KDFWR Annual Research Highlights 2011

Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources

Annual Research Highlights 2011

Volume V, Oct. 2012

Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources Annual Research Highlights 2011 Volume V, Oct. 2012

Our Mission: To conserve and enhance fish and wildlife resources and provide opportunity for hunting, fishing, trapping, boating and other wildlife related activities.

Annual Research Highlights 2011 1 Foreword

tucky and to successfully implement conservation measures for these species and habitats. These two documents are available to the public, and are intended for frequent revision and re-adjustment to incorporate ever changing agency and public needs and interests. The 2011 Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources Research Summary represents our targeted efforts to fulfill the goals of our State Wildlife Ac- tion Plan as well as the goals of the 2008 – 2012 Strategic Plan. These project summaries serve as a testament to KDFWR’s vigilance in the conservation of the fish and wildlife resources that we hold in trust for the public.

Funding Sources and Guidance to Federal Programs Collaring black bear / Obie Williams The Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources The mission of the Kentucky well as agency issues as a whole. receives no general fund taxpay- Department of Fish and Wildlife Re- er dollars. As a result, the Department sources (KDFWR) is to conserve and The five primary goals of the relies on hunting and fishing license enhance fish and wildlife resources Strategic plan are: fees, boat registration fees, and federal and to provide opportunity for hunt- 1) To conserve and enhance fish and programs to fund the seven divisions ing, fishing, trapping, boating, and wildlife populations and their habi- within KDFWR. Projects that are en- other wildlife related activities. To tats; tirely funded by the state are labeled effectively conserve and enhance all 2) To increase opportunity for, and safe “non-federal aid” (NFA); however, fish and wildlife resources in Kentucky, participation in hunting, fishing, most of the projects included in this long-term planning is necessary. Over trapping, boating, and other wildlife- document are partially or fully funded the past several years, KDFWR has related activities; by federal programs such as the State collaborated with multiple outside 3) To foster a more informed and in- and Tribal Wildlife Grant Program, agencies, non-profit organizations, pro- volved public; the Wildlife Restoration Act (Pittman- fessionals, and biologists to complete 4) To expand and diversify our Robertson), the Sport Fish Restoration two important planning documents: user base and Program (Dingell-Johnson), and the The 2008 – 2012 Kentucky Department 5) To create a more diverse, Cooperative Endangered Species Con- of Fish and Wildlife Resources Strate- effective, and efficient orga- servation Fund (Section 6). gic Plan (http://fw.ky.gov/pdf/strategic- nization. These federal programs serve a va- plan2008-2012.pdf), and Kentucky’s riety of purposes; however, each has an State Wildlife Action Plan (revised Complementing the Strategic Plan, underlying goal of fish, wildlife, and/ in 2010; http://fw.ky.gov/kfwis/stwg/). the State Wildlife Action Plan is Ken- or habitat conservation. Brief descrip- Both of these documents are designed tucky’s roadmap for sustaining fish and tions of each of these programs are as to guide agency decisions; however, wildlife diversity. The two primary follows: they serve two unique purposes. The goals of this plan are to identify and 2008 – 2012 Strategic Plan addresses prioritize important species and habitats fish and wildlife management issues as of conservation concern within Ken-

2 Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources FOREWORD

Federal Funding Source Program Goal

Wildlife To restore, conserve, manage and Restoration Act enhance wild birds and mammals (Pittman-Robertson) and their habitats To fund fishery management Sport Fish Restoration projects, boating access, and aquatic (Dingell-Johnson) Program education

Cooperative To fund conservation projects Endangered Species for candidate, proposed, or listed

Conservation Fund species (Section 6) To develop and implement programs that benefit wildlife and State Wildlife Grant their habitats; specifically, species (SWG) Program and habitats of conservation concern Dove banding/ John Brunjes These federal programs provided Contents. For projects that have been in 2011, a brief 1-page overview of approximately 19 million dollars to completed and not yet published, a de- the project is included in the second KDFWR in 2011 (see Figure 1). For tailed summary will be included in the portion (“project highlights”) of the reference, we have included the state first portion (“completed projects”) of document. For select ongoing projects, and federal funding sources for each the document. For projects that began brief updates are included in the last project; however, these proj- section (“project updates”) of ects may be additionally 2% this document. In the table of supplemented by outside fund- contents, an expected date of ing provided by non-profit completion, where applicable, organizations or universities. is listed for each project. This When possible, we listed these will facilitate looking up de- sources in addition to the state tailed summaries of completed and federal funding sources. projects in later years. A com- For each project summary, we 38% prehensive project reference also identify the specific goals 50% guide lists all projects included of the strategic plan or State in Research Highlights docu- Wildlife Action Plan, as well ments, beginning with publica- as the KDFWR contact respon- tion year 2007. sible for each project.

How to Use This 7% 3% Please use the Document following citation This document is divided 1% when referencing this into four main sections: pub- Hunting and Fishing Licenses Program Income document: lished research, completed Federal Reimbursement Miscellaneous Receipts Kentucky Department of projects, project highlights, Boat Registration Fees Interest Income Fish and Wildlife Resources and project updates. Citations Annual Research Highlights, for all published research 2011. Volume V. Publication with Kentucky Department of Figure 1. Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife of the Wildlife and Fisheries Fish and Wildlife involvement Resources Funding Sources 2011. Total revenues for Divisions. October, 2012, 142 are included in the Table of 2011 were $50,392,814.44 pp.

Annual Research Highlights 2011 3 Table of Contents

Published Research Characteristics of River Otters in Kentucky ...... 26 Contact Research Coordinator, Danna Baxley Status of a Reintroduced Black Bear Population in the ([email protected]) for reprints of these publications. Big South Fork Area in Kentucky ...... 36

Culp, J.J., W.R. Haag, D.A. Arrington, and T.B. The Return of the Black Bear to Eastern Kentucky: Kennedy. 2011. Seasonal and species-specific patterns Conflict and Tolerance Between People in abundance of freshwater mussel glochidia and Wildlife ...... 45 in stream drift. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 30:436-445. American Woodcock Nocturnal Field Usage During Spring Migration in Central Kentucky ...... 52 Eisenhour, D.J., A.M. Richter, and J.M. Schiering. 2011. Conservation status of the longhead darter, Percina macrocephala, in Kinniconick Creek, Kentucky. Quail and Grassland Bird Response to Production Southeastern Fishes Council Proceedings 53:13-20. Stands of Native Warm-Season Grasses ...... 59

Frary, V.J., J. Duchamp, D.S. Maehr, and J.L. Larkin. The Common Raven in Cliff Habitat: Detectability and 2011. Density and distribution of a colonizing front of Occupancy ...... 64 the American black bear Ursus americanus. Wildlife Biology 17:404-416. Development of In Vitro Laboratory Methods for Culturing Freshwater Mussels ...... 70 Reidy, J.L., F.R. Thompson III, and J.W. Bailey. 2011. Comparison of methods for estimating density of The Conservation Status of forest songbirds from point counts. Journal of Cambarus veteranus Wildlife Management 75:558-568. (Big Sandy Crayfish) and Cambarus parvoculus (Mountain Midget Crayfish) in Kentucky ...... 76 Shock, B.C., S.M. Murphy, L.L. Patton, P.M. Shock, C.Olfenbuttel, J. Beringer, S. Prange, D.M. Grove, M. Response of Crayfish Populations to Restored Stream Peek, J.W. Butfiloski, D.W. Hughes, J.M. Lockhart, Habitats in Disturbed Portions of East Fork Little S.N. Bevins, S. VandeWoude, K.R. Crooks, V.F. Sandy River Basin ...... 80 Nettles, H.M. Brown, D.S. Peterson and M.J. Yabsley. 2011. Distribution and prevalence of Cytauxzoon Effects of Phragmites Removal on Species of felis in bobcats (Lynx rufus), the natural reservoir, Greatest Conservation Need at Clear Creek Wildlife and other wild felids in thirteen states. Veterinary Management Area ...... 84 Parasitology 175:325-330. Natural Grassland Survey of the Interior Low Plateau Karst Priority Conservation Area ...... 92 Completed Projects Fisheries Project Highlights These projects began in 2011 Status and Life History of the Amblyopsid Cavefishes in Kentucky ...... 9 Fishes

Wildlife Exploitation Rates of Stocked Channel Catfish and Rainbow Trout in Fishing in Neighborhoods (FINs) Lakes ...... 99 Kentucky Residents’ Awareness of and Opinions on Elk Restoration and Management Efforts ...... 16 Lake Sturgeon Telemetry in the Cumberland River Estimated Completion Date: April 1, 2015 ...... 100 Bobcat space use in the Paul Van Booven Wildlife Management Area, Southeastern Kentucky ...... 22 Evaluation of a Smallmouth Bass Stocking Program at Paintsville Lake Status, Distribution, Diet, and Reproductive Estimated Completion Date: April 1, 2015 ...... 101

4 Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources TABLE of CONTENTS

Investigation of the Restoration of Native Walleye in the Black Bass Tournament Results in Kentucky Upper Levisa Fork Estimated Completion Date: June 30, 2020 ...... 110 Estimated Completion Date: March 31, 2019 ...... 102 Evaluation of a 20-inch Minimum Length Limit on Largemouth Bass at Cedar Creek Lake Big Game Estimated Completion Date: June 30, 2015 ...... 111

Can Body Condition and Select Physiological Indicators Evaluation of Kentucky’s Largemouth Bass Stocking Predict Survival of Elk Post-Translocation? Initiative Estimated Completion Date: June 30, 2014 ...... 103 Estimated Completion Date: June 30, 2014 ...... 112

Prevalence of Select Parasites of Elk in Southeastern Preliminary Assessment of a Newly Established Blue Kentucky Catfish Population in Taylorsville Lake Estimated Completion Date: June 30, 2014 ...... 104 Estimated Completion Date: June 30, 2012 ...... 113

Evaluation of the Growth of Two Different Sizes of Blue Furbearers Catfish Stocked into Three North Central Kentucky Small Impoundments Exploring Methods for Monitoring Bobcats in Kentucky Estimated Completion Date: June 30, 2014 ...... 114 Estimated Completion Date: June 30, 2014 ...... 105 Evaluation of a 12-inch Minimum Size Limit on Channel Catfish in Kentucky’s Small Impoundments Migratory Shorebirds and Colonial Estimated Completion Date: June 30, 2015 ...... 115 Nesting Waterbirds

Monitoring Migrating and Wintering Sandhill Cranes in Urban Fisheries Cecilia, Kentucky Estimated Completion Date: June 30, 2013 ...... 106 The Fishing in Neighborhoods (FINS) Program: Providing Fishing Opportunities to Residents in Cities across the Commonwealth ...... 116 Habitat Management Use of Flathead Catfish to Reduce Stunted Fish Managing Rank Native Warm Season Grass Stands in Populations in a Small Kentucky Impoundment Kentucky Estimated Completion Date: June 30, 2014 ...... 117 Estimated Completion Date: December 30, 2013 ..107

Lake Investigations/ Cold Water Fisheries

Project Updates Preliminary Assessment of Bluegill and Redear Sunfish This section includes brief updates for selected projects that Populations in Small Impoundments began prior to 2011. Estimated Completion Date: June 30, 2013 ...... 118

Relative Survival, Growth, and Susceptibility to Angling of Two Strains of Brown Trout in the Lake FISHES Cumberland Tailwater Estimated Completion Date: June 30, 2015 ...... 119 Warm Water Fisheries Evaluation of a 15-20-inch Protective Slot Limit and Evaluation of a Supplemental White Crappie Stocking 5 Fish Creel Limit on Rainbow Trout in the Lake Program at Three Kentucky Reservoirs Cumberland Tailwater Estimated Completion Date: December 30, 2013 ..109 Estimated Completion Date: June 30, 2014 ...... 120

Annual Research Highlights 2011 5 TABLE of CONTENTS

Evaluation of a 36-inch Minimum Length Limit on Bears Muskellunge at Three Kentucky Reservoirs Estimated Completion Date: December 30, 2014 .121 Demographics and Population Estimation of Black Bear in Southeastern Kentucky Investigation of the Restoration of Native Walleye in the Estimated Completion Date: December 31, 2011 .132 Upper Barren River Estimated Completion Date: June 30, 2020 ...... 122 Songbirds and Raptors

Investigation of the Walleye Population in the Statewide Osprey Nesting Survey ...... 133 Rockcastle Rive and Evaluation of Supplemental Stocking of Native Strain Walleye Estimated Completion Date: June 30, 2012 ...... 123 Reptiles and Amphibians Inventory, Monitoring, and Management of Amphibians Evaluation of White Bass Stocking to Enhance Existing and Reptiles in Kentucky ...... 134 Reservoir Populations Estimated Completion Date: June 30, 2012 ...... 124

River and Stream Fisheries River Sport Fishery Survey- Kentucky River ...... 125 Appendix River Sport Fishery Survey- Ohio River ...... 126 This section includes references for projects from 2007- 2011 ...... 135 Ohio River Supplemental Stocking Survey- Markland Pool Estimated Completion Date: June 30, 2014 ...... 127 KDFWR Contacts Ohio River Supplemental Stocking Survey- More information regarding the project summaries within Meldahl Pool this publication can be obtained by contacting the listed Estimated Completion Date: June 30, 2012 ...... 128 KDFWR contact ...... 142

WILDLIFE Big Game

Resource Selection, Movement Patterns, Survival, and Cause-Specific Mortality of AdultBull Elk in Kentucky Estimated Completion Date: June 30, 2015 ...... 129

Genetic Characteristics of Restored Elk Populations in Kentucky Estimated Completion Date: December 30, 2012 .130

Small Game

Population Ecology and Habitat use of Northern Bobwhite on a Reclaimed Surface Coal Mine in Kentucky Estimated Completion Date: June 30, 2015 ...... 131

6 Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources TABLE of CONTENTS

Evening activity in a gray bat cave / John MacGregor and Mark Gumbert Crappie fishing on Kentucky Lake / Obie Williams

Annual Research Highlights 2011 7 Owl / Obie Williams Completed Projects

8 Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Fisheries / COMPLETED PROJECTS

Status and Life History of the Amblyopsid Cavefishes in Kentucky

Matthew L. Niemiller and able or imperiled (Culver et al. 2000) Cavefish (Typhlichthys subterraneus). Benjamin M. Fitzpatrick, because of restricted geographic Despite large distributions in central Department of Ecology and distributions (Culver et al. 2000, Kentucky, little is known regarding life Evolutionary Biology, University 2003) and a number of threats, such history of these species, particularly of as groundwater pollution and habitat the obligate cave-dwelling A. spelaea of Tennessee degradation (Elliott 2000; Danielopol and T. subterraneus. Pursuant with et al. 2003; Boulton 2005). Unfortu- Kentucky’s priority research and survey KDFWR Contact: Ryan Oster nately, the distribution and status of needs, the objectives of this study were many species is incomplete or lack- to (1) conduct baseline surveys and ing entirely, making conservation and status assessments of each amblyopsid management decisions difficult. Here species to determine their distribution Introduction we investigate the distribution, ecol- and conservation status in the state, (2) The Appalachians and Interior ogy, conservation status, and threats obtain cavefish biology information, Plateau support the highest aquatic to three cave-associated fish species such as habitat requirements, ecology, subterranean biodiversity within the in the family Amblyopsidae in Ken- and demography for each species, and continental U.S. (Culver et al. 2003). tucky (Fig 1): the Northern Cavefish (3) identify potential threats to existing However, over 95% of subterranean (Amblyopsis spelaea), Spring Cavefish and significant populations of each spe- species in North America are vulner- (Forbesichthys agassizii) and Southern cies and develop recommendations for

Cavefish / Matt Thomas Figure 1: Four species of amblyopsid cavefishes occur in Kentucky: the Spring Cavefish (Forbesichthys papilliferus) (top left), Northern Cavefish (Amblyopsis spelaea) (top right), Southern Cavefish (Typhlichthys subterraneus) (bottom left), and Kentucky Cavefish (bottom right).

Annual Research Highlights 2011 9 COMPLETED PROJECTS / Fisheries

Figure 2: The distributions of amblyopsid cavefishes in Kentucky are confined to cave- and karst- bearing regions. Ecoregions are colored. status evaluations and monitoring. stream channel and thoroughly scanned stream pool, stream riffle, rimstone the streambed with the beams of our pool; terrestrial: mud bank, bank-cut, Methods headlamps. We also carefully lifted flat crevice), substrate (mud, sand, cobble, Field Surveys rocks, small cobble, and detritus under gravel, bedrock, organic debris, arti- We searched for Northern Cave- which smaller individuals might seek ficial), cover type (rock, log, crevice, fish, Southern Cavefish, and Spring refuge. Lifted rocks were returned to organic debris), and other aspects of Cavefish from May 2007 through their original positions to minimize life history (diet, behavior, community September 2011 in caves, springs, and habitat disturbance. A similar approach associates). Additionally, we excised spring-fed streams throughout the Inte- was taken in surface springs, streams, a small tissue sample from the right rior Plateau and along the Cumberland and ponds while surveying for Spring pectoral fin or caudal fin of one or more Plateau of Kentucky, including sev- Cavefish. We used large dipnets to cavefish captured at each locality (up eral historic localities. We conducted search through aquatic vegetation and to 15 at a given locality) for subsequent surveys during all months of the year, detritus where Spring Cavefish might genetic analyses. but concentrated during periods of seek refuge during the day. We also favorable conditions in subterranean searched beneath rocks, logs, and other Results and Discussion streams (i.e., shallow, clear water with potential cover objects. A tally of each Spring Cavefish Distribution little flow) or during spring when water individual found was kept, and a con- levels were higher and Spring Cavefish certed effort was made to capture, with Within Kentucky, Spring Cavefish can be found in surface habitats. Sur- small bait nets, each cavefish encoun- have been reported from at least 48 veys for cave species (i.e., Northern tered. localities in 17 counties, including at Cavefish and Southern Cavefish) were Captured fish were placed in clear least seven records from caves (Fig. 2). temporarily discontinued in 2009 and plastic bags until standard length (SL) We did not observe Spring Cavefish 2010 because of concerns of the spread was measured to the nearest mm using during any cave surveys; however, of White Nose Syndrome affecting a small metric rule or digital calipers. the species has been reported from a cave-roosting bats. Other data were gathered from each few caves in the Western Pennyroyal To locate cavefish, we donned captured fish if possible, including sex, Karst. Spring Cavefish occur in four wetsuits and slowly walked along, condition (e.g., injuries, growths, or ecoregions in Kentucky. This distri- waded through, or crawled in the cave presence of parasites), habitat (aquatic: bution extends through much of the

10 Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Fisheries / COMPLETED PROJECTS

southern Interior Plateau in the central Appalachians. Included in the distribu- of these studies have focused on caves part of the state, including the Western tion of the Southern Cavefish in Ken- that are known to contain relatively Highland Rim, Eastern Highland Rim, tucky are five HUC8 watersheds. We large populations. Other studies for Crawford-Mammoth Cave Uplands documented several new populations which the most reliable estimates of and Western Pennyroyal Karst from the in Pulaski County in the Upper Cum- abundance have been obtained have Mammoth Cave region in Edmonson berland watershed. Prior to this study, focused on the species of conservation and Hart counties south to the Tennes- Typhlichthys were confirmed from only concern. Additional demographic stud- see border and west to Trigg, Lyon, Sloans Valley Cave (Cooper and Beiter ies, including long-term censuses, are and Livingston counties along the 1972), which is partially inundated by needed for both surface and subterra- Cumberland River. At least six records Lake Cumberland. With the assistance nean populations. exist within the Caseyville Hills of the of the Greater Cincinnati Grotto, we Historically, Spring Cavefish has Interior River Valleys and Hills. The discovered new populations in three been considered rare to uncommon highest density of Spring Cavefish lo- nearby cave systems with unconfirmed throughout much of its range. In Ken- calities occurs in the Land Between the reports from two additional cave sys- tucky, this species has been widely Lake area in Lyon and Trigg counties, tems. All localities occur within the reported but most localities yield fewer as well as south of the Bowling Green Plateau Escarpment of the Southwest- than ten fish during a single survey area in Warren County. Included in the ern Appalachians and are isolated from (Fig. 3). To our knowledge, Spring distribution of the Spring Cavefish in other populations in both Kentucky and Cavefish have only been observed Kentucky are nine HUC8 watersheds, Tennessee. This set of populations only in excess of 25 fish at two localities: including the Cumberland, Green, has an EOO of 38.3 km2 and an AOO a ditch off of Morton Road in Todd Lower Ohio, and Lower Tennessee ba- of 80.0 km2. County and Rich Pond in Warren sins. Spring Cavefish have the largest County. Most surveys yield just a few geographic extent of all amblyopsids in Northern Cavefish Distribution fish; however, this likely is an artifact Kentucky with an extent of occurrence of habitats sampled, as many ichthyo- (EOO) of 14,786.2 km2, and an area of Within Kentucky, Northern Cave- logical surveys focus on streams and occupancy (AOO) of 720.0 km2 (based fish have been reported from at least 39 other larger bodies of water rather than on 4 x 4 km grid cells). We discovered localities, including 38 caves and one spring runs and springs. Moreover, one new locality in Todd County in the spring in five counties (Fig. 2). North- most springs are located on private Red River watershed. ern Cavefish occur in three ecoregions property and consequently have been in the state: the Crawford-Mammoth poorly sampled. Because Spring Cave- Southern Cavefish Distribution Cave Uplands and Mitchell Plain of fish return and persist in spring heads the Interior Plateau and the Caseyville and underground waters when their Within Kentucky, Southern Cave- Hills of the Interior River Valley and surface habitats dry in late summer and fish have been reported from at least Hills (two localities). The highest autumn, the best chance of detecting 29 localities, including 27 caves, one density of Southern Cavefish locali- this species occurs when water levels spring, and one well in eight counties occurs in the Sinking Creek val- are high in late winter and early spring. ties (Fig. 2). The highest density of ley in Breckinridge County and in the We discovered a new, significant Southern Cavefish localities occurs in Mammoth Cave region in Edmonson population of Spring Cavefish in a Edmonson County. Southern Cavefish County. Included in the distribution in spring-fed ditch off of Morton Road in occur in four ecoregions in Kentucky. Kentucky are three HUC8 watersheds: Todd County (Fig. 4). This stream has This distribution extends through much the Rough and Upper Green watersheds been channelized for irrigation and av- of the southern Interior Plateau in the of the Green River Basin and the Blue- erages ca. 2 m wide. It is full of aquatic central part of the state, including the Sinking Watershed of the Lower Ohio vegetation, which provides ample cover Crawford-Mammoth Cave Uplands River Basin. Northern Cavefish have for the species. During our first visit on and Western Pennyroyal Karst from the an EOO of 2700.6 km2 and an AOO of 31 Mar 2010, we captured 77 fish in Mammoth Cave region in Edmonson 432.0 km2 in the state. the 30 m stretch upstream of the road and Hart counties south to the Tennes- crossing and we estimated a population see border and west to Trigg County. Relative abundance, population size density of 12,833 fish per hectare at this Southern Cavefish in this region have and trends locality. However, the number of fish an EOO of 4,547.9 km2 and an AOO dramatically decreased in subsequent of 320.0 km2. A disjunct cluster of Few studies have attempted to weeks as water levels began to decrease populations occurs in Plateau Escarp- quantify population sizes and relative and fish presumably moved upstream. ment ecoregion of the Southwestern abundance of amblyopsids, and most By mid-June in both 2010 and 2011,

Annual Research Highlights 2011 11 COMPLETED PROJECTS / Fisheries

we were unable to capture a single in a ca. 300 m section of the stream. system have been identified as popula- fish at this site. A similar phenomenon This population is unusual in that cave- tion centers for Amblyopsis in Ken- was observed at Rich Pond in Warren fish are found in the cave stream with tucky (Pearson and Boston 1995). Our County. We surveyed a 50 m section of considerable flow, often underneath surveys focused primarily on the north- stream upstream of the road crossing on rocks in the middle of the channel or ern population center in Breckinridge several occasions throughout the year. under undercut ledges around bends County where we observed significant The stream at Rich Pond issues from and meanders. During two surveys, numbers in several caves, including a series of small springs then flows water levels were elevated with low Under the Road Cave, which may have for a few hundred meters through an visibility and we observed few cave- experienced a population decline (Pear- agricultural field before issuing into a fish. We estimated a population density son and Boston 1995). Webster’s Cave large depression in an agricultural field. of 450 cavefish per In the spring during high water levels, hectare in this sec- the water from the stream issues into tion of stream. We this depression forming a large pond discovered a new (up to 340 acres in size). However, as significant popula- the season progresses, water levels drop tion of Typhlichthys and flow is usually reduced to a small in Pulaski County at stream that eventually goes completely Drowned Rat Cave. dry by July or August. During our sur- We searched ca. 400 veys, we observed as few as zero and m of stream pas- as many of 203 Spring Cavefish in this sage on four occa- 50 m section amidst aquatic vegetation. sions and observed We estimated a population density up 31, 17, 24, and 14 to 27,067 fish per hectare in the spring cavefish, including but dropping to 0 fish per hectare in the presumably young- autumn when fish move underground of-the-year fish. We and the stream dries. estimate a popula- Sixty-three percent of reported tion density of 258 Southern Cavefish localities yield cavefish per hectare fewer than ten fish during a single in this section of survey. Only Hawkins River in Mam- stream. moth Cave, Hidden River Cave in Hart Like Southern County, and L & N Railroad Cave in Cavefish, most Barren County have historically pro- Northern Cavefish duced 25+ fish during a single survey localities yield few (Fig. 3). Although Southern Cavefish cavefish, as ten or have been found in many portions of fewer cavefish have the Mammoth Cave system, the vast been observed from majority of cavefish observed are from 64% of localities in the Proctor Cave section of the system, Kentucky (Fig. 3). and more specifically Hawkins River. The largest popula- Pearson and Boston (1995) observed up tions exist in Breck- to 104 Typhlichthys during several sur- inridge County, veys in 1993 and 1994. We visited the including Webster’s Logsdon River section and observed 19 Cave, Penitentiary cavefish in 2010 even though water lev- Cave, Amblyopsis els were slightly elevated from recent Cave, and Under the rainfall. Pearson and Boston (1995) Road Cave where observed up to 45 cavefish during sev- over 100 individuals Figure 3: Proportion of Spring Cavefish (top), Southern eral surveys of L & N Railroad Cave in have been observed Cavefish (middle), and Northern Cavefish (bottom) 1993 and 1994. We visited the cave on during a single sur- localities in Kentucky categorized by the maximum four occasions and observed between vey. This area and number of cavefish observed during a single survey. 8, 15, 22, and 27 cavefish, respectively, the Mammoth Cave Most localities yield few individuals.

12 Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Fisheries / COMPLETED PROJECTS

in Breckinridge County also supports a erwise dry cave may not be representa- experienced a population decline after large population of Amblyopsis. Louis tive of the habitat that most cavefish excessive collections in the late 1800s (1999) estimated a population size of inhabit. Cavefish can disperse through (Niemiller and Poulson 2010) but there 211 ± 37 individuals in a 2530 m sec- and occupy submerged passages inac- is no evidence to suggest that current tion of stream passage at Webster’s cessible to humans but these habitats population densities are any less than Cave using mark-recapture with visual are probably neither usual for the fish those in the mid 1800s when the spe- implant elastomers. However, this es- nor optimal. These habitats likely act as cies was first discovered in the Mam- timate likely is conservative given that corridors for dispersal. Given their lon- moth Cave system. Pearson and Boston (1995) observed gevity, low metabolic rates, and forag- 162 individuals during a single survey ing efficiency, cavefish likely can move Management and estimated a population size of 456 relatively long distances but data are cavefish. We observed as many as 51 lacking to support this hypothesis. Recommendations individuals during our surveys of the Determining the actual popula- Several conservation measures first 1200 m of this passage. Based on tion sizes of amblyopsid cavefishes is have been proposed or implemented Pearson and Boston’s (1995) data, we extremely challenging because of the for populations of cave amblyopsids estimated a population density of 64 difficulty and inaccessibility of the hab- in Kentucky. Fencing or gating of cave cavefish per hectare in the surveyed itats that each species inhabits. Only a entrances have been proposed or imple- portion of Webster’s Cave, but it should fraction of the actual census population mented to reduce and control human be noted that cavefish have been ob- likely is sampled during a given survey; visitation to sensitive cave ecosystems, served all throughout the cave system, however, even estimating that fraction such as the many entrances to the including areas not subject to survey sampled is not trivial. Here we apply Mammoth Cave system in Edmonson (Chris Anderson, personal communica- an order of magnitude scaling factor for County, Thornhill Cave in Breckinridge tion). estimating population size, but recog- County and Parker Cave in Barren Although these results might be nize that actual population sizes could County. Special bat gates are needed a reflection of true abundance, the be lesser or greater than our coarse to allow entry and exit by bats but stop distribution and abundance of the estimates. We estimate a minimal popu- human entry. Bat Conservation Inter- cave-dwelling amblyopsids likely is lation size of over 12,000 individuals national and The National Speleologi- greater than currently realized. Locali- for Spring Cavefish, 3,200 individuals cal Society have been leaders in the ties for which Southern Cavefish and for Southern Cavefish, 500 individuals improvement and installation of such Northern Cavefish have been reported for new lineage of Typhlichthys in Pu- gates on an increasing number of bat represent but a fraction of total avail- laski County and 14,900 individuals for caves. At other caves, such as Wells able habitat accessible to cavefish. This Northern Cavefish in Kentucky. Cave in Pulaski County, signs have was clearly illustrated during a fertil- Trends refer to directional change been posted to help reduce illegal visi- izer pipeline break within the recharge over the short-term (within three gen- tation. Protection of cave surface and zone of Meramec Spring that resulted erations) and long-term (within 100 subsurface watersheds is probably the in the death of at least 1,000 Southern years) in population size, EOO, AOO, most important intervention for cave- Cavefish and likely many more. This or number of occurrences. There is no fish localities. Watershed protection has unfortunate kill is informative because current evidence to suggest that there included establishing preserves as well the drainage basin had no records for have been substantial changes in any as institution of best land management the species previously. The problem of these factors over the short-term or practices around sinkholes and sinking with inferring population densities long-term for amblyopsid cavefishes creeks, including reforestation. Indeed, from such fish kills is that we do not in Kentucky, although these factors a number of cave systems receive know the volume or extent of habitat should be reassessed every 5–10 years. some protection by occurring on state impacted. Most observations of South- The population of Typhlichthys at or federally owned land or are owned ern Cavefish and Northern Cavefish are Sloans Valley Cave has not been con- or leased by conversation agencies. In restricted to caves near the surface and firmed since the late 1960s, but cavers other cases, water tracing has identified there is some controversy as to whether have reported seeing white, blind fish the source of pollutants and so allowed even the best cavefish caves are sources in the same pools where Cooper and legal action that remedied the situation. or sinks (Niemiller and Poulson 2010). Beiter (1972) collected cavefish over Hidden River Cave in Hart County, Habitats where few or no cavefish are the past two decades. If this population Kentucky is one example. We suggest observed likely represent population was extirpated, a significant reduction that demographic source caves deserve sinks and not sources. Wells and short in EOO and AOO would occur for this complete protection of their water- stream segments encountered in an oth- lineage. Northern Cavefish may have sheds, such as Northern Cavefish local-

Annual Research Highlights 2011 13 COMPLETED PROJECTS / Fisheries

ities located in Sinking Creek. Only a few caves have the vast majority of all Northern Cavefish ever censused. At- tention to protecting these caves should be a top priority for the near future. Likewise, source populations of Spring Cavefish, such as Rich Pond, should be identified and protected. To this end, several management policies should be implemented in the immediate recharge basins of significant cavefish populations to protect the health and integrity of source populations: (1) alter land use practices and implement runoff control measures to reduce the input of sediments and runoff into cave systems, (2) reduce or eliminate the use of toxic pesticides and herbicides known to negatively impact the fragile subterranean ecosystem, (3) identify and protect critical input points (sinkholes and sinking streams) into cave systems, and (4) limit access to areas within cave systems that support large cavefish subpopulations.

In light of the current state of knowledge regarding amblyopsid populations in Kentucky, we offer the following recommendations for future research and conservation management:

Spring Cavefish Newly found cavefish habitat / Matthew Niemiller 1. Identify and survey springs located on private property located Figure 4: This spring-fed ditch off of Morton Road in Todd County contains a within the suspected distribution newly discovered population of Spring Cavefish (F. papilliferus). of the species to discover additonal significant populations. in the Western Pennyroyal Karst. 5. Delineate the recharge zone and 2. Work to protect the Rich Pond Although dispersal ability in am- conduct annual monitoring water population through purchase of blyopsids is generally thought to be quality at Rich Pond. the spring and surrounding area, low, major flood events, such as the implementing habitat protection event during May 2010, may be im- Southern Cavefish strategies, or by obtaining a conser- portant for long distance dispersal in vation agreement with the private this species. 1. Delineate the recharge zones of landowner. known localities of the undescribed 4. Establish a yearly census at the species in Pulaski County, particu- 3. Additional population genetic two most significant localities (Mor- larly the Coral Cave system and analyses and long-term mark- ton Road in Todd County and Rich Hail Cave system. recaptured are warranted to deter- Pond in Warren County) during mine connectivity of populations April or May to monitor population 2. Additional surveys are needed and dispersal ability of the species and demographic trends over time. to document additional sites for the

14 Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Fisheries / COMPLETED PROJECTS

undescribed species in Pulaski and sures to reduce development and Elliott, W. R. 2000. Conservation of the determine if the distribution extends construction activities in the area. North American cave and karst biota. to the southwest along the escarp- Pp. 665–689 in Wilkens H, Culver ment of the Cumberland Plateau in 3. Implement a public awareness DC, Humphreys WF (eds.). Subter- Wayne County. program to inform landowners and ranean Ecosystems. Amsterdam: others of the harmful impacts of Elsevier. 3. Determine the point source of dumping into sinkholes on ground- groundwater contamination at water and life it contains. Louis, M. M. 1999. Age, growth and Friendship Cave in Warren County fin erosion of the northern cavefish, and initiate a chemical cleanup of 4. Conduct in situ studies to deter- Amblyopsis spelaea, in Kentucky and the cave if possible. mine if Rainbow Trout and Banded Indiana. Master’s thesis, University Sculpin successfully prey on sub- of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky. 4. Implement a public awareness terranean fauna, including Northe 204p. program to inform landowners and Cavefish, in subterranean habitats others of the harmful impacts of and determine their influence on Niemiller M. L., and T. L. Poulson. dumping into sinkholes on ground- subterranean faunal abundance and 2010. Studies of the Amblyopsidae: water and life it contains. behavior. past, present, and future. Pp. 169– 280 in Trajano E., Bichuette M.E., 5. Remove the dilapidated pump Kapoor B.G. (eds). The biology of house and other debris at the en- Literature Cited subterranean fishes. Science Publish- trance of L & N Railroad Cave in Boulton, A. J. 2005. Chances and ers, Enfield, New Hampshire. Barren County to improve terrestrial challenges in the conservation of and aquatic habitat in the cave. groundwaters and their dependent Pearson, W. D., and C. H. Boston. ecosystems. Aquatic Conservation: 1995. Distribution and status of the Northern Cavefish Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems northern cavefish, Amblyopsis spe- 15: 319–323. laea. Final report, Nongame and En- 1. Surveys are needed of cave sys- dangered Wildlife Program, Indiana tems that occur between the main Cooper, J. E., and D. P. Beiter. 1972. Department of Natural Resources, centers of distribution for Amblyo- The southern cavefish,Typhlichthys Indianapolis. psis spealea in parts of Grayson, subterraneus (Pisces, Amblyopsi- Hardin and Hart counties to deter- dae), in the eastern Mississippian mine if the two main population Plateau of Kentucky. Copeia 1972: Funding Source: State Wildlife Grant centers in Kentucky are continuous 879–881. (SWG) and University of Tennessee at or isolated by the Hart County Knoxville Ridge. Additionally, future genetic Culver, D. C., Christman, M. C., El- work should focus on determin- liott, W. R., Hobbs, H. H., and J. R. KDFWR Strategic Plan. Goal 1. ing with relationships of southern Reddell. 2003. The North American Strategic Objective 5. Comprehen- populations of Amblyopsis in the obligate cave fauna: Regional pat- sive Wildlife Conservation Strategy: Mammoth Cave area with those to terns. Biodiversity and Conservation Appendix 3.9; Class Actinopterygii the north in the the Sinking Creek 12: 441–468. and Cephalaspidomorphi: Taxa spe- area of Breckinridge County. This cific research project #1. latter recommendation is currently Culver, D. C., Master, L. L., Christman, underway. M. C., and H. H. Hobbs. 2000. Obli- gate cave fauna of the 48 contiguous 2. Because the populations in Sink- United States. Conservation Biology ing Creek in Breckinridge County 14: 386–401. represent the most significant population center of the species, efforts Danielopol, D. L., Griebler, C., Guna- should be made to protect these tilaka, A., and J. Notenboom. 2003. populations through landowner Present state and future prospects for agreements, the purchase of cave groundwater ecosystems. Environ- entrances and surrounding land mental Conservation 30: 104–130. within recharge zones, and mea-

Annual Research Highlights 2011 15 COMPLETED PROJECTS / Wildlife

Kentucky Residents’ Awareness of and Opinions on Elk Restoration and Management Efforts

Mark Duda, Responsive who do not reside in the elk restoration landlines, those unlisted by choice, new Management; Brian Clark zone. Counties included in the restora- numbers, and those numbers that have and Tina Brunjes, Kentucky tion zone are: Bell, Breathitt, Clay, been disconnected due to a move or Department of Fish & Wildlife Floyd, Harlan, Johnson, Knott, Knox, change in residence. The RDD sample Resources Leslie, Letcher, Magoffin, Martin, Mc- was supplemented by cell phones in the Creary, Perry, Pike, and Whitley. For proportion that matched the proportion the survey, telephones were selected as of households that have cell phones the preferred sampling medium because only (i.e., households with a cell phone of the almost universal ownership but no landline). Introduction of telephones among Kentucky resi- The sample was representative The Kentucky Department of Fish dents (both landlines and cell phones of all Kentucky residents age 18 and and Wildlife Resources (KDFWR), were called). Additionally, telephone older. The sample also allowed for in partnership with the Rocky Moun- surveys (relative to mail or Internet representative results for the two strata: tain Elk Foundation, established a surveys) allow for more scientific sam- Kentucky residents in the 16-county 16-county elk restoration zone in 1997. pling and data collection, provide high- elk restoration zone and Kentucky resi- Since the release of the first seven er quality data, obtain higher response dents who do not reside in the elk res- elk, which were captured in western rates, are more timely, and are more toration zone. The analysis of data was Kansas and relocated, the number of cost-effective. A central polling site at performed using Statistical Package for elk in Kentucky has reached the target the Responsive Management office al- the Social Sciences as well as proprie- goal of 10,000. The restoration ef- lowed for rigorous quality control over tary software developed by Responsive forts have proven so successful that the interviews and data collection. Management. The results were weight- KDFWR achieved its elk population The telephone survey question- ed by demographic and geographic goals 11 years ahead of schedule and naire was developed cooperatively by characteristics so that the sample was translocation efforts were discontinued Responsive Management and the Ken- representative of residents in Kentucky in 2002. The elk population is thriving tucky Department of Fish and Wildlife as a whole. Throughout this report, in Kentucky’s restoration zone, and Resources. Responsive Management findings of the telephone survey are re- liberal hunting opportunities outside the conducted pre-tests of the question- ported at a 95% confidence interval (or restoration zone are helping to keep the naire to ensure proper wording, flow, higher). For the entire sample of Ken- population confined to the 16-county and logic in the survey. Telephone tucky residents age 18 and older, the elk restoration zone (Figure 1). In fact, surveying times were Monday through sampling error is at most plus or minus successful breeding, high calf survival Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., 2.75 percentage points. Sampling er- rates, and a lack of predation have Saturday from noon to 5:00 p.m., and ror was calculated based on a sample resulted in Kentucky boasting the larg- Sunday from 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., size of 1,273 and a population size of est free-ranging, wild elk herd east of local time. The survey was conducted 3,046,951 Kentucky residents ages Montana. This study was conducted to in June 2011. Responsive Management 18 years and older. Cross tabulations determine public perceptions regard- obtained a total of 1,273 completed were run on many questions, including and support for the free-ranging elk interviews. The software used for data ing cross tabulations by residence. For herd that has been established across collection was Questionnaire Program- this cross tabulation, respondents were the 16-county elk restoration zone in ming Language. The sampling method- categorized into two groups: elk resto- southeastern Kentucky. ology entailed Random Digit Dialing ration zone residents (respondents who (RDD), which ensures that all house- lived in one of the 16 counties within holds with telephones have an equal the elk restoration zone) and non-zone Methods chance of being called to participate in residents (respondents who lived in This study entailed a telephone the survey. RDD is the best methodolo- Kentucky but do not live within the elk survey of two groups of Kentucky resi- gy for maintaining a representative ran- restoration zone). dents: (1) residents in the 16-county dom sample of households, taking into elk restoration zone and (2) residents account such issues as those without

16 Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Wildlife / COMPLETED PROJECTS

Elk herd in eastern Kentucky / Brian Clark

Results about a third (32%) said they know a majority of non-zone residents (79%) Awareness and Knowledge of Elk in little. Although elk restoration zone have not. Kentucky residents are more likely than are Of Kentucky residents who have non-zone residents to say they know seen elk in Kentucky, 40% saw elk in About half of Kentucky residents about elk in Kentucky, zone residents southeastern Kentucky (captive elk are (51%) are not aware that free-roaming, most commonly indicated they know present in a few other locations, such wild elk exist in the 16-county elk res- a little about elk in Kentucky. Most as KDFWR’s Salato Wildlife Education toration zone in southeastern Kentucky. Kentucky residents do not know how Center and in a prairie demonstration Not surprisingly, elk restoration zone many elk are in southeastern Kentucky; area at Land Between the Lakes Na- residents are much more likely to be only 3% gave a response at or close to tional Recreation Area). Few Kentucky aware that wild elk exist in Kentucky 10,000. Most Kentucky residents do residents (5%) have taken a trip in than are non-zone residents: 76% of not know which agency in Kentucky Kentucky for the purpose of viewing zone residents are very or somewhat is responsible for the conservation of elk. About half of Kentucky residents aware wild elk exist in Kentucky com- wildlife, including elk. About a quarter who have taken a trip in Kentucky for pared to 45% of non-zone residents. of respondents (24%) correctly named the purpose of viewing elk (53%) have Those who have hunted any game the Kentucky Department of Fish and done so in 2010 or 2011. The median species in Kentucky in the past 5 years Wildlife Resources, and another 6% amount spent on a trip to view elk in are much more likely to be aware that gave a response that could be correctly Kentucky is $50. wild elk exist in Kentucky than are identified as the Department. those who have not hunted in Kentucky in the past 5 years: 73% of those who Values Associated with Elk have hunted in Kentucky in the past 5 Elk Encounters and Trips to View Elk years compared to 42% of those who Large majorities of Kentucky have not hunted in Kentucky in the past A large majority of Kentucky resi- residents rated values associated with 5 years. dents (75%) have never seen elk any- the state’s economy, the existence of Most commonly, Kentucky where in Kentucky. A majority of elk elk, non-consumptive recreation re- residents indicated they know nothing restoration zone residents (57%) have lated to elk, and hunting elk as very or (47%) about elk in Kentucky; however, seen an elk in Kentucky, but a large somewhat important. Most Kentucky

Annual Research Highlights 2011 17 COMPLETED PROJECTS / Wildlife

residents (90%) said it is very or some- roaming, wild elk in southeastern Ken- Kentucky residents had never hunted. what important to them to know that tucky. Nonetheless, a substantial per- In their most recent year of hunting in Kentucky benefits economically from centage of Kentucky residents (44%) Kentucky, the majority of respondents tourists who come to watch or pho- are aware KDFWR allows elk hunting. who had ever hunted in Kentucky hunt- tograph elk. Knowing that wild elk A large majority of Kentucky residents ed mostly on private land (64%). exist in Kentucky, that opportunities to (78%) support having free-roaming, watch or photograph elk bring tourists wild elk in southeastern Kentucky, with to Kentucky, and that people have the much of that support being strong sup- Opinions on and Participation in opportunity to watch or photograph port; only 8% oppose. Hunting elk in Kentucky were each rated as The most common reason Ken- very or somewhat important by 88% of tucky residents oppose having elk in The majority of Kentucky residents Kentucky residents. A large majority southeastern Kentucky is concern about (74%) supported legal, regulated hunt- of Kentucky residents (70%) said it is elk-vehicle accidents (38% of those ing of elk in Kentucky, with over half very or somewhat important to them to who oppose gave this response), fol- (51%) strongly supporting elk hunt- know that people have the opportunity lowed by concern about crop or proper- ing; nonetheless, a notable percentage to hunt elk in southeastern Kentucky. ty damage (27%). The majority of Ken- (19%) opposed. tucky residents (61%) are satisfied with Kentucky residents were informed the management of elk in Kentucky. that between 800 and 1,000 elk tags Awareness of and Opinions on Elk Res- After being informed that the are drawn in each year’s elk hunting toration and Management current elk population is estimated at lottery, and a slight majority (54%) 10,000 elk and meets the goal set by thought this is about the right number After being informed that the the Department for the restoration plan, of tags for the lottery. The majority of KDFWR is the agency responsible for over half of Kentucky residents (56%) those who have hunted in Kentucky conserving fish and wildlife resources said the elk herd is about the right size; in the past 5 years (69%) thought the and providing opportunities for fish- a substantial percentage (19%) said number of elk tags drawn each year is ing, hunting, and other wildlife-related they do not know. about the right number. recreation in Kentucky, a large majority A large majority of Kentucky Only 6% of Kentucky residents (72%) said they are satisfied (very or residents (80%) think the economic had personally applied for an elk tag to somewhat) with the overall perfor- benefits of elk in southeastern Ken- hunt elk in Kentucky since the elk hunt mance of KDFWR. tucky should be important to deci- program began in 2001. About a quar- The most common reason given sions about how the elk population is ter of those who had hunted any game for dissatisfaction with KDFWR over- managed; 56% said it should be very species in Kentucky in the past 5 years all performance is poor management important. The majority of Kentucky (24%) had personally applied for an elk of wildlife or natural resources. The residents (68%) agreed that opportu- tag to hunt elk in Kentucky since the majority of Kentucky residents (58%) nities for both elk watching and elk elk hunt program began in 2001. are not at all aware that KDFWR has hunting in southeastern Kentucky are Most commonly, Kentucky resi- restored elk in 16 counties in southeast- compatible, with 39% strongly agree- dents who had applied for an elk tag ern Kentucky. Nonetheless, a substan- ing. Nearly half of Kentucky residents in Kentucky indicated that hunting elk tial percentage of Kentucky residents who disagreed that opportunities for elk for the meat is the single most impor- (40%) are aware elk has been restored watching and elk hunting are compat- tant reason they applied for an elk tag. in the area. ible (49%) said they disagreed because About 16% of Kentucky residents who The majority of elk restoration they were opposed to elk hunting, fol- had applied for an elk tag had person- zone residents are aware that the De- lowed by 25% who have general safety ally hunted elk in Kentucky. partment has restored elk, while the concerns. The large majority of Kentucky majority of non-zone residents are not residents who had applied for an elk at all aware. It is worth noting, how- tag (81%) said they would be willing ever, that about a third of zone residents Opinions on and Participation in to pay for hunting access to private (34%) are not at all aware that KD- Hunting land that has elk if they were drawn for FWR has restored elk in southeastern an elk tag. The majority of Kentucky Kentucky where they reside. A large majority of Kentucky resi- residents willing to pay for hunting ac- The majority of Kentucky residents dents (79%) supported legal, regulated cess to private land that has elk gave (54%) are not at all aware that KDFWR hunting in Kentucky, with most support an amount less than $500. The median allows the regulated hunting of free- being strong support. The majority of amount Kentucky residents are will-

18 Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Wildlife / COMPLETED PROJECTS

ing to pay for hunting access to private most prefer waiting for the opportunity restoration zone residents were more land was $100. to harvest a trophy elk: 33% gave this likely than are non-zone residents to Harvesting a trophy/large-antlered response. Substantial percentages pre- own land in Kentucky: 61% of zone elk or a bull/male elk was important to ferred harvesting any elk (28%) or any residents compared to 45% of non-zone those who had applied for an elk tag to bull (24%) in the first few hunting days residents. Nearly half of Kentucky res- hunt elk in Kentucky. When asked to or trips. The large majority of Kentucky idents who owned land (49%) owned indicate how important values related residents who had applied for an elk less than 5 acres. The median amount to elk hunting are, an overwhelming tag to hunt elk in Kentucky also sup- of land owned was 4 acres. Most com- majority of Kentucky residents who port management for trophy or large- monly, Kentucky residents who owned had applied for an elk tag (91%) said antlered elk; support decreased only land (9%) indicated that the largest being able to harvest a bull or male slightly when respondents were asked tract of land they own is located within elk was very or somewhat important about management for trophy elk even Jefferson County, followed by Hardin, to them, followed by being able to if it meant that fewer hunters would be Campbell, Fayette, and Warren Coun- harvest a trophy or large-antlered elk able to harvest a bull elk. ties (3% each; these were some of our (89%) and being able to harvest any elk most populous and largest counties). (86%). Kentucky residents who had Of those who owned land in Kentucky, applied for an elk tag were read three Land Ownership and Hunting on the 16% said their largest tract of land was options for hunting elk in Kentucky Land located in one of the 16 counties in- and were asked to indicate which op- cluded in the elk restoration zone. The tion they most prefer. Most commonly, Nearly half of Kentucky residents majority of Kentucky residents who those who had applied for an elk tag (46%) owned land in Kentucky. Elk owned land in a county located within

Annual Research Highlights 2011 19 COMPLETED PROJECTS / Wildlife

the elk restoration zone (73%) had not seen an elk on the tract of land; nonetheless, nearly a quarter (23%) had seen an elk on the land. Only 2% of Kentucky residents who owned land in a county located within the elk restoration zone personally hunted elk on the land. A slightly higher percentage (9%) allowed others to hunt elk on the land.

Problems with Elk and the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Re- sources’ Response to Problems

Nearly all Kentucky residents had not experienced any problems with elk in the past 5 years; however, 3% of elk restoration zone residents had experienced problems with elk in the past 5 years. The majority of Kentucky residents who had experienced problems with elk in the past 5 years (61%) have had a vehicular collision with elk or damage to their vehicle caused by elk; approximately a third (35%) had experienced damage to their property, such as fences or other structures.

Discussion & Management Implications

This survey’s results suggest that the primary management concern with respect to elk in Kentucky is public information. The level of public awareness about Kentucky’s elk herd (58% not at all aware) was surprisingly low among Kentucky residents as a whole, and even among hunters a significant percentage was unaware of the elk. Predictably, knowledge of the elk program and hunting opportunities were much greater inside the elk zone, but even therein residents exhibited a substantial lack of knowledge about elk. KDFWR’s statewide public information efforts and marketing related to the elk restoration program since its inception in 1997 have been largely targeted Bull elk research / Joe Lacefield at hunters and viewers of Kentucky

20 Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Wildlife / COMPLETED PROJECTS

Afield television program (although percentage of hunter churn (Responsive a variety of dispersed news releases, Management, unpublished data), identi- magazine articles, documentaries, and fying interested individuals who are not other media pieces have featured the participating and providing them with elk program over the past 10 years). accurate and helpful information about Whereas over one-third of Kentuckians hunting opportunities may significantly view the department’s TV program at improve hunter recruitment and reten- least monthly, obviously many do not tion efforts in the Bluegrass State (Re- and have not seen the program, and sponsive Management 2011). only a small percentage attends outdoor expos where elk hunting is expressly promoted by KDFWR. Clearly a sub- Literature Cited stantial percentage of the population Responsive Management. 2011. has not learned about the elk restoration Americans’ Attitudes Toward efforts through other sources. Hunting, Fishing, and Target Despite the lack of knowledge Shooting. Report available at about Kentucky’s elk, residents are responsivemanagement.com overwhelmingly (78%) positive about the presence of elk in the Common- wealth. This is consistent with the Funding Source: Kentucky Depart- virtual absence of negative experiences ment of Fish and Wildlife and Pittman- with elk—only 3% of elk zone resi- Robertson (PR) dents had experienced problems with elk over the past 5 years. Interestingly, KDFWR Strategic Plan. Goal 1, fears about elk-vehicle accidents and Strategic Objective 5. crop damage were prominent concerns among the 8% who opposed having elk in southeastern Kentucky. This is a concern that conservation educa- tors and recreation planners should be prepared to address in their outreach efforts. Only a small percentage of Ken- tuckians had personally invested in elk-related recreation, with 6% apply- ing for elk hunts and 5% making elk- viewing trips. These findings further demonstrate that KDFWR still has a large unreached audience with whom to communicate about elk and to whom hunting and viewing opportunities relatively close to home can be marketed. With only 3% of Kentuckians aware of the general size of our elk population, significantly more widespread knowledge that Kentucky has 10,000 elk could translate into significantly more elk recreationists. A recent study revealed that as much as 27% of Americans are interested in hunting (Responsive Management 2011). Al- though Kentucky has a relatively low

Annual Research Highlights 2011 21 COMPLETED PROJECTS / Wildlife

Bobcat Space use in the Paul Van Booven Wildlife Management Area, Southeastern Kentucky

Andrea J. Shipley and Robert were to estimate home range sizes for a 2000). Handling of bobcats followed B. Frederick, Eastern Kentucky sample of bobcats in southeastern Ken- American Society of Mammalogists tucky and to assess core use areas and (ASM) guidelines (Gannon et al. 2007) University amount of overlap between individuals. and standard individual measurements, including sex, weight, total body KDFWR Contact: Laura Patton Methods length, ear length, and tail length were The Paul Van Booven Wildlife taken (Knick 1990). Management Area (PVB WMA) is a A GPS/GSM radio collar was at- reclaimed surface mine characterized tached to 1 male bobcat; the collar by deep v-shaped valleys and steep weight was <3.85% of the cat’s body Introduction slopes, with elevations from 225 to 470 weight (Gannon et al. 2007). The Population estimation and trend m. The dominant vegetation on the smaller female bobcats were collared analyses are critically important exer- site is a mix of grain annuals, legumes, with lighter VHF units. The GPS radio cises for sustainable harvest and man- and trees that were planted as part of collar was programmed to record GPS agement of many game species. Ani- the post-mining restoration, though the coordinates once every 6 hours, pro- mals that occur at low densities, exhibit broad landscape is part of the mixed ducing 4 fixes per day. Bobcats were elusive behavior, or are wide-ranging mesophytic forest ecosystem. Much of located approximately every five days pose economic and logistical chal- the surrounding properties are privately over the course of 12 months (May lenges to wildlife managers attempting held and large sections are active sur- 2010 through May 2011) by using VHF to monitor them. face mines. aerial telemetry techniques (White- The bobcat (Lynx rufus) is a Bobcats were trapped according house and Steven 1977) producing a mesocarnivore and the only extant to the protocol outlined by Whitaker total of approximately 65 points for the native felid throughout most of the (1988) and KDFWR. Trapping be- year per animal. U.S., including Kentucky, where it is gan in February 2010 and continued Minimum convex polygon bob- an important furbearer and ecological through April 2010. Bobcats were cat home ranges, core use areas, and component. Whitaker (1988), Penry captured by using number 2 double- central core areas (Seaman and Powell (1988), and Painter (1991) used VHF coil spring steel padded leg hold traps 1996, Seaman et al. 1999), as well as radio-collars to examine bobcat space (Schemnitz 1994). We used TelazolR home range overlap, were calculated use patterns and habitat use in both to immobilize trapped animals, deliv- from GPS and VHF data by using eastern and western Kentucky. These ered by intramuscular injection; the Biotas Software (Ecological Software studies examined the potential for a dose was based on the in-field weight Solutions LLC, Hegymagas, Hungary) harvest season in light of known bobcat estimation (Kreeger 1996, Lovallo and and Hawth’s Tools for ArcGIS 9.3 populations in Kentucky. As a result, Anderson 1996, Shindle and Tewes (ESRI, Redlands, CA; Benson et al. an experimental quota season began in 1987. Since then, harvest of bobcats has increased, possibly indicating Estimator F1 F2 F3 F4 M1 Mean SE bobcats have increased in abundance and expanded their geographic range 95% 9.23 22.41 25.29 12.48 4.92 14.87 3.89 statewide. Other than habitat statistics, no data on bobcats in Kentucky have 50% 2.65 3.8 4.51 2.6 1.26 2.96 0.56 been collected since those collected in the 1980’s, as reported by Frederick et 25% 0.79 1.14 1.23 0.47 0.63 .85 .15 al. (1989). We sought to re-evaluate the status of bobcats in Kentucky to im- Table 1: Home range (95% MCP), core area (50% MCP) and central core prove and update current management area (25% MCP) size estimates (km2) for one male (M1) and 4 female (F1- strategies. The objectives of this study F4) bobcats.

22 Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Wildlife / COMPLETED PROJECTS

Overlap Estimates (%)

Estimator F1-F2 F1-F3 F1-F4 F1-M1 F2-F3 F2-F4 F2-M1 F3-F4 F3-M1 F4-M1 Mean SE

95% 41.2 36.5 18.3 8.9 61.2 14.5 22 2.8 3.07 34.4 24.3 8.4

50% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 62.9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 48.5 11.1 10.6

25% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 28.1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.2 4 4.2

Table 2: Estimates of home-range (95%), core-area (50%), and central-core-area (25%) overlap (%) between one male (M1) and 4 female (F1-F4) bobcats based on minimum convex polygon (MCP) estimators.

2006, Diefenbach et al. 2006, Riley (n = 4 pairs, mean = 17.1%, SE = 7.0). area was active mining property or 2006, Tucker et al. 2008). in early stage reclamation (Whitaker Discussion 1988); during our study the PVB area Results Because bobcats are a sexually was mostly a developing secondary Home Range, Core Area, and Central dimorphic and polygynous species growth reclamation area, surrounded Core Area Size (McCord and Cardoza 1982), we ex- by mining property at various stages pected to see males retaining larger of activity. Bobcat home range, core Annual home range (HR) size es- home ranges than females to maximize area, and central core area sizes were timated by the 95% MCP method (Fig. encounters with females during the all consistently higher for males in 1, Table 1) varied from 4.9 to 25.3 km2 breeding season (Cochrane et al. 2006, the late 1980’s, which follows most (n = 5, SE = 3.9, mean = 14.9 km2) and Chamberlain et al. 2003). Numerous reported sizes for the southeastern re- mean female annual HR size was 17.4 past studies have documented this pat- gion of the US (Cochrane et al. 2006, km2 (n = 4, SE = 3.9). We defined core tern (Cochrane et al. 2006, Chamber- Chamberlain et al. 2003, Lovallo and areas as the inner-most part of the MCP lain et al. 2003, Lovallo and Anderson Anderson 1996b, Fuller et al. 1985). that encapsulated 50% of locations; 1996b, Fuller et al. 1985), but we When comparing our minimum convex central core areas included the inner- observed the opposite, with females polygon estimates to those of Whitaker most 25% of all locations. Annual core having larger home range sizes than the (1988), we see that females in our study area size varied from 1.3 to 4.5 km2 (n male. Our sample size (4 females and had consistently larger home range, = 5, SE = 3.0), mean female core areas 1 male), however, is too small to ac- core area, and central core area sizes were 3.4 km2 (n = 4, SE = 0.6). An- curately portray space use by bobcats. than the male. When we compare the nual central core area size ranged from The male’s home range in our study overlap data we also see an inverse pat- 0.5 to 1.2 km2 (n = 5, SE = 0.2), with overlapped multiple females and likely tern from that of Whitaker (1988), who a mean female central core area of 0.9 contained adequate resources to not ne- reported females maintained exclusive km2 (n = 4, SE = 0.2). cessitate a larger home range size. home ranges. Assessing 95% MCP

2 2 2 Home Range, Core Area, and Central Space use changes Sex HR (km ) CA (km ) CCA (km ) Estimator F1 F2 F3 F4 M1 Mean SE Core Area Overlap over time Mean Male 59.4 21.0 6.7 95% 9.23 22.41 25.29 12.48 4.92 14.87 3.89 Intrasexual and intersexual annual In 1988, Whita- area overlap (Fig. 2, Table 2) was great- ker reported on Mean Female 4.7 1.9 0.7 50% 2.65 3.8 4.51 2.6 1.26 2.96 0.56 est at the home range scale, while core space use charac- areas and central core areas remained teristics of bobcats Mean Overall 37.5 13.3 4.3 25% 0.79 1.14 1.23 0.47 0.63 .85 .15 fairly exclusive. Female-Female (F- in the PVB WMA F) annual home range overlap ranged vicinity (Table 3). Table 3: Whitaker (1988) 95% home range (HR), 50% from 2.8 to 61.2% (n = 6 pairs, mean = During her study, core area (CA), and 25% central core area (CCA) sizes 29.1%, SE = 8.7), and Female-Male (F- much of the current- based on the MCP method for bobcats in the PVB WMA M) HR overlap was from 3.1 to 34.4% day management and vicinity.

Annual Research Highlights 2011 23 COMPLETED PROJECTS / Wildlife

percent overlap between the two studies, we see that female-male overlap decreased significantly, from 100% in 1988 to 17% in 2011, while female-female overlap increased significantly, from no overlap to 29% overlap for our study. Again, however, our low sample size prevents us from drawing conclusions from these data.

Management Recommendations Land use can have a great effect on the long term viability of bobcats (Riley et al. 2003), and continued study in areas of representative land uses, such as extractive industry, should continue in order to gain an understanding of the long term effects on bobcat populations. If active mining continues to increase, and reclaimed areas further domi- Figure 1: 95% Minimum Convex Polygon (MCP) home ranges of one male nate the landscape of eastern Ken- (M1) and 4 female (F1-F4) bobcats with their corresponding locations. The PVB tucky, future wildlife studies should WMA and Robinson Forest (upper right) borders are represented in yellow. focus on these areas rather than avoid them. Requiring additional trapper information such as GPS coordinates as well as submission from hunters and trappers of bobcat samples (e.g., teeth, hair, and feces) would likely enhance the information on current bobcat populations over a broad area.

Literature Cited Benson, J.F., Chamberlain, M.J., and B.D. Leopold. 2006. Regula- tion of space use in a solitary felid: population density or prey availability? Animal Behav. 71:685-693.

Biotas™. 2004. Ecological Software Solutions LLC. Hegymagas, Hun- gary. Version 2.0a.

Chamberlain, M.J., Leopold, B.D., and L.M. Conner. 2003. Space Figure 2: Overlap of two bobcat home ranges, with their corresponding use, movements and habitat selec- locations. The PVB WMA and Robinson Forest (upper right) borders are tion of adult bobcats (Lynx rufus) represented in yellow.

24 Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Wildlife / COMPLETED PROJECTS

in central Mississippi. Am. Midl. west Wisconsin. Am. Midl. Nat. Iowa. J. Wildl. Manage., 72(5): 1114- Nat. 149: 395-405. 135(2): 241-252. 1124.

Cochrane, J.C., Kirby, J.D., Jones, I.D., McCord, C.M., and J.E. Cardoza. 1982. Whitaker, J. 1988. Home-range char- Conner, L.M., and R.J. Warren. 2006. Bobcat and lynx in J.A. Chapman acteristics of the bobcat, Felis rufus, Spatial organization of adult bobcats and G.A. Feldhamer, editors. Wild in the Cumberland Plateau region in a longleaf pine-wiregrass ecosys- mammals of North America: biology, of eastern Kentucky. M.S. Thesis – tem in southwestern Georgia. South- management and economics. Johns Eastern Kentucky University, Rich- east. Nat. 5(4): 711-724. Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, mond. Maryland. Diefenbach, D.R., Hansen, L.A., War- Whitaker, J., Frederick, R.B. and T.L. ren, R.J., and M.J. Conroy. 2006. Painter, Donna J. 1991. Home range Edwards. 1987. Home-range size and Spatial organization of a reintroduced characteristics of bobcats in the Land overlap of eastern Kentucky bobcats. population of bobcats. J. Mammal., Between the Lakes, Kentucky. M.S. Proc. Annu. Conf. Southeast. Assoc. 87(2):394-401. Thesis – Eastern Kentucky Univer- Fish and Wildl. Agencies 41: 417- sity, Richmond. 423. Frederick, R.B., Edwards, T.L., Painter, D.J., and J. Whitaker. 1989. Bobcat Penry, Linda B. 1988. Home range siz- Whitehouse, S., and D. Steven. 1977. A densities and population dynamics in es and movement patterns of bobcats, technique for aerial radio tracking. J. Kentucky. Kentucky Department of Felis rufus, in Land Between the Wildl. Manage. 41(4): 771-775. Fish and Wildlife Resources, 1-97. Lakes Kentucky. M.S. Thesis – East- Fuller, T.K., Berg, W.E., and D.W. ern Kentucky University, Richmond. Kuehn. 1985. Bobcat home range Funding Source: Kentucky Depart- size and daytime cover-type use in Riley, S.P.D., Sauvajot, R.M., Fuller, ment of Fish and Wildlife Resources northcentral Minnesota. J. Mammal. T.K., York, E.C., Kamradt, D.A., and Eastern Kentucky University 66(3): 568-571. Bromley, C., and R.K. Wayne. 2003. Effects of urbanization and habitat KDFWR Strategic Plan. Goal 1. Gannon, W.L., Sikes, R.S., and the Ani- fragmentation on bobcats and coyote Strategic Objective 5. mal Care and Use Committee of the in southern California. Cons. Biol. American Society of Mammalogists. 17(2): 566-576. 2007. Guidelines of the American Society of Mammalogists for the Riley, S.P.D. 2006. Spatial ecology use of wild mammals in research. J. of bobcats and gray foxes in urban Mammal. 88(3): 809-823. and rural zones of a national park. J. Wildl. Manage., 70(5): 1425-1435. Knick, S.T. 1990. Ecology of bobcats relative to exploitation and a prey Schemnitz, S.D. 1994. Capturing and decline in southeastern Idaho. Wildl. handling wild animals. Pages 106- Monogr., 108: 3-42. 124 in T.A. Bookhout, editor. Re- search and Management Techniques Kreeger, T.J. 1996. Handbook of chem- for Wildlife and Habitats. Fifth edi- ical immobilization. International tion. Allen Press Inc., Lawrence, Wildlife Veterinary Services, Inc., Kansas, USA. Laramie, Wyoming. Shindle, D.B., and M.E. Tewes. 2000. Lovallo, M.J., and E.M. Anderson. Immobilization of wild ocelots with 1996a. Bobcat movements and home tiletamine and zolazepam in southern ranges relative to roads in Wisconsin. Texas. J. Wildl. Dis. 36(3): 546-550. Wildl. Soc. Bullet. 24(1): 71-76. Tucker, S.A., Clark, W.R., and T.E. Lovallo, M.J., and E.M. Anderson. Gosselink. 2008. Space use and habi- 1996b. Bobcat (Lynx rufus) home tat selection by bobcats in the frag- range size and habitat use in north- mented landscape of south-central

Annual Research Highlights 2011 25 COMPLETED PROJECTS / Wildlife

River Otter / Tim Daniel Status, Distribution, Diet, and Reproductive Characteristics of River Otters in Kentucky

Erin E. Barding and Michael J. 1982) and were likely found in every increased. The increased frequency Lacki, University of Kentucky major watershed in the state during and quantity of reports of river otter the early 1800s (Cramer 1995). Otter occurrence and activity suggested a populations declined during the early re-established population; however, no KDFWR Contact: Steven Dobey 1900s, likely due to unregulated har- effort to assess the status of this popula- vest and anthropogenic destruction of tion had been completed. riparian habitat. In an effort to restore There have been few formal stud- Introduction self-sustaining populations of river ot- ies evaluating long-term status of re- Prior to European settlement, ters throughout suitable habitat in the introduced populations of river otters river otters (Lontra canadensis) were state, the Kentucky Department of Fish (Raesly 2001). Proper monitoring of distributed throughout Canada and the and Wildlife Resources implemented this reintroduced species is necessary continental United States, from the arc- a reintroduction program during the to implement appropriate management tic in Alaska to Texas and Florida (Hall early 1990s (Cramer 1995). In the 16 strategies, therefore, the overall objec- 1981, Mason 1990). River otters were years since restoration, river otter sight- tive of this project was to evaluate distributed widely in Kentucky (Bar- ings and reports of damage to personal the current status of the river otter in bour and Davis 1974, Toweill and Tabor property and state fish hatcheries have Kentucky and facilitate development

26 Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Wildlife / COMPLETED PROJECTS Sharp-shinned hawk nest / Tyler Rankin of appropriate management strategies each watershed comprised. We ran- cluded the November-February 2004-05 for this species. The specific objectives domly chose stream bridge-crossings and 2005-06 experimental hunting and were to: 1) describe the status of the as survey sites (for otter sign) in each trapping seasons held in the Jackson river otter throughout Kentucky using watershed. We conducted surveys from Purchase region of Kentucky, and the damage reports, sign surveys, and har- May to October of 2006-08. Bridge- statewide hunting and trapping seasons vest data; 2) present a statewide analy- crossing protocol included walking for subsequent years from 2006-07 to sis of the winter diet of river otters 200-m transects of shoreline to search 2009-10. in Kentucky, emphasizing predation for sign of river otters. We recorded on sportfish (i.e., Centrarchidae) and the type of otter sign (e.g., sightings, crayfish; and 3) describe age-specific scat, tracks, slides, den sites, latrines), Carcass Analysis reproductive traits of harvested river ot- as well as standard location and sea- ters and input these data into models to sonal data (e.g., geographic coordi- We determined population demo- project future population estimates of nates, date, ambient conditions). The graphics and reproductive parameters river otters in Kentucky number of scat and rolling places in by carcass analysis. We obtained frozen an area is not always a good indica- otter carcasses from KDFWR and Ken- Methods tion of the number of otters present, as tucky trappers during three statewide Distribution and Status Assessment a single otter may defecate and haul harvest seasons (November-February), out many times in one area in a few 2006-2009. To determine age of river We used damage reports, sign sur- hours (Melquist and Hornocker 1979); otters a lower canine was pulled from veys, and harvest data to evaluate the therefore, we used only presence/ab- each individual and age determined status of the river otter in Kentucky. sence data in the analysis. A total of 65 by cementum annuli examination Data on damage caused by river ot- surveys were completed. A subsample (Matson’s Laboratory, Milltown, MT; ters were gathered from annual reports of sites (n = 13; 27%) where otter sign Johnson et al. 1987, Serfass et al. 1993, submitted to the KDFWR by permitted was not detected during the 2006 field Stephenson 1977). We classified ot- Wildlife Control Operators and from seasons was selected and resurveyed ters ≥ 2 years of age as adults, 1 year as KDFWR biologists and conservation during the 2007 field season to evalu- yearlings, and <1 year as young of the officers from 2004-09. Data were tabu- ate the reliability of otter absence from year. For analysis, we grouped young lated as the total number of complaints/ sites. Harvest data were gathered from of year and yearlings into a single juve- year. We stratified the state by the 12 a mandatory state telecheck system, in nile category. Standard measurements watersheds, with sampling intensity which trappers are required to report including body mass, body length, and within each watershed proportional to river otters hunted or trapped during hind foot length were taken from all the relative percentage of the state that the harvest season. The harvest data in- carcasses. Female reproductive tracts

harvest % of har- % survey surveys % surveys Basin % of state (n) vest effort (n) positive Mississippi 3 524 16 6 4 50 Tradewater 6 467 14 3 2 50 Licking 9 464 14 14 9 33 Lower Cumberland 5 433 13 5 3 67 Green 22 379 11 17 11 9 Tennessee 3 300 9 6 4 50 Kentucky 17 275 8 20 13 15 Salt 10 264 8 12 8 25 Upper Cumberland 13 157 5 9 6 17 Big Sandy 6 33 1 2 1 0 Tygarts 3 19 1 3 2 0 Ohio 3 16 <1 3 2 0

Table 1: Relative area of Kentucky watershed basins, and harvest (2004-2009) and sign surveys of river otters (2006- 2009).

Annual Research Highlights 2011 27 COMPLETED PROJECTS / Wildlife

Male Female bass, smallmouth bass, and spotted bass (Group B). Scales belonging to n 95 75 families other than Centrarchidae were Mean age (yrs) 1.35 ± 1.72 1.91 ± 2.33 identified to the lowest taxonomic Mean body mass (kg) 6.23 ± 1.56 5.41 ± 1.21 group according to Daniels (1996) and Mean body length (cm) 110.55 ± 9.69 109.31 ± 7.22 verified with state geographic range Mean hind foot length (mm) 54.41 ± 7.03 50.95 ± 3.95 information (KDFWR 2009). Crayfish remains were identified to the lowest Table 2: Mean age, body mass, body length, and hind foot length of male and taxonomic group with a 25x dissecting female river otters, 2006-2009. Data are mean ± SD. scope following Taylor and Schuster (2004). We analyzed data with Chi- square contingency tables and com- were removed from all carcasses (e.g. Missouri (Gallagher 1999), Kentucky pared differences in food habits of male Docktor et al., 1987). We measured (Cramer 1995), and West Virginia and female otters, juvenile and adult length, width and mass of ovaries, (Tango et al. 1991). We evaluated pre- otters, and otters collected from eastern length of the bicornuate uterine horns, dicted population growth using survival and western Kentucky. and inspected and flushed uterine horns rates that ranged from a low of 0.60 for embryos and blastocysts. Ovaries (WV) to a high of 0.91 (TN). Because Results were removed and 1 mm sections ex- the first set of models contained sur- Distribution and Status amined under a 25 x dissection scope vival rates that were calculated from for the presence of corpora lutea (CL). non-harvested populations, we ran the A total of 149 damage complaints Placental scars, when present, were 4 models again, this time with survival were reported to the KDFWR from counted. Chi-square tests were used to rate decreased by 5% to account for 2004-10. The majority of complaints evaluate sex ratio of harvested otters, additive trapping mortality (Gallagher were depredation of fish in farm ponds Student’s t-tests to evaluate body di- 1999, Hamilton 1998). and damage to boats and docks. The mensions between males and females, number of damage complaints ranged and Mann Whitney U-tests to deter- from a high of 41 reports in 2005-06 to mine differences in reproductive char- Food Habits Analysis a low of 5 complaints reported in 2009- acteristics of females from eastern and 10. Damage complaints decreased dra- western portions of the state. Stomachs contents from otter matically after the statewide harvest of We evaluated population models carcasses were identified to the lowest otters in the 2006-07 hunting and trap- for river otters using a modified life possible taxonomic group. We esti- ping season. River otter sign was found table approach (Hamilton 1998). These mated percent volume (percentage of in 9 of 12 watersheds (Table 1). Otter models were initially developed using contents per stomach sample represent- sign was not found in the Big Sandy, reproductive characteristics (pregnancy ed by a prey group) and percent occur- Ohio, or Tygarts River watersheds; all rates and average litter sizes) from ot- rence (percentage of stomachs in which are located in the far eastern portion of ter necropsies and survival data from a prey group occurred), and calculated the state. Relative to sampling effort, radiotelemetry studies conducted on the average percent volume as the sum a disproportionately high abundance reintroduced otters in Missouri (Er- of individual volumes/number of stom- of otter sign was found in the Licking, ickson and McCullough 1987). We achs x 100 for each prey group. We Lower Cumberland, Mississippi, Ten- calculated Kentucky-specific pregnancy categorized scales of Centrarchidae into nessee, and Tradewater River water- rates and litter sizes from presence/ three groups: those which could not be sheds. A total of 3331 river otters were counts of CL, blastocysts, embryos and identified beyond placental scars. We then constructed a the family level n Mean/ female ± SD Range series of population models for otters (unknown); those in Kentucky using the Missouri model which contained No. follicles 14 7.93 ± 10.3 1 - 36 as a guide (Gallagher 1999, Hamilton sunfishes, crap- No. corpora lutea 8 3.5 ± 1.31 1 - 5 1998). We generated 4 models using pies, and rock No. placental scars 7 2.86 ± 1.46 1 - 4 Kentucky-specific reproductive char- bass (Group No. embryos 6 2.67 ± 1.63 1 - 5 acteristics taken from carcass analysis, A); and, those No. blastocysts 11 3.64 ± 1.36 2 - 6 including pregnancy rates and average which contained litter sizes, and using adult survival black bass such Table 3: Reproductive characteristics of adult female river rates from Tennessee (Griess 1987), as largemouth otters (n = 32), 2006-2009.

28 Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Wildlife / COMPLETED PROJECTS

harvested in Kentucky from the 2004- Family n % occurrence % volume 05 to the 2009-10 hunting and trapping Amiidae seasons. Of these, 2038 (61%) were males and 1293 (39%) were females. Amia calva 1 1 1 Harvest pressure was greatest in the Catostomidae 14 21 14 Mississippi, Tradewater, Lower Cum- Erimyzon spp. 2 3 3 berland, and Licking River watersheds. Catostomus spp. 4 6 1 Moderate levels of harvest occurred Moxostoma spp. or Hypentelium nigracans 3 4 4 in the Tennessee, Kentucky, Salt, and Unknown 5 7 6 Upper Cumberland River watersheds, Centrarchidae 45 66 53 whereas few otters were harvested from Group A 35 51 40 the Big Sandy, Tygarts, and Ohio River watersheds. Relative to total area each Group B 6 9 5 watershed comprises in the state, a dis- Unknown 8 12 8 proportionately high number of otters Clupeidae were harvested from the Mississippi, Dorosoma spp. 9 13 12 Lower Cumberland, and Tradewater Cyprinidae 14 21 12 River watersheds, whereas relatively Native minnow spp. 12 18 9 low harvests occurred in Green, Ken- Eurasian carp spp. 2 3 3 tucky, and Upper Cumberland watersheds. Esocidae Esox spp. 3 4 2 Percichthyidae Morphology, Reproduction and Morone spp. 4 6 5 Population Growth Percidae Darters 1 1 0 Our sample included 95 males (56%) and 75 females (44%), com- Table 4: Percent occurrence and volume of fish families identified in stomachs prised of 111 juveniles (65%) and 59 of river otters, 2006-2009. The number of stomachs containing prey items is adults (35%). The overall sex ratio indicated. (1.27:1.0) was not different (χ 2 = 2.35, P > 0.05) from 1:1. Males had larger body mass (t = 3.73, P < 0.05) and lon- and West Virginia estimated the 2010 item remains. Fish and crayfish were ger foot length (t = 3.78, P < 0.05) than Kentucky population at 17,032, 4,632, the most important winter prey of river females, but body length did not differ 1,556, and 228 females, respectively. otters, occurring in 86 and 27% of all (t = 0.91, P > 0.05) between the sexes These estimates indicate densities stomachs examined which contained (Table 2). Thirty-seven females (49%) of 1 otter per 614, 2,259, 6,726, and food items, respectively. Rana spp. showed sign of reproductive activity 45,903 ha of land, respectively. When (frogs), snakes, turtles, and Anas platy- based on presence of follicles, CL, 5% additive mortality was included in rhynchos (mallard) were also identified blastocysts, placental scars, or embryos the model, the Tennessee, Missouri, in the diet. There was no difference in (Table 3). Of these, 32 (86.5%) were Kentucky, and West Virginia models the relative percentage of prey items adult females and 5 (13.5%) yearling estimated the 2010 Kentucky popula- taken between male and female otters females. The pregnancy rate for adult tion to be 14,670, 3,618, 1,110, and 140 (χ2 = 5.04, P = 0.41), juvenile and adult females was 0.72, with an average lit- females, respectively (Figure 1). otters (χ2 = 2.42, P = 0.79), or otters ter size of 3.14 ± 1.46(SD). We found collected from eastern and western re- no difference in number of follicles (U gions (χ2 = 10.62, P = 0.06). We iden- = 15.5, P = 0.523), CL (U = 4.5, P = Winter Diet tified 8 families and 11 genera of fish 0.241), embryos (U = 8, P = 0.797), in river otter stomach samples (Table or blastocysts (U = 8, P = 0.223) be- We examined 170 river otter stom- 4). Centrarchidae were eaten most fre- tween adult females collected from achs: 90 carcasses were collected from quently, with Catostomidae (Suckers), eastern and western Kentucky. The first the western region of the state and 80 Cyprinidae (Minnows) and Clupeidae set of models based on survival rates from the east. Of the stomachs exam- (Shads) also common in the winter diet from Tennessee, Missouri, Kentucky, ined, 74% (n = 126) contained food of otters. Group A fish (Sunfish and

Annual Research Highlights 2011 29 COMPLETED PROJECTS / Wildlife

Crappie species) comprised the major- expected to take a longer period of time to remain at lower levels. The small ity of the Centrarchidae eaten, with to reach and inhabit available habitats remnant population in the west has Group B fish (Black Bass species) only in the east; thus, numbers of otters are expanded and appears to have formed a occurring in 4.8% of stomachs that likely to increase in future years in the contiguous population with the increas- contained food items. There was no east. (2) The Cumberland Plateau and ing numbers of river otters in the rein- difference in the relative proportion of Cumberland Mountains are largely troduction zone. Populations of river fish families taken between male and forested landscapes with pronounced otters in Kentucky are also likely to be female otters (χ2 = 13.05, P = 0.07). We changes in topography, often exceed- affected by immigration of otters from identified four genera and six species ing 300 m. These landscapes have surrounding states. Missouri (Beringer of crayfish in otter stomach samples. fewer farm ponds and support streams 2008), Illinois (Bluett et al. 1999), In- Crayfish in the genus Orconectes were that are shallower in depth and lack- diana (Johnson et al. 2007), Ohio, and eaten most frequently, with O. rusticus ing in deeper pools of water, thereby Tennessee have implemented otter re- the most commonly recorded species of providing less total acreage in avail- introduction programs, and dispersal of crayfish. able surface water. These differences otters is likely augmenting the expand- result in habitat conditions supporting ing population in Kentucky. Discussion a lower potential carrying capacity of Catostomids, cyprinids, and clu- River otters occurred in all 12 river otters than the fragmented and ag- peids were commonly consumed by major watersheds in the state. Otters ricultural landscapes to the west; thus, river otters in Kentucky, consistent are abundant in the Jackson Purchase numbers of otters are likely to remain with research in similar habitats where in west Kentucky and in the central at lower levels. (3) Watersheds in the these fish assemblages occur (Ander- reintroduction region of the state. An eastern region are impacted in many son and Woolf 1987, Knudsen and explanation for the lower occupancy stream reaches by resource extraction, Hale 1968, Manning 1990, Toweill of river otters in the eastern region, particularly logging and/or surface 1974). Centrarchids were consumed including the Cumberland Plateau and mining. Resource extraction practices most frequently of any family of fish, the Cumberland Mountains, is not im- result in short and long-term changes rejecting the null hypothesis that fast mediately clear. We offer three sugges- in water quality and landform follow- swimming fish species should occur tions for this difference. (1) Habitats ing reclamation. These changes lead less often in the diet of otters (Serfass in the eastern region are furthest from to loss of original habitats, potentially et al. 1993, Stenson et al. 1984). Re- the Jackson Purchase (i.e., remnant limiting the establishment of river ot- search on food habits of river otters in source population) and reintroduction ters throughout the eastern region; Illinois (Anderson and Woolf 1987), zone, and dispersing otters should be thus, numbers of otters are expected Massachusetts (Sheldon and Toll 1964), Michigan (Ryder 1955), Mon- tana (Greer 1955), and Missouri (Roberts et al. 2008) also found Centrarchidae in the diet of river otters. The majority of centrar- chid scales in river otter stomach samples belonged to Group A, or the sunfishes, crappies and rock bass. State agencies which have reintroduced river otters, including Kentucky, rarely receive complaints from anglers about declining populations of fish in Group A. Instead, complaints about river otters impacting Group B sportfish, such as Micropterus spp. (Black Bass species), are common (Beringer 2008; J. Ross, KDFWR, pers. commun.). Our data indicate that black bass spe- Figure 1: Population estimates of river otters using survival data from 4 states, 5% cies are not being taken by river additive mortality and Kentucky-specific reproductive parameters. otters to the same extent as the

30 Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Wildlife / COMPLETED PROJECTS

sunfish/crappie group during winter could not be identified beyond the ge- gion may suggest a rapidly growing months, and do not appear to represent nus, it is likely that predation is under- population. The average pregnancy a significant component of the diet of estimated in our analysis. rate and litter size calculated for Ken- river otters in Kentucky. Regardless, A high ratio of males to females tucky otters is very similar to rates observations from spring, summer and is often reported in harvested samples. reported in Missouri (Gallagher 1999, fall were not included in our analysis Polechla (1987) reported an overall Hamilton 1998), and much higher than and shifts in the diet of river otters sex ratio of 1.38:1.0 in a summary of those reported in states with established across seasons and among locations in age data taken from otter carcasses and populations. This suggests, as in Mis- the state are likely; thus, more data are embryos gathered from 12 states. Male souri (Hamilton 1998), the population needed on the level of predation by ot- dominated sex ratios can be attributed of restored river otters in Kentucky is ters on Group B sportfish at other times to differences in trapping vulnerabil- increasing and secure. of the year. ity. Males tend to form social groups, Lauhachinda (1978) suggested that In areas where they are locally and have larger home ranges, and travel because the movement of young ani- seasonally abundant, crayfish are also more extensively during the breeding mals is restricted due to the tendency important prey of river otters (Knudsen season than females; therefore, males to stay with family during early life, and Hale 1968, Manning 1990, Sheldon have a higher probability of being cap- juveniles tend to be underrepresented in and Toll 1964, Toweill 1974), and occa- tured (Blundell et al. 2002, Hamilton trapped samples. Our sample contained sionally replace fish as the most impor- and Eadie 1964, Lauhachinda 1978, a high percentage (63%) of juvenile ot- tant food source during summer months Melquist and Dronkert 1987, Melquist ters, providing insight into the contribu- (Noordhuis 2002, Roberts et al. 2008, and Hornocker 1983). Chilelli et al. tion that yearlings have to the popula- Route and Peterson 1988). Crayfish (1996) reported male dominated sex ration growth of this restored population (27%) were an important component of tios in winter harvests for many north- of otters (Figure 2). Increasing popula- the winter diet of river otters in Ken- eastern states. Our sample sex ratio tions tend to have a high proportion tucky, although many crayfish remains was very similar to the 1.27:1.0 ratio of young animals, stable populations were reduced to minute fragments of reported in New York by Hamilton and have a more even age distribution, and exoskeleton and difficult to identify. Eadie (1964), and slightly lower than decreasing populations have a high We identified three genera Fallicam( - those reported in other southeastern proportion of adults (Krebs 1972). Our barus, Orconectes, and Procambarus) states. A higher percentage of females data indicate that the Kentucky otter and six species of crayfish previously as compared to other states in the re- population likely is expanding. The unrecorded in the diet of river otters, along with Cambarus, a genus of crayfish common in the diet of river otters elsewhere (Grenfell 1974, Lagler and Ostenson 1942). Half of the classifi- able crayfish were identified asOrco - nectes spp., the majority of which are common and widespread throughout Kentucky (Fetzner 2008). Members of Orconectes rarely burrow (Taylor and Schuster 2004) and may be more vulnerable to river otters compared with other crayfish genera (Taylor and Schuster 2004). We did record evidence of O. cristavarius, a species of concern (Fetzner 2008), in one stomach sample and Procambarus viaeviridis, a threatened species (KSNPC 2004), in another sample; thus, the possibility exists that river otters, in habitats where they are sufficiently abundant, could negatively impact rare and threatened species of crayfish. Given that crayfish Figure 2: Age class distribution of river otters as determined by cementum annuli contents in many stomach samples examination, 2006-2009.

Annual Research Highlights 2011 31 COMPLETED PROJECTS / Wildlife

oldest otter from our sample was aged in Kentucky, respectively. Our popula- or benchmark to estimate the upper end at 10 years, which is the also the oldest tion density estimates are much lower of population densities. The topog- recorded in Arkansas (Polechla 1987). than those reported in other states. Ot- raphy and habitat available in eastern River otters are induced ovulators ter densities tend to be relatively high Kentucky is very similar to West Vir- (Polechla 1987) and do not produce in habitats that offer a rich diversity of ginia, and we suggest that adult survi- CL unless they have mated. Most ac- food and cover such as coastal marshes. vorship reported by Tango et al. (1991) counts of yearlings breeding have been Shirley et al. (1988) reported a den- may be a more representative estimate regarded as anomalous (e.g. Chilelli sity of 1 otter per 86 ha in Louisiana for otters in the eastern mountain re- et al. 1996). Regardless, we found while Foy (1984) reported a density gion of Kentucky. The West Virginia evidence of reproduction (CL, blasto- of 1 otter per 106 ha in Texas. These population model predicts that otter cysts, embryos, or placental scars) in estimates are based on telemetry data populations in eastern Kentucky may 36% of yearling females, suggesting and the presence of scat, and represent be extirpated if current harvest protocol that juvenile females are contributing total population estimates whereas our is maintained in that region. We be- measurably to the overall reproduc- estimates included only females. Re- lieve that Kentucky should consider a tive output of the statewide popula- gardless, density estimates for breeding more conservative harvest level for the tion. Other states reporting successful females are more important because eastern watersheds until more accurate reproductive effort of yearlings include they reflect the immediate reproductive estimates of otter survival are obtained. Maine (Docktor et al. 1987), Minnesota potential of the population (Melquist (Liers 1958) and Missouri (Gallagher and Hornocker 1983). Management Implications 1999). The adult survival rate reported Relative to total area that each Our mean population estimates (0.90) in Tennessee (Griess 1987) is watershed comprises in the state, there using survival rates from Tennessee, unrealistically high for a reintroduced was disproportionately high numbers Missouri, Kentucky, and West Virginia population. Nevertheless, we included of otters harvested and positive sign indicate a density of 1 female otter per this survival rate into the series of mod- detected in the Jackson Purchase area 614, 2,259, 6,726 and 45,903 ha of land els to serve as a maximum possible rate and the Licking River watershed in

River Otter / Tim Knight

32 Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Wildlife / COMPLETED PROJECTS

the reintroduction zone. In contrast, a ports of damage and decreasing sport- Literature Cited disproportionately low number of ot- fish populations continue in this area of Anderson, E.A., and A. Woolf. 1987. ters appear to be occupying the eastern the state. River otter food habits in north- watersheds. These results suggest that Data indicate that juvenile females western Illinois. Transactions of the a zonal harvest strategy may be war- are contributing measurably to the Illinois Academy of Science 80: 115- ranted for Kentucky, with higher bag overall reproductive output of the state- 118. limits allowed in the Jackson Purchase wide population. The average preg- and some portions of the central region nancy rate and litter size calculated for Barbour, R.W., and W.H. Davis. 1974. of the state, such as the Licking River Kentucky otters is comparable to rates Mammals of Kentucky. University watershed in northern Kentucky. While reported in Missouri, and much higher Press of Kentucky, Lexington, Ken- the harvest data throughout most re- than those reported in states with estab- tucky. gions in the state currently demonstrate lished populations. This suggests that a relatively uniform harvest pressure, the population of restored river otters Beringer, J. 2008. Annual Furbearer harvesting of river otters in the Licking in Kentucky is increasing and likely Report. Missouri Department of River watershed remains high relative secure. Because topography and avail- Conservation, Columbia, Missouri. to total acreage this watershed com- able habitat differ greatly between east- prises in the state. ern and western portions of the state, a Bluett, R.D., E.A. Anderson, G.F. Hu- Investigation into the relationship zonal harvest is currently recommended bert, G.W. Kruse, and S.E. Lauzon. between river otters and prey popula- for Kentucky with more conservative 1999. Reintroduction and status of tions, particularly sportfish, should harvest protocols in the eastern water- the river otter (Lutra canadensis) in be a consideration in setting goals sheds. KDFWR should consider main- Illinois. Transactions of the Illinois for harvest levels. Data indicate that taining a conservative approach to the State Academy of Science 92: 69-78. conflicts potentially exist between overall statewide harvest until more ac- reintroduced river otters in Kentucky curate estimates of otter survival across Blundell, G.M., M. Ben-David, and and predation on sportfish of the family the state can be obtained. R.T. Bowyer. 2002. Sociality in Centrarchidae and rare and threatened We encourage further monitor- river otters: cooperative foraging or crayfish. Of particular concern is the ing of the river otter population in reproductive strategies? Behavioral impact on Centrarchids, as this family Kentucky, including statewide catch Ecology 13: 134-141. includes many popular sportfish such per unit effort (CUE), with special at- as black bass (Micropterus spp.), rock tention paid to obtaining more data Chilelli, M., B. Griffith, and D.J. Har- bass (Ambloplites rupestris), sunfishes on survival and pregnancy rates. Any rison. 1996. Interstate comparisons (Lepomis spp.), and crappies (Pomoxis population models used for river ot- of river otter harvest data. Wildlife spp.). KDFWR has received reports ters in Kentucky will be improved with Society Bulletin 24: 238-246. from fisherman in northern Kentucky additional data, leading to improved alleging decreased populations of bass accuracy of input parameters. Because Cramer, M.S. 1995. River otter (Lontra where otter densities were high; how- river otters may give birth between late canadensis) restoration in Kentucky: ever, no study has been conducted to winter and early spring, more accurate final report. Kentucky Department of verify whether this decrease is related pregnancy rates could be obtained by Fish and Wildlife Resources, Frank- to river otters or a combination of other extending the harvest season by one fort, Kentucky. factors, and there are no data on the month (through March) for consecu- summer diet of river otters to further tive harvests, with the requirement that Daniels, R.A. 1996. Guide to the iden- evaluate the potential for conflicts. all carcasses be turned in to KDFWR tification of scales of inland fishes of We encourage continued monitoring biologists for necropsy and analysis. northeastern North America. New of sportfish and crayfish populations, Furthermore, both age and area-specific York State Museum Bulletin 488: especially in watersheds with high survival rates would allow for more ac- 1-97. river otter densities. Should sportfish curate population estimates of otters in populations or the abundance of rare both the eastern and western regions, Docktor, C.M., R.T. Bowyer, and A.G. crayfish exhibit declining trends, ad- allowing for more appropriate regional Clark. 1987. Number of corpora lutea justments to river otter harvests may be management strategies for river otters as related to age and distribution of warranted for watersheds supporting in Kentucky. river otter in Maine. Journal of Mam- high otter densities. The establishment malogy 68: 182-185. of a Licking River harvest zone could be a management response if further re- Erickson, D.W. and C.R. McCullough.

Annual Research Highlights 2011 33 COMPLETED PROJECTS / Wildlife

1987. Fates of translocated river ot- 1964. Reproduction in the otter, Lu- Lauhachinda, V. 1978. Life history of ters in Missouri. Wildlife Society tra canadensis. Journal of Mammal- the river otter in Alabama with em- Bulletin 15: 511-517. ogy 45: 242-252. phasis on food habits. Ph.D. Disser- tation, Auburn University, Auburn, Fetzner, J.W., Jr. 2008. State of Ken- Johnson, D.H., D.G. Joachim, P. Bach- Alabama. tucky crayfish species checklist. mann, K.V. Kardong, R.E.A. Stewart, . Accessed 7 May 2010. tooth structure and biomarkers. Pages 39: 438-439. 228-243 in Novak, M., J. A. Baker, Foy, M.K. 1984. Seasonal movement, M. E. Obbard, and B. Malloch, eds. Manning, T. 1990. Summer feeding home range, and habitat use of river Wild furbearer management and habits of river otter (Lutra canaden- otter in southeastern Texas. M.S. conservation in North America. Min- sis) on the Mendocino National For- Thesis, Texas A&M University, Col- istry of Natural Resources, Ontario, est, California. Northwestern Natu- lege Station, Texas. Canada. ralist 71: 38-42.

Gallagher, E. 1999. Monitoring trends Johnson, S.A., H.D. Walker, C.M. Hud- Mason, C. 1990. An introduction to in reintroduced river otter popula- son, T.R. Hewitt, and J.S. Thompson. the otters. Pages 4-7, in P. Foster- tions. M.S. Thesis, University of 2007. Prospects for restoring river Turley, S. Macdonald, and C. Mason, Missouri, Columbia, Missouri. otters in Indiana. Proceedings of the eds. Proceedings of the International Indiana Academy of Science 116: Union for the Conservation of Na- Greer, K.R. 1955. Yearly food habits 71-83. ture, Otter Specialist Group Meeting. of the river otter in the Thompson Gland, Switzerland. Lakes region, Northwestern Mon- Kentucky Department of Fish and tana, as indicated by scat analysis. Wildlife Resources [KDFWR]. Melquist, W.E. and A.E. Dronkert. American Midland Naturalist 54: 2009. Species Information, Class of 1987. River otter. Pages 625-641 in 299-313. Actinopterygii. . Accessed 5 No- North America. Ontario Trappers central California. M.S. Thesis, Cali- vember 2009. Association, Toronto, Canada. fornia State University, Sacramento, California. Kentucky State Nature Preserves Melquist, W.E. and M.G. Hornocker. Commission [KSNPC]. 2004. 1979. Development and use of a te- Griess, J.M. 1987. River Otter Reintro- Endangered, threatened, special lemetry technique for studying river duction in Great Smoky Mountains concern, and historic plants and otter. Pages 104-114 in F.M. Long, National Park. M.S. Thesis, Univer- animals of Kentucky. . Accessed 7 May 2010. Melquist, W.E., and M.G. Hornocker. North America. Second edition. 1983. Ecology of river otters in west John Wiley and Sons, New York. Krebs, C.J. 1972. Ecology: The experi- central Idaho. Wildlife Monographs mental analysis of distribution and 83: 1-60. Hamilton, D.A. 1998. Missouri river abundance. otter population assessment: final Harper and Row, New York. Noordhuis, R. 2002. The river ot- report 1996-1997 and 1997-1998 ter (Lontra canadensis) in Clarke trapping seasons and petition for Lagler, K.F., and B.T. Ostenson. 1942. County (Georgia, USA): survey, food multi-year export authority. Missouri Early spring food of the otter in habits and environmental factors. Department of Conservation, Colum- Michigan. IUCN Otter Specialist bia, Missouri. Journal of Wildlife Management 6: Group Bulletin 19: 75-86. 244-254. Hamilton, W.J., Jr., and W.R. Eadie. Polechla, P.J. 1987. Status of the river

34 Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Wildlife / COMPLETED PROJECTS

otter (Lutra canadensis) population ment 52: 512-515. in Arkansas with special reference to reproductive biology. Ph.D. Dis- Stenson, G.B., G.A. Badgero, and H.D. sertation, University of Arkansas, Fisher. 1984. Food habits of the Fayetteville, Arkansas. river otter Lutra canadensis in the marine environment of British Co- Raesly, E.J. 2001. Progress and status lumbia. Canadian of river otter reintroduction projects Journal of Zoology 62: 88-91. in the United States. Wildlife Soci- ety Bulletin 29: 856-862. Stephenson, A.B. 1977. Age determination and morphological variation of Roberts, N.M., C.F. Rabini, J.S. Sta- Ontario otters. Canadian Journal of novick, and D.A. Hamilton. 2008. Zoology 55: 1577-1583. River otter, Lontra canadensis, food habits in the Missouri Ozarks. Cana- Tango, P.J., E.D. Michael., and J.I. dian Field-Naturalist 122: 303- Cromer. 1991. Survival and sea- 311. sonal movements during river otter restoration efforts in West Virginia. Route, W.T., and R.O. Peterson. 1988. Proceedings of the Annual Confer- Distribution and abundance of river ence of the Southeast Association otter in Voyageurs National Park, of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 45: Minnesota. Resource Management 64-72. Report MWR-10, USDI National Park Service, Omaha, Nebraska. Taylor, C.A., and G.A. Schuster. 2004. The crayfishes of Kentucky. Illinois Ryder, R.A. 1955. Fish predation by Natural History Survey Special Pub- the otter in Michigan. Journal of lications 28: 1-219. Wildlife Management 19: 497-498. Toweill, D.E. 1974. Winter food hab- Serfass, T.L., R.P. Brooks, and L.M. its of river otters in western Oregon. Rymon. 1993. Evidence of long- Journal of Wildlife Management 38: At a term survival and reproduction by 107-111. Glance translocated river otters, Lutra ca- We recommend a zonal nadensis. Canadian Field-Naturalist Toweill, D.E., and J.E. Tabor. 1982. 107: 59-63. River otter. Pages 688-703 in J.A. harvest in Kentucky, with Chapman, and G.A. Feldhammer, more conservative harvest Serfass, T.L., R.L. Peper, M.T. Whary, eds. Wild mammals of North Ameri- in the eastern watersheds. and R.P. Brooks. 1993. River otter ca. Johns Hopkins University Press, (Lutra canadensis) reintroduction in Baltimore, Maryland. Pennsylvania: prerelease care and clinical evaluation. Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 24: 28-40. Funding Source: Kentucky Depart- Sheldon, W.G., and W.G. Toll. 1964. ment of Fish and Wildlife Resources Feeding habits of the river otter in a and University of Kentucky reservoir in central Massachusetts. Journal of Mammalogy 45: 449-455. KDFWR Strategic Plan. Goal 1. Strategic Objective 5. Shirley, M.G., R.G. Linscombe, N.W. Kinler, R.M. Knaus, and V.L. Wright. 1988. Population estimates of river otters in a Louisiana coastal marsh- land. Journal of Wildlife Manage-

Annual Research Highlights 2011 35 COMPLETED PROJECTS / Wildlife

Status of a Reintroduced Black Bear Population in the Big South Fork Area of Kentucky

Sean Murphy, John J. Cox, John T. Hast, Ben Augustine, University of Kentucky, Department of Forestry

KDFWR Collaborators: Michael Strunk, Steven Dobey, and Jayson Plaxico

Introduction Reintroduction is a frequently used tool for wildlife management that has led to the successful reestablishment of animal species across the globe Collaring black bear / Mike Strunk (Griffith et al. 1989). The majority of wildlife reintroductions in North America have focused on mammal species to be listed as vulnerable or connectivity with nearby populations, conservation (Fischer and Lindenmayer better (IUCN 2001), and Griffith et al. are critical for management. Many 2000), the most frequently reintroduced (1989) defined reintroduction success researchers, however, often do not mammal species being large carnivores as a self-sustaining population of >500 implement long-term monitoring (Hayward and Somers 2009). Large individuals. Many naturally-occurring strategies for reintroduced populations, carnivores have often been considered wildlife populations, especially large despite the known importance of keystone species, and reestablishment carnivore populations, however, do not such programs (Sarrazin and Barbault of these species may increase natural meet these criteria, and would require 1996, De Barba et al. 2010). As a biodiversity and allow recovery of augmentation had populations resulted result, numerous reintroductions have ecosystem processes (Seddon 1999). from reintroductions (Hayward and either failed or resulted in very small The goal of any reintroduction is Somers 2009). populations (Frankham 2009, Hayward to establish a population that persists Long-term monitoring of and Somers 2009). without intervention (Seddon 1999). reintroduced populations is crucial Currently, two genetically Determining reintroduction success, to assess population status and differentiated black bear however, can be difficult with no reintroduction success, and to subpopulations occur in Kentucky, definitive protocol to aid researchers determine if management intervention and evidence suggests limited or no in the confirmation process (Seddon is needed (De Barba et al. 2010). connectivity between them (Hast 2010). 1999, Fischer and Lindenmayer Demographic information such as One subpopulation, considered most 2000, Gusset 2009). Success of most population abundance, growth rate, abundant (Frary 2008, Hast 2010), reintroductions has been evaluated reproduction, mortality, immigration, is located in extreme southeastern based on the establishment of a self- and genetic diversity should be Kentucky counties along the borders of sustaining population (Swaisgood monitored at pre-defined time Virginia, West Virginia, and Tennessee. 2010). Currently, the IUCN Species intervals following reintroductions This subpopulation (hereafter referred Survival Commission (SSC)/Re- (Seddon 1999, De Barba et al. 2010). to as Pine Mountain population; PMP) introduction Specialist Group (RSG) Additionally, knowledge of ecological resulted from a natural recolonization requires >1000 mature individuals characteristics, such as patterns event over the last half-century from to be present in a population for a of range expansion, dispersal, and the aforementioned border states

36 Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Wildlife / COMPLETED PROJECTS

(Unger 2007, Frary 2008, Hast 2010), nuisance complaints and bear-vehicle Methods and likely forms the western-most collisions increased in McCreary Study Area extent of a regional metapopulation County, Kentucky, over the past 6 (Hast 2010). A separate subpopulation years (KDFWR, unpublished data). The study area encompassed (hereafter referred to as Big South Collectively, observations of black bear 1,260 km2 of the western edge of the Fork population; BSFP), located in in the BSF area since 2004 suggest the Cumberland Plateau physiographic McCreary County, Kentucky, along population has grown and expanded, region in south-central Kentucky at the the Tennessee border, resulted from but empirical evidence to support this Tennessee border (Figure 1). The study a limited reintroduction into the assumption is lacking. Multiple natural area was bordered to the northeast by Big South Fork National River and resource agencies and the general the Cumberland River, to the south Recreation Area (BSF) in Kentucky public have expressed interest in better by Scott County, Tennessee, and was and Tennessee (Figure 1). understanding the current status of the bisected by highway U.S. 27. Research In 1996 and 1997, the National black bear in the greater Big South was conducted in all 1,118 km2 of Park Service (NPS) reintroduced black Fork area. Although some stakeholders McCreary County, and in neighboring bear into the BSF by translocating have expressed interest in expanding portions of Laurel, Pulaski, Wayne, and 14 adult female black bear with 16 the Kentucky black bear hunt to Whitley counties. cubs from Great Smoky Mountains McCreary County, there also appears Approximately 81% (906 km2) National Park (GSMNP) (Eastridge to be widespread public sentiment of McCreary County is owned by 2000, Eastridge and Clark 2001). Of in the Commonwealth for ensuring the federal government. The Stearns 6 total release sites in the BSF, 3 were black bear persistence in the BSF Ranger District of the Daniel Boone located in McCreary County, Kentucky population and elsewhere in the state. National Forest (DBNF) and the (Eastridge 2000). By November 1999, Given the potential deleterious impacts National Park Service’s Big South 3 adult founders had left the BSF and that overharvest can have on small Fork National River and Recreation never returned, and an additional 4 bear populations (Clark et al. 2010), Area (BSF) managed approximately founders had died (Eastridge 2000). estimates of population parameters, 63% (705 km2) and 18% (201 km2) Van Manen and Pelton (1997) had such as abundance and density, for of lands in the county, respectively. recommended 40 individual bears black bear in the BSF population were An additional 6% (69 km2) is state be released in the BSF over a 6-7 clearly needed. government land in the Beaver Creek year period to ensure persistence of To investigate the status of black Wildlife Management Area, managed the population. Concerns voiced by bear in McCreary County including by KDFWR. The remaining 12.8% the public, however, resulted in the the BSF (henceforth BSF), we used (143 km2) of McCreary County is Fentress County, Tennessee Chamber non-invasive hair sampling in a privately owned. of Commerce passing a resolution that capture-mark-recapture study design banned all further releases of black to estimate abundance and density of bear. Although population modeling this population. We used individual Non-invasive genetic sampling suggested extinction would occur genotypes of black bear to investigate without further supplementation of relatedness of extant individuals in the A non-invasive hair trap individuals (Eastridge and Clark 2001), BSF by employing parentage analysis. sampling grid composed of 126 no supplementation occurred following We quantified genetic diversity of contiguous cells was created using the original reintroduction (Eastridge black bear in the BSF by calculating ArcMap 9.3 Geographic Information

2000), and no long-term monitoring expected heterozygosity (HE). We Systems (ESRI, Redlands, CA) and strategies were devised. also investigated range expansion superimposed across a map of the Bear were assumed to still using non-invasive genetic sampling 1,270 km2 study area (Figure 1). Each be confined within the BSF until and program ArcMap (Environmental sampling cell encompassed 10 km2; recently (M. Strunk, KDFWR, pers. Systems Research Institute - ESRI, an area equivalent to the average comm.). Since 2004, biologists from Redlands, CA). We used these results annual spring home range (i.e. smallest KDFWR have received multiple to evaluate long-term success of the annual home range) of adult female reports of black bear sightings, black bear reintroduction in the BSF, black bear in Kentucky based on ~3 including adult females with cubs, and to provide wildlife managers with years of Global Positioning Systems in areas outside the boundary of the data applicable to management of black (GPS) radio-collar data (University BSF in McCreary County, Kentucky bear in this area. of Kentucky, unpublished data). One (KDFWR, pers. comm.). Additionally, baited, barbed-wire hair trap was

Annual Research Highlights 2011 37 COMPLETED PROJECTS / Wildlife

Information Criterion (AIC - Akaike 1973), corrected for small sample size (AICc - Burnham and Anderson 2002), was used to select models that best-fit the data within 7 ΔAICc values to provide a conservative abundance estimate (Burnham et al. 2011). Best- fit models were averaged according to the methods outlined in Burnham and Anderson (2002) to produce a final, model-averaged abundance estimate. Finally, sex-ratios were calculated using abundance estimates for each gender, and a chi-square test was used to investigate whether sex-ratios differed from 1:1 (P < 0.05). Density was estimated using the traditional method, which divides the model-averaged abundance estimate by the effective sampling area: D = N/A. The effective sampling area was estimated by extending the sampling grid by 5 km (radius of average annual spring home range of females in Kentucky; University of Kentucky, Figure 1: 2010 black bear study area, McCreary County, Kentucky, illustrating unpublished data) to create a buffer hair trap sampling grid of 126 10 km2 cells. Each hair trap was checked and (Dice 1938). baited every 7 days for 7 consecutive, week-long sampling sessions. constructed in each 10 km2 sampling (Nelson, British Columbia) for DNA Relatedness cell to collect black bear hair for extraction and amplification using DNA analysis (Woods et al. 1999). the polymerase chain reaction (PCR). To investigate relatedness of extant Hair trap placement was restricted Twenty-two black bear-specific individuals, a parentage analysis was to locations between 100-250 m microsatellite loci were used to identify performed with program PARENTE from roads to enable efficient access; individual bears, delineate gender, (Cercueil et al. 2002) using the however, if campgrounds, picnic areas, obtain capture histories, and investigate categorical allocation method (Jones et or residential areas were present, a genetic diversity and relatedness of al. 2010). Categorical allocation uses a minimum buffer of 500 m was used to extant individuals. likelihood-based approach to assign an mitigate human-bear conflict. offspring to a particular parent (Jones All hair traps were checked and re- and Arden 2003). Data sets from this baited every 7 days for 7 consecutive, Abundance and density study, Hast (2010), and live-captures week-long sampling sessions from 23 (University of Kentucky, unpublished May 2010 to 11 July 2010. Weekly To estimate abundance (N), closed- data) were pooled to create a single duration hair-trapping sessions were population CMR models (Otis et al. data set for black bear in the BSFP chosen to maintain equal trapping 1978) were used in program MARK (2009-2010). Genotype data at ≥ 20 effort, and to reduce the risk of DNA (White and Burnham 1999). To microsatellite genotypes was used for degradation in the humid environment address sources of variation in equal parentage of individual bear identified of the study area (Shaw and Wofford capture probability, models that account in the BSF. 2003). Traps were not moved between for temporal variation, behavioral or during sampling sessions. All variation, and individual heterogeneity Results collected hair samples were shipped were constructed (Otis et al. 1978, Non-invasive genetic sampling to Wildlife Genetics International Huggins 1989, Pledger 2000). Akaike’s

38 Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Wildlife / COMPLETED PROJECTS

During the 7 sampling sessions, 0.709. The pooled data set from this 21 (95% CI = 16-56), and a female

156 black bear hair samples were study, Hast (2010), and live captures abundance estimate of Nfemale = 17 collected. Bear visited a total of 23 (University of Kentucky, unpublished (95% CI = 13-36), totaling N = 38 sample sites (mean = 3.3 visited sites/ data) totaled 48 individuals in the BSFP individuals. Sex ratio favored males, sampling occasion). All female hair (2009-2010), which were successfully but was not statistically different from captures occurred ≤15 km from original genotyped for ≥ 20 microsatellite 1:1 (21M:17F, X2 = 0.003, P = 0.95). release sites in the BSFP, whereas only markers with no missing loci. Overall Average capture probability of males

male hair captures occurred outside genetic diversity in the BSFP from was pmale = 0.30, and average capture

of this range (Figure 2). A total of pooled data (2009-2010), as indicated probability of females was pfemale = 0.27.

29 individual bear (16M:13F) were by expected heterozygosity (HE), was The top 5 non-sex-specific models were uniquely identified by genotyping with 0.698 (Table 1). model-averaged to produce an overall 22 microsatellite markers. abundance estimate of N = 40 (95% CI All individuals sampled during the = 30-113). Average capture probability 7 capture-mark-recapture sessions (n Abundance and density throughout all 7 sessions was p = 0.22, = 29) were successfully genotyped for and average probability of recapture 22 microsatellites with no missing loci The top 5 sex-specific models was c = 0.23. present. Genetic diversity indicated were model-averaged to produce a Because samples were

by expected heterozygosity (HE) was male abundance estimate of Nmale = acquired from hair traps in only a portion of the 1,270 km2 sampling area (Figure 2), the effective sampling area was reduced to avoid underestimation of density. The reduced effective sampling area, which included a 5 km buffer, totaled 1,208 km2. Estimated density (D) was 0.03 bear/km2.

Relatedness

All 48 individuals identified in this study, Hast (2010), and live captures (University of Kentucky, unpublished data) from 2009-2010 with ≥ 20 microsatellite genotypes were analyzed in program PARENTE (Cercueil et al. 2002)(Figure 3). Fourteen mother- father-offspring triads were discovered, totaling 14 known Figure 2: Locations of 23 hair traps visited by black bears in McCreary County, Kentucky, reproductive pairs that 2010. All female hair samples were captured at hair traps ≤ 15 km from reintroduction release produced 15 offspring. sites, suggesting minimal range expansion. Six mother-offspring

Annual Research Highlights 2011 39 COMPLETED PROJECTS / Wildlife

dyads were identified and 10 father- is typical of black bear populations already small BSFP. offspring dyads were identified. still in the early stages of colonization, Three matrilines and 3 patrilines were as females are highly philopatric and Relatedness is a useful biological discovered. Additionally, parentage establish home ranges adjacent to characteristic to evaluate, especially in analysis suggested female bears 664 or near mothers, whereas, males are small populations that may be isolated. and 025 may be original founders, or typically dispersers that exhibit long- Since the BSFP originated only 14 direct offspring of original founders. ranging movements (Clark 2009). years prior to onset of this study, a Finally, 15 individuals (i.e. 30% of Furthermore, the estimated sex ratio unique opportunity was presented all sampled bear) were identified as in the BSFP (21M:17F), although not to investigate relatedness, family descendents of male 622 (Figure 3). significantly different from 1:1, appears lineages, and breeding structure of to favor males. Most bear populations this small, recently reintroduced black Discussion that have moved beyond the initial bear population. The identification of Reliable estimates of demographic stages of colonization typically exhibit two females, 664 and 025, as original parameters are necessary for effective female biased sex ratios and higher founders is plausible based on available management and timely conservation population densities (Unger 2007, known ages of select descendents actions. Frary (2008) produced the Frary 2008). (Figure 3). For example, M504, which only abundance estimate for black bear The BSFP remains small (N = was the first-order offspring of female in Kentucky (N = 130), and suggested 40) and at low density (0.03 bear/km2), 664 and male 622, was 9 years of age this estimate was representative of all and has colonized very little new range when live-captured in 2010 (Figure 3). black bear in the state. This statement, within the last decade, suggesting a Based on the average earliest breeding however, was not valid because the Big slow population growth rate. Clark et age of female bear in Kentucky (i.e. South Fork area, including McCreary al. (2002) characterized black bear as 3 years of age), female 664, whose County, was not included in the study poor colonizers, and results from this exact age remains unknown as she has area (Frary 2008). Therefore, this study appear to support this description. not been live-captured to-date, was study provided the first ever abundance There have been documented likely born no later than 1998, one year estimate for black bear in the BSF. observations of bear poaching in following reintroduction. A similar The abundance estimate this area since reintroduction (J. inference can be made for female 025, reported by this study (N = 40) Plaxico and M. Strunk, KDFWR, whose second-order offspring was indicated the BSFP is much smaller pers. comm.), however, suggest that M509, a 5 year-old individual in 2010 than the neighboring Pine Mountain poaching may have been an important (Figure 3). population (N = 130; Frary 2008), and factor in retarding population growth Perhaps the most revealing comparable in size to threatened black and expansion. Buchalczyk (1980) discovery from parentage analysis was bear populations in Florida (Maehr identified illegal poaching of brown male 622’s lineage. Approximately et al. 2001, Brown 2004, Dobey et bears in Poland as the primary 30% (15 individuals) of bears sampled al. 2005) and Louisiana (Triant et al. cause of population loss 25 years from 2009-2010 shared male 622 as a 2004, Lowe 2011) that currently have post-reintroduction. Therefore, it is common ancestor (Figure 3). The age conservation protection. Additionally, certainly possible that continued illegal of this individual remains unknown as the density estimate for black bear poaching, coupled with other sources he has not been live-captured to-date. in the BSFP (0.03 bear/km2) is in of mortality, such as bear-vehicle Male 622, however, was not identified the lower-range of reported densities collisions, could have substantial as a migrant by Hast (2010), and was for black bear populations in the deleterious consequences on the comprised of a genotype similar to southeastern United States. While population size Year # Individuals # Markers HE Study in the BSFP has increased since reintroduction, range expansion 2002 16 8 0.819 KDFWR appears to have been minimal. All 2009 19 20 0.77 Hast (2010) female bear hair samples were 2010 29 8 0.758 This study collected from hair traps ≤15 km from 2010 29 22 0.709 This study original release sites, whereas, all hair 2009-2010 48 20 0.698 This study samples collected >15 km from release sites were from male bear (Figure Table 1: Estimated genetic diversities (expected heterozygosity) of black bears in 2). This pattern of range expansion the Big South Fork area of Kentucky since reintroduction, 2002-2010.

40 Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Wildlife / COMPLETED PROJECTS

Figure 3: Lineage results from parentage analysis of the Big South Fork black bear population using data from this study, Hast (2010), and live-captures. Females 664 and 025 were likely founders in the Big South Fork population, and approximately 30% of sampled individuals (2009-2010) shared male 622 as a common ancestor.

other individuals in the BSFP and the BSFP are closely related. Boersen et al. 2003). Additionally, the Great Smoky Mountains (Hast Hast (2010) suggested the BSF reintroduced populations that remain 2010). Furthermore, because one of population may be isolated from isolated typically exhibit reduced male 622’s first-order offspring was nearby subpopulations, including the levels of genetic diversity over time M504, male 622 was likely either a neighboring Pine Mountain population. (Maudet et al. 2002). Genetic diversity founder cub or was present in the Big Isolated populations are vulnerable in the BSFP based on pooled data at

South Fork area prior to reintroduction. to deleterious genetic effects such as ≥ 20 microsatellites was HE = 0.698 Cumulatively, results from parentage genetic drift, genetic bottleneck, and (Table 1), which suggests a declining analysis suggest many individuals in inbreeding depression (Hartl 2000, trend, and linkage disequilibrium was

Annual Research Highlights 2011 41 COMPLETED PROJECTS / Wildlife

detected, which could indicate the the future, especially since this small more useful for black bear population presence of genetic drift (Boersen et population, comprised of numerous management than abundance estimates al. 2003). The proportion of closely closely-related individuals, appears to (Clark et al. 2010). In addition, we related individuals identified by have declining genetic diversity, and strongly recommend repetition of this parentage analysis, a decline in genetic may be substantially influenced by study within 5-10 years to evaluate diversity, and minimal gene flow into human-induced mortality. changes in abundance, density, and the BSFP as suggested by Hast (2010) range expansion. These studies should support the possibility of genetic Management Implications also allow continued monitoring of the drift and founder effects caused by This study provided an important genetic health of this small population isolation. post-reintroduction status assessment to assess changes in genetic diversity, If the BSFP is in fact isolated from of black bear in the BSF area, including and provide a landscape genetics nearby populations to the east, the the first population abundance and perspective into whether connectivity Interstate 75 barrier posited by Hast density estimates. While the population becomes established between the BSF (2010) may be impeding movement currently appears to be small, but and Pine Mountain populations. between the BSF and Pine Mountain stable, the future of the BSF black bear We also recommend that populations. To date, no radio-collared remains unpredictable based on current survival rates of bears in the BSF bear originating in the BSFP are information and known problems with population be investigated. Although known to have crossed Interstate 75 reintroduced populations. Empirical limited data exists, unexplained cub (University of Kentucky, unpublished data from this study and Hast (2010), mortality has been documented in data). Additionally, range expansion however, indicate the population the BSF population (University of in the BSFP displays a movement may be vulnerable. The BSF black Kentucky, unpublished data), and cub westward and northward, away from bear population exhibits numerous survival and population recruitment Interstate 75 and the PMP. Therefore, characteristics of small, isolated may be low. Additionally, cases of establishing connectivity between the populations that are susceptible illegal poaching of all age classes BSFP and populations to the east may to deleterious genetic effects and of black bear have been confirmed be delayed until resident female bear overexploitation. Many individuals in McCreary County, Kentucky, but in the BSFP establish home ranges east in the population appear to be closely the true extent of such occurrences of highway U.S. 27 or female bear in related, genetic diversity demonstrates remains unknown. Therefore, future the PMP establish home ranges west a declining trend, and the population research should also investigate of Interstate 75. Such expansion rates, may be experiencing isolation- causes of mortality. We suggest however, will likely require many induced genetic drift. As such, we development of a comprehensive years. recommend that black bear in the BSF black bear monitoring plan for the This study represents the first population should not be considered BSF population that includes said evidence of successful reintroduction for inclusion in the Kentucky bear research recommendations, along and associated expansion of black hunt given the potential detrimental with pre-defined time intervals for bear in Kentucky. Seddon (1999), effects on the population, including implementation. This measure will be however, warned that reintroduction a further reduction of a presumed important for natural resource agencies success may only be representative slow population growth rate, risk of challenged with ensuring the long-term of the time at which assessments overharvest, and possibly extinction. persistence of the black bear in the Big are made, and that momentary self- Results from this study South Fork area. sustainability is not synonymous with demonstrate the critical need for long-term population persistence. continued monitoring and immediate Seddon’s (1999) admonition is research of this small black bear further supported by the multiple population. Because the status and reintroduction projects that have been number of bears in the BSF population Literature Cited initially declared successful, only to in neighboring Tennessee remains Akaike, H. 1973. Information theory have declining populations years or unknown, we suggest investigating it to and an extension of the maximum decades later (e.g. Buchalczyk 1980, further characterize bears in this area. likelihood principle. Pages 267-281 Wolf et al. 1996). As such, declaring Despite the difficulties of monitoring in B. N. Petrov, andF. Csaki, editors. the reintroduction of black bear in the small populations, future research Proceedings of the 2nd International BSF area a success does not imply should begin to examine population Symposium on Information Theory. the BSF population will persist in growth rate, a parameter that is often Akademiai Kiado, Budapest.

42 Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Wildlife / COMPLETED PROJECTS

Journal of Wildlife Management editors. Reintroduction of top-order Boersen, M. R., J. D. Clark, and T. 74:1448-1456. predators. Blackwell Publishing, L. King. 2003. Estimating black Hoboken, New Jersey. bear population density and genetic Clark, J. D., D. Huber, and diversity at Tensas River, Louisiana C. Servheen. 2002. Bear Frary, V. J. 2008. Estimating abundance using microsatellite DNA markers. reintroductions: lessons and and distribution of the black bear in Wildlife Society Bulletin 31:197- challenges: invited paper. Ursus Kentucky. Master’s thesis, Indiana 207. 13:335-345. University of Pennsylvania, Indiana, Pennsylvania. Brown, J. 2004. Challenges in De Barba, M., L. P. Waits, E. O. estimating size and conservation of Garton, P. Genovesi, E. Randi, A. Griffith, B., J. M. Scott, J. W. black bear in west-central Florida. Mustoni, and C. Groff. 2010. The Carpenter, and C. Reed. 1989. Master’s thesis, University of power of genetic monitoring for Translocation as a species Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky. studying demography, ecology and conservation tool: status and genetics of a reintroduced brown strategy. Science 245:477-480. Buchalczyk, T. 1980. The brown bear bear population. Molecular Ecology in Poland. International Conference 19:3938-3951. Gusset, M. 2009. A framework for on Bear Research and Management evaluating reintroduction success 4:229-232. Dice, L. 1938. Some census methods in carnivores: lessons from African for mammals. Journal of Wildlife wild dogs. Pages 307-320 in M. Burnham, K. P., and D. R. Anderson. Management 2:119-130. W. Hayward and M. J. Somers, 2002. Model selection and editors. Reintroduction of top-order multimodel inference: a practical- Dobey, S., D. V. Masters, B. K. predators. Blackwell Publishing, theoretic approach. 2nd edition. Scheick, J. D. Clark, M. R. Pelton, Hoboken, New Jersey. Springer-Verlag, New York, New and M. E. Sunquist. 2005. Ecology York. of Florida black bears in the Hartl, D. L. 2000. A primer of Okefenokee-Osceola Ecosystem. population genetics. 3rd edition. Burnham, K. P., D. R. Anderson, and Wildlife Monographs 158:1-41. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, K. Huyvaert. 2011. AIC model Massechussetts. selection and multimodel inference Eastridge, R. 2000. Experimental in behavioral ecology: some repatriation of black bear to the Hast, J. T. 2010. Genetic diversity, background, observations, and Big South Fork area of Kentucky structure, and recolonization patterns comparisons. Behavioral Ecology and Tennessee. Master’s thesis, of Kentucky black bears. Master’s and Sociobiology 65:23-35. University of Tennessee, Knoxville, thesis, University of Kentucky, Tennessee. Lexington, Kentucky. Cercueil, A., E. Bellemain, and S. Manel. 2002. PARENTE: Computer Eastridge, R., and J. D. Clark. Hayward, M. W., and M. J. Somers, program for parentage analysis. 2001. Evaluation of 2 soft-release editors. 2009. Reintroduction of Journal of Heredity 93:458-459. techniques to reintroduce black top-order predators: using science bears. Wildlife Society Bulletin to restore one of the drivers of Clark, J. D. 2009. Aspects and 29:1163-1174. biodiversity. Pages 1-9 in M. implications of bear reintroduction. W. Hayward and M. J. Somers, Pages 126-145 in M. W. Hayward, Fischer, J., and D. B. Lindenmayer. editors. Reintroduction of top-order and M. J. Somers, editors. 2000. An assessment of the published predators. Blackwell Publishing, Reintrodcution of top-order results of animal relocations. Hoboken, New Jersey. predators. Blackwell Publishing, Biological Conservation 96:1-11. Hoboken, New Jersey. Huggins, R. M. 1989. On the statistical Frankham, R. 2009. Genetic analysis of capture experiments. Clark, J. D., R. Eastridge, and M. J. considerations in reintroduction Biometrika 76:133-140. Hooker. 2010. Effects of exploitation programmes for top-order, terrestrial on black bear populations at White predators. Pages 371-387 in M. IUCN. 2001. IUCN Red List River National Wildlife Refuge. W. Hayward and M. J. Somers, Categories and Criteria: Version

Annual Research Highlights 2011 43 COMPLETED PROJECTS / Wildlife

3.1. International Union for Woody plants of Big South Fork and reanalysis of 1987 survey data. Conservation of Nature and Natural National River and Recreation Area, Conservation Biology 10:1142-1154. Resources, Gland, Switzerland. Tennessee and Kentucky and floristic comparison of selected southern Woods, J. G., D. Paetkau, D. Lewis, Jones, A. G., and W. R. Arden. 2003. Appalachian woody floras. Castanea B. N. McLellan, M. Proctor, and C. Methods of parentage analysis in 68:119-134. Strobeck. 1999. Genetic tagging of natural populations. Molecular free-ranging black and brown bears. Ecology 12:2511. Swaisgood, R. R. 2010. The Wildlife Society Bulletin 27:616- conservation-welfare nexus in 627. Jones, A. G., C. M. Small, K. A. reintroduction programmes: a role Paczolt, and N. L. Ratterman. for sensory ecology. Animal Welfare 2010. A practical guide to methods 19:125-137. Funding Source: Pittman-Robertson of parentage analysis. Molecular (PR) and University of Kentucky Ecology Resources 10:6-30. Triant, D. A., R. M. Pace, and M. Stine. 2004. Abundance, genetic diversity KDFWR Strategic Plan. Goal 1. Lowe, C. L. 2011. Estimating and conservation of Louisiana black Strategic Objective 5. Comprehen- population parameters of the bears (Ursus americanus luteolus) sive Wildlife Conservation Strategy: Louisiana black bear in the Upper as detected through noninvasive Appendix 3.9; Class Mammalia: Atchafalaya River Basin. Master’s sampling. Conservation Genetics Taxa specific conservation project. thesis, University of Tennessee, 5:647-659. Knoxville, Tennessee. Unger, D. E. 2007. Population Maehr, D. S., T. S. Hoctor, L. J. dynamics, resource selection, Quinn, and J. S. Smith. 2001. and landscape conservation of a Black bear habitat management recolonizing black bear population. guidelines for Florida. Technical Ph.D. dissertation, University of Report No. 17. Florida Fish and Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky. Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, Florida. van Manen, F. T., and M. R. Pelton. 1997. Procedures to enhance the Otis, D. L., K. P. Burnham, G. C. success of a black bear reintroduction White, and D. R. Anderson. 1978. program. Ninth International Statistical inference from capture Conference on Bear Research and data on closed animal populations. Management 9:67-78. Wildlife Monographs 62:3-135. White, G. C., D. R. Anderson, K. P. Pledger, S. 2000. Unified maximum Burnham, and D. L. Otis. 1982. likelihood estimates for closed Capture-recapture and removal capture-recapture models using methods for sampling closed mixtures. Biometrics 56:434-442. populations. Los Alamos National Laboratory, LA-8787-NERP, Los Sarrazin, F., and R. Barbault. 1996. Alamos, New Mexico. Reintroduction: challenges and lessons for basic ecology. Trends in White, G. C., and K. P. Burnham. Ecology & Evolution 11:474-478. 1999. Program MARK: Survival estimation from populations of Seddon, P. J. 1999. Persistence without marked animals. Bird Study 46:120- intervention: assessing success in 138. wildlife reintroductions. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 14:503. Wolf, C. M., B. Griffith, C. Reed, and S. A. Temple. 1996. Avian and Shaw, J., and B. E. Wofford. 2003. mammalian translocations: update

44 Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Wildlife / COMPLETED PROJECTS

ated with bear nuisance behavior. Access to non-natural foods affects bears both physically and behaviorally, as they forage less, grow larger, and live at higher densities than they would under natural conditions (Beckman and Berger 2003). Bears may even aggre- gate in the urban-wildland interface to take advantage of these resources, leaving natural areas depopulated (Beck- man and Berger 2003). Maintained at artificially high densities by garbage, male bears come into contact with lac- ? / Jeremy Williams tating females and may kill young cubs. Black bears now have widespread The Return of the Black Bear access to anthropogenic food sources in eastern Kentucky. They routinely to Eastern Kentucky: Conflict raid trashcans in picnic areas and campgrounds. They have foraged in a school and Tolerance Between People dumpster in the town of Cumberland, and are regularly seen during daylight. and Wildlife Wild bears that have been intention- ally fed by residents have subsequently Hannah Harris and David Maehr, University of Kentucky damaged property in search of more KDFWR Contact: Steven Dobey food, and some are being killed illegally by residents who find their behavior threatening. Artificial provisioning, illegal feeding, and poaching are important Introduction human behaviors for wildlife managers Bear populations appear to be managers, and how they would like to understand and monitor (Hristienko increasing both in the U.S. overall problems resolved is an important first and McDonald 2007), yet they are ex- (Siemer et al. 2009) and in Kentucky step in designing a management plan. ceedingly difficult to study or quantify specifically (Unger 2007). As bears and Understanding where stakeholder needs using traditional research techniques humans occupy more and more over- conflict and where compromise is pos- such as surveys because people are re- lapping space, the likelihood of human- sible is also vital in moving forward luctant to admit illegal activity, and nu- bear interactions increases. At the same towards a comprehensive management ances of motivation and behavior may time, traditional paradigms for wildlife strategy. be lost (Tope et al. 2005). management are shifting. While wild- A primary challenge for wildlife This project was developed to life managers once served a fairly nar- professionals is in reducing the poten- expand on a mail-out public opinion row constituency of hunters, anglers, tial for conflict between people and survey conducted by KDFWR in 2002, and trappers, they are now called upon bears. Conflict often begins with an as well as an ecological study of the to meet the needs of a much more di- “anthropogenic” or human-source food Kentucky black bear begun at the same verse collection of constituents (Decker attractant. Foraging black bears can de- time. The intent was to improve under- et al. 1996). Stakeholders with an stroy an apiary, or damage agricultural standing of the concerns, interests, and interest in Kentucky bears and their crops, e.g. by trampling cornfields or behavior of the people living in bear management currently encompass not breaking limbs in apple orchards. Bears habitat, as well as the impact of this only hunters, and wildlife managers may also prey on pets and livestock interaction on the bears themselves in themselves, but also researchers, wild- (Mattson 1990). Residential garbage is the hopes that this information could be life watching recreationists, residential by far the most common attractant lead- used to develop community-sensitive nuisance sufferers, and community ing to nuisance complaints (Spencer wildlife management plans, educational leaders. Knowing what people think et al. 2007). Food left out for pets and outreach strategies, and nuisance bear about wildlife, what they expect from bird feeders are also frequently associ- mitigation techniques.

Annual Research Highlights 2011 45 COMPLETED PROJECTS / Wildlife

Methods to those not known to engage in this visitation at the park, and, where pos- Site Description behavior. We also used these datasets sible, recorded what the bears ate and to calculate mean litter size for collared what they left behind. The primary study area for this female bears and compare these find- project was the Tri-Cities region, com- ings to data collected in other states. prising the cities of Cumberland, Ben- We used SAS (SAS Institute, Cary NC) Participant observation ham, and Lynch, total population of for all statistical analyses. Differences 4,100 people, located along Highway were considered significant at the P < Participant observation is a tech- 119, which runs alongside Pine Moun- 0.05 level. nique, more commonly used in anthro- tain in Harlan County. Cumberland We also examined 56 nuisance re- pology and sociology, where research- is officially “the Black Bear Capital ports that were filed with KDFWR offi- ers improve their understanding of a of Kentucky” and includes Kingdom cials within the study area and provided situation by observing people’s behav- Come State Park (KCSP). Bears are to UK as well as eight additional cases ior and participating in related activi- seen regularly in the area, especially of nuisance activity identified on site. ties. It helps researchers understand the within the park, often feeding on gar- The reports were collected opportunis- perspectives of the people being stud- bage and handouts left for them by tically as they were made available and ied (Mack et al. 2005) and uncovers park visitors. The presence of bears has do not represent the total number of previously unknown factors that could dramatically increased park attendance reports filed by nuisance complainants have an impact on the research ques- and hundreds of people come to KCSP with KDFWR during that period. tions (Gans 1999); the more cryptic the in the hopes of seeing a black bear. behavior of interest, the more important We observed bears and con- this becomes. It is the best way to study ducted interviews in the Tri-Cities and Bear observation illegal or taboo behavior that would be throughout Harlan County, as well as impossible to examine via a survey or the eastern portion of Letcher County. Using witness reports and radio- other method. In this project, partici- Data from bear trapping efforts in telemetry, we periodically located and pant observation was integrated into neighboring Bell and Pike Counties monitored the behavior of nuisance the larger project as researchers spent were included in this analysis as well. bears from June through October each time in the community, engaging with year of the study. We obtained approxi- other people while observing bears, and mate locations of collared bears by assisting with bear-related projects and Database aerial telemetry (see Eastridge 2000), events. but as the error rate for radiolocations This project utilized informa- obtained in this manner can exceed tion on bears gathered from trapping 1500 m (Eastridge and Clark 2001), we Interviews records and notes as well as from a used this information only as a general database created by KDFWR and pro- guideline for where to begin the search We conducted both formal and vided to UK, which detailed relevant for a bear on the ground. We located informal interviews with a variety of bear handling events between 2002 and bears from the ground both by trian- people involved with bears and bear- 2006 including first captures, repeat gulating on their collar’s signal and by related issues in the region. Interview- captures, den visits, and mortalities. At pinpointing the direction of the loudest ees were selected as representatives of each handling event, bears were rated signal (Springer 1979). eight stakeholder groups, each of which as being in poor, fair, good, or excel- Between June 1 and September 1 was identified as having some vested lent condition based on observation of in 2004, 2005, and 2006 we conducted interest in black bears in Kentucky their body fat and overall appearance. behavioral observations of marked and and KDFWR’s management of them. For this analysis we condensed the unmarked bears at KCSP as well as at The stakeholder groups included: Bear condition categories into poor/fair and private residences two to three nights oriented wildlife watchers, KCSP park good/excellent in order to minimize is- per week. We observed bears engaged staff, people involved with local tour- sues of rating subjectivity. in nuisance activities and documented ism, residential nuisance bear com- These data formed the basis of characteristics of behavior including: plainants, commercial nuisance bear our analyses of bear demographics the time of approach, proximity to peo- complainants, government officials, and condition across capture areas, ple and to other known bears, vigilance people involved with coal mining, and and allowed us to compare bears with behavior, and reactions to human inter- anti-bear residents (with no other affili- known anthropogenic feeding behavior ference. We noted frequency of garbage ation).

46 Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Wildlife / COMPLETED PROJECTS

Formal interviews were semi- ≤ 3 years of age when first captured good/excellent at one or more captures structured; we used an interview guide during the study period, and included and 1.9% rated poor/fair across all with a list of topics, questions, and 2 cubs, 22 yearlings, and 47 subadults captures. In contrast, 40% of bears follow-up probes. The interview cov- (bears aged 2-3 years). Only 21 bears with unknown anthropogenic feeding ered topics such as personal experience were classified as adults at first capture histories were rated as good/excellent with black bears, knowledge of their and 8 of these were estimates, uncon- at one or more captures and 60% were behavior and natural history, opinions firmed by tooth analysis. At the other rated as poor/fair across all captures. about the management of bears in Ken- end of the spectrum, 8 bears reached We examined 66 cases of nuisance tucky, the availability of information the age of 8 years or older during the activity of which 16 pertained to com- about them, and reactions to several hy- study period. Of these, 5 were female mercial or public sites, though two sites pothetical management scenarios. The and 3 were male. There were 3 bears accounted for 11 of the 16 reports. We questioning followed the guide but was for which no age estimate was re- received three reports of agricultural open-ended and participants were free corded. damage. The remaining 46 cases of to raise topics not covered by the guide. Fifty-eight (61.7%) of the bears reported nuisance activity were residen- We collected 42 interviews for in- were confirmed to use anthropogenic tial. All complaints were categorized depth analysis, including 32 taped and food sources, as established by a nui- by the type of damage experienced or 10 untaped. All taped interviews were sance capture history and/or personal attractant involved: garbage, pet food, later transcribed verbatim. Follow- observation. The feeding habits of the garden, bee hive, orchard/nursery, live- ing untaped interviews, we took field remaining animals were unknown but stock, bird feeder, and other. notes using a Dictaphone, which were may also have included anthropogenic Garbage-related conflict accounted also transcribed. The transcripts were foods so this percentage is a minimum for the greatest number of complaints entered into the qualitative analysis value. Of the bears known to use an- examined, at 68% of all complaints and software NVivo, which allows for the thropogenic foods, 44 were rated as 61% of residential problems. Due to the importation of both text and images. good or excellent at all captures; 7 historic absence of bears, garbage han- This information was then coded, al- were rated as poor/fair at one capture dling in the area was not designed to be lowing the researcher to explore trends but good/excellent subsequently; 1 was resistant to wildlife. At the inception of and relationships. We analyzed the rated as poor/fair at her only capture; most issues, garbage was freely acces- data using open coding in which text is and 6 were not rated. Of the 33 bears sible to the bears. Anthropogenic food examined line by line to find recurrent for which anthropogenic feeding was was integral to the KCSP bear watching and significant categories (Strauss and unknown, 25 received condition rat- situation. Although there are variably Corbin 1990). ings; 15 were rated as poor/fair at all occurring natural foods such as black- captures and 10 as good/excellent. Of berries and acorns within the park, with Results this latter group, 4 were suspected of one exception, observed bear visitation There were a total of 94 different nuisance feeding based on telemetry was a result of access to garbage, pic- bears (excluding newborn cubs) pro- locations and 3 were one-time handling nics, and associated handouts. cessed during 167 handling events be- events of mortalities for which feed- Data and observations from this tween 2002 and 2006 described in the ing behavior could not be assessed. We study indicated that females who used KDFWR database and in data gathered used a chi-square and Fisher’s exact the park had larger than average lit- during this study. There were 32 mor- test to compare the condition of bears ters and reproduced at a younger than talities processed, all of which appeared known to consume anthropogenic foods average age which is consistent with to be human-caused, including bears and those for which feeding behavior anthropogenic feeding bears studied struck by vehicles, bears euthanized be- was unknown. Even though the bears elsewhere (Rogers 1976; Beckmann cause of recurrent nuisance activity and suspected of anthropogenic feeding and and Berger 2003). However, long-term associated safety concerns, bears killed the one-time mortality handling bears data about the survival and recruitment illegally, and marked Kentucky bears were included in the unknown feeding success of bears using the park was not killed legally during hunting season in habits group, statistical analysis con- available and at least some food condi- Virginia. firmed that the rated conditions of the tioned bears died and/or were relocated Of the 94 individuals, 74 were two groups were still significantly dif- as a result of their use of anthropogenic male, 17 were female, and 3 were of ferent (χ2 = 35.56 , d.f. = 2, P < 0.0001) food, so the benefits of anthropogenic unknown gender. There were 84 bears (Fisher’s exact test P < 0.0001). food usage were not unequivocal. whose age could be confirmed with rea- Overall, 87.9% of confirmed an- People experiencing recurrent bear sonable certainty, of these 84.5% were thropogenic feeding bears were rated visitation were divided into three cat-

Annual Research Highlights 2011 47 COMPLETED PROJECTS / Wildlife

egories: 1) people who were intention- ally (even if passively) provisioning bears so that they could see them; 2) people who were intolerant of bears generally, or became so after initially tolerating them, but who were not altering their behavior sufficiently to reduce visitation; and 3) people who immediately removed attractants but continued having problems because of neighbors and area attractants over which they had no control. Regardless of their ultimate level of tolerance and/ or risk perception, the primary reaction of those interviewed following their initial bear nuisance experience was fear. Concern for children was a common theme, followed by personal safe- Nuisance bear activity / Jeremy Williams ty, and concern about pets or livestock. Many of the residents interviewed of the nuisance bears from their prop- that while anthropogenic feeding bears initially saw bear visitation as a nov- erty and relocation to some other area may have greater cub production than elty and were intrigued with the bears. far away from human habitation. Few non-anthropogenic feeding females They did nothing to discourage their showed any desire for the bear to be (Rogers 1989), their overall cub sur- presence, instead watching and photo- harmed; they simply wanted it removed vival is lower (Beckmann and Lackey graphing the bears in a similar manner and the problem resolved. Many bears 2008). Bears that use anthropogenic to those who observe birds at backyard were indeed relocated by KDFWR but foods often have negative popula- feeders. In four cases, opportunistic this management strategy proved inef- tion growth, and regions where this scavenging evolved into intentional fective and problematic as relocated behavior is widespread may represent feeding as dog food or other treats bears either returned, were killed while a population sink, only maintained by were left out specifically for bears. trying to return, or initiated nuisance immigration from outside (Beckmann A majority of participants ap- activities elsewhere. and Lackey 2008). Like anthropogenic peared at least initially interested in feeding bears studied elsewhere, the fe- and sympathetic to bears and for each Discussion male bears studied thus far in Kentucky perceived “nuisance bear” that gener- A majority of the Kentucky bears have produced larger than average lit- ated complaints, there were typically studied, and on which current knowl- ters and several have had a very early other people in the same vicinity who edge is based, appear to be using an- first age of reproduction. However, the did not find the bear behavior problem- thropogenic foods at least some of the survival rate of these cubs is unknown. atic or at least not at first. However, time. If these bears are representative Long term studies of individual animals many residents eventually became of the larger Kentucky black bear popu- are needed to explore these issues in disenchanted, especially if they expe- lation, as is likely given the widespread Kentucky. rienced property damage. The tipping availability of these resources, then a All known mortality of adult point for those that moved from toler- majority of black bears in Kentucky black bears in Kentucky appears to be ant to intolerant was typically when consume anthropogenic foods. The human-caused, which is typical of stud- bear visitation increased so that resi- behavior and appearance of bears cap- ies throughout the U.S. (Rogers 1987; dents were picking up trash >2 times tured elsewhere in the state are consis- Hellgren and Vaughan 1989; Costello per week. At that level of visitation, tent with this conclusion. This has im- et al. 2001). Both poaching and ve- tolerance decreased markedly and a portant ramifications because the use of hicle collisions are significant sources majority of people wanted the problem human-derived food sources has been of mortality for this small population. resolved. repeatedly demonstrated to affect bear These factors may also be related to an- The preferred alternative for the biology, ecology, and behavior, though thropogenic feeding if nuisance activity majority of people suffering from re- the exact impact varies. results in illegal kills, food conditioned current bear visitation was the removal Research in other regions indicates bears being euthanized, or the reloca-

48 Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Wildlife / COMPLETED PROJECTS

tion of bears which are subsequently hit food resource will be discovered subse- where owners can afford to provide by cars. Bears that became habituated quently by other bears. Even in the case bear-resistant dumpsters they should be to humans and food conditioned as a of coal mine bears, if the mine is dis- required to do so. Although residents result of feeding at coal mines suffered covered by another bear, which is then and workers at these sites often inten- almost 100% mortality by the time they habituated in a similar fashion, area tionally provision bears, their opportu- were 2 years old. nuisance problems will continue. nities for close contact and subsequent At this time, bear related tourism The only mitigation measure that bear habituation would be greatly di- in Kentucky depends heavily on the ac- had any discernable impact at reducing minished if access to the initial attrac- cessibility of anthropogenic foods. Peo- nuisance bear visitation was the effec- tant were removed. ple who supported non-natural feeding tive removal of attractants. However, as Hazing by either KDFWR or local of bears or were opposed to bear- discussed above, the impact of anthro- police is too sporadic to be effective. proofing existing garbage cans offered pogenic food removal is multifaceted, An alternative approach would be to two primary reasons: 1) they enjoyed and incomplete removal is likely to provide nuisance complainants with seeing the bears and realized that with- exacerbate existing problems rather capsaicin (pepper) spray and instruc- out these anthropogenic attractants and than relieve them. Anthropogenic food tions on how to haze a bear themselves. food conditioned/habituated animals, sources likely represent an important Capsaicin spray may be a more ef- those opportunities would be severely resource for foraging bears, especially fective deterrent than other hazing limited; 2) they believed that without following the total loss of many stable techniques because it can be used by the supplemental feeding the welfare, food sources such as American chest- home owners and therefore applied as a reproductive success, and survival of nuts, they may also compensate for negative reinforcer more frequently and the bears would suffer. Consequently, episodic shortages of natural foods consistently than aversives that require none of the arguments commonly of- when they occur (Mattson 1990). Over wildlife manager participation. In ad- fered to discourage non-natural food the long term any type of supplementa- dition, the conditions under which the provisioning resonated with these resi- tion may allow population growth and bear is sprayed more closely resemble dents or changed their behavior. individual bear size beyond what the the conditions in which the bear engag- Most management strategies for environment could support naturally es in nuisance activity troubling to the problem bears during this study were (Stringham 1986; Robbins et al. 2004). residents, without the addition of ex- ineffective, in large part because of the If bears experience a sudden and dra- traneous cues, such as certain vehicles widespread and continued availability matic loss of food availability, both or culvert traps, perceptible to the bear. of anthropogenic foods such as gar- the amount and severity of nuisance Psychologically, giving homeowners bage, as well as food conditioning and activity should be expected to increase some alternative to shooting the bear habituation. Although problems ceased (Ziegltrum 2004) resulting in more may be helpful in promoting a sense of while the attractants were temporarily property damage and bear deaths and control and reducing the number of ille- removed, when residents replaced bird an overall bear population decline. gal kills (Bjerke and Kaltenborn 1999). feeders or went back to storing their Sue Mansfield of the Wildlife Research garbage in an accessible manner, the Management Institute reports good success discour- bears returned, often the same night. recommendations aging nuisance activity and instilling This suggests that bears continued to Monetary and logistical constraints renewed fear of humans when residents patrol the area unseen in search of pos- to bear-proofing were an insurmount- sprayed visiting bears with capsaicin sible food sources. able problem for many residents suf- spray which their group provided (pers. The efficacy of targeted removal of fering unwanted bear visitation. Bear comm. July 2006). This product results problem bears depended in large part resistant garbage receptacles may need in extreme local irritation but no lasting on the nature of the nuisance complaint. to be provided free of charge to people ill-effects (Jenkins and Hayes 1962). The removal of highly habituated coal who want them if nuisance activity is No bear attacks have ever been associ- mine bears, for example, did result in a to be diminished. Where financial prob- ated with the use of this spray and it reduction of area nuisance activity and lems are not the issue, and voluntary does not appear to cause aggression associated complaints. However the bear proofing is rejected, regulatory (Rogers 1984; Herrero and Higgins removal of less habituated bears, for recourse may be required. This ap- 1995). example those feeding at backyard bird proach is not recommended for private Wildlife managers should empha- feeders or on garbage at night, is not landowners as it may precipitate the il- size the manner and attitude of first likely to be effective over the long term legal killing of bears, but in cases such responders to nuisance bear issues as because, although one bear is gone, the as housing developments or coal mines this seems to be a more important de-

Annual Research Highlights 2011 49 COMPLETED PROJECTS / Wildlife

terminant of complainant satisfaction in some manner and substituting a less in Wildlife Restoration Project than actual resolution of the problem. damaging activity for a more damag- W-131-R, New Mexico Department In addition, educational material about ing one may be a more effective means of Game and Fish, Hornocker non-controversial topics such as bear of reducing conflict than trying to Wildlife Institute. biology or natural history may be more convince them not to want to interact effective than “dos and don’ts” lists. with wildlife at all. Similarly, education Decker, D.J. , C.C. Krueger, R.A. Baer Where mitigation suggestions are of- programs are most effective when there Jr., B.A. Knuth, and M.E. Richmond fered, they must be exceedingly clear, is a receptive audience. Investing in an (1996). From clients to stakeholders: with site-specific suggestions for re- education program designed to change A philosophical shift for fish and moving attractants. The cases where the behavior of people who do not see wildlife management. Human responding wildlife officers came up any reason to change their behavior Dimensions of Wildlife 1: 70- 82. with specific and site-based solutions is potentially a waste of money. The were more successful and resulted in funds would be better spent by taking Eastridge, R. (2000). Experimental a higher level of caller satisfaction. a step backward and working to con- Repatriation of Black Bears to the Although sometimes requested by vince people of the need for change or Big South Fork Area of Kentucky homeowners, relocation should be enlisting their assistance in a mutually and Tennessee. Master’s Thesis, considered a last resort as an alterna- beneficial project. University of Tennessee, Knoxville, tive to euthanasia or an immediately There is no solution that will TN. dangerous situation. When relocating, perfectly address the demands of all managers should consider bear demog- stakeholders, but there is certainly the Eastridge, R., and J.D. Clark (2001). raphy and focus on bears least likely potential for common ground if differ- Evaluation of 2 soft-release to return, e.g., young males rather than ent stakeholders are willing to approach techniques to reintroduce black adult females. the situation with an open mind and a bears. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29: KDFWR should consider encour- willingness to collaborate. 1163-1174. aging community-based or collaborative management strategies such as Gans, H.J. (1999). Participant neighborhood watch groups. Where Literature Cited observation in the era of intentional feeding is occurring in Beckmann, J.P., and J. Berger (2003b). “ethnography.” Journal of residential areas, a citizen task force or Using black bears to test ideal-free Contemporary Ethnography 28: 540- neighborhood watch group will likely distribution models experimentally. 548. be more effective in deterring this Journal of Mammalogy 84: 594-606. Hellgren, E.C., and M.R. Vaughan activity than KDFWR or law enforce- (1989). Demographic analysis of a ment personnel who may be believed Beckman, J.P., and C.W. Lackey black bear population in the Great to have a conflicting agenda (Petty and (2008). Carnivores, urban Dismal Swamp. The Journal of Cacioppo, 1979). Similarly, messages landscapes, and longitudinal studies: Wildlife Management 53: 969-977. about bear-related issues should be a case history of black bears. Human- promoted through alternative channels, Wildlife Conflicts 2: 168-174. Herrero, S., and A. Higgins (1995). for example through the newspaper or Field use of capsicum spray as a bear community leaders. It is important that Bjerke, T., and B.P. Kaltenborn (1999). deterrent. Ursus 10: 533-537. messages are relevant to the target au- The relationship of ecocentric and dience and do not run counter to firmly anthropocentric motives to attitudes Hristienko, H., and J.E. McDonald held beliefs. Arguments that point toward large carnivores. Journal of (2007). Going into the 21st century: towards desirable outcomes are more Experimental Psychology 19: 415- a perspective on trends and likely to lead to favorable thoughts 421. controversies in the management of than those pointing to negative out- the American black bear. Ursus 18: comes (Petty et al. 1997). Costello, C.M., D.E. Jones, K.A.G. 72-88. Community leaders and members Hammond, R.M. Inman, K.H. Inman, could occasionally be included in bear B.C. Thompson, R.A. Deitner, and Jenkins, J.H., and F.A. Hayes (1962). trapping and handling experiences to H.B. Quigley (2001). A study of Studies on a useful method for promote ownership over the larger bear black bear ecology in New Mexico repelling dogs and other animals. conservation effort. Many people want with models for population dynamics Animal biol. file: dog repellents. to interact and connect with wildlife and habitat suitability. Federal Aid U.S. Department of Agriculture,

50 Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Wildlife / COMPLETED PROJECTS

Washington, DC. free-ranging black bears to capsaicin spray repellent. Wildlife Society Tope, D., L.J. Chamberlain, M. Mack, N., C. Woodsong, K.M. Bulletin 12: 59-61. Crowley, and R. Hodson (2005). The MacQueen, G. Guest, and E. Namey benefits of being there - evidence (2005). Qualitative Research Rogers, L.L. (1987). Effects of from the literature on work. Journal Methods: A Data Collectorís Field Food Supply and Kinship on of Contemporary Ethnography 34: Guide. Family Health International, Social Behavior, Movements, and 470-493. Research Triangle Park, NC. Population Growth of Black Bears in Northeastern Minnesota. Unger, D.E. (2007). Population Mansfield, S.A. (2007). Effects of Wildlife Monographs No. 97, 3-72. Dynamics, Resource Selection, Supplemental Food on Weights and Rogers, L.L. (1989). Black bears, and Landscape Conservation of a Reproductive Success of Black Bears people, and garbage dumps in Recolonizing Black Bear Population. in Northeastern Minnesota. Master’s Minnesota. International Association Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Thesis, Department of Environmental for Bear Research and Management Kentucky, Lexington, KY. Studies, Antioch University New 8: 43-46. England, Keene, NH. Ziegltrum, G.J. (2004). Efficacy of Rogers, L. (2009). Does diversionary black bear supplemental feeding to Mattson, D.J. (1990). Human impacts feeding create nuisance bears and reduce conifer damage in western on bear habitat use. International jeopardize public safety? [http:// Washington. Journal of Wildlife Conference on Bear Research and www.bearsmart.com/report/417] Management 68: 470-474. Management 8: 33-56. Siemer, W.F., P.S. Hart, D.J. Decker, Funding Source: Pittman-Roberston Petty, R.E., and J.T. Cacioppo (1979). and J.E. Shanahan (2009). Factors (PR) and University of Kentucky Issue-involvement can increase or that influence concern about human- decrease persuasion by enhancing black bear interactions in residential KDFWR Strategic Plan. Goal 1. message-relevant cognitive settings. Human Dimensions of Strategic Objective 5. Comprehen- responses. Journal of Personality Wildlife 14: 185-197. sive Wildlife Conservation Strategy: and Social Psychology 37: 1915- Appendix 3.4. Class Mammalia: 1926. Spencer, R.D., R.A. Beausoleil, and Priority taxa-specific conservation D.A. Martorello (2007). How action #3. Petty, R.E., D.T. Wegener, and L.R. agencies respond to human-black Fabrigar (1997). Attitudes and bear conflicts: a survey of wildlife attitude change. Annual Review of agencies in North America. Ursus Psychology 48: 609-647. 18: 217-229.

Robbins, C.T., C.C. Schwartz, and L.A. Springer, J.T. (1979). Some sources Felicetti (2004). Nutritional ecology of bias and sampling error in radio of ursids: a review of newer methods triangulation. Journal of Wildlife and management implications. Ursus Management 43: 926-935. 15: 161-171. Strauss, A.C., and J.M. Corbin (1990). Rogers, L.L. (1976). Effects of mast Basics of Qualitative Research: and berry crop failures on survival, Grounded Theory Procedures and growth, and reproductive success Techniques. Sage Publications, of black bears. Transactions of the Newbury Park, CA. 41st North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, Stringham, S.F. (1986). Effects of 1976. Published by the Wildlife climate, dump closure, and other Management Institute, Washington, factors on Yellowstone grizzly bear DC. litter size. International Conference on Bear Research and Management Rogers, L.L. (1984). Reactions of 6: 33-39.

Annual Research Highlights 2011 51 COMPLETED PROJECTS / Wildlife

American Woodcock Nocturnal Field Usage During Spring Migration in Central Kentucky

Andy Newman and Charles Elliott, Eastern Kentucky University; John Brunjes, Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources

Introduction The American Woodcock (Scolopax minor) is a small migratory game bird that ranges throughout the eastern United States. The species typically breeds in the northern part of their range and winters in the southeast and Gulf States (Sheldon 1967). The species has suffered long- Woodcock with chick / Andy Newman term declines at a rate of 1.1% per year (Cooper and Parker 2009). ary (Sheldon 1967, Straw et al. 1994). rearing periods (Rabe et al. 1983). Woodcock declines are attributed to Several factors influence departure The nocturnal use of fields by extensive habitat loss on breeding and timing; gonadal recrudescence (Rob- woodcock during winter, spring wintering grounds, as well as along erts 1980, Olinde and Prickett 1991), (breeding), and summer has been well migration routes. Drainage and clear- photoperiod (Coon et al. 1976, Meunier documented (e.g. Mendall and Aldous ing of forested wetlands throughout et al. 2008), moon phase, and weather 1943), though rates of use may vary the woodcock’s range reduces daytime (Krementz et al. 1994). Krementz et al. between season and sex (e.g. Owen and cover and impedes feeding by allowing (1994) concluded there are no sex- or Morgan 1975). Woodcock use fields surrounding soil to harden quickly; thus age- specific constraints upon migra- for the following functions: feeding, becoming inaccessible to the forag- tion initiation. Birds begin arriving on breeding, roosting, predator avoidance, ing woodcock’s bill (Sheldon 1967). northern breeding areas in late March and thermoregulation, with varying Mechanized farming has also played to early April; often experiencing snow patterns based on season (Krohn 1970, a major role in habitat declines in all cover and adverse weather (Sheldon Sheldon 1967, Stribling and Doerr areas inhabited by woodcock. Brooks 1967, Straw et al. 1994). Extreme 1985, Krementz et al. 1995, Berdeen and Birch (1988) suggested changing weather exposure during migration, and Krementz 1998). Birds rarely fly landowner and social attitudes, farm courtship, and nesting can result in greater than >1 km to nocturnal fields abandonment, increased fire suppres- higher metabolic rates, which can lead (Krementz et al. 1995, Berdeen and sion, changing management techniques, to poor body condition and increased Krementz 1998). and increased urbanization have re- mortality (e.g. Mendall and Aldous Field types utilized by woodcock sulted in fewer stands of young growth 1943). Early migration places bioen- during winter include clear cuts, fal- forest vital to nesting woodcock. ergetic strains on birds, yet arrival on low fields, pastures, agriculture, and Woodcock are relatively early breeding grounds at this time generally pine plantations. Glasgow (1958 cited spring migrants with initiation dates be- coincides with increased earthworm in Straw et al. 1994) suggest that a ginning in late January and early Febru- availability during nesting and brood majority of fields used during winter

52 Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Wildlife / COMPLETED PROJECTS

consist of herbaceous or brushy canopy shrubs, distance to water, and age of tral Kentucky at the 747 ha Central (0.5-1m high) with sparse ground vegetation (Kinsley et al. 1982 cited Kentucky Wildlife Management Area cover and enough soil moisture to keep in Straw et al. 1994). Tall vegetation (CKWMA) and the 5,907 ha Bluegrass earthworms in the upper soil strata. surrounding openings may reduce or Army Depot (BGAD). Both sites are Wintering woodcock in Texas exhibited negate certain field usage (Gutzwiller located in Madison County, Kentucky. increased foraging rates in response and Wakeley 1982 cited in Straw et al. The CKWMA is managed by the Ken- to the following habitat variables: in- 1994). Proximity to quality nesting and tucky Department of Fish and Wildlife creased foliage density at 0.25-0.75m, brooding habitat may be vital in the es- Resources and the BGAD is operated increased bare soil, light ground litter, tablishment of singing ground locations by the United States Army. The two soil moisture, and low foliage density (Dwyer et al. 1988). Males stay on study sites are located in the southern at 0.0-0.25m (Boggus and Whiting singing grounds all night, and will dis- edge of the Bluegrass Region in the 1982 cited in Berdeen and Krementz play throughout the night during peak foothills of the Kentucky Knobs (Quar- 1998). In the Georgia Piedmont dur- breeding season if sufficient moonlight terman and Powell 1978). The area ing the winter, Berdeen and Krementz is available (Sheldon 1967). Females is composed of broad flats and gentle (1998) found higher densities of wood- visit singing grounds frequently prior to slopes along wide ridge tops with mod- cock in medium to large-sized seed nesting and sporadically once a nest has erately steep slopes along some drain- tree-clearcuts and fallow-old fields that been initiated (McAuley et al. 1993). ages (Norment 1991). exhibited the following habitat condi- There is relatively little known The CKWMA land cover consists tions: greater foliage volumes at the about habitat preferences, migratory of small deciduous woodlots and thick- 0.8-2.0m strata, more bare soil, and routes, and rates of migration for spring ets interspersed with managed fields. proximity to diurnal habitat. Moderate- migrating woodcock. All studies thus A majority of fields are maintained for ly broken canopies and exposed soil ap- far have focused on fall migration by upland games species through a series pears to allow for ease of walking and investigating band return data (Sheldon of management techniques including foraging by woodcock while enhancing 1967, Krohn et al. 1977, Myatt and herbicide application, strip mowing, predator avoidance, especially from Krementz 2007a) and by determining and prescribed burning. The BGAD owls (Straw et al. 1994). Connors and migration initiation by analyzing radio- land cover consists of 70% pasture, Doerr (1982 cited in Krementz et al. telemetry data (Coon et al. 1976, Sepik 12% bottomland forest, 12% upland 1995) and Horton and Causey (1979) and Derleth 1993, Meunier 2005). forest, and 6% development and open both observed non-random distribution Krementz and Myatt’s (2007b) study water (Jones 2000). The BGAD is of woodcock in fields and noted that of large scale migratory patterns dur- managed for agriculture, wildlife, and birds prefer edges which likely allow ing fall migration suggested woodcock timber harvest. quick movement into dense cover. often select mature stands of upland In northern breeding areas, field forest for stopover sites. Their study usage during the spring is primarily for also suggested that due to the low soil Woodcock Distribution the establishment of woodcock singing moisture of diurnal roosts, woodcock grounds and courtship. Male territories might have been feeding extensively Myatt and Krementz (2007b) re- have been noted in clearcuts, forest during nocturnal periods. This study corded average stopover duration of openings, gravel pits, roads, pastures, represents the first investigation of woodcock during fall migration to be 4 agricultural fields, lawns, and fallow habitat use by woodcock during spring days, so I searched individual fields for fields (Mendall and Aldous 1943, Shel- migration in Kentucky. There have woodcock every 3 to 4 days. To search don 1967, Straw et al. 1994). Field been only three woodcock studies for roosting woodcock, crews of two sizes exhibit great variability during conducted in Kentucky, which mainly or three people drove ATVs in study spring with single males using open- focused on nesting (Russell 1959, Abel fields at night and used a spotlight (Q- ings as small as <10m in width (Straw and Ritchison 1999, Harris et al. 2009). beam, 500,000 candle power). Roost- et al. 1994). Gutzwiller et al. (1983) The purpose of this study was to inves- ing woodcock were considered any speculated that structural rather than tigate spring nocturnal habitat prefer- bird that selected a field to carry out compositional vegetation features ences used by migratory woodcock in basic biological needs, e.g. foraging, dictate singing ground site selection. central Kentucky resting, reproduction. Woodcock roost Potential vegetation structural com- sites were flagged with surveyors tape ponents determining singing ground Methods and Materials and the location was determined us- selection may include: amount of litter Study Area ing a global positioning system (GPS) cover, density of small and large woody This study was conducted in cen- unit. Flushed birds were followed

Annual Research Highlights 2011 53 COMPLETED PROJECTS / Wildlife

and resulting location noted to prevent were not measured at BGAD due to lo- measurement. Akaike Information recounting individuals. If possible, gistical constraints related to access. Criterion (Akaike 1974) values (herein woodcock were captured with a fish net Data Analysis AIC) were used to determine a best fit (hoop diameter >1m and handle >3m). Soil moisture on the bill was used model(s). Lower AIC values indicate Captured birds were sexed and aged via to approximate the percentage of wood- a model of better fit than higher ones. morphological characteristics [i.e. wing cock that were actively feeding; i.e., The final models of the logistic regres- chord, bill length, body weight (Sepik earthworm biomass increases in upper sion and multiple linear regression were 1994)], banded with U.S. Fish and soil strata during nocturnal periods compared to identify consistent patterns Wildlife Service bands. Stribling and (Duriez et al. 2006). Dominant plant between the models. Doerr (1985) suggest that moist soil on species at roost sites and escape cover the bill is an indicator of soil probing sites were used to determine species Results and foraging, so I recorded the pres- associated with nocturnal habitat. Dif- During the 2010 field season, a to- ence or absence of moist soil on the bill ferences in habitat preferences between tal of 254 woodcock were flushed from of each captured bird. sex and age classes were analyzed us- field sites. Seventy-three woodcock Habitat Conditions ing the two-sample t-test. were captured, sexed, aged, and pres- A series of landscape and vegeta- All statistical modeling was gener- ence of moist soil on the bill noted. Of tion characteristics were assessed at ated by R Project version 2.13.1 (R De- the 73 birds captured, 40 were males each woodcock roost site. The fol- velopment Core Team 2008). To test (18 after second-year birds, 20 second- lowing landscape measurements were for differences in habitat characteristics year, and 2 of unknown age) and 30 determined for each field: habitat type, between individual used roost sites and female (16 after second-year, 12 second field size, and soil type. I used AR- random unused sites, I used step-wise year, and 2 of unknown age). Three CVIEW GIS version 9.3 (ESRI 2008) logistic regression to model presence birds were recorded as unknown sex to determine distance from roost site to (roost)/ absence (random) data. A and age. Moist soil on the bill was field edge. Vegetation characteristics logistic regression built on a binary present on 42 out of 65 (64%) birds measured at roost sites included ocular system assigns variables a given value examined for this attribute. The first percent cover using a PVC 1m2 plot of 0 or 1; an event happened or did not woodcock observed was on February [cover categories= bare soil, grass/ (in this analysis a 0 was assigned for 21, 2010; with peak numbers recorded graminoids, forbs, woody (shrub/sap- woodcock absent from a point and 1 for the second week of March 2010. Dur- ling/vine), and litter], litter depth mea- presence of woodcock at a point). A ing the 2011 field season a total of 115 sured at the center of the plot, dominant logistic curve is built from presence/ab- woodcock were flushed. No age or sex plant height (based on dominant species sence data and the model allows for the data was collected in 2011 due to unfa- in plot), dominant plant species in plot, prediction that the point should have vorable weather conditions for trapping and distance to escape cover. Percent a roosting woodcock present. Roost/ (i.e. full moon). vertical cover (visual obstruction) was random point data from 2011 were used A total of 211 woodcock roost determined using a Robel pole [divided to test the model. These points allowed locations and 136 random locations into heights of 0-20cm, 20-50cm, 50- for the testing of the accuracy of the re- were assessed for landscape and veg- 100cm, and 100-150cm (Toledo et al. sulting prediction model and number of etation characteristics during the 2010 2008)] placed 1m into escape cover at correct/incorrect predictions recorded. field season. A total of 115 woodcock the closest perpendicular distance from The strength of the model was gauged roost sites were assessed for vegetation the center of roost plot. Escape cover by its ability to correctly predict pres- characteristics during 2011. Random was defined as any vegetation that of- ence/absence of 2011 collection data. locations were not assessed in 2011 due fered sufficient vertical and horizontal To explain relative woodcock to limited amount of field time avail- cover to conceal a woodcock. Domi- densities, I used multiple linear regres- able. Fescue (Festuca sp.) exhibited nant plant species, determined by per- sion to explain the variation in density the highest percent occurrence (62%) at cent aerial coverage, were recorded at (response variable) among study fields roost sites; while blackberry (39%) ex- escape cover locations. Random plots using habitat variables (explanatory hibited the highest percent occurrence (n = 136) were established in study variables) collected from the same at escape cover sites. Of the wood- fields at CKWMA using ARCVIEW fields. Relative woodcock densities cock roost sites located in this study GIS’s random point script (ESRI 2008). were determined by summing all wood- (n=254), the majority (63%) occurred The same criterion of vegetation char- cock recorded in each field and divid- on moderately well-drained to well- acteristics for roost plots were used to ing this number by the total area of the drained soils. sample random points. Random points field yielding a woodcock per hectare There was no significant differ-

54 Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Wildlife / COMPLETED PROJECTS

diurnal cover if disturbed. Berdeen and Krementz (1998) documented use of field edge in pastures and hayfields. Any woody vegetation located in the interior of a field was readily used as roosting cover by birds observed in this study. Larger fields have been postu- lated to be attractive to woodcock because they provide more interior area to occupy (Berdeen and Krementz 1998). Woodcock exhibited similar preferences for field interior in this study. The use of field interior may decrease predator encounter rates, as larger fields Banding woodcock / Andy Newman increase a predator’s time and effort in searching for prey items. ence in habitat variables assessed at trations of birds observed in this study Tall herbaceous/woody vegeta- roost sites between woodcock sexes or were located in old fields that had been tion within the interior of a field or age classes. Multiple linear regression managed via strip mowing and spring/ along field edges may provide several analysis indicated the best model for fall burning; whereas hayed and pasture advantages for woodcock utilizing predicting woodcock density per field land were used less frequently. fields at night Overhead horizontal incorporated percent litter at roost site, In this study, woodcock roost- cover likely provides better protection litter depth, distance to escape cover, ing in short vegetation were in close from raptors, specifically owls. Hori- visual obstruction of escape cover from proximity to herbaceous and woody zontal cover may also aid in predator 0-20cm, and visual obstruction of es- cover. Similar to Glasgow (1958 cited avoidance by allowing birds to walk cape cover from 50-100cm. Because in Straw et al. 1994) and Boggus and away from mammalian predators or to of security and access issues no ran- Whiting (1982 cited in Straw et al. avoid detection with their cryptic pat- dom sites were sampled at the BGAD 1994), I found the tall herbaceous and tern. Vegetation capable of reducing study area; hence, only roost sites at woody vegetation around roost sites the influence of wind may provide a the CKWMA were used in the logistic exhibited lower foliage densities from microclimate which enhances the abil- regression model. Logistic regression 0-20cm and much denser vegetation in ity of woodcock to conserve energy on analysis indicated the best predicators the upper strata (>20cm). The sparse cold nights. In absence of herbaceous/ of woodcock presence were percent vegetation from 0-20cm probably al- woody vegetation, such as in pastures bare, grass, graminoids and woody veg- lows for ease of mobility underneath a and hayed fields, bunch grasses (i.e., etation, litter depth, dominant height of dense canopy. Berdeen and Krementz Andropogon spp., Schizachyrium spp. vegetation at the roost site, distance to (1998) noted the importance of the and Sorghastrum spp.) can provide hor- escape cover, visual obstruction of es- structure of vegetation between 1 to 2m izontal and vertical cover. Cool-season, cape cover from 0-20cm, and distance in determining the use of fields at night sod-forming grasses do not exhibit the to field edge. The logistic regression by woodcock. Similarly, I found roost same structural characteristics as bunch based on 2010 data correctly predicted sites were generally located in close grasses, and so woodcock will probably 111 of 115 (96.5%) roost sites from the proximity to woody and herbaceous avoid this habitat type. 2011 field season. vegetation that provided a degree of Several woodcock in this study cover for woodcock. where observed in dense stands of Discussion I found a majority of birds located blackberry and saplings during diurnal American woodcock migrating in the center of old fields; with birds periods. Abel and Ritchison (1999) through central Kentucky during spring only utilizing edges if fields contained noted woodcock nesting in dense sap- roosted in fields that exhibited specific short (<4 in), mowed grass. Connors ling thickets in old-field habitat at the vegetative and habitat characteristics. and Doerr (1982 cited in Krementz CKWMA. While nests in northern Woodcock density increased in fields et al. 1995) and Horton and Causey breeding areas are often located in exhibiting woody/ herbaceous species (1979) observed woodcock in close dense, hardwood cover (Mendall and interspersed with patches of lightly proximity to field edge, speculating Aldous 1943), woodcock exhibit a wide vegetated areas. The highest concen- birds would rapidly walk or fly into variation in nest site selection (Sheldon

Annual Research Highlights 2011 55 COMPLETED PROJECTS / Wildlife

1967). Olinde (2000) observed in- temperatures, and reproductive effort areas. Strip mowing would provide creased gonadal recrudescence by mid- (Rabe et al. 1983). Vander Haegen roost areas while the un-mowed por- to late- February, and increased nesting (1992 cited in Vander Haegen et al. tions could serve as escape cover. along migratory routes during warm 1994) observed female woodcock be- Short-duration grazing could be used to springs. In this study, old fields were came active in both diurnal and noctur- thin out thick stands of grass and create readily used by migrating woodcock nal periods, apparently in an attempt to openings for feeding. Implementing as nocturnal roosting habitat; however, build up nutrient reserves required for these management practices in fields these same areas may also be utilized nesting. Due to their larger body size, near undisturbed areas would provide as diurnal and nesting habitat. females are more capable of withstand- woodcock access to woody vegetation While soils noted at woodcock ing sub-zero temperatures and low and the vertical and horizontal cover roost sites in this study varied in terms food abundance (Gregg 1984 cited in needed for predator avoidance. Since of drainage classification, most soils Longcore et al. 2000). Yet, use of lipid woodcock rarely fly long distances to consisted of a silt loam composition. reserves by females to cope with these nocturnal habitat, field management ef- Hendrix et al. (1998) and Guild (1951 hardships often delayed nesting by 3-4 forts should be focused on larger fields in Edwards and Bohlen 1996) suggest weeks (Vander Haegen et al. 1993). within 300m of appropriate diurnal the type and structure of soil influences Additional lipid reserves acquired dur- habitat. Management efforts focused in earthworm abundance, with loams ing spring migration could help off-set central and northern Kentucky would and silt soils often-exhibiting higher adverse weather on breeding grounds be beneficial to woodcock that migrate concentrations of earthworms. Smith and increase reproductive fitness. The across the predominately agricultural et al. (2008) found higher numbers of combination of short vegetation, shal- areas of western Ohio and Indiana earthworms in old fields than in dis- low litter, and favorable soils for high where appropriate habitat is currently turbed agricultural areas. Stribling and earthworm abundance appear to be scarce (Myatt and Krementz 2007b). Doerr (1985) suggested the presence of factors influencing nocturnal roost se- residual litter may increase earthworm lection by woodcock migrating through Literature Cited populations by providing organic for- Kentucky in the spring. Akaike, H. 1974. A new look at the age and favorable microclimates during statistical model identification. periods of freezing temperatures. In Management IEEE Transactions on Automatic this study, I noted the presence of moist Recommendations Control 19:716-723. soil on the bills of roosting woodcock Although two very different birds as an indicator of foraging during in aspects of their natural history, some Abel, V.J. and G. Ritchison. 1999. spring migration. Sixty-four percent of of the management approaches useful Nest and roost site selection by woodcock captured exhibited moist soil for maintaining or enhancing habitat American woodcock in central on their bills. In North Carolina, Strib- used by migrating American wood- Kentucky. Journal of the Kentucky ling and Doerr (1985) noted that 12 of cock in Kentucky are very similar to Academy of Science 60: 31-36. 14 woodcock that exhibited moist soil the techniques proposed for managing on their bills had earthworms in their bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus) Berdeen, J.G. and D.G. Krementz. proventriculus and or stomach. Earth- in the Commonwealth (Morgan and 1998. The use of fields at night by worm availability increases in the up- Robinson 2008). The maintenance of wintering American Woodcock. per soil strata during nocturnal periods, fields interspersed with plant commu- Journal of Wildlife Management 62: especially during periods of low ambi- nities in early-to-mid stages of plant 939-947. ent temperatures (Owen and Galbraith succession appear to be of greatest 1989, Duriez et al. 2006). During this value as nocturnal roosting habitat to Brooks, R.T. and T.W. Birch. 1988. study, it appears that a large number woodcock migrating through Kentucky Changes in New England forest of woodcock actively foraged during in the spring. Several management and forest owners: implications for nocturnal periods to coincide with in- practices (e.g., prescribed burning, strip wildlife habitat resources and habitat creased availability of earthworms in mowing, and grazing), can be utilized management. Transactions North the upper soil strata. to create the mosaic of desired plant American Wildlife and Natural Re- While rates of nocturnal feeding assemblages important to woodcock sources Conference 53: 78-87. vary amongst seasons, higher rates and quail. Prescribed burning in the of feeding are required during spring spring can benefit woodcock by remov- Coon, R.A., P.D. Caldwell, and G.L. due to increased basal metabolic rates ing excess litter. This would allow for Storm. 1976. Some characteristics resulting from migration, low ambient greater access to feeding and courtship of fall migration of female wood-

56 Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Wildlife / COMPLETED PROJECTS

cock. Journal of Wildlife Manage- 70:141-144. Longcore, J.R., D.G McAuley, G.F. ment 40:91-95. Sepik, and G.W. Pendleton. 2000. Hendrix, P.F., A.C. Peterson, M.H. Survival of female American wood- Cooper, T.R. and K. Parker. 2009. Beare, and D.C. Coleman. 1998. cock breeding in Maine. Pages 65- American Woodcock Population Long-term effects of earthworms on 76 in D.G. McAuley, J.G. Bruggink, Status, 2009. U.S. Fish and Wildlife microbial biomass nitrogen in coarse and G.F. Sepik, eds. Proceedings Service, Laurel, Maryland. 15pp. and fine textured soils. Applied Soil of the Ninth American Woodcock Ecology 9: 375-380. Symposium. USGS, Biological Duriez, O., Y. Ferrand, and F. Binet. Resources Division Information and An adapted method for sampling Horton, G.I. and M.K. Causey. 1979. Technology Report USGS/ITR-2000- earthworms at night in wildlife stud- Woodcock movements and habitat 2009. ies. Journal of Wildlife Manage- utilization in central Alabama. Jour- ment. 70:852-858. nal of Wildlife Management 43: McAuley, D.G., J.R. Longcore, and 414-420. G.F. Sepik. 1993. Behavior of Dwyer, T.J. G.F. Sepik, E.L. Derleth, radio-marked breeding American and D.G. McAuley. 1988. Demo- Jones, R.L. 2000. Inventory of the woodcock. Pages 116-125 in J.R. graphic characteristics of a Maine flora, vegetation, and terrestrial ver- Longcore and G.F. Sepik, eds. Pro- woodcock population and effects of tebrates of the Lexington-Blue Grass ceedings of the Eighth American habitat management. U.S. Fish and Army Depot at Richmond, Kentucky. Woodcock Symposium. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fish and Wildlife Land Manager’s Office, Blue Grass Wildlife Service Biological Report Report 4. 29pp. Army Depot, Richmond, KY. 16. Washington, D.C.

Edwards, C.A. and P.J. Bohlen. 1996. King, S.L. and B.D. Keeland. 1999. Mendall, H.L. and C.M. Aldous. 1943. Biology and Ecology of Earthworms, Evaluation of reforestation in the The Ecology and Management of the 3rd ed. St. Edmundsbury Press, Bury Lower Mississippi River Alluvial American Woodcock. Maine Cooper- St. Edmunds, Suffolk, England. Valley. Restoration Ecology 7(4): ative Wildlife Research Unit, Orono, 348-359. ME. 201pp. Edwards, T. 2010. Personal Com- munication. Public-land biologist, Krementz, D.G., J.T. Seginak, and Meunier, J. 2005. Fall migration chro- Kentucky Dept. Fish and Wildlife G.W. Pendleton. 1994. Winter nology and habitat use of the Ameri- Resources, #1 Sportsman’s Lane, movements and spring migration of can woodcock in the western great Frankfort, KY. American woodcock along the Atlan- lakes region. M.S. thesis, University tic coast. The Wilson Bulletin 106: of Wisconsin-Madison. 128pp. Environmental Systems Research Insti- 482-493. tute. 2008. ARCVIEW GIS Version Meunier, J., R. Song, R.S. Lutz, 9.3. Redlands, California, USA. Krementz, D.G., J.T. Seginak, and D.E. Andersen, K.E. Doherty, J.G. G.W. Pendleton. 1995. Habitat Brunggink, and E. Oppelt. 2008. Gutzwiller, K.J., K.R. Kinsley, G.L. use at night by wintering Ameri- Proximate cues for a short-distance Storm, W.M. Tzilkowski, and J.S. can woodcock in coastal Georgia migratory species: an application of Wakeley. 1983. Relative value of and Virginia. The Wilson Bulletin survival analysis. Journal of Wildlife vegetation structure and species com- 107:686-697. Management 72: 440-448. position for identifying American woodcock breeding habitat. Journal Krohn, W.B. 1970. Woodcock feeding Morgan, J.J., and B.A. Robinson. 2008. of Wildlife Management 47: 535- habits as related to summer field us- Road to Recovery: The Blueprint for 540. age in central Maine. The Journal of Restoring the Northern Bobwhite Wildlife Management 34:769-775. to Kentucky. Kentucky Department Harris, D., C. Elliott, R. Frederick, and of Fish and Wildlife Resources, #1 T. Edwards. 2009. Habitat charac- Krohn, W.B., J.C. Fieffenberger, and Sportsman’s Lane, Frankfort, KY. teristics associated with American F. Ferrigno. 1977. Fall migration of 33pp. Woodcock (Scolopax minor Gmelin) woodcock at Cape May, New Jersey. nest in Central Kentucky. Journal of Journal of Wildlife Management Myatt, N.A. and D.G. Krementz. the Kentucky Academy of Sciences 41:104-111. 2007a. American woodcock fall

Annual Research Highlights 2011 57 COMPLETED PROJECTS / Wildlife

migration using central region band- ington, D.C. International Association of Fish and recovery and wing-collection survey Wildlife Agencies, Washington, D.C. data. Journal of Wildlife Manage- R Development Core Team. 2011. R ment 71: 336-344. Project version 2.13.1. Vienna, Aus- Stribling, H.L. and P.D. Doerr. 1985. tria. URL http://www.R-project.org. Nocturnal use of fields by American Myatt, N.A. and D.G. Krementz. woodcock. Journal of Wildlife Man- 2007b. Fall migration and habitat Rabe, D.L., H.H. Prince, and E.D. agement 49:485-491. use of American woodcock in the Goodman. 1983. The effect of central United States. Journal of weather on bioenergetics of breeding Toledo, D., L.B. Abbott, and J.E. Her- Wildlife Management 71:1197-1205. American woodcock. The Journal of rick. 2008. Cover pole design for Wildlife Management 47:762-771. easy transport, assembly, and field Norment, J.L. 1991. Home range dy- use. Journal of Wildlife Manage- namics, habitat use, and resting and Russell, D. 1959. Woodcock and Wil- ment 72:564-567. denning habits of raccoons (Procyon son’s snipe studies in Kentucky. P-R loctor) in central Kentucky M.S. Proj. W-31-R. Kentucky Dept. of Vander Haegen, W.M., W.B. Krohn, Thesis, Eastern Kentucky University, Fish and Wildlife Res., Frankfort. and R.B. Owen, Jr. 1993. Effects Richmond. 156pp. of weather on earthworm abun- Sepik, G.F. and E.L. Derleth. 1993. dance and foods of the American Olinde, M.W. and T.E. Prickett. 1991. Premigratory dispersal and fall mi- woodcock in spring. Pages 26-31 in Gonadal characteristics of February- gration of American woodcock in J.R. Longcore and G.F. Sepik, eds. harvested woodcock in Louisiana. Maine. Pages 36-40 in J.R. Longcore Proceedings of the Eighth American Wildlife Society Bulletin 19:465- and G.F. Sepik, eds. Proceedings Woodcock Symposium. Fish and 469. of the Eighth American Woodcock Wildlife Service Biological Report Symposium. Fish and Wildlife Ser- 16. Washington, D.C. Olinde, M.W. 2000. Gonadal condi- vice Biological Report 16. Washing- tion of American woodcock har- ton, D.C. Vander Haegen, W.M., R.B. Owen, Jr. vested in Louisiana during the 1986- and W.B. Krohn. 1994. Metabolic 1988 hunting season. Pages 84-89 in Sepik, G.F. 1994. A Woodcock in rate of American woodcock. The D.G. McAuley, J.G. Bruggink, and Hand: Tips for Examining, Aging, Wilson Bulletin 106: 338-343. G.F. Sepik, eds. Proceedings of the and Sexing American Woodcock. Ninth American Woodcock Sympo- Ruffed Grouse Society, Coraopolis. Funding Source: State Wildlife Grant sium. USGS, Biological Resources 12pp. (SWG) and Eastern Kentucky Univer- Division Information and Technol- sity ogy Report USGS/ITR-2000-2009. Sheldon, W.G. 1967. The Book of the American Woodcock. University of KDFWR Strategic Plan. Goal 1. Owen, R.B., Jr. and W.J. Galbrath. Massachusetts Press, Amherst. 227 Strategic Objective 5. Comprehen- 1989. Earthworm biomass in rela- pp. sive Wildlife Conservation Strategy: tion to forest types, soil, and land Appendix 3.2. Class Aves. Priority use: implications for woodcock man- Smith, R.G., C.P. McSwiney, A.S. Survey Project #3. agement. Wildlife Society Bulletin Grandy, P. Suwanwaree, R.M. Snid- 17: 130-136. er, and G.P. Robertson. 2008. Di- versity and abundance of earthworms Owen, R.B., Jr., and J.W. Morgan. across an agricultural land-use At a Glance 1975. Summer behavior of radio- intensity gradient. Soil and Tillage American woodcock will equipped woodcock in central Research 100: 83-88. Maine. Journal of Wildlife Manage- benefit from a habitat matrix ment 39:179-182. Straw, J.A.,Jr., D.G. Krementz, M.W. including open areas for Olinde, and G.F. Sepik. 1994. Ameri- courtship (utilize prescribed Quarterman, E. and R.L. Powell. 1978. can Woodcock. Pages 97-114 in fire), and woody vegetation Potential biological/geological natu- T.C. Tacha and C.E. Braun, editors. for escape cover (leave some ral landmarks on the interior low Migratory Shore and Upland Game unmowed/unburned areas) plateaus. U.S. Dept. Interior, Wash- Bird Management in North America.

58 Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Wildlife / COMPLETED PROJECTS

Quail and Grassland Bird Response to Production Stands of Native Warm Season Grasses

Andrew West, Patrick Keyser aged as biofuel feedstock, seed, and and remained undisturbed during the and David Buehler, University forage (grazing and haying) production. course of the study and served as a con- Specifically, we assessed how species trol (CONTROL). CONTROL were of Tennessee; John Morgan, abundance, total abundance, species predominately planted in a mixture of Kentucky Department of Fish richness, and diversity for grassland big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii), and Wildlife Resources; Roger birds during the breeding season were indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans), and Applegate, Tennessee Wildlife affected by these management prac- little bluestem (Schizachyrium sco- Resource Agency tices. We also examined how vegeta- parium). MCMINN included switch- tion composition and structure differed grass (Panicum virgatum) being grown among these same production practices as a biofuel feedstock (BIOFUEL) and and how these vegetation patterns influ- hay fields (HAY) planted in a mixture enced avian community metrics. of big bluestem, indiangrass, and/or switchgrass. We examined fields being Introduction Study Area managed for commercial NWSG seed Grassland bird populations have Study sites included McMinn and production (SEED) including, big blue- declined more than any other guild surrounding counties (MCMINN), stem, indiangrass, and little bluestem, of birds in the United States due to in southeastern Tennessee and Hart at HART. MONROE featured eastern the loss of grassland habitat (Johnson (HART) and Monroe Counties (MON- gamagrass (Tripsacum dactyloides) that and Igl 2001, Peterjohn 2003). The ROE), both in south-central Kentucky. was hayed (HAY) or grazed (GRAZE). area enrolled in the Conservation All three sites had unmanaged NWSG To minimize any biases associated with Reserve Program (CRP; 1.15 mil- fields that were in CRP, or the Con- area-sensitive species, we constrained lion ha or 1% of landscape) within servation Reserve Enhancement Pro- our sample to 2–12 ha fields. HAY the southeastern USA is limited, and gram (CREP), or managed similarly fields were harvested during June each only 3.9% of that acreage is in native to fields enrolled in those programs, year, SEED during August - October, warm-season grasses (NWSG; Burger 2000). In contrast, biofuel feedstock and forage production have the potential to influence habitat on mil- lions of hectares (McLaughlin et al. 1999, Barnes 2004). To date, research regarding bird responses to biofuel (Mur- ray and Best 2003, Roth et al. 2005) and forage (Coppedge et al. 2008, Powell 2008) production have been conducted in southwest Wisconsin and Oklahoma; only two studies east of the Mississippi River have examined bird responses to any of these practices (Walk and Warner 2000, Giuliano and Daves 2002) and none in the southeastern US. There- fore, we examined NWSG in Kentucky and Tennessee man- Native grass managed for grazing / Andrew West

Annual Research Highlights 2011 59 COMPLETED PROJECTS / Wildlife

and BIOFUEL during early winter were dropped for that year. individual species; however, they were (November – January). All GRAZE We measured vegetation along a included in relative abundance, species fields were rotationally grazed and systematic grid centered on the point- richness, and species diversity analyses. had at least one rotation during May count location that included 12 veg- – June. While intensity and duration etation plots per field. At each plot, varied with landowner, all fields were we sampled herbaceous species, litter Avian managed for production. depth, ground cover, average vegetation height, and cover density. We detected 919 and 1230 birds of Methods and Materials all species during 2009 and 2010, re- Grassland Bird Surveys spectively. Field sparrow was the most Statistical Analyses frequently detected species (42%) fol- We surveyed each field three times lowed by red-winged blackbird (27%) during the breeding season annually, We calculated bird diversity for in both years. SEED had the greatest once during each of three periods: each visit during each year using a relative abundance, species richness 10 – 30 May, 1 – 15 June, and 16 June Shannon-Wiener diversity index (Shan- and diversity among all treatments (P – 1 July, 2009 and 2010. We used non and Weaver 1949). Means for <0.05); the remaining four categories 10-minute 100-m fixed-radius point vegetation measurements were taken were not different with respect to any counts for target bird species. Due to across all 12 sampling points within of these measures (Table 1). Field field size, and to ensure equal sampling each field. We calculated means for sparrow, eastern meadowlark, and effort, each field had one point only. bird detections across all three visits dickcissel were the only species for We recorded 12 focal species, nine for each field in each year. We used which we detected differences among of primary interest (dickcissel (Spiza averages in subsequent analysis unless treatment types (P <0.05). Both eastern americana), eastern meadowlark (Stur- otherwise stated. meadowlark and dickcissel were more nella magna), field sparrow (Spizella Because not all treatments were at abundant on SEED fields, while field pusilla), grasshopper sparrow (Am- all site locations, we used an incom- sparrows were less abundant in BIO- modramus savannarum), Henslow’s plete block design (Bose 1942) to ac- FUEL fields. Only relative abundance sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii), count for the fact that our sites had dif- for all species and for field sparrows horned lark (Eremophila alpestris), ferent treatments. We analyzed means had a year effect (P <0.05) with 2010 northern bobwhite (Colinus virginia- for vegetation variables under a ran- having more detections in both cases. nus), prairie warbler (Dendroica dis- domized block model using a one-way No year-by-treatment interactions were color), red-winged blackbird (Agelaius analysis of variance (ANOVA) with a detected for any of the species or com- phoeniceus)) and three of secondary split-plot (year) with replication of the munity metrics (P >0.01). interest (Bachman’s sparrow (Aimoph- whole plot (production type). Total ila aestivalis), bobolink (Dolichonyx bird detections (relative abundance), oryzivorus), loggerhead shrike (Lanius species richness, species diversity, and Vegetation ludovicianus)), during the survey pe- relative abundance for individual spe- riod. Primary species seen or heard cies were examined using the same Average vegetation height and within a 100-m radius were recorded model. Site was a blocking factor in vertical density were greatest (P using a removal method (Farnsworth et both analyses. <0.0001) in BIOFUEL and lowest in al. 2002) while secondary species were GRAZE. CONTROL had the highest recorded as present only. percent litter, forbs, and woody plants Results (P <0.0001). Litter depth and cover We sampled 90 fields in 2009 and for other species did not differ among Vegetation Measurements 87 in 2010 for 102 total fields that treatments. ranged from 1.6-12.1 ha (mean 4.1 ha). Among vegetation measures, We measured vegetation annually Due to management changes or access only litter depth (greater in 2010) and between 1 June – 11 July to reflect restriction, 12 fields used in 2009 were vegetation height (greater in 2009) habitat conditions of the field during not available in 2010. None of the sec- differed between years. Year-by- the breeding season. Hay fields that ondary species were detected in either treatment interactions were detected were harvested before vegetation mea- year. Due to the low occurrences of for vertical density (P <0.01), average surements were taken and grazed fields Henslow’s sparrows and horned larks, height (P <0.001), and forb cover (P that were never grazed in a given year ANOVA’s were not conducted for these <0.05). Vegetation in SEED was taller

60 Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Wildlife / COMPLETED PROJECTS

and denser in 2009 than HAY, where allowing thatch to accumulate and suc- dickcissel were all greater in SEED HAY was taller and denser in 2010 than cession to proceed unabated; in other than other treatments. In the case of SEED. Forb cover was greatest for treatments, disturbance retarded suc- dickcissel, the greater relative abun- HAY in 2009 and for CONTROL fields cession and litter was removed through dance may be explained by the fact that in 2010. GRAZE forb cover was lower harvests. they are generally more common at in 2010 than in 2009, dropping below Field sparrows were the only spe- this study site because it is located well BIOFUEL. cies that had lower relative abundance within the species’ range whereas the in BIOFUEL than in the other produc- other sites were more peripheral to that Discussion tion categories; all other bird metrics range. Horned lark was only located Overall, our results showed little for BIOFUEL were similar to other on SEED, again, perhaps as a function variation among the five treatment treatments. Due to dormant-season cut- of species’ range. Eastern meadowlark types we examined with respect to rela- ting (November – January), grassland favors greater percentage of NWSG tive abundance, species richness, and birds were not disturbed during the (Roseberry and Klimstra 1970) which species diversity for all species or for breeding season, which may explain may be why their relative abundance four of the seven individual species why few differences were found for was greater for SEED. The late har- with large enough sample sizes to test. most species in our study. BIOFUEL vest in SEED, like BIOFUEL, allows On the other hand, vegetation varied fields had the tallest and densest veg- for grassland birds to breed all season among treatments, but those differences etation of all the treatments. Lowland without disturbance (unlike HAY). did not seem to impact bird use. varieties of switchgrass, the primary Skinner (1975) found fields combined The undisturbed CONTROL was species in BIOFUEL, are taller than for seed had more species and individu- intermediate for all individual spe- other NWSG. Furthermore, BIOFUEL als than control fields. SEED fields cies and for all species combined with was treated annually with nitrogen (67 were lowest in amount of litter and forb respect to relative abundance, species kg ha-1) to increase biomass and, there- cover. The low amount of forb cover is richness, and species diversity. CON- fore, vegetation density, as a normal not surprising given the operational ap- TROL had the most litter, forb, and part of production practices. plication of herbicides to minimize con- woody cover among all treatments. Species richness, diversity, and tamination of harvested NWSG seed by This was an expected result consider- relative abundance for all species com- those of weeds. Annual burning after ing these fields were not disturbed, thus bined and for eastern meadowlark and seed collection eliminated thatch left in seed production fields. Table 1: Means and standard errors (SE) for relative abundance, species In GRAZE, bird metrics were richness, and species diversity for all species combined and relative similar to all other treatments although abundance for seven species of grassland birds detected during the breeding the standard error was greater for season in production stands of native warm-season grasses in Kentucky and GRAZE, probably due to the limited Tennessee, 2009 – 2010. availability of this treatment type or the

CONTROL BIOFUEL SEED GRAZE HAY Variable/Species x̄ (S.E) x̄ (S.E) x̄ (S.E) x̄ (S.E) x̄ (S.E) Pa Mean relative abundance 3.52 (0.31) Bb 3.57 (0.50) B 5.32 (0.60) A 4.07 (0.62) B 3.99 (0.44) B <0.001 Species richness 1.54 (0.10) B 1.51 (0.13) B 2.46 (0.24) A 1.90 (0.37) B 1.88 (0.17) B <0.001 Shannon-Weiner Diversity Index 0.36 (0.04) B 0.34 (0.05) B 0.70 (0.09) A 0.40 (0.14) B 0.49 (0.07) B <0.001 Field Sparrow 1.94 (0.16) A 1.16 (0.21) B 1.25 (0.02) AB 2.33 (0.46) A 2.17 (0.23) A 0.002 Red-wing blackbird 0.91 (0.21) 1.74 (0.44) 1.54 (0.23) 0.73 (0.32) 0.57 (0.17) 0.512 Eastern Meadowlark 0.10 (0.03) B 0.14 (0.05) B 0.96 (0.21) A 0.57 (0.25) B 0.36 (0.13) B <0.001 Northern bobwhite 0.35 (0.07) 0.24 (0.07) 0.25 (0.08) 0.10 (0.07) 0.51 (0.12) 0.066 Grasshopper sparrow 0.03 (0.01) 0.18 (0.07) 0.64 (0.17) 0.20 (0.13) 0.29 (0.09) 0.498 Dickcissel 0.00 (0.00) B 0.01 (0.01) B 0.32 (0.10) A 0.03 (0.03) B 0.00 (0.00) B <0.001 Prairie warbler 0.18 (0.04) 0.10 (0.04) 0.30 (0.10) 0.10 (0.05) 0.07 (0.03) 0.156 a Results of ANOVA comparing five production types. b Means within rows with the same letters are not significantly different ( P >0.05, Fisher’s least significant difference test).

Annual Research Highlights 2011 61 COMPLETED PROJECTS / Wildlife

high variability inherent with grazing. as a widespread disturbance agent in life responces to the conservation re- It also may be due to the fact that the NWSG managed primarily for wildlife serve program in the southeast Pages dominant grass in GRAZE was eastern habitat. Harvesting in the other pro- 55-75 in NRCS, editor. gammagrass where others studies have duction types (biofuels, seed, and hay) examined more complex mixtures of may slow woody encroachment while Coppedge, B. R., S. D. Fuhlendorf, NWSG (i.e., big bluestem, indiangrass, also removing litter. The second major W. C. Harrell, and D. M. Engle. and switchgrass). Gammagrass grows implication is that production-based 2008. Avian community response in larger clumps than other NWSG and uses of NWSG provide landowners to vegetation and structural features may not provide the same structure. incentive to not only plant NWSG, in grasslands managed with fire and GRAZE had the lowest vegetation but also to maintain it in a manner that grazing. Biological Conservation height and vertical density. The active provides regular disturbances. Use of 141:1196-1203. grazing during the season kept grasses NWSG based on markets can also re- shorter than other treatments. Forb duce uncertainty associated with Farm Giocomo, J. J., D. E. Moss, D. Buehler, cover was intermediate between that for Bill funding and improve the efficiency and W. G. Minser. 2008. Nesting CONTROL and SEED treatments. of delivering wildlife habitat on a large biology of grassland birds at Fort HAY did not differ from CON- scale. Campbell, Kentucky and Tennessee. TROL for any bird metrics. However, The use of market-based NWSG The Wilson Journal of Ornithology hay fields may be a sink for grassland production fields could potentially im- 120:111-119. birds (Giocomo et al. 2008, Luscier pact an extensive area. If just 10% of and Thompson 2009). Luscier and pastures in the southeastern USA were Giuliano, W. M., and S. E. Daves. Thompson (2009) examined hay cut- converted to NWSG, that would create 2002. Avian response to warm-sea- tings in northwestern Arkansas for 1.5 million ha (U.S. Department of Ag- son grass use in pasture and hayfield cool-season grasses and found early riculture 2009) compared to 1.2 million management. Biological Conserva- cuttings (26 – 31 May) were detrimen- ha of CRP (only 3.9% of which is in tion 106:1-9. tal to nest survival for field sparrows, NWSG). In addition, biofuel feedstock red-winged blackbirds, and dickcissels has been predicted to result in as much Johnson, D. H., and L. D. Igl. 2001. and resulted in decreased grassland bird as 7.8 million ha, much of which would Area requirements of grassland birds: densities. However, they reported that be in the southeastern USA (Ugarte A regional perspective. Auk 118:24- impacts associated with late cuttings et al. 2003). This vast acreage could 34. (17 – 26 June) were trivial. These dates make an important contribution to stop- coincide with cutting dates of NWSG ping or even reversing the decline in Luscier, J. D., and W. L. Thompson. in our study; NWSG also are typically grassland species. 2009. Short-term resonses of breed- harvested at higher residual height than ing birds of grassland and early suc- cool-season hay fields, a practice that cessional habitat to timing of haying may result in reduced impact on active Literature Cited in northwestern Arkansas. The Con- nests (Walk and Warner 2000, Giuliano Barnes, T. G. 2004. Strategies to condor 111:538-544. and Daves 2002). In comparison to vert exotic grass pastures to tall grass CONTROL, HAY had less vertical prairie communities. Weed Technol- McLaughlin, S., J. Bouton, D. Bransby, density, litter cover, and woody cover ogy 18:1364-1370. B. Conger, W. Ocumpaugh, D. Par- due to the yearly cutting and removal of rish, C. Taliaferro, K. Vogel, and grasses. Barnhart, S. K. 1994. Warm-season S. Wullschleger. 1999. Developing grasses for hay and pasture. in Iowa switchgrass as a bioenergy crop. Management State University, editor. University Perspectives on new crops and new Recommendations Exension. Ames, IA. uses:282-299. There are two important implications in using NWSG in production Bose, R. C. 1942. A note on the resolv- Murray, L. D., and L. B. Best. 2003. stands. The first is disturbance. His- ability of balanced incomplete block Short-term bird response to harvest- torical disturbance regimes in natural designs. Sankhyā: The Indian Journal ing switchgrass for biomass in Iowa. tall-grass prairie were based on both fire of Statistics (1933-1960) 6:105-110. Journal of Wildlife Management and grazing. Although contemporary 67:611-621. managers commonly use fire in fallow Burger, W. 2000. Farm bill contribu- NWSG stands, grazing is still lacking tions to wildlfe conservation; Wild- Peterjohn, B. G. 2003. Agricultural

62 Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Wildlife / COMPLETED PROJECTS

landscapes: can they support healthy western USA. Biological Conserva- bird populations as well as farm tion 94:165-172. products? The Auk 120:14-19. Funding Sources: The University of Powell, A. F. L. A. 2008. Responses Tennessee, Kentucky Department of of breeding birds in tallgrass prairie Fish and Wildlife Resources to fire and cattle grazing. Journal of Field Ornithology 79:41-52. KDFWR Strategic Plan. Goal 1. Strategic Objective 5. Comprehen- Roseberry, J. L., and W. D. Klimstra. sive Wildlife Conservation STrategy: 1970. The nesting ecology and repro- Appendix 3.2. Class Aves. Priority ductive performance of the eastern Research Project #2 and #8. meadowlark. The Wilson Bulletin 82:243-267.

Roth, A. M., D. W. Sample, C. A. Ribic, L. Paine, D. J. Undersander, and G. A. Bartelt. 2005. Grassland At a Glance bird response to harvesting switchgrass as a biomass energy crop. Bio- Production stands do not mass and Bioenergy 28:490-498. appear to negatively impact grassland bird populations, Shannon, C. E., and W. Weaver. 1949. as long as mowing does not The mathematical theory of informa- occur in the prime breeding tion. University of Illinois Press. season. Early cuttings of hay Skinner, R. M. 1975. Grassland use (26-31 May) have been shown patterns and prairie bird populations to be detrimental to nest in Missouri. Pages 171-181 in M. survival of grassland birds. K. Wali, editor. Prairie: a multiple view. University of North Dakota Press,Grand Forks.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2009. Summary report: 2007 national resources inventory. Pages 123 in W. Natural Recources Conservation Service, DC, and Center for Survey Statistics and Methodology, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, editor. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/ NRI/2007/2007_NRI_Summary.pdf.

Ugarte, D. G. D. L. T., M. E. Walsh, H. Shapouri, and S. P. Slinsly. 2003. The economic impacts of bioenergy crop production on U.S. agriculture. in U. S. D. o. Agriculture, editor.

Walk, J. W., and R. E. Warner. 2000. Grassland management for the conservation of songbirds in the Mid-

Annual Research Highlights 2011 63 COMPLETED PROJECTS / Wildlife

The Common Raven in Cliff Habitat: Detectability and Occupancy

Joshua M. Felch and John J. 1965, Hooper et al. 1975, Palmer-Ball monitoring the occupancy of key po- Cox, University of Kentucky 1996). Mengel (1949) listed 1935 as a tential breeding habitats in Kentucky. tentative date for extirpation of ravens Department of Forestry in Kentucky with a small population Methods and Materials possibly persisting up until that time Detectability KDFWR Collaborator: in Powell County. Persecution by Shawychi Voricek humans, loss of forest habitat due to We identified known raven breed- timber harvest and agricultural needs, ing locations on natural cliffs in Ken- and likely the absence of large mammal tucky and neighboring states through carrion have been attributed as the main coordination with biologists, natural- factors leading to this population de- ists, birders, and others throughout the cline (Harlow 1922, Jones 1935, Sprunt region. All work conducted outside of 1956, Mengel 1965, Cox et al. 2003). Kentucky was funded from additional The remaining ravens were largely re- grants. A subset of these nest sites stricted to high elevation strongholds in were then chosen to be visited based on the most remote rugged reaches of the ease of access to a suitable observation Appalachians (Cox and Larkin 2004). point, travel time, and whether the site Today, portions of its range have been was occupied during the present year. recolonized by remnant populations in- At each of the chosen occupied sites cluding southeastern Kentucky, where (n=23; NC-1, KY-2, WV-4, VA-16), an sightings and a handful of nests have observation point was chosen in a loca- been observed during the past three tion that enabled visual survey of as Raven on snag / Josh Felch decades (e.g. Croft 1970, Smith and large of a portion of the cliff as possible Davis 1979). Raven recovery has been (Figure 1). In some cases, the obser- Introduction credited to the regions’ shift away from vation point was located on top of the The cliff-nesting common raven an agrarian society and the resultant cliff being surveyed due to best view/ (Corvus corax) is of conservation reclamation and maturation of forests, easiest access. Auditory and visual interest in Kentucky and currently behavioral adaptations to anthropogenic surveys with binoculars and spotting listed as state threatened and as a Spe- environments, and a resurgence of large scope were conducted at each site three cies of Greatest Conservation Need in herbivore populations that have sup- times during the 2009-2010 breeding Kentucky’s State Wildlife Action Plan plied more carrion through vehicle col- seasons (late January-early May) until (Kentucky’s Comprehensive Wildlife lisions and hunting (Buckelew and Hall first detection and/or occupied detec- Conservation Strategy 2005). The ra- 1994, Boarman and Heinrich 1999, tion or two hours had elapsed. First ven appears to have been widespread Cox et al. 2003). The Commonwealth detection was defined as first sight/ throughout the Commonwealth during appears to have extensive suitable sound of a raven in the survey area, and early European settlement (Mengel breeding habitat, but Kentucky’s ravens occupied detection defined as detection 1965). However, the raven may have have remained relatively rare and un- of a pair or of a single individual ex- been most common in the eastern por- studied, thus little is known about the hibiting territorial or breeding behavior tions of the state characterized by the local ecology or population status of (i.e. territorial calls, territorial chases, rugged Pine, Cumberland, and Black this often reclusive corvid (Palmer-Ball pair flights, carrying nesting material, 3 Mountains, as well as the Cliff Section 1996, Cox and Larkin 2004). or more visits to the same cliff site, etc. of the Cumberland Plateau (Mengel The objectives of our study were (Boarman and Henrich 1999)). Factors 1965, Palmer-Ball 1996, Cox and Lar- threefold: to quantify factors that af- thought to affect our ability to detect kin 2004). As settlement increased, fect our ability to detect ravens in cliff raven occupancy were recorded (i.e. the common raven population fell and habitat; to quantify landscape attributes time-of-day, sky conditions, predomi- the species was nearly extirpated in the of breeding locations at multiple scales; nant aspect, wind, percent cloud cover, eastern U.S. by the mid 1900’s (Mengel and to develop and initiate protocols for precipitation, temperature, percent

64 Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Wildlife / COMPLETED PROJECTS

forest cover, and torical observations, distance of obser- recent sightings, vation point from and areas contain- site) and defined ing suitable nesting as a small set of substrate. These models likely ex- areas included cliffs plaining detection associated with Pine, probability (Ber- Black, and Cum- natas and Nelson berland Mountains, 2004). Times were Paintsville Lake area, recorded for each and natural cliffs and detection category high walls associated as well as distance with strip-mining. at first detection. Due to limited re- To minimize varia- sources, we were tion in detection only able to conduct probability due monitoring surveys to time of day, on Pine, Cumberland surveys were and Black Mountains only conducted during the 2010 between 0600 and and 2011 breeding solar noon during seasons. Monitoring the breeding sea- consisted of auditory son and were not Figure 1: Known raven cliff nest sites surveyed tor detectability during the and visual surveying conducted during 2009 and 2010 breeding season. Each site was surveyed three times. with binoculars and times of inclem- a spotting scope as ent weather (i.e. high winds, fog, snow roads, proximity to human habitation, well as periodic use of a wildlife caller other than light flurries, and rain greater elevation) was obtained using ArcGIS to elicit vocal or territorial responses than a very light drizzle). Detection 10. Again, logisitic regression in SAS from ravens that may be occupying or probabilities for half hour time inter- 9.2 was used to analyze the data. passing through the area. vals up to a maximum of two hours were estimated using logistic regression Monitoring Results in SAS 9.2. Detectability The detection probabilities for each Breeding Habitat half hour time interval were used in the When ravens were detected at a probability model proposed by McAr- site, the average time until first de- For each known occupied cliff site, dle (1990) and used by Kèry (2002): tection was 14.0 minutes, and 23.6 an equal number of unoccupied cliff minutes until occupied detection. The sites (n=26; KY-20 and VA-6) were N min = log (α) / log (1 – p) estimated probability for first detection identified and visited providing the ba- ranged from 0.80 to 0.99 for a half hour sis for a site-attribute model that quan- where (N min) is the minimum and two hour survey, respectively (Fig- tified breeding habitat in the eastern re- number of visits and (p) is the esti- ure 2). The estimated probability for gion of Kentucky (Flesch 2003, Dzial- mated probability of detection at any occupied detection was the same as first ak et al. 2007). Habitat data associated one visit. This was done to ascertain detection at the hour and a half and two with local cliff physiography (i.e. cliff the necessary allocation of survey ef- hour surveys, but differed at the half length, cliff height, degree of occlusion, fort needed to determine the minimum hour and one hour survey with prob- orientation of strata, degree of access, number of visits and length of time abilities of 0.65 and 0.90, respectively cliff situation and general prominence, required to infer absence of ravens with (Figure 3). We were unable to detect predominant aspect) was collected in a high level of confidence. any statistically significant factors in- the field similar to Watts (2006) and ad- A preliminary list of areas where fluencing detectability. ditional land feature data (i.e. percent ravens were most likely to breed in Breeding Habitat forest cover, road density, proximity to Kentucky was created based on his- Occupied cliff sites differed little

Annual Research Highlights 2011 65 COMPLETED PROJECTS / Wildlife

from unoccupied breeding sites with 95% confidence level. Future surveys ly the same active nesting pair in the the exception of predominant aspect. should be conducted using this survey Rebel Rock vicinity (Harlan County). Only three out of the 25 nest cliffs that effort as is outlined in the monitoring were located (two of these were not protocol that was submitted to KD- Discussion included in the detectability surveys) FWR. We monitored 54 cliff sites on Our findings show that common had an easterly aspect and only one of Pine and Cumberland Mountains with ravens in the southern Appalachians are those faced true east. detection of ravens in five areas: Hens- highly detectable at known occupied ley Pine Mountain WMA, Pine Moun- cliff sites. This is the first study to look Monitoring tain State Park, Cranks Creek WMA, at detection probabilities of ravens, so Martins Fork WMA, and just outside of comparison to other work is difficult. During the Fall of 2009, prelimi- Shillalah Creek WMA and Hensley Set- However, the species’ large stature, nary detection probabilities were used tlement at Cumberland Gap National loud and often frequent vocalizations, to determine the appropriate allocation Historical Park. Four of the locations and territorial behavior towards other of effort for monitoring occupancy of contained definite territorial breeding ravens and potential predators near ravens in eastern Kentucky. Analysis pairs (Hensley Pine Mountain WMA, breeding sites support these findings showed that surveying a given cliff Pine Mountain State Park, Martins Fork (Boarman and Heinrich 1999). site two times for duration of one and WMA, and just outside of Shillalah Evaluation of suitable habitat for a half hours is required to determine Creek WMA and Hensley Settlement ravens produced similar findings to occupancy by these species with a con- at Cumberland Gap National Historical those of Hooper (1977) with ravens fidence level of 99 percent. With this Park). We failed to find the actual nest preferring cliffs with at least one suit- knowledge, we conducted monitoring locations except for the site just outside able ledge for a nest with an associated surveys at 25 cliffs on Pine and Cum- of Pine Mountain State Park located on overhang above and a precipitous rock berland Mountains during the 2010 a highwall in a nearby quarry. We also face below to deter land predators. breeding season. These occupancy sur- opportunistically confirmed an active Boarman and Henrich 1999 also noted veys yielded detection of ravens at five nest and a pair of old nests at two other that ravens tend to use east facing cliffs sites; four in Harlan County (south side quarries (Harlan County and Letcher less than cliffs facing the other cardinal of Pine Mountain southwest of King- County), an active nest in Elkhorn City directions. dom Come State Park, Stone Mountain (Pike County) (D. Raines pers. comm.), Prior to this study, there were only WMA, Cranks Creek WMA, and Mar- an active nest on an old highwall near five confirmed nests within Kentucky: tins Fork WMA) and one in Bell Coun- Starfire Mine (Knott County), and like- Bad Branch State Nature Preserve, two ty (Shillalah Creek WMA). Three of these sites appeared to have territorial breeding adults at them (Stone Moun- tain WMA, Cranks Creek WMA, and just outside of Shillalah Creek WMA and Hensley Settlement at Cumberland Gap National Historical Park) but no actual nests were located. The cliff sites where ravens were not detected were used as unoccupied sites listed above in Objective 2. We also located two other sites that held territorial pairs on Pine Mountain (Rebel Rock vicinity and Jenkins, KY). An active nest was located at the latter. For the 2011 breeding season, more precise detection probabilities using data collected during the 2010 breeding season reduced the necessary survey effort to two, each lasting one hour, thus enabling the occupancy of a Figure 2: Detection probabilities for first detection of common ravens at 23 given cliff site to be determined with a known cliff breeding sites at half hour increments with a 95% confidence interval.

66 Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Wildlife / COMPLETED PROJECTS

nests on stripmine highwalls in Knott (e.g. radio towers, buildings, billboards, ing area was not situated within 200 and Breathitt Counties, Paintsville train tressels) in Appalachia, suggest meters; road construction within 200 Lake, and Rebel Rock (Fowler et al. that the notoriously reclusive ravens in meters and building of overlooks above 1985, Larkin et al. 1999, Cox et al. this region appear to have become in- nest cliffs should be avoided to reduce 2003, Palmer-Ball and McNeely 2004, creasingly tolerant of humans and their the risk of abandonment; and prohibi- Palmer-Ball and McNeely 2006). In artifacts (Boarman and Henrich 1999, tion of rock climbing at active nest the past three years, the number of Larkin et al. 1999., Cox et al. 2003, cliffs from January 15th until all young known breeding pairs in the state has Shedd and Shedd 2004). have fledged in late April or early May. effectively tripled. In talking with We propose that lengthening the rock quarry staff, it appears that ravens have Management climbing ban to the end of May as there nested in eastern Kentucky quarries for Recommendations is variation in the timing of nests in at least the last few years, and perhaps Although ravens can adapt, live, the region and some fledging has taken as early as the mid-1980’s as sug- and nest in close proximity to humans place later than early May. gested by one manager (M. Roark pers. (Knight 1984, White and Tanner-White In some cases, these guidelines comm.). It is very possible that ravens 1988, Boarman and Heinrich 1999), may not be fully applicable. Case in may have nested in eastern Kentucky we suggest that wildlife managers limit point, two active nests were located prior to being first seen again in 1969 human encroachment in areas where on highwalls at active limestone quar- (Croft 1970). ravens are known to nest for the imme- ries on Pine Mountain and one active The majority of observed raven diate future. We also suggest that wild- nest was observed within 25 meters of nests in the southern Appalachians are life managers and land stewards adopt a road in Knott County. In situations on cliffs. However, we observed one the Hooper (1977) guidelines concern- where ravens appear to be conditioned nest located in a tree in late January at ing human activity near active raven to repeated disturbance (e.g. strip-mine Shenandoah National Park, Virginia. nest sites: hikers and general foot traf- highwalls, and other quarry locations), Other tree nests have been found fic should be restricted within 200 me- the guidelines could be relaxed. Heavy throughout the region, but nests on ters of an active nest when said traffic machinery and blasting in these areas cliffs are much more prevalent (Har- is visible to ravens on the nest cliff, and appear to be of little deterrence to ra- low 1922, Hooper et al 1975, Hooper not permitted within 100 meters when vens choosing these locales for nesting. 1977). These tree nests, nests on high- concealed from view; vehicular traf- Ravens choosing more remote breeding walls and in quarries, and particularly fic at 100 meters or more from a nest sites seem to be less tolerant of such those observed in human constructs could be permissible as long as a park- disturbance. Of greatest importance is the preservation of the highwall in which the nesting pair has chosen. This may be plausible in cases where the highwall in question is an older one that is not being actively mined, but may be impossible when the highwall is still in operation. Due to common raven pairs increasingly using highwalls as a nesting substrate in the region, leaving some old highwalls that are suitable for nesting in place even after reclamation would be greatly beneficial to the species. Larkin et al (1999) stated that unreclaimed highwalls may serve as significant landscape features promoting range expansion of ravens to other parts of the state and suggested that further surveys investigating ravens use of these manmade cliff-lines should be conducted. Figure 3: Detection probabilities for occupied detection of common ravens at 23 Ravens are easily confused with known cliff breeding sites at half hour increments with a 95% confidence interval. their morphologically similar, but

Annual Research Highlights 2011 67 COMPLETED PROJECTS / Wildlife

Raven nestlings / Josh Felch smaller relative, the American Crow. in areas where ravens occur is war- Bird Atlas. University of Pittsburgh As such, we suggest that at minimum, ranted. Press, Pittsburgh, PA. 215 pp. educational outreach should be an important management strategy for Literature Cited Cox, J. J., and J. L. Larkin. 2004. Mon- recovery of this species. This could be Bernatas, S., and L. Nelson. 2004. itoring the state-endangered common done in a myriad of ways with a few Sightability model for California raven (Corvus corax) in southeastern being information about the species in bighorn sheep in canyonlands using Kentucky. Endangered Species Bul- KDFWR publications and educational forward-looking infrared (FLIR). letin 21:109-112. outreach with schools, and online re- Wildlife Society Bulletin 32:638- porting devices that allow sightings to 647. Cox, J. J., N. W. Seward, J. L. Larkin, be documented. Educational programs and D. S. Maehr. 2003. Common ra- should target hunters, quarry staff, Boarman, W. I., and B. Heinrich. 1999. ven nests in eastern Kentucky. South- strip mine employees, and even agency Common raven. in A. Poole, and eastern Naturalist 2:99-104. field personnel. Furthermore, research F. Gill, editors. The Birds of North examining survival and cause-specific America. The Birds of North Ameri- Croft, J. E. 1970. Ravens in eastern mortality of ravens, particularly esti- ca, Inc.,Philadelphia, PA. 31 pp. Kentucky. Kentucky Warbler 46:21- mation of accidental take during crow 22. hunting season, could inform managers Buckelew, A. R., Jr., and G. A. Hall. as to whether prohibiting crow hunting 1994. The West Virginia Breeding Dzialak, M. R., K. M. Carter, and M. J.

68 Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Wildlife / COMPLETED PROJECTS

Lacki. 2007. Perch site selection by Larkin, J. L., D. S. Maehr, M. Olsson, liamsburg, VA. 44 pp. reintroduced peregrine falcons Falco and P. Widen. 1999. Common ravens peregrinus. Wildlife Biology 13:225- breeding in Knott County. Kentucky White, C. M., and M. Tanner-White. 230. Warbler 75:50-52. 1988. Use of interstate highway overpasses and billboards for nesting Flesch, A. D. 2003. Perch-site selection McArdle, B. H. 1990. When are rare by the common raven, Corvus corax. and spatial use by cactus ferrugi- species not there? Oikos 57:276-277. Great Basin Naturalist 48:64-67. nous pygmy-owls in south-central Arizona. Journal of Raptor Research Mengel, R. M. 1949. Evidence of the Funding Sources: State Wildlife Grant 37:151-157. history and former distribution of the (SWG), University of Kentucky raven in Kentucky. Kentucky War- Fowler, D. K., J. R. MacGregor, S. A. bler 25:1-6. Comprehensive Wildlife Conserva- Evans, and L. E. Schaff. 1985. The tion Strategy: Appendix 3.4; Class common raven returns to Kentucky. Mengel, R. M. 1965. The birds of Aves: Taxa specific conservation ac- American Birds 39:852-853. Kentucky. American Ornithologists’ tion #1. Union Monographs No. 3, The Allen Harlow, R.C. 1922. The breeding habits Press, Lawrence, KS. of the Northern Raven in Pennsylva- nia. The Auk 39:399-410. Palmer-Ball B., Jr. 1996. The Kentucky breeding bird atlas. University of Hooper, R. G., H. S. Crawford, D. Kentucky Press, Lexington, KY. 372 R. Chamberlain, and R. F. Harlow. pp. At a Glance 1975. Nesting density of Common Ravens in the Ridge-Valley Region Palmer-Ball, B., Jr., and L. McNeely. On mineland, leaving old of Virginia. . American Birds 29:931- 2004. Spring Season 2004. The highwalls that are suitable 935. Kentucky Warbler 80:63-73. for nesting in place after reclamation would greatly Hooper, R. G. 1977. Nesting habitat of Palmer-Ball, B., Jr., and L. McNeely. benefit the species. common ravens in Virginia. The Wil- 2006. Spring Season 2006. The son Bulletin 89:233-242. Kentucky Warbler 82:66-76.

Jones, F. M. 1935. Nesting of the raven Shedd, D. H., and B. L. Shedd. 2004. in Virginia. Wilson Bull. 45:188-191. An unusual Piedmont nesting site of the Common Raven (Corvus corax) Kentucky’s Comprehensive Wildlife in Virginia. The Raven 75:92-97. Conservation Strategy. 2005. Ken- tucky Department of Fish and Wild- Smith, C. K., and W. H. Davis. 1979. life Resources, #1 Sportsman’s Lane, Raven and osprey in southeastern Frankfort, Kentucky 40601. http:// Kentucky. Kentucky Warbler 55:54- fw.ky.gov/kfwis/stwg/ Accessed 60. 10/19/09. Sprunt, A., Jr. 1956. Is the raven com- Kéry, M. 2002. Inferring the absence ing back in the southeast? Audubon of a species: a case study of snakes. Mag. 58:170-171, 182-183. The Journal of Wildlife Management 66:330-338. Watts, B. D. 2006. An investigation of cliffs and cliff-nesting birds in the Knight, R. L. 1984. Responses of southern Appalachians with an em- nesting ravens to people in areas of phasis on the Peregrine Falcon. Cen- different human densities. Condor ter for Conservation Biology Techni- 86:345-346. cal Report Series, CCBTR-06-14. College of William and Mary, Wil-

Annual Research Highlights 2011 69 COMPLETED PROJECTS / Wildlife

Development of In Vitro (artificial) Laboratory Culture Methods for Culturing Freshwater Mussels

Christopher Owen and Jim Tidwell, Kentucky State University; Monte McGregor, Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources survival of individuals metamorphosed in vitro (Hudson and Isom 1984), and none compared cohorts of animals that metamorphosed in vitro versus in situ Introduction using various metrics such as percent Propagation of freshwater mussels Hyriopsis myersiana (Uthaiwan et al. transformation, fatty acid reserves, has been somewhat limited to spe- 2001, 2002, 2003) and European unio- growth rate and survival. cies for which we know the host and nid Anodonta cygnea (Lima et al. 2006) The research detailed in this re- can artificially infest glochidia onto have demonstrated successful meta- port demonstrates the advances in the the gills and fins of the host fish. For morphosis of glochidia in vitro. potential for in vitro metamorphosis, many freshwater mussel species, host Initially, the in vitro metamorpho- compares the physiological condition fishes are unknown or difficult to handle sis of glochidia was consistently suc- of in vitro and in vivo cultured animals and/or collect in adequate numbers cessful with only a handful of species, and evaluates the potential for the use for conventional fish-host propagation including Ligumia recta, Lampsilis of in vitro artificial propagation in the methods. Despite the best efforts under siliquoidea and Utterbackia imbecillis, management of freshwater mussels. laboratory conditions with species with all of which are host-generalist brood- abundant glochidia and hosts, transfor- ers that utilize a broad spectrum of Methods and Materials mation rates to the juvenile stage are fish hosts. Until recently, host-specific Methods below describe the long- low, variable and generally unpredict- species, rare and imperiled species term investigation of the improvement able. For rare mussels and species that and species that possibly require spe- of the in vitro culture method, the com- possess a short-term brooding strategy, cial pH, ionic or gaseous conditions parison of the physiological condition the chances of successful propagation (changes in the partial pressure of O2 of mussels cultured in vitro vs. in vivo are reduced even further. and CO2 specific to the external cells of and the evaluation of the effectiveness Ellis and Ellis (1926) first experi- fish) had not been successfully meta- of the in vitro culture method for propa- mented with metamorphosing glochidia morphosed in vitro. In addition, only gation. Additionally, an opportunistic using artificial media in the early 20th one study described the growth and evaluation of recovery of juveniles century with some success; however, they never published their methods. Later, Isom and Hudson (1982) reported findings of a nutrient medium that could be used to bypass the fish host in rearing juvenile mussels. The medium consisted of unionid physiological salts, amino acids, glucose, vitamins, antibiotics, and fish blood plasma. They furthered their own recipe for metamorphosing glochidia in vitro, substituting the nutrient medium with modern cellular culture recipes. Keller and Zam (1990) improved upon Isom and Hudson’s work demonstrating successful metamorphosis with new and different species and having increased percent transformation using commercially available media components. Similar studies performed in Thailand on the Asian unionoidid Figure 1: Growth of U. imbecillis metamorphosed in vitro.

70 Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Wildlife / COMPLETED PROJECTS

Geographic Owen Family Species T&E Species Distribution (UL and KSU) from the cysts of dead host fish Europe Anodonta cyngea NA NA was recorded. Actinonaias ligamentina + Development of Method Actinonaias pectorosa + + Alasmidonta atropurpurea + + Development of the in vitro Alasmidonta viridis + + culture method consisted of 1) Amblema plicata testing new species using the Anodonta suborbiculata + current in vitro protocol estab- Cyprogenia stegaria + + lished by Owen (2009, 2010); Dromus dromas + + 2) evaluating the new protocol with species previously reported Elliptio angustata (+) to metamorphose in vitro; and Elliptio complanata + 3) testing the current in vitro Elliptio crassidens method with glochidia that were Elliptio dilatata previously encysted on fish and Elliptio lanceolata transferred to culture media. Elliptio steinstansana (+) New species tested using Elliptoideus sloatianus (+) the current protocol include the Epioblasma brevidens + + Mucket (Actinonaias ligamentina), the Pheasantshell (Actinona- Epioblasma capsaeformis + + ias pectorosa), the Wabash Pig- Fusconaia ebena toe (Fusconaia flava), the Cum- Fusconaia flava + berland Combshell (Epioblasma Lampsilis abrupta + + brevidens), the Cumberland Unionidae North America Lampsilis cardium + Elktoe (Alasmidonta atropur- Lampsilis fasciola + purea) and the Kentucky Creek- Lampsilis ovata + shell (Villosa ortmanni). Species Lampsilis siliquoidea + re-tested using the current in vitro protocol include the Giant Lampsilis teres + Floater (Pyganodon grandis), Lampsilis ventricosa the Slippershell (Alasmidonta Lasmigona costata + viridis), the Fatmucket (Lampsi- Ligumia recta + lis siliquoidea), the Flutedshell Megalonaias nervosa (Lasmigona costata), the Creeper Pleurobema cordatum (Strophitus undulatus) and the Ptychobranchus fasciolaris + Paper Pondshell (Utterbackia Pyganodon cataracta imbecillis) Percent metamorphosis was recorded with all species Pyganodon grandis + and fasting survival at two weeks Strophitus undulatus + was recorded with L. siliquoidea, Toxolasma parvus + L. costata, P. grandis, S. undula- Utterbackia imbecillis + tus and U. imbecillis Villosa delumbis (+) Individuals of A. atropur- Villosa iris + purea were collected and encyst- Villosa lienosa ed on host fish (Northern Hog- Villosa ortmanni + + sucker, Hypentelium nigricans). During the course of the infesta- Villosa taeniata + tion, several fish died before glo- Asia Hyriopsis myersiana NA NA Hyriidae Diplodon greeffeanus NA NA South America Table 1: In vitro propagated Diplodon rotundus gratus NA NA species (+) denotes assistance with, but did not perform at the CMC

Annual Research Highlights 2011 71 COMPLETED PROJECTS / Wildlife

Figure 2: Broodstock of Utterbackia imbecillis (Paper Pondmussel) used for research. / Christopher Owen chidia had developed into pediveligers. were made to evaluate possible varia- The carcasses of 18 recently deceased Individuals of U. imbecillis were tion within an individual animal. hogsuckers were collected and the used to compare the physiological larval cysts were identified. Under a condition of newly metamorphosed Evaluation of effectiveness of in vitro stereoscope, larval cysts were removed individuals. The larvae of 14 gravid mussel culture and the surrounding tissue removed individuals were split between host fish from the fish. Once removed, as much infestation and in vitro metamorphosis. Several cohorts of mussels were surrounding tissue was excised as pos- The average lipid measurement per evaluated to see if the in vitro method sible, leaving only the glochidium and demibranch, number of viable larvae, produced healthy and viable pediveli- a thin layer of host epithelial cells. The number of sloughed larvae and total gers at an aquaculture scale. Over two freed cysts were washed in sterile unio- number of newly metamorphosed in- years, species were placed in culture nid river water (URW) followed by a dividuals were recorded. After meta- dishes using the current in vitro proto- rinse in sterile minimal essential media morphosis, juveniles were analyzed for col, however, animals were also placed (MEM) to remove potential microbial total lipid and fatty acid content using in larger petri dishes and at higher contaminants as well as the trophozo- a modified Folch (1957) method using densities than normal. Most cultures ites, tomonts, theronts of the protozoan a methanol:chloroform extraction fol- consisted of animals in excess of 1000 parasite Ichtyopthirius from the in vitro lowed by methylation of fatty acids. A glochidia per ml of media in 105mm cultures. Cysts were then placed in subsample of animals were fasted and petri dishes, sometimes as high as cultures dishes using the established in sampled for 12 days post-metamorpho- 5000 animals per ml. Generally, 10-15 vitro protocol. sis and percent fatty acids were ana- 105mm petri dishes or 30-40 60mm lyzed over time. Comparisons of the petri dishes would be set up at a time to Physiological Condition left demibranch and right demibranch produce a large cohort of mussels. Af-

72 Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Wildlife / COMPLETED PROJECTS

ter metamorphosis, animals were taken 76% metamorphosis. See Table 2 for a ligamentina, A. pectorosa, E. brevidens, to the CMC for grow out. Effective- complete summary. A. viridis, L. siliquoidea, L. costata, P. ness of the method was evaluated using grandis, S. undulatus and U. imbecillis. a combination of percent metamorpho- Physiological Condition No dishes were lost due to microbial sis, growth, 30 day survival and fasting contamination with the current in vitro survival at two weeks. Some cohorts Starting values for lipids signifi- culture protocol. With U. imbecillis, were limited in the ability to evaluate cantly varied between cohorts of U. 75% of larvae did not successfully at- their growth and survival due to food imbecillis (F=13.44, P=0.009). No dif- tach to a host fish once fish were added and space limitations. ferences were observed between larvae to a bucket containing aerated larvae. collected from the left demibranch or Of the 25% to attach, 15% successfully Results right demibranch (F=0.227, P=0.661). metamorphosed; the overall portion Development of Method In vitro cultured animals had lower of this cohort to successfully attach concentrations of fatty acids per gram and metamorphose was approximately All new species tested using the of total glochidia weight (F=57.2, 4%. Using the fish host method, 96% in vitro protocol successfully meta- P=0.0001) than in vivo cultured ani- of the larvae were either sloughed be- morphosed. Several new species mals. Animals fasting over time initial- fore metamorphosis was complete or were added to the list of mussels that ly consumed up to 50% of their larval they failed to attach to the host. Using successfully metamorphose in vitro, fatty acid reserves (F=17.1, p=0.0002) the in vitro method, 27% of the larvae including A. pectorosa, A. ligamentina, within three days. Lipid and fatty acid snapped shut on other larvae and were E. brevidens, A. atropurpurea and V. values with the current in vitro proto- unusable for culture. Of the remaining ortmanni (Table 1). Species previously col, however, were increased over total 73% of U. imbecillis larvae, 98% suc- reported to be cultured in vitro also suc- lipid values from previous published cessfully metamorphosed. Using the in cessfully metamorphosed using the cur- works. vitro culture method, 71% of the total rent in vitro method, with most species larvae successfully metamorphosed. improving in percent metamorphosis Evaluation of effectiveness of in vitro Lastly, a growth curve was also estab- (when data available). These spe- mussel culture lished for U. imbecillis using in vitro cies include A. viridis (92%), F. flava cultured animals (Fig 1). See Table 2 (60%), L. siliquoidea (81%), L. costata Large scale cultures successfully for a complete summary. (98%), P. grandis (97%), S. undulatus metamorphosed without the additional (86%) and U. imbecillis (98%) (Table contamination problems typically Discussion 1). All cultures tested for two-week observed with high density cultures. Significant improvements were fasting survival exceeded 91% survival Percent metamorphosis did not seem made in the effectiveness of in vitro (see Table 1). Glochidia recovered to change between 500 gloch/ml and mussel culture. The known species to from dead hogsuckers successfully >1000 gloch/ml. Successful large-scale metamorphose increased by six species, metamorphosed in vitro and averaged culture batches were observed with A. including two federally endangered mussels (A. atropur- Table 2: purea and E. brevi- % Metamorphosis % Survival # Propagated dens) and two state Mussel Status Species Name (average) (fasting) (total) listed species (A. Alasmidonta atropupurea 59% NA 1,538 pectorosa and V. ort- Endangered Species Epioblasma brevidens 92% NA 53,170 manni). Six species Actinonaias pectorosa 84% NA 104,042 previously reported State Listed Species Alasmidonta viridis 92% NA 27,560 to metamorphose in Villosa ortmanni 67% NA 2,345 vitro demonstrated Actinonaias ligamentina 88% NA 128,835 improved metamor- Fusconaia flava 60% NA 450 phosis with the cur- Lampsilis siliquoidea 81% 91% 43,066 rent protocol. The physi- Non-listed Species Lasmigona costata 98% 98% 157,020 ological condition Pyganodon grandis 97% 95% 122,197 of newly metamor- Strophitus undulatus 86% 92% 76,386 phosed individu- Utterbackia imbecillis 98% 96% 313,880 als was improved

Annual Research Highlights 2011 73 COMPLETED PROJECTS / Wildlife

significantly over previously reported fasting survival of all species tested fish host propagation methods. levels. Fisher (2001, 2002) reported a indicated that survival was not limited concentration of less than 100 ug/g of by the concentrations of fatty acids and Management Recommendations total lipids in newly metamorphosed lipids, and that the lipid concentrations The in vitro method is capable in vitro animals and animals meta- that accumulate during metamorphosis of producing newly metamorphosed morphosed with the current protocol were adequate for their survival. mussels of proper development and contain approximately 15 mg/g of total Experiments with large scale in nearly equal viability as with host fish lipid and 3 mg/g of fatty acids. While vitro cultures indicated that this was an propagation methods. The potential this remains lower than the physiologi- effective and efficient means of produc- for producing juveniles exceeds the cal condition of in vivo cultured ani- ing large number of healthy, viable ju- fish host method by nearly 20 fold. mals, levels appeared sufficient to not venile mussels. Using the current pro- Roughly two-thirds of the freshwater impose a survival limitation based on tocol, the negative effects of microbial mussel hosts in North America are lipid reserves. Often, animals collected contamination were eliminated, despite unknown and the in vitro method is an from the in vivo culture were collected increased densities in culture dishes. effective and efficient way of bypass- 12-24 hours after they excysted from Using a split batch of larvae pooled ing fish hosts in propagating freshwater the fish, giving them some time to feed from 14 gravid individuals of U. im- mussels. The in vitro method consti- on the bacteria and DOC from the fish becillis, ~13,500 pediveligers were re- tutes the greatest chance of successfully aquarium, possibly enriching their lipid covered from host fish, while ~252,000 culturing mussels with limited larvae reserves relative to the in vitro animals. pediveligers were produced in vitro. or for exceedingly rare occurrences Thus, the increased lipid reserves of Overall, significantly fewer larvae were of some species. While some clades the in vivo animals may be biologically wasted and more animals were pro- are largely understudied using this insignificant. Additionally, two week duced using the in vitro method over propagation method and require further

Figure 3: 1 year old juveniles of Lampsilis siliquoidea (Fatmucket) metamorphosed in vitro. / Christopher Owen

74 Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Wildlife / COMPLETED PROJECTS

investigation, it is recommended that in the conservation and propagation of vitro culture be utilized by mussel man- freshwater mussels. Ph.D. disserta- agers for the conservation of freshwater tion, Department of Biology, Univer- mussels. sity of Louisville, Louisville, KY.

Literature Cited Owen, C. T., Alexander, J. E., Mc- Ellis, M. M. and M. D. Ellis. 1926. Gregor, M. 2010. Control of micro- Growth and transformation of para- bial contamination during in vitro sitic glochidia in physiological nutri- culture of larval unionid mussels. ent solutions. Science 64:579-580. Invertebrate reproduction & development 54(4): 187-193. Fisher G.R. 2001. Morphology and physiology of larval and juvenile Uthaiwan, K., N. Noparatnaraporn, and Utterbackia imbecillis (Bivalvia: J. Machado. 2001. Culture of glo- Unionidae). Ph.D. Wake Forest Uni- chidia of the freshwater pearl mussel versity, The Bowman Gray School of Hyriopsis myersiana (Lea, 1856) in Medicine, North Carolina. artificial media. Aquaculture 195:61.

Fisher, G.R. 2002. Physiological condi- Uthaiwan, K., P. Pakkong, N. No- tion of in vitro- and in vivo-reared paratnaraporn, L. Vilarinho, and juvenile mussels. Pages 11. FMCS J. Machado. 2002. Study of a suit- Workshop. Shepherdstown, WV. able fish plasma for in vitro culture of glochidia Hyriposis myersiana. Folch J, Lees M, Stanley G, Sloane H. Aquaculture 209:197. 1957. A simple method for the isolation and purification of total lipids Uthaiwan, K., P. Pakkong, N. Noparat- from animal tissues. Journal of Bio- naraporn, L. Vilarinho, and J. Macha- logical Chemistry 226: 497-509. do. 2003. Studies on the plasma composition of fish hosts of the fresh- Hudson RG, Isom BG. 1984. Rearing water mussel, Hyriopsis myersiana, juveniles of the freshwater mussel with implications for improvement of (Unionidae) in a laboratory setting. the medium for culture of glochidia. At a Glance The Nautilus 98: 129-135. Invertebrate reproduction & develop- Invitro mussel propagation ment 44:53-61. constitutes the greatest Isom, B. G. and R. G. Hudson. 1982. In vitro culture of parasitic freshwater Funding Sources: State Wildlife Grant chance of successfully culturing mussel glochidia. Nautilus 96:147- (SWG), Kentucky State University, Uni- exceedingly rare mussels. 151. versity of Louisville

Keller, A. E. and S. G. Zam. 1990. Sim- KDFWR Strategic Plan: Goal 1. plifications ofin vitro culture tech- Strategic Objective 5. Comprehen- niques for freshwater mussels. Envi- sive Wildlife Conservation Strategy: ronmental Toxicology and Chemistry Appendix 3.2, Class Bivalvia. Prior- 9:1291-1296. ity Research Project #1.

Lima, P., U. Kovitvadhi, S. Kovitvadhi, and J. Machado. 2006. In vitro culture of glochidia from the freshwater mussel Anodonta cygnea. Inverte- brate Biology 125:34-44.

Owen, C. T. 2009. Investigations for

Annual Research Highlights 2011 75 COMPLETED PROJECTS / Wildlife

ducted in Pike, Floyd, Martin Letcher, Whit- ley, McCreary, Wayne and Clinton Counties, Kentucky. Two allopat- ric species of crayfish were studied. Sample site selection for each species is detailed as below.

Cambarus (P.) veteranus Known areas of occurrence were sampled first, then third order or larger tributaries to streams with existing populations were sampled. Sampling focused on the Big Sandy River basin (Pike, Floyd, Martin and Letcher Counties) where mu- Big Sandy crayfish / Roger Thoma seum and literature records indicated the presence or possible The Conservation Status of presence of the species in Kentucky. Thirty collections were made in July Cambarus veteranus, Big Sandy and September. Crayfish and Cambarus parvoculus, Cambarus (J.) parvoculus Mountain Midget Crayfish This species is known to favor small, headwater streams so sam- Roger Thoma, Midwest Biodiversity Institute pling focused on the most upstream KDFWR Contact: Danna Baxley reaches of streams and nearby areas downstream. A recent study (Thoma & Fetzner, 2008) indicated that the Cum- berland River basin (Whitley, McCrea- ry, Wayne and Clinton Counties) is the Introduction only remaining stream system reported This goal of this project was to Counties where C. veteranus is found to harbor this species in Kentucky. determine conservation status, distri- and the Cumberland River basin of Each sample site was georef- bution, habitat preferences, and life Whitley, McCreary, Wayne and Clinton erenced with a hand held GPS unit. history of two crayfish species found Counties where C. parvoculus has been Locality information and habitat qual- in Kentucky: The Big Sandy Crayfish, reported. ity were recorded on Ohio EPA QHEI Cambarus veteranus; and the Mountain (Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index) Midget Crayfish, Cambarus parvocu- Materials and Methods data sheets and OSUMC (Ohio State lus. The principle areas of focus for the Field work: University Museum of Biological Di- study were the Big Sandy River basin versity Crustacean Collection) Stream in Pike, Floyd, Martin and Letcher One year’s field work was con- Inventory field data sheets. The QHEI

76 Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Wildlife / COMPLETED PROJECTS

records data on stream substrate com- March and April. First form males have Cambarus (J.) parvoculus position, in-stream cover, channel mor- been recorded from March through phology, riparian zone & erosion, and November (USNM & OSUMC). It is Due to the fact that only one site pool/glide & riffle/run quality. likely first form males are present year harboring C. parvoculus was found in Data analysis was conducted with round. These data indicate C. parvocu- this study, it is not possible to analyze Statistica 8 and ArcView 9.0 computer lus likely mates in the fall and early the habitat preferences of this species in programs. Statistical analysis employed spring (as seen in its closest relative Kentucky. Discussion of habitat prefer- principle component analysis, correla- Cambarus jezerinaci) and lays eggs in ences will be based on observations tion analysis, regression analysis, and early and mid spring. of Tennessee populations previously t-test. studied by the author. In Tennessee, Habitat Preference: the center of the species’ distribution, Lab work: Cambarus (P.) veteranus it is found in small cool water streams Voucher samples were collected at with closed canopies, moderate to high each site and identities verified in lab. The Big Sandy crayfish has been gradients, abundant cobble/ boulder All collected material was deposited at found to show strong correlations substrate originating from sandstone OSUMC. with habitat measurements in Virginia bedrock. The Kentucky site fits this (Thoma, 2009). In Kentucky back- description. Results ground habitat conditions are similar to Reproduction: those seen in Virginia but with a greater Kentucky Distributions Cambarus (P.) veteranus influence of strip mining on stream Cambarus (P.) veteranus habitats. Cambarus veteranus has re- First form males, second form sponded to this negatively. The species’ Taylor and Schuster (2004) re- males, juveniles, and females were aversion to elevated sediment levels is ported C. veteranus from 4 sites in present in both months sampled. Fe- evident when sampling sediment im- Kentucky, one in Knox Creek of Tug males carrying eggs (ovigerous) were pacted streams. As in Virginia, the spe- Fork, one in Levisa Fork and two in recorded in the month of September. cies was most strongly associated with Russell Fork. This study confirmed Cambarus veteranus has a late sum- clean, third order or larger streams, low continued existence at all four sites mer reproductive cycle (Thoma 2009). in bedload sediments, with moderate and added seven more localities. Most Thoma (2009) reported in Virginia the gradient, and an abundance of boulder/ significant is a new population recorded species primarily laid eggs and reared cobble substrate. Many of the streams in Shelby Creek of Pike County. The young from July through October. The visited were high in bedload sediments 4 other new sites were: two additional results of this study conform to that ob- and were not sampled. Principle com- tributaries of Tug Fork (Blackberry servation. Thoma (2009) also observed ponent analysis of habitat data collected Creek, Peter Creek), 1 more Levisa mating related behavior in June. in this study showed a strong relation- Fork site (between the historic most ship between C.veteranus abundance downstream site and the confluence Cambarus (J.) parvoculus and general habitat quality (QHEI), rif- of Russell Fork), and the remains of a fle quality, and percent boulders. These dead individual in the lower portion of Only one collection of C. parvocu- two factors explain 65.55% of variation Elk Creek. lus was made during this study in Clin- seen in the data. Those sites lacking C. ton County, the most western portion of veteranus had statistically significantly Cambarus (J.) parvoculus the State sampled. The collection came lower riffle embeddedness scores than from Pickens Branch of Illwill Creek, those with C. veteranus. The other sta- As stated previously, only one a tributary of the Obey River system. tistically significant relationship with site harboring a population of C. par- All males observed (5) were first form. abundance was Substrate score, a num- voculus was found during this study. Also observed were 2 females and 2 ber reflecting general quality of riffle Cambarus parvoculus sites previously juveniles (female). A male and female habitat. Correlation analysis results reported by Taylor and Schuster (2004) were observed in amplexus (mating). show Riffle Embeddedness to be the from the Cumberland River basin in the Three ovigerous females (housed at only habitat variable significantly cor- vicinity of Pine Mountain and upstream The National Museum of Natural His- related with C. veteranus abundance. have been found to be most closely tory (USNM) and The Ohio State Uni- related to Cambarus jezerinaci (Thoma versity Museum of Biological Diversity and Fetzner, 2008). The areas sampled (OSUMC)) have been recorded in in this study were those sites reported

Annual Research Highlights 2011 77 COMPLETED PROJECTS / Wildlife

for the Big South Fork basin and Cum- with Kentucky C. veteranus popula- of Orconectes (O. cristavarius & O. berland River basin downstream Pine tions were Cambarus (C.) sciotensis, rusticus). The survival of the Tug Fork Mountain and its western flank. The Teays River crayfish, Cambarus (C.) tributary populations is highly tenuous. most commonly encountered species angularis, angled crayfish, Cambarus They are confined to the lower portions was Cambarus distans (17 sites), a (P.) robustus, big water crayfish, and of the streams and display low abun- close relative of C. parvoculus and C. Orconectes (P.) cristavarius, spiny dance. jezerinaci. The three sites reported to be stream crayfish. In Levisa Fork proper, the spe- C. parvoculus within the 4 county study cies is found in very low numbers. The area were sampled and found to harbor Cambarus (J.) parvoculus populations of the stream are obviously C. distans. stressed and specimens collected were Because there are very few C. in poor condition. Any increase in pol- Discussion parvoculus collections it is difficult to lution load could easily eliminate the Cambarus (P.) veteranus draw an accurate picture of the spe- species (similar to Tug Fork). Only cies’ life history. It appears the species’ 2 tributaries of Levisa Fork harbored Thoma (2009) reported on the life reproductive cycle is similar to that ob- populations of C. veteranus. Shelby history of C. veteranus and found the served in many other headwater stream Creek in Pike County has one of the species’ reproduction was focused on species: mating in late summer and fall, healthiest populations in Kentucky. mid summer to late fall with some late egg laying in late fall and early spring, Populations in the lower and upper spawning females still carrying young and fledging in late spring and early portions of the stream are very healthy in early spring. In general, mating oc- summer. This is the pattern observed in while the middle section of the stream’s curs in mid summer, egg laying occurs C. jezerinaci, the most closely related population is stressed, primarily by in late summer and fall, and young species. In describing C. jezerinaci, nearby strip mining and associated are independent by early spring of the Thoma (2000) referred to it as a sister sediment loads. Russell Fork, just up- next year. Observations in this study species of C. parvoculus. Thoma and stream Shelby Creek, is the last stream conformed to that scenario. It was also Fetzner (2008) confirmed this relation- with C. veteranus populations. The reported that fresh molted individuals ship. populations of Russell Fork are healthi- were very common in late spring/early Other crayfish species collected est upstream near the Virginia State summer. Kentucky populations also with the one Kentucky C. parvoculus line. In the Levisa Fork basin, upstream show this phenomenon. It appears the population were Cambarus (E.) ten- of Russell Fork, no extant populations general life cycle pattern for C. vetera- ebrosus, cavespring crayfish, and Orco- could be found. nus is 2 to 3 years growth, maturation nectes (P.) placidus, bigclaw in the 3rd year, and first mating in mid crayfish. Cambarus (J.) parvoculus summer of the 3rd or 4th year. After mating, a series of years characterized Kentucky Distributions It is not surprising that C. par- by mid summer mating, late summer/ Cambarus (P.) veteranus voculus was found in the Obey River fall spawning, spring release of young, system. The type locality of the species and late spring/early summer molting It is reasonable to assume all of the is from the Hurricane Creek basin, a ensues. How many years of reproduc- Big Sandy River basin upstream the tributary of the Obey River. The sur- tion an individual can experience is Tug Fork - Levisa Fork confluence was prising result of this study was the lack not clear. It is speculated (using best once occupied by C. veteranus. This is of C parvoculus found in the remaining professional judgment) that at least 2 an area of 3,974 square miles (includes portions of the Cumberland River ba- or 3 years minimum could be expected. all 3 states). The Kentucky portion of sin. It was tacitly assumed at the begin- In early spring samples during previous this drainage basin is approximately ning of this project that C. parvoculus studies/sampling efforts dead individu- 2,975 square miles. Much of this area would be found in the study area and als were more commonly found. These is no longer occupied by the species. In likely at numerous new locations. Half individuals were almost always the the Tug Fork basin C. veteranus is con- way through the collecting effort it largest individuals from the previous fined to 3 tributaries. No populations became apparent that this would not be summer. Cambarus veteranus likely could be found in Tug Fork proper. The the case. All of the localities reported lives 5 to 7 years though it should not stream was severely polluted and heav- by Taylor and Schuster (2004) turned be discounted that fortunate individuals ily impacted by excess sediment. Very out to be occupied by C. distans. Two may live approximately 10 years. few crayfish were found inhabiting the sites in the Spring Creek basin of Clin- Other crayfish species collected stream and all were tolerant species ton County were reported to harbor C.

78 Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Wildlife / COMPLETED PROJECTS

distans. Collecting at two Spring Creek This enrichment is impacting much of Literature Cited sites failed to yield any members of the the streams ecological structure. At Taylor, C.A. and G.A. Schuster. 2004. subgenus Jugicambarus. At the time those sites with high enrichment im- The Crayfishes of Kentucky. Illinois of collecting, the area was experienc- pacts, few individuals of C.veteranus Natural History Survey Special Pub- ing very dry conditions and most of were observed and those seen appeared lication. the small headwater streams (all on to be stressed. Also, few, if any, young limestone bedrock) suitable for the individuals were seen. ------, G.A. Schuster, J.E. Cooper, R.J. subgenera’s occupation were dry. This DiStefano, A.G. Eversole, P. Hamr, stream system may harbor C. parvocu- Cambarus (J.) parvoculus H.H. Hobbs III, H.W. Robison, C.E. lus. Further collecting will have to be Skelton, and R.F. Thoma. 2007. A conducted to make this determination. Current conservation designa- Reassessment of the Conservation tions are IUCN: Least Concern, Tay- Status of Crayfishes of the United Conservation Status lor et al. (2007): Currently Stable, States and Canada after 10+ Years Cambarus (P.) veteranus Kentucky:Threatened. This report rec- of Increased Awareness. Fisheries. ommends Kentucky consider elevating 32(8): 372-389. Current conservation designa- C. parvoculus to Endangered conserva- tions are IUCN: Vulnerable, Taylor tion status. This recommendation is Thoma, R.F. 2000. Cambarus (Jugi- et al. (2007): Threatened, Kentucky: made based on the finding that the spe- cambarus) jezerinaci (Crustacea: De- Special Concern. This report recom- cies has a highly restricted range within capoda: Cambaridae), a new species mends Kentucky elevate C. veteranus Kentucky. of crayfish from the Powell River to Endangered conservation status. This Recommended conservation ac- drainage of Tennessee and Virginia. recommendation is made based on the tions are establishing conservation Proceedings of the Biological Soci- extreme loss of range within Kentucky easements or other conservation mea- ety of Washington 113(3):731-738. and the fact that only two popula- sures in the Illwill Creek basin of Clin- tions have been found to be healthy ton County. Though the species was not ----- & J.W. Fetzner. 2008. Taxonomic (Shelby Creek & upper Russell Fork) recorded there, consideration should be Status of Cambarus (Jugicambarus) one of which (Shelby Cr.) is experienc- given to the Spring Creek and Sulpher jezerinaci, Spiny Scale Crayfish, ing stress from strip mining activities Creek basins of Clinton County. Little Powell River Crayfish. Midwest Biodi- within its basin. other action seems needed at this point versity Institute, Columbus, Ohio. 69 Recommended conservation ac- in time. pp. + iv. tions are, in order of importance, control of activities and conditions result- Other Findings -----, 2009. The conservation status of ing in increased erosion and sedimenta- Cambarus (Puncticambarus) vetera- tion, rehabilitation of habitats damaged The finding of C. angularis in nus, Big Sandy Crayfish; Cambarus by stream modification, and reduction Kentucky was the most significant (Jugicambarus) jezerinaci, Spiny of nutrient inputs. Many area streams unintended finding of this study. This Scale Crayfish; andCambarus (Cam- are currently overwhelmed with heavy is the first record of the species in Ken- barus) sp. A, Blue Ridge Crayfish. bed loads of sand and silt. If some of tucky. The species has also been docu- Midwest Biodiversity Institute, Co- these in-stream sediments could be mented in the Big Sandy River basin lumbus, Ohio. 20 pp. + iii. removed, downstream reaches could of West Virginia by Mr. Zac Loughman be spared future impacts and impacted (personal communication). It may be Funding Source: State Wildlife Grant stream could recover sooner. In habi- that this population forms a unique ge- (SWG) and Midwest Biodiversity Insti- tat modified streams, riffle structure netic pool. A study of its relationship to tute has been damaged by removal of slab the population in the Clinch and Powell shaped boulders. Habitat for C. vet- Rivers of Virginia should be under- KDFWR Strategic Plan. Goal 1. eranus in these areas would be greatly taken. Because of the limited range and Strategic Objective 5. enhanced by placing slab boulders in the high levels of environmental stress the riffles of these streams (as long as in the Tug Fork Basin, the species bed load sediments are not excessive). should be classified as Endangered by The downstream reaches of Russell Kentucky. Fork and Levisa Fork were noticeably impacted by elevated nutrient levels.

Annual Research Highlights 2011 79 COMPLETED PROJECTS / Wildlife

Response of crayfish populations to restored stream habitats in disturbed portions of East Fork Little Sandy River basin, Lawrence & Boyd Counties, Kentucky

Roger Thoma, Midwest Introduction Kentucky Department of Fish site-specific impacts of stream resto- Biodiversity Institute and Wildlife Resources (KDFWR) se- ration on crayfish populations. The lected the East Fork Little Sandy River East Fork Little Sandy project is lo- KDFWR Contact: (EFLS) for stream restoration efforts cated within the boarders of Lawrence Danna Baxley in 2010. To better understand the influ- County, Kentucky within the Western ence of restoration efforts, KDFWR Allegheny Plateau Ecoregion (WAP) initiated a pre- and post- restoration and the Ohio/Kentucky Carboniferous survey project to determine potential Plateau (OKCP) sub-ecoregion.

East Fork Little Sandy River / Roger Thoma

80 Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Wildlife / COMPLETED PROJECTS

Methods Site selections were made in con- sultation with KDWR personnel. Three sites on EFLS were sampled in 2009 and four in 2011 (Figure 1). Sampling methods involved the use of a 4’X6’ seine and/or dip-nets in waters 20 cm deep or deeper. In shallower waters crayfish were collected by hand. Area sampled (square meters) was measured and recorded on field datasheets. For each year’s sampling, all sites were sampled within the same week. Since crayfish occupy a wide variety of habitats, a variety of habitat types were investigated for the presence of crayfish. The primary habitat investigated was surface water of streams. When sampling a stream site, rocks, logs, and undercut banks were disturbed by flipping, kicking, rocking, Figure 1: Number of crayfish captured by site, by year for all crayfish observed or sweeping with the foot to dislodge (left) and adult specimens only (right). and disturb any crayfish hiding in the area. Deep areas were swept by drag- wetlands and stream floodplains. In in 2011. The unnamed tributary had ging the seine through the deepest the EFLS area, burrows were found already been restored in 2007 and was sections. Kick seining was employed associated with stream banks, ditches, sampled in 2009 and again in 2011 to in riffle areas. Kick seining consists and a broad seep area in a hayfield. To gauge recovery progress. of placing a seine downstream in a examine burrows and capture species, fast flowing riffle area and kicking the one must excavate, to some degree, the Results upstream area with the wader boot to upper area of the burrow. Frequently, a A total of 366 individual crayfish turn and disturb rocks and send crayfish crayfish can be induced to come to the were captured in EFLS during the downstream into the net. top of its burrow, but if it cannot, one course of this study. Three of the 6 All crayfish burrow to some de- must dig the burrow until the resident species reported for Boyd and Law- gree. Three burrowing styles were crayfish is found. Excavation is con- rence Counties by Taylor and Schuster present in the EFLS study area; pri- ducted with a small shovel or by hand (2004) (C. b. cavatus, C. thomai, O. mary burrower (a species that digs an depending on the hardness of the sub- cristavarius) were documented in this extensive burrow complex and spends strate the burrow is located in. study. An additional species (Cambarus most of its life within the burrow), sec- Three sites were sampled in 2009 dubius) was also documented. In 2009, ondary burrower (a species that digs a (EFLS sites 1, 2, & 3) and sampled four species were encountered in the streamside burrow or burrows under a again in 2011. Site 3 was reclaimed in system; C. b. cavatus (Appalachian large flat rock coming out frequently fall, 2006, site 1 in fall, 2009, and site Brook Crayfish), C. dubius (Upland to forage in the vicinity of the burrow 2 in winter, 2010/2011 (Table 1). An Burrowing Crayfish), C. thomai (Little entrance), and tertiary burrower (a additional site (EFLS #4) was added in Brown Mudbug), and O. cristavarius species that digs a shallow excavation 2011 in the downstream reaches of the (Spiny Stream Crayfish). One species is sufficient only for hiding and spends project. Site 4 was reclaimed in sum- a secondary burrower (C. b. cavatus), most of its time in the open). Secondary mer, 2010. The area of the fourth site one a tertiary burrower (O. cristavari- and tertiary burrowers are associated could not be sampled in 2009 because us), and two are primary burrowers (C. with surface waters such as streams and of water depth. Two additional, non- dubius, C. thomai). In 2009 C. dubius ponds/lakes. Primary burrowers are as- EFLS, were sampled in 2009; Bolts was captured some distance from the sociated with ground water and spring/ Fork and an unnamed tributary of Left EFLS project Footprint; however, effort seep areas. Ground water burrows can Fork Trace Creek. Bolts Fork was not to recollect it in 2011 was not made. frequently be found associated with restored, therefore it was not sampled Two species were recaptured in 2011

Annual Research Highlights 2011 81 COMPLETED PROJECTS / Wildlife

recovery that could be achieved can be gleaned from sites 1 and 3. These two sites did not experience the full disruptions of the 2010 flooding events. Both sites displayed large increases in population numbers with site 3 showing increases in adult numbers. The results from sites 1 & 3 demonstrate the positive effect of habitat restoration on crayfish populations. Decreas- Table 1: Timeline of activity in the East Fork Little Sandy River project area by ing bedload sediments and increases season (Winter, Spring, Summer, Fall respectively) and by year. Tan represents in hard substrates are the factors most the period of stream restoration construction, light blue the first (Pre) crayfish responsible for the improvements seen. sampling period, and dark blue the second (Post) crayfish sampling period. As the EFLS continues to recover and bedload sediments decrease further it is anticipated the crayfish communities in (C. b. cavatus and O. cristavarius). adult crayfish. The 2011 follow up sam- the system will return fully to their pre- Total catch in 2009 was 77 and 250 in pling effort yielded variable results, of impact state. 2011. The fourth 2011 site harbored 39 which, restoration maturity played an In the unnamed tributary of Left specimens. Cambarus thomai was not important role. Numbers of individu- Fork Trace Creek (ut-LFTC) habitat found in EFLS during 2011 collections. als did increase at sites 1 and 3 but the conditions remained stable during the In the unnamed tributary of Left increases were primarily due to high study period. Habitat rehabilitation had Fork Trace Creek 3 species were cap- numbers of young of year O. crista- been conducted prior to 2009 and the tured in 2009 (O. cristavarius, C. b. varius. Only site 3 showed an increase stream continued to recover prior to cavatus, & C. thomai) and 2 in 2011. in adults. Site 3 was reclaimed in 2006 2011. No flooding damage was incurred Cambarus b. cavatus was not recap- and had subsequently experienced sev- in the winter of 2010/11. In 2009 three tured in 2011. Total numbers were 13 eral years of recovery. species were recorded (O. cristavarius, (2009) and 23 (2011). In Bolts Fork 3 Two factors are responsible for our C. b. cavatus, & C. thomai) and a total species were captured in 2009 (O. cris- variable results: construction activity of 13 individuals were captured. In tavarius, C. b. cavatus, & C. thomai). took place in the winter of 2010 for 2011 two species (O. cristavarius & The system was not sampled in 2011. site 2, just prior to the 2011 sampling C. thomai) and 23 individuals were season, and a major flooding event oc- recorded. It is not clear why C. b. ca- Discussion curred in the EFLS system just after vatus was not reencountered. All 2011 Sampling in 2009 indicated im- completion of construction and prior individuals collected were juveniles, pacts from low quality habitat present to the new system reaching stabiliza- and it appears the stream is primarily throughout the system. Few refugia for tion. Heavy rains damaged some of the being used as a nursery area. Sampling crayfish were present in the area as a newly restored stream segments during was difficult and an effort was made to result of excess sand/sediment bedloads mid-winter of 2011 and precipitated the not overturn rocks that were serving as and lack of hard substrates. Crayfish need to rework the impacted sections bank protection. This is likely why no communities in other streams of the of the EFLS channel in early summer adult C. b. cavatus were encountered ecoregion with intact habitat have been 2011. Resultantly, crayfish populations but it does not explain the absence observed to harbor greater numbers of sampled in 2011, in the most recently of juveniles. The absence of adult O. individuals with numbers dominated restored sections, did not have suffi- cristavarius in ut-LFTC is not readily by adults (personal observation R.F. cient time to recover from disturbance evident. The species is normally associ- Thoma). In 2009, the dominance of associated with stream restoration ated with large to mid sized streams crayfish populations in EFLS by ju- work. The winter flood affected the and this tributary may be too small to veniles and the overall low number of most recently restored subset of sample retain adults. No adult C. thomai were individuals was a clear sign of impacts sites, while results from more mature capture as no effort was made to dig from low quality habitat. It was antici- sites, not as affected by flooding, dem- burrows on the floodplain. Since adults pated that post-restoration community onstrate how habitat improvements can had been captured previously, numer- structure would improve with increased enhance crayfish communities. ous fresh burrows were observed in overall numbers and a domination by Some indication of the potential the area, and numerous young of year

82 Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Wildlife / COMPLETED PROJECTS

were captured, the habitat disturbance ration on crayfish communities based resulting from excavation of burrows on this study is unwise. Though there was deemed not worth the potential are indications that habitat improve- results. It is assumed adult C. thomai ments can enhance crayfish popula- are still present. There is the possibil- tions, more data is needed to support ity that summer drying has been oc- such a conclusion and an actual 2-year curring for the stream, reducing the recovery period should be observed. number of adult crayfish in the habitat. Infield observations of crayfish -oc The reduced sampling effort is likely a currences indicated the importance of large part of the explanation for the dif- hard substrates (especially those com- ferences between 2009 and 2011. The prised of flat rock slabs) to the pres- stream is thought to be progressing in ence of in stream crayfish. It is recom- its recovery. mended that future restoration projects Bolts Fork, sampled only in 2009, employ a dressing of flat slab rock in possessed a healthy crayfish commu- reconstructed riffles. It would be ben- nity. Ten adults and 42 juveniles were eficial to select one of the EFLS sites to recorded. Ten adult crayfish is the most add flat slab rock to and consequently collected at a site during this study. monitor its effect. EFLS #3 also had 10 adults in 2011. Bolts Fork had high gradient within Literature Cited the sample area (a ditched stretch of Taylor, C.A., and G.A. Schuster, 2004. stream). There was abundant rock/ The crayfishes of Kentucky. Illinois rubble substrate and a lack of soft sand Natural History Survey Special Pub- bed load sediments. It is thought that lication No. 28. Viii – 219 pp. restoration of Bolts Fork to its original channel would result in even better Funding Source: State Wildlife Grant crayfish communities. (SWG) and Midwest Biodiversity Insti- In examining the 2011 data it is tute evident that primary and secondary burrowing crayfish occurrence was much reduced from 2009. There are two ex- KDFWR Strategic Plan. Goal 1. planations for this phenomenon, first, Strategic Objective 5. Comprehen- burrowing crayfish from outside the sive Wildlife Conservation Strategy: immediate project footprint were not Appendix 3.3. Priority Conservation searched for, i.e. the site harboring C. Action #80, #120, #164, and #185. dubius was not specifically visited. Sec- ondly, burrowing crayfish colonies are very slow to recover from disturbance. When stream banks, where most burrowing crayfish are found, are disturbed at least 2 years time is needed for such At a species to reappear in sufficient num- Glance bers to have a presence. It is likely C. b. Stream restoration projects cavatus and C. thomai will eventually in high-priority crayfish areas return to the sampling sites but how long that will take is not clear. should incorporate flat slab rocks in reconstructed riffles. Management Implications It is recommended another sampling effort be conducted on EFLS in summer 2013. To draw firm conclusions about the effects of habitat resto-

Annual Research Highlights 2011 83 COMPLETED PROJECTS / Wildlife

Effects of ecological damage caused by Phrag- mites, the control and eradication of Phragmites this plant is important for biologists Management who wish to return affected wetlands to their pre-invasion state. Options on the Ecology for Phragmites reduction and/or removal include chemical, mechanical, of Clear and biological controls (Ailstock et al. 2001, Haslam 1971). Regardless of Creek Wildlife the method used, the destruction of a plant that has such a large presence in a Management community is likely to have an impact on the surrounding fauna by changing Area community composition and habitat structure. Phragmites invasion has been Howard Whiteman, Thomas particularly nocuous at the Clear Creek Timmons, Amy Krzton-Presson, Figure 1: Phragmites australis at Wildlife Management Area (CCWMA; Brett Davis, Christopher CCWMA. / Amy Krzton-Presson. Fig. 1), a Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources (KDFWR) Mecklin, Kirk Raper, and Katlyn property located in Hopkins County, Hitz, Murray State University (Mahala 2008). KY. In an effort to increase access to Phragmites australis is a coarse this public area and to begin restora- KDFWR Contact: perennial wetland grass that grows tion of this vital wetland ecosystem, Danna Baxley in dense colonies, spreading laterally the KDFWR, Ducks Unlimited, and through subterranean rhizomes in cir- Murray State University collaborated to cular growth patterns (Ailstock et al. manage 300 acres of Phragmites on the 2001). This species is native to North CCWMA. Our goal was to study the America, but the Phragmites that is effects of herbicide management on the Introduction rapidly invading wetlands comes from fish and herpteofaunal communities as Invasive species have been se- a haplotype from Eurasia (Marks et well as Species of Greatest Conserva- verely impacting habitats and commu- al. 1994). Communities consisting of tion Need (SGCN) and develop recom- nities worldwide for decades (Gratton monoculture stands of Phragmites are mendations for future management of and Denno 2006, Simberloff 1996). considered poor wildlife habitat with Phragmites. Wetland ecosystems are particularly low faunal diversity (Paxton 2007, In this study, we focused our ef- susceptible to invasion because they Roman et al. 1984), through both a forts on two questions: 1) What effect are watershed “sinks”, accumulating decrease in palatable vegetation and al- does Phragmites and its management materials resulting from terrestrial and terations in the structure of the habitat. have on fish, reptile, amphibian, and wetland disturbances (nutrients, sedi- Invasive Phragmites alters hydrologic SGCN populations?; and 2) What im- ments, excess water), which supply and chemical cycles in wetlands where pact does Phragmites and its manage- invasive plants with the resources they it becomes monotypic, replacing the ment efforts have on the ecosystem as need to outcompete native plant com- more diverse native flora. This not a whole? Our efforts were thus aimed munities (Zedler and Kercher 2004). only changes the structure, but also the at monitoring the effects of Phrag- There are 412 exotic plant species es- function of the wetland (Meyerson et mites, as well as herbicide treatment of tablished in Kentucky, 10 of which are al. 2000). For example, Armstrong and Phragmites, on fish and herpetofaunal considered invasive wetland species Armstrong (1988) found that Phrag- diversity, the presence or absence of (Mahala 2008). Of these 10 species, mites can limit the cycling of phos- SGCN, and water quality. Phragmites australis (common reed) phorus and other nutrients by having Previous research suggested that is one of Kentucky’s most noxious in- increased rhizosphere oxidation, which Phragmites would have negative ef- vasive wetland species with prevalent can bind these molecules in the sedi- fects on wetland fauna, and that veg- populations throughout the western part ments. etation removal would result in an of the state and along the Ohio River Because of the invasive nature and alteration of the fish and herpetofaunal

84 Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Wildlife / COMPLETED PROJECTS

communities. Therefore, Figure 2: Clear Creek Wildlife Management Area plant species in Weir Creek we hypothesized that areas (green outline) and associated experimental sites. include yellow water lily impacted by Phragmites Sample locations are represented by yellow circles. (Nuphar advena), duckweed would have reduced diver- Dead Phragmites, the result of herbicide application, is (Lemna minor), cattail (Ty- sity and altered community apparent in the experimental area. Map created by Jane pha sp.), and coontail (Cera- structure, and provide less Benson, Mid-American Remote-sensing Center (MARC), tophyllum demersum). Weir quality habitat for SGCN Murray State University. Creek is characterized by low than non-impacted areas. gradient, discolored water, We also hypothesized that and loose bottom composi- Phragmites management tion consisting of detritus, would result in an increase vegetation, large woody de- in species richness and bris, and silt. abundance in the fish and On 22-August-2009 KD- herpetofaunal commu- FWR and Ducks Unlimited nity composition when carried out a chemical treat- compared with control ment of Phragmites australis areas where Phragmites on the experimental section remained. Finally, we hy- of the CCWMA. An aerial pothesized that Phragmites application of a glyphosate would impact the entire herbicide (AquaMaster®) ecosystem by lowering was conducted on approxi- nutrient availability. This mately 300 of the 858 acres study was designed to at a rate of ten gallons per provide the data necessary acre via helicopter to spray for effective management the Phragmites and avoid the of this invasive wetland native aquatic plants (Fig. species. 2). This area served as our experimental treatment (EX), Materials and an untreated area invaded Methods by Phragmites downstream Site Description and served as our Phragmites Phragmites Management control (PC), and the Weir Creek wetland served as Clear Creek is a 5th or- our non-Phragmites control der stream approximately (NPC). 50.8 km long draining an area of 15,661 ha, of which 858 acres genotype (Croteau et al., unpublished Sampling Methods makes up the CCWMA. Historically, data). Additionally, there are many na- this area consisted of an infrequently tive plants that occur at lower densities, Fish were sampled according to flooded bottomland hardwood swamp including duckweed (Lemna minor), the standardized methods of the KIBI (B Kik, pers. comm.); it is now a more yellow water lily (Nuphar advena), (Kentucky Index of Biotic Integrity; permanently flooded emergent vegeta- coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum), see below; KDOW 2002), including tion wetland. It is characterized by a arrow arum (Peltandra virginica), pond seining and electrofishing (Fig. 3). Be- low gradient, clear water, and loose weed (Potamogeton sp.), and cattail ginning in September 2009, fish sam- bottom composition consisting of detri- (Typha latifolia). As part of this study, pling occurred every third week until tus, vegetation, large woody debris, and an adjacent non-Phragmites wetland October 16, after which cold weather silt. Currently the landscape at Clear was surveyed as a comparison to Clear and duck hunting season prevented Creek is dominated by the presence Creek. This site, located on private sampling. Sampling resumed March of Phragmites (Fig. 1). Concurrent land in the Weir Creek drainage, is a 15th 2010 and continued until August genetic analysis of the Phragmites at 3rd order tributary of Clear Creek and 14th 2010. Fish were identified using Clear Creek WMA revealed that this drains an area approximately 6,133 ha keys in Etnier and Starnes (1993). Dif- population is the exotic, more invasive and is 17.6 km long. The predominant ferences in KIBI and Shannon diversity

Annual Research Highlights 2011 85 COMPLETED PROJECTS / Wildlife

Common Family Species EX PC NPC Name sites using MANOVA. Amiidae Amia calva bowfin 13 11 5 To sample frogs and toads, a Wildlife Acoustics, Inc. Song Meter1™ Lepisosteus oculatus spotted gar 0 0 1 Lepisostidae automated recording device (ARD) was Lepisosteus osseus longnose gar 3 3 19 utilized to record ambient sound for Esocidae Esox americanus grass pickerel 32 82 29 two minutes every hour. The ARD’s Clupeidae Dorosoma cepedianum gizzard shad 1 0 0 were placed at each site to record Catostomidae Erimyzon succeta lake chubsucker 161 272 44 breeding male frogs’ songs and down- Cyprinus carpio (exotic) common carp 0 3 0 loaded regularly to identify frog species Cyprinidae Notemigonus crysoleucas golden shiner 43 51 85 and estimate relative densities. Semi- brook silver quantitative densities were estimated Atherinopsidae Labidesthes sicculus 0 0 1 side using the North American Amphibian Amerius melas black bullhead 4 6 2 Monitoring Program (NAAMP) rank- Amerius natalis yellow bullhead 11 7 0 ing system (Bridges and Dorcas 2000, Ictaluridae Royle and Link 2005). A Gower’s tadpole Noturus gyrinus 5 1 0 madtom measure of dissimilarity was used to statistically measure the level of dis- blackspotted Fundulidae Fundulus olivaceous 1 0 0 topminnow similarity of both species richness and Poeciliidae Gambusia affinis mosquito fish 32 23 498 ordinal densities. An ADONIS analysis was performed to identify significant Aphredoderidae Aphredoderus sayanus pirate perch 78 114 88 dissimilarities in the Gower’s results. Centrarchus macropterus flier 2 0 28 Lesser sirens (Siren intermedia) Lepomis cyanellus green sunfish 8 14 1 were trapped at each site simultane- Lepomis gulosus warmouth 18 7 13 ously during the spring and fall, and Lepomis macrochirus bluegill 64 83 311 consecutively in correspondence with Centrarchidae Lepomis megalotis longear sunfish 0 2 0 turtle trapping during the summer. Six Micropterus salmoides largemouth bass 5 8 79 modified trashcan traps (Luhring and Pomoxis annularis white crappie 0 1 31 Jennison 2008) were set at each station within each sample site, baited with Pomoxis nigromaculatus black crappie 0 0 6 sardines, and checked daily. Traps banded pigmy Elassomatidae Elassoma zonatum 37 38 6 were opened and upended after each sunfish trap period to allow captured organ- Percidae Etheostoma squamiceps spottail darter 1 0 3 isms to escape and prevent mortality. Snout-to-vent length, total length, and Table 1: Total number of captures for each fish species by sampling location. EX mass were measured for each captured = experimental; PC = Phragmites control; NPC = Non-Phragmites control. siren. Four minnow traps were set at each of the six trashcan trap locations among sampling locations and dates throughout the summer. Measurements and baited with dry dog food. All other were evaluated using ANOVA. Ad- of captured turtles include carapace organisms (snakes, frogs, tadpoles, fish ditionally, similarity of fish communi- length, carapace width, carapace height, and invertebrates) captured in the min- ties was evaluated using the Jaccard plastron length, and mass. Adult turtles now and trashcan traps were identified similarity index and analyzed using were sexed and marked with a unique to the lowest taxon and released. All a permutational MANOVA to test for code composed of holes drilled in mar- SGCN that were captured or casually significance among sample locations ginal scales on the carapace (Gibbons observed during fish and herpetofaunal and dates. 1990, Dustman 2010). Turtle capture sampling were recorded. Turtles were trapped at each site data was used to analyze movement using hoop traps throughout the sum- patterns, size density relationships, and Water Chemistry mers of 2009, 2010, and early summer species diversity. The Shannon diver- 2011. Traps were checked daily and sity index and an ADONIS analysis of To evaluate water quality, three removed from the water at the end similarity was used to compare turtle replicate water samples were taken of a trap period to prevent mortality. diversity between study sites. Turtle from each site every month. These Each site was sampled consecutively measurements were compared across samples were analyzed for nitrate/

86 Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Wildlife / COMPLETED PROJECTS

Over two field seasons each site was trapped for 288 trap days resulting in 661 turtle captures, consisting of 328 common snapping turtles (Che- lydra serpentina), 330 red-eared sliders (Trachemscripta elegans), 2 musk turtles (Sternotherus oderatus), and 1 midland painted turtle (Chrysemys picta margenata). The painted turtle was captured at the Phragmites control along with one of the musk turtles. The other musk turtle was captured at the experimental site. Turtle biodiversity, Figure 3: Murray State graduate students Kirk Raper and Brett Davis seining the as measured by the Shannon diversity CCWMA for fish. Note the abundance of Phragmites in the background. / Amy index, was found to be significantly Krzton-Presson. lower at the non-Phragmites treatment than either of the two Phragmites sites

nitrite, phosphorus-phosphate (SRP), analysis showed significant dissimilar- (F2,99 = 3.59, p < 0.01). The experimen- total particulate phosphorus (TPP), and ity between the non-Phragmites control tal and Phragmites control site did not total particulate nitrogen (TPN) using and Phragmites sites (EX and PC; both differ significantly.

a Lachet Quick Chem 8000 at the Han- F1,12 > 2.42, both p = 0.001), but not MANOVA comparisons of overall cock Biological Station (HBS). Water between the experimental and control body sizes showed significant differ-

samples filtered through 42.5mm glass Phragmites sites (F1,12 = 0.77, p = 0.75). ences among both common snapping microfiber filters were analyzed for The average KIBI for each site turtles and red-eared sliders. Juvenile total organic carbon (TOC). Turbid- across all sampling efforts were NPC outliers were removed from the analy- ity, temperature, pH, conductivity, and = 22, PC = 19.33, and EX = 16.75. sis. Turtles of both species were sig- dissolved oxygen (DO) were measured The KIBI of each site fluctuated over nificantly larger at the non-Phragmites using a handheld YSI 650 MDS water the course of the study, with scores control than either of the two sites

meter sonde. MANOVA was used to increasing during 2010 and reaching with Phragmites (both F > 3.4, both p compare overall water quality across their maximum values on July 15, 2010 < 0.01); the experimental site and the sites, with individual ANOVA analyses (NPC = 34, PC = 34, EX = 38). There Phragmites control site did not differ on each parameter. were no significant differences in the significantly.

KIBI among sites (F2, 36 = 0.88, P = The ARDs recorded for ten 0.42) and only marginal differences in months at each site; of that, over 360

Results the KIBI across sites over time (F2,24 hours of sound were analyzed. Twelve Over the course of this study, 26 = 3.16, P = 0.064). Similarly, there anuran species have been identified species of fish representing 14 families were no differences in the Simpson’s across the three sites including three and 2,525 individuals were captured diversity index among sites or when SGCN: bird-voiced tree frog (Hyla avi- and recorded at all three sites. The controlling for time (both F < 0.5, both voca), the crawfish frog (Rana areolata presence of Phragmites affected the P > 0.61). circulosa), and the southern leopard distribution of captured fish, butPhrag- Of particular interest among the frog (Rana sphenocephala) (Table mites management did not (Table 1). fish samples is the lake chubsucker, 2). Gower’s measure of dissimilarity Of the 15 fish species with more than Erimyzon sucetta. E. sucetta is threat- showed no trends and the subsequent 15 total individuals captured among ened in the state of Kentucky and a ADONIS analysis showed no signifi- all three sites, 12 showed a pattern of SGCN (Table 2), and was found at all cant differences in anuran biodiversity

similar capture numbers among the three sampling locations. A total of 477 across the sites (F2,21 = 0.54, p > 0.05). Phragmites sites (EX, PC) that were individuals of this species were col- substantially different from the non- lected among all three sites, the second Sirens and other SGCN Phragmites control (NPC; χ2 = 5.4, p highest abundance of all species col- = 0.02, d.f. = 1; Table 1). This pattern lected (Table 1). The majority of these Each treatment was trapped for was confirmed by the Jaccard similar- individuals (57%) were collected at the approximately 654 trap days over the ity index: permutational MANOVA Phragmites control site. two-year period for the western lesser

Annual Research Highlights 2011 87 COMPLETED PROJECTS / Wildlife

siren. This resulted in only seven si- Discussion supports the hypothesis that the native ren captures, only one of which was While actual removal of Phrag- plant community at the non-Phragmites at the experimental site. In addition mites stands did not occur as a result control provides habitat for a differ- to sirens, diamondback water snakes, of this study, the herbicidal treatment ent fish community than those sites copperbelly water snakes, and western of the experimental site was a success- dominated by Phragmites. As the re- cottonmouths were also occasionally ful management step toward restoring maining Phragmites stems decompose captured in these traps. 300 acres of Clear Creek WMA to a and herbicide treatment of Phragmites With the exception of the western pre-invasion condition. The return of continues, open water habitat and na- lesser siren (Siren intermedia nettingi) arrow arum (Peltandra virginica) and tive plant species should increase at the and the western cottonmouth (Agkis- cattail (Typha latifolia) to the treatment CCWMA. Future research at CCWMA trodon piscivorus leucostoma), other area provided evidence that managing may thus reveal significant differences SGCN were observed at all three sites Phragmites can allow native species in the fish community as the habitat (Table 2). A western mud snake (Far- to re-establish in the region. Although changes. ancia abacura reinwardtii) was found herbicide spraying can be costly, con- Phragmites presence, but not dead on the road directly adjacent to tinued management of Phragmites is management, also affected turtle spe- the non-Phragmites control indicating an effective treatment that should be cies. More large turtles of both domi- both their presence in at least that site weighed against the ecological distur- nant species were found at the non- and also the presence of undetected bance caused by Phragmites invasion, Phragmites site than at either of the Siren intermedia nettingi as that is the which as this study shows can be con- two Phragmites sites. There are large mud snakes’ primary food source. siderable. The successful management numbers of native yellow water lily of this invasive could also benefit wa- (Nuphar lutea) and duckweed (Lemna Water Chemistry terfowl hunters, anglers, and non-game minor) at the non-Phragmites site, both recreational wildlife enthusiasts as the of which are commonly consumed by Five of the eleven water qual- quality of the Clear Creek habitat in- red-eared sliders (Gibbons 1990). Al- ity parameters varied significantly creases with native plant restoration. though snapping turtles are much more among treatments. All of the varia- carnivorous than sliders, both species tion coincided with the presence of Fish, Herpetofauna, and SGCN Effects are omnivorous. Our observation that Phragmites; the experimental treat- large turtles of both species were more ment never differed significantly from Our results do not support the common at the non-Phragmites control the Phragmites control and in five of hypothesis that the CCWMA fish com- site when compared to the two Phrag- the parameters the non-Phragmites munity was affected by Phragmites mites sites suggest there may be habitat control differed significantly from both management. The lack of difference selection by age and size according to the experimental and the Phragmites between the experimental and control their different needs. Invasion by an control. The DOC, SRP, TP, and TN sites could be attributed to the similar exotic plant such as Phragmites low- were higher at the non-Phragmites habitat that still exists at these two ers plant diversity and palatable plants

control (all F2,38 > 8.0, all p < 0.01). In locations. While the treatment of may be limited in the two Phragmites contrast, conductivity was significantly Phragmites at the experimental site sites. Additionally, our fish commu- lower at the NPC treatment than the resulted in the elimination of green nity results and invertebrate samples

other two treatments (F2,38 = 76.27, p < plant tissue in adult individuals, the (not shown) suggest that there were no 0.01). DOC, TP, turbidity, ORP, TN, dead plant stems still remained stand- significant differences in overall prey and conductivity showed significant ing during our study, and the amount of availability among sites. Thus, all three

seasonal variation (F1,38 ≥ 4.75, p < open water habitat remained the same areas had adequate food sources for 0.05), but only conductivity exhibited as before Phragmites treatment. The younger and smaller turtles that typi- a significant interaction between treat- short duration of the present study may cally have a more protein-based diet, ment and month. This interaction was not be a reflection of the long-term suggesting that larger turtles may have driven by variation at the two Phrag- changes in the fish community that been more concentrated in the non- mites treatments while the NPC treat- could result from Phragmites manage- Phragmites site because of the vegeta-

ment remained relatively stable. NO3/ ment. For example, the fish community tion differences.

NO2, temperature, pH and DO did not at the non-Phragmites control was The non-Phragmites control differ significantly across treatments or made up of a significantly different site was found to have lower turtle bio- over time. assemblage than those at either of the diversity than either of the two Phrag- Phragmites locations (Table 2). This mites sites primarily because of low

88 Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Wildlife / COMPLETED PROJECTS

Treatment Frequency Species observed Observed port. Sources of dissolved organic Lake Chubsucker (Erimyzon sucetta) EX, PC, NPC Common carbon include excretion of waste materials by fauna, cell break- Western Lesser Siren (Siren intermedia nettingi) EX, PC Uncommon down, and microbial decomposi- (Hyla avivoca) EX, PC, NPC Common Bird-voiced Treefrog tion (Lampert and Sommer 2007). Northern Crawfish Frog (Rana areolata circulosa) EX, PC, NPC Uncommon An increase in DOC, as well as Southern Leopard Frog (Rana sphenocephala) EX, PC, NPC Common other more limiting nutrients such Diamondback Water Snake (Nerodia rhombifer rhombifer) EX, PC, NPC Common as phosphorus and nitrogen, can be Copperbelly Water Snake (Nerodia erythorogaster neglecta) EX, PC, NPC Common indicative of an increased trophic Western Cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus leucostoma) EX, PC Common state of an aquatic habitat (Lam- pert and Sommer 2007). Reactive phosphorus Table 2: Fish, amphibian, and reptile SGCN observed at the CCWMA, the treatments (SRP) is typically the most limited in which they were observed, and the frequency of observations. EX = experimental; nutrient in a wetland (Cole 1994). PC = Phragmites control; NPC = Non-Phragmites control. More available phosphorus could benefit the algal community at the species evenness. The two Phragmites mental site and the Phragmites control base of the aquatic food web. Phrag- sites did not differ significantly from site. Although they were not captured mites has been shown to have a higher each other. The ratio of common snap- at the non-Phragmites site, a western net primary productivity than the native ping turtles to red-eared sliders was mud snake, a siren-specialist predator plants it displaces (Ehrenfeld 2003); much higher in the non-Phragmites site and a SGCN, was found nearby sug- this combined with the increased plant as opposed to either the experimental or gesting both species are present in that biomass seen in Phragmites could Phragmites control (~4:1 versus ~1:2, area. Of the ten aquatic reptile and be contributing to the lower levels of respectively). These results suggest amphibian SGCN that are listed as con- phosphorus seen at the EX and PC that Phragmites has species-specific firmed in Hopkins County, Kentucky treatments and coincidentally limiting effects on turtle distribution and popu- (KDFWR 2005), eight were observed available phosphorus for other mac- lation size. It is possible that turtle at or directly adjacent to the study rophytes. The decrease (but not total species differ in habitat selection, either sites. This speaks highly of the quality elimination) in living Phragmites at EX preferring or avoiding Phragmites; of Clear Creek despite the invasion of due to management may have a small, alternatively, the more aggressive snap- Phragmites australis. Some of these or thus far undetectable, effect on ping turtles may outcompete sliders and species, particularly the western lesser nutrients such as SRP; however, nutri- other less aggressive turtle species for siren, were rare and might benefit from ent cycling in a stream ecosystem has access to the high quality resources at the successful management of this in- a longitudinal (downstream) element the non-Phragmites locality. Further vasive plant. (Newbold 1992). Phragmites still ex- research will be required to evaluate ists upstream and may be impacting the these disparate hypotheses. Water Chemistry Effects influx of nutrients. We found no significant difference Conductivity varied significantly in anuran diversity based on both spe- All of the significant variation seen over time at both Phragmites treat- cies richness and ordinal densities using in the water chemistry analysis paral- ments, while levels at the NPC treat- the NAAMP ranking. This result sup- leled the presence or absence of Phrag- ment were much more stable. The fluc- ports the null hypothesis that anurans mites, strongly suggesting that this tuations seen in PC and EX coincide are not affected by the presence of plant is impacting the nutrient cycling (inversely) with discharge data from a Phragmites and may therefore show lit- in Clear Creek. The land use surround- USGS station on the Tradewater River tle reaction to Phragmites management. ing all three treatments is very similar; just downstream from the confluence Although Phragmites does not grow agricultural activity and strip mining of Clear Creek and the Tradewater in deep water, there is standing water are adjacent to every site (Davis 2011). River. The NPC treatment remained within and throughout the Phragmites With the exception of nitrogen, the stable throughout rain events and a stands in Clear Creek. Our results sug- differences across treatments included drought. This suggests the flow of gest that this provides adequate habitat the major nutrients involved in aquatic minerals into Weir Creek is much more for the frog species of this area. ecosystems. An increase in dissolved constant and stable than that entering The presence of western lesser organic carbon can reflect the faunal Clear Creek. Conductivity is related to sirens was confirmed at both the experi- community that the ecosystem can sup- total dissolved solids, and these solids

Annual Research Highlights 2011 89 COMPLETED PROJECTS / Wildlife

are often minerals capable of conduct- vasive plant is removed, native species that it is a lower quality food resource, ing electrical current through the water may have difficulty reestablishing in a alters available nutrient levels, and (Cole 1994). High mineral content in degraded habitat. these combined effects influence the watersheds is often a result of the ero- organisms capable of being supported sion of rocks and soils (Golterman et Conclusions and Management by this system. al. 1975), which could be affected by Recommendations The ability of Phragmites australis local strip mines in Hopkins County. This study demonstrates the com- to quickly dominate marsh plant com- These three study treatments are all sur- plex and variable nature of invasive munities (Roman et al. 1984) makes it rounded by strip mines (Davis 2011), species treatment in a wetland ecosys- an invasive capable of altering wetlands but the increased levels and variation in tem. Because an increase in invasive on an ecosystem level. This study il- conductivity suggest Clear Creek may species abundance can alter wetland lustrates the complexities of wetland be more heavily impacted than Weir ecosystem function (Meyerson et al. dynamics and fluxes, some of which Creek. Drainage from strip mines is 2000), invasives demonstrate how indi- originate from the bottom of the food often characterized by a low pH and in- vidual species can make a difference on web and manifest in top predators. The creased heavy metals (Robb and Robin- an ecosystem level. Additionally, many successful management of this plant son 1995). Phragmites has been shown authors agree that long term monitoring and any subsequent effects on the wet- to increase sediment deposition (Rooth of invasive species treatment and stan- land community may not be apparent and Stevenson 2000), and this may be dardization of methods is critical for unless long term monitoring in con- impacting the transport of conductive evaluating management techniques and junction with continued management is dissolved solids in Clear Creek. The recommending future strategies (NRC performed. Successful habitat restora- pH levels did not indicate increased 1992, Kondolf 1998, Blossey 1999). tion attempts to re-establish communi- acidity; Phragmites is known to in- The use of both ecological and statisti- ties to a state that is both physically and crease the pH of runoff from mines by cal population metrics in the present functionally similar to the pre-invasion adding alkalinity through gas exchange study resulted in an effective method habitat (Palmer et al. 1997). The use in the substrate (Robb and Robinson for monitoring effects of invasive spe- of complimentary research techniques 1995), and this process may be stabiliz- cies management on fish and herpeto- (i.e. fish diversity, turtle population ing the pH at CCWMA. Other water faunal community dynamics. Because ecology, anuran diversity, SGCN, water chemistry parameters (besides conduc- plant invasions generally affect all chemistry, etc.) allowed for a deeper tivity) varied over time, but the treat- levels and processes within an ecosys- understanding of how this invasive ments had had similar trends showing tem, multi-disciplinary and cross-taxa plant and its management are affecting they had similar seasonal effects. monitoring research is important for this wetland. Alternatively the differences seen understanding the ecological implica- Our results suggest that future in conductivity across treatments could tions of invasive species management management of Phragmites at the Clear be site-specific characteristics indepen- (Blossey 1999). This inter-disciplinary Creek WMA is warranted, and that con- dent of the presence Phragmites. In approach is reflected in the manage- tinued monitoring of plant, fish, herpe- this scenario, drainage from strip mines ment goals and monitoring strategies at tofauna, and SGCN will be necessary that increased conductivity may have Clear Creek WMA. to adequately determine the long-term degraded Clear Creek making it diffi- Our findings of differences in fish consequences of such management. cult for native plants to survive, thereby community structure and turtle sizes reducing competition for Phragmites suggest that continued management of and making it easier for it to invade Phragmites may be beneficial toward CCWMA. Peverly et al. (1995) docu- both taxonomic groups. The increased mented Phragmites thriving and ex- biomass of Phragmites may be reduc- Literature Cited panding in high concentrations of metal ing nutrient levels such as phosphorus Ailstock, M.S., C.M. Norman, and leachate from an adjacent strip mine, at the two invaded treatment sites. Iso- P.J. Bushman. 2001. Common reed the roots acting as filters to absorb topic signatures of individuals of vari- Phragmites australis: control and ef- metals while the rhizosphere released ous species show more utilization of fects upon biodiversity in freshwater oxygen to form metal precipitate. If macrophytes at NPC as well as higher nontidal wetlands. Restoration Ecol- this is the case, Clear Creek may be densities of tertiary consumers (Krzton- ogy 9:49-59. more difficult to restore asPhragmites Presson 2011). Although Phragmites is providing an ecological buffer for impacted some species more heavily Armstrong, J. and W. Armstrong. 1988. strip mine drainage. Even after the in- than others, this study supports the idea Phragmites australis- A preliminary

90 Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Wildlife / COMPLETED PROJECTS

study of soil-oxidizing sites and in- Academy of Science. 61(2):115-132. CCBTR-07-03. College of William ternal gas transport pathways. New and Mary, Williamsburg, VA. 19pp. Phytologist 108:373-382. Kentucky Division of Water (KDOW). 2002. Methods for assessing bio- Roman, C. W. Niering, R. Warren. Blossey, B. 1999. Before, during and logical integrity of surface waters in 1984. Salt marsh vegetation change after: the need for long-term moni- Kentucky. Kentucky Department for due to tidal restriction. Environmen- toring in invasive plant species man- Environmental Protection. Frankfort, tal Management. 8:141-150. agement. Biological Invasions. 1: Kentucky. 301-311. Simberloff, D. 1996. Impacts of Intro- Kondolf, G.M. 1998. Lessons learned duced Species in the United States. Bridges, A. and M. Dorcas. 2000. Tem- from river restoration projects in Consequences. 2:13-22. poral Variation in Anuran Calling California. Aquatic Conservation Behavior: Implications for Surveys of Marine and Freshwater Sciences Royle, J. and W. Link. 2005. A Gen- and Monitoring Programs. Copia. 8:39-52. eral Class of Multinomial Mixture 2:587-592. Models for Anuran Calling Survey Luhring, T. and C. Jennison. 2008. A Data. Ecological Society of America. Dustman, E. 2010. Effects of Roads New Stratified Aquatic Sampling 86:2505-2512. on Turtle Life History. M.S. Thesis, Technique for Aquatic Vertebrates. Murray State University. Journal of Freshwater Ecology. Zedler, J.B., S. Kercher. 2004. Causes 23:445-450. and consequences of invasive plants Etnier, D. A., and W. C. Starnes. 1993. in wetlands: opportunities, opportun- Fishes of Tennessee, 2nd edition. The Mahala, M. 2008. Kentucky aquatic ists, and outcomes. Critical review in University of Tennessee Press, Knox- nuisance species management plan. plant sciences. 23(5); 431-452. ville, Tennessee. Kentucky department of fish and wildlife resources technical publica- Gibbons, J. W. 1990. Life history and tion. Frankfort, KY. Funding Sources: State Wildlife Grant ecology of the slider turtle. Smithso- (SWG), Watershed Studies Institute and nian Institution Press, Washington, Meyerson, L. A., K. Saltonstall, L. Department of Biological Sciences, DC. Windham, E. Kiviat, and S. Findlay. Murray State University, Ducks Unlim- 2000. A comparison of Phragmites ited Gratton, C. and R. Denno. 2006. Ar- australis in freshwater and brackish thropod Food Web Restoration fol- marsh environments in North Amer- KDFWR Strategic Plan. Goal 1. lowing Removal of an Invasive Wet- ica. Wetlands Ecology and Manage- Strategic Objective 5. Comprehen- land Plant. Ecological Applications. ment. 8: 89-103. sive Wildlife Conservation Strategy: 16:622-631. Appendix 3.2, Class Reptilia. Priority Monsanto. 2002. Aquamaster Technical Research Project #1, Priority Survey Haslam, S.M. 1971. Community regu- Fact Sheet. 2009. http://www.mon- Project #1. Class Actinopeterygii and lation in Phragmites communis Trin: santo.com/ito/pdfs/aquaFactSheet. Cephalaspidomorphi. Priority Re- II. Mixed stands. Journal of Ecology. pdf search Project #1. 59(1): 75-88. NRC (National Research Council). Kentucky Department of Fish and 1992. Restoration of aquatic eco- Wildlife Resources. 2010. Ken- systems. National Academy Press, tucky’s Comprehensive Wildlife Washington, D.C. Conservation Strategy. Frankfort, At a Glance Kentucky 40601. http://fw.ky.gov/kf- Paxton, B. J. 2007. Potential Impact wis/stwg/ (Date updated 12/7/2010). of Common Reed Expansion on Managing Phragmites in the Accessed August 2009. Threatened Highmarsh Bird Com- manner can allow native munities on the Seaside: Breeding species to re-establish. Both Kentucky State Nature Preserves Com- Bird Surveys of Selected High-marsh arrow arum and cattail re- mission. 2000. Rare and extirpated Patches. Center for Conservation established onsite. biota of Kentucky. Journal Kentucky Biology Technical Report Series,

Annual Research Highlights 2011 91 COMPLETED PROJECTS / Wildlife

Natural Grassland Survey of the Interior Low Plateau Karst Priority Conservation Area

Brian Yahn, Kentucky State to provide protection and management with prescription fire, non-native spe- Nature Preserves Commission to sustain grassland associated species cies management and cedar removal) into the future. These areas include the is critical to the continued existence of original grassland flora of the region as these unique species and communities KDFWR Contact: well as the habitat structure and food in Kentucky. Large-scale restoration is Danna Baxley plants that support grassland/woodland most successful when remnant grass- wildlife species. Restoration of remnant lands and woodlands, with a diverse grasslands and woodlands/barrens (i.e. native flora, are embedded within the

Introduction At the time of early settlement, Kentucky had an estimated 2.5 to 3 million acres of natural grasslands (prairies), open woodlands (barrens) and rocky glades that were common in the Pennyroyal/ Mitchell Plain and the Coastal Plain regions and scattered throughout surrounding areas (Abernathy et al. 2010). This system in Kentucky was an outlying part of the once vast Prairie Peninsula that existed in central North America prior to European settlement (Ladd 1995). The natural communities of this ecosystem supported a wide diversity of plants and animals, very different from the surrounding and prevailing forests. Such species were adapted to drought, fire and grazing pressures. But in this modern era, most of the original grassland system in Kentucky has been eliminated from the landscape, converted to agricultural fields, mined land and urban cities and highways. Many species associated with native grasslands are now rare, declining or extirpated. Today, only a number of small and a few larger natural grassland remnants are known to still exist. They are widely scattered and often in isolated patches. Most are in poor ecological condition from decades of misuse, over-grazing and lack of fire. It is important to identify remaining parts of this grassland ecosystem and develop long-term conservation plans Limestone prairie Crooked Creek / Dave Skinner

92 Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Wildlife / COMPLETED PROJECTS

area to be restored. The na- Table 1: Summary of Sites Surveyed and Remnants Identified tive plants growing in these Sites Surveyed: Surveyed Areas areas provide the seed bank Sites Surveyed necessary for successful Acres by Quality* restoration. These natural Total 392 46,900 452 populations can also supply Eliminated 304 36,423 349 the seed source for more in- Moderate to High Quality 88 10,477 103 tensive restoration (i.e. seed Sites Surveyed: Surveyed Areas Best Quality Ranks drilling) on adjacent lands. Acres by Quality* Natural grassland com- State Significant 4,138 13 munities are highly diverse State Notable 1,359 21 and have developed this County Notable 4,242 58 variation over relatively Restoration Potential 738 11 long periods of time (ca 8,000 years ago) with fire and grazing (i.e. large herbi- * Surveyed sites were divided into areas based on quality vores) as natural disturbance factors (Ladd 1995). It is Once identified, focus areas could be fields dominated by fescue). A color just a matter of time before these natu- established, allowing for KDFWR to aerial photo taken sometime in summer ral grassland remnants are converted narrow their surveys, monitoring and through fall will usually show darker to development, agriculture or other protection for wildlife species of great- brownish color signature for warm uses and the opportunity to protect both est conservation need (SGCN). Ex- season plants and a greenish color sig- natural communities/habitats and the amples of such wildlife species which nature for cool season plants. unique species that rely on them will directly utilize or depend on native In combination with the above be gone. To this end, identification of grasslands include: Henslow’s Spar- method, an older method of inventory the remaining pieces is needed to sup- row, Lark Sparrow, Short-eared Owl, that identifies natural areas (simply port the diverse and unique flora and Northern Harrier, Eastern Corn Snake, called Natural Areas Inventory or NAI) fauna associated with these grassland Eastern Slender Glass Lizard, and Six- was developed in the mid-1970s and systems. lined Racerunner. conducted by the University of Illinois. In past years, conducting system- This approach, adopted in the late1980s atic inventories for native grassland Methods and Materials by KSNPC, still involved using aerial remnants has been difficult and time The project area (Figure 1) was imagery (but past image quality was consuming. The results lead plant selected to provide additional biologi- poor or limited). Using this imagery ecologists to assume that the best and cal information on the conservation and other information (soils, topogra- largest grassland, woodland and glade areas described in Kentucky’s Wildlife phy, geology, etc), sites were selected habitats had already been found in Action Plan (KDFWR 2005). This area, and then systematically flown over in Kentucky. But in perspective, these known as the Interior Low Plateau search of natural areas (e.g. looking for “best” sites were few and, on a land- Karst Priority Conservation Area (ILP- natural features (cliffs, natural ponds, scape scale, relatively small, isolated KCA), also coincided with a significant waterfalls, etc.), low-disturbance com- and separated by enough distance that part of the pre-settlement prairie and munities, large expanses of mature for- gene flow between populations was barrens region of Kentucky. ests, etc.). Such a survey required that restricted or completely shut-off. A new With the recent use of color and the aircraft fly slowly, be able to spin in approach was needed to identify more black and white aerial photography tight space and hover over precise loca- remnants within the landscape and to (USDA-NAIP/KY EPPC color digital tions. Helicopters were the best choice make conservation decisions based on orthophotography (2004, 2006, 2008, to perform such surveys. the remaining distribution. 2010) and USGS/KY EPPC digital Selecting sites from aerial photos The goal of this project was to orthophoto quadrangle (1995/1997)), and then completing a rapid inventory identify and document remaining natu- KSNPC ecologists are now able to by helicopter is a very efficient and ral grassland, woodland and glade habi- distinguish areas dominated by native productive method to achieve a reliable tats that support native flora and fauna (warm season) grasses and forbs from assessment of large study areas like the (from grasses and forbs to insects, areas dominated by non-native (cool ILPKCA. These steps help to quickly snakes, lizards, birds and mammals). season) grasses and forbs (e.g. old filter out the sites that need ground vis-

Annual Research Highlights 2011 93 COMPLETED PROJECTS / Wildlife

Figure 1: Study Area, see inset key for details. its. Many grassland sites can be evalu- was completed as follows: aerial surveys (via helicopter). Sites ated quickly in one flight whereas the 1. Organized relevant grassland were either kept for closer inspec- same number of sites (not flown over) sites in the ILPKCA that had been tion or eliminated due to low quality might take weeks or months to elimi- identified/surveyed in the past (us- appearance (e.g. logging, bulldoz- nate/inspect on the ground. ing the KSNPC Natural Heritage ing, invasive species presence, over- All sites visited on the ground Database, KSNPC NAI database, all weedy appearance, etc.). were scored by evaluating six factors: etc.) 4. Sites that were kept for closer habitat quality, species rarity, invasive 2. Systematically inspected the inspection, especially those that species abundance, size, landscape aerial photography, selecting areas ranked as higher priority, were context and woody species encroach- for potential grassland sites (using surveyed on the ground. Detailed ment. Values were given to each factor ArcGIS software). A grid system of vegetation data was collected and on a 1 to 5 scale, with 1 most favorable quarter quads was used to keep the included: qualitative data regarding and 5 the least favorable. An overall imagery in order. composition, data describing com- site or community rank was also deter- 3. Organized potential sites into munity structure, presence of weeds mined. a flight plan. A crew (usually two and other signs of anthropogenic ecologists, along with the pilot) then disturbance. The step by step inventory process assessed the potential sites through 5. The data collected from

94 Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Wildlife / COMPLETED PROJECTS

ground visits was entered into two protected areas (such as State Nature west Barren County) separate forms. One form was used Preserves or other conservation/man- for documenting site conditions and aged lands) and make up 59% of the Focus Area 4: Pennyroyal Karst Plain species presence and abundance. total acreage. The remaining notable Focus Area (Southern Warren County) Another form was used for ranking sites are mostly privately owned with the quality and conservation poten- little to no protection or grassland man- tial of the site. The form that ranks agement. Discussion quality and conservation potential Land use and persistence of native was a first step approach to separate Focus Areas: grasslands (prairies/barrens/glades) the best sites from the worst and As a result of this study, four Con- to assess the sites based on several servation Focus Areas have been de- Most natural grassland remnants factors lineated within the project area. These persist because private landowners Focus Areas have been created based never converted the land to pasture Results on three main factors: 1) high-quality (e.g. cool season non-native grasses) Surveys in Barren, Butler, Edmon- grassland remnants occurring at high or crop fields (e.g. corn, soybean, etc.) son, Metcalfe and Simpson Counties density, 2) the high occurrence and - or converting the native grassland to resulted in fewer high quality remnants abundance of SGCN and KSNPC-listed non-native pasture was attempted but discovered (Figure 1). Most of the sites species and 3) predominance of native the effort was unsuccessful. In general, surveyed, particularly in Butler Co., vegetation on the landscape (including where there are remnants, landowners were low to moderate quality, many large forest tracts, significant natural probably used the areas as native pas- with sandy, dry, eroded soils. Grayson areas (especially other native grassland ture for livestock, the land was grazed and LaRue Counties had a few high sites), etc.). These Focus Areas have (sometimes heavily) and kept open. In a quality remnants found but most were been created to help the conservation heavily grazed situation, if the livestock isolated, without other nearby rem- community center their attention on were removed and the land had time to nants. The highest concentrations of particular areas for conservation and recover, native grassland plants could new remnants found were in Hardin restoration of native grasslands. spread from native patches or could and Hart Counties, particularly in two Selecting Focus Areas was not re-colonize from edge habitats. An- regions: southwest and southern Hardin without bias but the three factors listed other scenario: if the land was left idle County extending into northwestern above guided the decision making or abandoned, woody species would Hart County. Both of these areas have process. Sources of information to invade the area (especially without been selected as conservation focus complete the process include Kentucky repeated fire and/or grazing). In time, areas. Warren and Logan Counties also Rarity-weighted Richness Index Analy- the woody forest species would grow had a high number of remnants, but sis (RWRI) (Abernathy et al. 2010), up and shade out the native grassland many of these were found during the KSNPC Kentucky Natural Heritage species, reducing grassland density and original NAI surveys in the late 1980s. Database (2011a), KSNPC NAI data- diversity. Some of these sites have been further base (2011b), KSNPC Conservation In situations where woodlands fragmented or degraded or destroyed Lands Database, and KSNPC Kentucky (barrens) were common, conditions since their discovery (due to new Large Forest Tracts (Evans 2009). were likely degraded over time. Trees roads, logging and other development were likely removed or reduced by pressures). This being an unfortunate The four Conservation long-term grazing, or the woodland was confirmation that high quality grassland Focus Areas are: suppressed without fire and allowed habitat continues to disappear from the to close in, or it was logged and left to landscape. Focus Area 1: Rough River and Meet- re-grow. Woodland re-growth and ma- A total of 392 sites were either ing Creek Focus Area (Southwest Har- turity was often without fire, and tree surveyed during this project or through din County) species aggressively competed for light past natural area inventories. Of these, to establish dominance in the canopy. 88 sites were considered of moder- Focus Area 2: Nolin River & Round With fire being suppressed and grazing ate to high quality remnants and 304 Stone Creek Focus Area (S. Hardin & pressures changing from natural to hu- were eliminated (Table 1). Thirteen Northern Hart Co.) man-induced, the stability of the wood- sites have the highest rank of State land system began to unravel. Today, Significant (covering over 4,000 acres). Focus Area 3: East Mammoth Cave on many dry, rocky slopes and knobs However, seven of these thirteen are Focus Area (Southern Hart and North- of the Interior Low Plateau, grassland-

Annual Research Highlights 2011 95 COMPLETED PROJECTS / Wildlife

prairie plants are found but only in Additional surveys or other studies where applicable (see full report). Pre- small open pockets within a dry but needed scription fire, cedar thinning/removal closed or dense canopy forest. These and herbicide application for invasive plants, growing in a sea of shade-loving The information gathered via this species will probably be the first action forest species, point to a pre-settlement project helps to advance the goal of in restoring or improving most native condition where a prairie-woodland providing biological data needed in grassland habitats. These activities mosaic existed and changed gradually order to make decisions about rare often require years of work before de- with disruptions from natural fire and and declining communities, habitats sired results are achieved (i.e. a diverse grazing cycles. Today the native grass- and species. Although effort has been native composition and open habitat land system is broken and severely made to visit all sites in the project structure). fragmented, with dysfunctional natural area, many sites are still left to survey. Tractor mowing (i.e. bushhog) cycles. Additional surveys may provide infor- is recommended in situations where Over-grazing, erosion, woody mation on areas that could not be fully prescription fire cannot be achieved invasion or repeated mowing over assessed as part of this effort. (this can be applied to old fields as well time cause a significant reduction in Although this project area covered as woodlands or remnants on steeper grassland species diversity and this de- an important section of Kentucky’s slopes). Mowing once a year in very pauperate condition is evident in most original grasslands, similar projects are late summer to fall will promote better remnants on the landscape today. needed throughout the Highland Rim, grassland conditions (this allows warm the East Gulf Coastal Plain and through season plants to flower and produce Completeness of surveys for the ILP- parts of the Shawnee Hills. It is hoped, seed). Many low quality remnants are KCA that these types of projects can be com- thick with native grass (e.g. near mono- bined to improve conservation of Ken- cultures of little bluestem) and have lit- Selecting sites from the aerial im- tucky’s natural systems. tle abundance or diversity of grassland agery is, by nature, partly subjective. forbs. Some of this is due to mowing Also, when flying over sites, the deci- Rarity in communities vs. species an area multiple times in the growing sion to keep or eliminate them is made season. Also, mowing high and leaving very quickly. Aside from identifying Sometimes the rarity of a type a low duff (litter) layer should be at- the dominant sod-grasses on a site, of grassland community will greatly tempted to encourage cover for wildlife the distant view from the helicopter increase the importance of a site (e.g. populations. If mowing is desired more only allows for a few other species to rank, score), even though the spe- than once per year, a spring mow and be identified (usually those of large cies found are not rare, the size of the late summer/fall mow, in most condi- populations) or large species with large community is relatively small and/ tions, would still promote grassland flowers, leaves and/or tall stems). To or the surrounding landscape context vegetation and encourage plant di- account for this, sites assessed as mar- is degraded. Native grassland rem- versity (grassland bird nesting is also ginal quality (that seemed weedy or of nants of rare community types, even a concern here). Mowing during dry lower quality but had some potential) if disturbed, will always receive high periods is highly recommended as soils were not eliminated. conservation values. Examples include remain firm and less disturbed when Prior to this grassland project, it Tallgrass prairie and Limestone flatrock under pressure of heavy equipment. was thought that barrens-woodlands glade. Many invasive grassland species will remnants would need to be semi-open take advantage of soil disturbed by tire to support grassland vegetation. But Management ruts and trampled vegetation that tend during this study a few nearly-closed Recommendations to occur more in wet soils than dry. cedar-oak woodlands were found with A. Recommended sites for protection Be cautious when removing oaks a diverse grassland understory. These through restoration (enhancement) and from native remnants as several species were small barrens communities along expansion were naturally abundant in Kentucky’s south and west-facing slopes of forests. fire-dependent woodlands. In general, The woodlands blended in to where This study identifies native prairie- oaks are good trees for wildlife too (es- openings were minor, often scattered, woodland remnants in need of restora- pecially acorns) so leaving wide-spaced thin and/or linear. The openings were tion management. Each management trees is recommended. If there are virtually undetectable with the current recommendation is site specific; brief dense thickets or tightly-grown young imagery used and were very difficult to management recommendations have forests, steps to reduce their coverage spot during helicopter surveys. been listed on the grassland forms is usually necessary. Furthermore, oak

96 Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Wildlife / COMPLETED PROJECTS

woodlands dominated by dense (native) in the ILPKCA and need immediate (Unpublished). Frankfort, KY. grass-herb understories are rare in Ken- conservation attention. tucky (oak barrens) and fire-managed Jones, R.L 2005. Plant Life of Ken- stands are needed. Also be cautious to Literature Cited tucky. University of Kentucky Press. remove other mature hardwoods, cedars Abernathy, G., D. White, E. L. Laud- Lexington, KY. (reference, not cited) and pines because many of these are ermilk, and M. Evans, editors. 2010. an important component of Kentucky Kentucky’s Natural NatureServe. 2011. NatureServe Ex- barren-woodland communities. Heritage: An Illustrated Guide to Bio- plorer: An online encyclopedia of Native plant seed drilling within diversity. University Press of Ken- life. http://www.natureserve.org/ natural remnants is not recommended tucky, Lexington, Kentucky, USA. explorer/. (not cited here: see full as this often results in a reduction of report) diversity (i.e. most plantings are low di- Dietrich, C.H. 2010. Survey of the versity and the composition depauper- Leafhoppers and Related Auchenor- ate compared to natural remnants). Es- rhyncha (Insecta: Hemiptera) of Four Funding Sources: State Wildlife Grant tablishing native grass plantings/fields Kentucky State Nature Preserves in (SWG) and Kentucky State Nature Pre- in close proximity to native remnants is Hardin and Larue Counties. Final serves Commission. also not recommended, as this can lead report submitted to the Kentucky to introduction of non-local genotypes. State Nature Preserves Commission, Kentucky’s Wildlife Action Plan: Ap- But if an adjacent planting already ex- Frankfort, KY. (not cited here: see pendix 3.8, Terrestrial habitat guild ists, such as a CREP field previously full report) (Grassland/agriculture), Objectives established, the planted field could help 1,3,4 and 5. develop a reliable grass-herb layer that Evans, M. and G. Abernathy. 2009. structurally, burns more complete. With Large forest tracts of Kentucky. Ken- the right conditions, seed from the nat- tucky State Nature Preserves Com- ural remnant overtime could disperse mission, Frankfort, Kentucky, USA. into the CREP field, blending the two more fittingly. With undesirable condi- Kentucky Department of Fish and tions, aggressive grasses (like Indian Wildlife Resources (KDFWR). 2005. At a Glance Grass) from the CREP field could over- Kentucky’s Wildlife Action Plan: Four Grassland Focus Areas run the native remnant. Comprehensive Wildlife Conserva- tion Strategy. Kentucky Department were established to facilitate B. Recommended sites for protection of Fish and Wildlife, Frankfort, KY. conservation of this rare through acquisition habitat type: Ladd, D. 1995. Tallgrass Prairie Wild- • Southwest Hardin County This study provides a list of the flowers: A Field Guide. Falcon. Hel- highest quality grassland sites within ena, Montana. • Southern Hardin and the four selected focus areas. Those Northern Hart County sites may be further evaluated as to [KSNPC] Kentucky State Nature Pre- • Southern Hart and the potential for SGCN. Criteria will serves Commission. 2009. Natural Northwest Barren County include the overall extent of habitat communities of Kentucky. Unpub- • Southern Warren County available, the quality of the natural lished manuscript. Frankfort, KY. communities and faunal information. (copies available upon request) (i.e. High-ranked sites can be surveyed by KDFWR for SGCN). [KSNPC] Kentucky State Nature Pre- The opportunity exists to survey serves Commission. 2011a. Kentucky and collect more species level informa- Natural Heritage Database. Kentucky tion, and over the next couple of years, State Nature Preserves Commission, determine if the focus areas need minor Frankfort, KY. or major adjustments. It can also be recommended now (through discus- [KSNPC] Kentucky State Nature sions by conservation agencies) that Preserves Commission. 2011b. Ken- these areas are of greatest importance tucky natural areas inventory dataset

Annual Research Highlights 2011 97 Non Game Fishes

Collecting catfish from hatchery pond to stock FINs lakes / Dave Baker Project Highlights Fisheries / PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS

Exploitation Rates of Stocked Channel Catfish and Rainbow Trout in Fishing in Neighborhoods (FINs) Lakes

Dane Balsman and Jeremiah Smith, Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources

he Fishing in Neighborhoods the cool weather months. T(FINs) program provides fish- The exploitation rate is ing opportunities to cities of all sizes similar for trout with about across the Commonwealth. These 1/3 of caught fish being lakes require routine stockings of harvested the first time catchable-size fish to maintain qual- they are harvested. When Tagged rainbow trout awaiting release / Dane Balsman ity fishing opportunities to a diverse we view the creel survey, group of anglers. To assess angler the estimated catch for cat- utilization and current stocking rates at study coincide with the date of the first fish far exceeds the number of stocked FINs lakes, an exploitation study began stocking through the end of the antici- fish, while the number of harvested fish in late 2010. pated fall fishing season. No catfish mirrors the number of stocked fish. It An angler exploitation study of tags were returned after 31 October appears the catfish are caught multiple rainbow trout was conducted at Upper 2011. Tagged channel catfish ranged in times before ultimately being harvested Sportsman’s Lake (6 acres) in Franklin size from 10.0 – 21.5 inches and aver- by anglers. The exploitation study fails County from 8 November 2010 – 31 aged 0.77 pounds. Fish were tagged to capture the estimated higher harvest May 2011. Tagged rainbow trout with yellow carlin-dangler tags. The rate due to the tag being removed the ranged in size from 8.3 – 11.4 inches tags were attached to the fish using first time the fish is hooked and likely and averaged 0.36 pounds. Fish were stainless steel wire threaded through being harvested on subsequent catches. tagged with yellow Floy FD-94 anchor the fish below and anterior to the dorsal The creel survey data for trout also t-bar tags below the dorsal fin. In total, spine. A total of 600 channel catfish estimates the catch to be larger than 688 rainbow trout were tagged and were tagged from March – May 2011 the number of stocked fish indicating stocked into Upper Sportsman’s Lake (200 on 8 March 2011, 200 on 11 April stocked fish are caught multiple times (183 on 8 November 2010, 293 on 7 2011, and 200 on 23 May 2011). Tags by anglers. February 2011, 212 on 16 March 2011). from a total of 409 fish were returned. Stein Community Park Lake (7 Tags from a total of 525 fish were re- The uncorrected exploitation rate was acres) in Campbell County and Middle- turned. The uncorrected exploitation 25% with an uncorrected catch rate of ton Mills Shelterhouse Lake (1 acre) rate was 24% with an uncorrected catch 68%. Exploitation rates were corrected in Kenton County both have ongoing rate of 76%. Exploitation rates were for non-reporting, tag loss and tagging exploitation studies. The exploitation corrected for non-reporting, tag loss mortality with a 32% harvest rate. The study in conjunction with creel and atti- and tagging mortality with a 28% cor- corrected catch rate was 85%. The tude surveys are necessary for assessing rected harvest rate. The corrected catch average number of days the tagged fish the fisheries. This work helps ensure rate was 88%. The average number of were at large before being caught was stocking rates are adequately meeting days the trout were at large before be- 19 days with a median of 7 days. the needs of the anglers. ing caught was 23 with a median of 18 From the exploitation study we days. conclude the catfish are caught quickly Funding Source: Sport Fish Restora- A channel catfish exploitation after stocking, but less than one out of tion Program (Dingell-Johnson) study was also conducted at Upper three fish are initially harvested. Trout Sportsman’s Lake from 8 March 2011 are not caught as quickly as catfish like- KDFWR Strategic Plan. Goal 1, – 31 October 2011. The dates of the ly due to fewer anglers fishing during Strategic Objective 5.

Annual Research Highlights 2011 99 PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS / Fisheries

Lake Sturgeon Telemetry in the Cumberland River

Sara Tripp, David Baker, Nick insight into survival, movements, and and the stationary receivers we will be Keeton, Steve Marple, and Nick habitat preferences of stocked lake able to quantify movement (specifically Skudlarek, Kentucky Department sturgeon, leading to initial measures seasonal and temporal patterns), site to quantify the success of the hatchery fidelity, and determine the home ranges of Fish and Wildlife Resources stocking program. of the transmittered fish. As part of the telemetry project, Since it is crucial to understand thirty lake sturgeon will be tagged survival and condition of stocked lake with ultrasonic transmitters and held sturgeon through the first year after ake sturgeon were once native to in the hatchery for 15 days to observe stocking, we will attempt to recapture Lthe Mississippi, Ohio, and Cum- recovery and potential mortality from tagged sturgeon at the end of the trans- berland Rivers in Kentucky, but since the tagging process. Prior to stocking, mitters’ battery life. To increase our the 1950’s lake sturgeon have been twelve stationary receivers will be de- probability of recapture a combination extirpated from the Cumberland River ployed at locations upstream and down- of three gears (experimental gill nets, due to destruction of habitat and loss stream of the two stocking sites (Noe’s mini-Missouri trawl, and trotlines) will of range due to barriers. Because of Dock and Alum Ford) in the Big South be used in concert with tracking equip- this, the Kentucky Department of Fish Fork and Cumberland rivers, as well as ment. At the end of the first year, we and Wildlife Resources (KDFWR) has local tributaries to determine movement will hopefully have substantial data on committed to a twenty-year stocking out of the stocking areas. Department stocked lake sturgeon survival, move- program to restore lake sturgeon popu- staff will also manually track stocked ment, and habitat use throughout the lations in the Cumberland River Basin. lake sturgeon at least once a month, first year. If recapture attempts are One major component to the success of recording surface water temperature, successful, we will also quantify condi- this reintroduction program is to assess depth, velocity, substrate, and habitat tion and growth rates, which may be the survival, movements, and habitat type (i.e., main channel, channel bor- predictors for successful adaptation to use of stocked sturgeon and document der, tributary mouth, tributary) to deter- the wild and potential recruitment into their transition into the natural environ- mine habitat use and preference. With adulthood in the Cumberland River. If ment. A telemetry project can provide the combination of manual tracking reintroduction is a success and a self- sustaining population is established, we can begin to manage for a unique sport fishing opportunity.

Funding Source: State Wildlife Grant (SWG)

KDFWR Strategic Plan: Goal 1. Strategic Objective 5. Compre- hensive Wildlife Con- servation Strategy: Appendix 3.2. Class Actinopterygii and Cephalaspidomorphi. Priority Research Project #1.

Lake sturgeon telemetry / Matt Thomas

100 Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Fisheries / PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS

Evaluation of a Smallmouth Bass Stocking Program at Paintsville Lake

in the lake. When their This project was initiated to de- abundance did not improve termine if a 3-year (2010-2012) small- after stocking efforts in the mouth bass stocking program is able 1990’s, the smallmouth to re-establish a fishery at Paintsville bass stocking program Lake. The target stocking density for was suspended. Eventu- smallmouth bass fingerlings was 20 ally, the fish management fish/acre, but the actual density varied objectives for Paintsville each year depending on the maximum Lake changed, and the dam number of fish that were available. began releasing cooler, Fingerlings were marked prior to being oxygenated water in favor stocked so biologists could distinguish of conserving the warmer, them from any native smallmouth bass. fertile water preferred by Marked smallmouth bass will be identi- largemouth bass. Although fied during regular black bass sampling some sportfish species that occurs twice a year and during the Smallmouth bass fingerlings / Gerry Buynak benefited from this water less frequent creel surveys. Water qual- release schedule, small- ity parameters will also be monitored mouth bass abundance declined as the to ensure that suitable smallmouth bass Christopher W. Hickey and Ryan cool water habitat faded from the lake habitat is available, especially during Kausing, Kentucky Department during summer months. Consecutive summer months. of Fish and Wildlife Resources years with high amounts of rainfall Biologists have started looking compounded the habitat problems. for smallmouth bass in 2011 and some Smallmouth bass numbers continued to early results indicate that only 3 were drop until they were no longer found in collected during the regular black mallmouth bass (Micropterous do- sampling efforts or the anglers’ creel. bass sampling efforts. Luckily, all 3 Slomieu) are among the most popu- Paintsville Lake has since been smallmouth bass have turned out to lar sportfish in Kentucky. Populations recognized as one of the few lakes in be marked fish. A much bigger con- are doing well in many of the state’s Kentucky where a smallmouth bass cern is that despite the recent changes rivers and streams, but they thrive in fishery could be re-established. A in the water release, the high rainfall few of its reservoirs. As past research relatively undeveloped watershed has totals endured in both 2010 and 2011 has suggested, a potential reason for allowed the lake to maintain a lower pushed more of the colder water out this is that smallmouth bass possess trophic level. Also, the water release at of Paintsville Lake than was originally specific habitat requirements. Aside Paintsville Lake has been altered once anticipated. If the critical habitat con- from their preference for lower tro- again so that more of the deeper, cooler tinues to be threatened, smallmouth phic levels and year-round cool water water is conserved. With minimal bass stocking efforts at Paintsville Lake habitat, other characteristics (i.e. mean impacts to other sportfish species, the could be suspended again after 2012. depth & exchange rate) have been iden- cool oxygenated water (≤ 74.3°F) that Regardless, biologists will continue tified that coincide with self-sustaining smallmouth bass need during the sum- to look for marked fish in the years to smallmouth bass populations. mer months made a return to the lake come and hopes are that smallmouth Soon after it was impounded in by 2005. Unfortunately, this critical bass will once again be a regular occur- 1983, Paintsville Lake was stocked habitat is still unstable and seems to di- rence at the lake. with smallmouth bass fingerlings. A minish during longer periods of heavy fishery was then developed that became rainfall. Nevertheless, the KDFWR Funding Sources: Sport Fish Restora- quite popular with local anglers, despite chose to resume the stocking of small- tion Program (Dingell-Johnson) the fact that sampling results showed mouth bass in 2010 while hoping that that the smallmouth bass made up the rainfall totals will remain at normal KDFWR Strategic Plan. Goal 1, only 5% of the black bass population levels. Strategic Objective 5.

Annual Research Highlights 2011 101 PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS / Fisheries

Investigation of the Restoration of Native Walleye in the Upper Levisa Fork

Dave Dreves and Paul Wilkes, KDFWR

alleye is a freshwater fish na- Wtive to most of the major watersheds in Kentucky, including the Levisa Fork watershed located in extreme eastern Kentucky. By the late- 1800’s, growing concern for declining fisheries prompted the stocking of Kentucky rivers and lakes by the U.S. Fish Commission and the Ken- tucky Game and Fish Commission. In 1912 and from 1914-1917, these two agencies stocked walleye fry in various rivers and streams throughout Kentucky, including the Levisa Fork in 1915. Unfortunately, it was not yet known that the Lake Erie strain walleye used in the stocking efforts are Native walleye in the Upper Levisa Fork / Dave Dreves adapted to lentic (lake) environments, unlike the native Kentucky walleye lation to this section of the Levisa Fork. we sample walleye in the spring at mul- which are adapted to lotic (river) envi- An established population of native tiple sites using pulse DC electrofish- ronments. Biologists later realized that walleye in the Levisa Fork will serve ing gear, and a sample of walleye are these northern walleye are genetically as a source of broodstock for potential collected such that weight and length distinct from native Kentucky walleye; native walleye restorations in other measurements and sex ratios can be as a result, it is believed that the major- Kentucky river systems and will create recorded. All stocked fingerlings are ity of these stocked northern walleye a walleye sport fishery in the upper Le- marked with oxytetracycline (OTC) to could not survive in the river environ- visa Fork. In order to accomplish these determine recruitment of stocked fish. ment or were ultimately confined to restoration goals, beginning in 2010, Beginning in 2016, small walleye may lake systems (e.g. Lake Cumberland). native strain walleye were collected be sacrificed and otoliths removed for Since there are no known recent reports from Wood Creek Lake and the Rock- examination for OTC marks. We also of walleye from the Levisa Fork or castle River in the spring and transport- have PIT tagged captured walleye to Fishtrap Lake, it is suspected that the ed to Minor Clark Hatchery to be used determine movement and growth rates. “northern” strain fry stockings in 1915 as broodfish. Walleye are spawned and Walleye sampling in the Barren River were not successful and the native pop- the resulting fry are reared to fingerling is slated to continue through 2020 to al- ulation in the river had been lost. size (1.5 in.) in ponds, then stocked in low for the reproductive potential of the Although portions of the Levisa the Levisa Fork in late May or early stocked walleye population to reach a Fork are impounded by Fishtrap Lake, June. We are using a stocking rate point where natural recruitment is pos- there is approximately 15 miles of of a minimum of 20 fingerlings/acre sible and detectable. unimpounded mainstem of the Levisa (180 fingerlings/mile), and we plan to Fork between the lake and the Virginia continue these efforts through at least Funding Source: Sport Fish Restora- state line and at least that many more 2015. In conjunction with stocking, we tion Program (Dingell-Johnson) miles beyond. The broad goal of this assess 24-hour stocking mortality using project is to re-establish a reproducing mesh-lined barrels secured in the river. KDFWR Strategic Plan. Goal 1, native “southern” strain walleye popu- To monitor and assess stocking success, Strategic Objective 5.

102 Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Big Game / PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS

Can body Condition and Select Physiological Indicators Predict Survival of Elk Post-Translocation?

biotics, vitamin B , and separated Aaron Hildreth, John J. Cox, 12 into one of 3 different pens based John T. Hast, and Alejandra on gender and age. The elk will be Betancourt, University of tested twice for tuberculosis (TB) Kentucky Department of during the holding period. We will Forestry weigh, draw blood, collect ticks, and a fecal sample for each individual elk on all 4 days handled in KDFWR Collaborators: the processing corral. In addition to Kristina Brunjes, Gabriel the fecal samples collected during Jenkins, Will Bowling, Dan each workup, we will collect fecal Crank, and Aaron Hecht samples from each pen throughout the quarantine period. We will also measure rump fat and loin thickness with the aid of an ultrasound during each workup. tates began reintroducing elk Fecal samples will be analyzed S(Cervus elaphus) only a few de- for parasite load by performing a cades after extirpation from the east- fecal float and assayed to determine ern United States in the mid-1800s. fecal glucocorticoid levels. Fe- The majority of these reintroduction cal glucocorticoid levels will help attempts were failures, although us understand how elk respond to the causes were often unknown or quarantine and handling stressors. misunderstood. It is well-established We will perform a total panel blood that elk and many other ungulates Elk being processed / John Cox test on each blood sample to look are susceptible to stress and physi- for indicators of capture-related cal injuries that can lead to death select physiological parameters during stress. Ultrasound measurements during capture, processing, captivity, a 90-day holding period, and to model of rump fat thickness will be used to translocation, and shortly after release. whether one or more of these factors determine the overall body condition of Despite these problems, little is known are predictors of elk survival post- each elk and how it changes throughout about what factors determine the translocation (all elk are fitted with quarantine. Loin thickness measure- relative susceptibility of individuals to GPS collars and will be monitored by ments will be compared from the first injurious or lethal conditions from cap- University of Missouri upon release). workup to the second to look for signs ture through final release. A successful predictive survival model of protein catabolism. Morphometric With a reintroduced elk popula- could inform wildlife managers as to and physiological data collected will be tion now exceeding 10,000 individuals, characteristics of individual elk most used to construct a model to determine the Kentucky Department of Fish and likely to survive future capture and factors predictive of elk survival post- Wildlife Resources (KDFWR) is now translocation efforts. translocation. able to serve as a source state to other In 2012, KDFWR captured a total states desiring elk. In 2011, Missouri of 58 elk (37 cows, 13 calves, 8 spike Funding Sources: Rocky Mountain Elk became the first recipient of Kentucky bulls) with either corral traps (46) or Foundation, University of Kentucky, elk, with the goal of moving 50 per chemical immobilization (12) and will and Pittman-Robertson year over the next several years. We quarantine them for a period of 90 days took advantage of this opportunity to before translocation to Missouri. Upon KDFWR Strategic Plan. Strategic work with captive elk to character- arrival to the holding facility, the elk Goal 1. Strategic Objective 5. ize and monitor body condition and were ear-tagged, weighed, given anti-

Annual Research Highlights 2011 103 PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS / Big Game

whether various metrics of parasite bur- den can be used as a population index for elk. In fall 2011, we began collecting samples from harvested elk to perform fecal egg counts and abomasal parasite counts. The abomasum, or the fourth- chamber of the ruminant stomach, was collected to look for lumenal parasites in the abomasal contents; the liver was collected and dissected to examine whether the animals were infected with liver flukes (Fasciola hepatica), and fecal samples were collected to quantify the number of gastrointestinal parasite eggs found in feces. Figure 1: Photographs of parasite eggs and After bull and cow hunts of 2011, larvae from elk in southeastern Kentucky. A) samples were collected from 81 elk. Trichuris, B) Strongyloides, C) trematode egg, In some cases, abomasums, livers and/ D) Nematodirus, E) Capillarid spp. (left) and or fecal samples were unable to be pseudoparasite (right), F) Trichostrongylid- type, G) Dictyocaulus viviparus larvae collected due to sample destruction from harvest. To date, fecal egg counts have been performed on samples from 74 individual elk. The most common parasite eggs found in the fecal samples have been overwhelmingly Prevalence of Select Parasites of Trichostrongylid-type (Haemonchus, Ostertagia, Trichostrongylus, Cooperia Elk in Southeastern Kentucky and Oesophagostomum) from different species of gastrointestinal nematodes (Figure 1). Capillarid spp., Trichuris, Alejandra Betancourt, John J. lates are often treated with anthelmin- Strongyloides, Nematodirus and some Cox, John T. Hast, and Aaron tics before being moved to prevent the trematode (fluke) eggs were also found transport of parasite species that could in the samples. Lungworm (Dictyo- Hildreth, University of Kentucky be inadvertently introduced into the caulus viviparus) larva was found in Department of Forestry new environment. Treatment is not al- one sample (Figure 1). Though some ways completely effective, so it is quite trematode eggs were found in the fecal KDFWR Collaborators: possible that parasites are brought in samples, no liver flukes were found in Kristina Brunjes, Gabriel with translocated individuals and cause any of the dissected livers. Abomasums important impacts to naïve ecosystems were collected from 76 elk and the Jenkins, Will Bowling, Dan and individual species. remnants will be examined for lumenal Crank, and Aaron Hecht With the elk herd in Kentucky now parasites. Abomasums, additional fecal being one of the largest and newest, our and organ samples, as well as ticks will research will document the prevalence be processed in the near future. and incidence of common parasite spe- arasitological information is often cies, including ones that may have been Funding Sources: Rocky Mountain Elk Punderutilized in wildlife manage- introduced during translocation and that Foundation, University of Kentucky, ment. The consequences of parasite could impact herd health. In addition, and Pittman-Robertson infections are frequently overlooked, parasite prevalence has long been used but can have an impact on individual, to establish a population density index KDFWR Strategic Plan. Goal 1. as well as herd health. As part of for white-tailed deer. Data from this Strategic Objective 5. translocation health protocols, ungu- study will be evaluated to determine

104 Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Furbearers / PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS

Exploring Methods for Monitoring Bobcats in Kentucky

Laura Patton, Danna Baxley, Brian Gray, Gary Sprandel, and Steven Dobey, Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources

he successful recovery of bobcats Thas been well documented as they have expanded back to their original North American range. A recent range- wide assessment of bobcat populations estimated 2,352,276 to 3,571,681 bobcats in the United States, a substantial growth since 1981 estimates of 725,000 to 1,017,000 bobcats (Roberts and Crimmins 2010). Harvest of bobcats has occurred for several years in Ken- KDFWR Technician Andrew Butler sets up trail camera / Laura Patton tucky; the first regulated season opened in 1987 in several eastern counties and zone has since been expanded statewide resulted in the take of 113 bobcats (13 and annual harvests have exceeded methods include estimating densities of these were road-killed). The harvest 2,000 bobcats. Field observations from using scat detector dogs, using camera Kentucky hunters and trappers indicate traps to individually identify bobcats, that bobcats are abundant throughout and traditional trapping and radio- much of the Commonwealth, and the collaring. Population characteristics Department often receives requests to will also be studied from carcasses increase harvest opportunity. submitted from hunters and trappers. While reports of abundant bobcats Litter sizes will be determined from and increased harvest may legitimately placental scar counts and age structure reflect true population status, it is im- by cementum analysis. Information portant to have state specific data quan- from this project will be used to update tified from various methods to substan- and adjust current bag limits and season tiate reports and compare with harvest lengths of bobcats. data. Bobcats are a valuable furbearer; monetarily to fur trappers and in the Funding Source: Kentucky Depart- taxidermy market, as well as to hunters ment of Fish and Wildlife Resources and trappers as a trophy harvest. Con- sequently, the market and popularity KDFWR Strategic Plan. Goal 1. make this a much sought after species requiring responsible management Literature Cited through regulated harvest. N.M. Roberts and S.M. Crimmins. Monitoring bobcats is challenging 2010. Bobcat Population Status and for resource agencies considering the Management in North America: Evi- secretive nature of the species. We will dence of Large-Scale Population In- explore various techniques for detect- crease. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Bobcat in cage trap / Laura Patton ing and monitoring bobcats. These Management 1(2):169–174.

Annual Research Highlights 2011 105 PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS / Migratory Shorebirds

Monitoring Migrating and Wintering Sandhill Cranes in Cecilia

Erin Harper, Kentucky aggression, play), and other (all other were made during this period. The Department of Fish and Wildlife activities not previously listed). Sur- increased number of cranes in this mid- veys were conducted weekly with the Resources winter period was consistent with other route being sub sampled 3-4 times daily states observations and could have been to determine temporal variation. In ad- due to a warmer than normal winter in dition to these surveys, a sunrise count 2011-2012. Monitoring of migrating was conducted late in each survey week and wintering sandhill cranes will con- he Eastern Population (EP) of to monitor abundance. These surveys tinue for the next two years to examine Tgreater sandhill cranes (Grus ca- are being used to develop a chronology potential changes between wintering nadensis) primarily breeds in the Great of migration through Kentucky and to periods and further evaluate effects of Lakes region of the United States and determine changes in abundance and environmental variables on time activ- Canada and winters in Kentucky, Ten- distribution. The time-activity budget ity budgets and habitat use in the Ceci- nessee, Alabama, Georgia, and Florida. study will provide information on habi- lia region. After being extirpated from most of tat use and preferences and factors that its breeding range in the 18th and 19th influence that use by sandhill cranes. Funding Source: State Wildlife Grant centuries, the EP has made a substantial A peak count of 6900 SACR in the (SWG) recovery. The US Fish and Wildlife Cecelia area occurred during the last Service estimated the EP to be at least week in January. This peak was one KDFWR Strategic Plan. Goal 1. 71,975 cranes in the fall of 2011. The to two weeks earlier than in previous Strategic Objective 5. Comprehen- increasing size of the EP has resulted in years. The number of cranes remained sive Wildlife Conservation Strategy: increasing numbers of sandhill cranes high through the end of February. Be- Appendix 3.2. Class Aves. Prioritized wintering and stopping in Kentucky. tween 60 and 1700 SACR were present Research Projects 2 and 4, Priority With increasing occurrence of in Cecilia during mid-December thru Survey Projects 1, 2, and 5; Appen- sandhill cranes in Kentucky, KDFWR mid-January counts. This differed from dix 3.9. Class Aves. Terrestrial Moni- began collecting abundance data from previous years where few observations toring Projects the two major use areas (Cecilia and Barren River Lake Wildlife Manage- ment Area) during the winter of 2007- 2008. Both sites are important stopover areas for SACR migrating through Kentucky. KDFWR implemented a habitat use and availability study in the winter of 2011-2012 in the Cecilia area. Mon- itoring consisted of counting cranes twice weekly and recording habitat use and behavioral patterns. The number of SACR in each flock was estimated using a 15-60x spotting scope. Habitat type, location, weather, and time of day were recorded for each flock encountered. Instantaneous observation of flocks recorded the proportion of cranes observed in each of 6 behaviors; feeding, locomotion (flying and walking), resting (loafing), comfort (stretch- ing, bathing, preening, wing flap, and scratching), social (alert, courtship, Sandhill Cranes / Erin Harper

106 Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Habitat Management / PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS

Managing Rank Native Warm Season Grass Stands in Kentucky

Native warm season grass research plot / Don Pelly

Danna Baxley, Ben Robinson, of wildlife management. Despite the Wildlife Management Area, Taylors- Brian Gray, Curt Divine, Scott importance of this issue, there have ville Lake Wildlife Management Area, Buser, Bill Mitchell, and John been very few research projects aimed and Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill. at assessing efficiency of post-conver- Research plots are four acres in size Morgan, Kentucky Department sion management techniques. Informa- and contain a 1-acre control plot, 1-acre of Fish and Wildlife Resources; tion on post-conversion management Sahara plot, 1-acre Glyphosate plot, Don Pelly, Shaker Village of and maintenance of native warm season and 1-acre Arsenal plot. All plots were Pleasant Hill grass fields is scarce, particularly for burned prior to the onset of the project. Kentucky. As native warm season Vegetation data is collected in the sum- grass fields become more prevalent on mer and fall of each year. Data collec- xtensive research has been con- the landscape, it is increasingly impor- tion efforts will continue through 2013, Educted to determine which meth- tant to understand how management and the resulting management recom- ods are most efficient for converting efforts impact these vegetative commu- mendations will guide future efforts to cool season grass fields to native warm nities. The goal of this multi-year study thin native warm season grass stands in season grass stands. After establish- is to assess the value of three different Kentucky. ment, if NWSG fields are not managed, herbicides (Sahara, Glyphosate, and succession occurs and these fields be- Arsenal) as a management tool to thin Funding Source: Kentucky Depart- come thick and overgrown, holding lit- native warm season grass stands. ment of Fish and Wildlife resources tle value for wildlife. Maintaining high Beginning in 2011, we established quality native warm season grass stands research plots on Green River Wildlife KDFWR Strategic Plan. Goal 1. is an important and understudied aspect Management Area, Higginson Henry Strategic Objective 5.

Annual Research Highlights 2011 107 Bats

Processing juvenile bald eagle for tracking project / Ray Stainfield Project Updates Warm Water Fisheries / PROJECT UPDATES

Evaluation of a Supplemental White Crappie Stocking Program at Three Kentucky Reservoirs

Christopher W. Hickey and Ryan Since regulations are already for marks, it was estimated that 16 Kausing, Kentucky Department in place at most crappie fisheries in out of the 30 (53.3%) age-1 white of Fish and Wildlife Resources Kentucky, KDFWR has turned to crappie and all 4 (100%) of the age-2 supplemental stocking as a way to help white crappie were stocked fish. In white crappie populations. Crappie contrast, a total of 59 age-1 and age-2 stocking often has mixed results, so white crappie were collected from the espite their popularity, crappie this project sought to evaluate the Blood River embayment of Kentucky D(Pomoxis sp.) can be frustrating latest white crappie stocking program Lake, but only 8 of them, or 13.6%, to both anglers and resource manag- and identify ways to help increase its were marked fish. It was interesting ers. The status of a fishery can change success. After four reservoirs were to discover that the stocked fish made rapidly, especially because successful initially chosen for the project, the an almost identical contribution to crappie spawns rely heavily on the number was reduced to three in order to the age-1 (13.6%) and age-2 (13.3%) alignment of specific biotic and abiotic focus efforts and allow stocking rates to year-classes of white crappie. factors. Subtle differences in the habi- be increased. Prior to being delivered In 2012, white crappie tat requirements of white (P. annularis) to any lake, white crappie fingerlings populations at all three reservoirs will and black crappie (P. nigromaculatus) were marked so they could be identified continue to be monitored. Stocking, A gravid western mud snake / Will Bird also allow these factors to influence many years after being stocked. In which resumes in the fall, will which species will dominate the fish- the fall of 2009, the first official white involve fingerlings produced by both ery. Some of Kentucky’s most popular crappie fingerlings were produced at Kentucky and Missouri hatcheries. crappie lakes have seen a shift from a a Kentucky hatchery and stocked into A special study will be conducted fishery of mostly white crappie to one Carr Creek Lake, Taylorsville Lake in 2012 to address concerns of over where black crappie are the most abun- and the Blood River embayment of stocking mortality and identify the dant. Kentucky Lake. This process was best ways to minimize stress the The two crappie species have repeated in 2010 and 2011 when crappie fingerlings endure while habits that vary enough to require white crappie fingerlings were marked being transported and stocked. As anglers to use different techniques to and transported to the same three in the past, crappie populations be successful. Black crappie have a reservoirs. The only notable change will be sampled with trap nets and tendency to move shallow earlier in the was the stocking rates, which increased electrofishing. Increased use of year and stay there longer, so anglers substantially in 2011 when a Missouri bottom trawling is also planned for often use methods and baits that are hatchery began assisting in fingerling 2012 as some experimental runs similar to those used in bass fishing. In production. conducted in 2011 showed promising contrast, white crappie are shallow for Preliminary results from 2011 results for collecting younger crappie. a shorter time period and spend most of indicate that, although stocked white In all, biologists hope to see the white the year occupying deeper habitat. This crappie are being collected annually, crappie fisheries at these reservoirs is why they are caught with different their level of contribution to the natural continue to improve. techniques that are most commonly population varies substantially by associated with “crappie fishing”. reservoir. For instance, fall trap net Funding Source: Sport Fish When white crappie numbers decline, samples from Taylorsville Lake and the Restoration Program (Dingell- anglers using traditional methods are Blood River embayment of Kentucky Johnson) most likely to experience decreases in Lake both contained stocked crappie. catch rates. Anglers become concerned At Taylorsville Lake, the samples KDFWR Strategic Plan. Goal when lower catch rates occur for contained 34 white crappie that were 1,Strategic Objective 5. several years in a row, and they often from the same year-classes as those request that KDFWR take a proactive fingerlings stocked in 2009 and 2010. approach solving the issue. When aged even further and checked

Annual Research Highlights 2011 109 PROJECT UPDATES / Warm Water Fisheries

ies throughout Kentucky. There were a total of 350 participating tournaments, which was a drop from the 376 reporting catch data in 2010. In fact, this was the first time in many years that the number of tournaments participating in the project has decreased. It was not surprising as countless tournaments were forced to cancel when many areas of Kentucky received record amounts Bass tournament / Gerry Buynak of precipitation in 2011. The decline in number of participating tourna- useful to anglers when planning future ments did not, however, translate into Black Bass fishing trips and to help them under- decreases in the catch data. In 2011, Tournament stand the normal fluctuations that occur 17,093 anglers, or 10,630 angling-units in their favorite bass fisheries. (individual anglers + teams), brought Results in At the onset of this study, research- in 26,440 bass to the scales for a to- ers sent packets containing information tal weight of 61,853.3 pounds (lbs). Kentucky about the project to bass clubs and Tournaments in 2011 experienced a other known tournament organizers modest improvement over the 16,410 Christopher W. Hickey and Ryan throughout Kentucky. Over time, an anglers that participated in 2010, but Kausing, Kentucky Department online system of scheduling tourna- there was a more substantial increase ments and reporting catch data was (16.8%) from the 22,009 bass that were of Fish and Wildlife Resources developed and has made this process weighed in that year. The average win- much more efficient. Participation ning weight for a tournament in 2011 in the project has grown significantly was 13.62 lbs, which was also up from DFWR samples black bass (Mi- since its inception because of the ongo- 13.11 lbs in 2010. The highest winning Kcropterus sp.) populations annu- ing efforts of researchers and tourna- weight for a 1-day tournament in 2011 ally at lakes throughout the state, but ment organizers who are constantly was 27.7 lbs at Kentucky Lake and the creel surveys are conducted on only passing on information to their peers. biggest bass caught in a tournament a handful of these water bodies. The Catch data is analyzed at the end of was 8.45 lbs. Other tournament catch high costs associated with creel sur- each year and summarized in a way data has been analyzed to produce sta- veys make it difficult to use them on that provides tournament anglers with tistics that illustrate how water bodies the same lake for consecutive years, invaluable information, but offers bi- differ in the number/size of bass and which would be necessary to identify ologists another source of data for the the success of anglers that target them. trends in the relationship between bass bass fisheries in their lakes and rivers. These statistics have also been used to populations and angler catch. Thus, in Beginning in 2010, organizers were not effectively identify trends at many of 1999, the KDFWR began to tap into only asked to report their catch data, Kentucky’s more popular lakes and riv- another source of angler data when it but to provide detailed information on ers. Because of its continued success started collecting results from black the tournament’s format. In the past and the importance of expanding and bass tournaments. This invaluable data decade, team tournaments have grown maintaining the database, this project on fishing pressure, catch and success in popularity and the change was nec- has been converted into a long-term rates of tournament anglers can be essary as treating teams like a single program that should always be there to used to build a long-term database and unit rather than two individual anglers serve as a tool for both resource man- monitor trends in black bass fisheries would greatly increase the accuracy of agers and bass anglers alike. by lake and on a statewide basis. By the results. These results are published combining the tournament results with in an annual report that is first mailed to Funding Source: Sport Fish Restora- data collected through annual sampling all participating tournaments and then tion Program (Dingell-Johnson) efforts, resource managers have an in- made available to the public via KD- creased ability to explain and forecast FWR’s website. KDFWR Strategic Plan. Goal 1, changes to the black bass populations. In 2011, tournament catch data was Strategic Objective 5 The summarized data should also prove reported from 30 different water bod-

110 Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Warm Water Fisheries / PROJECT UPDATES

Evaluation of a 20-in Minimum ing 20 inches or more were sampled, which was identical to that found in Length Limit on Largemouth Bass 2010. However, the overall catch rates at Cedar Creek Lake of largemouth bass during these 2011 sampling efforts had generally declined from previous years. The primary reason for this may have less to do Christopher W. with the bass population and more to Hickey and Ryan do with sampling conditions. Early Kausing, Kentucky in 2011, Kentucky received heavy Department of amounts of precipitation causing water Fish and Wildlife levels in many of it lakes and rivers to increase drastically. Cedar Creek Resources Lake was no exception as high water postponed spring sampling efforts for nearly a month, and the turbid water made it difficult to collect fish even when biologists were finally able to get s the most sought on the lake. Sampling will be conduct- Aafter sport fish in ed again in 2012 and, hopefully, better Kentucky, KDFWR conditions will result in largemouth manages black bass bass catch rates comparable to previous (Micropterus sp.) Cedar Creek Lake largemouth bass / Chris Hickey years. populations to achieve Age and growth analysis in both a quality fishery in every region of the at Cedar Creek Lake has been sampled 2007 and 2010 indicated that it took state. Prior to 2002, Kentucky lacked with nocturnal electrofishing every 4 years for largemouth bass at Cedar what would be classified as a “trophy spring and fall since 2003. Data col- Creek Lake to reach 15 inches, which is bass” lake. Cedar Creek Lake, a 784- lected during these sampling efforts the length limit at many of Kentucky’s acre reservoir built in 2002, was identi- provide insight into the density, length other high quality bass fisheries. On fied as offering the best opportunity to frequency, size structure, condition, average, they grow 3 – 4 inches a year establish a highly-coveted trophy large- and reproductive success of bass. Sam- until reaching about 15 in, which is mouth bass (Micropterus salemoides) pling is also conducted in the summer when the bass begin to put on more fishery. Previous studies indicate that with the sole purpose of examining the weight than length. Food habit analysis a lake’s productivity level is usually stomach contents of largemouth bass in 2011 matched previous results show- highest during the years immediately to keep track of their diet. Every few ing that largemouth bass feed primarily following its construction. It was the years various methods are utilized to on crayfish and smaller forage fish. high productivity and plenty of ideal check both age & growth of the large- Fishing pressure estimates from the fish habitat that would give this largemouth bass and satisfaction levels of latest creel survey have indicated that, mouth bass fishery the best chance of anglers using the fishery. Electrofishing on an acre-by-acre basis, Cedar Creek reaching a trophy status. KDFWR es- is also used annually to assess other fish Lake is one of the more heavily fished tablished regulations that would limit populations (i.e. bluegill) that might waterbodies in Kentucky. The high the largemouth bass harvest and allow serve as forage for the largemouth bass. satisfactions rates of bass anglers also Cedar Creek Lake to be promoted as In 2006, biologists documented the indicate that this largemouth bass fish- the state’s first trophy bass fishery. The first ≥ 20.0 in largemouth bass and they ery has become extremely popular even 20-inch minimum length limit and 1 have been found in Cedar Creek Lake though it may have a while to go before fish daily creel soon became the focus every year since. Though catch rates reaching a true “trophy” status. of this research project as biologists of the larger size classes have fluctu- monitor fish populations at Cedar Creek ated quite a bit over the years, there has Funding Sources: Sport Fish Restora- Lake in an effort to gauge the bass been a general increasing trend, which tion Program (Dingell-Johnson) fishery’s response to highly restrictive indicates that the regulations are likely regulations. protecting the bass until they reach 20 KDFWR Strategic Plan. Goal 1, The largemouth bass population in. In spring of 2011, 15 bass measur- Strategic Objective 5.

Annual Research Highlights 2011 111 PROJECT UPDATES / Warm Water Fisheries

Evaluation of Kentucky’s Largemouth Bass Stocking Initiative

Christopher W. Hickey and Ryan data. The first equation uses the overall ing problems received the bulk of the Kausing, Kentucky Department age-0 catch rate (CPUE) of largemouth fish. Beginning in fall of 2009, more of Fish and Wildlife Resources bass in the fall to make a prediction emphasis was placed on smaller lakes about spring age-1 density. The second and the stocking density was increased equation is very similar, except that to a high of 15 fish/acre. This higher it relies only on the fall age-0 CPUE density proved effective as there were upplemental stocking is a common of largemouth bass with a length of more recaptures of stocked fish during Smanagement tool that has been ≥ 5.0 inches. The regression equation the spring 2010 sampling than in any used in Kentucky to enhance large- with the lowest p-value is then used to other year of the project. In the fall of mouth bass (Micropterus salemoides) predict the density of the year class at 2010, the 15 fish/acre density was used fisheries, but the increasing demand on age-1. The catch rate of age-0 bass that in 4 of the 8 lakes that were stocked the state’s only two hatcheries requires are determined during each lake’s an- with largemouth bass fingerlings. Un- the smart use of its limited resources. nual fall sampling is inserted into this fortunately, heavy rainfall and flood One way to do this is to develop a sys- equation and the prediction is checked conditions in the spring of 2011 made tem that predicts abundance of age-1 against the lake’s average age-1 den- it very difficult to effectively sample all largemouth bass, enabling resource sity. If the predicted value is below the 8 lakes that were stocked. However, managers to respond appropriately. For average, then it could be stocked with 6 lakes were eventually sampled and example, if the system predicts that a bass fingerlings at a density that can all of them had recaptures of stocked lake will have high numbers of age- vary from a low of 2.5 fish/acre to a largemouth bass. 1 bass the following spring, then the high of 15 fish/acre. The chosen den- Fall sampling efforts were con- stocking could be diverted elsewhere. sity depends on how far the predicted ducted in 2011 and indicated that once On the other hand, if there was a be- spring age-1 catch rate is below the again 8 lakes had below average large- low average spawn, the system would average for that lake. Before being mouth bass spawns and could benefit predict a low abundance of age-1 bass stocked, each largemouth bass finger- from supplemental stocking. There for the following spring were nearly 118,000 largemouth bass and stocking in the fall fingerlings, marked with fin clips, could offset these num- stocked in 2011 as part of this project. bers. Kentucky’s Large- The catch rates of age-0 largemouth mouth Bass Stocking bass were low enough at 5 of these Initiative (BSI) attempts lakes that they qualified for the highest to do just that by devel- stocking density. Hopefully, normal oping a protocol that conditions will continue during the successfully predicts a spring of 2012 and biologists will be below average number able to conduct sampling efforts at all of age-1 largemouth of the project lakes. If the higher 15 bass next spring by fish/acre density results in more recap- looking at abundance of tures of stocked fish in 2012, then this age-0 bass in the fall. Processing largemouth bass fingerlings / Chris Hickey rate will continue to be considered the For each of the 34 standard for Kentucky’s largemouth lakes in the project, historical data is ling is marked with a specific fin clip, bass stocking program. used to understand the specific relation- to distinguish stocked fish from natural ship between the density of age-0 fish fish in the population if they are ever Funding Sources: Sport Fish Restora- in the fall and the density of age-1 fish recaptured. tion Program (Dingell-Johnson) of the same age group in the following Since 2005, the BSI has been used spring. Two predictive equations and to determine where largemouth bass are KDFWR Strategic Plan. Goal 1, average year-class strength were devel- stocked, and in earlier years of the proj- Strategic Objective 5. oped for each lake using this historical ect, larger lakes with perennial spawn- Taylorsville blue catfish / Chris Hickey

112 Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Warm Water Fisheries / PROJECT UPDATES

Preliminary Assessment of a Newly Established Blue Catfish Population in Taylorsville Lake

Christopher W. Hickey and Ryan primary goal of this project when it exploitation study and of those 120 Kausing, Kentucky Department started in 2007 was to assess the status blue catfish, 81% were harvested. The of Fish and Wildlife Resources of the blue catfish population at Tay- 2009 creel survey estimated that nearly lorsville Lake. However, the project 12,000 blue catfish were harvested that soon shifted to an evaluation of new year, which is a substantial increase regulations that were implemented with from 2,400 blue catfish harvested dur- t was not long ago when the KD- 2 goals in mind: 1) reduce the potential ing the 2006 creel survey. The 2009 IFWR first stocked blue catfishIc- ( for overharvest and 2) further develop a age and growth analysis showed that talurus furcatus) into some Kentucky trophy component to the fishery. average growth rates had declined only lakes, and many of these original Prior to the start of this project, slightly from the initial estimates. The stockings have developed into popu- data indicated that blue catfish were biggest issues were the decline in num- lar sport fisheries. A handful of these doing well with average growth rates bers of blue catfish sampled each year populations have exhibited the potential of 3–5 inches per year. Low-pulse DC and growing concerns over potential to produce trophy-sized blue catfish. electrofishing has been conducted an- overharvest. Since the population dynamics of these nually (2007 – 2011) during the sum- In 2010, it was determined that the relatively new populations are not well mer months to obtain data on catfish decreasing catch rates of blue catfish, known, additional research is needed throughout the lake. All sampled fish higher estimates of harvest, and initial to determine what management actions were counted, measured and weighed unanimous support from catfish anglers could further improve the blue catfish before being released. Data analysis were enough cause for new regulations. fisheries in Kentucky. was designed to identify changes to the In March 2011, a creel limit of 15 cat- A blue catfish stocking program fishery over time. In 2008, an angler fish per angler with a “1-over” length has been in place at Taylorsville Lake exploitation study was conducted by limit of 25 inches went into effect at since 2002 and has developed into a tagging just over 1,000 blue catfish and Taylorsville Lake. This project has high-quality fishery. Because of vast then collecting data from anglers who now moved to monitoring any impacts numbers of forage fish and the stock- caught tagged fish. In 2009, a creel of this new regulation on the fishery. ing of nearly 24,000 age-1 blue catfish survey was carried out to determine As blue catfish continue to be stocked a year, the population does very well angler success and opinions on the and sampled in 2012, biologist hope to in Taylorsville Lake and has become fishery. A subsample of blue catfish find that the regulations help slow, or extremely popular with anglers. Ironi- was also collected in 2009 for age and even reverse, the declining catch rates, cally, this success would become a li- growth analysis. while increasing the number of larger ability as resource managers, and even Sampling results from 2007 indi- fish in the population. If the new regu- anglers themselves, soon recognized cated that the blue catfish population at lations are able to improve the overall that the heavy fishing pressure could Taylorsville Lake was doing very well. numbers of blue catfish at Taylorsville lead to problems with overharvest. The From both ends of the lake, 590 blue Lake, fisheries biologists anticipate catfish were sampled for an impressive a potential increase in the “1-over” catch rate of 236.0 fish/hour. However, length limit that would give anglers the by 2009 and 2010, catch rates had de- opportunity to harvest more of the big- creased to only 119.1 and 116.1 fish/ ger fish. hour, respectively. This was found again in 2011 when annual sampling Funding Source: Sport Fish Restora- exhibited a low catch rate of 27.1 fish/ tion Program (Dingell-Johnson) hour. To reinforce these results, biologists sampled again later in the summer KDFWR Strategic Plan. Goal 1,Stra- and reached a catch rate of 50 fish/ tegic Objective 5. hour during the second attempt. An- Taylorsville blue catfish / Chris Hickey glers reported 120 tags during the 2008

Annual Research Highlights 2011 113 PROJECT UPDATES / Warm Water Fisheries

Evaluation of the Growth of Two Different Sizes of Blue Catfish Stocked into Three North Central Kentucky Small Impoundments

Christopher W. Hickey and Ryan they are able to consume small fish al- pling efforts in 2011 increased, with the Kausing, Kentucky Department most immediately. Hence, the purpose goal of finding a representative sample of Fish and Wildlife Resources of this project is to determine if the size from both size classes at each project at which blue catfish are stocked has an lake. Analysis of the data collected influence on their long- in 2011 shows that all blue catfish are term growth potential. growing, but neither size group appears In order to address to be doing substantially better than the the issue, two distinct other. In fact, early results indicate that size classes (< 10 in as these blue catfish get older, the mean and > 12 in) of blue length of the 2 size groups could be catfish were stocked at getting closer together. For example, the same rate into three in 2011, age-3 blue catfish stocked into small impoundments. a project lake as part of the larger size The project’s lakes class (> 12 in) had a mean length of (Boltz, Bullock Pen 14.6 in, while the same age fish stocked and Reformatory lakes) as part of the smaller size class (< 10 were chosen because in) had a mean length of 11.6 in, result- Processing blue catfish at hatchery / Chris Hickey data showed that their ing in a difference of 3.0 in. Age-4 fisheries historically blue catfish stocked in the same lake lue catfish (Ictalurus furcatus) contained blue catfish of the same age, from the larger size class had a mean Bwere initially stocked into some of but with much different growth rates. length of 15.1 in, and those age-4 fish Kentucky’s small impoundments as a From 2007 to 2009, annual stocking from the smaller size class had a mean potential management tool to improve of age-1 blue catfish occurred at each length of 13.2 in, or a difference of bluegill fisheries. Although they were project lake during the late summer. only 1.9 in. However, the oldest fish not the ideal predator to control blue- All stocked blue catfish received two in the project were only age-5 in 2011 gill numbers, blue catfish eventually different marks: a coded micro-wire and, as a long-lived fish that can reach became a popular fishery at some of tag that identified what size-class they ages of 20 years, it may still be too ear- these small lakes. Monitoring efforts were stocked at and a specific fin clip ly to draw any conclusions regarding revealed that growth rates of the cat- that marked the year they were stocked. the overall growth of the blue catfish. fish in these populations were erratic. Blue catfish were sampled each year The abundance and average lengths of Some of the blue catfish were the same of the project using low-pulse DC the stocked catfish will continue to be age, but differed in length by as much electrofishing. All blue catfish were monitored over the next several years. as 15 inches (in). An extensive review measured, checked for the presence of Eventually, this project should deter- of past research made some mention the micro-wire tag, and examined for mine how important the size at stocking of this large disparity in growth rates, any fin clips. The abundance and aver- is to the long term growth potential of but there was very little about the rela- age lengths of each study group will be blue catfish. tionship between this growth and the monitored to determine if there are any size of the blue catfish when they were differences in growth that can be attrib- Funding Sources: Sport Fish Restora- stocked. Since it is recognized that uted to stocking size. tion Program (Dingell-Johnson) the growth of piscivorous fish do not After some initial difficulty dur- increase substantially until they switch ing the earlier years of the project, KDFWR Strategic Plan. Goal 1, to a fish diet, it was hypothesized that researchers were able to successfully Strategic Objective 5. blue catfish stocked at a larger size may locate and collect blue catfish from have higher growth potential because both size groups in 2010. Their sam-

114 Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Warm Water Fisheries / PROJECT UPDATES

Evaluation of a 12.0-in Minimum Size Limit on Channel Catfish in Kentucky’s Small Impoundments

Christopher W. Hickey and Ryan together) were the most effective Kausing, Kentucky Department method for sampling the channel of Fish and Wildlife Resources catfish populations, and 5 sets of baited tandem hoop nets were used to sample each project lake. Chan- nel catfish sampled with the hoop early 150,000 channel catfish nets were counted and measured, N(Ictalurus punctatus) are reared and, starting in 2010, weights were every year in Kentucky’s hatcheries also collected so biologists could and stocked into small impoundments. track the condition of the catfish in These lakes are typically stocked at a each lake. rate of 10 – 25 fish/acre when the chan- As soon as biologists were nel catfish reach 8 – 10 inches (in) in able to gather reliable data, they length. High harvest rates and low to wanted to make certain that the no levels of natural reproduction make 12-in minimum length limit was ? / Chris Hickey stocking the only way to maintain adequately protecting the channel these catfish fisheries. Although data catfish, but not so much that too on anglers using these impoundments many fish were piling up just below the – 2011). In general, the abundance, is limited, available survey results es- 12-in size limit. This scenario almost length frequencies and condition of timate that 30% to 63% of the channel occurred at Guist Creek and Shanty catfish in these 2 lakes are indicative catfish are harvested each year. Despite Hollow lakes, but as a precaution, the of thriving channel catfish fisheries. In indications that too many catfish were stocking rates were cut by 50% to re- contrast, channel catfish populations in being harvested, these small lakes often duce competition and allow the fish to control lakes of this project, McNeely had no regulations on the fishery. The make it over the 12-in mark. The 2011 and Reformatory lakes, exhibit charac- first efforts to improve catfish popula- data indicates that reducing stocking teristics of high angling pressure. With tions on a large scale came in 2004 rates might have done the job as the no regulations, the overall catch rates when a 12.0-in minimum size limit on numbers of channel catfish just below of channel catfish at the control lakes channel catfish was implemented at the 12-in mark have dropped, but the are substantially lower than any of the eleven state-owned lakes. The purpose overall catch rates were still as good as experimental lakes. of this project is to evaluate the impacts or better than other lakes with the size The focus of this project will soon of this size limit, and determine if it can limit. Additionally, changing the stock- shift to the next logical step, which is be used to enhance channel catfish fishing rates freed up some of Kentucky’s to establish regulations on the channel eries in other lakes. limited hatchery resources so that more catfish populations in the control lakes. Four small impoundments with the effort could be used to produce fish for These lakes will continue to be sampled 12-in minimum size limit were chosen other waterbodies. in 2012 and, in March 2013, new 12- as the experimental lakes (Beaver, At the other experimental lakes in minimum length limits will go into Elmer Davis, Guist Creek and Shanty (Beaver and Elmer Davis), sampling effect. The fisheries are expected to Hollow lakes). Unfortunately, since results through 2011 showed that the improve over time, but biologists will sampling channel catfish was not al- channel catfish populations have either continue to closely monitor the channel ways feasible, reliable data from any been stable or improved since the study catfish. time prior to this project was extremely began. Catch rates from Beaver Lake limited. Hence, two lakes without for the first 3 years of the project (2006 Funding Source: Sport Fish Restora- catfish regulations had to be sampled – 2008) averaged just over 36 catfish tion Program (Dingell-Johnson) concurrently to serve as the controls per set of hoop nets, but the average for this project. It was determined that catch rates have increased to nearly 70 KDFWR Strategic Plan. Goal 1,Stra- tandem hoop nets (3 hoop nets fastened catfish per set in the last 3 years (2009 tegic Objective 5.

Annual Research Highlights 2011 115 PROJECT UPDATES / Urban Fisheries

The Fishing in Neighborhoods catfish (12-16”) and three times annu- (FINs) Program: Providing Fishing ally in the cool months (Oct.-Mar.) with Opportunities to Residents in rainbow trout (8-12”). Bass and sunfish populations are routinely sampled Cities across the Commonwealth to ensure natural reproduction is meeting the needs of the anglers. A standard set of creel limits is established at all FINs lakes to help spread out fish harvest and ensure fishing opportunities can be enjoyed by as many people as possible. Daily limits for each angler fishing a FINs lake includes five rainbow trout, four catfish, one largemouth bass over 15 inches, and 15 bluegill or other sunfish. Information kiosks have been erected at nearly all of the lakes to disperse information to the public about fish stockings, license requirements, fish identification, poacher hotline, basic knot tying instructions and the mission statement of the FINs program. Additionally, the program has been intensively marketed through press re- Stocking a FINs lake / Dane Balsman leases, social media, radio, television, license vendors, boat shows and the KDFWR website. Dane Balsman and Jeremiah provided over $85,000 in qualifying Angler attitude surveys indicate Smith, Kentucky Department of match. With the cooperative agree- that the FINs program is attracting Fish and Wildlife Resources ment, KDFWR works with the local families with 32% of anglers < 15 years parks departments to arrange fish stock- old. The program is also recruiting ings, provide technical guidance and new license buyers with 10% of an- promote fishing in the park lakes. A glers reporting they had never bought n an effort to boost license sales rod loaner program has been imple- a license and 24% reporting they had Iand increase fishing opportunities, mented at numerous lakes to provide not bought a license the previous year. the Kentucky Department of Fish and equipment to anglers at no cost. Angler satisfaction was extremely high Wildlife Resources (KDFWR) initiated These lakes are conveniently lo- at the FINs lakes with 85% of anglers the Fishing in Neighborhoods (FINs) cated near large populations of people. reporting their overall trip as “good” or program in 2006. The FINs program Anglers do not have to travel far from “excellent”. Attitude and creel surveys currently includes 35 lakes in 22 coun- home to find good fishing. In 2011, continue at FINs lakes statewide. Fish- ties. Quality fishing opportunities 124,000 trout and 95,150 catfish were ing pressure continues to increase at now exist in cities of all sizes across stocked in the FINs lakes. The fish these lakes and the feedback from local the Commonwealth thanks to partner- stockings provide fishing opportunities parks and anglers has been very posi- ships between KDFWR and local mu- in lakes that in the past were overfished tive. nicipalities. As part of a cooperative due to their size and fishing pressure agreement between KDFWR and local exceeding the resources’ capabilities. Funding Source: Sport Fish Restora- governments, the lake owners provide These lakes require routine stockings tion Program (Dingell-Johnson) a 25% in-kind match for services at the of catchable-size fish to sustain quality lake to cover the cost of fish stockings. fishing opportunities to a diverse group KDFWR Strategic Plan. Goal 2, The program is operated with federal of anglers. Lakes are stocked up to Strategic Objective 3, Goal 4. Strate- funds and in 2011 local governments four times annually with catchable-size gic Objective 1.

116 Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Urban Fisheries / PROJECT UPDATES

Use of Flathead Catfish to Reduce Stunted Fish Populations in a Small Kentucky Impoundment

Dane Balsman and Jeremiah attempts. In addition to the Georgia However, sunfish size structure has Smith, Kentucky Department of flathead catfish, Pfeiffer Fish Hatchery continued to decline. The catch rate for raised 2,862 flathead catfish averaging bluegill continues to increase, with fish Fish and Wildlife Resources 5.1 inches that were stocked on 2 in the 2 – 4 inch range dominating the September 2011. The hypothesis of the population. Very few bluegill reach 6 project was that the stocking of a top- inches. Bluegill that were sacrificed .J. Jolly Lake, a 175 acre im- level predator would reduce densities for aging revealed slow growth. Apoundment located in Campbell of abundant sunfish. Ultimately, this Sampling for flathead catfish has County, Kentucky has historically should help improve size structure and yielded low numbers of fish. Sampling contained a sub-par sport fishery for growth rates of sunfish and possibly has been conducted at various times of sunfish and largemouth bass. The Ken- other sport fish species including the year, and with different DC pulse tucky Department of Fish and Wildlife largemouth bass and channel catfish. electrofishing settings with little luck. Resources (KDFWR) has tried several A regulation was passed in 2009 Trot lines and jug lines have also been alternative management actions in an that prohibited the harvest of flathead used for sampling. Little information attempt to improve growth of sunfish catfish from A.J. Jolly Lake. This exists on effective ways to sample for and largemouth bass. Management regulation was critical to ensure flathead catfish in small impoundments. actions have included stocking inter- that the stocked flathead catfish A total of 49 flathead catfish were mediate-sized largemouth bass to im- would remain in the lake to have the sampled in 2011. Of those, 18 fish prove recruitment of largemouth bass hypothetical desired effect. Sunfish were from the Georgia stockings and stocking blue catfish to consume and bass electrofishing are conducted and 31 were native flathead catfish. overabundant sunfish. Unfortunately, each spring and fall to determine Interestingly, the nine largest fish these management actions have proven abundance, size structure, age, growth captured > 24 inches were all native unsuccessful. and condition. Bass catch rates and fish. There were more flathead catfish In June 2007, the KDFWR stocked size structure has improved over the sampled in 2011 (49), than in 2010 417 flathead catfish that ranged in last several years. There have been (31), or 2009 (17). However, sampling length from 8.4 to 36.0 inches. In two strong spawning years in 2010 and numbers remained low for the year September 2009, an additional 308 2011 with abundant fish > 15 inches. and the true population size of flathead flathead catfish were catfish is still unknown. stocked. Fish ranged KDFWR will continue to in size from 3.0 to 32.3 sample flathead catfish, inches. In June 2011, largemouth bass, sunfish, 403 flathead catfish were and channel catfish, to stocked into A.J. Jolly determine if flathead Lake ranging in size catfish can improve from 3.8 to 38.2 inches. sportfish populations at Flathead catfish were A.J. Jolly Lake. obtained from Georgia Department of Natural Funding Source: Sport Resources as part of their Fish Restoration Program non-native flathead catfish (Dingell-Johnson) eradication program. All flathead catfish were KDFWR Strategic Plan. fin-clipped prior to Goal 1, Objective 5. stocking to differentiate from native flatheads in subsequent sampling Catfish sampling at A.J. Jolly Lake / Dane Balsman

Annual Research Highlights 2011 117 PROJECT UPDATES / Cold Water Fisheries

Preliminary Assessment of Bluegill and Redear Sunfish Populations in Small Impoundments

Dave Dreves and David Baker, Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources

epartment-owned small impound- Dments in central Kentucky are noted for providing good fisheries for both bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) and redear sunfish (L. microlophus). One technique employed by the KD- FWR to manage for the bluegill fisheries is to not stock shad in these waters or selectively remove them from impoundments to be managed for sunfish, thus eliminating a potential competitor Redear sunfish / Dave Dreves and leaving bluegill as the primary prey of largemouth bass. The direct and in- study are to: 1) determine the growth, lake and trends will ultimately be ana- direct effects of gizzard shad have been mortality and exploitation of bluegill lyzed. A number of bluegill and redear shown to affect both bluegill growth and redear sunfish in three central KY sunfish greater than 6 inches were and population size structure. The impoundments (Beaver, Elmer Davis, tagged at Beaver Lake in 2008, Elmer KDFWR maintains the bluegill fisher- and Corinth Lakes); 2) calculate a Davis Lake in 2009, and Corinth Lake ies in these small impoundments by recruitment index; and 3) monitor the in 2010 for year-long angler exploita- undertaking shad removal efforts with seasonal physicochemical characteris- tion studies. Bluegill exploitation has low concentration rotenone application tics of each lake and relate these char- ranged from 21 to 36 % and redear where shad introductions have occurred acteristics to population dynamics. sunfish exploitation ranged from 17 to and occasional fertilization to increase Beginning in spring 2006, we col- 42 %. These data will then be used to production. However, no size limits lected bluegill and redear sunfish by model various regulation schemes to and very limited creel limit restrictions electrofishing gear during May in each determine if minimum size limits or (Cedar Creek Lake and Greenbo Lake) of the 3 study lakes. A total of 10 fish creel limits can be used to enhance the for bluegill have ever been imposed by per inch class were sacrificed and oto- bluegill or redear sunfish populations in KDFWR. liths removed for calculation of age, the study lakes and/or applied to other When considering harvest restric- growth, and mortality. Fall electrofish- lakes across the state. The expectation tions such as length limits, estimates ing was also conducted to calculate is that the conclusions generated by this of exploitation, natural mortality, and relative weights of both species. We research will result in increased quality growth rates are more valuable than visited each lake at least monthly of bluegill and redear sunfish fisheries other measures such as size structure from May through October to monitor in small impoundments in Kentucky, or angler catch rates. Preliminary data physicochemical conditions. Several thereby leading to increased angler sat- is necessary to calculate growth and stations were established at each study isfaction. mortality rates for bluegill and redear lake where we measured monthly tem- sunfish in these small impoundments perature/dissolved oxygen profiles at Funding Source: Sport Fish Restora- before those fisheries could be man- 2 ft. intervals and turbidity was mea- tion Program (Dingell-Johnson) aged effectively with length limits. sured with a Secchi disk. We plan to Given the absence of data to support compare the fish population data with KDFWR Strategic Plan. Goal 1, harvest restrictions, the goals of this the physical observations made at each Strategic Objective 5.

118 Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Cold Water Fisheries / PROJECT UPDATES

Relative Survival, Growth and Susceptibility to Angling of Two Strains of Brown Trout in the Lake Cumberland Tailwater

Dave Dreves and David Baker, ity, growth and susceptibility to angling 2007 and has affected the comparison. Kentucky Department of Fish are of particular importance. The rehabilitation has also affected the and Wildlife Resources In 2007, a comparison was con- susceptibility to angling component of ducted between the Plymouth Rock the research, as poor water quality and (PR) and Sheep Creek (SC) strains of lower survival of brown trout has made brown trout stocked in the Lake Cum- it challenging to catch enough of the rout (Oncorhyncus spp. and Salmo berland tailwater. Like in a previous marked fish to make comparisons. An- Tspp.) sport fisheries in Kentucky’s rainbow trout strain analysis, the com- other cohort of the two strains will be reservoir tailwaters are unique and parison is between a more “domesti- compared in the future after the reha- important resources. These fisheries cated” hatchery strain (PR) and another bilitation of Wolf Creek Dam has been were created in reservoir tailwaters considered to be a relatively “wild” completed. having coldwater discharges for either strain (SC). Preliminary results from Information gained from this study the entire year or a portion of the year. this study showed that growth was sim- will help to enhance the management The Lake Cumberland tailwater trout ilar between the two strains but the SC of the trophy brown trout fishery in the fishery is the largest in Kentucky with strain was much more abundant after Lake Cumberland tailwater. more than 75 miles of suitable habitat one growing season than the PR strain. available throughout the entire year. This same comparison was made again Funding Source: Sport Fish Restora- The Lake Cumberland tailwater rein 2009. This cohort of the two strains tion Program (Dingell-Johnson) ceives the largest stocking in the state performed more evenly. However, the allocation of trout with approximately Wolf Creek Dam rehabilitation has re- KDFWR Strategic Plan. Goal 1, 161,000 rainbow (O. mykiss) and sulted in poor water quality conditions Strategic Objective 5. 38,000 brown (S. trutta) trout stocked in the Lake Cumberland tailwater since per year. Growth and survival of stocked trout in the Cumberland River are sufficient to create a high quality trout fishery with opportunities to catch trophy-size fish. Since the brown trout fishery in the Lake Cumberland tailwater is managed as a trophy fishery, it is imperative that stocked brown trout grow rapidly and reach trophy size in as short a time period as possible. Over the last 15 years, the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources (KDFWR) has used regulations and stocking practices to enhance the trout fishery in the Lake Cum- berland tailwater. One further way to optimize stocking includes determining the most suitable strain of trout for the physical conditions and management goals of a particular fishery. Character- istics such as movement, mortal- Cumberland River brown trout / John Williams

Annual Research Highlights 2011 119 PROJECT UPDATES / Cold Water Fisheries

tively wild strain). The goals of the strain evaluation were to determine if there is dif- ferential growth and survival, and if the wild strain fish are less susceptible to angling. The survival, growth, and contribution to the population of the two rainbow trout strains are being monitoring by conducting electrofishing surveys for fish previously marked with fin clips. Changes in the size and structure of the rainbow trout population as a result of the change in size and creel limit are being evaluated by relative abundance estimates from fall nocturnal electrofishing surveys. Periodically during the project, we clipped the adipose fin of a cohort A healthy rainbow from the Cumberland River / Dave Dreves of fish and then determined monthly growth rates of rainbow trout during their first growing Evaluation of a 15-20 Inch season by collecting those fish during Protective Slot Limit and 5 Fish monthly electrofishing. We also conducted a creel survey in 2006 and 2009 Creel Limit on Rainbow Trout in to assess changes in angler catch rates, harvest rates, and pressure in compari- the Lake Cumberland Tailwater son to the 2002 creel survey. Initial results of the strain analysis revealed that the domestic Arlee strain rainbow trout Dave Dreves and David Baker, tions are expected to protect enough grew more slowly and suffered higher Kentucky Department of Fish rainbow trout to prevent overharvest mortality than the McConaughy strain. and Wildlife Resources and increase quality, yet still allow for a Creel survey results indicated that the put-and-take fishery. Arlee strain was harvested at a much The primary goal of this project is higher rate. ver the last decade, the Kentucky to evaluate the effectiveness of these The Wolf Creek Dam rehabilita- ODepartment of Fish and Wildlife more restrictive regulations on rainbow tion has resulted in poor water quality Resources (KDFWR) have attempted trout in Kentucky’s most valuable trout conditions in the Lake Cumberland tail- to optimize stocking practices in the fishery. Additionally, Wolf Creek Na- water since 2007. These conditions are Lake Cumberland tailwater to increase tional Fish Hatchery annually stocks limiting the rainbow trout population the quality of the put-and-take rainbow a minimum of 5 strains of rainbow response to this new regulation and the trout fishery. The KDFWR commission trout, and long-term performance of research study will be ending in 2012. passed new regulations for rainbow these various strains in the Cumberland trout that were implemented in 2004. tailwater is unknown. As part of the Funding Source: Sport Fish Restora- These regulations were a 15-20 inch special regulation evaluation, we differ- tion Program (Dingell-Johnson) protective slot limit with a creel limit entially batch marked and stocked two of 5 trout per day (only one of which rainbow trout strains in the tailwater KDFWR Strategic Plan. Goal 1, may be over 20 inches). These regula- (one domesticated strain and a rela- Strategic Objective 5.

120 Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Cold Water Fisheries / PROJECT UPDATES

Evaluation of a 36-inch Minimum Length Limit on Muskellunge at Three Kentucky Reservoirs

Dave Dreves and David Baker, limit was also set at 36 inches at Buck- est and mortality calculations. In the Kentucky Department of Fish horn Lake, but it had been changed to future, length at age, relative weight and Wildlife Resources a 40-inch size limit in 2003. The daily and length-weight equations will be bag limit was maintained at one fish per calculated and analyzed for changes in day. The expected result of this regu- growth and condition. Creel surveys lation change is to increase the abun- and angler attitude surveys will be con- he muskellunge (Esox masqui- dance of muskellunge below 36 inches ducted at each study lake. Muskellunge Tnongy) is an ecologically and eco- and to increase the average length of all will also be tagged to estimate angler nomically important sport fish in many muskellunge in the populations at Cave exploitation. Statistical comparisons of temperate fresh water ecosystems of Run and Green River lakes. How- CPUE of size groups for pre-regulation North America. The species is native ever, due to the paucity of information and post-regulation change will be to many of the river drainages of Ken- pertaining to stocking efforts and the made. We will also compare the chang- tucky, including the Green, Kentucky aforementioned regulation changes, es in CPUE of size groups within and and Licking River drainages and histor- it is unknown whether these effects among the three study lakes. All exist- ically provided very popular fisheries. will be realized with this management ing muskellunge data on each of the During the 1960’s and 1970’s, the U. S. strategy, as well as how these popula- study lakes will be compiled, including Army Corps of Engineers constructed tion changes may affect the entire fish CPUE, creel and angler attitude data. dams impounding these rivers, creating community. A thorough evaluation of Buckhorn Lake (1,230 acres) on the this management strategy will add to Funding Source: Sport Fish Restora- Middle Fork of the Kentucky River, the existing knowledge base in the field tion Program (Dingell-Johnson) Green River Lake (8,210) on the Green and allow the KDFWR to most effec- River and Cave Run Lake (8,270) tively manage the muskellunge fishery KDFWR Strategic Plan. Goal 1, on the Licking River. The Kentucky and fish community in these reservoirs. Strategic Objective 5. Department of Fish and Wildlife Re- All individuals of each cohort of sources maintains a muskellunge fish- stocked muskellunge were permanently ery in these reservoirs through annual marked with a fin clip prior to stocking stockings of 0.33 fish/acre. Each of in the fall. Population sampling was these reservoirs now supports excellent conducted with boat-mounted pulsed sport fisheries for muskellunge with ex- DC electrofish- ceptional growth potential. A demand ing gear from for increased quality of muskellunge mid-February fisheries by anglers precipitated recent through the end fisheries management strategies direct- of March at all ed towards establishing trophy fisheries three reservoirs. through the use of regulations such as Electrofishing minimum size and bag limits. These catch per unit ef- regulations are designed to protect cer- fort data (CPUE) tain size classes of fish and equitably collected in the distribute the catch in order to develop spring of each the trophy fishery year is being In an effort to enhance the quality used to index of the muskellunge fishery, the KD- age-1 year-class FWR increased the minimum length strength, the rela- limit for muskellunge in Cave Run and tive frequency Green River lakes from 30 to 36 inches of various length in spring 2010. The minimum size groups of inter- Muskellunge / Chad Nickell

Annual Research Highlights 2011 121 PROJECT UPDATES / Cold Water Fisheries

Investigation of the Restoration population to this section of the Bar- ren River. An established population of Native Walleye in the Upper of native walleye in the Barren River Barren River will serve as a source of broodstock for potential native walleye restorations in other Kentucky river systems Dave Dreves and David Baker, these northern walleye are genetically and will create a walleye sport fishery Kentucky Department of Fish distinct from native Kentucky walleye; in the upper Barren River. In order as a result, it is believed that the major- to accomplish these restoration goals, and Wildlife Resources ity of these stocked northern walleye beginning in 2007, native strain wall- could not survive in the river environ- eye were collected from Wood Creek ment or were ultimately confined to Lake and the Rockcastle River in the alleye is a freshwater fish native lake systems (e.g. Lake Cumberland). spring and transported to Minor Clark Wto most of the major watersheds Another walleye stocking attempt (4.15 Hatchery to be used as broodfish. Wall- in Kentucky, including the Barren million walleye fry) in the Barren River eye are spawned and the resulting fry River watershed located in southwest- occurred in 1966, in response to low are reared to fingerling size (1.5 in.) in ern Kentucky. By the late-1800’s, population numbers, shortly after the ponds, then stocked in the Barren River growing concern for declining fisheries river was impounded in 1964. Since in late May or early June. We are us- prompted the stocking of Kentucky riv- there are no known recent reports of ing a stocking rate of a minimum of 20 ers and lakes by the U.S. Fish Commis- walleye from the Barren River or Bar- fingerlings/acre (180 fingerlings/mile), sion and the Kentucky Game and Fish ren River Lake, it is suspected that the and we plan to continue these efforts Commission. In 1912 and from 1914- “northern” strain fry stockings in 1917 through at least 2012. In conjunction 1917, these two agencies stocked wall- and 1966 were not successful and the with stocking, we assess 24-hour stock- eye fry in various rivers and streams native population in the river has been ing mortality using mesh-lined barrels throughout Kentucky, including the lost. secured in the river. To monitor and Barren River. Unfortunately, it was Although portions of the Barren assess stocking success, we sample not yet known that the Lake Erie strain River are impounded, there are ap- walleye in the spring at multiple sites walleye used in the stocking efforts are proximately 31 miles of unimpounded using pulse DC electrofishing gear, and adapted to lentic (lake) environments, mainstem of the Barren River above a sample of walleye are collected such unlike the native Kentucky walleye Barren River Lake. The broad goal of that weight and length measurements which are adapted to lotic (river) envi- this project is to re-establish a repro- and sex ratios can be recorded. In ronments. Biologists later realized that ducing native “southern” strain walleye 2008, we began marking stocked fingerlings with oxytetracycline (OTC) to determine recruitment of stocked fish. Beginning in 2013, small walleye may be sacrificed and otoliths removed for examination for OTC marks. We also have PIT tagged captured walleye to determine movement and growth rates. Walleye sampling in the Barren River is slated to continue through 2016 to allow for the reproductive potential of the stocked walleye population to reach a point where natural recruitment is possible and detectable.

Funding Source: Sport Fish Restora- tion Program (Dingell-Johnson)

KDFWR Strategic Plan. Goal 1, Strategic Objective 5. Native walleye from the Upper Barren River / Dave Dreves

122 Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Cold Water Fisheries / PROJECT UPDATES

Investigation of the Walleye Population in the Rockcastle River and Evaluation of Supplemental Stocking of Native Strain Walleye

Dave Dreves reared to fingerling size (1.5 in). Fingerling and David walleye were marked Baker, Kentucky with oxytetracycline Department of (OTC) prior to stock- Fish and Wildlife ing. Target stocking Resources rates were a minimum of 20 fingerling/acre (180 fingerlings/mile) for 6 years. We conduct electrofishing rior to impound- surveys during various Pment in 1952, the seasons and locations Cumberland River was throughout the 54 known for tremendous miles of the mainstem spring runs of walleye Rockcastle River to (Sander vitreum) that monitor the walleye provided a very popu- Walleye / John Williams population. Captured lar regional fishery. walleye are measured, This fishery included the Rockcastle form well in lotic environments. It is weighed, tagged, released, and fin clips River, a tributary to the Cumberland now believed that the majority of these are taken for genetic analysis. Small River which enters at what is now the walleye, because of their lentic origins, individuals were sacrificed and otoliths headwaters of Lake Cumberland. Wall- made their way back down into the removed for later examination for OTC eye spawning runs at Lake Cumberland lake and remained within the reservoir. marks. rapidly declined in the late 1950’s and Fortunately, no Erie strain walleye were To date, all walleye captured in the early 1960’s due to a variety of factors ever stocked by the KDFWR above the free-flowing section of the Rockcastle including: 1) lack of spawning sites inundated portion of the Rockcastle River were found to be genetically due to the inundation of rock shoals River. Consequently, Kentucky’s pure native walleye. The overwhelm- by the impoundment; 2) over-harvest unique strain of walleye still exists in ing majority of walleye examined were of adults during spawning runs; and 3) the Rockcastle River, while Lake Cum- stocked fish, indicating no natural re- acid mine pollution of spawning areas. berland continues to support the Erie cruitment of native walleye from 2002 The KDFWR first stocked walleye in strain. to 2007. After 6 consecutive years of the Cumberland River, above Lake There are two main goals of this stocking, native walleye stocking was Cumberland, in 1973 in attempts to study: 1) to assess the genetic origin discontinued to determine the effect of improve the declining walleye fishery of the existing walleye population in stocking on the production of natural in the river. These broodfish were not the Rockcastle River and what, if any year-classes. No recruitment has been from rivers in Kentucky, but were fish temporal and spatial differences ex- observed since stocking was discontin- from Lake Erie origins. The Erie strain ist between the native strain and the ued. This research study will conclude walleye evolved in a lentic (lake) en- Lake Erie strain; and 2) to evaluate the in 2012. vironment, thus they generally do not contribution of stocked native strain make large spawning migrations up walleye to the existing population. We Funding Source: Sport Fish Restora- rivers in the spring, but rather spawn collect native strain walleye from the tion Program (Dingell-Johnson) within the lake or reservoir. Before ad- Rockcastle River each spring and trans- vances in genetics, it was erroneously port them to Minor Clark Fish Hatchery KDFWR Strategic Plan. Goal 1, assumed that all walleye were the same to be used as broodfish. These walleye Strategic Objective 5. and these stocked walleye would per- are spawned and resulting fish are

Annual Research Highlights 2011 123 PROJECT UPDATES / Cold Water Fisheries

over a number of years will give insight into factors affecting recruitment in Kentucky white bass populations. Be- ginning in 2003 and continu- ing through 2007, white bass fingerlings were stocked at a density of 30 fish/acre, and all stocked white bass were marked as fingerlings with OTC (Oxytetracycline) to facilitate mark-recapture population estimates and analysis of growth rates. White bass were sampled, using experimental gill nets, with a preferred minimum catch of 100 White bass / Dave Dreves age-1 white bass. In addition, spring electroshocking was conducted in the headwaters of each of Evaluation of White Bass the study reservoirs to allow the determination of the contribution of stocked Stocking to Enhance Existing white bass to the reproductive stock. Contributions of stocked fish have been Reservoir Populations variable, but, in general the contribution was higher at Dewey Lake. Begin- ning in 2008, white bass fingerlings Dave Dreves and David Baker, Typically, resource agencies have were no longer stocked at both Barren Kentucky Department of Fish expended very little effort managing River Lake and Dewey Lake to allow and Wildlife Resources white bass populations. Realizing that the monitoring of the impact of no white bass populations were going to stocking on the production of natural undergo variable recruitment and the year-classes. The study has continued popularity of the fishery was often sea- for an additional 3 years with no stock- he white bass (Morone chrysops) sonal, fisheries managers preferred to ing to follow the impacts of previously Tis native to the southern Great live with the cyclic nature of the fishery stocked year-classes and evaluate the Lakes, Mississippi River basin, and and focus management efforts on other strength of natural year-classes in the Gulf Coastal drainages and is notorious species. Current angler dissatisfaction absence of stocking. Stocked white for having highly variable recruitment. over poor white bass populations in bass contributed to the white bass pop- However, the factors affecting recruit- Kentucky reservoirs that historically ulation at Barren River Lake at lower ment in reservoirs are not yet complete- had very popular fisheries has resulted levels than at Dewey Lake. In the ab- ly understood. Since the 1980’s, many in the need to try to develop new man- sence of stocking, Barren River Lake Kentucky reservoirs have experienced agement strategies. produced good natural year classes in severe declines in white bass popula- This study aims to determine if 2008-2010 and Dewey Lake produced tions, especially Barren River Lake and the stocking of white bass fingerlings good natural year classes in 2009 and Dewey Lake. The cause of the declines at Barren River and Dewey Lakes can 2010. in white bass fisheries at either lake are enhance the existing white bass popu- not completely understood, but may be lations and recruit to the reproductive Funding Source: Sport Fish Restora- related to a number of factors includ- stock, ultimately leading to the restoration Program (Dingell-Johnson) ing increased siltation and deficiencies tion of a self-sustaining high quality in physical parameters such as rainfall fishery. Concurrent monitoring of KDFWR Strategic Plan. Goal 1, and/or reservoir inflow during consecu- white bass population changes in rela- Strategic Objective 5. tive years. tion to other biotic and abiotic variables

124 Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources River and Stream Sport Fisheries / PROJECT UPDATES

River Sport Fishery Survey – Kentucky River

Sauger from the Kentucky River / Sara Tripp

Sara Tripp and Nick Keeton, stockings would cease and sauger fin- observed the previous spring; however Kentucky Department of Fish gerling stockings would begin again in catch rates of sauger greater than 15 and Wildlife Resources Pools 4 through 14. inches are the highest since this evalua- In 2006, the KDFWR began stock- tion began in 2003. Spring sauger catch ing sauger fingerlings into the Ken- rates varied from 3.0 fish/hour at Lock tucky River along with a full evaluation and Dam 12 to 47.0 fish/hour at Lock of the sauger and walleye populations and Dam 10 (mean=24.0 fish/hr). Addi- he Kentucky Department of Fish in the mid and upper river sections. The tional sites were added to fall sampling Tand Wildlife Resources (KDFWR) goal of this study was to evaluate the to increase our chances of finding wild has stocked sauger and walleye in the potential of establishing a self-sustain- age-0 sauger. The surveys consisted Kentucky River since 1981. Between ing sauger recreational fishery through of 6 nocturnal electrofishing transects 1981 and 1985, the Department stocked supplemental stocking in select pools in both the upper and lower pool areas over 2,000,000 sauger in the upper of the upper Kentucky River. Since below each dam, and the forks were pools of the river. Walleye stocking 2006, a total of 505,912 sauger have sampled based on accessibility. Sauger began in 1989 with walleye fry and been stocked in the Kentucky River. In dominated the catch with 209 fish sam- fingerlings being stocked in the up- the summer of 2011, the Department pled and a mean CPUE of 11.0 fish/hr, per reaches of the Kentucky River. suspended stocking sauger so that we with over a twofold increase in CPUE However, neither stocking (sauger or could evaluate whether the sauger pop- from last fall. Over 90% of the sauger walleye) was evaluated. As a result, the ulation can be self-sustaining through sampled and checked for OTC were Department implemented a sauger and recruitment of naturally reproduced marked and came from hatchery stock- walleye study along the entire reach of fish. ings, indicating that there may be very the Kentucky River in the winter/spring For the sixth year, spring nocturnal little natural reproduction of sauger oc- of 2002-2003. From this evaluation, it electrofishing surveys were conducted curring in the Kentucky River. became evident that the walleye stock- in 2011 in the tailwaters of Lock and ings were not successful, with little Dams 5, 10, 11, and 12. A total of 140 Funding Source: Sport Fish Restora- reproduction having been documented. white bass, 11 hybrid striped bass, and tion Program (Dingell-Johnson) Because sauger are better adapted to 96 sauger were collected in 4.0 hours of the conditions present in the Kentucky electrofishing. Sauger catch rates in the KDFWR Strategic Plan. Goal 1, River, it was decided that walleye spring of 2011 were lower than those Strategic Objective 5.

Annual Research Highlights 2011 125 PROJECT UPDATES / River and Stream Sport Fisheries

River Sport Fishery Survey – Ohio River

Sara Tripp and Nick Keeton, of this, the Ohio River Fish Manage- All states are concerned with the Kentucky Department of Fish ment Team (ORFMT) was formed as status of both black bass and sauger a working group of 6 states that bor- because of their importance to recre- and Wildlife Resources der the Ohio River. The list of states ational anglers. Other species such as includes Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, blue, channel, and flathead catfish are Ohio, West Virginia, and Pennsylva- important to multiple user groups, in- he Ohio River provides a thriving nia. Administrators and biologist from cluding commercial anglers. Ohio and Tfishery for both recreational and these states have been working in col- West Virginia manage these species commercial anglers. Since the Ohio laboration to manage fisheries issues on as sport fishes, whereas Indiana, Ken- River borders multiple states, it is bene- the Ohio River common to each state. tucky, and Illinois must split the impor- ficial both for the fisheries and its users Population data is monitored on many tance of catfish between sport anglers to work cooperatively to manage these species including black bass, sauger, and commercial fishers. Paddlefish is inter-jurisdictional fisheries. Because paddlefish, and catfish. another important inter-jurisdictional species in the Ohio River. The three upper states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia consider this fish a species of special concern. They have programs that stock or protect paddlefish populations. The lower three states allow commercial harvest of paddlefish populations within their reach. Due to the changing pressures on the Ohio River fisheries, the Ken- tucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources will continue cooperative research with the ORFMT to monitor population demographics of target species. In 2012, states within the ORFMT will continue to monitor black bass and sauger populations, as well as collect age, growth, and mortality data on both catfish and paddlefish to determine if changes are occurring in these populations. This collaborative effort will continue to allow each state to most efficiently manage the Ohio River resources and ultimately enhance sport and commercial angler opportunities.

Funding Source: Sport Fish Restora- tion Program (Dingell-Johnson)

KDFWR Strategic Plan. Goal 1, Strategic Objective 5.

Ohio River catfish / Doug Henley

126 Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources River and Stream Sport Fisheries / PROJECT UPDATES

Ohio River Supplemental Stocking Survey – Markland Pool

Sara Tripp and Nick Keeton, Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources

argemouth bass production Lin the Ohio River is believed to be negatively impacted by the lack of high quality spawning habitat. In turn, poor production results in reduced recruitment leading to a less than optimal largemouth bass fishery. Supplemental stocking has been shown to benefit largemouth bass population levels in some large riverine systems. This project seeks to determine if supplemental stocking of largemouth bass in the Ohio River is Largemouth bass / Sara Tripp a viable technique to increase year-class strength and ultimately im- the stocking rates for study embay- rate 50 fish/acre). Stocked fingerlings prove the bass fishery in the river. As a ments were varied (0 fish/acre, 50 fish/ were even collected in the embayments pilot project, the Kentucky Department acre, and 100 fish/acre). This should al- that were not stocked during 2011. At of Fish and Wildlife Resources began low us to determine if a reduced stock- Steeles Creek (control embayment) stocking largemouth bass fingerlings ing rate will result in similar contribu- age-0 largemouth bass catch rates were produced at Kentucky’s two fish hatch- tions to year class strength. We will the highest at 30.70 fish/hour, with eries into embayments of the Markland also look at the potential negative ef- 4.5% of those being stocked finger- Pool in June of 2007 and continued fects due to competition by comparing lings. Stocked fish comprised 38.6% of stocking through June of 2010. growth, condition, and survival of bass the age-0 largemouth bass sampled in For the duration of the initial among the embayments throughout the the fall of 2011 compared to 46.6% the stocking project, the goal stocking course of the study. previous fall. Despite the varied stock- rate was 100 fish/acre in each of the A total of 159,873 largemouth ing rates in 2011, we still observed selected embayments. Fingerlings were fingerlings, ranging from 1.6 and 2.0 relatively high catch rates of young of marked with OTC in transit to each inches (mean=1.8 in), were stocked in the year largemouth bass compared to embayment, so that we could deter- June, 2011. Department personnel con- the previous four years, and the overall mine the contribution of stocked fish tinued to sample the six stocked em- catch rates for all sizes was the highest from age-0 to adulthood. Preliminary bayments on the Kentucky side of the we have seen since the stocking study results from this study have shown that river with an addition of Steeles Creek, was started. stocked fish composed 47% to 79% of which had never been stocked (to act as the age-0 fish and that this contribution a control site). Catch rates for stocked Funding Source: Sport Fish Restora- to year-class strength appears to be pro- largemouth bass fingerlings in 2011 tion Program (Dingell-Johnson) gressively adding to the fishery. To fur- ranged between 0 in the Licking River ther investigate the success of stocking (stocking rate 100 fish/acre) and 22.7 KDFWR Strategic Plan. Goal 1, the Ohio River embayments, in 2011 fish/hour in Craigs Creek (stocking Strategic Objective 5.

Annual Research Highlights 2011 127 PROJECT UPDATES / River and Stream Sport Fisheries

Ohio River Supplemental Stocking Survey – Meldahl Pool

Sara Tripp and Nick Keeton, ing habitat. ments (Big Snag, Big Locust, Bracken, Kentucky Department of Fish The Department implemented a Lawrence, and Lee’s Creek) were and Wildlife Resources spawning habitat manipulation study stocked at a rate of 100 fish per acre in 2003 through 2010 to determine if and Big Turtle Creek was stocked at a largemouth bass spawning could be rate of 200 fish per acre. Largemouth enhanced through the introduction bass CPUE ranged from 61.8 fish/hour eetings with Ohio River black of supplemental spawning structures in Bracken Creek to 83.3 fish/hour Mbass fishermen in 1997 informed and cover. While black bass were ob- in Big Turtle Creek, while the mean the Department that problems existed served utilizing both structures, the CPUE across all embayments for large- with black bass population structure in effort needed to substantially influence mouth bass was 70.6 fish/hour. The the Meldahl Pool. Efforts were initi- black bass reproduction on a pool wide mean largemouth bass CPUE was over ated to sample various embayments basis through these means appeared three times higher than the 2010 mean and main river sites in this pool and immense and impractical. Based on CPUE of 23.5 fish/hour. The largest in- determine the factors influencing these the bass stocking study conducted in crease in CPUE was observed in the <8 populations. This preliminary sampling Markland Pool, biologists determined inch size group, where CPUE increased confirmed angler concerns and indi- that stocking may be a more viable op- from 9.4 fish/hour to 37.3 fish/hour af- cated that a relatively poor largemouth tion to increase year-class strength and ter stocking in 2011. bass population existed in Meldahl ultimately enhance the largemouth bass Otoliths were taken from a sub- Pool compared to other Ohio River fishery in Meldahl Pool. sample of young-of-the-year large- Pools. Electrofishing surveys indicated A total of 33,445 largemouth mouth bass, aged and checked for that young-of-the-year production was fingerlings averaging 1.6 inches were OTC marks. Age-0 largemouth bass low, potentially due to limited spawn- stocked in June, 2011. Five embay- lengths ranged from 3.7 to 9.2 inches in the 6 study embayments. Catch rates for stocked largemouth bass fingerlings ranged between 8.0 fish/ hour in the Big Turtle Creek (stocking rate 200 fish/acre) and 55.3 fish/hour in Big Snag Creek (stocking rate 100 fish/acre) . All embayments except for Bracken and Big Turtle Creek had a higher percentage of age- 0 largemouth bass being stocked fish, with stocked fish composing 63.3% of all age-0 fish collected in the Meldahl Pool.

Funding Source: Sport Fish Restoration Program (Dingell-Johnson)

KDFWR Strategic Plan. Goal 1, Strategic Objec- tive 5. Supplemental stocking / Doug Henley

128 Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Big Game / PROJECT UPDATES

Resource Selection, Movement Patterns, Survival, and Cause – Specific Mortality of Adult Bull Elk in Kentucky

John T. Hast and John (7) determine the prevalence of J. Cox, University of common internal and external Kentucky Department parasites, and (8) determine the of Forestry influence of the Kentucky elk herd as an Epizootic Hemorrhagic KDFWR Disease (EHD)/bluetongue reservoir. Collaborators: In an attempt to fill the Kristina Brunjes, R. above-mentioned knowledge Daniel Crank, Will gaps, 64 mature bull elk were Bowling, Gabriel fitted with GPS (global position- Jenkins, and Aaron ing system) or VHF (very high frequency) tracking collars in the Hecht winter of 2011. Over the course of 2011, 21 mortality events were recorded (5 from meningeal worm, 1 from poaching, 11 lthough much in- from legal hunter harvest, and 4 Aformation has been unknown). Forty additional bull obtained from a decades- elk were captured in the winter long research program at of 2012 and fitted with track- the University of Kentucky ing collars to expand the sample on reintroduced elk in the size of the survival portion of the Commonwealth, little is study. Currently, there are 76 known about bull elk ecol- mature bull elk fitted with track- ogy. Mature bull elk are ing collars (23 GPS, 53 VHF). an ecologically important We intend to expand this further age-gender class but are by capturing approximately 24 notoriously difficult to more adult bull elk upon antler study in hunted populations. Researcher processes elk / John Cox re-growth in the summer of 2012. Although harvest numbers With one year of data collected have been recorded since the imple- parameters influence dispersal across from bull elk wearing GPS tracking mentation of a sustainable hunting sea- the landscape. The following eight collars, it will be possible to begin the son in Kentucky, other sources of mor- project objectives will be implemented analyses necessary to complete objec- tality for mature bull elk are unclear. to fill the knowledge gaps addressed tives 1-3. Additionally, the genetic We also know little about the temporal above and expand our knowledge of the analysis critical to objective 6 will be- and seasonal habitat use and spatial pat- Kentucky bull elk: (1) characterize fine gin in the summer of 2012. terns of bull elk, and through anecdotal scale resource use patterns, (2) char- evidence, believe that these character- acterize seasonal movement patterns, Funding Sources: Pittman-Robertson istics considerably differ among bio- (3) identify important population-level (PR), Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, logical seasons than that of other age movement corridors, (4) determine sur- University of Kentucky and gender classes. Finally, bull elk vival and cause-specific mortality, (5) home range establishment in Kentucky characterize dispersal movements, (6) KDFWR Strategic Plan: Goal 1. is unclear in terms of space use versus characterize the relationship between Strategic Objective 5. individual relatedness and how these home range and genetic relatedness,

Annual Research Highlights 2011 129 PROJECT UPDATES / Big Game

Genetic Characteristics of Restored Elk Populations in Kentucky

Virginia Dunn, Steve Demarais measurements were taken to allow us to The phenotypic quality of the and Bronson Strickland, evaluate the health of the population as female eastern Kentucky elk is compa- Mississippi State University; it relates to genetic potential in restored rable and in some cases surpasses that Randy DeYoung, Texas A&M and source populations. of comparable female western source University – Kingsville; Kristina Genetic analysis shows eastern elk. The smaller antler measurements Brunjes, Kentucky Department of Kentucky elk with high levels of found in the male eastern Kentucky elk genetic diversity throughout the res- may be due to a potential harvest selec- Fish and Wildlife Resources toration zone. Heterozygosity, or the tion bias (Martinez et al. 2005, Mys- characteristic of having two different terud 2011). The eastern Kentucky elk forms of a certain gene, is an indica- population is a young and expanding tor used to evaluate genetic diversity. population and the Kentucky hunters astern Kentucky has a thriving Heterozygosity values can range from may not have the same reference point Eelk (Cervus elaphus) popula- a low of zero to a high of 1, and the as western hunters who have been ex- tion, thanks to restoration efforts by eastern Kentucky elk population has a posed to elk throughout their lives. By the Kentucky Department of Fish and fairly high average of 0.67. Mean het- the end of 2012, the final analysis will Wildlife Resources (KDFWR). Reten- erozygosity values from each western be complete and this information will tion of genetic diversity was considered source population were very similar allow the KDFWR to make future man- by KDFWR because it is important to to Kentucky, as well as each other, agement decisions that will promote elk population adaptability and longterm ranging between 0.64 and 0.67. There population health and provide a current success. Future management decisions appears to be no significant genetic dif- example of how to effectively reintro- should be based on an understanding ference between the source populations duce elk into the eastern United States. of the genetic structure of the restored and Kentucky, so restoration efforts population. were successful in maintaining genetic Funding Sources: Pittman-Robertson The KDFWR and Mississippi State diversity. (PR) and Mississippi State University. University began a project in 2008 An analysis of physical com- to evaluate the genetic makeup and parisons shows that female eastern KDFWR Strategic Plan. Goal 1. physical characteristics of the eastern Kentucky elk are larger than some of Strategic Objective 5. Kentucky elk herd. During 2008-2010, their female source state elk. Female biologists and hunters collected a total elk in Kentucky were 5.6 % taller at of 213 tissue and hair DNA samples the shoulder compared to females Literature Cited from harvested eastern Kentucky elk. in Utah in the mature (5 years and Martinez, M., C. Rodriguez-Vigal, During this same time, biologists from older) age class and 10.4% taller than O. R. Jones, T. Coulson, and A. S. five western source states obtained a to- Arizona females and 6.5% taller than Miguel. 2005. Different hunting tal of 95 DNA samples from harvested Utah females in the middle (2-4 year) strategies select for different weights elk. These samples, plus those from age class. Female Kentucky elk also in red deer. Biology Letters 1:353- 150 of the original western source elk, had 8.5% and 9.0% longer total body 356. were genotyped using 15 microsatellite lengths than females in Utah in the DNA. These data will be used to evalu- mature and middle age classes. Physi- Mysterud, A. 2011. Selective harvest- ate the genetic makeup of the elk across cal comparisons of male elk show that ing of large mammals: how often the restoration area and compare this Kentucky males have 21.57% shorter does it result in directional selec- to their source populations in western main beams lengths, 15.9% narrower tion? Journal of Applied Ecology states. inside spreads and 13.4% less number 48:827-834. Western biologists also obtained of points in the middle age class than antler and/or body measurements from male Arizona elk. Male elk in Ken- a total of 339 harvested bull and cow tucky also had 10.0 % narrower inside elk in Arizona, Kentucky, New Mexico, spreads than male elk in Utah in the Oregon and Utah. Antler and body mature age class.

130 Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Small Game / PROJECT UPDATES

disking, planting flood plots, herbicide applications, and prescribed fire, we are monitoring movements, reproduction, and survival of northern bobwhite via trapping and radio telemetry. We are using an experimental design that incorporates treated and untreated areas on the 8,200-acre study site. Since August 2009, we have trapped and collared 1,000 birds, with a 3.45% trapping success rate, which is comparable with other studies performed throughout the Southeast. Over- all crude mortality rate averaged 54%. Using the collared birds, we have estimated the population using a fall cov- ey-call survey. The fall 2009 estimate of 2,452 birds increased to 3,845 in the fall of 2010 and increased once again to 4,566 in the fall of 2011. During winter Researcher radio-tracks quail / David Peters (October-March), birds were using annual food plots, native warm-season grass, and scrub-shrub vegetation types Population Ecology and more than expected. During summer (April-September), birds were using Habitat Use of Northern native warm-season grass and open herbaceous (dominated by forbs and Les- Bobwhite on a Reclaimed pedeza cuneata) vegetation more than expected. Birds frequently used disked Surface Coal Mine in Kentucky areas during summer as well. This selection may be influenced by structural components of the vegetation, such as David Peters, Ashley Unger, of potential habitat is through manage- visual obstruction at ground level, litter Evan Tanner, Craig Harper ment of reclaimed mined land. There depth, and species composition. are 1.5 million acres of reclaimed We will continue to monitor bob- and Patrick Keyser, University land in the eastern US, and more than white response at Peabody as KDFWR of Tennessee; John Morgan 600,000 acres within Kentucky. Un- continues to manipulate habitat. Our and Eric Williams, Kentucky fortunately, many of these reclaimed research should document the influence Department of Fish and Wildlife areas have been planted to invasive, of these habitat management practices Resources non-native species, such as sericea on northern bobwhite and provide wild- lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneata) and tall life managers information needed for fescue (Schedonorus phoenix), which sound decision making when managing may not provide suitable nesting or reclaimed mined lands for the species. orthern bobwhite (Colinus vir- brooding cover. Nginianus) populations are rapidly To address potential habitat Funding Source: Pittman-Robertson declining because of range-wide loss concerns for northern bobwhite on (PR) and the University of Tennessee of usable space. The decline has been reclaimed mined lands, the Kentucky attributed to deterioration of early suc- Department of Fish and Wildlife Re- KDFWR Strategic Plan. Goal 1. cessional habitat as a result of clean sources (KDFWR) began implementing Strategic Objective 5. Comprehen- farming practices, lack of disturbance, broad-scale habitat management strate- sive Wildlife Conservation Strategy: and habitat fragmentation. An opportu- gies on the Peabody WMA in western Appendix 3.2. Class Aves. Priority nity to increase and manage large tracts KY in 2009. To quantify the effects of Research Project #2 and #3.

Annual Research Highlights 2011 131 PROJECT UPDATES / Bears

Demographics and Population Estimation of Black Bear in Southeastern Kentucky

Sean Murphy and John J. winter 2009. (CGNHP), and Redbird Wildlife Man- Cox, University of Kentucky, To date, targeted harvest numbers agement Area (WMA). We checked and Department of Forestry (n = 10/year) have not been achieved, baited all 144 hair traps every week for suggesting the population may still be 8 consecutive weeks from June – Au- KDFWR Collaborators: Jayson relatively small. Although the legal har- gust, 2011. A total of 384 hair samples vest has remained a short season with a were collected from 85 of the 144 hair Plaxico and Steven Dobey small quota, recent changes to the bear traps. Hair samples will be analyzed harvest, including a longer duration using ≥ 12 microsatellite loci to iden- season and implementation of a dog tify individuals and delineate gender chase season, have been proposed. As of sampled individuals. Robust design he black bear (Ursus americanus) such, population estimates and demo- population models, which allow closed- Thistorically inhabited all of Ken- graphics of this small bear population population models to be used for esti- tucky, but was extirpated from the state are critically important data required to mating yearly population size and den- by the early 1900s as a result of over- inform bear management in Kentucky sity, will be used to estimate population exploitation, habitat loss, and habitat and ensure long-term population persis- growth rate from 2011 – 2014. fragmentation. Beginning during the tence of this ecologically and economi- To estimate survival and iden- mid-1980s, the black bear naturally cally important species. We therefore tify cause-specific mortality of black recolonized a portion of extreme south- implemented the following research bear, live-trapping via Aldrich spring- eastern Kentucky in counties bordering project objectives during summer 2011: activated snares, culvert traps, and Virginia, West Virginia, and Tennessee. 1. Estimate population abun- free-darting will be used to capture Over the previous 3 decades, confirmed dance, density, and growth rate in the individual bears. Captured individuals nuisance complaints and roadkills have core counties harboring resident bear. will be outfitted with VHF radio-collars increased in southeastern Kentucky 2. Estimate survival and identify to enable tracking. Aerial telemetry via counties harboring resident bears. Ad- cause-specific morality of black bear in fixed-wing aircraft will be conducted ditionally, evidence from live-trapping southeastern Kentucky. every 10 days to locate individuals data and reproductive analyses (Uni- 3. Investigate patterns of range and determine status (i.e. live or dead). versity of Kentucky, unpublished data) expansion in peripheral counties. During summer 2011, 23 individual suggests the population has increased To estimate population abundance, black bear were live-captured and in number and expanded its range. Cu- density, and growth rate, and to investi- outfitted with VHF radio-collars. Of mulatively, this data prompted the Ken- gate genetic characteristics and patterns these 23 collared individuals, 2 were hit tucky Department of Fish and Wildlife of range expansion, non-invasive hair and killed by vehicles, 1 was illegally Resources (KDFWR) to implement sampling is being used in a systematic poached, and 1 was legally harvested the first annual legal black bear hunt capture-mark-recapture study design. in Virginia, suggesting that anthropo- in Kentucky in over a century during We plan to survey one core population genic mortality may play a larger role (Black Mountain- in slowing growth of the southeastern Pine Mountain area), Kentucky black bear population than and several outly- previously speculated. ing “satellite” areas where bears have only Funding Sources: Pittman-Robertson recently appeared. (PR) and University of Kentucky During summer 2011, we established a total KDFWR Strategic Plan: Goal 1. of 144 hair traps in Strategic Objective 5. Comprehen- the Black Mountain- sive Wildlife Conservation Strategy: Pine Mountain area, Appendix 3.9; Class Mammalia: Cumberland Gap Na- Taxa specific conservation project. Researchers process a bear / Rachel Rowe tional Historical Park

132 Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Songbirds and Raptors / PROJECT UPDATES

Statewide Osprey Nesting Survey

Kate Heyden, Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources

n Kentucky, Osprey historically nest- Ied along the floodplains of the lower Ohio and Mississippi rivers. However, Ospreys, like many other fish-eating birds and raptors, declined significantly in numbers during the 1960s and early An Osprey nest, containing three young on a navigation light platform at Lake 1970s, due to their productivity being hindered by the pesticide DDT. As a Barkley, during the 2011 Osprey survey / Tonya Mammone result of the release of young birds and the ban on DDT in 1972, Kentucky’s Land Between the Lakes (LBL) area the ground by KDFWR personnel, vol- nesting population started to reestablish and lower Tennessee River between KY unteers, and USFS personnel (at Cave in the mid-1980’s. Dam and the Ohio River was surveyed Run and Laurel River Lake). Over 100 A statewide survey was conducted by boat and ground by KDFWR person- locations were checked for nesting ac- in 2011 to determine the approximate nel on June 29-July 1, 2011. In hopes to tivity statewide. current size of Kentucky’s nesting Os- find new nests, the entire main channel During 2011, 87 occupied Osprey prey population. Known nesting loca- at Lake Barkley and all but the north- nests were documented in Kentucky. tions statewide were checked, where ernmost portion of the main channel of The majority of nests were on manmade possible, by ground and boat, during the Kentucky Lake were searched by boat. structures (78%) such as navigation nesting season (late March-July). The Nests east of LBL were monitored from lights and transmission towers. West- ern KY supports the bulk of the nesting population, but there are several nests in central and eastern KY near major rivers and larger reservoirs (Figure 1). The statewide Osprey survey will be conducted at three- year intervals with the next survey in 2014.

Funding Sources: State Wild- life Grants (SWG)

KDFWR Strategic Plan. Goal 1. Strategic Objective 5. Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy: Ap- pendix 3.2. Priority Survey Project #3. Figure 1: Distribution of occupied Osprey nests in 2011.

Annual Research Highlights 2011 133 PROJECT UPDATES / Reptiles and Amphibians

Kentucky pine snake / Will Bird

Inventory, Monitoring, and vide refuge for many of the creatures that might otherwise stay far below the Management of Amphibians and surface of the ground where they could remain undetected. There are species of Reptiles in Kentucky reptiles and amphibians for which AC has proven less effective. When target- ing these species we use box style fun- Will Bird and Phil Peak, vague. Reptile and amphibian species nel traps to assist in their location and Kentucky Herpetological Society for which baseline data is most needed also search natural forms of cover such have been identified as have the regions as rocks and logs. within Kentucky where this informa- The information about where tion should be gathered. specimens are located is recorded in a Locating reptiles and amphibians very precise manner so that these loca- can be difficult. We begin the process tions can be visited and monitored into n the course of developing Ken- by identifying locations where we the future in order to continue to moni- Itucky’s Comprehensive Wildlife believe targeted species can be found. tor populations and dynamics. Since the Conservation Strategy (CWCS), it These locations are on state, federal, project began we have secured many was determined by KDFWR that more and private lands. Once permission is new survey locations in areas targeted baseline data needed to be collected in granted to conduct surveys we use dif- by the CWCS and continue to gather order to execute effective conservation ferent methods for locating specimens information and data for species of action plans for our native reptile and based on their biological requirements. interest. amphibian species. While general dis- Because they are ectotherms we are tributions for reptiles and amphibians able to utilize Artificial Cover (AC) to Funding Source: State Wildlife Grant in Kentucky have been determined, locate many of the animals we search (SWG) more detailed distribution and abun- for. Heavy metal objects that absorb dance records need to be collected so heat from the sun’s rays and provide Comprehensive Wildlife Conserva- that the populations of these animals protection from the elements are set out tion Strategy: Appendix 3.4, Class can be monitored over time. Many of at our study sites. We also deploy large Reptilia: Prioritized Survey Projects the records that we have in our cur- wooden boards which retain moisture 1 and 2. Class Amphibia: Priority rent database are decades old and very even during the drier months and pro- Survey Projects #1 and #2.

134 Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Songbirds and2007-2011 Raptors PROJECT REFERENCES

Published Research Barding, E.E., M.J. Lacki, and L.L. Patton. 2010. Recovery of the Hopkins, R.L., M.D. Burns, B. Burr, and L.J. Hopman. 2008. Building river otter to Kentucky. Proc. Annu. Conf. S.E. Assoc. Fish and a centralized database for Kentucky fishes: Progress and future Wildlife Agencies (In press). applications. Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 69 (2): 164-169. Britzke, E.R., B.A. Slack, M.P. Armstrong, and S.C. Loeb. Effects of orientation and weatherproofing on the detection of bat echolocation Hopkins, R.L. and B.M. Burr. 2009. Modeling freshwater fish calls. 2010. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management 1(2):136-141. distributions using multiscale landscape data: A case study of six narrow range endemics. Ecological Modeling 220:2024-2034. Corn, J.L., M.E. Cartwright, K.J. Alexy, T.E. Cornish, E.J.B. Manning, A.N. Cartoceti, and J.R. Fischer. 2010. Surveys for disease agents Larkin, J.L., D.S. Maehr, J.J. Krupa, J.J. Cox, K. Alexy, D.E. Unger, in introduced elk in Arkansas and Kentucky. Journal of Wildlife and C. Barton. 2008. Small mammal response to vegetation and Diseases 46(1):186-194. spoil conditions on a reclaimed surface mine in eastern Kentucky. Southeastern Naturalist 7(3):401-112. Culp, J.J., A.C. Shepard, and M.A. McGregor. 2009. Fish hosts and conglutinates of the pyramid pigtoe (Pleurobema rubrum). Lynch, W.L., and C.N. Moreira. 2008. Nest arrival vocalizations of Southeastern Naturalist 8(1):19-22. the Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura (Cathartidae: Falconiformes). Vulture News 59:3-6. Culp, J.J., W.R. Haag, D.A. Arrington, and T.B. Kennedy. 2011. Seasonal and species-specific patterns in abundance offreshwater Owen C.T., J.E. Alexander, Jr., and M.A. McGregor. 2010. Control of mussel glochidia in stream drift. Journal of the North American microbial contamination during in vitro culture of larval unionid Benthological Society 30:436-445. mussels. Invertebrate Reproduction and Development. 54 (4):187- 193 Dzialak, M.R., K.M. Carter, M.J. Lacki, D.F. Westneat, and K. Anderson. 2009. Activity of post-fledgingperegrine falcons in Owen, C.T., M.A. McGregor, G.A. Cobbs, and J.E. Alexander Jr. different rearing and habitat conditions. Southeastern Naturalist 2010. Muskrat predation on a diverse unionid mussel community: 8(1):93-106. Impacts of prey species composition, size and shape. Freshwater Biology 56(3): 554-564. Edmonds, S. T., D. C. Evers, D. A. Cristol, C. Mettke-Hofmann, L. L. Powell, A. J. McGann, J. W. Armiger, O. P. Lane, D. F. Tessler, Patton, L.L, D.S. Maehr, J.E. Duchamp, S. Fei, J.W. Gassett and J.L. P. Newell, K. Heyden, and N. J. O’Driscoll. 2010. Geographic Larkin. 2010. Do the golden-winged warbler and blue-winged and seasonal variation in mercury exposure of the declining Rusty warbler exhibit species-specific differences in their breeding Blackbird. The Condor 112(4):789-799. habitat use? Avian Conservation and Ecology 5(2).

Eisenhour, D.J., A.M. Richter, and J.M. Schiering. 2011. Conservation Reidy, J.L., F.R. Thompson III, and J.W. Bailey. 2011. Comparison status of the longhead darter, Percina macrocephala, in of methods for estimating density of forest songbirds from point Kinniconick Creek, Kentucky. Southeastern Fishes Council counts. Journal of Wildlife Management 75:558-568. Proceedings 53:13-20. Ruder, M.G., A.B. Allison, D.L. Miller, and M.K. Keel. 2010. Frary, V.J., J. Duchamp, D.S. Maehr, and J.L. Larkin. 2011. Density Pathology in practice. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical and distribution of a colonizing front of the American black bear Association 237(7):783-785. Ursus americanus. Wildlife Biology 17:404-416. Shock, B.C., S.M. Murphy, L.L. Patton, P.M. Shock, C.Olfenbuttel, J. Harris, D., C. Elliott, R. Frederick, and T. Edwards. 2009. Habitat Beringer, S. Prange, D.M. Grove, M. Peek, J.W. Butfiloski, D.W. characteristics associated with American woodcock (Scolopax Hughes, J.M. Lockhart, S.N. Bevins, S. VandeWoude, K.R. Crooks, minor Gmelin) nests in central Kentucky. The Journal of the V.F. Nettles, H.M. Brown, D.S. Peterson and M.J. Yabsley. 2011. Kentucky Academy of Sciences 70(2):114-144. Distribution and prevalence of Cytauxzoon felis in bobcats (Lynx rufus), the natural reservoir, and other wild felids in thirteen states. Hartman, P.J., D.S. Maehr, and J.L. Larkin. 2009. Habitat selection Veterinary Parasitology 175:325-330. by cerulean warblers in Eastern Kentucky. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 121(3):469-475. Vukovich, M. and G. Ritchison. 2008. Foraging behavior of Short- Eared Owls and Northern Harriers on a reclaimed surface mine Heyden, K.G. 2010. 2010 Barn Owl (Tyto alba) inventory and current in Kentucky. Southeastern Naturalist 1(1):1-10. management for the species in Kentucky. The Kentucky Warbler 86(4): 79-85.

Heyden, K. G. 2010. Current status of nesting Bald Eagles (Haliaeetus Big Game (Elk and Deer) leucocephalus) in Kentucky. The Kentucky Warbler 86(4):85-89. Assessment of Reproductive Output for White Tailed Deer in Kentucky Hopkins, R.L. 2009. Use of landscape pattern metrics and multiscale Volume I ...... 26 data in aquatic species distribution models: a case study of a freshwater mussel. Landscape Ecology 29:943-955. Can Body Condition and Select Physiological Indicators Predict Survival of Elk Post-Translocation? Volume V ...... 103

Annual Research Highlights 2011 135 PROJECT REFERENCES 2007-2010 PROJECT REFERENCES 2007-2011

TM Chronic Wasting Disease Surveillance in Kentucky Efficacy of Surrogate Propagation As a Quail Restoration Technique Volume I ...... 27 in Central Kentucky Volume III ...... 80 Genetic Characteristics of Restored Elk Populations in Kentucky Volume IV ...... 34 Volume II ...... 62 Volume III ...... 112 Monitoring Efforts for Northern Bobwhite Populations in Kentucky Volume IV...... 95 Volume I ...... 36 Volume V ...... 130 Northern Bobwhite Population Ecology on Reclaimed Mined Land Hunters’ use of the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Volume III ...... 78 Resources’ Telecheck System Volume IV ...... 97 Volume II ...... 7 Volume V ...... 131

Kentucky Residents’ Awareness of and Opinions on Elk Restoration and Management Efforts Volume V ...... 16 Turkey

Maternal Antibody Transfer and Meningeal Worm Infection in Wild Turkey Reproduction in Kentucky Kentucky Elk Volume I ...... 38 Volume II ...... 13

Meningeal Worm (Parelaphostrongylus tenuis) Infection Rate and Effects on Survival of Reintroduced Elk (Cervus elaphus nelsonii) Furbearers in Kentucky Volume I ...... 22 Bobcat space use in the Paul Van Booven Wildlife Management Area, Southeastern KY Prevalence of Select Parasites of Elk in Southeastern Kentucky Volume V ...... 22 Volume V ...... 104 Distribution, Population Status and Habitat Characteristics of the River Resource Selection, Movement Patterns, Survival, and Cause-Specific Otter (Lontra canadensis) in Kentucky Mortality of Adult Bull Elk in Kentucky Volume I ...... 18 Volume IV ...... 61 Volume III ...... 113 Volume V ...... 129 Volume V ...... 26

Using FLIR (Forward-Looking Infrared Radiography) To Estimate Elk Exploring Methods for Monitoring Bobcats in Kentucky Density and Distribution in Eastern Kentucky Volume V ...... 105 Volume I ...... 10 Volume II ...... 9 Geographic Distribution and Prevalence of Cytauxzoon felis in Wild Felids Volume II ...... 63 Small Game (Quail, Squirrels, Rabbits) Bear

A New Approach to Mast Surveys in Kentucky Bias in GPS Telemetry Studies: A Case Study Using Black Bears in Volume I ...... 35 Southeastern Kentucky Volume III ...... 38 Assessment of Habitat Value for Recovering Disturbed Warm-Season Grass Using Multi-Cover Habitat Assessment Model for the Northern Bobwhite Black Bear Resource Selection, Demographics, and Movement Patterns Volume II ...... 25 in Kentucky Volume I ...... 11 Avian Response to Production Stands of Native Warm-Season Grasses . Volume II ...... 60 Volume III ...... 77 Volume IV ...... 99 Volume V ...... 59 Volume V ...... 132

Bobwhite Focal Area Activity and Monitoring in KY Colonization of the Black Bear in Eastern Kentucky: Conflict and Volume III ...... 79 Tolerance Between People and Wildlife Volume IV ...... 79 Volume I ...... 13 Volume V ...... 45 Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) Landscape Monitoring Initiative Estimating Black Bear Populations in Kentucky Volume IV ...... 34 Volume I ...... 21 Volume II ...... 17

136 Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources 2007-2011 PROJECT REFERENCES

Genetic Diversity, Structuring, and Recolonization Patterns of Black Monitoring Priority Songbird Populations Bears in Eastern Kentucky Volume I ...... 45 Volume II ...... 61 Volume III ...... 33 Monitoring the Effects of WMA Forest Stand Improvements on Volume IV ...... 98 Songbirds Volume III ...... 71 Population Size and Density of Black Bears in McCreary County, Kentucky Population Status and Reproductive Success of the Bald Eagle in Kentucky Volume IV ...... 62 Volume I ...... 46 Volume V ...... 36 Population Status and Reproductive Success of the Peregrine Falcon in Kentucky Volume I ...... 47 Birds Sharp-shinned Hawks in Kentucky: Detection, Abundance, Nest-Site

Songbirds and Raptors Selection, and Breeding Success Volume III ...... 72 Assessing Avian use of land enrolled in Conservation Practice 33 Volume IV ...... 30 (CP33), Conservation Reserve Program Volume I ...... 42 Statewide Osprey Nesting Survey Volume II ...... 70 Volume V ...... 133 Assessing Raptor Populations of Peabody Wildlife Management Area Studying the Movements of Two Young Bald Eagles and Throughout Kentucky Volume IV ...... 65 Volume I ...... 43

Turkey and Black Vulture Invertebrate Nest Association Barn Owl Management and 2010 Inventory Volume IV ...... 66 Volume IV ...... 64

Vocalizations of adult Turkey Vultures as they Arrive at Nest Sites The Common Raven in Cliff Habitat: Detectability and Occupancy during the Nesting Season Volume II ...... 54 Volume I ...... 48 Volume V ...... 64

Cooperative Cerulean Warbler Forest Management Project Volume I ...... 44 Migratory Shorebirds and Colonial Nesting Waterbirds Ecological and Behavioral Interactions Between Golden-Winged and Blue-Winged Warblers in Eastern Kentucky American Woodcock Nocturnal Field Usage during Spring Migration Volume I ...... 20 in Central Kentucky Volume III ...... 73 Estimating Abundance of Species of Concern in the Central Hardwoods Volume IV ...... 101 Region Volume V ...... 52 Volume II ...... 56 Avian Influenza Monitoring throughout Kentucky Evaluating the Effects of Grassland Management on Nesting and Volume I ...... 28 Migrating Songbirds at Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill Volume II ...... 71 Volume III ...... 70 Marsh Bird Monitoring in Kentucky Evaluating the Effects of Grassland Management on Raptor Habitat Volume III ...... 74 Use at Peabody WMA Volume III ...... 69 Migratory Shorebirds, Colonial Water Bird, and Woodcock Investigations An Evaluation Tool for Avian Monitoring Programs Volume I ...... 29 Volume II ...... 55 Volume II ...... 72

Golden-Winged Warbler Monitoring Monitoring and Management of Kentucky’s Waterfowl Volume II ...... 58 Volume I ...... 30 Volume II ...... 73 Grassland Songbird Survey Volume II ...... 59 Monitoring Giant Canada Goose Populations in Kentucky Volume I ...... 31 Investigating Local Declines of Rusty Blackbirds in Kentucky Volume II ...... 74 Volume III ...... 68

Annual Research Highlights 2011 137 PROJECT REFERENCES 2007-2011

Monitoring, Migrating, and Wintering Sandhill Cranes in Cecilia, Life History and Population Assessment of the Western Cottonmouth in Kentucky Western Kentucky Volume V ...... 106 Volume II ...... 50

Mourning Dove Banding in Kentucky Status Assessment and Conservation of the Eastern Hellbender Volume I ...... 32 Volume II ...... 51

Post-Season Banding of American Black Ducks in Kentucky Status Survey of the Alligator Snapping Turtle (Machrochelys Volume III ...... 75 temminckii) in Kentucky Volume III ...... 66 Proactive Wood Duck Management in Kentucky Volume I ...... 34

Reproductive Success of the Interior Least Tern in Kentucky Mollusks Volume I ...... 33 Volume II ...... 53 Advances in the Propagation of Rare and Endangered Mussel Species.. Volume III ...... 112 Volume II ...... 46

Augmentation of the Cumberland Bean, Villosa trabalis and its host fish, the Striped Darter, Etheostoma virgatum in Sinking Creek, Bats Kentucky Volume III ...... 62 Cave Protection and Monitoring of Federally Listed Bat Species in Kentucky Augmentation of the Slippershell Mussel, Alasmidonta viridis in Guist Volume I ...... 40 Creek, Kentucky Volume III ...... 58 Determination of Bat Species Within Interior Forested Areas Using Anabat II Systems and Mist-Netting in Daniel Boone National Augmentation of the Snuffbox, Epioblasma triquetra in the Rolling Forest Fork River, Kentucky Volume I ...... 15 Volume III ...... 59

Effects of Orientation and Weatherproofing on the Detection of Development of a Bivalve Diet for Use in Early Stage Juvenile Echolocation Calls in the Eastern United States. Freshwater Mussel Culture Volume II ...... 34 Volume I ...... 17

Foraging and Roosting Ecology of Rafinesque’s Big-eared bat in Development of In Vitro (artificial) Laboratory Culture Methods for Kentucky Rearing Juvenile Freshwater Mussels Volume III ...... 81 Volume I ...... 49 Volume IV ...... 102 Volume III ...... 111 Volume IV ...... 106 Identifying and Protecting Hibernation Roosts for Endangered Bats in Volume V ...... 70 Kentucky Volume I ...... 41 Endangered Species Recovery in Kentucky: Restoring the Freshwater Volume II ...... 37 Mussel via Population Augmentation Volume I ...... 50 Surveillance and Monitoring of Cave Roosts for Abnormal Emergence Behavior By Rare and Endangered Bats in Kentucky Evaluating the Present Status of Mussel Resources in Kentucky: Volume III ...... 82 Quantitative and Qualitative Survey and Monitoring Efforts Volume I ...... 51

Fanshell, Cyprogenia stegaria augmentation in Ohio and West Virginia Reptiles and Amphibians Volume IV ...... 56

Effects of Phragmites Removal on Species of Greatest Conservation Fish host determined for the Kentucky Creekshell, Villosa ortmanni Need at Clear Creek WMA and a new fish host found for the Cumberland Combshell, Volume III ...... 67 Epioblasma brevidens Volume IV ...... 104 Volume IV ...... 58 Volume V ...... 84 Five Year Quantitative Monitoring at Thomas Bend on the Green River, Inventory, Monitoring, and Management of Amphibians and Reptiles Kentucky in Kentucky Volume III ...... 60 Volume I ...... 39 Volume II ...... 52 Freshwater Mollusk Monitoring in the South Fork Kentucky River Volume III ...... 114 System Volume IV ...... 103 Volume II ...... 49 Volume V ...... 134 Volume IV ...... 40

138 Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources 2007-2011 PROJECT REFERENCES

Rockcastle River Mussel Survey Databasing and Geo-Referencing Fish Collection for Kentucky Volume IV ...... 59 Volume I ...... 58

Successful Reintroduction of Two Endangered and Two Candidate Description and Geography of Restricted Range Kentucky Fish Mussel Species to the Big South Fork Cumberland River, Kentucky Endemics Volume II ...... 47 Volume III ...... 57 Volume IV ...... 90 Successful Augmentation of the Fatmucket, Lampsilis siliquoidea, in the Elkhorn Creek, Kentucky Distribution and Ecology of the Blackfin Sucker Thoburnia( atripinnis) Volume II ...... 48 in the Upper Barren River, Kentucky Volume III ...... 55 Volume IV ...... 9

Crayfish Distribution, Habitat, and Conservation Status of Icthyofaunal Species of Greatest Conservation Need The Conservation Status of Cambarus veteranus (Big Sandy Crayfish) Volume I ...... 59 in Kentucky Volume III ...... 63 Distribution, Habitat, and Conservation Status of Rare Fishes in Volume V ...... 76 Kentucky Volume III ...... 110 The Conservation Status of Cambarus parvoculus (Mountain Midget Volume IV ...... 89 Crayfish) in KY Volume III ...... 64 Exploitation Rates of Stocked Channel Catfish and Rainbow Trout in Volume V ...... 76 Fishing in Neighborhoods (FINs) Lakes Volume V ...... 99 Response of Crayfish Populations to Restored Stream Habitats in Disturbed Portions of East Fork Little Sandy River basin, Lawrence Evaluation of a 12.0-in Minimum Size Limit on Channel Catfish in & Boyd Counties, Kentucky Kentucky’s Small Impoundments Volume III ...... 65 Volume I ...... 60 Volume V ...... 80 Volume III ...... 95 Volume IV ...... 78 Volume V ...... 115

Fishes Evaluation of a 15-20 Inch Protective Slot Limit and 5 Fish Creel Limit on Rainbow Trout in the Lake Cumberland Tailwater Alligator Gar Propagation and Restoration in Western Kentucky ...... Volume I ...... 61 Volume III ...... 54 Volume III ...... 90 Volume IV ...... 88 Volume IV ...... 73

Analysis of the Environmental Requirements for Etheostoma cinereum Evaluation of a 36-in Minimum Length Limit on Muskellunge at Three and Percina squamata in the Rockcastle River Kentucky Reservoirs Volume II ...... 41 Volume IV ...... 54 Volume III ...... 109 Volume V ...... 121 Volume IV ...... 22 Evaluation of a 40-Inch Muskellunge Minimum Length Limit at A Survey of Fishes in Terrapin Creek, Kentucky Buckhorn Lake Volume I ...... 56 Volume I ...... 62 Volume III ...... 115 Volume III ...... 93

Black Bass Tournament Results in Kentucky Evaluation of a Smallmouth Bass Stocking Program at Paintsville Lake Volume III ...... 103 Volume V ...... 101 Volume IV ...... 86 Volume V ...... 110 Evaluation of a Supplemental White Crappie Stocking Program at Four Kentucky Reservoirs Captive Propagation and Reintroduction of the Cumberland Darter and Volume IV ...... 55 Kentucky Arrow Darter in Southeastern Kentucky Volume V ...... 109 Volume II ...... 42 Volume III ...... 107 Evaluation of Kentucky’s Largemouth Bass Stocking Initiative Volume IV ...... 91,92 Volume I ...... 63 Volume III ...... 96 Conservation Status and Habitat of the Longhead Darter in Kinniconick Volume IV ...... 79 Creek, Lewis County Kentucky Volume V ...... 112 Volume I ...... 57 Volume II ...... 69 Volume III ...... 21

Annual Research Highlights 2011 139 PROJECT REFERENCES 2007-2011

Evaluation of the Growth of Two Different Stocking Sizes of Blue Monitoring and Management of Ohio River Sport Fisheries (Meldahl Catfish Stocked into Three North Central Kentucky Small Pool) Impoundments Volume I ...... 72 Volume I ...... 64 Volume III ...... 100 Volume III ...... 98 Volume IV ...... 83 Volume IV ...... 81 Volume V ...... 126 Volume V ...... 114 Monitoring Trends in Black Bass Fisheries Evaluation of Trophy Brown Trout Regulations and Stocking Volume I ...... 73 Strategies in the Lake Cumberland Tailwater Volume I ...... 65 Ohio River Largemouth Bass Supplemental Stocking Study (Markland Volume III ...... 87 Pool) Volume IV ...... 16 Volume I ...... 74 Volume III ...... 102 Evaluation of White Bass Stocking to Enhance Existing Reservoir Volume IV ...... 85 Populations Volume V ...... 127 Volume I ...... 66 Volume III ...... 89 Palezone Shiner Status Survey and Habitat Delineation Volume IV ...... 72 Volume I ...... 24 Volume V ...... 124 Preliminary Assessment of a Newly Established Blue Catfish Impacts of Spawning Habitat Manipulations on Largemouth Bass Population in Taylorsville Lake Year-Class Production in Meldahl Pool, Ohio River Volume I ...... 75 Volume I ...... 67 Volume III ...... 97 Volume III ...... 99 Volume IV ...... 80 Volume IV ...... 82 Volume V ...... 113 Volume V ...... 128 Preliminary Assessment of Bluegill and Redear Sunfish Populations in Investigation of the restoration of Native Walleye in the Upper Levisa Small Impoundments Fork Volume I ...... 76 Volume V ...... 102 Volume III ...... 91 Volume IV ...... 74 Investigation of the Restoration of Native Walleye in the Upper Barren Volume V ...... 118 River Volume I ...... 68 Relationships Between Primary Productivity and creation of a Trophy Volume III ...... 92 Largemouth Bass Fishery: Monitoring and Management of Cedar Volume IV ...... 75 Creek Lake Volume V ...... 122 Volume I ...... 77 Volume III ...... 94 Investigation of the Walleye Population in the Rockcastle River Volume IV ...... 77 and Evaluation of Supplemental Stocking of Native Strain Volume V ...... 111 Walleye Volume I ...... 69 Relative Survival, Growth and Susceptibility to Angling of Two Strains Volume III ...... 88 of Brown Trout in the Lake Cumberland tailwater Volume IV ...... 71 Volume III ...... 104 Volume V ...... 123 Volume IV ...... 70 Volume V ...... 119 Lake Sturgeon Restoration in the Upper Cumberland River System Volume I ...... 70 River Sport Fish Surveys – Kentucky River Volume III ...... 108 Volume III ...... 101 Volume IV ...... 94 Volume IV ...... 84 Volume V ...... 125 Lake Sturgeon Telemetry in the Cumberland River Volume V ...... 100 Status, Life History, and Phylogenetics of the Amblyopsid Cavefishes in Kentucky Life History and Population Characteristics of Moxostoma poecilurum, Volume II ...... 44 the Blacktail Redhorse, in Terrrapin Creek, Graves County, Volume III ...... 105 Kentucky Volume IV ...... 87 Volume I ...... 71 Volume V ...... 9 Volume II ...... 27 Status survey of the Northern Madtom, Noturus stigmosus, in the Lower Ohio River Volume II ...... 45 Volume III ...... 28

140 Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources 2007-2011 PROJECT REFERENCES

A Survey of Fishes of Rock Creek, Kentucky, with Emphasis on the Maximizing Wildlife Habitat and Cattle Production on T.N. Sullivan Impact of Stocking Rainbow Trout on Native Fishes Wildlife Management Area Volume II ...... 43 Volume I ...... 86 Volume III ...... 9 Mill Branch Stream Restoration Project, Knox County, Kentucky Taxonomic Resolution, Life History, and Conservation Status of the Volume I ...... 87 Undescribed “Sawfin” Shiner and Kentucky Arrow Darter Volume I ...... 78 Native Warm Season Grass Suppression Treatments in Harrison County Volume I ...... 88 Urban Fishing Program in Kentucky Volume I ...... 80 Natural Grassland Survey of the Original Barrens-Prairie Region of Volume III ...... 85 Kentucky Volume IV ...... 68 Volume II ...... 67 Volume V ...... 116 Volume IV ...... 107 Volume V ...... 92 The Use of Flathead Catfish to Reduce Stunted Fish Populations in a Small Kentucky Impoundment Quail Unlimited Warm Season Grass Test Plot Project on Kentucky Volume I ...... 79 River Wildlife Management Area Volume III ...... 86 Volume I ...... 89 Volume IV ...... 69 Volume V ...... 117 Restoration of Bur Oak on the Clay Wildlife Management Area by Means of Direct Seeding Using GIS-based Technology for Aquatic Conservation in the Upper Volume II ...... 65 Green River Drainage, Kentucky Volume I ...... 81 Sericea Lespedeza Control on Peabody Wildlife Management Area Volume I ...... 53 West Creek Fish Barrier Removal – Harrison County, Kentucky Volume III ...... 56 Shorebird Management Unit Creation and Invasive Willow Control Volume I ...... 90

Use of Rodeo Herbicide to Control Phragmites australis on Peabody Habitat Restoration / Management Wildlife Management Area Volume I ...... 54 An Investigation of Herbicide Treatments to Eradicate Autumn Olive on Taylorsville Lake Wildlife Management Area Use of Temporary Electric Fencing to Eliminate Deer damage to Volume I ...... 52 Sunflower Plantings on the Blue Grass Army Depot Volume I ...... 91 Bottomland Hardwood and Riparian Restoration in Obion Creek/Bayou de Chien Watersheds Using Varying Frequencies of Prescribed Fire in Combination With Volume II ...... 64 Herbicide Applications to control Sericea Lespedeza on Peabody Volume III ...... 115 Wildlife Management Area Volume I ...... 55 Direct Seeding of Shrubs/Brambles on Reclaimed Mine Ground on Peabody Wildlife Management Area Volume I ...... 82 Volume II ...... 78

Evaluation of Warm Season Grass Thinning Treatments on Green River Wildlife Management Area: Spring Disking, Glyphosate, and Select Herbicides Volume I ...... 83

Grassland Management and Restoration in Kentucky Volume I ...... 84

Impacts of Herbicide Application Following a Late Summer Burn, KDFWR Headquarters Volume I ...... 85 Volume II ...... 77

Implementation of Habitat Restoration and Improvement Practices on Kentucky Wildlife Management Areas in the Bluegrass Region Volume III ...... 83

Managing Rank Native Warm Season Grass Stands in Kentucky Volume V ...... 107

Annual Research Highlights 2011 141 KDFWR Contacts

ore information regarding David Baker [email protected] Mthe project summaries within Dane Balsman [email protected] this publication can be obtained by Danna Baxley [email protected] contacting the KDFWR authors or Will Bowling [email protected] contacts listed below. Stephanie Brandt [email protected] John Brunjes [email protected] General questions can be directed to: Tina Brunjes [email protected] The Kentucky Department of Brian Clark [email protected] Fish and Wildlife Resources Dan Crank [email protected] # 1 Sportsman’s Lane Steven Dobey [email protected] Frankfort, KY 40601 Dave Dreves [email protected] 1-800-858-1549 Dave Frederick [email protected] [email protected] Scott Freidhof [email protected] Chris Grasch [email protected] Brian Gray [email protected] Scott Harp [email protected] Erin Harper [email protected] Aaron Hecht [email protected] Doug Henley [email protected] Christopher Hickey [email protected] Brooke Hines [email protected] Kate Heyden [email protected] Ryan Kausing Ryan. [email protected] Nick Keeton [email protected] Joe Lacefield [email protected] Josh Lillpop [email protected] Charlie Logsdon [email protected] William Lynch [email protected] John MacGregor [email protected] Steve Marple [email protected] John Morgan [email protected] Monte McGregor [email protected] Wes Mattox [email protected] Ryan Oster [email protected] Laura Patton [email protected] Jayson Plaxico [email protected] Rocky Pritchert [email protected] Ben Robinson [email protected] Adam Shepard [email protected] Jeremiah Smith [email protected] Jacob Stewart [email protected] Matt Thomas [email protected] Sara Tripp [email protected] Fritz Vorisek [email protected] Shawchyi Vorisek [email protected] Karen Waldrop [email protected] Whitetail in velvet / Joe Lacefield Eric Williams [email protected]

142 Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources