Advertisement

Mammalian Biology

, Volume 80, Issue 4, pp 247–254 | Cite as

Investigating the effects of forest structure on the small mammal community in frequent-fire coniferous forests using capture-recapture models for stratified populations

  • Rahel SollmannEmail author
  • Angela M. White
  • Beth Gardner
  • Patricia N. Manley
Original Investigation

Abstract

Small mammals comprise an important component of forest vertebrate communities. Our understanding of how small mammals use forested habitat has relied heavily on studies in forest systems not naturally prone to frequent disturbances. Small mammal populations that evolved in frequent-fire forests, however, may be less restricted to specific habitat conditions due to the instability of these resources in time and space. We investigate how canopy cover and the volume of coarse woody debris (CWD), covariates that are considered important for small mammals, impact abundance and body mass of eight small mammal species. Based on live-trapping data collected across 23 sites over three years in a frequent fire forest in the Sierra Nevada we apply capture-recapture models for stratified populations, a statistically rigorous, rarely used framework that allows joint modeling of detection, abundance and its response to covariates. Canopy cover had a strong negative association with the abundance of yellow-pine chipmunks and California ground squirrels, and a strong positive association with deer mice. CWD had a strong negative association with the abundance of golden-mantled ground squirrels, yellow-pine and long-eared chipmunks, and a strong positive association with deer mice. Whereas canopy cover influenced abundance and body mass similarly, CWD had a positive association with body mass and a negative association with abundance in some species. These patterns could arise if suitable habitat is monopolized by socially dominant individuals. Despite these habitat associations, the small mammal community in our study was dynamic and diverse, with spatial and temporal variation in dominant species suggesting that species were flexible in their use of habitat. This study suggests that it is important to understand the disturbance regimes when investigating habitat requirements, coexistence and evolutionary ecology of small mammal species.

Keywords

Abundance Distribution Disturbance regime Live trapping Forest management 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Amacher, A.J., Barrett, R.H., Moghaddas, J.J., Stephens, S.L., 2008. Preliminary effects of fire and mechanical fuel treatments on the abundance of small mammals in the mixed-conifer forest of the Sierra Nevada. Forest Ecol. Manag. 255, 3193–3202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bagne, K.E., Finch, D.M., 2010. Response of small mammal populations to fuel treatment and precipitation in a ponderosa pine forest, New Mexico. Restoration Ecol. 18, 409–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Battin, J., 2004. When good animals love bad habitats: ecological traps and the conservation of animal populations. Conserv. Biol. 18, 1482–1491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beaty, R.M., Taylor, A.H., 2008. Fire history and the structure and dynamics of a mixed conifer forest landscape in the northern Sierra Nevada, LakeTahoe Basin, California, USA. Forest Ecol. Manag. 255, 707–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bellows, A.S., Pagels, J.F., Mitchell, J.C., 2001. Macrohabitat and microhabitat affinities of small mammals in a fragmented landscape on the upper coastal plain of Virginia. Am. Midl. Nat. 146, 345–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown, J.K., Johnston, CM., 1976. Debris Prediction System. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.Google Scholar
  7. Carey, A.B., Johnson, M.L., 1995. Small mammals in managed, naturally young, and old-growth forests. Ecol. Appl. 5, 336–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carey, A.B., Kershner, J., Biswell, B., de Toledo, L.D., 1999. Ecological scale and forest development: squirrels, dietary fungi, and vascular plants in managed and unmanaged forests. Wildlife Monogr. 142, 3–71.Google Scholar
  9. Converse, S.J., Royle, J.A., 2012. Dealing with incomplete and variable detectability in multi-year, multi-site monitoring of ecological populations. In: Gitzen, R.R., Millspaugh,J.J., Cooper, A.B., Licht, D.S. (Eds.), Design and Analysis of Long-Term Ecological Monitoring Studies. Cambridge University Press, pp. 426–442.Google Scholar
  10. Converse, S.J., White, G.C., Farris, K.L., Zack, S., 2006. Small mammals and forest fuel reduction: national-scale responses to fire and fire surrogates. Ecol. Appl. 16, 1717–1729.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Coppeto, S.A., Kelt, D.A., Van Vuren, D.H., Wilson, J.A., Bigelow, S., 2006. Habitat associations of small mammals at two spatial scales in the northern Sierra Nevada. J. Mammal. 87, 402–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De León, L.F., Podos, J., Gardezi, T., Herrel, A., Hendry, A.P., 2014. Darwin’s finches and their diet niches: the sympatric coexistence of imperfect generalists. J. Evol. Biol. 27, 1093–1104.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Devictor, V., Julliard, R., Jiguet, F., 2008. Distribution of specialist and generalist species along spatial gradients of habitat disturbance and fragmentation. Oikos 117, 507–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ecke, F., Löfgren, O., Sörlin, D., 2002. Population dynamics of small mammals in relation to forest age and structural habitat factors in northern Sweden. J. Appl. Ecol. 39, 781–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fauteux, D., Imbeau, L., Drapeau, P., Mazerolle, M.J., 2012. Small mammal responses to coarse woody debris distribution at different spatial scales in managed and unmanaged boreal forests. Forest Ecol. Manag. 266, 194–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fauteux, D., Mazerolle, M.J., Imbeau, L., Drapeau, P., 2013. Site occupancy and spatial co-occurrence of boreal small mammals are favoured by late-decay woody debris. Can. J. Forest Res. 43, 419–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Feldhamer, G.A., Klann, R.S., Gerard, A.S., Driskell, A.C., 1993. Habitat partitioning, body size, and timing of parturition in pygmy shrews and associated soricids. J. Mammal. 74, 403–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fitzgerald, B.M., 1977. Weasel predation on a cyclic population of the montane vole (Microtus montanus) in California. J. Anim. Ecol. 46, 367–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gelman, A., Carlin, J.B., Stern, H.S., Rubin, D.B., 2004. Bayesian Data Analysis, second edition. CRC/Chapman & Hall, Boca Raton, Florida, USA.Google Scholar
  20. Greenberg, C.H., Otis, D.L., Waldrop, T.A., 2006. Response of white-footed mice (Peromyscus leucopus) to fire and fire surrogate fuel reduction treatments in a southern Appalachian hardwood forest. Forest Ecol. Manag. 234, 355–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Haber,G.C.,(Ph.D.) 1977. Socio-ecological dynamics of wolves and prey in a subarctic ecosystem. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
  22. Hallett, J.G., O’Connell, M.A., Maguire, C.C., 2003. Ecological relationships of terrestrial small mammals. In: Zabel, C.J., Anthony, R.G. (Eds.), Mammal Community Dynamics: Management and Conservation in the Coniferous Forests of Western North America. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 120–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hinkelman, T.M., Loeb, S.C., 2007. Effect of woody debris abundance on daytime refuge use by cotton mice. Southeast. Nat. 6, 393–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hinkelman, T.M., Orrock, J.L., Loeb, S.C., 2012. Effect of downed woody debris on small mammal anti-predator behavior. Ethology 118, 17–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Johnston, A.N., Anthony, R.G., 2008. Small-mammal microhabitat associations and response to grazing in Oregon. J. Wildl. Manag. 72, 1736–1746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kassen, R., 2002. The experimental evolution of specialists, generalists, and the maintenance of diversity. J. Evol. Biol. 15, 173–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kelt, D.A., Van Vuren, D.H., Johnson, M.L., Wilson, J.A., Innes, R.J.,Jesmer, B.R., Ingram, K.P., Smith, J.R., Bigelow, S.W., Burnett, R.D., Stine, PA, 2013. Small mammals exhibit limited spatiotemporal structure in Sierra Nevada forests. J. Mammal. 94, 1197–1213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Knapp, E.E., 2015. Long-term dead wood changes in a Sierra Nevada mixed conifer forest: habitat and fire hazard implications. Forest Ecol. Manag. 339, 87–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Knapp, E.E., Skinner, C.N., North, M.P., Estes, B.L., 2013. Long-term overstory and understory change following logging and fire exclusion in a Sierra Nevada mixed-conifer forest. Forest Ecol. Manag. 310, 903–914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lawlor, T.E., 2003. Faunal composition and distribution of mammals in western coniferous forests. In: Zabel, C.J., Anhtony, R.G. (Eds.), Mammal Community Dynamics: Management and Conservation in the Coniferous Forests of Western North America. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 41–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lee, E.J., Lee, W.S., Rhim, S.J., 2008. Characteristics of small rodent populations in post-fire silvicultural management stands within pine forest. Forest Ecol. Manag. 255, 1418–1422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lemaître, J., Fortin, D., Morris, D.W., Darveau, M., 2010. Deer mice mediate red-backed vole behaviour and abundance along a gradient of habitat alteration. Evol. Ecol. Res. 12, 203–216.Google Scholar
  33. Lindström, J., 1999. Early development and fitness in birds and mammals. Trends Ecol. Evol. 14, 343–348.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Luoma, D.L., Trappe, J.M., Claridge, A.W., Jacobs, K.M., Cazares, E., 2003. Relationships among fungi and small mammals in forested ecosystems. In: Zabel, C.J., Anthony, R.G. (Eds.), Mammal Community Dynamics: Management and Conservation in the Coniferous Forests of Western North America. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 343–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lydersen, J., North, M., 2012. Topographic variation in structure of mixed-conifer forests under an active-fire regime. Ecosystems 15, 1134–1146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Maguire, C.C., 1999. Rainfall, ambient temperature, and Clethrionomys californicus capture frequency. Mammal Rev. 29, 135–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Martin, C.H., Genner, M.J., 2009. High niche overlap between two successfully coexisting pairs of Lake Malawi cichlid fishes. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 66, 579–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Monroe, M.E., Converse, S.J., 2006. The effects of early season and late season prescribed fires on small mammals in a Sierra Nevada mixed conifer forest. Forest Ecol. Manag. 236, 229–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Naxara, L., Pinotti, B.T., Pardini, R., 2009. Seasonal microhabitat selection by terrestrial rodents in an old-growth Atlantic Forest. J. Mammal. 90, 404–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nichols, J.D., 1992. Capture-recapture models. Bioscience 42, 94–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Otis, D.L., Burnham, K.P., White, G.C., Anderson, D.R., 1978. Statistical inference from capture data on closed animal populations. Wildlife Monogr. 62, 1–135.Google Scholar
  42. Plummer, M., 2003. JAGS: a program for analysis of Bayesian graphical models using Gibbs sampling. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Distributed Statistical Computing, pp. 20–22.Google Scholar
  43. Price, M.V., Jenkins, S.H., 1987. Rodents as seed consumers and dispersers. In: Murray, D.R. (Ed.), Seed Dispersal. Academic Press, Sydney, NSW, Australia, pp. 191–235.Google Scholar
  44. Pyare, S., Longland, W.S., 2001. Patterns of ectomycorrhizal-fungi consumption by small mammals in remnant old-growth forests of the Sierra Nevada. J. Mammal. 82, 681–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. R Core Team, 2014. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
  46. Robertson, B.A., Hutto, R.L., 2006. A framework for understanding ecological traps and an evaluation of existing evidence. Ecology 87, 1075–1085.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. Roche, B.E., Schulte-Hostedde, A.I., Brooks, R.J., 1999. Route choice by deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus): reducing the risk of auditory detection by predators. Am. Midl. Nat. 142, 194–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Royle, JA, Chandler, R.B.,Sollmann, R., Gardner, B., 2014. Spatial Capture-Recapture. Academic Press, Waltham, MD, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Royle,JA, Converse, S.J., 2014. Hierarchical spatial capture-recapture models: modelling population density in stratified populations. Methods Ecol. Evol. 5, 37–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Royle,JA, Dorazio, R.M., 2012. Parameter-expanded data augmentation for Bayesian analysis of capture-recapture models. J. Ornithol. 152, 521–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schoener, T.W., 1974. Resource partitioning in ecological communities. Science 185, 27–39.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Smith, R.B., Peery, M.Z., Gutiérrez, R.J., Lahaye, W.S., 1999. The relationship between spotted owl diet and reproductive success in the San Bernardino Mountains, California. Wilson Bull. 111, 22–29.Google Scholar
  53. Smith, W.P., 2007. Ecology of Glaucomys sabrinus: habitat, demography, and community relations. J. Mammal. 88, 862–881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Smith, W.P., Gende, S.M., Nichols, J.V., 2005. The northern flying squirrel as an indicator species of temperate rain forest: test of an hypothesis. Ecol. Appl. 15, 689–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Stephens, S.L., Bigelow, S.W., Burnett, R.D., Collins, B.M., Gallagher, C.V., Keane, J., Kelt, D.A., North, M.P., Roberts, L.J., Stine, PA, et al., 2014. California spotted owl, songbird, and small mammal responses to landscape fuel treatments. Bio-science, https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biu13710.1093/biosci/biu137
  56. Stephens, S.L., Fry, D.L., Franco-Vizcaíno, E., Collins, B.M., Moghaddas, J.M., 2007. Coarse woody debris and canopy cover in an old-growth Jeffrey pine-mixed conifer forest from the Sierra San Pedro Martir, Mexico. Forest Ecol. Manag. 240, 87–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Stephens, S.L., McIver, J.D., Boerner, R.E.J., Fettig, C.J., Fontaine, J.B., Hartsough, B.R., Kennedy, P.L., Schwilk, D.W., 2012. The effects of forest fuel-reduction treatments in the United States. Bioscience 62, 549–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. USDA, 2004. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region.Google Scholar
  59. Vanderwel, M.C., Malcolm,J.R.,Caspersen,J.P., Newman, MA, 2010. Fine-scale habitat associations of red-backed voles in boreal mixedwood stands. J. Wildl. Manag. 74, 1492–1501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Van Horne, B., 1983. Density as a misleading indicator of habitat quality. J. Wildl. Manag. 47, 893–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Waddell, K.L., 2002. Sampling coarse woody debris for multiple attributes in extensive resource inventories. Ecol. Indic. 1, 139–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Zielinski, W.J., Duncan, N.P., Farmer, E.C., Truex, R.L., Clevenger, A.P., Barrett, R.H., 1999. Diet of fishers (Martes pennanti) at the southernmost extent of their range. J. Mammal. 80, 961–971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Deutsche Gesellschaft für Säugetierkunde 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rahel Sollmann
    • 1
    Email author
  • Angela M. White
    • 2
  • Beth Gardner
    • 1
  • Patricia N. Manley
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources, Fisheries, Wildlife and Conservation Biology ProgramNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA
  2. 2.US Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research StationDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations