Impacts of Human Developments and Land Use on Caribou: a Literature Review Volume I: a Worldwide Perspective
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
IMPACTS OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENTS AND LAND USE ON CARIBOU: A LITERATURE REVIEW VOLUME I: A WORLDWIDE PERSPECTIVE R.T. Shideler, M.H. Robus, J.F. Winters, and M. Kuwada Technical Report 86-2 Alaska Department of Fish & Game Habitat and Restoration Division The Alaslia Department of Fish and Game administers all programs and activities free from discrimination on the basis of sex, color, race, religion, national origin, age, marital status, pregnancy, parenthood, or disability. For information on alternative formats available for this and other department publications contact the department ADA Coordinator (voice) 9071465-4120: (TTD) 9071478-3648. Any person who believes slhe has been discriminated against should write to: ADF&G, PO Box 25526, Juneau, AK 99802-5526 or O.E.O. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington D.C. 20240. IMPACTS OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENTS AJYD LAND USE ON CARIBOU: A LITERATURE REVIEW Volume I: A Worldwide Perspective by R.T. Shideler, 1vI.H. Robus, J.F. Winters, and M. Kuwada Technical Report 86-2 Norman A. Cohen Director Division of Habitat Alaska Department of Fish and Game P.O. Box 3-2000 Juneau, Alaska 99802 June 1986 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................... v LIST OF TABLES ....................................................... vi ACKNmmS..................................................... vii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................... ix 1.0 GENERAL INTRODUCTION ............................................ 1 1.1 Scope & Organization ....................................... 1 1.2 Definition of Impact ....................................... 1 2.0 INTRODUCTION TO V0LUN.E I ........................................ 3 3.0 BACKGROUND ...................................................... 3 3.1 Taxonmy and Nanenclature .................................. 3 3.2 Theories of Population Dynamics ............................ 5 3.2.1 "Forage" Theory ..................................... 5 3.2.2 "Predation" Theory .................................. 8 3.2.3 "Dispersal" Theory .................................. 9 3.2.4 Discussion ........................................ 9 4.0 EXAMPLES: MAJOR CHANGES IN DISTRIBUTION OR ABUNDANCE ........... 10 4.1 New England and the Lake States ............................ 11 4.2 Pacific Northwest and Western Canada ....................... 22 4.3 Kenai Peninsula ............................................ 26 4.4 Soviet Union ........................................ 26 4.5 Fennoscandia ............................................... 37 5.1 Agriculture (excluding reindeer herding) ................... 43 5.2 Air Transport ........................................ 43 5.2.1 Fixed Wing ........................................ 44 5.2.2 Helicopter ........................................ 47 5.2.3 Conclusions ........................................ 48 5.3 Human-caused Fire .......................................... 48 iii .PAGE 5.4 Forestry ................................................... 52 5.4.1 Habitat Changes ..................................... 52 5.4.2 Direct Effects on Individuals ....................... 54 5.5 Ground Transport ........................................... 56 5.5.1 Linear Transport Systems (e.g.. roads. railroads) ... 56 5.5.2 Pedestrian and ORV Travel ........................... 58 5.6 Hydropower ................................................. 58 5.7 Nuclear Testing ........................................ 59 5.8 Reindeer Husbandry ......................................... 60 5.9 Water Transport ........................................ 63 6.0 DISCUSSION ...................................................... 63 7.0 LITERATURE CITED ................................................ 66 8.0 ANL\TOTATm> BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................................... 85 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Original forest types of New England. the Lake .................. 12 States. and S.E. Canada 2 . Wild reindeer distribution in the Soviet Union .................. 31 as of 1980 3 . Wild reindeer and human developnents in southern ................ 39 Norway 4 . Sndhetta and Knutshd wild reindeer range. Norway ................ 41 5 . Opinions regarding the impacts of fire on caribou ............... 50 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Subspecies, geographic range, and general habitat ............... 4 utilization of Ftangifer tarandus 2. Chronicle of caribou, moose, and white-tailed deer .............. 13 population changes in northern US and Canada, 1800-1900 3. Forest types of New England-southeastem Canada ................. 16 and Lake States-Ontario region 4. Population estimates of caribou in selected regions ............. 30 of the USSR, 1972 and 1980 Many people have contributed directly =id indirectly to the ideas and information presented here. In particular we would like to thank Jim Davis, Ray Cameron, Ken Pitcher, and Ken Whitten of Division of Game, ADF&G, and Steve Albert, Bruce Baker, A1 Ott, Lance Trasky, and the late John Clark of the Division of Habitat, ADF&G, for conanenting on previous drafts. Eldar Gaare of the Norwegian Direktoratet for Naturforvaltning, Trondheim, kindly provide2 an update on the status of wild reindeer and human developments in Norway. Dave Klein, University of Alaska Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, provided ut~published information on the Noril.sk pipel.ine. We would also like to thank Tom Bucceri for drafting t-he figures, Bob Durr for editing the annotated bibliography, and espcially Nancy Fisher for her pztience and considerable skill in typing the manuscript. The preparation of this report has been made possible through allocation of a portion of a 5-year Regional Planning Capital Improvement Budget authorized by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game for the period EY 82-86. vii EXIXUTIVE SUMMKRY - VOLUME I There is no consensus among caribou biologists regarding the relative importance of different influences (i.e., forage, predation, hunting, or dispersal) on caribou population dynamics. This lack of consensus reflects not only a difference in philosophical viewpoints among caribou biologists but also the different influences to which caribou populations in different environments are subjected. Caribou biologists have interpreted caribou population dynamics in terms of three major theories. These theories are not necessarily independent of each other, and many biologists subscribe to more than one of each. However, for the purposes of discussion here we treat each theory as if it were ccmpletely separate from the other. The three theories emphasize predation, forage, and dispersal, respectively, as the influence by which caribou populaticns are regulated. Proponents of the "Predation" theory believe that caribou reproduction rates remain high (70-90% in most North American herds) and relatively stable irrespective of forage quantity or quality. They further believe that caribou populaticns are regulated by changes in calf or adult survival caused by predation, harvest by humans, or the transmission of meningeal disease frm white-tailed deer. Although forage may ultimately control caribou populations, the density of animals at which this control would occur has been reached in Fennoscandian but. not in North American caribou herds. Adheremts of this theory consider the impacts of human land uses on caribou in light of increased predation, harvest, or harassment. In their view, increased access for hunters or predators, reductions in space in which caribou can evade predators, and harassment due to hunting are the most important impacts of human developnents. Proponents of the second theory, the "Forage" theory, believe that caribou-forage relationships are more important than do proponents of the "Predation" theory. According to adherents of this theory, differences in calf and. adult survival among caribou herds can be traced to differences mng these herds in foraqe relatioriships (e.g. , quality, quantity, and availability of forage) as well as predation or harvest; therefore, such forage relationships are important in regulating caribou populatio~ls. Traditionally, the emphasis of this theory has been on the importance of lichens because caribou appear to be uniquely adapted to the utilization of lichens. Current thinking is that although lichens may be a staple in the diet of some caribou populations, lichens are not necessary for the survival of all caribou populations. Adherents of the "Foraqe" theory emphasize that human act-ivities can impact caribou by affecting the animal's ability to utilize forage. The impact can occur by direct destruction of that forage, disruption of access to forage, 7 interference with the animal's time to spend foraginq, or by increasing the animal's energy demands. Proponents of the third theory, the "Dispersal" theory, believe that density-dependent interactions among individual caribou, or between caribou and their habitat, cause caribou to disperse to new areas before forage conditions reach the point at which the population would decline. The adherents of this theory have not specifically interpreted the impacts of human developments and land uses in terms of this theory. There is ample evidence from thoughout the Northern Hemisphere that caribou populations have declined and their geographic range has contracted from that of historic levels; and that this effect has been due to increased land uses and developnts concurrent with the expansion of the human population. In many cases, declines have been caused by hunting