Mallard 1

Mike Mallard
Ryan Long
WLF-448L-01
30 April 2019

Density Estimations in Farragut State Park’s Treatment and Control Units

Introduction

The state tree of Idaho shown in Figure 1 is the Pinus

monticola, or the western white pine (IDFG, n.d.). The western white
pine dominated moist, forest ecosystems for centuries, providing jobs
for timber harvest and producing some of the world’s most desirable
wood (Neuenschwander et al., 1999). This tree was once a thriving
species in northern Idaho, but due to disturbances such as logging, the
suppression of natural fire, bark beetles and blister-rust disease the
once thriving tree species is at less than ten percent of what is was 70
years ago (Neuenschwander et al., 1999). The trees that have replaced
western white pines in the area are less stable, less productive, and
more susceptible to insect, bug, and pathogen infestations.
In an effort to restore parts of northern Idaho’s forests to their
historic structure and composition, the Western White Pine (WWP)
Restoration Project has begun selectively logging and replanting trees
in Farragut State Park. There are three different units under Figure 1: Photo of Western
experimental management as shown in Figure 2. The control unit has White Pine.
been left as is with no tree removal or seed planting
as a baseline to compare the treatment units to. Unit
1 has been selectively thinned, taking out non-
western white pines and planting seedlings. It is
generally referred to as the seed tree unit. Unit 2, the
shelter wood unit, has been less extensively thinned,
leaving behind larger trees to provide some canopy
cover for younger trees.
In addition to bringing tree populations back
to historic conditions, they are also monitoring for
wildlife use in the area, specifically by white-tailed Control
deer, turkeys, and coyotes, and whether or not one of
the treatment units is preferred by certain species
over the control unit. Determining which habitat
wildlife prefer can help with management decisions Figure 2: Farragut State Park map of treatment and
control units.
for future forests in the region.

Methods and Materials

Using camera traps is a very efficient method to obtain density estimates because they are
non-invasive, incur relatively low labor costs, and are minimally invasive to the surrounding
 Mallard 2

environment (Rowcliffe et al., 2008). Obtaining density estimates of the control and treatment
units consisted of two main steps. The first was setting up game cameras throughout each of the
units then to reposition the cameras within the units a week later for additional data. The second
step included collecting the cameras and analyzing the data collected.

Field Methods

Before setting up the camera traps, the average distance and angle within which they
would detect animals had to be calculated. This was done in teams of three or four members by
taking a random subset of the game cameras and setting them up on a tree about one yard off of
the ground. Once they were placed, one
person stayed at the tree to announce when
the camera spotted a person while the other
two people walked from the outside-in,
placing irrigation flags on the ground when
the camera picked them up. The two people
with the irrigation flags continued this by
moving further and further away from the
camera until it was no longer triggered by
their movement. By the end of this
procedure, each group had a detection zone
angle and distance. The mean detection
angle and distance was calculated and
annotated for later analysis.
Following this a group, of six to
seven students each, were assigned to each
unit. The group for Unit 1 were given six Figure 3: Camera trap with stick placed behind to maximize
cameras, Unit 2’s group were given seven detection angle.
cameras, and the Control Unit’s group were given three cameras. Each group was given GPS
waypoints associated with a camera and a GPS unit to find the waypoints. Once a waypoint was
found, the corresponding camera was placed on a tree within 20-30 yards of the waypoint in a
location that seemed like a likely place for animals to move through, such as abundant vegetation
or a game trail. The camera traps were placed roughly one yard off the ground, as before, facing
the area of highly probable animal passage. Depending on the slope of the ground around the tree
it was occasionally required to place a small branch, as displayed in Figure 3, below the
backside of the camera to improve the camera angle (Rogers, 2012).
Once all the cameras were placed within each unit at their designated waypoints, they
were left for one week to capture photos. After one week, the pictures were collected, and the
cameras were randomly placed at new GPS waypoints within their specified unit and left to
record for another week, following the same procedures and techniques as before. After the
second week, the cameras were collected for the pictures to be analyzed.

Analytical Methods

In the Wildlife 448 Lab classroom at the University of Idaho, each camera was viewed by
student to obtain a count of white-tailed deer, turkeys, and coyotes captured by the camera traps.
 Mallard 3

Once each species count for

Estimated White-Tailed Deer Densities
each camera was collected,
60
they were placed in an excel

Individuals Per Square Km

spreadsheet for density 50
estimate calculations. We used 40
𝑦 𝜋
the formula: 𝐷 = 𝑡 𝑣𝑟(2+Θ),
30
with D representing density, y
20
representing the number of
photographs of the particular 10

species, t representing time 0

which was seven days, v Unit 1 Unit 2 Control Unit
representing the average Location
velocity or area covered by the
Figure 4: Mean densities of white-tailed deer in each unit. Error bars show 90%
species in one day, r confidence intervals.
representing the average
radius of the detection zone Estimates Turkey Mean Densities
which was previously
30
calculated, and 𝛩 representing
Individuals Per Square Km

the average camera trap 25

detection angle calculated 20
previously (Rowcliffe et al.,
15
2008). For v, students
searched various sources of 10
literature to find movement 5
speeds of each species which
were then averaged for a 0
Unit 1 Unit 2 Control Unit
single value to be used. These
Location
calculations were performed
for each species within each Figure 5: Mean densities of turkey in each unit. Error bars show 90% confidence
unit. intervals.

Results Estimated Coyote Mean Densities

0.2
Individuals Per Square Km

The Control Unit

appeared to have a higher 0.15
density of white-tailed deer,
followed by Unit and then 0.1
Unit 2, as shown in Figure 4,
0.05
however with the amount of
overlap in the confidence
0
intervals there is no significant
Unit 1 Unit 2 Control Unit
difference between units.
Location
There were no turkeys
captured in the Control Unit
and the average density in Unit 2 appears to be higher than in Unit 1, as displayed in Figure 5,
but once again there is significant overlap in confidence intervals. No coyotes were seen in Unit
 Mallard 4

2 or the Control Unit and only 1 was spotted in Unit 1, as shown in Figure 6, making the data of
little to no value. There were no significant differences between the treatment and control units
with respect to species choice of use.

Discussion

White-tailed deer did not seem to show a preference for the type of habitat they foraged,
whether it be one of the two fuels reduction units or the untouched unit. Having no turkeys seen
in the control unit shows that they tend to prefer areas that have undergone some sort of fuels
reduction. This may be due to their smaller size or ease of movement in those areas. With only
one coyote being seen it is difficult to draw any conclusions as to whether or not they prefer one
of the three habitats. Some possible explanations as to why there were not any statistical
differences could include having a relatively small sample size, the fact that there was a lot of
variation in the data and having a 90% confidence interval. Continuing this experiment for a
longer period of time or using more camera traps may have increased the sample size leading to
some meaningful differences for making management decisions in the area. This may have also
decreased the variation in the data. Increasing the confidence interval to 95% could also paint a
better picture as to if any of the species preferred one habitat type over another. In conclusion, it
would seem that more studies, similar to this one, need to be conducted in order to determine if it
is necessary to spend more time, money, and resources on fuels reduction in the area in order to
accommodate the wildlife that forage in this ecosystem.

Literature Cited

IDFG. (n.d.). Western White Pine (Pinus monticola) | Idaho Fish and Game. Retrieved April 30,

2019, from Idaho Department of Fish and Game website:

https://idfg.idaho.gov/species/taxa/45337

Neuenschwander, L. F., Byler, J. W., Harvey, A. E., McDonald, G. I., Ortiz, D. S., Osborne, H. L., …

Anderson, D. S. (1999). White Pine in the American West: A Vanishing Species (p. 24).

Retrieved from University of Idaho, College of Forestry Wildlife and Range Sciences

website: https://bblearn.uidaho.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-1886099-dt-content-rid-

25137477_1/courses/201820_71714/WhitePineCanWeSaveIt.pdf

Rogers, P. (2012, June 24).

Figure 6: Mean densities of coyote in each unit. Error bar shows a 90% confidence
interval.
Using Game Cameras.
 Mallard 5

Retrieved May 1, 2019, from Elliot Recreational Preperties website:

http://elliottrecreationalproperties.com/using-game-cameras/

Rowcliffe, J. M., Field, J., Turvey, S. T., & Carbone, C. (2008). Estimating animal density using

camera traps without the need for individual recognition. Journal of Applied Ecology,

45(4), 1228–1236. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2008.01473.x