1 / 32

2010 Class Projects

2010 Class Projects. The influence of introduced fish on native amphibians, Betsy Howell, Olympic National Forest Modeling the distribution of the marbled murrelet, Martin Raphael, Pacific Northwest Research Station Listing petition for the Sierra Nevada red fox, John Perrine, Cal Poly

Michelle
Télécharger la présentation

2010 Class Projects

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. 2010 Class Projects The influence of introduced fish on native amphibians, Betsy Howell, Olympic National Forest Modeling the distribution of the marbled murrelet, Martin Raphael, Pacific Northwest Research Station Listing petition for the Sierra Nevada red fox, John Perrine, Cal Poly Relationships between Black-tailed prairie dogs and Ferruginous Hawks nesting in Kansas, Stan Roth, Kansas Biological Survey Golden paintbrush augmentation site selection at Fort Casey State Park, Rob Fimbel, Washington State Parks

  2. Literature Review: The Effects of Fish Stocking on Amphibians • General Task: Read through the papers I’ve collected and begin to assemble the information into a narrative form for presentation (a report, essentially). • Questions to answer: What are the effects of fish stocking on different species of amphibians and what are the extents of those effects? Conventional wisdom is that there are numerous negative effects of this management activity; what are some ways to reverse of minimize effects of nonnative fish? • Specific Tasks: • Organize information from the papers into groups (one scientific paper may yield pieces of information pertinent to several of these categories): • History of fish stocking in the Northwest (Oregon, Washington, northern California; some of Idaho?) • Interactions between nonnative fish and frogs and toads • Interactions between nonnative fish and salamanders • Differences in effects on (and responses by) larval and adult amphibians (including use of chemical cues) • Differences in impacts between different introduced fish species • Other effects besides predation (disease transfer, competition for food, etc.) • Results when nonnative fish are removed from a system • Other factors causing declines in amphibian populations • Recommendations for the conservation of native amphibians (eg. removal of fish, eliminating stocking programs, etc.) • Begin to coalesce these pieces of information into chapters, with references cited. • Use the “Literature Cited” sections of each paper to determine other papers we may want to get and incorporate. The influence of introduced fish on native amphibians, Betsy Howell, Olympic National Forest

  3. Modeling the distribution of the Marbled Murrelet Martin G. Raphael Pacific Northwest Research Station

  4. Goal • The Effectiveness Monitoring program for the Marbled Murrelet has 2 components: • Status and Trend of murrelet populations • Status and Trend of murrelet nesting habitat

  5. Nesting Habitat Previous work shows that murrelets nest in old forest stands They select large trees with large limbs that serve as nesting platforms They nest along the coast within 25 miles (southern range) to 50 miles (northern) of shore

  6. Methods Select potential covariates Screen covariates to make sure none are highly correlated Assemble GIS coverages of each covariate Assemble GIS database for known nesting sites to serve as training data for model development Assemble GIS database for testing sites to evaluate model performance

  7. Modeling Platform The modeling team evaluated a number of model options and we selected “Maxent” because it consistently performed better in head-to-head comparisons with other approaches (Ecological Niche Factor Analysis, Resource Selection Functions) http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~schapire/maxent/ and the literature that is linked on that site.

  8. Maxent Maxent uses the principle of “maximum entropy”

  9. This is the MAXENT dialog screen, used to select input files, output file name, and optional modeling parameters. One may also select or deselect variables from the list of environmental layers.

  10. Maxent output (warmer colors denote higher likelihood of presence)

  11. Issues Selection of training versus testing data (we have known nests and a set of “occupied” detections) How best to evaluate model performance (AUC from ROC plot, area-adjusted frequency, etc.) Setting a threshold for a binary map (reducing the continuous probability distribution to 2 levels – suitable and unsuitable)

  12. Listing the Red Fox? • The Sierra Nevada red fox, along with the Cascade and Rocky Mountain red foxes (V. v. cascadensis and V. v. macroura, respectively), likely derived from a lineage isolated south of the continental ice sheets during the Wisconsonian glaciation. When the glaciers retreated this southern refugial population became isolated in the subalpine and boreal habitats of the western mountain ranges (Aubry 1983). In contrast, the modern-day low-elevation red foxes in California are widely believed to have originated from various populations throughout eastern and northern North America, which may include European lineages due to introductions in the 17th and 18th centuries (Churcher 1959; Roest 1977; Aubry 1983; Lewis et al. 1999; Kamler and Ballard 2002). • Genetic evidence for the persistence of the critically endangered Sierra Nevada red fox in California. John D. Perrine John P. Pollinger Benjamin N. Sacks Reginald H. Barrett Robert K. Wayne Conserv Genet (2007) 8:1083–1095

  13. The Listing Process • Petitions • Federal code for agencies PART 424—LISTING ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES • The listing manual and policy guides • http://training.fws.gov/bart/Resources/ES_Listing_and_Candidate_Assessment/ESA_Folder/ESAcd.htm#lnk04

  14. Prairie Dogs and Ferruginous Hawks • Investigating nest site sustainability (reproduction by years active) by reviewing digital records of nest sites collected during the past 3 decades • Relating nest site productivity to features of the landscape like vegetation, distance to human activities, size and persistence of dog towns, using available gis coverages

  15. Robert Fimbel Chief, Resource Stewardship Golden paintbrush augmentation site selection at Fort Casey State Park

  16. Agency Mission The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission acquires, operates, enhances, and protects a diverse system of recreational, cultural, historical, and natural sites.

  17. Current status of golden paintbrush Federally Threatened (1997) Endangered in Washington Red List in British Columbia List 1-Extirpated in Oregon

  18. Historic and Current Range Puget Lowlands of BC and Washington 29 historic collection sites 11 extant populations Willamette Valley of Oregon (extirpated)

  19. Primary causes for decline Development of prairies Agricultural Residential Invasion by woody plants Weeds Herbivory

  20. Biology of Golden paintbrush: Castilleja levisecta Greenm. Grassland species

  21. Biology of Golden paintbrush: Castilleja levisecta Greenm. Grassland species Short-lived perennial herb

  22. Biology of Golden paintbrush: Castilleja levisecta Greenm. Grassland species Short-lived perennial herb Hemi-parasite

  23. Biology of Golden paintbrush: Castilleja levisecta Greenm. Grassland species Short-lived perennial herb Hemi-parasite Obligate outcrosser

  24. Biology of Golden paintbrush: Castilleja levisecta Greenm. Grassland species Short-lived perennial herb Hemi-parasite Obligate outcrosser Bee pollinated

  25. Fort Casey State Park 422 acres

  26. Fort Casey State Park 422 acres Fort build atop coastal bluffs ca. 1900

  27. Fort Casey State Park 422 acres Fort build atop coastal bluffs ca. 1900 Mean 5 year flowering paintbrush populations = 99-03: ~200 04-08: ~900

  28. Fort Casey State Park 422 acres Fort build atop coastal bluffs ca. 1900 Mean 5 year flowering paintbrush populations = 99-03: ~200 04-08: ~900 Paintbrush occurs adjacent to coastal bluff

  29. Activities Population monitoring (1998 – present) Brush removal (spring 2002) Trial exclosures (2000-present) Population augmentation using plugs (2003 – present)

  30. Questions What plant(s) is (are) golden paintbrush commonly associated with? without? How might we best select paintbrush augmentation sites (ordination of existing data)? What, if any, site preparation should be considered (we are using plugs)?

  31. Resources 10x10m grid (shapefile) of the bluff top and EXCEL spreadsheet describing species present and their cover. 42 – 1m2 quadrats (shapefile) within 10x10m grid, surrounding golden paintbrush plants, that identify adjacent species and their cover classes (detailed paintbrush associates that compliments 10x10m info). Consultant survey report and prairie assessment report.

  32. Robert A. Fimbel, Ph.D.Chief, Natural Resources StewardshipWashington State Parks and Recreation Commission1111 Israel RoadOlympia, WA 98504360-902-8592 tel360-902-8517 faxrobert.fimbel@parks.wa.gov

More Related