WINTER ECOLOGYSPRING 2014 Mountain Research Station University of Colorado Boulder The Effect of Elevation on Mammal Behavior and Abundance in Winter Introduction Morphological and physiological adaptations allow mammals to survive the winter in Colorado ID: 337195
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "KRISTY CAMPBELL" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
KRISTY CAMPBELLWINTER ECOLOGY,SPRING 2014Mountain Research Station, University of Colorado, Boulder
The Effect of Elevation on Mammal Behavior and Abundance in WinterSlide2
Introduction
Morphological and physiological adaptations allow mammals to survive the winter in Colorado.
Behavioral Adaptation – Some mammals utilize the insulative properties of snow.
Physical Adaptation – The Snowshoe Hare has large feet that allow it to easily walk across the snow (like snowhoes)Slide3
Introduction
Because of the deeper snowpack at higher elevations, larger mammals such as moose and deer are found more often at lower elevations
(Poole & Stuart-Smith 2006). Slide4
Introduction
Studies have shown that species diversity and abundance of small mammals in riparian zones is greater than in upland areas
(Doyle 1990).
These mammals may be drawn to the riparian zones for water, abundance of vegetation, or abundance of other prey mammals.
For these reasons, I focused
my study on riparian zones at different elevations.Slide5
Introduction
Hypothesis – The proportion of smaller to larger mammals increases with elevation in the winter.
Prediction - Tracks from smaller mammals (such as squirrels and Snowshoe Hares) will be more abundant at higher elevations than at lower elevations. Tracks from larger mammals (such as ungulates), will be more abundant at lower elevations.Slide6
Methods2 elevations along Como Creek
50 m transect through the riparian area
Observed animal tracks at 10 random points along the transect
10 m
Riparian zoneSlide7
Methods
3020 m
2857 mSlide8
Methods
Measured Snow depth and type of vegetation at both sites.
Analyzed differences in
species frequency and density at both
elevations using a Chi-Square Test.
Site 1 - 3020 m
site 2 - 2857 mSlide9
Site 1
Site 2
Snow Depth – 90 cm
Vegetation:
Willows
Lodegpole PineSpruceAspenSlope – flat area ( 4◦)
Snow Depth – 60 cmVegetation:Willows
Lodgepole Pine
Spruce
Aspen
Slope – flat area ( 6◦)
ResultsSlide10
Results: Density of Tracks
Density of track found at site 1 (high elevation) and site 2 (low elevation)
Site 1
Site 2
Chi-Square Test of Independence
H
0
= The density at each site is not different from a random distribution.
P = 0.56
There was no significant difference from random. The null hypothesis could not be rejected.Slide11
Results: Relative Frequency of Tracks
Chi- Square Goodness of Fit Test
H
o
– The frequency distributions are the same.
P = 0.90There was no significant difference in relative frequency of tracks found between site 1 and site 2. The null hypothesis could not be rejected.
Relative Frequency of tracks found at site 1 (high elevation) and site 2 (low elevation)Slide12
Results: Absolute Frequency of Tracks
Chi- Square Goodness of Fit Test
H
o
– The frequency distributions are the same.
P = 0.95There was no significant difference in absolute frequency of tracks found between site 1 and site 2. The null hypothesis could not be rejected.
Absolute Frequency of tracks found at site 1 (high elevation) and site 2 (low elevation)Slide13
Discussion
The frequency and density of different mammal tracks found at both sites tested were statistically identical to each other.
Vegetation at both sites was the same.
Elevation was not as different as planned.
Snow depth was different, but the top layer of snow was firm. The coyote tracks found at the high elevation did not penetrate deep into the snow.Slide14
Discussion
My hypothesis was not supported. However, due to the constraints of my study, I think that further research could be done:
More replicates need to be done at each site.
There needs to be a larger difference in elevation.
At least one more lower elevation needs to be studied. Perhaps asking permission of private land owners to study animal tracks near the creek.Slide15
3200 m
2857 m
2469 mSlide16
Discussion
Not all methods could be carried out as planned:
I planned to begin collecting data at 3200 m (the top of
Komo
Creek), but I could not find the creek. I began instead at 3020 m.
I planned to collect my final set of data at an elevation of 2469 m, but I could not access the sampling area because it was on private land.Slide17
References
Doyle, A. T. 1990. Use of Riparian and Upland Habitats by Small Mammals. Journal of
Mammalogy
.
Vol 71. No. 1: 14-23.
Gillis, E. A., Hilk, D.S., Boonstra R., Karels
, T.J., and Krebs, C.J. 2005. Being High is Better: Effects of Elevation and Habitat on Arctic Ground Squirrel Demography. OIKOS 108:231-240.
Poole, K.G., and Stuart-Smith. 2006. Winter Habitat Selection by Female Moose in Western Interior Montane Forests. Canadian Journal of Zoology.
Vol
84: 1823- 1832.