Experimental translocation for restoration of an ecosystem engineer

The longleaf pine (Pinus palustris Mill.) savanna ecosystem in North America has declined by 97% from its historic range and its restoration is a conservation priority. The southeastern pocket gopher (Geomys pinetis), an ecosystem engineer in longleaf pine savannas, is absent from most of its histor...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Restoration ecology 2023-05, Vol.31 (4), p.n/a
Hauptverfasser: Pynne, J. T., Conner, L. Mike, Castleberry, Steven B., Parsons, Elizabeth I., Gitzen, Robert A., Duncan, Sarah I., Austin, James D., McCleery, Robert A.
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 4
container_start_page
container_title Restoration ecology
container_volume 31
creator Pynne, J. T.
Conner, L. Mike
Castleberry, Steven B.
Parsons, Elizabeth I.
Gitzen, Robert A.
Duncan, Sarah I.
Austin, James D.
McCleery, Robert A.
description The longleaf pine (Pinus palustris Mill.) savanna ecosystem in North America has declined by 97% from its historic range and its restoration is a conservation priority. The southeastern pocket gopher (Geomys pinetis), an ecosystem engineer in longleaf pine savannas, is absent from most of its historic range. Translocation of pocket gophers may be needed to reestablish ecosystem services of restored longleaf savannas. To determine translocation feasibility, we quantified survival, site fidelity, and homing of pocket gophers translocated using soft releases (with a starter burrow system; n = 13), hard releases (without a starter burrow system; n = 17), or released into their own burrows (control; n = 10). Naïve survival was 46 and 35% for soft‐ and hard‐released individuals, respectively, and 80% for controls. Most mortalities of translocated individuals (75.0%) occurred within 12 days. Including all radiotagged pocket gophers, daily survival of soft‐released animals (Ŝ = 0.990) was intermediate between hard‐released (Ŝ = 0.986) and controls (Ŝ = 0.993), and only hard‐released was lower than controls. Using only individuals that survived greater than 14 days, we found no difference in daily survival. Site fidelity was low, with 70% of translocated pocket gophers making aboveground movements away from release point. However, soft‐released individuals stayed at the release point three times longer than hard‐released animals. No pocket gopher exhibited homing. Our results suggest translocation has potential for establishing pocket gopher populations into restored longleaf pine savannas and that mitigating mortality during establishment will increase the likelihood of success.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/rec.13888
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2808484049</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2808484049</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2928-a488f00b672a29a112e37429d3ad33ac1752143188a2ffc209779fcce011c88b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kMFKAzEQhoMoWKsH32DBk4dtM8m2OznKUqtQEETBW0jTiWzZJjXZon17o-vVucwMfDP_zM_YNfAJ5JhGshOQiHjCRjAT8xI4fzvNNZ9DKVQN5-wipS3nMEOUI9YsvvYU2x353nRFH41PXbCmb4MvXIhFpNSHOPTBFcYXZEM6pp52Bfn31hPFS3bmTJfo6i-P2ev94qV5KFdPy8fmblVaoQSWpkJ0nK_ntTBCGQBBsq6E2kizkdJYqGcCKgmIRjhnBVd1rZy1xAEs4lqO2c2wdx_DxyEfprfhEH2W1AI5VljxSmXqdqBsDClFcnqf_zPxqIHrH4909kj_epTZ6cB-th0d_wf186IZJr4Bj19n9w</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2808484049</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Experimental translocation for restoration of an ecosystem engineer</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Pynne, J. T. ; Conner, L. Mike ; Castleberry, Steven B. ; Parsons, Elizabeth I. ; Gitzen, Robert A. ; Duncan, Sarah I. ; Austin, James D. ; McCleery, Robert A.</creator><creatorcontrib>Pynne, J. T. ; Conner, L. Mike ; Castleberry, Steven B. ; Parsons, Elizabeth I. ; Gitzen, Robert A. ; Duncan, Sarah I. ; Austin, James D. ; McCleery, Robert A.</creatorcontrib><description>The longleaf pine (Pinus palustris Mill.) savanna ecosystem in North America has declined by 97% from its historic range and its restoration is a conservation priority. The southeastern pocket gopher (Geomys pinetis), an ecosystem engineer in longleaf pine savannas, is absent from most of its historic range. Translocation of pocket gophers may be needed to reestablish ecosystem services of restored longleaf savannas. To determine translocation feasibility, we quantified survival, site fidelity, and homing of pocket gophers translocated using soft releases (with a starter burrow system; n = 13), hard releases (without a starter burrow system; n = 17), or released into their own burrows (control; n = 10). Naïve survival was 46 and 35% for soft‐ and hard‐released individuals, respectively, and 80% for controls. Most mortalities of translocated individuals (75.0%) occurred within 12 days. Including all radiotagged pocket gophers, daily survival of soft‐released animals (Ŝ = 0.990) was intermediate between hard‐released (Ŝ = 0.986) and controls (Ŝ = 0.993), and only hard‐released was lower than controls. Using only individuals that survived greater than 14 days, we found no difference in daily survival. Site fidelity was low, with 70% of translocated pocket gophers making aboveground movements away from release point. However, soft‐released individuals stayed at the release point three times longer than hard‐released animals. No pocket gopher exhibited homing. Our results suggest translocation has potential for establishing pocket gopher populations into restored longleaf pine savannas and that mitigating mortality during establishment will increase the likelihood of success.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1061-2971</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1526-100X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/rec.13888</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Malden, USA: Wiley Periodicals, Inc</publisher><subject>Accuracy ; Animals ; ecosystem engineer ; Ecosystem restoration ; Ecosystem services ; Ecosystems ; Engineers ; Evergreen trees ; Geomyidae ; Geomys pinetis ; Grasslands ; Habitat selection ; Homing ; Pine trees ; Pinus palustris ; pocket gopher ; Restoration ; savanna ecosystems ; Savannahs ; Service restoration ; Site fidelity ; Survival ; Translocation</subject><ispartof>Restoration ecology, 2023-05, Vol.31 (4), p.n/a</ispartof><rights>2023 The Authors. published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Ecological Restoration.</rights><rights>2023. This article is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2928-a488f00b672a29a112e37429d3ad33ac1752143188a2ffc209779fcce011c88b3</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-2111-2637</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Frec.13888$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Frec.13888$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Pynne, J. T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Conner, L. Mike</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Castleberry, Steven B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Parsons, Elizabeth I.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gitzen, Robert A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Duncan, Sarah I.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Austin, James D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McCleery, Robert A.</creatorcontrib><title>Experimental translocation for restoration of an ecosystem engineer</title><title>Restoration ecology</title><description>The longleaf pine (Pinus palustris Mill.) savanna ecosystem in North America has declined by 97% from its historic range and its restoration is a conservation priority. The southeastern pocket gopher (Geomys pinetis), an ecosystem engineer in longleaf pine savannas, is absent from most of its historic range. Translocation of pocket gophers may be needed to reestablish ecosystem services of restored longleaf savannas. To determine translocation feasibility, we quantified survival, site fidelity, and homing of pocket gophers translocated using soft releases (with a starter burrow system; n = 13), hard releases (without a starter burrow system; n = 17), or released into their own burrows (control; n = 10). Naïve survival was 46 and 35% for soft‐ and hard‐released individuals, respectively, and 80% for controls. Most mortalities of translocated individuals (75.0%) occurred within 12 days. Including all radiotagged pocket gophers, daily survival of soft‐released animals (Ŝ = 0.990) was intermediate between hard‐released (Ŝ = 0.986) and controls (Ŝ = 0.993), and only hard‐released was lower than controls. Using only individuals that survived greater than 14 days, we found no difference in daily survival. Site fidelity was low, with 70% of translocated pocket gophers making aboveground movements away from release point. However, soft‐released individuals stayed at the release point three times longer than hard‐released animals. No pocket gopher exhibited homing. Our results suggest translocation has potential for establishing pocket gopher populations into restored longleaf pine savannas and that mitigating mortality during establishment will increase the likelihood of success.</description><subject>Accuracy</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>ecosystem engineer</subject><subject>Ecosystem restoration</subject><subject>Ecosystem services</subject><subject>Ecosystems</subject><subject>Engineers</subject><subject>Evergreen trees</subject><subject>Geomyidae</subject><subject>Geomys pinetis</subject><subject>Grasslands</subject><subject>Habitat selection</subject><subject>Homing</subject><subject>Pine trees</subject><subject>Pinus palustris</subject><subject>pocket gopher</subject><subject>Restoration</subject><subject>savanna ecosystems</subject><subject>Savannahs</subject><subject>Service restoration</subject><subject>Site fidelity</subject><subject>Survival</subject><subject>Translocation</subject><issn>1061-2971</issn><issn>1526-100X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kMFKAzEQhoMoWKsH32DBk4dtM8m2OznKUqtQEETBW0jTiWzZJjXZon17o-vVucwMfDP_zM_YNfAJ5JhGshOQiHjCRjAT8xI4fzvNNZ9DKVQN5-wipS3nMEOUI9YsvvYU2x353nRFH41PXbCmb4MvXIhFpNSHOPTBFcYXZEM6pp52Bfn31hPFS3bmTJfo6i-P2ev94qV5KFdPy8fmblVaoQSWpkJ0nK_ntTBCGQBBsq6E2kizkdJYqGcCKgmIRjhnBVd1rZy1xAEs4lqO2c2wdx_DxyEfprfhEH2W1AI5VljxSmXqdqBsDClFcnqf_zPxqIHrH4909kj_epTZ6cB-th0d_wf186IZJr4Bj19n9w</recordid><startdate>202305</startdate><enddate>202305</enddate><creator>Pynne, J. T.</creator><creator>Conner, L. Mike</creator><creator>Castleberry, Steven B.</creator><creator>Parsons, Elizabeth I.</creator><creator>Gitzen, Robert A.</creator><creator>Duncan, Sarah I.</creator><creator>Austin, James D.</creator><creator>McCleery, Robert A.</creator><general>Wiley Periodicals, Inc</general><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7U6</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>H97</scope><scope>L.G</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2111-2637</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202305</creationdate><title>Experimental translocation for restoration of an ecosystem engineer</title><author>Pynne, J. T. ; Conner, L. Mike ; Castleberry, Steven B. ; Parsons, Elizabeth I. ; Gitzen, Robert A. ; Duncan, Sarah I. ; Austin, James D. ; McCleery, Robert A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2928-a488f00b672a29a112e37429d3ad33ac1752143188a2ffc209779fcce011c88b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Accuracy</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>ecosystem engineer</topic><topic>Ecosystem restoration</topic><topic>Ecosystem services</topic><topic>Ecosystems</topic><topic>Engineers</topic><topic>Evergreen trees</topic><topic>Geomyidae</topic><topic>Geomys pinetis</topic><topic>Grasslands</topic><topic>Habitat selection</topic><topic>Homing</topic><topic>Pine trees</topic><topic>Pinus palustris</topic><topic>pocket gopher</topic><topic>Restoration</topic><topic>savanna ecosystems</topic><topic>Savannahs</topic><topic>Service restoration</topic><topic>Site fidelity</topic><topic>Survival</topic><topic>Translocation</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Pynne, J. T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Conner, L. Mike</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Castleberry, Steven B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Parsons, Elizabeth I.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gitzen, Robert A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Duncan, Sarah I.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Austin, James D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McCleery, Robert A.</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library Open Access</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Sustainability Science Abstracts</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 3: Aquatic Pollution &amp; Environmental Quality</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><jtitle>Restoration ecology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Pynne, J. T.</au><au>Conner, L. Mike</au><au>Castleberry, Steven B.</au><au>Parsons, Elizabeth I.</au><au>Gitzen, Robert A.</au><au>Duncan, Sarah I.</au><au>Austin, James D.</au><au>McCleery, Robert A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Experimental translocation for restoration of an ecosystem engineer</atitle><jtitle>Restoration ecology</jtitle><date>2023-05</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>31</volume><issue>4</issue><epage>n/a</epage><issn>1061-2971</issn><eissn>1526-100X</eissn><abstract>The longleaf pine (Pinus palustris Mill.) savanna ecosystem in North America has declined by 97% from its historic range and its restoration is a conservation priority. The southeastern pocket gopher (Geomys pinetis), an ecosystem engineer in longleaf pine savannas, is absent from most of its historic range. Translocation of pocket gophers may be needed to reestablish ecosystem services of restored longleaf savannas. To determine translocation feasibility, we quantified survival, site fidelity, and homing of pocket gophers translocated using soft releases (with a starter burrow system; n = 13), hard releases (without a starter burrow system; n = 17), or released into their own burrows (control; n = 10). Naïve survival was 46 and 35% for soft‐ and hard‐released individuals, respectively, and 80% for controls. Most mortalities of translocated individuals (75.0%) occurred within 12 days. Including all radiotagged pocket gophers, daily survival of soft‐released animals (Ŝ = 0.990) was intermediate between hard‐released (Ŝ = 0.986) and controls (Ŝ = 0.993), and only hard‐released was lower than controls. Using only individuals that survived greater than 14 days, we found no difference in daily survival. Site fidelity was low, with 70% of translocated pocket gophers making aboveground movements away from release point. However, soft‐released individuals stayed at the release point three times longer than hard‐released animals. No pocket gopher exhibited homing. Our results suggest translocation has potential for establishing pocket gopher populations into restored longleaf pine savannas and that mitigating mortality during establishment will increase the likelihood of success.</abstract><cop>Malden, USA</cop><pub>Wiley Periodicals, Inc</pub><doi>10.1111/rec.13888</doi><tpages>9</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2111-2637</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1061-2971
ispartof Restoration ecology, 2023-05, Vol.31 (4), p.n/a
issn 1061-2971
1526-100X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2808484049
source Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete
subjects Accuracy
Animals
ecosystem engineer
Ecosystem restoration
Ecosystem services
Ecosystems
Engineers
Evergreen trees
Geomyidae
Geomys pinetis
Grasslands
Habitat selection
Homing
Pine trees
Pinus palustris
pocket gopher
Restoration
savanna ecosystems
Savannahs
Service restoration
Site fidelity
Survival
Translocation
title Experimental translocation for restoration of an ecosystem engineer
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-04T00%3A37%3A00IST&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=Experimental%20translocation%20for%20restoration%20of%20an%20ecosystem%20engineer&rft.jtitle=Restoration%20ecology&rft.au=Pynne,%20J.%20T.&rft.date=2023-05&rft.volume=31&rft.issue=4&rft.epage=n/a&rft.issn=1061-2971&rft.eissn=1526-100X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/rec.13888&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2808484049%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=2808484049&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true