Progress 10/01/10 to 07/31/11
Outputs
OUTPUTS: Project 1: Woodcock use of different stages of regenerating pine varied during each year of the study. There was no difference in use among pine seedling (PS; 1 year old), young-pine sapling (YPS; 2-3 years old), and old-pine sapling (OPS; 4-5 years old) 2010. However, in 2011 OPS stands were used a greater amount than PS and YPS stands. Woodcock use of OPS and YPS stands was approximately 2 times greater than PS stands in mid-late January 2010. Use in late-February 2010 was greater on OPS and PS stands than YPS stands. In 2011, woodcock use was higher on PS stands in mid/late -January. However, no woodcock were courting during this period. Thus, higher use on PS stands was likely due to greater detectability of woodcock flying into PS stands than in YPS and OPS stands. When stands with zero woodcock/ha recorded during all surveys were excluded from analysis, OPS had a greater number of woodcock/ha than PS and YPS stands and PS had a greater number of woodcock than YPS in mid-February. Woodcock use on OPS stands was greater than YPS and PS stands in late-February. Woodcock activity began in 2010 by at least 15 January and on 27 January in 2011. Activity peaked in 2010 during early-February at 1.73 woodcock/ha. In 2011, activity was highest in late-January at 1.07 woodcock/ha. Woodcock numbers began to steadily decline in mid-February 2010 and in early-February 2011. Woodcock activity was at its highest in 2010 during early-February on OPS and YPS stands and during mid-February on PS stands, and then declined. In 2011, activity was highest during late-January on all stand types, and then declined in mid- to late-February. Project 2: Hog presence was detected by evidence of hair at 7 sites a total of 17 times during the spring, 8 sites 23 times during the summer, and 7 sites 23 times during the fall. During the spring, presence of hair and presence of tracks were consistent detection methods 92.5 % of the time. On only 3 occasions were there either presence of hair without tracks or presence of tracks without hair. We were unable to use the track pad to detect presence during the summer and fall because of the dry conditions throughout Southern Arkansas. Presence of non-target species most frequently occurred when there was no evidence of hog hair at the stations. Non-target species consisted of raccoons, opossums, black bear, and turkeys. Presence of non-target species occurred when hog hair was not present 84-88% of the time. Evidence of hog hair at the detection stations was a fair indicator of hog presence in the surrounding area. Presence or absence of hair was consistent with presence or absence of hog damage in the vicinity > 75% of the time during all seasons. Predictive models suggest hog damage is positively related to presence of hair and inversely related to instances of non-target species presence. At a landscape scale, elevation, land cover, distance to rivers and distance to highways were significant in predicting the probability of hog presence, however significance of all variable except elevation varied by season. PARTICIPANTS: Project 1: Project partners on the woodcock project include the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Birds, Arkansas Audubon Society, and Potlatch Corporation. Funding was provided by the first 2 collaborators listed. Potlatch Corporation provided the study area and in-kind research assistance. Several presentations and posters of this research were presented at the Arkansas Audubon Society meetings, the Wildlife Society Meeting, the Southern Research Symposium at Mississippi State University, the Arkansas Academy of Sciences meeting, and at the Arkansas Private Lands Conference in Little Rock, Arkansas. Project 2: The Berryman Institute and Arkansas Game and Fish Commission provided funding for the feral hog research project. Due to public interest in feral hogs, this research was presented at the Feral Hog Issues and Control Techniques Workshop hosted by the Southeast Research and Extension Center and the University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture. Attendees included county extension agents, agency personnel, resource managers, researchers, and members of the public. TARGET AUDIENCES: Project 1: Target audiences for the woodcock project are wildlife managers. Results of our research will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications to assist in conservation of a declining species. Project 2: Target audiences for the feral hog project include county extension agents, agency personnel, resource managers, researchers, and members of the public. Research results will assist all audiences in addressing feral hog issues and control methods on public and private lands. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: Not relevant to this project.
Impacts
Project 1: Results provide dates of peak woodcock use within Arkansas and can be used to focus future research efforts. This study indicates that woodcock use in southern Arkansas declines in early-March, which suggests that many male woodcock are likely not staying within the state to breed throughout the summer. Although the status of woodcock nesting is still unknown within the state, management within southern Arkansas should focus on enhancing migratory and wintering habitat as Arkansas is likely most important for these critical stages of the woodcock's annual life cycle. Future studies on woodcock spring migration and vegetation use in Arkansas should be focused from mid-January through late-February. Woodcock migration will vary from year to year, thus a long-term study of woodcock spring migration chronology and vegetation use should be undertaken in southeastern Arkansas to better understand migration over time relative to weather conditions and other extrinsic factors. Moreover, further research should be completed to understand woodcock use of Arkansas as wintering grounds. A future project linking breeding fitness to winter habitat conditions has been initiated from this research. Project 2: Results demonstrate the utility of using hair snares for predicting hog presence; however prediction of hog presence/absence was more reliable based on presence of non-target species in the area. Therefore, hair snares may be used for monitoring hog presence/absence if evidence of species such as raccoons, opossums, and turkeys is collected and used as a prediction tool. Essentially, if non-target species are consistently present in an area, it is > 80% likely that hogs are not present in that area. Reliability of the hair snares to detect hog presence would be enhanced when used in conjunction with another method (i.e., cameras). The use of cameras would help quantify the success of using the stations for detecting presence as well as identifying groups of sounders or number of individuals visiting each station. Our method currently does not provide a means to test effectiveness of predicting hog sounder size. The track pads are not reliable as a method to detect hog presence or presence of non-target species. Under ideal environmental conditions, track pads may be effective for quantifying presence, however, when conditions are too wet or too dry, this is not a feasible method in southern Arkansas. When conditions are wet for several days, tracks are washed away. During dry conditions, the ground becomes too hard to imprint a track. Detection stations may be an effective, reliable method for monitoring hog presence/absence throughout southern Arkansas. Spring and summer are better seasons for detecting and monitoring hogs. To increase efficiency, stations should be placed in lower elevations in areas interspersed with hardwood and coniferous forest types and openings. This project was a successful pilot study identifying factors influencing detection potential of different methods. This research should continue over a broader region of southeastern Arkansas and perhaps within different ecoregions where hog problems are evident.
Publications
- No publications reported this period
|