ra
ft
-
D
o
N
ot
C
ite
American marten habitat use and behavior
i response to vegetation
in
i management practices
i
on the Lassen National Forest: an update
Katie M. Moriarty1, William J. Zielinski2 and Clinton W. Epps1
1Oregon
State University, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife
2Pacific Southwest Research Station, Redwood Sciences Laboratory
D
For the Plumas-Lassen Administrative Study Annual Meeting
21 April 2011
ite
Presentation outline
(1) Background – martens, habitat use, management status
N
ot
C
(2) Project focus – vegetation management and “habitat”
A priori hypotheses and landscape stratification
Micro-site characterization (vegetation data)
D
ra
ft
-
D
o
(3) Field methods and progress
Snowtracking
GPS collars
Food-titration experiments
D
ra
ft
-
D
o
N
ot
C
ite
American marten (Martes americana)
E. Newkirk, 2009
M. Delheimer, 2010
• Member of the weasel family
• 500-1400g (~1 to 2.5 pounds)
• High-elevation conifer forests
(high elevation >5500’)
ra
ft
-
D
o
N
ot
C
ite
Marten background – habitat use
M t resting
Marten
ti stand
t d
M t resting
Marten
ti structure
t t
M t resting
Marten
ti site,
it M01
D
Horizontally and vertically complex
Dense canopy (>60%) within a stand
High density of logs, snags, and large trees
ite
Hypotheses: marten use and movement
C
(1) Forage effectively
D
ra
ft
-
D
o
N
ot
Andruskiw et al. 2008. Habitat mediated variation in p
predation risk byy
American marten
ite
Hypotheses: marten use and movement
C
(1) Forage effectively
(2) Thermal cover
N
ot
Taylor, S.L. and S.W. Buskirk. 1994. Forest macroenviroments and
resting energetics of the American marten.
D
ra
ft
-
D
o
Gilbert et al. 2009. Seasonal field metabolic rates of American martens
in Wisconsin.
ite
Hypotheses: marten use and movement
C
(1) Forage effectively
(3) Escape cover
N
ot
( ) Thermal
(2)
h
l cover
D
ra
ft
-
D
o
Drew, G.S. 1995. Winter habitat selection by American marten in
Newfoundland: why old growth?
ite
Hypotheses: marten use and movement
C
(1) Forage effectively
(3) Escape cover
N
ot
( ) Thermal
(2)
h
l cover
Ave DBH (in) Ave. age
36.6
403
29.5
406
37.4
176
D
ra
ft
-
Snag
Conifer log
Live conifer
Slash pile
Rock
Shrub clump
% Use
37%
23%
17%
10%
8%
6%
D
o
(4) Resting sites (thermal/escape)
Slauson and Zielinski 2009. Northwest Science, 83: 35-45.
ite
Marten background – management status
No Federal status
C
USFS Sensitive Species
N
ot
Management Indicator Species (MIS) for 9
Sierra Nevada National Forests
Species of Special Concern – California
D
o
Department of Fish and Game, Oregon Department of Fish
and Wildlife
D
ra
ft
-
Trapping illegal in CA and NV since 1946
ite
Marten background – management status
No Federal status
C
USFS Sensitive Species
N
ot
Management Indicator Species (MIS) for 9
Sierra Nevada National Forests
Species of Special Concern – California
D
o
Department of Fish and Game, Oregon Department of Fish
and Wildlife
ra
ft
-
Trapping illegal in CA and NV since 1946
HFQLG Red Flag Report (2008)
D
“Does DFPZ implementation present a risk to marten
movement (or marten habitat connectivity)?”
HFQLG Independent Science Panel
“Red-Flag” Issue Monitoring Report’
D
ra
ft
-
D
o
N
ot
C
ite
Marten movement and connectivity
ite
Project objectives – movement and connectivity
C
1) Quantify the size, type, and configuration through which
martens are willing to move
N
ot
2) Determine potential thresholds of “openness”
3)) Evaluate importance
p
of micro-site features and ppotential interspecific interactions that may influence movement
D
ra
ft
-
D
o
4) Quantify site and stand characteristics used by martens to
improve science-based forest management
ra
ft
-
D
D
o
N
ot
C
ite
Study area
D
o
N
ot
C
ite
A priori structural classes – landscape stratification
Complex
p
Canopy
cover
Open
p
Differs
(meadow, talus,
previously forested)
40-100%
~40-50%
0-30%
> 11" dbh with large
g
tree (>24")
component*
>11" dbh
NA
D
Tree size
Red fir, white fir, fir-dominated Sierra
mixed-conifer, lodgepole, riparian, etc.
ra
ft
-
Habitat
Type
Thinned
ite
A priori structural classes – landscape stratification
Complex: Predicted marten
C
reproductive habitat
Complex: Dense forest
N
ot
cover
Simple: Recently thinned
(<10 years)
D
ra
ft
-
D
o
Simple: Thinned (>10 years
ago)
Open: Natural meadow,
talus, lava
Open:: Recent
Ope
ece management
ge e
(<10 years)
Open: Previous
management (>10 years)
D
ra
ft
-
D
o
N
ot
C
ite
Micro-site vegetation data importance
ra
ft
-
C
N
ot
D
o
Basal area (20-factor prism)
Canopy cover (moosehorn)
CWHR metrics
Shrub cover (percentage)
Sapling cover (percentage)
Large woody material
Presence forest disease
Snow depth
D
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
ite
Micro-site vegetation data – all methods
Micro-site vegetation data – vegetation plots
N
ot
C
ite
50m
D
ra
ft
-
D
o
Additional vegetation plots (rest/random)
• Herbaceous
H b
cover
• Trees per acre (fixed plot)
• Large woody material (length, diameter)
• Basal area (to the inch)
• Kraft crown classes (dominance)
• Height to canopy
• Hawth’s mistletoe estimation
C
Results include,
but not limited to:
• Basal area (live, snag)
N
ot
Basal area (live and snag)
Canopy cover (moosehorn)
CWHR metrics (stand type, size, cover)
Shrub cover (percentage)
Sapling cover (percentage)
Large woody material (size, decay class)
P
Presence
fforest di
disease
Snowdepth
D
o
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
ite
Micro-site vegetation data
D
ra
ft
-
Vegetation plots also include
• Herbaceous cover
• Trees per acre
• Basal area (to the inch, live and snag)
• Kraft crown classes (dominance)
• Height to canopy
• Hawth’s
H h’ mistletoe
i l
classification
l ifi i
• Canopy
C
cover
(similar to FVS*)
• Stand density index
• Shrub cover ((%))
• Volume large woody
material (by decay class)
ite
Marten movement
D
ra
ft
-
D
o
N
ot
C
Snowtracking, GPS collars, food-titration experiments
D
ra
ft
-
D
o
N
ot
C
ite
Marten movement – why snow track?
Minta, S. C., P. M. Kareiva, and A. P. Curlee. 1999.
Carnivores in ecosystems: the Yellowstone experience. Yale University Press, London.
D
ra
ft
-
D
o
C
N
ot
Micro-site characteristics
• Number of interactions with
• large trees/snags
• sapling patches
• subnivean access
ite
Marten movement – micro-site characteristics
C
N
ot
Micro-site characteristics
• Number of interactions with
• large trees/snags
• sapling patches
• subnivean access
ite
Marten movement – non-habitat interactions
D
ra
ft
-
D
o
Intra/Interspecific interactions
• Potential prey
• Potential terrestrial predators
• Other martens
D
o
N
ot
C
Micro-site characteristics
• Number of interactions with
• large trees/snags
• sapling patches
• subnivean access opportunities
• Canopy
C
cover (moosehorn,
(
h
10
10m))
• Basal area (20-factor prism, 100m)
• CWHR metrics ((100m))
• Snowdepth (every 100m)
ite
Marten movement – micro-site, interactions, stand
D
ra
ft
-
Intra/Interspecific interactions
• Potential prey
• Potential terrestrial predators
• Other martens
Actual marten track
Random track
C
ite
Marten movement – analyzing snowtracking data
D
ra
ft
-
D
o
N
ot
Path-level
Path
level analysis
Among and between patch types
• distance traveled
• sinuosity (amount of complexity
• gait type (bounding vs. walking)
Between random and actual paths
• subnivean access
• prey/predator intersections
• interactions - snags/logs/trees
• basal area
• canopy cover
• stand types
Maletzke, B. T., G. M. Koehler, R. B. Wielgus, K. B. Aubry, and M. A
Journal of Wildlife Management
D
ra
ft
-
D
o
N
ot
C
ite
Marten movement – GPS collars
M10
F06 and F08 GPS
locations, winter 2011
ite
Marten movement – GPS collars
Summer months
- Kits born (late March-April)
- Abundance of food available
- Many predators
- Breeding (late Jun-early Aug)
- Kit rearing (until late fall)
ra
ft
-
D
o
N
ot
Winter months
- Energetically and thermally stress
- Limited food available
- Few predators
- Juvenile dispersal
C
Frequent locations in both winter and summer
D
- Longer duration of information
- Distance and duration within structural patch types
- Quantify vegetative features within the patch
C
GPS collar background and concerns
ite
Marten movement – GPS collars
ra
ft
-
D
o
N
ot
- New technology – smallest in the world and first to use
GPS collar ((35-44g)
g)
D
Telemetry Solutions,
Concord, CA
7 nickels (~35g) 9 nickels (~45g)
C
GPS collar background and concerns
ite
Marten movement – GPS collars
N
ot
- New technology – smallest in the world and first to use
ra
ft
-
D
o
Transmitter type:
• GPS unit (square antenna on top of transmitter)
• UHF – remote download
• VHF – signal
g for telemetry/relocating
y
g
• Accelerometer – records motion
• “SmartGPS” – only takes a fix when
marten has or is moving
(
g)
GPS collar (35-44g)
D
Telemetry Solutions,
Concord, CA
C
GPS collar background and concerns
ite
Marten movement – GPS collars
- A lot of uncertainty
N
ot
- New technology – smallest in the world
D
ra
ft
-
D
o
• Expensive
• Weak VHF, lasts maximum of 3 months
• G
GPS
S batte
batteryy lifee with
w t continuous 5 minute
ute fix attempts
atte pts
Precautionary measures:
• Only deploy on previously VHF collared adult
martens with known use area
• Two phase collar tests:
1 At the office
1.
2. In the field before deployment
C
GPS collar background and concerns
ite
Marten movement – GPS collars
- A lot of uncertainty
N
ot
- New technology – smallest in the world
Scheduled Average Fix
fi attempts Success
fix
S
R
Rate
15
60%
17
53%
11
53%
6
50%
D
ra
ft
-
Canopy cover
C
0
<33%
33% - 66%
>66%
D
o
- Precision and data accuracy
Average
P ii
Precision
11.5 m
19.2 m
11.3 m
20.0 m
C
GPS collar background and concerns
ite
Marten movement – GPS collars
- A lot of uncertainty
N
ot
- New technology – smallest in the world
- Precision and data accuracy
D
ra
ft
-
D
o
Triangulations
• 3 element yagi antennas
• 3 azimuths within 20 minutes
C
GPS collar background and concerns
ite
Marten movement – GPS collars
- A lot of uncertainty
N
ot
- New technology – smallest in the world
D
o
- Precision and data accuracy
ra
ft
-
Ave
error
(m) SE
128.2 34.3
16 2 2.8
16.2
28
n
D
Triangulation
GPS collar
25
31
* Assuming a 3D fix
Min
error
(m)
15.0
22
2.2
Max
error
(m)
720.1
65 2*
65.2*
95%
Confidence
Interval
60.9 - 195.6
10 0 - 22.3
10.0
22 3
C
GPS collar background and concerns
ite
Marten movement – GPS collars
- A lot of uncertainty
N
ot
- New technology – smallest in the world
D
ra
ft
-
D
o
- Precision and data accuracy
- Data gain….
- Comparison
p
to field crews ((24-hour monitoring,
g all conditions))
- Increased and consistent data precision
- Marten activity data
- Potential interactions with other collared martens
- New technology (SmartGPS) for extended battery life
D
ra
ft
-
D
o
N
ot
C
ite
M10 – telemetry based locations, Feb-Aug 2010
D
ra
ft
-
D
o
N
ot
C
ite
M10 – GPS collar fixes, 16-18 Nov 2010
D
ra
ft
-
D
o
N
ot
C
ite
M10 – GPS collar path
D
ra
ft
-
D
o
N
ot
C
ite
M10 – GPS collar path, 16 Nov 2010, 20:45-21:45
D
ra
ft
-
D
o
N
ot
C
ite
M10 – GPS collar path, 3066 meters
D
ra
ft
-
D
o
N
ot
C
ite
M10 – GPS collar fixes, 16-18 Nov 2010
D
ra
ft
-
D
o
N
ot
C
ite
M10 – GPS collar fixes, 03-06 Apr 2011
D
ra
ft
-
D
o
N
ot
C
ite
M10 – GPS collar fixes, Nov 2010 and Apr 2011
C
Ave. distance (m) Ave. distance (km) Ave. distance (mi)
5 minutes
24 hours
24 hours
164 6
164.6
17 7
17.7
11 1
11.1
54.5
12.1
7.6
N
ot
Male
Female
n
6
4
ite
High amount of movement, habitat connectivity?
• Energetic requirement, forage and territory maintenance??
• What might be the effect of potential barriers or management
D
o
- Unknown if forest thinning techniques should be compared to
complete removal
ra
ft
-
*** These are unedited data with a low sample size.
Please do not reference ***
Bissonette, J. A., and S. Broekhuizen. 1995. Landscape Approaches in Mammalian Ecology and
Conservation. University of Minnesota Press.
D
Bi
Bissonette,
tt J.
J A
A., R
R. J
J. F
Fredrickson,
d i k
and
dB
B. J
J. T
Tucker.
k
1989
1989. T
Transactions
ti
off th
the 54th N
N.A.
A Wildlif
Wildlife and
d
Natural Resource Conference:89-101.
Hargis, C. D., J. A. Bissonette, and D. L. Turner. 1999. Journal of Applied Ecology 36:157-172.
Potvin, F., L. Belanger, and K. Lowell. 2000. Conservation Biology 14:844-857.
D
ra
ft
-
D
o
N
ot
C
ite
Food-titration experiments
M01, telemetry based locations
ite
Martens’ perceived thresholds – food-titration
D
ra
ft
-
D
o
N
ot
C
Further evaluate the type, size, and configuration of patches
permeable to marten movement while standardizing motivation
ite
Martens’ perceived thresholds – food-titration
D
ra
ft
-
N
ot
D
o
• Complex
l into complex
l
• Complex into simple
• Complex
p into open
p
C
9 track plate boxes, placed 50-m apart (using a tape)
200-m in complex and 200-m into the “treatment”
ite
Martens’ perceived thresholds – food-titration
N
ot
• Complex
l into complex
l
• Complex into simple
• Complex
p into open
p
C
9 track plate boxes, placed 50-m apart (using a tape)
200-m in complex and 200-m into the “treatment”
D
ra
ft
-
D
o
Assumptions
• Within a known animals’ use area
• Available to the marten
ite
Marten movement
D
ra
ft
-
D
o
N
ot
C
Snowtracking, GPS collars, food-titration experiments
ite
Summary
D
o
N
ot
C
Marten
M
t movementt is
i an important
i
t t step
t both
b th to
t understand
d t d
connectivity between habitat patches and effects of vegetation
management.
Movement data are being collected using three techniques:
- Snowtracking
- GPS collars
- Food-titration experiments
ra
ft
-
Combination of these techniques
q
will pprovide unprecedented
p
amount of information in regards to marten movement at
several spatial and temporal scales.
Fine-scale vegetation data is intended to provide information
for science-based management.
D
Additionall data,
Additi
d t andd collaboration
ll b ti with
ith other
th agencies,
i are
providing novel information regarding marten ecology.
ite
Acknowledgements
N
ot
C
Special
S
i l thanks
h k to the
h
Lassen National Forest
and Almanor Ranger District:
Tom Frolli,
District Biologist,
Almanor Ranger
District (ARD)
Inter-Regional Wild Horse
and Burro Program Manager
D
o
Mark Williams,
ra
ft
-
Committee members: Clint Epps, Bill Zielinski, Matthew Betts, John Bailey
Logistical assistance and contributions: Ron Perry and Andy Williams (Timber, ARD), Paula Shakley
and
d Gretchen
G
h Jelhe
J lh (PSW),
(PSW) Bobby
B bb Self
S lf andd Soai
S
T lb (R
Talbot
(Recreation, ARD)
ARD), P
Pete Figura
F
(DFG) A
(DFG),
Aaron
Facka (N. Carolina University) and Henry Lomeli (DFG), Scott Yeager (USFWS), Allison Sanger (LNF),
Jennifer Hensel (Fuel Management, ARD), Mourad Gabriel (Integral Ecology Research Center)
Volunteers and field contributers: Kaley Phillips,
Phillips Cassie Kinnard and Colleen Heard (Wildlife,
(Wildlife ARD),
ARD)
D
Erica Sisson (PSW), Darrel Jury (FRC), Sarah Hubert (Ecology, ARD), Mellen Colberg (Shasta-Trinity
NF), Nicole Edmison (American Museum of Natural History), Sam Cushman (Rocky Mountain Research
Station), Jack Mortenson (Oregon State)
Acknowledgements
Lacey Kreiensieck Ryan Adamczyk
Katie Mansfield
D
o
Matt Delheimer,
Mark Linnell
Field Crew Supervisor
N
ot
C
ite
Special thanks to the field crew:
F d d by
Funded
b the:
h Lassen
L
N
National
i l Forest
F
andd Almanor
Al
R
Ranger
District
Di i
ra
ft
-
Committee members: Clint Epps, Bill Zielinski, Matthew Betts, John Bailey
Logistical assistance and contributions: Ron Perry and Andy Williams (Timber, ARD), Paula Shakley
and
d Gretchen
G t h Jelhe
J lh (PSW),
(PSW) Bobby
B bb Self
S lf andd Soai
S i Talbot
T lb t (R
(Recreation,
ti ARD),
ARD) Pete
P t Figura
Fi
(DFG) A
(DFG),
Aaron
Facka (N. Carolina University) and Henry Lomeli (DFG), Scott Yeager (USFWS), Allison Sanger (LNF),
Jennifer Hensel (Fuel Management, ARD), Mourad Gabriel (Integral Ecology Research Center)
Volunteers and field contributers: Kaley Phillips, Cassie Kinnard and Colleen Heard (Wildlife, ARD),
D
Erica Sisson (PSW), Darrel Jury (FRC), Sarah Hubert (Ecology, ARD), Mellen Colberg (Shasta-Trinity
NF), Nicole Edmison (American Museum of Natural History), Sam Cushman (Rocky Mountain Research
Station), Jack Mortenson (Oregon State)