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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

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

11. 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

12. 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
= 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.
= 20 M
Introduction Hypothesis Methods Analysis Results Conclusion

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

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

15. Results – Combined Results
Introduction Hypothesis Methods Analysis Results Conclusion

16. 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

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

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

19. 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

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

21. 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