The SNAMP Fisher Projectsnamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/.../13/Sweitzer_Barrett_FisherIT_Year3Update...The...

8/13/2010

1

The SNAMP Fisher Project

Third Fisher Integration Meeting

Fresno, July 22, 2010

“Science continually advances only because many cycles of independent testing by different scientists allow new knowledge to be built with confidence upon old knowledge, thereby creating a repository of reliable understandings about the world……

Scientists have an absolute obligation to honesty: They must accurately report how they arrived at their discoveries as well as the discoveriestheir discoveries, as well as the discoveries themselves.”

Bruce Alberts,Editor, Science

8/13/2010

2

Chamberlain, T.C. 1890. The method of multiple working hypotheses. Sciencemultiple working hypotheses. Science 15:92-96.

Anderson, D.R. 2008. Model based inference in the life sciences: A primerinference in the life sciences: A primer on evidence. Springer, New York, NY.

Research Hypotheses

• Spencer/CBI

Fi h l ti i

• Barrett/SNAMP

Fi h l ti i– Fisher population is increasing northward

– SPLAT treatments will not impede this expansion

– Fisher population is retracting southward

– SPLAT treatments will exacerbate this contraction

The basic management question is what manner of fuel reduction is optimal for minimizing both the riskof wildfire and the loss of fisher.

8/13/2010

3

More Research Hypotheses

• Survival is more important than reproduction di lor dispersal

• Predation is most limiting factor

• Disease is most limiting factor

• Accidents are most limiting

• Lack of preferred prey (porcupines) limiting

• Much fisher range is sink habitat

8/13/2010

4

SNAMP Fisher Study: Update and Current Status

Rick A. Sweitzer and Reginald H. Barrett

College of Natural Resources Department of Environmental Science, Policy & ManagementUniversity of California, Berkeley

SNAMP Fisher Project Integration MeetingFresno, CaliforniaJuly 22nd 2010

8/13/2010

5

SNAMP Science Team: Wildlife ‐ Fisher

Principal Investigator: Reg Barrett

Fisher Project Leader: Rick Sweitzer

Staff Research Biologists & Assistants:

• Carrie O’Brien, Rebekah Jensen

• Joseph Bridges, Brady Neiles, Jason Massarone, Taylor Gorman

USFS Flight Support : John Litton, Steve Forkel (Pilot)

Sierra Nevada Adaptive Mgt Projecthttp://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu

Independent 3rd party research program to assess Forest Vegetation Treatments (SPLATs) designed to

Burn Probability0 - 0.01

0.01 - 0.02

0.02 - 0.03

0.03 - 0.04

0.04 - 0.05

0.05 - 0.06

0.06 - 0.07

0.07 - 0.08

0.08 - 0.09

0.09 - 0.1

( ) greduce risk of intense, large wildfires and improve forest health:

1. Forest Health and Fire Behavior

2. Wildlife populations focusing on Pacific fishers & spotted owls

3 W li / i

snamp.cnr.berkeley.eduSierra Nevada Adaptive Management Project

3. Water quality/quantity

4. Public Participation

Spatial Team (supports above teams)

8/13/2010

6

Status of Pacific Fisher in California

Historic and Current Distribution Trapping + extensive timber harvest during late

1800s into 1970s reduced range by 40‐50% Fi h b t f Si th f Y it Fisher now absent from Sierras north of Yosemite

NP; southern Sierra population genetically isolated

Federal & California Status Candidate species U.S. Endangered Species Act

Recent Status Review by Cal Dept Fish & Game Limiting factors not known, unclear if populations increasing or decreasing now or in recent past


Fisher (Martes pennanti)Current Range

SNAMP Fisher Study: Research Hypotheses

H1: Pacific fisher population in California is retracting southward: historical decline has not significantly reversed

H2: SPLAT treatments has the potential to exacerbate this contraction by preventing return of mature/old growth elements


Key management question: what manner of fuels reduction is optimal for minimizing both risk of intense wildfire and loss of fisher in southern Sierra Nevada?

Mastication Control burn Commercial thinning

8/13/2010

7

SNAMP Fisher Study

Research Objectives/Goals: Determine population parameters &

limiting factors for Pacific fisher: Assess survival fecundity dispersal Assess survival, fecundity, dispersal,

cause‐specific mortality

Assess resource use/habitat selection

Evaluate effects of fuel reduction treatments (SPLATS) on resource use, survival, & population persistence of Pacific fisher

Background/Study Area:


g / y 8 year study initiated in Sept 2007 Bass Lake RD, Sierra National Forest High intensity work in 4 “key watersheds” Research over larger area for assessing

population limiting factors…

SNAMP Fisher Overall Research Area

Area of Key Watersheds: 131 km2 ( ≈ 51 mile2)Area Overall Study area: 1150 km2 ( ≈ 440 mile2)

8/13/2010

8

SNAMP Fisher Study: Aviation Support – Steve Forkel (Pilot), John Litton (Aviation Supervisor)

Other Regular Pilots:

Jim Irving

Bill Bulfer

Curtis Haney

Dan English

METHODS: Population parameters & limiting factors

Capture, collar and track individual fisher

Collect data for assessing health, reproductive status, attach collars; monitor minimum 20 animals at all times (mean ≈ 26 animals over last 12 months)

Daily aerial telemetry to monitor survival & identify sources of mortality; modeling to assess population growth/persistence probability

Determine ranges & fates of all fisher residing within key watersheds and in overall study area

8/13/2010

9

Monitor Natal/Maternal Den Trees for Kit Counts

Intensive early morning monitoring starts mid‐March

Early AM walk ins to confirm possible den trees; place

METHODS: Female Reproduction/Fecundity 1

Early AM walk‐ins to confirm possible den trees; place 2‐4 cameras focused on possible den trees

Dens “verified” by photos ‐ repeated use of the tree

Den cams checked every 3 days to monitor den activity & when kits are moved (= kit counts)


Tree Climbs: Investigate den cavities, count kits • Climbs initiated when females away from den• Not all den trees climbable (snags)• Den camera linked to laptop used to visualize

METHODS: Female Reproduction/Fecundity 2

• Den camera linked to laptop used to visualize cavity interiors, record video footage…


8/13/2010

10

METHODS: Evaluating Effects of SPLATS on Fisher Life History

BACI Study design: track & monitor all aspects of fisher ecology within key watersheds 2 years of pre‐treatment data followed by min 2

years of post‐treatment data Evaluate/model all likely fisher responses to Evaluate/model all likely fisher responses to

treatments

Yearly camera surveys of all 1 km2 blocks of forest lands encompassed by key watersheds

124/136 grid cells available for survey

Annual camera surveys to determine fisher use of grids before and after treatments…


METHODS: Evaluating Responses of Fishers to Treatments

How can we detect responses (+ or ‐) of fishers to changes in habitat associated with fuel treatments?

By temporal changes in the occupancy state of treated area(s) within fisher habitathabitat

By detecting relatively small changes in the boundary or activity centers of fisher home range(s)

High resolution data on movements via GPS collars


Newfangled GPS radiocollar

Combination of all 3 and anything else (kitchen sink approach)

8/13/2010

11

Types of negative responses to SPLATs: shifts in habitat use, area avoidance, reduced reproduction or survival

METHODS: Changes in Habitat Use Within Key Watersheds in Response to Fuel Treatments

Hypothesis: Grids altered by treatments will experience more negative transitions than others (treatment type, % treated will also be assessed)

Assumption: negative transitions (1 to 0) in areas with treatments representin areas with treatments represent negative response to habitat change

Multi‐season analyses to evaluate effects of fuel treatments on occupancy state

NOTE: SPLATS not associated with the Sugar Pine area will also be useful for SNAMP Fisher…

Types of negative responses to SPLATs: shifts in habitat use & area avoidance (home range shifts), reduced reproduction or survival

METHODS: Changes in Habitat Use in Key Watersheds in Response to Fuels Treatments

or survival

Hypothesis: Animals with portions of their home ranges altered by treatments will move away or avoid treated portions of home ranges

Requires long term, intensive monitoring of individual animals, and some luck

8/13/2010

12

RECONYX® digital motion‐sensitive cameras placed in areas of good fisher habitat in 1 km2 or 4 km2 grid cells

Baited with roadkill venison+scent lures, pecan “nut ring”+peanut butter

Fall/Winter surveys: Check, rebait cameras every 8 days

METHODS: Camera Survey Protocol

Fall/Winter surveys: Check, rebait cameras every 8 days over 32 days = 4 checks (disturbed cameras = more checks)


All cameras password protected

Two Primary Types of Surveys with Different Goals/Design Considerations

Occupancy surveys: goal to accurately identify whether 1 or more sample units within defined area are occupied; requires protocol achieving a probability of detection (P) of ≥ 0 95

Background on Types of Surveys and Design of Protocols *

detection (P) of ≥ 0.95

Example: determine whether fishers occupy area(s) proposed for, or altered by land mgt activities changing habitats (SNAMP Key Watersheds)

Distribution surveys: goal of estimating the proportion of locations occupied by fishers over large geographic areas

Goal is to optimize P (ideally P ≥ 0.80) while surveying many sites across the landscape


*Slauson et al. 2009Image: Zielinski et al., J. Biogeograhy 2005

y g y p

8/13/2010

13

Definitions & Parameters in Occupancy Surveys*

Occupancy state – Occupied or not occupied, scored as 1 or 0 respectively

P (“Big P”): probability of detecting a fisher when it is present in the sample unit using the survey protocol

Visits or checks (v): represent the number of times station(s) are assessed for target animal detection during the “survey duration”

p (“little p”): per visit probability of detecting fisher within the sample unit

ψ = Probability that one or more fishers occupy a surveyed research site

snamp.cnr.berkeley.eduSierra Nevada Adaptive Management Project *Slauson et al. 2009Image of fisher tracks: Truex 2010

Equation 1: P = 1‐(1‐p)v

Equation 2: ψ = naïve occupancy/P

SNAMP Fisher “Types” of Cameras & Their Uses

Occupancy & Distribution Survey Cameras: placed near centers of grids in appropriate habitat, baited & monitored following standard protocol

Key Watersheds surveyed using 1 km2 grid during Fall‐Winter

Distribution surveys use 4 km2 grid in late Winter, or during Summer

Fall, Winter, Spring surveys: 4 visits/checks over 32 days

Summer surveys: 5 visits/checks over 40 days (P lower during summer)

Mom

Fisher “Den Cams” : 2‐4 cameras placed around natal and maternal den trees for kit counts; not baited or scented

Reproductive Female “Kit Cams” : placed within summer home range ‐ goals of (1) verifying kit counts and (2)

Kit


home range ‐ goals of (1) verifying kit counts, and (2) tracking kit survival prior to independence Same protocol as summer survey cameras

8/13/2010

14

RESULTS: Cause‐specific Mortalities To date we’ve determined causes of mortality

for 33 fishers (26 collared, 7 noncollared)

Top 3 causes of mortality predation (14), roadkill (8), and disease (4)roadkill (8), and disease (4)

2 research deaths related to “bad” drugs: recalled by FDA after deaths occurred

* Many more details later…


F33 Bobcat F25 Hwy 41 M14 CDV

F35 – Adult female fisher (Oct 26, 2009): Normal capture until in recovery, had 2 seizures &

failed to recover consciousness by next morning

Died while in transit to Fresno Chaffee Zoo; 1st

capture mortality on study

RESULTS: Research‐linked Mortalities

capture mortality on study

Necropsy found snare wound around upper jaw (not cause of death)

M24 – Juvenile male fisher (Dec 06, 2009): Normal capture through most of recovery

Ataxic fisher observed on dirt road approx. 20 min after release from cubby


Mortality signal detected 7 days later, < 2 km from capture site; found in cavity inside old log

Necropsy revealed muscular atrophy, stomach empty, otherwise animal had been healthy

8/13/2010

15

RESULTS: Research‐linked Mortalities

From Recall alert Dec 21 2009:From Recall alert Dec. 21, 2009: “This recall is being conducted as a result of an increased trend in serious adverse events associated with this product including lack of effect, prolonged effect, and death”


We learned of recall on Jan 08, 2010 & immediately stopped trapping

RESULTS: Population Data/Radiocollared Fisher


8/13/2010

16

RESULTS: Fisher Population Data

Captured & radiocollared 64 individual fishers to date 38 females and 26 Males

Currently monitoring 25 fisher

Trapping to recollar 8 fisher

Fates/Status known for 52 of 64 captured individuals

l h

Table 1. Information on fates/status of all SNAMP

captured fishers in the Sierra National Forest study


Sex Total

N

Known

Alive

Known

Dead

Short term

missing

Long

missing

Female 38 16 14 6 2

Male 26 12 10 3 1

RESULTS: Trap Effort and Population Inferences

Quick Summary:

Trapping success has been highest in fall and winter

New fisher captures are uncommon, except during fall/winter (recruitment period for kits)

Total number of animals captured over 2‐3 years alone is insufficient to understand populationunderstand population dynamics

Captured 64 individuals but 27 (42%) have died or disappeared from population

8/13/2010

17

21 October 2007 to Present 574 unique grids have been surveyed for

fisher activity (including from companion study in Yosemite last winter)

Fisher have been detected in 314 different

RESULTS: Camera Surveys & Distribution

survey cameras (including den cameras) Most cameras with detections were between

4500 and 6500 feet (holds when corrected for effort)


RESULTS: Camera Surveys

Table 3. Summary data from 1 km2 grids surveyed with

digital cameras during Camera Year 1 (Oct 25, '07 to Oct

31, '08), Camera Year 2 (Oct 15, '08 to Oct 15, 09), and

C Y 3 (O 07 '09 i l )Survey

Year

Total grids

surveyed

Cam Grids with

fisher detections

Additional grids with

fisher activity

Year 1 219 113 (52%) 73

Year 2 339 200 (59%) 124

Year 3 335 144 (44%) 228

All years 526b 294 (57%) Total "FActive" Grids:

488

Camera Year 3 (Oct 07, '09 to present‐incomplete ).


a Includes additional, unique grids with fisher captures, den trees,

or those with telemetry locations (min 5 VHF, or min 2 GPS b Any grid surveyed at least one time

8/13/2010

18

RESULTS: Overall Distribution of Fisher/Fisher Activity in Study Area

Overall distribution at 4 km2 grid level including:

Survey cameras with detections

Grids with telemetry locations

Min 5 aerial telem, 2 GPS

Grids with fisher captures


Table 2 Parameter estimates on reproduction for adult

RESULTS: Female Reproduction

Table 2. Parameter estimates on reproduction for adult female fishers from SNAMP study. The denning season is from approx. March 25 to June 15 in our study area.

Den season Adult females producing kits

Estimated fecundity

Identified den trees

Spring 2008 88% (8 of 9) ‐ 4 (1, 3)c

Spring 2009 82% (14 of 17)a 1.5 ± SD 37 (12, 25)


0.52

Spring 2010 88% (15 of 17)b 1.7 ± SD 0.65

34 (15, 19)

a One female initiated denning, but ceased using den trees within 30 daysb One female initiated denning, but ceased using den trees within 30 daysc numbers in parentheses are natal and maternal den trees, respectively

8/13/2010

19

RESULTS: Denning Female Core Use Areas


RESULTS: Denning Females – Important Findings

Three multi‐year denning females used the same den trees in 2009 and 2010

F04 – Maternal 1 in ‘09 used as Natal in ‘10

F12 – Natal in ‘09 used as Natal in ‘10

F13 S l d F13 ‐‐ Several trees reused

Maternal 1 in ‘09 used as Natal in ’10

Maternal 3 in ‘09 used as Maternal 2 in ’10

Fishers not known to reuse den trees, suggesting:

1. Suitable den trees are limited on the landscape


2. Limiting operating period buffers may need to extend over multiple years rather than expiring in June

3. We know less than we thought

8/13/2010

20

RESULTS: Denning Females – Important Findings


Natal dispersal: one way movement from area of birth to where the animal 1st reproduces as adult

For most mammals dispersal is male‐biased:

SNAMP Fisher: Dispersal Movements and Distances

males leave natal areas at higher rate than females, and typically move farther

Dispersal in Fishers: Generally assumed fishers fit typical mammalian pattern, but poorly known

Krohn et al. (1993) reported on dispersal by juveniles for harvested population of fishers in Maine: 13 dispersal events over 7 years


p y Mean = 10.8 km males (n = 8) Mean = 11.2 km females (n = 5)

8/13/2010

21

Tabular summary of data on observed dispersal for radiocollared fisher on the SNAMP Fisher Study.

Fisher ID Age Dispersal period Min. distance moved (km)

M_02 Juv/Subdult Spring–Summer 29.5

M_12 Juvenile Fall 16.3

M_15 Juv/SubAdult Spring–Summer 9.8

Male mean = 18.5 km

F_07 Subadult Fall–Winter 16.5

F_34 Juvenile Winter 6.1


F_36 Juvenile Winter 11.8

F_38 Juv/Subadult Winter 8.6

Female mean = 10.7 km

F_07 Subadult Female

Captured July 9, 2008

Tracked continuously to December 2009

Min. straight line distance between core range areas = 16 5 km

RESULTS: Dispersal Movements and Distances

range areas 16.5 km


8/13/2010

22

M_02 Subadult Male Fisher

Captured in late December 2007 –predispersal HR around Grey’s Mtn

Went missing May 08; eventually relocated in August 08 in Yosemite NP


g

Min. straight line distance between core range areas = 29.5 km


RESULTS: M_02 Home Range & Mating Period Movements


8/13/2010

23

M_15 Subadult Male Fisher

Captured in late November 2008

Tracked near continuously to present; GPS collar for 2 months




F_36 Juvenile female

Captured November 9, 2009

Tracked continuously to present

Min. straight line distance between


core range areas = 11.8 miles


8/13/2010

24

F_34 Juv/Subadult female

Captured October 25, 2009

Tracked continuously to present

Min. straight line distance between


core range areas = 6.1 km


M_12 Juvenile male

Captured September 23, 2008

Tracked until April 3, 2009 –dropped radiocollar




8/13/2010

25

F_38 Juv/Subadult female

Captured December 2, 2009

Tracked until April 27, 2010 when she dropped radiocollar




New Findings: Data on home range size for fishers in SNAMP study are larger than anywhere else in California

SNAMP Fishers 2008‐09 95% Fix KernelsAvg 15 adult females: 28.4 ± SE 1.8 km2

Avg 6 adult males: 64 3 ± SE 10 1 km2Avg 6 adult males: 64.3 ± SE 10.1 km

Ability to locate individuals 5‐6 times/week by aerial telemetry is likely explanation (we don’t miss many movements)

Implications/Questions: Is habitat quality here lower than elsewhere? Will be more difficult to directly compare data on


Will be more difficult to directly compare data on movements/home ranges with Kings River Study

8/13/2010

26

SNAMP Fisher Study: Acknowledgments Funding & Logistics: USDA Forest Service (Mike Chapel, Peter Stine)

MOU Partners & Agencies: US Fish and Wildlife Service, California Dept of Fish & Game, Yosemite National Park

SNAMP Fisher Crew & Volunteers: Joe Bridges, Brady Neiles, Carrie O’Brien Rebekah Jensen Taylor Gorman Jason Massarone Wendy

USFS Aviation John Litton, Pilots Steve Forkel, Bill Bulfer, Curtis Haney, Jim Irving, Dan English

Kings River Fisher Study: Kathyrn Purcell, Craig Thompson, Rebecca Green, Jim Garner

Sierra NF Bass Lake Ranger District: Dave Martin, Anae Otto, Theresa Lowe, Kevin Williams

O Brien, Rebekah Jensen, Taylor Gorman, Jason Massarone, Wendy Mitchell, Wendy Sicard, Thomas Thein, Geoff and Lindsay Cline, Jeff Schneiderman, Jana Ashling, Caroline Jablonicky, Sarah Bassing, Adrianna Beaudette, Shelly Vogel, Mark Ratchford, Rob Wise, ZacEads, Thomas Day, Kyle Wagner, Jenny Ruthven


UC Davis Collaborators: Mourad Gabriel, Greta Wengert, Local Housing – Bruce Persson,

Yosemite National Park: Steve Thompson, Sarah Stock, April Farmer, Niki Nicholas

DFG: Deana Clifford D.V.M., Esther Burkett, Eric Wolters ‐ Fresno Wildlife Rehabilitation, Lewis Wright D.V.M. – Fresno Chaffee Zoo

Date post:	16-Jul-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	lenga
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times

The SNAMP Fisher Projectsnamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/.../13/Sweitzer_Barrett_FisherIT_Year3Update...The...

Documents