| dc.description.abstract | During spring and summer in Ontario, moose are commonly observed at sites known as
moose aquatic feeding areas. Feeding on aquatic vegetation is thought to be an important source
of sodium for moose at this time of year. The effects of different timber harvesting systems on
the use of aquatic feeding areas by moose was studied in the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence and
boreal transition forests of central Ontario. During June to September 2002,1 compared the use
of aquatic feeding sites by moose among selection cutting in the Algonquin Park Forest
Management Unit (FMU), uniform shelterwood cutting in the French-Sevem FMU, and clearcutting
in the Spanish FMU. At >50 sites within each harvesting system I studied the
relationships between moose use and age of forest stands adjacent to aquatic feeding areas,
proximity of timber harvest, and amount of shoreline affected. The locations of potential study
sites in the three FMUs were initially identified using GIS data (cut history and reserve widths),
moose aquatic feeding area survey data, and air photos. Sites were assessed for moose use by
recording the characteristics of trails, tracks, pellet-groups, and browsing. Physiographic and
vegetative attributes of the aquatic and terrestrial landscape were also measured. Overall, moose
use of aquatic feeding areas was greatest in areas harvested by selection cutting, followed by
shelterwood cutting, and clear-cutting, respectively. The reserve width and time since last cut
influenced the use of aquatic feeding areas by moose in all three silvicultural systems. Within
areas harvested by selection cutting, moose use was greatest adjacent to old cuts (>20 years) and
large reserve widths (>120m). The shelterwood areas showed more moose use of sites adjacent
to recent cuts (<5 years) with >120m reserves. The clear-cut areas showed more moose use
adjacent to cuts >10 years of age with >120m reserves. The results of stepwise multiple
regressions, indicated that habitat characteristics other than forest age and reserve width were
also important for moose when selecting a site. The length of aquatic vegetation along the shore
and midpoint basal area were important habitat variables within the selection cut system.
Endpoint basal area was the only habitat variable important for moose use within the
shelterwood system and there was no multiple regression model predicted in the clear-cut
system. Subsequent correlation analyses indicated that the length of aquatic vegetation along the
shore and reserve width were the only two variables related to moose use within all three
silvicultural systems. Moose demonstrated both random and non-random patterns of use within
reserves in all three systems. Random use was identified by an interconnection of moose trails
within reserves that were not used repeatedly, indicating that sites were used less frequently.
Non-random use was identified by a trail system heavily used within the reserve, indicating that
trails were used repeatedly.
Because aquatic plants are an important source of nutrients for moose in spring and
summer, forest management practices must ensure proper protection of these sites. This study
shows that the time since last cut and the type of silvicultural system being used must be
considered when applying a reserve around aquatic feeding areas, because the quality of the
habitat within the adjacent reserve is important for moose using these sites. Although moose
used aquatic feeding areas adjacent to narrow reserves (<60 m), the results of this study show
that sites adjacent to 120-m reserves, as recommended in the Timber Management Guidelines for
the Provision o f Moose Habitat, were used the most and have the greatest potential of meeting
the life history requisites of moose in all three silvicultural systems. | |
