1. Summer 2013 Ty Werdel Chadron State College Wildlife Management

2.  Prairie Dogs (Cynomys) are considered ecosystem engineers and a keystone species  Impact abiotic and biotic features Influence environmental heterogeneity, plant succession, hydrology, nutrient cycling, landscape architecture, and biodiversity

4.  Historical Range (1800)

5.  Historically occupied millions of hectares of land Populations have declined by 90%-98% Range disappearing due to encroachment on habitat and eradication

6.  Implications of Losing an Ecosystem Engineer Many vertebrate species have been shown to depend on prairie dogs for habitat and survival. Result in loss of species diversity in grasslands Endangered or Species of Concern:

7.  Prairie Dog’s Impact on Small Mammals Utilize prairie dog burrows for dens, shelter, and predator avoidance Species richness, diversity, and abundance has been shown to increase in areas with prairie dogs Certain species are adapted to live in areas with short grass and bare ground.

8.  What is the effect of C. gunnisoni on small mammal species diversity and abundance on Sevilleta NWR?

9.  Refuge Purpose for Reintroduction Native, Eradicated, Reintroduced Establish habitat for the prairie dog and for the many life forms that depend on its system  Reintroduction History Reintroduction within Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge in 2010

10.  4-16 ha Vegetation Plots Plot A- Control Plot B- Prairie Dog Reintroduction Plot C-Control Plot D- Prairie Dog Reintroduction

12. Traps Placed in 9 ha Grid 169 Traps Arranged 25 M apart

13.  1 Plot/Week  4 Weeks Control Plots  A- June 3-7  C- June 10-14 Treatment Plots  B- June 17-21  D- June 24-28

14. PROCEDURE:PROCESSING:  Trapped/Baited 5 Consecutive Days Per Week Monday-Friday  Data Was Collected Regarding: Species, Sex, Age, Weight, and Measurements Individuals marked

15.  Heteromyidae Kangaroo Rats  Dipodomys merriami  Dipodomys ordii  Dipodomys Spectabilis Pocket Mice  Perognathus flavus  Sciuridae Ground Squirrels  Spermophilus spilosoma  Cricetidae Woodrats  Neotoma micropus Grasshopper Mice  Onychomys leucogaster  Onychomys arenicola Mice  Peromyscus boylii  Peromyscus maniculatus Merriam’s Kangaroo Rat Silky Pocket Mouse Brush Mouse

18. Plot Total Species

19. Plot Total Individuals

20. P-Value: 0.3168 Not Significant

21. Species Total Individuals Plot

22. Species Total Individuals Plot

23. Species Total Individuals Plot

24. Species Total Individuals Plot

25.  Small Mammal Species Richness Doesn’t seem to be a correlation between species richness and control or treatment sites  Small Mammal Abundance No significant difference Seems to be a trend favoring abundance on treatment plots versus control plots

26.  Previous Research Short term studies may not show significant data Prairie dogs may have a different effect on different grassland types Black-tailed vs. Gunnison’s

27.  Abundance of Small Mammals Low: Only 1 Trapping Period Per Site Season of Trapping Drought vs. Monsoon Low mammal activity  Data Not Significant: Low abundance over all plots Less variation between plots

28.  Baseline Data 1 st year being researched Build upon this data  Methods Extend trapping periods Increase amount of traps Trap during different seasons

29.  Concentrate on Specific Species Perognathus flavus Dipodomys merriami Peromyscus  GIS/Spatial Mapping Vegetation Prairie Dog Burrows Trap Data

30.  Special Thank You to: Jon Erz Stephanie Baker Amaris Swann U.S. Fish and Wildlife Interns REU Students