Advertisement

Wetlands

, Volume 37, Issue 5, pp 941–949 | Cite as

Factors Affecting Abundance of Beaver Dams in Forested Landscapes

  • Mathilde Lapointe St-Pierre
  • Julie Labbé
  • Marcel Darveau
  • Louis Imbeau
  • Marc J. Mazerolle
Original Research

Abstract

Beavers are ecosystem engineers that contribute to landscape heterogeneity in North American boreal forests. Despite the importance of beavers on landscapes, beaver distribution is still poorly understood, particularly at large spatial scales and in different ecoregions. The goal of our study was to determine the main environmental features affecting beaver dam abundance across ecoregions. We quantified the spatial distribution of beaver dams in Quebec forests using 257 systematically distributed provincial forestry maps, in which we sampled 1025 plots of 25 km2 in an area several orders of magnitude larger than in previous studies. The study area, covering over 300,000 km2, spanned over six ecoregions (Appalachians, Meridional Laurentians, Central Laurentians, Abitibi and James Bay Lowlands, Mistassini, and Anticosti Island). We constructed 17 candidate regression models using a negative binomial distribution with variables based on different hypotheses to explain beaver dam abundance. The mean stream gradient was the top variable influencing dam abundance, followed by the cover of non-forested land. However, there was substantial variability among ecoregions, as the models that included the random effect of hardwood cover and non-forested cover ranked higher than models without these variables. We conclude that such regional variation in factors affecting dam distribution patterns should be taken into account when establishing beaver management plans.

Keywords

Beaver dam Wetland Castor canadensis Stream gradient Habitat use 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Funding was provided by the Black Duck Joint Venture, the Canadian Boreal Initiative, Ducks Unlimited Canada, and the Fondation de l’Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue. The Quebec Ministry of Natural Resources and Wildlife (now Ministry of Forests, Wildlife, and Parks) provided forestry maps. Julie Labbé benefited from a Master’s Industrial scholarship – BMP Innovation granted by the Fonds québécois de la recherche sur la nature et les technologies, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and Ducks Unlimited Canada. We thank C. Dussault and M.-H. Saint-Laurent for commenting on an earlier version of the manuscript, and J. Beaulieu, S. Picard and K. Boisvert for their help with GIS analysis.

Supplementary material

13157_2017_929_MOESM1_ESM.docx (79 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 79 kb)
13157_2017_929_MOESM2_ESM.docx (84 kb)
ESM 2 (DOCX 83 kb)
13157_2017_929_MOESM3_ESM.docx (104 kb)
ESM 3 (DOCX 104 kb)

References

  1. Allen AW (1983) Habitat suitability index models: beaver. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Biological Report. FWS/OBS-82/10.30, p. 20Google Scholar
  2. Aznar JC, Desrochers A (2008) Building for the future: abandoned beaver ponds promote bird diversity. Ecoscience 15:250–257. doi: 10.2980/15-2-3107 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baker BW, Hill EP (2003) Beaver (Castor canadensis). In: Feldhamer, G. A., Thompson, B. C. And chapman, J. A. (eds.), wild mammals of North America: biology, management, and conservation. 2nd edn. Johns Hopkins University press, pp. 288–290Google Scholar
  4. Barnes WJ, Dibble E (1988) The effects of beaver in riverbank forest succession. Canadian Journal of Botany 66:40–44. doi: 10.1139/b88-005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barnes DM, Mallik AU (1997) Habitat factors influencing beaver dam establishment in a northern Ontario watershed. Journal of Wildlife Management 61:1371–1377. doi: 10.2307/3802140 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67:1–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beauchesne P, Ducruc JP, Gérardin V (1996) Ecological mapping: a framework for delimiting forest management units. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 39:173–186. doi: 10.1007/BF00396143 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Beier P, Barrett RH (1987) Beaver habitat use and impact in truckee river basin, California. Journal of Wildlife Management 51:794–799. doi: 10.2307/3801743 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bordage D, Lepage C, Orichefsky S (2003) Inventaire en hélicoptère du Plan conjoint sur le canard noir au Québec - Printemps 2003. - Service canadien de la faune - Région du Québec, p. 26Google Scholar
  10. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edn. Springer-Verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Butler RD, Malanson GP (1995) Sedimentation rates and patterns in beaver ponds in a mountain environment. Geomorphology 13:255–269. doi: 10.1016/0169-555X(95)00031-Y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. CCE (1997) Ecological regions of North America, toward a common perspective. In: Commission for Environmental Cooperation. Communications and Public Outreach, Department of the CEC SecretariatGoogle Scholar
  13. Curtis PD, Jensen PG (2004) Habitat features affecting beaver occupancy along roadsides in New York state. Journal of Wildlife Management 68:278–287. doi: 10.2193/0022-541X(2004)068[0278:HFABOA]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dieter DC, McCabe RT (1989) Factors influencing beaver lodge-site selection on a prairie river. The American Midland Naturalist 122:408–411. doi: 10.2307/2425928 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dussault C, Courtois R, Huot J, Ouellet JP (2001) The use of forest maps for the description of wildlife habitats: limits and recommendations. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 31:1227–1234. doi: 10.1139/x01-038 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. ESRI (2009) ArcGIS v 9.3. ESRI, Environmental Systems Research Institute ESRI, Redlands, CAGoogle Scholar
  17. Flynn NJ (2006) Spatial associations of beaver ponds and culverts in boreal headwater streams. University of Alberta, DissertationGoogle Scholar
  18. Fortin C, Laliberté M, Ouzilleau J (2001) Guide d'aménagement et de gestion du territoire utilisé par le castor au Québec. - Fondation de la faune du QuébecGoogle Scholar
  19. Gangloff MM (2013) Taxonomic and ecological tradeoffs associated with small dam removals. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 23:475–480. doi: 10.1002/aqc.2383 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gelman A, Hill J (2006) Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Cambridge University Press, New York, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gerwing GT, Johnson JC, Alström-Rapapaport C (2013) Factors influencing forage selection by the North American beaver (Castor canadensis). Mammalian Biology 78:79–86. doi: 10.1016/j.mambio.2012.07.157 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Government of Canada. Natural Resources Canada, Earth Sciences Sector, Canada Centre for Mapping and Earth Observation. Canadian Digital Elevation Data (CDED) 1:250 000. Ottawa: Natural Resources Canada, Geomatics Canada, 2000Google Scholar
  23. Hood GA, Bayley SE (2008) Beaver (Castor canadensis) mitigate the effects of climate on the area of open water in boreal wetlands in western Canada. Biological Conservation 141:556–567. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2007.12.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Howard RJ, Larson JS (1985) A stream habitat classification system for beaver. Journal of Wildlife Management 49:19–25. doi: 10.2307/3801833 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jakes AF, Snodgrass JW, Burger J (2007) Castor canadensis (beaver) impoundment associated with geomorphology of southeastern streams. Southeastern Naturalist 6:271–282. doi: 10.1656/1528-7092(2007)6[271:CCBIAW]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jenkins SH (1979) Seasonal and year-to-year differences in food selection by beavers. Oecologia 44:112–116. doi: 10.1007/BF00346408 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Jenkins SH (1980) A size-distance relation in food selection by beavers. Ecology 61:740–746. doi: 10.2307/1936743 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jensen PG, Curtis PD, Lehnert ME, Hamelin DL (2001) Habitat and structural factors influencing beaver interference with highway culverts. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:654–664Google Scholar
  29. Johnston CA, Naiman RJ (1987) Boundary dynamics at the aquatic-terrestrial interface: the influence of beaver and geomorphology. Landscape Ecology 1:47–57. doi: 10.1007/BF02275265 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Johnston CA, Naiman RJ (1990) Browse selection by beaver: effects on riparian forest composition. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 20:1036–1043. doi: 10.1139/x90-138 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jones CG, Lawton JH, Shachak M (1994) Organisms as ecosystem engineers. Oikos 69:373–386. doi: 10.2307/3545850 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Karraker NE, Gibbs JP (2009) Amphibian production in forested landscapes in relation to wetland hydroperiod: a case study of vernal pools and beaver ponds. Biological Conservation 142:2293–2302. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2009.05.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lemelin LV, Darveau M, Imbeau L, Bordage D (2007) Local, short-term effects of forest harvesting on breeding waterfowl and common loon in forest-dominated landscapes of Quebec. Avian conservation and ecology 2:10. [online] URL: http://www.ace-eco.org/vol2/iss2/556 art10/Google Scholar
  34. Lemelin LV, Darveau M, Imbeau L, Bordage D (2010) Wetland use and selection by breeding waterbirds in the boreal forest of Quebec, Canada. Wetlands 30:321–332. doi: 10.1007/s13157-010-0024-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Li T, Ducruc JP (1999) Les provinces naturelles. Niveau I du cadre écologique de référence du Québec. Ministère de l’EnvironnementGoogle Scholar
  36. Malison RL, Eby LA, Stanford JA (2014) Juvenile salmonid growth, survival, and production in a large river floodplain modified by beavers (Castor Canadensis). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 72:1639–1651. doi: 10.1139/cjfas-2015-0147 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Marshall IB, Schut PH, Ballard M (1999) Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, research branch, Centre for Land and Biological Resources Research, and Environment Canada, state of the environment directorate. Ecozone Analysis Branch, Ottawa/HullGoogle Scholar
  38. Mazerolle MJ (2016) AICcmodavg: model selection and multimodel inference based on (Q)AIC(c). R package version 2:0–4 http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=AICcmodavg Google Scholar
  39. McCall TC, Hodgman TP, Diefenbach DR, Owen RB (1996) Beaver populations and their relation to wetland habitat and breeding waterfowl in Maine. Wetlands 16:163–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McComb WC, Sedell JR, Buchholz TD (1990) Dam-site selection by beavers in an eastern Oregon Basin. Great Basin Nat 50:273–281Google Scholar
  41. McCullagh P, Nelder JA (1989) Generalized linear models, 2nd edn. Chapman and Hall, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McGinley MA, Whitham TG (1985) Central place foraging by beavers (Castor canadensis): a test of foraging predictions and the impact of selective feeding on the growth form of cottonwoods (Populus fremontii). Oecologia 66:558–562CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Ménard S, Darveau M, Imbeau L (2013) The importance of geology, climate and anthropogenic disturbances in shaping boreal wetland and aquatic landscape types. Ecoscience 20:399–410. doi: 10.2980/20-4-3628 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Meunier G, LeBlanc MC, Darveau M, Bouchard CM, Imbeau L (2009) Les milieux d’eau profonde, humides et forestiers riverains de la Forêt d’enseignement et de recherche du lac Duparquet. Canards Illimités Canada, Série de rapports techniques No. Q16, Québec, QuébecGoogle Scholar
  45. Milligan HE, Humphries MM (2010) The importance of aquatic vegetation in beaver diets and the seasonal and habitat specificity of aquatic-terrestrial ecosystem linkages in a subarctic environment. Oikos 119:1877–1886. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2010.18160.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ministère des Ressources naturelles de la Faune et des Parcs. 1999. Base de données topographiques du Québec (BDTQ) à l'échelle de 1/20 000 - Normes de production - Version 1.0. Rapport RN99–2014, Ministère des Ressources naturelles de la Faune et des Parcs, QuébecGoogle Scholar
  47. Naiman RJ, Johnston CA, Kelley JC (1988) Alteration of North American streams by beaver. Bioscience 38:753–762. doi: 10.2307/1310784 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nummi P, Holopainen S (2014) Whole-community facilitation by beaver: ecosystem engineer increases waterbird diversity. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 24:623–633. doi: 10.1002/aqc.2437 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pollock MM, Beechie TJ et al (2014) Using beaver dams to restore incised stream. Bioscience 64:279–290. doi: 10.1093/biosci/biu036 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. R Development Core Team (2015) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3–900051–07-0, URL http://www.R-project.org
  51. Slough BG, Sadleir RMFS (1977) A land capability classification system for beaver (Castor canadensis Kuhl). Canadian Journal of Zoology 55:1324–1335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Snodgrass JW, Meffe GK (1998) Influence of beavers on stream fish assemblages: effects of pond age and watershed position. Ecology 79:928–942. doi: 10.2307/176590 Google Scholar
  53. Stevens CE, Paszkowski CA, Foote AL (2007) Beaver (Castor canadensis) as a surrogate species for conserving anuran amphibians on boreal streams in Alberta, Canada. Biological Conservation 134:1–13. doi: 10.1016/jbiocon.2006.07.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sturtevant BR (1998) A model of wetland vegetation dynamics in simulated beaver impoundments. Ecological Modelling 112:195–225. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3800(98)00079-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Suzuki N, McComb WC (1998) Habitat classification models for beaver (Castor canadensis) in the streams of the Central Oregon coast range. Northwest Science 72:102–110Google Scholar
  56. Thompson S, Vehkaoja M, Nummi P (2016) Beaver-created deadwood dynamics in the boreal forest. Forest Ecology and Management 360:1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2015.10.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Wetland Scientists 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre d’étude de la forêt, Département des sciences du bois et de la forêtUniversité LavalQuébecCanada
  2. 2.Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue and Ducks Unlimited CanadaQuébecCanada
  3. 3.Ducks Unlimited Canada and Université LavalQuébecCanada
  4. 4.Université du Québec en Abitibi-TémiscamingueRouyn-NorandaCanada

Personalised recommendations