In 1994 the University of Arkansas - Little Rock (UALR), in cooperation with the Nature Conservancy and the Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission, began a faunal assessment of Camp Joseph T. Robinson MilitaryInstallation in North LittleRock, Arkansas. The purpose ofthe study was (1) to determine the distribution and the abundance ofnative ? fauna on the installation, (2) to survey the installation for rare and endangered species, and (3) to determine the impact ofhuman activities on sensitive habitats and on the fauna. During the fall (1994-1996), winter (1995-1996) and spring « (1995-1996) seasons, mammals were located by either live-trapping, mist-netting, scent stations, pitfall trapping, active hunting orspotlighting. Arc/INFO® and ArcView® 2.0 were used to visualize and analyze the data. ERDAS Imagine\u27\u27 was « used for satellite imagery interpretation. We recorded 315 individuals representing 29 of the 54 possible mammalian species within central Arkansas. Two additional species were documented from UALR museum records. When habitats * were categorized into either Hardwood or Mixed Hardwood/Pine, we found more species occurring in Mixed Hardwood/Pine areas than in Hardwood areas. When the two habitat-associations were compared (techniques by ? Hutcheson; 1970 and Zar; 1996) there was no significant difference (

Heidt, Gary A.

Karlin, Alvan A.

Penor, Joseph R.

UARK (University of Arkansas )

Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science Volume 50 Article 18 1996 Biodiversity of Camp Joseph T. Robinson Military Installation in North Little Rock, Arkansas 1994-1995 Joseph R. Penor University of Arkansas at Little Rock Alvan A. Karlin University of Arkansas at Little Rock Gary A. Heidt University of Arkansas at Little Rock Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas  Part of the Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology Commons Recommended Citation Penor, Joseph R.; Karlin, Alvan A.; and Heidt, Gary A. (1996) "Biodiversity of Camp Joseph T. Robinson Military Installation in North Little Rock, Arkansas 1994-1995," Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science: Vol. 50, Article 18. Available at: https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol50/iss1/18 This article is available for use under the Creative Commons license: Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0). Users are able to read, download, copy, print, distribute, search, link to the full texts of these articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact scholar@uark.edu, uarepos@uark.edu. ??Biodiversity of Camp Joseph T. Robinson MilitaryInstallationNorth LittleRock, Arkansas 1994-1995 ?Joseph R. Penor, Alvan A.Karlin and Gary A.HeidtDepartment of BiologyUniversity of Arkansas at LittleRock?Little Rock, AR 72204 ?Abstract ?¦In 1994 the University of Arkansas - Little Rock (UALR), in cooperation with the Nature Conservancy and theArkansas Natural Heritage Commission, began a faunal assessment of Camp Joseph T. Robinson Military Installation inNorth Little Rock, Arkansas. The purpose of the study was (1) to determine the distribution and the abundance ofnative ?fauna on the installation, (2) to survey the installation for rare and endangered species, and (3) to determine the impactofhuman activities on sensitive habitats and on the fauna. During the fall (1994-1996), winter (1995-1996) and spring «(1995-1996) seasons, mammals were located by either live-trapping, mist-netting, scent stations, pitfall trapping, activehunting or spotlighting. Arc/INFO® and ArcView® 2.0 were used to visualize and analyze the data. ERDAS Imagine'' was «used for satellite imagery interpretation. We recorded 315 individuals representing 29 of the 54 possible mammalianspecies within central Arkansas. Two additional species were documented from UALR museum records. When habitats *were categorized into either Hardwood or Mixed Hardwood/Pine, we found more species occurring in MixedHardwood/Pine areas than in Hardwood areas. When the two habitat-associations were compared (techniques by ?Hutcheson; 1970 and Zar; 1996) there was no significant difference (P<.()5) in species diversity, species richness or speciesevenness.?Introduction Methods and Materials «Worldwide, the United States Army (U.S. Army) man-ages 186 installations containing over 12 million acres(Tazik et al., 1992). Threatened or endangered speciesmay occur on some of these installations. Protectedspecies and their environments fall under regulations ofinternational, federal and state laws, such as the U.S.Endangered Species Act of 1972 (as amended). To complywith environmental requirements the U.S. Army imple-mented a management program called "Land ConditionTrend Analysis" (LCTA). Under this program, all activeU.S. Army and 16 major National Guard installationshave an LCTA program. One of the major objectives ofthe LCTA program is to "delineate the biophysical andregulatory constraints to use of the land" (Tazik et al.,1992).Study Area.—The CJTR study area comprised over 438,000 acres in Pulaski and Faulkner Counties, north ofthe Arkansas river and the greater North Little Rock - <LittleRock metroplex. Located on the eastern boundaryof the Ouachita Mountain physiographic province andiicii the western edge of the Gulf Coastal Plain province,CJTR has a forest cover of 72 percent. The vegetation <consists of various grasses in mowed or cleared areaswhile major tree species include white oak (Quercus alba), 1blackjack oak (Quercus marilandica), post oak {Quercus stel-lata), willow oak (Quercus phellos), hackberry (Celtis occi- 1dentalis), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflud), Eastern red-ceader (Juniperus virginiana), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) »and other overstory species.The installation is used as a training site for the Army +National Guard and the U.S. AirForce. Of the acreage onCJTR, 32,000 are used for active training, with 2,000 1acres for cantonment areas and 4,000 acres managed bythe Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (AG&FC). The «area managed by AG&FC was not included in the studyarea. 4The State of Arkansas contains one of the 16 majorNational Guard installations, Camp Joseph T. Robinson(CJTR). The local LCTA program started with vegetationand floral inventories in the fall of 1993. In the spring of1994 a faunal inventory was initiated. The University ofArkansas - Little Rock undertook the responsibility forsurveying herpeto- and mammal faunas. This paper dis-cusses the implementation and current (two-year) statusof the mammalian survey.Mammalian Collecting Methods.—Between December1994 and January 1996, small and medium-sized mam- »mals were sampled from both hardwood and mixed hard-wood/pine stands. A map ofCJTR (Fig. 1) shows the geo- *graphic distribution of sample localities.?Proceedings Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol.50, 199691Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 50 [1996], Art. 18Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 1996i'»>???•Biodiversity of Camp Joseph T. Robinson Military Installation NorthLittleRock, Arkansas 1994-1995Sherman live traps (model LFAG, H.B. Sherman Co.,Tallahassee, FL.), Tomahawk live traps (models 102, 105and 108, Tomahawk live trap Co., Tomahawk, WI), andpitfalls were used to sample small- and medium-sizedmammals. Nineteen modified grids (O'Farrell et al.,1977) was used to survey smaller mammals. A centerpoint for each 50m x 50m grid was determined and geo-referenced by using a Trimble Global Positioning Systemreceiver. The grid was divided into quarters for sampling.Between 20-40 traps were placed in each quarter.Standard measurements, sex and overall condition ofeach captured individual was recorded. Voucher speci-mens were placed in the UALR Vertebrate collections.For larger mammals such as white-tailed deer(Odocoileus virginianus) or coyote (Canis latrans) the indi-vidual number of observations was recorded, but the ani-mals were not captured. Observations in these cases wereperformed either directly (simple observation) or indi-rectly by the use of scent stations or sign. Scent stationswere constructed by clearing a 1 m- area and sprinklingpowdered lime (CaCO^) into the cleared area. Fatty acidscent (FAS), an attractant, was placed in the center(Diefenbach et al., 1994). Searches of abandoned struc-tures, water tanks and mistnets placed over selected waterbodies were used to sample bat species.Computer Methods.—A geographic information sys-tem (GIS) was constructed for data storage and spatialanalysis. Arc/INFO (Environmental Systems Research,Inc.) was used for GIS data management. The CJTRinstallation was digitized from Department of Defense(DOD) maps at 1:25,000 scale. Data layers, includingroads, streams and lakes, training areas and boundaries,were projected to Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 15coordinates, North American Datum 83 meters. Soil-types were obtained from the State Soil Geographic(STATSGO) Data Base (1:250,000 scale) and initialLanduse (LU)/Land Cover (LC) maps were constructedfrom 1981 Environmental Protection Agency LU/LCdata (1:250,000 scale).Because land cover changes over time, we used recent(1992) LandSat Thematic" Mapper (TM) and (1995)Satellite Probatoire pour L'Osservation de la Terre(SPOT) remotely sensed imagery to re-classify canopytypes. The images were atmospherically corrected, georef-erenced (rectified to 30 ground control points: RMS error<0.5), and classified (unsupervised) using ERDAS -Imagine 8.2. We used a Normalized Difference VegetativeIndex (NDVI:Jansen, 1986) for the canopy (land cover)classification. Ground truthing was used to validate theclasses. Classified images were used to digitisze polygonsinto Arc/INFO.Analytical Methods.—Diversity indices were used todetermine the species distribution in Hardwoods andMixed Hardwood/Pine communities. We used Margelef srichness index, Shannon-Weaver index and HillsModified index (see Ludwig and Reynolds, 1988). Weused the suggestions of Hutcheson (Hutcheson; 1970)and techniques described in Zar (1996) to determine sig-nificance of the species diversity indices.Results and ObservationsOut of a possible 54 mammalian species in CentralArkansas (Sealander and Heidt 1990), we recorded a totalof 29 species (6 common species, 23 less frequentlyobserved species; see Table 1 for species list).A record oftwo other species (Urocyon cinereoargenteus and Coryrhinusrafinesquii) were obtained from museum records. Whilevarious methods were used for sampling bat species, wewere only successful in obtaining samples from mistnet-ting riaparian flyways. No endangered species wereobserved throughout the study.The most common species belonged in the ordersInsectivora and Rodentia, see Table 1. Diversity indices(Table 2) were calculated on the basis of small mammalsfor which more than five observations were recorded. Inthe Hardwood community we recorded five commonspecies with 149 observances (H'=1.313; Table 2), while inthe Mixed Hardwood/Pine community, six species with82 observances (H'=1.570; Table 2). Even though weobserved many more individuals in the Hardwood com-munity than in the Mixed Hardwood/Pine community(149 vs. 82), there is no significant difference in speciesdiversity between the two areas (t=O.247<t oo-)rJ) H)()=1.972).Similarly, these communities were not differentiated onFig. 1. Map of Camp Joseph T. Robinson MilitaryInstallation showing locations of training areas, mammaltrapping, and start/end points of mammal scent stations.Proceedings Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol.50, 199692Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 50 [1996], Art. 18https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol50/iss1/1893Joseph R. Penor, Alvan A.Karlin and Gary A.Heidtthe basis of species richness (0.79 vs. 1.13; Margalef'sIndex; Table 2) or evenness (0.79 vs. 0.80; Hill's Index;Table 2).Discussion and RecommendationsThe proximal and immediate goals of this projectwere (1) to produce a species listof the mammalian faunaon CJTR, and (2) to asses anthropogenic impact on thosespecies. To accomplish the first goal, we initially generat-ed a list of all possible mammalian species in centralArkansas without regard to habitat or other species pref-erences. After two winters of sampling, we have trappedor otherwise documented the occurrence ofapproximate-ly half (29 of 54) of those possible species. Of the 25species which we predicted but did not record on CJTReight were bats, nine rodents, 5 carnivores, 2 insectivoresand 1 lagomorph (Table 3). With more intensive samplingwe would expect to find most of these. Although not list-ed as threatened or endangered, the southeastern shrew{Sorex longirostris) and long-tailed weasel {Mustela frenata)are of unknown status in the state and in need of furtherresearch (Heidt; 1996). In addition, suitable habitat iseither absent or very limited for Baird's pocket gopher(Geomys breviceps), woodchuck (Marmota monax), andEastern spotted skunk (Spilogale putorius).Due to general interest in conserving diversity andassessing human impact on diversity at the landscapelevel, we calculated species diversity and species evennessindices for the two major habitat types used for militarytraining exercises. While we recognize difficulties inapplying, comparing, and interpreting these values(Magnussed and Boyle, 1995), we present them for com-parative purposes. Values that we observed are in closeagreement for other species diversity/ evennes indices forsimilar habitats in eastern Texas (Ford et al., 1991), eventhough they were primarily interested in the herpetofau-na.Our inability to detect diversity/evenness differencesetween the two habitat types may have resulted from sev-eral causes. First, there may be no underlying differencesbetween the habitat-mammal associations. Given therecent history of the installation, being reclaimed fromprivate ownership (1930's), heavily urbanized (1940's),and restored to a more natural area (197()'s), the homoge-nization of the installation my underlie the lack ofregion-alization. The alternative hypothesis (i.e. there is a differ-ence between the habitat-mammal associations, but thatwe have not measured it)presents a more serious issue.The sample size and sampling regime that must be usedto obtain the statistical power to differentiate habitat-asso-ciations will be a considerable undertaking. AsMagnussen and Boyle (1995) indicate, "extensive samplesizes are often needed to allow (powerful) statistical infer-ence and/or hypothesis testing of quantitative measuresof diversity". We feel that the former hypothesis is morelikely the case, and submit that to test the later wouldrequire extensive sampling. Given the results of the initialstudy, suggesting that no differences exist, extensive addi-tional sampling is not likely to be profitable.Due to lack of human activity data, it is difficult toasses human impact on species diversity at CJTR. Dataneeded includes accurate records documenting the num-ber of troops using particular training areas, dates ofuse,time ofuse and type, duration and nature ofeach activityas well as continued sampling in both the disturbed andnon-disturbed areas. Potential and unmeasured humanimpact involves civilian encroachment of the installation.On many occasions we observed deposited refuse,biodegradable and non-biodegradable materials. Suchitems as discarded sofas, home appliances, and litter wereclearly not of military orgin. Finally, as the installationmatures, a yearly vegetation/land cover assessmentshould be made. Remotely sensed data should beobtained on a regular basis to maintain a database for theinstallation. These data should be combined into a long-term landuse management plan.Acknowledgments. —We thank Mr. Benny F.Swafford, CW3 Donnie Hyslip, Captain Bob Embrey, MsKerry Wallace, and the supporting staff at Camp JosephT. Robinson for their assistance and courtesy in supportof this project. Mr. Tom Foti and Arkansas HeritageCommission, the Arkansas Nature Conservancy, and theU.S. Marine Corps for their oversight and funding of theproject. Many UALR students participated in the fieldactivities associated with this survey. They donated timefrom classroom and individual projects to make this suc-cessful.Literature CitedDiefenbach, D.R., MJ. Conroy, R.J. Warren, W.E. James,L.A.Baker and T.Hon. 1994. A test of the scent-stationsurvey technique for bobcats. J. Wildl.Manage.58:10-17.Ford, N.B., V.a. Cobb and J. Stout. 1991. Species diversityand seasonal abundance of snakes in a mixed pinehardwood forest of eastern Texas. Southwest. Nat.36:171-177.Heidt, G.a., D.A.Elrod and V.R.McDaniel. 1996.Biogeography ofArkansas mammals with notes onspecies ofquestionable status. Arkansas Acad. ofSci.Hutcheson, K.1970. A test forcomparing diversitiesbased on the Shannon formula. J. Theor. Biol.29:151-154.Jansen, J.R. 1986. Introductory Digital Image Processing:Proceedings Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol.50, 199693Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 50 [1996], Art. 18Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 199694Biodiversity ofCamp Joseph T.Robinson MilitaryInstallation North LittleRock, Arkansas 1994-1995A Remote Sensing Perspective. Prentice Hall Publ.Co., Englewoocl Cliffs,New Jersey.Ludwig,J.A. and J.F. Reynolds. 1988. Statistical Ecology:A Primer on methods and computing. John Wileyand Sons. New York. 337 pp.Magnussen, S. and T.J.B. Boyle. 1995. Estimating samplesize for inference about Shannon-Weaver and theSimpson indices of species diversity. Forest Ecol.Manage. 78:71-84.O'Farrell, M.J., D.W. Kaufman and D.W. Lundahl. 1977.Use of live-trapping with the assessment line methodfor density determination. J. Mammal. 58:575-582.Sealander, J. and G.A.Heidt. 1990. Arkansas Mammals:Their Natural History, Classification andDistribution. Univ. Arkansas Press. Fayetteville,Arkansas 308 pp.Tazik, D.J., S.D. Warren, V.E. Diersing, R.b. Shaw, R.J.Brozka, C.F. Bagley and W.R. Whitworth. 1992. U.S.Army Land Condition-Trend Analysis (LCTA)PlotInventory Field Methods. U.S. Corps ofEngineersResearch Laboratories (USACERL) Technical ReportN-92/03.Zar, J.H. 1996. Biostatistical Analysis. Prentice Hall.NewJersey. 662 pp.Table 1. Species list of mammals documented at CampJoseph T. Robinson, North Little Rock, Arkansas,December 1994-March 1996.Order DidelphimorphiaDidelphis virginiana OpossumOrder InsectivoraSouthern short-tailed shrewKastern moleMarina carolinensis*Scalopus aquaticusOrder EdentataNine-banded ArmadilloDasypus novemcinctusRed batEvening batRaf inesque's big-eared batEastern cottontailOrder RodentiaSciurus carolinensis Gray squirrelSciurus niger Fox squirrelGlaucomys volans Southern (lyingsquirrelCastor canadensis BeaverReithrodontomys julvescens* Fulvous harvest mousePeromyscus leucopus* White-footed mousePeromyscus maniculatus :J: Deer mousePeromyscus gossypin us*Cotton mousePeromyscus attwateri Texas mouseOchrotomys nutalii Golden mouseSigmodon hispidus Hispid cotton ratNeotoma flu» idana Eastern woodrat,\ ticrotus och rogaster*Prairie voleMinotus pinetorum Woodland voleOrder CarnivoraCanis latrans CoyoteUrocyon cinereoargenteus** Gray foxVulpes vulpes Red foxProcyon lotor RaccoonMephitis mephitis Striped skunkFelis rufus BobcatOrder ArtiodactylaOdocoileus virginia»us White-tailed deer?denotes common species**denotes museum specimensOrder ChiropteraLasiurus borealisNycticeius humeralisCoryrhinus rafinesquii**Order LagomorphaSylvilagus floridanusit -f tedProceedings Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol.50, 199694Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 50 [1996], Art. 18https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol50/iss1/18Heidt50, 199695Joseph R. Penor, Alvan A.Karlin and Gary ATable 2. Summary species diversity indices for mammalson Camp Joseph T. Robinson, North Little Rock,Arkansas.Index Hardwoods Mixed/Hardwood PineMargalefs' Richness 0.79 1.131.570.80Shannon-Weaver's Diversity 1.31Hill's Eveness 0.79Table 3. Species list of mammals which were not docu-mented at Camp Joseph T. Robinson, North Little Rock,Arkansas, December 1994-March 1996.Order InsectivoraCryplotis parvaSorex longirostrisOrder ChiropteraMyotis lucijugusMytotis septentrionalisLasioncyteris noctivagansPipistrellus subflavusEptesicus fuscusLasiurus seminolusLasiurus cinereuslada rido brasiliensisOrder LagomorphaSylvilagus aquaticusOrder Rodent iaTamias striatusMarmota monaxGeomys brevicepsOryzomys palustrisOndatra zibethicusRattus rattusRattus norvegicusMus musculusMyocastor coypusOrder CarnivoraUrsus americanusMuslela frenataMustela visonSpilogale putorinsLutra canadensisLeast shrewSoutheastern shrewLittlebrown myotisKeen's myotisSilber-haired batEastern pipistrelleBigbrown batSeminole batHoary batBrzilian free-tailed batSwamp rabbitEastern chipmunkWoodchuckBaird's pocket gopherMarsh rice ratMuskratBlack ratNorway ratHouse mouseNutriaBlack bearLong-tailed weaselMinkEastern spotted skunkRiver otterProceedings Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol95Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 50 [1996], Art. 18Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 1996

English

Biodiversity of Camp Joseph T. Robinson Military Installation in North Little Rock, Arkansas 1994-1995

ScholarWorks@UARK

Journal of the Arkansas Academy of ScienceVolume 50 Article 181996Biodiversity of Camp Joseph T. Robinson MilitaryInstallation in North Little Rock, Arkansas1994-1995Joseph R. PenorUniversity of Arkansas at Little RockAlvan A. KarlinUniversity of Arkansas at Little RockGary A. HeidtUniversity of Arkansas at Little RockFollow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaasPart of the Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology CommonsThis article is available for use under the Creative Commons license: Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0). Users are able toread, download, copy, print, distribute, search, link to the full texts of these articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking priorpermission from the publisher or the author.This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of the Arkansas Academyof Science by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact scholar@uark.edu.Recommended CitationPenor, Joseph R.; Karlin, Alvan A.; and Heidt, Gary A. (1996) "Biodiversity of Camp Joseph T. Robinson Military Installation inNorth Little Rock, Arkansas 1994-1995," Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science: Vol. 50 , Article 18.Available at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol50/iss1/18??Biodiversity of Camp Joseph T. Robinson MilitaryInstallationNorth LittleRock, Arkansas 1994-1995 ?Joseph R. Penor, Alvan A.Karlin and Gary A.HeidtDepartment of BiologyUniversity of Arkansas at LittleRock?Little Rock, AR 72204 ?Abstract ?¦In 1994 the University of Arkansas - Little Rock (UALR), in cooperation with the Nature Conservancy and theArkansas Natural Heritage Commission, began a faunal assessment of Camp Joseph T. Robinson Military Installation inNorth Little Rock, Arkansas. The purpose of the study was (1) to determine the distribution and the abundance ofnative ?fauna on the installation, (2) to survey the installation for rare and endangered species, and (3) to determine the impactofhuman activities on sensitive habitats and on the fauna. During the fall (1994-1996), winter (1995-1996) and spring «(1995-1996) seasons, mammals were located by either live-trapping, mist-netting, scent stations, pitfall trapping, activehunting or spotlighting. Arc/INFO® and ArcView® 2.0 were used to visualize and analyze the data. ERDAS Imagine'' was «used for satellite imagery interpretation. We recorded 315 individuals representing 29 of the 54 possible mammalianspecies within central Arkansas. Two additional species were documented from UALR museum records. When habitats *were categorized into either Hardwood or Mixed Hardwood/Pine, we found more species occurring in MixedHardwood/Pine areas than in Hardwood areas. When the two habitat-associations were compared (techniques by ?Hutcheson; 1970 and Zar; 1996) there was no significant difference (P<.()5) in species diversity, species richness or speciesevenness.?Introduction Methods and Materials «Worldwide, the United States Army (U.S. Army) man-ages 186 installations containing over 12 million acres(Tazik et al., 1992). Threatened or endangered speciesmay occur on some of these installations. Protectedspecies and their environments fall under regulations ofinternational, federal and state laws, such as the U.S.Endangered Species Act of 1972 (as amended). To complywith environmental requirements the U.S. Army imple-mented a management program called "Land ConditionTrend Analysis" (LCTA). Under this program, all activeU.S. Army and 16 major National Guard installationshave an LCTA program. One of the major objectives ofthe LCTA program is to "delineate the biophysical andregulatory constraints to use of the land" (Tazik et al.,1992).Study Area. —The CJTR study area comprised over 438,000 acres in Pulaski and Faulkner Counties, north ofthe Arkansas river and the greater North Little Rock - <LittleRock metroplex. Located on the eastern boundaryof the Ouachita Mountain physiographic province andiicii the western edge of the Gulf Coastal Plain province,CJTR has a forest cover of 72 percent. The vegetation <consists of various grasses in mowed or cleared areaswhile major tree species include white oak (Quercus alba), 1blackjack oak (Quercus marilandica), post oak {Quercus stel-lata), willow oak (Quercus phellos), hackberry (Celtis occi- 1dentalis), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflud), Eastern red-ceader (Juniperus virginiana), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) »and other overstory species.The installation is used as a training site for the Army +National Guard and the U.S. AirForce. Of the acreage onCJTR, 32,000 are used for active training, with 2,000 1acres for cantonment areas and 4,000 acres managed bythe Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (AG&FC). The «area managed by AG&FC was not included in the studyarea. 4The State of Arkansas contains one of the 16 majorNational Guard installations, Camp Joseph T. Robinson(CJTR). The local LCTA program started with vegetationand floral inventories in the fall of 1993. In the spring of1994 a faunal inventory was initiated. The University ofArkansas - Little Rock undertook the responsibility forsurveying herpeto- and mammal faunas. This paper dis-cusses the implementation and current (two-year) statusof the mammalian survey.Mammalian Collecting Methods.—Between December1994 and January 1996, small and medium-sized mam- »mals were sampled from both hardwood and mixed hard-wood/pine stands. A map ofCJTR (Fig. 1) shows the geo- *graphic distribution of sample localities.?Proceedings Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol.50, 199691Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 50 [1996], Art. 18Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 1996i'»>???•Biodiversity of Camp Joseph T. Robinson Military Installation NorthLittleRock, Arkansas 1994-1995Sherman live traps (model LFAG, H.B. Sherman Co.,Tallahassee, FL.), Tomahawk live traps (models 102, 105and 108, Tomahawk live trap Co., Tomahawk, WI), andpitfalls were used to sample small- and medium-sizedmammals. Nineteen modified grids (O'Farrell et al.,1977) was used to survey smaller mammals. A centerpoint for each 50m x 50m grid was determined and geo-referenced by using a Trimble Global Positioning Systemreceiver. The grid was divided into quarters for sampling.Between 20-40 traps were placed in each quarter.Standard measurements, sex and overall condition ofeach captured individual was recorded. Voucher speci-mens were placed in the UALR Vertebrate collections.For larger mammals such as white-tailed deer(Odocoileus virginianus) or coyote (Canis latrans) the indi-vidual number of observations was recorded, but the ani-mals were not captured. Observations in these cases wereperformed either directly (simple observation) or indi-rectly by the use of scent stations or sign. Scent stationswere constructed by clearing a 1 m- area and sprinklingpowdered lime (CaCO^) into the cleared area. Fatty acidscent (FAS), an attractant, was placed in the center(Diefenbach et al., 1994). Searches of abandoned struc-tures, water tanks and mistnets placed over selected waterbodies were used to sample bat species.Computer Methods.—A geographic information sys-tem (GIS) was constructed for data storage and spatialanalysis. Arc/INFO (Environmental Systems Research,Inc.) was used for GIS data management. The CJTRinstallation was digitized from Department of Defense(DOD) maps at 1:25,000 scale. Data layers, includingroads, streams and lakes, training areas and boundaries,were projected to Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 15coordinates, North American Datum 83 meters. Soil-types were obtained from the State Soil Geographic(STATSGO) Data Base (1:250,000 scale) and initialLanduse (LU)/Land Cover (LC) maps were constructedfrom 1981 Environmental Protection Agency LU/LCdata (1:250,000 scale).Because land cover changes over time, we used recent(1992) LandSat Thematic" Mapper (TM) and (1995)Satellite Probatoire pour L'Osservation de la Terre(SPOT) remotely sensed imagery to re-classify canopytypes. The images were atmospherically corrected, georef-erenced (rectified to 30 ground control points: RMS error<0.5), and classified (unsupervised) using ERDAS -Imagine 8.2. We used a Normalized Difference VegetativeIndex (NDVI:Jansen, 1986) for the canopy (land cover)classification. Ground truthing was used to validate theclasses. Classified images were used to digitisze polygonsinto Arc/INFO.Analytical Methods. —Diversity indices were used todetermine the species distribution in Hardwoods andMixed Hardwood/Pine communities. We used Margelef srichness index, Shannon-Weaver index and HillsModified index (see Ludwig and Reynolds, 1988). Weused the suggestions of Hutcheson (Hutcheson; 1970)and techniques described in Zar (1996) to determine sig-nificance of the species diversity indices.Results and ObservationsOut of a possible 54 mammalian species in CentralArkansas (Sealander and Heidt 1990), we recorded a totalof 29 species (6 common species, 23 less frequentlyobserved species; see Table 1 for species list).A record oftwo other species (Urocyon cinereoargenteus and Coryrhinusrafinesquii) were obtained from museum records. Whilevarious methods were used for sampling bat species, wewere only successful in obtaining samples from mistnet-ting riaparian flyways. No endangered species wereobserved throughout the study.The most common species belonged in the ordersInsectivora and Rodentia, see Table 1. Diversity indices(Table 2) were calculated on the basis of small mammalsfor which more than five observations were recorded. Inthe Hardwood community we recorded five commonspecies with 149 observances (H'=1.313; Table 2), while inthe Mixed Hardwood/Pine community, six species with82 observances (H'=1.570; Table 2). Even though weobserved many more individuals in the Hardwood com-munity than in the Mixed Hardwood/Pine community(149 vs. 82), there is no significant difference in speciesdiversity between the two areas (t=O.247<t oo-)rJ) H)()=1.972).Similarly, these communities were not differentiated onFig. 1. Map of Camp Joseph T. Robinson MilitaryInstallation showing locations of training areas, mammaltrapping, and start/end points of mammal scent stations.Proceedings Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol.50, 199692Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 50 [1996], Art. 18http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol50/iss1/1893Joseph R. Penor, Alvan A.Karlin and Gary A.Heidtthe basis of species richness (0.79 vs. 1.13; Margalef'sIndex; Table 2) or evenness (0.79 vs. 0.80; Hill's Index;Table 2).Discussion and RecommendationsThe proximal and immediate goals of this projectwere (1) to produce a species listof the mammalian faunaon CJTR, and (2) to asses anthropogenic impact on thosespecies. To accomplish the first goal, we initially generat-ed a list of all possible mammalian species in centralArkansas without regard to habitat or other species pref-erences. After two winters of sampling, we have trappedor otherwise documented the occurrence ofapproximate-ly half (29 of 54) of those possible species. Of the 25species which we predicted but did not record on CJTReight were bats, nine rodents, 5 carnivores, 2 insectivoresand 1 lagomorph (Table 3). With more intensive samplingwe would expect to find most of these. Although not list-ed as threatened or endangered, the southeastern shrew{Sorex longirostris) and long-tailed weasel {Mustela frenata)are of unknown status in the state and in need of furtherresearch (Heidt; 1996). In addition, suitable habitat iseither absent or very limited for Baird's pocket gopher(Geomys breviceps), woodchuck (Marmota monax), andEastern spotted skunk (Spilogale putorius).Due to general interest in conserving diversity andassessing human impact on diversity at the landscapelevel, we calculated species diversity and species evennessindices for the two major habitat types used for militarytraining exercises. While we recognize difficulties inapplying, comparing, and interpreting these values(Magnussed and Boyle, 1995), we present them for com-parative purposes. Values that we observed are in closeagreement for other species diversity/ evennes indices forsimilar habitats in eastern Texas (Ford et al., 1991), eventhough they were primarily interested in the herpetofau-na.Our inability to detect diversity/evenness differencesetween the two habitat types may have resulted from sev-eral causes. First, there may be no underlying differencesbetween the habitat-mammal associations. Given therecent history of the installation, being reclaimed fromprivate ownership (1930's), heavily urbanized (1940's),and restored to a more natural area (197()'s), the homoge-nization of the installation my underlie the lack ofregion-alization. The alternative hypothesis (i.e. there is a differ-ence between the habitat-mammal associations, but thatwe have not measured it)presents a more serious issue.The sample size and sampling regime that must be usedto obtain the statistical power to differentiate habitat-asso-ciations will be a considerable undertaking. AsMagnussen and Boyle (1995) indicate, "extensive samplesizes are often needed to allow (powerful) statistical infer-ence and/or hypothesis testing of quantitative measuresof diversity". We feel that the former hypothesis is morelikely the case, and submit that to test the later wouldrequire extensive sampling. Given the results of the initialstudy, suggesting that no differences exist, extensive addi-tional sampling is not likely to be profitable.Due to lack of human activity data, it is difficult toasses human impact on species diversity at CJTR. Dataneeded includes accurate records documenting the num-ber of troops using particular training areas, dates ofuse,time ofuse and type, duration and nature ofeach activityas well as continued sampling in both the disturbed andnon-disturbed areas. Potential and unmeasured humanimpact involves civilian encroachment of the installation.On many occasions we observed deposited refuse,biodegradable and non-biodegradable materials. Suchitems as discarded sofas, home appliances, and litter wereclearly not of military orgin. Finally, as the installationmatures, a yearly vegetation/land cover assessmentshould be made. Remotely sensed data should beobtained on a regular basis to maintain a database for theinstallation. These data should be combined into a long-term landuse management plan.Acknowledgments. —We thank Mr. Benny F.Swafford, CW3 Donnie Hyslip, Captain Bob Embrey, MsKerry Wallace, and the supporting staff at Camp JosephT. Robinson for their assistance and courtesy in supportof this project. Mr. Tom Foti and Arkansas HeritageCommission, the Arkansas Nature Conservancy, and theU.S. Marine Corps for their oversight and funding of theproject. Many UALR students participated in the fieldactivities associated with this survey. They donated timefrom classroom and individual projects to make this suc-cessful.Literature CitedDiefenbach, D.R., MJ. Conroy, R.J. Warren, W.E. James,L.A.Baker and T.Hon. 1994. A test of the scent-stationsurvey technique for bobcats. J. Wildl.Manage.58:10-17.Ford, N.B., V.a. Cobb and J. Stout. 1991. Species diversityand seasonal abundance of snakes in a mixed pinehardwood forest of eastern Texas. Southwest. Nat.36:171-177.Heidt, G.a., D.A.Elrod and V.R.McDaniel. 1996.Biogeography ofArkansas mammals with notes onspecies ofquestionable status. Arkansas Acad. ofSci.Hutcheson, K.1970. A test forcomparing diversitiesbased on the Shannon formula. J. Theor. Biol.29:151-154.Jansen, J.R. 1986. Introductory Digital Image Processing:Proceedings Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol.50, 199693Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 50 [1996], Art. 18Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 199694Biodiversity ofCamp Joseph T.Robinson MilitaryInstallation North LittleRock, Arkansas 1994-1995A Remote Sensing Perspective. Prentice Hall Publ.Co., Englewoocl Cliffs,New Jersey.Ludwig,J.A. and J.F. Reynolds. 1988. Statistical Ecology:A Primer on methods and computing. John Wileyand Sons. New York. 337 pp.Magnussen, S. and T.J.B. Boyle. 1995. Estimating samplesize for inference about Shannon-Weaver and theSimpson indices of species diversity. Forest Ecol.Manage. 78:71-84.O'Farrell, M.J., D.W. Kaufman and D.W. Lundahl. 1977.Use of live-trapping with the assessment line methodfor density determination. J. Mammal. 58:575-582.Sealander, J. and G.A.Heidt. 1990. Arkansas Mammals:Their Natural History, Classification andDistribution. Univ. Arkansas Press. Fayetteville,Arkansas 308 pp.Tazik, D.J., S.D. Warren, V.E. Diersing, R.b. Shaw, R.J.Brozka, C.F. Bagley and W.R. Whitworth. 1992. U.S.Army Land Condition-Trend Analysis (LCTA)PlotInventory Field Methods. U.S. Corps ofEngineersResearch Laboratories (USACERL) Technical ReportN-92/03.Zar, J.H. 1996. Biostatistical Analysis. Prentice Hall.NewJersey. 662 pp.Table 1. Species list of mammals documented at CampJoseph T. Robinson, North Little Rock, Arkansas,December 1994-March 1996.Order DidelphimorphiaDidelphis virginiana OpossumOrder InsectivoraSouthern short-tailed shrewKastern moleMarina carolinensis*Scalopus aquaticusOrder EdentataNine-banded ArmadilloDasypus novemcinctusRed batEvening batRaf inesque's big-eared batEastern cottontailOrder RodentiaSciurus carolinensis Gray squirrelSciurus niger Fox squirrelGlaucomys volans Southern (lyingsquirrelCastor canadensis BeaverReithrodontomys julvescens* Fulvous harvest mousePeromyscus leucopus* White-footed mousePeromyscus maniculatus :J: Deer mousePeromyscus gossypin us* Cotton mousePeromyscus attwateri Texas mouseOchrotomys nutalii Golden mouseSigmodon hispidus Hispid cotton ratNeotoma flu» idana Eastern woodrat,\ ticrotus och rogaster * Prairie voleMinotus pinetorum Woodland voleOrder CarnivoraCanis latrans CoyoteUrocyon cinereoargenteus** Gray foxVulpes vulpes Red foxProcyon lotor RaccoonMephitis mephitis Striped skunkFelis rufus BobcatOrder ArtiodactylaOdocoileus virginia»us White-tailed deer?denotes common species**denotes museum specimensOrder ChiropteraLasiurus borealisNycticeius humeralisCoryrhinus rafinesquii**Order LagomorphaSylvilagus floridanusit -f tedProceedings Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol.50, 199694Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 50 [1996], Art. 18http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol50/iss1/18Heidt50, 199695Joseph R. Penor, Alvan A.Karlin and Gary ATable 2. Summary species diversity indices for mammalson Camp Joseph T. Robinson, North Little Rock,Arkansas.Index Hardwoods Mixed/Hardwood PineMargalefs' Richness 0.79 1.131.570.80Shannon-Weaver's Diversity 1.31Hill's Eveness 0.79Table 3. Species list of mammals which were not docu-mented at Camp Joseph T. Robinson, North Little Rock,Arkansas, December 1994-March 1996.Order InsectivoraCryplotis parvaSorex longirostrisOrder ChiropteraMyotis lucijugusMytotis septentrionalisLasioncyteris noctivagansPipistrellus subflavusEptesicus fuscusLasiurus seminolusLasiurus cinereuslada rido brasiliensisOrder LagomorphaSylvilagus aquaticusOrder Rodent iaTamias striatusMarmota monaxGeomys brevicepsOryzomys palustrisOndatra zibethicusRattus rattusRattus norvegicusMus musculusMyocastor coypusOrder CarnivoraUrsus americanusMuslela frenataMustela visonSpilogale putorinsLutra canadensisLeast shrewSoutheastern shrewLittlebrown myotisKeen's myotisSilber-haired batEastern pipistrelleBigbrown batSeminole batHoary batBrzilian free-tailed batSwamp rabbitEastern chipmunkWoodchuckBaird's pocket gopherMarsh rice ratMuskratBlack ratNorway ratHouse mouseNutriaBlack bearLong-tailed weaselMinkEastern spotted skunkRiver otterProceedings Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol95Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 50 [1996], Art. 18Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 1996

https://scholarworks.uark.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1854&context=jaas

Biodiversity of Camp Joseph T. Robinson Military Installation in North Little Rock, Arkansas 1994-1995

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UARK (University of Arkansas )

ScholarWorks@UARK