DOCSLIB.ORG

Habitat Restoration Initiative (NECI): a Comprehensive Strategy to Support the Recovery of the New England Cottontail in Its Historic New England Range

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Habitat Restoration Initiative (NECI): a Comprehensive Strategy to Support the Recovery of the New England Cottontail in Its Historic New England Range 1 NNEEWW EENNGGLLAANNDD CCOOTTTTOONNTTAAIILL HHAABBIITTAATT RREESSTTOORRAATTIIOONN SSPPEECCIIAALL IINNIITTIIAATTIIVVEE PPRROOPPOOSSAALL UUNNDDEERR TTHHEE WWIILLDDLLIIFFEE HHAABBIITTAATT IINNCCEENNTTIIVVEE PPRROOGGRRAAMM Above figure depicts New England Cottontail focus areas within the historic range. SECTION 1 – Proposal Overview NRCS New England Cottontail Habitat Restoration Initiative (NECI): A comprehensive strategy to support the recovery of the New England Cottontail in its historic New England Range. Total Acres of Emphasis Area: 750,000 acres Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Contact: Richard P. Ellsmore, NH State Conservationist Phone: 603-868-7581 Email: [email protected] 1 2 2 Executive Summary: In 2006, the New England Cottontail rabbit (NEC) was listed as a federal candidate species under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) due to an 86% decline in its historic range since 1960. NEC is listed as a priority species in every Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) for the states in which it occurs (Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New York), and is listed as an “endangered” species by state law in Maine and New Hampshire. The NEC is extirpated in Vermont, and only five distinct populations remain within its historic range. NEC requires at least 25 acres of continuous early successional habitat within a larger landscape context that includes: dispersal corridors, shrub wetlands, and smaller parcels containing dense thickets. Landscape fragmentation, loss of habitat from succession, infestations of invasive plants, and alterations of hydrology, are the most common resource concerns affecting NEC. Also, working with private landowners to convert more profitable or aesthetically pleasing land uses such as forest and grassland to shrubland or early successional forest is a challenge. Because NEC often inhabits enriched landscapes suitable for agriculture and forestry operations, formal federal listing of the species will impact producers who have lands designated as critical habitat. For this reason alone, it is critical that we preclude the need to federally list the species, develop and maintain habitat within priority areas, and work to offer incentives to landowners to support NEC conservation. Current Efforts The state wildlife conservation agencies of NY, CT, RI, MA, NH and ME, along with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the NRCS, as well as non- government conservation organizations, are working together to deliver outreach efforts within NEC priority areas. These areas are available via GIS and include ranked parcel data created by Dr. Steven Fuller of New Hampshire Fish and Game (Exhibit 1, attached) NRCS in ME, MA, and NH have each set up special funding pools under WHIP for private landowners to improve habitat for NEC. However, there is greater opportunity to expand these efforts in all six states, which host the historic range of the species, through a collaborative strategy to target and leverage NRCS funds. NRCS has also funded agreements, and is working directly with biologists from partner agencies, to increase capacity for additional outreach, planning and implementation. Due to difficult economic times, and a lack of economic return from shrubland habitat compared to field or forest, landowners who are usually willing to allow projects on their land do not have the matching dollars. To overcome this hurdle, NRCS, USFWS, and State agencies are working together to pool dollars to effectively eliminate the landowner’s cost share. Due to these reasons, State Conservationists (STCs) are encouraged to investigate scenarios when 90% WHIP payment rates are justified to restore identified essential habitat. 2 3 Goals To preclude the need to federally list the species and to enable potential down-listing from endangered under Maine and New Hampshire law, partners in the region agree approximately 5,000 acres of habitat created or enhanced within the identified priority areas region-wide are needed. Furthermore, 59 species of greatest conservation need in New England depend on early successional habitats and will also benefit from this initiative (See Exhibit 2). Through this proposal, NRCS will create and enhance approximately 2,500 acres of shrubland, thickets and early successional forest over five years. NRCS and partners will target these acres within priority landscapes derived from GIS landscape analysis, field reconnaissance, documentation of occupied landscapes, pellet surveys, trapping, and genetic analysis. A region-wide practice list will be used to focus dollars within priority landscapes, yet individual states will use state-specific scenarios under approved practices. In addition to the goals of this initiative, special technical assistance needs will be addressed for habitat planning and monitoring through contribution agreements, conservation activity plans, and federal and state grants. Additional capacity to build upon this initiative will still be needed in the region. NRCS states will submit a proposal in January 2011, to secure funds under an existing national contribution agreement between National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) and NRCS focused on recovering candidate species to fund shared positions co-located in NRCS field offices. Collaboration and Participation STCs will collaborate with State and Federal agencies, as well as non-government partners, to continue an aggressive outreach campaign to increase enrollment of landowners in priority areas. State technical committees and the appropriate local work groups will be fully engaged in the initiative. Technical assistance information will be provided as consistently as possible among agencies. STCs will also work to ensure field staff are adequately trained and prepared with the tools needed to deliver effective assistance. SECTION 2 – Threats and Resource Concerns In their status assessment of NEC as a candidate for listing under the Federal ESA, the USFWS determined the following were major threats to the survival of the species: degradation or loss of suitable habitat due to forest maturation or land use conversion, increased predation due to small parcel size and inadequate cover, decline in populations due to habitat fragmentation and barriers to dispersal, and potentially reduced habitat quality due to the proliferation of invasive plants. These threats identified by the USFWS fall under the following NRCS wildlife resource quality criteria: Fish and Wildlife – Inadequate Food Fish and Wildlife Inadequate Cover/Shelter 3 4 Fish and Wildlife - Inadequate Space Fish and Wildlife - Habitat Fragmentation Fish and Wildlife – Imbalance Among and Within Populations Fish and Wildlife – Threatened and Endangered Species: Declining Species, Species of Concern Plant Condition – Noxious and Invasive Plants Common Resource Settings and Strategies: The most common resource setting for the development and enhancement of NEC habitat is on abandoned farmland which has, or is reverting to, forest. Special care will be taken to identify seeps which provide a winter water source with the development of thick winter cover adjacent to these areas. Often these seeps are floristically bio-diverse, and typically include herbaceous plant species which are an important summer food source for NEC. Restoration of these areas is a high priority for our partnership, and a point of interest to many landowners. A typical NEC contract involves cutting mature vegetation to develop thick young shrubland, regenerating forest, and developing a matrix of herbaceous vegetation and shrubland thickets in as large an area as feasible. This can be achieved by several scenarios and NRCS practices (identified in section 3). Where suitable shrubland habitat is beginning to revert to mid-aged forest, typically a chainsaw is needed to cut vegetation which is over-matured and canopy closure is beginning to take place. In more mature forest settings, typically a feller buncher and whole tree chipper, or an excavator with a rotary cutter, is used to clear large openings to begin natural succession. Typical site selection for these projects is on low-quality timber stands with species such as Aspen (Populus sp.), Birch (Betula sp.), Red Maple (Acer rubrum) and White Pine (Pinus strobus). Over-mature shrub thickets of Alder (Alnus sp.), Sumac (Rhus sp.), Willow (Salix sp.) etc., can also be mechanically treated using similar techniques to increase vertical structure, stem densities and overhead cover. Prescribed burning of fire-maintained coastal plain communities is also an option in parts of the NEC’s range. Because of past plowing, land shaping and drainage, especially on enriched landscapes such as coastal plains and riparian areas, the seed bank in the soil is often depleted of native shrub species. Furthermore, planting of invasive species was common in these landscapes so the seed bank is often dominated by invasive species. At several sites in the region, seed and plantings are being used to help re-establish natural communities well- suited to the site and, where possible, re-establish declining natural communities associated with, but not limited to: Appalachian Oak/Pine/Hickory forests, Atlantic White Cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides) Swamps, Swamp White Oak (Quercus bicolor), Black Gum (Nyssa sylvatica), and Pitch Pine (Pinus rigida) - Scrub Oak (Quercus illicifolia) Barrens. Offering community restoration objectives will broaden the conservation value of dollars spent on projects, attract more landowners,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Venomous Snakes in Pennsylvania the First Question Most People Ask When They See a Snake Is “Is That Snake Poisonous?” Technically, No Snake Is Poisonous
    Venomous Snakes in Pennsylvania The first question most people ask when they see a snake is “Is that snake poisonous?” Technically, no snake is poisonous. A plant or animal that is poisonous is toxic when eaten or absorbed through the skin. A snake’s venom is injected, so snakes are classified as venomous or nonvenomous. In Pennsylvania, we have only three species of venomous snakes. They all belong to the pit viper Nostril family. A snake that is a pit viper has a deep pit on each side of its head that it uses to detect the warmth of nearby prey. This helps the snake locate food, especially when hunting in the darkness of night. These Pit pits can be seen between the eyes and nostrils. In Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Snakes all of our venomous Checklist snakes have slit-like A complete list of Pennsylvania’s pupils that are 21 species of snakes. similar to a cat’s eye. Venomous Nonvenomous Copperhead (venomous) Nonvenomous snakes Eastern Garter Snake have round pupils, like a human eye. Eastern Hognose Snake Eastern Massasauga (venomous) Venomous If you find a shedded snake Eastern Milk Snake skin, look at the scales on the Eastern Rat Snake underside. If they are in a single Eastern Ribbon Snake Eastern Smooth Earth Snake row all the way to the tip of its Eastern Worm Snake tail, it came from a venomous snake. Kirtland’s Snake If the scales split into a double row Mountain Earth Snake at the tail, the shedded skin is from a Northern Black Racer Nonvenomous nonvenomous snake.
    [Show full text]
  • Smooth Green Snake
    Smooth Green Snake Liochlorophis vernalis Taxa: Reptilian SE-GAP Spp Code: rSGSN Order: Squamata ITIS Species Code: 563910 Family: Colubridae NatureServe Element Code: ARADB47010 KNOWN RANGE: PREDICTED HABITAT: P:\Proj1\SEGap P:\Proj1\SEGap Range Map Link: http://www.basic.ncsu.edu/segap/datazip/maps/SE_Range_rSGSN.pdf Predicted Habitat Map Link: http://www.basic.ncsu.edu/segap/datazip/maps/SE_Dist_rSGSN.pdf GAP Online Tool Link: http://www.gapserve.ncsu.edu/segap/segap/index2.php?species=rSGSN Data Download: http://www.basic.ncsu.edu/segap/datazip/region/vert/rSGSN_se00.zip PROTECTION STATUS: Reported on March 14, 2011 Federal Status: --- State Status: CT (SC), IA (S), ID (P), IN (SE), MA (- WL), NC (W4,SC), ND (Level I), NE (NC), NH (SC), NJ (U), NY (GN), OH (SC), RI (Not Listed), TX (T), UT (SPC), QC (Susceptible) NS Global Rank: G5 NS State Rank: CO (S4), CT (S3S4), IA (S3), ID (SH), IL (S3S4), IN (S2), KS (SNA), MA (S5), MD (S5), ME (S5), MI (S5), MN (SNR), MO (SX), MT (S2), NC (SNA), ND (SNR), NE (S1), NH (S3), NJ (S3), NM (S4), NY (S4), OH (S4), PA (S3S4), RI (S5), SD (S4), TX (S1), UT (S2), VA (S3), VT (S3), WI (S4), WV (S5), WY (S2), MB (S3S4), NB (S5), NS (S5), ON (S4), PE (S3), QC (S3S4), SK (S3) rSGSN Page 1 of 4 SUMMARY OF PREDICTED HABITAT BY MANAGMENT AND GAP PROTECTION STATUS: US FWS US Forest Service Tenn. Valley Author. US DOD/ACOE ha % ha % ha % ha % Status 1 0.0 0 17.6 < 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 Status 2 0.0 0 1,117.9 < 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 Status 3 0.0 0 6,972.8 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 Status 4 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 Total 0.0 0 8,108.3 2 0.0 0 0.0 0 US Dept.
    [Show full text]
  • Amphibians & Reptiles
    AmphibiansAmphibians && ReptilesReptiles onon thethe NiagaraNiagara EscarpmentEscarpment By Fiona Wagner For anyone fortunate enough to be hiking the Bruce Trail in the early spring, it can be an overwhelming and humbling experience. That’s when the hills awaken to the resounding sound of frogs - the Wood frogs come first, followed by the Spring Peepers and Spiny Softshell Turtle Chrous frogs. By summer, seven more species will have joined this wondrous and sometimes deafening cacophony and like instruments in 15 an orchestra, each one has their unique call. Photo: Don Scallen Bruce Trail Magazine Spring 2010 Photo: Gary Hall Like an oasis in a desert of urban Toronto Zoo. “It’s this sheer diversi- of some of these creatures can be an development, the Niagara ty and the density of some of these astonishing experience, says Don Escarpment is home to more than experiences. I’m hooked for that Scallen, a teacher and vice president 30 reptiles and amphibians, includ- reason. You’ll never know what of Halton North Peel Naturalist ing several at risk species such as the you’re going to find.” Club. Don hits the Trail in early Dusky Salamander and Spotted spring to watch the rare and local Turtle (both endangered) as well as When and where to go Jefferson salamanders and their the threatened Jefferson Salamander. While it’s possible to see amphib- more common relative, the Yellow It is the diversity of the escarpment’s ians and reptiles from March to Spotted salamander. varied habitats, including wetlands, October, you’ll have more success if “A good night for salamander rocky outcrops and towering old you think seasonally, says Johnson.
    [Show full text]
  • Best Management Practices for the New England Cottontail - New York
    Best Management Practices For the New England Cottontail New York Specific challenges Invasive shrubs Heathlands Canopy Retention Eastern cottontails Statement of Purpose Populations of species residing at the edge of their range are exposed to novel environments and stressors that may affect their response to management. The impacts of eastern cottontails and the prevalence of invasive shrubs have been recognized as factors limiting New England cottontail populations at the edge of their range in New York State. Here, canopy closure, heathlands, and invasive shrubs may also play a large role in providing habitat and mitigating the negative impacts of competition with the eastern cottontail. This document is meant to serve as a technical guide for managers working to restore or create New England cottontail habitat in the face of these challenges. Recent work suggests current management practices may be ineffective or even harmful when the impacts of invasive shrubs and eastern cottontails are not considered in forest management decision- making. These guidelines provide background information and updated recommendations derived from recent and ongoing research on New England cottontails for use in developing site specific forest management plans. While we use New York specific examples, many of these challenges we discuss, such as management of New England cottontails in the presence of eastern cottontails, are rapidly becoming a range-wide concern. The guidance outlined herein is adaptable to similar habitat in New England. Prepared by: Amanda Cheeseman PhD. and Jonathan Cohen PhD from the State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry in partnership with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
    [Show full text]
  • Wildlife in Your Young Forest.Pdf
    WILDLIFE IN YOUR Young Forest 1 More Wildlife in Your Woods CREATE YOUNG FOREST AND ENJOY THE WILDLIFE IT ATTRACTS WHEN TO EXPECT DIFFERENT ANIMALS his guide presents some of the wildlife you may used to describe this dense, food-rich habitat are thickets, T see using your young forest as it grows following a shrublands, and early successional habitat. timber harvest or other management practice. As development has covered many acres, and as young The following lists focus on areas inhabited by the woodlands have matured to become older forest, the New England cottontail (Sylvilagus transitionalis), a rare amount of young forest available to wildlife has dwindled. native rabbit that lives in parts of New York east of the Having diverse wildlife requires having diverse habitats on Hudson River, and in parts of Connecticut, Rhode Island, the land, including some young forest. Massachusetts, southern New Hampshire, and southern Maine. In this region, conservationists and landowners In nature, young forest is created by floods, wildfires, storms, are carrying out projects to create the young forest and and beavers’ dam-building and feeding. To protect lives and shrubland that New England cottontails need to survive. property, we suppress floods, fires, and beaver activities. Such projects also help many other kinds of wildlife that Fortunately, we can use habitat management practices, use the same habitat. such as timber harvests, to mimic natural disturbance events and grow young forest in places where it will do the most Young forest provides abundant food and cover for insects, good. These habitat projects boost the amount of food reptiles, amphibians, birds, and mammals.
    [Show full text]
  • Cottontail Story For
    CottontailNew England’s © ANNE BROWN PHOTO Relict, opportunistic or soon-to-be endangered species, the New England cottontail has managed to keep a low profile. But it is in danger of disappearing from the woodlands of New Hampshire. BY JOHN A. LITVAITIS t one time or another, most of us have encountered a small state: Eastern and New England. And it is the New England Abrown bunny while out for a walk or while doing chores in cottontail that has our concern. Before I summarize the reasons for the backyard. If you’re a hunter, your experiences also may have that concern, let me give you a little background information. included walking through a brushy field hoping to kick up a In general appearance, New England cottontails are like rabbit or two for the stewpot. other North American rabbits. Smaller than Eastern cottontails, Hunters and naturalists in New Hampshire know that rabbits New England cottontails weigh just about 2 pounds. Brown and (cottontails) and snowshoe hares both occur in the state. In summer, a conspicuous white tail describe most rabbits. However, if you they’re often difficult to tell apart because they both have a brown look closely, you can find a few characteristics that can help you coat and usually don’t stand still long enough for us to get a good distinguish a New England from an Eastern cottontail. About look. In winter, however, the coat of a snowshoe hare turns white half of Eastern cottontails have a small white spot on their and that of a cottontail remains brown.
    [Show full text]
  • 2011 Annual Report of Center for Biological Diversity
    2 011 ANNUAL REPORT CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY annual report photography (Cover) scarlet Hawaiian honeycreeper © Tom Ranker; (inside cover) Grand Canyon courtesy Flickr Commons/racoles; (p. 2) wolverine © Larry Master/masterimages.org; scarlet Hawaiian honeycreeper courtesy Flickr Commons/Ludovich Hirlimann; Miami blue butterfly © Jaret C. Daniels, McGuire Center for Lepidoptera Biodiversity; (p. 3) Pacific walruses courtesy USFWS; (p. 4) gray wolf courtesy Flickr Commons/dalliedee; (p. 6) thread-leaved brodiaea courtesy USFWS, Hawaiian monk seal courtesy Flickr Commons/Brian Russo; (p. 7) beluga whale courtesy Flickr Commons/ivan; (p. 8) Grand Canyon courtesy Flickr Commons/Paul Fundenburg; (p. 9) Center mascot Frostpaw and Barbara Kingsolver by the Center for Biological Diversity; (p. 10) ringed seal © John Moran; (p. 11) polar bear by Jason Molenda; (p. 12) San Joaquin kit fox © B. Moose Peterson; (p. 13) Laysan albatross courtesy USFWS; (p. 14) Florida panther courtesy Flickr Commons/Monica R; (p. 15) whooping crane courtesy Flickr Commons/ NaturesFan1266; (p. 16) California red-legged frog; flat-tailed horned lizard by Wendy Hodges; (p. 17) California condor courtesy Flickr Commons/DJMcCradey; (p. 18) 7 Billion and Counting Logo © Amy Harwood; (p. 19) caribou by John Nickles/USFWS; (p. 20) Seattle courtesy Flickr Commons/craterlover; (p. 21) Species Finder by the Center for Biological Diversity; (p. 22) steelhead trout courtesy Flickr Commons/sgrace; (p. 23) California spotted owl courtesy USFWS, (p. 24) loggerhead sea turtle courtesy Flickr Commons/Wendell Reed, leatherback sea turtle hatchling courtesy Flickr Commons/algaedoc Printed on 100% post-consumer recycled paper with solvent-free vegetable-based inks. Letter From the Director 2011 was an exciting year at the Center.
    [Show full text]
  • RI DEM/Fish and Wildlife- Cottontail Rabbits in Rhode Island
    Cottontail Rabbits in Rhode Island Description: There are two types of rabbits that inhabit Rhode Island, the Eastern (Sylvilagus floridanus) and New England (Sylvilagus transitionalis) cottontail rabbits. The Eastern cottontail is an introduced species whereas the New England cottontail is a native species. The Eastern cottontail was first introduced into Rhode Island during the early 1900s to supplement the declining New England cottontail populations. Cottontails have longs ears, large hind feet, and short, fluffy tails. The coloration of the coat can range from reddish-brown to black to grayish-brown while the undersides are white. Eastern and New England cottontails look almost identical except for a slight variation in their coat colors. About half the population of Eastern cottontails possess a small white spot on their foreheads whereas the New England cottontails have a small black spot on their foreheads. Eastern and New England cottontails have slightly different body weights as well. The Eastern cottontail weighs on average 2-4 pounds and has a total body length ranging from 15-18 inches. The New England cottontail weighs 1.5-3 pounds on average and has a total body length ranging from 14- 19 inches. The males are called bucks and the females are called does. Rabbits are considered lagomorphs not rodents. Lagomorphs are an order of small mammals that include pikas, rabbits, and hares. The main difference between the two is that lagomorphs have two pairs of upper incisors whereas rodents only have one pair. Another difference is that all lagomorphs are strictly herbivores (eat only vegetation) unlike rodents who are omnivores (eat both vegetation and meat).
    [Show full text]
  • Lagomorphs: Pikas, Rabbits, and Hares of the World
    LAGOMORPHS 1709048_int_cc2015.indd 1 15/9/2017 15:59 1709048_int_cc2015.indd 2 15/9/2017 15:59 Lagomorphs Pikas, Rabbits, and Hares of the World edited by Andrew T. Smith Charlotte H. Johnston Paulo C. Alves Klaus Hackländer JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY PRESS | baltimore 1709048_int_cc2015.indd 3 15/9/2017 15:59 © 2018 Johns Hopkins University Press All rights reserved. Published 2018 Printed in China on acid- free paper 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Johns Hopkins University Press 2715 North Charles Street Baltimore, Maryland 21218-4363 www .press .jhu .edu Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Smith, Andrew T., 1946–, editor. Title: Lagomorphs : pikas, rabbits, and hares of the world / edited by Andrew T. Smith, Charlotte H. Johnston, Paulo C. Alves, Klaus Hackländer. Description: Baltimore : Johns Hopkins University Press, 2018. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2017004268| ISBN 9781421423401 (hardcover) | ISBN 1421423405 (hardcover) | ISBN 9781421423418 (electronic) | ISBN 1421423413 (electronic) Subjects: LCSH: Lagomorpha. | BISAC: SCIENCE / Life Sciences / Biology / General. | SCIENCE / Life Sciences / Zoology / Mammals. | SCIENCE / Reference. Classification: LCC QL737.L3 L35 2018 | DDC 599.32—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017004268 A catalog record for this book is available from the British Library. Frontispiece, top to bottom: courtesy Behzad Farahanchi, courtesy David E. Brown, and © Alessandro Calabrese. Special discounts are available for bulk purchases of this book. For more information, please contact Special Sales at 410-516-6936 or specialsales @press .jhu .edu. Johns Hopkins University Press uses environmentally friendly book materials, including recycled text paper that is composed of at least 30 percent post- consumer waste, whenever possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Monitoring a New England Cottontail Reintroduction with Noninvasive Genetic Sampling
    Wildlife Society Bulletin 1–12; 2020; DOI: 10.1002/wsb.1069 Original Article Monitoring a New England Cottontail Reintroduction with Noninvasive Genetic Sampling MELISSA L. BAUER, Department of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824, USA BRETT FERRY, New Hampshire Fish and Game, Concord, NH 03301, USA HEIDI HOLMAN, New Hampshire Fish and Game, Concord, NH 03301, USA ADRIENNE I. KOVACH ,1 Department of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824, USA ABSTRACT Careful monitoring of reintroduced threatened species is essential for informing conservation strategies and evaluating reintroduction efforts in an adaptive management context. We used noninvasive genetic sampling to monitor a reintroduction of a threatened shrubland specialist, the New England cottontail (Sylvilagus transitionalis), in southeastern New Hampshire, USA. We monitored the apparent survival and breeding success of founder individuals and tracked changes in population size and genetic diversity for 5 years following an initial reintroduction in 2013. We released 42 rabbits, documented 29 unique offspring in years following releases through noninvasive surveys, and identified 6 founder individuals and 9 recruited offspring that bred. Apparent survival of founders was variable and greatest in the first year of the reintroduction. Predation was the primary cause of mortality and greatest in the first month after release and after heavy snowfall. Population size remained small but relatively stable until a stochastic decline in the fourth year following reintroduction, followed by a slight rebound after population augmentation and offspring production by wild‐born rabbits. Genetic diversity increased after the initial founders with diverse genetic backgrounds were released and then they and their subsequent offspring bred.
    [Show full text]
  • New England Cottontail (Sylvilagus Transitionalis)
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service New England Cottontail (Sylvilagus transitionalis) Sometimes called the gray rabbit, brush The habitat loss is also true for the rabbit, wood hare or cooney, the New more than 60 other kinds of wildlife England cottontail is the only rabbit that depend on young forest, including native to New England and east of the woodcock, a broad range of songbirds, Hudson River in New York. The other ruffed grouse, bobcats, snowshoe cottontail seen in this region is the hares, box turtles and frosted elfin eastern cottontail (S. floridanus), an butterflies. abundant but non-native species that looks very similar to the New England Saving a Species and its Habitat cottontail. State and federal biologists began a coordinated effort in 2008 to save Shrinking Range the New England cottontail. The The New England cottontail was states of New York, Connecticut, historically found in seven states Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New and ranged from southeastern New Hampshire and Maine, along with York east of the Hudson River, as far the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as northern Vermont, through New the Wildlife Management Institute Hampshire and southern Maine, and and the USDA-Natural Resources south throughout Massachusetts, Conservation Service have developed Connecticut and Rhode Island. Since and implemented a science-based 1960, due to maturing forests and USFWS conservation strategy to bolster development, the range of the New More than 130 rabbits have been raised the populations of New England England cottontail shrank by over 80 in several locations and later released. cottontails. percent, and the rabbit is no longer found in Vermont.
    [Show full text]
  • An Evaluation of New England Cottontail Habitat Restoration
    University of New Hampshire University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository Master's Theses and Capstones Student Scholarship Winter 2017 An evaluation of New England cottontail habitat restoration Alena Robin Warren University of New Hampshire, Durham Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.unh.edu/thesis Recommended Citation Warren, Alena Robin, "An evaluation of New England cottontail habitat restoration" (2017). Master's Theses and Capstones. 1145. https://scholars.unh.edu/thesis/1145 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Scholarship at University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses and Capstones by an authorized administrator of University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. AN EVALUATION OF NEW ENGLAND COTTONTAIL HABITAT RESTORATION BY ALENA WARREN Natural Resources (BS), University of Vermont, 2009 THESIS Submitted to the University of New Hampshire In Partial Fulfillment of The Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science In Natural Resources December, 2017 This thesis has been examined and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Natural Resources by: Thesis Director, John A. Litvaitis, Professor Emeritus of Natural Resources & The Environment Adrienne Kovach, Assistant Professor of Natural Resources & The Environment Donald Keirstead, Resource Conservationist, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Tom Lee, Associate Professor of Natural Resources & The Environment On November 30, 2017 Original approval signatures are on file with the University of New Hampshire Graduate School. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work could not have been done without the contributions of several individuals.
    [Show full text]