Development of landscape-scale habitat-potential models for forest wildlife planning and management

Abstract

Wildlife biologists use current land‐cover databases to understand wildlife—habitat relationships but must make assumptions about potential vegetation and successional dynamics when predicting species responses to ecological changes. Understanding the potential of habitat types to provide wildlife habitat components throughout succession, as opposed to solely examining current suitability with land cover, has important implications for white‐tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) management as challenges such as overabundance and diseases emerge. Our objectives were to develop a process to identify and delineate habitat‐type boundaries, determine successional pathways, develop landscape‐scale models to quantify deer habitat potential, and describe how habitat‐potential models could be used in planning. We delineated habitat‐type boundaries and identified successional pathways using digital vegetation and geologic databases and information from the literature for an 8,100‐km2 area in northeastern Lower Michigan. We identified deer habitat requirements from the literature; constructed models to quantify fall and winter food, thermal cover, and spring and summer habitat suitability throughout succession; and projected suitability throughout the study area spatially and temporally. Regional differences in habitat types (e.g., poorly drained coniferous types in the northern portion and dry‐mesic deciduous or mixed coniferous‐deciduous types in the southern portion of the study area) determined regional differences in habitat potential. Generally in the study area, fall and winter food suitability was highest during early (<30 years)‐ and mid‐successional stages (30–100 years), thermal‐cover suitability was highest in middle stages, and spring and summer habitat suitability was highest in early stages. The process presented can help managers define wildlife management goals through an understanding of landscape composition, the spatial arrangement and successional changes of habitat types, and their relationship to populations.

Building and Using Habitat Models for Assessing Temporal Changes in Forest Ecosystems

“…Felix et al (2004) constructed a HCS for several regions in Michigan that included digital layers obtained from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. At the broadest layer, Albert's (1995) eco-regions provided the basis for delineating and classifying habitat types because they defined climatic-physiographic boundaries that affected species composition and plant productivity at broad-scale extents (e.g., 1,000-40,000 ha; Albert, 1995).…”

“…The last layer included information on potential vegetation and boundaries of forest types from presettlement maps (Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI), 1999). Felix et al (2004) validated habitat types with current land-cover maps by determining if vegetation composition identified from the maps coincided or was congruent with the successional stage of the habitat type with which it intersected. Some areas were validated on the ground by assessing composition of understory vegetation.…”

“…Lastly, ECSs that have been developed by integrating biotic and abiotic characteristics (e.g., Cleland et al, 1985;Haufler et al, 1996;Kotar and Burger, 2000;Felix et al, 2004), can be used to describe the potential and current ecological conditions that may influence wildlife habitat suitability as well as describe the spatial and temporal scales at which wildlife select habitat components. For example, Kotar and Burger (2000, pp.…”

Clear Creek Watershed Flood Risk Management Habitat Assessments Using Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP): Analyses, Results and Documentation

“…The controlled and economical means of accounting for habitat conditions makes HEP a decision-support process that is superior to techniques that rely heavily upon professional judgment and superficial surveys (Williams 1988, Kapustka 2003. They have proven to be invaluable tools in the development and evaluation of restoration alternatives (Williams 1988, Brown et al 2000, Store and Kangas 2001, Kapustka 2003, Store and Jokimaki 2003, Gillenwater et al 2006, Schluter et al 2006, Shifley et al 2006, managing refuges and nature preserves (Brown et al 2000, Ortigosa et al 2000, Store and Kangas 2001, Felix et al 2004, Ray and Burgman 2006, Van der Lee et al 2006, and mitigating the effects of human activities on wildlife species (Burgman et al 2001, National Research Council (NRC) 2001, Van Lonkhuyzen et al 2004). These modeling approaches emphasize usability.…”

Optimizing spatial habitat suitability and timber revenue in long-term forest planning

“…Because inclusive habitat descriptors may be extracted from variables stored in forest databases (e.g. age of forest and tree species composition), habitat suitability modeling has appeal for forest management planning (Felix et al, 2004;Edenius and Mikusiński, 2006). In the case of species with limited area demands, simple tabulation of forest characteristics may suffice to quantify habitat suitability.…”