Landscape-Scale Attributes of Elk Centers of Activity in the Central Black Hills of South Dakota

Abstract

We researched the environmental attributes (n = 28) associated with elk(n = 50) summer range (1 May‐30 Sep) in the central Black Hills of South Dakota, USA, during 1998–2001. We defined high‐use areas or centers of activity as landscapes underlying large concentrations of elk locations resulting from the shared fidelity of independently moving animals to specific regions on summer range. We divided the study area into 3‐km grid cells to represent the distance elk travel in a 24‐hour period. We computed mean elevation and slope, proportion and configuration of overstory canopy cover, proportion and configuration of dominant vegetation type, estimated biomass, road density, traffic rate, and amount of habitat not dissected by improved surface roads for each cell. We used a combination of multiple stepwise regression and likelihood ratio tests to develop spatially adjusted models with total number of elk locations per cell as the dependent variable. Environmental attributes varied in their significance based on their availability to different elk subpopulations. Collectively, the number of elk locations was positively associated (model r2 = 0.50, P < 0.001) with elevation, proportion of non‐road‐dissected habitat, shape complexity of meadows, proportion of forest stands with ≤40% overstory canopy cover, and proportion of aspen (Populus tremuloides). Elk were responsive to a landscape structure emphasizing forage potential, and their selection was based on the composition and pattern of both biotic and abiotic variables. Defining the characteristics of high‐use areas allows management to manipulate landscapes so as to contain more of the habitats preferred by elk.

Identification of subpopulations of North American elk (Cervus elaphusL.) using multiple lines of evidence: habitat use, dietary choice, and fecal stable isotopes

“…Some migratory populations move considerable distances among summer, transitional, and winter ranges (Ager et al 2003) and display various degrees of subpopulation structuring, often without any physical barriers to exchange or movement (Lubow et al 2002;Stubblefield et al 2006). For migratory elk in the United States, subpopulation structuring may be most apparent on summer range (Stubblefield et al 2006) or winter range (Lubow et al 2002).…”

“…As a result, populations, particularly those confined by limited suitable habitat, may be partitioned into subunits, or subpopulations, that can be disparate with regard to habitat use, home range and movement, nutritional condition, grouping dynamics, and demography (Houston 1982;Lubow et al 2002;Stubblefield et al 2006). These disparities among subpopulations may be overlooked but typically necessitate different management protocols than those implemented for a homogenous population (Edge et al 1986;Hegel et al 2009).…”

Human Activity Differentially Redistributes Large Mammals in the Canadian Rockies National Parks

“…We included these covariates in models whether or not they improved model performance to isolate the effects of human activity and distance to trails and roads on species' behaviors. These covariates included slope, elevation, and cover for wolves (Massolo and Meriggi 1998, Kunkel and Pletscher 2000, Ciucci et al 2003, Mech and Boitani 2003, Oakleaf et al 2006; and elevation, slope, and greenness as measured by the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI; Pettorelli et al 2005) for elk (Toweill and Thomas 2002, Fortin et al 2005, Hebblewhite 2006, Stubblefield et al 2006). Cover and greenness were derived from Landsat 7 TM satellite imagery (McDermid et al 2005).…”

Landscape Metrics and Indices: An Overview of Their Use in Landscape Research

“…Landscape metrics have been used to determine the landscape preferences of raccoons (Henner et al, 2004), gray wolves (Mladenoff et al, 1995), wild hogs (Gaines et al, 2005); moose (Maier et al, 2005), deer (Foster et al, 1997;Finder et al, 1999;Kie et al, 2002), black bears (Kindall and Van Manen, 2007), ocelots (Jackson et al, 2005), elk (Stubblefield et al, 2006), possums (Eyre and Buck, 2005) and bats (Limpert et al, 2007). Different species provide different correlations with landscape metrics depending on their landscape preferences, i.e., large compact patches are preferred by wild hogs (Gaines et al, 2005), moose (Maier et al, 2005), deer (Table 1; Foster et al, 1997;Plante et al, 2004) and possums (Eyre and Buck, 2005), while ocelots (Jackson et al, 2005) and gliders (Table 1; McAlpine and Eyre, 2002) preferred areas that had a greater degree of fragmentation (i.e., a larger number of patches of smaller size, and with more edge).…”