Mammal communities in Kansas mined lands: Second year of Snapshot USA data collectio

Durbin, Caleb

Rega-Brodsky, Christine

Whiteacre, Mary

English

Pittsburg State University

The second year of this study has solidified the fact that mined land restoration plays an importantrole in population growth and habitat development of a multitude of species. In 2020, we wereable to detect three new species and we continued to find that woody debris and tree abundanceplay important roles in supporting diverse mammal communities. Management of the treecommunity, exotic plant species, and remaining mining impacts (i.e. acidic drainage, soil structure)are a just a few ways that we can continue to sustain suitable habitat. Our continuedrecommendation is to maintain mined land areas for their mature forest habitat to support mammaldiversity in southeast Kansas.FUTURE GOALSOur hope is to continue to explore the impact of mined land restoration on mammal communities,especially in urban settings. We plan to continue participating in Snapshot USA for the foreseeablefuture to monitor the land and its impact on the mammal communities. We will observe annualdifferences in richness and try to evaluate the factors that influence these trends.INTRODUCTIONMined land reclamation has been ongoing in southeast Kansas, impacting both native animal andplant communities (Holl, 2002; Hummer & Webster, 1991). However, little is known about howmammals respond to recovery efforts, since reclaimed mined areas provide different habitat andmicroclimate conditions than which existed prior to mining (Larkin et al., 2008).Most Kansas’ coal mining took place in Cherokee, Crawford and Bourbon counties, where hundredsof underground shafts and above-ground strip mines were dug. In 1969, the Kansas Legislaturerequired coal companies to reclaim the land: they must smooth out the ditches, replace the topsoil,and plant grass or crops similar to what was present prior to mining.Our objective was to determine how mined land vegetation structure impacted mammal communitycomposition and species richness over the course of a second year. We utilized data that wecollected for the Snapshot USA project, a survey to examine nationwide trends in mammalcommunity assembly associated with their habitat.METHODSThis project was funded by Pittsburg State University's Independent Research Project Grant. Wethank Mike Cove and everyone with Snapshot USA for inviting us to be a part of this project. Wegreatly appreciate all of assistance in the field and data analysis provided by B. Taylor, S. Corvalán,P. Witham, J. Bailey, B. Neria, A. Perez, C. Ossana, and the Fall 2020 Pitt State Mammalogy students.CONCLUSIONSACKNOWLEDGEMENTS & REFERENCESCaleb Durbin, Mary Whiteacre, & Christine Rega-BrodskyPittsburg State University, 1701 S. Broadway, Pittsburg, KS 66762Mammal communities in Kansas mined lands: Second year of Snapshot USA data collectionHoll, K. D. (2002). Long-term vegetation recovery on reclaimed coal surface mines in the Eastern USA. Journal of Applied Ecology, 39(6), 960-970.Hummer, J. W., & Webster, H. J. (1991). Effect of reclamation technique on mammal communities inhabiting wetlands on mined lands in East-central Ohio. OhioJournal of Science, 91(4), 154-158. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1811/23462Larkin, J. L., Maehr, D. S., Kruppa, J. J., Cox, J. J., Alexy, K., Unger, D. E., & Barton, C. (2008). Small mammal response to vegetation and soil conditions on a reclaimedsurface mine in Eastern Kentucky. Southeastern Naturalist, 7(3), 401-412.Table 1. Species composition across all sampling locations (n = 12 in 2019, n = 10 in 2020). Species are ordered by their site occurrence.• We established 10-12 sampling points (located ≥200 m from one another),within forested parks and remnants patches in Crawford county from Augustto November, 2019 & 2020 (Fig. 1).• Each site had one Bushnell Trophy Cam HD Essential E3 trail camerainstalled at 0.5 m height, facing north, set to take 3 pictures with a 5-seconddelay between triggers, that were checked biweekly. No bait was used.MAMMAL SURVEYVEGETATION SURVEY• We manually identified each photograph and uploaded the data to theeMammal data repository.• We calculated species richness (SR) for each site.• Impacts of habitat features on SR were determined by a series of linearregressions, using Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) to rank candidatemodels (top models ΔAIC < 2).DATA ANALYSISRESULTSMAMMAL SURVEYWe collected 27,553 photographs over 1,042 trap nights in 2019 - 2020. We detected 17 species(Fig. 2). The most common species dectected across the two years included White-tailed deer(Odocoileus virginanus) and Fox squirrels (Sciurus niger; Table 1). We detected three new speciesin 2020: Southern flying squirrel (Glaucomys volans), Eastern woodrat (Neotoma floridana), andRed fox (Vulpes vulpes). No Kansas Species of Concern were recorded during our survey.Figure 2. Species recorded (Left to right). Top: Bobcat, Southern Flying Squirrel, Nine-banded Armadillo. Center: White-tailed Deer, FoxSquirrel, Raccoon. Bottom: Eastern Cottontail Rabbit, Virginia Opposum, Coyote.Species2019 Site Occurrence (%)2020 Site Occurrence (%)Fox Squirrel Sciurus niger 100 100White-tailed Deer Odocoileus virginianus 100 100Raccoon Procyon lotor 92 100Nine-banded Armadillo Dasypus novemcinctus 83 90Virginia Opossum Didelphis virginiana 67 100Coyote Canis latrans 50 60Unknown Rodent 42 10Bobcat Lynx rufus 33 20Eastern Gray Squirrel Sciurus carolinensis 33 50Groundhog Marmota monax 25 20Eastern Cottontail Rabbit Sylvilagus floridanus 17 40Striped Skunk Mephitis mephitis 8 20Domestic Dog Canis familiaris 8 10North American Beaver Castor canadensis 8 0Domestic Cat Felis catus 8 0Southern Flying Squirrel Glaucomys volans 0 10Eastern Woodrat Neotoma floridana 0 10Red Fox Vulpes vulpes 0 10HABITAT FEATURESCamera sites were dominated by pin oak (Quercus palustris), hickory (Carya spp.), and hackberry(Celtis occidentalis) in the canopy, while the shrub strata were dominated by exotic Amurhoneysuckle (Lonicera maackii) and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora). Ground cover waspredominantly exotic wintercreeper (Euonymus fortunei), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicerajaponica), and a variety of grasses.The top model indicated more mammal species were observed at sites with greater treeabundance, woody debris, and smaller diameter trees (R2 = 0.82, P = 0.002; Fig. 3). All othermodels resulted in Δ AIC > 2.Figure 3. Habitats with greater mammal species richness had more dead wood and trees, but those trees tended to be smaller in diameter.Figure 1. Locations of camera traps in Pittsburg, KS (left). All Snapshot USA 2020 sample locations (right).• We collected the following habitat data centered at the camera in 2019:• Canopy cover (spherical densiometer)• Ground cover composition: bare ground, leaf litter, woody plants,herbaceous plants, and dead wood (Daubenmire frame).• Tree abundance, composition and diameter at breast height• Shrub density and composition

Mammal communities in Kansas mined lands: Second year of Snapshot USA data collection

https://digitalcommons.pittstate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?filename=0&article=1010&context=papers_2021&type=additional

Mammal communities in Kansas mined lands: Second year of Snapshot USA data collection

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Pittsburg State University