j_wer_v4_web

Journal of Wildlife Ecology Research
Volume 4, July-August 2015
Published by the Huyck Preserve and Biological Research Station
© Huyck Preserve and Biological Research Station, 2015

Board of Directors
Susan Beatty, Ph.D.
Chair
Susan Kessler
President
Geoffrey Carter
Executive Vice President
Britt Winterer
Vice President
Alexandra van Horne
Treasurer
Helene Goldberger
Secretary
Bradbury Dyer III
William H. Eldridge, Ph.D.
George Frangos
Mame Kennedy Schrager
Tom Lyons
William Logan
Mike McChesney
Daniel McNamee III
Rebecca Platel
Anne Rhoads, Ph.D.
Michael Sterthous, Esq.
Honorary Directors
Nancy Chase
Roswell Eldridge, MD
James Foster
Shirley Stevens French
Jerome G. Rozen, Jr., Ph.D.
Staff
Dawn O’Neal, Ph.D.
Executive Director
Carolyn Barker
Administrative & Financial Manager
Adam Caprio
Supervisor of Buildings & Grounds
Emileigh Tanner
Membership Coordinator & Board
Liaiason
Christina McLaughlin
Conservation & Outreach
Coordinator
Dennis Hostash
Buildings and Grounds Assistant
Leah Waldron
BookkeepeR

Wildlife Ecology Research
Where students learn ecology through hands-on research
Wildlife Ecology Research is a residental program of the
Huyck Preserve and Biological Research Station in upstate
New York. Students are introduced to a diverse array of
wildlife and research techniques by ecologists from around
the country. The program culminates in small group research
projects students develop and implement from hypothesis to
final paper.
Open to rising junior and senior high school students
2016 Program Dates:
July 17-August 7
Applications Available Online
www.huyckpreserve.org/WER o (518)797-3440 o dawn@huyckpreserve.org

Wildlife Ecology Research
Summer 2015

Volume 4: i, 2015
[i]
The importance of basic field research: Investigating what we know we don’t know to advance what we
do
Dawn O’Neal, Ph.D.
Wildlife Ecology Research Program Director
Executive Director of the Huyck Preserve
Many beginning research students come to the Preserve thinking their week and half long project is destined to
make a big splash on the research landscape. Their projects might not go so far as to find a solution to global
climate change, but they hope to advance the field to within a few steps of a resolution. These lofty goals are
heartening from the standpoint of a mentor passing the research baton to the next generation, as such passion is
so often the basis of amazing discoveries. Of course, every student, as they begin to pull together previous research
which puts their far flung thoughts into context, is soon surprised to discover just how far away we are from
finding resolutions to some of the major issues affecting our world. When it comes to field ecology, often
considered one of the most basic of research endeavors because of its long history reaching back to the times of
Aristotle, students are amazed to learn that we are still searching for some of the most basic answers regarding
our natural world. Sometimes this lack of knowledge stymies a student’s research project but more often students
pick up the mantle so that they might advance the pool of knowledge.
This year several students found themselves conducting basic research projects to fill in the gaps left by their
predecessors. Alix Westgaard continued the fight against the invasive rusty-spotted crayfish by helping us
understand their impacts on macroinvertebrate populations and water quality in 10-mile and Trout creeks.
Meanwhile, we were finally able to determine reasonable deer population counts for the Preserve and, in
conjunction with current deer exclosures, get an idea of browsing effects around trails and roads thanks to the
work of Cassidy Keyes and Xander Haber. Curious as to whether passive capture of birds was the best technique
for avian population studies like the Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship Program (MAPS), Kai
Victor compared capture techniques in an effort to assist future researchers in determining the most effective
method for their projects. Our abundance of invasive honeysuckle around Lake Myosotis led Lindsay Yue to test
its impacts on surrounding soil chemistry and whether it might facilitate the establishment of other invasive
species. Alicia Jen, concerned about the number of birds caught with ticks during MAPS, replicated a study
conducted in the Midwest to determine the relationships between ticks and birds in the Northeast. Similarly, Levi
Huttner, faced with our abundance of stone walls, wonder if they could be expanding the available habitat of the
area and increasing small mammal biodiversity. All of these projects stemmed from observations made in the
field which led to questions that I, staff, or the literature couldn’t answer sparking a flurry of project development.
Most students rankle against the term basic when used to describe their research. While to some the term implies
that the research is simple or easy, the students of Wildlife Ecology Research have learned that field research is
anything but simple. Rather, the questions answered here are fundamental to our understanding of the natural
world around us. Achieving results takes dedication: from walking many miles to heading into the field at all
hours of the day and night. It is because these students have taken the time to investigate what we don’t know
about the broad array of systems covered in this year’s research projects that we can take another step forward,
working towards finding resolutions to some of our most pressing problems regarding the conservation and
preservation of the natural world.

Volume 4: 1-3, 2015
[1]
Relationship of White-Tailed Deer Browsing Intensity and Proximity to Roads and Trails
Xander Haber
Manhasset High School, Manhasset, NY
Abstract
Roads and trails can fragment forests pushing animals, such as white-tailed deer, further into forest interiors
causing them to over browse those areas. This over browsing substantially slows down new forest growth. The
relationship between browsing intensity and distance to roads and trails was investigated at four sites at the Huyck
Preserve. Browsing intensity increased as distance to roads increased, but did not differ with respect to proximity
to trails. Foliage coverage declined with distance from both roads and trails. Results suggest that roads are having
an impact on deer browsing behaviors, which impacts interior forest regeneration but there appear to be no effects
of trails.
Introduction
White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) are very
common to the Huyck Preserve. They enjoy many
plants here, such as Eastern Hemlock (Tsuga
Canadensis) and American Beech (Fagus grandifolia)
(Rawinski, 2014; Robinson, 2009). Roads and trails
fragment the forest and can concentrate deer browsing
into certain areas (Heilman et al., 2002). Deer are
known to over browse, negatively impacting overall
forest regeneration (Alverson & Waller, 1997). Deer
avoid areas of high human traffic because of the risk
of predation (Rost & Bailey, 1979). Thus they may be
having larger effects on forest regeneration at forest
interiors as opposed to near roads and trails. Using
established methods to measure deer browsing
impacts (Augustine and Frelich, 1998), the amount of
deer browsing near roads and trails as well as in forest
interiors was investigated (no road for at least 50m).
Higher levels of browse in forest interior compared to
near roads and trails, was predicted, as deer avoid
roads/trails because of predation risk. Understanding
how roads and trails affect deer browsing can lead to
better and more accurate stewardship and management
plans.
Methods
Plot sites were picked based on visible game trails and
deer scat in the area. Four plot sites were chosen two
each near roads and trials. Three transects, 50m by 5m,
were measured for each plot. Every 5m, a 5m x 5m
area was observed for browsing intensity and percent
of foliage ground coverage following standard
methods (Winchcombe, 2015; Augustine and Frelich,
1998). Browsing intensity was rated on a scale of
none, light, medium, or heavy.
Results
Browsing intensity increased as distance to roads
increased (R²=0.13;Fig. 1) but did not differ with
respect to proximity to trails (R²=0.02; Fig. 4). Foliage
coverage declined with distance from both roads and
trails (R²=0.20; Fig. 2; R²=0.35; Fig. 5). Near roads
when browsing is high, foliage coverage is low (R²
=0.33; Fig. 3). However, near trails browsing and
foliage coverage were not correlated (R² =0.01; Fig.
6).
Discussion
Browsing was less intense closer to roads as predicted,
but there was no difference in browsing intensity near
trails. Near roads, foliage coverage declined with the
distance from roads presumably due to deer browsing
pressures as foliage coverage and browsing levels
were correlated near roads. Near trails, while foliage
coverage declined with distance from trails, deer
browsing pressures do not appear to be causing this
effect.
Results suggest that roads are having an impact on
deer browsing behaviors, which may also impact
interior forest regeneration. This means that the forest
will not be growing new plants because the deer are
over browsing them. However, trails do not appear to
be having an impact on deer behavior although there
is evidence of foliage declines as distance from trails

Volume 4: 1-3, 2015
[2]
Figure 1. Browsing levels compared to distance to roads. Browsing
levels increased as distance from roads increased.
Figure 2. Percent foliage coverage compared to distance to roads.
Percent foliage coverage decreased as distance from roads increased.
Figure 3. Percent foliage coverage compared to browsing levels near
roads. Percent foliage coverage decreased as browsing levels increased.
Figure4. Browsing levels compared to distance to trails. Browsing levels
had no correlation with distance to trails.
Figure 5. Percent foliage coverage compared to distance to trails.
Percent foliage coverage decreased as distance from trails increased.
Figure 6. Percent foliage coverage compared to browsing levels near
trails. Percent foliage coverage had no correlation with browsing levels.
R² = 0.1295
0
1
2
3
-10 10 30 50
BrowsingLevel
Distance(m)
R² = 0.1969
0
20
40
60
80
100
-10 10 30 50
%FoliageCoverage
Distance(m)
R² = 0.3311
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 1 2 3
%FoliageCoverage
Browsing Level
R² = 0.0241
0
1
2
3
-10 10 30 50
BrowsingLevel
Distance(m)
R² = 0.354
0
20
40
60
80
100
-10 10 30 50
%FoliageCoverage
Distance(m)
R² = 0.0055
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 1 2 3
%FoliageCoverage
Browsing Level

Volume 4: 1-3, 2015
[3]
increases. Other animals, such as rabbits, porcupines,
or beavers, might be causing this browsing and
therefore foliage decrease. Trail management, like
cutting off larger branches growing on trees near the
trails’ edges, might also contribute to the increased
foliage cover near trails, because the understory will
have more sunlight reaching it.
It is possible that the results seen here, specifically no
effect of trails on browsing, may be a result of not
picking a site with a high deer density, incorrectly
recording other foliage browsing as deer browsing, or
vise versa. Future studies, should consider using pellet
counts, game trails, and camera traps, when choosing
plot sites to insure high deer density or traffic in the
areas, and minimizes these potential sources of error.
Additionally, studies should compare browse
characteristics between known deer browse and other
herbivorous animals to reduce the chance of mistakes
regarding browse rates.
Acknowledgements
This research would not have been possible if not for
the instruction and assistance of Dr. Dawn O’Neal,
Kye “Big Mike” Graham, Maxwell D. Calloway, and
Kai Victor.
Literature Cited
Alverson, W.S. & Waller, D.M. (1997) “Deer
populations and the widespread failure of hemlock
regeneration in northern forests.” The Science of
Overabundance: Deer Ecology and Population
Management (eds W.J.McShea, H.B.Underwood &
J.H.Rappole), pp.280–297. Smithsonian Institution
Press, Washington, DC, USA.
Augustine, David J., and Lee E. Frelich. "Effects of
White-Tailed Deer on Populations of an Understory
Forb in Fragmented Deciduous
Forests." Conservation Biology 12.5 (1998): 995-
1004. Web.
Heilman, Gerald E., et al. "Forest Fragmentation of the
Conterminous United States: Assessing Forest
Intactness through Road Density and Spatial
Characteristics Forest fragmentation can be measured
and monitored in a powerful new way by combining
remote sensing, geographic information systems, and
analytical software." BioScience 52.5 (2002): 411-
422.
Robinson, George. "Species Lists." Huyck Preserve &
Biological Research Station. N.p., May 2009. Web. 13
Aug. 2015.
Rost, Gregory R., and James A. Bailey. "Distribution
of mule deer and elk in relation to roads." The Journal
of Wildlife Management (1979): 634-641.
U.S.A. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest
Service. White-tailed Deer in Northeastern Forests:
Understanding and Assessing Impacts. By Thomas J.
Rawinski. N.p.: n.p., 2014. Web. 14 Aug. 2015.
Winchcombe, Raymond J. "Monitoring Deer
Browsing." Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies. N.p.,
2015. Web. 19 Aug. 2015

Volume 4: 4-7, 2015
[4]
The Effects of Drystone Walls on Rodent Diversity: A Case Study of the Huyck Preserve
Levi Huttner
The White Mountain School, Bethlehem, NH
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine how the presence of drystone walls in an area of forest affects that
area’s rodent diversity. Drystone walls – walls composed of stacked stones without cement or mortar – are a very
common sight in the northeastern United States. These walls, which contain myriad small holes in which rodents
can take shelter, represent a relatively novel but common form of anthropogenic ecosystem that has yet to be
sufficiently studied. Since the majority of rodents are considered keystone species in their ecosystems (Mihalca
and Sándor 2013), drystone walls could potentially hold great ecological significance. It was hypothesized that
both rodent populations and species richness would be higher in areas of forest containing drystone walls than in
areas of forest lacking them because rodents would take advantage of the many small holes that drystone walls
provide. To test this hypothesis, rodent traps were placed in several plots, some with drystone walls and some
without them, and the captures from each type of plot were compared. It was found that, of the four rodent species
captured over the course of this study, three were more abundant in and around drystone walls than in the general
forest. Additionally, in and around drystone walls, rodent diversity was found to be higher while rodent species
richness was found to be more or less the same.
Introduction
The Edmund Niles Huyck Preserve and Biological
Research Station is a 2,000-acre nature preserve
located in Rensselaerville, New York, just southwest
of Albany (ENHP History). Of these 2,000 acres, a
500-acre area that was once clear-cut and divided into
private lots is now a second-growth forest that has
been undisturbed since the late 1800’s (ENHP
History). However, the drystone walls that once
marked the boundaries of those private lots now
crisscross this area of forest, a situation that is
representative of many of the second-growth forests in
the northeastern United States (Stone Wall Initiative).
In fact, there are an estimated 200,000 miles of
drystone walls in the northeastern United States, a
significant portion of which exist in forested areas
(Stone Wall Initiative). Small rodents commonly use
crevices and holes both as dens and as caches for food.
Due to their unique physical features, drystone walls
contain numerous holes and crevices that would
otherwise be absent from the forests in which they lie.
Thus, drystone walls represent a relatively novel but
common form of anthropogenic ecosystem that may
serve to boost rodent diversity in the forests of the
northeastern United States. However, to date, little
research has been done on the ecological significance
of drystone walls, and their effect on rodent diversity
is not well understood (Collier 2013). Furthermore, the
majority of the scant research that has been done on
this subject has taken place in the United Kingdom
where drystone walls are also very common.
Nevertheless, the results of these studies have
identified multiple European rodent species that utilize
drystone walls, increasing the likelihood that a range
of North American species may also utilize these
structures (Hynes and Fairley 1973; Drystone Walls
and Wildlife). In the Huyck Preserve alone, there exist
13 species of rodents that could potentially utilize the
myriad crevices provided by drystone walls (ENHP
Vertebrate Species List). So, while only 4 of the 13
candidate species on the E. N. Huyck Preserve were
proven to utilize drystone walls during this study,
those results imply similar behaviors for many other
geographically separate, but ecologically and
morphologically similar rodent species. At this point
in time, very little legislature exists to conserve
drystone walls in the United States and the majority of
walls are unprotected (Stone Wall Initiative). This
study provides some incite into the ecological
significance of drystone walls in the forests of the
Northeast that will hopefully be useful in guiding
legislature regarding these walls in the future. Finally,
this study was guided by the research question, “How
does the presence of drystone walls in an area impact
that area’s rodent population and species richness?”
and began with the hypothesis that both rodent

Volume 4: 4-7, 2015
[5]
population and species richness would be increased by
the presence of drystone walls because rodents would
take advantage of the myriad holes and crevices that
the walls provide.
Methods
Two sections of wall, one 35m long and the other 40m
long, were selected. The sections were located at N
42˚31.734’ W 074˚09.636 and 42˚31.565’ W
074˚09.370 respectively A GPS locator was used)(Fig.
1). A mix of Sherman traps and Havahart traps were
placed parallel to each other on both sides of the wall
every 5m, starting at the 0m mark, so that the 35m
section of wall had 16 traps and the 40m section had
18 traps. Traps were arranged so that Sherman Traps
were parallel to Sherman Traps and Havaharts were
parallel to Havaharts so as to keep both sides of the
wall identical. Two areas of forest floor, each 6m away
from one of the sections of wall, were plotted to act as
control plots. Both control plots were 0.5m wide (the
average width of the drystone walls), of equal length
to their corresponding section of wall, and ran parallel
to those walls. Traps were placed every 5m, starting at
the 0m mark, in two rows 0.5m apart for an overall
total of 68 traps. The Sherman trap to Havahart trap
ratio was kept constant between each wall plot and its
corresponding control plot in order to maintain a
controlled experiment. All of the traps were baited
with a mix of peanut butter and birdseed and checked
roughly every 12 hours for five days. Captured rodents
were marked with either blue paint (wall plots) or
green paint (control plots) in order to keep track of
recaptures and movement between plots. After
marking, rodents were released near the trap they were
found in.
Results
Figure 3. The average number of captured individuals for each species
in each type of plot On average more individuals were caught near
stonewalls compared to clear forest floor plots.
0
1
2
3
4
Wall Plots Control Plots
AverageNumberof
CapturedIndividuals
50%
40%
10%
Figure 1. Study plot locations. Yellow dots mark the two
sampling area were traps were set.
White-footed
Mouse
Deer Mouse
Eastern Chipmunk
Northern Flying
Squirrel
16%
37%
42%
5%
White-footed
Mouse
Deer Mouse
Eastern Chipmunk
Northern Flying
Squirrel
A
B
Figure 2. The effect drystone walls have on rodent diversity, showing
the percentage of the total number of captured individuals that each
rodent species comprised in wall (A) and open forest control plots
(B).

Volume 4: 4-7, 2015
[6]
Four species of rodents were captured during this
study (Fig. 2 & 3). On average, more individuals were
captured (Fig. 2) and there was a greater diversity of
species (Fig. 3) near stone walls. White-footed mice
made up half the total number of rodents captured in
control plots while deer mice and eastern chipmunks
were the most common species at stone walls (Fig. 3).
Discussion
Of the 13 species of small rodents known to exist on
the E. N. Huyck Preserve and Biological Research
Station, 4 were captured over the course of this study
– Peromyscus leucopus (white-footed mouse),
Peromyscus maniculatas (deer mouse), Tamias
striatus (eastern chipmunk), and Glaucomys sabrinus
(northern flying squirrel). The first part of the initial
hypothesis, that the presence drystone walls increases
rodent populations, proved correct for P. maniculatus,
T. striatus, and G. sabrinus while a reversed trend was
demonstrated by P. leucopus (Figure 2). It should be
noted that only a single G. sabrinus specimen was
captured during this study. As to why P. leucopus was
less abundant in and around drystone walls than on the
general forest floor, one possible explanation could be
competition with the morphologically and
behaviorally similar P. maniculatus, which was found
to be more prevalent in and around drystone walls. In
other words, P. leucopus may have propagated more
successfully in control plots because the holes and
crevices in the wall plots had already been occupied
by P. maniculatus. The first part of the initial
hypothesis held up particularly strongly for T. striatus,
which was eight times more abundant in wall plots
than in control plots (Figure 2).
If G. sabrinus is disregarded, then species richness
was found to be the same between both types of plot,
in opposition to this second part of this study’s original
hypothesis. However, if G. sabrinus is considered,
then the results of this study indicate that the presence
of drystone walls may produce a slight increase in
rodent species richness. Finally, overall rodent
diversity was shown to be higher near drystone walls,
even when G. sabrinus is disregarded, as the wall plots
displayed a more even distribution of P. leucopus, P.
maniculatus, and T. striatus than the control plots did
(Figure 3).
It is believed that the increase in rodent populations
and diversity seen within the wall plots was due to the
fact that the rodents were utilizing the small holes and
crevices provided by the drystone walls as shelters and
food caches. More resources enables the support of
more individuals, hence the population increase, and
reduces the need for competition between species,
hence the diversity increase. However, since no
cameras were set up and the drystone walls were not
disturbed, how rodents were using the walls cannot be
said for sure.
In conclusion, the results of this study indicate that
drystone walls are an important habitat for T. striatus
and P. maniculatus in the second-growth forests of the
northeastern United States and that drystone walls may
also increase the overall diversity of rodents in these
areas. Furthermore, these results increase the
likelihood that there are other species of rodents in the
Northeast that behave similarly to T. striatus and P.
maniculatus. Thus, since drystone walls are pervasive
in the Northeast and many rodents are keystone
species that hold great effect on their ecosystems,
drystone walls can be seen as having substantial
ecological significance. Hopefully, the results of this
study will lead to further research into the relationship
between rodents and drystone walls and will guide
future legislature surrounding the protection of these
important anthropogenic ecosystems
Literature Cited
Collier, Marcus. 2013. Field Boundary Stone Walls as
Exemplars of 'Novel' Ecosystems. Landscape
Research. 38(1): 141-50.
"Dry Stone Walls and Wildlife." Aberdeenshire.
DSWA, 2007. Web. 13 Aug. 2015.
<http://www.aberdeenshire.gov.uk/planning/devservi
ces/biodiversity/Dry%20Stone%20Walls%20for%20
Wildlife.pdf>.
Stone Wall Initiative. U of Conn, n.d. Web. 13 Aug.
2015.

Volume 4: 4-7, 2015
[7]
<http://stonewall.uconn.edu/resources/primer/frequen
tly-asked-questions/>.
ENHP History. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Aug. 2015.
<https://www.huyckpreserve.org/our-history.html>.
Hynes, J. and J. Fairley. 1973. A Population Study of
Fieldmice in Dry-Stone Walls. Irish Naturalists'
Journal 19(6): 180-84.
<http://www.jstor.org/stable/25538148?seq=1#page_
scan_tab_contents>.
Mihalca, Andre D. and Sándor, Attila D.. 2013. The
Role of Rodents in the Ecology of Ixodes Ricinus and
Associated Pathogens in Central and Eastern Europe.
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
3(56).
ENHP Vertebrate Species List. N.p., n.d. Web. 13
Aug. 2015.
<https://www.huyckpreserve.org/uploads/2/4/5/6/245
60510/vertebrate_species_list.pdf>.

Volume 4: 8-13, 2015
[8]
Prevalence of Tick-Infested Birds in the Northeastern United States
Alicia Jen
Ridge High School, Basking Ridge, NJ
Abstract
Birds are a known carrier of zoonotic diseases, and previous research shows that birds can host diseased ticks and
potentially spread tick-borne diseases, such as Lyme disease, among human populations. This study aimed to find
the prevalence of tick-infested birds in the Northeastern United States, the tick species most commonly found on
birds, and the bird species or group of species that is most commonly tick-infested. The study was conducted at
the Huyck Preserve in Rensselaerville, NY, in July 2015. Out of 108 birds captured in mist nets, 38 (35%) carried
ticks. In addition, nearly all of the examined ticks appeared to be nymphal I. scapularis - the primary carrier of
Lyme disease - and ground-feeding birds were the most frequently infested. Tick-infested birds were also more
frequently captured in forested sites than in grassy areas. The results of this study markedly differ from those of
earlier studies conducted in the Midwest, and may provide a greater understanding of the causes behind the current
and future spread of Lyme disease.
Introduction
Ticks are small parasitic arachnids that feed on the
blood of larger animals. While ticks spend the majority
of their lives on vegetation or soil, they are most often
noticed when they attach to their hosts, human or
animal, with their mouthparts (Anderson, 2002). Ticks
are well-known as vectors of disease, spreading
pathogens between hosts when they feed (Anderson,
2002). The Ixodidae family (i.e. hard-bodied ticks) is
the largest tick family and the most important in terms
of spreading disease, including Lyme disease
(Anderson, 2002).
Lyme disease is the most common vector-borne illness
in the United States, with 20-30 thousand cases
reported to the CDC each year (Reported cases, 2015).
Lyme disease is caused by the spirochete bacteria
Borella burgdorferi, and transmitted primarily by the
deer tick, Ixodes scapularis. Out of the four tick life
stages – egg, larva, nymph, and adult – Lyme disease
is largely transmitted by nymphal ticks (Re, Occi, &
MacGregor, 2004). Receiving Lyme disease is
difficult; even if a human receives a deer tick bite, the
risk of Lyme disease is low, and it is not contagious
between humans (Re et al., 2004). However, the
disease can be severe, with extended and serious cases
sometimes resulting in arthritis and mental and nerve
problems that can last long after treatment (Wright et
al., 2012). Preventing zoonotic diseases like Lyme
disease is a priority in the area of public health.
Deer, and more recently, small mammals, are usually
associated with ticks carrying Lyme disease (Levi,
Kilpatrick, Mangel, & Wilmers, 2012). However,
birds are also important carriers of zoonotic
pathogens, either as a reservoir host (as with avian
influenza) or by carrying infected vectors (as with
Lyme disease) (Reed, Meece, Henkel, & Shukla,
2003). Birds are especially important disease carriers
due to their ability to fly and their migration behavior,
which allows them to spread diseases across great
distances (Reed et al., 2003). In addition, human
activities that shrink or fragment bird habitats further
increase the risk of bird-carried disease by crowding
bird populations (Reed et al., 2003). Over the past two
decades, Lyme disease has been spreading
geographically and the number of reported cases has
grown, and infected birds may have contributed to
these phenomena (Reed et al., 2003).
Two previous studies done in the midwestern United
States found that 1.6% and 9.4% of examined birds
carried ticks, usually the rabbit tick, Haemaphysalis
leporispalustris, but some also carried I. scapularis
(Hamer et al., 2012; Nicholls & Callister, 1996).
Ground-foraging birds such as sparrows and thrushes
were most frequently infested (Nicholls & Callister,
1996). Of the tested ticks in both studies, around five
percent carried B. burgdorferi, the Lyme disease
pathogen (Hamer et al., 2012; Nicholls & Callister,
1996). While it may appear that birds rarely carry

Volume 4: 8-13, 2015
[9]
Lyme disease, these studies do indicate another
potential, often-overlooked reservoir of Lyme disease
along with mammals.
This study aims to similarly capture birds and analyze
tick infestations in a forest setting in the northeastern
United States, where Lyme disease is most prevalent
(Reported cases). I aim to answer several questions:
(1) What is the prevalence of tick-carrying birds? (2)
Which species of tick is most frequently found on
birds? (3) Which species or group of bird most
frequently carries ticks? Answering these questions
will allow me to predict the risk of bird-carried Lyme
disease in the Northeast, and whether it differs from
that in the Midwest.
I hypothesize that because the Northeast is more
forested than the Midwest and thus more suitable for
ticks, the prevalence of tick-infested birds in the
Northeast will be greater than that in the Midwest, but
still less than a majority of birds. In addition, since
birds are known to be important hosts for nymphal I.
scapularis (Stafford, 2004), and I. scapularis
especially prefers forested areas (Guerra et al., 2002),
I hypothesize that I. scapularis will be the most
frequently-observed tick species. However, I predict
that ground-foraging birds will still most frequently
carry ticks in the Northeast because they presumably
come into contact with low-lying ticks often. Some
common ground-foraging birds in the area include the
American robin (Turdus migratorius), dark-eyed
junco (Junco hyemalis), gray catbird (Dumetella
carolinesis), house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus),
and song sparrow (Melospiza melodia) (Uvardy,
1994).
Methods
Study site
The Huyck Preserve and Biological Research Station
is located in the small town of Rensselaerville in
Albany County, New York. The preserve covers 800
ha of deciduous and coniferous forest, field, and
wetland habitats, and has a temperate climate. Bodies
of water located within the preserve include Lake
Myosotis, a 40-ha lake open to public recreation;
Lincoln Pond, a 4-ha research pond; and a number of
small streams and pools. The preserve also includes
hiking trails open to the public.
Bird sampling
Birds were captured using mist nets, as was
done by Hamer et al. (2012). On two occasions (July
16 and 23), birds were captured during MAPS
(Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship
Program, organized by the Institute for Bird
Populations) sessions. Ten 12-meter-long mist nets
were set up about 75-100 m apart, in accordance with
MAPS guidelines (DeSante, 2015). The nets were
situated in a shrubby setting close to the shore of Lake
Myosotis, and monitoring took place for about six
hours in the morning. On two other occasions, mist
nets were set up near bird feeders on a grassy area by
Lincoln Pond, once for four hours in the morning (July
19) and once for two hours in the afternoon (July 20).
On one other occasion (July 21), three mist nets were
set up along Ordway Trail in a shrubby wooded area
for about three hours. During each mist-netting
session, the following was recorded for each
individual bird captured: species, time captured, and
number of attached ticks if any. Each bird's head and
face was examined, and if a bird carried ticks, the ticks
were removed with forceps and preserved in tubes of
70% ethanol solution.
Tick identification
The preserved ticks were identified by species and life
stage by morphology using a dissecting microscope,
and both were recorded with every individual bird's
entry.
Results
A total of 108 birds of 26 species were captured (Table
1). The species that were captured most often include
Melospiza melodia (song sparrow), Dumetella
carolinensis (gray catbird), and Geothlypis trichas
(common yellowthroat), making up about 49% of all
captures. 88 birds were captured near Lake Myosotis
during MAPS, 10 birds were captured near the feeders
at Lincoln Pond, and 10 birds were captured along
Ordway Trail.

Volume 4: 8-13, 2015
[10]
Table 1. Total number of species captured and the number of individuals infested with ticks. 35% of the captured species carried ticks.
Species Number Examined Number Infested Proportion Infested
Acadian Flycatcher 1
American Goldfinch 2
American Redstart 7 1 0.1428571429
American Robin* 9 6 0.6666666667
Black-Capped Chickadee 3
Blue Jay* 2 1 0.5
Blue-Winged Warbler 1
Canada Warbler 1
Chestnut-Sided Warbler 6
Common Yellowthroat* 17 9 0.5294117647
Dark-Eyed Junco* 4 4 1
Downy Woodpecker 1
Eastern Towhee* 1 1 1
Eastern Wood-Pewee 1
European Starling* 1
Gray Catbird* 17 8 0.4705882353
Least Flycatcher 1
Purple Finch 2 1 0.5
Oven Bird* 2
Red-Bellied Sapsucker 1
Red-Winged Blackbird* 1
Rose-Breasted Grosbeak 2
Song Sparrow* 19 7 0.3684210526
Veery* 1
Yellow-Bellied Sapsucker 1
Yellow Warbler 4
TOTAL 108 38 0.3518518519
*Ground-feeding species

Volume 4: 8-13, 2015
[11]
Figure 1. Prevalence of tick-infestation by feeding behavior. Ground-
feeding birds carried more ticks than non ground-feeding birds
Thirty-eight individual birds were found to be tick-
infested, yielding 99 ticks and making up about 35%
of all captures (Table 1). Bird species that had infested
individuals were Junco hyemalis (dark-eyed junco),
Pipilo erythrophthalmus (Eastern towhee), Turdus
migratorius (American robin), Geothlypis trichas
(common yellowthroat), Cyanocitta cristata (blue
jay), Haermorhous purpureus (purple finch),
Dumetella carolinensis (gray catbird), Melospiza
melodia (song sparrow), and Setophaga ruticilla
(American Redstart) in order of prevlance of infested
birds. By feeding behavior, about 49% of examined
ground-feeding birds were infested, compared to about
6% of non-ground-feeding birds (Figure 1; see Table
1 for species classifications). 32 infested birds were
captured near the lake (36% of captures in the area),
one near the pond (10% of captures), and five near the
trail (50% of captures).
The number of ticks carried by each bird ranged from
one to 15, with all but five infested birds carrying less
than five ticks. All of the examined ticks appeared to
be I. scapularis (five ticks were unidentified because
they were unable to be completely removed from the
birds). Of the examined ticks, 86 were nymphs and
eight were larvae (Table 2). Six birds (16% of infested
birds) carried ticks of both life stages.
Discussion
All three hypotheses were supported. As predicted, the
prevalence of tick-infested birds in the studied area
was higher than that of the Midwestern areas studied
by Hamer, et al. (2012) and Nicholls and Callister
Table 2. Observed ticks by life stage. All ticks captured were Ixodes
scapularis with majority being nymphs over adults and larvae.
Species/Life Stage Number
Ixodes scapularis
Larva 8
Nymph 86
Unidentified 5
TOTAL 99
(1996), with 35.2% infested in this study versus 1.6%
and 9.4% in the other two studies. This could be
explained by the denser vegetation in the Northeast
providing more suitable habitats for ticks, and thus,
more opportunities for ticks to attach to birds.
Alternatively, this could be due to this study’s
relatively small sample size or short time frame,
leading to biased results.
In addition, the hypothesis that I. scapularis would be
the most frequently-observed tick was also supported,
with nearly all, if not all of the observed ticks
appearing to be of that species. This also contrasts with
previous studies, which found Haemaphysalis
leporispalustris, the rabbit tick, as the most common
tick on birds. This may be because I. scapularis prefers
deciduous forest areas, frequently found in the
Northeast, to grasslands, frequently found in the
Midwest (Guerra et al., 2002). Though H.
leporispalustris is found throughout North America
(Wall & Shearer, 2001), this species may tend to prefer
grasslands and stay away from forests, or they may
simply be less common in the Northeast compared to
the more common I. scapularis.
The life-stage makeup of the ticks in this study also
differ from that found in the previous two studies.
While both studies found only larval and nymphal
ticks on birds, the previous study found more than
twice as many larvae as nymphs, while this study
found a significantly higher number of nymphs. This
correlates with the statement by Stafford (2004) that
birds are important hosts for I. scapularis nymphs, and
may reflect differences between the behavior and life
cycles of H. leporispalustris and I. scapularis.

Volume 4: 8-13, 2015
[12]
As hypothesized, this study found that ground-feeding
birds were the most frequently infested. Nearly half of
the captured ground-feeding birds were tick-infested,
compared to only 6% of non-ground-feeding birds and
35% of the total sample. This matches the findings of
Nicholls and Callister (1996), and aligns with the
inference that because ticks tend to reside on the
ground or low-lying vegetation, ground-feeding birds
would most often come into contact with ticks.
The differences between the habitats sampled in this
study was noticeable in the prevalence of infested
birds in different areas. A relatively high number of
tick-infested birds were found in the wooded areas by
Lake Myosotis and Ordway Trail, with 37% of the 98
birds captured in those areas carrying ticks. Only 10%
(1 bird) of the 10 birds captured in the grassy pond area
carried ticks. This may reflect the findings of Guerra
et al. (2002) that I. scapularis prefers forest to
grassland, but these results may be biased due to the
small number of birds captured by the pond or the
presence of nearby bird feeders.
Overall, the findings of this study suggest that, at least
in the summer, there is a higher risk of birds acting as
reservoirs of Lyme disease in the Northeast than in the
Midwest. As stated, a much higher proportion of birds
examined in this study carried ticks compared to the
Midwest, and almost all of the infested birds appeared
to carry nymphal I. scapularis, the primary vector of
Lyme disease. As Lyme disease continues to spread
across the Northeastern United States, this study may
lead to greater understanding of the causes behind the
spread and potential methods to prevent this spread.
Additional research should be done on birds in
residential areas, migration routes of frequently-
infested birds, pathogens carried by ticks on birds, and
seasonal variations in tick behavior to further assess
the relationship between birds and Lyme disease in
humans.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the TickEncounter Resource
Center of the University of Rhode Island for its
assistance in identifying the ticks in this study. I also
want to express my appreciation for all of the staff and
students at the Huyck Preserve for accommodating
me, assisting me with data collection, and giving me
an enjoyable and enlightening experience. I especially
want to thank Dr. Dawn O’Neal, who tirelessly
provided her time and expertise to organize the
Wildlife Ecology Research program and support my
project to make it as successful as possible.
References
Anderson, J. F. (2002). The natural history of ticks.
Medical Clinics of North America, 86, 205-218.
Desante, D. F., Burton, K. M.., Velez, P., Froehlich,
D., Kaschube, D., & Albert, S. (2015). MAPS Manual:
2015 Protocol. The Institute for Bird Populations.
Guerra, N., Walker, E., Jones, Carl., Paskewitz, S.,
Cortinas, M. R., Stancil, A., Beck, L., Bobo, M., &
Kitron, U. (2002). Predicting the Risk of Lyme
Disease: Habitat Suitability for Ixodes scapularis in
the North Central United States. Emerging Infectious
Diseases, 8, 289-297.
Hamer, S. A. , Goldberg, T. L., Kitron, U. D., Brawn,
J. D., Anderson, T. K., Loss, S. R., Walker, E. W., &
Hamer, G. L. (2012). Wild Birds and Urban Ecology
of Ticks and Tick-borne Pathogens, Chicago, Illinois,
USA, 2005-2010. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 18,
1589-1595.
Levi, T., Kilpatrick, A. M., Mangel, M., & Wilmers,
C. C. (2012). Deer, predators, and the emergence of
Lyme disease. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences of the United States of America, 109,
10942-10947.
Nicholls, T. H., & Callister, S. M. (1996). Lyme
Disease Spirochetes in Ticks Collected from Birds in
Midwestern United States. Journal of Medical
Entomology, 33, 379-384.
Re, V. L., Occi, J. L., & MacGregor, R. R. (2004).
Identifying the Vector of Lyme Disease. American
Family Physician, 69, 1935-1937.

Volume 4: 8-13, 2015
[13]
Reed, K. D., Meece, J. K. Henkel, J. S., Shukla, S. K.
(2003). Birds, Migration and Emerging Zoonoses:
West Nile Virus, Lyme Disease, Influenza A and
Enteropathogens. Clinical Medicine &Research, 1, 5-
12.
Reported cases of Lyme disease by state or locality,
2004-2013 (2015, March 19). Retrieved from
http://www.cdc.gov/lyme/stats/chartstables/reportedc
ases_statelocality.html
Stafford, K. C. (2004). Ticks of the Northeastern
United States. The Connecticut Agricultural
Experiment Station.
Udvardy, M. (1994). National Audubon Society Field
Guide to North American Birds (2nd
ed.). New York,
NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
Wall, R. L. & Shearer, D. (2001). Veterinary
Ectoparasites: Biology, Pathology and Control (2nd
ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Science.
Wright, W. F., Riedel, D. J., Talwani, R., & Gillian, B.
L. (2012). Diagnosis and Management of Lyme
Disease. American Family Physician, 85, 1086-1093.

Volume 4: 14-17, 2015
[14]
Monitoring Spatial Patterns of White Tailed Deer
Cassidy Keyes
Lincoln Park High School, Chicago, IL
Abstract
White-tailed deer are observed to be overabundant when evidence of grazing and vegetation depletion persist. To
test this observation, deer spatial patterns were monitored at the Huyck preserve by examining habitat preference
and density was estimated by recording fecal accumulation with the prediction that more deer would be found in
deciduous forest types where preferred food (deciduous saplings) is abundant. An equation for population density
was derived in order to accurately portray the different variables and proportions. The most fecal matter was
found in the mixed upland stand which has about 7% vegetation ground cover, and the least in the mixed
hardwood which has about 40% vegetation ground cover. The hypothesis was partially supported because no
pellet groups were found in the mixed deciduous stand, possibly due to its proximity to Pond Hill Road. But, the
mixed upland plot – mix of hardwoods and hemlock – showed the highest deer density. The final calculated
density- 25.8 deer/sq.km- suggests that deer at the Huyck Preserve are overabundant compared to previous studies
which indicated sustainable populations should be around 9-17 deer/sq.km (Ristau 2012) .
Introduction
The white-tailed deer population in the northeast has
fluctuated since the 1500’s and has been expanding for
the last century (VerCauteren, 2013). After intensive
market hunting in the late 1800’s, the population
receded. But when hunting was regulated in the early
1900s and forests started to regenerate, deer were
reintroduced (VerCauteren, 2013). Having less
hunting pressure and an ample food supply, the deer
populations began to thrive. Today, there is an
overabundance of white-tailed deer which adversely
affects the ecosystem. Saplings, shrubs, and other
preferred vegetation succumb to browsing; which
threatens future regeneration in the forest. The forest
floor is then dominated by plant species disliked by
deer, for instance: invasive species like garlic mustard,
oriental bittersweet and bush honeysuckle (Rawinski,
2008).
Since the white tailed deer population at the Huyck
Preserve is observed to be overabundant, the deer
must move to new areas when vegetation is sparse. In
this study, deer spatial patterns will be monitored in
different forests by calculating their population
density using fecal accumulation. Another study has
been done on fecal accumulation at the Huyck
Preserve, but was more focused on comparing deer
density to predator abundance (Lee and Fisher 2012).
The students who conducted the previous study
modified the pellet group count equation (DeCalesta,
2015) so it would apply to their limited time of
research. When they used this modified equation, they
came up with admittedly implausible results. As a part
of this study, the equation was re-modified in attempt
to calculate a more probable density. Since white
tailed deer often eat deciduous tree saplings during the
summer (Foremost Hunting), the population density
should be greater in the maple and mixed deciduous
stands. Also, since there is a lack of understory in
some areas of the Huyck preserve (pers. observation),
the white tailed deer population is expected to be
overabundant.
Methods
In this noninvasive study, white tailed deer spatial
patterns and densities were determined in the Huyck

Volume 4: 14-17, 2015
[15]
Preserve through fecal accumulation and habitat
preference. There were sixteen 15x15 meter plots,
four plots were randomly set in each forest type:
spruce
(N 42°31.661’ W074°08.852’), mixed upland (N
42°31.751’ W074°08.852’), mixed hardwood (N
42°31.533’ W074°09.153’) , and maple (N
42°31.832’ W074°09.097). After they were set, all
fecal matter was cleared from the plots. At 10 am for
the next five days, each plot was scanned for pellet
groups (ten or more pellets in a group) or patties. They
were recorded and then discarded from the plot area.
An equation for population density was then derived
in order to accurately portray variables and
proportions:
𝑑𝑒𝑒𝑟
𝑠𝑞. 𝑘𝑚
=
𝑁𝑝𝑜
𝑇𝑠
𝑅𝑝𝑜
×
1𝑒6
𝐴𝑝
Npo = # of pellet groups found in a plot
Ts = time sampled in days
Rpo = Average # of poops a dear has in 24 hrs (constant)
Ap = area of each plot in m
This equation was used to find deer per square
kilometer per habitat. In order to find the number of
deer in each habitat, the area of each habitat had to be
estimated. The percent coverage of each habitat was
approximated by using the habitat map found on the
E.N Huyck preserve website (Fig. 1).
Each percent was multiplied by the area of the Huyck
preserve (8.094 sq.km) to calculate total area of each
habitat. The total number of deer in each habitat were
combined and divided by the total area of the preserve,
resulting in the white tailed deer population density of
the Huyck.
Figure 1. The estimated percent coverage of each habitat at the preserve
based on the E.N. Huyck Preserve’s habitat map.
Results
Table 1. The total number of pellet groups or patties found at each stand
everyday.
The most fecal matter was found in the mixed upland
stand which was about 7% understory, and the least in
the mixed hardwood which was about 40% understory
(Table 1). The number of pellet groups found
decreased as time increased (Table 1). No feces were
found in the mixed hardwood plot.
Table 2. Deer per kilometer squared by habitat type. More deer per
square kilometer were found in mixed upland and spruce habitats.
Forest Type Deer/sq.km
Mixed Upland 62
Maple 26.7
Spruce 44.4
Mixed Hardwood 0

Volume 4: 14-17, 2015
[16]
Not accounting for total habitat area at the Preserve,
mixed upland and spruce forests contained more deer
per square mile than maple and mixed hardwood
forests (Table 2). The number fluctuates greatly when
habitat coverage is introduced (Table 3). Spruce
originally had 44.4 deer/sq.km but its habitat
percentage is only 3%, explaining its decline (Table
3). Mixed upland has 62 deer/sq.km but its habitat
percentage is 24%, explaining its incline (Table 3).
The total number of deer were added and then divided
by the area of the preserve in sq.km, leading to a final
preserve deer density: 25.8 deer/sq.km
Table 3. The total number of deer for each forest type adjusted for
habitat area based on the Preserve’s habitat map. More deer are found
in mixed upland habitats than any other forest type.
Discussion
Deer were most abundant in mixed upland forest, a
mix of hardwoods and hemlocks, and least abundant
in mixed hardwood forests partially supporting
predictions. It is possible, that no pellet groups were
found in the mixed hardwood stand due to its
proximity to Pond Hill Rd. It was interesting to notice
that after three days of observation no more pellet
groups were found in any of the plots. Since the stands
were fairly close to one another, this study only
covered a portion of the Preserve. So the absence of
fecal matter on the fourth and fifth day could be
because deer had passed out of the immediate area to
other areas of its large home range. southeastern
Quebec has demonstrated the average range of adult
deer was 11.42 sq.km (Crete, M and Lesage, L 2000),
3.3 sq. km larger than the entire Huyck Preserve.
Population size/density estimates are important for
proper conservation and management of a species, but
the derivation of accurate estimates is a big problem
in such management plans. The final calculated
density- 25.8 deer/sq.km- suggests that deer at the
Huyck Preserve are overabundant. Previous studies
have suggested sustainable white tailed deer
populations should be around 9-17 deer/sq.km (Ristau
2012) indicating that deer populations are the Preserve
are potentially unsustainable. Having an unsustainable
deer population threatens the future of the ecosystem
and points towards the need for deer management
through hunting, predator reintroductions like that of
the grey wolf, or deer fertility control. .
As stated before, accurate estimations of deer
population densities are important for developing
sound management decisions. Traditional estimations
of deer populations use the pellet group count method
using multiple mile long transects with 52 plots each
(DeCalesta 2015), this project due to time and
personnel constraints followed a modified version of
this method. As such, the short time frame over which
deer pellets were counted as well as the abbreviated
distances mean that this study’s results are likely
impacted by the irregular defecation of deer and the
concentrated area in which plots were located leaving
out important areas such as streams and roads which
have been shown to impact deer movement and
browse (Haber 2015, this publication). Additionally,
because deer pellets were not measured before plot set
up and clearing, past deer activity in this area is
unknown. Nonetheless, the results presented here,
taking into account habitat types to extrapolate the
deer present per square kilometer for the whole
Preserve can provide an important first step for
understanding deer densities in the area and a stepping

Volume 4: 14-17, 2015
[17]
stone for future studies looking to estimate the
Preserve’s deer population for management purposes.
Literature Cited
Bailey, R., & Putman, R. 1981. Estimation of Fallow
Deer (Dama dama) Populations from
Faecal Accumulation. The Journal of Applied
Ecology, 697-702.
Crete, M and Lesage, L. 2000. Seasonal home range
size and philopatry in two northern
white-tailed deer populations. Canadian Journal of
Ecology
DeCalesta, D., Pierson, T., & Jackson, D. 2015. Deer
Density Estimation (Pellet Group
Count). Retrieved August 13, 2015.
Lee, E. and Fisher, M.2012. The Density of White
Tailed Deer in Relation to Predator
Abundance. Journal of Wildlife Ecology Research
Rawinski, T. 2008. Impacts of White-Tailed Deer
Overabundance in Forest
Ecosystems: An Overview. Retrieved August 13,
2015.
Ristau, Todd. 2012. Deer Can Be too Many, too Few
or Just Enough for a Healthy Forest. US
Forest Service Northern Research Station Research
Review
VerCauteren, K. 2003. The Deer Boom: Discussions
on Population Growth and Range
Expansion of the White-Tailed Deer. Retrieved
August 13, 2015.
What Do Whitetail Deer Eat? (n.d.)
http://www.foremosthunting.com/Deer/Library/What
dowhitetaildeereat/tabid/943/
Default.aspx Retrieved August 13, 2015.

Volume 4: 18-21, 2015
[18]
The Effectiveness of Different Incentives in Attracting Birds to Mist Nets at the Huyck Preserve
Kai Hsia Victor
The Dalton School, New York, NY
Abstract
While banding birds, mist nets are a commonly used implement for catching smaller woodland birds without
undue stress or injury (Whitworth et al. 2007). Past studies have found that birds can be enticed to nets through
the use of food bait or avian vocalizations (Keyes and Gru 1982). It is important to know the best way to attract
birds to nets, for this speeds up the capture period, causing less stress to birds, and producing a more accurate
representation of bird health and diversity in the area. I set up nets along Ordway trail at the E.N. Huyck Preserve
to discover the number of birds and species caught by using different types of bait. I proposed that alarm calls
would best attract the greatest variety and number of birds to the nets given that the calls represent a direct and
unseeable threat (Krams et al. 2007). After four days of testing, results indicated that alarm calls and passive
netting were the most attractive “baits” while food and a stuff hawk paired with hawk calls resulted in the capture
of no birds.
Introduction
Birds for banding are captured using mist nets, a com-
monly used tool for collecting smaller forest birds
without injury (Whitworth et al. 2007). Research has
found that birds can be attracted to nets through the use
of food bait or vocalizations (Keyes and Grue 1982) or
set up in locations with a high probability of capturing
birds passively as they seek food or mates. My project
focused on what “baits” best attract the greatest variety
of birds to mist nets. Birds respond strongly to three
things: alarm calls and predator proximity, food, and
territorial vocalizations (Keyes and Grue 1982). I
tested the use of a stuffed Red-tailed Hawk and raptor
calls, seed and mealworms, and songbird alarm calls
as potential attractants. Though territorial song may
have been very successful at the beginning of the year,
this was not used as an incentive given the late date
and the ending of the breeding season. As seeds only
attract ground-feeding seedeaters, mealworms were
also offered as part of the food bait to entice the largest
possible variety of birds. In view of the late summer
time period of this study, when many types of food are
available to birds, I predicted that alarm calls would
best attract the greatest variety and number of birds to
the nets given that the calls represent a direct and un-
seeable threat (Krams et al. 2007). This research pro-
vides important information regarding the techniques
which attract the greatest variety of birds (as opposed
to just the greatest numbers). This, in turn, supplies in-
formation on the best way of conducting bird surveys
which display an authentic reflection of bird popula-
tion and diversity in an area.
Methods
I conducted this project at the E.N. Huyck Preserve in
Rensselaerville, New York. The tests were carried out
on Ordway trail, on the section immediately behind
Ordway House. I tested two baits per day, one from
9:00-10:30 and one from 15:30-17:00. I chose these
two times because bird activity and ambient tempera-
ture were similar. As early morning birds are easily
snared while they are waking up and it is still dark,
starting at 9:00 kept accidental captures to a minimum
in order to focus results on the attractiveness of baits.
The 15:30-17:00 time frame was also chosen to avoid
accidental captures during early evening when birds
are also active as they search for food before dark. In
addition, it eliminated issues associated with keeping
birds in nets during the high midday heat.
I used three sister locations on the trail very close to
each other. The sister locations allowed me to test each
variable at three slightly different locations. The nets
were 75 meters apart, as per the usual methods for pas-
sive mist netting (DeSante et al. 2015). Sites were
lightly baited with food over 48 hours before the food
bait was first tested and everyday thereafter. Thus,
birds knew food could be found at the site, but would
not be unnecessarily attracted when I was testing an-
other variable. The testing period before I tested food

Volume 4: 18-21, 2015
[19]
Table 1. Order of bait offerings by day and time.
not be unnecessarily attracted when I was testing an-
other variable. The testing period before I tested food,
sites were heavily baited with food to strongly attract
nearby birds. As a control, nets were run with no bait.
Nets were run daily for 30 minutes in six test locations
in the order outlined in Table 1.
This order was chosen because food and alarm baits
were never repeatedly tested during the same day.
Consequently, birds were not conditioned to avoid the
area (too high predation) or to be constantly attracted
(always available food sources). After removing birds
from the net, their species and sex were recorded to see
if some species/sexes were more motivated by one
bait. Our alarm calls were produced by recordings of
Blue jays, Black-capped Chickadees, and Red-
breasted nuthatches mobbing a Screech Owl and a
Goshawk.
Results
The most individual birds were caught with alarm calls
(Fig. 1). These eight birds included five Black-capped
chickadees, one common yellowthroat, and two uni-
dentified birds. Two birds, one chickadee and one
Eastern Phoebe were caught by the control. Thus, the
control and the alarm calls both caught a total of two
bird species (Fig. 2). No birds were caught using the
stuffed hawk and hawk calls or the seed and meal-
worms.
Discussion
My hypothesis was mostly supported by the data that
was collected, for the greatest number of birds was col-
lected using the alarm calls. However, unlike my pre-
diction, the number of species collected with alarm
calls was equal to the number of species collected pas-
sively during the control (Fig. 1). This inconsistency
with my prediction most likely occurred because of
variation in weather on capture days. During our sec-
ond testing period for alarm calls, the day was very
sunny and windy which made the mist net visible to
birds and thus decreased the chance of a successful
capture. Many birds were attracted by the alarm calls,
but the net was obviously visible to them, with birds
flying close and occasionally touching the net without
Time: Day #1 Day #2 Day #3 Day #4
9:00-
10:30
Control
(no bait)
Alarm Calls Stuffed
Hawk and
Hawk
calls
Seed and
Mealworms
3:30-
5:00
Stuffed
Hawk and
Hawk calls
Seed and
Mealworms
Control
(no bait)
Alarm calls
0
1
1
2
2
3
Control Hawk Alarm Food
NumberofSpeciesCaught
Type of Attractant
Figure 1. Effectiveness of attractants by number of species
caught. Control and alarm call baits attracted more species (2
each) than hawk and alarm.
Figure 2. Effectiveness of attractants by total number of birds
caught. The most birds (8) were caught using songbird alarm calls,
while two birds were caught by the control. No birds were caught
with the hawk or food.
0
2
4
6
8
10
Control Hawk Alarm Food
NumberofBirdsCaught
Type of Attractant

Volume 4: 18-21, 2015
[20]
capture. If the net had not been so visible due to
weather conditions, we would have caught four addi-
tional chickadees, one Dark-eyed junco, and one
Ruby-throated hummingbird, raising our species count
for alarm calls to four.
Overall, however, alarm calls proved to be very suc-
cessful at attracting birds. Though only two species
were caught, many others were observed or heard re-
sponding to the alarm calls. The hawk and hawk calls
may not have been effective at producing an alarm due
to the fact that Red-tailed hawks are mainly not pred-
ators of small woodland forest birds. In addition, the
unnatural position and unvarying behavior of the
stuffed hawk mount may have made it less of a threat
to birds. In fact, the hawk seems to have kept birds
away. Surprisingly, no birds were caught during the
food trials, possibly because limited time was availa-
ble to habituate birds to feeding in the mist netting
area.
One thing the results displayed was the variation in the
attractiveness of some baits across species. For exam-
ple, chickadees proved to be strongly attracted to
alarm calls over passive netting, food, or the raptor and
raptor calls.
Interestingly, of the five chickadees caught during the
netting periods, four were female, and one was not
sexed. This skewed sex ratio could not be explained or
tested further in the limited time period. Future studies
may want to consider studying this sex ratio in com-
parison to late breeding/early migration time.
This project is inherently limited in scope. Due to a
time limit of four days, and with only two people on
hand to untangle birds, the number of variables and lo-
cations was limited. For this reason, future research
should be conducted using different attractants, types
of alarm calls, and locations. One problem identified
early on was collecting captured birds. Due to the fact
that chickadees can get extremely tangled very fast,
they necessitated immediate removal. In doing so,
however, more tentative arrivals, such as warblers,
were scared away from the net. Future studies may
want to consider leaving nets open for longer and not
removing birds until the time limit is over. This tech-
nique would be most effective with a large number of
people on hand to untangle captures after the wait pe-
riod.
Acknowledgements
This project would not have been possible without the
help of Dr. Dawn O’Neal. Aside from the fact that I
could not have mist-netted without her permit, Dr.
Dawn gave me a lot of assistance revising my project
and helping me untangle difficult chickadees from the
net. Max Calloway and Kye Graham helped me with
with writing my paper and proposal. Mert Geveci also
aided me by finding various bird calls and turning
them into a repeating playlist. Lastly, thanks to all the
other WER students who let me keep a lot of fish and
made these three weeks really fun.
Literature Cited
DeSante, David F., Kenneth M. Burton, Pilar Velez,
Dan Froehlich, Danielle Kaschube, and Steven Albert.
MAPS MANUAL 2015 PROTOCOL. Point Reyes
Station, CA: The Institute for Bird Populations, 2015.
PDF.
Hopkins, Caitlin, and Eleanor Kallo. "A Survey of the
Huyck Preserve's Avian Population after 26 Years of
Change." Journal of Wildlife Ecology Research 1
(2012): 10-12.
Keyes, Brian E., and Christian E. Grue. "Capturing
Birds with Mist Nets: A Review." North American
Bird Bander 7 (1982): 2-14. Web. 13 Aug. 2015.
Krams, Indrikis, Tatjana Krama, Kristine Igaune, and
Raivo Mänd. "Experimental Evidence of Reciprocal
Altruism in the Pied Flycatcher." Behavioral Ecology
and Sociobiology 62.4 (2007): 599-605. JSTOR
[JSTOR]. Web. 14 Aug. 2015.
Kullberg, Cecilia, and Johan Lind. "An Experimental
Study of Predator Recognition in Great Tit Fledg-
lings." Ethology 108.5 (2002): 429-41. re-
searchgate.net. Web. 14 Aug. 2015.

Volume 4: 18-21, 2015
[21]
Whitworth, Darrell, Scott Newman, Taej Mundkur,
and Phil Harris. "Wild Bird Capture Techniques."
Wild Birds and Avian Influenza: An Introduction to
Applied Field Research and Disease Sampling Tech-
niques. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations, 2007. 33-50. Web. 12 Aug. 2015.

Volume 4: 22-26, 2015
[22]
Relationship between the Abundance of Orconectes rusticus and Macroinvertebrate Biodiversity in
Aquatic Ecosystems in Comparison to Native Crayfish
Alix Westgaard
Palo Alto High School, Palo Alto, CA
Abstract
This study investigates the relationship between invasive crayfish abundance and macroinvertebrate
biodiversity. By evaluating this relationship, one might begin to evaluate the impact of an aquatic invasive
macroinvertebrate on the entirety of its ecosystem as macroinvertebrates fulfill many crucial responsibilities to
freshwater streams. I hypothesized that where invasive crayfish were dominant, the macroinvertebrate
biodiversity index would be lower than where native crayfish were dominant as the Rusty-spotted crayfish, the
invasive crayfish evaluated during this study, is associated with excessive feeding on macroinvertebrates and a
rapid growth rate. Crayfish were sampled across locations of varying ratios of invasives to natives and
biodiversity was measured by kicknetting for macroinvertebrates. Where only native crayfish were found, the
biodiversity index was the highest and this was conversely so for invasive crayfish prevalence, demonstrating
that invasive crayfish indeed have a significant impact on macroinvertebrate diversity.
Introduction
Invasive species are widely known to outcompete
other organisms and damage their environment by
lowering biodiversity (Gunderson, 2008). This trend
of invaders and decreased biodiversity is very often a
symptom specifically in aquatic environments
(Molnar et al., 2008). Only an estimated 16% of
marine ecoregions have not reported an invasion, and
this number is realistically estimated to be lower
(Molnar et al., 2008). Macroinvertebrates in
particular seem to dominate the pool of aquatic
invasive fauna as they are easily and often
accidentally transferred in between ecosystems
through ballast water, fishing, etc. (Bax et al, 2003).
An estimated three thousand freshwater fish species
are expected to go extinct due to declines in
biodiversity in the next twenty to thirty years because
of the introduction of invasive fish species through
sport fishing (Cambray, 2003). This effect can also
be observed with the Rusty-spotted crayfish’s
invasion of freshwater streams as this species was
similarly spread accidentally through sport fishing
(Gunderson, 2008).
The Huyck Preserve has three common crayfish
species, the Northern Clearwater crayfish
(Orconectes propinqus), the Big water crayfish
(Cambarus robustus), and the Rusty-spotted crayfish
(Orconectes rusticus), an invasive species to the
Preserve and the Great Lakes area. This invasive
species has been known to outcompete and show
aggression particularly towards native crayfish and
also has a very rapid growth rate in comparison to
other crayfish (Hayes et al., 2009). Previous research
has indicated that Rusty-spotted crayfish prefer
warmer waters with, Rusty-spotted crayfish four
times more abundant in waters of 23 degrees Celsius
but native crayfish almost three times more abundant
in waters of 20 degrees Celsius on average (Gerrity,
2014). Studies have shown that environments in
which crayfish are prevalent significantly impact the
abundance of zoobenthic organisms (Weinlander &
Fureder, 2011). In addition, crayfish may be
considered a keystone species in aquatic ecosystems
but studies show that the unnatural abundance of
invasive crayfish can affect macroinvertebrates
populations in particular, especially Ephemeroptera,
Plecoptera, and Tricoptera larvae, because of
excessive feeding (Freeland-Riggert, 2014). Larve in
the Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera,and Tricoptera (EPT)
classification are important indicators of water
quality and consequently indicators of biodiversity
because the EPT index is based off the concept that
streams with higher water quality have an increased
species richness especially with respect to these
representative species (Watershed Science Institute,
n.d.).

Volume 4: 22-26, 2015
[23]
Biotic indices using EPT classifications have
indicated good to excellent waterquality at the Huyck
Preserve (pers. Obs.) but variation in EPT abundance
and overall diversity of macroinvertebrates has not
been considered between different stream systems or
under the impact of invasive crayfish species. I
investigated the effects of invasive crayfish, sampling
in warmer waters where invasives are most abundant
and in cooler waters where natives are most
abundant, on macroinvertebrate populations at the
Preserve particularly with respect to EPT abundance.
I hypothesized that the faster growth rate and
increased feeding in Rusty-spotted crayfish (Hayes et
al., 2009) would result in lower overall
macroinvertebrate diversity. Conversely, in streams
where natives were abundant, or more natural
environments, macroinvertebrate diversity would be
higher.
Methods
Crayfish were caught at four locations across Trout
Creek and Ten-Mile Creek: two where native
crayfish are prevalent and two locations where the
Rusty-spotted crayfish has been prevalently identified
(Gerrity, 2014). The locations in Ten-mile Creek
included locations where invasive crayfish are
dominant as well as where native and invasive
crayfish were equally abundant (Gerrity, 2014). At
each location abiotic factors were evaluated and
macroinvertebrate biodiversity were tested through
kicknet sampling. The crayfish catching process
spanned four days at each location ensure a realistic
sample size of species after comparison to previous
studies including crayfish sampling and the
relationship between crayfish and macroinvetebrate
communities (Freeland-Riggert, 2014). Minnow traps
used to catch crayfish were checked twice a day and
bait was changed once a day. Crayfish were
measured in centimeters from head to tail and a
mark-and-release procedure was practiced for
crayfish sampling to maintain an accurate population
estimate. In addition, two kicknet samples were
performed at each location during similar weather
conditions. Macroinvertebrates were identified and
sorted by species to be counted. Biodiversity was
measured using the following formula (American
Museum of Natural History, n.d.):
Biodiversity Index =
𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑆𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑠
𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑑𝑢𝑎𝑙𝑠
Three abiotic factors were also tested: dissolved
oxygen, pH, and flow speed, to ensure that they were
not impacting biodiversity across the locations.
Lower dissolved oxygen content can be lethal to
macrofauna that is dependent on aerobic respiration
and therefore could lower the biodiversity as a whole.
Lower dissolved oxygen has also been found to
increase predatory activity of some species of
macrofauna in aquatic ecosystems, which also could
serve as a cause of lower biodiversity
(Breitburg et al, 1997). In addition, studies have
shown that as pH increases in freshwater streams, so
does biodiversity in macroinvertebrates, causing it to
also be a potential influence of biodiversity (Heino,
2005). Flow speed has been shown affect the
prevalence of certain species due to preferred habitat,
such as in the case of Nemurella pictetii and Leuctra
nigra, two species of stonefly prefer high and
fluctuating flow speeds (Lancaster & Hildrew, 1993).
Results
A total of 154 crayfish were surveyed across the four
locations. At Site 1 in Trout Creek, only native
crayfish were found whereas at Site 3, just where
Figure 1. Map of each location sampled for crayfish and
macroinvertebrates

Volume 4: 22-26, 2015
[24]
Table 1. Macroinvertebrate Biodiversity Index by Site
Biodiversity
Index
Site 1 (Trout Creek) 0.167
Site 2 (10-mile Creek between
Lake Myosotis and Lincoln
Pond)
0.0961
Site 3 (Junction 10-mile and
Trout Creeks)
0.0217
Site 4 (10-mile Creek below
Lake Myosotis
0.0430
Trout Creek joins Ten-Mile Creek, over ninety
percent of the crayfish surveyed were invasive
(Figure 1). Site 1 also contained the highest diversity
of macroinvertebrates, whereas at Site 3 had the
lowest macroinvertebrate diversity (Table 1). Thus,
macroinvertebrate diversity negatively co-varied with
invasive rusty-spotted crayfish abundance (Figure 2).
Figure 1. Abundance of crayfish across sampling sites. Site 1 contained
the largest population of native crayfish whereas site 3 consisted of
mostly invasive rusty-spotted crayfish.
Across all four locations, the abiotic factors tested
(flow speed, pH, dissolved oxygen) remained fairly
consistent (Table 2).
Temperature was the only factor that significantly
varied but this was already a given before the study
as it is known that Rusty-spotted crayfish prefer
warmer waters (Gerrity, 2014). However,
temperature could also be the cause of a higher
biodiversity index at Site 1 because colder waters
may be a more favorable habitat for
macroinvertebrates (Durance & Ormerod, 2007).
Table 2. Abiotic factors measured at each site. Temperature was the
only significant variant.
Temp pH DO2
(ppm)
Flow
Site 1 20.2 7.78 57 0.17 m/s
Site 2 24.4 7.83 56 0.35 m/s
Site 3 23.7 7.99 54 0.30 m/s
Site 4 22.8 7.64 58 0.19 m/s
Figure 2. Relationship of rusty-spotted crayfish abundance and
macroinvertebrate biodiversity. Macroinvertebrate biodiversity
decreased with rusty-spotted crayfish abundance.
Discussion
My hypothesis that biodiversity would be higher
where native crayfish were prevalent was supported
by the results as the ratio of native to invasive
crayfish increased, so did the biodiversity index
(Figure 5). Therefore, it is evident that the dominance
of the Rusty-spotted crayfish in a freshwater
ecosystem lowers macroinvertebrate biodiversity,
which may move forward to affect other organisms in
higher trophic levels of these environments.
Macroinvertebrates serve as an important food source
for many of the larger fauna in streams such as fish.
Lower macroinvertebrate biodiversity limits the diet
of these organisms and could cause species to
compete for a single resource that normally don’t
occupy the same niche (Wallace & Webster, 1996).
Macroinvertebrates also fulfill a wide variety of
functional groups and have an important influence on
nutrient cycles, decomposition, and the transportation
of minerals (Wallace & Webster, 1996). The loss of
biodiversity in this group of organisms impairs the
necessary processes in an ecosystem that they
govern.
0
10
20
30
40
50
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4
Clearwater
Bigwater
Rusty Spotted
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4
Percent
Population
Invasive
Biodiversity
Index

Volume 4: 22-26, 2015
[25]
While Rusty-spotted were not found to be larger than
native crayfish at all locations, their abundance was
still linked with lower biodiversity. This suggests that
their excessive feeding may not be observably linked
to their rapid growth rate or that excessive feeding
and/or growth rate is not how invasive crayfish
abundance lowers macroinvertebrate biodiversity.
This data remains consistent with other studies of
invasive species impacts on macrofauna within an
ecosystem as it demonstrates a decline in species
biodiversity. However, this study could be improved
by testing more locations as well as locations with
warmer waters and only native crayfish (such as a
site similar to Ten-Mile creek where the Rusty-
spotted crayfish has not yet spread). Building off of
this study, one might want to study species in other
trophic levels at the same or similar locations of this
study. Observing the effects that a decreased richness
in macroinvertebrates has on freshwater ecosystems
will lead future perpetrators of this topic towards data
that encompasses the entirety of the possible ripple
effect.
Literature Cited
American Museum of Natural History. (n.d.). How to
Calculate a Biodiversity Index.
Bax, N., Williamson, A., Aguero, M., Gonzalez, E.,
& Geeves, W. (2003). Marine invasive alien species:
A threat to global biodiversity. Marine Policy:
Emerging Issues in Oceans, Coasts and Islands,
27(4), 313-323.
Cambray, J. (2003). Impact on indigenous species
biodiversity caused by the globalisation of alien
recreational freshwater fisheries. Developments in
Hydrobiology, 171, 217-230.
Durance, I., & Ormerod, S. (2007). Climate change
effects on upland stream macroinvertebrates over a
25-year period. Global Change Biology, 13, 942-957.
Freeland-Riggert, Brandye T. (2014). The effects of
an invasive crayfish on the
aquatic macroinvertebrate community in an Ozark
stream
Gerrity, S. (2014). Abundance and Distribution of
Native and Non-Native Crayfish Taxa in the Ten-
Mile Creek Watershed of the Huyck Preserve. Odum
Letters, 1, 1-7.
Gunderson, J. (2008). Rusty Crayfish: A Nasty
Invader.
Hayes, N.M., Butkas, K.J., Olden, J.D., & Jake, V.Z.
(2009). Behavioural and growth differences between
experienced and naïve populations of a native
crayfish in the presence of a Rusty-spotted crayfish.
Freshwater Biology 54, 1876-1887.
Heino, J. (2005). Functional biodiversity of
macroinvertebrate assemblages along major
ecological gradients of boreal headwater streams.
Freshwater Biology, 50(9), 1578-1587.
Lancaster, J., & Hildrew, A. (1993). Flow Refugia
and the Microdistribution of Lotic
Macroinvertebrates. Journal of the North American
Benthological Society, 12, 385-393.
Molnar, Jennifer L, Gamboa, Rebecca L, Revenga,
Carmen, and Spalding, Mark D (2008). Assessing the
global threat of invasive species to marine
biodiversity. Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment 6: 485–492.
Wallace, J., Grubaugh, J., & Whiles, M. (1996).
Biotic Indices and Stream Ecosystem Processes:
Results from an Experimental Study. Ecological
Applications, 6(1), 140-151.
Wallace, J., & Webster, J. (1996). The Role of
Macroinvertebrates in Stream Ecosystem Function.
Annual Review of Entomology, 41, 115-139.
Watershed Science Institute. (n.d.). The EPT Index.
Weinlander, M., & Fureder, L. (2011). Crayfish as
trophic agents: Effect of Austropotamobius

Volume 4: 22-26, 2015
[26]
torrentium on zoobenthos structure and function in
small forest streams. Knowledge and Management of
Aquatic Ecosystems, 401(22).

Volume 4: 27-32, 2015
[27]
Do invasive honeysuckles change soil composition?
Lindsay Yue
Dobbs Ferry High School, Dobbs Ferry, NJ
Abstract
This experiment tested whether or not different types of invasive Asian bush honeysuckle had any effect on
surrounding the soil composition. It was predicted that areas where the two different species of honeysuckle were
growing would differ slightly in soil composition from areas where there was only one type of honeysuckle
growing because the two species might behave differently together than if they just both grew separately . Soil
samples were taken from individual Morrow’s (Lonicera morrowii) and Tatarian (Lonicera tatarica) honeysuckle
shrubs, as well as areas where there were both types growing near each other. Samples were also collected from
areas three meters away from any type of honeysuckle as a control. The soil samples were then tested for pH,
phosphorus, aluminum, and calcium. Locations with honeysuckle tended to have higher pH values than in places
where there was no honeysuckle. The pH in the areas where both types of honeysuckles were growing was higher
than in areas where there was only one honeysuckle species growing. The phosphorus levels were higher where
honeysuckle was growing, and there was no pattern in the aluminum and calcium levels. This shows that
Morrow’s and Tatarian honeysuckles may change the soil composition, which could make it harder for other
plants to grow, thus reducing competition.
Introduction
Honeysuckle is a flowering shrub or vine that
produces fragrant flowers, and later small berries that
are eaten and dispersed by birds. There are
honeysuckles native to North America, as well as
invasive honeysuckles originating from Eurasia. On
the Huyck preserve, there are two varieties of
honeysuckle, Morrow’s and Tatarian, which can often
be found growing side by side.. They can be seen by
the road, on the West Lake Trail, and on the East Lake
Trail in abundance. Both types are invasive Asian bush
honeysuckles. Morrow’s honeysuckle is native to
northeastern Asia, and Tatarian honeysuckle is native
to Siberia and areas of eastern Asia. Both species were
introduced by people to North America as a pretty
ornamental plant and for controlling soil erosion. They
both put out leaves before native honeysuckles in the
spring, and both grow rapidly. This is troubling
because these plants grow so densely that they block
out the sun reducing sun exposure for the plants
growing below. Their berries are brightly colored,
usually red or orange and eaten by wildlife such as
catbirds and robins. However, the berries of the
invasive honeysuckles are less nutritious than the
berries of native honeysuckles and do not necessarily
contain the nutrients that are needed by birds in New
York. There have been many studies done on invasive
honeysuckles demonstrating their threats to native
ecosystems.. However, previous experiments only
studied the invasive species of Amur (Lonicera
maackii) or Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica), not Morrow’s or Tatarian. Amur
honeysuckle has been shown to affect the growth (but
not survival) of Burdick’s wild leek (Allium
burdickii), rue anemone (Thalictrum thalictroides),
and down violet (Viola pubescens) in forests in Ohio
(Miller & Gorchov 2004). It was found out that the
herbs grew better when there was no L. Maackii
presence demonstrating negative impacts of invasive
honeysuckle on native plant growth. This inhibition of
growth was possibly through the release of soil toxins
or changes in soil nutrients, a phenomenon known as

Volume 4: 27-32, 2015
[28]
allelopathy ((Miller & Gorchov 2004).. Additionally,
this study focused on a single honeysuckle species
missing the potential additive effects of co-occurring
invasive species. . However, in this study, only the
growth of plants was monitored, no soil tests for toxins
or nutrients were done, and there was only one
invasive study species.
The two invasive honeysuckles at the Preserve may
help other non-native plants grow, or they could just
hinder the growth of all plants. The invasional
meltdown hypothesis (Kuebbing et al. 2014) states
that two invasive species may interact with each other
to promote the growth of other invasive species. For
example, Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), which is
an invasive shrub, and Amur honeysuckle (Lonicera
Maackii) can grow together, and they can change the
soil composition around them. The soil properties of
the places where there was both Chinese privet and
Amur honeysuckle growing differed from the soil in
areas where there was only one invasive, and from
where there were no invasives growing. There were
also the most non-native plants growing in areas where
there was both privet and honeysuckle. This could
mean that two invasive plants can “work together” to
weaken the environment that they are invading, thus
making it easier for even more invasive species to take
hold. This study was different from most other studies
because it studied the effects of two co-occurring
invasive plants, while most invasive plants studies
only compare the effects between invasive and native
plants.
Considering Tatarian and Morrow invasions at the
Preserve, and the potential allelopathic nature of these
plants, I ran soil tests on areas where both species were
present, one of each species was present, and where
honeysuckle were not present to determine changes
these invasives may have on soil chemistry. Such
changes in soil chemistry could make areas at the
Preserve more similar to invasive species’ natural
environment promoting invasive plant growth further
weakening the natural ecosystem. Additionally, two
type of successful invasives are more likely to
outcompete native plants and potentially open up areas
for additional invasive plants.
Methods
Sample Sites
On the Huyck Preserve, Asian bush honeysuckles can
be seen growing in ditches by the roadsides and on the
East and West lake trails nearest to the Ordway house.
These areas are generally very wet. There are very few
trees in these areas, and consequently, honeysuckle
shrubs can get a lot of sunlight. In this experiment,
honeysuckle shrubs growing on the East and West lake
trail were observed because the invasives were the
most abundant and easiest to access there. The
honeysuckles around the trails were first identified to
species as either Morrow’s or Tatarian and the shrubs
that were the most clearly identifiable were selected
for sampling. The shrubs which had soil samples taken
underneath them were also made sure to be at least 1.5
meters tall, and appeared to be healthy, with healthy-
looking green leaves and little to no dead branches.
Three soil samples were taken from right under the
trunk of Morrow’s honeysuckle shrubs, three soil
samples were taken from right under the trunk of
Tatarian honeysuckle shrubs, two soil samples were
taken ten feet away to the right of the Morrow’s and
Tatarian shrubs, and two soil samples were taken
underneath an area where there were both Morrow’s
and Tatarian honeysuckles growing. The soil was
obtained by digging a couple of inches deep, and
brushing aside the most recent organic matter.
Soil Tests
The soil samples were tested for pH, phosphorus,
aluminum, and calcium. The LaMotte soil test kit was
used to test these soil properties. Equipment was

Volume 4: 27-32, 2015
[29]
Table 1. Soil tests of all samples with location. , and the results from each soil location were recorded. There were variations for pH and phosphorus,
with honeysuckle presence promoting more alkaline and higher phosphorous soils, but relationships between honeysuckle and aluminum or calcium.
pH Phosphorus (lb/a) Aluminum Calcium (ppm)
Morrow’s 1 6.4 75 low 1400
Tatarian 1 6.6 25 very low 1400
Morrow’s 2 6.8 175 very low 1400
Tatarian 2 7 50 very low 1400
Morrow’s 3 6.4 25 very low 1000
Tatarian 3 6.4 50 low 1200
3 m from
Morrow’s
6.6 12.5 low 1400
3 m from Tatarian 6.2 25 very high 1400
Both 1 7.2 25 very low 1200
Both 2 6.8 37.5 low 1400

Volume 4: 27-32, 2015
[30]
washed with tap water and dried thoroughly after each
usage. The tests for phosphorus, aluminum, and
calcium all required making a general soil extract,
while the pH test was performed with its own unique
extract.
Results
Figure 1. The pH of areas with honeysuckle were on average higher
than areas without, and with the locations where two types of
honeysuckle growing having a higher pH than areas where there was
only Morrow’s or only Tatarian growing.
Soil samples taken under honeysuckle shrubs tended
to be more acidic than soil samples taken from 3m
away (Table 1).. Samples from under both Tatarian
and Morrow shrubs had the highest acidity (Figure 1).
The average phosphorus content was higher in soil
samples taken under honeysuckle shrubs than in areas
without any honeysuckle (Figure 2). There was no
variation in aluminum or calcium.
Discussion
Morrow’s honeysuckle and Tatarian honeysuckle
seemed to change some soil properties, such as pH and
phosphorus, which may discourage some plants from
growing, with potential effects on the growth of other
invasive plants. The soil samples that were taken right
under Morrow’s and Tatarian shrubs tended to have a
pH a bit higher than soil samples that were taken three
meters away from any honeysuckle (Figure 1). Also,
the pH taken in the area where there was both
Morrow’s and Tatarian honeysuckle growing was
Figure 2. Samples taken under honeysuckle shrubs distinctly had more
phosphorus than areas three meters away from honeysuckle, however,
the areas where both were growing did not have a higher phosphorus
content than the areas where only one type of honeysuckle was growing.
higher than the other areas. This could mean that
honeysuckle affects pH level of soil. The pH of the soil
samples taken near the honeysuckle were more
alkaline. This could mean that honeysuckle
discourages other plants from growing because many
plants prefer to grow in soil that is more acidic, and the
soil around the honeysuckle was neutral, or very close.
When tested for the amount of available phosphorus,
it was found out that the soil samples taken from areas
where the honeysuckle was growing generally had
more phosphorus (Figure 2). However, phosphorus
availability was not the greatest in areas where there
were both Morrow’s and Tatarian growing, unlike the
trend for pH value. This could be because phosphorus
availability depends a lot on the pH of the soil (Plaster
& Plaster 1997). Phosphorus is most available at a pH
of 6.5-6.8 ((Plaster & Plaster 1997). The average pH
of soil samples under Morrow’s honeysuckle was
6.53, while the average under Tatarian honeysuckle
was 6.73. These values fit right in with when
phosphorus availability is greatest (Plaster & Plaster
1997), so it makes sense that phosphorus availability
is greatest where individual species of honeysuckle
live, because of their pH.

Volume 4: 27-32, 2015
[31]
The calcium content of the soil remained about the
same, and no correlation was found. This could be
because calcium, as well as aluminum levels are not as
affected by pH values as much as phosphorus levels
are. This was similar to aluminum levels, which was
mostly very low or low except in one case, where it
was very high. The soil sample with a very high
aluminum amount was taken three meters away from
a Tatarian honeysuckle. The pH value of the sample
was 6.2, the lowest pH found. More acidic soil tends
to have a higher buildup of aluminum (Plaster &
Plaster 1997), which might be why that location had
so much aluminum, however, pHs ranging from 6.4-7
did not have much change in aluminum, so it could
have just been an error.
When taking the soil samples from underneath the
plants, it was observed that there was a lot of oriental
bittersweet climbing around the honeysuckle. Oriental
bittersweet is also an invasive, originating from Asia.
Oriental bittersweet also prefers a more neutral pH.
One possible reason why there is so bittersweet much
growing around the honeysuckle is because it too likes
a higher pH that may be created by the honeysuckle.
However, oriental bittersweet grows in abundance in
many places, such as the woods. Since oriental
bittersweet is a vine, it may just be growing around
Asian bush honeysuckle because the branches of the
shrub give it a nice place to climb.
Invasive Morrow’s and Tatarian Asian bush
honeysuckles seem to change the pH level of the soil
around them, especially in areas where both types are
growing together. This may influence the availability
of other nutrients, such as phosphorus. As a result,
invasive honeysuckles might change their soil
composition, which in turn can discourage native
plants from growing and give them a competitive
advantage. Studying the effects of more than one
invasive on their environment is more effective and
realistic than just studying the effects of one invasive.
This is because in many cases, there will be more than
one invasive plant in an ecosystem.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the staff and the other students in
the Wildlife Ecology Program for helping me with my
research and making my stay enjoyable, Dr. Dawn
O’Neal for running this program and helping me with
my project, and my former science research teacher,
Mr. Thomas Callahan for finding me this program and
helping me apply.
Literature Cited
Lonicera tatarica Tatarian honeysuckle. (n.d.).
Retrieved from
http%3A%2F%2Fplants.usda.gov%2Fcore%2Fprofil
e%3Fsymbol%3DLOTA
Lonicera morrowii A. gray morrow's honeysuckle.
(n.d.). Retrieved from
http%3A%2F%2Fplants.usda.gov%2Fcore%2Fprofil
e%3Fsymbol%3DLOMO
Kuebbing, S. E., & |. (2013). Two co-occurring
invasive woody shrubs alter soil properties and
promote subdominant invasive species. Journal of
Applied Ecology J Appl Ecol, 51(1), 124-133.
Kuebbing, S. E., & |. (2013). Current mismatch
between research and conservation efforts: The need
to study co-occurring invasive plant species.
Biological Conservation,160, 121-129.
Schweitzer, J. A., & Larson, K. C. (1999). Greater
Morphological Plasticity of Exotic Honeysuckle
Species may make them Better Invaders than Native
Species. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society,
126(1), 15. doi:10.2307/2997251

Volume 4: 27-32, 2015
[32]
Hutchinson, T. F., & Vankat, J. L. (1997). Invasibility
and Effects of Amur Honeysuckle in Southwestern
Ohio Forests. Invasibilidad y Efectos de la Madreselva
de Amur en Bosques del Sudoeste de
Ohio.Conservation Biology, 11(5), 1117-1124.
doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1997.96001.x
Miller, K. E., & Gorchov, D. L. (2004). The invasive
shrub, Lonicera maackii , reduces growth and
fecundity of perennial forest herbs. Oecologia,139(3),
359-375. doi:10.1007/s00442-004-1518-2
Plaster, E., & Plaster, E. (1997). Soil science &
management (3rd ed.). Albany, NY: Delmar

Huyck Preserve
and Biological Research Station
P.O. Box 189 ~ 5052 Delaware Turnpike ~ Rensselaerville, NY ~ 12147
Recreation
Education
Education Partnerships
We offer field-based science field-trips
and hands-on summer research
experiences for grades K-12,
providing students with the tools and
understanding to advance in STEM
fields and combat ecological threats
such as climate change and biological
invasions.
Recreation Activites
Strong supporters of getting people
outdoors and moving, the Preserve offers
access to our 2,000 acres via 12 miles of
trails open 365 days a year, dawn to dusk.
We also work to connect people to nature
through annual festivals, guided hikes,
and our lake access program.
Connecting people to nature
research, education,

Research Initatives
One of the oldes independent field stations in the
country, we are home to over 500 plant and animal
species and more than ten different habitat types
from hardwood and conifer forests to meadowlands
and marshes. Our habitats and history make us an
ideal location for research initatives. Yearly, we
welocme undergraduate interns as part of our
Odum Internship in Field Ecology an offer grant
support to researchers in all stages of thier careers
for projects in basic and applied science.
We are committed to...
Conservation
Research
Conservation Monitoring
A cornerstone of conservation is monitoring
which is imporant for early detection and
rapid response to ecological threats. We are
actively investigating phenology and the effect
of climate change on the timing of spring, the
impact of deer on forest biodiversity and
regeneration, and the health and persistence
of breeding bird populations at the Preserve.
These monitoring efforts align with our
commitment to preserve wild spaces for future
generations.
for over 80 years through
conservation, & recreation!

Volume 4, July-August 2015
CONTENTS
LETTER FROM THE EDITOR
i THE IMPORTANCE OF BASIC FIELD RESEARCH: INVESTIGATING WHAT WE KNOW WE DON’T
KNOW TO ADVANCE WHAT WE DO. Dawn O'Neal, Ph.D.
RESEARCH ARTICLES
1 RELATIONSHIP OF WHITE-TAILED DEER BROWSING INTENSITY AND PROXIMITY TO ROADS
AND TRAILS. Alexander Haber
4 THE EFFECTS OF DRYSTONE WALLS ON RODENT DIVERSITY: A CASE STUDY OF THE HUYCK
PRESERVE. Levi Huttner
8 PREVALENCE OF TICK-INFESTED BIRDS IN THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES. Alicia Jen
14 MONITORING SPATIAL PATTERNS OF WHITE TAILED DEER. Cassidy Keyes
18 THE EFFECTIVENESS OF DIFFERENT INCENTIVES IN ATTRACTING BIRDS TO MIST NETS AT
THE HUYCK PRESERVE. Kai Victor
22 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ABUNDANCE OF ORCONECTES RUSTICUS AND
MACROINVERTEBRATE BIODIVERSITY IN AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS IN COMPARISON TO
NATIVE CRAYFISH. Alix Westgaard
27 DO INVASIVE HONEYSUCKLES CHANGE SOIL COMPOSITION? Lindsay Yue

j_wer_v4_web

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to j_wer_v4_web

Similar to j_wer_v4_web (20)

j_wer_v4_web