Laboratory 7: Small Animal Activity in

Stockton University Forest Management Areas

Submitted To:

Dr. Catherine Tredick

(Natural Sciences & Mathematics Department, Environmental Science)

Submitted By:

Justin Saginor (undergraduate)

November 10th 2022

Introduction:
Stockton University sits right in the middle of the Pine Barrens National Reserve.

Pineland areas are some of the most ecologically diverse and unique locations around the globe

due to their composition of pine oak and other vegetation conditions. The wooded areas of

Stocktons campus have become a safe haven to a wide diversity of wildlife due to the strict

conservation and Sustainable practices used by Stockton University‘s forest management team

(Shenko 2012). Stockton University has a very prestigious forest management area in which

students and educators alike have the ability to examine and study a number of variable forge

management units all within close proximity to one another. Each one of these different units

have and support different types of wildlife at different densities. Different locations along the

forest management area are hypothesized to have different compositions of wildlife living in

them based upon the niche of each species (Hartley 1998). We can expect to find more density in

heavily wooded areas with thick undergrowth due to the protection that it gives the small prey

from larger predators. Open ground and clear canopies give predators an advantage of larger line

of sight; this is common in any ecosystem.

Stocktons forest management area and other pinelands alike are home to a diverse

number of mammals including but not limited to; deer, rabbits, raccoons, most importantly in

this case mice, and a number of other species (Shenko 2012). Each one of these unique species

have their own fundamental and realized niche in which they need to survive and thrive. Due to

the diverse composition of the forest management area the ability to quantify animal activity

based on force composition becomes easily available. Along with having different concentrations

and different variables of vegetation many of the sub forest management units are separated by

either clear cuts or man-made trails. These breaks between different ecological units is what's

commonly described as an edge effect.(Fuentes‐Montemayor 2009) (Penkala 1980).

 Edge effect is commonly referred to an area in which two ecosystems or communities, in

this case the two different forest management areas, change abruptly from one to another; the

area between these two differences is known as an Ecotone (Fuentes‐Montemayor 2009). The

presence of the ecotone then leads to the edge effect in which the mixing of two different forest

compositions gives way to increased biodiversity and fragmentation of species between the two

(Penkala 1980). In this study we wanted to evaluate small mammal activity in diverse force

management units to quantify vegetative conditions and compare those to the distance from

Forest edge in which animals are most active by moderating bait stations at various locations

from close to the edge to deeper into the forest management area (Hartley 1998). Students also

seeked to determine if animal activity is different across different areas and different vegetative

conditions and hypothesize and why these differences might occur.

Materials & Methods:

We sampled vegetation transects and cover plots across the different areas of the forest

management area on Stockton University's campus . These different units included clearcut,

partially thinned, or naturally growing (control). These three treatments are also broken down

into two sub groups of burned or not. Each group was placed at a different forest management

unit or location so each site was different from one another. My group was tasked with

transecting the controlled burned forest management area. This means that no trees were cut

down or tampered with in any way, however a controlled burn of understory was conducted to

see how it would respond to a natural fire. Other locations included clear-cut natural and then a

clear-cut that was also burned. These two locations had relatively wide openings with little to no

trees within the 5 m of the transact line. The final forest management area was the thinned not
burned and the thinned on burned. The thinned units of the forest management area are locations

in which certain trees were cultivated for any number of reasons.

At each of these different locations we measured out a 60 m transect beginning 5 m

before the edge of the forest. Pretty much meaning that the first 5 m of the transect were actually

the trails used to navigate between different units. At these locations we were tasked with

identifying what unit we were in, and identifying primary overstory and understory. My group

was tasked with transecting the control burned forest management unit. Upon setting out the 60

m transect we were tasked with identifying plant species and height of species at every 1m mark.

If no species was present it was left blank. Plant species along the 1 m mark are broken into three

categories less than 1 foot, 1 to 2 feet, or greater than 2 feet.

Figure 1. This is a graphical representation of the transect that we used to measure and
study the forest management units effect on small animal distribution.

Every 10 m along the transect we placed a 1m x 1m square on the ground and

guesstimated the approximate understory cover and canopy cover. Students did our best to

quantify the living substrate of the understory and the cover of the canopy above. Upon the time

of year of the study a vast majority of the trees had already lost their leaves but we were

instructed to imagine coverage if the trees were at full bloom. This was done simply by looking
up and guessing a best fit percentage between the group members. If my group members had

different guesstimate percentages an average of the percentages was taken. The reason for taking

the percentage of understory and canopy cover is once again to enable this data to be readily

visualized by other users. These values are used to detrim in small animals favor heavily covered

areas rather then more open areas or vice versa. Upon walking down the 60 m transect we were

also tasked with calculating the number of trees within 5 m left and right of the 60 m line. I

simply counted the number of trees that stood within 5 m of either side of the transect. Trees

were identified by species and whole numbers for values of trees were taken. All this raw data

was then analyzed in the second portion of the laboratory using Microsoft excel.

In order for us to determine what variables (forest unit, understory height, tree cover, and

distance to the edge) might have the greatest impact on small animal distribution we ran the

classes' raw data through a series of statistical analysis. For my report I decided to focus on how

variable levels of cover used to protect small animals from predation correlate to densities of

depredated samples. First we calculated the levels of depredation from the edge of the trail. Baits

were placed every 10 m along the 60 m transect so a total of 6 baits were placed. Baits not eaten

were subtracted from the total bait placed at each 10m mark to determine the observed results of

depredated bait. We then calculated the expected values at each of the locations as if the study

was completed at random chance. The observed values were computed with the expected values

in a chi square test. A chi-square test is a statistical test used to compare observed results with

expected results. The purpose of this test is to determine if a difference between observed data

and expected data is due to chance, or if it is due to a relationship between the variables you are

studying.
 A Chi square test like we did for the distance from edge was also done for the height of

the vegetation in which the bait was depredated. Tree densities observed deprecated baits were

compared to the expected values in order to see if there's a statistically significant relationship

between tree density (canopy cover) and the amount of bait eaten. For the purpose of this study

the bait eaten is being used as a way to estimate the small animal densities in those areas. The

results of the four Chi Square Tests are as follows in the result section.

Results:

Chi sq SUM[(O-E)^2/E O = observed E = expected

df 1 2 3 4 5

Crit Value 3.8 6 7.8 9.5 11.1

This table just shows the degrees of freedom‘s estimated critical value. These values are

needed when analyzing the chi-squared values produced by the different statistical tests. The bill

hypothesis of the lab that depredation is all the same among different variables will be rejected if

the critical value is less than the chi-squared value.

 Table 1A: Distance to Edge

Table 1A: This table represents the analyzed class raw data; it shows the amount of baits placed
& eaten at different distances along the transect. Chi Square values represent the deviation from
expected values.

This table shows the results of the statistical analysis of the class's raw data relating the

bait consumption to the distance from the edge of the transect. Bait was placed every 10 m along

the 60 m transect so one bait was at the edge, another at 10 m, one at 20 m, and so on until we

got to 60 m (6 baits total). As you can see on table 1A there is a row of the bait eaten by the

small animals and then a row of beats not eaten by the small animals. Looking at the raw data

there is a significant increase in the bait eaten from the 10 m to 20 m distances. Most bait

touched was in the 20-30 m range. Upon looking at the observed depredation we calculated the

expected percentage of bait that would have been touched if the study was conducted due to

random chance. The chi square analysis utilized the expected and the observed results. The chi

square sum total came out 1.432 this was significantly less than the degrees of freedom estimated

critical value being 11.1. Since the chi-square value was less than a critical value we do not

reject the null hypothesis that deprivation rates are all the same.
 Table 2A: Understory Vegetation Height

Table 2A: This table represents the analyzed class raw data; it shows the amount of baits placed
& eaten under different understory vegetation heights along the transect. Chi Square values
represent the deviation from expected values.

This table shows the classes cumulative data referring to the bait placed at different 10 m

marks and the vegetation height range at the location. There were four categories of vegetation

height, 0 feet, less than 1 foot, 1 to 2 feet, greater than 2 feet. The table has a row for the total

baits and the amount of baits actually depredated. Upon looking at the observed depredation 0

feet of vegetation only had 1 bait touched while 0-1 had 19 baits and 1-2 16 baits eaten.

Expected values were calculated once again to determine how much of the bait would have been

eaten at various vegetation height locations. Chi-square values were done for each of the four

ranges and the sum was 0.588. There were four different ranges meaning the degrees of freedom

was 3, the critical value for a range of freedom of three is 7.8. The sum of the chi-squared values

was significantly less than the critical value meeting on the bill hypothesis was not rejected.
 Table 3A: Tree Densities

Table 3A: This table represents the analyzed class raw data; it shows the amount of baits placed
& eaten along transect locations with different densities of trees. Chi Square values represent the
deviation from expected values.

This table shows various tree density ranges along the transect and the amount of bait

eaten at these different densities. The tree densities directly correlate to the tree canopy cover a

percentage covered on the ground. Upon looking at the observed bait eaten the tree densities with

the highest rates was 1 to 5 trees, 17 of the 27 places were eaten. The second highest tree density

with the most bait eaten was 6 to 10 trees with 11 of the 19 baits placed eaten. Expected values

were calculated and compared to the observed, chi-square values for each of the four categories

was calculated and summed together, the sum of all the chi-square statistical analysis was

0.0702. Since there were four different categories of tree densities the degrees of freedom for this

table is three, the critical value for 3 degrees of freedom is 7.8. The sum of the chi-squared

values is significantly less than the critical value determined by the degrees of freedom.
 Table 4A: Forest Management Unit

Table 4A: This table represents the analyzed class raw data; it shows the amount of baits placed
& eaten as a whole in the different forest management units . Chi Square values represent the
deviation from expected values.

This table shows the various forest management units and the treatments that were used

within them. Of the different units on campus the treatments consist of clearcut and thin. A

control unit is always used to evaluate natural phenomenons. In addition to these three

management units they were replicated each twice, one being burned and one not burned with a

total of six locations. The management unit with the most bait eaten was the controlled unit, 17

of the 24 baits touched by what is believed to be small animals. The management unit with the

second highest bait depredation is the thinned locations with 14 of the 24 bait being touched.

Expected values were calculated based on the observed and total bait placed. Chi-square values

of each of the three management units were analyzed and summed together. The sum of the chi-

square values for table for a is 0.635. Since there were three different management units the

degrees of freedom for this table is two, the critical value for the degrees of freedom of two is 6.

The sum of the chi square is significantly less than the value determined by the degrees of

freedom.
Discussion:

Of all the things that small animals living in the pinelands need to worry about, the last

thing they need is a bunch of giants walking in and trying to figure out where they like to spend

their time eating and living. Unfortunately that’s exactly what we did, collectively as a class we

covered just about every possible forest and environmental condition possibly found within the

pinelands forest. Stockton University's forest management area has several units of a variable

number of treatments making it a statistically easy place to do such an analysis. Back in the

introduction of this paper I stated that my individual hypothesis was that the small animals are

going to eat more bait in locations that they have lower probability of being predated. Small

animals like mice and rabbits face severe predation threats from aerial attacks of birds, hawks

and other wind organisms. It is my hypothesis that the small animals are going to eat more of the

baits in the covered areas then the uncovered areas due to them being safer there.

As you can see in table 1A there was not a whole lot of bait being touched by the small

animals near the edge of the transect, along the edge there was the trail. The trail is an open area

in which predators have an easy vantage point of these prey, the small animals know that these

areas likely are unsafe for them and they do not spend a majority of the time gathering food

there. Once you get 10 to 20 m off the trail and into the woods the baits depredated increased

significantly. This supports my hypothesis that the small animals are staying somewhere safer;

farther away from wide openings like a trail or clear-cut, this is further explained in the table 4A

where there is a lack of bait being depleted in the clear-cut.

Table 2A shows that the vegetation height range in which most of the baits deprecated

were from 1 feet or greater, this understory coverage gives these small animals great protection.

It is once again my hypothesis that the small animals are more densely compact in areas under
some sort of understory vegetation. Table 2A does not hold a whole lot of significant statistical

value because there was only one bait placed at a 0 vegetation height and one bait placed at 2ft

vegetation height. There was not a statistically significant array of baits placed at different

heights so the favoritism towards 1 to 2 feet or less than 1 feet does not hold any statistical value.

Table 3A shows the three densities in which most of the beats were eaten, the forest units

with the higher tree density therefore have the highest percentage of canopy cover. Canopy cover

is a second layer of protection from aerial threat under the understory cover. Based upon the

results for table 3A there does not seem to be a direct relationship between baits being depleted

and the tree densities. To me this means that small animals are less worried about the tree cover

and more about the vegetation cover. Small animals are easier to hide in understory then they

would be under high tree canopies.

Of the variables that are the most important to small animal distribution I would say the

understory height and the distance from the edge gives the greatest statistical support to my

hypothesis that small animals eat and thrive in locations that protect them from production. The

three densities do not seem to play too much of a role unless it is clear-cut; a clear-cut area will

likely have very little understory unless it is in a regeneration phase. This laboratory gave me a

better understanding of small animal activities in A number of different forest treatment units.
Supporting Literature:

Shenko, A. N., Bien, W. F., Spotila, J. R., & Avery, H. W. (2012). Effects of
disturbance on small mammal community structure in the New Jersey Pinelands,
USA. Integrative Zoology, 7(1), 16-29.LINK (Shenko 2012)

Fuentes‐Montemayor, E., Cuarón, A. D., Vázquez‐Domínguez, E., Benítez ‐

Malvido, J., Valenzuela‐Galván, D., & Andresen, E. (2009). Living on the edge:
roads and edge effects on small mammal populations. Journal of Animal
Ecology, 78(4), 857-865. LINK (Fuentes‐Montemayor 2009)

Hartley, M. J., & Hunter, M. L. (1998). A meta-analysis of forest cover, edge

effects, and artificial nest predation rates. Conservation Biology, 12(2), 465-469.
LINK (Hartley 1998)

Penkala, J. M., Hahn, E. P., & Sweger, J. G. (1980). An assessment of the game
mammals and birds and small mammals of the Pinelands. LINK (Penkala 1980)