ESCALAMBRE, MICHELLE, M.A. AUGUST 2020 GEOGRAPHY TRAIL IMPACTS ON MOVEMENT IN WILDLIFE CORRIDORS: A CLEVELAND METROPARKS CASE STUDY (117 pp.) Thesis Advisor: David H. Kaplan Wildlife corridors promote biodiversity, abate landscape fragmentation and – in areas of urban development – are often refuges for fauna. Yet, they appear at odds with their main goal of conserving wildlife’s natural habitat, especially when applied to a real-world context, because they are typically located in areas prone to anthropogenic disturbances. The literature varies over how concurrent use affects wildlife. One such space where this occurs is urban parks where wildlife movement overlaps spatially with recreationists. Park visitors utilize formal trails and depart from them to create informal trails. Many negative consequences toward wild biota have been attributed to informal trails, which contribute to anthropogenic-induced fragmentation and, indirectly, disturbances within the matrix. The overlap of trails with wildlife corridors begs the questions: are wildlife using the shared corridors within the reservations or should landscape, resource and trail managers be directing their efforts elsewhere to facilitate wildlife movement? Also, to what degree, if any, will wildlife move through corridors shared with humans? To answer these questions, baseline and biodiversity data needed to be established first. Employing round-the-clock, passive, remotely triggered camera pairs in two urban parks in greater Cleveland, Ohio, U.S.A., scenarios were tested along a continuum of wildlife- anthropogenic interfacing that occurs on trails. Formal and informal trails in Cleveland Metroparks were studied, in addition to an area with restored informal trails. Examining the majority of terrestrial, animal wildlife, likelihood of Verified Use was established for each species, guild, and as a whole. Verified Use was defined as any species being detected on both cameras in the pair within a +/- five minute window. I found that non-consumptive, anthropogenic use of trails did not necessarily hinder terrestrial wildlife’s movement as suggested in the literature. In situ, not all terrestrial wildlife used the four trails uniformly to facilitate their movement. Thus, landscape and natural resource managers would be best served to assess informal trail restoration and formal trail creation on a case-by-case basis. By incorporating a second study area, I captured a snapshot of how biodiversity, animal movement, biotic presence and concurrent use may change when an informal trail is restored to its natural habitat. TRAIL IMPACTS ON MOVEMENT IN WILDLIFE CORRIDORS: A CLEVELAND METROPARKS CASE STUDY A thesis submitted to Kent State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts by Michelle Escalambre August 2020 © Copyright All rights reserved except for previously published materials Thesis written by Michelle Escalambre B.S., Miami University, 2004 M.A., Kent State University, 2020 Approved by David H. Kaplan, Advisor, Department of Geography Scott C. Sheridan, Chair, Department of Geography Mandy J. Munro-Stasiuk, Interim Dean, College of Arts and Sciences TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………………………………………….v LIST OF FIGURES………………….…………………………...…………….…..…………….ix LIST OF TABLES…………………………………….……….………...……………...…….….xi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………...…..…………………….….xii CHAPTERS I. INTRODUCTION………….………………….…………………………….……1 II. LITERATURE REVIEW…………………………………………………………6 Trails as a mechanism for fragmentation…………………….……………6 Trails affecting biota………………………………………..…..…………7 The debate……………………………………………………..……...….10 III. HISTORY………………………….…………………………………………….14 Natural……………………………………..……………….……….……14 Geomorphology and geology…………….………………………14 Climate………….……….………………………………….……15 Hydrology……………….……………………….………………17 Weather……………….………………………………….………18 Cultural……………………………………………………………….….19 IV. CONTEXT……………………………………………………………………….22 Wild biota….….…………….………….………….………….…….……22 Insects……………………………………………………………22 v Birds and mammals………………………………………………24 Reptiles and amphibians…………………………………………28 Fish……………………………………………….………………29 Flora……………………………………………...………………………31 Trees……………………...………………………………………31 Herbaceous………………………………………….……………33 Invasive species…………………………………….……………37 Design principle…………………………………….……………………38 V. METHODOLOGY………………………………………………………………40 Project overview…………………………………………………………40 Study area……………………………………………………...…40 Study sites and scale…………………………………..…………41 Data……………………………………………………...……………….43 Remotely sensed cameras………………………………..………43 Camera setup…………………………………………………..…46 Changing SD cards………………………………………………53 GIS data………………………………………………………….53 Tagging methods…………………………………………………………56 Software……………………………………………………….…56 Species identification……………………….……………………56 Accuracy, parameters and judgment……………………..………59 Analysis………………………………………………………..…………62 vi VI. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION…………………………………………………64 Thesis question #1: establish baseline and biodiversity data……….……64 Rocky River Ryeservation as a projection of West Creek Reservation’s potential……………………………...……………67 Thesis question #2: What is an ideal spatial arrangement to facilitate movement with and without anthropogenic presence? ………………….70 Verified Use as a whole…………………………………….……71 Rocky River Reservation as a projection of West Creek Reservation’s potential…………………………………...………77 Verified Use by guild………………………………….…………78 Large fauna………………………………………………78 Medium fauna……………………………………………80 Small fauna………………………………………………82 Thesis question #3: To what degree, if any, will wildlife move through corridors shared with humans? ………………………………….………83 VII. CONCLUSION……………………………………………………..……………88 Reflections and limitations………………………………………………88 Recommendations……………………………………………..…………91 VIII. REFERENCES……………………………………………………..……………93 APPENDICES vii A. Passive, remotely triggered camera specifications…………………………………103 B. Study site details……………………………………………………………………105 C. Timeline of SD cards changed………………………………...……………………108 D. Species tags in digiKam 5.9.0………………………………………………………109 E. Operational dates of cameras…………………………………………….…………110 F. Non-species tags analysis……………………………………..……………………111 G. Verified Use likelihood ……………………………………….……………………112 viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Continuum of wildlife-human interfacing on trails…………………...………………11 Figure 2. Satellite imagery of Cuyahoga County………………………………….……….……42 Figure 3. Photo of mounted camera…………………………………………………..…………47 Figure 4. Cleveland Metroparks’s map of West Creek Reservation study area…………...……48 Figure 5. Photo of one study site………………………………………………………………..51 Figure 6. Photo trail types……………………………………………………..……………...…52 Figure 7. Photo of “Degree of Obviousness” ………………………………………..…………52 Figure 8. Cleveland Metroparks’s map of Rocky River Reservation study area……………..…55 Figure 9. Photos with various examples of tags……………………………………...…………58 Figure 10. Photo of unidentifiable squirrel………………………………………………...……61 Figure 11. Photo of domestic dog…………………………………………………………….…62 Figure 12. Aggregate terrestrial biodiversity……………………………………………………66 Figure 13. Photo of signage with red fox………………………………………………..………67 Figure 14. Biotic presence based on trail type in Rocky River Reservation……………………69 Figure 15. Aggregate type of use by station in West Creek Reservation……………………… 71 Figure 16. Verified Use by biota in West Creek Reservation……………………………...……73 Figure 17. Photo of landscape at two stations………………………………………………...…74 Figure 18. Percentage of wild biota trail presence over time……………………………...……78 Figure 19. Photo of coyote with prey……………………………………………………………80 Figure 20. Wild biota Verified Use in West Creek Reservation…………………………...……81 ix Figure 21. Series of how long after a human event until wild biota is detected? ………………87 Figure 22. Photo of small fauna…………………………………………………………………89 x LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Northeast Ohio’s climate………………………………………………………………16 Table 2. Cleveland Metroparks’s insect biodiversity…………………………………………...23 Table 3. Cleveland Metroparks’s fish biodiversity……………………………………………...24 Table 4. Cleveland Metroparks’s reptile and amphibian biodiversity…………………………..26 Table 5. Cleveland Metroparks’s mammal biodiversity…………………………………...……29 Table 6. Cleveland Metroparks’s bird biodiversity……………………………………..………30 Table 7. Cleveland Metroparks’s tree biodiversity………………………………………...……32 Table 8. Cleveland Metroparks’s flora biodiversity………………………………………….…34 Table 9. Cleveland Metroparks’s vegetative invasive species……………………………..……37 Table 10. Parameters for species identification…………………………………………………56 Table 11. Biota descriptions by guild size………………………………………………………68 Table 12. Verified Use break down……………………………………………………………..71 Table 13. Statistical analysis of Verified Use by trail…………………………………………..72 Table 14. Biodiversity of Verified Use……………………………………………………….…73 Table 15. Concurrent use statistics……………………………………………………………...85 xi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Above all, thank you to my tremendously supportive grandma, mom and husband. Thank you for seeing the value in my work when I couldn’t and for motivating me to see this thesis through. To me, you are priceless. Thank you Charles for being so selfless and picking up the slack so that I could complete schoolwork and research. From start to finish, this thesis was no easy feat. Thank you David H. Kaplan – a cultural geographer – for your willingness to take on a student determined to become a biogeographer. This research would not have been possible if not for Cleveland Metroparks’s vision. Thank you Patrick D. Lorch for serving as a liaison,