The Starkey project: history, facilities, and data collection methods for ungulate research.

Abstract

In the 1980s resource managers were increasingly concerned about effects of timber harvest on ungulates in National Forests. Land and resource management plans incorporated restrictions on timber harvest to maintain cover for Rocky Mountain elk (Cefvus elaphus nelsoni V. Bailey) and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus hemionus Rafinesque), and habitat models were used to predict effectiveness of various habitat components for these ungulates. Many of the assumptions on which these models were based were untested, however. The Starkey Project, in northeastern Oregon, was begun to address some of these issues through manipulative experiments in a landscape representative of inland National Forests in the West. A 25,000-acre (10 125-ha) area was surrounded with game-proof fencing to support studies on elk, mule deer, and cattle (SOS Taurus). A newly developed telemetry system, using loran-C (long range navigation-C) signals, tracks distribution of the three species in relation to common land management activities and habitat variables. Four primary research projects are underway: animal-unit equivalencies, intensive timber management, effects of roads and traffic, and breeding efficiency of bull elk. Activities at Starkey include trapping, feeding, and handling of deer and elk, radio-telemetry data collection, road and traffic monitoring, hunting, timber harvest, cattle grazing, and vegetation monitoring. An intensive technology transfer program is also an integral part of the Starkey Project. The physical site, including handling facilities and telemetry-related structures, and chronology of events related to the Starkey Project are described. A bibliography of project publications also is included.Keywords: Cattle, deer, elk, forest management, ungulates, Blue Mountains, Oregon, radio telemetry, habitat, Starkey Project, technology transfer, wildlife research. IntroductionLand-use planning for National Forests (NFs) in the 1980s illustrated the growing conflict over public lands management. In land and resource management plans (Forest plans) for the NFs of the Blue Mountains in Washington and Oregon, interactions of livestock with wildlife, especially deer' and elk, were identified as a major concern, as was the relation of wildlife to timber production. Constraints on timber harvest and road construction were incorporated in several Forest plans to meet objectives for deer and elk populations and habitats. These constraints may result in restricted timber harvest (Riggs and others 1993) and thus lower revenues for NFs, local governments, and timber companies, as well as road closures that potentially reduce opportunities for recreation and are costly to establish and maintain. During the 1980s models for predicting habitat effectiveness for deer and elk were being developed and implemented that promoted closing roads or maintaining certain cover:forage ratios for wildlife (Lyon 1983, Thomas and others 1979, Wisdom and others 1986.National Forests support, during some part of the year, more than 90 percent of the e...

Habitat Interference by Axis Deer on White‐Tailed Deer

“…Elevations on Starkey range from 1,120 to 1,500 m a.s.l. Starkey encompasses 10,125 ha, and since 1987 has been surrounded by a 2.4-m fence that prevents immigration or emigration of large herbivores (Rowland et al 1997, Stewart et al 2002, Stewart et al 2006. As a consequence, elk no longer migrate from our study area to traditional winter ranges.…”

“…Grand fir on Starkey suffered widespread mortality (. 90%) from spruce budworm Choristoneura occidentalis during the late 1980s, and timber was harvested in areas where most trees were killed (Rowland et al 1997, Stewart et al 2002. Following removal of trees, those areas were seeded with several species of grasses including orchardgrass Dactylis glomerata and bluegrass Poa spp.…”

“…As a consequence, elk no longer migrate from our study area to traditional winter ranges. Animals were, therefore, maintained throughout winter in a holding area where they were fed a maintenance diet of alfalfa hay (Rowland et al 1997, Stewart et al 2006. Elk were concentrated and contained within a winter feeding ground from early December to late April each year (Stewart et al 2006).…”

Data Interpretation and Continuous Modal Parameter Identification of Cable Stayed Bridge

“…(7) and Eq. (8), the SVD can be split into two parts and can be written as: (16) In MATLAB notation, the C matrix is just the first block of i O and the structural discrete state matrix A can be written as follows:…”

“…All of them, just focused on data visualization through making graphs, because the technology was not yet very advanced and fast modern processing computers and software were not very common, and so EDA was just a tool for some simple data representation. The focus of Brillinger et al [15] study was on paths showing animals' movement in a forest, and he used Rowland et al [16] data, which was just experimental data whose data size was very small and not continuous, in his work which was only studying the movement of elk and deer. Thus, his methods are not really suitable or applicable for anomaly detection and for quick continuous large scale data analysis.…”