1 / 14

A Survey of Reintroduced Gunnison’s Prairie D og I mpacts on Chihuahuan Desert Grassland

A Survey of Reintroduced Gunnison’s Prairie D og I mpacts on Chihuahuan Desert Grassland. Evan Hewitt. Gunnison’s Prairie Dog. Cynomys gunnisoni (GPD) is a graminivorous, social, semi- fossorial mammal related to squirrels

penn
Télécharger la présentation

A Survey of Reintroduced Gunnison’s Prairie D og I mpacts on Chihuahuan Desert Grassland

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A Survey of Reintroduced Gunnison’s Prairie Dog Impacts on Chihuahuan Desert Grassland Evan Hewitt

  2. Gunnison’s Prairie Dog • Cynomys gunnisoni (GPD) is a graminivorous, social, semi-fossorial mammal related to squirrels • Species exterminated across much of it’s native range, recently reintroduced on Sevilleta (2010) • Prairie dogs are a keystone species • Affect species composition, diversity, height, structure, biomass, and productivity

  3. Purpose of Research • Investigate the impact of prairie dogs on vegetation. Across the control and treatment plots, will surveys indicate a significant change in biomass between plots? What about species diversity? • Circumstances, behavior and ecology of GPD differs significantly from the more commonly studied black tailed prairie dog (C. ludovicianus).

  4. Chihuahuan Desert Grassland

  5. Field Methods (Cont’d)

  6. Results – Species Richness T-Test p-value = 0.197692221 No significant difference between treatments on species richness.

  7. Results – Total Biomass

  8. Cover T-Test0.000517437 Significant pvalue Biomass T-Test0.363673826 Not Significant pvalue

  9. Interpretation • The data collected for this study does not readily reflect the impact of GPD on vegetation. • Temporal scale, methodological • Climate, phenology

  10. Future • Yearly and seasonal data collection • Augment quadrat sampling with methods such as transects with a greater spatial extent

  11. Acknowledgements • Partnership between NSF, USFWS, UNM that made this opportunity possible. • Amaris Swann, Jon Erz, Stephanie Baker • Fellow undergraduate researchers

More Related