Ecosystem Conditions That Influence the Viability of an Old-Forest Species with Limited Vagility: The Red Tree Vole
Abstract
:Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
2.1.1. Coast Range
2.1.2. Cascades
2.1.3. Klamath Mountains
2.2. Bayesian Networks
2.3. Watershed Index Model
2.4. Habitat Quality
2.4.1. Source Habitat Amount
2.4.2. Source Habitat Departure
2.4.3. Habitat Patch Size
2.5. Risk Factors
2.5.1. Status of Habitat Protection
- high level of habitat protection (≥50% of source habitat in a watershed in the protective class),
- moderate level of habitat protection (≤60% of the source habitat in a watershed in the non-protective class and <50% in the protective class), and
- low level of habitat protection (>60% of the source habitat in a watershed in the non-protective class).
2.5.2. Habitat Loss from Wildfire
Risk Factor | Comments | References |
---|---|---|
Habitat loss from timber harvest | Past harvest reflected in habitat maps; future harvest was indexed by landownership and management plans | [8,10,18,35,39] |
Habitat loss from wildfire | Past fires reflected in current habitat maps; cumulative with effects from timber harvest; interacts with climate change; assessed by using fire regime (severity) and burn probability (frequency) | [8,10,18,35] |
Predation—more information needed (not included in model) | Short-tailed weasel (Mustela ermine) and barred owl (Strix varia) may be exacerbated by forest management | [34,35] |
Anticoagulant rodenticides (AR)—more information needed (not included model) | AR found in spotted and barred owls, even in remote parts of forest; indication of food web contamination | [53,54,55] |
2.5.3. Other Risk Factors
2.6. Sensitivity Analysis
2.7. Model Assessment
2.8. Viability Outcome Model
2.9. Weighted Watershed Index
2.10. Dispersal Suitability
2.11. Habitat Distribution Index
2.12. Viability Outcome
3. Results
3.1. Watershed Index
3.2. Watershed Index Model Evaluation
3.3. Viability Outcomes
3.3.1. Coast Range Ecoregion
3.3.2. Cascades Ecoregion
3.3.3. Klamath Mountains Ecoregion
4. Discussion
4.1. Coast Range Ecoregion
4.2. Cascades Ecoregion
4.3. Klamath Mountains Ecoregion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Maser, C.O.; Mate, B.R.; Franklin, J.F.; Dyrness, C.T. Natural History of Oregon Coast Mammals; US Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 1981. [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Taylor, W.P. Description of a new subgenus (Arborimus) of Phenacomys, with a contribution to its habits and distribution of Phenacomys longicaudus True. Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci. 1915, 5, 111–161. [Google Scholar]
- Howell, A.B. Life history of the red tree mouse Phenacomys longicaudus True. N. Am. Fauna. 1926, 48, 39–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Benson, S.B.; Borell, A.E. Notes on the life history of the red tree mouse, Phenacomys longicaudus. J. Mammal. 1931, 12, 226–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maser, C.O. Life Histories and Ecology of Phenacomys albipes, Phenacomys longicaudus, Phenacomys silvicola. Master’s Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA, 1966. Available online: https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/concern/graduate_thesis_or_dissertations/2514nq03h (accessed on 1 March 2023).
- Swingle, J.K. Daily Activity Patterns, Survival, and Movements of Red Tree Voles (Arborimus longicaudus) in Western Oregon. Master’s Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA, 2005. Available online: https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/concern/graduate_thesis_or_dissertations/dj52w840d (accessed on 1 March 2023).
- Dunk, J.R.; Hawley, J.J.V.G. Red-tree vole habitat suitability modeling: Implications for conservation and management. For. Ecol. Manag. 2009, 258, 626–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Forsman, E.D.; Swingle, J.K.; Davis, R.J.; Biswell, B.L.; Andrews, L.S. Tree Voles: An Evaluation of Their Distribution and Habitat Relationships Based on Recent and Historical Studies, Habitat Models, and Vegetation Change; United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: Portland, OR, USA, 2016. [CrossRef]
- Johnston, A.N.; Moskal, L.M. High-resolution habitat modeling with airborne LiDAR for red tree voles. J. Wildl. Manag. 2017, 81, 58–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Linnell, M.A.; Davis, R.J.; Lesmeister, D.B.; Swingle, J.K. Conservation and relative habitat suitability for an arboreal mammal associated with old forest. For. Ecol. Manag. 2017, 402, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thompson, J.L.; Diller, L.V. Relative abundance, nest site characteristics, and nest dynamics of Sonoma tree voles on managed timberlands in coastal northwest California. Northwest Nat. 2002, 83, 91–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Swingle, J.K.; Forsman, E.D. Home range areas and activity patterns of red tree voles (Arborimus longicaudus) in western Oregon. Northwest Sci. 2009, 83, 273–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Linnell, M.A.; Lesmeister, D.B. Landscape connectivity and conservation prioritization for old forest species with limited vagility. Anim. Conserv. 2019, 22, 568–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Erickson, K.A. The Tillamook Burn. Yearbk. Assoc. Pac. Coast. Geogr. 1987, 49, 117–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI); U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Record of Decision for amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management planning documents within the range of the northern spotted owl. USDA For. Serv. Pac. Northwest. Reg. 1994, 1–3. Available online: https://www.fs.fed.us/r6/reo/library/ (accessed on 1 March 2023).
- Forsman, E.D.; Anthony, R.G.; Zabel, C.J. Distribution and abundance of red tree voles in Oregon based on occurrence in pellets of northern spotted owls. Northwest Sci. 2004, 78, 294–302. [Google Scholar]
- Forsman, E.D.; Swingle, J.K.; Hatch, N.R. Behavior of red tree voles (Arborimus longicaudus) based on continuous video monitoring of nests. Northwest Sci. 2009, 83, 262–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: Five species not warranted for listing as endangered or threatened species. Fed. Regist. 2019, 84, 69707–69712. Available online: https://www.fws.gov/species-publication-action/endangered-and-threatened-wildlife-and-plants-five-species-not-4 (accessed on 1 March 2023).
- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Species Status Assessment: North Oregon Coast Population of the Red Tree Vole (Arborimus longicaudus) Version 1.0; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Portland, OR, USA, 2019. Available online: https://ecos.fws.gov/ServCat/DownloadFile/169143 (accessed on 1 March 2023).
- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; withdrawal of the not-warranted finding for endangered or threatened status for the North Oregon Coast Distinct Population Segment of red tree vole. Fed. Regist. 2022, 87, 63472–63473. Available online: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/10/19/2022-22642/endangered-and-threatened-wildlife-and-plants-withdrawal-of-the-not-warranted-finding-for-endangered (accessed on 1 March 2023).
- Suring, L.H.; Gaines, W.L.; Wales, B.C.; Mellen-McLean, K.; Begley, J.S.; Mohoric, S. Maintaining populations of terrestrial wildlife through land management planning: A case study. J. Wildl. Manag. 2011, 75, 945–958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hayward, G.D.; Flather, C.H.; Rowland, M.M.; Terney, R.; Mellen-McLean, K.; Malcolm, K.D.; McCarthy, C.; Boyce, D.A. Applying the 2012 Planning Rule to conserve Species: A Practitioner’s Reference; USDA Forest Service: Washington, DC, USA, 2016.
- U.S. Forest Service (USFS). Bioregional Assessment of Northwest Forests; U.S. Forest Service (USFS): Portland, OR, USA, 2020. Available online: https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r6/landmanagement/planning/?cid=fseprd677501 (accessed on 1 March 2023).
- Gaines, W.L.; Wales, B.C.; Suring, L.H.; Begley, J.S.; Mellen-McLean, K.; Mohoric, S. Terrestrial species viability assessments for national forests in northeastern Washington. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. 2017, PNW-GTR-907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raphael, M.G.; Falxa, G.A.; Dugger, K.M.; Galleher, B.M.; Lynch, D.; Miller, S.L.; Nelson, S.K.; Young, R.D. Northwest Forest Plan—The first 15 years (1994–2008): Status and trend of nesting habitat for the marbled murrelet. United States Dep. Agric. For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. 2011, PNW-GTR-848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Omernik, J.M.; Griffith, G.E. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States: Evolution of a hierarchical spatial framework. Environ. Manag. 2014, 54, 1249–1266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raphael, M.G.; Wisdom, M.J.; Rowland, M.M.; Holthausen, R.S.; Wales, B.C.; Marcot, B.G.; Rich, T.D. Status and trends of habitats of terrestrial vertebrates in relation to land management in the interior Columbia River Basin. For. Ecol. Manag. 2001, 153, 63–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marcot, B.G.; Steventon, J.D.; Sutherland, G.D.; McCann, R.K. Guidelines for developing and updating Bayesian belief networks for ecological modeling. Can. J. For. Res. 2006, 36, 3063–3074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McCann, R.K.; Marcot, B.G.; Ellis, R. Bayesian belief networks: Applications in ecology and natural resource management. Can. J. For. Res. 2006, 36, 3053–3062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marcot, B.G. Metrics for evaluating performance and uncertainty of Bayesian network model. Ecol. Model. 2012, 230, 50–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marcot, B.G.; Thompson, M.P.; Runge, M.C.; Thompson, F.R.; McNulty, S.; Cleaves, D.; Tomosy, M.; Fisher, L.A.; Bliss, A. Recent advances in applying decision science to managing national forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 2012, 285, 23–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wisdom, M.J.; Holthausen, R.S.; Wales, B.C.; Hargis, C.D.; Saab, V.A.; Lee, D.C.; Hann, W.J.; Rich, T.D.; Rowland, M.M.; Murphy, W.J.; et al. Source habitats for terrestrial vertebrates of focus in the Interior Columbia Basin: Broad-scale trends and management implications. United States Dep. Agric. For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. 2000, PNW-GTR-485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Corn, P.S.; Bury, R.B. Habitat use and terrestrial activity by red tree voles (Arborimus longicaudus) in Oregon. J. Mammal. 1986, 67, 404–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Swingle, J.K.; Forsman, E.D.; Anthony, R.G. Survival, mortality, and predators of red tree voles (Arborimus longicaudus). Northwest Sci. 2010, 84, 255–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: 12-month finding of a petition to list a distinct population segment of the red tree vole as endangered or threatened. Fed. Regist. 2011, 76, 63720–63762. Available online: https://www.regulations.gov/document/FWS-R1-ES-2008-0086-0005 (accessed on 1 March 2023).
- Rosenburg, D.K.; Davis, R.J.; Van Norman, K.J.; Dunk, J.R.; Forsman, E.D.; Huff, R.D. Patterns of red tree vole distribution and habitat suitability: Implications for surveys and conservation planning. Ecosphere 2016, 7, e01630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lesmeister, D.B.; Sovern, S.G.; Davis, R.J.; Bell, D.M.; Gregory, M.J.; Vogeler, J.C. Mixed-severity wildfire and habitat of an old-forest obligate. Ecosphere 2019, 10, e02696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Linnell, M.A.; Lesmeister, D.B.; Yang, Z.; Davis, R.J. Timber harvest and wildlfires drive long-term habitat dynamics for an arboreal rodent. Biol. Conserv. 2023, 279, 109779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wimberly, M.C.; Ohmann, J.L. A multi-scale assessment of human environmental constraints on forest land cover change in Oregon (USA) Coast Range. Landsc. Ecol. 2004, 19, 631–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Smith, M.J.; Goodchild, M.F.; Longley, P.A. Geospatial Analysis—A Comprehensive Guide, 6th ed.; Drumlin Security Ltd.: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Landres, P.B.; Morgan, P.; Swanson, F.J. Overview of the use of natural variability concepts in managing ecological systems. Ecol. Appl. 1999, 9, 1179–1188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wimberly, M.C.; Spies, T.A.; Long, C.J.; Whitlock, C. Simulating historical variability in the amount of old forests in the Oregon Coast Range. Conserv. Biol. 2000, 14, 167–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wimberly, M.C. Spatial simulation of historical landscape patterns in coastal forests of the Pacific Northwest. Can. J. For. Res. 2002, 32, 1316–1328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kennedy, R.S.H.; Spies, T.A. Forest cover changes in Oregon Coast Range from 1939 to 1993. For. Ecol. Manag. 2004, 200, 129–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nonaka, E.; Spies, T.A. Historical range of variability in landscape structure: A simulation study in Oregon. Ecol. Appl. 2005, 15, 1727–1746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Haugo, R.D.; Kellogg, B.S.; Cansler, A.; Kolden, C.A.; Kemp, K.B.; Robertson, J.C.; Metlen, K.L.; Vaillant, N.M.; Restaino, C.M. The missing fire: Quantifying human exclusion of wildfire in Pacific Northwest forests, USA. Ecosphere 2019, 10, e02702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hessburg, P.F.; Reynolds, K.M.; Salter, R.B.; Richmond, M.B. Using a decision support system to estimate departure of present forest landscape pattern from historical reference condition. In Emulating Natural Forest Landscape Disturbances; Perera, A.H., Buse, L.J., Weber, M.G., Eds.; Columbia University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2004; pp. 158–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- National Wildfire Coordinating Group. Fire Behavior Field Reference Guide. PMS 437. 2014. Available online: https://www.nwcg.gov/publications/pms437 (accessed on 30 June 2021).
- LANDFIRE. Existing Vegetation Type Layer, Fire Regime Group, LANDFIRE 2.0.0, LF Remap, U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. 2016. Available online: http://landfire.cr.usgs.gov/viewer/ (accessed on 28 October 2020).
- Gilbertson-Day, J.W.; Scott, J.H.; Vogler, K.C.; Brough, A. Pacific Northwest quantitative wildfire risk assessment: Methods and results. In PNW Quantitative Wildlife Risk Assessment Report 4-9-2018 v2; Pyrologix, LLC: Missoula, MT, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Finney, M.A.; Grenfell, I.C.; McHugh, C.W.; Seli, R.C.; Tretheway, D.; Stratton, R.D.; Britton, S. A method for ensemble wildland fire simulation. Environ. Model. Assess. 2011, 16, 153–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Short, K.C.; Finney, M.A.; Vogler, K.C.; Scott, J.H.; Gilbertson-Day, J.W.; Grenfell, I.C. Spatial Datasets of Probabilistic Wildfire Risk Components for the United States (270 m), 2nd ed.; Forest Service Research Data Archive: Washington, DC, USA, 2020. [CrossRef]
- Franklin, A.B.; Carlson, P.C.; Rex, A.; Rockweit, J.T.; Garza, D.; Culhane, E.; Volker, S.F.; Dusek, R.J.; Shearn-Bochsler, V.I.; Gabriel, M.W.; et al. Grass is not always greener: Rodenticide exposure of a threatened species near marijuana growing operations. BMC Res. Notes 2018, 11, 94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gabriel, M.W.; Diller, L.V.; Bumbacher, J.P.; Wengert, G.M.; Higley, J.M.; Poppenga, R.H.; Mendia, S. Exposure to rodenticides in northern spotted and barred owls on remote forest lands in northwestern California: Evidence of food web contamination. Avian Conserv. Ecol. 2018, 13, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wiens, J.D.; Dilione, K.E.; Eagles-Smith, C.A.; Herring, G.; Lesmeister, D.B.; Gabriel, M.W.; Wengert, G.W.; Simon, D.C. Anticoagulant rodenticides in Strix owls indicate widespread exposure in west coast forests. Biol. Conserv. 2019, 238, 108238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Black, B.A.; Shaw, D.C.; Stone, J.K. Impacts of Swiss needle cast on overstory Douglas-fir forests of the western Oregon Coast Range. For. Ecol. Manag. 2010, 259, 1673–1680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lan, Y.-H.; Shaw, D.C.; Beedlow, P.A.; Lee, E.H.; Waschmann, R.S. Severity of Swiss needle cast in young and mature Douglas-fir forests in western Oregon, USA. For. Ecol. Manag. 2019, 442, 79–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Marcot, B.G. Habitat modeling for biodiversity conservation. Northwest Nat. 2006, 87, 56–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wade, A.A.; McKelvey, K.S.; Schwartz, M.K. Resistance-surface-based wildlife conservation connectivity modeling: Summary of efforts in the United States and guide for practitioners. United States Dep. Agric. For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. 2015, RMRS-GTR-333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rico, A.; Kindlmann, P.; Sedlacek, F. Barrier effects of roads on movements of small mammals. Folia Zool. 2007, 56, 1–12. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228633094_Barrier_effects_of_roads_on_movements_of_small_mammals (accessed on 1 March 2023).
- McGregor, R.L.; Bender, D.J.; Fahrig, L. Do small mammals avoid roads because of the traffic? J. Appl. Ecol. 2008, 45, 110–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brehme, C.S.; Tracey, J.A.; McClenaghan, L.R.; Fisher, R.N. Permeability of roads to movement of scrubland lizards and small mammals. Conserv. Biol. 2013, 27, 710–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Washington Wildlife Habitat Connectivity Working Group (WHCWG). Washington Connected Landscapes Project: State-Wide Assessment. Wash. Dep. Fish Wildl. Wash. Dep. Transp. 2010. Available online: https://waconnected.org/statewide-analysis/ (accessed on 30 June 2021).
- McRae, B.H.; Shirk, A.J.; Platt, J.T. Gnarly Landscape Utilities: Resistance and Habitat Calculator User Guide. 2013. Available online: https://circuitscape.org/gnarly-landscape-utilities/ (accessed on 1 March 2023).
- Haugo, R.; Zanger, C.; DeMeo, T.; Ringo, C.; Shlisky, A.; Blankenship, K.; Simpson, M.; Mellen-McLean, K.; Kertis, J.; Stern, M. A new approach to evaluate forest structure restoration needs across Oregon and Washington, USA. For. Ecol. Manag. 2015, 335, 37–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Davis, R.; Yang, Z.; Yost, A.; Belongie, C.; Cohen, W. The normal fire environment-modeling environmental suitability for large forest wildfires using past, present and future climate normal. For. Ecol. Manag. 2017, 390, 173–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Westerling, A.L.R. Increasing western US forest wildfire activity: Sensitivity to changes in the timing of spring. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 2016, 371, 20150178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Davis, R.J.; Hollen, B.; Hobson, J.; Gower, J.E.; Keenum, D. Northwest Forest Plan—The first 20 years (1994–2013): Status and trends of northern spotted owl habitats. United States Dep. Agric. For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. 2016, PNW-GTR-929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Halofsky, J.E.; Peterson, D.L.; Gravenmier, R.A. (Eds.) Climate change vulnerability and adaptation in southwest Oregon. United States Dep. Agric. For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. 2022, PNW-GTR-995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thomas, J.W.; Raphael, M.G.; Anthony, R.G.; Forsman, E.D.; Gunderson, A.G.; Holthausen, R.S.; Marcot, B.G.; Reeves, G.H.; Sedell, J.R.; Solis, D.M. Viability assessments and management considerations for species associated with late-successional and old growth forests of the Pacific Northwest-the report of the Scientific Analysis Team. United States Dep. Agric. For. Serv. Natl. For. Syst. 1993. Available online: https://archive.org/details/CAT10656784 (accessed on 1 March 2023).
- U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI); Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Southwestern Oregon Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan. Klamath Falls Field Office of Lakeview District, Medford District, and South River Field Office of Roseburg District. 2016. Available online: https://www.blm.gov/programs/planning-and-nepa/near-you/oregon-washington/rmps-westernoregon (accessed on 1 March 2023).
- Hessburg, P.F.; Churchill, D.J.; Larson, A.J.; Haugo, R.D.; Miller, C.; Spies, T.A.; North, M.P.; Povak, N.A.; Belote, R.T.; Singleton, P.H.; et al. Restoring fire-prone Inland Pacific Northwest landscapes: Seven core principles. Landsc. Ecol. 2015, 30, 1805–1835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Stephens, S.L.; Burrows, N.; Buyantuyev, A.; Gray, R.W.; Keane, R.E.; Kubian, R.; Liu, S.; Seijo, F.; Shu, L.; Tolhurst, K.G.; et al. Temperate and boreal forest mega-fires: Characteristics and challenges. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2014, 12, 115–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Stephens, S.L.; Kobziar, L.N.; Collins, B.M.; Davis, R.; Fule, P.Z.; Gaines, W.; Guldin, J.M.; Hessburg, P.F.; Hiers, K.; Hoagland, S.; et al. Is fire “for the birds”? How two rare species influence fire management across the US. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2019, 17, 391–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prichard, S.J.; Povak, N.A.; Kennedy, M.C.; Peterson, D.W. Fuel treatment effectiveness in the context of landform, vegetation, and large, wind-driven wildfires. Ecol. Appl. 2020, 30, e02104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rudge, M.L.; Levick, S.R.; Bartolo, R.E.; Erskin, P.D. Developing landscape-scale forest restoration targets that embrace spatial pattern. Landsc. Ecol. 2022, 37, 1747–1760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marini, L.; Ayres, M.P.; Jactel, H. Impact of stand and landscape management on forest pest damage. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2022, 67, 181–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hylander, K.; Greiser, C.; Christiansen, D.M.; Koelemeijer, I.A. Climate adaptation of biodiversity conservation in managed forest landscapes. Conserv. Biol. 2022, 36, e13847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jones, G.M.; Keyser, A.R.; Westerling, A.L.; Baldwin, W.J.; Keane, J.J.; Sawyer, S.C.; Clare, J.D.J.; Gutierrez, R.J.; Peery, M.Z. Forest restoration limits megafires and supports species conservation under climate change. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2021, 20, 210–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hessburg, P.F.; Spies, T.A.; Perry, D.A.; Skinner, C.N.; Taylor, A.H.; Brown, P.M.; Stephens, S.L.; Larson, A.J.; Churchill, D.J.; Povak, N.A.; et al. Tamm Review: Management of mixed-severity fire regime forests in Oregon, Washington, and Northern California. For. Ecol. Manag. 2016, 366, 221–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jones, G.M.; Gutierrez, R.J.; Tempel, D.J.; Whitmore, S.A.; Berigan, W.J.; Peery, M.Z. Megafires: An emerging threat to old-forest species. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2016, 14, 300–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jones, G.M.; Keane, J.J.; Gutierrez, R.J.; Peery, M.Z. Declining old forest species as a legacy of large trees lost. Divers. Distrib. 2018, 24, 341–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Schumaker, N.H.; Brookes, A.; Dunk, J.R.; Woodbridge, B.; Heinrichs, J.A.; Lawler, J.J.; Carroll, C.; LaPlante, D. Mapping sources, sinks, and connectivity using a simulation model of northern spotted owls. Landsc. Ecol. 2014, 29, 579–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cushman, S.A.; McKelvey, K.S.; Flather, C.H.; McGarigal, K. Do forest community types provide a sufficient basis to evaluate biological diversity? Front. Ecol. Environ. 2007, 6, 13–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Franklin, J.F.; Johnson, N.K. A restoration framework for federal forests in the Pacific Northwest. J. For. 2012, 110, 429–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- DeMeo, T.; Haugo, R.; Ringo, C.; Kertis, J.; Acker, S. Expanding our understanding of forest structural restoration needs in the Pacific Northwest. Northwest Sci. 2018, 92, 18–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dennison, P.E.; Brewer, S.C.; Arnold, J.D.; Moritz, M.A. Large wildfire trends in the western United States, 1984–2011. Geophy. Res. Lett. 2014, 41, 2928–2933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abatzoglou, J.T.; Williams, A.P. Impact of anthropogenic climate change on wildfire across the western US forests. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, 11770–11775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). National Forest System Land Management Planning. 36 CFR Part 219. Fed. Regist. 2012, 77, 21162–21276. Available online: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/10/12/2016-24654/national-forest-system-land-management-planning (accessed on 1 March 2023).
Habitat Quality | Notes | References |
---|---|---|
Source Habitat—late-successional forest >80 years and old forest >200 years in Douglas-fir and Sitka Spruce zones. | Roughly analogous to suitable and highly suitable classes in Forsman et al. [8] | [7,8,9,10,33,36,37] |
Low Suitability Area—forests 40–80 years of age even with patches of remnant older forest (>80 years) interspersed in Douglas-fir and Sitka Spruce zones. | Roughly analogous to marginal and unsuitable habitat class in Forsman et al. [8] | [8,10,34,37] |
Habitat Variables | Resistance Values |
---|---|
Habitat Suitability: | |
Not habitat but with potential to develop habitat | 100 |
Marginal | 50 |
Suitable | 1 |
Highly suitable | 0 |
Not habitat—not capable | 500 |
Transportation Routes: | |
Road (major or secondary highway) | 500 |
Housing Density (dwelling units/ha): | |
No buildings | 1 |
Isolated buildings (0–3 buildings/0.4 ha) | 5 |
Clusters of buildings (3–15 buildings/0.4 ha) | 50 |
High density buildings (>15 buildings/0.4 ha) | 100 |
Viability Outcomes—We used five viability outcomes that were calculated for current and historical conditions to assess changes in habitat conditions. The term “suitable environment” used in the viability outcomes refers to a combination of source habitat and risk factors that influence the probability of occupancy and demographic performance of the red tree vole based on our current understanding of their habitat and population relationships. |
Outcome A—Suitable environments are broadly distributed across the historical range of the red tree vole throughout the ecoregion. Suitable environments are in high abundance relative to historical conditions. The combination of distribution and abundance of environmental conditions provides opportunity for continuous or nearly continuous intraspecific interactions for the red tree vole. |
Outcome B—Suitable environments are broadly distributed across the historical range of the red tree vole. Suitable environments are of moderate to high abundance relative to historical conditions, but there may be gaps where suitable environments are absent or present in low abundance. However, any disjunct areas of suitable environments are typically large enough and close enough to permit dispersal among subpopulations and to allow the red tree vole to potentially interact as a metapopulation. Ecoregions with this outcome have suitable environments for red tree voles that are likely well-distributed throughout most of the area. |
Outcome C—Suitable environments are moderately distributed across the historical range of the red tree vole. Suitable environments are moderately abundant relative to historical conditions. Gaps exist where suitable environments are either absent or present in low abundance, and given their limited dispersal ability, some subpopulations of red tree vole may be isolated. There may be a reduction in the range of the red tree vole in the ecoregion. Ecoregions with this outcome have suitable environments for red tree voles that are likely well-distributed in only a portion of the area. |
Outcome D—Suitable environments are low to moderately distributed across the historical range of the red tree vole. Suitable environments exist at low abundance relative to their historical conditions. While some of the subpopulations associated with these environments may be self-sustaining, there is limited opportunity for population interactions among many of the suitable environmental patches for red tree voles given their limited dispersal ability. There may be a reduction in the range of the red tree vole in the ecoregion. Suitable environments for the red tree vole may not be well-distributed across the ecoregion. |
Outcome E—Suitable environments are highly isolated and exist at very low abundance relative to historical conditions. Suitable environments are not well-distributed across the historical range of the red tree vole. There may be little or no possibility of population interactions among suitable environmental patches, resulting in potential for extirpations within many of the patches, and little likelihood of recolonization of such patches. There has likely been a reduction in the range of the red tree vole from historical conditions. Ecoregions with this outcome have suitable environments for the red tree vole that are not well-distributed throughout much of the area. |
Watershed Index Scores | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ecoregion | Number of Watersheds | Current | Historical | ||
Mean | Range | Mean | Range | ||
Coast Range | 80 | 0.49 | 0.14–2.02 | 2.77 | 2.73–2.79 |
Cascades | 77 | 0.80 | 0.13–2.82 | 2.76 | 2.73–2.79 |
Klamath Mountains | 65 | 1.01 | 0.12–2.78 | 2.73 | 2.73–2.79 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Gaines, W.L.; Lyons, A.L.; Suring, L.H.; Hughes, C.S. Ecosystem Conditions That Influence the Viability of an Old-Forest Species with Limited Vagility: The Red Tree Vole. Animals 2023, 13, 1166. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13071166
Gaines WL, Lyons AL, Suring LH, Hughes CS. Ecosystem Conditions That Influence the Viability of an Old-Forest Species with Limited Vagility: The Red Tree Vole. Animals. 2023; 13(7):1166. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13071166
Chicago/Turabian StyleGaines, William L., Andrea L. Lyons, Lowell H. Suring, and Carol S. Hughes. 2023. "Ecosystem Conditions That Influence the Viability of an Old-Forest Species with Limited Vagility: The Red Tree Vole" Animals 13, no. 7: 1166. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13071166
APA StyleGaines, W. L., Lyons, A. L., Suring, L. H., & Hughes, C. S. (2023). Ecosystem Conditions That Influence the Viability of an Old-Forest Species with Limited Vagility: The Red Tree Vole. Animals, 13(7), 1166. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13071166