Rest-site selection by fishers (Martes pennanti) in the eastern deciduous forest

Abstract

Information on fisher (Martes pennanti) resource selection in deciduous forests of eastern North America is limited. We studied resting habitat selection in a fisher population that recolonized predominantly deciduous forest in Pennsylvania, USA, during 2006USA, during -2007 We quantified selection by comparing used and randomly selected available sites at 2 spatial scales: the rest structure and at the rest site (area surrounding rest structures). We identified 79 rest structures used by 15 fishers. The most common rest sites were live trees with cavities or broken tops (69%), with black cherry (Prunus serotina), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), and sugar maple (Acer saccharum) accounting for nearly 65% of tree use. Standing dead trees with cavities or broken tops accounted for 17% of rest structures. Ground-level structures (including burrows, rock piles, and root balls) comprised 14% of observations. Trees selected as rest structures were larger in diameter at breast height (55.3 cm AE 14.9 cm) than were trees at the center of random sites (28.8 cm AE 6.8 cm). Relative to random sites, important components of forest surrounding rest structures included structurally complex forest floors (based on coarse woody debris and rocky ground cover), canopy complexity, and diversity of tree condition class. Maintaining resting habitat for fishers in the eastern deciduous forest can be accomplished through management practices that encourage structurally diverse forests, including retention of coarse woody debris, and variation in tree size and condition. Ó 2013 The Wildlife Society.

Habitat Patch Use by Fishers in the Deciduous Forest-Dominated Landscape of the Central Appalachian Mountains, USA

“…Finally, although we found a positive relationship between patch use by fishers and developed land, there is likely some threshold at which the probability of patch use will begin to decrease as the amount of developed land within an area increases (sensu Lancaster et al 2008). This threshold of landscape heterogeneity represents a balance between the benefits of increased prey availability associated with ecotonal habitat (Moore and Swihart 2005) and forested habitat required for successful reproduction (Paragi et al 1996) and shelter (Gess et al 2013), and could be an important focus of future research. Ultimately, a better understanding of the factors that influence the distribution and abundance of fishers in eastern North America will inform management decisions with respect to sites for future reintroduction of fishers and resource extraction.…”

“…Most of these species are typically associated with deciduous forests (Althoff et al 1997;Morin et al 2005;Gibbes and Barrett 2011). In addition to utilizing prey species found in deciduous forests, fishers also appear to be successfully utilizing features of deciduous forests for rest and den sites: fishers used large, deciduous trees for resting in Pennsylvania (Gess et al 2013) and female fishers used cavities of large, deciduous trees as natal dens in the mixed deciduous forests of south-central Maine (Paragi et al 1996) and Ontario (Koen 2005). We know little about how fishers respond to forest disturbance in the eastern parts of their distribution.…”

“…Little is known about fisher-habitat relationships in the deciduous forests of the central Appalachian Mountains. There is some evidence that dense canopy in mixed or coniferous forest is less important for fishers in this region, and that fishers depend on large, deciduous trees for rest sites (Gess et al 2013). Fishers have recolonized only portions of the region in the past few decades and their conservation status in Pennsylvania is considered vulnerable (Serfass and Dzialak 2010).…”

Microsites and structures used by fishers (Pekania pennanti) in the southern Sierra Nevada: A comparison of forest elements used for daily resting relative to reproduction

“…Fishers are associated with forest attributes that take time to develop, including large decadent trees used for resting throughout the year and denning in spring (Weir et al, 2012;Aubry et al, 2018). Previous studies indicate that fishers use trees with unique microsites (e.g., tree cavities, witches' brooms) during daily resting activities (Zielinski et al, 2004a;Purcell et al, 2009;Gess et al, 2013;Aubry et al, 2018). In contrast, reproductive dens have consistently been documented in large diameter trees with hollows (Paragi et al, 1996;Aubry and Raley, 2006;Weir et al, 2012).…”

“…Although previous studies have described fine-scale resting habitat for fishers, the labor-intensive nature of the field work has constrained data collection to modest time frames (often < 2 years) or a relatively few individuals (often < 20; Zielinski et al, 2004a;Purcell et al, 2009;Gess et al, 2013). Data for fisher reproductive dens are also still somewhat limited and restricted to certain portions of the fisher's distribution (Powell et al, 1997;Weir et al, 2012;Erb et al, 2015).…”