Abstract The effect of a fuels-reduction treatment on small mammals was investigated in

lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud.) and mixed-conifer stands by trapping

and track surveys in northeastern Oregon. The number of red squirrel (Tamiasciurus

hudsonicus) and snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus) tracks decreased in lodgepole

pine treatments after harvest. Only two snowshoe hare tracks were detected in

harvested stands of mixed conifer, compared with 46 tracks in unharvested stands.

In most treatments, the number of red-backed voles (Clethrionomys gapperi) decreased and chipmunks (Tamius spp.) increased after harvesting.

Keywords: Fuels reduction, martens, northeastern Oregon, small mammals, track

surveys.

Introduction Fire suppression and insect outbreaks in the last 25 years have resulted in high fuel

loadings in some stands in northeastern Oregon (Agee 1994). The risk of wildfire in

these stands has generated concern among managers, and various methods of

removing some of these fuels are being used.

Many wildlife species depend on downed wood (i.e., logs) for food including the

pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), northern flicker (Colaptes auratus), blackbacked woodpecker (Picoides arcticus), and black bear (Ursus americanus) (Bull and

others 1997). Most of these species forage on ants and other arthropods in logs. Logdwelling ants are also important predators of the western spruce budworm (Choristoneura occidentalis), one of the most important forest-defoliating insects in the Pacific

Northwest (Torgersen and others 1990). Downed wood also provides cover for small

mammals, reptiles, amphibians, black bears, and American martens (Martes americana). Martens use logs for rest sites, den sites, subnivean (under snow) structures,

and hunting. The primary prey of martens in northeastern Oregon, red-backed voles

(Clethrionomys gapperi) and squirrels, are associated with logs and are available to

martens during winter because of subnivean spaces created by logs. Because of the

marten’s strong association with logs and because the distribution of martens has

declined in recent years, we decided to investigate the potential effect of fuels

reduction by mechanical means on martens by looking at their mammalian prey.

Effect of Fuels Reduction on

American Martens and Their Prey

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest

Research Station

Research Note

PNW-RN-539

March 1999 Evelyn L. Bull and Arlene K. Blumton

EVELYN L. BULL is a research wildlife biologist, Pacific

Northwest Research Station, Forestry and Range Sciences

Laboratory, 1401 Gekeler Lane, La Grande, Oregon 97850-

3399; and ARLENE K. BLUMTON is a wildlife biologist,

Pacific Northwest Region, Wallowa-Whitman National

Forest, La Grande Ranger District, La Grande, Oregon

97850-3399.
2

Precautions were taken to protect the La Grande City municipal watershed from

wildfire because adjacent stands contained high fuel loadings and were prone to

lightning. A fuels-reduction treatment was designed to mitigate the potential for rapid

fire spread across a ridgetop into the watershed. The overall objectives of the project

were to remove down logs to reduce the fire intensity and to manipulate the stem

density and structure of living and dead standing trees to reduce the potential of a

crown fire. Both treatments were done to enhance the ability to control a fire from

spreading from one watershed to another by creating a landscape-level corridor

(1,000 feet wide on either side of the road) on the ridge. Mechanical means were

used to reduce fuels by removing logs, reducing ladder fuels, and reducing canopy

closure.

Our specific objectives were to (1) determine the abundance of small mammals by

trapping and winter track surveys in lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud.)

stands before and after harvesting and (2) determine the abundance of small mammals by trapping and winter track surveys in harvested and unharvested mixedconifer stands.

Methods The study was conducted in the Limber Jim watershed, 20 miles southwest of

La Grande, Oregon. The stands used in the study were on a ridge at 6,000 feet in

elevation and were within 6 miles of each other. Nine stands were in lodgepole pine

and six were in mixed-conifer forest types; stands were 10 to 33 acres. Before harvest, the lodgepole pine stands had a mature overstory of lodgepole pine, a dense

understory of subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa (Hook.) Nutt.) and lodgepole pine, and

40 to 68.6 tons of downed wood per acre. Stem densities per acre averaged 1,177

seedings, 985 trees 1 to 7.9 inches diameter at breast height (d.b.h.), and 44 trees

8 inches d.b.h. or larger. Stem densites were determined from stand exams, and

woody fuel was measured on three 100-foot lines per stand using the planar intercept method (Brown and Kellogg 1996, McIver 1998).

The mixed-conifer stands were a mixture of subalpine fir, grand fir (A. grandis (Dougl.

ex D. Don) Lindl.), western larch (Larix occidentalis Nutt.), Engelmann spruce (Picea

engelmannii Parry ex Engelm.), and Douglas-fir (Psuedotsuga menziesii (Mirb.)

Franco) in the overstory and understory, and had 27.3 to 40.6 tons per acre of

downed wood. Stem densities per acre averaged 690 seedlings, 323 trees 1 to

7.9 inches d.b.h., and 119 trees 8 inches d.b.h. or larger.

The stands were harvested in summer 1996 by using a single-grip harvester,

forwarder, skidder, and yarder; in addition, half of each mixed-conifer stand was

harvested with a skyline system (McIver 1998). The prescription in the mixed-conifer

stands was to remove all dead material (standing and down) less than 15 inches in

diameter. The following structures were retained: green trees with more than 40

percent crown, any dead standing or down wood larger than 15 inches in diameter,

and about 40 logs per acre. The harvest treatment removed 59 percent of the seedlings, 82 percent of trees 1 to 7.9 inches d.b.h., and 62 percent of trees 8 inches

d.b.h. or larger. Forty-one percent of the logs 3 inches or larger were removed.

There were three treatments in the lodgepole pine stands: control (no harvest

activity), “island” (20 percent of area left in 1-acre islands of no harvest), and “scatter”

(40 logs per acre left scattered throughout the unit). During harvest activities in the

island treatment, 36 percent of the seedlings, 62 percent of the trees 1 to 7.9 inches

Study Area
3

d.b.h., and 6 percent of the trees 8 inches d.b.h. or larger were removed. Fifty-nine

percent of the logs 3 inches or larger (large-end diameter) were removed. In the scatter

treatment, 44 percent of the seedlings, 65 percent of the trees 1 to 7.9 inches d.b.h.,

and 10 percent of the trees 8 inches d.b.h. or larger were removed. Sixty-nine percent

of the logs 3 inches or larger were removed.

Small mammals were trapped in nine lodgepole pine stands (i.e., three stands in each

of three treatments) between 10 and 14 July 1995 (preharvest) and between 3 and 7

August 1997 (postharvest). In each stand, we trapped along two parallel 660-foot

transects 66 feet apart, with trap stations at 66-foot intervals, for four consecutive

nights. At each station, two museum specials and one rat trap were set and baited

with peanut butter.

Between 18 and 22 August 1997 small mammals were trapped in three mixed-conifer

stands that had been harvested the previous summer, and in three stands that had

not been harvested. In each stand, we trapped along two parallel 1,320-foot transects

66 feet apart, with trap stations at 66-foot intervals, for four consecutive nights. Two

museum specials were set at every other station, and one museum special and one rat

trap were set at alternate stations. Traps were baited with peanut butter. Trap stations

were checked each morning, and captured individuals were identified to species.

We conducted eight track surveys on snowmobiles or snowshoes along a 660-foot

transect in each of nine lodgepole pine stands (i.e., three stands in each of three

treatments) from January through March 1996 (preharvest) and during the same

months in 1998 (postharvest). In six mixed-conifer stands (three harvested and

three unharvested), eight surveys were conducted along a 1,320-foot transect from

January through March 1998. All tracks within 20 feet of either side of the transect

were identified. Track surveys were conducted at least 24 hours after a snowfall,

and at least 3 days after the previous survey.

Radio collared martens had been monitored in the Limber Jim watershed for 2 years

before harvest activities. We located four martens resting or traveling in three of the

lodgepole stands and in two of the mixed-conifer stands during 1994 and 1995. We

planned to continue monitoring marten use of the stands after harvesting; however,

some of the martens in Limber Jim were killed or dispersed to other areas. None of

the surviving radio collared martens used the stands after harvesting. The harvested

stands, however, comprised such a small proportion of a marten’s home range that

this behavior cannot be construed as an avoidance of harvested stands.

Results In lodgepole pine stands, the total number of small mammals captured in both years

was too low for statistical analyses: 52 chipmunks (Tamius spp. ), 39 red-backed voles

(Clethrionomys gapperi), 10 deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus), 9 golden-mantled

ground squirrels (Spermophilus lateralis), and 8 microtines (Microtus spp.). The number of chipmunks increased in all treatments between 1995 and 1997 (fig. 1). The

number of red-backed voles declined in the scattered treatment and increased in

the control and island treatment. The number of deer mice declined in the island and

scattered treatments but increased slightly in the control. Microtus spp. and ground

squirrels were too scarce to suggest trends. In mixed-conifer stands, harvested

stands contained fewer red-backed voles and more chipmunks than unharvested

stands (fig. 2).

Marten

Radiotelemetry

Small Mammal

Trapping

Small Mammal

Trapping

Winter Track

Surveys
4

Figure 1—Number of individuals of four small mammal species captured per 100 trap nights before harvest in

1995 and after harvest in 1997 in nine stands of lodgepole pine in Limber Jim watershed. The control treatment

had no harvesting; the island treatment retained unharvested 1-acre islands; the scatter treatment retained logs

scattered throughout the units.

0.5

2.5

2.0

1.0

1.5

123456 123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

1234567 1234567

1234567

1234567

1234567

1234567

1234567

1234567

1234567

1234567

1234567

1234567

1234567

1234567

1234567

1234567

1234567

1234567

1234567

1234567

1234567

1234567

1234567 0.0

Lodgepole pine stands

123456 123456

Controls

1995 (preharvest)

1997 (postharvest)

123456 123456

123456

Island

0.5

Red-backed

vole

2.5

2.0

1.0

1.5

Chipmunk Deer

mouse

123456 123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

1234567 1234567

1234567

1234567

1234567

1234567

1234567

1234567

1234567

1234567

1234567

1234567

1234567 0.0

Microtus

spp.

Captures per 100 trap nights

Scattered

0.5

2.5

2.0

1.0

1.5

123456 123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456 123456

123456

123456 123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456 0.0

123456 123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456
5

Figure 2—Number of individuals of three small mammal species captured per 100 trap

nights in three harvested and three unharvested stands of mixed conifer in 1997 in the

Limber Jim watershed.

In lodgepole pine stands, the number of snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus) tracks

decreased in all treatments and red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus) tracks

decreased in all but one treatment between the preharvest and postharvest periods

(fig. 3). Tracks of coyotes (Canis latrans) remained about the same in the island and

scatter treatments, but the control treatment had a threefold increase (fig. 3). Tracks

of 1 grouse (Bonasa umbellus), 5 voles, 7 bobcats (Lynx rufus), and 10 weasels

(Mustela spp.) also were detected in 1996; in 1998, we found tracks of 4 grouse

and 1 weasel. Detections of these species were too few to indicate changes.

In mixed-conifer stands, there were only two snowshoe hare tracks in the harvested

stands compared with 46 tracks in the unharvested stands (fig. 4). There was little

difference in the number of red squirrel and coyote tracks. In addition, one weasel,

one grouse, and two vole tracks were detected in harvested stands.

1

Red-backed

vole

5

4

2

3

Chipmunk Deer

mouse

123456 123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456 123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456 123456 123456

Captures per 100 trap nights

123456 123456

123456 Unharvested stands

Harvested stands

0

Mixed-conifer stands

Winter Track

Surveys
6

Figure 3—Number of tracks of three species detected in winter 1996 before harvest and in 1998 after harvest in

nine stands of lodgepole pine in the Limber Jim watershed.

Island

10

Red

squirrel

50

40

20

30

Snowshoe

hare

Coyote

123456 123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456 123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456 123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456 0

Number of tracks

Scattered

10

50

40

20

30

123456 123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456 123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456 123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456 0

Controls

10

50

40

20

30

123456 123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456 123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456 123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456 0

Lodgepole pine stands

1996 (preharvest)

1998 (postharvest)

123456 123456

123456

123456

.14
7

Figure 4—Number of tracks of three species detected in winter 1998 in three harvested

and three unharvested stands of mixed conifer in the Limber Jim watershed.

Discussion The harvest activities in lodgepole pine and mixed-conifer stands in Limber Jim

generally resulted in fewer postharvest numbers of red-backed voles and snowshoe

hares and in more chipmunks. The same decline in red-backed voles after harvesting

was observed by Potvin and Breton (1997). Hargis and Bissonette (1997) reported

higher numbers of deer mice and chipmunks in clearcuts compared with dense forests

dominated by red-backed voles. We found less of a decline in the number of snowshoe

hares, no decline in squirrels, and an increase in red-backed voles in the island

treatment compared to the scatter treatment. We suspect the decline in squirrels and

hares in the control stands may have resulted from the threefold increase in coyotes,

which prey on both these species.

The lack of decline in squirrel detections in the island treatment and in the mixedconifer harvest suggests that these treatments continued to provide suitable habitat

for this species. The island treatments retained islands of logs that provided subnivean

structures essential to squirrel survival in winter in this area. The mixed-conifer treatment retained large-diameter trees, which could continue to provide a food source

for the squirrels. In addition, all logs larger than 15 inches in large-end diameter

were retained in mixed-conifer stands, which could provide subnivean habitat for

cone caching and overwintering. The scattered treatment did not provide subnivean

habitat because the logs were small in diameter and were lying on the ground, rather

than layered above the ground with air pockets underneath as in the island treatment.

It appeared that mixed-conifer stands were no longer suitable for snowshoe hares after

harvesting. The island treatment that resulted in less of a decline in hares probably

provided better habitat than the scattered treatment because the islands contained

undisturbed pockets of regeneration as well as logs—which were both used as cover.

10

Red

squirrel

50

40

20

30

Snowshoe

hare

Coyote

123456 123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456 123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456

123456 123456

123456

123456

123456

Number of tracks

123456 123456

123456 Unharvested stands

Harvested stands

0

Mixed-conifer stands
8

The declines in red-backed voles, red squirrels, and snowshoe hares in the harvested

stands would be detrimental to martens because these species are primary prey

items for martens. These prey items comprise a majority of marten diet in this area:

30 percent red-backed voles, 25 percent squirrels, and 1 percent hare by frequency;

and 5 percent red-backed voles, 43 percent squirrels, and 18 percent hares by biomass (Bull, in prep.). Squirrels and hares are particularly important in winter. The

observed increase in chipmunks would be of little value because less than 3 percent

of marten diet consists of chipmunks, and chipmunks are likely unavailable as prey

in winter because they hibernate.

In winter, martens use subnivean structures for cover and for hunting opportunities

(Buskirk and Powell 1994, Chapin and others 1997, Sherburne and Bissonette 1994).

It appears that the scatter treatment, which does not provide subnivean habitat, would

be unsuitable for martens. We could not determine if the island treatment in lodgepole

pine retained enough cover and subnivean structure to provide suitable habitat for

martens. It is unlikely a marten would venture into the mixed-conifer stands because

of reduced canopy closure and stem density. Radio collared martens in the area

avoided all harvested stands and stands with less than 50 percent canopy closure

(Bull and Heater, in prep.).

Although it appeared that the island treatment provided better habitat for small

mammals than the scatter treatment, we do not recommend extrapolating the data

beyond this particular study because the number of individuals captured was low and

the sampling period was short because of budget constraints. Changes observed may

have been due to treatment affects, but a small sample size, weather, winter tracking

conditions, and different observers could have contributed as well. Additional research

is needed to investigate different sizes of islands, the amount of area in islands, and

connecting islands with no-cut corridors to provide continuity. Ideally, monitoring

efforts should extend 5 years after treatment and in stands exceeding 100 acres.

Acknowledgments Donna Betts, Ted Craddock, Thad Heater, Janet Hohmann, Jay Shepherd, and Dave

Wyland assisted with trapping and track surveys. Tracy Kissire, Annette Pepin, and

personnel from the La Grande Ranger District provided fuels and stem density data.

Tom Burry served as the La Grande District coordinator. Funding was provided by the

Blue Mountains Natural Resources Institute, La Grande Ranger District, and Pacific

Northwest Research Station.

References Agee, James K. 1994. Fire and weather disturbances in terrestrial ecosytems of the

eastern Cascades. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-320. Portland, OR: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 52 p.

Brown, C.G.; Kellogg, L.D. 1996. Harvesting economics and wood fiber utilization in

a fuels reduction project: a case study in eastern Oregon. Forest Products Journal.

46: 45-52.

Bull, Evelyn L. [In prep.] Seasonal and sexual differences in the diet of the American

marten.

Bull, Evelyn L.; Heater, Thad W. [In prep.] Habitat use of the American marten in

northeastern Oregon.
9

Bull, Evelyn L.; Parks, Catherine G.; Torgersen, Torolf R. 1997. Trees and logs

important to wildlife in the interior Columbia River basin. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-391. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station. 55 p.

Buskirk, Steven. W.; Powell, R.A. 1994. Habitat ecology of fishers and American

martens. In: Buskirk, Steven W.; Harestad, Alton S.; Raphael, Martin G.; Powell,

Roger A., eds. Martens, sables, and fishers: biology and conservation. Ithaca, NY:

Cornell University Press: 283-296.

Chapin, Theodore G.; Phillips, David M.; Harrison, Daniel J.; York, Eric C. 1997.

Seasonal selection of habitats by resting martens in Maine. In: Proulx, Gilbert;

Bryant, Harold N.; Woodard, Paul M.; eds. Martes: taxonomy, ecology, techniques,

and management. Edmonton, AB: Provincial Museum of Alberta: 166-181.

Hargis, Christina D.; Bissonette, John A. 1997. Effects of forest fragmentation

on populations of American marten in the intermountain West. In: Proulx, Gilbert;

Bryant, Harold N.; Woodward, Paul M., eds. Martes: taxonomy, ecology, techniques,

and management. Edmonton, AB: Provincial Museum of Alberta: 437-451.

McIver, James D. 1998. Economics and environmental effects of fuel reduction at

Limber Jim. BMNRI Tech. Note 10. La Grande, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Blue Mountains Natural Resources Institute.

Potvin, Francois; Breton, Laurier. 1997. Short-term effects of clearcutting on

martens and their prey in the boreal forest of western Quebec. In: Proulx, Gilbert;

Bryant, Harold N.; Woodward, Paul M., eds. Martes: taxonomy, ecology, techniques,

and management. Edmonton, AB: Provincial Museum of Alberta: 452-474.

Sherburne, Stuart S.; Bissonette, John A. 1994. Marten subnivean access

point use: response to subnivean prey levels. Journal of Wildlife Management.

58: 400-405.

Torgersen, Torolf R.; Mason, Richard R.; Campbell, Roy W. 1990. Predation by

birds and ants on two forest insect pests in the Pacific Northwest. Studies in

Avian Biology. 13: 14-19.
This page has been left blank intentionally.

Document continues on next page.
The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture

is dedicated to the principle of multiple use management

of the Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of

wood, water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through

forestry research, cooperation with the States and private

forest owners, and management of the National Forests

and National Grasslands, it strives—as directed by

Congress—to provide increasingly greater service

to a growing Nation.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits

discrimination in all its programs and activities on the

basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion,

age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or

marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply

to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require

alternative means for communication of program

information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should

contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600

(voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA,

Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W,

Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964

(voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider

and employer.

Pacific Northwest Research Station

333 S.W. First Avenue,

P.O. Box 3890,

Portland, Oregon 97208-3890
U.S. Department of Agriculture

Pacific Northwest Research Station

333 S.W. First Avenue

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300

do NOT detach label