We studied northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus) demography in the eastern Washington Cascade Range to test hypotheses about regional and local abundance patterns and to inform managers of the possible effects of fire and fuels management on flying squirrels. We quantified habitat characteristics and squirrel density, population trends, and demography in three typical forest cover types over a four-year period. We had 2034 captures of flying squirrels over 41 000 trap nights from 1997 through 2000 and marked 879 squirrels for mark-recapture population analysis. Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) forest appeared to be poorer habitat for flying squirrels than young or mature mixed-conifer forest. About 35% fewer individuals were captured in open pine forest than in dry mixed-conifer Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and grand fir (Abies grandis) forests. Home ranges were 85% larger in pine forest (4.6 ha) than in mixed-conifer forests (2.5 ha). Similarly, population density (Huggins estimator) in ponderosa pine forest was half (1.1 squirrels/ha) that of mixed-conifer forest (2.2 squirrels/ha). Tree canopy cover was the single best correlate of squirrel density (r = 0.77), with an apparent threshold of 55% canopy cover separating stands with low- from high-density populations. Pradel estimates of annual recruitment were lower in open pine (0.28) than in young (0.35) and mature (0.37) forest. High recruitment was most strongly associated with high understory plant species richness and truffle biomass. Annual survival rates ranged from 45% to 59% and did not vary among cover types. Survival was most strongly associated with understory species richness and forage lichen biomass. Maximum snow depth had a strong negative effect on survival. Rate of per capita increase showed a density-dependent response. Thinning and prescribed burning in ponderosa pine and dry mixed conifer forests to restore stable fire regimes and forest structure might reduce flying squirrel densities at stand levels by reducing forest canopy, woody debris, and the diversity or biomass of understory plants, truffles, and lichens. Those impacts might be ameliorated by patchy harvesting and the retention of large trees, woody debris, and mistletoe brooms. Negative stand-level impacts would be traded for increased resistance and resilience of dry-forest landscapes to now-common, large-scale stand replacement fires.

Regulations and directives associated with enabling legislation for management of national forests in the United States require maintenance of viable populations of native and desired non‐native wildlife species. Broad‐scale assessments that address ecosystem diversity cover assessment of viability for most species. We developed an 8‐step process to address those species for which management for ecosystem diversity may be inadequate for providing ecological conditions capable of sustaining viable populations. The process includes identification of species of conservation concern, description of source habitats, and other important ecological factors, grouping species, selection of focal species, development of focal species assessment models, development of conservation strategies, and designing monitoring, and adaptive management plans. Following application of our screening criteria, we identified 209 of 700 species as species of conservation concern on National Forest System lands east of the crest of the Cascade Mountains in Oregon and Washington State, USA. We aggregated the 209 species of conservation concern into 10 families and 28 groups based primarily on habitat associations (these are not phylogenetic families). We selected 36 primary focal species (78% birds, 17% mammals, 5% amphibians) for application in northeast Washington State, USA based on risk factors and ecological characteristics. Our assessment documented reductions in habitat capability across northeast Washington State compared to historical conditions. To address such changes, for each focal species we developed conservation strategies that included habitat protection and restoration and amelioration of threats. We combined conservation strategies for individual species with other focal species and with management proposals for other resources (e.g., recreation, fire, and fuels management) to develop a multi‐species, multi‐resource management strategy. The information generated from our approach can be directly translated into land management planning through development of desired conditions, objectives, and standards and guidelines to improve the probability that desired population outcomes will be achieved. However, it should be noted by practitioners that a practical conservation planning process, such as ours, cannot remove all uncertainty and risk to species viability. © 2011 The Wildlife Society.

No abstract

No abstract