Modeling Elk Nutrition and Habitat Use in Western Oregon and Washington

IF 4.3 1区 生物学 Q1 ECOLOGY
Mary M. Rowland, Michael J. Wisdom, Ryan M. Nielson, John G. Cook, Rachel C. Cook, Bruce K. Johnson, Priscilla K. Coe, Jennifer M. Hafer, Bridgett J. Naylor, David J. Vales, Robert G. Anthony, Eric K. Cole, Chris D. Danilson, Ronald W. Davis, Frank Geyer, Scott Harris, Larry L. Irwin, Robert McCoy, Michael D. Pope, Kim Sager-Fradkin, Martin Vavra
{"title":"Modeling Elk Nutrition and Habitat Use in Western Oregon and Washington","authors":"Mary M. Rowland,&nbsp;Michael J. Wisdom,&nbsp;Ryan M. Nielson,&nbsp;John G. Cook,&nbsp;Rachel C. Cook,&nbsp;Bruce K. Johnson,&nbsp;Priscilla K. Coe,&nbsp;Jennifer M. Hafer,&nbsp;Bridgett J. Naylor,&nbsp;David J. Vales,&nbsp;Robert G. Anthony,&nbsp;Eric K. Cole,&nbsp;Chris D. Danilson,&nbsp;Ronald W. Davis,&nbsp;Frank Geyer,&nbsp;Scott Harris,&nbsp;Larry L. Irwin,&nbsp;Robert McCoy,&nbsp;Michael D. Pope,&nbsp;Kim Sager-Fradkin,&nbsp;Martin Vavra","doi":"10.1002/wmon.1033","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <p>Studies of habitat selection and use by wildlife, especially large herbivores, are foundational for understanding their ecology and management, especially if predictors of use represent habitat requirements that can be related to demography or fitness. Many ungulate species serve societal needs as game animals or subsistence foods, and also can affect native vegetation and agricultural crops because of their large body size, diet choices, and widespread distributions. Understanding nutritional resources and habitat use of large herbivores like elk (<i>Cervus canadensis</i>) can benefit their management across different land ownerships and management regimes. Distributions of elk in much of the western United States have shifted from public to private lands, leading to reduced hunting and viewing opportunities on the former and increased crop damage and other undesired effects on the latter. These shifts may be caused by increasing human disturbance (e. g., roads and traffic) and declines of early-seral vegetation, which provides abundant forage for elk and other wildlife on public lands. Managers can benefit from tools that predict how nutritional resources, other environmental characteristics, elk productivity and performance, and elk distributions respond to management actions. We present a large-scale effort to develop regional elk nutrition and habitat-use models for summer ranges spanning 11 million ha in western Oregon and Washington, USA (hereafter Westside). We chose summer because nutritional limitations on elk condition (e. g., body fat levels) and reproduction in this season are evident across much of the western United States. Our overarching hypothesis was that elk habitat use during summer is driven by a suite of interacting covariates related to energy balance: acquisition (e g., nutritional resources, juxtaposition of cover and foraging areas), and loss (e g., proximity to open roads, topography). We predicted that female elk consistently select areas of higher summer nutrition, resulting in better animal performance in more nutritionally rich landscapes. We also predicted that factors of human disturbance, vegetation, and topography would affect elk use of landscapes and available nutrition during summer, and specifically predicted that elk would avoid open roads and areas far from cover-forage edges because of their preference for foraging sites with secure patches of cover nearby. Our work had 2 primary objectives: 1) to develop and evaluate a nutrition model that estimates regional nutritional conditions for elk on summer ranges, using predictors that reflect elk nutritional ecology; and 2) to develop a summer habitat-use model that integrates the nutrition model predictions with other covariates to estimate relative probability of use by elk, accounting for ecological processes that drive use. To meet our objectives, we used 25 previously collected data sets on elk nutrition, performance, and distributions from 12 study areas. We demonstrated the management utility of our regional-scale models via application in 2 landscapes in Washington.</p>\n \n <p>The elk nutrition model predicts levels of digestible energy in elk diets (DDE; kcal DE/g of consumed forage) during summer. Model input data were from foraging experiments using captive female elk and field measurements of site characteristics at fine scales (∼0.5 ha). The nutrition model included a set of equations that predicted forage biomass as a function of site characteristics and a second set that predicted DDE primarily as a function of forage biomass. We used the nutrition model to develop a DDE map across the Westside. We then evaluated performance of the model by comparing predicted DDE to nutritional resource selection by elk and to population-level estimates of autumn body fat and pregnancy rates of lactating elk. To model elk habitat use, we compiled 13 unique telemetry data sets from female elk (<i>n</i> = 173) in 7 study areas (data collected June–August 1991–2009). We used a generalized linear model with 5 of the data sets, coupled with ecologically relevant covariates characterizing nutrition, human disturbance, vegetation, and physical conditions, to estimate intensity of use with the negative binomial model. We evaluated model performance by mapping predicted habitat use with the regional model and comparing predictions with counts of elk locations using 8 independent telemetry data sets.</p>\n \n <p>The nutrition model explained a reasonably high amount of variation in forage biomass (<i>r</i><sup>2</sup> = 0.46–0.72) and included covariates of overstory canopy cover, proportion of hardwoods in the canopy, potential natural vegetation (PNV) zone, and study area. Dietary DE equations in the model explained about 50% of the variation in DDE (<i>r</i><sup>2</sup> = 0.39–0.57) as a function of forage biomass by PNV zone and study area. Broad-scale application of the nutrition model in the Westside region illustrated the predominance of landscapes that failed to meet nutritional needs of lactating females (≤2.58 kcal/g) and their calves, especially at moderate elevations in closed-canopy forests in both the Coast Range and the southern Cascades. Areas providing DDE at (&gt;2.58–2.75 kcal/g) or in excess (&gt;2.75 kcal/g) of the basic requirement of lactating females were uncommon (&lt;15% of area) or rare (&lt;5% of area), respectively, and primarily occurred in early-seral communities, particularly at higher elevations. Wild elk avoided areas with DDE below basic requirement and selected for areas with DDE &gt;2.60 kcal/g. Percentage of elk ranges providing DDE levels near or above basic requirement was highly correlated with pregnancy rates of lactating females. Autumn body fat levels were highly correlated with percentage of elk ranges providing DDE levels above basic requirement.</p>\n \n <p>The regional model of elk habitat use with greatest support in the empirical data included 4 covariates: DDE, distance to nearest road open to motorized use by the public, distance to cover-forage edge, and slope. Elk preferred habitats that were relatively high in DDE, far from roads, close to cover-forage edges, and on gentle slopes. Based on standardized coefficients, changes in slope (−0.949) were most important in predicting habitat use, followed by DDE (0.656), distance to edge (−0.305), and distance to open road (0.300). Use ratios for the regional model indicated these changes in relative probability of use by elk: a 111.2% increase in use for each 0.1-unit increase in DDE; a 22.7% increase in use for each kilometer away from an open road; an 8.1% decrease in use for each 100-m increase in distance to edge; and a 5.3% decrease in use for each percent increase in slope. The regional model validated well overall, with high correlation between predicted use and observed values for the 4 Washington sites (<i>r<sub>s</sub></i> ≥ 0.96) but lower correlation in southwestern Oregon sites (<i>r<sub>s</sub></i> = 0.32–0.87).</p>\n \n <p>Our results demonstrated that nutrition data collected at fine scales with captive elk can be used to predict nutritional resources at large scales, and that these predictions directly relate to habitat use and performance of free-ranging elk across the Westside region. These results also highlight the importance of including summer nutrition in habitat evaluation and landscape planning for Westside elk. The models can inform management strategies to achieve objectives for elk across land ownerships. The regional model provides a useful tool to understand and document spatially explicit habitat requirements and distributions of elk in current or future landscapes. The 2 examples of management application demonstrated how effects of management on elk nutrition and habitat use can be evaluated at landscape scales, and in turn how animal performance and distribution are affected. Results further illustrated the importance of managing for nutrition in combination with other covariates (i e., roads, slope, cover-forage edges) that affect elk use of nutritional resources to achieve desired distributions of elk. Our meta-analysis approach to habitat modeling provides a useful framework for research and management of wildlife species with coarse-scale habitat requirements by identifying commonalities in habitat-use patterns that are robust across multiple modeling areas and a large geographic range. Use of such methods in future modeling, including application in monitoring programs and adaptive management, will continue to advance ecological knowledge and management of wildlife species like elk. © 2018 The Authors. Wildlife Monographs published by Wiley on behalf of The Wildlife Society.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":235,"journal":{"name":"Wildlife Monographs","volume":"199 1","pages":"1-69"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2018-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/wmon.1033","citationCount":"34","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wildlife Monographs","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wmon.1033","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 34

Abstract

Studies of habitat selection and use by wildlife, especially large herbivores, are foundational for understanding their ecology and management, especially if predictors of use represent habitat requirements that can be related to demography or fitness. Many ungulate species serve societal needs as game animals or subsistence foods, and also can affect native vegetation and agricultural crops because of their large body size, diet choices, and widespread distributions. Understanding nutritional resources and habitat use of large herbivores like elk (Cervus canadensis) can benefit their management across different land ownerships and management regimes. Distributions of elk in much of the western United States have shifted from public to private lands, leading to reduced hunting and viewing opportunities on the former and increased crop damage and other undesired effects on the latter. These shifts may be caused by increasing human disturbance (e. g., roads and traffic) and declines of early-seral vegetation, which provides abundant forage for elk and other wildlife on public lands. Managers can benefit from tools that predict how nutritional resources, other environmental characteristics, elk productivity and performance, and elk distributions respond to management actions. We present a large-scale effort to develop regional elk nutrition and habitat-use models for summer ranges spanning 11 million ha in western Oregon and Washington, USA (hereafter Westside). We chose summer because nutritional limitations on elk condition (e. g., body fat levels) and reproduction in this season are evident across much of the western United States. Our overarching hypothesis was that elk habitat use during summer is driven by a suite of interacting covariates related to energy balance: acquisition (e g., nutritional resources, juxtaposition of cover and foraging areas), and loss (e g., proximity to open roads, topography). We predicted that female elk consistently select areas of higher summer nutrition, resulting in better animal performance in more nutritionally rich landscapes. We also predicted that factors of human disturbance, vegetation, and topography would affect elk use of landscapes and available nutrition during summer, and specifically predicted that elk would avoid open roads and areas far from cover-forage edges because of their preference for foraging sites with secure patches of cover nearby. Our work had 2 primary objectives: 1) to develop and evaluate a nutrition model that estimates regional nutritional conditions for elk on summer ranges, using predictors that reflect elk nutritional ecology; and 2) to develop a summer habitat-use model that integrates the nutrition model predictions with other covariates to estimate relative probability of use by elk, accounting for ecological processes that drive use. To meet our objectives, we used 25 previously collected data sets on elk nutrition, performance, and distributions from 12 study areas. We demonstrated the management utility of our regional-scale models via application in 2 landscapes in Washington.

The elk nutrition model predicts levels of digestible energy in elk diets (DDE; kcal DE/g of consumed forage) during summer. Model input data were from foraging experiments using captive female elk and field measurements of site characteristics at fine scales (∼0.5 ha). The nutrition model included a set of equations that predicted forage biomass as a function of site characteristics and a second set that predicted DDE primarily as a function of forage biomass. We used the nutrition model to develop a DDE map across the Westside. We then evaluated performance of the model by comparing predicted DDE to nutritional resource selection by elk and to population-level estimates of autumn body fat and pregnancy rates of lactating elk. To model elk habitat use, we compiled 13 unique telemetry data sets from female elk (n = 173) in 7 study areas (data collected June–August 1991–2009). We used a generalized linear model with 5 of the data sets, coupled with ecologically relevant covariates characterizing nutrition, human disturbance, vegetation, and physical conditions, to estimate intensity of use with the negative binomial model. We evaluated model performance by mapping predicted habitat use with the regional model and comparing predictions with counts of elk locations using 8 independent telemetry data sets.

The nutrition model explained a reasonably high amount of variation in forage biomass (r2 = 0.46–0.72) and included covariates of overstory canopy cover, proportion of hardwoods in the canopy, potential natural vegetation (PNV) zone, and study area. Dietary DE equations in the model explained about 50% of the variation in DDE (r2 = 0.39–0.57) as a function of forage biomass by PNV zone and study area. Broad-scale application of the nutrition model in the Westside region illustrated the predominance of landscapes that failed to meet nutritional needs of lactating females (≤2.58 kcal/g) and their calves, especially at moderate elevations in closed-canopy forests in both the Coast Range and the southern Cascades. Areas providing DDE at (>2.58–2.75 kcal/g) or in excess (>2.75 kcal/g) of the basic requirement of lactating females were uncommon (<15% of area) or rare (<5% of area), respectively, and primarily occurred in early-seral communities, particularly at higher elevations. Wild elk avoided areas with DDE below basic requirement and selected for areas with DDE >2.60 kcal/g. Percentage of elk ranges providing DDE levels near or above basic requirement was highly correlated with pregnancy rates of lactating females. Autumn body fat levels were highly correlated with percentage of elk ranges providing DDE levels above basic requirement.

The regional model of elk habitat use with greatest support in the empirical data included 4 covariates: DDE, distance to nearest road open to motorized use by the public, distance to cover-forage edge, and slope. Elk preferred habitats that were relatively high in DDE, far from roads, close to cover-forage edges, and on gentle slopes. Based on standardized coefficients, changes in slope (−0.949) were most important in predicting habitat use, followed by DDE (0.656), distance to edge (−0.305), and distance to open road (0.300). Use ratios for the regional model indicated these changes in relative probability of use by elk: a 111.2% increase in use for each 0.1-unit increase in DDE; a 22.7% increase in use for each kilometer away from an open road; an 8.1% decrease in use for each 100-m increase in distance to edge; and a 5.3% decrease in use for each percent increase in slope. The regional model validated well overall, with high correlation between predicted use and observed values for the 4 Washington sites (rs ≥ 0.96) but lower correlation in southwestern Oregon sites (rs = 0.32–0.87).

Our results demonstrated that nutrition data collected at fine scales with captive elk can be used to predict nutritional resources at large scales, and that these predictions directly relate to habitat use and performance of free-ranging elk across the Westside region. These results also highlight the importance of including summer nutrition in habitat evaluation and landscape planning for Westside elk. The models can inform management strategies to achieve objectives for elk across land ownerships. The regional model provides a useful tool to understand and document spatially explicit habitat requirements and distributions of elk in current or future landscapes. The 2 examples of management application demonstrated how effects of management on elk nutrition and habitat use can be evaluated at landscape scales, and in turn how animal performance and distribution are affected. Results further illustrated the importance of managing for nutrition in combination with other covariates (i e., roads, slope, cover-forage edges) that affect elk use of nutritional resources to achieve desired distributions of elk. Our meta-analysis approach to habitat modeling provides a useful framework for research and management of wildlife species with coarse-scale habitat requirements by identifying commonalities in habitat-use patterns that are robust across multiple modeling areas and a large geographic range. Use of such methods in future modeling, including application in monitoring programs and adaptive management, will continue to advance ecological knowledge and management of wildlife species like elk. © 2018 The Authors. Wildlife Monographs published by Wiley on behalf of The Wildlife Society.

俄勒冈州西部和华盛顿州麋鹿营养和栖息地利用模型
研究野生动物,特别是大型食草动物的栖息地选择和利用,是了解其生态和管理的基础,特别是如果利用的预测指标代表了可能与人口统计学或适应性相关的栖息地需求。许多有蹄类动物作为狩猎动物或维持生计的食物服务于社会需求,也会影响本地植被和农作物,因为它们体型大,饮食选择多,分布广泛。了解麋鹿(Cervus canada)等大型食草动物的营养资源和栖息地利用,有助于在不同土地所有权和管理制度下对其进行管理。在美国西部的大部分地区,麋鹿的分布已经从公共土地转移到私人土地,导致前者的狩猎和观赏机会减少,后者的作物损失和其他不良影响增加。这些变化可能是人为干扰(如道路和交通)的增加和早期植被的减少造成的,这些植被为公共土地上的麋鹿和其他野生动物提供了丰富的饲料。管理人员可以从预测营养资源、其他环境特征、麋鹿生产力和表现以及麋鹿分布如何响应管理行动的工具中受益。我们提出了一项大规模的努力来开发区域麋鹿营养和栖息地利用模型,该模型涵盖了美国俄勒冈州西部和华盛顿州(以下简称西区)1100万公顷的夏季范围。我们选择夏季是因为在这个季节,麋鹿的营养状况(例如,体脂水平)和繁殖的限制在美国西部的大部分地区都很明显。我们的总体假设是,麋鹿在夏季的栖息地使用是由一系列与能量平衡相关的相互作用的协变量驱动的:获取(例如,营养资源,覆盖和觅食区域的并置)和损失(例如,靠近开阔的道路,地形)。我们预测,雌性麋鹿始终选择夏季营养较高的地区,从而在营养更丰富的景观中获得更好的动物生产性能。我们还预测了人类干扰、植被和地形因素会影响麋鹿在夏季对景观和有效营养的利用,特别是麋鹿会避开开阔的道路和远离覆盖-饲料边缘的区域,因为它们更倾向于在附近有安全覆盖的地方觅食。我们的工作有两个主要目标:1)开发和评估一个营养模型,利用反映麋鹿营养生态的预测因子来估计夏季麋鹿的区域营养状况;2)建立一个夏季栖息地-利用模型,该模型将营养模型预测与其他协变量相结合,以估计麋鹿利用的相对概率,并考虑驱动利用的生态过程。为了实现我们的目标,我们使用了先前收集的25组麋鹿营养、性能和分布数据,这些数据来自12个研究区域。我们通过在华盛顿的两个景观中的应用,展示了我们的区域尺度模型的管理效用。麋鹿营养模型预测了麋鹿日粮中可消化能量的水平(DDE;kcal DE/g消耗饲料)。模型输入数据来自圈养雌性麋鹿的觅食实验和精细尺度(~ 0.5 ha)的现场特征测量。营养模型包括一组预测牧草生物量作为场地特征函数的方程,以及第二组主要预测DDE作为牧草生物量函数的方程。我们利用营养模型绘制了西区的DDE地图。然后,我们通过将预测的DDE与麋鹿的营养资源选择和种群水平的秋季体脂和哺乳期麋鹿的怀孕率进行比较,来评估模型的性能。为了模拟麋鹿栖息地的利用,我们收集了7个研究区(1991年6月- 2009年8月)的13组独特的母麋鹿遥测数据集(n = 173)。我们使用5个数据集的广义线性模型,加上生态相关协变量,如营养、人为干扰、植被和物理条件,用负二项模型估计利用强度。我们通过将预测的栖息地使用映射到区域模型中,并将预测结果与使用8个独立遥测数据集的麋鹿数量进行比较,来评估模型的性能。该营养模型解释了牧草生物量的较大变化(r2 = 0.46 ~ 0.72),并包含了林冠覆盖、阔叶林占林冠比例、潜在自然植被带和研究面积等协变量。模型中的饲粮DE方程解释了PNV区和研究区的DDE随饲料生物量变化的50%左右(r2 = 0.39-0.57)。 该营养模型在西部地区的大规模应用表明,不能满足哺乳期雌性(≤2.58 kcal/g)及其幼崽营养需求的景观占主导地位,特别是在海岸山脉和南喀斯喀特山脉的中等海拔的封闭冠层森林中。乳母DDE达到(2.58 ~ 2.75 kcal/g)和超过(2.75 kcal/g)基本需要量的地区分别为罕见(占总面积的15%)和罕见(占总面积的5%),主要发生在早期的几个群落,特别是在高海拔地区。野生麋鹿避开DDE低于基本要求的区域,选择DDE为2.60 kcal/g的区域。提供DDE水平接近或高于基本要求的麋鹿范围的百分比与哺乳期雌性的怀孕率高度相关。秋季体脂水平与提供DDE水平高于基本要求的麋鹿范围百分比高度相关。经验数据中支持度最高的麋鹿栖息地利用区域模型包括4个协变量:DDE、到最近的公共机动车开放道路的距离、到覆盖-放牧边缘的距离和坡度。麋鹿偏好DDE相对较高、远离道路、靠近草料覆盖边缘、坡度较缓的生境。根据标准化系数,坡度变化(- 0.949)对预测生境利用最重要,其次是DDE(0.656)、到边缘的距离(- 0.305)和到开放道路的距离(0.300)。区域模型的使用比率显示了麋鹿相对使用可能性的变化:DDE每增加0.1个单位,使用增加111.2%;距离开放道路每公里,使用量增加22.7%;到边缘的距离每增加100米,用水量减少8.1%;坡度每增加一个百分点,用水量就会减少5.3%。区域模型总体上验证良好,华盛顿州4个站点的预测使用量与观测值之间具有较高的相关性(rs≥0.96),而俄勒冈州西南部站点的相关性较低(rs = 0.32-0.87)。研究结果表明,在小尺度上收集的圈养麋鹿营养数据可以用于大尺度上的营养资源预测,这些预测与西侧地区自由放养麋鹿的栖息地利用和生产性能直接相关。这些结果也强调了将夏季营养纳入西城麋鹿栖息地评价和景观规划的重要性。这些模型可以为管理策略提供信息,以实现跨土地所有权的麋鹿目标。区域模型提供了一个有用的工具来理解和记录麋鹿在当前或未来景观中的空间明确的栖息地需求和分布。这两个管理应用的例子展示了如何在景观尺度上评估管理对麋鹿营养和栖息地利用的影响,以及反过来如何影响动物的生产性能和分布。结果进一步说明了营养管理与其他协变量(如道路、坡度、覆盖-草料边缘)的重要性,这些协变量会影响麋鹿对营养资源的利用,以实现麋鹿的理想分布。我们的荟萃分析方法通过识别在多个建模区域和大地理范围内健壮的栖息地利用模式的共性,为具有粗尺度栖息地需求的野生动物物种的研究和管理提供了一个有用的框架。在未来的建模中使用这些方法,包括在监测程序和适应性管理中的应用,将继续推进对麋鹿等野生动物物种的生态知识和管理。©2018作者。Wiley代表野生动物协会出版的野生动物专著。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Wildlife Monographs
Wildlife Monographs 生物-动物学
CiteScore
9.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
3
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Wildlife Monographs supplements The Journal of Wildlife Management with focused investigations in the area of the management and conservation of wildlife. Abstracting and Indexing Information Academic Search Alumni Edition (EBSCO Publishing) Agricultural & Environmental Science Database (ProQuest) Biological Science Database (ProQuest) CAB Abstracts® (CABI) Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Database (ProQuest) Global Health (CABI) Grasslands & Forage Abstracts (CABI) Helminthological Abstracts (CABI) Natural Science Collection (ProQuest) Poultry Abstracts (CABI) ProQuest Central (ProQuest) ProQuest Central K-543 Research Library (ProQuest) Research Library Prep (ProQuest) SciTech Premium Collection (ProQuest) Soils & Fertilizers Abstracts (CABI) Veterinary Bulletin (CABI)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信