Black bear habitat use in west-central Idaho
by James W Unsworth
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Fish
and Wildlife Management
Montana State University
© Copyright by James W Unsworth (1984)
Abstract:
Black bear (Ursus americanus) habitat use patterns were studied in west-central Idaho from 1982-1983.
Ten adult female bears were instrumented with radio transmitters. Bears' were relocated 64 0 times
during the study. Uncut' timbered sites were important bedding areas and timber components along
drainages served as travel corridors. Open timber components were used in spring as foraging areas.
Open timber/shrubfield components were used as foraging areas and bedding sites. Riparian areas were
preferred as feeding sites and used as travel corridors. Aspen components were preferred by bears with
cubs. They provided dense horizontal cover and were often adjacent to shrubfields. The meadow
component was used in the spring as a foraging area for grasses and forbs. Rock/talus and
sagebrush/grass components were avoided. Selection cut/shrubfield components were preferred as
feeding sites for berry species. Other selection cut components were used in proportion to availability.
Clearcuts were avoided. Abies grandis/Vaccinium globulare, Abies grandis/Acer glabrum, and
Pseudotsuga menziesii/Physocarpus malvaceus habitat types received over 90% of the use. The Abies
grandis habitat types were important food producers and the Pseudotsuga menziesii/Physocarpus
malvaceus habitat type was most often used for bedding. Topographic features that enhance the growth
of mesic vegetation were preferred. Female bears preferred areas in cover, but would venture from
cover to seek food. Timber and hunting management recommendations are presented. BLACK .BEAR HABITAT USE IN
WEST-CENTRAL IDAHO
by
James W. Unsworth
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
of
Master of Science
in
Fish and Wildlife Management
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY
Bozeman,Montana
DECEMBER 1984
APPROVAL
of a thesis submitted byJames W . Unsworth
This thesis has been read by each member of the thesis
committee and has been found to be satisfactory regarding
content,
English usage,
format,
citations, bibliographic
style,
and consistency, and is ready for submission to the
College of Graduate Studies.
Date
Approved for the Major Department
Date
Head, Major Department
Approved for the College of Graduate Studies
Date
Graduate Dean
iii
STATEMENT OF PERMISSION TO USE
In
the
presenting this thesis in partial
requirements
University,
available
I
for a master "s'degree at
agree
that
the
Library
to borrowers under rules of the
quotations
fulfillment
Montana
shall
permission,
provided
that
accurate
State
make
Library.
from this thesis are allowable without
of
it
Brief
special
acknowledgement
of
source is made,.
Permission
reproduction
professor,
'when,
in
of
for
this
extensive
quotation
thesis may be granted by
from
my
or
major
or in his absence, by the Director of Libraries
the opinion of either,
material is for scholarly purposes.
the proposed use of
Any copying or use
the
of
the material in this thesis for financial gain shall not be
allowed without my written permission. •
Date
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENT1
I
wish
to thank Dr.
University,
for
his
Lynn
R.
supervision
of
Irby,
Montana
this
project
reviewing the early drafts of this manuscript.
gone
and
help
has been
truly
appreciated.
and.
Dr. Irby has
beyond what is normally expected of a Major
his
State
Professor
Dr.
John
J.
Beecham, Research Supervisor of the Idaho Department Of Fish
and
Game,
deserves special thanks for his
support
during
this study, his help in the field, and providing me with the
opportunity
Drs.
to
Harold D .
University',
valuable
family
Picton and William R .
critically
comments.
provided
with
work on an -animal such as the
excellent
provided
the
encouragement
outdoors.
Aid
and
Jeffery
Rohlman
field assistance.
Gould, Montana State
and
Linda
Greg
Servheen
Redinius
uncountable home cooked meals and
James F .
for
bear.
reviewed the manuscript and offered
comforts of civilization.
thank my parents,
black
a
link
I would also like
and Madge Unsworth,
instilling
and
in me a
love
for
for
to
their
the
Project funding was provided by the Idaho Federal
in Wildlife Restoration,
Project
W-I6O-R,
the
Idaho
Department of Fish and Game, and Montana State University.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS..............................................iv
LIST OF TABLES............................... ....... ■...... vi
LIST OF FIGURES............................................. yii
ABSTRACT. . ................... ......... , J.................... xi
INTRODUCTION..................................................1
STUDY A R E A ........................ ............................5'
METHODS........................................................ 9
RESULTS.......................................... ... ........ 16
Overall Habitat Component U s e ..................... ,...17
Seasonal Habitat Component U s e .......................17
Component'Use by Bears With andWithout Cub s ........ 19
HabitatComponent Use and Activity................... 19
Overall Habitat Type Use....'...............
2,2
Seasonal Habitat type U s e .......................... /.2 4
Habitat Type Use by Bears With and Without Cubs..... 2 6
Habitat Type Use and-Activity...... ....................26
Aspect................................................. 2 9
Topography............................................ 3 2
Horizontal Configuration................ ............. 34
Distance to Roads..................................... 34
Distance to Water,..........
,37
• Distance to Cover..................................... 37
Elevation and Slope........... ’.......... ............ 40
Plant Phenology.......................................40
Microhabitat Analysis....... ....... ................. 42
DISCUSSION.........................
44
CONCLUSIONS, SUMMARY, AND MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS...... 61
LITERATURE CITED............................................ 6 9
APPENDICES
77
vi
list
of
Ta b l e s
Table
Page
1.
Habitat component classification system used at
the Council
study area, 1982-1983.................... 13
2.
Phonological stages and codes used at Council
study area , 1982-1983...................
14
A g e , reproductive status, color phase, and number
of relocations of female black bears on the
Council study area ,1982-1983 ......................
16
Percent availability of most common habitat types
and series used for analysis.
Council study area
1982-1983 ............
24
3.
4.
5.
Percentage use of aspects by overall, season,
,reproductive status, and activity catagories for
10 female black bears on the Council study area,
1982-1983................................................ 31
6.
Chi-square and P values for aspects at bear locations
(by overall, season, presence of cubs, and activity
catagories) compared to random availability of aspects
"on the Council study area, 1982-1983 ................'...31
7.
8.
Percentage use of topography by overall, season,,
reproductive status, and Activity catagories for
10 female black bears on the Council study area,
1982-1983.................................
33
Chi-square and P values for topography at bear
locations (by overall, season,, presence of, cubs, and
activity catagories) compared to random availability
of topography on the Council study area, 1982-1983 .... 33
9. - Percentage use of horizontal configuration classes
by overall, season, reproductive status, and activity
catagories for 10 female black bears on. the Council
study area, 1982-1983...................................35
Vii
10.. Chi-square and P values for horizontal configurations
at bear locations (overall, by season, presence ,of
cubs, and activity catagories) compared to random
availability, of horizontal configuration classes
on the Council study area, 1982-1983.................. 35
11. Percentage use of distance classes from roads by
overall, season, reproductive status,. and activity
catagories for 10 female black bears on the Council
study area, 1982-1983...................................36
12. Chi-square and P values for distance classes from
roads at bear locations (overall, by season, presence
of cubs,, and activity catagories) compared to random
availability of distance classes from roads on the
Council study area, 1882-1983.......................... 36
13. Percentage use of distance classes from water by
overall, season, reproductive status, and activity
catagories for 10 female black bears on the Council
study area, 1982-1983................................. ..38
14. Chi-square and P .values fop distance classes from
:water at bear locations by overall, season, presence
of cubs, and activity catagories) compared to random
availability of distance classes from water on the
Council study area, 1882-1983...,....,.................. 38
15. Percentage use of distance classes from cover by
overall, season, reproductive status, and activity
catagories for 10 female black bears on the Council
study area, 1982-1983...................................39
16. Chi-square and P values for distance classes from
cover at bear locations (overall, by season, presence
of cubs,■and activity catagories) compared to random
availability of distance classes from cover on the
Council study.area, 1882-1983.......................... 3 9
17. Median phenologic stage, of some berry species,■
found
at
feeding
sites
in
selection
cut/shrubfield and shrubfield habitat components
on the Council study area, 1982-1983. . .................. 4,2
18. Frequency and median, coverage class of some
important bear foods on the Council study area,
1982-1983 ........................................... .... 43
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
I.
Study area on the Middle Fork of the Weiser River.... 6
2.
Overall habitat component availability and use by
10 female black bears on the Middle Fork of the
Weiser River study ar e a , 1982-1983.
A + or indicates a significant difference (p<0.10) from
availability............................................ 18
3.
Seasonal habitat component availability and use by
10 female black bears on the Middle Fork of the
Weiser River study area, 1982-1983.
A + or indicates a significant difference (p<0.10) from
availability................................ ■.......... 20
4.
Habitat component availability and use by female
black bears with and without cubs on the Middle
Fork of the Weiser River study area,
1982-1983.
A + or - indicates .a
significant difference
(p<0.10) from availability............................ 21
5.
Habitat component availability and use by female
black bears when feeding and bedding on the Middle
Fork of the Weiser River study area, 1982-1983.
A + or - indicates a
significant difference
(p<0.10 ) from availability............................ 23
,6.
Overall habitat type availability and use by female
black bears on the Middle Fork of the Weiser River
study area, 1982-1983. A + or - indicates a
significant difference (p<0.10) from availability.... 25
7.
Seasonal habitat type availability and use by female
black bears on the Middle Fork of the Weiser River
study area, 1982-1983. A + or - indicates a
significant difference (p<0.10) from availability.... 27
8.
Habitat type availability and use by female black
bears with and without cubs on the Middle Fork
of the Weiser River study area, 1982-1983. A + or
- indicates a significant difference (p<0.10) from
availability
28
ix
9.
Habitat type availability and use by female black
bears when feeding and bedding on the Middle Fork
of the Weiser River study are a , 1982-1983,. A + or indicates a significant difference (p<0.10) from
availability............... .................... 30
10.
Mean elevation with standard error and sample
size of bear locations by month, on the Middle
Fork of the Weiser River study area, 1982-1983.... 41
11.
Mean slope with standard error and sample size
of bear locations by activity, on the Middle
Fork of the Weiser River study area, 1982-1983.... 41
ABSTRACT
Black bear
(Ursus americanus) habitat use .patterns
were studied- in west-central Idaho from 1982-1983 . Ten adult
female bears were instrumented with radio transmitters.
Bears were relocated
640 times during the study.
Uncut'
timbered sites were important bedding areas and timber
components along drainages served as travel corridors. Open
timber components were used in spring as foraging areas.
Open timber/shrubfield components were used as foraging
areas and bedding sites.
Riparian areas were preferred as
feeding sites and used as travel corridors. Aspen components
were preferred by bears with cub s . They provided dense
horizontal cover and were often adjacent to shrubfields. The
meadow component was used in the spring as a foraging area
for grasses and for b s .
Rock/talus and sagebrush/grass
components were avoided. Selection cut/shrubfield components
were preferred as feeding sites for berry species.
Other
selection
cut components were used in proportion
to
availability.
Clearcuts
were
avoided.
Abies
grandis/Vaccinium globulare, Abies grandis/Acer glabrum,-and
Pseudotsuga menziesii/Physocarpus malvaceus habitat types
received over 90% of the use.
The Abies grandis habitat
types were important food producers and the Pseudotsuga
menziesii/Physocarpus malvaceus habitat type was most often
used for bedding.
Topographic features that enhance the
growth of mesic vegetation were preferred.
Female bears
preferred areas in cover r but would venture from cover to
seek food., Timber ,and hunting management recommendations are
presented.
I
INTRODUCTION
Black
bear
(Ursus
of
americanus)
Idaho,
but are
populations
throughout
much
largely
coniferous
forests in the northern two-thirds of the
confined
and
isolated areas of eastern Idaho (Beecham
are
many competing uses for these forested areas
mining,
mineral
development,
of
these
and
oil
exploration ,■
occur
state
1977).
There
including
recreation,
water
livestock grazing, and timber production. Many
uses have dramatic effects on wildlife
habitats,
but timber production and the .associated increase in
probably
Pacific
has
the greatest effect on black
Northwest,
clearcut
management
to
thousands
of
hectares of
each year (Lindzey and Meslow
plans
that take
bears.
1977),
access
In
the
timber
are
and
forest
black bear habitat needs
into
consideration are rare.
The effects of logging on wildlife have been described
by
deer
many researchers.
Wallmo et a l .
(1972) found that mule
(Odocoileus hemionus) were attracted to
logged
which ,produced increased amounts and varieties
Logging
activities
at
low
elevations
have
areas
of. forage.
generally
benefited white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in
the
northern
Rockies
are
important
as winter forage (Pengelly 1963).
by
providing
serai
shrubs
which
In some
areas
2
with
heavy
negative
dense
snow accumulation,
overstory removal
effects on white-tail populations that
has
had
depend
stands to intercept snow on winter ranges
on
(Mundinger
1979). Elk (Cervus elaphus) were found to use clearcuts less
than 1.0 years old in proportion to availability, but avoided
older cuts (Hershey and Leege 1976).
Gashwiler
mammal
(1970)
populations
found varying
to
clearcuts.
maniculatus), , Townsend's
Oregon
vole
americanus)
Deer
chipmunk
(Microtus oregoni),
responses
(Eutamias
Removal
douglasii),
sabrinus)
and
(Peromyscus
townsendii),
populations increased in clearcut
(Tamiasciurus
squirrels
were eliminated from clearcut
(Dryocopus pileatus) and the
owl
occidentialis)
for
bluebird
early
(Luman and
(Sialia mexicana) and Brewer"s
areas.
pileated
northern
Neitro
serai stage species
Red-
Douglas" squirrels
northern . flying
woodpeckers
habitat
(Lepus
areas.
..of old growth forests reduces habitat for
(Strix
small
and snowshoe hare
back voles (Clethrionomys occidentalis),
(Glaucomys
mice
of
such
spotted
1980),
as
sparrow
but
mountain
(Spizella
breweri) is enhanced.
Black . bear
kinds
of
studies
populations have been the focus
in many areas of the United ■States
Canada (Barnes and Bray 1967,
1964,
Jonkel
Stickley
and
1957).
of
Cowan 1971,
Activity
and
many
and
Beecham 1980, Erickson et al.
Kemp
1972,
food
habits
Lindzey
studies
1976,
have
3
provided important information on bear activity patterns and
their relationship to the foods eaten by bears
(Amstrup
and
Beecham 1976, Landers et al. 1979, Rogers 1976, Tisch 1961).
Habitat
use studies have been conducted in Montana
(Jonkel
and Cowan 1971), Alberta "(Fuller and Keith 1980), California
(Kelleyhouse
(Vaughan
timber
1980,
et al.
Novick and Stewert 1982),
1983).
and Virginia
Other studies related directly
management and bears have been conducted in
(Zager 1983),
Idaho (Young 1984),
and Meslow 1977).
products
of
specific habitat
dynamics,.
potential,
and
data
applicable
popularity
demands
of
Washington (Lindzey
social
parameters
which
organization,
influence
reproductive
.availability'of suitable den sites (Beecham
from
to
Montana
Because black bear populations are unique
population
1980),
and
to
differing geographic areas
west-central
Idaho.
With
black bears as game animals
on forest lands as resource
may
the
and
not
be
increased
increasing
producers,, management
plans ' are needed that consider the welfare of
black
bears
and their habitat.
The major goal of this research was to document female
black
bear
habitat use patterns in the Middle Fork of
Weiser River drainage of west-central Idaho and to use
information
which
can
black
bear
objectives
in
formulating
timber
management
were
to:
in
west-central
this
guidelines
be used by land managers for the benefit of
population
the
Idaho.
I) quantify seasonal habitat
the
Specific
use
by
4
female
black bears and determine physical and environmental
factors
which
relationships
(variety,
identify
black
affected
utilization;
2)
that existed between black bear
abundance,
and
identify
food
phenology) and habitat
plants
use;
3)
the effect of different silvicultural practices on
bear habitat
guidelines.
use;
and' 4) prepare timber
management
5
STUDY AREA
The
study
area is located on the Middle Fork
of
the
Weiser River in west-central Idaho about 13 kilometers
southeast
of
include
Council,
Council
Idaho.
Mountain
Ridge to the east.
Major
geographic
to the-north and
(km)
features
West
Mountain
Elevations range from 1070 meters (m) to
2470 m on Council Mountain (Figure I).
Two
major rock types are present:
Columbia
River
Batholith.
Formation
basalt rocks of
and granite rocks of
Soils
(cm) to
basaltic soil is low.
highly
125
derived from granitic rocks are generally coarse
textured and depths range from 60 cm to 100 cm.
of
Idaho
Soils derived from basalt are fine to medium * in
texture with depths varying from 76 centimeters
cm.
the
the
erodable.
periglaciated,
The
Granitic soils are moderately
area includes
fluviai,
Erodibility
strongly
to
glaciated,
and depositional lands (Larsen
et
a l . 1973).
Climate is influenced by the Aleutian low in the
months
and the Pacific high during the summer.
precipitation
ranges
from
635 millimeters
winter
Mean annual
(mm)
at
lower
elevations to 1143 mm at upper elevations. Eighty percent of
the
as
annual precipitation occurs from Oqtober through
snow.-
degrees
Temperatures recorded at Council range
Clesius
(C) to 43 degrees C,
with a
from
mean
temperature of 3.7 degrees C (Larsen et a l . 1973)
April
-32
annual
Figure I.
Study area on the Middle Fork of the Weiser River.
I
Plant communities at lower elevations are dominated by
big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata),
Ponderosa
pine
grasses, . and
(Pinus ponderosa) grows in scattered
forbs.
stands
at lower elevations and is the dominant species from 1200
m
to 1525 m. Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and Grand fir
(Abies
grandis)
replace
pondersoa pine
as
the
species at about the 1525 m to 1850 m level.
(Pinus
contorta),
Englemann
spruce
subalpine
fir
Lodgepole pine
(Abies
(Picea engelmannii),
dominant
lasiocarpa),
and
western
larch
(Larix occidentalis) occur on the grand fir sites which
common
in
the
upper
and wetter portions
of
this
Quaking aspen, (Populus tremuloldes) is scattered
the
area.
the
highest sites.
are
zone.
throughout
Whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) is present
on
Important shrub and undergrowth species
include hawthorne (Crataegus douglasii), chokecherry (Prunus
virginiana),
(Sambucus
cerulea),
huckleberry
(Cornus
(Vaccinium
globulare)
and
canadensis),
dogwood
Important forbs and grasses
include
(Balsamorhiza spp.),
Idaho
and
elderberry
red-osier
onion (Allium spp. ) ,
spicatum),
emarginata),
buffaloberry (Shepherdia
stolonife r a ) .
balsamroot
wild
bittercherry (Prunus
lomatium (Lomatium
bluebunch wheatgrass
fescue
(Festuca
spp.),
’(Agropyrom
M a h o e n s i s ).
Nomenclature is from Hitchcock and Cronquist (1976).
The major land uses affecting the area are
timber
lands
cutting
and livestock grazing.
Logging
began in the 1950s and has continued since.
commercial
on
public
Over 225
8
million
Ranger
and
board feet of timber were removed from the
District from 1960 ,to 1970.
calves
graze
the study a r e a .
Council
Approximatly IOCIQi
The grazing
season
cows
gn
United States Forest Service lands runs from July until midOctober.,
Other
uses
of the study area
hunting, camping, and berrypicking.
include
fishing,
9
METHODS
Trapping and Handling
Black
bears
were
captured
with
Aldrich
spring-
activated foot snares set in or adjacent to cubby sets or on
trails
leading to sets.
salmon
(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha).
"green"
Sets were baited with spawned
out
Snares were attached to
drag logs or living trees adjacent to
cubbies
and
trails.
On the Council study are a ,
bears were immoblized with
intramuscular injections of Ketaset
2
milligrams
(mg)/.45
(ketamine hydrochloride,
kilogram (kg) of body
Rompun (xylazine hydrochloride,
weight)
and
I m g / .45 kg of body weight).
Drugs were administered with a syringe mounted on the end of
a 2 m "jab stick".
Bears
were marked with individually numbered
plastic
ear tags and tattooed with the same number in the upper lip.
Weight and other physical measurements were recorded,
with
physiological
parameters
Vaginal smears were taken,
and
vulvas
(Reynolds
were
and
used
all
Captured
bears.
and appearance of' mammary glands
to
determine
Beecham 1980).
cementum-annuli technique
from
along
reproductive ' status
Bears were
aged
using
the
(Stoneberg and Jonkel 1966) and by
observer estimates of tooth wear and canine length.
10
Instrumenting and Monitoring
Ten
adult female bears were instrumented with
transmitters.
Females
reproductive
(Lindzey
Reynolds
were radio-collared because of their
importance,
and
Meslow
1977,
radio­
and
1977,
their
smaller
Poelker
Stickley
1957)
and
home
ranges
Hartwell
helped
to
1973,
expedite
relocations.
The
and
Council bear population was known to
crepuscular
Beecham
1980)
(Amstrup and Beecham
therefore,
1976 ,
be
diurnal
Reynolds
monitoring of , black
and
bears
was
concentrated during daylight hours. Bears were monitored for
two
field
November
March
seasons.
1983.
1984
production.
to
Two
May to November in 1982 and
April
to
Five bears were removed from their dens
in
replace
radio collars
and
determine
other radioed bears were captured in
cub
June
1,984 with dogs and reinstrumented for future study.
Bears
were
were monitored from the ground and
classified
within'
100 m,
as I) visual— bear was
seen;
2)
close—
determined from signal strength
or
hearing
bear
without triangulation;
300
m,
triangulation
triangulation.
relocations
Close
and
3) close triangulation— within
signal
strength;
and
triangulation and triangulation
4)
were
used
infrequently and were included in the habitat analysis
only
if all compass bearings
single
location
and
intersected,
roughly-,
if the location were within
homogeneous habitat component (Young 1984).
a
Locations-
at
a
large
were
11
plotted
on U.. S .
1:24,000)
Geological Survey orthophotographs
and topographic maps
(scale 1:62,500).
(scale
Locations
were assigned X ,Y coordinates utilizing Universal Transverse
Mercator (U.T.M.)
Activity
3) traveling,
meridians.
was
recorded
as I)
bedding,
2)
feeding,
4) denning, or 5) unknown. Radio collars were
equiped with motion sensitive devices that changed the pulse
to a slow mode if the collars were motionless for 2 minutes.
The pulse remained fast if the animal was
was
determined
looking
bears
from
pulse rates and
moving.
Activity
observing
bears
for sign in the area the bear had been using.
were considered traveling if there was a
change
in
the direction of a signal
during
or
Also
significant
the
location
process.
Habitat Sampling at Bear Locations
Habitat
sampling
was
conducted
in
two
ways.
locations where the bear was not observed or sign
the
following
possible:
elevation,
configuration
and
site
and
characteristics
distance to the
ridge top,
upper slope,
flat,
stream
classified
undulating.
detected,
recorded
when
slope, aspect, topography, horizontal
road (Steele et a l .
or
were
At
19-81).
as convex (dry),
cover,
water,
Topography was recorded as
mid-slope,
bottom.
nearest
lower slope,
Horizontal
straight,
bench or'
configuration
concave
(wet),
A bear was considered in cover if it could
was
or
not
12
be
seen
by the observer from a distance of
100 m. Habitat
types, as classified by Steele et aI . (1981) ,
for
each
habitat
Areas
bear location.
habitat
could
Ponderosa pine and subalpine
types were each grouped as a series
without
types.
an identifable overstory were
the
for
fir
analysis.
not
assigned
If the bear was observed or if the, location
be determined exactly from feeding or
then
were recorded
bedding
vegetation was sampled using a 375 square
sign,
meters
(m ) circular plot (Pfister and Arno 1980). With this method
the observer estimates the percentage canopy cover
of
plant
species within the plot and assigns it to a
coverage
class
(1=0-1%,
-2=>l-5%,
3=>5-25%,
4=>25-50%,
each
5=>50-75%,
6=>75-95%, or 6=>95-100%).
was
Habitat component classification (Zager et al.
1980)
also utilized but modified for the Council study
area.
Habitat
components
because
of
were used to supplement
the need for
classifying
habitat
types
non-forested,
serai
stages and sites where timber had been harvested (Table
I).
The
the
distance
component
and
from
the
the center to the edge
distance
to
the
(size)
nearest
component
were recorded.
the site,
post-logging treatment was also noted.
of
different
If timber had been harvested from
Overstory
canopy
closure was estimated and assigned a coverage
class
value.
Stands
aged.
Vertical
were
classified
as even
or
uneven
diversity was measured by estimating the
coverage
Table I .
Habitat component classification system used at
the Council study ar e a , 1982-1983.
I . Timber
(T)
Unlogged- stand of timber with
closure > 60%.
2. Open Timber
(OT)
Unlogged
stand of timber with canopy
closure
> 30 but < 60%.
Undergrowth
dominated by grasses and forbs.
3. Open Timber
/Shrubfield
(OTS)
Unlogged
stand of timber with canopy
closure
> 3O- . but < 6 0%.
Undergrowth
dominated by shrubs.
4. Riparian
(R)
Streamside or moist areas with
developed me sic vegetation.
5. Aspen
(A)
Stands with dense
by quaking aspen.
6. Shrubfield
(S)
Unlogged
areas with timber canopy
closure < 30%. Undergrowth dominated
by shrubs.
7. Meadow
(M)
Open sites
forbs.
8. Rock/Talus
(RS)
Extensive areas of exposed bedrock or
rock slides;
9. Sagebrush
/Grass
(SG)
10. Roads
(RD)
Open areas dominated by big sagebrush,
grasses, and forbs.
Cleared or graded areas that are
blocked to vehicular travel.
11. Clearcut
(C)
Logged areas with overstory completely
removed. Dominated by shrubs.
12. Selection cut
/Shrubfield
(SCS)
13. Selection cut
/Open Timber ■
(SCOT)
14. Selection cut
/Timbered
(SCT)
Logged areas with overstory < 30% and
undergrowth dominated by shrubs.
canopy
well
overstOry dominated
dominated by grasses
and
not
Logged areas with overstory > 30%/ but
<60%. Undergrowth dominated by shrubs.
Logged areas with overstory > 60% and
sparse undergrowth dominated by shrubs
and forbs.
14
class of all vegetation in each of four strata: 0-lm, >l-2m,
>2-8m, and >8m (Young 1984).
Habitat-and Plant Phenology Sampling at Random Sites
In
order
components
to determine the
and
types,
and
availability
other
of
measured
habitat
habitat
characteristics,
489
the
Habitat characteristics at each plot
study area.
sampled
random plots were measured throughout
were
with the same methods described for visual and sign
documented bear locations.
Phonological
stages
of
plants
that
have
been
identified as important bear foods on the Council study area
(Amstrup and Beecham 1976,
Beecham 1976, 1977, Reynolds and
Beecham 1980) were recorded throughout the field seasons
permanent
plots
located at varying elevations and
and at bear and random locations.
recorded
West
using
and Wein (1971)
Table
2.
0
I
2
3
4
5
were
described
by
(Table 2).
Phenological stages and codes used
study area, 1982-1983.
Phenology code
aspects
Phonological stages
a modification of the method
on
at
Council
Phonologic stage
Shrubs
Grasses & forbs
Flower
Fruit set
Fruit swelling
Fruit turning color
Fruit ripe
Fruit dry or dropping
Vegetative growth
Flower buds
Flower
Fruit set
Fruit swelling
Plant curing
15
Data Analyses
Significant
availability
differences
of
specific
between
habitat
the
use
and
charateristies
were
determined with the chi-square, goodness of fit test (Nie et
al.
1975,
Zar
proportion
to
Bonferroni
Z
Habitat
were
Preference,
availability
the
if fhey
if
Differences
than in
and
with
in
characteristics were considered preferred,
more
(Marcum,
determined
or use
1980).
used
test
was
avoidance,
Loftsgaarden
avoided,
plants
1974).
proportion
to
availability
used less than in proportion to
between
at ' bear
determined
using
Differences
in
use
the
availability.
median coverage classes of
locations and on
Mann-Whitney
U
random
test
use of habitat components and
classified according to activity,
season,
and
bear
food
plots
were
(Zar
1974).
types,
and presence
when
or
absence of cubs, were tested with chi-square goodness of fit
tests. Significance level for all tests was P < 0.10.
16
RESULTS
Sample Characteristics
Data on the ten adult
instrumented
female
-bears were captured and
with radio transmitters in 1982 are
presented
in Table 3. Bears were relocated 640 times during the study:
Table 3.
Age, reproductive status, color phase, and number
of relocations
of female black bears on the
Council study area,1982-1983.
Bear
Age-1983
01
04
39
41
45
49
55
56
59
63
10.5
7.5
5.5
8.5
11.5
14.5
15.5
8.5
- 6.5
9 ;5
No. Cubs
1982 1983 1984
0
0
2
o:
0
0
0
0
0
I
*1
0
0
*1
2
2 •
2
2
*1
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0'
0
0
3
Color
phase
N o . of
Relocations
Brown
Black
Black
Brown
Brown
Brown
Brown
Black
Black
Brown
63
74
71
78
14
71
63
66
76
73
* Bears 01,
59,
and 41 left the den with 2 cubs,
lost I during the summer of 1982.
197
- visuals
triangulations
(30.8%),
(8.3%),
379
close
(59.2%),
and 11 triangulations
but each
53
close
(1.7%).
Bear
number 45 was not monitored during 1983, except to determine
cub
production,
southern
edge
because her home range was on the
of
the study area and
relocations were overly time consuming.
attempts
to
extreme
obtain
17
Overall Habitat Component Use
Female
use
black bears on the Council study area did
not
' habitat components
in proportion
to
their
2
availability (X =244.7,
d.f.=13, P <0.01Ol) . With all seasons
and
all
activities combined,
timber/shrubfield
and
against
road,
meadow,
clearcut
components.
bears selected for ' timber,
riparian
components
rock/scree,
AlI
other
and
open
selected
sagebrush/grass,
components were
used
and
in
proportion to availability (Figure 2).
The radio tagged bears did not select
different
sized
P = O .1438)
habitat
for or
2
(X =5.401,
components
or- certain distances from the edge of
against
d.f.=3,
components
(X =5.435-,, d.f .=3, P=0.1437).
Seasonal Habitat Component Use
Habitat
component use differed significantly
between
2
seasons
(X =52.7,
d.f.=12, P<0.0 0 1 ) . Spring(April-June) and
summer/falI(July-November)
habitat
Component use
differed
2
significantly from availability (X =88.2,
d.f.=13,
P < 0 .001
2
and X =237.8,
d.f.=13,
P< 0 .001,
respectively). Timber was
preferred in both spripg and summer/fall.
components
were
rock/talus
and clearcut components were avoided during both
seasons.
used in proportion
to
All selection cut
availability,
and
The shrubfield component was avoided and all other
components were used in proportion to availability in the
□
AVAILABILITY
O V E RA L L USE
h-*
CC
Ui
CO
5
OC
UJ
CO
Z
h-
Z
LU
CL
O
CC Q
UJ -J
CO UJ
El
z or
UJ X
CL (/)
O \
Z
<
—
OC
<
CL
OC
Z
UJ
CL
cn
<
Q
-j
UJ
LL
CO
<
3
OC
X
CO
5
HABITAT
Figure 2.
$
Q
LU
CA
3
-I
<
H
*
O
O
OC
I CA
CA CA
3 <
oc oc
CD O
S-
COMPONENT
CA
D
<
O
CC
*3
O
OC
<
UJ
-J
Q
I- O
3 _i
O
LU
Il
h- CC
(-)
UJ CO
-J \
LU
CO
I- CC
3 Ui
O CD
z E
O H
H Z
O UJ
uj a
Overall habitat component availability and use by
10 female black bears on the Middle Fork of the
Weiser River study area, 1982-1983.
A + or
indicates a significant difference (p<0.10) from
availability.
S E L E C T I O N CUT
/ T IMB E R
OO
19
spring.
In the summer/fall,
components
open timber,
were selected against;
riparian,
and
shrubfields
aspen
components
open
were
meadow, and road
timber/shrubfield,
selected
for;
and
were used in proportion to availability (Figure
3) .
Habitat Component Use by.Bears With and Without Cubs
Habitat
females
with
d .f .=12,
without
component use differed significantly
cubs
P = O .009).
cubs
used
and
Neither
females with cubs nor
females
d.f.=13, P < 0 .,0 01 , respectively). Both
selected for timber,
with
cubs
components completely in
2
availability,
(X =196.57,
d . f .=13,
to their
2
P < 0 .0 01 and X =12 3.4,
against meadow,
sagebrush/grass,
riparian>
without
all habitat
proportion
•and
females
between
2
(X =26.4r
and
rock/talus, clearcut,
used proportionally
and all selection cut habitat
shrubfield,
components.
cubs preferred open timber/shrubfield and
avoided ■ open timber,
aspen,
Bears
and
meadow, . and road habitat components.
Bears without cubs avoided meadow and used open timber, open
timber/shrubfield,
and
road
habitat
components
in
proportion to availability (Figure 4).
Activity and Habitat-Component Use
The activity classification of bear relocations
127
feeding
(7.6%),
Locations
(19.6%),
283 bedding
19 denning (2.9%),
were
recorded
(43.7%),
49
were:
traveling
and 170 unknown active (26.2%).
as
"unknown
active"
when
the
□
AVAILABILITY
H I SPRING USE
□
S UM M E R / F ALL USE
n
OPEN TIM B E R
Z
LU
CL
O
QC
I
U)
\
Z
<
CC
<
CL
OC
Z
LU
QV)
<
a
LU
CO
ZD
QC
I
V)
HABITAT
Figure 3.
X=Xl
I
0
n -
CC Q
Iii -J
CO LU
s rr
Fl
I
o
LU
5
to
3
_l
<
I-
O
O
CC
I
n
I
CO
3
CC
CO
to
CO
<
CC
O
<
CO
COMPONENT
co
O
<
O
CC
I
H
3
U
0=
<
LU
-J
ELo
K Q
3 _l
O LU
I- CC
3 LU
O CO
zE
z E
o “
O I-
o i-
I- CC
IO
LU
-J
LU
CO
O
LU
-J
LU
CO
o I
LU CO
-J ^
LU
CO
Z
LU
CL
O
^
Habitat component availability and seasonal use
by 10 female black bears on the Middle Fork of
the Weiser River study area, 1982-1983. A + or indicates a
significant difference
(p<0.10)
from availability.
h- CC
3 LU
O CO
□
AVAILABILITY
H
BEAR USE W I T H CUBS
□
BEAR USE W I T H O U T CUBS
OP E N T I M B E R
+
Figure 4.
Habitat component availability and use by 10
female black bears with and without cubs on the
Middle Fork of the Weiser River study area, 19821983. A + or - indicates a significant difference
(p<0.10) from availability.
22
registered an active reading,
evidence
of
activity
location site.
feeding,
young,
but the bear was not seen and
from sign was not
detected
at
the
The majority of these locations was probably
but other activities,
such as
grooming,,
nursing
breeding, and den preparation, must also be included
in this category.
Bear
use
of
habitat components for
bedding
varied
significantly • from
availability for
some
components
2
(X =2 28.4,
d .f .=13, P<0.10). The timbered component was the
only
habitat . component
Selection
selected
cut/shrubfield,
timber/shrubfield,
components
for
selection
shrubfield,
by
bedding
bears.
cut/timber,
open
riparian,
,and
aspen
-were used in proportion to availability and
all
other components were selected against (Figure 5).
Component
use
at
feeding
locations
also
varied
significantly
from availability,
as calculated from random
2
plots
(X =70.3,
d .f .=13,
P> 0.0 01 ). Selection
vegetation
cut/shrubfield and shrubfield components were preferred
clearcuts
used
sample
were avoided for feeding.
Other components
in proportion to availability by feeding bears.
sizes for traveling and denning locations
valid analysis in terms of use and
components.
availability of
and
were
Small
precluded
habitat
CC
LU
CO
5
H
CC
LU
CO
5
□
AVAILABILITY
■
B E D D I N G USE
□
F E E D I N G USE
CC Q
LU —1
CO LU
Eu:
Z
<
<
H
Z
LU
CL
O
Z OC
LU X
CL U)
O\
OC
Z
LU
CL
CO
<
O
2
-U
UJ
O
Q
CA
3
-I
C
<
H-
ZD
CC
5
CO CO
ZD <
OC CC
CO o
CA
Q
<
O
CC
H3
H-Q
3 -I
H- CC
3 LU
O
O
O
OC
<
UJ
hC
I
O
O
<
O
CO
OC
O
COMPONENT
Habitat component
female black bears
the Middle Fork of
1982-1983.
A +or
difference (p<0.1 0)
UJ
CO
H- CC
3 LU
u Co
z=:
° 3
zE
Z -
O H-
O
CA
H- Z
O LU
Lu a.
r!°
% \
H-Dr
oI
Ul
-j
UJ
HABITAT
Figure 5.
<
I CO
CA
CO
availability and use by 10
when feeding and bedding on
the Weiser River study area,
- indicates a
significant
from availability.
U
LU
-I
LU
CO
H
24
Overall Habitat Type Use
Many
habitat
types are present on the Council
study
area and other vegetation types, lacking overstory, are also
present.
The
habitat
types
vegetation types that could be classified
are presented in Table 4.
Some
types
as
were
grouped into series to increase sample size.
Table 4.
' Percent availability of most common habitat types
and series used for analysis.
Council study area
1982-1983.
Percent available
" 14.3
34 .I
8.2
20.8
7.7
- ■ 4.5
5.3
5.3
■
Habitat .type or series
Abies grandis
/Vaccinium globulare(ABGR/VAGL)
Abies grandis
/Acer glabrum(ABGR/ACGL)
Abies grandis
/Spirea betulifolia(ABGR/SPBE)
Pseudotsuga menziesii
/Physocarpus malvaceus(PSME/PHMA)
Psuedotsuga menziesii
/Symphoricarpos albus(PSME/SYAL)
Pseudotsuga menziesii
/Symphoricarpos oreophilus(PSME/SYOR)
Pinus ponderosa
Series (PIPO series)
Abies lasiocarpa
Series (ABLA series)
Habitat type use was not proportionate to habitat type
availability
when
all bear
locations
were
combined
2
(X, =96.7,
d.f.=8,
PCO.OOl).
Bears preferred ABGR/ACGL and
■
PSME/PHMA habitat types. Bears avoided PSME/SYAL, PSME/SYOR,
ABGR/SPBE,
and ABLA series types.
Other habitat types , and
series were used .in proportion to availability (Figure 6).
U
AVAILABILITY
OVERALL USE
tv
Ln
Si Ifc
HABITAT
Figure 6.
TYPE
Overall
habitat type availability and use by
10 female black bears on the Middle Fork of the
Weiser River study area, 1982-1983.
A + or
indicates a significant difference (p<0.10)
from
availability.
26
Seasonal Habitat Type Use
Habitat
type use did not vary significantly between
2
spring and summer/fall (X =8.3, d . f .=8, P=O.406). Habitat
types
were
2
used
disproportionately from expected
2
.
spring (X = 4 3 .8 ,
in- the
d.f.=8, P < 0 .001) and summer/fall
(X =77.4,
d :f.=8,, ,P < 0.0 01 ) . The pattern of preference and avoidance of
habitat types seasonally was identical to that described for
overall habitat use, except PSME/SYAL was used in proportion
to availability during the summer/fall
(Figure I).
Habitat Type Use by Bears With and Without Cubs
Habitat type use approached a significant difference
'
.
2
between bears with and without cubs
(X =12.6,
d.f.=8,
P = O .126);
ABGR/ACGL
PSME/SYOR
and ABGR/SPBB were selected against by all bears.
Bears
with
cubs
and PSME/PHMA were selected
used all other
types
in
fo r ,
proportion
availability and bears without cubs avoided PSME/SYAL,
and
to
ABLA
series, and PIPO series. ABGR/VAGL wa,s used in proportion to
availability by bears without cubs
(Figure 8).
Activity and Habitat Type Use
and
Habitat type use varied significantly between feeding
2
bedding female black bears (X =38.7,
d.f.=8,
P<0.001)
and both,
feeding and bedding locations,
were not used
in
2
proportion to expected use from random locations,
(X =15.5,
2
d.f.=8, P=0.049 and X =93.6, d.f.=8, P< 0.0 01, respectively).
No
habitat
types were preferentially selected
by
feeding
50-
Figure 7.
Il
AVAILABILITY
■
SPRING USE
□
SUMMER / FALL USE
Habitat type availability and seasonal use by 10
female black bears on the Middle Fork of the
Weiser River study area, 1982-1983.
A + or indicates a
significant difference
(p<0.10)
from availability.
□
AVAILABILITY
■
BEAR USE W I T H CUBS
A B G R / VAGL
W I T H O U T CUBS
HABITAT
Figure 8.
T YPE
Habitat type availability and use by 10 female
black bears with and without cubs on the Middle
Fork of the Weiser River study area, 1982-1983. A
+ o r
- indicates a significant
difference
(p<0.10) from availability.
29
bears,
all
ABLA series and PSME/SYOR were selected against, and
other
types were used in proportion
Bedded bears preferred PSME/PHMA types,
to
availability.
used ABGR/ACGL, and
ABLA series types in proportion to availability, and avoided
other types
(Figure 9).
,
,
•
Aspect Use
The
compass
aspect
bearings
at
bear locations
was
determined
and then categorized into the four
directions for analysis
(Table 5).
from
major
Aspect was also recorded
for random locations.
Overall, bears
did not use aspects in proportion to
2
availability ,(see Table 6 for X and P.values).>" When broken
down by season,selective
presence of cu b s ,
and activity., bears were
in all.categories except when feeding (Table
6).
Use
of aspects did not differ significantly between seasons
2
or for bears with and without
cubs,
(X =1.56,
d.f.=3,
2
P = O .6683 and X =.86, d.f.=3, P = O .8344, respectively).
Aspect use did differ between feeding and bedding
2
locations (X =22.92,
d.f.=3,
P < 0 .001).
Female black bears
used
aspects . in proportion to availability
Bedded
bears selected for north aspects,
when
feeding.
used east aspects
in proportion to availability, and.selected against west and
south
without
aspects.
Overall,
seasonally,
and- bears with
cubs used aspects similar to bedded
bears,
and
except
AVAILABILITY
■
BEDDI NG USE
[I
F E EDI NG USE
30
A B G R / VAGL
Z
H
HABITAT
Figure
9.
TYPE
Habitat type availability and use by 10 female
black bears when feeding and bedding on the
Middle Fork of the Weiser River study area, 19821983.
A + or - indicates a
significant
difference (p<0.10) from availability.
Percentage use of aspects by overall, season, reproductive
status, and activity catagories for 10 female black bears on
the Council study,area, 1982-1983.
Table 5.
Aspect
North
East
South
West
-
ChiSquare
P
d .f .=3
With Without
Cubs
Cubs
Feeding
Use • Use
Use
Bedding
Use
Overall
Use
27;6
20.9
51.9
14.8
■7.4
53.5
12.9
5.8
51.4
15.4
7.9
53.5
14.1
6.7
50.4
15.4
8.0
37.0
16.5
16.5'
36.4
25.9 .
27.7
25.3
25.6
26.1
29.9
59.0
14.5
5.7
20.8
155
494
312
337
127
283
489
Table 6.
Summer
/Fal I
Use
Random
Avail.
15.1
N
Spring
' Use
649
Chi-square and P values for aspects at bear locations
(overall, by season, presence of cubs, and activity
classification) , compared to random availability of
aspects on the Council study area, 1982-1983.
Overall
Use
Spring
Use
88.27
41.84
< .001
<.001
Summer
/Fall
Use
. With
Cubs
Use
Without
Cubs
Use
Feeding
Use
73,83
65.83
55.83
5.29
<.001
<.001
<.001
.1506
Bedding
Use
.48
<. 001
86
32
Use of Topography
Bears
did
not use
topography
availability (Tables 7 and 8).
tops'
and
upper slopes,
in
proportion
to
Overall, bears avoided ridge
preferred lower slopes,
and
used
other topography types in proportion to availability.
In
spring,
proportion to
preferred.
and
bears
all
topography
classes
availability except lower slopes, which
in
were
During summer/fall, bears preferred lower slopes
stream bottoms,
slopes,
used
and
used
avoided ridge tops,
benches
or
flats
upper,
in
and
mid­
proportion
to
availability.
Female black bears with cubs avoided ridge tops,
upper
and
selected
mid-slopes in proportion
availability,
for other topographic classes.
selected.for lower slopes,
upper
to
slopes,
and
used
used
and
Bears without cubs
selected against ridge tops
other classes
in
and
proportion
to
availability.
Bedded ' bears
tops,
and
used
preferred lower
other
availabiliity. ' Feeding
slopes,
used
slopes,
topography
bears
in
avoided
ridge
proportion
avoided ridge tops and
preferred benches or flats and stream bottoms,
upper and lower slopes in proportion to
to
mid­
and
availability.
Table 7 .
Topography
Percentage use-of topography by overall, season, reproductive
status, and activity categories for 10 female black bears on
the Council study area, 1982-1983.
Random
Avail.
Ridge Top 9.6
Upper Slope
21.9
Mid-slope
47.5
Lower Slope
13.5
Bench/Flat
5.1
Stream Bottom 2.3
N
3.8
15.6
40.5
26.6
7.2
6 .4
629,
488
Table 8.
ChiSquare
P
Overall
Use
.Spring
Use
Summer
/Fall
Use
With
Cubs
Use
3.1
15.5
2.7
14.9
41.3
27.4
5.9
15.8
43.4
25.0
6.6
- 3.3
27.0
7.3
7.3
5.0
16.3
39.7
25.7
6.0
7.3
152
477
300
39.6
Without
Cubs
Feeding
Use
Use
4.1
16.3
29.3
Bedding
. Use
3.2
16.5
44.4
8.2
24.4
17.1
5.5
8.9
3.9
3.6
329
123
279
28.3
Chi-square and P values for topography classes at bear
locations (overall, by season, presence of cubs, and activity)
compared to random availability of topography on the Council
study area, 1982-1983.
Overall
Use
Spring
Use
Summer
/Fall
Use ,
5 8.04
<.001
14.72
.0121
61.35
<.001
With - Without
Cubs
Cubs
Use
Use
37.39
<.001
48.76
<.001
Feeding
Use •
Bedding
Use
50.80
<.001
35.19
<.001
LU
LU
34
west
aspects were used in proportion to availability during
spring.
Horizontal Configuration Use
Female black bears did not use horizontal configuration
classes in proportion to availability as observed on
sites (Tables
(wet)
and
random
9 and 10). Overall bears selected for concave
undulating sites,
and selected
against
convex
(dry) and straight sites.
Bears
without
summer/fall
use,
but
used
cubs
and
all
bears
during
the
exhibited the same pattern observed for overall
bears with cubs and all bears during
convex
availability.
and
undulating
sites
in
the
spring
proportion
to
Feeding and bedded bears selected for concave
and undulating,
selected against straight,
and used convex
■sites in -proportion to availability.
Distance to Roads
Distance
road,
to
roads was categorized in 5
0-25m, >25-50m, >50-100m,
use/availability analysis,
and >5Om from roads.
classes
presented
and
in
classes:
and >100m from a road. For
distances
were grouped as O-SOm
Random distribution of these
percentage
of
Table
Female bears did
11.
on
classes
used
by
distance
bears
not
use
distance classes in proportion to availability (Table 12).
Overall,
preferred
bears
distances
selected against distances
>5Om-
from
roads.
this
<50m
and
pattern
was
Table
9.
Percentage use of horizontal configuration classes by overall,
season, reproductive status, and activity catagories for
10 female black bears on the Council study area, 1982-1983.
Horizontal
Config.
Random
Avail.
Convex (dry) 31.5
41.6
Straight
Concave (wet)13.3
Undulating
13.5
N
Overall
Use
Spring
Use
Summer
/Fall
Use
With
Cubs
Use
Without
Cubs
Feeding
Use
Use
Bedding
Use
24.2
21.3
35.3
19.3
30.3
22.3
26.0
22.6
23.4
26.2
24.8
22.1
35.6
16.3
20.4
18.6
19.7
38.5
19.5
34.9
22.0
21.0
39.5
16.1
27.0
21.9
34.1
17.0
627
145
462
289
318
124
270
486
LO
Ul
Table 10
ChiSquare
P
d .f .=3
Chi-square and P values for horizontal configurations at bear
locations (overall, by season, presence of cubs, and activity)
compared to random availability of horizontal configuration
classes on the Council study area, 1982-1983.
Overall
Use -
Spring
Use
Summer
/Fall
Use
97.81
<.001
18.05
.0007
107.5
<.001
With
Cubs
Use,
64.14
<.001
Without
Cubs
Use
79.98
<.001
Feeding
Use
Bedding
Use
49.96
57.89
<.001
<.001
Table 11.
Percentage use of =distance classes from roads by overall,
season, reproductive status, and activity categories for
10 female black bears on the Council study area, 1982-1983.
D i s t . to
Road
Random
Avail.
O-SOm
> 50m
18.8
81.2
489
N
Table 12.
ChiSquare
P
d .f .=1
Spring
Use
Summer
/Fall
Use
9.1
90.7
6.1
94.0
10.0
9.7
8.5
89.8
90.2
91.2
13.7
85.4
4.3
95.7
627
149
477
298
32 8
123
277
Overall
Use.
With
Cubs
Use
Without
Cubs ' Feeding
Use
Use
Bedding
Use
Chi-square and P values for distance classes from roads at
bear locations (overall, by season, presence of cubs, and
activity) compared to random availability of distance classes
from roads on the Council study area, 1982-1983.
Overall
Use
Spring
Use
22.35
<.001
13.98
.0001
Summer
/Fall
Use
14.92 .0003
With
Cubs
Use
11.74
.0006
iwithout
Cubs
Use
Feeding
USe
-Bedding
Use
16.55
< .001
36.05
<.001
31.61
<.001
37
consistent for bears with or without cubs and in both spring
and
summer/fall
classes
in
selected
seasons. Feeding
proportion
against
bears used both distance
to availability
distances-
O-SOm
and
from,
bedded
bears
roads, and
used
distances >5Om in proportion to availability.
Distance to Water
The distance of bear locations and random locations to
water was
recorded as 0-25m, >25-50m, >50-100m,
Distances
were combined into two classes for
10Om
and >100m to water.
classes
Bears did not use these
in spring and summer/fall,
when feeding or bedded,
areas
analysis,
in proportion to availability (Tables 13
Overall,
or
and >100m.
0-
distance
and
14).
with or with out cubs,
female black bears selected for
within 100m of water and against areas
greater
than
100m from water.
Distance to Cover
Distance
to coyer was measured at all bear
locations
and all random sites. Distances were classified as in cover,
or 0-25m>
>25-50m,
showed
a
strong preference for cover (Tables 15
Female
bears
distances
Feeding
preferred
classes
bears
availability.
>50-100m,
to
and >100m from cover.
be in cover
away from cover,
and
except
Bears
and
avoided
when
1.6),.,
all
feeding.
used areas <25m from cover in proportion
to
Table 13.
Percentage- use of distance classes from water by overall,
season, reproductive status, and activity catagories for
10 female black bears on the Council study area, 1982-1983.
Di s t . to
Water
Random
Avail.
O-IOOm
> I O-Om. .
60.2
39.8
59.2
60.5
65.8
40.7
39.5
60.8
39.2
40.4
64.2
35.8
57.9
42.0
488
601
140
461
282
319
120
269
N
Table 14.
ChiSquare
P
34.0
OveralI -Spring
Use .
Use
Summer
/Fall
Use
With
Cubs
Use
Without
Cubs
Feeding
Use
Use
59.6
Bedding
Use
Chi-square and P values for distance classes from water at
bear locations (overall, by season, presence of cubs > and
activity) compared to random availability of distance classes
from water on the Council study area, 1982-1983. '
Overall
Use
Spring
Use
74.11
< .001
29.03
<.001
Summer
/Fall
Use
66.87
<.001 .
With
Cubs
Use
47.53
< .001
Without
Cubs
Use •
56.07
<.001
Feeding
Use
Bedding
Use
36.49
<.001
40.78
<.001
Table 15.
Percentage use of distance classes from cover by overall,
season,
reproductive status,
and activity categories for
10 female black bears on the Council study area, 1982-1983.
Dist. to
Cover
Random
Avail.
In Cover
0-25m
25-5Om
50-1OOm
> 100m
35.2
35.4
15.3
7.2
7.0
N
80.0
15.3
3.5
1.1 .
0.0
621
489
Summer
/Fall
Use
With
Cubs
Use
73.8
19.4
11.6
2.0
0.0
84.2
12.8
2.5
.4
0.0
4.4
2.4
0.0
146
475
294
Spring
Use
Overall
Use
66.4
23.3
6 .8
Without
Cubs
Feeding
Use
Use
.
Bedding
Use
0.0
0.0
27.4
8.1
1.6
0.0
90.5
7.7
1.5
.4
0.0
327
1 24
274
85.6
2.8
62.9
CO
Table 16. . Chi-square and P values for distance classes from cover at
bear locations (overall, by season, presence of cubs, and
activity) compared to random availability of distance classes
from cover on the Council study area, 1982-1983.
ChiSquare
P
d . f .=4
Overall
Use
Spring
Use
Summer
/Fall
USe
2 5 0.1
<.001
4 9.67
<.001
253.4
<.001
With
Cubs
Use
118.9
<.001
Without
CubS
Use
Feeding
Use
Bedding
Use
209.1
<.001
37.94
<.001
219.6
<.001
to
40
Elevation and Slope
Elevation of bear locations was taken from topographic
maps
(scale 1:24,000).
Elevation of bear locations
significantly by month (F=Il.56,
d.f.=5,
P<0.001)
varied
(Figure
10).
In April and May, bears were at low to mid-elevations,
then
mean
elevation
of location increased
until
August.
During September and October/November bears returned to
low
elevations until denning.
Slope
activity
of
bear
(F=3.843,
locations
d.f.=4,
varied
significantly
P=0.0043)
(Figure
11).
by
The
steepest slopes were choosen by bedded bears. Gentler slopes
were used by feeding bears.
Traveling, denning, and unknown
active used all- slopes.
Microhabitat Analysis
Bears
available.
shrubs
tended
Table
to
17
chose sites
where
ripe
fruit
lists the median phenologic stage
in selection .cut/shrubfield and'
shrubfield
was
of
habitat
components preferred by female black bears as feeding sites.
Stage 5 represents plants with ripe fruit.
41
1600-,
E
1500-
z
O
h-
<
>
1400-
LU
U
LU
1300-
70
85
128
I
158
110
95
IU
Z
3
-D
>
-J
3
-D
H
CO
3
O
3
<
tr
I
CC
LU
CO
O
H
U
O
I
>
<
5
- j
DC
Q.
<
LU
CO
5
LU
t—
Cl
LU
CO
CC
LU
CO
S
m
>
O
Z
MONTH
Figure
10.
Mean elevation with standard error and sample
size of bear locations by month, on the Middle
Fork of the Weiser River study area, 1982-1983.
-J
30-
A U IIVIIY
Figure
11.
Mean slope with standard error and sample size
activity, on the Middle
orK of the Weiser River study area, 1982-1983.
42
Table 17.
Median phenologic stage, of some berry species,
found
at
feeding
sites
in
selection
-cut/shrubfield and shrubfield habitat components
on the Council study area,1982-1983. ■
Habitat
Component
Hawthorne Bittercherry Huckleberry Buffaloberry
Selection
Cut/Shrub.
5(1)*
Shrubfield .
4(1)
5-6(11)
5(13)
5(5)
-
-
5(14)
* number of locations in parentheses
At all bear locations which could be verified visually
or
by sign and at random sites ,
plant
species ■ were recorded.
median
-coverage
class,
coverage classes of
known
Appendices A and B list
when
plants
were
present.
the
and
frequency (the percentage of plots that contained a species)
of
identified
shrubfield
plants
and
at random
selection
and
bear
cut/shrubfield
locations.
components,
In
the
median coverage classes of important bear foods was compared
between random and bear locations.
cut/shrubfield
components
Shrubfield and selection
were chosen
for
this'
analysis
because they were used extensively by feeding bears.
In
foods
median
shrubfield
were hawthorn,
coverage
locations
was
shrubfields
classes
of
components,
the most
bittercherry,
and
important
chokecherry.
class of hawthorn in shrubfields
significantly
greater
sampled as random sites
chokecherry
and
(P=O-OlS)
(Table
18).
bittercherry
at
than
bear
The
bear
in
Coverage
were
not
significantly
different between bear and random
locations,
(P=O .599 and P=O .259, respectively)'.
Table 18.
frequency and median coverage class of some
important bear foods on the Council study area,
1982-1983.
Random Ioc
Bear Ioc.
*
Huckleberry*
Hawthorn
Bittercherry
54/3.0
74/4.7
3 2 / 4.8
65/5.4
55/ 3.0
8 0 / 2.8
Chokecherry
4 6 /2.2
6 0 / 1. 8
I
^
J *
4- "U
Huckleberry was sampled
in
the selection cut/shrubfield
component,
other species were sampled in the shrub-field
component.
Huckleberry
selection
coverage
is
an
important
cut/shrubfields.
class
(P = O .064)
(Table 18).
than
'At
of huckleberry
at
random
bear
bear
was
sites
food
found
in
locations,
median
significantly
greater
within
this
component
DISCUSSION
Habitat Component Use
Habitat
Herrero
use
(1972 ,
is
related
19 8,3),
to a
variety. of
factors.
discussing the phytogeny
o T ' black
bears,
noted their physical and behavioral adaptions to the
forest
biome and in particular their reliance on trees
for
escape, protection, play, sleep, and relaxation. Black bears
are
very
adaptable
distribution
as
evidenced
in North,America,
by
their
widespread
but their range is
limited
almost exclusively to forested areas.
Timber was the most frequently used habitat
on
the Council study area (38.8%) .
bears
high
timbered
of
Bedding
this component was due to
the
65%
were
classified
as
selection
using
bedding
of
locations.
or
Beds were usually oval shaped and scraped out
the duff on the uphill side of a tree,
with little ground cover.
sites
The
timber
areas were typically on steep slopes with north
east aspects,.
These
condition.
sites for bedding. . When bears were
components,
in
It was preferred by all
regardless of season or reproductive
use
component
in dense
timber
Scats.were often found near beds.
were cool and the sparse ground cover
enabled
the bear to see. Trees also provided a ready means to escape
enemies.
45
In northern Idaho, bears also preferred timbered areas
with
sparse
were
in
understory as bedding sites,
shrub dominated selection cuts
California,
Kellyhouse
even when
(Young
bears
1984).
(1980) noted that bears used
In
mixed
conifer forest, with- an estimated, canopy coverage of 68%, as
traveling,
resting,
Blanchard
(1983)
Yellowstone
and
found
National
forested
communites
European
brown
escape cover during all
that
Park
grizzly
were
bear
almost
day
(Ursus arctos
beds
exclusively
(99%) at or near the base of
bears
seasons.
arctos) ,
a
in
in
in
tree.
Norway,
constructed beds very similar to bears on the Council
study
area in dense spruce (Picea abies) thickets or timber stands
near the base of vertical objects
Timber
habitat components were used by feeding
in proportion to
twin-berry,
(Mysterud 1983).
availability.
and
serviceberry
Huckleberry,
were
found
bears
buffaloberry,
in
timbered
components but with lower coverage classes than in more open
components. Seasonally important forbs and grasses were also
found in timber.
Open
timber
components were used
in
proportion
to
availability
during the spring and selected against
during
summer/fall.
Bears
timber
with cub's selected against open
components and bears without cubs used them in proportion to
availability. Open timber components were avoided by bedding
bears but were used in proportion.to availability by feeding
46
bears .
Nearly
70%
of
occurred in spring.
the use of open
timbered
components
Bears fed on grasses and forbs in
this
component during spring. By mid-summer these sites were dry,
and phenology of food plants was past the stage preferred by
bears.
It is difficult to explain the selection against this
component
by
bears with cubs.
The overstory
provided security (Herrero 1972);
may
study
area
bears
limited
number
of
habitat
leaving the d e n ,
with cubs of the
components
in
year
On the
used
spring.
After
Alt et
noted that females with small cubs restricted
movement,
possibly
offspring.
a
females with cubs remained in dense stands
timber and seldom ventured into open areas.
(1980)
have
bears with cubs
also prefer the security of a shrub understory.
Council
of
however,
should
due
to the lack of mobility
al.
their
of
their
Reynolds and Beecham (1980) did not believe that
cubs
limited
the movement of females,
time
following emergence from dens.
except for a
short
I do not believe
that
movements were restricted (except during early spring),
that in general females with cubs selected for sites
but
having
greater cover.
Open
timber/shrubfields
were
heavily
used
during
summer/fall and by bears with cubs during all seasons. Bears
readily
bedded in this component and used it in
to availability for feeding.
proportion
This component offered bears a
variety of fall food items; the dense cover was adequate for
bedding; and it provided security for females with cubs.
On
very
the Council study area riparian components made up
small
selected
Bears
of the total
for this component,
area.
Overall, bears
but sample sizes were
small.
selected for areas < 100m from open water during
seasons
had
percentage
and activities.
well
during
developed
dry
As described,
a
all
riparian components
mesic vegetation, and I
years this component would be
believe
more
that
important.
Riparian areas were selected as feeding sites by black bears
in
northern
Idaho (Young 1984) and as
feeding
areas
and
traveling corridors in California (Kellyhouse 1980).
Aspen
availability,
expected
this
components
except
were
used
proportion
this component received
use by bears with cubs.
component
in
was
-
to
higher
than
The overall structure
somewhat.
similar
to
of
open
timber/shrubfield components. Two aspen stands in, particular
were
frequented
by
adjacent
to
feeding.
In Alberta,
bears.
bittercherry
during all seasons
Both
provided
shrubfields used
bedding
by
areas
bears
black bears selected for aspen
for
cover
(Young and Ruff 1982).
Shrubfields were preferred by feeding bears during the
summer/fall,
but
during
spring, were used
proportion to availability.
feeding
on
greater
amounts
During spring,
grasses and fo rbs,
of
these
other
foods.
less
than
in
.when bears were
components
Shrubfields
produced
were
very
48
important
sources of berries in summer and fall,
and
90%
their
Hawthorn,
of
bittercherry,
species
.use
and
occurred
in shrubfields.
the
bears.
(1980)
sought
after
Bears would converge on these rich
Reynolds and Beecham (1980) also
importance of hawthorn
Zager
August.
chokecherry were the most
feeding areas in the fall.
noted
after
over
shrubfields , to
found that grizzly bears
Council
in
Montana
selected for shrubfields during fall.
Use of meadow components on the Council study area was
concentrated during spring. I believe my findings understate
the
overall
This
is
against
importance of meadows to bears,
in
part due to female bears with
near ■ Council.
cubs
meadows and the lack of bear locations
spring
of 1982.
without
cubs,
adequately
but
sample
observations
numerous
In 19 82,
few
their
selecting
during
the
eight of the radioed bears- were
*
bears were captured in time to
spring
habitat
use.
of non-radioed bears feeding in
Incidental
meadows
were
and radioed bears were observed using meadows on a
return to the study area in th'e spring of 1984 . On the study
area,
meadow
grasses
Montana,
wet
components provide a wide range of forbs
important
Servheen
in the spring diet
1976).
(1983) found grizzly bears selected
meadows during the fall.
spring
(Beecham
Meadows were
very
feeding sites for California black bears
and
In
for
important
(Kellyhouse
1980) .
Rock/talus
components were selected against by
bears
49
during all seasons and for all activities.
foods
and
The lack of bear
cover on these site were probably
the
limiting
factors. ■
Sagebrush/grass
components were also selected against
by bears near Council. Although food plants were present and
some feeding use was noted in the spring,
other
components
apparently provided more preferred foods and types of cover.
Logging
units
made
up
over
30%
habitat components on the study ar e a .
types
were
used
in,proportion
to
of
the available
Selection cuts of all
availability
overall,
seasonally, and by bears with and without cubs.
When
only
feeding locations were
considered,
bears
preferred selection cut/shrubfields and used Other selection
cuts
in proportion to availability. . On the
area,
selection
as
result of reduced canopy coverage and
a
scarification
Council
study
cuts provided a wide variety of bear foods
following
harvest.
little
or
Young (1984) found
bears in northern Idaho preferred selection- cuts during
seasons. .He
species
felt
this selection was due to abundant
and available trees for escape cover-.
Mollohan
In
logged
ago. - These
were
areas that were harvested .50-60
mixed
conifer and hardwood
that
all
food
Arizona,
(1982) found that adult female bears selected
selectively
no
stands
for
years
that
provided dense cover and grasses.
Bedded bears used selection cut/shrubfields.less than
50
in proportion to availability and. open timbered and timbered
selection cuts in proportion to availability.
the
I believe that
greater security provided by increased canopy
coverage
in open timbered and timbered selection cuts contributed
the
use of these components for bedding.
important for bears.
of
buffer
residual
of
areas
to
Security cover is
Zager (1980) emphasized the importance
adjacent to roads and
cover in clear cuts.
small
amounts
of
He also noted the importance
timber "stringers" along travel routes.
Young and
(1982) noted that bears increased use of heavy spruce
Ruff
cover
during the fall hunting season.
Clearcut
components
study
area
twice
during the study.
old,
and
made up a small portion
of
the
(2.7%) and bears were observed using them
although
Clearcuts were less than
some bear foods were present
only
8
years
on
these
sites,
foods most commonly found in scats did not appear to
be
abundant as in more mature stands.
as
northern
19 8 4).
18-25
Idaho
Bears
years
avoided
clearcuts in
bears
clearcuts
old and selected against areas cut 9-14
In northern
years
Montana-,
and Cowan (1971) found that black bears seldom
recently
logged
areas but used a 10 year-old
much
as surrounding areas.
area
will be used in the future;
soil
scarification
by
dozer will delay
used
clearcut
Clearcuts on the Council
however,
in
seasons ' (Young
in western Washington .selected for
previously (Lindzey and Meslow 1977).
Jonkel
all
Black
study
windrowing
the
as
recovery
and
of
51
important bear food plants
Historically,
wildfire
Many
serai
vegetation
was
maintained
or other catastrophic events'- such
of
the
important
Martin
(Zager 1980, Martin 1983).
early
to
mid-seral
(1983)
huckleberry
exposures
found
clearcut
had
types
mast
were
on
mesic,
for
north,
burned 25-60 years ago
are
production.
the most productive sites
production
which
as . avalanches.
vegetation
to black bears because of high
by
or
globe
and
east
had
been
and broadcast burned 8-15 years ago. Telfer (1974)
recognized
wildlife
the importance of diversity of forest
species.
types
In the boreal forest,of Canada,
to
he felt-
logging could be used to provide this diversity.. In northern
Idaho,,
used
Leege and Hickey (19 71) found that burning could
be
to rejuvenate shrub species important to elk as winter
browse
species.
bittercherry,
and
These
species
serviceberry,
included
all
chokecherry,
important bear
food
species. Fire is a natural process, and a high percentage of
the
plant species present on a site before a
and
reestablish.
some
burn
survive
Other plants with airborne seeds are also
of the first to reestablish after wildfire
(Lyon
and
Stickney 1976).
In
that
most
coverage
that
were
northwestern Montana,
Zager et al.
(1983) found
important bear food shrubs increased
35-75
in
years following wildfires and-on
broadcast burned.
He felt that
timber
canopy
clearcuts
harvest
52
techniques could,
to some extent,
positive effects of wildfire.
scarification
had
be used to simulate the
He determined that
a negative effect on shrub species
resprouted from rhizomes or root crowns,,
of most key shrubs declined following
was
dozer
piled
scarified,
bulldozer
and burned.
and that
clearcuts
coverage
when slash
On clearcuts that
vegetation resembled post-wildfire
that
were
not
communities.
The reduction of canopy cover and competition and alteration
of
soil
moisture
and nutrient regimes
following
logging
appear to simulate, somewhat, the effects of wildfire (Zager
1 9 8 0 ).
On
species
areas
Long Island,
were
than
Meslow
7-8
in
berry-producing
times more abundant in
old conifer or alder
1977).
availability
Washington,
Lindzey
and
stands
Meslow (1977)
(Lindzey
of berry species on recently logged sites
may
also
felt
that cover and the juxtaposition
felt
and
the
contributed to their high preference
the
logged
that
have
types
recently
shrub
by
bears.
of
They
vegetation
had'an important effect on habitat selection and that
presence
of cover,
along
with
food
abundance,
was
important in determining habitat selection.
Habitat Type Use
ABGR/VAGL,
covered
use.
ABGR/ACGL,
and
PSME/PHMA
habitat
over 68% of the area and received over 90%
ABGR/VAGL
and ABGR/ACGL habitat types were
types
of
the
important
53
because they contained a large variety of food
were
productive ■ sites where adequate
available.
bedding
'PSME/PHMA
areas.
plants,
cover
were
and
usually
habitat types were used primarily
as
Large areas in this type frequently had the
characteristics
I described for beds in the
discussion
of
the timbered component.
Feeding
they
did
bears -did not prefer any habitat
select against PSME/SYQR -and ABLA
type,
series
but
types.
This is an indication that black bears are selecting feeding
habitat
on •a pragmatic basis rather than
the
theoretical
model described by the habitat type classification of Steele
et al .
and
(1981).
do
Most
Bears feed in areas where foods are present
not limit themselves to particular
habitat
habitat types potentially include large
types.
varieties
of
serai stages and physiognomic types -which results in a great
amount
of
types.
A
complex
overlap in bear food abundance
few habitat types,
in
compared
terms
to
Geier-Hayes
of
'ABGR/VAGL
1982,
ratings
such as PSME/PHMA,
potential
successional
and other ABGR types)
1983), and their use by
between
are
less
stages
(as
(Steele
and
bears
is
more
easily explained.
Aspect, Topography, and Horizontal Configuration Use
The
bears,
areas
was
and
preference for north aspects,
due
except by
to the use of northern slopes
travel corridors.
The: PSME/PHMA
as
habitat
feeding
bedding
typ e ,
54
which provided dense overhead coverage and open
conditions
favored
primarily
located on north exposures.
■area, finger
lower
corridors
were
On the Council study
ridges ,extend in a westerly direction
elevations
Hawthorn
for bedding and travel
undergrowth
are only timbered on
the
and
north
slopes.
shrubfields are usually on lower slopes and
exposures.
In
at
the late summer and fall bears would
south
travel
down the north side of these finger ridges and slip into the
shrubfields on the opposite slopes to feed. Food plants were
present on all aspects, and bears did not select against any
aspect when feeding.
Bears
hillsides.
provided
..
consistently
They
were
preferred the
more
mesic
than
lower
other
portion
areas
of
and
cover as well as food. Benches or flats and stream
bottoms swere preferred by feeding bears.
These sites
were
also
areas, ' and
most
typically
more
mesic
than
other
shrubfields
were located on this type of topography.
slopes
and
ridge tops were used as feeding
spring
but were the first land forms to desiccate and
provided foods during that season.
to dry,
areas
Upper
in
the
only
Mid-slopes were the next
and although shrub species that provided bear foods
were present on these slopes, small benches or flats on midslopes supported the densest stands.
The
sites
nature
by
observed
bears
preference for
concave
or
was probably related to their
compared to convex and straight
areas.
undulating
more
During
mesic
the
55
spring , bears
availability.
used
convex
sites
in
to
At this time of year, convex sites were still
moist,
and
convex
sites in proportion to availability
year.
proportion
food plants were present.
Bears with cubs usedthroughout
the
This could be related to the absence of trees in some
concave
or
undulating
areas.
Bears with
cubs
may
seek
feeding sites on the basis of protective cover as much as on
food availability.
Distance to Roads, Water, and Cover
Roads
bears
were
without
used in spring and by feeding
cubs
in
proportion
analyzed as a habitat component.
used
as the criterion,
0-5 Om-
to
roads
inconsistency
to
in
to
availability
where
only feeding bears
proportion,
to
female
availability.
contact is possible than
This
Selection
or
Council
beat
climb
trees at
do
areas
bears.
population
The
has
Although bears would
the.
sight
or
smell
of
some habituation could be occurring on the area.
against
to
of . the
used
Both methods
bedding
been unhunted since 1973.
run
observers,
related
distances
is probably due to the arbitrary method
segment
essentially
readily
used
that feeding bears are less likely to avoid
human
when
When distance to roads was
combine distance classes for analysis.
indicate
bears ' and
roads
by bears with
lack of security cover.
cubs
Roads on
is
probably
the
Council
study area were not normally used as travel routes. Forested
types
on
the study area generally
lack
undergrowth
that
would inhibit travel by bears.
In
northern Idaho,
Young (1984) reported that female
black bears selected against roads,
proportion
to
availability.
of
instincts
to avoid open areas and that use by males
of. their
was
a
speculated • that
avoidance
function
roads
He
but males used roads in
function
of
innate
high mobility, and the use of
female
maternal
was
roads
a
as
travel routes.
Manville
(1983)
reported that Michigan
black
bears
used oil pipeline right-of-ways, oil well service lanes, and
lumber roads as travel routes.
roads
increased
Schallenberger
bear
(1980)
Increased access along these
vulnerability
noted
the
loss
to
of
hunters.
habitat
and
increased human disturbance along roads in Montana.
Council
bears
showed a high positive
areas within 100m of open water.
not
During this study,
observe bears drinking water,
water important.
could
make
water
could
mesic
sites in terms of bear foods.
also
selection
but the hot dry
This close
for
I
did
summers
association
be related to the high
with
productivity
'Mollohan (1982)
of
found
that bears in Arizona were within -0.25 mile of water at over
60% of the bedding sites and 50% of feeding sites.
Horizontal
Bears
would
use
cover was very important to female
areas < 25m from cover in
bears.
proportion
to
57
availability when feeding, but during other activities bears
preferred to be in cover.
The importance of cover to
has been stated by other authors
bears
(Herrero 1972, Lindzey and
M e sIow 1976, and Young 1984). I feel that overstory cover is
important
to
bears
with cubs .,
important
to all bears.,
but horizontal
cover
Bears are willing to venture
is
from
7
cover
if
food
detected.
is
Bears
available and
human
activity
were frequently observed in'
open
during spring and in shrub fields during the fall,
bears were usually observed from long distances.
are intently feeding in these,
is
not
meadows
however,
When bears
areas they are vulnerable to
hunters.
Elevation, Slope, and Plant Use
The general feeding pattern for bears in North America
is
spring use of forbs and grasses and use of.hard .and soft
mast in summer and fall
al .
1943>
Landers
(Beeman and Pelton 1980,-,
Graber and White 1983 ,
et al.
1979) .
Bennet
et
Grenfell and Brody 1983,
This same general pattern occurs on
the Council study area,and habitat use is closely related to
the
food
temporal
plants
availability and phonological
(Beecham
1976,
Amstrup
and
"ripeness"
Beecham
of
1976,
Reynolds and Beecham 1980).
The
well
being
importance of mast,
both soEt and hard',
of bear populations is well
frequently lose weight during spring,
documented.
to
the
Bears
and these losses must
58
be
made
up for during the summer and
fall
berry
'(Beecham 1980, Jonkel and Cowah 1971). Rogers
close association
seasons
(1976) noted a
between mast and berry crop failures
and
poor reproduction in black bears. •
Elevational movements by Council bears were associated
with
and
the quality and quantity of important
Beecham
monthly
with
1976,
Reynolds and Beecham
elevational
movements I observed
their findings.
spring
at
low
progression
foods
(Amstrup
1980).
were
The
mean
consistent
Bears fed on grasses and forbs during
elevations and
followed
their
to higher elevations by mid-July..
phenologic
During1 July
and before huckleberries and buffaloberries were ripe, bears
fed
extensively
on ants in selection
cuts.
Female
black
bears were observed feeding on ants on several occasions
in
selection
59
cuts.
methodically
During
foraging
minute period,
1982,
on
I observed bear
number
ants in a select cut.
In
a
50
she moved between and broke up 11 stumps and
fed on ants and larvae in each.
Council area (Beecham 1976,
Food habits studies for the
197 7,) revealed a high frequency
and percent volume of ants during mid-summer.
I believe that
j.
ants
and
Council
grasses
bear
August
Other
grubs are an important food source for
•during
the transition from foraging on
to soft mast.
Kellyhouse
(1980) found
bears
forbs
that
at
and
black
use of high-elevation partial cuts was greatest during
and
noted
foraging by bears in
logs
authors also reported foraging on ants by
and
stumps.
black
and
59
grizzly
bears,
(Grenfell and Brody 1983,
1984,
Hamer and Herrero 1983,
bears
fed
were
no
Maehr and
Brady
Graber and White 1983). Some
on huckleberries and buffalobe-rries
until
they
longer available then went to lower elevations
to
feed on chokeeherries, bittercherries, and hawthorn berries.
Bears
whose
home ranges did not include
huckleberries
switched
to
berries.
I
movements
large
stands
of
or buffaloberries or were at lower elevations
chokeeherries,
bittercherries,
did not record these bears
in
and
making
hawthorn
elevational
search of huckleberries but did record
moving from higher elevation ranges down into low
bears
elevation
berry patches in search of the other species.
The
slopes
activity.
sites,
feel
Bears
and
used by bears varied
used
steep northern
significantly
aspects
as
gentler areas were used when feeding.
that bears are selecting these sites on the
gradient,
but
on
characteristics,
which
the
are
basis
of
affected by
the
with
bedding
I do not
basis
of
vegetation
slope
and
other
qualities of topography.
Microhabitat Analysis’
Although
preliminary,
the results of the microhabitat analysis are
they
a
indicate
habitat
on
managed
or habitat measured.
that bears ■ may
be
smaller scale than that at which
selecting
lands
This analysis indicates
are
that
bears selected feeding sites .on the basis of density of food
60
plants and not, just on food plant presence.
this
information
practices
berry
or
that
reaffirms
the
need
I believe
for
maintain the highest density
silvicultural
of
producing shrubs if bear habitat is to be
improved.
that
important
maintained
Another implication of this analysis
is
the
need of obtaining visual locations verses close locations or
triangulations
activity.
high
when
habitat
use is
being
stratified
With the use of motion sensitive transmitters,
degree
of
accuracy can' be expected
however,
when-
by
a
bears
are
when bears are active
the
classified
as bedded;
researcher
can only be assured of a feeding location if the
bear is observed or sign of feeding is detected.
61
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATION
Summary
1. Uncut timbered sites are very important components of the
Council
study
a r e a . ■ This
bedding
area and only represent 13.9% of
component
being
was used for
the most, important.
all
the'
total
activities,
with
Timbered
stands
along
drainages were important as travel corridors.
2.
Open timber components were, important as spring foraging
areas, and open timber/shrubfield components were
important
foraging areas and were used by bears' for bedding throughout
the year.
3.
Riparian areas made up only a small portion of the study
a r e a ■ but
were positively selected for
by
Council
bears.
Bears foraged in this component, and when adjacent to roads,
the dense,vegetation provided cover for traveling bears.
4.
Aspen
bears
components
with cubs.
were preferentially selected
for
They provided dense horizontal cover
by
and
often were near bittercherry shrubfields.
5.
Shrubfield
components were' the most important source of
fall foods. Bears converged on shrubfields in late summer to
forage
on
berries.
chokecherries,
bittercherries,
and
hawthorn
62
6.
Meadow
areas
components were used during spring
for forbs and grasses.
important
habitat
as
foraging
I believe meadows are a
component than indicated from
more
telemetry
data.
7.
Rock/talus
and sagebrush/grass components lacked
foods
and cover and were selected against by Council bears.
8.
Selection cuts of all types were used extensively on the
study area.
logging
Reduced canopy coverage and little or no
treatment
coverage
produced sites with high
classes of important bear foods.
post-
frequency
Residual
and
timber
provided bedding areas.
9.
Clearcuts were avoided by Council bears.
less
than
lacked
8 years old,
had been intensely
vertical diversity.
present,
Clearcuts were
scarified
Although bear food plants
and
were
they did not appear to be producing the quantities
of fruit available in other components.
10.
ABGR/VAGL,
ABGR/ACGL,
received o v e r •90% of the use.
were
very
and
habitat
types
ABGR/VAGL and ABGR/ACGL types
productive and provided
feeding areas.
PSME/PHMA
important
bedding
and
The PSME/PHMA habitat type was important for
bedding and travel corridors to low elevation feeding sites.
11.
Northern
bedded.
aspects
were
highly
preferred
when
bears'
Feeding bears were catholic in their use of aspect.
Topographic
features
and
horizontal
resulted in more mesic vegetation,
benches
and
flats,
concave,
configurations
such as,
lower
or undulating
evidently preferred by bears.
that
slopes,
terrain
were
Bedded bears used steep sites
and feeding bears were located on gentler terrain.
12.
Female
selected
black bears avoided roads except when
areas within 100m of open water,
preference
for cover,
feeding,
and had
a
high
especially when accompanied by cubs.
Bear were willing to venture from cover in search of food.
Conclusions
The
black
Council
study area presently supports a
bear
population.
regulations
since 1975,
Under
very
the median age of this
has increased from 2.5 to 5.5 years
and Unsworth 1983).
restrictive
(Beecham
healthyhunting
population
1980,
Beecham
The population appears to be stable and
production is relatively hig h .
Since
logging
the initiation of this study in
has • continued,
undertaken in some stands.
bear
clearcut
logging
selective
has
activities.
Although many bear foods are found
which do not support commercial timber,
buffaloberry,
been
A large portion of the important
habitat on the Council study area is a result of
loggingsites
.and
1973,
bittercherry,
past
on
huckleberry,
chokecherry, and hawthorne are
64
all
important
timbered
bear
lands.
treatments
food producers that
Timber
harvest methods
are
abundant
on
and
post-logging
have changed radically in the last 10 years with
shifts. from high-grade selection cutting
to
Current
thinnings
plans
call
for
a
series
of
clearcutting.
which
ultimately will result in clearcuts.
Intensive post-logging
site
Forest
treatments
shifted
from
burning
to
piles
and
follow each stage.
little
broadcast
dozes piling of slash in windrows or
"jackpot"
in
no
post-treatment
have
or
burning
or
managers
conjunction
with
extensive
soil
scarification. In the long run this shift in treatment could
have a detrimental effect on black bear habitat.
Road building has increased in the last 10 years. The
U.S.
Forest Service has an active road closure program on a
portion
-of the study area during the fall big game
season,
but
increased
reduced
new
roads on private and federal
access.
Logging
adjacent
to
these
visual barriers in some situations.
hunting
lands
have
roads
has
If hunting
is
resumed, bears will be more vulnerable than in the past.
The
methods
availability
an
of
opportunity
considered
used
habitat
to
for
determining
assume that each
select any of
available
the
with
the
and
individual
has
habitats
that
and that observations are done
random and unbiased manner (Neu et al.
exist
utilization
interpretation
of
are
in
a
1974). Some problems
this
kind
of
data.
65
Peek
et a l .
neccesarily
animals
(1982) recognized a habitat preference was not
equivalent
could
survival
or
to a habitat requirement
prefer habitats that were not
reproduction.
Preference for
and
that
required
some
for
types
of
habitat
that are in oversupply may not be detected and what
appears
to be selection against' other
related
to
sites.
Areas
proportion
important
The
habitats,
the availability of relatively
which
to
to
are
availability
selected
more
against
may become
could
preferred
or
animals as more preferred sites are
change
therefore,
should
,the
.with
time
and
recommendations
be applied narrowly,
used
increasingly
habitat use and population characteristics of
species
habitat
be
in
more
altered.
a
given
availability;
from a study such as
to areas'of similar types
this
and
proportions of habitat.
Timber management
I. Soil
scarification should be kept at
a' minimum.
.2. Timber on north aspects and along streams should be
harvested
with uneven aged silvicultural
systems
to
maintain cover.
3.
Dense
aspects
pole sized timber stands on north and
in
the
PSME/PHMA
maintained as bedding areas.
habitat ,type
should
east
be
66
4.
Standing mature trees should be retained in logged
over
areas to enhance their use by females with
cubs
after shrubs have recovered.
5. Aspen stands
6.
Clearcut
bears
at
should be maintained.
components were not used by female black
t h e , time of this
recommendations
from
study. • I
other
areas
believe
in
that
regards
to
clearcuts could apply to the Council area.
A.
Slash
should
be
broadcast
burned
or
not
I
treated, but not piled.
If slash must be piled, a
brush blade and not an excavation blade should be
used (Zager and Jonkel 1984).
B.
Irregular
borders
should
be
created
to
maximize adjacent cover (Young 1984, Zager 1980).
C.
Patches
travel
and strips should be
maintained
routes and protective cover (Young
as
1984,
Zagef 1980).
7.
Timber harvest plans should be designed to provide/
promote the juxtaposition of different aged cuts.
Hunting Management
1.
I
Middle
River
recommend maintaining a hunting closure in
Fork
of the Weiser River
drainages.
Because
and its proximity to major
centers
in Idaho,
for
Weiser
human
,habitat.
important
the
population
provides a unique
opportunity
the nonconsumptive observation of bears in
natural
an
Little
of the open nature of
habitat
it
and
the
their
The area may also be functioning as
bear population reservoir
to
adjacent
heavily hunted drainages.
2.
If
bear hunting is resumed in the Middle Fork
of
the Weiser River and Little Weiser River Drainages.
I
recommend.the following:
A.
Present road' closures' should, stay• in
effect
through mid-June.
B.
The following roads should be
closed
during
spring:
a.
Fall Creek road from the
Creek
to
its
Creek
road at Mica saddle.
mouth
intersection -with
b.
Cabin Creek road.
c.
Little Weiser River road
Creek to Mica saddle.
from
of
the
Fall
Mica
Four-bit
68
C.
Visual barriers ,should be maintained along all
roads
where
built
in
cover
protects
feeding
possible and new
roads
areas where vegetative or
in
open
bears from view
when
meadows during the
should
be
topographic
they
Baiting
unlawful.
and
the
use
of
dogs
’
'
'
i
are
spring
or
should
be
shrubfields in the fall.
D.
■'
I
REFERENCES CITED
70
-REFERENCES CITED '
Alt, G . ,L., G. J . Matula, F.W. Alt-, and J. S . Lindzey. 1980.
Dynamics of home range and movements of adult black
bears, in northeastern Pennsylvania.
Int. Conf. Bear
Res. and Manage. 4:131-136 .
Amstrup, S . C., and J . J . Beecham. 1976. Activity patterns
of radio-collared black bears in Idaho.
J. Wil d l .
Manage. 40:340-348.
Barnes,
U.
G .,
and 0.
E.
Bray.
1967.
Population
characteristics aind activities of black bears in
Yellowstone National Park.
Final Rep., Colorado Coop.
W il d l . Res. Unit, Colo. State Univ., Fort Collins. 199
PP'
Beecham,
J . J.
1976.
Black bear ecology,
job
report. Idaho Dept. Fish Game, Boise. 34pp.
progress
___________• 19 7 7: Black bear ecology , job progress report.
Idaho Dept. Fish Game, Boise. 43 pp.
__________ • 1980.
Population characteristics, denning, and
growth patterns of black bears in Idaho, Ph.D. thesis,
U n i v . Montana, Missoula. 101 pp.
_________'
D . G . Reynolds, and M. G. Hornocker. 198 3. Black bear denning activities and den characteristics
in West-central
Idaho.
I n t . Conf. Bear Res. Manage.
5:79-86.
__________ . and J .
job progress
24 p p .
W. UnsWorth. 1983. Black bear ecology,
report. Idaho Dept. Fish Game, Boise.
Beeman, L . E . and M . R . Pelton. 1980. Seasonal foods and the
feeding
ecology
of black bears
in the
Smokey
Mountains,. Int. Conf. Bear Res. Manage. 4:141-148.
71
Bennet, L . J.,. P.F. English, and R . L . Watts. 1943 . The food
habits of the black bear in Pennsylvania. J. Mammal.
24:24-31.
Blanchard, B . M. 1983. Grizzly bear-habitat relationships in
the Yellowstone area. I n t . Con f . Bear Res. and Manage.
5:118-123.
Erickson, A. W., J. E . Nellor, and G. .A. Petrides-. 1964. The
black bear in Michigan. Michigan State U n i v . Ag. Exp.
S t a . Res. Bull. 4, 101 pp.
Fuller, T . K . and L . B . Keith. 1980. Summer ranges, cover
type u s e , and ' denning of black bears near Fort
McMurray, Alberta. Can. Field-Nat. 94:80-83.
Garshelis, D . L., and M .1R . Pelton. 1980. Activity of black
bears in the Great Smokey Mountains National Park.
J.
M a m m a l . 61:8-19.
■ Gashwiler, J.
S . 1970.
Plant and animal changes, on a
clearcut in west-central Oregon. Ecology 51 :1018-1026 .
Graber, D . M . and M . White. 1983. Black bear food habits in
Yosemite National Park. ■- I n t . Conf. Bear R e s . Manage.
5:1-10.
Grenfell,
W . E.,
and A. J . Brody. 1983. Seasonal foods of
the black bears in Tahoe National Forest,
California.
Calif. Fish Game. 69:132-150.
Hamer, D . and S . Herrero. 19 83 . Movements', food, and habitat
of grizzly bears in the Cascade and Panther valleys of
Banff National Park: Final Report-1983. 303pp.
Herrero, S . 1972.
Aspects
of evolution and adaption in
American black b e a r s ,(Ursus americanus
Pallas)
and
brown and grizzly bears (Ursus arctos Linhe.) .of North
America. Int. Conf. Bear Res. Manage,. 2 :221-231.
____________. 1983.
Social ■ behavior of black bears at a
garbage dump in Jasper National Park.
I n t . Conf. Bear
Res. Manage. 5:54-70.
72
Hershey, T . J ., and T. A. Leeye. 1976. Influences of logging
on elk summer range in north-central Idaho.
Pages' 7380 In S . R . Hieb e d ., Elk-Logging-Roads Symp. Proc.,
Univ. Idaho, Moscow.
Hitchcock,
C . L ., and A.
Cronquist. 1976.
Flora of the
Pacific Northwest. Un i v . Washington Press, Seattle.
730 p p .
Jonkel, C . J. and I. M c T . Cowan. 1971. The black bear of the
spruce-fir forest. Wil d l . Monogr. 27:1-57.
Kemp, G. A.
1972.
Black bear population dynamics at Cold
Lake,
Alberta,1968-1970. I nt. Confv Bear R e s . Manage.
2:26-31.
Kellyhouse, D . 1980. Habitat utilization by black bears in
northern California.
I n t . Conf. Bear R e s . Manage.
4:221-227.
Landers,
J . L., R . J . Hamilton, A. S . Johnson, and R . L.
Marchinton. 1979. Foods and habitat of black bears in
southeastern North, Carolina.
J.
Wildl.
Manage.
43:143-153.
Larson, K., D . Paulson, R . A. Thompson, and P . H . Skabelund.1973.
SoiI-hydroIogic reconnaissance.
Council Ranger
District,
Payette National Forest. U. S. Dept. 'Agric.
For. Serv. 228pp.
LeCount, A.
L . 1983.
Denning ecology of black bears in
Central Arizona. Int. Con f . Bear Res. Manage. 5:71-78.
Leege, T.,
and W . Hickey. 1971. Sprouting of northern Idaho
shrubs after prescribed burning.
J. W i l d l . Manage.
35:508-515.
Lindzey, F . C . 1976. Black bear population ecology. Ph.D.
thesis, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis. 105 pp.
__________ • and E . C . Meslow. 1977 . Home range and habitat
' use b y black bears in south-western Washington.
J.
W i ldl. Manage. 41:413-425.
73
Luman, I. D . r and Neitro.
forest
serai
stages
diversity.
Trans.
N.
45:271-277.
1980.
Preservation of mature
to provide wildlife habitat
A m e r . Wil d l . Nat. Res. Conf.
Lyon, L . and P . Stickney. 1975.
Early vegetal succession
following large northern Rocky Mountain wildfires.
Tall Timbers Fire Ecol. Con f . 14:355-375.
Mae h r , D . S., and J . R . Brady. Food habits of Florida black
bears;. J. WildI . Manage. 48: 230-235 .
Manville., A. M . 1983 . Human impact on the black bear
population in Michigan's Lower Peninsula.. Int. Conf .
Bear Res. Manage. 5:20-33.
Marcum,
C . L.,
and D . 0. Loftsgaarden. 1980. A nonmapping
technique for studying habitat preferences
J . Wil d l .
Manage. 44:963-968.
Martin, P. 198.3. Factors influencing globe huckleberry fruit
production in Northwestern Montana.
I nt. Conf. Bear
Res. Manage. 5 :159-165.
Mollohan, C . 1982. Black bear habitat research. Final Report
#0182: I September 1982. Arizona Fish Game, Phoenix.
Mundinger, J . G . 1979.
Population ecology and habitat
relationships
of white-tailed deer in coniferous
forest habitat of northwestern Montana.
In R . J.
, Mackie, e d . Montana deer studies. Montana Dept. Fish
Wil d l . Parks Fed. Aid Pro j . W - I6O-R Progress R e p . July
1978-June 1979. Helena.
Mysterud,
I . 1983.
Characteristics of summer beds of
European brown bears in Norway.
In t . Co n f . Bear Res.
Manage. 5:208-222.
Neu,
C . W., C. R . Byers, and J . M . Peek. 1974. A technique
for analysis of utilization-availability data.
J.
Wildl.. Manage. 38 :541-545 .
Nie,
N . H., C . G . Hull, J . G . Jenkins,",K . Steinbrenner, and
D . H . Brent. 1975: Statistical package for the social
sciences, 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill, New York.. 675 p p .
Novick, H . J.,
and G . R . Stewart. 1982. Home range and
habitat
preferences
of black bears
in the
■San
Bernardino mountains of Southern California.
Calif.
Fish Game 67:21-35.
Peek, J. M., M. D . Scott, L . J. Nelson, D . J. Pierce, and L .
'L . Irwin.
1982.
Role of cover in habitat management
for big game in northwestern United States.
Trans.
N . Amer. W i ldl. Nat. Res. C o n f . 47:363-374.
Pelton, M.
R.,
L . G.- Beeman, and D . C . Eagar. 1980. Den
selection
by
black bears in the Great
Smokey
mountains. Int. Conf. Bear Res. Manage. 3:149-152.
Pengelly, W.
L . 1963. Timberlands and deer in the northern
Rockies. J. Forest. 61:734-740.
Pfister, R . D.,
and S .F . Arno.
1980. Classifying forest
habitat types based on potential climax vegetation.
Forest S c i . 26:52-70.
Poelker, R . J.., and H . D . Hartwell. 1973. The black bear of
Washington. Wash. State D e p t . Biol. Bull. '14, Olympia.
180 p p .
Reynolds, D . G . 1977. Home range activities and reproduction
of black bears in west-central Idaho.
M . ■'S . thesis ,
Un i v . Idaho, Moscow. 38 pp.
_________and J.J.
Beecham. 1980. Home range activities
and reproduction of black bears in west-central Idaho.
Int. Conf. Bear R e s . Manage. 3:181-190.
'Rogers, L . 1976. Effects of mast and berry crop failures on
survival, growth,
and reproductive success of black
bears. Trans. N . Am e r . W i l d l . Res. Conf. 41 :431-438.
Schallenberber, A. 1980. Review of oil and gas exploitation
impacts on grizzly bears. Int. Conf. Bear Res. Manage.
4:271-276.
Servheen, C . 1983. Grizzly bear food habits, movements, and
habitat selection in the Mission Mountains, Montana.
J . W i ldl. Manage. 47:1026-1035.
75
Steele, _ R.
S., R . D . Pfister, R . A. Ryker, and J 11 A.
Kittams. 1981. Forest habitat types of central Idaho.
USDA For.
Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-114 Intermt. For.
and Range Exp. Sta., Ogden, Utah. 138 pp.
__________ __• and K . Geier-Hayes. 1982. The grand fir/ blue
huckleberry habitat type,
succession and management.
Preliminary Draft. USDA Forest S e r . Intermountain
Forest and Range Exp.
S t a . and Intermountain Region.
Ogden, Utah. 102 p p .
________ ______• and
K.
Geier—Hayes.
1983.
The Douglas
fir/ninebark habitat type in central Idaho succession
and management.
Preliminary Draft.
USDA Forest Se r .
Intermountain
Forest and Range
Exp.
St a .
and
Intermountain Region. Ogden, Utah. 83 pp.
Stickley, A. R . 1957. The status and characteristics of the
black bear in Virginia.
M . S. thesis,
Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State Univ., Blacksburg. 141
PPStoneburg,,
R . P., and C . J . Jonkel. 1966 . Age determination
of black bear cementum layers.
J. W i l d l . Manage.
30:411-414.
Tisch, E , L . 1-961. Seasonal food habits of the black bear in
the Whitefish range of northwestern Montana. M . S.
Thesis, Montana State Univ., Missoula. 108 pp.
>
Telfer, E . 1974. Logging as a factor in wildlife ecology in
the boreal forest. For. Chron. 50:1-5.
Vaughan, M. R.,
E . J . Jones, D . W.' Carney, and N . Garner.
1983.
Seasonal habitat use and home range of black
bears in Shenandoah National Park:
First Ann.
Prog.
Rep. I July 1983. .
Wallmo, 0. C., W.
L . Regelin, and D . W. Reichert. 1972.
Forage use by mule deer relative to logging in
Colorado. J. Wildl. Manage. 36:1025-1033.
" W e s t ,■ N .' E., and R . W . W e i n . 1971. A plant phenoIogical
index technique. Bioscience. 21:116-117.
Young, B.,
and R . Ruff.
19 82 . Population dynamics and movements
of black bears in east central Alberta.
J.
Wil d l . Manage. 46 :845-860.
Young, D . D . 1984.
Black bear habitat use at Priest Lake,
Idaho. M .S . Thesis, Uni v . Montana, Missoula. 66pp.
76
Zager, P . 1980.
The influence of" logging and wildfire on
grizzly bear habitat in northwestern Montana.
Ph.D.
Dis,s., Univ. Montana, Missoula. 131 p p .
__!
________ • .C . J . Jonkel, and R . Mace. 1980. Grizzly bear
habitat terminology. Border Grizzly Project Spec. R e p .
No. 41. Univ. Montana, Missoula. 15 pp.
__________ • C. Jonkel, and J . Habeck. 1983.
Logging and
wildfire
influence
on grizzly bear habitat
in
Northwestern Montana.
In t . Conf. Bear Res. Manage.
5:124-132.
__________ •
and C . Jonkel. 1983.
Managing grizzly bear
habitat in the northern Rocky Mountains.
J. Forest.
81:524-526.
Zar, J . H . 1974.
Biostatistical analysis.
Inc. Englewood Cliffs, N . J. 620 p p .
Prentice-hall,
77
APPENDICES
78
I
APPENDIX A
_
HABITAT COMPONENT DESCRIPTIONS
79
Timber
Timber
components
w e r e 'unlogged stands
with
canopy
closure > 6 0%'. Because they were dependent on topograpic and
environmental conditions,
stands were comprized of a varity
of
tree
sizes
and
elevations,
Englemann
types
of
At
the
highest
subalpine fir dominated with lodgepole pine and
spruce intermixed.
m e s i c .sites at lower
with
species.
Douglas
fir
Mid- to upper
elevation
and
elevations were dominated by grand fir
and ponderosa pine
as
important
serai
species. On more xeric sites at mid- elevations, Douglas fir
was
the most important tree species and ponderosa pine
present in varying amounts.
the
dryest
sites,
was
At the lowest elevations and on
ponderosa pine was
the
dominant
tree
species.
Although
relatively
the
undergrowth on timbered components
depauperate
components,
all
compared
shrub
t o , more
open
was
forested
species present on the study
‘area,
with the exception of bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata), were
present.
Few
species exceded a median cover class of
however,
huckleberry,
1.5;
bittercherry, buffaloberry, ninebark
\
(Physocarpus
malvaceus),
or mountain maple (Acer
glabrum)
occasionally formed a dense undergrowth.
Grasses and sedges were present on almost all sites. A
varity
most
of forbs were present,
common.
Smilacina spp.,
shade tolerant species being'
Fragaria
sp p .,
Adonocaulon
80
'bicolor,
Arnica cordifolia,
triflorum,
Pyrola
Goodyera
spp.,
Trillium
oblonqifol i a ,
Rudbeckia
spp.,
and
Chimaphila umbellata.
Osmorhiza
occidentalis,
Viola sp p .
Gallium
depauperata,
Thalictrum
were the . most
sp p .,
frequently
encountered forb-s in timber components.
Open Timber
’
Open timber components were unlogged sites with canopy
closure
the
between 30 and 60%.
All tree species mentioned
description of the timbered component were present
in
but
with lower median coverage classes.
AlI shrub species, except redstem- ceanothus (Ceanothus
sanguineus),
were
represented
in this
component
at
low
densities..
For
the most part undergrowth was dominated
by
graminoids
and
forbs.
to
Sites were frequently
meadows
.and
were
often
times
transition
meadows
and
more
heavily timbered
common forbs were Lomatium spp. ,
spp.,
.Achillea millefolium,
'Balsamorhiza spp.,
spp.,
Osmorhiza
adjacent
areas
components.
Smilacina
spp.',
between
The
most
Fragaria
Arnjca cordifolia, Aster spp.,
Galium triflorum, Geranium s pp., Lupinus
depauperata,
Penstemon
spp.,
spp., Thalictrum spp., and Veratrum viride.
Potentilla
Open Timber/Shru'bf ield
Open
and
timber/shrubfield- components were also
had the same complement of tree species as
un logged
timber
and
open timber components, but the undergrowth was dominated by
dense
than
stands
open
of shrubs.
timber
components
elevations
with concave
were
often
most
classes
were
These sites were usually
and
horizontal
large and well
ranged from 30 to 60%.
greater,
frequencies
but in
often
moister
occured
at
configurations.
spaced.
Canopy
low
Trees
coverage
Graminoid coverage
classes
general forbs were present at
lower
and median coverage classes than in open timber
components.
At low elevations hawthorn, bittercherryy chokecherry,
ninebark,
and
common
snowberry
(Symphoricarpos
a Ib u s )
dominated the shrub layer. At mid- to high elevations and on
more
mesic
huckleberry,
(Spiraea
sites
serviceberry
twin-berry
betulifolia),
(Amelanchier
(Lonicera
spp.),
willow (Sajix
spp.),
alnifolia),
white
spiraea
mountain-ash
(Sorbus soopulina), mountain maple and alder (Alnus sinuata)
were common.
Riparian
Well developed riparian vegetation was relatively.rare
on the Council study area..All tree species were represented
in
this
component.
The presence
of
cottonwood
(Populus
trichocarpa) and red-osier dogwood were important indicators
82
for this component.
Many
syringa
shrubs were present including rose (Rosa
(Philadelphus lewisii),
spp.),
and current (Ribes
spp.).
Moist site forbs and grasses comprized a lush undergrowth.
Aspen
Aspen
components
were dominanted by
quaking
aspen.'
These sites were scattered throughout the study area,
often
in places where snow would accumulate on leeward slopes.
aspen
components
dominated
the
with
relatively
open
canopies,
undergrowth and in stands with
In
shrubs
high
canopy
closure forbs and graminoids dominated.
Shrubfield
Shrubfield
closure
components were unlogged sites with canopy
of
< 30%.
elevations,
with
configurations.
Tree
These components were
■ concave
species
to
were
usually
straight
often
at
low
horizontal
absent,
or
if
present were usually ponderosa pine and/or Douglas fir.
The
shrub
and
forb species were
similar
present in open timber/shrubfield components.
hawthorn/bittercherry
group.
They
shrubfields
are
flats on south and west exposures.
those
Low elevation
included
occur in seasonally moist side
to
in
drainages
this
and
83
Meadow
Meadow components are areas with <10% canopy
are
seasonally
Shrubs,
moist and dominated by forks
are present but of low frequencey.
and
closure,
grasses.
The "onion beds"
of the Council study area are examples.
Important forbs are
Lomatium
mi l Iefolium,
sPP- '
spp.,
AlIium spp.,
Balsamorhiza
spp.,,
AchiIlea
Erioqonum
spp.,
Lupinus
Aster
spp. ,
Penstemon spp., and Potentilla spp.
Rock/Talus
Rock/talus
areas
of
components are characterized by
exposed
bedrock or rock
slides.
extensive
Vegetation
sparse with trees and shrubs' being nearly absent'.’ ■The
common
forks
present
are
Lomatium
spp.,
Allium
is
most
spp.,
Eriogonum spp., Penstemon spp., and Sedum spp.
Sagebrush/Grass
The sagebrush/grass component makes up a
proportion
of
the Council study area.
considerable
It is found at
low
elevations and on south to west exposures. Trees are rare on
these
Douglas
sites and if present,
fir.
are usually ponderosa pine
Grasses are common.
Dry site shrubs -are
dominant plant species including big sage,
common snowberry.
Tragopogon
or
the
bitterbrush, and
Forbs include Lomatium spp., Allium spp.,
partensis,,
Achillea
millefolium,
Balsamorhiza
spp •t Eriogonum spp., Penstemon sp p ., and Polygonum spp.
84
Road
, Roads
vehicular
were
cleared
travel.
or graded areas not
blocked
to
The main Middle Fork of the Weiser River
road was built in the 1930^s, and there has been good access
to
most
years,
parts of the study a r e a ,
road
study area.
since
1965.
In
closures have been in effect on parts
recent
of
the
Many tree and shrub species were represented in
vegetation plots centered on roads. Roads bisected all other
habitat
roads
components and types.
and some forbs,
such
millefolium,, 1 Penstemon
occidentalis,
Graminoids were common along
as,
s pp. ,
Taraxacum
Fragaria
Potentilla
spp.,
s p p .,
Achillea
spp. ,
Rudbeckia
and Verbascum thapsus
were
usually present.
Clearcut
Although
method
clearcutting
is
a
common
on the Payette National Forest,
the
timber
harvest
Council
study
area
had few. ■The"timber from these sites was harvested in
1977
and 1978.
amounts
of
Slash was windrowed and burned with
success
and
the
sites
were
scarified
varing
and
replanted, mostly with Douglas fir and pondersoa pine.
Shrub specie's presently dominate clearcut components.
Current,
huckleberry,
ceanothus
(Ceanothus velutinus),
spiraea.
Some
well
Achillea millefolium.
elderberry,
represented
twin-berry,
rose,
willow,
forbs are
shiny-leaf
and
white
Cirsiom
spp.,
Arnica cordifolia, Balsamorhiza spp.,
85
and
Polygonum spp.
Graminoids make up a. large portion
of
the ground cover.
Selection Cut/Shrubfield
Selection
cut/shrubfield components were logged areas
with < 30% canopy closure. These components are dominated by
dense
stands
sappling
of shrubs interspersed with small
(0-4 "dbh) or pole sized (> 4-12."dbh) timber .
fir is the most common, tree species,
Douglas
these
fir
are also present.
sites
little
clumps
or
classified
no
scarification
or
Grand
but ponderosa pine and
Post-logging
was minimal with some
of
broadcast
replanting.
treatment
burning
Most
on
and
areas
as selection cut/shrubfield components were
cut
between 1966 and 1972.
Dominant
shrubs on these sites include
huckleberry,- service berry,
willow,
buffaloberry,
current, twin-berry, ninebark,
white, spiraea,, and common snowberry. Graminoids are
common and a wide varity of for b s ,
including Fragaria spp.,
Arnica cordifolia, Castilleja spp., Epilobium augustifolium,
Penstemon spp., Potentilla spp., Rudbeckia occidentalis, and
Thalictrum s p p .
Selection Cut/Open Timber
‘ Selection
selection
between
of trees.
cut/open timber.components were similar
cut/shrubf ields.,-
except
with
canopy
to
coverage
30 and 60% and a wider varity of sizes and ■ species
Post logging treatments were the same and many of
86
these
sites were also harvested- from 1966-1972.
Some sites
classified as selection cut/open timber were harvested
from
1946 to 1962 and during the 19'60's, probably could have been
classified as selection cut/shrubfield components.
Undergrowth
timber
present
in
selection
components were similar to those found in
cut/shrubfields.
maple,
are
species
-common
Graminoids
spp. ,
•twin-berry, current, and huckleberry
in selection cut/open
timber
and ■forbs are well represented
Fragaria
Chimaphila
selection
Ninebark, common snowberry, rose, mountain
service berry,
all
cut/open
spp. ,
Arnica
umbellata, • and
components.
with
cordifolia,,
Smilacina
Aster
Thalictrum spp.
spp. ,
frequently
represented.
Selection Cut/Timber
Selection cut/timber components were logged or thinned
sites with canopy closure > 60%. These sites have occured as
a result of recent thinning operations in pole sized
or
the
basis.
removal
of individual trees on
a
very
stands
selective
In recently thinned stands, slash is usually jackpot
piled
and
trees
were
burned and soil is
removed,
scarified.
little or no
When
post-logging
individual
treatment
occured. This type of very selective logging has occurred on
the
Council study area,
since the 1880 's most often
large
Douglas fir and ponderosa pine were removed. At present when
pole
sized stands are thinned,
slash is bull dosed into
a
87
pile and burned.
All
conifer
species
cut/timbered
sites.
huckleberry,
twin-berry,
were represented
Shrubs
were
on
moderately
selection
dense
with
ninebark, rose, willow, and white
spiraea frequently present. Graminoids and forbs were not as
dense
as
on
open timber and
Smilacina spp.,
Adenocaulon
shrubfield
bicolor,
selection
Arnica
cuts.
cordifolia,
Chimaphila umbellata, Goodyera obiongifolia, Hieracium spp.,
Osmorhiza
depauperata,
Penstemon
spp.,
and
occidentalis were common forbs i,n this component.
Rudbeckia
88
APPENDIX B
I
HABITAT COMPONENTS AND CORRESPONDING
PAYETTE NATIONAL FOREST INVENTORY STRATA NUMBER
89
Table
19.
Habitat component' classifications used in this
study and their closest equivalent Payette
National Forest inventory stratas.
Habitat Component
Timber
Open timber
Open timber/shrubfield
Shrubfield
Meadow
Rock/talus
Sagebrush/grass
Road
Riparian
Aspen
Clearcut
Selection cut/shrubfield
Selection cut/open timber
Selection cut/timber
Inventory Strata Number
23,26,32,35
24,27,31,34
24,27,31,34
2 5 ,2 8 , 3 0
60
40
60
60
?
7
20
21
21,22
22
APPENDIX C
FREQUENCY AND MEDIAN COVERAGE CLASS
OF VEGETATION IN HABITAT COMPONENTS
Table 20.
Frequency (percent of plots with species)/median coverage class (1=01%,
2=>l-5%, 3=>5-25%, 4=>25-50%, 5=>50-75%, 6=>75-95%, or 7=>95-100%)
of selected plant species at bear locations,
by habitat component, on
the Middle Fork of the Weiser River study area, 1982-1983.
Specie*
NGraainoid*
Grass*
Sedge*
T+
67
36/1.2
Abies grsndls
0-4 "dbh
66/3.1
4-12"dbh
60/3.2
12-18"dbh
33/3.0
>l8“dbh
15/3.3
Abies laslocarpa
0-4 "dbh
2/4.0
2/3.0
4-12"dbh
12-18"dbh
3/2.5
>18"dbh
Larlx occidental Is
0-4 "dbh
4 -I2 "dbh
12-18'dbh
>18"dbh
Picea engelmannll
0-4 "dbh
3/3.0
4 -12 "dbh
3/3.0
12-18"dbh
2/3.0
>18"dbh
Plnus contorts
0-4 "dbh
4-12"dbh
2/2.0
12-18"dbh
2/3.0
Plnus ponderosa
0-4 "dbh
15/1.2
4-12 "dbh
17/2.0
12-18”dbh
15/2.3
>18"dbh
24/2.9
Psuedotsuga oenzlesil
0-4 "dbh
53/1.8
4-I2"dbh
41/3.4
12-18"dbh
41/3.1
>18"dbh
21/3.1
Populua tremuloldes
0-4 "dbh
3/1.0
4-12"dbh
3/1.5
>18"dbh
Populua trlchocarpa
0-4 "dbh
.....
4-12"dbh
12-18-dbh
>18”dbh
OT
27
SCS
26
SCOT
43
SCT
I
M
3
OTS
37
S
20
R
8
A
6
RD
3
78/2.4
56/1.3
70/1.8
39/1.3
77/1.6 100/2.0 66/2.0 82/2.9 80/3.5
54/2.0 ...............................
50/2.5
25/1.5
66/1.2 100/3.3
33/1.5 66/2.5
41/2.4
45/2.9
15/3.2
12/2.3
81/1.8
77/2.8
24/2.5
4/2.0
84/2.1
80/2.9
38/2.8
10/3.5
63/1.3
25/2.0
25/2.5
50/1.3 100/2.0
33/3.5 100/2.3
..............
10/1.0
6/3.0
3/4.0
RS
0
C
1
SC
5
100/1.0 100/4.8
100 / 1 .0
......
......
......
20/ 2.0
4/2.0
8/3.5
3/1.0
4/3.0
4/1.0
13/5.0
3/1.0
5/1.5
8/1.0
8/2.0
4/4.0
3/1.0
3/2.0
25/2.0
13/3.0
3/2.0
49/2.1
52/2.4
41/2.8
56/1.8
24/1.5
12/2.0
4/3.0
8/3.0
28/1.2
14/1.9
28/2.3
17/3.0
66/2.5
33/2.0
66/2.0
22/1.5
36/2.1
22/2.8
22/3.1
56/1.8
49/2.1
30/2.5
23/3.2
35/1.1
20/2.1
4/4.0
33/1.3
38/2.5
31/2.9
14/2.8
33/1.0
33/2.0
••••••
••••••
36/1.6
52/2.6
22/2.8
11/3.5
23/1.8
8/2.5
4/2.0
7/1.3
3/3.0
25/1.0
13/2.0
13/4.0
13/4.0
17/2.0
17/3.0
33/2.0
100/3.0
15/1.8
.....
15/1.8
20/1.5
25/1.0
25/1.5
......
17/3.0
33/3.0
66/2.0
1 0 0 /1 .0
100/3.0
10/1.5
13/3.0
10/1.5
10/ 1.0
2 0 / 1 .0
33/1.0 17/1.5
30/1.5 13/1.0 33/3.0
.....
14/1.8
20/1.5 25/2.5 33/3.5
....................... 5/3.013/3.0 ....
3/2.0
3/3.0
......
5/1.0 25/3.0
5/2.0 ......
5/3.0 ......
2 0 / 1 .0
Table 20. cent.
Species
T
Prunue Virginians*
5/1.8
12/1.7
Prunua emarglnata*
Shepherdla canaden.*
5/2.0
Cornua atolonifera*
2/1.0
Aaelanchler alnlfo.* 38/1.5
Rl bee app .*
15/1.2
Vacclniua globulare* 35/2.8
Crataegus douglasli.*......
Saabucus app.*
5/2.0
Sorbua scopullna*
9/1.1
Lonlcera app.*
33/1.6
Acer glabrua
39/2.1
Alnua alnuata
3/1.5
Artealela tridents.
Berberls repens
5/1.3
Ceanothue aanguln.
3/1.5
Ceanothua velutlnus
OT
SCS
15/1.2
15/3.0
4/2.0
8/2.3
43/2.1
8/2.5
50/1.2
50/1.9
74/4.7
4/4.0
16/1.5
12/1.3
77/2.0
27/2.0
20/2.7
19/2.0
63/1.4
26/1.1
26/2.6
15/2.5
4/1.0
8/1.0
19/2.8
30/2.5
4/3.0
4/1.0
15/1.2
8/1.0
......
12/1.3
4/3.0
35/1.9
SCOT
SCT
7/2.3
24/1.3
35/2.3
5/1.5
49/1.4
42/1.2
66/4.1 100/2.0
7/5.0
10/1.2
7/1.0 100/2.0
52/1.5
31/1.9 100/3.0
3/1.0
24/1.0
3/3.0
42/1.8
M
66/2.5
33/2.0
33/2.0
33/3.0
33/2.0
OTS
S
46/2.1
57/2.6
3/1.0
6/2.5
57/1.9
19/1.7
11/2.5
38/3.3
14/1.1
9/1.3
17/1.8
30/2.1
60/1.8
80/2.8
6/1.5
19/1.1
9/2.8
11/2.2
4/1.0
Phyaocarpue oalva.
Purahla trldentata
Roea app.
Rubus parvlflorus
Salix app.
Spiraea pyraaldata
Syaphorlcarpos alb.
Syaphorlcarpos o re.
63/3.3
53/1.1
23/1.0
44/1.8
53/1.4
39/1.3
6/1.2
Lomatlum epp.*
2/1.0
Alllua app.*
Hydrophyllian capita.* 2/1.0
Sallaclna app.*
66/1.1
Clreliaa epp.*
Habenarla hyperborea*.....
Tragopogon partensla*.....
Vlccla vlrglnlana*
2/1.0
Trlfolliaa epp.*
Actea rubra*
5/1.0
Fragarla app.*
Clematis app.*
L U laceae*
Achillea a lllefol.
Aconltum columblanian
Adenocaulon bicolor
Antennarla app.
Apocynua app.
Arenaria app.
Arnica cordlfolla
52/3.1
4/1.0
66/1.5
38/1.9
71/1.5
63/2.6
12/2.3
47/2.2
66/2.9 100/3.0
66/1.2
43/1.6
66/2.1
85/2.2
43/2.0
4/2.0
68/1.1
17/1.1
68/2.0
94/1.8
45/1.4 100/1.0
3/3.0
4/1.0
3/1.0
66/1.5
33/1.0
33/3.0
33/3.0
33/1.0
66/1.5
66/3.0
30/1.3
5/3.0
65/5.4
40/1.3
10/1.5
15/1.3
10/1.0
5/2.0
5/1.0
5/1.0
30/2.0
30/1.3
25/1.1
68/4.3
11/1.2
28/1.2
11/1.2
44/2.4
46/2.3
73/2.7
19/1.8
15/1.3
15/1.8
50/2.2
15/3.0
9/2.0
20/1.5
R
A
17/1.0
84/2.3
88/4.3
50/1.2
75/2.0
25/2.5
13/2.0
RD
RS
SC
... 100/2.0
40/2.5
20/2.0
.... 100/1.0
20/1.0
33/2.0
...
17/1.0
17/1.0 100/1.0
33/2.0
...
...
17/1.0
33/1.0
33/2.0
...
...
17/1.0
66/1.5
33/1.0
...
...
••••••
••••••
eee.ee
17/3.0
33/1.5
17/3.0
33/2.0
...
13/1.0
50/1.5
66/2.5
66/2.8
13/2.0
25/2.5
63/1.8
50/4.0
C
.....
eeeee*
20/3*0
... 100/3.0
20/2.0
13/1.0
.....
100/1.0
75/1.3 100/1.3 66/1.5
50/1.5 66/1.2 33/2.0
50/3.0 84/3.3 100/2.0
38/3.0 84/1.8 66/1.5
50/1.2 84/1.3 33/1.0
100/ 1.0
80/2.5
20 / 2.0
100 / 1 .0
100/4.0
100/2.0
100/3.0
......
40/1.5
20/2.0
......
................................................
14/1.5
45/1.4 35/1.3
8/1.0 16/2.0
4/1.0
4/1.0
4/1.0
8/1.0 12/2.0
4/1.0
4/1.0
10/1.0
40/1.2
7/1.0
6/1.5
44/1.3
9/1.0
.....
13/1.0 ......
33/1.0 .......................
10/1.0 50/1.5 33/1.0 100/1.0 ..... 100/1.0 ......
....
13/1.0 50/1.0 33/1.0 ..............
20/2.0
3/2.0
3/1.0
19/1.0
9/1.0
3/3.0
3/1.0
30/1 •3
.•••••
......
........................................
25/1.5 17/1.0 33/1.0 ......
......
13/1.0 ......
66/1.0 ..............
47/1.1
3/1.0
21/1.1
7/1.0
3/1.0
12/1.0
.....
15/1.3
13/1.0 ........................................
13/2.0 50/1.0 100/1.3
.......................
5/1.0
35/1.0
13/1.0
.....
.....
33/1.0
50/1.0 100/1.0
11/1.1
60/1.5
4/1.0
30/1.3
26/1.2
8/1.0
4/1.0
......
13/1.0
........................................
3/1.0
18/1.0
57/1.2
8/1.5
12/1.0
49/1.6
32/1.1
2/1.0
11/1.1
2/1.0
39/1.1
8/1.0
16/1.0
8/1.0
8/1.0
12/1.0
74/1.2
33/2.0
12/1.0
10/1.2
77/1.3 100/3.0
33/1.0
33/2.0
28/1.1
11/1.2
33/1.0
3/2.0
6/1.0
3/2.0
3/1.0
28/2.0
13/1.0
38/1.0
17/1.0 100/1.3
40/1.0
......
20/2.0
.......................
.......................
to
Table 20. cent
Species
Artemisia ludovlc.
Aster spp•
Ralsamorhlra spp.
Calochortus spp.
CaetllleJa spp.
Chlmaphlla umbel.
Colllnsla spp.
Crepls spp.
Delphinium spp.
Dleporuo spp.
Eplloblum august.
Erlgeron spp.
Erlogonuo spp.
C a l i m tr l f l o r m
Geranium spp.
Coodyera oblong.
Grlndella spp.
Hellanthella spp.
H l e r a c l m spp.
Lactuca aerrlola
Luplnus spp.
Oamorhlza depauper.
Pensteoon spp.
P o l e o o n l m spp.
P o l y g o n m spp.
Potentllla spp.
Pyrola spp.
Rudbeckla Occident.
S e d m spp.
T a r a x a c m spp.
T h a l l c t r m spp.
T r l l l l m s pp.
Urtlca spp.
Veratrum v irIde
Verbaseum thapsus
Viola spp.
Vlcla spp.
Vertical Diversity
O-Io
I -2m
2-8m
> 8m
T
8/1.0
2/1.0
......
36/1.1
OT
SCS
SCOT
4/1.0
26/1.0
4/1.0
47/1.0
8/1.5
17/1.0
8/1.0
35/1.0
3/1.0
3/1.0
54/1.1
12/1.0
4/1.0
3/1.0
4/1.0
30/1.7
9/1.0
4/1.0
12/1.0
4/1.0
20/1.1
12/1.0
31/1.2
10/1.0
12/1.0
12/1.1
......
34/1.4
4/2.0
8/1.0
24/1.0
3/1.0
41/1.0
4/1.0
3/1.0
5/1.0
2/1.0
2/1.0
36/1.1
23/1.0
2/1.0
5/1.0
5/1.0
4.1
3.0
4.8
4.6
M
......
34/1.0
...... 100/2.3
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
100/2.0
......
......
......
......
66/1.5
......
......
......
......
......
......
OTS
9/1.0
22/1.1
25/1.1
S
R
A
RD
5/1.0
45/1.1
13/1.0
17/1.0
34/1.0
33/1.0
25/1.0
17/1.0
6/1.5
3/1.0
5/1.0
3/1.0
14/1.3
5/1.0
RS
C
SG
20/1.0
100/2.0
20/2.0
20/2.0
3/1.0
19/1.1
6/1.0
17/1.0
10/1.0
5/1.0
50/1.2
33/1.0
20/1.0
40/1.5
66/1.0
100/1.0
ZU/l.U
2/2.0
25/1.0
8/1.0
2/1.0
5/1.0
SCT
3/1.0
4/1.0
49/1.2
4/1.0
15/1.0
8/1.0
4/1.0
12/1.0
20/1.1
19/1.1
12/1.0
30/1.3
4/1.0
4/1.0
16/1.0
35/1.0
4/1.0
4/1.0
......
......
......
......
......
......
9/1.0
6/1.0
5/1.0
15/1.3
7/1.3
38/1.1
42/1.0
13/1.0
38/1.2
17/1.1
24/1.1
3/1.0
3/1.0
10/1.0
3/1.0
19/1.0
4/1.0
58/1.1
24/1.1
3/1.0
42/1.3 100/1.0
5/1.0
.....
3/1.0
6/2.5
17/1.0
3/1.0
11/1.2
3/3.0
11/1.0
19/1.1
30/1.2
15/1.0
15/1.0
23/1.0
12/1.3
12/1.0
4/1.0
5/1.0
10/1.0
4/1.0
10/1.0
15/1.0
15/1.0
.......
22/1.2
19/1.1
6/1.0
13/2.0
5.3
3.2
3.2
3.1
5.8
3.9
3.4
2.7
6.2
5.2
3.5
3.0
5.5
4.5
4.5
2.0
25/1.1
5/1.0
15/1.3
5/1.0
10/1.0
5/1.0
5/1.0
......
20/1.0
38/1.3
17/1.0
33/1.0
33/2.0
17/1.0 100/1.3
40/1.5
100/1.0
100/1.0
20/1.0
40/1.0
20/1.0
25/1.0
50/1.0
17/1.0
50/1.0
25/1.0
33/1.0 100/1.0
50/2.0 33/1.0
13/1.0
33/1.0
100/2.0
33/1.0
13/1.0
5.5
3.2
3.5
3.2
5.0
3.0
2.0
5.0
6.0
2.8
3.0
2.5
13/1.0
25/1.5
33/1.5
.... *
.....
5.8
4.5
4.5
3.5
5.5
4.5
4.0
3.0
66/1.0
33/1.0
33/1.0
4.8
3.0
3.0
2.8
..
6.0
4.0
3.0
1.0
* Jteir food*
+ Tlmber(T), Open timber(OT), Open tlmber/shrubfIeld(OTS), Rlparlan(R), Aspen(A), ShrubfIeld(S), Meadow(M), Rock/talus(RS),
Sayebruah/grass(SG), Roads(R), Clearcut(C), Selection cut/shrubfIeld(SCS), Selection cut/open timber(SCOT), and Selection
cut/timber (SCT)
...
5.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
Table 21.
Frequency (percent of plots with species)/median coverage class (1=01%, 2->l-5%, 3=>5-25%, 4=>25-50%, 5=>50-75%, 6=>75-95%, or 7=>95-100%)
of selected plant species at random locations, by habitat component
on the Middle Fork of the Weiser River study area, 1982-1983.1
N Cramlnolds
Grass*
Sedge*
T+
68
OT
52
SCS
28
SCOT
99
SCT
19
M
33
OTS
36
50/1.1
42/1.3
78/1.5
70/1.7
83/2.0
43/1.2
75/1.5
51/1.4
85/1.2
37/1.2
73/2.7
19/1.5
78/2.9
48/1.6
33/1.4
31/1.9
6/2.8
11/2.5
61/1.3
43/2.3
8/1.5
4/3.0
69/2.1
66/2.8
23/2.3
9/3.0
90/3.1
85/4.1
32/3.0
11/3.0
14/1.4
12/2.2
12/2.8
4/3.0
8/1.0
11/3.0
3/1.5
6/2.0
2/2.0
3/1.5
2/1.0
6/3.0
6/3.0
Abies grandls
0~4"dbh
58/2.9
4 -12 “dbh
55/3.3
12-18 “dbh
30/2.9
>18"dbh
15/3.1
Abies laslocarpa
0-4 “dbh
11/3.0
4-12"dbh
11/4.6
I2-18"dbh
2/5.0
>18“ dbh
Larlx occidental Is
0-4 "dbh
.....
4-12"dbh
12-18 "dbh
2/3.0
>18"dbh
Plcea engelmannll
0-4 "dbh
12/1.8
4-12"dbh
9/2.2
12-18 “dbh
2/2.0
>18"dbh
Plnus contorts
0-4 “dbh
2/2.0
4-12"dbh
8/3.3
12-18 "dbh
2/3.0
>18"dbh
Plnus ponderosa
0-4 "dbh
9/1.1
4-12 “ dbh
31/2.8
12-18"dbh
21/2.4
>18"dbh
23/2.9
Psuedotsuga menzlesll
0-4 "dbh
36/1.9
4-12"dbh
«5/3.2
12-18"dbh
27/2.6
>18"dbh
15/3.0
Populus tremuloldes
0-4 "dbh
8/1.1
4-12 dbh
9/1.8
12-18"dbh
>18"dbh
Populus trlchocarpa
0-4 “dbh
.....
4-12“dbh
......
12-18 "dbh
.....
>18 dbh
4/1.0
7/1.5
7/1.0
7/1.5
17/2.0
23/3.2
3/3.0
2/2.0
S
22
R
2
96/3.1 100/1.5
5/3.0 50/1.0
5/1.0
50/1.0
A
4
RD
17
RS
8
C
13
SC
87
50/3.5
50/1.5
95/1.2
48/1.2
75/1.3
13/2.0
54/1.1
85/1.8
98/4.0
6/1.3
25/1.0
50/1.5
42/1.4
53/2.0
6/2.0
9/1.0
9/1.3
6/1.5
6/1.0
kO
.... .
2/1.0
25/1.4
8/2.5
5/1.2
3/2.0
4/2.8
3/3.0
4/1.0
3/1.0
3/2.5
2/3.0
2/4.0
11/1.0
16/2.0
••••••
6/1.0
••••••
6/1.0
......
3/1.0
24/1.0
16/3.0
3/4.0
47/1.4
15/2.5
11/2.9
4/2.0
46/1.2
35/2.2
18/2.3
18/2.4
62/1.4
54/2.3
33/2.7
20/2.5
54/1.3
25/2.6
4/2.0
8/1.5
44/1.3
34/2.8
19/2.5
5/3.0
22/1.7
8/2.2
11/1.8
4/1.0
13/1.4
8/2.3
6/1.0
6/2.0
11/1.5
6/2.0
.....
16/1.0
.....
3/4.0
45/1.5
49/1.9
37/2.1
27/2.9
2/2.0
39/1.1
8/2.0
.....
6/2.0
39/1.7
28/3.1
14/2.3
14/3.0
10/1.0
5/1.0
10/1.5
5/1.0
50/2.0I 50/1.0
......
.....
25/1.0
......
48/1.1
6/2.0
6/2.0
16/3.0
22/1.4
9/2.2
4/3.0
4/1.0
16/1.3
32/3.3
27/3.0
6/3.0
50/1.5
48/3.0
12/2.5
12/3.0
5/2.0
10 / 1 .0
.....
7/2.0
7/2.5
4/1.0
24/1.2
18/1.8
6/2.0
4/1.0
50/1.0
......
75/2.0
100/3.0
6/1.0
13/2.0
13/1.0
13/1.0
85/1.3
7/3.0
9/1.4
6/2.0
4/2.0
3/2.0
47/1.0
8/1.0
5/1.0
3/1.0
3/1.0
16/1.5
2/1.0
................................................
16/1.0 ......
.....
10/1.5 50/2.0 ........................................
Table 21. cent
Species
T
Shrubs
Prunus v IrgIniana*
12/1.3
Prunus emarglnata*
17/1.6
Shepherdla canaden.* 6/1.5
Cornua stolonifera*
2/1.0
Anelanchier alnlfo.* 37/1.2
Rlbes spp.*
17/1.1
Vacclnlun globulare* 36/3.0
Crataegus douglasll* 2/1.0
Sambucus spp.*
6/1.0
Sorbus scopullna*
9/1.3
Lonlcera spp.*
42/1.2
Acer glabrum
36/1.7
Alnus slnuata
6/1.5
Artemisia trldentata 2/1.0
Berberls repens
14/1.2
Ceanothus sanguineus 2/1.0
Ceanothus velutinus
5/1.0
Holodlscus discolor
2/1.0
Philadelphus lewlsil
2/2.0
Physocarpus oalva.
53/3.3
Purshla trldentata
.....
Rosa spp.
59/1.2
Rubus parvlflorus
17/1.3
Sallx spp.
33/1.4
Spiraea betulifolla 64/1.5
Symphorlcarpos alb.
50/1.6
Syophorlcarpos o re.
6/1.2
Forbs
Lomatium spp.*
3/1.0
Allium spp.*
.....
Hydrophyllum capita.*.....
Srellacina spp.*
50/1.1
Habenarla hyperborea*.....
Tragopogon partensls*.....
Viccia vlrglnlana*
3/1.0
Trlfollun spp.*
Actea rubra*
6/1.0
Sldalcea spp.*
21/1.1
Clematis spp.*
Liliaceae*
17/1.1
Achillea m i l lefol.
5/1.3
Aconlturn columbianum
Adenocaulon blcolor 17/1.0
Antennarla spp.
Apocynum spp.
3/1.0
Arenarla spp.
14/1.1
Arnica cordlfolia
53/1.4
OT
16/1.3
35/1.2
2/1.0
6/1.3
64/1.1
33/1.2
14/3.0
8/2.5
14/1.0
6/1.3
12/1.5
24/1.9
4/1.5
12/1.3
16/1.2
SCS
4/1.0
18/3.0
29/2.0
SCOT
43/1.2
43/1.5
54/3.0
8/2.5
11/1.0
29/1.5
50/1.7
25/2.4
18/4.0
9/1.3
26/1.8
26/1.9
6/1.3
59/1.1
35/1.2
35/3.6
7/1.1
13/1.3
13/1.2
38/1.4
38/1.7
10/2.3
11/1.3
11/2.3
36/2.3
23/1.1
8/1.4
38/1.5
36/4.0
2/1.0
47/2.9
10/1.3
2/2.0
6/1.3
52/3.3
6/2.0
39/1.1
6/1.3
49/1.4
58/1.5
72/1.9
16/1.5
54/1.1
22/1.8
79/2.8
79/2.5
40/3.3
18/2.7
69/1.1
20/1.1
60/1.8
76/1.9
56/1.7
11/2.3
20/1.1
8/1.0
5/1.0
3/1.0
6/1.0
2/1.0
4/1.0
4/1.0
47/1.1
20/1.1
50/1.1
2/2.0
4/1.0
6/1.0
10/1.1
22/2.0
6/3.0
27/1.3
16/1.0
27/1.3
64/3.3
M
4/2.0
7/2.5
7/1.5
13/1.0
......
6/1.0
11/1.0
53/1.3
4/2.0
7/2.5
10/1.3
7/3.0
6/2.0
6/1.0
22/1.5
22/2.8
43/3.2
37/1.4
4/2.0
13/1.8
64/1.4
22/1.0
43/1.8
53/2.0
16/1.8
6/1.0
22/1.1
12/1.0
32/1.0
18/1.1
27/1.0
16/1.0
4/1.0
11/1.0
4/1.0
2/1.0
6/1.0
OTS
S
23/1.1
42/2.6
46/2.2
55/3.0
3/1.0
25/1.3
12/1.5
17/2.5
3/3.0
14/1.1
20/2.3
23/1.3
34/2.8
6/4.5
20/2.3
14/1.3
6/2.0
25/1.7
R
A
25/1.0
5/3.0 50/5.0
23/1.7
50/2.0 100/1.5
13/1.0 100/2.5
50/2.0
32/4.8 50/2.0
28/1.5
5/3.0
5/3.0
23/1.8
10/1.5
14/2.8
50/3.0
50/2.0
25/3.0
50/1.0
50/1.0
100/1.2
.....
9/1.8
31/1.5
14/1.8 50/2.0
32/4.3 50/3.0 25/4.0
32/2.0
28/2.0 100/1.5 100/1.2
5/1.0 50/2.0 25/1.0
28/3.0 50/1.0 75/2.8
14/3.0
100/1.5
60/2.7
50/2.0 100/1.5
19/5.0
70/2.2
49/2.1
28/2.7
14/2.7
41/1.8
9/1.0
7/1.5
7/1.0
10/ 1.8
10/1.8
14/1.0
.....
RD
6/1.0
36/1.5
30/1.1
12/1.0
6/1.0
42/1.2
30/1.3
3/1.0
3/1.0
41/1.0
5/2.0
6/1.5
6/2.5
17/1.1
5/2.0
C
13/2.0
16/1.5
24/3.0
13/1.0
13/1.0
24/1.8
62/2.8
9/1.0
3/1.0
47/1.3
16/1.5
39/2.3
8/1.0
12/1.2
50/1.0
.....
50/1.0
6/1.0
53/1.1
13/1.0
15/1.0
8/1.0
47/1.3
4/1.0
4/1.0
33/1.1
15/1.0
15/1.0
15/1.0
8/1.0
36/1.2
2/1.0
2/1.0
34/1.2
3/1.0
17/1.1
19/1.0
4/1.0
11/1.1
3/1.0
15/1.3
7/1.1
44/1.3
16/1.0
4/2.0
61/1.2
10/1.3
24/5.0
13/2.0
42/1.4
36/1.5
42/1.8
48/1.3
42/1.4
25/1.5
47/1.0
31/1.2
93/2.2
85/2.1
31/2.2
6/1.0 100/1.5
.....
75/1.0
......
......
......
6/1.0
12/1.0
6/1.0
12/1.0
31/1.2
47/1.0
8/1.0
13/1.0
25/1.1
6/2.0
65/1.1
55/1.0
75/1.0
25/1.0
77/1 0
18/1.0
18/1.0
30/1.0
24/1.0
50/1.5
47/1.0
50/2.0
13/1.2
16/1.0
69/1.4
50/1.0
7/1.0
14/1.3
9/1.0
6/1.0
12/1.5
19/1.j
5/1.0
50/1.0
2/1.0
2 / 1.0
51/2.0
7/1.3
2 / 1.0
4/1.3
5/1.5
12/2.5
64/1.6
13/1.0
2/ 2.0
3/1.5
7/1.0
30/1.6
5/1.8
71/1.5
44/1.2
3/1 .0
3/1.0
9/1.1
48/1.2
6/1.1
2/1.0
25/1.0
12/1.0
27/1.0
14/1.4
19/1.5
VO
Ul
30/1.9
7/1.5
29/1.5
SC
9/1.2
6/1.0
12/1.5
24/1.0
26/1.2
18/2.0
.....
10/1.5
5/1.0
RS
25/1.0
6/1.5
48/4.0
12/1.5
23/1.2
3/1.0
28/2.1
45/2.5
37/1.4
42/2.3
10/ 2.0
4/1.0
22/1.1
8/1.0
SCT
8 / 3T 0
13/1.0
50/1.2
31/1.5
47/1.0
8/1.0
8/1.0
8/1.0
6/1.0
8/1.0
47/2.5
4/1.0
3/1.0
53/1.0
9/1.2
10/1.2
2/1.0
Table 21. cent
Species
Artemisia ludovlc.
Aster epp.
Balsamorhlza spp.
CastllleJa spp.
Chimaphlla umbel.
Colllnsla spp.
Delphinium spp.
Dlsporuo spp.
Eplloblum august.
Eriogonua spp.
Galium Crlfloriam
Geranium spp.
Cilia spp.
T
Vertical Diversity
O-Io
I-2m
-8m
> 8m
2
SCS
2
25/1.0
3/1.0
/1.0
45/1.1
29/1.3
5/1.0
39/1.0
/1.0
12/1.3
8
2/1.0
2/1.0
9/1.0
24/1.0
14/1.0
23/1.0
Helianthella spp.
Hleraclian spp.
Lactuca serrlola
Lupinue spp.
Osmorhlza depauper.
Pensteoon spp.
Peonla brownll
Polemonlurn spp.
Polygonian spp.
Po tentilla spp.
Pyrola spp.
Rudbeckla Occident.
Sedum spp.
Taraxacum spp.
ThaiIcCrum spp.
Trillium spp.
Urtlca spp.
Veratrian vlrlde
Verbascum thapsus
Viola spp.
OT
6/1.0
5/1.0
46/1.0
/1.0
5/1.0
/1.2
25/1.2
29/1.3
15/1.0
4/1.0
12/1.3
6/1.3
24/1.3
31/1.1
14/1.0
/1.1
12
2/2.0
2/1.0
24/1.0
25/1.0
33/1.1
4/1.0
25/1.0
15/1.0
SCOT
3/1.0
30/1.1
/1.1
4.7
2.8
5.6
2.9
3.3
2.6
26/1.3
6
12/1.0 6/1.0
54/1.1
35/1.1
2/1.0 11/1.0
11/1.0
16/1.1
3/1.0
26/1.0
15/1.0
3/1.0
/1.0
10
5/1.0
16/1.0
/1.0
6
M
OTS
4/1.0
46/1.3
52/1.8
14/1.3
31/1.3
42/1.3
7/1.5
14/1.3
3/1.0
S
23/1.1
64/1.4
R
A
......
......
25/1.0
5/1.0
RD
12/1.0
RS
6/1.0
8/1.0
6/1.0
4/1.0
18/1.0
3/1.0
13/1.0
/1.0
/1.2
27/1.0
36/1.0
/1.1
9/1.2
9/1.1
/1.1
5/1.0
/1.1
3/1.5
/1.0
38/1.4
/1.1
/1.0
4/1.3
19/1.1
/1.0
3/1.0
2
11
6.1
4.1
3.0
2.6
5.6
2.9
3.4
3.6
C
SG
13/1.0
24/1.0
31/1.5
38/1.3
13/2.0
25/1.1
91/2.0
/1.0
10
31/1.2
10/2.8
2/1.0
7/1.5
6/1.5
5/2.0
43/1.7
19/1.3
16/1.3
17/1.0
14/1.1
3/1.0
17/1.0
23/1.0
14/1.3
/1.0
5/1.0
4/1.0
7/1.0
6/2.5
3/1.0
19 1.0
50/1.0
50/1.0
24/1.0
50/1.0
/1.0
24/1.0
12
10
31/1.2
88/1.4
47/1.0
13/1.0
49/1.2
/1.0
3/1.0
4/1.0
2
37/1.0
13/1.0
4/1.0
4/1.0
11 24/1.0 50/1.0
18/1.0 1
1/1.0 11
11 14/1.1 22/1.3
8/1.0 4/1.3
8/1.0 35/1.0 43/1.1 21
12/1.0 4/1.0 4/1.0
22
24/1.0 18/1.0 40/1.1
14/1.1
8/1.0 6
56/1.1 37/1.2
54/1.0
14/1.0
4/1.2
8/1.0 8
2/1.0 8/1.5 2
8/1.0 20/1.1 18/1.1
14/1.0
15/1.0
15/1.1
10/1.0 8/1.0 8
2/1.0 2/1.0
4.9
5.0
SCT
43/1.0
6
/1.0
27/1.0
27/1.0
6/2.0
11/1.0
16/1.0
27/1.1
6/1.0
12/1.0
22/1.0
6/1.0
16/1.0
6/1.0
4.6
3.3
5.2
5.8
49/1.7
37/1.2
13/1.5
7/1.5
13/1.5
40/1.1
19/1.3
13/1.8
4/1.0
7/2.5
16/1.1
14/1.1
12/1.0
34/1.0
17/1.0
9/1.8
17/1.5
37/1.1
3/1.0
3/1.0
/1.0
12
20/1.8
6/1.0
3/1.0
3/2.0
6/1.0
28/1.3
14/1.3
32/1.0
50/1.0
50/1.0
25/1.0
19/1.2
28/1.1
14/1.0
5/1.0
14/1.3
19/1.2
28/1.1
25/1.0
50/2.0
50/1.0
3/1.0
5.4
1.4
1.5
1.4
5.5
3.3
3.7
3.8
6/1.0
6/1.0
12/1.0
10/1.0
5.9
4.3
3.7
1.0
3.0
2.5
2.5
3.0
25/1.0
75/2.0
25/1.0
75/2.5
25/1.0
25/1.0
5.8
3.5
2.8
1.5
24/1.0
65/1.0
/1.0
/1.0
12
12
48/1.0
42/1.1
/1.0
48/1.0
/1.0
12
12
6/1.0
6/1.0
7/1.3
3/1.0
12/1.1
18/1.4
88/1.1 100/1.0
25/1.5 100/3.0
35/1.0
4/1.0
13/1.0
13/1.0
56/1.5
5/1.0
16/1.0
50/1.0
16/1.0
47/1.3
16/1.0
16/1.5
31/1.5
/1.0
16/1.0
/1.0
12
8
42/1.0
3.3
1.9
2.3
2.5
8
/2.0
16/1.0
13/1.0
2.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
27/1.1
/1.0
2
2
/2.0
3/1.0
4/1.3
5.8
3.0
5.2
1.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
+ Timber(T), Open Clmber(OT), Open timber/shrubfIeld(OTS), Kiparian(R), Aspen(A), Shrubfield(S),Meadow(M), Rock/talus(RS),
SagebushZgrass(SG), Roads(R), Clearcut(C), Selection cut/shrubfield(SCS), Selection cut/open timber(SCOT), Selection cut
/timber(SCT)
-
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES
762 10020809 7