Research & scholarly achievements, July 1, 1981 - June 30, 1982

Annual summary of scholarly activities at UCF for the period from July 1, 1981 to June 30, 1982. This report highlights the contributions to scholarship by the Faculty during this period, including books and monographs, articles, creative works, presentations, grants and contracts

Past Fire Regimes of Table Mountain Pine (\u3cem\u3ePinus pungens L.\u3c/em\u3e) Stands in the Central Appalachian Mountains, Virginia, U.S.A.

Table Mountain pine is an Appalachian endemic that occurs in a patchy distribution from Georgia to Pennsylvania and is prolific at sites with a history of fire disturbance. The purpose of this dissertation was to reconstruct the fire regimes of Table Mountain pine stands in the Jefferson National Forest, Virginia. Sections from firescarred Table Mountain pines were collected at four sites to analyze fire history, while increment cores and stand composition information were collected from macroplots within each fire history site to investigate the possible influence of fires that were more ecologically severe. Results show that fire was frequent before the fire suppression era, with a Weibull median fire return interval between 2–3 years. The majority of fires occurred during the dormant season and beginning of the early growing season. Two of the four sites had a more even distribution of fire seasons, and these sites also had significant Table Mountain pine regeneration. Cohorts of tree establishment were visible in the fire charts of three of these sites, indicating fires that were likely moderate in severity. The canopy at three of the four sites is currently dominated by Table Mountain pine, but the understory at all sites has large numbers of fire-intolerant hardwoods and shrubs. These Table Mountain pine stands will likely succeed to xeric oak and fireintolerant hardwoods, such as red maple and black gum, in the future. Fire statistics indicate that all four sites currently exist outside their range of historical variation in fire occurrence

Temporal, Spatial, and Environmental Influences on the Demographics and Harvest Vulnerability of American Black Bears (Ursus americanus ) in Urban Habitats in New Jersey, Pennsylvania and West Virginia

To date, no research studies in the eastern United States have addressed the spatial ecology of black bears (Ursus americanus) in urban and suburban habitats, and there is limited information regarding black bear space use, habitat selection, and harvest vulnerability. I assessed the harvest vulnerability, home range size, and spatial ecology of black bears in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia in collaboration with the New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife, Pennsylvania Game Commission, and the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources. The major objectives of my study were to identify and quantitatively assess: (1) if black bears shift home ranges seasonally with respect to urban/suburban habitats; (2) harvest vulnerability and cause-specific mortality of black bears in urban/suburban habitats; (3) if black bears captured as result of nuisance complaints are transient or reside in urban/suburban habitats; (4) habitat characteristics of movement corridors utilized by black bears in urban/suburban habitats; and (5) if corridors likely to be used by black bears accessing urban/suburban environments can be predicted by habitat modeling.;Over the course of the study (2010-2012), agency employees trapped, handled, and fit 119 bears with GPS-GSM collars. Individual study areas in each state were centered around West Milford, Stillwater/Branchville, and Vernon, NJ; Johnstown, Scranton/Wilkes-Barre, and State College, PA; Beckley, Charleston, and Morgantown, WV. A total of 57,816 bear locations were recorded in New Jersey, 114,451 locations were recorded in Pennsylvania, and 33,217 in West Virginia.;Black bears shifted spatial distribution on the landscape in response to resource availability, and consequently I expected bears in urban areas to shift their home ranges seasonally in urban environments. On average, bears were most often found near city limits (\u3c5 km). Home range centers of male bears were twice as far from city limits as female bears (2.31 km vs. 0.91 km, respectively). Bear home range size did not differ among seasons, but did differ between sexes (male home ranges were 5.6 times larger than female bears) and among study areas. Bears did not shift their home ranges closer to urban areas during times of food shortage (spring or late fall). Urban bears lived near town and were resident to the edge of the urban area, but this distance varied with the study area in which they resided. As a result, managers seeking to understand where potential bear conflicts may occur should focus their efforts on the edge of urban and suburban areas (known as the exurban areas) in the Mid-Atlantic Region.;Regulated harvests have reduced mortality and allowed black bear populations to increase throughout the eastern United States over the past 30 years. This rapid and dramatic recovery in population size has led to increased human-bear interactions in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. Harvest vulnerability of black bears is dependent on a variety of factors and therefore difficult to estimate. I measured harvest vulnerability by generating maximum entropy (Maxent) models of bear occurrence during the prehunting period and hunting season for each study area. I used Maxent to generate models of bear occurrence. In all but one study area, black bear occurrence was 5-75% less in the hunting season than in the prehunting period. Bear occurrence decreased from prehunting period to hunting season in both public hunting lands and urban areas. Bear occurrence probability shifted from public hunting areas to the periphery of the public hunting areas between the prehunting period and hunting season. Annual harvest rates of urban bears were highest in Pennsylvania (20.2%) and lower in New Jersey (5.9%) and West Virginia (17.3%). Despite the short timeframe (3 years) of my study, regulated hunting was effective in killing urban black bears Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Hunters in Pennsylvania harvested a similar proportion of urban bears to the long-term harvest rate of all bears in the state (20.2% vs. 20.0%, respectively). Probability of urban bear occurrence shifted from public hunting areas during the prehunting period to private lands on the periphery of urban areas during the hunting season. Average overall mortality rates of urban bears were highest in Pennsylvania (28.1%) and lower in West Virginia (17.5%) and New Jersey (15.1%). Despite the short timeframe of the study, regulated hunting was effective in killing a high number of urban black bears in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, when all mortality sources were taken into account.;Black bear populations have increased nationwide over the past 4 decades due to reduction in direct mortality. Bear population sizes have increased over time and as a result, human-bear conflicts have increased. I sought to determine whether nuisance bears in urban/suburban areas are residents to the area or transient. I predicted that the majority of bears found in urban/suburban areas form resident populations on the urban perimeter, rather than transient individuals that leave the core forests and enter the urban areas periodically. There was considerable support for my prediction that bear populations in urban areas are resident and spend much of their time on the city\u27s edge. Black bears used private lands on the periphery of urban areas. I posit that this may have been because these areas likely had abundant food and provided reduced risk of disturbance (e.g., hunting, human disturbance).;Given the recent explosive increase in urban bear populations, managers are charged to determine which areas of urban/suburban centers are likely to be used by bears. It is unknown whether black bears use travel corridors within urban/suburban matrix to travel between habitat patches. There exists a paucity of information on how black bears use urban and suburban habitats. We used boosted regression trees to create two predictive models of bear occurrence in urban and suburban habitats for (1) New Jersey and Pennsylvania, and (2) West Virginia. We separated West Virginia from New Jersey and Pennsylvania in the modeling process because West Virginia\u27s topography is more rugged and the population density of people was the lowest of all three states. We randomly selected a subset of 40,000 bear locations in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, as well as, 30,000 bear locations in West Virginia from the full database of locations. We generated 40,000 random points within the study areas in New Jersey and Pennsylvania and 30,000 random points within the study areas of West Virginia. We built three models (1) for New Jersey and Scranton/Wilkes-Barre, PA, (2) State College and Johnstown, PA, and (3) West Virginia. We found that probability of bear occurrence was highest in New Jersey and Scranton/Wilkes-Barre study areas when bears were: (1) \u3c1 km from edge forest, (2) \u3c7.5 km from the nearest road, (3) \u3c7.5 km from the nearest urban area, (4) land use/ land cover was forested, (5) \u3c12 km from public land, and (6) NDVI \u3c 0.3. We found that probability of bear occurrence was highest in Johnstown and State College study areas when bears were: (1) \u3c1 km from edge forest, (2) \u3c1 km from the nearest road, (3) \u3c7 km from the nearest urban area, and (4) \u3c7 km from public land. The highest probability of bear occurrence in West Virginia occurred when (1) NDVI was \u3e0.6, (2) distance to public land was \u3e22.0 km, (3) distance to urban areas was between 1-5 km, (3) topographic position index was \u3e100 (steep, rugged terrain), (4) land use land cover was forested or other , (5) distance to roads was \u3e1.4 km, and (6) distance to core forest was \u3e1.5 km. We found no support for our prediction that urban bears use corridors. Bears spent nearly 95% of their time on the edge of city limits and \u3c5% of their time within city limits. We found no evidence that habitat quality on the edge of city limits was lower than that of non-urban bear habitat. There is likely not a physiological need for bears to traverse urban areas when they can remain in habitats where they would encounter less human disturbance. I found no support for my prediction that bears use corridors. Bears spent nearly 95% of their time on the edge of city limits and \u3c5% of their time within city limits. I had no evidence that habitat quality on the edge of city limits was lower than that of non-urban bear habitat. There likely was no physiological need for bears to traverse urban areas because urban habitat patches are often safe from human disturbance and therefore, they did not use corridors. The final predictive model of the probability of bear occurrence will assist managers by identifying areas where urban bears are most likely to live and areas that require direct management actions

Landowners\u27 perceptions of deer damage to crops in Tennessee

The objectives of this research were to determine landowners\u27 perceptions of deer damage to crops and their tolerance for deer damage. Additional objectives were to examine landowners\u27 perceptions of the effectiveness of deer damage control methods, wildlife management activities on their land, and to examine regional differences in deer damage to crops and related variables. A mail survey was sent to landowners in eight Tennessee counties representing four areas of the state with high levels of soybean production and deer populations. A total of 2,110 survey participants were randomly selected to obtain a 95% confidence interval for the four county groups. The confidence interval for individual counties ranged from 92% to 94%. The survey was administered using the Dillman four-wave method resulting in a useable response rate of 59%. A comparison of early and late respondents to determine non-response bias revealed that early respondents were more likely to have deer damage to their crops. About half of the participants (54%) were classified as full- or part-time farmers. The majority of participants wanted deer populations in their area to decrease (49%) or stay the same (32%). Many participants enjoyed deer (48%), while others enjoyed deer but worried about crop damage (38%), and a few participants considered deer to be a nuisance (15%). Forty-seven percent of all landowners sustained deer damage, while 60% of farmers had deer damage. Many participants (55%) experienced some type of wildlife damage, compared to 68% of farmers. Most participants (54%) estimated the value of their loss from deer damage at $500 or less. Approximately one quarter of all participants (26%) reported deer damage that exceeded their tolerance level. Participants with deer damage were more likely to consider deer a nuisance and want a decrease in deer populations. Farmers were more likely to have deer damage than non-farmers. One quarter of participants had taken measures to prevent deer damage with hunting being the most commonly used method. Shooting deer outside of the hunting season with a depredation permit was rated the most effective method of controlling deer damage. The majority of participants (79%) allowed hunting on their land and 42% reported that they manage their land for wildlife. The fact that many landowners manage their land for wildlife is encouraging, given the importance of private lands as wildlife habitat. Private landowners\u27 support of wildlife management may be eroded, however, if wildlife damage increases because participants who considered deer a nuisance were less likely to manage their land for wildlife. Although many landowners experienced deer damage, it was not a serious problem for most of them. Landowners with severe deer damage, however, are likely to have negative attitudes about wildlife and may need assistance to deal with their deer damage problems. There are several options for assisting landowners with deer damage, such as more effective damage control methods, increasing landowners\u27 awareness of the availability of depredation permits, and cash payments

Fire Regimes of Lower-elevation Forests in Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Tennessee, U.S.A.

Disturbance is a natural part of any forest ecosystem. When disturbance regimes are altered, the forest stands will reflect those changes. Southern Appalachian xeric pine-oak woodlands are one forest type that has experienced such change, primarily in the form of fire suppression. The western side of Great Smoky Mountains National Park contains stands of large trees that escaped earlier intensive logging, show evidence of past fire, and provide an ideal setting for reconstructing stand histories. For three lower-elevation (ca. 500 m ASL) study sites, I used crossdated yellow pine tree-ring chronologies and records from cross-sections taken from living and dead pines to reveal historical patterns and relationships of wildfire, climate, and human activity. Cores and vegetation data collected at three 20 x 50 m plots per site provided age structure, stand structure, and stand composition. All three chronologies displayed a high degree of sensitivity to yearly environmental fluctuations and extended back through the 1700s. Yellow pine growth was strongly and positively correlated with winter temperatures, which were primarily influenced by the North Atlantic Oscillation. The tested climate variables displayed relationships that appeared to shift over time, or across an ambiguous boundary on which the park resides. Climate oscillations in both the Atlantic Ocean and Pacific Ocean modulated wildfire frequency and events. Wildfire events occurred frequently prior to park establishment in 1934 and were primarily anthropogenic in origin. Most fires burned during dormancy or early in the growing season, but widespread and more recent fires tended to occur later. Fire frequency peaked in the 1800s with an average return interval of two years. Absence of wildfire during suppression was associated with establishment of fire-sensitive species, such as red maple and eastern white pine. Yellow pine regeneration was weak and dominated by Virginia pine. Results from this study can be used by park personnel to plan and manage fires to restore ecosystem processes to a pre-suppression state. The chronologies provided three centuries of data that can be used to reconstruct climate variables and to enhance our understanding of climate dynamics

Experimental Repatriation of Black Bears to the Big South Fork Area of Kentucky and Tennessee

Black bears (Ursus americanus) have been extirpated from the Big South Fork Area (BSFA) of Kentucky and Tennessee since the turn of the 20th century. Although this area is within the bear\u27s historic range, it may be unreachable to individual bears through natural dispersal. Wildlife managers and the public were interested in reestablishing a population of black bears to BSF A. A habitat analysis found that the area could support bears. However, managers remained concerned about how humans would interact with bears; furthermore, managers needed to know how to overcome the homing ability of translocated bears. I tested 2 translocation techniques designed to limit the homing ability of bears. Both techniques were based on the concept of a soft release, involving a short period of acclimation prior to release. The first was a winter-release technique, involving the translocation of pre- or post-parturient bears from their dens and placing them in dens within the release area. The second, a summer-release technique, involved translocating bears to the release area during the summer and holding the bears in pens for a 2-week acclimation period. I translocated a total of 14 bears from the Great Smoky Mountains National Park to BSF A, a distance of approximately 160 km. I translocated 8 bears with the winter-release technique and 6 bears with the summer-release technique. I compared post-release movements between the 2 release techniques for the first 2 weeks post-release with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. No difference in total movement (Z = 1.357, P = 0.1747) or net movement (Z = 1.214, P = 0.100) was found between winter- and summer-released bears. However, because of rapid movements outside BSF A, complete movement data for 2 summer-released bears were not available. Therefore, I substituted the mean total and net movements of summer-released bears for these 2 bears during the interim when their signals were lost. The total movement of winter-released bears was less (Z = 2.227, P = 0.013) than summer-released bears for the first 2 weeks post-release. Also, the net movement of winter-released bears was less (Z = 2.217, P = 0.013) than summer-released bears for the first 2 weeks post-release. The average daily movement of winter-released bears was less (Z = 2.214, P = 0.027) than summer-released bears during the first 2 weeks post-release. Circuity was less (Z = 2.074, P = 0.038) for winter-released bears than for summer-released bears during the first 2 weeks post-release. I determined site fidelity for 7 winter-released bears and 6 summer-released bears with the site fidelity test from the MOVEMENT module (Hooge et al. 1999) of Arc View (Environmental Research Institute, Inc. Redlands, Ca.). Within 1 year post-release, movements were too constrained to be random for all winter-released bears. One year after release, movements were too constrained to be random for 3 of the 6 summer-released bears; 1 summer-released bear continued to show random movements 1 year after release; the 2 remaining summer-released bears could not be evaluated at 1 year post-release because of mortality or homing. I applied the multi-response permutation procedure to the post-release movements of translocated bears that established themselves in BSF A, regardless of release technique, to determine if movements became more concentrated as bears adjusted to the release area. The movements of 6 of 8 bears became more concentrated within 6 months; the movements of the remaining 2 bears became more concentrated within 9 months. This could indicate that translocated bears are establishing home ranges within the release area. estimated adult survival for translocated bears using the Kaplan-Meier staggered entry procedure. I compared annual survival between winter- and summer-release techniques. Survival of winter-released bears (0.875) was greater (Z = 3.084, P = 0.001) than summer-released bears (0.200). Vehicle collisions accounted for 3 of the 6 mortalities of summer-released bears. Den visits were performed in the winters of 1997, 1998, and 1999. Researchers visited the dens of the 2 remaining radio-collared bears in BSFA and confirmed natural reproduction had occurred. This could mean that the translocation of adult males to BSFA is unnecessary. Interactions between humans and bears were documented by National Park Service personnel. Fifty-three sightings occurred between April 1996 and November 1999; no incidences of nuisance behavior by translocated bears was documented. I used a population model developed for polar bears (U. maritimus; Taylor et al. 1987a, 1987b) and adapted for black bears to estimate population growth and probability of extinction of translocated bears. I modeled population growth under various stocking scenarios to determine the most timely and efficient way to reestablish bears to BSFA. If no more bears are translocated to BSFA, the data indicates the population will become extinct. The population model suggests that at least 1 additional stocking of 6 adult females with 12 cubs will be needed to sustain the population. The addition of 6 adult females with 12 cubs each year for 4-6 years will yield the most timely results. I used compositional analysis (Aebischer et al. 1993) to compare habitat use of translocated bears to that predicted by the Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) values determined by van Manen (1990). Bears did not use the habitat at BSFA as determined by the HSI values; however, placement of release sites, improved habitat quality, and roads could have influenced this result. The winter-release technique demonstrated clear advantages over the summer-release technique in terms of limiting post-release movements and increasing survival of translocated bears. The winter-release technique could be useful anytime managers need to establish or augment black bear populations

Interacting Effects of Fire Activity, Climate, and Habitat Diversity on Forest Dynamics, El Malpais National Monument, New Mexico, USA

The historic effects of fire and climate on stand dynamics in the ponderosa pine-dominated forests of the American Southwest are of increasing concern to land management agencies. Using present forest stand structure, the mixed-conifer forests of the volcanic features in El Malpais National Monument were analyzed at three separate sites: a cinder cone, an ancient basalt flow, and an isolated “island” (kipuka) completely surrounded by basalt flows. Increment cores were collected from 632 trees in 19 plots within the monument to obtain dates of establishment. These dates were compared with historic fire histories and precipitation records to analyze the effects of both fire and climate-forcing mechanisms on establishment of several tree species within each forest. Results show an increase in tree establishment that coincides with increased precipitation in the 1800s. Fire regimes were also altered, shifting from a predominance of small, patchy fires to that of larger, more widespread fires. Over the past 350 years, rates of tree establishment have responded positively to increased precipitation and longer fire intervals, and negatively to periods of anthropogenic disturbance (i.e. intense livestock grazing and logging). The fire suppression era (beginning ca. 1940) caused large shifts in species composition, with influxes of fire-intolerant species, such as pinyon pine, juniper species, and Gamble’s oak. Variability was seen in species establishment at spatial, temporal, and inter-habitat levels in response to these external forcing mechanisms, as the cinder cone site appeared to be more reactive to shifting fire regimes and the basalt flow site appeared to be more reactive to precipitation levels over time. This study supports a shift in forest management to promote ecosystem resilience within present stands, rather than attempting to mirror the conditions of previous analogous periods, as current forest structure is now non-analogous and will require unique management practices