Habitat management to reduce competitive interactions: case study of native and invading cottontails

Habitat management recommendations are often based on best available science determined through retroductive and inductive hypotheses. Such recommendations are not frequently tested, potentially resulting in the implementation of unreliable practices for management of imperiled species. The New Engl...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Journal of wildlife management 2023-01, Vol.87 (1), p.n/a
Hauptverfasser: Eline, Drew V., Cohen, Jonathan B., Whipps, Christopher M., Cheeseman, Amanda E.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page n/a
container_issue 1
container_start_page
container_title The Journal of wildlife management
container_volume 87
creator Eline, Drew V.
Cohen, Jonathan B.
Whipps, Christopher M.
Cheeseman, Amanda E.
description Habitat management recommendations are often based on best available science determined through retroductive and inductive hypotheses. Such recommendations are not frequently tested, potentially resulting in the implementation of unreliable practices for management of imperiled species. The New England cottontail (Sylvilagus transitionalis) is an imperiled shrubland‐obligate species whose recovery efforts include habitat management and restoration. Researchers suggest former best management practices for the species may result in ecological traps and new recommendations have been developed. We evaluated these newly revised best management practices designed to retain higher tree canopy closure to promote New England cottontails without encouraging eastern cottontails (Sylvilagus floridanus). We compared New England and eastern cottontail density between management plots (tree canopy thinned with all downed trees left on the ground, with or without invasive shrub treatment) and control plots (unmanaged) and examined the influence of management on resource selection and survival. Management strategies retaining higher canopy closure promoted stronger selection by New England cottontails than by eastern cottontails. Catch per unit effort of New England cottontails was greater than for eastern cottontails in management plots (P = 0.002). For both species, the proportion of the 95% home range overlapping managed areas was greater than the proportion of managed area in the habitat patch; however, for the 50% core area of the home range, this was only true for New England cottontails. When post‐treatment canopy cover was >75%, New England cottontails selected canopy‐thinning treatments without invasive shrub removal over unmanaged areas, but selection by eastern cottontails was unaffected by management treatment or canopy cover. Survival probability of both species was high and uncorrelated with time spent in management areas. Survival probability decreased as the average distance a rabbit moved in a 7‐day period increased. Our results illustrate the need to revise management strategies that emphasize eliminating canopy cover when improving New England cottontail habitat is an objective, particularly where they are sympatric with eastern cottontails. Habitat management, specifically strategies retaining higher canopy closure via selective thinning, can be used to promote New England cottontails over their non‐native competitors, eastern cottontails. This study de
doi_str_mv 10.1002/jwmg.22327
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2753993029</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2753993029</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2317-efd3ec6cbde222e1ca5f68af80405f50a0b78c6cae78f6ce3c6530aa75aa8de43</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp90E1LAzEQBuAgCtbqxV8Q8CZszUd3s-tNRFul4kXRW5gmsyWlm61J2tJ_77br2dMc5nln4CXkmrMRZ0zcLXfNYiSEFOqEDHglVSZKrk7JoFuKLB_z73NyEeOSMcl5WQyIncLcJUi0AQ8LbNAnmloa0G4MUtM2a0wuuS1S5xMGMMm1Pt5TAxFpTBu7p21NPRwJeNuxLVjnF102pdYncKt4Sc5qWEW8-ptD8vn89PE4zWbvk5fHh1lmhOQqw9pKNIWZWxRCIDeQ10UJdcnGLK9zBmyuym4PqMq6MChNkUsGoHKA0uJYDslNf3cd2p8NxqSX7Sb47qUWKpdVJZmoOnXbKxPaGAPWeh1cA2GvOdOHFvWhRX1sscO8xzu3wv0_Ur9-vU36zC-uOne-</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2753993029</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Habitat management to reduce competitive interactions: case study of native and invading cottontails</title><source>Wiley Journals</source><creator>Eline, Drew V. ; Cohen, Jonathan B. ; Whipps, Christopher M. ; Cheeseman, Amanda E.</creator><creatorcontrib>Eline, Drew V. ; Cohen, Jonathan B. ; Whipps, Christopher M. ; Cheeseman, Amanda E.</creatorcontrib><description>Habitat management recommendations are often based on best available science determined through retroductive and inductive hypotheses. Such recommendations are not frequently tested, potentially resulting in the implementation of unreliable practices for management of imperiled species. The New England cottontail (Sylvilagus transitionalis) is an imperiled shrubland‐obligate species whose recovery efforts include habitat management and restoration. Researchers suggest former best management practices for the species may result in ecological traps and new recommendations have been developed. We evaluated these newly revised best management practices designed to retain higher tree canopy closure to promote New England cottontails without encouraging eastern cottontails (Sylvilagus floridanus). We compared New England and eastern cottontail density between management plots (tree canopy thinned with all downed trees left on the ground, with or without invasive shrub treatment) and control plots (unmanaged) and examined the influence of management on resource selection and survival. Management strategies retaining higher canopy closure promoted stronger selection by New England cottontails than by eastern cottontails. Catch per unit effort of New England cottontails was greater than for eastern cottontails in management plots (P = 0.002). For both species, the proportion of the 95% home range overlapping managed areas was greater than the proportion of managed area in the habitat patch; however, for the 50% core area of the home range, this was only true for New England cottontails. When post‐treatment canopy cover was &gt;75%, New England cottontails selected canopy‐thinning treatments without invasive shrub removal over unmanaged areas, but selection by eastern cottontails was unaffected by management treatment or canopy cover. Survival probability of both species was high and uncorrelated with time spent in management areas. Survival probability decreased as the average distance a rabbit moved in a 7‐day period increased. Our results illustrate the need to revise management strategies that emphasize eliminating canopy cover when improving New England cottontail habitat is an objective, particularly where they are sympatric with eastern cottontails. Habitat management, specifically strategies retaining higher canopy closure via selective thinning, can be used to promote New England cottontails over their non‐native competitors, eastern cottontails. This study demonstrates the importance of testing hypotheses to address uncertainties of habitat management and improve conservation of imperiled species, and indicates the need to consider revising best management practices for New England cottontails and continue monitoring these practices.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-541X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1937-2817</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.22327</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Bethesda: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Best management practices ; Canopies ; Ecological effects ; Environmental restoration ; habitat selection ; Habitats ; Home range ; invasive species ; New England cottontail ; shrubland ; Species ; Survival ; Sylvilagus floridanus ; Sylvilagus transitionalis ; Sympatric populations ; Wildlife management ; young forest</subject><ispartof>The Journal of wildlife management, 2023-01, Vol.87 (1), p.n/a</ispartof><rights>2022 The Wildlife Society</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2317-efd3ec6cbde222e1ca5f68af80405f50a0b78c6cae78f6ce3c6530aa75aa8de43</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2317-efd3ec6cbde222e1ca5f68af80405f50a0b78c6cae78f6ce3c6530aa75aa8de43</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-7075-077X ; 0000-0002-3744-0945 ; 0000-0002-2803-6561</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fjwmg.22327$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fjwmg.22327$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Eline, Drew V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cohen, Jonathan B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Whipps, Christopher M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cheeseman, Amanda E.</creatorcontrib><title>Habitat management to reduce competitive interactions: case study of native and invading cottontails</title><title>The Journal of wildlife management</title><description>Habitat management recommendations are often based on best available science determined through retroductive and inductive hypotheses. Such recommendations are not frequently tested, potentially resulting in the implementation of unreliable practices for management of imperiled species. The New England cottontail (Sylvilagus transitionalis) is an imperiled shrubland‐obligate species whose recovery efforts include habitat management and restoration. Researchers suggest former best management practices for the species may result in ecological traps and new recommendations have been developed. We evaluated these newly revised best management practices designed to retain higher tree canopy closure to promote New England cottontails without encouraging eastern cottontails (Sylvilagus floridanus). We compared New England and eastern cottontail density between management plots (tree canopy thinned with all downed trees left on the ground, with or without invasive shrub treatment) and control plots (unmanaged) and examined the influence of management on resource selection and survival. Management strategies retaining higher canopy closure promoted stronger selection by New England cottontails than by eastern cottontails. Catch per unit effort of New England cottontails was greater than for eastern cottontails in management plots (P = 0.002). For both species, the proportion of the 95% home range overlapping managed areas was greater than the proportion of managed area in the habitat patch; however, for the 50% core area of the home range, this was only true for New England cottontails. When post‐treatment canopy cover was &gt;75%, New England cottontails selected canopy‐thinning treatments without invasive shrub removal over unmanaged areas, but selection by eastern cottontails was unaffected by management treatment or canopy cover. Survival probability of both species was high and uncorrelated with time spent in management areas. Survival probability decreased as the average distance a rabbit moved in a 7‐day period increased. Our results illustrate the need to revise management strategies that emphasize eliminating canopy cover when improving New England cottontail habitat is an objective, particularly where they are sympatric with eastern cottontails. Habitat management, specifically strategies retaining higher canopy closure via selective thinning, can be used to promote New England cottontails over their non‐native competitors, eastern cottontails. This study demonstrates the importance of testing hypotheses to address uncertainties of habitat management and improve conservation of imperiled species, and indicates the need to consider revising best management practices for New England cottontails and continue monitoring these practices.</description><subject>Best management practices</subject><subject>Canopies</subject><subject>Ecological effects</subject><subject>Environmental restoration</subject><subject>habitat selection</subject><subject>Habitats</subject><subject>Home range</subject><subject>invasive species</subject><subject>New England cottontail</subject><subject>shrubland</subject><subject>Species</subject><subject>Survival</subject><subject>Sylvilagus floridanus</subject><subject>Sylvilagus transitionalis</subject><subject>Sympatric populations</subject><subject>Wildlife management</subject><subject>young forest</subject><issn>0022-541X</issn><issn>1937-2817</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp90E1LAzEQBuAgCtbqxV8Q8CZszUd3s-tNRFul4kXRW5gmsyWlm61J2tJ_77br2dMc5nln4CXkmrMRZ0zcLXfNYiSEFOqEDHglVSZKrk7JoFuKLB_z73NyEeOSMcl5WQyIncLcJUi0AQ8LbNAnmloa0G4MUtM2a0wuuS1S5xMGMMm1Pt5TAxFpTBu7p21NPRwJeNuxLVjnF102pdYncKt4Sc5qWEW8-ptD8vn89PE4zWbvk5fHh1lmhOQqw9pKNIWZWxRCIDeQ10UJdcnGLK9zBmyuym4PqMq6MChNkUsGoHKA0uJYDslNf3cd2p8NxqSX7Sb47qUWKpdVJZmoOnXbKxPaGAPWeh1cA2GvOdOHFvWhRX1sscO8xzu3wv0_Ur9-vU36zC-uOne-</recordid><startdate>202301</startdate><enddate>202301</enddate><creator>Eline, Drew V.</creator><creator>Cohen, Jonathan B.</creator><creator>Whipps, Christopher M.</creator><creator>Cheeseman, Amanda E.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7U6</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>P64</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7075-077X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3744-0945</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2803-6561</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202301</creationdate><title>Habitat management to reduce competitive interactions: case study of native and invading cottontails</title><author>Eline, Drew V. ; Cohen, Jonathan B. ; Whipps, Christopher M. ; Cheeseman, Amanda E.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2317-efd3ec6cbde222e1ca5f68af80405f50a0b78c6cae78f6ce3c6530aa75aa8de43</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Best management practices</topic><topic>Canopies</topic><topic>Ecological effects</topic><topic>Environmental restoration</topic><topic>habitat selection</topic><topic>Habitats</topic><topic>Home range</topic><topic>invasive species</topic><topic>New England cottontail</topic><topic>shrubland</topic><topic>Species</topic><topic>Survival</topic><topic>Sylvilagus floridanus</topic><topic>Sylvilagus transitionalis</topic><topic>Sympatric populations</topic><topic>Wildlife management</topic><topic>young forest</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Eline, Drew V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cohen, Jonathan B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Whipps, Christopher M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cheeseman, Amanda E.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Sustainability Science Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><jtitle>The Journal of wildlife management</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Eline, Drew V.</au><au>Cohen, Jonathan B.</au><au>Whipps, Christopher M.</au><au>Cheeseman, Amanda E.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Habitat management to reduce competitive interactions: case study of native and invading cottontails</atitle><jtitle>The Journal of wildlife management</jtitle><date>2023-01</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>87</volume><issue>1</issue><epage>n/a</epage><issn>0022-541X</issn><eissn>1937-2817</eissn><abstract>Habitat management recommendations are often based on best available science determined through retroductive and inductive hypotheses. Such recommendations are not frequently tested, potentially resulting in the implementation of unreliable practices for management of imperiled species. The New England cottontail (Sylvilagus transitionalis) is an imperiled shrubland‐obligate species whose recovery efforts include habitat management and restoration. Researchers suggest former best management practices for the species may result in ecological traps and new recommendations have been developed. We evaluated these newly revised best management practices designed to retain higher tree canopy closure to promote New England cottontails without encouraging eastern cottontails (Sylvilagus floridanus). We compared New England and eastern cottontail density between management plots (tree canopy thinned with all downed trees left on the ground, with or without invasive shrub treatment) and control plots (unmanaged) and examined the influence of management on resource selection and survival. Management strategies retaining higher canopy closure promoted stronger selection by New England cottontails than by eastern cottontails. Catch per unit effort of New England cottontails was greater than for eastern cottontails in management plots (P = 0.002). For both species, the proportion of the 95% home range overlapping managed areas was greater than the proportion of managed area in the habitat patch; however, for the 50% core area of the home range, this was only true for New England cottontails. When post‐treatment canopy cover was &gt;75%, New England cottontails selected canopy‐thinning treatments without invasive shrub removal over unmanaged areas, but selection by eastern cottontails was unaffected by management treatment or canopy cover. Survival probability of both species was high and uncorrelated with time spent in management areas. Survival probability decreased as the average distance a rabbit moved in a 7‐day period increased. Our results illustrate the need to revise management strategies that emphasize eliminating canopy cover when improving New England cottontail habitat is an objective, particularly where they are sympatric with eastern cottontails. Habitat management, specifically strategies retaining higher canopy closure via selective thinning, can be used to promote New England cottontails over their non‐native competitors, eastern cottontails. This study demonstrates the importance of testing hypotheses to address uncertainties of habitat management and improve conservation of imperiled species, and indicates the need to consider revising best management practices for New England cottontails and continue monitoring these practices.</abstract><cop>Bethesda</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><doi>10.1002/jwmg.22327</doi><tpages>16</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7075-077X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3744-0945</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2803-6561</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0022-541X
ispartof The Journal of wildlife management, 2023-01, Vol.87 (1), p.n/a
issn 0022-541X
1937-2817
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2753993029
source Wiley Journals
subjects Best management practices
Canopies
Ecological effects
Environmental restoration
habitat selection
Habitats
Home range
invasive species
New England cottontail
shrubland
Species
Survival
Sylvilagus floridanus
Sylvilagus transitionalis
Sympatric populations
Wildlife management
young forest
title Habitat management to reduce competitive interactions: case study of native and invading cottontails
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-03T19%3A16%3A14IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Habitat%20management%20to%20reduce%20competitive%20interactions:%20case%20study%20of%20native%20and%20invading%20cottontails&rft.jtitle=The%20Journal%20of%20wildlife%20management&rft.au=Eline,%20Drew%20V.&rft.date=2023-01&rft.volume=87&rft.issue=1&rft.epage=n/a&rft.issn=0022-541X&rft.eissn=1937-2817&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/jwmg.22327&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2753993029%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2753993029&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true