Using thinning as a management tool for gypsy moth: The influence on small mammal abundance

Forest Ecology and Management

Volumn 192, Issue 2-3, 2004, Pages 349-359

  Muzika, R M ^a   Grushecky, S T ^b   Liebhold, A M ^c   Smith, R L ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI   (United States)

^b WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c USDA FOREST SERVICE   (United States)

Author keywords

Defoliators; Harvest; Peromyscus; Pitfall traps; Silviculture; Sorex

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; ECOLOGY; FOOD SUPPLY; PLANTS (BOTANY); PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS; VEGETATION;

GYPSY MOTH; INVERTEBRATE FOOD SUPPLY; MAMMALS; SILVICULTURAL THINNING;

FORESTRY;

DEFOLIATION; ECOLOGICAL IMPACT; FOREST MANAGEMENT; PEST CONTROL; SILVICULTURE; SMALL MAMMAL; THINNING;

CLETHRIONOMYS; CLETHRIONOMYS GAPPERI; CRICETINAE; INVERTEBRATA; LEPIDOPTERA; LYMANTRIA DISPAR; MAMMALIA; MURIDAE; PEROMYSCUS; SOREX; SOREX CINEREUS;

EID: 1942446307     PISSN: 03781127     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2004.01.043     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Barry R.E., Botje M.A., Grantham L.B. Vertical stratification of Peromyscus leucopus and P. maniculatus in southwestern Virginia. J. Mammal. 65:1984;145-148.
2. Bardwell, R.G., 1979. Ecological isolation between two sympatric species of forest-dwelling Peromyscus. M.S. Thesis. West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV.
3. Behre, C.E., Cline, A.C., Baker, W.L., 1936. Silvicultural control of the gypsy moth. Mass Forest Park Association Bulletin 157.
4. Bess, H.A., Spurr, S.H., Littlefield, E.W., 1947. Forest site conditions and the gypsy moth. Harv. For. Bull. 22.
5. Brooks, R.T., Healy, W.M., 1988. Response of small mammal communities to silvicultural treatments in eastern hardwood forests of West Virginia and Massachusetts. In: Szaro, R.C., Severson, K.E., Patton, D.R. (Eds.), Management of Amphibians, Reptiles and Small Mammals in North America. USDA, For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-166, pp. 313-318.
6. Buckner C.A., Shure D.J. The response of Peromyscus to forest opening size in the southern Appalachian mountains. J. Mammal. 66:1985;299-307.
7. Campbell, R.W., 1974. The gypsy moth and its natural enemies. US Department of Agriculture, Agric. Info. Bull. 381.
8. Campbell R.W., Sloan R.J. Influence of behavioral evolution on gypsy moth pupal survival in sparse populations. Environ. Entomol. 5:1976;1211-1217.
9. Campbell R.W., Sloan R.J. Natural regulation of innocuous gypsy moth populations. Environ. Entomol. 6:1977;315-322.
10. Campbell T.M., Clark T.W. Short-term effects of logging on red-back voles and deer mice. Great Basin Nat. 40:1980;183-189.
11. Carvell, K.L., Maxey, W.R., Wiant, H.V., 1978. A management plan for the West Virginia University Forest. Division of Forestry, West Virginia University, 38 pp.
12. Clough G.C. Relations of small mammals to forest management in northern Maine. Can. Field. Nat. 101:1987;40-48.
13. Cook S.P., Smith H.R., Hain F.P., Hastings F.L. Predation of gypsy moth (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) pupae by invertebrates at low small mammal population densities. Environ. Entomol. 24:1995;1234-1238.
14. Cooper, R.J., Dodge, K.M., Thurber, D.K., Whitmore, R.C., Smith, H.R., 1993. Response of ground-level wildlife food plants to canopy defoliation by the gypsy moth. In: Proceedings of the Annual Conference on Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, vol. 4, pp. 268-275.
15. Dueser R.D., Brown W.C. Ecological correlates of insular rodent diversity. Ecology. 61:1980;50-56.
16. Elkinton, J.S., Liebhold, A.M., Muzika, R.M., in press. Effects of alternative prey on predation by small mammals on gypsy moth pupae? Pop. Ecol.
17. Fiske, W.F., 1913. The gypsy moth as a forest insect, with suggestions as to its control. US Bur. Ent. Cir. 164, Washington, DC.
18. 2O balance and microclimate on the local distribution of the redback vole and white-footed mouse. Ecology. 49:1968;276-286.
19. Gore, J.A., 1988. Habitat structure and the distribution of small mammals in a northern hardwoods forest. USDA, For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM 166.
20. Gottschalk, K.W., 1991. Gypsy moth: impacts and silvicultural options. In: Laursen, S.B., Deboe, J.F. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Oak Resource in the Upper Midwest: Implications for Management, Winona, MN, June 3-6. Minnesota Extension Service, St. Paul, MN. Publ. #NR-BU-5663-S, pp. 159-169.
21. Gottschalk, K.W., 1993. Silvicultural guidelines for forest stands threatened by the gypsy moth. USDA, For. Serv. NE For. Exp. Stn. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-171.
22. Grushecky S.T., Liebhold A.M., Greer R., Smith R.L. Does forest thinning affect predation on gypsy moth (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) larvae and pupae? Environ. Entomol. 27:1998;268-276.
23. Gurevitch J., Chester S.T. Analysis of repeated measures experiments. Ecology. 67:1986;251-255.
24. Hahn, B.L., Michael, E.D., 1980. Responses of small mammals to whole-tree harvesting in central Appalachia, pp. 32-44 in Transactions of the Northeast Section, Wildlife Society. In: Proceedings of the Third Northeast Fish and Wildlife Conference, Eltenville, New York, 265 pp.
25. Hamilton W.J. Jr. The food of small forest mammals in eastern United States. J. Mammal. 22:1941;250-263.
26. Hatcher, L.H., Stepanski, E.J., 1994. A Step-by-step Approach to Using the SAS System for Univariate and Multivariate Statistics. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, 552 pp.
27. Kaufman D.W., Peterson S.K., Fristik R., Kaufman G.A. Effect of microhabitat features on habitat use by Peromyscus leucopus. Am. Midl. Nat. 110:1983;177-185.
28. Kirkland G.L. Jr. Responses of small mammals to the clearcutting of northern Appalachian forests. J. Mammal. 58:1977;600-609.
29. Kirkland G.L. Jr. Patterns of initial small mammal community change after clearcutting of temperate North American forests. Oikos. 59:1990;313-320.
30. Klein H.G. Ecological relationship of P. leucopus and P. maniculatus in central New York. Ecol. Monogr. 30:1960;387-407.
31. Klein Jr., W.P., Michael, E.D., 1984. Immediate response of small mammals to small-patch fuelwood cutting. In: Trans. of a Workshop on Management of Nongame Species and Ecological Communities, Lexington, KY, June 11-12, 1984, 20 pp.
32. Krull J.N. Small mammal populations in cut and uncut northern hardwood forests. NY Fish Game J. 17:1970;128-130.
33. Liebhold A.M., Muzika R.M., Gottschalk K.W. Does thinning affect gypsy moth dynamics? For. Sci. 44:1998;239-245.
34. Liebhold A.M., Elkinton J.S., Williams D.W., Muzika R.M. What causes outbreaks of gypsy moth in North America? Pop. Ecol. 42:2000;257-266.
35. Lovejoy D.A. The effects of logging on small mammal populations in New England northern hardwoods. Univ. Conn. Occas. Pap. Biol. Sci. Ser. 2:1975;269-291.
36. Martell A.M. Changes in small mammal communities after logging in north-central Ontario. Can. J. Zool. 61:1983;970-980.
37. Mastrota F.A., Yahner R.H., Storm G.L. Small mammal communities in a mixed-oak forest irrigated with wastewater. Am. Midl. Nat. 122:1989;388-393.
38. McCloskey R.T. Habitat dimensions of white-footed mice, Peromyscus leucopus. Am. Midl. Nat. 93:1975;158-167.
39. Medin, D.E., Booth, G.D., 1989. Responses of birds and small mammals to single-tree selection logging in Idaho. USDA, For. Serv. Int. Res. Sta. Res. Pap. Int.-408.
40. Miller D.H., Getz L.L. Factors influencing the local distribution of the redback vole, Clethrionomys gapperi, in New England. II. Vegetation cover, soil moisture, and debris cover. Univ. Conn. Occas. Pap. Biol. Sci. Ser. Publ. 2:1973;159-180.
41. Monthey R.W., Soutiere E.C. Responses of small mammals to forest harvesting in northern Maine. Can. Field Nat. 99:1985;13-18.
42. Moses R.A., Boutin S. The influence of clear-cut logging and residual leave material on small mammal populations in aspen-dominated boreal mixedwoods. Can. J. For. Res. 31:2001;483-495.
43. Muzika R.M., Liebhold A.M. A critique of silvicultural approaches to managing defoliating insects in North America. Agric. For. Entomol. 2:2000;97-105.
44. Parren S.G., Capen D.E. Local distribution and coexistence of Peromyscus in Vermont. J. Mammal. 66:1985;36-44.
45. Smith, R.L., Acorn consumption by white-footed mice, West Virginia University Agricultural Experimental Station Bull. 482T, 15 pp.
46. Smith H.R. Wildlife and the gypsy moth. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 13:1985;166-174.
47. Suzuki N., Hayes J.P. Effects of thinning on small mammals in Oregon coastal forests. J. Wildl. Manage. 67(2):2003;352-371.
48. Van Horne B. Demography of Peromyscus maniculatus populations in serial stages of coastal coniferous forest in southeast Alaska. Can. J. Zool. 59:1981;1045-1061.
49. Van Horne B. Niches of adult and juvenile deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus) in seral stages of coniferous forests. Ecology. 63:1982;992-1003.
50. Van Horne B. Density as a misleading indicator of habitat quality. J. Wildl. Manage. 47:1983;893-901.
51. Verme L.J., Ozoga J.J. Changes in small mammal populations following clear-cutting in upper Michigan conifer swamps. Can. Field Nat. 95:1981;253-256.
52. Vickery P.D., Hunter M.L., Wells J.V. Is density an indicator of breeding success? Auk. 109:1992;706-710.
53. Violet, R.L., 1973. Microdistribution of small mammals in an Appalachian forest. Unpubl. M.S. Thesis. West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV.
54. Williams O. Food habits of the deer mouse. J. Mammal. 40:1959;415-419.
55. Wilson L.W. The genus Peromyscus in West Virginia. J. Mammal. 26:1945;95-96.
56. Wolff J.O., Hurlbutt B. Day refuges of Peromyscus leucopus and Peromyscus maniculatus. J. Mammal. 63:1982;666-668.
57. Wolff J.O. Population fluctuations of mast-eating rodents are correlated with production of acorns. J. Mammal. 77:1996;850-856.
58. Yahner R.H. Small mammals associated with even aged aspen and mixed oak forest stands in central Pennsylvania. J. PA Acad. Sci. 62:1988;122-126.
59. Yahner R.H., Smith H.R. Small mammal abundance and habitat relationships on deciduous forested sites with different susceptibility to gypsy moth defoliation. Environ. Manage. 15:1991;113-120.