1. Investigating the effects of fire & forest canopy conditions on the abundance & diversity of insects at Mammoth Cave NP Dodd, L.E. 1, M.J. Lacki 1, N.S. Skowronski 2, M.B. Dickinson 2, & L.K. Rieske 3 1 Forestry Department, University of Kentucky 2 Northern Research Station, US Forest Service 3 Entomology Department, University of Kentucky

2. Bats at Mammoth Cave Variable foraging & habitat use across species 1 Variable foraging & habitat use across species 1 Prey availability & forest canopy structure Prey availability & forest canopy structure White-nose syndrome White-nose syndrome Now at Mammoth Cave; changing predator-prey dynamics? Now at Mammoth Cave; changing predator-prey dynamics? 1 Swartz et al. 2003. Pp. 257-300 in: Bat Ecology. Lacki et al. 2007. Pp. 83–128 in: Bats in Forests: Conservation and Management

3. Insects Function & Role in Eastern Forests Systematics: Charting the Biosphere

4. 1 Summerville & Crist. 2008. Can. Entomol. 140: 475-494. Insects Function & Role in Eastern Forests Variable occurrence across habitats 1 Variable occurrence across habitats 1 Indicator species, responsive to forest management Indicator species, responsive to forest management

5. Insects Function & Role in Eastern Forests 1 Summerville & Crist. 2008. Can. Entomol. 140: 475-494, 2 Lacki & Dodd. 2011. in USFS Gen. Tech. Report S-145. Variable occurrence across habitats 1 Variable occurrence across habitats 1 Indicator species, responsive to forest management Indicator species, responsive to forest management Conspicuous members of the community Conspicuous members of the community Major herbivores 1, a major prey source 2 Major herbivores 1, a major prey source 2

8. Core Hibernacula - 2004 - 2005 - 2007 - 2009 - 2008 - 2010 Burn Areas Mammoth Cave Nat’l Park

9. Core Hibernacula - 2004 - 2005 - 2007 - 2009 - 2008 - 2010 Burn Areas Survey Transects, Aug 2010 onward Mammoth Cave Nat’l Park

10. Methods

11. Methods

12. Methods

14. Methods

15. Burned in 2004

16. Methods Insect Occurrence Blacklight trapping Blacklight trapping Spanning 2010-2012 (still ongoing) Spanning 2010-2012 (still ongoing) 25 nights (337 trap/nights) 25 nights (337 trap/nights) Emphasis on April-May, Aug-Oct Emphasis on April-May, Aug-Oct

17. Methods Insect Variables

18. Methods

19. Site, Season, & Annual Effects

20. As with bat data, lots of variation across sites! As with bat data, lots of variation across sites!

21. Site, Season, & Annual Effects As with bat data, lots of variation across sites! As with bat data, lots of variation across sites! No clear trend with insects at riparian sites. No clear trend with insects at riparian sites.

22. Site, Season, & Annual Effects As with bat data, lots of variation across sites! As with bat data, lots of variation across sites! No clear trend with insects at riparian sites. No clear trend with insects at riparian sites.

23. Site, Season, & Annual Effects Prey availability & WNS impacts on bat health Prey availability & WNS impacts on bat health

24. Site, Season, & Annual Effects Coleoptera: F 2,334 = 27.2, P < 0.01 Diptera: F 2,334 = 3.4, P = 0.03 Lepidoptera: F 2,334 = 9.9, P < 0.01 ABC a abb ABA

25. Site, Season, & Annual Effects Coleoptera: F 2,334 = 27.2, P < 0.01 Diptera: F 2,334 = 3.4, P = 0.03 Lepidoptera: F 2,334 = 9.9, P < 0.01 ABC a abb ABA Reduction in the prey we know Myotis eat!

26. Site, Season, & Annual Effects Coleoptera: F 2,334 = 6.2, P < 0.01 Diptera: F 2,334 = 14.8, P < 0.01 Lepidoptera: F 2,334 = 0.6, P > 0.05 ABB a bb

27. Site, Season, & Annual Effects Fewer land parcels, Late season sampling Park-wide coverage, spanning immediate post-burn impacts Coleoptera: F 2,334 = 6.2, P < 0.01 Diptera: F 2,334 = 14.8, P < 0.01 Lepidoptera: F 2,334 = 0.6, P > 0.05 ABB a bb

28. Site, Season, & Annual Effects Relative constancy across years with WNS arrival Relative constancy across years with WNS arrival Coleoptera: F 2,334 = 6.2, P < 0.01 Diptera: F 2,334 = 14.8, P < 0.01 Lepidoptera: F 2,334 = 0.6, P > 0.05 ABB a bb

29. Effect of Fire Across the Landscape

30. Core Hibernacula - 2004 - 2005 - 2007 - 2009 - 2008 - 2010 Burn Areas Survey Transect Aug 2010 onward Effect of Fire Across the Landscape

31. Effect of Fire Across the Landscape Shifts in community composition with time since burn Shifts in community composition with time since burn

32. Effect of Fire Across the Landscape Shifts in community composition with time since burn Shifts in community composition with time since burn Limited Observations

33. Effect of Fire Across the Landscape

34. Effect of Fire Across the Landscape Coleoptera: F 2,326 = 5.5, P < 0.01 Diptera: F 2,326 = 4.0, P = 0.02 Lepidoptera: F 2,326 = 6.5, P < 0.01 aabb AAB AABB

35. Effect of Fire Across the Landscape Coleoptera: F 2,326 = 5.5, P < 0.01 Diptera: F 2,326 = 4.0, P = 0.02 Lepidoptera: F 2,326 = 6.5, P < 0.01 Diversity & similarity across sites likely plays a role… Diversity & similarity across sites likely plays a role… aabb AAB AABB

36. Effect of Fire Core Hibernacula - 2004 - 2005 - 2007 - 2009 - 2008 - 2010 Burn Areas Survey Transects, Aug 2010 onward

37. Effect of Fire Across the Landscape Analyses pending

38. Effect of Fire Across the Landscape Analyses pending

39. Methods LiDAR Survey Figure by Renslow

40. Methods LiDAR Variables What scale is meaningful? What scale is meaningful?

41. Methods LiDAR Variables 15 m Laser returns across over-, mid-, & understory strata 1 Laser returns across over-, mid-, & understory strata 1 15 m radii around survey points 1 15 m radii around survey points 1 1 Lesak et al. 2011. Remote Sensing of Environment 115: 2823-2835 Under Mid Over

42. Methods LiDAR Variables 0-10 m 0-10 m 10-20 m 10-20 m 20-30 m 20-30 m 30-42 m 30-42 m Understory Ratio Understory Ratio 0-10 m CHP / Total CHP 0-10 m CHP / Total CHP Indicator of canopy “shape” Indicator of canopy “shape” Gap Index Gap Index Percentage of pixels with no laser returns >3 m height Percentage of pixels with no laser returns >3 m height

43. Analysis Insects + LiDAR Today’s talk… Canonical Correspondence Analysis Today’s talk… Canonical Correspondence Analysis Standard ordination techniques following ter Braak 1 Standard ordination techniques following ter Braak 1 PC-ORD v. 4.25; default settings; 300 iterations PC-ORD v. 4.25; default settings; 300 iterations Ongoing efforts… MLRs to mirror bat data presented yesterday Ongoing efforts… MLRs to mirror bat data presented yesterday 1 McCune & Grace. 2002. Analysis of Ecological Communities. MJM Software Design

44. Results

45. Results Insects + LiDAR 1 st Axis ( P ≤ 0.05) 1 st Axis ( P ≤ 0.05) 11% variation explained 11% variation explained “Inertia” of the data: 1.03 “Inertia” of the data: 1.03

46. Results Insects + LiDAR 1 st Axis ( P ≤ 0.05) 1 st Axis ( P ≤ 0.05) 11% variation explained 11% variation explained “Inertia” of the data: 1.03 “Inertia” of the data: 1.03 Broad separation across insect taxa…

47. Results Insects + LiDAR 1 st Axis ( P ≤ 0.05) 1 st Axis ( P ≤ 0.05) 11% variation explained 11% variation explained “Inertia” of the data: 1.03 “Inertia” of the data: 1.03 Lepidoptera tied to understory vegetation…

48. Results Moth Diversity 1 st & 2 nd Axes significant ( P ≤ 0.01) 1 st & 2 nd Axes significant ( P ≤ 0.01) 12% dataset’s variation explained 12% dataset’s variation explained “Inertia” of the dataset: 0.31 “Inertia” of the dataset: 0.31

49. Results Moths + LiDAR Moth Abundance ~ Overstory

50. Results Moths + LiDAR Moth Species Richness ~ Understory

51. Results Moths + LiDAR Outliers

52. Discussion & Implications Findings to date… Findings to date… Abundance associated with overstory (& stand age?) Abundance associated with overstory (& stand age?) Diversity associated with understory Diversity associated with understory

53. Discussion & Implications Findings to date… Findings to date… Abundance associated with overstory (& stand age?) Abundance associated with overstory (& stand age?) Diversity associated with understory Diversity associated with understory Lep diversity driven by floral diversity in the understory Lep diversity driven by floral diversity in the understory Riparian habitats 1,2,3 Riparian habitats 1,2,3 Logged upland sites 3 Logged upland sites 3 1 Ober & Hayes. 2010. Biodivers. Conserv. 19: 761-774 2 Dodd et al. 2011. J. Kansas Entomol. Soc. 84: 271-284. 3 Dodd et al. 2012. Forest Ecol. Manage. 267: 262-270.

54. Discussion & Implications 1 Morris et al. 2010. J. Wildlife Manage. 74: 26-34. 2 Dodd et al. 2012. Forest Ecol. Manage. 267: 262-270. 3 Muller et al. 2012. Oecologia 169: 673-684. Findings to date… Findings to date… Abundance associated with overstory (& stand age?) Abundance associated with overstory (& stand age?) Diversity associated with understory Diversity associated with understory How does occurrence of prey mesh with the predators? How does occurrence of prey mesh with the predators? Habitat structure vs. prey availability 1,2,3 Habitat structure vs. prey availability 1,2,3 Harvest vs. fire Harvest vs. fire

55. Funding Funding – Joint Fire Science Program NPS Personnel NPS Personnel – Dr. Rick Toomey – Steve Thomas – Shannon Trimboli Tech Support! Tech Support! – Tracy Culbertson – Klint Rose – Jennifer Winters Thanks! 2010 Tech Support 2011 Tech Support