4303.pdf ALCES VOL. 43, 2007 SCARPITTI ET AL. - NEONATAL HABITAT CHARACTERISTICS 29 CHARACTERISTICS OF NEONATAL MOOSE HABITAT IN NORTHERN NEW HAMPSHIRE David L. Scarpitti1, Peter J. Pekins, and Anthony R. Musante Department of Natural Resources, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824, USA ABSTRACT: Habitat use by parturient moose (Alces alces) may have important implications for calf or specialized and little descriptive information exists in the northeastern United States, this study was 30 maternal moose. There was no difference (P > 0.10 for each parameter) in 22 of 23 physical and n = 30) and random sites (n = 30). However, neonatal sites were about 2X farther (P occurred. Most neonatal sites (> 63%) were located in pole or saw timber stands comprised of mixed or coniferous habitat (> 75%); conifers were the dominant canopy species at 67% of neonatal sites. in location of neonatal habitat. Mature, mixed, and coniferous habitats may provide microhabitat that helps conceal neonates from potential predators such as black bears (Ursus americana), particularly ALCES VOL. 43: 29-38 (2007) Key words: Alces alces, calves, habitat, moose, neonatal, predation, survival Calf survival is an important factor affect- Alces alces) population dynam- ics (Gasaway et al. 1977, Franzmann et al. 1980), and predation by black bears (Ursus americana), brown bears (Ursus arctos), and wolves (Canis lupus few weeks postpartum (Schwartz and Fran- zmann 1989, Ballard et al. 1991, Osborne et al. 1991, Testa et al. 2000, Bertram and Vivion is limited and movements are restricted for 1-2 weeks postpartum (Addison et al. 1990, Testa et al. 2000). Consequently, the cow-calf pair frequently remains within 20-50 m of the 1974). Habitat use by parturient moose (i.e., neonatal habitat) may have important impli- cations for survival of newborn calves and ultimately affect population dynamics. - - tich and Gilbert 1986), islands and peninsulas (Clarke 1936, Peterson 1955, Stephens and Peterson 1984, Addison et al. 1993, Testa et al. 2000), and elevated and open sites (Wilton and Garner 1991, Bowyer et al. 1999) provide - - may conceal calves and reduce predation risk Hudson 1986, Schwartz and Renecker 1998), 1 MA 01581, USA NEONATAL HABITAT CHARACTERISTICS – SCARPITTI ET AL. ALCES VOL. 43, 2007 30 relate indirectly to predation rates. New Hampshire’s northern moose population may have approached stability, despite moder- ate harvest and presumably favorable habitat. Characteristics of neonatal habitat have not close to water. This study was performed to describe habitat used by parturient moose and determine whether these habitats have special- This study was performed in tandem with seasonal habitat and reproductive measure- ments as part of an extensive 4-year research project. Information from this study will help land use activity on parturient moose and neonatal habitat. METHODS Study Area The study area encompassed approxi- mately 1,000 km2 of primarily commercial forest land within eastern Coos County, N Milan Stark Berlin Success Dummer Shelburne Cambridge Gorham Kilkenny 0 5 10 Kilometers ALCES VOL. 43, 2007 SCARPITTI ET AL. - NEONATAL HABITAT CHARACTERISTICS 31 watershed where numerous intermittent and the primary land use. Small areas of cultivated land and pasture occurred primarily adjacent - were common. Predators in the study area included black bear, coyote (Canis latrans), and bobcat (Lynx rufus). The estimated moose density was 0.7 moose/km2; white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) were sympatric with moose are hunted annually by a permit-lottery system; hunter success rates typically exceed 85% within the study area (NHFGD 2003). Dominant forest types were northern hardwoods (36%) as a mix of yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis), American beech (Fagus grandifolia Acer saccharum spruce (Picea rubens Abies balsamea) on poorly-drained or nutrient-poor - tive communities (16%) were clearcuts and Populus tremuloides), paper birch (Betula papyrifera), and pin cherry (Prunus serotina). Numerous (Castor canadensis Small developed areas of residential and in- was > 100 cm and occurs mostly as snowfall from November-March; seasonal temperatures Field Sampling Direct observations of radio-collared cow - complete leaf-out in early-mid May provided optimal conditions to observe maternal moose. an observed calf was estimated as 0 – 3 days 1974, Larsen et al. 1989). No births were - turbed at the presumed birth site of several and the limited mobility of calves, it was as- sumed that sampled habitat was representative of neonatal habitat associated with the birth A random sample of 10 maternal cows - natal sites. Of 50 random UTM coordinates coordinate was chosen randomly and sampled in an identical manner as the neonatal site. Because moose are not territorial, random points could have occurred within neonatal habitat of another maternal cow. measured at neonatal and random sites to evaluate the presence and preference of vari- measurements taken in each cardinal direction from plot center. The percent shrub-level den- sity was estimated as the proportion of a 2 m Shrub density was estimated at low (0 – 1 m) percent abundance of bare soil, rock, dead a 5 m radius of plot center was estimated NEONATAL HABITAT CHARACTERISTICS – SCARPITTI ET AL. ALCES VOL. 43, 2007 32 (dbh) > 5 cm were counted, the percent shrub - was estimated visually within a radius of 10 m from plot center. The habitat type was recorded as northern or other. Stand structure was recorded as saw or recently disturbed. The dominant canopy species was recorded and the dbh of all trees within a 10 m radius of plot center was mea- from plot center. The elevation, slope, and aspect were the Spatial Analyst extension within ArcView GIS 3.3 (ESRI 2002). Distance (m) to the nearest road (either Class III paved road or - nearest island within a lake, pond, or river, was measured with the Animal Movement extension version 2.0 and ArcView GIS 3.3 Data Analysis - reported means are absolute values. Dif- ferences between continuous parameters at neonatal and random sites were evaluated with two-sample t-tests. Fisher’s exact test was used to detect differences between the dominant canopy species, aspect, and presence software and Fisher’s exact test was assessed with SAS version 6. RESULTS were measured each summer, 2003 – 2005. All neonatal sites were associated with cows in 2005. Neonatal and random sites were located predominantly (95%) in northern Forest cover type did not differ at neonatal and random sites (P = 0.154), however, > 75% of neonatal sites were located within mixed and 50% of random sites. No neonatal sites and 10% of random sites were located within cut/ different at neonatal and random sites (P = - natal sites were located within pole and saw timber stands as random sites; neonatal sites much as random sites. The dominant canopy species was not different between neonatal and random sites (P = 0.144); red spruce and sites (Table 1). - ent at neonatal and random sites (P = 0.596). Aspect at neonatal and random sites was not different (P 50% of both site types were located on south and random sites was approximately 450 m and not different (P = 0.797); percent slope random sites (P = 0.355) (Table 1). P = 0.311), neonatal sites (mean = 487.2 m) were 100 m farther from roads than random sites. The distances of neonatal and random sites to wetlands, perennial or intermittent streams, and open water were not different; distance to islands was similar and > 3,000 m from both ALCES VOL. 43, 2007 SCARPITTI ET AL. - NEONATAL HABITAT CHARACTERISTICS 33 neonatal and random sites (P > 0.05 for each parameter) (Table 2). However, random sites than neonatal sites (P = 0.032). trees within 15 m of plot center at neonatal and random sites (approximately 15.5 cm) was not different (P = 0.783), nor was the P = 0.711). Mean percent canopy cover at neonatal sites (78.6%) was was not different (P = 0.228). Mean shrub from 40 to 60% at neonatal sites and was not different at random sites (P > 0.05 for each different between neonatal and random sites (P > 0.05) (Table 3). DISCUSSION moose could have important implications for in northern New Hampshire where commercial forestry continually alters habitat composition Gilbert 1986, Bowyer et al. 1999), as well as - and Gilbert 1986; Addison et al. 1990, 1993; Neonatal Random P-value Habitat type (number of sites) 0.15 Northern hardwood forest 7 11 Coniferous forest 11 9 Mixed forest 12 7 0 3 Dominant canopy species (number of sites) 0.14 Northern hardwoods species 8 10 21 15 Aspen, paper birch, or cherry 1 5 Stand size class (number of sites) 0.14 4 5 Uneven 7 14 Pole 12 5 7 6 (number of sites) 0.6 Present 10 13 Absent 20 17 Aspect (number of sites) 0.27 Northerly (N, NE, NW) 6 3 Southerly (S, SE, SW) 17 14 7 13 Slope (%) 2 1.3 0.36 Elevation (m) 464.4 457.5 0.8 Table 1. Absolute counts and mean distances of physical parameters measured at 30 neonatal moose sites and 30 random sites in northern New Hampshire, 2003-2005. Neonatal Random P-value Distance to road (m) 487.2 384.9 0.31 Distance to wetland (m) 395.1 401.1 0.95 Distance to stream (m) 612.1 655.7 0.72 Distance to open water (m) 1,059.9 1,252.1 0.24 Distance to island (m) 3,156.5 3,384.7 0.55 Distance to cut/ 136.5 69.8 0.03 Table 2. Mean distances of physical parameters measured at 30 neonatal moose sites and 30 random sites in northern New Hampshire, 2003-2005. NEONATAL HABITAT CHARACTERISTICS – SCARPITTI ET AL. ALCES VOL. 43, 2007 34 1999). Site location could enhance either or relative importance of either is probably a function of local conditions. - mid-late May (Schwartz 1998, Scarpitti et al. preferred species (i.e., aspen, cherry, maple) at most neonatal sites was probably lower than at random sites because > 75% of neonatal sites were located in pole and saw timber stands in - tal sites were not closer than random sites to open water, rivers and streams, or wetlands patches than random sites. Conversely, the majority of both neonatal and random sites were located on southerly exposures where relative to other aspects (Table 1). at neonatal and random sites (Table 3), and associated with the diverse forest types and was within 140 m of all sites sampled) in the study area. Other forestry practices such as Neonatal Random P-value Tree diameter (cm) 15.8 15.3 0.78 4.2 3.8 0.71 Percent overstory canopy cover (%) 78.6 69.8 0.23 0–1m at 15m 48.8 51.5 0.72 1–2m at 15m 44.8 47.4 0.72 0–1m at 30m 61.4 60.3 0.91 1–2m at 30m 57.3 54.7 0.75 53.1 53.5 0.95 Percent cover within 10m of plot center (%) 35 46.7 0.13 Forbs/ferns 38.3 34 0.52 32.7 35.4 0.62 Leaf litter 28.6 33.9 0.44 Moss 28.2 20.7 0.28 Dead wood 14.7 13 0.64 Soil 4.5 4.9 0.76 Rock 2.5 2.1 0.73 northern New Hampshire, 2003-2005. ALCES VOL. 43, 2007 SCARPITTI ET AL. - NEONATAL HABITAT CHARACTERISTICS 35 resources likely become more important when peak lactation and widely available weeks postpartum when calves are rapidly to predation (Robbins 1993, Schwartz and Renecker 1998). Site characteristics that provide security - ence on selection of neonatal habitat. Neonates are susceptible to predation and experience was not documented, anecdotal accounts of local bear predation were reported, and ap- proximately 25% of neonates did not survive 2 months post-partum (unpublished data). The majority of mortality occurred within 3 weeks of birth (Scarpitti et al. 2005) and some predation by black bears was suspected. Use of islands, peninsulas, and sites near open water by parturient cow moose is believed to improve their ability to detect and/or escape predators (Peterson 1955; Altmann 1958; Bai- 1984; Leptich and Gilbert 1986; Addison et al. 1990, 1993). However, neither lake nor water was sparsely distributed in the study area; both neonatal and random sites were > 3 km from islands and > 1 km from open Other water features were common, mostly small perennial or intermittent streams and was similar for neonatal and random sites (Table 1). Such features probably do not improve a cow’s ability to detect or escape 1994). - tops, upper slopes) to increase visibility and help detect potential predators, as reported in Ontario (Wilton and Garner 1991), Québec (Chekchak et al. 1998), and Alaska (Bowyer et al. 1999). However, no difference in over- all elevation was measured at neonatal and landscape position was not determined, the use improve visibility because of the well stocked, dense nature of forests within the study area, particularly in mixed and coniferous habitat used by most moose (Table 1). habitats. Most cows (> 75%) used mixed and coniferous neonatal habitat that may conceal calves from potential predators more effec- tively than deciduous habitat, particularly in - measured in summer after leaf-out, when were delayed to minimize disturbance of par- coniferous habitats by parturient moose may occur in response to the concurrent low use Many moose populations located in more nutritional condition and food resources prior neonates in this population had relatively low predation rates (20 – 25% maximum). Calf from 30 to 85%, of which black bears may account for 30 – 50% (Ballard 1992, Ballard the potential production of the study population NEONATAL HABITAT CHARACTERISTICS – SCARPITTI ET AL. ALCES VOL. 43, 2007 36 predation and restrictive food resources that - cally, recent population estimates in the study area indicate stability. This study indicates factor. - sure in the study area appeared minimal on a relative scale and use of neonatal habitat was - selective factor on neonatal habitat use when wolves, black bears, and moose existed in islands and water bodies, or other “secluded” mixed and coniferous habitats likely offers the best conditions to conceal calves and improve when neonates are most susceptible. Forest successional habitat and mature mixed and co- niferous forest stands should provide optimal habitat for parturient moose. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS by the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department. The professional efforts of Hawkins and Powers, Inc., Greybull, Wyo- in often adverse weather and environmental conditions. This study was possible because of the cooperation and access provided by Ltd., International Paper, Inc., Plum Creek Timber Company, Inc., Meade Corporation, and Hancock Timber Resource Group. Local Dr. Christopher Neefus and Kent Gustafson provided statistical consultation. Kristine REFERENCES ADDISON, E. M., J. D. SMITH, R. F. MCLAUGHLIN, D. J. H. FRASER, and M. E. BUSS. 1993. Observations of pre- and post-partum behavior of moose in central Ontario. Alces 29:27-33. _____, _____, _____, _____, and D. G. JOACHIM in central Ontario. Alces 26:142-153. ALTMANN the moose calf. Animal Behavior 6:155- 159. _____. 1963. Naturalistic studies of maternal in H. in Mammals. J. Wiley and Sons, Incorpo- rated, New York, New York, USA. BAILEY, T. N., and E. E. BANGS. 1980. Moose - of the North American Moose Conference and Workshop 16:289-313. BALLARD, W. B. 1992. Bear predation on moose: a review of recent North American - tions. Alces Supplement 1:1-15. _____, and V. VAN BALLENBERGHE. 1998. Pred- in A. W. Franzmann and C. C. Schwartz, North American Moose. Smithsonian In- _____, J. S. WHITMAN, and D. J. REED. 1991. Population dynamics of moose in south- 114. BERTRAM, M. R., and M. T. VIVION. 2002. Moose mortality in eastern interior 66:747-756. BOWYER, R. T., J. G. KIE, and V. VAN BAL- ALCES VOL. 43, 2007 SCARPITTI ET AL. - NEONATAL HABITAT CHARACTERISTICS 37 LENBERGHE. 1999. Birth-site selection by BUBENIK 173-222 in A. W. Franzmann and C. C. - - ton, D.C., USA. CHEKCHAK, T., R. COURTOIS, J-P. OUELLET, and L. B. S. ST-ONGE. 1998. Caracteristiques Alces alces). 76:1663-1670. CLARKE, C. H. D. 1936. Moose seeks shelter 50:67-68. DEGRAAF, R. M., M. YAMASAKI, W. B. LEAK, and J. W. LANIER - Technical Report NE-144. Forest Service, Northeast Forest Experiment Station, Randor, Pennsylvania, USA. (ESRI) ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS RESEARCH INSTITUTE San Francisco, California, USA. FRANZMANN, A. W., C. C. SCHWARTZ, and R. O. PETERSON. 1980. Moose calf mortal- ity in summer on the Kenai Peninsula, 44:764-768. GASAWAY, W. C., D. HAGGSTROM, and O. E. BURRIS. 1977. Preliminary observations in an interior Alaskan moose population. Conference and Workshop 13:54-70. HOOGE, P. N., and B. EICHENLAUB. 1997. Animal movement extension to ArcView, - LANGLEY, M. A., and D. H. PLETSCHER. 1994. Montana and southeastern British Colum- bia. Alces 30:127-135. LARSEN, D. G., D. A. GAUTHIER, and R. L. MARKEL. 1989. Causes and rate of moose mortality in the southwest Yukon. Journal LEPTICH, D. J., and J. R. GILBERT. 1986. northern Maine as determined by multi- - tion. Alces 22:69-81. (NHFGD) NEW HAMPSHIRE FISH AND GAME DEPARTMENT. 2003. Annual Harvest Sum- mary. Concord, New Hampshire, USA. OSBORNE, T. O., T. F. PARAGI, J. L. BODKIN, A. J. LORANGER, and W. N. JOHNSON. 1991. mortality in western interior Alaska. Alces 27:24-30. PETERSON, R. L. 1955. North American Moose. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. RENECKER, L. A., and R. J. HUDSON. 1986. - ROBBINS Nutrition. Second edition. Academic SCARPITTI, D. L., C. H. HABECK, A. R. MU- SANTE, and P. J. PEKINS - of moose in northern New Hampshire. Alces 41:25-35. SCHWARTZ, C. C. 1998. Reproduction, natal- in A. W. Franzmann and C. C. Schwartz, editors. American Moose. Smithsonian Institution _____, and A. W. FRANZMANN. 1989. Bears, wolves, moose, and forest succession, Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. Alces 25:1- 10. _____, and L. A. RENECKER. 1998. Nutrition NEONATAL HABITAT CHARACTERISTICS – SCARPITTI ET AL. ALCES VOL. 43, 2007 38 in A. W. Franzmann and C. C. Schwartz, editors. American Moose. Smithsonian Institution SILVER, H. 1957. A History of New Hampshire Game and Furbearers. New Hampshire Fish and Game Department. Report No. 6. Concord, New Hampshire, USA. STEPHENS, P. W., and R. O. PETERSON. 1984. STRINGHAM, S. F. 1974. Mother-infant rela- tions in moose. Naturaliste Canadien 101:325-369. TESTA, J. W., E. F. BECKER, and G. R. LEE. 2000. Movements of female moose in relation to birth and death of calves. Alces 36:155-163. WILTON, M., and D. GARNER. 1991. Prelimi- - in south central Ontario, Canada. Alces 27:111-117.