Deer Mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus) Home Range Movements 25 Years after the 1988 Yellowstone Fires Ashkia L. Campbell Hayley C. Lanier

Acknowledgements Mentor: Hayley C. Lanier University of Wyoming – Casper R. Scott Seville Kevin M. Crouch-Jacobs Andy J. Kulikowski, II Laramie County Community College Zachary P. Roehrs Meredith A. Roehrs Samantha E. Haller Kayla A. Wilson Dominque C. Shlumpf

Fire Ecology of Yellowstone National Park 1988 248 fires contributed to 570,000 ha of the forest to be burned 7 major fires contributed to 95% of burn area Vegetative succession: Small shrubs and grasses 1-3 years post-burn with increased coarse woody debris Lodge-pole pine density increased in burned areas 1-4 years post-burn Introduction Methods Analysis Results Conclusion Introduction Hypothesis Methods Analysis Results Conclusion

Mammal Succession After Severe Burns Small mammals first to inhabit newly burned areas Deer mice showing the most abundance Larger mammals gradually return upon vegetative reestablishment Once vegetation has climaxed mammal populations resemble unburned areas Deer Mouse Shrew Red Backed Vole Do you mean deer mice are the first to move back in? If so, you might start by emphasizing that communities are really different after a burn, but that over time mammal communities become more similar to nearby unburned areas. Blue = chipmunk Orange = jumping mouse Lanier et al., 2015 Introduction Hypothesis Methods Analysis Results Conclusion Introduction Project Methods Analysis Results Conclusion

North American Deer Mouse Habitat: Low shrub cover Trees, stumps, logs, rocks Ideal for nesting Dietary Intake: Fruits Nuts Arthropods *Will change in habitat affect behavioral movements of the deer mouse? Introduction Hypothesis Methods Analysis Results Conclusion

Changes in Mammal Territory Size Predation rates may decrease Food availability may increase Nesting materials may be more abundant Population and territorial disputes AND then: whether the persistent differences in abundance in burned vs. unburned sites might have some ecological basis in animal movement or territory size (this slide). Introduction Hypothesis Methods Analysis Results Conclusion

Why should we care? Increased use of prescribed burning implications: Zoonotic disease transfer Hauntavirus Parasitic transfer Livestock susceptibility Things that deter viral and parasitic transmission: Geographical movement Territory size Large populations Introduction Hypothesis Methods Analysis Results Conclusion Introduction Project Methods Analysis Results Conclusion

Hypothesis H0: Deer mice will have similar home range sizes in both burned and control areas H1: Deer mice will have smaller home ranges in burned areas due to: Increased food supply Increased ground cover An ability to conserve energy Avoidance of movement risk Abundant resources. This doesn’t track (based on the information at the beginning). Why smaller? How about setting them up as alternative hypotheses to test. H0: deer mice will exhibit the same home range size in burned and control areas. H1: deer mice will have smaller home ranges in the burn - due to the factors you list on the slide Introduction Hypothesis Methods Analysis Results Conclusion

Methods: Trapping and Processing Grids were 100 m2 Sherman traps set in 10 m intervals – 100 per grid Baited with peanut butter and oats mixture Cotton squares Processing animals (5:30–6:00 AM) Information collected from trapped animals: Age, sex, weight, species, locality, fate, external parasites were noted New captures were ear tagged Ear tag numbers from recaptures was recorded Animals that died in traps were collected and prepared as voucher specimens. Introduction Hypothesis Methods Analysis Results Conclusion

Introduction Hypothesis Methods Analysis Results Conclusion East Facing Control Burn West Facing Introduction Hypothesis Methods Analysis Results Conclusion

Measured distance from nearest seedling, sapling, tree, shrub DBH on sapling and tree Measured distance, height and decay state of fallen logs within 5 m to north, south, east, and west Percent ground cover in 1 m2 Introduction Hypothesis Methods Analysis Results Conclusion

Analysis 1-10 1-20 1-30 1-20 2-20 3-20 1-30 2-30 3-30 1-40 2-40 3-40 Vegetation was compared between controlled and burned areas Territory movements were mathematically determined Greatest distance vs. average distance of individuals Compared across age, sex, burn history, year (2009, 2010, 2014) ANOVAs were calculated using R studio to determine significance 1-10 1-20 1-30 1-20 2-20 3-20 1-30 2-30 3-30 1-40 2-40 3-40 1-50 2-50 3-50 202 + 202 = 80 =28.2 M Bring in this slide even more slowly. One grid at a time, and give the simple case before the more difficult one. Also mention (or show) the average vs. greatest distance comparison. Be prepared to say something about the statistical approaches on this slide or the next one. Folks will want to know about how you compared these factors. 10 + 10 = 20 M Introduction Hypothesis Methods Analysis Results Conclusion

Results – Average Distance Make LABELS BIGGER Introduction Hypothesis Methods Analysis Results Conclusion

Results – Greatest Distance MAKE LABELS BIGGER Introduction Hypothesis Methods Analysis Results Conclusion

Results – Combined Results Introduction Hypothesis Methods Analysis Results Conclusion

Results – Driving Forces Vegetative differences Less predation due to less trees Better predation protection due to increased ground cover Food availability Insects of a particular type not as abundant Fruit spread out on the forest floor Add something here to pause (especially if you’re running a bit short) to ask why we see these results and hypothesize about what might be driving the differences Introduction Hypothesis Methods Analysis Results Conclusion

Results - Vegetation Lanier et al., 2015 Introduction Hypothesis Methods Analysis Results Conclusion

Results - Vegetation Lanier et al., 2015 Introduction Hypothesis Methods Analysis Results Conclusion

Results - Vegetation East Facing West Facing The plots on the left are unclear with respect to what they are (A) and (B). Lanier et al., 2015 Introduction Hypothesis Methods Analysis Results Conclusion

Results - Vegetation Lanier et al., 2015 Introduction Hypothesis Methods Analysis Results Conclusion

Conclusion Home ranges found to be larger in burned areas than control May be due to reproductive timing of sampling Population differences Sub-adults found to have larger home range sizes than adults as expected Vegetation Increase decay of woody debris Shrub coverage lower than density required Zoonotic disease decreased probable due to increased population and territory size Greater biological diversity Livestock still could be effected due to small populations Holy cow, Batman! Lots, and lots of text on this slide. If you go with a slide with so much text, use an animation to bring in one section at a time. Alternatively, break it up into multiple conclusions slides with pictures. Introduction Hypothesis Methods Analysis Results Conclusion