4.2 Article

Influence of stand and landscape features on snowshoe hare abundance in fragmented forests

期刊

JOURNAL OF MAMMALOGY
卷 92, 期 3, 页码 561-567

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1644/10-MAMM-A-095.1

关键词

fecal pellets; forest fragmentation; landscape; Lepus americanus; relative abundance; snowshoe hare; Washington

类别

资金

  1. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife through United States Fish and Wildlife Service
  2. Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest
  3. University of Montana
  4. National Science Foundation [DEB-9870654]
  5. Division Of Environmental Biology
  6. Direct For Biological Sciences [0841884] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Habitat fragmentation often separates and reduces populations of vertebrates, but the relative effects of habitat attributes within remnant patches versus the matrix surrounding the patches are less clear. For snowshoe hares (Lepus americanus) lower densities and disrupted cycles in their southern range have been ascribed to habitat fragmentation, although relevant scales of landscape influence remain unknown. In a fragmented forest in north-central Washington we counted fecal pellets of snowshoe hares to examine the extent to which relative snowshoe hare densities within stands of suitable habitat changed with the composition of surrounding habitats. Pellet densities were associated primarily with density of large shrubs and saplings and medium trees within a stand. Pellet densities also were correlated positively with the amount of moist forest (dominated by Engelmann spruce [Picea engelmannii] and subalpine fir [Abies lasiocarpa]) and correlated negatively with the amount of open-structured habitat within 300 m of the stand perimeter. These results suggest that forest managers will have positive impacts on hare densities by managing both focal stands and the surrounding stands for the higher densities of large shrubs and saplings and medium trees that hares select.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据