Escalambre, Michelle, M.A. August 2020 Geography

ESCALAMBRE, MICHELLE, M.A. AUGUST 2020 GEOGRAPHY

TRAIL IMPACTS ON MOVEMENT IN WILDLIFE CORRIDORS: A CLEVELAND

METROPARKS CASE STUDY (117 pp.)

Thesis Advisor: David H. Kaplan

Wildlife corridors promote biodiversity, abate landscape fragmentation and – in areas of urban development – are often refuges for fauna. Yet, they appear at odds with their main goal of conserving wildlife’s natural habitat, especially when applied to a real-world context, because they are typically located in areas prone to anthropogenic disturbances. The literature varies over how concurrent use affects wildlife. One such space where this occurs is urban parks where wildlife movement overlaps spatially with recreationists. Park visitors utilize formal trails and depart from them to create informal trails. Many negative consequences toward wild biota have been attributed to informal trails, which contribute to anthropogenic-induced fragmentation and, indirectly, disturbances within the matrix. The overlap of trails with wildlife corridors begs the questions: are wildlife using the shared corridors within the reservations or should landscape, resource and trail managers be directing their efforts elsewhere to facilitate wildlife movement?

Also, to what degree, if any, will wildlife move through corridors shared with humans? To answer these questions, baseline and biodiversity data needed to be established first.

Employing round-the-clock, passive, remotely triggered camera pairs in two urban parks in greater Cleveland, Ohio, U.S.A., scenarios were tested along a continuum of wildlife- anthropogenic interfacing that occurs on trails. Formal and informal trails in Cleveland

Metroparks were studied, in addition to an area with restored informal trails. Examining the

majority of terrestrial, animal wildlife, likelihood of Verified Use was established for each species, guild, and as a whole. Verified Use was defined as any species being detected on both cameras in the pair within a +/- five minute window.

I found that non-consumptive, anthropogenic use of trails did not necessarily hinder terrestrial wildlife’s movement as suggested in the literature. In situ, not all terrestrial wildlife used the four trails uniformly to facilitate their movement. Thus, landscape and natural resource managers would be best served to assess informal trail restoration and formal trail creation on a case-by-case basis. By incorporating a second study area, I captured a snapshot of how biodiversity, animal movement, biotic presence and concurrent use may change when an informal trail is restored to its natural habitat.

TRAIL IMPACTS ON MOVEMENT IN WILDLIFE CORRIDORS:

A CLEVELAND METROPARKS CASE STUDY

A thesis submitted

to Kent State University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

degree of Master of Arts

Michelle Escalambre

August 2020

except for previously published materials

Thesis written by

Michelle Escalambre

B.S., Miami University, 2004

M.A., Kent State University, 2020

Approved by

David H. Kaplan, Advisor, Department of Geography

Scott C. Sheridan, Chair, Department of Geography

Mandy J. Munro-Stasiuk, Interim Dean, College of Arts and Sciences

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………………………………………….v

LIST OF FIGURES………………….…………………………...…………….…..…………….ix

LIST OF TABLES…………………………………….……….………...……………...…….….xi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………...…..…………………….….xii

CHAPTERS

I. INTRODUCTION………….………………….…………………………….……1

II. LITERATURE REVIEW…………………………………………………………6

Trails as a mechanism for fragmentation…………………….……………6

Trails affecting biota………………………………………..…..…………7

The debate……………………………………………………..……...….10

III. HISTORY………………………….…………………………………………….14

Natural……………………………………..……………….……….……14

Geomorphology and geology…………….………………………14

Climate………….……….………………………………….……15

Hydrology……………….……………………….………………17

Weather……………….………………………………….………18

Cultural……………………………………………………………….….19

IV. CONTEXT……………………………………………………………………….22

Wild biota….….…………….………….………….………….…….……22

Insects……………………………………………………………22

Birds and mammals………………………………………………24

Reptiles and amphibians…………………………………………28

Fish……………………………………………….………………29

Flora……………………………………………...………………………31

Trees……………………...………………………………………31

Herbaceous………………………………………….……………33

Invasive species…………………………………….……………37

Design principle…………………………………….……………………38

V. METHODOLOGY………………………………………………………………40

Project overview…………………………………………………………40

Study area……………………………………………………...…40

Study sites and scale…………………………………..…………41

Data……………………………………………………...……………….43

Remotely sensed cameras………………………………..………43

Camera setup…………………………………………………..…46

Changing SD cards………………………………………………53

GIS data………………………………………………………….53

Tagging methods…………………………………………………………56

Software……………………………………………………….…56

Species identification……………………….……………………56

Accuracy, parameters and judgment……………………..………59

Analysis………………………………………………………..…………62

VI. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION…………………………………………………64

Thesis question #1: establish baseline and biodiversity data……….……64

Rocky River Ryeservation as a projection of West Creek

Reservation’s potential……………………………...……………67

Thesis question #2: What is an ideal spatial arrangement to facilitate

movement with and without anthropogenic presence? ………………….70

Verified Use as a whole…………………………………….……71

Rocky River Reservation as a projection of West Creek

Reservation’s potential…………………………………...………77

Verified Use by guild………………………………….…………78

Large fauna………………………………………………78

Medium fauna……………………………………………80

Small fauna………………………………………………82

Thesis question #3: To what degree, if any, will wildlife move through

corridors shared with humans? ………………………………….………83

VII. CONCLUSION……………………………………………………..……………88

Reflections and limitations………………………………………………88

Recommendations……………………………………………..…………91

VIII. REFERENCES……………………………………………………..……………93

APPENDICES

vii

A. Passive, remotely triggered camera specifications…………………………………103

B. Study site details……………………………………………………………………105

C. Timeline of SD cards changed………………………………...……………………108

D. Species tags in digiKam 5.9.0………………………………………………………109

E. Operational dates of cameras…………………………………………….…………110

F. Non-species tags analysis……………………………………..……………………111

G. Verified Use likelihood ……………………………………….……………………112

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Continuum of wildlife-human interfacing on trails…………………...………………11

Figure 2. Satellite imagery of Cuyahoga County………………………………….……….……42

Figure 3. Photo of mounted camera…………………………………………………..…………47

Figure 4. Cleveland Metroparks’s map of West Creek Reservation study area…………...……48

Figure 5. Photo of one study site………………………………………………………………..51

Figure 6. Photo trail types……………………………………………………..……………...…52

Figure 7. Photo of “Degree of Obviousness” ………………………………………..…………52

Figure 8. Cleveland Metroparks’s map of Rocky River Reservation study area……………..…55

Figure 9. Photos with various examples of tags……………………………………...…………58

Figure 10. Photo of unidentifiable squirrel………………………………………………...……61

Figure 11. Photo of domestic dog…………………………………………………………….…62

Figure 12. Aggregate terrestrial biodiversity……………………………………………………66

Figure 13. Photo of signage with red fox………………………………………………..………67

Figure 14. Biotic presence based on trail type in Rocky River Reservation……………………69

Figure 15. Aggregate type of use by station in West Creek Reservation……………………… 71

Figure 16. Verified Use by biota in West Creek Reservation……………………………...……73

Figure 17. Photo of landscape at two stations………………………………………………...…74

Figure 18. Percentage of wild biota trail presence over time……………………………...……78

Figure 19. Photo of coyote with prey……………………………………………………………80

Figure 20. Wild biota Verified Use in West Creek Reservation…………………………...……81

Figure 21. Series of how long after a human event until wild biota is detected? ………………87

Figure 22. Photo of small fauna…………………………………………………………………89

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Northeast Ohio’s climate………………………………………………………………16

Table 2. Cleveland Metroparks’s insect biodiversity…………………………………………...23

Table 3. Cleveland Metroparks’s fish biodiversity……………………………………………...24

Table 4. Cleveland Metroparks’s reptile and amphibian biodiversity…………………………..26

Table 5. Cleveland Metroparks’s mammal biodiversity…………………………………...……29

Table 6. Cleveland Metroparks’s bird biodiversity……………………………………..………30

Table 7. Cleveland Metroparks’s tree biodiversity………………………………………...……32

Table 8. Cleveland Metroparks’s flora biodiversity………………………………………….…34

Table 9. Cleveland Metroparks’s vegetative invasive species……………………………..……37

Table 10. Parameters for species identification…………………………………………………56

Table 11. Biota descriptions by guild size………………………………………………………68

Table 12. Verified Use break down……………………………………………………………..71

Table 13. Statistical analysis of Verified Use by trail…………………………………………..72

Table 14. Biodiversity of Verified Use……………………………………………………….…73

Table 15. Concurrent use statistics……………………………………………………………...85

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Above all, thank you to my tremendously supportive grandma, mom and husband. Thank you for seeing the value in my work when I couldn’t and for motivating me to see this thesis through. To me, you are priceless. Thank you Charles for being so selfless and picking up the slack so that I could complete schoolwork and research.

From start to finish, this thesis was no easy feat. Thank you David H. Kaplan – a cultural geographer – for your willingness to take on a student determined to become a biogeographer.

This research would not have been possible if not for Cleveland Metroparks’s vision. Thank you

Patrick D. Lorch for serving as a liaison, offering brilliant ideas and doing the heavy lifting to create a thorough dataset. Also, thanks to Jonathon D. Cepek for offering your equipment, always including me in the dialogue and sharing your field expertise. This study would have never left the ground without Pat and Jon’s assistance. An enormous thank you to Timothy J.

Assal for his conceptual and practical help, particularly for spending countless hours helping me make sense of where my research was headed and how to obtain those results. He was a godsend.

Thanks to the Kristin Yeager for her consultation and sharing her expertise in R. Thank you to my other committee member, Emariana Widner, for her valuable feedback. Last, I appreciate my supervisors in the College of Arts and Sciences, David Grober and David Odell-

Scott, who have been incredibly flexible with me balancing graduate school and full-time work.

xii

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The biogeographical concept of wildlife corridors was first described by Edward Wilson and Robert MacArthur in their foundational book, Island Biogeography in 1968 (Benedict and

McMahon 2006), despite the concept loosely being studied as early as 1936 and emerging around 1800 (Whittaker and Ladle 2011). Since then, studies focusing on wildlife corridors – and congruent terms discussed in the next paragraph – have been growing in popularity. This is apparent in the literature since more research surrounding the two strategies has been published in the past 15 years (Larson et al. 2016).

Briffett (2001) and Erickson (2006) wrote that the words "greenway" and "corridor" are used interchangeably though landscape ecologists more frequently chose “greenway.” Some of the literature synonymously referred to the terms as "habitat corridors" (e.g. Ladle and Whittaker

2011, 217). Greenways are anthropocentric, linear spaces for recreational use (e.g. hiking, fishing, sports; Benedict and McMahon 2006; Erickson 2006). As they relate to biota, they are adaptive measures to alleviate environmental pressures caused by humans and "mitigate the loss of 'natural space' owing to development" (Searns 1995, 65; Erickson 2006). Greenways also allow access to natural features via non-motorized travel (Searns 1995), like walking or bicycling. In the context of this study, Cleveland Metroparks's reservations represent greenways.

As the name implies, wildlife corridors pertain to movement of “nondomesticated organisms” movement (Noss 1993, 43) and are "stretches of land that connect otherwise disconnected wildlife habitat" (Benedict and McMahon 2007, 285; Erickson 2006). They are

similar to greenways in purpose, but primarily serve wild biota, not humans. Broadly, they promote biodiversity and are linear physical links, so they may not be limited to just "stretches of land" (Beier and Loe 1992; Noss 1993; Briffett 2001; Lindenmayer and Fischer 2006; Ladle and

Whittaker 2011). On a finer scale, they facilitate habitat connectivity and facilitate movement of wildlife (Noss 1993; Benedict and McMahon 2006; Erickson 2006; Lindenmayer and Fischer

2006; Ladle and Whittaker 2011; Lomolino et al. 2017). Wildlife corridors aim to mitigate anthropogenic and – as a byproduct – environmental pressure on fauna. Simultaneously, they thwart habitat fragmentation and its subsequent isolation (Beier and Loe 1992; Noss 1993;

Briffett 2001; Benedict and McMahon 2006; Lindenmayer and Fischer 2006; Ladle and

Whittaker 2011).

Wildlife corridors and greenways can be applied at differing spatial and temporal scales, and function similarly in four ways: 1) they restore or maintain habitat connectivity in anthropogenically modified environments; 2) their paramount goal is to conserve natural habitat;

3) they assume their users have equal access to them (Searns 1995; van der Ree and van der Grift

2015); 4) they assume movement of their subjects (Noss 1987 qtd in Beier and Loe 1992; Noss

1993; Searns 1995; Erickson 2006; Lindenmayer and Fischer 2006; Shepherd and Whittington

2006; Ladle and Whittaker 2011; Lomolino et al. 2017)*. Because the two aforementioned terms can be applied at differing scales, it is important to note my research incorporated all species by focusing on a fine, local scale involving trails within Cleveland Metroparks reservations. For continuity, I solely use the term "wildlife corridor" to refer to the space – whether it is undisturbed natural space or simultaneously overlapping a trail through the natural space – within a government-protected area. Because terrestrial, government-protected areas can vary in size, such as the 59 acres that constitute Huntington Reservation (owned by Cleveland

Metroparks; 2018f) to the expansive 833,000 acres of Wayne National Forest in southeastern

Ohio (Hamper 2016), focusing on areas with known wildlife movement – in addition to well- defined trails – refined where I conducted research and led to the collaboration with Cleveland

Metroparks to determine the study sites.

With the rather recent development of the subfield of road ecology – a mixture of ecology and transportation geography – there have been a myriad of studies surrounding the impact of anthropogenically modified environments (e.g. roads and road networks) on biota

(Duffus and Dearden 1990; Forman et al. 2003). Yet, far less research has been conducted on how trails influence wildlife (Soulard 2017). Trails fall within the scope of road ecology since they have the same potential to fragment habitat, affect animal movement, and accommodate humans.

Yet, on the continuum of environmental impact, trails appear not to have as severe effects as roads considering they may not introduce as many chemical pollutants, be as ubiquitous nor interfere with wildlife movement. However, there is scant research surrounding trail attributes

(e.g. surface). Most of the literature focused merely on the dimensions – particularly width – of the trail.

Anthropogenic trails exist within greenways and wildlife corridors, and whether they truly facilitate or impede movement has not been adequately studied. Wildlife corridors appear contradictory to their main goal of conserving wildlife's natural habitat, especially when applied to a real-world context that includes humans (Knight and Cole 1991; Cole 1993; Ladle and

Whittaker 2011). That is, they aim to facilitate movement but are typically located in areas prone to anthropogenic pressure, for instance, near trails. Additional, real-world complexities – such as detectability, degree of anthropogenic disturbance, wildlife habituation and scale – make

moving from suggestions and hypotheses to proofs difficult. The consequences of wildlife interfacing with humans are not isolated events (Duffus and Dearden 1990; Knight and Cole

1991; Cole 1993; Knight and Cole 1995) nor are they randomly distributed throughout the landscape (Ladle and Whittaker 2011). In protected natural areas, like Cleveland Metroparks, anthropogenic trails and their proximity to wildlife corridors make understanding the relationship between the two a priority because they are comprised of dynamic processes. Thus, monitoring trail type – both formal and informal – in natural areas with established wildlife movement is important because trails also guide anthropogenic movement through the landscape (Matlack

1993; Erickson 2006; Ballantyne et al. 2014), and 94% of the world's protected areas allow recreation (Larson et al. 2016).

More research is warranted to determine if wildlife corridors and non-consumptive anthropogenic co-use of trails are compatible, and the degree to which they are or are not

(Duffus and Dearden 1990; Ladle and Whittaker 2011; Larson et al. 2016). I contributed to that dialogue and add to the aforementioned limited body of knowledge through this research. My research filled in some of the initial data gaps surrounding the complex and dynamic co- existence between domestic and wild species, particularly where and when they spatially and temporally interact. Resource managers can now make well-informed decisions based on thorough data. Due to no pre-existing movement data and few studies with a similar methodology, these results set a benchmark so that future research now has a temporal point for direct comparisons and an easily repeated methodology for reference. Thanks to these findings, scientists can start to understand the direct and indirect influence all types of trails have on domestic and wild species’ movement and examine the ways that those species can both thrive.

______

* It is critical to note that wildlife corridors are also naturally occurring in the world and – as mentioned in the Introduction – at varying scales, such as regional or local. One example of a regional wildlife corridor would be an established migratory route of moose. However, my research dealt with wildlife corridors within an urban context and at a much finer scale (i.e. incorporating anthropogenic activity on local park trails).

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

Trails as a mechanism for fragmentation

Of the four ways that anthropogenic activities may impact wildlife – that is, harvesting, habitat modification, pollution, and disturbance – trail development is a manifestation of induced habitat modification (Knight and Cole 1991; Cole and Landres 1995). Linked with road and recreational ecology, trails are man-made, linear features that significantly alter the natural environment through landscape fragmentation (Samson and Boyle 1985; Knight and Cole 1991;

Cole 1993; Flather and Cordell 1995; Erickson 2006; Rogala et al. 2011). In turn, fragmentation contributes to wildlife avoidance of the space and deteriorated habitat suitability (Knight and

Cole 1991; Whittington et al. 2004; Rogala et al. 2011; Zhou et al. 2013).

Multiple authors voiced that trails – from beginning (i.e. the clearing of natural environment to allow them) to end (i.e. the anthropogenic activity that occurs on them) – contribute to negative habitat modification. Specifically, trails often navigate through natural habitat, rather than around it (Anderson 1995). An American study established that within preexisting forest fragments, trails were the second most significant platform for negative anthropogenic impacts, bested only by roads (Matlack 1993). An Australian study concluded that 95% of trails were used for non-consumptive recreation and, although they were concentrated and contributed less edge effect than wider or ill-placed trails, they produced the highest amount of cumulative forest loss due to their pervasive distribution. The percentage of forest fragmented by trails was dangerously close to the overall percentage of land fragmented

by anthropogenic development (Ballantyne et al. 2014).

Considering the projected growth of outdoor recreation, the amount of trails will also increase and equate to increased habitat fragmentation (Flather and Cordell 1995; Erickson 2006;

Rogala et al. 2011). Anthropogenic disturbances could lessen the effectiveness of facilitating wildlife movement by modifying the size, amount, and quality of habitat (Cole 1993; Fahrig

2003; Ladle and Whittaker 2011). Kays et al. (2017) published that the amount of continuous habitat affected wildlife communities in protected areas much more than recreation. With the literature in mind, Cleveland Metroparks aims to close particular informal – also called “social” or “bootleg” – trails in summer and fall 2020 in order to persuade recreationists to use the agency’s professionally developed, formal trails. I analyzed wildlife movement associated with and prior to this change.

Trails affecting biota

Trails significantly affect biodiversity. Multiple studies found that recreational activity on trails negatively impacted all major taxa, up to 84% of species (Boyle and Samson 1985;

Knight and Cole 1991; Flather and Cordell 1995; Lindenmayer and Fischer 2006; Larson et al.

2016). One example of a negative effect is trampling, which stunts or kills vegetation growth, thus degrading natural habitat and lessening cover for wildlife (Boyle and Samson 1985;

Anderson 1995; Cole and Landres 1995). Other negative effects from recreation include reduced abundance (Larson et al. 2016), increased predation past the threshold of recovery (Boyle and

Samson 1985; Anderson 1995), and displacement from or avoidance of quality habitat (Boyle and Samson 1985; Knight and Cole 1995). Literary findings corroborate Boyle and Samson’s

(1985) earlier documentation that, within the two most abundant recreational activities utilizing trails, wildlife was negatively impacted 81% of the time. Ballantyne et al. (2014) published that

formal and informal trails produced the highest amount of negative habitat modification due to their pervasive distribution.

Positive consequences of recreational activities on trails were considerably less evident in the literature (Boyle and Samson 1985; Knight and Cole 1991; Flather and Cordell 1995; Larson et al. 2016). A few examples of positive effects surrounded habituation, such as reduced distances when fleeing and tolerance of humans which lessened the likelihood of fleeing, thus saving energy (Larson et al. 2016). Therefore, it is important to analyze trails' impact – both positive and negative – on wildlife movement.

In reference to the aforementioned four ways that anthropogenic activities may impact wildlife, trail development also brings about disturbance (Boyle and Samson 1985; Knight and

Cole 1991; Cole and Landres 1995). Because trails often lead humans to areas of interest, they indirectly contribute to disturbances (Anderson 1995). In a meta-analysis of the literature, non- motorized recreational activity, such as walking or bicycling, was found to be more detrimental to wildlife’s movement than motorized (e.g. dirtbikes and all-terrain vehicles) across many taxa and places (Larson et al. 2016). Therefore, recreational activity on trails has the potential to lessen the effectiveness of wildlife corridors at facilitating movement with severe ramifications at the population level, even if those disturbances were unintentional (Boyle and Samson 1985;

Cole 1993; Cole and Landres 1995; Ladle and Whittaker 2011). For instance, recreationists unintentionally passing through an area during a sensitive time – like bird nesting – causes excessive stress and energy output from the species as they flee the vicinity (Knight and Cole

1995; Larson et al. 2016). This could be particularly detrimental to wildlife who hibernate or deal with seasonal food scarcity (Boyle and Samson 1985; Larson et al. 2016). Furthermore, animals may recall the place of a prior disturbance which alters their typical movement and

behavior. Long term, these disturbances can affect the abundance, fecundity, distribution and demographics of wildlife populations (Cole 1993; Gutzwiller 1995) as well as movement patterns.

Informal trails exist within natural areas and refer to paths created by visitors. Due to their lack of professional planning or management, they are “particularly problematic”

(Ballantyne et al. 2014, 119) and will form with less than 500 passes (Thurston and Reader

2001). Because informal trails are created more rapidly than formal trails, consequences increase exponentially (Monz et al. 2010). They are manifestations of habitat modification and are particularly more concerning because humans departing from an established trail extend deeper into the undisturbed environment, show pervasive distribution, contribute to additional fragmentation, and are viewed by wildlife as unpredictable (Marion and Wimpey 2007; Monz et al. 2010; Ballantyne et al. 2014). Departing from formal trails to pursue wildlife leads to their harassment (Anderson 1995) as well as the same, harmful effects previously discussed.

A Canadian study found that wildlife avoided human trail intersections and – when faced with crossing them – employed other measures, such as paralleling or circumnavigating them.

Isolating the variables, the animals were more likely to cross a low-use anthropogenic trail than a high-use one and "equally avoid[ed] high-use trails where they would encounter humans"

(Whittington et al. 2004, DISCUSSION). In China, scientists calculated a generally inverse relationship between trail use and animal presence, meaning the more people per trail, the fewer animals in the vicinity. The four largest mammals inhabiting the study area avoided the trails with the most anthropogenic use, which highlighted the negative implications toward wildlife that share trails with humans (Zhou et al. 2013). Even when the amount of anthropogenic activity on trails was the same, wolves and elk avoided areas located closer to recreational trails

(Rogala et al. 2011).

The debate

Fragmentation can most quickly and easily be mitigated by maintaining habitat continuity and connectivity which is key for conserving biodiversity (Noss 1993; Gutzwiller 1995; Erickson

2006; Ladle and Whittaker 2011). That goal can be achieved through wildlife corridors, but they may overlap anthropogenic activity in areas with high disturbances, like on trails in a protected area such as Cleveland Metroparks’ reservations.

A major point of conflict within the literature is whether or not concurrent use of trails was detrimental to wildlife movement. Authors noted little evidence that human activity actually interfered with animal movement within wildlife corridors (Ladle and Whittaker 2011; van der

Grift et al. 2011; Kays et al. 2017). Van der Grift et al. (2011) agreed, but clarified that creating a physical, visual barrier between the human trail and wildlife corridor was ideal.

Like other articles, Cole (1993) and Gutzwiller (1995) stressed limiting the amount and spatial distribution of recreation, by limiting anthropogenic presence and concentrating anthropogenic activity (respectively) in order to minimize negative widespread impact, such as changes to natural processes, the spread of exotic species, and habitat modification. Cole (1993) recommended concentrating anthropogenic use as the only potential solution to prevent and abate negative impacts on wildlife, particularly in undisturbed areas like Rocky River and West

Creek Reservations. He referenced that this was the norm when designing greenways and stressed limiting the amount and spatial distribution of trails as the only way to maintain wildlife corridors’ efficacy. In contrast to Cole (1993), Noss (1993, 63) recommended a network of corridors that allowed for multiple paths of wildlife movement, asserting its importance in landscapes with "high rates of disturbance."

Because the literature varied in its approach to mitigating recreation in areas prone to wildlife (Rogala et al. 2011; van der Ree and van der Grift 2015; Soulard 2017), I developed a continuum of the hypotheses to be tested. Each mark on the continuum indicated an ideal spatial arrangement – substantiated within the literature – of how to best deal with wildlife and humans interfacing in a natural environment (Figure 1). I conducted field research along this continuum to simultaneously explore two relationships: 1) broadly, the relationship between anthropogenic presence and wildlife, and 2) the relationship between wildlife movement through corridors and trails’ spatial arrangement.

Figure 1: Trails’ spatial arrangement that was tested. “WC” stands for wildlife corridor.

Referencing the left end of the spectrum (Figure 1), testing the null hypothesis was the first step to determining if wildlife corridors were even used in "the real world" which was commonly debated within the literature. It was paramount to ascertain whether animals used a trail as a conduit of the wildlife corridor because even minimal anthropogenic use has been associated with restricted wildlife movement (Boyle and Samson 1985, Cole 1993). In fact, most wildlife corridor guidelines advised against completely shared use of trails with humans and wildlife (Clevenger and Waltho 2000; van der Ree and van der Grift 2015). The middle of the spectrum stood to test Cole (1993), Gutzwiller (1995) and Noss’s (1993) recommendations

regarding the spatial arrangement of trails and wildlife movement. Last, the right end of the spectrum aimed to settle the literary point of conflict over concurrent use.

Research of animal movement on concurrently used trails has been conducted on carnivores (Reed and Merenlender 2008; Rogala et al. 2011; van der Grift et al. 2011), ungulates

(Nelleman et al. 2010; Rogala et al. 2011; van der Grift et al. 2011), rodents (van der Grift et al.

2011), and herpetofauna (Davis 2007; von May and Donnelly 2009), as well in wildlife corridors

(e.g. Henein and Merriam 1990; Tull and Krausman 2001). However, findings were incredibly varied (Rogala et al. 2011; van der Ree and van der Grift 2015; Soulard 2017) and assessed on a single species basis (Boyle and Samson 1985; Rogala et al. 2011; Ladle and Whittaker 2011).

Rather than focusing on one species in particular, I wanted to focus on all animal biota at the community scale (Erickson 2006) and compare two reservations with similar, but different, contexts. Therefore, I use the term biodiversity to refer to only those terrestrial species observed by me within Cleveland Metroparks (see Results and Discussion chapter), excluding observed mice, moles, voles and amphibians.

As described, there is conflicting and inconclusive evidence throughout the scientific literature which explicitly notes more studies are required to fully corroborate and understand the complexities surrounding the hypotheses (Boyle and Samson 1985; Cole and Landres 1995;

Gutzwiller 1995; van der Grift et al. 2011; Ladle and Whittaker 2011; Larson et al. 2016;

Soulard 2017). Scientists recognize addressing fragmentation [by anthropogenic activity] and conserving habitat is crucial to wildlife’s survival (Noss 1993; Cole and Landres 1995; Ladle and

Whittaker 2011; Rogala et al. 2011; Kays et al. 2017; Soulard 2017). My research contributes to this debate regarding the spatial arrangement and relationship of concurrent trail use by wildlife and humans. The aim was to determine how wildlife communities – as opposed to one particular

species – were affected by anthropogenic presence on trails. One objective of this research was to establish baseline and biodiversity data for the study area: an “urban park” (Moll et al. 2018,

767) surrounded by high anthropogenic development and that serves as a metropolitan refuge. I chose the study area because I did not find a similar study during the literature review that operated on this scale and in such a densely populated area. Therefore, my research established baseline data which is crucial to determining the biodiversity and understanding the dynamic role between humans and wildlife in the study areas. Moreover, this baseline data will give scientists a starting point to begin tracking animal movement through the matrix and examining the effects of trails, because it examines data before, during and after the creation of two professionally developed mountain bike trails. My goal was to explore all facets of the literature debate, like what is an ideal spatial arrangement of trails to facilitate wildlife movement with and without an anthropogenic presence? More broadly, to what degree, if any, will wildlife move through corridors that are shared by humans?

CHAPTER III

HISTORY

Natural

Geomorphology and geology

Atop Mesoproterozoic and Neoproterozoic rock, the state of Ohio’s bedrock is oldest in the southwestern corner of the state, where 446 – 460 million years old Ordovician rock is found.

In general, Ohio’s bedrock geology is comprised of carbonate, siliciclastic, evaporite, and organoclastic strata, which all are sedimentary rock (Ohio Division of Geological Survey 2006).

Specifically, Cuyahoga County’s bedrock – where most of Cleveland Metroparks’s property is located – is dated as Devonian or Mississippian age. Devonian bedrock dominates the entire

Lake Erie coast of the region and spreads inland, where Mississippian bedrock formed atop it in the remainder of Cuyahoga County (Ford 1987; Ohio Division of Geological Survey 2006).

Both have marine origins and contain sandstone, shale and siltstone, though Mississippian bedrock also contains conglomerate and limestone (Cushing 1931b; Ford 1987; Ohio Division of

Geological Survey 2006). A scattering of Pennsylvanian-aged bedrock, which may be deltaic in origin, is located at the southern edge of the county and in a few pockets in the east. Coal may also be present here, unlike the two other types of bedrock (Ohio Division of Geological Survey

2006).

Geomorphologically, northeast Ohio is a newer landscape. Cuyahoga County – and its county seat, Cleveland – sit on the cusp of the Central Lowland and Appalachian Plateau provinces (Ford 1987). The Portage Escarpment runs southwest through the state’s northeastern,

lake-front counties and adjacent to the Allegheny Escarpment in this region. Within Cuyahoga

County are three physiographic sections: Traversing the middle of the county is a thin band classified as Galion Glaciated Low Plateau exhibiting moderate relief on the Till Plains. Huron-

Erie Lake Plains make up the waterfront and continue anywhere from two to five miles inland with a lower elevation than the Till Plains (Cushing 1931a; Ford 1987; Ohio Division of

Geological Survey 1998). The southeast area of the county is the other half of the provincial cusp. Glaciated Allegheny Plateaus display the biggest elevation range (i.e. 600 – 1,505 feet) and the most dramatic relief of the three sections (Ford 1987; Ohio Division of Geological

Survey 1998).

Cuyahoga County’s topography was dramatically changed in the Pleistocene Epoch by

Canadian glacial movement, first advancing, then retreating much later (Ford 1987; Ohio

Division of Geological Survey 2005). As a result, lake deposits dot the Lake Erie shoreline which forms the northern boundary of the county (Ford 1987). The county is split in half (north to south) between lake deposits in the east and newer, wave-planed ground moraine from

Wisconsinian glaciation in the west. Moving to the interior of the county and fanning out from the center, ground moraine dominates the surface with a thin band of ridge moraine – both from the aforementioned glaciation – following a similar wavelength (Ohio Division of Geological

Survey 2005). In Cuyahoga County today, the surface geology consists of several hundred feet of shale above much more, thick limestone with trace amounts of shale, gypsum and salt, above varying bands of shale, limestone and sandstone (Ford 1987).

Climate

The majority of the Laurentian Great Lakes region, which encompasses all of northeastern Ohio, lies between the 40th and 50th parallel. Every Ohio county that butts up

against Lake Erie falls into a Dfa Koppen-Geiger climate classification (Kottek et al. 2006; Table

1). This body of water’s extent – the shallowest and warmest of the Great Lakes – has a maximum width of 57 miles, a length of 241 miles (Sly 1976; Makarewicz and Bertram 1991;

Michalak et al. 2013) and rests 570 feet above sea level (Sly 1976; THE CLEVELAND

MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY 2019). It covers roughly 9,800 square miles and gained notoriety for its terrible and hazardous water quality (Sly 1976; Makarewicz and Bertram 1991).

Also noteworthy was Lake Erie’s record-setting algal bloom in fall 2011 caused by a combination of too much spring precipitation, weak hydrologic currents, anthropogenic pollutant run-off, and summer temperatures warmer than usual (Michalak et al. 2013).

Table 1: Break down of northeast Ohio’s climate (Kottek et al. 2006). Type Category Description D Main climate Snow climate (also called continental climate) f Precipitation Fully humid seasons a Temperature Hot summer The driver of northeastern Ohio’s wet weather and high amount of winter precipitation is

Lake Erie. All along the Great Lakes’ shorelines, the majority of annual snowfall ranges from a minimum of 30 inches to an astonishing maximum of 200 inches. However, the majority of lakefront counties – across the eight states touching a great lake – measured 40 to 100 inches of annual accumulation (THE CLEVELAND MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY 2019). The large amount of precipitation (unloaded as snow in the winter) stems from the geography of the region which begets “lake effect” weather. Sitting between the 40th and 50th parallel allows the climate to be cold enough to produce snow, but not so cold that the lake freezes entirely.

Specifically, Lake Erie serves as a heat reservoir since it warms and cools slower than the surrounding continent. When colder Canadian air passes over this large body of water, it is driven upward by the land masses ashore. Subsequently, clouds rise and cool their moisture until

they can hold no more. This creates optimal conditions for large amounts of snowfall, which is most evident on the leeward side of each great lake (THE CLEVELAND MUSEUM OF

NATURAL HISTORY 2019). Likewise, thunderstorms and large amounts of rain are common throughout the hot summer and most of northeast Ohio’s temperatures are influenced by Lake

Erie (Sly 1976).

Hydrology

Ohio and Cuyahoga County’s current climate pattern of above average temperatures brings concerns regarding the hydrology of the state and county, particularly increased chances of drought and flooding thanks to more severe weather. Although seasonal precipitation was consistently higher than normal, the simultaneous higher temperatures may yield negative consequences such as greater evaporation of ground and surface water (Wilson 2016). As a whole, northern Ohio drains into Lake Erie and the St. Lawrence River, mainly by way of short streams cutting through deep and narrow valleys. Despite their direction of flow, all the tributaries in the region join a river that flows north into Lake Erie (Cushing 1931a).

En route to Lake Erie, the two major rivers that altered the topography and shaped development within the region are the Cuyahoga River and Rocky River. Roughly 100 miles long, the Cuyahoga River spawned the settling of the area and eventually became Cleveland,

Ohio. It is a relatively calm, gently sloping river and infamously known for excessive pollution which caused it to catch fire multiple times throughout the late 1800s and early 1900s. In contrast, Rocky River has a gradient two and a half times steeper than the Cuyahoga River’s even though it is smaller. Also, numerous constant springs exist in the region due to the underlying sandstone (Cushing 1931a).

Weather

Research spanned July 2018 through January 2019 and incorporated three seasons: summer, fall and winter. The state’s climate during summer 2018 – specifically, July and

August – brought warmer than average days and nights when compared against 30 year normals.

Summer precipitation also followed the trend of being above average for the majority of Ohio.

In particular, the entirety of Cuyahoga County recorded average temperatures one to two degrees

Fahrenheit above 30 year normals and 10 – 15 inches of precipitation in total during this season

(Wilson 2018b).

Summer’s warming pattern continued into the beginning of fall (i.e. September through

November 2018) with September as the warmest September recorded in the last century. Ohio temperatures and precipitation remained above average when compared against 30 year normals.

Even with the unprecedented heat in September, fall ranked as the third wettest in the last century, perhaps partially due to the fallout of precipitation from Tropical Storm Gordon.

Specifically, the eastern edge of Cuyahoga County received 15 – 20 inches of rainfall with the rest of the county receiving about five less inches over the course of the season. As a whole the county still averaged a temperature a few degrees higher than 30 year normal (Wilson 2019a).

When research ended on 1 February 2019, winter (i.e. December 2018 – February 2019) was unseasonably warm, notably in December and February. Yet, temperatures were still one to three degrees higher when compared against 30 year normals. Nearly all of Ohio averaged temperatures between 25º and 35º F. The season was also significantly (i.e. up to 200%) wetter than most for this period, but this occurred more in Ohio’s southern counties. Despite its lakefront location, Cuyahoga County averaged the same amount of precipitation as observed in previous decades: roughly seven to ten inches. Its average temperature for winter was 30º –

35ºF, which was one to two degrees warmer than the average for 1981 – 2010, and contributed to elevated stream levels and soil moisture. In fact, Ohio was in the >90th percentile for precipitation nationwide entering the spring 2019 season. The warming trend is concerning as it facilitated pests and pathogens extending their range north (Wilson 2019).

Cultural

At its time of origin in 1912, Cleveland Metroparks was named Cleveland Metropolitan

Park District and an entity separate from the city of Cleveland’s parks. The city itself was booming because its population nearly doubled in size from the turn of the century (Miller 1992).

In fact, more than three quarters of Cuyahoga County’s population resided in Cleveland through

1930. Cleveland’s mayor – Tom L. Johnson – is credited with spearheading the introduction of parks and outdoor recreation into the city early in the century, which reflected a nationwide trend

(Miller and Wheeler 1990).

In 1912 – five years before its formal inception in 1917 – the Cleveland Metropolitan

Park District was assembled to deal with land solely outside of the city limits (Miller 1992; The

EDGE Group et al. 2012). Its bold board members and first director, William Stinchcomb, foresaw the need for respite and space amidst Cleveland’s growing population and urban sprawl.

Their vision was to create a connected park system encompassing Cuyahoga County (where

Cleveland is located) and incorporating the county’s scenic features, such as Tinker’s Creek and the Rocky River Valley (Miller 1992; The EDGE Group et al. 2012). A Cleveland businessman concerned by the alarming rate of commercial and industrial spread made a philanthropic gift of three acres of Rocky River Valley’s floor. The donation marked the district’s first acquisition of land for public use (Miller and Wheeler 1990; Miller 1992; Cleveland Metroparks 2018c) and established the roots for Ohio’s oldest park system (Cleveland Metroparks 2018c).

In 1920, Cleveland Metropolitan Park District possessed around 100 acres in the Rocky

River and Big Creek area (Cleveland Metroparks 2018c). In order to achieve their vision, the organization obtained as much land as possible to offset Cleveland's booming development.

Within two years, Cleveland Metropolitan Park District amassed more parkland bringing its total over 1,000 acres in a county of 456 square miles. Within a decade, the agency further increased its land ownership to 9,000 acres by 1930 and consisted of nine reservations scattered throughout the county. During this time of expansion, roads, 12 miles of trails, and a six mile bicycle trail were purposefully constructed in Rocky River Reservation. A parkway was added which required altering the namesake river's width and meandering. The reservation continued to develop with the addition of a museum, large horse stable, and bridle trail that linked it to

Brecksville Reservation. The linkage of the two reservations signaled the beginning of connectedness. As a whole, Cleveland Metropolitan Park District's progress mirrored Rocky

River Reservation's because human amenities – such as restrooms and shelters – flourished.

Parkland throughout the county was cleared to accommodate picnic spaces and parking lots

(Miller 1992). The ultimate goal of a connected park system was still not achieved, as many of the nine reservations were more visitor-friendly but disjointed during this time period.

In the 1920s through the close of the 1930s, human and capital progress continued in the city of Cleveland and within the Cleveland Metropolitan Park District. In just a decade (i.e.

1916 to 1926) the number of registered automobiles almost quadrupled (Miller and Wheeler

1990). In contrast, where Cleveland Metropolitan Park District surged ahead, the city of

Cleveland’s urban parks fell into disrepair. Over a decade of anthropocentric development by

Cleveland Metropolitan Park District yielded "55 miles of auto roads, 60 miles of bridle paths,

53 miles of foot trails, 10 shelterhouses, 3 trailside museums, 2 public golf courses, and 14 group

camping centers" (Miller 1992, 13) amongst 11,000 acres of parkland. The organization’s board members sought to connect the various reservations, and finally create the envisioned Emerald

Necklace, by either buying new land in between, or the extension of, existing reservations.

However, the population growth and urban sprawl of the city of Cleveland threatened Cleveland

Metropolitan Park District due to a spike in vandalism, aquatic pollution, and the proposed route of the Ohio Turnpike. Likewise, Rocky River Reservation was bulging with automobile traffic and recreationists, recording an annual visitor rate of over six million people in 1961 (Miller

1992).

In 1975, Cleveland Metropolitan Park District officially amended its moniker to

Cleveland Metroparks, which remains (Miller 1992). As of 2017 – 100 years after the agency's birth – the agency was admittedly close to completing the Emerald Necklace and thickened the necklace by gaining additional property (Hampshire accessed 1 May 2019). One of the more recently created reservations was West Creek Reservation in Parma, Ohio, which publicly opened on 1 January 2006 (Cleveland Metroparks 2012; 2017).

CHAPTER IV

CONTEXT

Within Cleveland Metroparks, each of the 18 reservations has an ecology that shares differences and similarities with the others. Despite being only nine miles apart, one can say the same about the two study areas (i.e. Rocky River Reservation and West Creek Reservation).

However, West Creek Reservation is a newer reservation with its assets and hindrances still being discovered, therefore it lacks the major data and long-term studies that Rocky River

Reservation has.

Over a quarter of Rocky River Reservation is designated wetland and nearly half of the remaining landscape is considered forested. These two features are the reservation’s main natural resources in addition to the namesake river system’s hydrography. The wetlands are somewhat isolated and help support the Rocky River Reservation’s biota, especially some of its more fragile species. 2% of West Creek Reservation is wetlands, though some are man-made.

An assessment noted that larger [in area] reservations – like Rocky River Reservation – harbor wetlands of substantially higher quality (i.e. Category 3 according to Ohio Environmental

Protection Agency; Cleveland Metroparks 2009b).

Wild biota

Insects

A myriad of insects within Ohio’s Lepidoptera order are presently found in Cleveland

Metroparks, that is 78 of the 146 species (53%). Of those, 26 (33%) are indicated as rare.

However, some of those rare populations fluctuate and become more commonplace during peak

months. No state endangered Lepidoptera species exist within the agency’s boundaries, though there are a few within the Odonata order (Cleveland Metroparks 2015c; 2015d). 81 out of 409 species (19%) within Ohio’s Odonata order are presently found in within the park system. 33 species (40%) are indicated as having a scant population or extremely restricted range (Table 2;

Cleveland Metroparks 2015d). In particular, West Creek Reservation’s grassy expanse is ideal for flying species (e.g. dragonflies, butterflies). Emerald Ash Borer disease was found in its early stages in ten out of 14 reservations sampled with Rocky River, Hinckley and North Chagrin

Reservation indicating over 10% of vegetation afflicted (Cleveland Metroparks 2011).

Table 2: Overview of order Lepidoptera and Odonata within Cleveland Metroparks (2015c; 2015d). Family / Common Name Number of Family’s Of Note Species Abundance within Family Aeshnidae / Darners 14 Mostly rare; Canada Darner listed as through common endangered by the state. Calopterygidae / Broad- 2 Common winged Damselflies Coenagrionidae / Pond 25 Common 5 species do not have confirmed Damsels through rare sightings. Cordulegastridae / 3 Rare Spiketails Corduliidae / Baskettails 7 Occasional Uhler’s Sundragon listed as and Emeralds endangered by the state. Gomphidae / Clubtails 13 61% rare; mostly occasional Hesperiidae / Skippers 37 43% rare; European Skipper is exotic through common species. Lestidae / Spread-winged 11 Occasional Damselflies Libellulidae / Skimmers 24 Common Blue-faced Meadowhawk and through rare Red Saddlebags listed as very (37% of species) rare. Lycaenidae / Gossamer- 18 Common Bog Copper extirpated from the wing Butterflies through rare county. Macromiidae / Cruisers 3 Occasional Nymphalidae / Brush- 30 Common footed Butterflies through rare

Table 2 continued: Papilionidae / 6 50 % rare; 50% Swallowtails common Petaluridae / Petailtails 1 Occasional Gray Petaltail is the only species. Pieridae / Whites and 10 60% rare; 40% Two exotic species present: Sulphurs common Cabbage White and Orange Sulphur. Birds and mammals

While many biotic populations within Cleveland Metroparks have concerning numbers, the Indiana Bat and Kirtland’s Warbler are the only two species in Cleveland Metroparks that are listed as federally endangered species. Cleveland Metroparks is home to 44 mammalian species, including the only marsupial species found in the United States of America: the Virginia

Opossum. Excluding the Primate order, seven orders in total thrive here: Soricomorpha (shrews and moles), Chiroptera (bats), Carnivora (carnivores), Artiodactyla (even-toed ungulates),

Rodentia (rodents), Lagomorpha (rabbits and hares), and the aforementioned Didelphimorphia

(opossums; Table 3; Cleveland Metroparks 2015f). Both Rocky River and West Creek

Reservation are home to the region’s apex predator, coyote, and the region’s overabundant white-tailed deer. Deer browse is a persistent and widespread problem in the region but in West

Creek Reservation the damage is particularly high (Cleveland Metroparks 2011). Compared to the number of insect orders, the mammalian orders have significantly less rare species (18%;

Cleveland Metroparks 2015f).

Table 3: Overview of the mammalian orders found within Cleveland Metroparks (2015f). Family / Common Number of Family’s Abundance Of Note Name Species within Family Canidae / Dogs 3 66% occasional; 34% common Castoridae / Beavers 1 Common American Beaver is only species.

Table 3 continued: Cervidae / Deer 1 Common White-tailed Deer is only species from order Artiodactyla. Didelphidae / 1 Common Virginia Opposum is only Opossums species. Dipodidae / Jumping 2 50% occasional; 50% Woodland Jumping Mouse Mice rare may be extirpated. Felidae / Cats 1 Rare; not in Cuyahoga Bobcat recently confirmed County in neighboring Lake County. Hominidae / Humans 1 Common Humans are the only species and Great Apes in the country from this family. Leporidae / Rabbits 1 Common Eastern Cottontail is the only species from order Lagomorpha. Mephitidae / Skunks 1 Common Striped Skunk is only species. Muridae / Mice, Rats, 8 Common through rare Brown or Norway Rat and Voles and Lemmings House Mouse are exotic species. Woodland Vole may be extirpated. Mustelidae / Weasels 5 Mostly rare; through Northern River Otter, Least common. Weasel and Short-tailed Weasel have few sightings. Procyonidae / 1 Common Raccoon is only species. Raccoons Sciuridae / Squirrels 6 Common Soricidae / Shrews 4 50% rare; through Least Shrew may be common extirpated. Talpidae / Moles 3 Common through rare Star-nosed Mole is a species of concern. Ursidae / Bears 1 Rare Black Bear is only species. Vespertilionidae / 9 Common though rare Evening Bat is a species of Plain-nosed Bats concern due to only one sighting in the county. Cleveland Metroparks recorded 309 bird species with 108 (34%) considered rare during every season they exist in the region (Table 4). As such, Rocky River Reservation was recognized as part of the Audubon Society’s “Important Bird Area” (Cleveland Metroparks

2012). The majority of birds are observable during at least three out of the four seasons.

Moreover, the order Passeriformes represent almost half of the total species of birds presently in

Cleveland Metroparks (2015b).

Table 4: Overview of birds found within Cleveland Metroparks (2015b). Family / Common Name Number of Family’s Of Note Species Abundance within Family Accipitridae / Hawks, 11 Common Golden Eagle, Northern Goshawk Eagles and Allies through rare and Rough-legged Hawk are rare species. Alaudidae / Larks 1 Occasional Horned Lark is only species. Alcedinidae / Kingfishers 1 Common Belted Kingfisher is only species. Alcidae / Alcids 1 Rare Black Guillemot is only species and may be extirpated. Anatidae / Geese, Swans 37 40% rare; Mute Swan and Trumpeter Swan and Ducks through common are exotic species. Only one record of Common Eider. Apodidae / Swifts 1 Common Chimney Swift is only species. Ardeidae / Herons and 10 Common Yellow-crowned Night-Heron Bitterns through rare may be extirpated. Bombycillidae / 2 50% common; Bohemian Waxwing has few Waxwings 50% rare sightings. Caprimulgidae / 2 50% common; Eastern Whippoorwill present 2/4 Nighthawks and Nightjars 50% rare seasons. Cardinalidae / Cardinals 5 40% rare; 60% Blue Grosbeak and Dickcissel and Allies common have few sightings. Cathartidae / New World 2 50% common; Black Vulture has few sightings. Vultures 50% rare Certhiidae / Creepers 1 Occasional Brown Creeper is only species. Charadriidae / Plovers 5 60% rare; American Golden-Plover present through common 1/4 seasons. Columbidae / Pigeons and 4 50% common; White-winged Dove and Eurasian Doves 50% rare Collared Dove may be extirpated. Corvidae / Jays and 3 66% common; Fish Crow increasing in Crows 33% rare abundance. Cuculidae / Cuckoos 2 Occasional Emberizidae / Emberizid 21 38% rare; Lark Sparrow has few sightings. Sparrows through common Falconidae / Falcons 3 66% occasional; American Kestrel in in decline. 34% rare Fringillidae / Finches and 10 60% rare; Pine Grosbeak may be extirpated. Allies through common

Table 4 continued: Gaviidae / Loons 3 66% rare; 34% Red-throated Loon and Pacific occasional Loon have few sightings. Gruidae / Cranes 1 Rare Sandhill Crane is only species; present 2/4 seasons. Haematopodidae / Avocet 1 Rare American Avocet is only and Stilts species. Hirundinidae / Swallows 7 Mostly common Cliff Swallow and Cave through Swallow have few sightings. occasional Icteridae / Blackbirds and 10 Mostly common Yellow-headed Blackbird and Orioles through Brewer’s Blackbird have few occasional sightings. Laniidae / Shrikes 2 Rare Loggerhead Shrike in decline. Laridae / Jaegers, Gulls 22 59% rare; through Ivory Gull may be extirpated. and Terns common Black Tern in decline. Mimidae / Mockingbirds 3 66% common; and Thrashers 34% occasional Motacillidae / Pipits 1 Occasional American Pipit is only species. Paridae / Chickadees and 3 66% common; Boreal Chickadee may be Titmice 34% rare extirpated. Parulidae / Wood 39 23% rare; through Kirtland’s Warbler is federally Warblers common endangered species. Passeridae / Old World 1 Common House Sparrow is exotic Sparrows species. Pelecanidae / Pelicans 2 Rare Brown Pelican and American White Pelican have few sightings. Phalacrocoracidae / 1 Occasional Double-crested Cormorant is Cormorants only species. Phasianidae / Pheasants, 2 50% rare; 50% Ring-necked Pheasant is exotic Grouse and Turkeys occasional species. Picidae / Woodpeckers 7 Common through All 7 species nest within occasional Cleveland Metroparks. Podicipedidae / Grebes 5 60% rare; through Red-neck Grebe, Eared Grebe, common and Western Grebe have few sightings. Rallidae / Rails, 4 Common through Gallinules and Coots occasional Regulidae / Kinglets 2 50% common; 50% occasional Scolopacidae / Sandpipers 29 51% rare; through and Phalaropes occasional

Table 4 continued: Sittidae / Nuthatches 2 Common through Red-breasted Nuthatch and occasional White-breasted Nuthatch nest in Cleveland Metroparks. Strigidae / Typical Owls 7 42% common; Snowy Owl present 2/4 58% rare seasons. Sturnidae / Starlings 1 Common European Starling is exotic species. Sullidae / Gannet 1 Rare Northern Gannet is only species and has few sightings. Sylviidae / Gnatcatchers 1 Common Blue-gray Gnatcatcher is only species. Thraupidae / Tanagers 3 66% rare; 34% Western Tanager has few common sightings. Threskiornithidae / Ibises 2 Rare White Ibis and Glossy Ibis may be extirpated. Trochilidae / 1 Common Ruby-throated Hummingbird Hummingbirds is only species. Troglodytidae / Wrens 6 Common through Rock Wren may be extirpated. rare Turdidae / Thrushes 8 Mostly common Varied Thrush has few through sightings. occasional Tyrannidae / Tyrant 13 Mostly common Say’s Phoebe and Western Flycatchers through Kingbird have few sightings. occasional Tytonidae / Barn Owls 1 Rare Barn Owl is only species and no longer nests in area. Vireonidae / Vireos 6 Common through occasional Reptiles and amphibians

Amongst reptiles and amphibians, four orders inhabit Cleveland Metroparks: Anura

(frogs and toads), Caudata (salamanders), Squamata (snakes and lizards), and Testudines (turtles;

Table 5). Together, they constitute 47 species, 13 of which are considered rare (27%). Nearly half of the salamanders within the park system are identified as rare. Currently, there are no confirmed venomous snakes in the northeast Ohio region (Cleveland Metroparks 2015a).

Table 5: Overview of orders Anura, Caudata, Squamata and Testudines within Cleveland Metroparks (2015a). Family / Common Number Family’s Abundance Of Note Name of Species within Family Ambystomidae / Mole 5 Common through rare Cross-breeding is frequent Salamanders among this family, making field identification difficult. Anaxyrus / True Toads 2 50% common; 50% rare Chelidridae / Snapping 1 Common Common Snapping Turtle is Turtles only species. Colubridae / Colubrid 12 Common through rare Eastern Fox Snake is exotic Snakes species. Emydidae / Water and 7 Common through rare Red-eared Slider, Eastern Box Turtles Box Turtle and Wood Turtle are exotic species. Hylidae / Treefrogs 3 66% common; 34% rare Kinosternidae / Musk 1 Occasional Common Musk Turtle is Turtles only species. Plethodontidae / 9 50% common; 50% Only one record of Four-toed Lungless Salamanders rare; 1 occasional Salamander. species Proteidae / Waterdogs 1 Rare Mudpuppy is only species. Ranidae / True Frogs 5 Common through Northern Leopard Frog in occasional decline. Salamandridae / Newts 1 Occasional Eastern Newt is only species. Scincidae / Skinks 1 Rare Five-lined Skink is only species representing suborder Lacertilia. Trionychidae / 1 Occasional Eastern Spiny Softshell is Softshell Turtles only species. Fish

Cleveland Metroparks houses 21 orders of fish, only one of which contains jawless fish

(Table 6). 14 species of fish within Cleveland Metroparks are deemed rare (14%).

Unfortunately, about a third of those rare species show a declining population, specifically

Bigeye Chub, Brook Silverside, Muskellunge, Silver Redhorse, and Spotted Sucker (Cleveland

Metroparks 2015e).

Table 6: Summary of fish families found in Cleveland Metroparks (2015e). Family / Common Number of Family’s Of Note Name Species / Abundance Exotic Species within Family Acipenseridae / 1 / 0 Rare Lake Sturgeon listed as Sturgeons endangered by the state. Amiidae / Bowfins 1 / 0 Occasional Bowfin is only species. Anguillidae / 1 / 1 N/A American Eel is only Freshwater Eels species. Atherinidae / 1 / 0 Rare Brook Silverside is only Silversides species. Catostomidae / Suckers 11 / 0 Mostly rare; All rare species in decline. through common Centrarchidae / 11 / 0 Mostly common; Longear Sunfish extirpated Sunfishes through rare from Cuyahoga River. Clupeidae / Herrings 2 / 2 50% common; 50% and Shads occasional Cottidae / Sculpins 1 / 0 Occasional Mottled Sculpin is only species. Cyprinidae / Minnows 29 / 3 Mostly common; Pugnose Minnow listed as through occasional endangered by state. All rare species in decline. Esocidae / Pikes 3 / 0 Occasional through rare Gadidae / Cods 1 / 0 Occasional Burbot is only species. Gasterosteidae / 1 / 0 Occasional Brook Stickleback is only Sticklebacks species. Gobiidae / Gobies 1 / 1 N/A Round Goby is only species. Hiodontidae / 1 / 0 Rare Mooneye is only species. Mooneyes Ictaluridae / Bullhead 7 / 0 Common through Flathead Catfish extirpated Catfishes occasional from area. Lepisosteidae / Gars 2 / 0 Occasional Spotted Gar extirpated from area; listed as endangered by the state. Moronidae / Temperate 2 / 1 Common Only two species: White Basses Bass and White Perch. Osmeridae / Smelts 1 / 1 Common Rainbow Smelt is only species. Percidae / Perches, 12 / 0 Common through Channel Darter, Eastern Walleyes and Darters occasional Sand Darter and Iowa Darter all extirpated from various rivers.

Table 6 continued: Percopsidae / Trout- 1 / 0 Occasional Trout-Perch is only species. Perches Petromyzontidae / 3 / 1 Rare Only class of jawless fish. Lampreys Salmonidae / Salmons 9 / 5 Mostly occasional; Cisco listed as endangered and Trouts rare through by the state. All rare species common increasing in abundance. Sciaenidae / Drums 1 / 0 Common Freshwater Drum (or Sheephead) is only species. Umbridae / 1 / 0 Common Central Mudminnow is only Mudminnows species. Flora

Trees

16,547 acres – which accounts for 77% of total land – throughout the reservations is existing urban tree canopy, which is defined as “the layer of leaves, branches and stems of trees that cover the ground when viewed from above using aerial or satellite imagery” (Hanou 2011,

2). The predominant biome is “mixed deciduous hardwood forest with patches of interspersed grasslands” (Moll et al. 2018, 767) and topographical ranges. 15% of the total existing tree species are deemed rare while 77 out of 126 are native. They span many taxonomic groups though there is a greater variety of angiosperms. Commonly encountered deciduous trees are oak, birch, maple, ash, and beech (Table 7; Cleveland Metroparks 2013). Most gymnosperms present in Cleveland Metroparks fall under two orders: Ginkgoales or Pinales (Cleveland

Metroparks 2015i).

Today, Rocky River Reservation's diverse landscape – with features such as floodplains, ravines, and wetlands – lends itself to supporting a mixture of vegetation (Miller 1992). An assessment classified 69% of Rocky River Reservation and 80% of West Creek Reservation as existing urban tree canopy (Hanou 2011). Many older tree species thrive in both reservations.

While it is small compared to other reservations, at 324 acres 80% of West Creek Reservation is

forested. (Hanou 2011; Cleveland Metroparks 2012).

Ash trees make up 6.3% “of the total forest composition” which is on track with estimates for the state of Ohio (Widmann 2008 quoted in Cleveland Metroparks 2011). Rocky

River, Mill Stream and Hinckley Reservation make up over 73% of the Ash trees within the park system and are part of seven reservations with an estimated population greater than 25%. In

West Creek Reservation, 10% of sampled plots showed at least one Ash tree. Species include white (Fraxinus americana), green (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), pumpkin and black species with white and green being more prevalent throughout Cleveland Metroparks land (2011).

Table 7: Overview of trees found in Cleveland Metroparks (2015i). Family / Common Name Number of Family’s Of Note Species / Abundance Exotic Species within Family Aceraceae / Maples 8 / 2 Mostly common; Norway Maple and English through rare Field Maple are exotic species. Annonaceae / Custard- 1 / 0 Occasional Pawpaw is only species. apples Betulaceae / Birches 9 / 4 Mostly common River Birch, Paper Birch, through European White Birch and occasional European Alder are exotic species. Bignoniaceae / Trumpet- 1 / 0 Occasional Northern Catalpa is only creepers species. Caesalpiniaceae / 3 / 1 66% occasional; Kentucky Coffeetree is exotic Caesalpinias 34% rare species. Cornaceae / Dogwoods 2 / 0 Occasional Cupressaceae / Cypresses 2 / 1 Occasional Arborvitae is exotic species. Ebenaceae / Ebonies 1 / 1 Rare Common Persimmon is exotic species. Fabaceae / Peas 1 / 0 Common Black Locust is only species. Fagaceae / Beeches and 14 / 4 Common All mature American Oaks through rare Chestnuts were killed by chestnut blight, but stumps and small trees present. Ginkgoaceae / Ginkgos 1 / 1 Rare Gingko is exotic species.

Table 7 continued: Hamamelidaceae / Witch 1 / 0 Common Sweetgum is only species. Hazels Hippocastanaceae / 4 / 2 Occasional Horse Chestnut and Red Horse-chestnuts Chestnut are exotic species. Juglandaceae / Walnuts 7 / 0 Mostly common Mockernut Hickory is only and Hickories though species rare in abundance. occasional Lauraceae / Laurels 1 / 0 Common Sassafras is only species. Magnoliaceae / Magnolias 3 / 1 Common Sweetbay is exotic species. through rare Moraceae / Mulberries 3 / 2 Common White Mulberryand Osage and Figs through rare Orange are exotic species. Oleaceae / Olives 4 / 0 25% common; Black Ash is rare species. 50% occasional; 25% rare Pinaceae / Pines 15 / 13 Mostly common Eastern White Pine and though Eastern Hemlock are only occasional native species. Platanaceae / Sycamores 2 / 1 Common London Planetree is only through species. occasional Rosaceae / Roses 21 / 10 Mostly common Most exotic species from through Eurasia. occasional Salicaceae / Willows 14 / 4 Mostly common White Poplar, Weeping through Willow, Crack Willow and occasional White Willow are exotic species. Simaroubaceae / Quassias 1 / 1 Occasional Ailanthus is exotic species. Taxodiceae / Bald 2 / 2 50% occasional; Bald Cypress and Dawn Cypresses 50% rare Redwood are exotic species. Tiliaceae / Basswoods 1 / 0 Occasional American Basswood is only species. Ulmaceae / Elms 4 / 1 25% common; Siberian Elm is exotic 50% occasional; species. 25% rare Herbaceous

With over 60 wildflower families that blossom throughout the year, the biodiversity spans the spectrum. That is, some families show a large variety of species while other families are comprised of a single species.

Table 8: Summary of wildflowers found in Cleveland Metroparks throughout the year (i.e. spring through fall). No species bloom during winter (Cleveland Metroparks 2015g; 2015h). Family / Common Name Number of Family’s Of Note Species / Abundance Exotic Species within Family Alismataceae / Water 3 / 0 66% occasional; Plantains 34% rare Amaranthaceae / 1 / 0 Rare Slender Glasswort is only Amaranths species. Amaryllidaceae / 1 / 0 Rare Yellow Stargrass is only Amaryllis species. Apiaceae / Carrots 15 / 5 Common Different species (exotic and through rare native) present in spring and summer-fall. Apocynaceae / Dogbanes 2 / 1 Common Indian Hemp is only present in summer; Periwinkle is exotic species. Araceae / Arums 3 / 0 66% common; Present only in spring. 34% occasional Araliaceae / Ginsengs 5 / 0 60% rare; 40% Mostly Sarsparilla species. occasional Aristolochiaceae / 1 / 0 Common Wild Ginger is only species Birthworts and present only in spring. Asclepiadaceae / 6 / 0 Mostly rare; Milkweeds through common Asteraceae / Asters 116 / 33 Common Most species present in through rare summer-fall. Berberidaceae / Barberries 3 / 0 66% common; Present only in spring. 34% occasional Boraginaceae / Borages 6 / 2 50% common; Virginia Stickseed is only 50% rare summer-fall species. Brassicaceae / Mustards 14 / 6 Mostly common Majority of species present through summer-fall occasional Butomaceae / Flowering 1 / 1 Rare Flowering Rush is exotic Rushes species. Campanulaceae / 2 / 0 Rare Harebell and Tall Bellflower Bellflowers are only species. Caprifoliaceae / 2 / 0 Occasional Orange-fruited Horse Gentian Honeysuckles through rare and Twinflower are only species. Caryophyllaceae / Pinks 4 / 1 Mostly Present only in spring; occasional Common Chickweed is exotic species.

Table 8 continued: Commelinaceae / 1 / 0 Rare Ohio Spiderwort is only Spiderworts species and present only in spring. Convolvulaceae / 2 / 1 Common Common Morning Glory is Bindweeds exotic species. Crassulaceae / Stonecrops 1 / 0 Occasional Wild Stonecrop is only species and present only in spring. Dioscoreaceae / Yams 3 / 0 66% rare; 34% common Dipsacaceae / Teasels 2 / 2 Common Teasel and Cut-leaved Teasel through are exotic species. occasional Ericaceae / Heaths 2 / 0 Rare Trailing Arbutus and Wintergreen are only species. Eiphorbiaceae / Spurges 3 / 1 66% rare; 34% Leafy Spurge is exotic species. occasional Fabaceae / Peas 25 / 12 Common Birdfoot Trefoil is present only through rare in spring. Fumariaceae / Fumitories 2 / 0 Common Dutchman’s Breeches and Squirrel-corn are only species. Gentianceae / Gentians 4 / 0 Rare Soapwort Gentian and Pennywort have few sightings. Geraniaceae / Geraniums 3 / 1 Common Present only in spring; Herb- through rare Robert is exotic species. Hydrophyllaceae / 3 / 0 Occasional Present only in spring. Waterleaves Hypericaceae / St. 3 / 1 66% rare; 34% Common St. Johnswort is Johnsworts common exotic species. Iridaceae / Irises 9 / 1 Common or Yellow Iris is exotic species. rare Lamiaceae / Mints 35 / 9 Mostly rare; Most species present in fields. through common Liliaceae / Lillies 24 / 3 Common Most species present in spring. through rare Limnanthaceae / Meadow- 1 / 0 Common False Mermaid is only species foams and only present in spring. Lobeliaceae / Lobelias 4 / 0 Mostly occasional Malvaceae / Mallows 5 / 3 80% rare; 20% Velvet Leaf, Common Mallow common (or Cheeses), and Flower-of- an-hour are exotic species. Nymphaeaceae / Water 2 / 0 Occasional Spatterdock and Sweet-scented Lillies Water Lily are only species.

Table 8 continued: Onagraceae / Willow 11 / 1 Mostly rare; Hairy Willow Herb is exotic Herbs through species. common Orchidaceae / Orchises 12 / 5 Mostly rare Helleborine is exotic species; (Orchids) most spring orchids are hypothetical. Orobanchaceae / Broom- 3 / 0 66% common; Spring species are parasites on rapes 34% rare trees. Oxillidaceae / Wood 3 / 2 66% common; Creeping Wood Sorrel and Sorrels 34% rare Yellow Wood Sorrel are exotic species. Papaveraceae / Poppies 1 / 0 Common Bloodroot is only species and present only in spring. Phytolaccaceae / 1 / 0 Common Pokeweed is only species. Pokeweeds Plantaginaceae / Plantains 3 / 2 66% common; Common Plantain and English 34% rare Plantain are exotic species. Polemoniaceae / Phloxes 6 / 0 Mostly rare Most species present in spring. Polygalaceae / Polygalas 3 / 0 Rare Seneca Snakeroot has few sightings. Polygonaceae / 12 / 6 Common 50% of family is exotic Buckwheats through rare species. Primulaceae / Primroses 7 / 2 Common Moneywort and Purple through rare Loosestrife are exotic species. Portulacaceae / Purslanes 1 / 0 Common Spring Beauty is only species. Pyrolaceae / Pyrolas 5 / 0 80% rare; 20% common Ranunculaceae / 21 / 2 Common Most species present in spring. Buttercups through rare Rosaceae / Roses 10 / 1 Mostly rare Rough-fruited Cinquefoil is exotic species; Strawberry species present in spring. Rubiaceae / Madders 6 / 0 50% occasional; 50% common Santalaceae / Sandalwoods 1 / 0 Rare Bastard Toad-flax is only species. Saxifragaceae / Saxifrages 2 / 0 Common Foam-flower and Two-leaved through Mitrewort are only species and occasional present only in spring. Scrophulariaceae / 14 / 6 Common Common Mullein and Moth Figworts through Mullein are exotic summer occasional species. Solanaceae / Nightshades 4 / 2 50% common; Black Nightshade and 50% rare Jimsonweed are exotic species.

Table 8 continued: Sparganiaceae / Bur-reeds 2 / 0 Rare Great Bur Reed and Lesser Bur Reed are only species. Typhaceae / Cattails 2 / 1 Common Narrowleaf Cattail is exotic species. Verbenaceae / Vervains 3 / 0 66% common; White Vervain, Blue Vervain 34% rare and Hoary Vervain are only species. Violaceae / Violets 17 / 0 Common Present only in spring. through rare Urticaceae / Nettles 4 / 1 50% common; Stinging Nettle is exotic through rare species. Invasive species

Twelve agency-identified species/species groups were the focus of eradication based on their negative ecological impact and wide distribution, although the exotic species vary in abundance and distribution (Table 9). The entire park system ranges from a “low” degree of infestation (i.e. Cleveland Metroparks’s Zoo, and Bradley Woods, Hinckley and West Creek

Reservation) to “very high” (i.e. Ohio and Erie Canal; 2009a).

Table 9: Top 12 invasive plant species and/or species groups found in Cleveland Metroparks (2009a). Common Group and/or Name Scientific Name Narrow-leaved cattail, Hybrid cattail Typha angustifolia, Typha x glauca European buckthorn, Glossy buckthorn Rhamnus cathartica, Thamnus frangula Garlic mustard Alliaria petiolata Bush honeysuckle, Japanese honeysuckle Lonicera mackii, Lonicera japonica Japanese barberries, Common barberry Berberis thunbergii, Berberis vulgaris Japanese knotweed Polygonum cuspidatum Lesser celandine Ranunculus ficaria Multiflora rose Rosa multiflora Norway maple Acer platanoides Phragmites Phragmites australis Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria Reed canary grass Phalaris arundinacea Specifically, Rocky River Reservation is one of five reservations that has a high infestation of exotic flora. The reservation is predicted to have more than 300 acres of invasive plants with ten of the 12 groups identified as a concern, particularly lesser celandine (Ficaria

verna), garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata), Norway maple (Acer platanoides) and Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica). These species are predominantly found in upland forest landscapes. In contrast, it is estimated that West Creek Reservation has less than ten acres of invasive plants throughout (Cleveland Metroparks 2009a).

Design principle

To conserve and protect its biodiversity, Cleveland Metroparks takes on a holistic, ecological design principle. In 2013, Cleveland Metroparks earned accreditation by the

Commission for Accreditation of Park and Recreation Agencies (CAPRA) which charges parks with responsibly protecting and stewarding resources, including wildlife and the land they inhabit (Commission for Accreditation of Park and Recreation Agencies 2017, 50). To execute its vision of being a "leader for sustainable green infrastructure, that provides essential environmental, economic and community benefits..." (The EDGE Group et al. 2012, 2),

Cleveland Metroparks's goal for its 2020 Emerald Necklace Centennial Plan continues to focus on conservation or restoration of ecological functions. Strategies include responsibly stewarding hydrologic features, eradicating exotic plant and animal species, controlling deer population, preventing erosive landscape change, facilitating healthy wetlands, and effectively managing forested land (The EDGE Group et al. 2012).

Simultaneously, the agency is committed to providing outdoor recreation, but recognizes the rising pressure put on natural resources due to an increased anthropogenic presence both within and outside its reservations. Thus, Cleveland Metroparks is utilizing an "ecosystem approach" (The EDGE Group et al. 2012, 6) to its design principles and natural resources management, like adhering to an 80/20 ratio of parkland to development. The agency also plans to restore ecological functions by replacing low-use bridle trails with mountain bike trails or

redesigning certain spaces to maximize visitor experience while minimizing anthropogenic impact on the environment (The EDGE Group et al. 2012).

CHAPTER V

METHODOLOGY

Project overview

Study area

Due to Cleveland Metroparks’s abundance of land in the densely populated Cuyahoga

County, the agency facilitates and protects the biodiversity in the region. Because concurrent use by wildlife and humans using trails was key to my research, Cleveland Metroparks property was an ideal study area as its park system covers approximately 23,000 acres and comprises the majority of the locally famous "Emerald Necklace," a U-shaped connection of more than 70 miles of protected natural and cultural space (The EDGE Group et al. 2012; Cleveland

Metroparks 2017; 2018a). Cleveland Metroparks sees 18 million annual visitors and provides

19,000 opportunities for recreation and nature education (2018d). Of the top 10 activities within the park system, the agency categorized 9.75 million annual visitors made use of more than 300 miles of their trails (The Trust for Public Land 2013; 2018a). The two study sites provided opportunities for visitors and wildlife to overlap spatially.

I focused on two urban park settings solely under Cleveland Metroparks’s jurisdiction

(some of the reservations share boundaries with nearby Cuyahoga Valley National Park) because both are protected and permitted public access equally. This eliminated certain variables such as cost (i.e. some private lands may not have free access, thus deterring the number of visitors and trails), restrictions (i.e. private land may only be accessible via permit), time (i.e. most parks have similar hours of operation) and wildlife's learned behavior. Conducting my research in

Cleveland Metroparks assured all wildlife within it were equally protected by the same governing body. Also, it prevented policy being a co-variate and lent itself to a fair comparison.

For example, my research results would be weighted if I compared two different land-use areas such as a government owned forest and a privately owned farm where hunting was permitted.

Study sites and scale

Established in 1919, Rocky River Reservation contains the first land purchased by

Cleveland Metroparks in its initial year of operation (2017). The 2,579-acre protected area spans the Rocky River as it meanders through eight Cuyahoga County communities, with the reservation’s northernmost boundary ending approximately 4,000 feet before the river empties into Lake Erie near Berea, Ohio (Figure 2; Cleveland Metroparks 2017; Catherwood et al. 2010).

Winding south, the reservation eventually merges with Mill Stream Run Reservation (also the organization's property) east of Strongsville. Rocky River Reservation exhibits incredibly varied topography: from flat floodplains to steep cliffs; from all-natural wetlands to manicured golf courses. In addition, an assortment of common Ohio wildlife inhabits the park, particularly in the valley. It hosts an extensive trail network – including hiking, horseback riding and cycling – with many anthropogenic amenities, thus it offered a multitude of trails to study.

Figure 2: Large scale satellite imagery showing intense urban development in Cuyahoga County (the white lines to the SW and SE signify the county lines). Yellow arrows encompass both Cleveland Metroparks’s study sites.

While satellite imagery (Figure 2) clearly shows the intense development of Cuyahoga

County and the refuge that the two study areas offer, this was not the scale for my research. As mentioned previously, I focused on community level, terrestrial movement at a finer scale. For the scale of this research, I focused on the matrix and the trails within it. Forman and Godron

(1986) defined the matrix as typically the landscape element with the most extent which dominates the landscape’s function. So, within Rocky River Reservation and West Creek

Reservation, I use the term matrix to refer to the open space within those protected areas, some of which has trails but most of which does not.

Established in 2006, the 338 acres that comprise West Creek Reservation are sandwiched

between the city of Parma and Seven Hills, Ohio (Figure 2; Cleveland Metroparks 2012; 2017).

Managed by Cleveland Metroparks, its watershed empties portions of six surrounding communities and is a key feature of the reservation. Like Rocky River Reservation, it offers a variety of topography – such as ravines and floodplains – anthropogenic amenities, and trails for hikers and cyclists. In fact, a new mountain biking trail has been developed with initial public use slated for summer or fall 2020. Unlike Rocky River Reservation, no horseback riding trails are present (Cleveland Metroparks 2018g).

Of the 18 Cleveland Metroparks reservations, Rocky River Reservation and West Creek

Reservation were of interest due to their terrestrial animal presence, diverse topography, variety of trails, and anticipated closure of some informal trails in summer and fall 2020, according to the Trails Development Manager. Thus, Rocky River Reservation and West Creek Reservation exuded a strong visitor presence alongside wildlife in a natural environment and enabled least- biased comparisons.

Data

Remotely sensed cameras

Remotely triggered photography – referred to in the literature as “trail monitoring units" or “camera traps” – gained traction in wildlife literature in the 1950s, although it was developed roughly 80 years prior. By the 1990s cameras with infrared capabilities were widespread and popular, and remain so today (Cutler and Swann 1999; Duke and Quinn 2008; Kelly and Holub

2008; Dixon et al. 2009). Infrared was and is the preferred wavelength – in addition to visible light – for wildlife research for a few reasons. First, infrared yields nighttime data when visible light is generally scarce or non-existent. Second, infrared measures ambient temperature so – for example – plants swaying in the breeze generally would not emit a heat signature nor cause an

image to be captured.

Nowadays, remotely triggered cameras are mainstream thanks to their durability in the field and accessibility to the general public (Cutler and Swann 1999; Duke and Quinn 2008;

Dixon et al. 2009). Most are relatively easy to set up, especially passive infrared systems (Cutler and Swann 1999; Dixon et al. 2009) so they are an ideal choice for a novice researcher.

Designed for individual hunters and with an average price of $150 USD, the Bushnell HD

Aggressor No Glow that Cleveland Metroparks uses for field research is affordable and easily attained. In addition, the Bushnell cameras utilize infrared technology which is key to minimally invasive research. Recording or photographing with infrared technology allows for clear day or night time images. Thus, images could be captured 24 hours a day without any equipment changes or post-research processing. Due to the aforementioned reasons, the Bushnell cameras served the goals of my research.

In regard to documenting wildlife activity, remotely triggered cameras are optimal because they allow for minimal anthropogenic presence (only set up and obtainment of the memory card require human involvement), are non-invasive, operate 24 hours a day for long periods of time, and do not have dire consequences if they malfunction (i.e. as opposed to a physical animal trap). They are much less labor intensive – therefore, significantly more monetarily and resource efficient – than direct observation, "catch and recapture" or other traditional methods (Cutler and Swann 1999; Duke and Quinn 2008; Kelly and Holub 2008;

Dixon et al. 2009). Furthermore, a date and time stamp comes standard on every camera model and is attached to each photograph to facilitate sorting, classification, analysis, or recalling the metadata.

There are many geographical and ecological applications for remote-triggered camera

traps including: defining population parameters, studying nesting behavior and nest predation, monitoring feeding ecology, determining species presence, and tracking temporal and spatial activity (Cutler and Swann 1999; Duke and Quinn 2008; Kelly and Holub 2008; Dixon et al.

2009; Hughson, Darby, and Dungan 2010). Within the scope of my research, I focused on the two latter applications. Cutler and Swann (1999) performed a meta-analysis finding remotely triggered cameras had already replaced and outperformed other methods (e.g. track counts, direct observation) in temporal and spatial tracking and determining species presence. Nearly all the literature identified camera traps as means of capturing data of animal (e.g. Cutler and Swann

1999; Duke and Quinn 2008; Dixon et al. 2009) and trail use (e.g. Duke and Quinn 2008; Kelly and Holub 2008; Coltrane and Sinnott 2015). All methods considered, these types of cameras are considered acceptable by the scientific community for documenting wildlife events, though the cameras' exact limitations – and the extent of those limitations – remain to be conclusively synthesized from the literature (Dixon et al. 2009; Hughson, Darby, and Dungan 2010).

In passive infrared systems, a sensor is triggered and an image taken when motion and a change in ambient temperature is detected (Ng et al. 2004; Duke and Quinn 2008; Jelly and

Holub 2008; Dixon et al. 2009; Hughson, Darby, and Dungan 2010; Coltrane and Sinnott 2015).

In general, passive infrared systems showed higher accuracy than active infrared systems at detecting individual animals that enter the beam’s field, and were more often employed for field research (Dixon et al. 2009; Hughson, Darby, and Dungan 2010; Coltrane and Sinnott 2015).

Regardless of the type of system (i.e. passive or active), the resulting images are typically adequate enough in quality to obtain accurate data (Cutler and Swann 1999; Duke and Quinn

2008; Kelly and Holub 2008; Dixon et al. 2009; Coltrane and Sinnott 2015).

Coltrane and Sinnott (2015) documented that passive infrared trail cameras showed high

detection rates for both bears and humans, so the same method was deemed appropriate to capture larger terrestrial animals within Cleveland Metroparks. Considering biodiversity as a whole, Duke and Quinn (2008) utilized their imagery for all Canadian wildlife, big and small alike. They detected a wide variety of terrestrial species and over 10,000 human events. They concluded using remotely triggered cameras for specifically monitoring people and wildlife movement was “very effective” (Duke and Quinn 2008, 444). Also, Ng et al.’s (2004) research showed passive infrared cameras’ results agreed with animal print data that was used to validate their methods. Kelly and Holub (2008) noted remotely triggered cameras could simultaneously survey multiple medium or large animals. In fact, many trail monitoring units can detect animals as small as mice, snakes or even insects during field research (Cutler and Swann 1999;

Kelly and Holub 2008; Dixon et al. 2009). This made them desirable for my research since I needed to document all species encountered.

Camera setup

Passive infrared, remotely triggered trail monitoring cameras were provided by Cleveland

Metroparks (Appendix A) which were successfully used by the agency in previous projects. The

Bushnell HD Aggressor No Glow cameras sensors operated on a 24-hour cycle, silently able to collect data around the clock thanks to a built-in, infrared flash (Duke and Quinn 2008; Dixon et al. 2009). This equipment was ideal for observing wildlife throughout Ohio's changing seasons and at night (Cutler and Swann 1999) without behavioral repercussions. Each camera was enclosed within a metal casing which was suspended on a preexisting tree (or in RRAPT10 and

RRAPT11's case, a telephone pole) by a tan, webbing strap to camouflage the equipment. Next, a braided steel security cable with a padlock was run through the case and camera, and around the

tree to prevent theft (Figure 3). The agency strictly controlled access to the padlock; only the Wildlife Ecologist and I possessed keys for this research.

Figure 3: Steel cable (black) used to lock camera to tree and webbing to mount camera case (tan). Between the two study sites – Rocky River Reservation and West Creek Reservation –

West Creek Reservation's cameras were mounted first. Cleveland Metroparks's trail staff were already in the process of creating two, never-before-seen mountain bike trails (referred to as

MTB trails and in figures; Figure 4) which would indubitably invite a larger human presence into this area of the reservation. Prior to this creation, only informal trails existed in this area. Thus, setting up West Creek Reservation's cameras was a priority so I could examine the changing landscape and human component, and its effect on wildlife. In fact, when camera WCNEW13 originally went live, it focused on a segment of the MTB trail where the trail crew had not yet excavated the landscape.

Figure 4: Cleveland Metroparks’s map of study area in West Creek Reservation with informal (orange) and formal (various colors) trails and camera placement.

In situ, I collaborated with Cleveland Metroparks's Director of Natural Resources,

Wildlife Ecologist, and Trails Development Manager to determine sites that potentially served as wildlife corridors, even though no sites were explicitly designed to cater to wildlife movement.

We adapted two facets of Ng et al.'s (2004) methodology: equipment used and distance between camera pairs.

In Ng et al.’s (2004) study, the use of gypsum powder tracking beds was also employed, in order to test more sites. This would have been desirable due to the limited availability of remotely triggered cameras that could be dedicated to this research for six months. Although two studies in the literature utilized track beds, they were not a viable option based on the geographical location of this research. First, their research used track beds in a Mediterranean climate zone where winter temperatures were consistently cool and dry. However, northeast

Ohio receives much lake effect precipitation and is a humid continental climate zone with freezing winters which would likely render the strips of gypsum powder unusable. More importantly, both Ng et al. (2004) and Clevenger and Waltho (2005) employed track beds in wildlife corridors in regions more remote and less traveled than Cleveland Metroparks’s. Both the mountains of southwest California and Banff National Park (the respective study sites) receive far less foot traffic than Rocky River Reservation and West Creek Reservation because they are oases amidst urban development in Cuyahoga County. For example, Banff National

Park’s 2017 annual visitor rate was estimated at more than half of Cleveland Metroparks’s, but this impact was spread out over 2,564 square miles versus Cleveland Metroparks's 32 square miles (TOWN OF Banff 2013; Government of Canada 2017; Cleveland Metroparks 2017).

Thus, in agreement with the agency’s Wildlife Ecologist, there would be too many overlapping human and animal imprints within the track bed to discern any data and the integrity of this

method would likely be compromised.

The other adaptation to the methodology was to the distance between camera pairs. As previously mentioned, I was researching in a study area significantly smaller than the mountains of southwest California (the study area in Ng et al. 2004). Thus, the team and I scaled down the distance between the paired cameras, using the minimum length of underpass tested in Ng et al.’s

(2004) study, which was 44 meters. We mounted remotely triggered cameras within 150 feet of each other to signify the beginning and end of the study site. The camera at the arbitrary

"beginning" and "end" of the trail were considered a pair since their data (i.e. imagery) would only be compared against each other. Still, each camera was given a unique name.

In West Creek Reservation, two pairs (i.e. four cameras) were set up in the field to examine two, separate sites containing preexisting informal trails (Appendix B; Figure 5; Figure

6A). Likewise, two pairs (i.e. four cameras) were set up at two, separate sites focusing on the new, formal MTB trails Figure 6B). For specifications on cameras used, see Appendix A. The team and I strived for a variety of natural environments to study. For example, a fallen tree – though it obscured some of the ground – was deemed commonplace in a forested environment

(Figure 5). We were purposeful to mount all cameras not directly on the trail for two reasons:

1) to maintain some obscurity in order to prevent tampering with the cameras or altering human behavior; 2) so the wide angle lens of the remotely triggered cameras could monitor more of the trail i.e. the foreground and background.

Figure 5: This fallen tree is an example of naturally occurring phenomena at a study site. In addition, trail type (i.e. informal or formal; Figure 6) and degree of obviousness was assessed (Appendix B; Figure 7). I measured the perpendicular distance to the trail of focus, tilt angle, height above the ground and directional orientation. Orientation of the cameras was considered because we did not want any false triggers related to the sun's rise and fall, nor a camera to be aimed into direct sunlight at any point, as that would likely compromise the imagery (Lepard et al. 2018). Most non-permanent vegetation (e.g. weeds, fallen tree branches) directly in front of the camera and within six feet was cut or removed so the entire frame was clear (Cleveland Metroparks 2018). In total, eight study sites' cameras were equipped with brand new batteries and went live the morning of Tuesday, 17 July 2018, in the reservation’s area north of Center Park.

(A) (B) Figure 6: Examples of an informal trail (A) and a formal trail (B) encountered in West Creek Reservation in summer 2018. The formal trail is a completed segment of one of the MTB trails developed by Cleveland Metroparks’s trail staff.

Figure 7: Example of a camera whose “degree of obviousness” was categorized as “Obvious”. This is camera RRAPT11 in Rocky River Reservation in winter 2018. The same criteria from Appendix B was documented for the remotely triggered cameras mounted in Rocky River Reservation. Unlike West Creek Reservation, no informal trails were present when cameras were set up on 18 October 2018. However, the area of interest was where informal trails cutting through the forest floor previously existed, but were reclaimed by the trail

staff prior to the start of my research. The restored environment at Rocky River Reservation was an important site, as its results may serve as predictors of West Creek Reservation's future because the informal trails in West Creek Reservation are slated to be reclaimed when the two new MTB trails are publicly opened in late summer or fall 2020.

Changing SD cards

In accordance with Cleveland Metroparks’s standard operating procedures, SD cards that contained all of a camera's data (i.e. imagery of subjects using the trail) were replaced with blank

SD cards usually once per month (Appendix C). The logic for this frequency of replacing the memory cards was threefold. First, it prevented attention being drawn to the cameras in an effort to limit tampering by humans or behavioral changes within all species. Second, the frequency lessened the impact of humans departing from established trails which carried the potential to scare wildlife and illicit their avoidance of the site (Lepard et al. 2018). Third, it reduced the possibility of wildlife altering their behavior by keeping the amount of human scent minimal.

For continuity, the same brand and size of SD card were used throughout the course of research. While replacing SD cards, batteries were checked for moisture or rust, and study sites were purged of any material that may compromise the data. Some examples of unwanted material I encountered included spiders and their webs (which often crossed the camera lens) in the camera casing, snow freezing on the lens of the camera, or overgrown vegetation at the study site that blocked imagery.

GIS data

Cleveland Metroparks provided Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data for

"Unsanctioned Trails" – referred to as informal trails in this thesis -- in the approximately 57,174 ft.2 study area within Rocky River Reservation (Figure 8). Therefore, no additional mapping was

needed on my part. Within West Creek Reservation, the agency logged spatial data for the two forthcoming MTB trails identified as "New MTB Little Loop" and "New MTB Center Loop"

(Figure 4).

Figure 8: Cleveland Metroparks’s map of study area in Rocky River Reservation with informal (orange) and formal (beige) trails and camera placement. Note: the informal trails clustered near the cameras were restored to natural habitat.

Tagging methods

Software

The data (i.e. imagery and its metadata) obtained was tagged solely using the open- source, digital photo management software, digiKam 5.9.0 Beta. This version of digiKam was publicly released in March 2018. All tagging was completed by me and wrote onto the metadata, for later review by the agency's Wildlife Ecologist. Standard to the three Bushnell models used, date, time [to the second], moon phase, and temperature were recorded on each image. It is important to note that none of the camera times were adjusted due to Ohio's observance of daylight savings time. Therefore, all time stamps from 02:00:00 on 4 November 2018 to

23:59:59 on 31 January 2019 – the end of the study – were askew by one hour. Other than determining the time of day for species' presence, daylight savings time had no effect on the results.

Species identification

Table 10: Variables counted and parameters for tagging images

Variable name Definition Criteria Species encountered All individual animals * Partial images of animals will be (i.e. species presence) within any camera's counted and tagged, as long as field of view of the trail species can be discerned * less particular species (see Results chapter). Humans encountered All individual humans * Partial images of humans will be (i.e. human presence) within the camera's field counted and tagged, as long as this of view of the trail can be discerned * A horse, bike or dog with a leash will be assumed to have one human associated with it, if the person is not in the image (Lucas 2010)

Table 10 continued:

Type of trail use: A) Individual animals in * Partial images of animals will be A) Verified imagery on both trail counted and tagged, as long as cameras species can be discerned and it is B) Exploratory within a 5 minute period (adapted * therefore, not B) Individual animals in from Ng et al. 2004) considered a trail use only one image (out of two cameras) per trail Frequency of species Total count of species * Not concerned with human activity encountered / total count nor type of wildlife use (i.e. of events within a given Verified or Exploratory). time period The Tag Manager within digiKam 5.9.0 Beta was loaded with abbreviations commonly used by Cleveland Metroparks's staff and volunteers. First, the tag "TRLCREW" was added as an identifier that referred to Cleveland Metroparks staff and volunteers. It also referred to the

Wildlife Ecologist and myself, the only other two people involved with the cameras in situ.

Agency staff were easy to identify because they always wore a shirt or -- as was the case in

Rocky River Reservation – were in vehicles donning the Cleveland Metroparks logo. Volunteers were usually in groups along with a staff member, and wore sturdy hiking boots, Cleveland

Metroparks shirts, and long pants (even in the heat of summer). Also, they were often identified by their accessories, such as rakes, buckets or hoes. An image tagged "TRLCREW" did not have an associated, second tag of "HUMAN" because landscape modification [on behalf of the agency] was the sole purpose for their appearance at the various study sites.

Second, the tag "ERROR" was added to convey an image that had too poor a quality to visibly discern necessary details. Often encountered on any camera with infrared capabilities, severe overexposure and severe underexposure occurred during the transition period when the cameras adaptively switched to infrared – also referred to as night mode – due to the shadows created during certain times of day (Figure 9). Examples include meteorological phenomena, like a very foggy morning or direct sunlight (Figure 9). In some cases, certain objects – such as

thick tree trunks – could be determined, but if at least 50% of the image was unable to be seen clearly, then the image was marked "ERROR" because implications related to the trail's presence was a cornerstone of my research. However, if a species could indubitably be identified in an image of inadequate quality, then the species was tagged.

(A) (B) (C) Figure 9: Image of severely overexposed image caused by sunlight and – in part – seasonality (A). This image was tagged “ERROR” because less than 50% of the landscape is distinguishable. A foggy lens was one of the common meteorological phenomena encountered while tagging the data (B). Would have been tagged “ERROR” except I could just see the jogger’s neon yellow hat so it was tagged “HUMAN”. Image with subject’s outstretched tail in the far right of the frame, partially obscured by the tree trunk (C). Due to its blurriness and the inability to determine whether this is a fox, coyote or domestic dog, this image was tagged “UNKNOWN” because a species presence was observed, but the exact species was unable to be discerned. Similar to the "ERROR" tag, "NOTHING" was added to digiKam's Tag Manager to label images with no species present (Lepard et al. 2018) whether due to a false positive trigger or our oversight while tagging. The difference was that no species was able to be visually detected in an image tagged "NOTHING" despite sufficient image quality. For instance, the remotely triggered camera may have detected a mouse moving under a leaf which went unnoticed by me, or the triggers may have been false positives. Tagging data with "NOTHING" could later be used to extract the margin of error.

Third, "UNKNOWN" was added to the list of possible tags. This label signified a species was visually present, but unable to be differentiated. For example, coyotes have a build similar to certain, medium-sized dog breeds (Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife 2014;

Cleveland Metroparks 2018b), but due to light issues, obstructions, blurriness while moving, distance from camera, and other circumstances, distinguishing between the two proved complicated (Figure 9).

Last, descriptors were added to denote the amount of freedom given to domestic dogs by their owner(s). They functioned as subsets to the "DOGDOM" tag. Thus, most images labeled as such also had a second accompanying tag of either "LEASHOFF" or "LEASHON". The tags did not refer to the dog physically wearing a leash or collar. Instead, they referred to whether or not a human was tending to the leash. In fact, in both reservations, many canines tagged

"LEASHOFF" donned a leash, but it dragged limply on the ground. These descriptors were crucial to measuring the impact of anthropogenic disturbance because – despite its length – a dog attached to a leash is still restricted from roving too far from its owner or meandering significantly off-trail and through the landscape. The only exception to a domestic dog having two tags (i.e. the species name and the leash descriptor) occurred when the neck area could not be seen. A common example I noted from the data included only seeing the face or the back half of the canine.

Accuracy, parameters and judgment

As defined in Table 10, Verified Use was when the same species was detected on both cameras in the corridor within a +/- five minute window. For validity, I sampled 10% of each station's Verified Use imagery to confirm that biota was, in fact, on the trail. For example, deer may have been browsing in the background, but were still tagged since they were visible. Using a pool of all Verified Use, I calculated the amount of biota off-trail which ranged from three to

24 percent by station, with an average of 13%. When the small guild was removed from the pool of samples, the average percentage of off-trail biota decreased to 5%. This low percentage

suggests that all other quantitative data is accurate with a low margin of error when computing

Verified Use of a trail.

For accuracy, I double-checked all imagery tagged with "UNKNOWN", “ERROR” or

"NOTHING". For validity, the ratio of “UNKNOWN”, "ERROR" and "NOTHING" tags were computed (Appendix F). Also, every image with an "UNKNOWN" tag was reviewed by

Cleveland Metroparks's Wildlife Ecologist. The percentage of images tagged “UNKNOWN” was a negligible amount of the total number of observations. At every camera this tag constituted 1% or less of the data. This means that almost every recorded event with a discernible subject received a corresponding species tag and that the counts of species are accurate.

For almost all cameras, the percentage of images tagged "ERROR" was less than one.

The overall low percentage of images tagged "ERROR" led me to trust that the cameras functioned as desired. Camera WCBL12, WCNEW10 and WCNEW11 did not follow that trend with 4, 6 and 20% of images tagged “ERROR”, respectively. All of these higher percentages can be attributed to a period of time when the camera images were entirely black – for reasons unknown – from September through October 2018.

Likewise, the high percentage of images tagged "NOTHING" – seemingly, false positives – was greatly influenced by meteorological conditions, particularly a significant amount of snow coverage from December 2018 through January 2019. Images tagged

“ERROR”, “NOTHING” and “UNKNOWN” were removed from the dataset used for analysis.

Still, a few parameters needed to be established and basic assumptions made. First, I encountered some images with only a child(ren). An adult was not inferred to be accompanying the child(ren). Non-ambulatory children (i.e. those carried or in a stroller) were counted as

individuals because they still had the ability to produce sounds which could serve as a disturbance.

Second, assumptions proved necessary when dealing with members within a family, namely the Sciuridae family, of which there were five possible tags (Appendix D). The challenges arose when full color imagery was not applicable due to the time of day the photo was captured (i.e. during the use of infrared photos; Figure 10). In an attempt to differentiate between species (note: the "Melanistic Gray Squirrel" or black squirrel is actually a subspecies of the Eastern Gray), I scrutinized other images on the same camera and date. Ultimately, I labeled the squirrel species to correspond with the majority of other squirrel tags on the album. In both reservations, throughout the spread of cameras, Fox Squirrels were the prevalent species of the

Sciuridae family.

Figure 10: Note the subject near the center of the frame, directly right of the dominant foreground tree. Due to infrared use, discerning which squirrel (family: Sciuridae) species proved challenging and certain assumptions needed to be employed for accurate tagging purposes. Third, cameras at Rocky River Reservation documented a handful of images with a variety of Cleveland Metroparks motorized vehicles, like a golf cart or truck. Motorized vehicles that did not belong to the agency were not discovered in my research. Similar to data containing

"DOGDOM", only one staff member (the driver) could be assumed with certainty. Thus, every

image with "CAR" – which represented any motorized vehicle – also bore the "TRLCREW" tag.

Last, a visual confirmation of a domestic dog on an attended leash without its owner(s) in frame warranted a basic assumption on my part. The default in these scenarios was that one human lagged out of the camera's frame (Figure 11). So, any image tagged with "DOGDOM", that met the criteria, begot another tag: "HUMAN". Due to the remotely triggered cameras' interval time of "01M" and the number of photos taken per trigger ("3 Photo"; Appendix A) this may underestimate the number of humans – moreover, all species – on the trails.

Figure 11: At the far right of the frame, one can clearly see the leash – which is taut and at an upward angle – coming from the domestic dog’s collar. The assumption of 1) “WALKING” and 2) a “HUMAN” presence was made when tagging the image. Analysis

All analyses were performed in R version 3.6.1 released in 2019. Using camptrapR – a package within the open-source R software – the initial raw dataset was created as a .csv file.

Two additional fields were added by Cleveland Metroparks’s Manager of Field Research that would aid analysis. First, a column was created to eliminate the three images captured by the camera and tagged. This condensed all three photographs of the same deer, for example, into one event (i.e. one line item in the dataset) so that a deer wouldn’t be counted thrice. Second, a column was created to differentiate whether the species in question was detected on the same or

different camera of the pair. All graphics were created using the ggplot2 package.

To establish if concurrent use was occurring, or to what degree, the elapsed time after every event tagged “HUMAN” was calculated, as long as the subsequent event was tagged as any wild species. This was determined independently of Verified Use. Thus, all Exploratory events during the course of research were considered because all cameras were mounted within

150 feet of their pair, and I assumed a disturbance – even if detected on the other camera – was still in close enough proximity to affect the wild biota. Elapsed time was calculated for every trail studied throughout both reservations. Outliers past 120 minutes were dropped from the histograms, as they greatly skewed the Time scale, but not from the overall statistics presented in Table 15.

CHAPTER VI

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Thesis question #1: establish baseline and biodiversity data

In total, over 73,000 usable images were obtained and tagged in two reservations, over ten remotely triggered cameras, throughout the course of research. Though not the focus of this research, a variety of birds – large and small (e.g. Turkey to Woodpecker, respectively) – were observed in varying quantities, from an entire flock to an individual. Avifauna were excluded from my study, as it focuses on terrestrial movement. Likewise, insects and arachnids were observed – namely spiders on the camera’s case or flying insects – but not included in this study for the same reason as the Aves class. Thus, in terms of this research, biodiversity refers to only those terrestrial animal species deemed present within Cleveland Metroparks (see Context chapter), excluding observed mice, moles, voles and amphibians.

When looking at biodiversity as a whole, species observed on at least one camera in West

Creek Reservation included: both flying and non-flying birds (Aves), domestic cats (Felis catus), coyotes (Canis latrans), domestic dogs (Canis lupis familiaris), eastern chipmunks (Tamias striatus), eastern cottontail rabbits (Sylvilagus floridanus), eastern fox squirrels (Sciurus niger), gray squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis), humans (Homo sapien), insects (Insecta), mice (Muridae or

Dipodidae), moles/voles/shrews (Talpidae/Muridae/Soricidae respectively), raccoons (Procyon lotor), red foxes (Vulpes vulpes), skunks (Mephitis mephitis), southern flying squirrels

(Glaucomys volans), Virginia opossums (Didelphis virginiana), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), and amphibians (Amphibia), detected only once at West Creek Reservation (Figure

12).

Rocky River Reservation biota observed was similar to West Creek Reservation’s, but still different. Domestic horses (Equus ferus caballus) and agency-owned, motorized vehicles – specifically trucks and carts – were present on trails here versus West Creek Reservation. As one can see in the graphs below, no flying squirrels, opossums nor skunks were detected in

Rocky River Reservation. However, it is important to keep in mind that this reservation only had three and half months of data captured by the cameras versus West Creek Reservation’s six and a half months (Figure 12).

(A)

Figure(B) 12: At a glance, terrestrial wildlife biodiversity for West Creek Reservation (A) and Rocky River Reservation (B) as detected by passive remotely triggered cameras. Counts are aggregate, therefore this graph shows total counts of species detected on all trails. Green bars represent wild species; pink bars represent anthropogenic species. Graph results were derived from Appendix G. Note: The graphs are not inclusive of all species observed, only those that were the focus of this thesis. The x axes for both graphs are inconsistent.

Rocky River Reservation as a projection of West Creek Reservation’s potential

Both reservations are described as “urban parks” with wildlife sharing the same space as a high anthropogenic presence (Moll et al. 2018, 767). Under Cleveland Metroparks’s professional guidance, the particular study area in Rocky River Reservation was formerly a network of informal trails, then restored to its original habitat. Signs are posted on the All-

Purpose Trail (APT), asking visitors to remain on it to promote rehabilitation of the matrix

(Figure 13). This was how the site for station RRBL10 was determined. Because the agency plans to return the informal trails in West Creek Reservation to their natural state, Rocky River

Reservation’s progress serves as a snapshot into West Creek Reservation’s future. The total count of Domestic Dogs seen on the formal APT in Rocky River Reservation was very close to

West Creek Reservation’s count. Given the reservation’s proximity to each other and similar anthropogenic context, I believe it is fair to make some comparisons between them and projections with this data, keeping in mind that inherent differences remain (e.g. reservation size, visitor frequency) and research time in Rocky River Reservation was significantly shorter.

Figure 13: Clearly visible agency signage asking visitors to remain on the path and out of the restored area, with red fox in the foreground.

Of every species identified and considered for analysis at Rocky River Reservation, a loose pattern appeared when examining the APT, with its high visitor frequency, to the restored informal trail network. At first glance, the APT (i.e. station RRAPT10) mostly yielded counts opposite of the rehabilitated area (i.e. station RRBL10; Figure 14). For example, looking at domestic species counts alone (Table 11), most of the two species stayed on the APT as intended because less than 1% (36) of the “HUMAN” tags (3,869) were observed in the newly natural area. The percentage was minimally higher for domestic dogs (less than 3%).

Table 11: Biota descriptions by guild sizes. Note: domestic cat was categorized as wild biota because its movement was unfettered and I never observed one on- leash throughout the course of tagging images. Domestic species were not a guild analyzed statistically. * Cleveland Metroparks staff – while still human – was tagged analyzed as a separate category (i.e. “TRLCREW”). Guild # of Species Species Large 3 coyote (Canis latrans), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), red fox (Vulpes vulpes) Medium 4 domestic cat (Felis catus), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), raccoon (Procyon lotor), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis) Small 5 eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus), eastern cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus), eastern fox squirrel (Sciurus niger), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), southern flying squirrel (Glaucomys volans) Domestic 2 domestic dog (Canis lupis familiaris), human (Homo sapien)* species

Figure 14: Break down of species present on the two, differing trails (i.e. formal and informal) from October 2018 to January 2019. This is not inclusive of all species detected, only those that were the focus of this thesis and present at the study area.

Furthermore, nearly all species that comprised the smallest guild of biota (Table 11) demonstrated substantially higher counts in the restored habitat. While no chipmunks were detected by the APT camera throughout the course of research, over 100 were present where the informal trails were decommissioned. Although birds, amphibians, reptiles, insects, and other small biota (e.g. mice, moles, and voles) were not studied, I hypothesize that they would also benefit from restored habitat because – in addition to chipmunks – fox squirrels and gray squirrels showed a higher presence on RRBL10. If additional data aligned with the results described here, restoring the informal trails that permeate West Creek Reservation will likely benefit small biota and visitors will stick to professionally developed formal trails, leaving the natural environment in the reservation for its resident wild biota.

Thesis question #2: What is an ideal spatial arrangement to facilitate movement with and without anthropogenic presence?

Due to the timeline of this thesis and partnering with a public agency, answering the second thesis question was not possible. Originally, it was envisioned that West Creek

Reservation's two informal trails in this study would be restored soon after the two, newly constructed mountain bike trails (MTB) publicly opened. However, due logical constraints from

Cleveland Metroparks, when field research ended in January 2019, the informal trails were not yet closed. Thus, there was no subsequent data to compare my baseline data to and I was unable to observe the change in wild biotic use, as cyclists began riding on the MTB. Moreover, the data did not exist to determine whether closing WCBL1011 and WCBL1213's informal trails increased, maintained, or decreased use by wild biota. However, the dataset created from the tagged images remains crucial to eventually answering this question because it contains baseline data for West Creek Reservation's mountain bike trails, from the pre-construction stage to their final product.

While the data can skim the surface of spatial arrangement affecting wildlife movement, the pressing – and equally germane – question that this research can answer is: is the element of trail configuration within this reservation even worth pursuing? That is, are wildlife using the shared corridors within West Creek Reservation or should landscape, resource and trail managers be directing their efforts toward other causes? The succinct answer is, yes, although there are some limitations to the data collected. Because wild and domestic species are occupying the same space, it behooves the agency to evaluate Verified Use on all trails in the reservation, as described in detail in the following section.

Verified Use as a whole

In total, from mid-July 2018 through the end of January 2019, 10,278 usable events were recorded within West Creek Reservation alone thanks to dedicated remotely triggered cameras.

Considering all biota studied, almost 15% (1,535) of the events confirmed biota are traversing trails within West Creek Reservation to navigate through the matrix, regardless of trail type (i.e. formal or informal; Figure 15; Table 12).

Figure 15: West Creek Reservation's counts of Verified Uses (i.e. the individual was identified on both of the paired cameras within five minutes or less) compared against an Exploratory event (i.e. the individual was detected on only one of the two cameras, or outside of the five minute window) from July 2018 through January 2019.

Table 12: Break down of Verified Use on trails. * represents due to frequent public tampering with cameras, one of RRAPT1011's cameras was not aimed at the trail the majority of the study period. ^ represents rounded to nearest whole #. Due to a lack of resources, RRBL10 was unable to be paired with another camera, so Verified Use was unable to be calculated. Station Wild Species Verified Use (%)^ Domestic Species Verified Use (%)^ WCBL1011 18 82 WCBL1213 7 93 WCNEW1011 32 68 WCNEW1213 17 83 RRAPT1011 Unable to be calculated* Unable to be calculated* RRBL10 Unable to be calculated* Unable to be calculated*

For validity, I compared Verified Uses in West Creek Reservation between three size- based guilds based on location (i.e. the camera Station) using R (Table 13). The p values were derived from running Fisher's Exact Test which revealed the stations exhibiting significant statistical difference. In summary, six trail-to-trail comparisons proved statistically significant.

Table 13: Fisher's Exact Test p values comparing Verified Use by guild at two trails. X represents accepting the null hypothesis and ** means rejecting the null hypothesis (i.e. the Verified Use rate of one guild relative to another guild is significantly different on the two trails). Station Guilds by Size Small:Medium Small:Large Medium:Large WCBL1011:WCBL1213 X X X WCBL1011:WCNEW1011 X ** ** WCBL1011:WCNEW1213 ** X ** WCBL1213:WCNEW1011 X ** X WCBL1213:WCNEW1213 X X X WCNEW1011:WCNEW1213 X ** X My original intent was to compare results of Verified Use in Rocky River Reservation to

West Creek Reservation. Unfortunately, as previously mentioned, due to frequent tampering of two of the cameras mounted in Rocky River Reservation, only a deep analysis and "Verified" type of corridor use could be performed on West Creek Reservation’s data. Based on the results for Verified Use, it became evident that not all biota were using the four trails uniformly to facilitate their movement (Figure 16; Table 14).

Figure 16: West Creek Reservation's counts of Verified Use of trails from July 2018 through January 2019. One can clearly see the variety of species using station WCBL1011 (max) compared to station WCBL1213 (min). Note: this is not inclusive of all species observed, only those that were the focus of this thesis.

Table 14: Within West Creek Reservation, this is a snapshot of Verified Uses and the species identified on them. For extrapolation of “Total Wild Biota % of Likely Use” see Appendix G. Station Total Distributed Distributed Over Wild Species (name) Wild Over Wild Biota % Species (#) of Likely Use WCBL1011 7 9 coyote, domestic cat, eastern chipmunk, eastern cottontail rabbit, eastern fox squirrel, raccoon, red fox, Virginia opossum, white-tailed deer WCBL1213 1 2 eastern fox squirrel, white-tailed deer WCNEW1011 9 5 coyote, domestic cat, eastern fox squirrel, raccoon, white-tailed deer WCNEW1213 2 4 coyote, eastern fox squirrel, raccoon, white-tailed deer Based on the data and results of the statistical analysis, I can reject the null hypothesis that there is no difference of Verified Use pertaining to the trails studied. Therefore, the results of my research do not support the literature that questioned whether animal movement was even

occurring along corridors of study (e.g. Lindenmayer and Fischer 2006; Ng et al. 2007).

Noss (1993, 63) stressed that wildlife corridors with "high rates of disturbance" required multiple paths for wildlife to move away from or avoid humans. Station WCBL1213 – namely, camera WCBL12 – was chosen as a study site because it captured multiple informal trails diverging from the wider, more prominent informal trail depicted in camera WCBL13 (Figure

17). I wanted to capture imagery of wildlife if they were truly using other trails to avoid or escape during anthropogenic disturbances, and my results do not support Noss’s theory. The quantitative results from station WCBL1213 show that – by comparison – few biota are making meaningful use of this informal trail. Station WCBL1213 also had the least diversity of species utilizing it.

(A) (B) Figure 17: Camera WCBL12’s view of a split into diverging informal trails (A). Though not easy to depict, there are additional informal trails traversing the horizon and in the background. Near camera WCBL11, looking toward camera WCBL10 which lies nearer the horizon (B). At the horizon, this narrow, informal trail descends to an access road. Though not easy to depict, one can see the right edge of the landscape start to drop away, forming the slight bottleneck. Both stations are in West Creek Reservation. Station WCBL1213 was the least used trail no matter how the data was analyzed (e.g. aggregately or by guild) with a total of just five records of Verified Use by wild biota throughout the six month research period. Similarly, the Percent of Likely Use (Appendix G) was derived by dividing the count of Verified Use per species by the count of Exploratory events, to

determine the magnitude to which the species is traversing on the trail, if at all. The higher the

Percent of Likely Use, the more often I noted Verified Use on the trail. Even when domestic species were included, the informal trail's Percent of Likely Use for all biota only rose to 6%, the lowest out of all the stations studied (Appendix G). Additionally, the two wild species exhibiting

Verified Use of this trail are native to the area and of least conservation concern to the agency.

In summary, whether looking at station WCBL1213's trail as a whole or on a species by species basis, neither wild nor domestic biota are frequently using the trail to navigate through this space as much as other locations. Station WCBL1213 serves as a cautionary reminder that sometimes the need for a trail can be assumed. In this case, landscape managers need not fragment and sacrifice land to create additional paths for wildlife movement nor anthropogenic recreation because very little of either activity is occurring at this station.

In contrast, the informal trail at station WCBL1011 showed the highest Percent of Likely

Use, highest Wild Species Verified Use, and largest diversity of species to exhibit Verified Use: all large fauna, all medium fauna except skunks, and all small fauna except flying squirrels and gray squirrels (Table 14; Appendix G). This means that every third biota event navigating along this informal trail was wild. Based on the data, I argue that Cleveland Metroparks should focus on Verified Use and scrutinize all trails on a case by case basis – rather than focusing solely on trail type (i.e. formal or informal) – when choosing which should be restored to original habitat.

As we see here, compared against the aforementioned other informal trail (i.e. station

WCBL1213), habitat restoration at station WCBL1011 will likely benefit more species by increasing the health of the surrounding matrix. A variety of species already display Verified

Use of the informal trail at station WCBL1011, so restoring the habitat will likely only compound biota successfully using the trail as a wildlife corridor (Fahrig 2003). Thus, shutting

down the informal trail at WCBL1011 will likely force visitors to continually use other trails, help reclaim this area of the reservation, and lessen the potential for landscape fragmentation.

However, this data served as a snapshot in time. Subsequent data would certainly aid in the decision and implications of restoring the study site.

Although they are different trail types (that is, formal and informal, respectively) the data supports that station WCNEW1011 and station WCBL1011 are more favorable for use by wild biota compared to stations WCNEW1213 and WCBL1213, which are also formal and informal trails, respectively. Statistical analysis supports that biotic use of the two, professionally created

MTB trails are significantly different, as well as the two visitor-created trails. Though not publicized at the time of this study, the new MTB trail’s locale shows promise of being – or becoming – a wildlife corridor as nearly one-third (32%) of its species use is by wild biota. This trail is of utmost concern because even a slight increase in the amount of anthropogenic use on

WCNEW1011 – which will likely occur after the official MTB opening – can result in an exponentially increased amount of negative impact toward biota (Cole 1993).

While the literature warned against the exponentially more harmful effects of informal trails, the data suggests that this is only partially true, as station WCBL1011 demonstrated the highest total Percent of Likely Use out of all the study sites (Appendix G). I hypothesize that wildlife is affected by other co-variates – such as proximity to human development, topography and vegetative coverage – while moving through the landscape. I believe topography is a key co-variate, as mentioned by Beier and Loe (1992) and explored by Kays et al. (2017) and Moll et al. (2018) who substantiated the connection between the two. Conduits are naturally occurring in the environment and the informal trail at station WCBL1011 was deliberately chosen as a site due to its landscape features. This station consists of a sole, somewhat narrow informal trail that

bottlenecks more as it approaches camera WCBL10 due to drop offs and more vegetation on both sides of the informal trail (Figure 17). There is not an open network of informal trails as seen at station WCBL1213. Acquiring additional, fine-scale data that studied these relationships and established connections between wildlife movement and other co-variates, would allow for more solid conclusions to be drawn. Nonetheless, I opine that the aforementioned factors influence biotic movement more heavily than trail type and the shared usage of this space by domestic species. Whereas a trail’s spatial arrangement and network may be a factor in the effectiveness of wildlife corridors, my data supports that it cannot be the sole nor dominant factor for consideration.

Rocky River Reservation as a projection of West Creek Reservation’s potential

Although frequency of species was not an aim of my research, calculating it for Rocky

River Reservation’s trails may provide some insight into what the agency could expect to see in

West Creek Reservation, especially once its informal trails are decommissioned. Generally, the restored informal trail network (i.e. station RRBL10) yielded a high presence of wild biota for both seasons that this research spanned, suggesting that most movement by wildlife is taking place in the natural environment (Figure 18). However, I examined wildlife movement fall through winter, so I suggest repeating the tests and incorporating a year’s worth of data to include all seasons. If additional data aligned with my results describer here, I suggest that restoring the informal trails in West Creek Reservation to natural habitat will maintain a wild species presence at similarly high percentages and allow that biota to utilize the surrounding matrix, similar to Shepherd and Whittington’s (2006) article that documented corridor restoration reintroduced and dispersed their species of study. As an indirect result of rehabilitating West

Creek Reservation’s informal trails, the quality of the matrix will likely improve and natural habitat may extend spatially, which is a positive consequence for Cleveland Metroparks.

Figure 18: Note that Fall corresponds to October through December 2018. Due to research timelines Winter only had one month of data (i.e. 1 to 31 January 2019) compared against three months for the Fall season. Verified Use by guild

Across the board in West Creek Reservation, domestic species used the trails significantly more than any wildlife guild.

Large fauna

Upon analysis looking at the size of wildlife, every station documented a percentage of

Verified Use by large fauna greater than or equal to the percentage of Verified Use for all non- anthropogenic biota within the reservation (Appendix G). Of the three large fauna species

(Table 11), deer were one of two species throughout the reservation to display Verified Use at every station.

The region's sole apex predator, the coyote, displayed Verified Use at nearly every station. Almost inversely to the coyote, red fox showed no Verified Use of the trails except at station WCBL1011, where the species had a comparatively high Verified Use (18%).

Exploratory events by red fox were recorded for nearly every station, except WCBL1213.

Neither coyotes nor red foxes exhibited Verified Use of the informal trail at station WCBL1213 throughout the six months of research, though Exploratory events were recorded there for the coyote.

As previously mentioned, WCBL1011 exhibited the highest Verified Use percentages and most diversity amongst all biota. When analyzed statistically, all but one of the significant results of Verified Use revolved around large fauna (Table 13). While a red fox was spotted on three out of the four trails, WCBL1011 was the only station that recorded Verified Use by this species and yielded over 300% times the amount of Verified Use as the next station. Earlier, separate research conducted in the same reservation discovered red fox presence increased as development increased. So, in an urban park setting where development is scarce – especially

West Creek Reservation which is sandwiched between development – one would expect to see fewer red foxes, as they are the subordinate carnivores compared to the dominant coyotes (Moll et al. 2018). This held true in both reservations that I studied. Additional testing to determine influence by co-variates such as topography and proximity to development (tested by Moll et al.,

2018 and Kays et al. 2017) would certainly add to the knowledge base surrounding red foxes’ elusive behavior.

In West Creek Reservation, the mean Percent of Likely Use for coyotes was higher than red foxes’ and rounded up to 12%, with the 0% from trail WCBL1213 somewhat skewing the average lower (Appendix G). In fact, the coyote was the single wild species with the highest aggregate and individual station Verified Use rates. This coincides with Reed and Merenlender

(2008) and Kays et al.’s (2017) findings that coyotes did not avoid space occupied by recreationists. Additionally, the data from my research supports that coyotes have assimilated to

anthropogenic features in the two reservations; in this case: trails. For example, in Rocky River

Reservation, coyotes were noted on the APT a staggering 700% more (174) than in the restored habitat (24) during the 3 ½ months of research, suggesting that this species prefers to utilize the same landscape features as anthropogenic species.

Coyotes nor red foxes tend to actively hunt the third large fauna studied, deer, but I suggest maintaining these two apex predators in the West Creek Reservation is important in order to prevent a trophic cascade because coyotes’ most abundant mammalian prey are voles, domestic cats and squirrels (Quinn 1997). Whilst tagging the data, some images captured a coyote with prey in its mouth (namely medium-sized birds or rabbits; Figure 19), suggesting that this species is successfully serving as a predator toward the smaller guilds.

Figure 19: One of many photos captured of the region’s dominant carnivore, coyote, with prey in its mouth. Medium fauna

Scrutinizing the data throughout West Creek Reservation, medium-sized fauna (Table 11)

– often referred to as “mesofauna” by Cleveland Metroparks’s staff – generally showed less

Verified Use of the trails than large fauna. Analysis revealed this guild’s Percent of Likely Use hovered at or below 1%, except at station WCBL1011 where the species comprised 14% of likely use compared against the 12% for large fauna (Appendix G). Despite myriad Exploratory

events of raccoons, very few Verified Uses were documented, which was an expected result due to the behavior of the species, particularly while foraging. Similar to certain large fauna,

WCBL1213 did not record a Verified Use by raccoons throughout the span of research.

Also, at station WCBL1011, domestic cats established the maximum of the guild’s range for Percent of Likely Use (21%). In fact, domestic cat showed the highest Percent of Likely Use at every station in the reservation. Only two skunk events were recorded throughout the six month period of research, but both were Exploratory.

Generally, large fauna showed Verified Use of the trails studied more than medium fauna. However, station WCBL1011 was the only trail to have a Percentage of Likely Use greater than 2%, and it is evident from Figure 20 that this guild is utilizing that informal trail considerably more than the other trails. At the station, domestic cats and opossums posted the highest Percentage of Likely Use out of all wild biota at 21% and 19%, respectively. Those percentages were also higher than any other biota at any other station throughout West Creek

Reservation.

Figure 20: A breakdown of aggregate guild Verified Use by trail from July 2018 through the end of January 2019. Note: Medium sized fauna exhibited a negligible 1% on WCBL1213, though it is difficult to see.

As mentioned in the earlier section, Verified Use as a whole, features about station

WCBL1011 make it prone to use by all biota. I expected raccoons and opossums – both

"invigorated species" (Gilbert 1991 qtd. in Moore and Parker 1992) well-adapted to and benefitting from human-induced environmental changes – to use the formal trails more, similar to coyotes in West Creek Reservation. Not a single medium-sized species exhibited Verified

Use at station WCBL1213 and station WCNEW1213 only recorded one throughout the span of research. Yet, I know medium-sized fauna are present in the area, as station WCNEW1213 had

148 and 214 Exploratory events by racoons and opossums, respectively. I surmise that most medium fauna are not prone to remain on any type of trails, unless – like in the case of station

WCBL1011’s bottlenecking – other factors are influencing their behavior. So, unless a particular medium-sized species is of major conservation concern, the movement of medium animals need not be a heavily weighted factor when landscape managers consider trail location.

Based on the Exploratory and Verified Use counts, this guild is moving through the reservation randomly and independent of trail type (i.e. formal or informal).

Small fauna

The Percent of Likely Use for small fauna (Table 11) produced the overall lowest rates of any biota. Specifically, as a guild, no small fauna proved to average more than a 3% likelihood of utilizing a trail. The Percent of Likely Use at station WCBL1011 was greatly skewed by one

Verified Use by a rabbit (17%; Appendix G). Fox squirrels littered the imagery, but rarely did that equate to a Verified Use. However, they were the most consistently present small species because they were identified – and exhibited Verified Use – at every station.

Due to the fact that they have much smaller home ranges, I anticipated that the small fauna would show low Percentages of Likely Use throughout the study sites. This occurred and

was an expected outcome (Appendix G). Nonetheless, Verified Use was observed in the majority of species in the guild. Once again, station WCBL1011 established the maximum end of the guild’s range of Total Small Fauna Percent of Likely Use (3%). Interestingly, it was the only station to have Verified Use by species other than fox squirrels, specifically chipmunks and a rabbit. Detecting flying squirrels on the ground and in trees surprised both the Wildlife

Ecologists at the agency and me. However, a Verified Use was never documented, but may have been somewhat thwarted due to their ability to glide across the matrix, rather than terrestrially navigate it.

I recognize it is unlikely that the squirrels and chipmunks that constituted the Verified

Uses are the same individual. Multiple fox squirrels simultaneously foraging at each camera in the pair is a more likely scenario. In addition, there were numerous images of, presumably, the same fox squirrel caching food since the time stamp on the images revealed continuous activity.

Moreover, some of the fox squirrels were photographed on a trail, but the majority were observed in the matrix. Thus, I would approach the data surrounding Verified Use for the small fauna with caution. While synthesizing Verified Use from this data is somewhat inconclusive for this guild, it is still important baseline data and behooves resource managers to consider the effects of trails on the smallest terrestrial biota.

Thesis question #3: To what degree, if any, will wildlife move through corridors shared with humans?

Unfortunately, Verified Use was unable to be determined and compared for both reservations, although this was a goal of my research. Nonetheless, some information can still be garnered from the reservation’s data. Instead of focusing on Verified Use of the trail, I examined each potential human disturbance and how that impacted concurrent or subsequent use of the

trail by wildlife (often referred to as “affinity” by agency staff), if at all. Although concurrent use was a key part of the debate within the literature, no articles supporting concurrent use of trails defined it nor offered temporal parameters for what constitutes it (e.g. within what time frame does the animal need to be also observed?).

Some of the literature – and one side of the debate – noted that anthropogenic activity insignificantly or rarely interfered with wildlife's movement, particularly on trails (Ladle and

Whittaker 2011; van der Grift et al. 2011; Kays et al. 2017). Based on the data, wild and domestic biota occupying the same space and time seems unlikely, but results from Rocky River

Reservation suggests that wild biota are adapted to, or unaffected by (like the coyote), a high anthropogenic presence on the APT and cope with it by slight temporal adjustments. For instance, station RRAPT11 had the shortest median time of all the stations, meaning after a documented human presence, wildlife was detected in the immediate vicinity the quickest (Table

1.6). I hypothesize it shows a substantially shorter median time than all the other stations studied in Rocky River or West Creek Reservation because wildlife have adapted to a busy APT, as mentioned by Marion and Wimpey (2007). They assimilated to the disturbances in the area and, therefore, are returning quicker, shortly after the anthropogenic sound/motion/subject leaves.

Table 15: Summary of observations where “HUMAN” was the initial species tag and any wild biota was tagged as the subsequent observation.. ~ represents time, in minutes. Light blue represents the minimum of all the trails; dark blue signifies the maximum of all the trails. This is not to say that RRBL10 had the fewest total observations nor the fewest wildlife sightings. Column “Qualifying Events” represents that the station showed the fewest occurrences of wild biota appearing immediately after a human appeared. Note: times are rounded to the nearest whole number

Station Qualifying Min with Max~ Median~ Mean~ Outliers (120+ Events spp. (in seconds) mins.) Removed from Graphs WCBL1011 266 25 2,620 112 228 127 DEER WCBL1213 144 108 2,535 222 382 96 FOXSQL WCNEW1011 152 23 11,208 139 303 82 DEER WCNEW1213 234 13 1,101 92 180 82 DEER RRAPT11 139 26 FOXSQL 4,055 20 139 32 RRBL10 31 314 2,455 228 491 19 FOXSQL Similarly, because Rocky River Reservation’s APT data opposes the restored informal trail’s, I opine wild biota have likely learned to be opportunistic of the lulls in human activity when moving through the landscape near the APT, especially during the daylight hours when recreationists are most frequent on it. When the data from Rocky River Reservation’s stations are compared against each other, it generally supports that the two trail types have the inverse temporal impact on wild biota movement caused by human disturbances. Specifically, wildlife take much more time to return to Rocky River Reservation’s restored, natural habitat (Figure

21D) when compared to the APT (Figure 21C) which shows a high count of qualifying events under ten minutes. This is a logical conclusion considering the first is a heavily trafficked APT and the second is part of the natural matrix, but it is important to remember that the restored informal trails had a much lower sample size (i.e. count of humans) though (Table 15).

While concurrent use of trails by wild and domestic biota may be possible, the detailed results (Table 15) do not reflect that it is currently occurring in either reservation, thus negating one side of the debate as described in van der Grift et al.’s paper (2011). At all stations, only

deer and fox squirrel showed a presence within ten minutes of human detection, suggesting that most wildlife will not partake in shared use of a trail. The histograms in Figure 21 show that there is no major interference to wildlife’s behavior due to an anthropogenic presence because at every station wild biota returned to the area within six minutes. Still, this is baseline data and difficult to fully know what the established norm is. The data could be extrapolated on by individual species to determine that deer, rabbits and red fox will co-use anthropogenic trails, as suggested by van der Grift et al. (2011).

(A)

(B)

(C) (D) Figure 21: Temporal results of all six stations recovering from an anthropogenic event on West Creek Reservation informal trails (A), West Creek Reservation formal trails (B), Rocky River Reservation formal trail (C), and Rocky River Reservation restored, informal trail (D). Green bars represent two minute intervals. Note: the y axes for all histograms are inconsistent. These results are independent of Verified Use.

CHAPTER VII

CONCLUSION

My research aimed to explore biogeographical and landscape elements in an urban park setting, as well as the literary debate between wildlife interfacing in their natural environment with domestic species. Based on quantitative and situational data, this thesis has shown that non- consumptive, anthropogenic use of trails does not necessarily hinder biotic movement as suggested in the literature. The results suggest that Cleveland Metroparks would be best served by assessing each potential formal trail creation site and each informal trail restoration site individually. Furthermore, this thesis has helped establish a baseline for terrestrial biota present in two reservations. By incorporating a second study area (i.e. Rocky River Reservation), this thesis provides a snapshot for how biodiversity, biotic movement, and biotic presence may change when an informal trail is restored to natural habitat.

Reflection and limitations

While the repeated camera tampering by park visitors was an unforeseen barrier, this research demonstrated the effectiveness of pairing passive, remotely triggered infrared cameras to track animal movement. The methodology is ideal for study areas with heavy precipitation or traffic, where other methods – such as citizen science or gypsum powder track beds – would fail due to the volume of events. Likewise, using other methods would require much more time, whereas employing round-the-clock cameras required approximately four hours per month of effort on my part and minimal disturbance by researchers around the study sites. When both cameras of the pair functioned properly and without tampering, the ensuing dataset was a

powerful analytical tool that allowed for many different types of results to be obtained, namely simple surveying of species’ presence and determining Verified Use of trails versus wildlife hanging around an area. Furthermore, the dataset produced a snapshot of the amount and impact of human disturbance toward wildlife. Easily derived from the dataset, the Verified Use

Likelihood table (Appendix G) quickly and quantitatively showed where and which species (or guild) made meaningful Verified Use of the landscape.

The somewhat random mounting of the cameras unexpectedly facilitated a variety of fauna to be photographed, particularly smaller animals. Though it was not intended, naturally occurring phenomena, like brush in the foreground or fallen branches, allowed prime opportunities to capture small biota which otherwise may have been obscured in the larger matrix. For example, the fallen leaves on the ground in autumn made detecting and tagging smaller biota exceptionally difficult. Other natural phenomena, like the exposed log in the foreground (Figure 22), aided in detecting and quantifying data for smaller biota.

Figure 22: An unexpected, positive outcome of somewhat random camera mounting was detecting smaller biota thanks to natural phenomena. In this case, note the mouse in the bottom right of the frame, running on the log.

Upon statistical analysis, not all guilds were deemed significantly different, but I acknowledge that the images of off-trail biota may be somewhat skewing the results for Verified

Use. Nonetheless, in actuality, a difference between guilds still existed. For example, the

Verified Use by small and large species at station WCBL1011 and WCBL1213 (Table 13) was deemed not significantly different. The likely reason for this discrepancy was because particular species showed low or no counts to sample from (e.g. red fox only established three verified uses throughout the course of research). In fact, this thesis demonstrated that the two informal trails at West Creek Reservation are incredibly different, with the two stations comprising the most and least utilized trails by biota, respectively. Due to low or no counts, guilds were not further analyzed by individual species.

In this thesis I documented biodiversity found at six study sites, throughout two reservations, where both are predominantly surrounded by residential development (Figure 2;

Cleveland Metroparks 2018g). However, this presented a bias that assumed the study areas were similar. One example of a potential difference is the inability to know if species’ diversity was increasing, decreasing or maintaining due to a lack of prior data. It is possible that flying squirrels never existed as far west as Rocky River Reservation, but the data makes it appear that they were not present in Rocky River Reservation and observed in West Creek Reservation.

Thus, I recommend corroborating some of the biodiversity baseline data by repeat testing as soon as possible because 1,000 consecutive camera trap days is the recommended amount of time before ruling out a species’s presence (Carbone et al. 2001 qtd. in Kelly and Holub 2008).

A second example of the potential differences between the regional context of the reservations is the size, shape and configuration of the study areas (MacDonald 2003). Rocky

River Reservation is an extremely long space, running almost half of the county longitudinally, and considerably larger in size than West Creek Reservation (Figure 2). As such, Rocky River

Reservation provides more and/or different habitat which affects fragmentation and biodiversity

conservation in a way that may not be similar to West Creek Reservation.

Recommendations

As I hypothesized earlier, landscape features, such as bottlenecked terrain at station

WCBL1011, may be forcing biota to utilize one trail over another. Testing topography and slope were not the aim of this project, but delving into those characteristics – as key covariates to animal movement – is certainly justified and recommended as future research. Specifically, testing to determine influence by proximity to development and topography (tested by Moll et al., 2018 and Kays et al. 2017) would certainly add to the knowledge base surrounding red foxes’ elusive behavior.

In addition to testing landscape features, analyzing the type of anthropogenic activity may provide insight into the potential severity of disturbance. For instance, Marion and Wimpey

(2007) discovered mountain biking was less detrimental to wildlife than walking, although it covered more terrain in a set amount of time. I suggest landscape and resource managers examine how concurrent use times are affected by the differing recreational activities may guide park planners as they explore the positive and negative consequences of the two, newly formed

MTB trails in West Creek Reservation. Similarly, the tag “TRLCREW” (i.e. trail crew) was created and used in my dataset to differentiate between the type of activity which implied the amount of time in the study area. A visitor walking or running immediately moved out of or through the study area, whereas Cleveland Metroparks’s trail crew remained for blocks of time.

In wildlife corridors, it would be extremely helpful to know the impact(s) of the trail crew’s sustained disturbance and learn how quickly afterward wild biota return to the site(s).

I originally set out to test the spatial arrangement of trails, though my research questions needed to be reworked once fieldwork was underway. Nonetheless, to more deeply explore the

literary debate, I recommend duplicating this research with additional cameras surrounding the study sites in order to determine if avoidance by wild biota is truly occurring. Doing so will capture where fauna flee, if they do at all. For example, cameras placed in a predetermined radius around station WCBL1213 (the site with diverging trails) would capture if biota indeed require many paths in areas with high anthropogenic disturbances, as suggested by Noss (1993).

Naturally, because this thesis set out to establish baseline data, I suggest that these tests – particularly evaluating the likelihood of Verified Use – are repeated to better understand the long-term implications of humans occupying the same space as fauna. Temporally, replicating this study from July to January in a subsequent year(s) will allow for direct comparisons. As mentioned previously, this is the first data related to the MTB trails in West Creek Reservation, so follow-up research is imperative to compare how wild biota presence may or may not have changed.

CHAPTER VIII

REFERENCES

Anderson, Stanley H. 1995. “Recreational Disturbance and Wildlife Populations.” In Wildlife and Recreationists, eds. Richard L. Knight and Kevin Gutzwiller, 157 – 168. Washington D.C.: Island Press, 1995.

Ballantyne, Mark, Ori Gudes, and Catherine Marina Pickering. 2014. Recreational trails are an important cause of fragmentation in endangered urban forests: A case-study from Australia. Landscape and Urban Planning 130: 112 – 24.

Beier, Paul, and Steve Loe. 1992. A Checklist For Evaluating Impacts To Wildlife Movement Corridors. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20: 434 – 40. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf /3783066.pdf.

Benedict, Mark A., and Edward T. McMahon. 2006. Green Infrastructure: Linking Landscapes and Communities. Washington D.C.: Island Press.

Boyle, Stephen A., and Fred B. Samson. 1985. Effects of Nonconsumptive Recreation On Wildlife: A Review. Wildlife Society Bulletin 13: 110 – 16.

Briffett, Clive. 2001. Is Managed Recreational Use Compatible with Effective Habitat and Wildlife Occurrence in Urban Open Space Corridor Systemrecreations? Landscape Research 26 (2):137 – 63.

Catherwood, Martha, Alicia Dyer, Troy Ezell, Jinghan Sun, and Yan Zheng. 2010. "Rocky River Reservation." In From Forest to Lake: Envisioning the Emerald Necklace, 77 – 112. MUPDD Planning Studio: Cleveland State University. http://cua6.urban.csuohio .edu/academics/graduate/mupdd/mupdd_capstone10/document_page/5%20Rocky %20River%20Reservation.pdf.

Cleveland Metroparks. 2009a. Invasive Plant Management (IPMP) for Cleveland Metroparks; Version 1.3 technical report NR-01. https://www.clevelandmetroparks.com/getmedia /b0d6e634-3140-46c2-b415-f9b44263a771/InvasivePlantManagementProgramv1 _3.pdf.ashx.

—. 2009b. THE STATE OF WETLANDS IN CLEVELAND METROPARKS: Implications for urban wetland conservation and restoration technical report NR-07. https://www .clevelandmetroparks.com/getmedia/d125544c-507b-458f-a97b-199f7e5f9769 /StateofClevelandMetroparksWetlandsRept.pdf.ashx.

—. 2011. CLEVELAND METROPARKS EMERALD ASH BORER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM: BACKGROUND AND ASH (Fraxinus) MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS technical report NR-04. https://www.clevelandmetroparks.com /getmedia/49a97ef7-1657-412e-8ff7-7ae7e5e3f15f/Ash-Tree-Removal-Program.pdf .ashx.

—. 2012. CLEVELAND METROPARKS 2020, THE EMERALD NECKLACE CENTENNIAL PLAN: Reservations Concept Plans, Fall 2012 planning report. https://www .clevelandmetroparks.com/getmedia/a7511908-1b7c-44ff-9ca8-0ba70b0f6828 /RESERVATIONS-Concept-Plans-clevelandmetroparks.pdf.ashx.

—. 2013. Plant Community Assessment Program (PCAP) Baseline Report 2010 – 2013 technical report NR-04. https://www.clevelandmetroparks.com/getmedia/ace03a7d -4583-4d05-a190-aed3b230e524/EysenbachHausman2013.pdf.ashx.

—. 2015a. A Checklist of the Amphibians & Reptiles of Cleveland Metroparks. https://www .clevelandmetroparks.com/getmedia/d7fca04d-94b6-4d2b-967d-63ab627ce07c /Reptiles-Amphibians-Checklist.pdf.ashx.

—. 2015b. A Checklist of the Birds of Cleveland Metroparks. https://www .clevelandmetroparks.com/getmedia/0e640cd4-0105-4fe2-946b-587e20c67bea /Birdscheck.pdf.ashx.

—. 2015c. A Checklist of the Butterflies of Cleveland Metroparks. https://www .clevelandmetroparks.com/getmedia/ca2bfe65-bc6f-4527-b3f0-4244707f9b6f /Butterflies-Checklist.pdf.ashx.

—. 2015d. A Checklist of the Dragonflies & Damselflies of Cleveland Metroparks. https:// www.clevelandmetroparks.com/getmedia/93e42bb0-e0ae-4c0b-851a-432abbef40c4 /Dragonflies-Checklist.pdf.ashx.

—. 2015e. A Checklist of the Fishes of Cleveland Metroparks. https://www .clevelandmetroparks.com/getmedia/dff7eec0-a114-4e87-90a4-1eeee18225d6/Fish -Checklist.pdf.ashx.

—. 2015f. A Checklist of the Mammals of Cleveland Metroparks. https://www .clevelandmetroparks.com/getmedia/77e69af0-4ce9-4e5c-8e2b-3801b26a7265 /Mammals-Checklist.pdf.ashx.

—. 2015g. A Checklist of the Spring Woodland Wildflowers of Cleveland Metroparks. https:// www.clevelandmetroparks.com/getmedia/64f8bbfe-42d0-4bee-8a13-c4606a01acea /Spring-Wildflowers-Checklist.pdf.ashx.

—. 2015h. A Checklist of the Summer and Autumn Wildflowers of Cleveland Metroparks. Accessed 1 June 2019. https://www.clevelandmetroparks.com/getmedia/e21e94c4-0afa -4375-b367-7238ea6ecbfc/Summer-Autumn-Wildflower-Checklist.pdf.ashx.

—. 2015i. A Checklist of the Trees of Cleveland Metroparks. https://www.clevelandmetroparks .com/getmedia/0cdc3ca0-a6c9-4a7c-8320-2bd4c7b52bee/Trees-Checklist.pdf.ashx.

—. 2016a. “Cuyahoga River Corridor: Master Plan.” https://www.clevelandmetroparks.com /getmedia/cee2960c-7a5e-4bbd-aaad-36eecbdfb87a/Cuyahoga-River-Corridor.pdf.ashx.

—. 2016b. “West Creek Trail Map.” https://www.clevelandmetroparks.com/getmedia /1244aced-1ca4-4c7c-9302-e3751ff899ea/west-creek_reservation.pdf.ashx?ext=.pdf.

—. 2017. PATHFINDER: YOUR GUIDE TO EXPLORE THE EMERALD NECKLACE. Cleveland Metroparks, Commemorative Centennial Issue.

—. 2018a. “ABOUT.” https://www.clevelandmetroparks.com/about.

—. 2018b. "EASTERN COYOTE." https://clevelandmetroparks.com/about/conservation /natural-resources/resource-management/featured-animal-eastern-coyote.

—. 2018c. “HISTORY.” https://www.clevelandmetroparks.com/about/cleveland-metroparks -organization/history.

—. 2018d. “RECREATION.” https://www.clevelandmetroparks.com/about/recreation.

—. 2018e. “ROCKY RIVER RESERVATION.” https://www.clevelandmetroparks.com/parks /visit/parks/rocky-river-reservation.

—. 2018f. “WASHINGTON RESERVATION.” https://www.clevelandmetroparks.com/parks /visit/parks/washington-reservation.

—. 2018g. “WEST CREEK RESERVATION.” https://www.clevelandmetroparks.com/parks /visit/parks/west-creek-reservation.

THE CLEVELAND MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY. 2019. “Lake effects.” https:// www.gcbl.org/explore/climate/lake-effects.

Clevenger, Anthony P., and Nigel Waltho. 2000. Factors Influencing the Effectiveness of Wildlife Underpasses in Banff National Park, Alberta, Canada. Conservation Biology 14 (1): 47 – 56. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.00099-085.x.

Cole, David N. 1993. “Minimizing Conflict between Recreation and Nature Conservation.” In Ecology of Greenways: Design and Function of Linear Conservation Areas, eds. Daniel S. Smith and Paul Cawood Hellmund, 105 – 22. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Cole, David N., and Peter B. Landres. 1995. “Indirect Effects of Recreation on Wildlife.” In Wildlife and Recreationists, eds. Richard L. Knight and Kevin Gutzwiller, 183 – 196. Washington D.C.: Island Press.

Coltrane, Jessica A., and Rick Sinnott. 2015. Brown bear and human recreational use of trails in Anchorage, Alaska. Human – Wildlife Interactions 91 (1): 132 – 47.

Commission for Accreditation of Park and Recreation Agencies. 2017. THE NATIONAL ACCREDITATION STANDARDS. 5th edition. National Recreation and Park Association. https://www.nrpa.org/certification/accreditation/CAPRA/capra-standards/.

Cushing, H. P. 1931a. "Stratigraphy." In GEOLOGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES OF THE CLEVELAND DISTRICT, OHIO, eds. H. P. Cushing, Frank Leverett, and Frank R. Van Horn, 26 - 81. Washington D.C.: UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE.

—. 1931b. "Topography of the Cleveland District." In GEOLOGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES OF THE CLEVELAND DISTRICT, OHIO, eds. H. P. Cushing, Frank Leverett, and Frank R. Van Horn, 11 - 25. Washington D.C.: UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE.

Cutler, Tricia L., and Don E. Swann. 1999. Using remote photography in wildlife ecology: a review. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27 (3): 571 – 81.

Davis, Andrew K. 2007. Walking Trails in a Nature Preserve Alter Terrestrial Salamander Distributions. Natural Areas Journal 27: 385 – 9.

Dixon, Victoria, Hayley K. Glover, Jodie Winnell, Shannon M. Treloar, Desley A. Whisson, and Michael A. Weston. 2009. Evaluation of three remote camera systems for detecting mammals and birds. Ecological Management & Restoration 10 (2): 156 – 7.

Duffus, David A., and Philip Dearden. 1990. Non-Consumptive Wildlife-Oriented Recreation: A Conceptual Framework. Biological Conservation 53: 213 – 31.

Duke, Danah, and Michael Quinn. 2008. "Methodological considerations for using remote cameras to monitor the ecological effects of trail users: lessons from research in Western Canada." In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Monitoring and Management of Visitor Flows in Recreational and Protected Areas in Montecatini Terme, Italy, October 2008: 441 – 45. http://mmv.boku.ac.at/refbase/files/duke_danah _quinn_-2008-methodological_consi.pdf.

The EDGE Group, PROS Consulting, Inc, and Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC. 2012. CLEVELAND METROPARKS 2020: THE EMERALD NECKLACE CENTENNIAL PLAN, Executive Summary. https://www.clevelandmetroparks.com/getmedia/c74a61bf -9bc3-4eef-bfb6-d63d6e32fa1d/2020Strategic-plan.pdf.ashx.

Erickson, Donna. 2006. MetroGreen: Connecting Open Space in North American Cities. Washington D.C.: Island Press.

Fahrig, Lenore. 2003. Effects of Habitat Fragmentation on Biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 34: 487 – 515. doi:10.4416/annurev.ecolsys.34 .011802.132419.

Flather, Curtis H., and H. Ken Cordell. 1995. “Outdoor Recreation: Historical and Anticipated Trends.” In Wildlife and Recreationists, eds. Richard L. Knight and Kevin Gutzwiller, 3 – 15. Washington D.C.: Island Press.

Ford, John P. 1987. GLACIAL AND SURFICIAL GEOLOGY OF CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO. Columbus: OHIO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES.

Forman, Richard T. and Michel Godron. 1986. Landscape Ecology. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Forman, Richard T. T., Daniel Sperling, John A. Bissonette, Anthony P. Clevenger, Carol D. Cutshall, Virginia H. Dale, Lenore Fahrig, Robert France, Charles R. Goldman, Kevin Heanue, Julia A. Jones, Frederick J. Swanson, Thomas Turrentine, and Thomas C. Winter. 2003. Road Ecology: Science and Solutions. Washington D.C.: Island Press.

Government of Canada. 2017. “Parks Canada Attendance 2016 – 17: National Parks, Park \ Reserves, and Marine Conservation Areas.” https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/docs/pc/attend /table3#t3.

Gutzwiller, Kevin J. 1995. “Recreational Disturbances and Wildlife Communities”. In Wildlife and Recreationists, eds. Richard L. Knight and Kevin Gutzwiller, 169 – 80. Washington D.C.: Island Press.

Hamper, Anietra. "12 Best National and State Parks in Ohio." PlanetWare. 2016. https://www .planetware.com/ohio/best-national-and-state-parks-in-ohio-us-oh-37.htm.

Hampshire, Kristen. Full Circle. Insert in Cleveland Magazine. Accessed 1 May 2019. https:// www.clevelandmetroparks.com/about/cleveland-metroparks-organization/centennial.

Hanou, Ian. 2011. Assessing Cleveland Metroparks Tree Cover. Part 1: Urban Tree Canopy Assessment; Part 2: i-Tree Ecosystem Analysis. https://www.clevelandmetroparks.com /getmedia/983d1403-cd38-401d-9c6b-5e899dfa86a2/treecover.pdf.ashx.

Henein, Kringen, and Gray Merriam. 1990. The elements of connectivity where corridor quality is variable. Landscape Ecology 4 (2/3): 157 – 170. https://link.springer.com/article /10.1007/BF00132858.

Hughson, Debra L., Neal W. Darby, and Jason D. Dungan. 2010. COMPARISON OF MOTION ACTIVATED CAMERAS FOR WILDLIFE INVESTIGATIONS. California Fish and Game 96 (2): 101 – 9.

Kays, Roland, Arielle W. Parsons, Megan C. Baker, Elizabeth L. Kalies, Tavis Forrester, Robert Costello, Christopher T. Rota, Joshua J. Millspaugh, and William J. McShea. 2017. Does hunting or hiking affect wildlife communities in protected areas? Journal of Applied Ecology 54: 242 – 52. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12700.

Kelly, Marcella J., and Erika L. Holub. 2008. Camera Trapping of Carnivores: Trap Success Among Camera Types and Across Species, and Habitat Selection by Species, on Salt Pond Mountain, Giles County, Virginia. Northeastern Naturalist 15 (2): 249 – 62.

Knight, Richard L., and David N. Cole. 1991. “Effects of Recreational Activity on Wildlife in Wildlands.” Transactions of the 56th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference in Edmonton, Canada, March 1991. https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch /pubs/23604.

—. 1995. “Wildlife Responses to Recreationists.” In Wildlife and Recreationists, eds. Richard L. Knight and Kevin Gutzwiller, 51 – 69. Washington D.C.: Island Press.

Kottek, Markus, Jürgen Grieser, Christoph Beck, Bruno Rudolf and Franz Rubel. 2006. World Map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification updated. Meteorologische Zeitschrift 15 (3): 259 – 63. doi:10.1127/0941-2948/2006/0130.

Kuenzer, Claudia, Marco Ottinger, Martin Wegmann, Huadong Guo, Changlin Wang, Jianzhong Zhang, Stefan Dech, and Martin Wikelski. 2014. Earth observation satellite sensors for biodiversity monitoring: potentials and bottlenecks. International Journal of Remote Sensing 35 (18): 6599 – 647. doi:10.1080/01431161.2014.964349.

Ladle, Richard J., and Robert J. Whittaker. 2011. Conservation Biogeography. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Larson, Courtney L., Sarah E. Reed, Adina M. Merenlender, and Kevin R. Crooks. 2016. Effects of Recreation on Animals Revealed as Widespread through a Global Systematic Review. PLOS ONE 11 (12). doi:0.1371/journal/pone.0167259.

Lepard, Clara C., Remington J. Moll, Jonathon D. Cepek, Patrick D. Lorch, Patricia M. Dennis, Terry Robison, and Robert A. Montgomery. 2018. The influence of the delay period setting on camera trap data storage, wildlife detections, and occupancy models. Wildlife Research. doi:10.1071/WR17181.

Lindenmayer, David B., and Joern Fischer. 2006. Habitat Fragmentation and Landscape Change. Washington D.C.: Island Press.

Lomolino, Mark V., Brett R. Riddle, and Robert J. Whittaker. 2017. Biogeography: Biological Diversity across Space and Time. 5th edition. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates.

Lucas, Shannon. 2013. Changes in Large and Medium-bodied Mammal Activity Following Eight Years of Recreation and Other Activities: The Colima Road Underpass and Vicinity. In Puente Hills Landfill Native Habitat Preservation Authority final report, December 2010. Puente Hills Habitat Preservation Authority. https://www.habitatauthority.org/studies/.

MacDonald, Glen M. 2003. BIOGEOGRAPHY: Space, Time, and Life. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Makarewicz, Joseph C., and Paul Bertram. 1991. Evidence for the Restoration of the Lake Erie Ecosystem. BioScience 41 (4): 216 – 23. doi:10.2307/1311411.

Marion, Jeff and Jeremy Wimpey. 2007. In Managing Mountain Biking: IMBA’s Guide to Providing Great Riding, ed. Pete Webber, 94 – 111. Boulder: International Mountain Biking Association. http://www.allegra-tourismus.ch/hubfs/Collections /The_Environmental_Impacts_Of_Mountain_Biking/Marion_Wimpey.pdf.

Matlack, Glenn R. 1993. Sociological Edge Effects: Spatial Distribution of Human Impact in Suburban Forest Fragments. Environmental Management 17 (6): 829 – 35.

Michalak, Anna M., Eric J. Anderson, Dmitry Beletsky, Steven Boland, Nathan S. Bosch, Thomas B. Bridgeman. Justin D. Chaffin, Kyunghwa Cho, Rem Confesor, Irem Daloglu, Joseph V. DePinto, Mary Anne Evans, Gary L. Fahnenstiel, Lingli He, Jeff C. Ho, Liza Jenkins, Thomas H. Johengen, Kevin C. Kuo, Elizabeth LaPorte, Xiaojian Liu, Michael R. McWilliams, Michael R. Moore, Derek J. Posselt, R. Peter Richards, Donald Scavia, Allison L. Steiner, Ed Verhamme, David M. Wright, and Melissa A. Zagorski. 2013. Record-setting algal bloom in Lake Erie caused by agricultural and meteorological trends consistent with expected future conditions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 110 (16): 6448 – 52. doi:10.1073 /pnas.1216006110.

Miller, Carol Poh. 1992. CLEVELAND METROPARKS, Past and Present: Celebrating 75 Years of Conservation, Education, and Recreation 1971 – 1992. Cleveland: Cleveland Metroparks.

Miller, Carol Poh and Robert Wheeler. 1990. CLEVELAND: A Concise History, 1796 – 1990. Bloomington: Indiana Press University.

Moll, Remington J., Jonathon D. Cepek, Patrick D. Lorch, Patricia M. Dennis, Terry Robison, Joshua J. Millspaugh, and Robert A. Montgomery. 2018. Humans and urban development mediate the sympatry of competing carnivores. Urban Ecosystems 24: 765 – 78. doi:10.1007/s11252-018-0758-6.

Monz, Christopher A., David N. Cole, Yu-Fai Leung, and Jeffrey L. Marion. 2010. Sustaining Visitor Use in Protected Areas: Future Opportunities in Recreation Ecology Research Based on the USA Experience. Environmental Management 45 (4): 551 – 62.

Moore, Gary C., and Gerry R. Parker. 1992. “Colonization by the Eastern Coyote (Canis latrans).” In Coyote, ed. Arnold H. Boer, 23 – 38. Fredericton: University of New Brunswick.

Nellemann, Christian, Ingunn Vistnes, Per Jordhoy, Ole-Gunnar Stoen, Bjorn Petter Kaltenborn, Frank Hanssen, and Rannveig Helgesen. 2010. Effects of Recreational Cabins, Trails and Their Removal for Restoration of Reindeer Winter Ranges. Restoration Ecology 18 (6): 873 – 881. doi:10.1111/j.1526-100X.2009.00517.x.

Ng, Sandra J., Jim W. Dole, Raymond M. Sauvajot, Seth P. D. Riley, and Thomas J. Valone. 2004. Use of highway undercrossings by wildlife in southern California. Biological Conservation 115: 499 – 507. doi:10.1016/S00006-3207(03)00166-6.

Noss, Reed. 1993. “Wildlife Corridors.” In Ecology of Greenways: Design and Function of Linear Conservation Areas, eds. Daniel S. Smith and Paul Cawood Hellmund, 43 – 63. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

100

Ohio Division of Geological Survey. 1998. PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS OF OHIO. Department of Natural Resources. https://ohiodnr.gov/portals/geosurvey/PDFs /Misc_State_Maps&Pubs/physio.pdf.

Ohio Division of Geological Survey. 2005. GLACIAL MAP OF OHIO. Department of Natural Resources. https://ohiodnr.gov/portals/geosurvey/PDFs/Glacial/glacial.pdf.

Ohio Division of Geological Survey. 2006. BEDROCK GEOLOGIC MAP OF OHIO. Department of Natural Resources. https://ohiodnr.gov/portals/geosurvey/PDFs /BedrockGeology/BG-1_8.5x11.pdf.

Quinn, Timothy. 1997. Coyote (Canis latrans) Food Habits in Three Urban Habitat Types of Western Washington. Northwest Science 71 (1): 1 – 5. https://research.libraries.wsu .edu:8443/xmlui/handle/2376/1256.

Reed, Sarah E., and Adina M. Merenlender. 2008. Quiet, Nonconsumptive Recreation Reduces Protected Area Effectiveness. Conservation Letters 1: 146 – 54. Rogala, James Kimo, Mark Hebblewhite, Jesse Whittington, Cliff A. White, Jenny Coleshill, and Marco Musiani. 2011. Human Activity Differentially Redistribute Large Mammals in the Canadian Rockies National Parks. Ecology and Society 16 (3). doi:10.5751 /ES-04251-160316.

Searns, Robert M. 1995. The evolution of greenways as an adaptive urban landscape form. Landscape and Urban Planning 33: 65 – 80.

Shepherd, Brenda, and Jesse Whittington. 2006. Response of Wolves to Corridor Restoration and Human Use Management. Ecology and Society 11 (2): article 1. http://www .ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art1.

Soulard, Danielle F. 2017. “Impacts of Recreational Trails on Wildlife Species: Implications for Gatineau Park.” Master’s thesis, University of Ottawa. uO Research. https://ruor .uottawa.ca/.

Thurston, Eden and Richard J. Reader. 2001. Impacts of Experimentally Applied Mountain Biking and Hiking on Vegetation and Soil of a Deciduous Forest. Environmental Management 27 (3): 397 – 409. doi:10.1007/s002670010157.

TOWN OF Banff. 2013. “Learn About Banff.” http://banff.ca/index.aspx?NID=252.

The Trust for Public Land. 2013. The Economic Benefits of Cleveland Metroparks. https:// www.clevelandmetroparks.com/getmedia/f524ed3b-b638-45c9-942d-e1a654e9b508 /Trust-for-Public-Land-Economic-Impace-Report-Cleveland-Metroparks.pdf.ashx.

101

Tull, John C., and Paul R. Krausman. 2001. Use of a Wildlife Corridor By Desert Mule Deer. The Southwestern Naturalist 46 (1): 81 – 6. van der Grift, Edgar A., Fabrice Ottburg, Rogier Pouwels, and Jolanda Dirksen. 2011. “Multiuse Overpasses: Does Human Use Impact the Use by Wildlife?” ICOET 2011 Proceedings at International Conference on Ecology and Transportation in Seattle, WA., August 2011. http://www.icoet.net/icoet_2011/documents/proceedings/ICOET-2011-Conference Proceedings.pdf. van der Ree, Rodney, and Edgar A. van der Grift. 2015. “Recreational Co-use of Wildlife Crossing Structures.” In Handbook of Road Ecology, eds. Rodney van der Ree, Daniel J. Smith, and Clara Grilo, 184 – 89. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. von May, Rudolf, and Maureen A. Donnelly. 2009. Do trails affect relative abundance estimates of rainforest frogs and lizards? Austral Ecology 34: 613 – 20. Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife. 2014. "Living with Wildlife." https:// stoptrapping101.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/coyotes-living-with-wildlife -_-washington-department-of-fish-wildlife.pdf.

Wilson, Aaron B. 2016. A Look at Ohio’s Climate. Columbus: State Climate Office of Ohio and OSU Extension. Accessed 10 July 2019. https://climate.osu.edu.

—. 2018a. Ohio Quarterly Climate Summary Autumn 2018. Columbus: State Climate Office of Ohio and OSU Extension. Accessed 10 July 2019. https://climate.osu.edu.

—. 2018b. Ohio Quarterly Climate Summary Summer 2018. Columbus: State Climate Office of Ohio and OSU Extension. Accessed 10 July 2019. https://climate.osu.edu.

—. 2019. Ohio Quarterly Climate Summary Winter 2019. Columbus: State Climate Office of Ohio and OSU Extension. Accessed 10 July 2019. https://climate.osu.edu. Young, Kenneth R., Mark A. Blumler, Lori D. Daniels, Thomas T. Veblen, and Susy S. Ziegler. 2003. “Biogeography.” In Geography In America At the Dawn of the 21st Century, eds. Gary L. Gaile and Cort J. Willmott. 17 – 32. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Zhou, Youbing, Christina D. Buesching, Chris Newman, Yayoi Kaneko, Zongqiang Xie, and David W. Macdonald. 2013. Balancing the benefits of ecotourism and development: The effects of visitor trail-use on mammals in a Protected Area in rapidly developing China. Biological Conservation 165: 18 – 24.

102

APPENDICES

103

APPENDIX A

PASSIVE REMOTELY TRIGGERED CAMERA SPECIFICATIONS Manufacturer Bushnell Camera Type Trail Camera Model Trophy Cam HD Aggressor No-Glow Color Brown Model Number 119776 (West Creek Reservation) 119777 (West Creek Reservation) 119876 (Rocky River Reservation entirely) Batteries Energizer, Ultimate Lithium * All cameras received new batteries on go-live date. Memory Card Sandisk, 8 Gigabytes Protected Within Case Yes Color Imagery Yes Infrared Capability Yes Setup category Option chosen Set Clock * Mode Camera

Image Size HD 104 Image Format Full Screen Capture Number 3 Photo (images captured per trigger) LED Control High Camera Name * Video Size N/A, 1280 x 720 Video Length N/A, 10S (seconds) Interval 01M (minutes) Sensor Level Auto NV (Night Vision) Shutter High Camera Mode 24hrs (hours) Format N/A

Appendix A continued: Time Stamp On * in military time Field Scan Off Coordinate Input On * using GPS coordinates Video Sound N/A, Off Default Set Cancel Version BS686BWNx14241 • Gray cells represent background information. • White cells represent all Setup options on came ra (left column) and the option chosen (right column). Some options were irrelevant given the type of research conducted.

• * represents actual alphabetical or numeric input required from researcher.

5 10

APPENDIX B

STUDY SITE DETAILS

Reservation Camera Trail Type Perpendic- Camera Obviousness Go-Live Notes and Site and ular View's of Camera Time and Name (on Material Distance of Orientation Placement Date separate Camera's To Trail maps) View to Trail (feet/inches) West Creek > WCBL10 Informal, 13' 9" N/NW Obscure 10:00 Near informal trail entrance from Center Park dirt (340º) 17 July utility road which Coyotes known to 2018 use. Due to lower topography on each side, trail is somewhat a bottleneck. West Creek > WCBL11 Informal, 14' 5" E Semi-obvious 10:14 Formal MTB trail around each side, Center Park dirt (104º) 17 July downslope. 2018

West Creek > WCNEW10 MTB, dirt 6' 5" E/NE Obvious 10:35 Near valley creek. Formal trail was Center Park (finished) (76º) 17 July being maintained during go-live and 2018 on 21 July 2018. Will have 106 anthropogenic use by volunteers/trail crew. West Creek > WCNEW11 MTB, dirt 10' 6" NE Obvious 10:48 Center Park (finished) (55º) 17 July 2018 West Creek > WCBL12 Informal, 21' 5" N/NW Semi-obvious 11:23 Focused camera on main informal Center Park dirt (340º) 17 July trail diverging to become two 2018 informal trails. West Creek > WCBL13 Informal, 23' 5" N Obscure 11:36 Large fallen tree obscuring most of Center Park dirt (350º) 17 July view. Opening at bottom of fallen 2018 tree and the end of the tree should be in frame also.

Appendix B continued: West Creek > WCNEW12 MTB, dirt 12' 4" N/NE Obvious 11:51 Away from natural runoff area. Center Park (finished) (28º) 17 July 2018 West Creek > WCNEW13 MTB, dirt 14' 10" E/SE Obvious 11:58 On 17 July 2018, camera’s view of Center Park (unfinish- (115º) 17 July unfinished formal MTB trail where it ed to 2018 transitions to finished. When finished, checked on 20 September 2018, see Notes) formal trail segment was finished entirely. Rocky River > RRAPT11 APT, 9' 0" S/SW Obvious 08:40 On telephone pole aimed at APT and South > gravel (208º) 18 October restored open area of forest Wildlife 2018 somewhat in field of view. APT no Management longer a bottleneck in this area (like Loop Trail RRAPT10). 176 feet from RRAPT10 @ next telephone pole to the south. Rocky River > RRBL10 Restored 183' 6" NW Obscure 08:49 Focused on natural grassy plain (and South > open area (331º) 18 October APT in the far distance) where Wildlife (previously 2018 informal trail network previously Management bootleg, existed. Area was restored and

Loop Trail dirt) signage asks visitors to stay out of 107 area.

• WCBL## stands for West Creek Reservation Bootleg ##; WCNEW## stands for West Creek Reservation on NEW Mountain Bike Trail (MTB) ##; RRAPT## stands for Rocky River Reservation All Purpose Trail (APT) ##; RRBL## stands for Rocky River Reservation Bootleg ##. • All camera pairs are around 150 feet apart. • Colored cells represent two cameras paired to comprise one “station”. White cells mean camera was not paired. Additional, single cameras were already in place from a previous project and are not included in this table. Refer to Figure 4 and Figure 8 to determine placement of various cameras for various projects.

Appendix B continued: Reservation Camera Angle Distance Model # Notes and Site To Mounted Name (on Ground Above separate Ground maps) (feet/inches) West Creek > WCBL10 90º 2’ 0” 119777 Near informal trail entrance from utility road which coyotes known to Center Park use. Due to lower topography on each side, trail is somewhat a bottleneck. West Creek > WCBL11 90º 2’ 6” 119777 MTB trail on each side, downslope. Center Park West Creek > WCNEW10 90º 3’ 10” 119777 Near valley creek. Trail was being maintained during go-live and on 21 Center Park July 2018. Camera may be covered by volunteers; if not, will have anthropogenic use by volunteers. West Creek > WCNEW11 90º 5’ 2” 119777 Check imagery since orientation and daylight may affect images. Camera Center Park may need relocated. West Creek > WCBL12 90º 2’ 7” 119776 Focused camera on main informal trail diverging to become two informal Center Park trails in a "Y" shape. West Creek > WCBL13 90º 2’ 1” 119777 Large fallen tree obscuring most of view. Opening at bottom of fallen Center Park tree and the end of the tree should be in frame also.

West Creek > WCNEW12 76º 2’ 0” 119776 Away from natural runoff area.

Center Park

West Creek > WCNEW13 68º 2’ 5” 119776 On 17 July 2018, camera’s view of unfinished MTB trail where it 108 Center Park transitions to finished. When checked by ME on 20 September 2018, trail segment was finished entirely. Rocky River RRAPT11 90º 2' 2" 119876 On telephone pole aimed at APT and restored open area of forest > South > somewhat in field of view. APT no longer a bottleneck in this area. 176 Wildlife feet from RRAPT10 @ next telephone pole to the south. Management Loop Trail Rocky River RRBL10 90º 2' 4" 119876 Focused on natural grassy plain (and APT in the far distance) where > South > informal trails existed previously. Area is now restored but some Wildlife remnants of use remain (e.g. broken vegetation). Management Loop Trail

APPENDIX C

TIMELINE OF SD CARDS CHANGED

Camera Names July 2018 Aug. 2018 Sept. 2018 Oct. 2018 Nov. 2018 Dec. 2018 Jan. 2019 RRAPT 11 N/A N/A N/A 18^ 29 23 31 RRBL 10 N/A N/A N/A 18^ 29 23 31 WCBL 10, 11, 12, 13 17^ 7 20 25 N/A 6 31 21 28 WCNEW 10, 11, 12, 13 17^ 7 20 25 N/A 6 31 21 28

^ represents go-live date

109

APPENDIX D

SPECIES TAGS IN digiKam 5.9.0

110

APPENDIX E

OPERATION DATES OF CAMERAS

111

APPENDIX F

NON-SPECIES TAGS ANALYSIS

112

Appendix F continued:

3 11

APPENDIX G

VERIFIED USE LIKELIHOOD

4 11

Appendix G continued:

5 11

Appendix G continued:

6 11

Appendix G continued:

7 11