аЯрЁБс>ўџ IKўџџџHџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџьЅС‰@ №ПjKjbjbq”q” Љ\ііUEџџџџџџlтттцZZZкккк8 $кС ˜NRhhhhhh~ € € € € € € ,Y yPЌ ZhhhhhЌ ZZhhNhFZhZh~ n6Є6ю6$6ZZh~ Rj ZZj B ШМккЎjj j С С j ЩЩj УхAmphibian Monitoring in the Lye Brook Wilderness Region of the Green Mountain National Forest 1995-2003 James S. Andrews, and Erin K. Talmage Biology Department Middlebury College, Middlebury, Vermont 05753 Update Background An inventory of amphibians in the Lye Brook Wilderness Region of the Green Mountain National Forest (GMNF) in Bennington County was begun in 1993 and completed in 1995. Monitoring of selected amphibian species began in 1994. The goals of the monitoring are to (1) establish a baseline data set of abundance indices for the amphibian species caught in the fences, (2) monitor year-to-year changes in their abundance indices, (3) compare population changes between this site and other monitoring locations in the Green Mountains, (4) look for correlations between amphibian populations and other data gathered at this site, (5) monitor changes in the number or type of obvious external abnormalities, (6) gather inventory data for the Vermont Herp Atlas, and (7) gather basic natural history information on the species present. Five species of salamander (Eastern Newt, Northern Two-lined Salamander, Eastern Red-backed Salamander, Spotted Salamander, Spring Salamander) and five species of frog (American Toad, Green Frog, Pickerel Frog, Spring Peeper, Wood Frog) are monitored using drift-fences, egg-mass counts, and stream surveys. Eight years of data have been collected at the drift-fences. Nine years of monitoring data have been gathered using egg-mass counts and stream surveys. For details on methods and locations see the 1995 VForEM annual report. Changes for 2002 Every year, mice, shrews, and voles die in the pitfall traps. Although our data show no decline in small mammal numbers, we would like to minimize these non-target mortalities. In order to decrease the mortality of small mammals, and to address the concerns of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) at Middlebury College, in 2001, we experimented with small round dowels that were freestanding. These dowels did not prove successful in lowering the number of small mammals captured. Consequently, in 2002, we moved to the larger dowels and added fixed rough-cut 1” x 1” dowels to one of each pair of traps. Placing dowels in the pitfall trap creates an escape route for trapped mammals. These data show that the dowels did reduce small mammal mortality. Unfortunately, it also appears that the addition of the larger dowels allowed a percentage of the amphibians to escape. At the time of this report, precipitation data was not available for the Lye Brook Wilderness Region; however, the Mt. Mansfield summit (between April and October) received 53 inches of rain, slightly more than the average since 1955, of 43.6 inches/year. (The Vermont Monitoring Cooperative provided weather data with permission from Wesley Alan Wright, primary investigator for the Mount Mansfield Summit Meteorology project.) Results of adding dowels to traps In order to test the effectiveness of the dowels, one dowel was placed in one of each pair of traps, on alternate sides of the fence. The dowels were permanently attached to the inside of the can, through the funnel, with non-toxic silicon aquarium sealant. To allow for drying of the silicon sealant it was necessary to have a few days of dry weather to completely dry out the traps. This did not occur until May 10th, after the first few trap-efforts had occurred. In addition to the dowel, from May 10th through June 23 (eight trap-efforts) a sponge was placed in the water of the trap. This, theoretically, allows a small mammal to have something to climb onto to escape drowning before climbing out of the trap via the dowel. The use of dowels and sponges combined reduced amphibian captures by 95% and small mammal captures by a 100%, (Table 1). It appears that the sponges were used as a launching pad for the frogs and enabled a significant number to escape. For the final 18 trap events of the season only the dowels were used, resulting in a 39% decrease in the number of amphibians, and an 87% reduction of small mammal mortality. Removing the sponges increased the small mammal mortality, and decreased the amount of escaped amphibians. Calculations based on changes as a result of the dowels There was a decrease in the number of amphibians caught, as a result of placing the dowels in half of the traps; therefore, the absolute values of 2002 data could not be compared to previous years’ data. In order to compare this year’s and past year’s data we converted all numbers to approximate non-dowel values. Using the pre-selected data sets, this was done by excluding all dowel captures in improved traps, doubling captures in unimproved traps, and adding pre-dowel and snake trap data. Our plan is to add dowels to all traps after three years of dowels in 1/2 the traps. This will allow us to determine the rate of amphibian escape from traps with dowels and come up with a conversion factor to compare old indices to new indices. Stream surveys and egg-mass counts The pH at the stream survey site has increased slightly (by 0.2 to 4.3) from last year (Table 2). After a few years of declining pH (since 1994, disregarding 1998), this is the third year we have seen an increase in the pH. The number of Spring Salamanders increased to 12, their highest number ever, up from 7 in 2001, and an all-time low of two in 2000. Sightings of Northern Two-lined Salamanders slightly increased, from 2 in 2001 to 6 in 2002. They are not the target species here and habitat of the three stream segments surveyed is not ideal for them. The pHs at all of the three egg-mass count sites decreased from last year (Table 3). These values, however, were not as low as they had been in the past. The pHs at North Alder Dam, pond near drift fence #2 and Benson Pond were 4.4, 5.1, and 6.5 respectively. All of these values are the third lowest pH for each site. Although there is no clear trend in pH at these ponds, it is important to watch the number of Spotted Salamander young of the year, as low pH has been shown to limit their survival, see the VforEM 2001 report for a complete discussion of the effects of pH on Spotted Salamanders. In 2002, the number of Spotted young captured at the lower fence dropped slightly to 0 young of the year out of 4 total Spotted Salamanders caught, compared to last year’s 1 young of 6 total (17% of the Spotteds caught). At the upper fences, the number of Spotteds decreased from 2001’s high of 89 young of the year out of 147 total (61%), to 50 young out of 96 total (52%). During 2001 we saw the highest number of Spotted Salamander young of the year since the study began, surpassing the previous high of 72 in 1998. It is interesting that the number of egg-masses of Spotted Salamanders was down in 2001 (Table 2) considering the number of young caught at the fences. In 2002, the number of egg masses rebounded from 2001. For all three sites the number of egg masses seen were 26, 73, and 43 for Near Benson Pond, North Alder Dam, and the pond near drift fence #2, respectively. These numbers are just about in the middle in terms of number of counts higher and number of counts lower over the timeframe of this study. Yet, the number of young and adults seen at the drift fences was lower than last year and the lowest we have recorded since 1997. The number of Wood Frog egg-masses was down at both North Alder Dam and the pond near drift-fence #2 to their third and second lowest counts respectively (dropping for the fourth year in a row at North Alder Dam and the second year in a row at the pond near drift-fence #2). The number of Wood Frog egg-masses near Benson Pond rose from 8 in 2001 to 35 in 2002. Although a considerable rise, the numbers are nowhere near the high of 129 in 1999. The Benson Pond results are not very reliable, because the area surveyed each year has changed due to flooding of the site. Upper drift-fences Eight years of monitoring data have been gathered at the upper drift-fences. In 2001, the biggest change was a large increase in the number of Eastern Newts caught at the upper fences. Numbers jumped from 10.0 caught per trapping in 2000 to an all-time high of 49.0 per trapping in 2001 (Tables 4 and 5). The large number caught that year had been enough to reverse the strong downward trend we had been seeing at the upper fences through last year (Figure 3). This year only 9.1 were caught per trapping, and although the number was considerably lower than last year’s the trend is still slightly positive. Despite a decrease in number per trapping from last year two other species are showing slight long-term increases (Figures 1 and 3). The Spotted Salamander decreased from 9.8 to 8.1 per trapping. Green Frogs also showed a decrease from the 5.4 caught per trapping in 2001 to 4.6 caught per trapping in 2002. The decrease in Green Frogs this year is a local phenomenon, as the number of Green Frogs at Mount Mansfield had a dramatic increase with 22.1 caught per trapping. Overall, salamanders are showing a slight upward trend at the upper drift-fences (Figure 12). Three of the species we monitor are showing a downward trend. Eastern Red-backed Salamanders showed a slight increase in 2001, but then decreased in 2002, from 0.9 to 0.4 caught per trapping. They are declining slightly over the long term (Figure 1). Although American Toad numbers increased slightly in 2001, in 2002 they decreased to an all-time low of 0.3 caught per trapping, and their numbers are dramatically decreasing at this site overall (Figure 4). The American Toad decline appears to be a local phenomenon, with Toads at both the lower fence and Mt. Mansfield in northern Vermont showing an upward trend overall (Figures 4 and 11). Wood Frog numbers this year at the upper fences dropped to their lowest ever of 1.9 caught per trapping, leading to a downward trend over the long-term (Figure 5). Spring Peepers showed a slight decrease from 0.9 to 0.8 caught per trapping. Overall, this species remains relatively stable. Northern Two-lined Salamanders and Pickerel Frogs both show a downward trend over the long term (Figures 2 and 4). However, the fences are not set in appropriate habitat to regularly catch Two-lined Salamanders, and we catch so few Pickerel Frogs, that these species are very difficult to accurately monitor. Overall, using linear regression, frogs show a decline in their numbers caught per trapping, and the lowest number of frogs per trapping was this year (Figure 13). Lower drift-fence The Eastern Newt appears to be continuing a slight short-term rebound. In 2001, seven young Newts were caught, up from 0 in 2000. In 2002, 10 young Newts were caught. This is the highest number of young Newts caught since 1997, when 28 young of the year were caught. The number of Eastern Newts caught per trapping was 1.9. This number is still relatively low and the long-term trend is downward (Figure 8). Although it is reassuring to see that we have caught more young Newts at the lower fence this year, these numbers need to continue to be watched closely. Eastern Newts are one of our more common and ubiquitous species, and often there is little conservation concern for this species. In Rhode Island there is more concern as Eastern Newts are becoming more difficult to find as development fragments their habitat mosaic (personal communication with Chris Raithel). Spotted Salamanders decreased slightly this year (Figure 6) to 0.3 per trapping from 0.4), but their population appears to be holding relatively steady. Eastern Red-backed Salamanders (Figure 6) show a larger amount of annual fluctuation at the lower fence than at the upper fences. Overall their population appears to be holding relatively steady. Northern Two-lined salamanders increased this year to 0.1 per trapping, but as their numbers are so low no conclusions can be safely drawn. Salamanders have increased to a more average number caught per trapping (5.7) then their low in 2001 (3.2), but the number of salamanders at the lower drift-fences has decreased from 1995- 2002 (Figure 12). American Toad numbers increased from 1995 to 1999, peaking in1999 with 1.2 caught per trapping. Since that time, this trend has reversed and their numbers have continually decreased, with 0.4 caught per trapping in 2002. In 2001, Spring Peepers (Figure 11) showed a very slight upward trend but with low trapping results in 2001 and 2002 this trend has leveled off, and overall their population remains relatively unchanged. Wood Frogs dropped considerably between 2001 and 2002 from their high of 1.3 caught per trapping to their lowest number ever of 0.2 (Figure 10). Despite this drop, over the time-frame of this study they are still showing a slight increase overall in their population. At this site, Green Frog numbers have always been relatively low and this year was no different with 0.1 caught per trapping (Figure 8). Overall, this year had the lowest number of anurans caught at the lower drift fences since the study started with 0.9 (Figure 13). Zero Pickerel Frogs were detected per trapping in 2002 (Figure 9). Although, one Pickerel Frog was seen on September 16, 2002 in a trap with a dowel, due to our need to create an adjusted calculation, to compare year-to-year numbers, this one frog was not used in our calculation. Nonetheless, the population is still showing a downward trend over the years. Combined drift-fences In addition to graphing the upper and lower fences separately, a weighted average of all three fences was calculated for each species and graphed (Figures 14-16). For an explanation of this calculation, see the 1999 VMC report. Overall, three species appear to be increasing: Spotted Salamanders, Eastern Newts, and Green Frogs. Spotted Salamanders show the largest positive trend despite their slight decrease this year. Eastern Newts show a slight increase but this is mainly due to their large numbers caught per trapping in 2001. Green frogs show a barely discernable increase. Over time, power analysis will help us to confirm or deny apparent trends. Five species appear to be declining: Northern Two-lined Salamanders, Eastern Red-backed Salamanders, Pickerel Frogs, American Toads, and Wood Frogs. Last year we reported we had the statistical power to detect a trend for three of these species: Eastern Red-backed Salamanders, American Toads, and Wood Frogs. Numbers of both American Toads and Wood Frogs decreased this year and their downward trend continues. Eastern Red-backed Salamanders increased slightly but using linear regression their long-term trend show a decline. Abnormalities In 2002, there was only one amphibian with an abnormality. This is equivalent to > 0.2% of the amphibians we caught, well below a level of concern. One Wood Frog of the 33 caught at the upper fences was missing its left eye (anophthalmia). According to the drift-fence technicians it looked like an injury. It is interesting, as this frog was also the largest Wood Frog seen at the upper fences (53mm) during 2002. This year’s abnormality rate in young of the year was 0%. Summary In 2003, funding from GMNF for continued monitoring was not available, and therefore monitoring was suspended. In the spring of 2003, the drift-fences at Lye Brook Wilderness region were removed. To insure correct placement of fencing when monitoring resumes, before removing the old fences GPS coordinates were taken (Table 8) and the ends of the fences were marked with wooden stakes. We recommend that Forest Service personnel replace these stakes with their permanent markers as we have discussed verbally. We envision a period of a few years where monitoring does not occur, and then resuming monitoring for a period of 3-5 years. In 2002, the pH in the stream and the number of Spring Salamanders increased. The pH for all of the egg mass count-sites decreased. At these sites, the number of Spotted Salamander egg masses counted was higher than last year. Although the number of egg masses was higher, the number of young Spotted Salamanders found at the drift fences was lower than in 2001, a reversal of what was seen in 2001. Overall the number of Wood Frog egg masses decreased from last year. At the upper drift-fence the Eastern Newt and Spotted Salamander are showing a positive trend, but at the lower fence the Eastern Newt populations decreased and the Spotted Salamanders remained steady, resulting in overall slight upward trends for both of these species at Lye Brook Wilderness. At the upper drift-fences the American Toad and the Wood Frog are showing a downward trend, while the Spring Peeper and the Green Frog are holding steady. At the lower drift-fence three species, Spring Peeper, Green Frog, and Wood Frog, appear to be holding steady or even show a slight increase in 2002. Overall, when studying all three drift fences together the American Toad and the Wood Frog population is decreasing, and the Green Frog and Spring Peeper appear to be relatively stable. In 2002, at all three fences there were fewer or the same (2 of 10) number of frogs caught per trapping, resulting in the lowest number of frogs seen in a year since the onset of this study. When we resume monitoring again, it will be interesting to see where the populations are and how these relate to their current trends. Acknowledgments Funding for this monitoring was provided through a cost-share agreement between the Green Mountain National Forest and Middlebury College. Colleen Jones and Maureen Rice were the local field technicians. PAGE 5 9kблх> O …ЌOQ˜вХМр=%Q%{/Œ/ѕ: ;К?Щ?ЌAДAsJ‚JTKUKVKWK]K^K_K`KaKeKfKiKjKљєљьххьхнхьхьхьхьххьххьхєжгжЮжгУєjCJOJQJU0JmH0J j0JUCJH*OJQJ CJOJQJ5CJOJQJOJQJ 5OJQJ)9`jk‘Євгклцч= > O P де…†‡ˆ‰ЋЌ˜™§ѕѕѕ№№№№№юююююьюююююююююююю$a$$dha$І=Њ=>TKUKVKiKjKўўўўўўўў™бвХЦМНОстќ"§"=%>%?%R%S%ю)я)--ž-Ÿ-z/{//Ž/3§§ћ§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§33Р5С5ˆ9‰9є:ѕ: ; ;ѓ;є;Ѕ=І=Й?К?Ъ?Ы?ЋAЌAДAЕA7D8DFF9G:G)I*I§§§§§§§ћ§§§§§§§§§§§ћ§§§§§§§§§*IqJrJsJƒJ„JSKTKUKVKaKbKcKgKhKiKjK§§§§§§§§§яуу秧§ „ф§1$]„ф§ ЦР!ј% „˜ў1$]„˜ў ЦР!$ $„‘-„„@&1$a$+0PАа/ Ар=!А "А # $ %ААА|HHи(џсџтљFG(ќHHи(d'` i4@ёџ4NormalCJOJQJkH'mH <@< Heading 1$@&5CJOJQJ<A@ђџЁ<Default Paragraph Font,@ђ,Header  ЦрР!&)@Ђ& Page NumberJўJNew Century 12„аdр`„а OJQJkHфXў"X bibliography„`њ„а„0§Є№]„`њ^„а`„0§CJOJQJkHф222 Footnote TextCJ8&@ЂA8Footnote ReferenceH*, R,Footer  ЦрР!2B@b2 Body Text CJOJQJ6>@r6Title$dha$ 5OJQJjEџџџџџџџџџџjE\-\!џџ z™!џџ z™!џџ z™!џџ z™ џџ z™‰ Ю +Л9jE".ѕjK(™3*IjK)+,-jK*jE !”џ•€ѕ,ќ,І7Њ7Ў:К:UEVEkE9;іћЗК=1B12%2ˆB“BUEVEkE:::::::џџLISXJim's Macintosh:Users:Shared:Flypaper:Herp Related:Erin Talmage:LBW:LBW Amph. Update '02LISXJim's Macintosh:Users:Shared:Flypaper:Herp Related:Erin Talmage:LBW:LBW Amph. Update '02LISXJim's Macintosh:Users:Shared:Flypaper:Herp Related:Erin Talmage:LBW:LBW Amph. Update '02LISOMacintosh HD:Users:etalmage:Documents:Microsoft User Data:Word Work File A_1166LISYMacintosh HD:Users:etalmage:Documents:Microsoft User Data:AutoRecovery save of LBW Amph. LISOMacintosh HD:Users:etalmage:Documents:Microsoft User Data:Word Work File A_3022LISXJim's Macintosh:Users:Shared:Flypaper:Herp Related:Erin Talmage:LBW:LBW Amph. Update '02LISXJim's Macintosh:Users:Shared:Flypaper:Herp Related:Erin Talmage:LBW:LBW Amph. Update '02 Jim AndrewsXJim's Macintosh:Users:Shared:Flypaper:Herp Related:Erin Talmage:LBW:LBW Amph. Update '02LISeJim's Macintosh:Users:Shared:Flypaper:Herp Related:USFS:Reports:LBW 2002-2003:LBW Amph. Update '02-03TEkEџ@€Њ7Њ7|‹‡Њ7І7’jE` @GTimes New Roman5€Symbol3 ArialsE ZM0D9New Century SchlbkCentury Schoolbook3Times9New York"Aˆ€ѕа…лvІ‚c…fоb„&Bh 69ƒzь€ѕ;„ЅРДД€>0dBFa€ѕ;„пџџ LBW 94-5 TextITSLISўџ р…ŸђљOhЋ‘+'Гй0|˜ ИФамшј  , 8 D P\dlt'LBW 94-5 TextoBW ITSTSTSNormal5LIS66Microsoft Word 10.1@pр V@ЬxЃ Ф@ЎшŸж<У@мЮ8K8Ф 69ўџ еЭеœ.“—+,љЎ0$ hpŒ”œЄ ЌДМФ Ь ц'Salzburg SeminartzBF LBW 94-5 Text TitleLBW 94-5 Text  !"#$%&'()*+,-.ўџџџ01234567ўџџџ9:;<=>?ўџџџABCDEFGўџџџ§џџџJўџџџўџџџўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџRoot Entryџџџџџџџџ РF€YщЕ)8ФL€1Tableџџџџџџџџ/ЩWordDocumentџџџџџџџџЉ\SummaryInformation(џџџџ8DocumentSummaryInformation8џџџџџџџџџџџџ@CompObjџџџџџџџџџџџџXџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџўџџџџџ РFMicrosoft Word DocumentўџџџNB6WWord.Document.8