IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v11y2022i9p1482-d906506.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Restored and Natural Wetland Small Mammal Communities in West Virginia, USA

Author

Listed:
  • Krista L. Noe

    (School of Natural Resources, West Virginia University, 1145 Evansdale Drive, Morgantown, WV 26506, USA)

  • Christopher T. Rota

    (School of Natural Resources, West Virginia University, 1145 Evansdale Drive, Morgantown, WV 26506, USA)

  • Mack W. Frantz

    (West Virginia Division of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Program, 1110 Railroad Street, Farmington, WV 26571, USA)

  • James T. Anderson

    (James C. Kennedy Waterfowl and Wetlands Conservation Center, Belle W. Baruch Institute of Coastal Ecology and Forest Science, Clemson University, P.O. Box 596, Georgetown, SC 29442, USA)

Abstract

Wetland restoration is a common practice, and, in many cases, it is for mitigation to offset losses of natural wetlands due to human interference. Researchers commonly compare bird, amphibian, and reptile communities between these wetlands and natural wetlands but overlook small mammals. However, terrestrial small mammals are essential to consider as they serve a fundamental role in the ecosystem as seed dispersers and prey for larger wildlife. We conducted small mammal trapping on 26 wetlands ( n = 14 restored, n = 12 natural) in West Virginia, USA, in the summers of 2020 and 2021 to obtain and compare community metrics between wetland types. We found that mass, occupancy probability, and community composition were similar between restored and natural wetlands. However, the apparent abundance of deer mice ( Peromyscus maniculatus ) was higher in natural wetlands ( p < 0.001). Because we captured the three rarest species exclusively in natural wetlands, the ability of restored wetlands to provide an adequate habitat for rare or wetland-obligate species may be biologically significant. Restored wetlands mainly offer sufficient habitat for small mammal communities, but apparent abundance in restored wetlands may differ from natural wetlands depending on species.

Suggested Citation

  • Krista L. Noe & Christopher T. Rota & Mack W. Frantz & James T. Anderson, 2022. "Restored and Natural Wetland Small Mammal Communities in West Virginia, USA," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-14, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:9:p:1482-:d:906506
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/9/1482/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/9/1482/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jessica A. Bryzek & Krista L. Noe & Sindupa De Silva & Andrew MacKenzie & Cindy L. Von Haugg & Donna Hartman & Jordan E. McCall & Walter Veselka & James T. Anderson, 2022. "Obligations of Researchers and Managers to Respect Wetlands: Practical Solutions to Minimizing Field Monitoring Impacts," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-12, March.
    2. Gutrich, John J. & Hitzhusen, Fred J., 2004. "Assessing the substitutability of mitigation wetlands for natural sites: estimating restoration lag costs of wetland mitigation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 409-424, April.
    3. Fiske, Ian & Chandler, Richard, 2011. "unmarked: An R Package for Fitting Hierarchical Models of Wildlife Occurrence and Abundance," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 43(i10).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Linda M. Haines, 2016. "A Note on the Royle–Nichols Model for Repeated Detection–Nondetection Data," Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Statistics, Springer;The International Biometric Society;American Statistical Association, vol. 21(3), pages 588-598, September.
    2. Sebastian Theis & Mark S. Poesch, 2022. "Assessing Conservation and Mitigation Banking Practices and Associated Gains and Losses in the United States," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-24, May.
    3. Tracey N Johnson & Kristen Nasman & Zachary P Wallace & Lucretia E Olson & John R Squires & Ryan M Nielson & Patricia L Kennedy, 2019. "Survey design for broad-scale, territory-based occupancy monitoring of a raptor: Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) as a case study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-22, March.
    4. Johnston, Alison & Moran, Nick & Musgrove, Andy & Fink, Daniel & Baillie, Stephen R., 2020. "Estimating species distributions from spatially biased citizen science data," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 422(C).
    5. Therin M Bradshaw & Abigail G Blake-Bradshaw & Auriel M V Fournier & Joseph D Lancaster & John O’Connell & Christopher N Jacques & Michael W Eichholz & Heath M Hagy, 2020. "Marsh bird occupancy of wetlands managed for waterfowl in the Midwestern USA," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(2), pages 1-19, February.
    6. Zhiyuan Lv & Jun Yang & Ben Wielstra & Jie Wei & Fei Xu & Yali Si, 2019. "Prioritizing Green Spaces for Biodiversity Conservation in Beijing Based on Habitat Network Connectivity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-20, April.
    7. Jha, Ashish & J, Praveen & Nameer, P.O., 2022. "Contrasting occupancy models with presence-only models: Does accounting for detection lead to better predictions?," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 472(C).
    8. Karavarsamis, N. & Huggins, R.M., 2019. "Two-stage approaches to the analysis of occupancy data II. The heterogeneous model and conditional likelihood," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 195-207.
    9. Benjamin Juan Padilla & Chris Sutherland, 2021. "Defining dual-axis landscape gradients of human influence for studying ecological processes," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(11), pages 1-17, November.
    10. Bryn E Evans & Cory E Mosby & Alessio Mortelliti, 2019. "Assessing arrays of multiple trail cameras to detect North American mammals," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(6), pages 1-18, June.
    11. Ferreira, Guilherme Braga, 2018. "When the blanket is too short: Potential negative impacts of expanding indigenous land over a national park in a high priority area for conservation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 359-364.
    12. Mauriel Rodriguez Curras & Emiliano Donadío & Arthur D Middleton & Jonathan N Pauli, 2021. "Perceived risk structures the space use of competing carnivores," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 32(6), pages 1380-1390.
    13. Duarte, Adam & Adams, Michael J. & Peterson, James T., 2018. "Fitting N-mixture models to count data with unmodeled heterogeneity: Bias, diagnostics, and alternative approaches," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 374(C), pages 51-59.
    14. Kowalewski, Lucas K. & Chizinski, Christopher J. & Powell, Larkin A. & Pope, Kevin L. & Pegg, Mark A., 2015. "Accuracy or precision: Implications of sample design and methodology on abundance estimation," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 316(C), pages 185-190.
    15. Matthew R. P. Parker & Laura L. E. Cowen & Jiguo Cao & Lloyd T. Elliott, 2023. "Computational Efficiency and Precision for Replicated-Count and Batch-Marked Hidden Population Models," Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Statistics, Springer;The International Biometric Society;American Statistical Association, vol. 28(1), pages 43-58, March.
    16. Linda M. Haines, 2020. "Multinomial N‐mixture models for removal sampling," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 76(2), pages 540-548, June.
    17. Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Tudor, Marian & Doroftei, Mihai & Covaliov, Silviu & Năstase, Aurel & Onără, Dalia-Florentina & Mierlă, Marian & Marinov, Mihai & Doroșencu, Alexandru-Cătălin & Lupu, G, 2019. "Changes in ecosystem services from wetland loss and restoration: An ecosystem assessment of the Danube Delta (1960–2010)," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    18. Alex Diana & Emily Beth Dennis & Eleni Matechou & Byron John Treharne Morgan, 2023. "Fast Bayesian inference for large occupancy datasets," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 79(3), pages 2503-2515, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:9:p:1482-:d:906506. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.