Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Deer as a Facilitator of Exotic Species Invasion in Mature Forests of Virginia
Deer as a Facilitator of Exotic Species Invasion in Mature Forests of Virginia
Deer as a Facilitator of Exotic Species Invasion in Mature Forests of Virginia
Deer as a Facilitator of Exotic Species Invasion in Mature Forests of Virginia
Deer as a Facilitator of Exotic Species Invasion in Mature Forests of Virginia
Deer as a Facilitator of Exotic Species Invasion in Mature Forests of Virginia
Deer as a Facilitator of Exotic Species Invasion in Mature Forests of Virginia
Deer as a Facilitator of Exotic Species Invasion in Mature Forests of Virginia
Deer as a Facilitator of Exotic Species Invasion in Mature Forests of Virginia
Deer as a Facilitator of Exotic Species Invasion in Mature Forests of Virginia
Deer as a Facilitator of Exotic Species Invasion in Mature Forests of Virginia
Deer as a Facilitator of Exotic Species Invasion in Mature Forests of Virginia
Deer as a Facilitator of Exotic Species Invasion in Mature Forests of Virginia
Deer as a Facilitator of Exotic Species Invasion in Mature Forests of Virginia
Deer as a Facilitator of Exotic Species Invasion in Mature Forests of Virginia
Deer as a Facilitator of Exotic Species Invasion in Mature Forests of Virginia
Deer as a Facilitator of Exotic Species Invasion in Mature Forests of Virginia
Deer as a Facilitator of Exotic Species Invasion in Mature Forests of Virginia
Deer as a Facilitator of Exotic Species Invasion in Mature Forests of Virginia
Deer as a Facilitator of Exotic Species Invasion in Mature Forests of Virginia
Deer as a Facilitator of Exotic Species Invasion in Mature Forests of Virginia
Deer as a Facilitator of Exotic Species Invasion in Mature Forests of Virginia
Deer as a Facilitator of Exotic Species Invasion in Mature Forests of Virginia
Deer as a Facilitator of Exotic Species Invasion in Mature Forests of Virginia
Deer as a Facilitator of Exotic Species Invasion in Mature Forests of Virginia
Deer as a Facilitator of Exotic Species Invasion in Mature Forests of Virginia
Deer as a Facilitator of Exotic Species Invasion in Mature Forests of Virginia
Deer as a Facilitator of Exotic Species Invasion in Mature Forests of Virginia
Deer as a Facilitator of Exotic Species Invasion in Mature Forests of Virginia
Deer as a Facilitator of Exotic Species Invasion in Mature Forests of Virginia
Deer as a Facilitator of Exotic Species Invasion in Mature Forests of Virginia
Deer as a Facilitator of Exotic Species Invasion in Mature Forests of Virginia
Deer as a Facilitator of Exotic Species Invasion in Mature Forests of Virginia
Deer as a Facilitator of Exotic Species Invasion in Mature Forests of Virginia
Deer as a Facilitator of Exotic Species Invasion in Mature Forests of Virginia
Deer as a Facilitator of Exotic Species Invasion in Mature Forests of Virginia
Deer as a Facilitator of Exotic Species Invasion in Mature Forests of Virginia
Deer as a Facilitator of Exotic Species Invasion in Mature Forests of Virginia
Deer as a Facilitator of Exotic Species Invasion in Mature Forests of Virginia
Deer as a Facilitator of Exotic Species Invasion in Mature Forests of Virginia
Deer as a Facilitator of Exotic Species Invasion in Mature Forests of Virginia
Deer as a Facilitator of Exotic Species Invasion in Mature Forests of Virginia
Deer as a Facilitator of Exotic Species Invasion in Mature Forests of Virginia
Deer as a Facilitator of Exotic Species Invasion in Mature Forests of Virginia
Deer as a Facilitator of Exotic Species Invasion in Mature Forests of Virginia
Deer as a Facilitator of Exotic Species Invasion in Mature Forests of Virginia
Deer as a Facilitator of Exotic Species Invasion in Mature Forests of Virginia
Deer as a Facilitator of Exotic Species Invasion in Mature Forests of Virginia
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Deer as a Facilitator of Exotic Species Invasion in Mature Forests of Virginia

679

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
679
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • Networking (~2 slides) Who else we want to attract to our work – who we hope to attract Partners – each has their roleThroughlandowner participation and networking with contractors and state and non-governmental agenciesProviding education and community centered opportunities to discuss all aspects of conservation on working landscapes and those adjoining them.Research management strategies to determine the effectiveness, cost-benefit (environmental and economic), and bmp’s
  • We are attempting to determine best management practices and their costs, benefits (environmental and economic) and effectivness
  • Discuss that Farms come in all different sizes we standardized to 20 acres.Discuss the Four Management Types
  • 50+ Citizen Scientists trained by professional birders, botanists and pollinator ecologists. I d like to point out that while the pollinator surveyors need not bee professional amateur bee taxonomists we do require that amateur experts lead each bird and plant survey. Any citizen scientist that is not an expert assists the amateur expert until the feel comfortable in taking the lead.***In training Plant and Bird citizen scientists are simply being trained in running our specific protocolsWhich is different from the poll’s and then we rely on prof for ID’s Not enough expertise in poll to be able to …
  • Transcript

    • 1. Deer as a facilitator of exotic species invasion in mature forests of VirginiaWilliam McSheaConservation Ecology Center, Smithsonian ConservationBiology Institute, Front Royal, VA
    • 2. Appalachian Mountains /Ridge and Valley • World-class temperate forest both for diversity and extentSNP & M,GW&J NFs • Large blocks of public forest • Primarily deciduous forest • Mature 2° forest (>100 yrs) • Close to urban centers
    • 3. Stressors on eastern deciduous forests• Forest loss, fragmentation, and parcelization• Loss of critical species (American chestnut, wolves, cougars)• Climate change (temperature, storm severity and frequency) Invasive plant and animal species White-tailed deer – you know the story – you know the story
    • 4. Browsing by deer alters forest succession pathways and sustainability
    • 5. When Should We Worry About “Overabundant” Species• Cause significant economic loss• Lower diversity across the landscape• Unsustainable demographics of rare species• Alters pathways for productivity or succession
    • 6. A species that, other than as a result of an introduction, Native Species historically occurred, or currently occurs, in a particular ecosystem. Any species, including its seeds, eggs, spores or other Exotic Species biological material capable of propagating that species, that is not native to a particular ecosystem. Invasive Species An exotic species whose introduction does, or is likely to, cause economic, human health or environmental harm.In US – 20,000 native plant sp.; 4,000 alien plants; 400 invasive plantsLets agree to worry about invasive (native or exotic) first & exotic later
    • 7. Abundant ground cover – little of it native species
    • 8. Hidden native species aredenied light but also invisibleto deer??
    • 9. The problem – low recruitment and diversity of native plants• White-tailed deer prefer browsing native vegetation compared to exotic species, so native woody species not only compete with invasive species for light, but must survive preferential herbivory by deer. The Solutions • Remove invasives. But - when invasive plants are removed - do plant populations increase or does herbivory increase? • Reduce deer numbers. But - when deer are removed - do natives increase or do invasive plants respond more quickly?
    • 10. Direct consumption (-) (-) (+) Competition for light (-) and nutrients Can you increase recruitment Predictions: of woody seedling or species richness 1) Reduced invasives of herbaceous plants by fixing only will increase herbivory one 2) Reduced herbivory problem??? will increase invasives Are you promising something you can not deliver when you try only one??
    • 11. Project Details• Co-Investigators – Norm Bourg, Chad Stewart• C & O Canal and SCBI – 330 Plots• 4 x 4 m plot with 4 1x1 m subplots within each• ID and count all native herbaceous and woody plants < 30cm high, within each sub plot. All saplings ( > 30 cm) within each plot. For grasses and ferns estimate % cover.• Identify all exotic species, count and estimate % cover.• Calculated species richness, species diversity (Shannon index, H’), and number of individuals per plot in 2005 (pre) and 2007 and 2009
    • 12. Do Nothing 179 plots NN 53 plots PN45 plots NF 49 plots PF
    • 13. Measured all plots in summer 2005 andselect management category
    • 14. Pulled Invasives twiceeach year: may and august
    • 15. Timeline• 325 plots established 2005 (+ 8 in 2006)• Invasives pulled twice each year & fences maintained• Plots resurveyed in 2007 and 2009
    • 16. After 4 years: Woody Species (> 30 cm) 14 Mean Number of Stems 12 10 Recommended stocking rate for native (all) 8 seedlings native (trees) 6 invasives (all) 4 2 0 Control Pulled Fenced Pull/Fence Treatments 2009 Sapling DataFencing (not pulling) increased native species (total or just trees)Invasive species highest when deer excludedNeither treatment achieved needed stocking rate after 4 years
    • 17. 1 Red Maple 0.9 No treatments increased numbers 0.8 0.7Number of Individuals/Plot 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Control Fenced Only Pulled Only Pulled and Fenced Treatment 2005 2009
    • 18. 1 0.9 Quercus Species Only combined treatment increased numbers 0.8Number of Individuals/Plot 0.7 * 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Control Fenced Only Pulled Only Pulled and Fenced 2005 2009 Treatment
    • 19. Oak Saplings in 2009Treatment N of Plots N of Saplings DensityControl 183 4 0.02/plotPulled 55 0 0.00/plotFenced 50 6 0.12/plotPull/Fence 48 16 0.33/plot
    • 20. Forestry matters: decline of oaks in eastern forests JWM 2007, McShea et al. based on FIA data• Decline in proportion of intermediate-sized oaks in eastern forests: 32% in 1989 down to 21% in 2000•stem density ofmaples doubled from660 (+ 201) in 19891303 (+246) in 2000• nosignificant changein mast production yet• maples are immune todeer and invasives and(lack of fire), whileoaks are not
    • 21. Setting the Stage for this Study Study took place on SIGEO Plot at SCBI SIGEO Origins Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (STRI) In 1980, Steve Hubbell and Robin Foster established a 50- hectare (124-acre) forest plot in Panama. The survey methodology was unprecedented in scale and scope. Every tree greater than or equal to 1cm diameter was identified, measured, tagged, and mapped. All trees are re-censured every 5 years. A “base layer” of tree community is overlaid with multiple explanatory and ancillary layers to understand forest community structureBarro Colorado Island
    • 22. SCBI - SIGEO Plot Location 26 ha plot is created in 2008 With 20 x 20 m grid cells with each post marked with row and column Due to be resurveyed in 2013
    • 23. Tree Measurements- all stems > 1cm dbh measured, mapped, tagged & identified to species Layers subsequently added: DEM, Downed woody debri; Soil nutrients and carbon; Seedlings; Small mammals; Invasive worms; Invasive exotic plants
    • 24. SCBI - SIGEO Forest Dynamics PlotInitial census of 25.6 ha completed: - 40,180 stems (29,914 living); 26 Families, 38 genera - 62 species of free-standing trees & shrubs, 54 of which are native;Composition:- Mature secondary Eastern mixed deciduous forest – dominant species: Canopy: Understory: - Liriodendron tulipifera Asimina triloba - Carya glabra Carpinus canadensis - Carya tomentosa Cornus florida - Quercus alba Cercis canadensis - Q. rubra Amelanchier arborea - Nyssa sylvatica - Fraxinus americana Shrubs: Lindera benzoin (>17,000 stems) - Succeeding to oak-hickory forest (8 spp. oaks, 4 spp. hickory + 2 Juglans spp.)
    • 25. Added Twist to Plot26 ha site includes 4 ha deer exclosureerected in 19908 ft fence with 4 ft of American wire fencing(set with larger mesh on bottom)and 6 strands of high tensile wire (4 ft)8 ft 2”x2” spacers with 6 slots (10o angle)hold high tensile fence in place
    • 26. Idea for study came mainly from distribution of Microstegium in plot relative to deer exclosure 4 ha deer exclosure erected in 1990 prior to invasion of most exotic species1) Are invasive plant distributions shapedby distribution of deer2) Underlying mechanisms for impact Protocol for invasive species study • All 20 x 20 m grid cells examined in 2010 • All invasive species recorded as present/absent • All individual clusters counted except Microstegium (5 abundance classes based on %) • Distributions matched with data layers
    • 27. Common invasive plants in forest Wineberry Rubus phoenicolasius Japanese barberry Berberis thunbergii
    • 28. Common invasive plants in forestJapanese stiltgrass Microstegium vimineum Multiflora rose Rosa multiflora
    • 29. Experimental DesignFour step process1) Use canonical correlations to determine tree communities within each grid cell and select section of grid (reference plot) that “matched” deer exclosure2) Insure that the range of all parameters within deer exclosure and reference plot areencompassed by the remaining squares (Phosphorus issue)3) Permutation trees (conditional inference tree; party in R) were constructed using allsquares outside of deer exclosure and reference plot (p < 0.99 to prune tree)4) Repeated process using significant variables identified in first tree - using gird cells from deer exclosure and reference plot while adding “Fence” as variable
    • 30. SIGEO study area (20 x 20 m2 quadrats)Colors reflect community types,created using a cluster analysis basedon basal area of the 10 dominanttree species in each unit (80%). Reference Plot (4 ha) matching communities Deer Exclosure (4 ha) erected 1990
    • 31. Norm BourgJenny McGarvey and Xiaoli Shen
    • 32. Min Max Mean SDSPECIES ABUNDANCEROMU individual number (clumps) 0 33 1.01 2.96BETH individual number (clumps) 0 138 6.44 11.79RUPH individual number (clumps) 0 125 6.33 12.96%MIVI cover in category 0 4 1.76 1.20 = absent; 1 = 1-25%; 2 = 26-50%; 3 = 51-75%; 4 = 76-100%Comfrey individual number 0 116 10.99 18.83PREDICTOR VARIABLESNo. of deer fecal pellet groups 0 52 1.93 4.99Distance from quadrat center to forest edge (m) 21 523 282.89 115.5Transformed aspect† -1 1 -0.008 0.72Slope (degrees) 1.9 21.4 10.34 3.81Topographic convergence index‡ 0 280.8 34.45 30.35Woody species richness 3 20 10.16 2.85No. of woody stem 7 582 60.37 71.22pH 3.96 6.11 5.09 0.47ECEC (estimated cation exchange capacity, cmol/kg) 6.98 41.26 18.13 5.65Nitrogen (mg/kg) 2.13 9.09 4.3 1.16Phosphorus (mg/kg) 10.31 35.05 20.1 5.82% canopy openness (hemispherical photo) 3.69 20.89 9.07 2.16
    • 33. Test Case – known deer-dispersed plantWild Comfrey Cynoglossum virginianum 11.39 1.17 38.49 4.48 4.15 0.79 21.79 2.20 6.21 1.71 0.01 0.01
    • 34. Multiflora rose Rosa multifloraMore abundant in exclosureHigher nitrogen levels increase abundance 1.00 + 0.15 4.58 + 1.01 0.29 + 0.10 1.55 + 0.43 0.22 + 0.05
    • 35. Japanese barberry Berberis thunbergiiSoil cations important (organic content)Twice as abundant outside of exclosure 2.17 + 0.39 5.32 + 0.80 11.16 + 1.0 3.26 + 0.25 1.80 + 0.33
    • 36. Wineberry Rubus phoenicolasiusHigh nitrogen and low shrub densityincreases abundance- but in cells with low nitrogen more abundantwith deer 3.25 + 0.51 20.9 + 2.68 9.82 + 1.28 2.25 + 0.36 0.22 + 0.09 7.11 + 1.29
    • 37. Japanese stiltgrass Microstegium vimineumHighest abundances found with lowdensity of shrubs and high pH or highLevels of P and understory opennessAbsence found almost only withindeer exclosure0 = absent; 1 = 0-25%; 2 = 26-50%; 3 = 51-75%; 1.76+0.13 2.60+0.1 1.39+0.09 1.67+0.16 2.33+0.124 = 76-100%. 1.58+0.14 2.20+0.12 0.49+0.06
    • 38. Hard Seed Crops Critical for Wildlife Populations in Eastern Forests • In order to produce seed we need mature trees • In order to produce mature trees we need: – Lower densities of deer – Control of invasive plants – Periodic light reaching forest floor – disturbance • Fire, harvest, hurricanes, insect outbreaksThese are not problems with seedling establishment butproblems with the transition from seedling to sapling
    • 39. A “Perfect” World• Overall Lower Density of Deer• Removal of invasive, exotic species• Create Spatial and Temporal Heterogeneity• Increase the Movement of Ungulates with Respect to Resources (Predators)• Increased Avenues for Flow of Productivity and thereby Increased Biodiversity
    • 40. Virginiathis all mean? What does Working Landscapes• Deer do play a role in establishment of some exotic species in this forest• For one species (multiflora rose) the distribution of the plant was not influenced by deer – bird-dispersed seeds• Mechanism may not be the same for each exotic species• Mechanisms for facilitation are not clear from this study 1 1 • Deer actively spread seeds through feces or on coat – possible but unlikely Bill McShea , Maria Van Dyke , and James • Deer activity changes soil characteristics and nutrient levels – possible (N, ECEC, P lower) 2 • Absence of deer reduces leaf litter disturbance - possible Barnes • Native plants established before arrival of most invasives (1990 fence) - possible 1. Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, Front Royal, VA 2. Piedmont Environmental Council, Warrenton, VA Mission: To encourage the sustainable use of Virginia landscapes for biodiversity www.vaworkinglandscapes.org
    • 41. Develop a Conservation Network: Landowners
    • 42. Grassland Research:Measuring biodiversity on grasslands in the NorthernShenandoah Valley and Piedmont Regions 1. Richness and Abundance of: • Birds • Pollinators • Native Plants 2. Effects of Management programs on these three biota 3. Conversion of introduced (CSG) to native grasslands (WSG)
    • 43. Wildlife WSG All Fields = 20 AcresNot hayedNot grazedNew and/orManaged WSGHayed or≤ 2 yrs oldWildlife CSGNot hayedNot grazedManaged CSGHayed or grazed
    • 44. Citizen ScienceBirds Survey Protocol Techniques Field Identification TrainingNative Bees and Butterflies Surveys Protocol Techniques Ecology and Life History Identification TrainingPlants Survey Protocol Techniques Field and Microscope Identification
    • 45. Fruit -eating birds Ground-nesting Under-story birds seedlings Non-mast seedsmesopredators Rodents Humans TicksGypsy moths PathogensMast-eating Pathogens birds DEER Mast Production Oak seedlings Oak Trees Fire Sunlight Soil Nutrients Soil Moisture

    ×