9.108) is an attempt to cope with the problem that some animals are more vulnerable to capture than are others. Heterogeneity in the individual vulnerability of animals can effectively change the vulnerability coefficient over time. For instance, changes in moon phase can result in dramatic changes in the behavior of pocket mice ( Perognathus spp.) and kangaroo rats ( Dipodomys spp.), where predation by owls is enhanced in moonlit nights. Even then, subtle environmental changes can induce changes in animal behavior. The timing of the removal study should therefore be planned with weather forecasts in mind. This assumption can be violated if weather factors, which influence animal behavior, are not constant during the k -removal periods. 9.91) also assumes the vulnerability or catch coefficient ( c) is constant across sampling periods. Instead the catch data will need to be purposefully collected under experimental conditions. This precludes use of the constant-effort model in the analysis of traditional harvest data. Only under controlled conditions will effort likely be held constant. 9.97) is a special case of the variable-effort model ( Eq. Millspaugh, in Wildlife Demography, 2005 Discussion of Utility For small mammals, only species with enough detections to determine directional response are reported. Studies cited include unburned areas compared with severely burned areas with no postfire logging they exclude prescribed burns. 2010, Borchert 2012, Hanson 2013 4 Ungulate citations: Taber and Dasmann 1957, McCulloch 1969, Bendell 1974, Peek 1974, Davis 1977, Keay and Peek 1980, Smith 2000, Holl et al. 1996, McLellan and Hovey 2001, Cunningham and Ballard 2004, Cunningham et al. 2014 3 Carnivore citations: Paragi et al. 2012, Borchert and Borchert 2013, Letnic et al. 2006, Zwolak and Forsman 2007, Zwolak and Forsman 2008, Vamstad and Rotenberry 2010, Brehme et al. 2 Small mammal citations: Keith and Surrendi 1971, Cook 1959, Wirtz 1977, West 1982, Price and Waser 1984, Torre and DГaz 2004, Converse et al. Bats are categorized by phonic groups: of 6 phonic groups in 3 studies, 5 phonic groups showed positive response and 1 showed neutral response. This type of detailed analysis enables development of feasible adaptive management strategies and informs land management decisions that benefit native flora and fauna as well as landowners and managers.1 Bat citations: Schwab 2006, Malison and Baxter 2010, Buchalski et al. This project demonstrates our ability to utilize and build on available datasets, quantify specific habitat characteristics, and analyze the associated positive and negative effects. Lori Hargrove synthesized our Pacific pocket mouse detection data from live trapping and track-tube sampling with recent base-wide USGS data to identify the relative importance of key variables and predict the likely effects of soil compaction and vegetation on the mouseвЂ™s population. Using logistic regression modeling, Ecologist and Statistician Dr.

Assisted by Botany Department Associate Margie Mulligan, we also completed habitat assessments (including measurements of soil compaction, percent cover of vegetation types, and abundance of food plants). Led by Mammologist Scott Tremor and assisted by San Diego Zoo Global Biologist Shauna King, our biologists surveyed for the Pacific pocket mouse by live trap and track tubes.

The Museum designed these surveys to complement years of monitoring conducted by U.S. Museum staff designed and conducted a study to determine the effects of vegetation, soil, and food plants on populations of the federally-endangered Pacific pocket mouse ( Perognathus longimembris pacificus) on Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton.

Pocket mouse