Subpopulation augmentation among habitat patches as a tool to manage an endangered Mojave Desert wetlands-dependent rodent during anthropogenic restricted water climate regimes

Abstract

Intensive management may be necessary to protect some highly vulnerable endangered species, particularly those dependent on water availability regimes that might be disrupted by ongoing climate change. The Amargosa vole (Microtus californicus scirpensis) is an increasingly imperiled rodent constrained to rare wetland habitat in the Mojave Desert. In 2014 and 2016, we trapped and radio-collared 30 voles, 24 were translocated and six remained at donor and recipient marshes as resident control voles. Soft-release was performed followed by remote camera and radio-telemetry monitoring. Although comparative metrics were not statistically significant, the mean maximum known distance moved (MDM) was longer for translocated (82.3 ± 14.6 m) vs. resident-control voles (74.9 ± 17.5 m) and for female (98.4 ± 19.9 m) vs. male (57.8 ± 9.1 m) voles. The mean area occupied (AO) tended to be greater in female (0.15 ± 0.04 ha) vs. male (0.12 ± 0.03 ha) voles, and control voles (0.15 ± 0.05 ha) compared with translocated voles (0.13 ± 0.03 ha). The mean minimum known time alive (MTA) was 38.2 ± 19.4 days for resident-control voles and 47.0 ± 10.6 days for translocated voles. Female survival (55.7 ± 14.3 days) exceeded that of males (31.5 ± 9.4 days) regardless of study group. Activity in bulrush/rushes mix and bulrush vegetation types was strongly and significantly overrepresented compared with salt grass and rushes alone, and habitat selection did not differ between resident and translocated voles. Our results provide ecological and methodological insights for future translocations as part of a strategy of promoting long-term survival of an extremely endangered small mammal in a wild desert environment.

About the Authors:

Andrés M. López-Pérez

Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – original draft

Affiliation: Department of Medicine and Epidemiology, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis, California, United States of America

Janet Foley

Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation: Department of Medicine and Epidemiology, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis, California, United States of America

Austin Roy

Roles Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations Department of Medicine and Epidemiology, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis, California, United States of America, Wildlife Investigations Lab, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Rancho Cordova, California, United States of America

Risa Pesapane

Roles Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: Department of Medicine and Epidemiology, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis, California, United States of America

Stephanie Castle

Roles Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations Department of Medicine and Epidemiology, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis, California, United States of America, Wildlife Investigations Lab, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Rancho Cordova, California, United States of America

ORCID logo http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8441-1573

Amanda Poulsen

Roles Investigation, Methodology

Affiliation: Department of Medicine and Epidemiology, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis, California, United States of America

Deana L. Clifford

Roles Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations Department of Medicine and Epidemiology, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis, California, United States of America, Wildlife Investigations Lab, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Rancho Cordova, California, United States of America

Introduction

Over the last decades, earth has experienced a human-driven wave of high extinction rates and global loss of biodiversity caused by climate change and habitat loss and fragmentation [1, 2]. As species and populations decrease, and wildlife-human conflict becomes more frequent, human-mediated movement of wild animals (translocation or reintroduction) may be a valuable tool for wildlife conservation and management programs [3]. In fact, species translocations are increasing worldwide in several taxonomic groups including birds [4] and various mammals [5, 6]. Translocation is most likely to succeed when informed by data regarding natural activity, habitat requirements, space-use and movement patterns, and behavior of the animals being translocated [7–9].

The Amargosa vole, Microtus californicus subsp. scirpensis, is an endangered rodent endemic to the Tecopa region of the Mojave Desert of California [10]. The vole is obligately dependent on wetlands near the Amargosa River dominated by three-square bulrush (Schoenoplectus americanus) [11, 12]. This region of the Mojave Desert is among the most arid of North America [13] and supports numerous rare and endemic species in increasingly isolated wetland habitat patches. Endangered species management in this region must contend with anthropogenic hydrologic alterations (e.g. groundwater pumping and land clearing) and climate changes that often manifest locally as reduced and less reliable available water [14, 15]. With ongoing habitat degradation and loss of available water, the population status of the Amargosa vole is now dire. Large-scale habitat reconstruction for voles is insupportable with available water resources, but small-scale marsh reconstruction projects may be feasible [16], as well as reintroduction of voles into unoccupied but suitable marshes or those presently housing unsustainably small subpopulations [10]. However, translocation of rodents faces particular difficulties, especially one with highly specific habitat requirements and which is a target prey item for abundant local predators [17]. In general, translocated rodents must be able to rapidly find protection from predators, cope with intra-guild competition, and tolerate local pathogens [18]. With adequate data and planning, translocation has been successful in rodents including Heermann’s kangaroo rats (Dipodomys heermanni) [6] and the Stephens’ kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi) [19].

Our broad goal in this project was to perform population augmentation into sparsely inhabited marshes to reinforce these subpopulations and obtain vitally needed data regarding vole movement, habitat use, and survival upon translocation. The specific goals of this study were to use radio-collars on Amargosa voles, to determine space use, movement patterns and habitat use preferences of translocated voles, and whether predation-related mortality, emigration, or other outcomes might limit success of future larger-scale translocations into rehabilitated habitat. We tested this by translocating individuals to new marshes, comparing outcomes to voles in donor and recipient marsh controls.

Material and methods

Study area

Work was performed in accordance with the guidelines of the American Society of Mammalogists [20], US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) Memoranda of Understanding, US Fish and Wildlife Service Amargosa vole Recovery Permit #TE546414A-2, a permit from Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and approval by the UC Davis Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee.

This study was conducted within the Amargosa River basin in the Mojave Desert near Tecopa, California (35.8752 N, -116.2343 E) at elevations from 390–417 m. Local climate is highly variable, with annual mean rainfall of 12.3 cm, and mean temperature ranges from 41.4 °C in summer to 3.2 °C in winter. Most of the Amargosa River in this region is subterranean, but ephemeral and spring-fed perennial surface flows in the region support marsh habitat. Marsh vegetation predominantly consists of bulrush (Schoenoplectus americanus) interspersed with a mix of desert salt grass (Distichlis spicata), rushes (Juncus cooperi and J. balticus), and mixed herb communities, including yerba mansa (Anemopsis califcornica), sunflower (Helianthus annuus), and western reed (Phragmites australis, Fig 1). We captured and translocated voles during summer 2014 and spring 2016. The 2014 work aimed to pilot use of radio-collars on Amargosa voles and determine survival rates and movement patterns of translocated voles vs. non-translocated voles. The 2016 work focused on the survival and movement patterns of translocated voles during a systematic translocation program of radio-collared voles into a sparsely inhabited marsh.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Fig 1. Inset map of Inyo County, California and detail of the Tecopa region showing locations of marshes and vegetation cover.

Base map from Geological Society of America.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224246.g001

Initially, 12 marshes near Tecopa were evaluated to identify those with sustainable vole subpopulations (donor marshes) and to evaluate suitability of recipient marshes [16, 21]. In 2013, only Marsh 1 in the northeast corner of the study area appeared to have a sustainable subpopulation of voles based on trapping studies and population demographic analyses [22]. However, anthropogenically mediated impacts to Marsh 1 hydrology caused a significant decline in water level and reduction of bulrush density [15] such that in 2014, voles at Marsh 1 exceeded carrying capacity with survival rates of only 0.35 per month (R Klinger, USGS, and Foley, unpub. data) [23]. Thus Marsh 1 was chosen as a donor site for all 2014 and 2016 translocation recipient marshes. We designated candidate recipient marshes as those with at least 1 ha of mature bulrush, with standing water year-round, at least 0.5 km away from Marsh 1 to reduce risk of immediate return to the donor site, with no non-native predatory bullfrogs (Lithobates catesbeianus) [24], and housecats, and with very low or no vole subpopulations. We chose Marsh 9 as a recipient marsh in 2014, and Marshes 7, 8a, 19, 22, and 69 in 2016 (Fig 1).

Trapping, translocation, and release of radio-collared voles

Marsh 1 was evaluated in summer 2014 and spring 2016 with six days of baseline trapping along pre-established grids of 108 large Sherman live traps (7.6 cm x 8.9 cm x 22.9 cm; HB Sherman, Tallahassee, FL). Recipient marshes were evaluated at least once in the three months pre-release during 2–4 day trapping periods along trap transects. Trap numbers varied by size of habitat fragment ranging from 30 to 44 traps per transect. Trap bait included either peanut butter, horse feed (corn, barley, oats, and wheat with molasses), and apples; or peanut butter and oats. Traps baited were placed under vegetation, kept open overnight, and then checked before dawn. Animals were examined for parasites, weighed, identified to sex, and marked with a uniquely numbered metal ear tag (1005–1 Monel, National Band and Tag Co., Newport, KY). Voles were assigned a body condition score (BCS) from 0–5 (0 is emaciated and 5 is obese) [25].

In 2014, we trapped, radio-collared, and monitored 10 voles: two male and two female voles were translocated from Marsh 1 to Marsh 9, three voles (1 male and 2 females) were captured and retained at Marsh 1 as donor marsh controls, and three voles (1 male and 2 females) were captured and retained at Marsh 9 as recipient marsh controls. In 2016, we randomly selected 20 healthy voles (9 males and 11 females) for collaring from among all voles captured in Marsh 1 for translocating to the five recipient marshes.

All 30 chosen voles had a BCS > 1+ and none was infested with chiggers. These voles were lightly anesthetized with 0.5 mg/kg ketamine and 0.1 mg/ml xylazine IM, received a passive integrated transponder (PIT) tag subcutaneously between the scapulae, and were fitted with a radio-transmitter on a zip-tie collar (total collar weight 2g; Biotrack Pip Ag392, Wareham, Dorset, UK). The collars had an expected battery life of 8 weeks, external antennae, a 33 ms pulse rate, and activity sensors. Based on numerous direct observations of collared voles and comparing locations indicated by the collars, collar location error was typically less than approximately a meter. Control voles were released at their capture site once completely recovered from anesthesia.

Voles selected for translocation were transported to the recipient marshes in Sherman traps and then transferred to acclimation cages (53 x 38 x 41 cm wire cages with 30 cm deep bulrush substrate, horse grain mixture, fresh bulrush, apples, lettuce, and water embedded on the margin of the recipient marsh) within approximately 2 hr. After 24 hr, one side of the acclimation cage was opened to allow the animal to leave as it chose. We provided food in the cage for one additional day. Before and after cages were opened, activity was monitored using remote cameras (Reconyx PC 900 Hyperfire, Holmen, WI) pointed at the acclimation cage openings.

Radio-telemetry data collection

Radio-telemetry was performed using an R410 receiver (Advanced Telemetry Systems, Isanti, MN) for two months at each work period. In 2014, location data were collected by direct observation after walking through habitat to determine the exact location of each radio-collared vole. In 2016, in order to reduce disturbance of animals and damage to habitat, animal locations were estimated by triangulation, taking bearings on the radio signal from three different locations. Locations were visualized and analyzed with ArcMap 10.2 (ESRI, Redlands, CA). Minimum time alive (MTA) after radio-collaring voles was derived from the last recorded telemetry signals, recaptures of individuals, or findings of collars associated with a predation event. Animal locations were triangulated from the three bearings using the Mean Center tool. We estimated the area occupied (AO) by each vole by calculating the minimum convex polygon (MCP) with the Minimum Bounding Geometry tool. Maximum distance moved (MDM), which is the same as observed range length [26], was calculated for each vole as the maximum distance among all possible distances between location points using the Measure tool.

Documenting habitat selection

We calculated the proportion of the different habitat types available in the study area based on a vegetation class layer developed using the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) from satellite imagery as part of a previous study [27]. Each vole location record was plotted in the vegetation cover layer, then habitat type was classified as the predominant vegetation within a 1 x 1m raster radius of each point location. Six habitat types were identified in the region: bulrush, salt grass, rushes, mixed bulrush/rushes, mix bulrush/salt grass, and mixed herbs.

Statistical analysis

Three ANOVA models were performed to evaluate MTA after radio-collaring, AO, and MDM for resident vs. translocated voles (treatment), males vs. females, and 2014 vs. 2016, including an interaction term between sex and treatment. Data were analyzed with the statistical program “R” (R-Development Core Team, 2015) with P ≤ 0.05 used as a cutoff to infer statistical significance.

Assessment of habitat was performed by calculating the Manly´s standardized resource selection ratio (wi), which is the proportion of habitat used divided by the proportional availability of each habitat type. We pooled all individuals of the two work periods and measured habitat selection at the population level according to the study design type I described by Manly et al. (2002). We tested the selection ratios for Amargosa vole in each habitat using a chi-square test adjusted by Bonferroni confidence intervals. Habitat selection analysis was performed using package “adehabitatHS” [28] in R.

Results

Survival duration

Of the 24 translocated voles, seven (#s 674, 225, 470, 645, 128, 301, 288) were known to have survived from 74–202 days, while the others survived at least 4–49 days (Table 1). MTA did not differ between the two work periods, sex, or treatment (Table 2). Mean MTA of resident control voles was 38.2 days compared with 47.0 days for translocated voles and male survival was 31.5 days vs. 55.7 days for females (Table 2). Radio signals from two voles in Marsh 9 (307, a translocated animal and 638, a resident) were eventually found considerably north of the marsh in a patch of yerba mansa (Anemopsis californica) where a snake burrow was observed. Two California king snakes (Lampropeltis getula subsp. californiae) were observed by personnel in the marsh and captured on camera at the release cages. We suspect predation as a cause for the longer distance movement of these transmitters. One vole translocated to Marsh 22 (# 628) was found dead, with indications that the cause of death was a bird of prey.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Table 1. Activities of radio-collared translocated and non-translocated (control) Amargosa voles in seven different marshes.

Treatments: DC = donor marsh control; RC = recipient marsh control; and T = Translocated voles. A indicates adult animal, SA is subadult; Body masses and body condition scores (BCS) are those at first and last capture, if available. MTA = minimum time alive; AO = area occupied as determined by minimum convex polygon; MDM = maximum distance moved.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224246.t001

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Table 2. Summary and ANOVA test statistics for the outcomes of minimum time alive (MTA), area occupied as determined by minimum complex polygon (AO), and maximum distance moved (MDM) among male and female Amargosa voles that were translocated among marshes in Tecopa California or left in their marshes as control (treatment) in 2014 and 2016.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224246.t002

Distance moved and area occupied

Camera images showed that voles first exited acclimatization cages within 1.75–4 hrs after doors were opened and typically returned back to the cage several times over the next 2–3 days. In all cases, voles tended to be near to the cages during heat of the day while longer distance movements occurred at dawn, dusk, and night. The overall MDM average varied from 68.3 m in 2014 to 83.3 m in 2016 and most voles remained within 100 meters of the initial release site (Table 1, Figs 2 and 3). Five translocated voles left the boundaries of their recipient marshes (# 018, 225, 432, 470, and 518), three of which (# 225, 432, and 470) moved particularly far from release sites (200–577 m) (Table 1). Vole #225 moved from its recipient marsh (M7) and returned back to the donor marsh (M1) (Figs 1 and 3). Among the translocated voles who remained within their release marsh, five voles moved less than 30 m in any direction from their acclimation cage, and the remaining voles had MDM from 30–120 m. The mean MDM was greater for female vs. male voles and greater for control vs. translocated voles. None of the differences were statistically significant (Table 2).

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Fig 2. Map of radio-signals locations in different vegetation cover from three Amargosa voles that were residents at donor Marsh 1 (A), three residents at recipient Marsh 9 (B) and four translocated from Marsh 1 to Marsh 9 (C), near Tecopa CA in 2014.

Triangles indicate males and circles indicate females.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224246.g002

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Fig 3. Map of radio-signals locations associated to vegetation cover from 20 Amargosa voles that were translocated at six recipient Marshes (A = Marsh 7,10; B = Marsh 8; C = Marsh 19; D = Marsh 1; E = Marsh 22; F = Marsh 69), near Tecopa CA in 2016.

Triangles indicate males and circles indicate females.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224246.g003

For comparisons of AO, vole #470 was excluded from analyses due to limited data and because all recorded points indicated that this vole was traveling among marshes and had not settled. Points for vole #225, who had resided in three different marshes, were included if they were within the marsh but excluded when the vole was traveling among marshes. Overall the mean AO tended to be slightly higher for female vs. male voles and higher for resident control voles compared with translocated voles (Table 2). There were no significant differences in mean AO between 2014 and 2016, sex, or treatment (Table 2). Often, individual vole movement patterns showed overlap with other voles regardless of sex.

Habitat selection

We analyzed 382 locations recorded from 30 Amargosa voles and the proportion of available habitat to evaluate vole habitat use (Table 3). Bulrush/rushes mix and bulrush were selected habitat, with the former approximately seven times more likely to be selected than the latter (B = 0.797 vs. B = 0.139). Although resident and translocated voles often moved through salt grass and rush patches, these two habitat types were significantly less likely to be used by voles than expected by chanc. We recorded some incidences of use of mixed herb habitat but this was not statistically significant (P = 0.74). There were no differences of habitat use preference and avoidance patterns of voles between the two work periods.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Table 3. Manly’s selectivity index (Wi) for each habitat use type by Amargosa voles in Tecopa, California.

An index of ≥1 indicates that the habitat is used according to availability, while an index of <1 indicates avoidance.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224246.t003

Discussion

We describe a successful program of translocation of one of the rarest vertebrates in North America, and a species with some of the most restricted habitat requirements [10–12]. We also provide valuable new data on movement and space use of Amargosa voles, influences of sex on these behaviors, and support for the obligate dependence of the vole on bulrush marshes.

Our data clearly supported the selection of Amargosa voles for bulrush and mixed bulrush habitat, regardless of whether a vole was native to a marsh or had been translocated, with minimal use of salt grass and yerba mansa. Animals’ habitat selection reflects a balance in requirements for protection, nutrition, and opportunities to reproduce [29–31]. The bulrush and mixed bulrush habitat provides a major source of nutrition: Amargosa voles mostly consume seeds, leaves, shoots, culms and rhizomes of bulrush although we have incidental records of Amargosa voles feeding on yerba mansa and clustered goldenweed (Pyrrocoma racemosa var. paniculata) [12, 32]. In arid regions, small mammal populations are typically regulated by food availability determined by rainfall and subsequent primary production [33, 34], which might be happening in the Amargosa area wetlands. Amargosa voles in dense bulrush stands also receive protection against aerial predators via the overhead bulrush canopy and from pursuit predators by digging into bulrush litter. This litter also provides a thermal refuge against high summer temperatures and freezing winters, and a place to nest and rear young [11, 12, 27, 35]. Interestingly, our voles typically selected mixed patches with bulrush and other plant species over pure bulrush, in contrast with earlier work [12]. We acknowledge that some of the difference may be sampling effort, but earlier studies typically monitored voles only by where they were successfully trapped, whereas we followed them by radio-collar, which gives us greater insight into daily activity and habitat preferences. Amargosa voles likely have wider feeding niche breadth and move greater distances than previously reported, possibly to seek forage with higher fat and protein content than may be found in bulrush. Even though they appeared to avoid salt grass and rush patches, they must often cross through these areas when moving among marshes.

Amargosa voles in the present study include controls which presumably exhibited relatively normal behavior as well as translocated voles; these latter voles may remain in small areas until they become familiar with an area, adjust and exhibit normal behaviors an territory patroling, or leave the area altogether. Our “soft release” method was a variant of a release method described for water voles (Arvicola amphibius) [36]. Water vole cages had no bottoms and animals were able to leave cages by digging out. Amargosa vole release cages were opened after a day and these cages served as home base for the voles which typically returned multiple times to their cages. Studies in other rodents have reported difficulties with survival and animals remaining at the release sites, such as during translocation of prairie dogs (Cynomys spp.) after which only 0–40% showed site fidelity and ability to escape predation [37, 38]. Up to 100% of translocated prairie dogs dispersed if a starter cage was not provided, but if they were held for 5–15 days in a cage, almost all animals remained at the site [39]. In this context, the survival rates for translocated Amargosa voles and willingness of many voles to remain at the release site represent excellent outcomes.

Despite that Amargosa voles seem obligately dependent on marsh habitat, occasional extensive travel was detected, including five voles that left their recipient marshes, two moving from 300–500 m between different marshes. In contrast, translocated collared short-tailed voles (M. agrestis) and bank voles (Clethrionomys glareolus), but not meadow voles (M. pennsylvanicus), appeared less likely to move compared with non-translocated controls [40, 41]. Spacing behavior, social interactions, and territoriality all influence California vole demography [42]. Amargosa voles may leave a release marsh because of intra-guild aggression as we have seen previously on camera traps [32], seeking a territory, disorientation, or other unknown causes.

Due to relatively small numbers of locations obtained for each individual, we used MCP to estimate each vole’s AO as is described in the literature [43–45]. Excluding five translocated voles that left their recipient marshes, the AO by Amargosa voles was consistent with several other vole species including M. agrestis [46], M. oeconomus [47], and Arvicola sapidus [48], in which a range of 0.003–0.286 ha was reported. Although area occupied by small mammals may be affected by resource availability, density, breeding season, and sex [46, 49], we did not find any statistical differences between males and females. There was also no difference between resident and translocated voles. The observations of voles commonly using areas also used by other voles regardless of sex suggest some tolerance by Amargosa voles for other animals of the same and opposite sex, although this behavior should be further examined with a larger sample size.

Vole mortality post-release is an important consideration for Amargosa vole translocation actions. Similar to previous studies [12, 50], voles that were captured and recaptured in the present study usually had good body condition without evidence of starvation or disease. Given that radio-telemetry signal times were only live from 1–43 days and the recapture rate was low, we were not able to confirm the survival rate of all voles and our MTA are underestimates. The high MTA up to 202 days and the finding that average MTA was did not differ between translocated and resident voles support that many voles successfully evaded predation after translocation, even though natural predators were present in all marshes and some voles were documented to succumb to predation. For translocated prairie dogs, availability of a well-developed extant or human-constructed burrow system was crucial for protection against predators [37]. The average lifespan of an Amargosa vole in the wild is limited to only a few months due to intense predation [17, 21, 51], even though Amargosa voles in captivity may live for several years [52]. Individuals escape predation by tunneling in deep bulrush litter and sometimes soil, whereas populations persist by having large numbers of expendable offspring (an r-selection life history strategy). Additional research on predation may be needed to support management of heavily impacted subpopulations.

Expected challenges in this study were low survival, emigration, or ultimately unsuccessful reproduction. Although we didn’t attempt translocation during all seasons, success during summer and spring seasons suggests seasonal adequacy of food resources and that this is an appropriate time for such action. Nevertheless, further studies providing a more robust data set are warranted. As anthropogenic challenges to wildlife habitat accumulate and more animals—particularly those that are highly endemic and specialized within their ecosystems—become increasingly management-dependent, having high-quality and well-studied protocols for intervention to stabilize subpopulations becomes critically necessary. Translocation is an attractive option for intensive endangered species management [53–56], and yet translocated territorial animals face risks involved in establishing new territories, finding food, and escaping local threats. Indeed, critics suggest that translocation is unnatural, may be cruel, may fail to yield sustainable populations, may promote disease spread, and may fail to protect against future habitat changes [57–62].

However, with the Amargosa vole’s distribution so strongly influenced by availability of water and bulrush [11], scarcer and less predictable water in the Mojave Desert will require trustee agencies to implement intensive intervention through management of habitat as well as direct support for animal populations. Larger founder populations, high quality habitat, and release into core of habitat increase the probability of translocation success [63–65]. Even when a single large translocation is not possible, multiple smaller augmentation events may be even more useful to keep populations from succumbing to Allee effects [57, 66]. Furthermore, data gathered from translocation studies are useful to inform habitat management planning to support endangered species. The scale of the intervention required to create sustainable populations of such an r-selected and highly endemic species is modest. With suitable incorporation of safeguards against transmitting disease, translocation is a useful tool to support a healthy metapopulation of Amargosa voles for years to come.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Russell Scofield, Scott Osborn, Greta Wengert, Rob Klinger, Steve Torres, Steve Parmenter, Roger Baldwin, Brian Croft, Susan Sorrells, Anna Rivera, Alexa Lindauer, Arielle Crews, The Amargosa Conservancy, and Judy Palmer.

Citation: López-Pérez AM, Foley J, Roy A, Pesapane R, Castle S, Poulsen A, et al. (2019) Subpopulation augmentation among habitat patches as a tool to manage an endangered Mojave Desert wetlands-dependent rodent during anthropogenic restricted water climate regimes. PLoS ONE 14(10): e0224246. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224246

References

1. Dirzo R, Young HS, Galetti M, Ceballos G, Isaac NJ, Collen B. Defaunation in the Anthropocene. Science 2014;345:401–406. pmid:25061202

2. Ceballos G, Ehrlich PR, Barnosky AD, García A, Pringle RM, Palmer TM. Accelerated modern human–induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction. Science Advances 2015;1:e1400253. pmid:26601195

3. IUCN. IUCN Guidelines for Reintroductions and Other Conservation Translocations. https://portals.iucn.org/library/efiles/documents/2013-009.pdf, 2012.

4. Oro D, Martínez-Abraín A, Villuendas E, Sarzo B, Mínguez E, Carda J, et al. Lessons from a failed translocation program with a seabird species: Determinants of success and conservation value. Biol Cons 2011;144:851–858.

5. Fernando P, Leimgruber P, Prasad T, Pastorini J. Problem-elephant translocation: translocating the problem and the elephant? PloS One 2012;7:e50917. pmid:23236404

6. Tennant EN, Germano D. Survival of translocated Heermann’s Kangaroo Rats (Dipodomys heermanni) in the San Joaquin Desert of California using hard and soft release methods. Western Wildl 2017;4:1–11.

7. Kernohan BJ, Gitzen RA, Millspaugh JJ. Analysis of animal space use and movements In: Millspaugh J,Marzluff J, eds. Radio Tracking and Animal Populations. San Diego: Academic Press, 2001;125–166.

8. Northrup JM, Hooten MB, Anderson CR, Wittemyer GJE. Practical guidance on characterizing availability in resource selection functions under a use–availability design. Ecol 2013;94:1456–1463.

9. Pérez I, Anadón JD, Díaz M, Nicola GG, Tella JL, Giménez A. What is wrong with current translocations? A review and a decision-making proposal. Front Ecol Environ 2012;10:494–501.

10. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Amargosa voles (Microtus californicus scirpensis) recovery plan. Portland, Or, 1997;43 pp.

11. Cudworth N, Koprowski J. Microtus californicus (Rodentia: Cricetidae). Mammal Species 2010;42:230–243.

12. Klinger R, Cleaver M, Anderson S, Maier P, Clark J. Implications of scale-independent habitat specialization on persistence of a rare small mammal. Global Ecol Cons 2015;3:100–114.

13. Hereford R, Webb R, Longpre C. Precipitation history and ecosystem response to multidecadal precipitation variability in the Mojave Desert region, 1893–2001. J Arid Env 2006;67:13–34.

14. Iknayan KJ, Beissinger SR. Collapse of a desert bird community over the past century driven by climate change. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2018;115:8597–8602. pmid:30082401

15. Castle S, Rejmankova E, Foley J, Parmenter S. Hydrologic alterations impact plant litter decay rate and ecosystem resilience in Mojave wetlands. Restoration Ecol 2019.

16. Foley J, Clifford D, Parmenter S, Rejmankova E, Croft B, Sorrells S. Restoration of historic habitat to support newly established subpopulations of the endangered Amargosa vole. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2014.

17. Roy A, Clifford D, Rivera R, Klinger R, Wengert GM, Poulsen A, et al. Survey of potential predators of the endangered Amargosa Vole (Microtus californicus scirpensis). Western Wildl 2019;6:5–13.

18. Hartley M, Sainsbury A. Methods of disease risk analysis in wildlife translocations for conservation purposes. EcoHealth 2017;14:16–29. pmid:27287192

19. Shier DM, Swaisgood RR. Fitness costs of neighborhood disruption in translocations of a solitary mammal. Cons Biol 2012;26:116–123.

20. Sikes RS, Gannon WL, the Animal Care and Use Committee of the American Society of Mammalogists. Guidelines of the American Society of Mammalogists for the use of wild mammals in research. J Mammal 2011;92:235–253.

21. Klinger RC, Cleaver M, Anderson S, Maier P, Clark J. Short-term population dynamics, demography, and habitat selection by the Amargosa vole: USGS Final Report to the Bureau of Land Management, 2013;72.

22. Clifford D, Foley J, Roy A. Final performance report: Key components for recovery and management of the Amargosa vole. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento, California, USA. 2016.

23. Foley J, Foley P. Rapid assessment of population viability using stochastic extinction analysis for the endangered Amargosa vole, Microtus californicus scirpensis. Wild Biol Pract 2016;12:21–31.

24. Jancowski K, Orchard S. Stomach contents from invasive American bullfrogs Rana catesbeiana (= Lithobates catesbeianus) on southern Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada. NeoBiota 2013;16:17.

25. Ullman-Cullere MH, Foltz CJ. Body condition scoring: a rapid and accurate method for assessing health status in mice. Lab Anim Sci 1999;49:319–323. pmid:10403450

26. Stickel LF. A comparison of certain methods of measuring ranges of small mammals. J Mammal 1954;35:1–15.

27. Foley J, Beechan A, Crews A, Lindauer A, Roy A, Vogel J, et al. Range-wide assessment of the endangered Amargosa vole and analysis of critical habitat stressors. University of California, Davis. A Report to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2017.

28. Calenge C. The package “adehabitat” for the R software: a tool for the analysis of space and habitat use by animals. Ecol Model 2006;197:516–519.

29. Manly BFJ, M L.L., Thomas DL, McDonald TL, Erickson WP. Resource selection by animals. Statistical design and analysis for field studies. Boston: Kluwer, 2002.

30. Morris DW. Toward an ecological synthesis: a case for habitat selection. Oecologia 2003;136:1–13. pmid:12690550

31. Johnson CJ, Seip DR. Relationship between resource selection, distribution, and abundance: a test with implications to theory and conservation. Pop Ecol 2008;50:145–157.

32. Pesapane R, Clifford DL, Allan N, Roy A, Bellini N, Rivett O, et al. The biology and ecology of the Amargosa vole. Western Wildl 2018;5.

33. Meserve PL, Kelt DA, Milstead WB, Gutiérrez JR. Thirteen years of shifting top-down and bottom-up control. BioScience 2003;53:633–646.

34. Lightfoot DC, Davidson AD, Parker DG, Hernández L, Laundré JW. Bottom-up regulation of desert grassland and shrubland rodent communities: implications of species-specific reproductive potentials. J Mammal 2012;93:1017–1028.

35. Izbicki JA. Physical and temporal isolation of mountain headwater streams in the western Mojave Desert, southern California. J Am Water Resour Assoc 2007;43:26–40.

36. Moorhouse T, Gelling M, Macdonald D. Effects of habitat quality upon reintroduction success in water voles: evidence from a replicated experiment. Biol Cons 2009;142:53–60.

37. Lewis JC, McIlvain E, McVickers R, Peterson B. Techniques used to establish and limit prairie dog towns. Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of Science 1979;59:27–30.

38. Jacquart H, Flinders J, Coffeen M, Hasenyager R. Prescriptive transplanting and monitoring of Utah prarie dog (Cynomys parvidens). Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, 1986.

39. Truett JC, Dullum JAL, Matchett MR, Owens E, Seery D. Translocating prairie dogs: a review. Wildl Soc Bull 2001:863–872.

40. Hamley J, Falls J. Reduced activity in transmitter-carrying voles. Can J Zool 1975;53:1476–1478.

41. Webster AB, Brooks RJ. Effects of radiotransmitters on the meadow vole, Microtus pennsylvanicus. Can J Zool 1980;58:997–1001. pmid:7000327

42. Mihok S, Turner BN, Iverson SL. The characterization of vole population dynamics. Ecol Monographs 1985;55:399–420.

43. Boyle SA, Lourenço WC, Da Silva LR, Smith AT. Home range estimates vary with sample size and methods. Folia Primatologica 2009;80:33–42.

44. Tristiani H, Murakami O, Watanabe H. Ranging and nesting behavior of the ricefield rat Rattus argentiventer (Rodentia: Muridae) in West Java, Indonesia. J Mammal 2003;84:1228–1236.

45. Püttker T, De Barros CDS, Martins TK, Sommer S, Pardini R. Suitability of distance metrics as indexes of home-range size in tropical rodent species. J Mammal 2012;93:115–123.

46. Borowski Z. Habitat selection and home range size of field voles Microtus agrestis in Słowiński National Park, Poland. Acta Theriologica 2003;48:325–333.

47. Gliwicz J. Space use in the root vole: basic patterns and variability. Ecography 1997;20:383–389.

48. Pita R, Mira A, Beja P. Spatial segregation of two vole species (Arvicola sapidus and Microtus cabrerae) within habitat patches in a highly fragmented farmland landscape. European J Wildl Res 2010;56:651–662.

49. Erlinge S, Hoogenboom I, Agrell J, Nelson J, Sandell M. Density-related home-range size and overlap in adult field voles (Microtus agrestis) in southern Sweden. J Mammal 1990;71:597–603.

50. Ott-Conn C, Clifford D, Branston T, Klinger R, Foley J. Pathogen infection and exposure, and ectoparasites of the federally endangered Amargosa vole (Microtus californicus scirpensis), California, USA. J Wildl Dis 2014;50:767–776. pmid:25121407

51. McClenaghan LR, Montgomery SJ. Distribution and abundance of the Amargosa Vole (Microtus californicus scirpensis). Sacramento, California USA: California Department of Fish & Game, 1998;54.

52. Allan N, Pesapane R, Foley J, Clifford D. Successful care and propagation of the endangered amargosa vole (Microtus californicus scirpensis) in captivity. Zoo Biol 2018;37:59–63. pmid:29377272

53. Seddon PJ, Armstrong DP, Maloney RF. Developing the science of reintroduction biology. Cons Biol 2007;21:303–312.

54. Snyder NF, Derrickson SR, Beissinger SR, Wiley JW, Smith TB, Toone WD, et al. Limitations of captive breeding in endangered species recovery. Cons Biol 1996;10:338–348.

55. Fischer J, Lindenmayer D. An assessment of the published results of animal relocations. Biol Cons 2000;96:1–11.

56. Seddon PJ, Griffiths CJ, Soorae PS, Armstrong DP. Reversing defaunation: Restoring species in a changing world. Science 2014;345:406–412. pmid:25061203

57. Van Houtan KS, Halley JM, Van Aarde R, Pimm SL. Achieving success with small, translocated mammal populations. Cons Letters 2009;2:254–262.

58. Griffith B, Scott JM, Carpenter JW, Reed C. Animal translocations and potential disease transmission. J Zoo Wildl Med 1993:231–236.

59. Ricciardi A, Simberloff D. Assisted colonization is not a viable conservation strategy. Trends Ecol Evol 2009;24:248–253. pmid:19324453

60. Hagerman S, Dowlatabadi H, Satterfield T, McDaniels T. Expert views on biodiversity conservation in an era of climate change. Global Env Change 2010;20:192–207.

61. Vitt P, Havens K, Kramer AT, Sollenberger D, Yates E. Assisted migration of plants: changes in latitudes, changes in attitudes. Biol Cons 2010;143:18–27.

62. Hewitt N, Klenk N, Smith A, Bazely D, Yan N, Wood S, et al. Taking stock of the assisted migration debate. Biol Cons 2011;144:2560–2572.

63. Griffith B, Scott JM, Carpenter JW, Reed C. Translocation as a species conservation tool: status and strategy. Science 1989;245:477–480. pmid:17750257

64. Armstrong DP, Seddon PJ. Directions in reintroduction biology. Trends Ecol Evol 2008;23:20–25. pmid:18160175

65. Wolf CM, Garland T, Griffith B. Predictors of avian and mammalian translocation success: reanalysis with phylogenetically independent contrasts. Biol Cons 1998;86:243–255.

66. Champagnon J, Elmberg J, Guillemain M, Gauthier-Clerc M, Lebreton J-D. Conspecifics can be aliens too: A review of effects of restocking practices in vertebrates. J Nature Cons 2012;20:231–241.