Snowshoe hare behavior in different environments Paliwoda, Megan. “Snowshoe Hare Behavior and Cover Type”. 2016. Winter Ecology Course, CU Mountain Research Station. Keywords: Snowshoe hare, cover type Megan Paliwoda Winter Ecology 2016 Mountain Research Station University of Colorado, Boulder

introduction Previous projects: -How are snowshoe hares affected by snow depth? (Guyerson, 2014) -Do snowshoe hares prefer closed environments? (Pacheco, 2010) Literature suggests: -Prefer closed areas (predators) (Orr, 1982) My research question: Do snowshoe hares behave differently in open vs. closed environments? -Results of previous projects: in relation to coyotes- found tracks of coyotes always near tracks of the snowshoe hares -don’t care about snow depth, tracks were found at all depths Same frequency in both areas—my question builds on this project

introduction Open: Willow and Aspen Trees, less cover above Closed: Conifers Hypothesis: In open environments snowshoe hares move quicker two environment differences: in most closed areas there was a higher density of trees, harder to walk through—while willow and aspen groves you could see overhead, bare branches, etc. HYPOTHESIS: will move quicker in open environments b/c of the risk of predation, fewer places to hide

methods 100 m transects, 1 m on each side Found tracks, marked: -At what meter they were found on my transect -What direction they were going -How far apart the tracks were -Any additional observations (i.e. signs of grazing, other tracks nearby, etc.) Placed tracks into three categories: Running fast, running slow, standing 100 m transects measured —most importantly looked at how far apart the tracks were, this is what i based the 3 categories on

methods+data Limitations -Assumed clustered tracks meant standing -Fresh snow (more/less tracks) just the raw data —limitations: clusters of tracks could have meant that a lot of different snowshoe hares came through there, but i assumed that this meant one or a few had been hanging out; fresh snow meant less tracks (day 2) but on day 1 there were a ton of tracks because the snow had been there for longer; also many different ways to go about this methods wise, could have done the same method as Pacheco 2010.

results Two-Way ANOVA with Replication P-value of 0.02 There is a significant relationship between snowshoe behavior and environment Reject Null Hypothesis two-way anova showed a significant p-value of 0.02—interaction between the behavior and environment standard error is pretty high, more data is best but you can see there’s a lot more Rf in the open environment, more equally spread in the closed env’t… sometimes they’re running to get somewhere and they don’t care whether it’s open or closed, but prefer to stop in the closed environments. reject null hypothesis

discussion Snowshoe hares don’t prefer closed environments (Pacheco, 2010) There is a difference in the way they behave in the two environments Why? Future Research: -More data -Coyotes, environment and snowshoe hare why? - avoid predators in the closed areas, can rest/eat/etc. future research: can prove why they do this…maybe add environment into the first study discussed where they looked for both coyote and snowshoe hare tracks

Conclusions There is a relationship between the way snowshoe hares behave and what type of environment they are in Probably move faster in open areas to avoid predators -Less places to hide… relationship was significant between behavior and their environment most likely they move quicker in open areas b/c there are fewer places to hide…

works cited Guyerson, Matt. 2014. “Effects of Snow Depth and Snowshoe Hare Abundance on the Distribution of Coyotes in the Southern Rocky Mountain Forests.” Orr, C., D.G. Dodds. “Snowshoe Hare habitat Preferences in Nova Scotia Spruce-Fir Forests”. Wildlife Society Bulletin, Vol. 10, No.2 (Summer, 1982), pp.147-150. Pacheco, Melissa. 2010. “Habitat Use of the Snowshoe Hare.”