Mojave National Preserve National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Science Newsletter Responses of Mule Deer to Experimental Manipulation of Water Sources: Preliminary Results from the First Year Providing water sources for wildlife in arid regions is a method of habitat improvement that has been utilized by managers for many years. At least 122 artificial water sources, known as guzzlers, were in existence when Mojave National Preserve was created in 1994. These are basically tanks that collect runoff and store it underground. A significant population of desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis nelsoni) is supported in the Old Dad and Kelso Peaks area by artificial tanks – otherwise ideal sheep habitat that lacks natural water sources. The Mojave Desert has a long history of cattle grazing going back to the late Two mule deer does, one with collar and ear tags, photographed by a motion-triggered nineteenth century. Numerous wells, camera at Deer Spring in the Cima Dome area. troughs, and pipelines were developed to support and distribute cattle on the was utilized by constructing shallow In response, Mojave National Preserve, landscape. Near surface groundwater horizontal tunnels for gravity flow and by the University of Nevada – Reno, and pumping. From 1998 through 2002, California Department of Fish and Game grazing allotments in Mojave National initiated research with support from Safari In this Issue: Preserve were purchased, retired, and Club International to investigate the effect • Page 1. Responses of Mule Deer to donated to the National Park Service. that water provision has on mule deer Experimental Manipulation of Water Approximately 12,000 cattle were (Odocoileus hemionus) fecundity, Sources: Preliminary Results from the First Year, N. Darby, J. Dungan, K. removed from 1,260,980 formerly grazed physical condition, and survival. The Stewart, V. Bleich, D. Hughson. acres along with about 4000 feral burros study area is the northern half of the (Equis asinus). Troughs, pipelines, and Preserve from Cima Dome to Barnwell, • Page 4. Mohave Tui Chub Recovery: pumps were removed with the cattle and divided into a control area with Hybridization and Invasion, D. Hughson, N. Darby, S. Parmenter, S. many wells were abandoned. Loss of permanent natural water sources, a Henkanaththegedara, J. Seigel. these developments generated treatment area where water is added, controversy among hunting and and a dry area. Water was provided at • Page 7. Tortoise on Roads in Mojave Preserve, D. Hughson, N. Darby. environmental organizations regarding Government Holes, Petit Well, Gold King the relationship between livestock Well, Eagle Well, and Hogaboom Well in • Page 10. Effects of small mammals on watering troughs and viable populations late August to early September of 2008. post-fire vegetation recovery in the Mojave Desert, P. Stapp. of wildlife species. The experimental design calls for six Mojave National Preserve Science Newsletter April 2009, Number 1 This Science Newsletter: The Mojave Desert is internationally known as a place to conduct scientific research on desert ecosystems. In fact Mojave National Preserve was designated in part to "retain and enhance opportunities for scientific research in undisturbed ecosystems" as stated in the California Desert Protection Act of 1994. Significant research is done through the Sweeney Granite Mountains Desert Research Center, part of the University of California Natural Reserve System, and the Desert Studies Center, operated by the California Desert Studies Consortium of California State Universities, both of which are located in the Preserve. The purpose of this newsletter is Mule deer and water distribution on Cima Dome in Mojave National Preserve. A yearlong 95% three-fold. First, we would like to range utilization estimate was 14,268 acres for five deer combined on Cima Dome. This range highlight some of the research being included two of five known water sources. done by university scientists in the more wells to be added at the five year vegetation at water sources in Mojave Preserve and distribute this information to park staff and midpoint of the study. Radio collared National Preserve. management. Second, this periodical mule deer will be located throughout the will allow us to inform the public and year and photographed by remote Mule deer were captured by net gun from research community about science cameras. Survival probabilities will be a helicopter in January of 2008 and 2009. being done by Preserve staff or estimated using known fate analyses Physical condition of the captured deer funded through the National Park Service. And most importantly, we implemented in Program Mark (White and was measured by ultrasound along with would like to build collaboration Burnham 1999). Information theoretic standard lengths and weight. Blood, hair, between scientists and resource model selection approaches (Burnham dental, and fecal samples were collected. managers so that scientists are made and Anderson 2002) will be used to The animals were equipped with ear tags aware of the needs of managers and assess variation in survival. and radio and Global Positioning Satellite top quality science is brought to bear (GPS) collars. The results from this first on the problems facing resource managers. Vegetation and local precipitation will be year of this study, although preliminary monitored in both the treatment and and inconclusive, have already Our intention is to publish this twice control areas. Shrub cover will be significantly increased our understanding, per year, once in the spring and again estimated within 200 m of springs and as little is known about this population. in the fall, in print at our Visitor wells in both the treatment and control Centers and electronically on the web. Articles will range from non- areas by establishing ten 50 m transects Five mule deer were tracked in the Cima technical news stories to highly within 200 m of each well and spring site. Dome control area and appeared to technical research reports. All Shrub cover will be estimated annually range along the northwest side of the material in this newsletter has been within each transect using the line dome. There are five permanent water peer-reviewed by subject matter intercept method (Bonham 1989). Cover sources on Cima Dome: Kessler Spring, experts. In each issue we will discuss and biomass of herbaceous plants by Cut Spring, White Rock Spring, Deer a resource management issue or research need along with possible forage category (Bonham 1989) will be Spring, and Valley View Ranch. The means of obtaining funding. The estimated each season by clipping range of the deer encompassed Deer resource management concern vegetation inside and outside of Spring and Valley View. Visitation to Deer highlighted in this issue is invasive moveable exclosures using a one square Spring by the five collared deer was plant species, particularly Sahara meter plot frame. These vegetation sporadic and inconsistent. Only one mustard. studies will provide basic information on collared deer visited throughout the year Debra Hughson, Science Advisor the spatial and temporal dynamics of but disappeared for periods of up to 34 2 Mojave National Preserve Science Newsletter 2009, Number 1 days. The remaining four deer visited for one to three week intervals two or three times during the year. Telemetry location information indicated that at least two deer used the water source at Valley View, which did not have a camera station installed at the time, and that all deer wandered away from Deer Spring for varying lengths of time throughout the year. When deer were consistently around Deer Spring, defined as periods with visitation gaps less than 20 days, all five deer visited on average once every 5.23 days. The highest visitation rates occurred in August with visits once every two days. Deer visited the spring primarily during night-time hours. Marked deer were only photographed at Deer Spring on Cima Dome despite having cameras A Mojave National Preserve Wildlife Biologist releases a mule deer doe freshly equipped with a GPS collar, VHF radio collar, and ear tags near Kessler Spring. deployed at springs in the areas where mule deer were collared. Photographs season, only 14 does (50%) were collecting and analyzing photographs from cameras at three other springs carrying twins. We suspect that because from the motion-activated cameras. confirmed telemetry results in that no the fall of 2008 was much drier than 2007 collared deer visited those sites. the availability of forage was lower and This study of mule deer and water the does were not as able to carry twins. sources, planned for ten years in two five- We used photographs of collared deer These data are preliminary, but the year phases, will provide Mojave National taken with the infrared-triggered cameras correlation between late summer and fall Preserve’s management with much to estimate the number of mule deer weather events and the corresponding useful information on resource utilization utilizing Deer Spring. Separate Lincoln- response of vegetation likely influences by mule deer, mule deer reproduction, Peterson Index estimates were made pregnancy and twinning rates in these visitation at springs by mule deer and during 2 week periods from February 1, mule deer. As we collect more data other animal species photographed by 2008 through January 15, 2009 with 95% during this study we will be able to the cameras, and vegetation dynamics confidence intervals (CI). We estimated examine the effects of weather variation correlated with local precipitation that 26 deer (95% CI 18-44) were using as well as provision of water on physical variability and herbivory as it effects mule Deer Spring. condition and reproduction mule deer deer reproduction. Although this study is inhabiting this portion of the Mojave just beginning, experimental manipulation In January, 2008 we captured 18 mule Desert. of water in October of 2008 did result in a deer including 15 does, 2 bucks, and 1 detectable response when a mule deer yearling female.