Mammal activity in the sub-alpine urban- interface in relation to distance from settlement boundary....
-
Upload
matthew-cunningham -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of Mammal activity in the sub-alpine urban- interface in relation to distance from settlement boundary....
![Page 1: Mammal activity in the sub-alpine urban- interface in relation to distance from settlement boundary. Kyle Poos-Benson Winter Ecology 2014 Mountain Research.](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032607/56649ed35503460f94be3ecc/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Mammal activity in the sub-alpine urban-interface in relation to distance
from settlement boundary. Kyle Poos-Benson
Winter Ecology 2014
Mountain Research Station
University of Colorado Boulder
![Page 2: Mammal activity in the sub-alpine urban- interface in relation to distance from settlement boundary. Kyle Poos-Benson Winter Ecology 2014 Mountain Research.](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032607/56649ed35503460f94be3ecc/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Preface: When Science gets stuck
![Page 3: Mammal activity in the sub-alpine urban- interface in relation to distance from settlement boundary. Kyle Poos-Benson Winter Ecology 2014 Mountain Research.](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032607/56649ed35503460f94be3ecc/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Introduction
• “The wildland–urban interface lies at the confluence of human-dominated and wild landscapes, creating a number of management and conservation challenges”-Kertson 2011
• As humans further develop and “urbanize” settlements in the sub-alpine region, energy becomes more readily available for consumption in a traditionally energy scarce region.
• This may potentially alter patterns of distribution and activity of native sub alpine mammals, especially during the winter months when energy availability is even further decreased.
• Question: Is there a relationship between mammal activity and distance from a human settlement in the sub- alpine environment?
Sauvajot, 1998
Theobald 1997
![Page 4: Mammal activity in the sub-alpine urban- interface in relation to distance from settlement boundary. Kyle Poos-Benson Winter Ecology 2014 Mountain Research.](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032607/56649ed35503460f94be3ecc/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Definition
• “The wildland–urban interface (WUI) is the area where houses meet or intermingle with undeveloped wildland vegetation. The WUI is thus a focal area for human– environment conflicts, such as the destruction of homes by wildfires, habitat fragmentation, introduction of exotic species, and biodiversity decline.”• Radeloff 2005
• “The WUI in the conterminous United States covers 719 156 km2 (9% of land area) and contains 44.8 million housing units (39% of all houses). WUI areas are particularly widespread in the eastern United States, reaching a maximum of 72% of land area in Connecticut. California has the highest number of WUI housing units (5.1 million).”• Radeloff 2005
![Page 5: Mammal activity in the sub-alpine urban- interface in relation to distance from settlement boundary. Kyle Poos-Benson Winter Ecology 2014 Mountain Research.](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032607/56649ed35503460f94be3ecc/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Hypothesis
• Hypothesis: The Presence of human settlement causes an effect on mammal distribution in the sub alpine urban-interface.
• Null: The presence of human settlement has no effect on mammal distribution in the sub alpine urban-interface.
![Page 6: Mammal activity in the sub-alpine urban- interface in relation to distance from settlement boundary. Kyle Poos-Benson Winter Ecology 2014 Mountain Research.](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032607/56649ed35503460f94be3ecc/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
The site • Alma Colorado-
• Altitude:10,578 ft ( Highest town in the US)• Population 270 population in 0.362 sq miles.• Defined town limit with no development outside of
the boundary .
![Page 7: Mammal activity in the sub-alpine urban- interface in relation to distance from settlement boundary. Kyle Poos-Benson Winter Ecology 2014 Mountain Research.](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032607/56649ed35503460f94be3ecc/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Methods
• 3 Belt transects of 50m long by 6m wide with a declination of 300deg NW.
• Transects where taken directly to the south of downtown alma, in a pine and aspen forest that is distinctly devoid of human development.
• Controlled factors:
• All transects isolated 50m from human development in all directions: Town limit, road and high traffic cross country ski trail.- All measurements taken on the same day, with the same procedures.
- All Independent tracks within the belt transect recorded( ie. Track from the same animal path only counted once).
- All tracks where categorized as
-Small mammal’s- Rabbits, Hairs, Squirrels
-Small carnivore- Skunk, Raccoon, Fox, Bobcat.
-Ungulate- Deer, Elk
-Large Carnivore- Mountain Lion
![Page 8: Mammal activity in the sub-alpine urban- interface in relation to distance from settlement boundary. Kyle Poos-Benson Winter Ecology 2014 Mountain Research.](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032607/56649ed35503460f94be3ecc/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Transect Locations
• Small mammal: 27
• Ungulate:4
• Carnivore:4
• Large carnivore:0
![Page 9: Mammal activity in the sub-alpine urban- interface in relation to distance from settlement boundary. Kyle Poos-Benson Winter Ecology 2014 Mountain Research.](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032607/56649ed35503460f94be3ecc/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Data
A (50m) B (804.672m) C ( 1609.34m)0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
small mammalsmall carnivoreungulateLarge Carnivore Total mammal life
Track presence V.S. Distance from town
Track
quanti
ty
Distance from the Town Boundary of Alma
![Page 10: Mammal activity in the sub-alpine urban- interface in relation to distance from settlement boundary. Kyle Poos-Benson Winter Ecology 2014 Mountain Research.](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032607/56649ed35503460f94be3ecc/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Chi Square Analysis
Chi square was used to analyze for trends in the data and ensure that the qualitative trend was not random.
Chi Square:20.737
Degrees of Freedom:6
* P value :0.00204523
The Null Hypothesis can be rejected .
![Page 11: Mammal activity in the sub-alpine urban- interface in relation to distance from settlement boundary. Kyle Poos-Benson Winter Ecology 2014 Mountain Research.](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032607/56649ed35503460f94be3ecc/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Chi Square without Small Mammals
• As qualitative analysis of the raw data shows, there is a strong relationship between small mammals and urban interface distance. This has a strong effect on the total data trend, however what happens when they are eliminated from the analysis?
• Chi square: 5.748
• Degrees of freedom:4
• *P Value:0.21877479
We accept the null hypothesis
![Page 12: Mammal activity in the sub-alpine urban- interface in relation to distance from settlement boundary. Kyle Poos-Benson Winter Ecology 2014 Mountain Research.](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032607/56649ed35503460f94be3ecc/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Data Interpretation
• A P value of less than 0.05 allows us to reject the null hypothesis with the original observations. Which means that there is a relationship- trend between distance and mammal activity in the sub-alpine urban- interface during the winter.
• However, when small mammal data is eliminated from the analysis, P is far greater than 0.05 which allows us to accept the null, that there is no relationship between distance and larger mammal activity in the urban interface winter.
![Page 13: Mammal activity in the sub-alpine urban- interface in relation to distance from settlement boundary. Kyle Poos-Benson Winter Ecology 2014 Mountain Research.](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032607/56649ed35503460f94be3ecc/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Summation
• There is a strong correlation between distance and mammal density. However, this data set suggests that this is correlation is only present with smaller mammals.
• The increased track presence is a strong suggestion that many small mammals have adapted their winter survival habits to utilize the available energy from a human settlement.
• However, the disassociation between distance and track presence/activity in larger mammals suggest that urbanization in the sub alpine may effect some mammal distribution much more strongly than other mammal types .
![Page 14: Mammal activity in the sub-alpine urban- interface in relation to distance from settlement boundary. Kyle Poos-Benson Winter Ecology 2014 Mountain Research.](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032607/56649ed35503460f94be3ecc/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Forward
The collection and synthesis of this data suggests that this topic deserves more research, with more focused objectives, over a longer time period and with larger with larger sample sizes.
Questions raised:
-Does the distribution of mammals in the urban interface change through-out seasons?
-Is this trend continuous through all settlements in the sub- alpine region?
-Does this trend hold true in other winter environments and settlement types?
(“Anthropogenic fragmentation is pervasive among all forest community types”-Ritters 2011)
- Exactly which mammals are effected by life in urban interface and how?
-How can we remedy what we do as humans to encourage a more natural distribution?
![Page 15: Mammal activity in the sub-alpine urban- interface in relation to distance from settlement boundary. Kyle Poos-Benson Winter Ecology 2014 Mountain Research.](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032607/56649ed35503460f94be3ecc/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Works Cited
• "Alma, CO." Panoramio. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Mar. 2014.
• . Kertson,Brian R D. Spencer, J M. Marzluff, Jeff Hepinstall-Cymerman, Christian E. Grue. (2011) Cougar space use and movements in the wildland–urban landscape of western Washington. Ecological Applications 21:8, 2866-2888
• Riitters, Kurt. J Coulston, J. Wickham. (2012) Fragmentation of forest communities in the eastern United States. Forest Ecology and Management 263:1, 85-93
• Sauvajot, Raymond M., et al. 1998"Patterns of human disturbance and response by small mammals and birds in chaparral near urban development." Urban Ecosystems 2.4: 279-297.
• Theobald, David M., James R. Miller, and N. Thompson Hobbs. 1997 "Estimating the cumulative effects of development on wildlife habitat." Landscape and urban planning 39.1: 25-36.
• V. C. Radeloff, R. B. Hammer, S. I. Stewart, J. S. Fried, S. S. Holcomb, and J. F. McKeefry 2005. THE WILDLAND–URBAN INTERFACE IN THE UNITED STATES. Ecological Applications 15:799–805.