, Lewis DJ, Nelson E et al (2014) Projected land-use change impacts on ecosystem services in the United States. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 111:7492–7497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Legendre P, Gallagher ED (2001) Ecologically meaningful transformations for ordination of species data. Oecologia 129:271–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. MacKenzie D (2006) Modeling the probability of resource use: the effect of, and dealing with, detecting a species imperfectly. J Wildl Manag 70:367–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mackenzie DI, Bailey LL (2004) Assessing fit of site occupancy models. J Agric Biol Ecol Stat 9:300–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. MacKenzie DI, Nichols JD, Royle JA et al (2006) Occupancy estimation and modeling: inferring patterns and dynamics of species occurrence. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  39. McKinney ML (2002) Urbanization, biodiversity, and conservation. Bioscience 52:883–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McKinney ML (2006) Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization. Biol Conserv 127:247–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McKinney ML (2008) Effects of urbanization on species richness: a review of plants and animals. Urban Ecosyst 11:161–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McLoughlin PD, Ferguson SH (2000) A hierarchical pattern of limiting factors helps explain variation in home range size. Ecoscience 7:123–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Minor E, Urban D (2010) Forest bird communities across a gradient of urban development. Urban Ecosyst 13:51–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mitchell JC, Paton PWC, Raithel CJ (2008) The importance of vernal pools to reptiles, birds, and mammals. In: Calhoun AJK, DeMaynadier PG (eds) Science and conservation of vernal pools in northeastern North America. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 169–190Google Scholar
  45. Murray MP, Pearl CA, Bury RB (2005) Apparent predation by gray jays, Perisoreus canadensis, on long-toed salamanders, Ambystoma macrodactylum, in the Oregon Cascade range. Can Field-Naturalist 119:291–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nagelkerke NJD (1991) A note on a general definition of the coefficient of determination. Biometrika 78:691–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Nilon CH, VanDruff LW (1986) Analysis of small mammal community data and applications to management of urban greenspaces. In: Adams L, Leedy D (eds) Proceedings of the National Symposium on urban wildlife. National Institution for Urban Wildlife, Columbia, pp 53–59Google Scholar
  48. Oksanen J, Blanchet GF, Friendly M et al (2017) Vegan: community ecology package. R package version 2:4–3Google Scholar
  49. Racey GD, Euler DL (1982) Small mammal and habitat response to shoreline cottage development in Central Ontario. Can J Zool 60:865–880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. R Core Team (2016) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  51. Rittenhouse TAG, Semlitsch RD (2007) Postbreeding habitat use of wood frogs in a Missouri oak-hickory forest. J Herpetol 41:645–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rodewald AD (2003) The importance of land uses within the landscape matrix. Wildl Soc Bull 31:586–592Google Scholar
  53. Rowcliffe JM, Carbone C, Jansen PA et al (2011) Quantifying the sensitivity of camera traps: an adapted distance sampling approach. Methods Ecol Evol 2:464–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Royle JA, Dorazio RM (2008) Hierarchical modeling and inference in ecology: the analysis of data from populations, metapopulations and communities. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  55. Shurin JB, Gruner DS, Hillebrand H (2006) All wet or dried up? Real differences between aquatic and terrestrial food webs. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 273:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Silveira JG (1998) Avian uses of vernal pools and implications for conservation practice. In: Witham CC (ed) Vernal pool ecosystems. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, pp 92–106Google Scholar
  57. Thompson GG, Withers PC (2003) Effect of species richness and relative abundance on the shape of the species accumulation curve. Austral Ecol 28:355–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tobler MW, Carrillo-Percastegui SE, Pitman RL et al (2008) An evaluation of camera traps for inventorying large- and medium-sized terrestrial rainforest mammals. Anim Conserv 11:169–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Trzcinski MK, Fahrig L, Merriam G (1999) Independent effects of forest cover and fragmentation on the distribution of forest breeding birds. Ecol Appl 9:586–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wake DB, Vredenburg VT (2008) Are we in the midst of the sixth mass extinction? A view from the world of amphibians. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105:11466–11473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Welsh AH, Lindenmayer DB, Donnelly CF (2013) Fitting and interpreting occupancy models. PLoS One 8:e52015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Windmiller B, Calhoun AJK (2008) Conserving vernal pool wildlife in urbanizing landscapes. In: Calhoun AJK, DeMaynadier PG (eds) Science and conservation of vernal pools in northeastern North America. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 233–252Google Scholar
  63. Zedler PH (1987) The ecology of southern California vernal pools: A community profileGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Conservation BiologyUniversity of MaineOronoUSA

Personalised recommendations