Small mammal habitat associations in poletimber and sawtimber stands of four forest cover types

Small mammals as bioindicators of sustainable boreal forest management

“…The pygmy shrew and arctic shrew have been reported to be more often associated with marshy areas (Long, 1972;Nagorsen and Petersen, 1981;Probst and Rakstad, 1987), which we did not examine here although the deciduous forest conditions in the study area would be expected to be cool and moist relative to the more open coniferous stands. The short-tailed shrew has been associated with mesic habitats (Getz, 1994), and more generally hardwoods (Getz, 1961b;DeGraaf et al, 1991). All species are associated with high herbaceous cover (this study, Getz, 1961b;Miller and Getz, 1977;Nagorsen and Petersen, 1981;Ford et al, 2002).…”

Synchrony in small mammal community dynamics across a forested landscape

“…Overall, year explained more than 50% of variation in community composition, whereas forest and physiographic characteristics collectively explained only 6% of variation. Studies at smaller spatial scales in the northeastern US have found similar trends with interannual abundance of species fluctuating synchronously across forest types, successional states, and elevation (DeGraaf et al , Brooks et al ).…”

Small mammal communities of streamside management zones in intensively managed pine forests of Arkansas

“…In our study, small mammals within narrow SMZs would readily have access to either the plantation or the SMZ, and, perhaps more importantly, the edge between the two habitat types. Previous studies have found greater small mammal diversity and richness (Clough, 1987;DeGraaf et al, 1991;Yahner, 1992;Menzel et al, 1999) and higher abundance of small mammals (Anthony et al, 1987;Yahner, 1992;Tappe et al, 1994Tappe et al, , 2004) associated with edges. Others have found unique communities in upland sites as compared to riparian zones (Doyle, 1990;McComb et al, 1993;Daniel and Fleet, 1999).…”

“…Several studies have suggested that habitat diversity is the key to maintaining stable small mammal communities (DeGraaf et al, 1991;Bramble et al, 1992;Yahner, 1992;Michael, 1995). In our study, small mammals within narrow SMZs would readily have access to either the plantation or the SMZ, and, perhaps more importantly, the edge between the two habitat types.…”

“…Thus, we sampled Set 1 during -1991, Set 2 during 1992-1993, and Set 3 during 1994-1995. Each set consisted of 1 natural stand and 15 SMZ/plantation settings selected to represent 5 different SMZ width classes (1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-100, and >100 m total width), within three different structural classes of adjacent plantations (young open canopy, closed canopy, and thinned), and three natural stands (one sampled with each set).…”