Rodent community structure and microhabitat associations at the Bernard Field Station, Claremont, California

Similar documents
Compliance Biology, Mammal Survey Summary Letter, Vista Canyon Ranch, Los Angeles County (October 2007)

February 18, Dear Mr. McGill, for SBKR suitable for. survey and. male SBKR Ranch Road.

Determining the Effects of Temporal Period and Bait Types for Trapping Small Mammals. at Cooper Farm in Muncie, Indiana. An Honors Thesis (BIO 498)

Small Mammal Trapping Along an Elevational Gradient in Bear Canyon

Managing Burrowing Mammals

Cattle Grazing and Small Mammals on the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge, Nevada1

las vegas wash coordination committee

Squirrels and Rabbits

Vertebrate Pest Management for Grapes

Survey of Small Mammals in a Wet Meadow Habitat of the Upper Mississippi River Floodplain

Trap Biases in Surveying the Small Mammals of UNDERC. Beth Kilcline August 5, 2003 UNDERC Final Report

Burrowing Rodent Management

Final Report August 2005

Heartwood Forest Small Mammal Survey Report October 2012

Repeat live-trapping on sampling grids and determining abundance of various

A COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT METHODS OF CAPTURING AND ESTIMATING NUMBERS OF MICE

Lab Activity: Evolution by Natural Selection

Ecological Pyramids Adapted from The Nevada Outdoor School, The Playa Ecological Pyramids Lesson Plan

Pesticide Applicator Training

Population Ecology Yellowstone Elk by C. John Graves

Describe what is happening in figures 1-3. Is the population of mice different in figure 3 than in figure 1? Explain why.

Small Mammal Surveying Protocol

Pest animal control. Guiding principles for community groups and landowners

Distribution, Demographics, and Impacts of the Island Applesnail (Pomacea maculata) in South Carolina: Past, Present and Future Research Efforts

Describe what is happening in figures 1-3. Is the population of mice different in figure 3 than in figure 1? Explain why.

REBOUND. on the. It was the winter of 2000/2001, and it seemed like the snow

Figure 1: Map showing the relative location of the study sub-watersheds in Plymouth (south) and Maple Grove (north), MN.

Best Management Practices for Trapping Weasels in the United States

Total Morphological Comparison Between Anolis oculatus and Anolis cristatellus

Who is Out at Night in the Kuse Nature Preserve, a Nearby Woods or Maybe in Your Backyard?

Describe what is happening in figures 1-3. Is the population of mice different in figure 3 than in figure 1? Explain why.

Annual Report Ecology and management of feral hogs on Fort Benning, Georgia.

Ecology Quiz Which example shows a relationship between a living thing and a nonliving thing?

Keywords: marine habitat recovery, derelict fishing gear

Pacific Water Shrew Salvage on SFPR Advanced Works July to September 2010

5B. Management of invasive species in the Cosumnes and Mokelumne River Basins

BURROWING RODENTS GROUND SQUIRRELS SANTA CLARA COUNTY AGRICULTURAL OFFICE

Catlow Valley Redband Trout

8/29/20098 SAHRA - Watershed Visualization

Causes of Tiger (Panthera tigris) Population Decline, and Potential Consequences if the Decline Continues

Augon, C. F., E. W. Campbell, III, and J. M. Morton. Under review. Efficiency of electrical

Competition. Competition. Competition. Competition. Competition. Competition. Competition. Long history in ecology

LION MOUNTAIN RANCH JEFF DAVIS COUNTY. CHARLES M. DAVIDSON Partner/ Agent REPUBLICRANCHES.

Ground Invasion by Voles. Nebraska Extension

STUDY GUIDE A Guide to California Ground Squirrels Identification, Biology and Control Methods

Managing Vertebrate Pests

2010 Wildlife Management Unit 501 moose and deer

Fish monitoring requirements of new FERC licenses: are they adequate?

Water vole presentations notes

Evolution by Natural Selection 1

Chapter 635 Division 44 Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission January 20, 2017 Salem, Oregon

CONTROL OF GROUND SQUIRRELS IN CALIFORNIA USING ANTICOAGULANT TREATED BAITS

Evaluating the Influence of Development on Mule Deer Migrations

Random Sampling Protocol Gretchen E. Padgett-Flohr Rana Resources Fremont CA

VERTEBRATE PESTS OF ALFALFA. Terrell p, Salmon

Biota of the Lehigh Gap Wildlife Refuge -- Mammals

Chapter- 9. Multiple Choice Questions

Com parison of Two M ethods for M onitoring Population Indices of Sm all Mammals on Seasonal Islands. Richard M. POCHÉ & MD.

The impact of the grey squirrel as an invasive species on red squirrel populations. Deborah Brady

Life history Food Distribution Management... 98

Cal Poly Lands located in San Luis Obispo County experience a collection of idyllic microclimates

Project No: R Visual Lures for Possums. Malcolm Thomas and Fraser Maddigan. Pest Control Research Ltd PO Box 7223 Christchurch New Zealand

August 26, Dear Ms. Tharratt:

The Small Mammals of Two Dune Communities in Southeastern Virginia

Bonita Creek Fish Monitoring November 4 6, 2015

Howell Woods Orientation and Safety Open Book Test

Hydroacoustic surveys of Otsego Lake s pelagic fish community,

Control of Pocket Gophers and Ground Squirrels

Mammalogy Lecture 19 - Thermoregulation

P.O. Box 24 Joshua Tree, California July 16, 2015

Vertebrate Pest Management in Pistachio Orchards. Julie Finzel Livestock and Natural Resources Farm Advisor Kern, Tulare, and Kings Counties

Aston s Eyot Mammal, Reptile & Amphibian list (includes the Kidneys and Long Meadow)

Module 2 Narration What is a watershed?

Invasive fauna impact and eradication: an Australian perspective Dr Pip Masters Envisage Environmental Services

SH16 Causeway Pest Control Report. June - December 2014

ECOLOGICAL SURVEY. Wood Mouse at Carr House Meadows (Photo Julie Riley) October 2013

Relative Abundance of the Prairie Long-tailed Weasel (Mustela frenata longicauda) in Southwestern Alberta

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Feasibility Study on the Reintroduction of Gray Wolves to the Olympic Peninsula

Animal pest control for freshwater wetlands

Frequently Asked Questions About Revised Critical Habitat and Economic Analysis for the Endangered Arroyo Toad

Warner Lakes Redband Trout

Minnesota Deer Population Goals. East Central Uplands Goal Block

Systematics of the Round-eared Sengi (Macroscelides proboscideus) in Namibia. Trip Report 12 August 2007

Green Crab Control: A removal effort in a shallow central California estuary. Larson, A.A., de Rivera, C.E., Ruiz, G.M., Grosholz, E.D., Sytsma, M.D.

Wildlife in the Urban Interface. Jeff Schalau Agent, Agriculture & Natural Resources University of Arizona Cooperative Extension, Yavapai County

SAN JUAN RIVER BASIN RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM

RE: Support for Option 2: Complete statewide ban on commercial trapping of bobcats to implement The Bobcat Protection Act AB 1213.

Unit PM 2.1 Vertebrate Pest Management Specimen Paper

School Ground Invasion by Voles

Supplementary Material for the Paper: A Bayesian Network Model for Interesting Itemsets

Project Updates January 2015

USGS Badger Surveys- Connectivity Assessment San Diego County. Presented to SDMMP September 26, 2012 C. Brehme, C. Rochester, S. Hathaway, R.

American Society of Mammalogists

ORDINANCE NO. WHEREAS, the feeding of wildlife can lead to negative impacts on animals, people and the environment; and

FERALS IN THE CLASSROOM. Designed by the Institute for Applied Ecology University of Canberra Invasive Animals CRC

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Fisheries Division, Lake Superior Area

At Home on the Elbow River. -Ours to share-

STUDY GUIDE. Physical Features. The Land. Chapter 23, Section 1. Landforms. Rivers. Natural Resources. Terms to Know DRAWING FROM EXPERIENCE

Crossing Corridors. Objective. Materials. Background Information

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Transcription:

Rodent community structure and microhabitat associations at the Bernard Field Station, Claremont, California Lindsay Bledsoe, Lyn Davis, Allyson Degrassi, Jennifer Edwards, Patricia Gonzalez, Sean Hauser, Leslie Herington, Brian Kronenfeld, Ji Lee, Christina Mirzaian, Tiffany Oberg, Erick Ortiz, Eric Peralta, Thomas Sterner, Tracie Treybig and Dr. Paul Stapp Final Report prepared for BIOL478 Mammalogy California State University, Fullerton March 2010

INTRODUCTION Natural habitats in the valley and foothill areas of coastal southern California have been diminished over the past century as a result of intensive human development and sprawl. The loss, conversion and fragmentation of native vegetation have altered animal communities throughout the region as well, leaving populations isolated from one another and the remaining open space in the surrounding mountains and parks. The Bernard Field Station (BFS), located in Claremont, California, is a 38-ha tract of scrub, woodland and grassland habitat embedded in a matrix of residential and commercial development. Expansion of Interstate 210 in 2002 approximately 0.5 km north of the BFS further isolated native plant and animal communities from the nearby San Gabriel Mountains. Rodent populations at the BFS haved been studied occasionally by students taking courses at the Claremont Colleges, e.g., Dr. Nina Karnovsky's studies of woodrats (http://pages.pomona.edu/~njk04747/woodrat/), but information on population densities and microhabitat associations of other rodents is not widely available. As part of our Mammalogy course at Cal-State Fullerton, we live-trapped rodents over three nights in March 2010 to determine what rodent species were abundant in representative habitats at the BFS and to determine if species tended to be associated with particular microhabitat features. METHODS Study Area The Bernard Field Station (BFS) is located immediately north of the Claremont Colleges, on an alluvial fan at an elevation of approximately 400 m. Vegetation is a mixture of coastal sage scrub, Riversidian alluvial fan scrub, live oak woodland, and non-native grassland. The climate is Mediterranean, with cool wet winters and hot dry summers. The BFS and adjacent Rancho Santa Ana Botanical Gardens are surrounded on all sides by residential and commercial development. Field Sampling One live-trapping grid (0.49 ha) was established in grassland (GR), coastal sage scrub (SW) and Riversidian alluvial fan scrub (RS) communities (Fig. 1). Each grid consisted of 49 traps in a 7-x-7 array with 10 m between stations. A single extra-large folding Sherman live-trap was placed at each station. Traps were baited with a ball of peanut-butter and oats and raw cotton was provided for insulation. Traps were set for three consecutive nights from 3-5 March 2010 and checked at dawn each morning. All individuals were identified, weighed and given a uniquely numbered aluminum ear tag (numbers between 1026 and 1398). Individuals were then released at their capture location. We used the Schnabel estimator (Krebs 1999) to estimate population size and density. Density was estimated by dividing N-hat by the effective trapping area, which was calculated by adding a boundary strip equal to ½ the mean maximum distance moved to the area bounded by the traps (60 x 60 m). Individuals that escaped before tagging (n = 3) were included in the tally of the total number of captures, but not counted for the unique number of individuals captured. We measured microhabitat at trap stations where individuals were first captured. At each station, we recorded percent cover of substrate, shrub density, cactus density, and woody plant species richness. Substrate cover was recorded in two, randomly placed quadrats (0.04-m 2 ; 20 x 20 cm) within 2 m of each trap station. Percent cover of shrub, grass, litter, rock (grain size >5 cm), and bare ground were visually estimated to the nearest 10% inside each quadrat, and quadrat values were averaged to obtain one value for each trap station. We measured the number of individual shrubs, individual cacti stems, and woody species rooted inside a 2-m radius around

each trap station. Substrate cover, shrub density, cactus density, and species richness were averaged for each species at each site and compared using 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS No rodents were captured at the GR trapping grid, although California ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi) were seen nearby and runways of California voles (Microtus californicus) and mounds of pocket gophers (Thomomys bottae) were observed on the grid. We caught four rodent species at the RS grid (Pacific kangaroo rat, Dipodomys agilis; deer mouse, Peromyscus maniculatus; desert woodrat, Neotoma lepida; big-eared woodrat, Neotoma macrotis) and three species (all except N. lepida) at the SW grid (Fig. 2). At both grids, only a single individual of N. macrotis was captured, both of which were at trap stations near large trees. Peromyscus maniculatus was the most abundant rodent captured at both grids, with densities of 26.2 ha -1 at the RS grid and 22.1 ha -1 at the SW grid (Table 1). Conversely, D. agilis was twice as abundant at the SW grid (15.5 ha -1 ) than at the RS grid (7.8 ha -1 ). Neotoma lepida was only captured at the RS grid, where it reached a relatively high density (26.7 ha -1 ). No Neotoma previously marked by Dr. Karnovsky were captured. Peromyscus maniculatus tended to be the most generalized in its habitat associations and was caught in most areas of both grids (Fig. 3). At the RS grid, N. lepida was caught along the border and in the heavily wooded areas, especially near the taller shrubs and trees. There were many instances of overlap between N. lepida and P. maniculatus. Dipodomys agilis was caught only a few times at the RS site, but was common on the western and southern edges of the SW grid (Fig. 3). At both sites, the most common substrate type at capture locations was litter (Fig. 4a, 5a). Grass was also common, especially at the SW grid and at locations were D. agilis was captured. Shrub and cactus densities tended to be higher at the RS grid than at the SW grid and wood plant species richness was also higher at the RS grid (Fig. 4b, 5b). However, except for the higher cover of bare ground at traps capturing P. maniculatus at the RS grid, there were no discernible differences in microhabitat variables between species at either site, based on the overlap between confidence intervals. Because we did not sample microhabitat variables at random or noncapture locations, we could not determine if species preferred certain microhabitats over others, or compare microhabitat associations between grids that had very different vegetation (Fig. 6). DISCUSSION Rodents reached their highest abundance at the RS grid, where shrub and cactus density and plant species richness was highest. Collectively, density at the RS site was 1.6 times higher than at the SW site and four species were captured there, compared to three at the SW site. Neotoma lepida and P. maniculatus were much more numerous than D. agilis at the RS grid. In contrast, N. lepida was not captured in the grassy, coastal sage scrub site (SW), but was replaced by high numbers of D. agilis. Neotoma macrotis was rare at both sites but we intentionally avoided densely wooded areas, where this species tends to be more abundant. We found little evidence of microhabitat preferences for the common species, suggesting that they are fairly generalized in their habitat affinities or that we did not have sufficient numbers of captures to detect significant differences. Unfortunately, we did not capture any of the rarer rodents such as P. californicus, P. eremicus or R. megalotis, which have not been seen on the BFS for >20 years. Additional, more intensive trapping in other locations of the BFS may reveal if these species are still present.

Fortunately, however, we also did not capture any of the non-native commensal rats (Rattus sp.) and mice (Mus musculus) that are probably common in the adjacent urban and suburban development, indicating that at least the most common elements of the native rodent community still persist in some areas and have not been invaded. Lastly, we captured relatively large numbers of D. agilis, especially in the southwest area of the BFS. The southwest part of the BFS seems to be particularly important for these kangaroo rats, perhaps because of the unique combination of grassland and shrub habitats or because of the scarcity of woodrats here. In addition, limited measurements of individual D. agilis suggest that these individuals might actually be D. simulans (Dulzura kangaroo rat), a species that was split from D. agilis based on morphological traits and chromosome number (Sullivan and Best 1997; J. Mammal. 78:775). Dipodomys simulans is believed to be common from Orange County southward and in the Los Angeles Basin to the west, but has not been identified from the foothills near Claremont. Future plans call for additional sampling of kangaroo rats in southern areas of BFS to collect more morphological data as well as tissue samples to resolve, using molecular methods, the taxonomic status of these populations. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We thank the Bernard Field Station, especially Stephen Dreher, for permission to work at the BFS, C. Degrassi for the assistance and direction on the GIS analysis and California State University at Fullerton for providing vehicles to drive to and from the site for a week.

Table 1. Population characteristics of rodents caught during 3 nights of live-trapping at the Bernard Field Station, Claremont, California, from 3-5 March 2010. No rodents were captured at a third grassland (GR) grid. Population size was estimated using the Schnabel method and 95% confidence limits were calculated based on the Poisson distribution. Density was calculated by dividing population size by the effective trap area, which was the area bounded by the traps (60-x-60 m) plus a boundary strip equal to ½ the maximum distance moved between captures. Because so few N. macrotis were captured, we used the effective grid area for N. lepida to estimate density. Site/ species Unique individuals (M:F) Total captures Population size (95% CI) Mean max. dist. moved (m) Density (ha -1 ) Riversidian Scrub (RS) Dipodomys agilis 4 (2:2) 8 3.8 (1.6, 11.0) 10.0 7.8 Peromyscus maniculatus 18 (10:8) 45 18.6 (12.9, 27.7) 24.3 26.2 Neotoma lepida 15 (10:5) 28 15.6 (9.2, 28.0) 16.4 26.7 Neotoma macrotis 1 (1:0) 1 1-1.7 Coastal Sage Scrub (SW) Dipodomys agilis 10 (5:5) 23 10.2 (7.5, 24.8) 21.0 15.5 Peromyscus maniculatus 13 (9:4) 27 12.9 (8.5, 27.1) 16.5 22.1 Neotoma macrotis 1 (0:1) 1 1-1.7

Fig. 1. Location of trapping areas (0.49 ha) at the Bernard Field Station, Claremont, California, depicted by the yellow grids. RS = Riversidian alluvial fan scrub, SW = coastal sage scrub in the southwest of the BFS, GR = invasive grassland.

Fig. 2. Images of rodents captured at BFS. Clockwise from left: Peromyscus maniculatus (PEMA), Neotoma lepida (NELE), Neotoma macrotis (NEMA, top), Dipodomys agilis (DIAG, bottom).

Fig. 3. Locations of captures of rodents at trap stations on RS (left) and SW (right) trapping grids from 3-5 March 2010. At each trap station, pie-charts are divided into 3 slices, with each slice representing 1 night of trapping. Colored slices indicate a capture of one of the following species: DIAG = Dipodomys agilis (orange), NELE = Neotoma lepida (green), NEMA = Neotoma macrotis (pink), PEMA = Peromyscus maniculatus (blue). Sprung traps (closed but empty) are filled gray.

Fig. 4. Microhabitat associations of DIAG (n = 4), PEMA (n = 20), and NELE (n = 16) at trap stations where individuals were captured at the RS grid. Measurements were a) mean percent cover of five substrate types and b) mean shrub density, cactus density, and woody plant species richness. Error bars represent 95% CI. Species abbreviations as in Fig. 2.

Fig. 5. Microhabitat associations of DIAG (n = 10) and PEMA (n = 12) at trap stations where individuals were captured at the SW grid. Measurements were a) mean percent cover of five substrate types and b) mean shrub density, cactus density, and woody plant species richness. Error bars represent 95% CI. Species abbreviations as in Fig. 2.

Fig. 6. Representative vegetation at the Riversidian alluvial fan scrub grid (RS; top left), coastal sage scrub grid at the southwest part of the BFS (SW; top right) and the grassland grid (GR).