FMA: Bait Removal

Heather Bariso

Intro:
Forest management is an important tool in maintaining and encouraging the growth of
species in forest ecosystems (Morgera, 2011). The goal of forest management branches
worldwide is to understand the impact a changing climate and environmental conditions will
have on forest ecosystems. In the managed areas, trees are harvested to mimic disturbance of
a particular species, thin the forest, and to understand the impacts tree removal has. Forest
management sites even promote the burning of controlled areas to mitigate the intensity of a
naturally occurring fire (Renninger at.al 2013).
Since the primary forest composition surrounding Stockton University is pine-oak, it’s
integral to the forest ecosystem to have an active forest management system. Pine forests yield
better results when treated with disturbances like fire due to the germination method of
pinecones. This disturbance allows for more nutrients to enrich the soil as well as the growth of
more pine trees and variable species. To manage the Stockton forest area, the forest was
divided into sections of clear cut, thinned, and burned. These areas were then left alone and
left to regenerate naturally. The last time silviculture occurred was 5 years ago. These areas
were also split into a burned and non-burned area as well. This variation within the forest
structure as well as the path that separates them creates edges of the ecosystem (Stockton
University). These edge effects could play a role in the distribution of animal species.
Edge effects occur when particular areas of a habitat become separated by
fragmentation or other disturbances. Within these edges, there have been noticeable
differences in climate and species diversity (Murcia. 1995). These effects have the potential to
change population and community structure at the boundary of two or more crossing habitats.
The edges and different habitat structure created can restrict the variety of plants that can
grow in a particular area, resulting in a lower number of animal interaction (Parker et.al 2005).
The edges can push species farther inland into the ecosystem resulting in clustered populations
and a lack of resources. 
Since the forest ecosystem has a variety of factors that influence animal distribution and
activity, it is important to understand which play a primary role in impacting activity. In gaining
an understanding of the impact of different factors on the forest, we can get a better
understanding of the effects our forest management system has on the ecosystem. Due to the
forest being a large habitat for various species, we conducted an experiment to determine if
the varying effects created by the forest management system play a role on the activity of
species and their location within the forest ecosystem at Stockton University.  

Methods:
The primary tree species in our forest management area are pitch pines along with
several species of oak trees. These trees create the primary canopy of our forest while the
understory is composed mainly of Ericaceae such as huckleberry and blueberry. These varying
tree and shrub species provide ample habitat for a variety of animal species such as small
mammals, deer, and birds.
 Our samples occurred in each type of silviculture areas in the forest management
system. These areas are characterized by the type of tree removal in each area. The clear-cut
area had two sample sites. This area is characterized by a high understory composition with no
tree coverage. Here, Ericaceae and broomsedge covered 90-100% of the forest floor. The
thinned area of the forest management area had 3.5 areas sampled. This area was both burnt
and had trees removed. Pitch pine and oak trees were the primary tree species and had a
shorter and less abundant understory. 
The control area was burned last year and has not had any trees removed or thinned.
This area has an understory composed of Ericaceae and leaf litter. To conduct our study, we
were assigned an area in the clear cut, control, or thinned areas of the forest management site.
In this plot, we used a 100m measuring tape to measure 50m into the forest. We started by
placing a flag with our plot number at the trail edge and measured out a 50m transect into the
forest. We split our transect into 6 plots by putting down a labeled flag every 10m. At these
flags, we measured 5m on both sides. Within the parameters created by the measuring tape,
we recorded the number of pine, oak, and other tree species in that area. At every meter, we
observed the understory and indicated how high and what type we saw.  Once we had all of our
measurements, we returned to our marked areas with a rodent bait block and seed trays. We
placed a bait block and tray with seeds next to each flag. After 2 weeks, we collected our bait
blocks and seed trays and determined the amount of bait left over. We ranked the bait in
categories from 1-3 on a scale of not touched to gone. This was then used to calculate the
percent depredation.

Results:
We tested to see if different silviculture methods affected the rates of depredation. To
do this, we collected our bait samples from each area and recorded the results. To analyze our
data, we created a pivot table to see which areas were depredated and the total. From this
data, we then conducted a chi- squared test for each of the parameters measured. We then
used these values for graphs 1,2, and 3 to better visualize the data. If there are no significant
differences in the treatments, then we didn’t reject the null hypothesis.
In the sites tested, we found the clear-cut to have the highest percent depredation at
100%. The control had the second highest depredation rate at 91% and the thinned at 81%
(Figure1). We collected the average of all of the locations and found the percent depredation to
be 89%.
 120%

100%
Percent Depredation

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%
Clearcut Control Thinned Average
Location

Figure 1: Percent of Depredation on different Forest Management areas. The average bar
represents the average percent depredation for all areas.

Next, we examined if edges created by the silviculture area and trails had any effect on
predation. To do this, we gathered the data from the bait blocks and seed trays at each of our
meter marks. We found similar percent depredation for almost all of the measurements. Both
30 and 40 meters had a 100% depredation (Figure 2). The edge, 20 meter, and 50 meters all
had a 91% depredation. At the 10-meter mark, there was significantly less depredation than
any of the other plots with 64% degraded. The average of all of these areas was an 89 percent
depredation.

120%

100%
Percent Depredation

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%
Edge 10m 20m 30m 40m 50m Average
Distance to Edge
Figure 2: Percent depredation on various distances into the forest and the edge. Each point was
measured in meters and then the average was found.

To determine is vegetation played a role in depredation rates, we used the vegetation height
data collected at each meter. We found that the highest percent depredation occurred at areas
with zero and high vegetation at 100%. The lowest percent depredation occurred at areas with
a vegetation height of 1 with a percent of 84. The average vegetation height depredation was
89% (Figure3).

105%

100%
Percent Depredation

95%

90%

85%
80%

75%
0 1 2 3 Average
Vegitation Height

Figure 3: The effect vegetation height impacts depredation. The numbers 1-3 represent the
average height of the vegetation with 0 being none and 3 being the highest.

Discussion: 
The high percent of depredation at clear-cut areas could be attributed to the coverage
while foraging. In the clear-cut area, vegetation height was 90-100% high. This is linked to what
we found in figure 3 where areas of high vegetation had 100% depredation. If the grass is tall,
then predators such as birds are less likely to spot the foraging mice and other rodent
populations. The tall grass offers protection while also helping cover the food so only animals
who are low to the ground can easily spot it.

In the areas with tree coverage, we can look at the effect canopy cover had on
depredation. In the control area, the trees aren’t thinned or cut resulting in a relatively high
canopy cover, but it was burned resulting in lower understory height. The thinned area had
trees removed resulting in less canopy cover and relatively high understory. In areas with tree
coverage, the overall trend seen (figure 1), is that there was higher depredation in areas with a
higher canopy cover. This can be due to the canopy cover offering protection from above. There
is a possibility that the low understory in the control area also contributed to the high
depredation. This goes along with the data found in figure 1, that the highest depredation rate
occurred in areas with a 0 for vegetation height. Having little to no vegetation height could
allow different species of animals to see the food and eat it, where in areas with a high
vegetation it is covered up. In areas with low vegetation, it is possible that bigger animals are
eating the food due to a lack of protection and understory coverage.
 The results gathered by our edge data are contradictory to the effect of edges
previously gathered in other literature. In past studies, edge effects can change species
composition and make them less likely to inhabit edge areas (Parker et.al 2005). We found that
the distance to the edge seemed to have little effect on the overall depredation percent. This
finding is concurrent with what other studies found in a heavily wooded ecosystem. Weaker
edge effects are often seen in forest dominated landscapes (Murcia. 1995). At the edge, the
percent depredation was relatively high at 91% and had the same rate as other measured
points father in the forest. The only notably lower percent depredation was at 10 meters. This is
interesting to note because at the 10-meter mark, there was no significant change in vegetation
height, or canopy height to cause such a low percent of depredation.

Based on our data gathered, we can infer that vegetation height plays a primary role in
affecting the rate of depredation. The different silviculture areas and edge effects also play a
role in percent depredation, but due to the relatively similar data gathered in each sample,
there was no significant cause of depredation. These results are concurrent with previously
conducted studies. By using different factors to determine the effects of edge effects, a more
comprehensive understanding of their impact can be gained (Murcia, 1995). Many factors
affecting the rate of depredation are linked and should be taken into consideration when
determining the cause of depredation for each area.

Citations: 

Forest Fire Research and Education. “Stockton Forest Fire Management Plan.” Stockton
University, 2019, stockton.edu/forest-management/forest-fire.html.

Morgera, E. (2011). Sustainable Forest Management. Environmental Policy and Law, 41(2), 74 -
76.

Parker, T., Stansberry, B., & Gipson, P. (2005). Edge and Area Effects on the Occurrence of
Migrant Forest Songbirds. Conservation Biology, 19(4), 1157–1167.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00107.x

Renninger, H., Clark, K., Skowronski, N., & Schäfer, K. (2013). Effects of a prescribed fire on
water use and photosynthetic capacity of pitch pines. Trees, 27(4), 1115–1127.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00468-013-0861-5
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00468-013-0861-5

Murcia, C. (1995). Edge effects in fragmented forests: implications for conservation. Trends in
ecology & evolution, 10(2), 58-62.