Understanding wildlife distribution and habitat use is needed for effectively balancing resource development, wildlife conservation, and Alaska Native subsistence on the North Slope of Alaska, USA. This region includes the National Petroleum Reserve‐Alaska (NPR‐A), a 96,000‐km2 remote area of largely undeveloped lands that is important for wildlife, including caribou (Rangifer tarandus), wolves (Canis lupus), and wolverines (Gulo gulo). We focused our study on spring distribution and occupancy of wolverines in the NPR‐A because a baseline distribution estimate is required to understand current distribution and track changes over time. We conducted aerial surveys of wolverine tracks in snow during March and April of 2014 and 2015, surveying over 84,400 km2 using 100‐km2 hexagonal sampling units. We used hierarchical Bayesian occupancy modeling to determine wolverine distribution and estimate probability of occupancy within each hexagon, relative to measured covariates with potential to affect either detection or occupancy. Probability of wolverine occupancy increased as well‐drained soils increased, suggesting that wolverines prefer drier areas or habitat features associated with well‐drained soils. In addition, as standard deviation of elevation increased, wolverine occupancy also increased, indicating that wolverines may prefer areas with more rugged and variable terrain. Mean elevation was not retained as a covariate in the best‐fitting model, supporting the importance of terrain ruggedness rather than elevation on wolverine distribution within the NPR‐A. Spatially, areas of highest wolverine occupancy occurred within the southern and northeastern portions of the study area, with lowest occupancy in the northern portion of the study area west of Teshekpuk Lake. Based on the spatial pattern of wolverine probability of occupancy, we proposed 4 potential wolverine management zones with varying priorities for monitoring and managing wolverine populations. © 2018 The Wildlife Society.

Converting fields of non-native cool-season grasses to native warm-season grasses has been proposed as a strategy to enhance avian habitat and diversify forage production for livestock, but may yield poor-quality food and cover for birds. We measured territory density and reproductive effort for grassland and shrubland birds in 7 native warm-season grass forage fields (4 hayed and 3 grazed), 7 non-native coolseason grass forage fields (4 hayed and 3 grazed), and 3 native warm-season grass-forb fields managed for wildlife (hereafter, wildlife fields) during May-August 2009 and 2010 in the western Piedmont of North Carolina, USA. Eastern meadowlark (Sturnella magna) territory density was !2 times greater in grazed, nonnative cool-season grass fields than other field types, but grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) territory density did not differ among field types. Field sparrow (Spizella pusilla) territory density was !3 times greater in wildlife fields than in all other field types. Indigo bunting (Passerina cyanea) territory density was 5.6 and 14.6 times greater in wildlife fields than in grazed and hayed, non-native cool-season fields, respectively. Reproductive effort for grassland and shrubland birds did not differ among field types. Our data suggest dense stands of tall, native warm-season grass are not a better alternative to non-native cool-season grass pastures for grassland songbirds, especially eastern meadowlark. Shrubland songbirds selected wildlife fields managed with less frequent disturbance than forage fields. Moderate grazing to maintain grass heights !25 cm may increase quality of non-native cool-season grass and native warm-season grass forage fields for grassland birds. Ó 2017 The Wildlife Society.

With industrial development expanding in the Arctic, there is increasing interest in quantifying the impacts of development projects on barren ground caribou (Rangifer tarandus granti). The primary data source to assess caribou distribution and predict impacts in remote areas of Alaska has shifted in recent decades from aerial survey data to telemetry data, but these techniques have different strengths and weaknesses. The ranges of two caribou herds, the Western Arctic Herd and the Teshekpuk Herd, overlap in northwest Alaska between Wainwright and Atqasuk, Alaska. Based on long-term telemetry data sets, this region was thought to be outside of the core calving ranges of both herds. Calving has long been reported to occur in this general area, but early reports assumed caribou were from the Western Arctic Herd and only one systematic aerial survey of caribou density and distribution during calving has been conducted in this area in recent decades. Following interest in industrial development in this area, we conducted aerial strip-transect surveys during early to mid-June 2013–2015 to directly assess the density and distribution of caribou in the area and we used existing telemetry data to compare our results to the seasonal distribution of both herds. Total caribou densities varied between 0.36 and 1.06 caribou/km² among years, and calf densities varied 0.04 and 0.25 calves/km² among years. Contrary to assumptions by early researchers in the area, telemetry data indicated that caribou in this area during early to mid-June were from the Teshekpuk Herd. The use of telemetry data alone underestimated the importance of this area for calving, but the combination of aerial surveys and telemetry data provided complementary information on caribou use of this area showing the importance of collecting the appropriate types of data for assessing potential impacts of development on caribou.

Recent emphasis has been put on establishing native warm-season grasses for forage production because it is thought native warm-season grasses provide higher quality wildlife habitat than do non-native cool-season grasses. However, it is not clear whether native warm-season grass fields provide better resources for small mammals than currently are available in non-native cool-season grass forage production fields. We developed a hierarchical spatially explicit capture-recapture model to compare abundance of hispid cotton rats (Sigmodon hispidus), white-footed mice (Peromyscus leucopus), and house mice (Mus musculus) among 4 hayed non-native cool-season grass fields, 4 hayed native warm-season grass fields, and 4 native warm-season grass-forb ("wildlife") fields managed for wildlife during 2 summer trapping periods in 2009 and 2010 of the western piedmont of North Carolina, USA. Cotton rat abundance estimates were greater in wildlife fields than in native warm-season grass and non-native cool-season grass fields and greater in native warm-season grass fields than in non-native cool-season grass fields. Abundances of white-footed mouse and house mouse populations were lower in wildlife fields than in native warm-season grass and non-native cool-season grass fields, but the abundances were not different between the native warm-season grass and non-native coolseason grass fields. Lack of cover following haying in non-native cool-season grass and native warm-season grass fields likely was the key factor limiting small mammal abundance, especially cotton rats, in forage fields. Retention of vegetation structure in managed forage production systems, either by alternately resting coolseason and warm-season grass forage fields or by leaving unharvested field borders, should provide refugia for small mammals during haying events. Ó 2014 The Wildlife Society.KEY WORDS forage production, haying, Mus musculus, native warm-season grass, non-native cool-season grass, Peromyscus leucopus, Sigmodon hispidus.Widespread establishment of non-native, cool-season grasses as cattle forage, conversion of native grasslands to row-crops, and the recent intensification of agricultural practices likely has reduced habitat quality for small mammals (Bowles 1981, Kaufman andKaufman 1989). Non-native grass forage fields planted as dense monocultures have low plant species diversity and limited structural diversity, which limits resource availability (Collins and Gibson 1990, Sietman et al. 1994). Furthermore, frequent haying of cool-season grass forage fields early in the growing season drastically changes groundcover structure and temporarily can displace individual small mammals and potentially reduce long-term population densities (Lemen and Clausen 1984, Sietman et al. 1994, Kaufman and Kaufman 2008.Conventional wisdom that native warm-season grasses are of better quality for various wildlife species than are nonnative cool-season grasses (hereafter, cool-season grass) has contributed to the recent emphasis on establishing these ...