<%BANNER%>

Amphibian Responses to Forest Management Practices in Southwestern Georgia

University of Florida Institutional Repository
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021895/00001

Material Information

Title: Amphibian Responses to Forest Management Practices in Southwestern Georgia
Physical Description: 1 online resource (65 p.)
Language: english
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: amphibian, clearcut, coverboard, forestry, georgia, larvae, management, riparian, salamander, smz, southeastern, treefrog
Environmental Engineering Sciences -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Environmental Engineering Sciences thesis, M.E.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Amphibians (frogs and salamanders) were monitored monthly since December 2002 as part of a study examining the impact of forest harvest and Streamside Management Zone (SMZ) practices. The study encompassed four adjacent subwatersheds of the Dry Creek Watershed at the Southlands Experimental Forest of International Paper, Bainbridge, GA. Two watersheds were left intact, while two were harvested. The SMZ was left intact in the upstream reach of each treatment stream, while in the downstream, 50% of basal area was removed from the SMZ (thinned). Terrestrial salamander numbers were assessed using plywood coverboards at fixed stations throughout the watersheds. Salamander numbers were greatest closer to the streams, within the width covered by the SMZ, and thinning of SMZs did not affect salamander counts. Comparison of concurrent old and new coverboard data for one year suggested that board replacement had an effect on salamander captures, with more encounters occurring under old boards. Treefrog numbers were assessed using PVC pipes driven vertically into the substrate as habitat attractants. Capture likelihood was reduced in harvested areas, as well as thinned SMZs. However, all species of amphibians recorded during the pre-harvest survey period remained present following harvest. This study suggests that current SMZ widths are adequate for maintaining amphibian presence. However, thinning in this region may be inappropriate.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Thesis: Thesis (M.E.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Crisman, Thomas L.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0021895:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021895/00001

Material Information

Title: Amphibian Responses to Forest Management Practices in Southwestern Georgia
Physical Description: 1 online resource (65 p.)
Language: english
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: amphibian, clearcut, coverboard, forestry, georgia, larvae, management, riparian, salamander, smz, southeastern, treefrog
Environmental Engineering Sciences -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Environmental Engineering Sciences thesis, M.E.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Amphibians (frogs and salamanders) were monitored monthly since December 2002 as part of a study examining the impact of forest harvest and Streamside Management Zone (SMZ) practices. The study encompassed four adjacent subwatersheds of the Dry Creek Watershed at the Southlands Experimental Forest of International Paper, Bainbridge, GA. Two watersheds were left intact, while two were harvested. The SMZ was left intact in the upstream reach of each treatment stream, while in the downstream, 50% of basal area was removed from the SMZ (thinned). Terrestrial salamander numbers were assessed using plywood coverboards at fixed stations throughout the watersheds. Salamander numbers were greatest closer to the streams, within the width covered by the SMZ, and thinning of SMZs did not affect salamander counts. Comparison of concurrent old and new coverboard data for one year suggested that board replacement had an effect on salamander captures, with more encounters occurring under old boards. Treefrog numbers were assessed using PVC pipes driven vertically into the substrate as habitat attractants. Capture likelihood was reduced in harvested areas, as well as thinned SMZs. However, all species of amphibians recorded during the pre-harvest survey period remained present following harvest. This study suggests that current SMZ widths are adequate for maintaining amphibian presence. However, thinning in this region may be inappropriate.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Thesis: Thesis (M.E.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Crisman, Thomas L.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0021895:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text





AMPHIBIAN RESPONSES TO FOREST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN
SOUTHWESTERN GEORGIA





















By

DIANE W. BENNETT


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ENGINEERING

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2008




































2008 Diane W. Bennett


































To the little things.









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank the chair and members of my supervisory committee for their mentoring and

patience, the students and professors of the Environmental Engineering Department for their

inspiration, and International Paper, National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, and

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation for their generous support. I also thank my parents for

encouraging me to take the necessary leaps of faith that separate happiness from complacency,

and my friends for their continuous support and endurance throughout this process.









TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A CK N O W LED G M EN T S ......... ......................................... ... ............... .....................4

L IST O F TA B LE S ......... .... ........................................................................... 7

LIST OF FIGURES .................................. .. ..... ..... ................. .8

L IST O F A B B R E V IA TIO N S ......... ................................................................ ........................ 9

A B S T R A C T ......... ....................... ............................................................ 10

CHAPTER

1 IN T R O D U C T IO N ....................................................................................... .......... .. .. .. 11

2 EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS OF COVERBOARD AGE IN TERRESTRIAL
SALAMANDER MONITORING PROGRAMS......................................................14

Introduction .......... ................................ ...............................................14
M materials and M methods ........................ .. ........................ .. .... ........ ..... .. ... 16
D ata A analysis ................................................... 17
R e su lts ............... .. ....... ........................................................................................................ 18
A cclim action P period ....................... .. ........ .... .. ...... .................. ............ .. ..... 18
Salamander Encounters Under Old versus New Coverboards.................................18
S iz e s ......................................................... ..................... ................ 1 9
C overboard M icrohabitat....................................................................... ......... ........... 19
D discussion ......................................................................... ................ 19

3 AMPHIBIAN RESPONSES TO FOREST HARVEST AND STREAMSIDE
MANAGEMENT ZONE PRACTICES IN SOUTHWESTERN GEORGIA ........................26

Intro du ctio n ............................................................................... 2 6
A m phibians as Biological Indicators......................................... .......................... 26
F orestry B M P s in the Southeast ........................................................... .....................27
Research Problem ..................................................... .............. .. ... ..... 28
Methods ........................................ 29
S ite D e sc rip tio n ............................................................................................................... 2 9
C lim ate ..............................................................................2 9
Steep-head ravines............ ... ............................................................ .......... .... 30
S o ils ........................................................ 3 1
S tu d y D e sig n .............................................................................3 1
F field S am p lin g ................................ .................................................................................3 2
Terrestrial adult salam ander m monitoring ...................................... ............... 32
A aquatic larval salam ander m monitoring ........................................ .....................33
A dult treefrog m monitoring ............................................................. .....................33









D ata A analysis ................................................. 33
R results and D iscu ssion ................................................. ...... ............ ...................34
Effects of Harvest on Amphibian Presence and Distributions within Watersheds .........34
Results: Adult salamander presence.......................... ............................34
Results: Adult salamander distributions............................................. 35
R results: Treefrog presence ............. ................. ................. .......................... 35
Results: Treefrog distributions ......... ........ .. ..... .......... ............... ................ ...36
Discussion: Effects of harvest on amphibian presence and distributions ................36
Effects of Harvest on Amphibian Abundances within SMZs ..................................38
R results: A dult salam anders ........................................................... .....................38
R results: T reefrogs .......3....... ... ... .......... ..................... 39
Discussion: Amphibian abundance within SMZs .......................................... 40
Effects of SMZ Thinning on Amphibian Abundance ............................................. 43
R results: A dult salam anders ............................................. ............................. 43
Results: Larval salamanders.......... ......................................... 43
Results: Treefrogs .................................. .. .. .. ...... .. ............44
D discussion: SM Z thinning................................................ ............................ 44
R ecom m endation s... ... ........................................................... ........................................... 46
SMZ Width ............... ................................................ 46
SM Z T inning ..................... ........ ............................ ........ ........ .. ............. .. 46

4 C O N C L U SIO N S ................................................................56

L IST O F R E FE R E N C E S .......................................................................................... 58

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E T C H .............................................................................. .....................64


























6









LIST OF TABLES


Table page

2-1 Distribution of salamanders under both old and new coverboards...............................23

2-2 Average salamander snout-to-vent length under old and new coverboards ......................23

3-3 Timetable for the Dry Creek Study, Southlands Forest, Bainbridge, GA. ........................48

3-1 SMZ widths by slope class and stream type. ........................................ ............... 48

3-2 Flow statistics in study watersheds during 27-month pre-treatment survey ................. 48

3-4 Salamander species presence in four sub-watersheds................................................49

3-5 Treefrog species presence in four sub-watersheds..................................50









LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

2-1 Number of salamanders captured relative to number of months since coverboards
w ere in stalled d ........................................................................... 2 4

2-2 Number of salamander captures for new coverboards compared to old coverboards .......24

2-3 Coverboard mean soil temperature and percent moisture compared to natural cover.......25

3-1 Location of study site in relation to physiographic regions................... ..................51

3-2 Mean salamander count in relation to distance from streams .......................... .........52

3-3 Mean treefrog count in relation to distance from streams ...........................................52

3-4 Mean annual terrestrial salamander counts in four watersheds ......................................53

3-5 Mean annual treefrog counts in forested and harvested watersheds..............................53

3-6 Mean annual terrestrial salamander counts within upstream/downstream portions of
forested watersheds compared to thinned and intact SMZs of harvested watersheds .......54

3-7 Mean annual in-stream salamander larvae counts for reference and harvested
w atersheds .............. ....... .........................................................54

3-8 Mean annual treefrog counts for reference and harvested watersheds ...........................55











B

BACI-P

BMPs

C

D

Dry Creek Study


IPSF

NCASI

NFWF

PVC

SMZs


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Detection probability

Before-after-control-impact-paired

Best management practices

Count

Population density

Streamside management zone effectiveness of hydrology, water quality,
and aquatic habitats in southwestern Georgia headwater streams

International Paper's Southlands Forest

National Council for Air and Stream Improvement

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation

Polyvinyl chloride

Streamside management zones









Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Engineering

AMPHIBIAN RESPONSES TO FOREST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN
SOUTHWESTERN GEORGIA

By

Diane W. Bennett
May 2008

Chair: Thomas L. Crisman
Major: Environmental Engineering Sciences


Amphibians (frogs and salamanders) were monitored monthly since December 2002 as

part of a study examining the impact of forest harvest and Streamside Management Zone (SMZ)

practices. The study encompassed four adjacent subwatersheds of the Dry Creek Watershed at

the Southlands Experimental Forest of International Paper, Bainbridge, GA. Two watersheds

were left intact, while two were harvested. The SMZ was left intact in the upstream reach of each

treatment stream, while in the downstream, 50% of basal area was removed from the SMZ

(thinned). Terrestrial salamander numbers were assessed using plywood coverboards at fixed

stations throughout the watersheds. Salamander numbers were greatest closer to the streams,

within the width covered by the SMZ, and thinning of SMZs did not affect salamander counts.

Comparison of concurrent old and new coverboard data for one year suggested that board

replacement had an effect on salamander captures, with more encounters occurring under old

boards. Treefrog numbers were assessed using PVC pipes driven vertically into the substrate as

habitat attractants. Capture likelihood was reduced in harvested areas, as well as thinned SMZs.

However, all species of amphibians recorded during the pre-harvest survey period remained

present following harvest. This study suggests that current SMZ widths are adequate for

maintaining amphibian presence. However, thinning in this region may be inappropriate.









CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Forest managers are challenged to balance production of forest products with maintenance

of environmental quality, management of wildlife habitat, and conservation of biodiversity

(Hartley, 2002; Sharitz et al., 1992). Best management practices (BMPs) are sustainable forestry

guidelines developed to inform sivilculture operators of practices to minimize nonpoint source

pollution (e.g., soil erosion and stream sedimentation) and thermal pollution, thus reducing

environmental degradation (Georgia Forestry Commission, 1999). Impacts to environmental

quality as a result of forestry practices have the ability to alter habitats beyond thresholds of

certain species. These indicator species can be monitored, evaluated, and used to assess the

condition of the environment either to provide an early warning of changes in the environment,

or to diagnose the cause of an environmental problem (Dale and Beyeler, 2001).

Amphibians are valuable biological indicators for southeastern forestry due to life history

traits, abundance, and sensitivity to environmental perturbations (Vitt et al., 1990; Welsh and

Droege, 2001). Evaluation of amphibian responses to forestry practices can provide insight into

the effects of forestry management practices on environmental quality. In a literature review on

amphibian responses to forestry (Russell et al., 2004) conflicting results necessitated further

research.

Previous research has concentrated on responses to clear-cut harvesting, with little

attention to forestry BMPs (Ash, 1988, 1997; Clawson et al., 1997; Knapp et al., 2003). Many

studies that reported declines in amphibians occurred in the Pacific Northwest or Appalachians

(Biek et al., 2002; Petranka, 1994, 1998; Harpole and Haas, 1999), whereas studies in the

Southeastern United States reported increased numbers of amphibians following forestry

operations (O'Neill, 1995; Clawson et al., 1997). These contradictions emphasize that amphibian









populations are difficult to characterize and that more research is necessary to understand

discrepancies regarding responses to forest management.

Russell et al. (2004) reported only six studies investigating effects of forest management

on southeastern herpetofauna that employed manipulative designs with pre-treatment and post-

treatment data, treatment replication, or true spatial and temporal references (Ash, 1997; Chazal

and Niewiarowski, 1998; Clawson et al., 1997; Harpole and Haas, 1999; Knapp et al., 2003;

Russell et al., 2002). Among these studies, a limited number contained pre-treatment data,

spanned multiple years, or included treefrog monitoring. Furthermore, few studies have

evaluated management practices within SMZs (Streamside Management Zones), making the

appropriateness of these applications uncertain (Grialou et al., 2000; Committee on Riparian

Zone Functioning and Strategies for Management, Water Science and Technology Board

National Research Council, 2002). Contradictory findings and lack of quantifiable evidence on

BMP effectiveness in protecting amphibian biodiversity fail to support presumptions that current

forest management is successful at balancing production with conservation. More standardized,

controlled manipulation experiments are needed.

To meet these research needs, International Paper, along with partners University of

Florida, University of Georgia, Clemson University, Jones Ecological Research Center, National

Council for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI), Georgia Forestry Commission, and National

Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) developed the Dry Creek Study (Streamside Management

Zone Effectiveness of Hydrology, Water Quality, and Aquatic Habitats in Southwestern Georgia

Headwater Streams) in 2000 to determine how upland and streamside forest management affects

stream hydrology, water quality and biological indicators. As a component of the study,

amphibians were monitored.









This study evaluates the effectiveness of forestry BMPs, specifically SMZs and partial

timber harvesting on amphibian presence, distribution, and relative abundance. This experiment

was conducted using the manipulative Before-After-Control-Impact-Paired (BACI-P) design.

Initial and short-term responses to forestry were evaluated over a four-year period, with one year

serving as pre-harvest data. Amphibians monitored in this study included adult and juvenile

salamanders and treefrogs. Passive trapping techniques (i.e., coverboards and PVC pipes) were

elected for terrestrial amphibian monitoring, while active trapping (i.e., dipnet) was performed

for larval salamander sampling. Salamander size distributions were included to assess impacts on

reproduction.

Chapter 2 is dedicated to evaluation of sampling methodology used for salamanders in this

study. Chapter 3 then covers amphibian responses to forestry management and the final

discussion includes recommendations for SMZs. Finally, Chapter 4 presents conclusions from

both studies, providing insight for future studies and forest management.









CHAPTER 2
EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS OF COVERBOARD AGE IN TERRESTRIAL
SALAMANDER MONITORING PROGRAMS

Introduction

Salamanders are valuable biological indicators of ecosystem health (Welsh and Droege,

2001). Reports of global declines (e.g., Alford and Richards, 1999; Blaustein et al., 1994;

Houlahan, 2000) support the need for research on anthropogenic effects on populations. One

facet of this research is to understand large-scale dynamics of terrestrial salamander populations

and their responses to forest harvest (Petranka, 1994; Ash, 1997). Due to extensive spatial and

temporal scales of these studies, it is often too impractical or costly to determine absolute

abundance; instead populations are estimated with indices of relative (observed) abundance.

However, some assumptions made when equating indices with populations may be invalid when

making comparisons across large spatial and temporal scales. In such cases, indices may produce

results unrepresentative of actual populations, eventually affecting forestry management

decisions.

Several sampling techniques are available to determine relative abundance of

salamanders (Heyer et al., 1994), each able to detect different subsets of populations (Parris,

1999; Dodd and Dorazio, 2004). Coverboards are often used to sample surface dwelling,

terrestrial salamanders, and their application has been evaluated relative to other techniques

(Monti et al., 2000; Houze and Chandler, 2002; Ryan et al., 2002). They are normally non-

treated plywood shingles placed on the ground to mimic natural cover objects. Periodically these

boards are lifted, and the area beneath searched for salamanders. A population index is

developed by the count (C) of salamanders encountered under the coverboards and assumed to

be directly proportional to the actual population density (D) and the probability of 'detecting' the

animal in the survey (/l) (Pollock et al., 2002; Schmidt, 2003). Salamander detection probability,









fl, is assumed to be constant over space and time; a critical assumption when assessing

population changes. If this assumption is violated, then changes in both detection probability and

population size are confounded, and conclusions about responses to anthropogenic effects cannot

be made.

Salamander detection probability is dependent on biotic (e.g., weather, rainfall,

microhabitat quality, breeding patterns) and abiotic (e.g., observer ability, enumeration method)

factors that are susceptible to variation (Dodd and Dorazio, 2004). Coverboards can help control

some of the variability in f, making them useful for large-scale studies (Parris, 1999). Detection

probability is stabilized across space when coverboard sampling occurs concurrently, since large-

scale environmental factors such as weather and time of day are controlled. Coverboards

standardize sampling ability and between-observer bias (Smith and Petranka, 2000), and

destruction to the natural habitat is minimized (Marsh and Goicochea, 2003) thus preventing

changes to the microhabitat over time. Additional benefits of the use of coverboards for large-

scale studies include time and labor efficiency (Monti et al., 2000) and low maintenance and cost

relative to other methods (Ryan et al., 2002).

Despite advantages of using coverboards, salamander detection is still imperfect, and its

probability is subject to change over time. Salamanders may require an acclimation period before

species are detected under newly installed coverboards, indicating increasing f/. Over time,

plywood coverboards weather and deteriorate, potentially affecting microhabitat quality

underneath. Studies have suggested that salamander detection is related to microhabitat variables

and have postulated that aging of coverboards may create habitat of different quality over time

(Houze and Chandler, 2002). In contrast, Hyde and Simons (2001) suggested that large-scale

factors (i.e., disturbance history, proximity to stream, elevation) have more effect on detection









probability than microhabitat, implying that aging of coverboards will not affect population

indices. There is need for understanding factors that influence probability of detection to ensure

that relative abundance comparisons over space and time represent actual population dynamics

accurately.

In a watershed-scale study of terrestrial amphibian response to forestry BMPs, non-

treated plywood coverboards were used to monitor surface dwelling populations of terrestrial

salamanders. After three years of monthly monitoring, the boards had begun to rot and

deteriorate, aging to the point of affecting routine sampling. New coverboards were then

installed directly adjacent to old coverboards. Both old and new boards were checked monthly

for one year until old coverboards deteriorated to the point that the area underneath could no

longer be adequately searched. Such monitoring permitted evaluation of sampling bias attributed

to coverboard age. Acclimation periods for new boards were examined, as were microhabitats to

determine whether coverboards adequately mimicked the natural environment.

Materials and Methods

This study was conducted in the coastal plains physiographic region of southwestern

Georgia. The study site was in the Dry Creek Watershed located in the Southlands Forest of

International Paper at Bainbridge, GA. Four sub-watersheds (A, B, C, D) were selected for study

sites, ranging in area from 25.8 to 48.0 ha. All exhibited steep slopes (35-450) towards

groundwater-fed streams. Timber in watersheds B and C was clear-cut harvested in Fall 2003

following Georgia BMPs.

Each sub-watershed was divided into four rectangular sampling grids located on opposite

banks of upstream and downstream reaches of the stream course, for a total of sixteen grids for

the study. Each grid contained three transects (streamside, riparian, midslope) that ran parallel to

the stream for roughly 40 meters. In December 2002, plywood coverboards (60 x 60 x 2 cm)









were placed at four stations 5 meters apart along each transect in the sampling grids. The areas

where coverboards were installed were cleared of leaf litter and woody debris so boards had

direct contact with the soil. Grids were then searched monthly for twelve months for

salamanders. By May 2005, the boards had weathered and begun to deteriorate, and new

coverboards of the same materials and dimensions were placed adjacent to the old boards. Both

old and new coverboards were then checked monthly (except December 2005) for salamander

presence from June 2005 through June 2006, when old coverboards had deteriorated to the point

that the area underneath could not be adequately searched.

When searching grids, each coverboard was lifted, and the entire area was examined

underneath for salamanders. All salamanders encountered were identified to species and

measured (snout-vent length, SVL). Individual salamanders were not marked, and analyses were

based on the number of salamanders encountered per search from new versus old coverboards on

the same grid. To compare aged coverboard microclimate to that of the natural environment, soil

temperature and moisture readings were recorded both under old coverboards and in the natural

environment for each transect on each sampling occasion using an Aquaterr M-300 digital meter.

Data Analysis

Salamander capture data from sub-watersheds were combined to examine coverboard

detections. To examine acclimation periods, Spearman's rank correlations were used to analyze

for temporal trends since coverboards were installed to monitor salamander captures over a

twelve-month period. Variance was evaluated using Levene's test statistic to assess whether new

and old coverboards had equal variance in number of captures. For each grid, mean salamander

encounter rate was calculated as the number of salamanders encountered per grid search over

twelve searches for both old and new coverboards. These data were then analyzed using the

Mann-Whitney test statistic to evaluate the null hypothesis that two independent samples come









from the same population. Total numbers of salamander encounters were analyzed by species for

both old and new coverboards, and a t-test was performed to test for differences in body sizes of

the two most commonly encountered species. Finally, a t-test compared soil temperature and

moisture data of coverboards to the natural environment. All statistical analyses were conducted

using SPSS verss. 12.0, SPSS Inc.) at a significance level ofP
Results

Acclimation Period

Because watersheds B and C were clear-cut in 2003, they were eliminated from this

portion of the analysis, and data from watersheds A and D were combined. A total of 107 and

118 salamanders were recorded during a 12-month inspection of newly installed coverboards for

the 2002-03 and 2005-06 sampling periods, respectively. Salamanders were found in the initial

sampling period following a one-month acclimation period for both 2003 and 2005 installations.

There was no relationship between number of salamanders captured and time elapsed since

coverboards were installed (2003, Spearman's rho = 0.27, P = 0.42; 2005 Spearman's rho = -

0.05, P = 0.89) over a twelve-month period (Figure 2-1).

Salamander Encounters Under Old versus New Coverboards

A total of 349 salamanders were captured between June 2005 and June 2006 in all four

sub-watersheds. Old and new coverboards accounted for 205 and 144 captures, respectively.

Less than 1% of total coverboards recorded more than one salamander underneath (old = 1.17%,

new = 0.78%). A mean of 1.06 salamanders (+ 0.10 SE; median = 1) was encountered per search

under old coverboards, while a mean value of 0.75 salamanders (+ 0.09 SE; median = 0) was

encountered per search under new coverboards. The number of monthly salamander detections

with both old and new coverboards varied similarly throughout the year, (Levene's F = 2.03, df=









22, P = 0.169), with peaks occurring simultaneously during winter (Figure 2-2). There were

significantly more salamanders encountered under old than new coverboards (P = 0.01).

Sizes

Five salamander species from three genera were encountered under both old and new

coverboards (Table 2-1). Eurycea cirrigera, Eurycea longicauda guttolineata, and Plethodon

grobmani were the most common (45.6%, 29.8%, and 16.6% of total individuals encountered,

respectively) with Pseudotriton ruber vioscai and Desmognathus apalachicolae infrequently

encountered. The number of salamander species varied among watersheds. E. cirrigera, E.

longicauda guttolineata, and P. grobmani were detected in all watersheds. P. ruber vioscai was

encountered in watersheds A and C only, while D. apalachicolae was recorded in only C and D.

SVLs were measured for 154 E. cirrigera and 98 E. longicauda guttolineata found under

old and new coverboards. Mean SVL values of individuals found under old versus new

coverboards were not significantly different, suggesting that coverboard age has no effect on

salamander length for these two species (Table 2-2).

Coverboard Microhabitat

Coverboards and natural cover displayed mean temperatures of 65.04 + 6.28 and 64.52 +

6.53, respectively (Figure 2-3). There were no statistical differences in temperature between

coverboard and natural cover (P = 0.39). Furthermore, percent moisture under coverboards

(mean = 61.14 + 35.74) was not significantly different from natural cover objects (mean = 59.37

+ 35.75; P = 0.61).

Discussion

Using indices of relative abundance to evaluate population dynamics is common in

terrestrial salamander studies. However, inconsistent responses to forestry (Russell et al., 2004)

and other anthropogenic influences (Collins and Storfer, 2003) illuminate the fact that









salamander populations are difficult to characterize, suggesting flaws in monitoring and/or

statistical techniques. To develop a more accurate depiction of absolute abundance, underlying

assumptions in relative abundance indices must be scrutinized. This study assessed the

assumption of constant detection probability (f); specifically that detection of salamanders under

coverboards is constant over time.

This study found that coverboards did not require an extended acclimation period before

detection occurred. Salamanders colonized coverboards quickly following both 2002 and 2005

installations. Coverboards attracted salamanders after only a 1-month acclimation period, despite

being installed during different times of year (December, 2002; June, 2005). This was consistent

with a study by Houze and Chandler (2002) that detected salamanders within the first week

following installation.

Salamander captures did not increase as coverboards aged, when examined over a one-year

period. This agrees with a study by Monti et al. (2000) evaluating capture bias due to 1-year old

coverboards. When 3-year old boards were examined next to new boards, however, aged boards

captured more salamanders. Within the first year of coverboard usage there was no correlation

between numbers of salamander captures and coverboard age; however, in the third year a

relationship existed. Development of this relationship probably occurred in the second year of

coverboard usage, for which this study does not have data.

Despite increasing salamander counts with coverboard age, both new and old coverboards

did a good job of detecting the same species. Furthermore, size distribution of E. cirrigera and E.

longicauda guttolineata did not differ with board age, and there was no evidence that newly

installed coverboards biased sampling with respect to size, at least for the most common species.









Differences in physical characteristics between new and old coverboards may contribute to

salamander capture biases. As coverboards decay, they may more effectively reproduce

microclimates of natural cover and attract more salamanders than new coverboards. In this study,

the microclimate of aged coverboards was similar to the natural environment suggesting that as

coverboards age, they more closely resemble natural microhabitats of salamanders. However, it

still remains unclear whether new coverboards adequately simulate salamander microclimates.

Houze and Chandler (2002) recorded daily temperatures under 4-month old coverboards and

compared them to natural cover objects and found that although there was no difference in mean

daily temperatures, there was significantly more variability in coverboard temperatures than

natural cover.

Knowing that capture biases due to coverboard age occur within the third year of

coverboard usage, but not the first year, it is difficult to draw definitive conclusions about

relative abundance from temporal comparisons of more than two years. Therefore, it is suggested

that coverboard replacement occur within the second year of monitoring to prevent changes in

salamander detection probability due to coverboard age; thus avoiding violation of assumptions

inherent in relative abundance indices. Because only a short acclimation period is required,

frequent coverboard replacement should not require extensive planning. New boards should be

placed directly next to old boards to keep sampling areas consistent over time. Since salamander

detection with coverboards may be more dependent on time of year than on acclimation periods,

it may be important to consider the timing of new coverboard installation. Once coverboards are

installed, side-by-side monitoring of new and old boards should continue until new boards

become colonized. However, due to natural salamander population fluctuations and the inability









to standardize fl completely, statistical estimates of detection probability should be considered to

ensure accurate representation of salamander population dynamics (MacKenzie et al., 2002).









Table 2-1. Distribution of salamanders under both old and new coverboards, Dry Creek
Watershed, Georgia.


Species
Eurycea cirrigera
Eurycea longicauda guttolineata
Plethodon grobmani
Pseudotriton ruber vioscai
Desmognathus apalachicolae
TOTAL


Number of encounters
Old coverboards New coverboards
85 (53.5%) 74(46.5%)
66(63.5%) 38(36.5%)
38 (65.5%) 20 (34.5%)
10(58.8%) 7 (41.2%)
6 (54.5%) 5 (45.5%)
205 (58.7%) 144 (41.3%)


Table 2-2. Average salamander snout-to-vent length (SVL) (+ 1 SD) under old and new
coverboards. P-values indicate no significant difference in salamander size.
Average SVL (cm)
Old Coverboards New Coverboards P
E. cirrigera 3.40 (+0.07) 3.34 (+0.07) 0.55
E. longicauda guttolineata 4.34 (+0.13) 4.48 (+0.17) 0.50


Total
159
104
58
17
11
349












Installation Year
A 2003
+ 2005

+ + A


A A


+ +


A +


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Months after Installation


10 11 12


Figure 2-1. Number of salamanders captured relative to number of months since coverboards
were installed for both 2003 and 2005


E Old coverboards
* New coverboards


Month

Figure 2-2. Number of salamander captures for new coverboards installed in June 2005
compared to old coverboards


S20
-e

10
S+
0


^^ot^


do~o~~ ~sp~ c~c~











66.0-


67.5-


65.0-
U 65.5
6J.--

65.0 a
60.0

S64.5-
57.5-

64.0- 55.0 --
I I I I
coverboard natural cover coverboard natural cover

Figure 2-3. Coverboard mean soil temperature and percent moisture compared to natural cover.
Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. Coverboard microhabitat did not differ
significantly from natural microhabitat (temperature, P = 0.39; moisture, P = 0.58).









CHAPTER 3
AMPHIBIAN RESPONSES TO FOREST HARVEST AND STREAMSIDE MANAGEMENT
ZONE PRACTICES IN SOUTHWESTERN GEORGIA

Introduction

Amphibians as Biological Indicators

Amphibians represent much of the faunal biomass within riparian and in-stream habitats of

southeastern United States ecosystems (Burton and Likens, 1975b; Stewart and Woolbright,

1996; Petranka and Murray, 2001). Approximately 80 of the 245 species nationwide occur in

Georgia (New Georgia Encyclopedia, 2007). Amphibians have unique biphasic lifecycles,

occupying both terrestrial and aquatic habitats during their lives. As a result, they have evolved

as an integral component of energy transfer and nutrient cycling in riparian forest ecosystems

(Burton and Likens, 1975a; Petranka and Murray, 2001). They are an important constituent of

forest food webs and may be keystone species in habitats where they have a disproportionately

large effect on ecosystem structure (Holomuzki et al., 1994; Wissinger et al., 1999).

Forest amphibians (especially salamanders) have unique qualities that make them suitable

as biological indicators (Vitt et al., 1990). They have narrow tolerance ranges for several

environmental variables, are sensitive to changes in microclimates, have permeable skin and gills

that are sensitive to sedimentation, are located in mid-trophic levels within food webs, are

numerous in southeastern forests, and can be easily and cheaply sampled (Dale and Beyeler,

2001; Welsh and Droege, 2001). These qualities make amphibians valuable biological indicators

for sustainable forestry in the southeastern U.S.

Reports of global amphibian declines (Stuart et al., 2004) spur the necessity for collecting

baseline data on populations and their distributions, as well as understanding their ecological

niches. Amphibian population declines have been attributed to anthropogenic habitat loss, global

climate change, chemical contamination, UVB radiation, overexploitation, both singly and in









combination (Wake, 1991; Blaustein and Kiesecker, 2002). Forestry operations are a major

contributor to habitat loss. Of the 9.9 million ha of forestland in Georgia, nearly 98% is available

for timber production (Georgia Forestry Commission, 2004). This amounts to nearly 60% of the

total land area of the state being available for harvest, with likely amphibian impacts.

Forestry BMPs in the Southeast

BMPs are sustainable forestry guidelines developed to inform sivilculture operators of

practices to minimize nonpoint (e.g., soil erosion and stream sedimentation) and thermal

pollution (Georgia Forestry Commission, 1999). SMZs are a specific type of BMP designed to

protect stream channel and riparian ecosystems from potential impacts related to forestry and

other operations (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2005). They are vegetated

riparian buffer strips located parallel and adjacent to streams that are left intact during

sivilculture operations.

Riparian vegetation is beneficial to water quality and stream habitat. It can protect stream

water quality from sedimentation by filtering runoff from the watershed as it flows over

disturbed, harvested land toward the stream (Georgia Forestry Commission, 1999; Sun et al.,

2004; United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2005). Canopy species remaining within

the SMZ provide an additional benefit by shading surface water, thereby moderating water

temperatures (Georgia Forestry Commission, 1999; Sun et al., 2004; United States

Environmental Protection Agency, 2005). Trees within an SMZ also supply organic matter vital

to the stream ecosystem and maintain landscape connectivity to adjacent watersheds by serving

as habitat and wildlife corridors (Georgia Forestry Commission, 1999; United States

Environmental Protection Agency, 2005).









The State of Georgia Forestry Commission has developed guidelines for delineating the

width of SMZs. Instead of providing a formula, principles related to the stream type, slope

stability, and soil erosion potential of the harvested land are used (Table 3-1).

Research Problem

Given that amphibians occupy riparian-forest habitats, are biological indicators of

ecosystem quality, and are species of global concern, it is surprising that they are not considered

in forest management plans more often. Timber harvesting has several impacts on amphibian

habitat. Air, soil, and stream temperatures may increase, affecting microhabitat quality. Streams

may experience increased sedimentation, making in-stream habitats inhospitable to larvae. Many

studies in the southeastern U.S. have demonstrated that amphibian populations are negatively

affected by timber harvest (Ash, 1997; Petranka, 1994); however, there is debate about the

degree of impact, time required for recovery, and validity of sampling methods (Ash and Bruce,

1994; Petranka, 1994).

Amphibians are dependent on the same water quality characteristics that SMZs are

intended to protect; therefore, inferences could be made about the effectiveness of SMZs by

monitoring amphibian responses to harvesting. Though use of SMZs is a widely accepted

practice in southeastern states, little is known about the amphibian response to harvest practices

within SMZs (Russell et al., 2004). To address these concerns, development of monitoring

programs that span several years and employ non-biased, reliable, and efficient surveying

techniques appropriate for multiple year comparisons has become paramount.

To meet these research needs, International Paper, along with partners University of

Florida, University of Georgia, Clemson University, Jones Ecological Research Center, NCASI,

Georgia Forestry Commission, and NFWF established the Dry Creek Study in 2000 to determine









how upland and streamside forest management affects stream hydrology, water quality and

biological indicators. As a component of the study, amphibians were monitored.

The objective of this research was to evaluate amphibian responses to forest harvest and

SMZ management techniques. Major questions that were addressed included impacts of clear-cut

harvest on amphibian presence, distribution, and abundance within intact and thinned SMZs. By

learning how sensitive species such as amphibians respond to current forest management

practices, an important contribution can be made to developing sustainable forestry practices.

This study will provide forest managers with recommendations for forest management,

specifically regarding development of streamside management zone practices that are compatible

with maintaining healthy populations of forest amphibians.

Methods

Site Description

International Paper's Southlands Forest (IPSF), an experimental and working forest since

1947, is located in the Coastal Plain physiographic province, approximately 16 km south of

Bainbridge, Georgia (Figure 3-1).

Climate

Climate of the region is characterized by warm, humid summers, and mild winters.

Temperatures in January range from an average maximum of 16.3 C to a minimum of 2.8 C.

July is the hottest month with an average maximum temperature of 33.5 C and minimum of

21.5 C (SERCC, 2004). Mean annual precipitation is 1412 mm. June has the highest mean

rainfall (152.1 mm) and October the lowest (77.5 mm) (SERCC, 2004). Summer rains are

usually short, with high intensity events giving way to low intensity frontal events from late fall

to early spring. Due to proximity of the Gulf of Mexico, heavy rainfall associated with

hurricanes and tropical storms in late summer is not unusual.









Steep-head ravines

The steeply sloping Pelham Escarpment on which the site is situated forms the boundary or

surface-water divide between the Flint River basin to the west and Ochlockonee River basin to

the east (Couch et al., 1996). Streams originating from the Pelham Escarpment are characterized

by perennial headwaters that become intermittent downstream or drain directly into the Flint

River. Bluffs and deep ravines, or steep-head ravines, also characterize this transitional area

(Entrekin et al., 1999).

Means (1985, 2000) defined steep-head ravines as landscape features formed by large

rivers that cut deep through porous sands, intersect with perched groundwater tables, then

infiltrate laterally atop impermeable layers of silty marl, clay, or limestone. Pore spaces within

the karst limestone endemic to the region serve as underground conduits for groundwater to

travel laterally, eventually seeping out at points of low topography and creating groundwater

dominated headwater streams. Steep-head ravine systems are characterized by undulating waves

of topographical relief. The eroding churn of surface water overflow, rise and fall of the

groundwater table, and dissolution of karst limestone, result in solution caverns formed within

the substrate, weakening upper soil layers and causing strain on soil strata. The combination of

these forces creates highly erodable landscapes with diverse topographical features. Low-

gradient seepage streams at the base of valleys may be as much as 35 m below the upland

habitat, with walls sloping more than 450 (Means, 1985). Steep slopes serve as physical barriers

that distinguish watersheds. Within these watersheds are cool microclimates formed by the

constant seeping of groundwater of relatively uniform temperature. This provides the humidity

necessary to buffer air temperatures, providing adequate habitat to support rare plant and animal

species (Enge, 2002).









Soils


Soils of this area are dominated by Ultisols. Summer et al. (2003) described the riparian

soils as Chiefland and Esto series that are well-drained, fine sands over clay loams. The lower

slopes feature Eustis series soils, which are loamy sands over sandy loams and are classified as

somewhat excessively well drained. The upland soils are comprised of Wagram, Norfolk,

Lakeland, Orangeburg, and Lucy series, which are generally well-drained, loamy sands over

sandy clay loams, with the exception of the Lakeland Unit, which has a sandy texture throughout

and is characterized as excessively well drained.

Study Design

The overall Dry Creek Study design follows the BACI-P experimental design. The streams

in this study drain four adjacent watersheds with similar aspect, size, shape, soils and vegetative

cover type. Sub-watersheds were paired according to valley floor geomorphologic differences

into what was initially believed to be most optimal groups (A+B and C+D). Watersheds A and B

have broad, flat valleys with riparian wetlands, while watersheds C and D have more channelized

streams running through steeper, v-shaped valleys (Jones et al., 2003). However, pre-harvest

hydrological survey results showed that stream flow characteristics are more similar between

watersheds B+C and watersheds A+D (Summer et al., 2005) (Table 3-2).

Watersheds A and D were designated as controls, thus left undisturbed throughout the

entire study period. Watersheds B and C were selected as treatment watersheds and were

harvested during fall 2003. A timetable of study components is provided in Table 3-3. Each

watershed was harvested according to minimum requirements set forth in the State of Georgia

BMP Manual. SMZ widths ranged from 30-40 m perpendicular to the stream edge on either

side. Watersheds B and C each received two sivilculture treatments; mechanical clear-cut upland

harvesting and partial harvesting of downstream SMZ. Half of the basal area was removed









within the downstream portion of harvested sites SMZ, while the upstream SMZ was left intact

in order to evaluate the effects of harvesting within the SMZ.

Field Sampling

Monthly amphibian monitoring began in December 2002, allowing for ten months of base-

line data collection before the harvest period began in September 2003. The experimental layout

of semi-aquatic salamander and treefrog monitoring for each watershed was a grid consisting of

four transects running parallel to each side of the stream and perpendicularly upslope along a

habitat gradient. The four transects were designated as habitat zones: (1) stream (2) riparian (3)

midslope (4) upslope, representing increasing distance from stream. Sampling techniques

employed to capture amphibians included coverboard shelter attractants (for adult salamanders),

vertical PVC pipe shelter attractants (for treefrogs), and dipnet sweeps (for larval salamanders).

Due to lack of reliable, efficient techniques available for marking amphibians, animals were not

mark-recaptured (Grialou et al., 2000; Monti et al., 2000).

Terrestrial adult salamander monitoring

Experimental grids contained transects with four passive sampling locations for which

semi-aquatic salamanders and treefrogs could be monitored. Coverboards were used as shelter

attractants for adult, terrestrial salamanders (Houze and Chandler, 2002). Boards were cut from

2.0-cm untreated plywood sheets into 60 x 60 cm squares (Grant et al., 1992) and placed along

transects perpendicular to stream channels toward uplands. Eight coverboards were placed in

designated habitat zones for a given sample reach (four coverboards on either side of the stream,

256 total coverboards). Salamanders found under coverboards were identified to species,

counted, and measured for snout-to-vent length (SVL, cm).









Aquatic larval salamander monitoring

Active sampling was used for in-stream larval salamander monitoring. To sample all

potential microhabitats within the stream, the flat surface of a standard D-frame dipnet (V

0.02-m3; dimensions: 0.3-m2 opening, 0.5-m length, 1,000-[tm mesh) was swept along the

bottom of the stream and under incised banks. For each sample reach, 20 dipnet sweeps were

performed, each -1-m long. Captured larvae were counted, identified to species, and released

into the stream reach where captured.

Adult treefrog monitoring

Vertical polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipes (5.1-cm diameter, 60-cm height above ground)

were used for treefrog monitoring (Boughton et al., 2000). PVC pipes act as shelter attractants by

shielding inhabitants from extreme wind and temperature, thereby providing moist refuge (Wyatt

and Forys, 2004). One sampling pipe was installed at each coverboard location (256 total pipes).

Frogs inhabiting the artificial habitat were identified to species, counted, and PVC pipe location

was noted.

Data Analysis

Amphibians were grouped as salamanders and treefrogs. Low monthly captures resulted in

multiple zeros causing amphibian detection probability to be less than 1 (MacKenzie et al., 2002;

Royle, 2004). Hence data were compiled annually to strengthen statistical analyses. Non-

parametric tests for multiple independent samples were then used due to small number of

monthly samplings (N = 12 for year 0, 1, 2; N = 11 for year 3).

Amphibian presence was noted for each year of the study, and distributions were

calculated as percentage of total captures within habitat zones. To test for the effects of clear-cut

harvesting on amphibian capture rates within SMZs, comparisons of amphibian counts within

riparian areas were made between watersheds and among years. To examine differences in









amphibian captures among all watersheds during the pre-harvest survey, Kruskal-Wallis rank

sum tests were performed to evaluate the null hypothesis that multiple independent samples

come from the same population. When tests yielded a significant H statistic, Wilcoxon rank sum

tests were then used to determine which watershed pairs contributed to the overall differences.

To evaluate for changes in number of captures among years, the non-parametric analog of a

Repeated Measures ANOVA (Friedman's F-Test Statistic) was used for each watershed. Post-

hoc comparisons were performed using Wilcoxon's Matched Pairs to test for differences among

consecutive years. Analysis of salamander SVLs was performed by combining data from all

years following harvest for the most common species encountered for harvested and forested

sites. T-tests were then performed to analyze for differences in size due to harvest. The effect of

partial harvesting of SMZs was analyzed by combining data from harvested and forested reaches

(because of the low total number of catches for each reach). Mann Whitney tests were then used

to compare the capture means of upstream/downstream and thinned/intact reaches.

Analyses were performed at significance levels of P<0.05.

Results and Discussion

Effects of Harvest on Amphibian Presence and Distributions within Watersheds

Results: Adult salamander presence

A total of 993 salamanders, six species from five genera, were captured during the period

December 2002 December 2006 (Table 3-4). All watersheds were inhabited by E. cirrigera, E.

longicauda guttolineata, P. grobmani, and P. ruber vioscai. D. apalachicolae was found only at

watersheds C and D, and N. viridescens was detected only in watershed D.

For the first two years of the study, E. longicauda guttolineata and D. apalachicolae were

not detected in forested watersheds A and D, respectively. However, both species were found in

their respective watersheds during the final two years of monitoring. In the first year following









harvest, P. ruber vioscai was not detected at harvested site C, but was found again during years 2

and 3. In the final year of sampling, P. grobmani was not detected in harvested watershed B, and

P. ruber vioscai was not detected at watershed D.

Results: Adult salamander distributions

Salamanders were monitored monthly for one year prior to harvest to establish baseline

conditions. During the pre-harvest survey period (Year 0), the majority of salamander captures

occurred within boundaries of SMZs (90.8% of total captures, Figure 3-2). Only one salamander

capture occurred on the upslope transect for the entire study (watershed C, Feb 2003, P.

grobmani). In the years following harvest, forested watersheds continued to maintain the

majority of salamanders within boundaries of SMZs (Year 1 = 85.5%; Year 2 = 91.7%; Year 3 =

91.2%) with just two salamander species being recorded in the midslope and upslope regions (P.

grobmani and E. cirrigera). There were no captures outside of the SMZ in watershed B

following harvest, and in watershed C there were 5 total captures of P. grobmani on the

midslope.

Results: Treefrog presence

Six species of treefrogs from two genera were captured during the study totaling 2236

captures (Table 3-5). All watersheds recorded Hyla squirrella, Hyla cinerea, Hyla chrysoscelis,

and Pseudacris. crucifer. Watersheds A, C, and D reported captures of Hylafemoralis, while

Hyla avivoca was detected only at watersheds A and D.

Treefrog presence varied for all watersheds during all years of study. Forested watersheds

did not record H. chrysoscelis or H. femoralis until the second and third year of study,

respectively. Harvested watersheds did not record presence ofH. femoralis following harvest.









Results: Treefrog distributions

The results of the pre-harvest survey reveal that 76.1% of total treefrogs captured were

located within boundaries of SMZs (Figure 3-3). Watersheds B and C continued to capture the

majority of treefrogs within SMZs following harvest (Year 1 = 93%; Year 2 = 90%; Year 3 =

85%), while forested watersheds captures decreased within SMZs (Year 1 = 81%; Year 2 = 61%;

Year 3 = 62%) and increased outside the SMZs. Captures in regions outside SMZs were

significantly greater for forested watersheds compared to harvested (forested N = 591, harvested

N = 29).

Discussion: Effects of harvest on amphibian presence and distributions

Watersheds displayed similar species assemblages during pre- and post-harvest surveys.

Harvest did not affect species presence within SMZs of harvested watersheds.

The pre-harvest survey indicated that the majority of salamanders inhabit the region within

the SMZ, with few occurrences on midslope, and zero occurrences on upslope reaches of

watersheds. After harvest, salamanders were not found in clearcut areas outside SMZs; however,

forested watersheds continued to yield captured salamanders on midslope transects occasionally.

SMZ widths extended 30 m from each side of the stream edge, much less than suggested buffer

widths necessary to protect 50% of salamander populations (i.e., 125 m; Semlitsch, 1998).

Despite the small buffer area, nearly 95% of salamanders captured in forested watersheds

occurred within this zone.

The majority of salamander species disperse parallel to aquatic habitats (Maxcy, 2000).

However, dispersal patterns can be species specific depending on body-size and breeding

strategy (Grover, 2000). In this study, the majority of salamanders were Plei ,i1t,lli,1 stream

salamanders. Although migratory at some stage in their life cycle, these salamanders remain

close to the edges of streams, seldom moving more than 20 30 m from aquatic habitats









(Grover, 1998). However, P. grobmani, a terrestrial breeding species abundant in this study,

accounted for the majority of captures at midslope transects that were 50-m from the stream

edge. These results may be indicative of the breeding strategy of P. grobmani, which lays eggs in

leaf mats in terrestrial habitats away from stream edges. The larger body size enables it to resist

desiccation (Grover, 2000), allowing travel farther from humid environments compared to

smaller semi-aquatic species. Dispersal patterns of other species may be inhibited by steeply

sloping ravines characteristic of this region. Perpendicularly from the stream, elevation increases

rapidly, resulting in a shift in microclimate. Sharp gradients in moisture-temperature regimes

may cause species to remain close to stream edges where cool, humid, microclimates are

protected by ravine slopes.

Harvest did not affect presence of treefrogs. During the pre-harvest survey, the majority of

treefrogs were captured within riparian regions of watersheds, with about 25% of captures

occurring on mid- and upslope transects. Following harvest, most captures occurred within

SMZs of watersheds B and C, while in forested watersheds, the proportion of population outside

of SMZ grew over consecutive years. Anurans have larger dispersal distances than salamanders

with some species traveling as far as 1000 1600 m (Semlitsch et al., 2003). Only 29 individuals

were recorded in uphill regions of clear-cut areas, compared to forested areas, with 591

detections. Nearly 40% of all treefrog captures were recorded in uphill regions of forested

watersheds by the fourth year of study, suggesting large dispersal ranges for treefrogs in this

region. Impacts of clear-cutting may interrupt anuran movements resulting in isolation of

metapopulations.

Studies have shown positive responses by frogs to forest harvest (O'Neill, 1995; Russell et

al., 2002). Anuran resilience has been attributed to non-selective breeding strategies (often









depositing eggs in skidder ruts) and the ability to resist desiccation resulting from habitat

alterations (Russell et al., 2004). However, in those studies, Bufos, Ranids and Hylids were

grouped together, with few reports detailing information regarding just treefrog responses. Bufos

and Ranids occupy different landscape patches, with select species being negatively associated

with forest area (Guerry, 2002). Because of the increased difference in treefrog encounters in

upland areas compared to clear-cut over consecutive years, this study suggests that treefrogs may

respond negatively to clear-cut operations.

Effects of Harvest on Amphibian Abundances within SMZs

Results: Adult salamanders

Because so few salamanders were captured outside of SMZs, they were eliminated from

this portion of the analysis. Instead, salamander abundance inside SMZs was analyzed. Kruskal

Wallis test results were marginally significant in detecting similarities in salamander abundance

among all sub-watersheds during the pre-harvest survey period (H = 7.62, df = 3, P = 0.06).

Following harvest, there were significant differences in salamander captures between watersheds

for all years (2004 H= 13.75, df = 3, P = 0.00; 2005 H = 13.06, df = 3, P = 0.01; 2006 H= 9.22,

df= 3, P = 0.03).

Watershed pairs were similar in salamander captures during the pre-harvest survey (A+B

W= -1.13, P = 0.26; C+D W= -0.77, P = 0.44) (Figure 3-4). Following harvest of watershed C,

there were significantly fewer salamander captures compared to D for the first two years (2004

W= -2.77, P = 0.01; 2005 W= -2.12, P = 0.03), but the watershed pair was similar again the

third year (2006 W = -1.73, P = 0.08). For the first two years after harvest of watershed B, there

were no differences in salamander captures when compared to forested watershed A (2004 W= -

1.59, P = 0.11; 2005, W = -0.49, P = 0.62); however, in the third year, the pair was different

(2006 W =-2.96, P = 0.00). Comparisons across years for each watershed resulted in no









significant differences in salamander abundance for either forested (A F = 3.95, df = 3, P = 0.

27; D F = 3.38, df =3, P= 0.34) or harvested watersheds (B F = 2.72, df =3, P = 0. 44; C, F=

5.97, df= 3, P = 0.11).

Tests for differences in salamander SVLs (cm) were performed for the most abundant

salamander species captured at all watersheds. No statistical differences were found between

salamander SVLs of forested and harvested sites for E. cirrigera (forested mean =3.4+0.0 cm;

harvested mean =3.4+0.0-cm; t = 0.45, df = 309, P = 0.66) or P. grobmani (forested mean

4.1+0.1-cm; harvested mean = 4.1+0.1-cm; t = 0.43, df = 314, P = 0.67). However, SVLs of E.

guttolineata were significantly greater at harvested than forested sites (forested mean =4.0+ 0.9-

cm; harvested mean = 4.3+0.1-cm; t = -2.84, df= 304, P = 0.01).

Results: Treefrogs

Kruskal Wallis tests were significantly different for treefrog captures between watersheds

for all years (2003 H=10.43, P = 0.02; 2004 H=16.22, P = 0.00; 2005 H=12.78, P = 0.01; 2006

H =29.81, P = 0.00). Watersheds A+B were similar in treefrog captures during the pre-harvest

survey (2003 W=-0.27, P = 0.79) and first year following harvest (2004 W=-0.10, P =0.92);

however, in the second and third year, they were different (2005 W=-2.14, P = 0.03; 2006 W=-

3.07, P = 0.00). Watersheds C+D were different in the pre-harvest survey (2003 W =-2.07, P =

0.04) and all years following harvest (2004 W=-3.06, P = 0.00; 2005 W=-2.94, P = 0.00; 2006

W =-3.06, P = 0.00) (Figure 3-5).

Friedman F-statistical tests were significantly different for treefrog captures among years

for forested watersheds (A F = 27.00, df = 3, F = 0.00; D F = 20.45, df = 3, P = 0.00) but not

harvested watersheds (B F =6.98, df = 3, P = 0.07; C F = 3.31, df = 3, F = 0.35). Post hoc

comparisons of watershed A revealed an increase in annual captures among consecutive years

(Year 0-1, W = -3.08, P = 0.00; Year 1-2, W = -1.81, P = 0.07; Year 2-3, W = -2.50, P = 0.01)









Watershed D experienced an increase in the first year (Year 0-1, W = -2.54, P = 0.01), stayed

steady in the second (Year 1-2; W = -0.59, P = 0.56), and increased again in the third year (Year

2-3, W = -2.85, P = 0.00).

Discussion: Amphibian abundance within SMZs

Observed amphibian abundance (C) is a function of population density (D) and detection

probability (/,). Differences in abundances can be attributed to natural fluctuations in amphibian

populations, their response to harvest, or changes in detection ability (Chapter 3).

All watersheds were similar in salamander captures during the pre-harvest survey period,

and watershed pairs were well matched. However, differences in salamander capture following

harvest between watershed pairs and among years were confounded, making definitive

conclusions regarding salamander responses difficult. Responses to harvest may have been

delayed or the number of captures may have been influenced by con-specific attraction, inter-

annual breeding cycles, stream flows, or local meteorology.

Adult salamander counts may reflect a delayed response to harvest due to faster re-

hydration rates than juveniles (Grover, 2000). Adult body size is larger and able to retain more

moisture than smaller body sizes, thus enabling them to be more tolerant to environmental

disturbances. Clear-cut harvest can alter microclimates within SMZs beyond thresholds of

juveniles. If there is high juvenile mortality, a delayed response in decreasing adult populations

may occur. This, coupled with an increase in captures of larger adults due to smaller individuals

burrowing or desiccating, may suggest a negative response of salamanders within SMZs to forest

harvest. These results may be exemplified in the third year following harvest of watershed B

when captures decreased relative to A, and SVLs of E. longicauda guttolineata were smaller in

harvested than forested watersheds. However, body sizes of the more abundant salamander









species such as E. cirrigera remained similar between forested and harvested watersheds.

Responses to harvest may be taxon specific.

Harvested watersheds contained more fallen trees and large woody debris than that of

forested. Con-specific attraction of adult salamanders to natural cover in harvested watersheds

over coverboards may result in decreased counts in harvested compared to forested watersheds.

Grover (2002) showed a high correlation between salamander abundance and large woody

debris. Moreover, coverboard microhabitat can be more variable than natural cover (Houze and

Chandler, 2002). Salamanders may seek larger cover objects in harvested watersheds due to

increased temperatures, making coverboards less attractive habitat.

Harvest may have resulted in a different subset of salamander populations being sampled

relative to forested watersheds. Variability in captures increased in watershed C compared to D

with most captures at site C occurring during winter breeding months. Salamanders at harvested

sites were infrequently encountered during summer when they burrow underground seeking

refuge from elevated temperatures. Captures at site D were more consistent year-round, with

peaks still occurring during winter. Harvest may result in only breeding salamanders being

sampled, thus violating assumptions of constant detection probability between watershed pairs.

Large-scale habitat variables such stream flow and meteorology were highly variable and

could not be standardized. Amphibians have been linked to hydrologic cycles, with breeding

events occurring sporadically in response to meteorology. Several hurricanes occurred during

the 2004 season, and amphibians may have responded with increasing populations. Watershed A

experienced a high number of no-flow days in the stream during 2003, 2004, but not during 2005

or 2006. Terrestrial salamander captures did not indicate any differences among years for any

watersheds. However, controlling factors for amphibian captures become tangled by reactions to









environmental fluctuations resulting in too much variability to detect small changes in

populations with few sample sizes (N = 12). Abundance of salamanders is a function of many

variables, and increases or decreases may be attributed to factors other than forest management.

Pre-harvest survey data indicated that watershed D was different from all other watersheds

in number of treefrog captures. There were disproportionately more treefrogs recorded in this

watershed at the beginning of the study, and by the final year, six times more treefrogs were

captured at this watershed relative to others. Due to this large difference, comparisons of treefrog

captures of watershed D relative to C resulted in differences during all 3 years following harvest,

rendering this watershed pair a poor comparison.

Most interestingly though is the increase in treefrog captures among consecutive years in

forested watersheds compared to harvested. PVC pipes appear to accumulate treefrogs over time

in forest watersheds, but not in harvested. Treefrogs within SMZs may be affected by harvest

and may not have the population densities available to increase numbers in PVC pipes. Treefrog

habitat is directly affected by removal of canopy trees. Since treefrogs require larger habitat

areas and have greater dispersal distances, it is possible that upland habitat removal affected

treefrogs inhabiting SMZs. However, as in the case of salamanders, definitive conclusions are

difficult to make due to other confounding variables. Other habitats may be available in

harvested watersheds (e.g., downed logs, ruts, pools) that attract treefrogs over PVC pipes. PVC

pipes located in harvested watersheds were inhabited by other species (e.g., wasps) more often

than forested watersheds, which may also have interfered with detections.

Due to greater dispersal distances, treefrogs seemingly are more impacted by harvest than

salamanders due to upland habitat loss. However, because treefrogs are presumably more

resilient to disturbances than salamanders (compared with salamanders, anurans have relatively









high operating and tolerance temperatures and have the ability to store and reabsorb large

quantities of water in the bladder) (Duellman and Trueb, 1994), populations may be expected to

recover. However, there is concern that upland habitat alterations may interrupt metapopulation

dynamics, resulting in regional decline of treefrogs. SMZs presumably provide wildlife corridors

to adjacent forested watersheds, but Niemela (2001) expressed apprehension about the belief that

animals isolated within corridors utilize them for movement between landscapes. These concerns

highlight the need for quantitative evidence on the utility of SMZs as movement corridors and

their role in metapopulation dynamics.

Effects of SMZ Thinning on Amphibian Abundance

Results: Adult salamanders

For this portion of the analysis, watersheds A, B, C, and D were divided into

upstream/downstream segments, and captures were combined for respective segments. Results of

Mann Whitney comparisons found no difference between salamander counts downstream

compared to upstream portions of any watersheds during pre-harvest survey (Down-Up, S = -

0.35, P = 0.73; Thinned-Intact, S =-0.24, P = 0.81) (Figure 3-6). After thinning the downstream

SMZ of watersheds B and C, no significant differences were found between thinned and intact

SMZs for the duration of the study (Year 1 P = 0.19; Year 2 P = 0.13; Year 3 P = 0.65). Forested

watersheds recorded significantly higher captures in the upstream reaches of watersheds during

year 1 (S =-0.347, P = 0.03), were marginally higher in year 2 (S = -1.78, P = 0.07) and were

significantly higher in year 3 (S =-2.61, P = 0.01).

Results: Larval salamanders

There were significant differences in upstream-downstream segments during the pre-

harvest survey (Year 0) for all watersheds (Figure 3-7). Watersheds A and D had significantly

more larvae in their upstream sections (S = -3.67, P = 0.00) compared to downstream, while









watersheds B and C had more in their downstream sections (S = -2.57, P = 0.01). Following

harvest of watersheds B and C, there were no significant differences in number of larvae

captured in the streams of thinned versus intact SMZs for all years (Year 1 S = -0.18, P = 0.86;

Year 2 S = -1.44, P = 0.15; Year 3 S = -0.05, P = 0.96). Reference watersheds showed

significantly more larvae in the upstream segments for all years (Year 1, S = -4.38, P = 0.00;

Year 2 S = -2.29, P = 0.02; Year 3 S = -2.15, P = 0.03).

Results: Treefrogs

Mann Whitney tests revealed no differences in upstream or downstream treefrog counts

during the pre-harvest survey (Down-Up, S = -0.48, P = 0.63; Thinned-Intact, S = -1.00, P =

0.32) (Figure 3-8). Following harvest, watersheds B and C recorded significantly fewer treefrogs

in thinned SMZs than intact for years 1 (S = -2.12, P = 0.03) and 3 (S = -3.22, P = 0.00) but not

year 2 (S = -0.92, P = 0.36). Forested watersheds A and D did not show any significant

differences in the number of treefrog captures for the upstream-downstream segments for all

years (Year 1, S = -1.40, P = 0.16; Year 2, S = -1.28, P = 0.20; Year 3, S = -0.78, P = 0.44).

Discussion: SMZ thinning

Grialou et al. (2000) evaluated redbacked salamander responses to thinning within SMZs

in the Pacific Northwest and found that forest thinning stimulated salamanders. No statistical

differences were found between thinned and intact reaches of harvested watersheds for this

study, though slightly more salamanders were captured in intact segments over consecutive

years. Adult salamander counts were greater in upstream segments of forested watersheds.

Means (2000) found that salamanders of this region prefer headwater habitats of upstream

reaches that contain small seeps, no fish competition, and little variability in flow regimes. One

similarity of all watersheds was that the upstream areas where salamanders were sampled were









broad and flat compared to downstream regions. Hydrology in the upstream segments may have

been less variable, and more suitable for salamander breeding.

Larval salamanders showed the same trend as adults, with significantly greater numbers in

upstream sections of forested watersheds. Harvested watersheds showed different trends with

more larvae in their downstream segments during the pre-harvest survey. After harvest, there

were no statistical differences. This may not be a result of thinning, but rather a sampling bias in

reference watershed A. Disproportionately larger numbers of juveniles were captured in the

upstream segments of watershed A for all years of the study. During the first two years, this

particular site had many no flow days in the downstream portion, making it impossible to dipnet

the stream. However, although dry in the downstream portion, the upstream portion contained

big, deep pools of quiescent water, enabling large volumes to be sampled with a dipnet. Juvenile

salamanders were concentrated in these pools, enabling easy detection. Comparatively, upstream

segments of all other watersheds were shallow and flowing throughout the study. Smaller

volumes were sampled, and juveniles were not concentrated. This scenario is reflected in the

variability of the upstream sections during the first two years of study. Variability in the

detection probability of juvenile captures precluded an analysis of the effects of thinning. Size

class descriptions may be more informative.

More treefrogs were captured in intact SMZs for all years following harvest, although the

second year did not show a significant difference. Reference watersheds did not indicate a

preference for upstream or downstream reaches. Differences in treefrog abundances may be

attributed directly to thinning and associated habitat loss.









Recommendations


SMZ Width

SMZs are important habitat for feeding, overwintering, and breeding of amphibians. They

not only buffer aquatic habitat but also provide an area for the biological interdependence

between aquatic and terrestrial habitats that is essential for persistence of populations. Harrison

and Voller (1998) suggested that corridor location and design should reflect the ecology of an

area and that riparian buffer widths be adjusted proportionally with stream width, intensity of

adjacent harvest, and slope. Individual taxa should also be considered in buffer width design.

SMZs have multiple purposes (e.g., prevent stream sedimentation, thermal pollution,

habitat), and widths should be optimized for all management goals (e.g., production,

conservation of biodiversity). Microclimates presumably decrease in humidity along elevation

gradients perpendicular to streams, and the intensity of this gradient may be a good determinant

of SMZ width for this region. SMZ boundaries may occur where microclimates exceed

thresholds of target organisms such as salamanders.

Wider SMZs that incorporate midslope reaches may offer necessary habitat for terrestrial

breeding amphibians and provide additional buffer for semi-aquatic salamander and treefrog

territories. However, this may be unnecessary for species survival and recovery, and will result

in more costs and loss of revenue for forestry operations. For this study, a 30 m buffer width

appeared adequate for species' existence.

SMZ Thinning

Natural preference of headwater habitats by salamanders suggests that thinning of

downstream segments be more appropriate to protect amphibian-breeding areas. However,

reports of salamanders responding positively to thinning in the Pacific Northwest (Grialou et al.,

2000) imply that thinning may not adversely affect salamander populations. Treefrogs may be









more affected by thinning than salamanders due to habitat loss, but because they are presumably

more resilient, this may not be a concern. It is important to note, however, that thinning resulted

in substantially more canopy loss due to windthrow. Hurricanes frequently pass through this

region, and thinned canopies are susceptible to hurricane force winds. Additional canopy loss

due to wind-throw may result in cost benefit ratios greater than one. Managers should weigh

decisions and optimize production with maintenance of biodiversity. Thinning of SMZs in this

region may not be appropriate.









Table 3-3. Timetable for the Dry Creek Study, Southlands Forest, Bainbridge, GA.


Date
December 2000
May 2001
June 2001
December 2002
September-November 2003
May 2004
September 2004
November 2004
December 2004
September 2006
March 2007


Action
Study established
Initiation of continuous stream flow gauging
Initiation of water quality data collection
Initiation of terrestrial amphibian monitoring
Upland harvesting and SMZ partial harvesting
Initiation of soil moisture-temperature data collection
Site preparation herbicide
Site preparation burn
Site replanting
End soil moisture-temperature data collection
End of amphibian monitoring


Table 3-1. SMZ widths by slope class and stream type.
Minimum width (ft) SMZ on each side


Slope Class
Slight (<20 %)
Moderate (21-40%)
Steep (>40%)


Perennial Intermittent


(Georgia Forestry Commission, 1999)


Table 3-2. Flow statistics in study watersheds during 27-month pre-treatment survey.
Site Area Mean Q (L/s/ha) Max Q Zero Flow Days (/822)
(L/s/ha)
A 25.8 .055 8.37 163 (20%)
B 34.7 .074 14.08 6 (.7%)
C 42.7 .073 9.91 2 (.02%)
D 48.0 .042 7.17 206 (25%)
Summer, W.B., Jackson, R.C., Jones, D., Golladay, S.W., & Miwa, M., (2005). Hydrologic
and Sediment Transport Response to Forestry; Southwest Georgia Headwater Streams. (In:
Proceedings of the 2005 Georgia Water Resources Conference, held April 25-27, 2005. The
Institute of Ecology: The University of Georgia, Athens, GA.)


Trout
100
100
100









Table 3-4. Salamander species presence in four sub-watersheds of the Dry Creek Basin, Georgia.
Watersheds B and C were harvested in September 2003; watersheds A and D were
left intact for the entire study.
Watershed A: Forested Watershed B: Harvested
Year 0 Year Year Year Year 0 Year Year Year
(Pre- 1 2 3 (Pre- 1 2 3
harvest) harvest)
Eurycea cirrigera X X X X X X X X
Eurycea longicauda X X X X X X
guttolineata
PAeih ii,/u grobmani X X X X X X X
Pseudotriton ruber X X X X X X X
vioscai
Desmognathus
apalachicoloae
Notophthalmus
viridescens
Watershed D: Forested Watershed C: Harvested
Eurycea cirrigera X X X X X X X X
Eurycea longicauda X X X X X X X X
guttolineata
PAeih,/hou grobmani X X X X X X X X
Pseudotriton ruber X X X X X X X
vioscai
Desmognathus X X X X X
apalachicoloae
Notophthalmus X X
viridescens









Table 3-5. Treefrog species presence in four sub-watersheds of the Dry Creek Basin, Georgia.

Watershed A: Forested Watershed B: Harvested
Year 0 Year Year Year Year 0 Year Year Year
(Pre- 1 2 3 (Pre- 1 2 3
harvest) harvest)
Hyla squirella X X X X X X X X
Hyla cinerea X X X X X X X
Hyla chrysoscelis X X X X X
Hylafemoralis X -
Hyla avivoca X -
Pseudacris X X X X X X X
crucifer
Watershed D: Forested Watershed C: Harvested
Hyla squirella X X X X X X X X
Hyla cinerea X X X X X X X X
Hyla chrysoscelis X X X X X
Hylafemoralis X X X -
Hyla avivoca X -
Pseudacris X X X X X X
crucifer






























Figure 3-1. Location of study site in relation to physiographic regions (modified from US Forest
Service, 1969).

















) 40


20
2 20
0I


0 I I I I I I
streamside riparian midslope upslope
Distance from stream

Figure 3-2. Mean salamander count in relation to distance from streams in four sub-watersheds
of the Dry Creek Basin, Georgia. Captures occurred during pre-harvest survey period
December 2002-November 2003. Line designates generalized location of SMZ. Bars
represent standard deviation.





60

N L-
j40 2


o 2 -o
S20




streamside riparian midslope upslope
Distance from stream

Figure 3-3. Mean treefrog count in relation to distance from streams in four sub-watersheds of
the Dry Creek Basin, Georgia. Captures occurred during pre-harvest survey period
December 2002-November 2003. Line designates hypothetical boundary where SMZ
would occur. Bars represent standard deviation.












Year 0









A-F B-H C-H D-F


Year Year 2


i I


A-F B-H C-H" D-F"


A-F B-H C-H* D-F


Year 3









A-F" B-H" C-H D-F


Figure 3-4. Mean (+1 SE) annual terrestrial salamander counts in four watersheds (A, B, C, D).
Harvested (H) watersheds were paired with forested (F) watersheds during the pre-
harvest survey (Year 0) and monthly monitoring continued three years following
clear-cut harvesting. Significant differences in counts among watershed pairs (A+B,
C+D) are denoted (P<0.05 = *, P< 0.01 = **).


Year 0

)0"

'0-

0-


A-F B-H C-H* D-F*


Year I









A-F B-H C-H" D-F"


Year 2








A-* B-H* -H D-F
A-F* B-H* C-H" D-F"


Year 3








A-F B-H -H D-F
A-Fg B-H -H"t D-F*


Figure 3-5. Mean (1 SE) annual treefrog counts in forested (F) and harvested (H) watersheds of
the Dry Creek Basin, GA. Significant differences in paired watersheds A+B and C+D
are denoted (P<0.05 = *; P<0.01 = **).













Year 0










a C
o D' .9 .9
o .-
H-


Year 1









I-
*a C
> aL ^
o D 9 .9
Ow E
Xf


Year 2






I'l


*a C
> aL ^
o D> .9 a
oQ i
.-


Year 3




i


I1


C) ar
*a C
o~C
r:m
-
t- -a


Figure 3-6. Mean (+1 SE) annual terrestrial salamander counts within upstream/downstream
portions of forested watersheds compared to thinned and intact SMZs of harvested
watersheds. Significant differences between upstream-downstream and thinned-intact
stream segments are denoted (P<0.05 = *).


Year 2










I ZI
Hc
Q j


Figure 3-7. Mean (1 SE) annual in-stream salamander larvae counts for reference and harvested
watersheds. Significant differences between upstream-downstream and thinned-intact
stream segments are denoted (P<0.05 = *, P<0.01 = **).


Year 0






I



i I
C CD
o* t Z


Year I








i I

a CD
Q H*


Year 3










a = c
o *
*H














YearO0 Year 1 Year 2
251 1 I 1


IIqr~

6 =i .
C) '
a


ii I

6 =i .
) '-e
a


Q i

C~C
a C


Year 3








TI
21 :i



Q ^r
C a


Figure 3-8. Mean (+1 SE) annual treefrog counts for reference and harvested watersheds.
Significant differences between upstream-downstream and thinned-intact stream
segments are denoted (P<0.05 = *, P<0.01 = **).









CHAPTER 4
CONCLUSIONS

The objective of this research was to determine amphibian responses to forest harvest and

SMZ management techniques applied in southwestern Georgia. Conflicting evidence on

responses of amphibians to forest harvest across the U.S. warranted additional research on this

subject. Amphibians are abundant in southeastern ecosystems and are reliant on the same habitat

variables that SMZs are intended to protect. Therefore inferences on how amphibians respond to

forest harvest and SMZ practices can aid in determining if these practices are effective in

protecting stream and riparian ecosystems.

Amphibian populations are difficult to characterize due to fluctuations in detection

probability. When developing relative (observed) abundance indexes, it is assumed that detection

probability is constant across space and time. However, when salamander detections with

coverboards were evaluated (Chapter 2) it was found that detection probability changes as

coverboards age. Salamanders were detected more often with three-year old coverboards than

new coverboards. This suggests that temporal comparisons of abundance indices made over 3-

years violate assumptions of constant detection probability. Therefore it is suggested that

coverboards be replaced every two years to maintain similar detection probability. To alleviate

bias in relative abundance indices, it is suggested that statistical estimates of detection

probability be considered.

This study also evaluated amphibian responses to forest harvest and management practices

in SMZs (Chapter 3). All species of amphibians detected during the pre-harvest survey period

were found present following clear-cut timber harvesting of watersheds. Counts of terrestrial

salamanders within SMZs were similar before and after harvest. There was a decline in treefrog

counts within SMZs of harvested relative to forested watersheds. SMZs in downstream segments









were thinned and compared to upstream intact SMZs. There was no effect of thinning SMZs on

terrestrial or larval salamanders, however, thinning adversely affected treefrogs, resulting in

lower counts compared to intact SMZs. Treefrogs may be more susceptible to forest harvest than

salamanders due to their need for large dispersal ranges. Whether treefrogs use SMZs as

corridors for movement and metapopulation dynamics remains uncertain. Furthermore, thinning

resulted in more canopy loss due to windthrow than intact SMZs. Thinning in this region may

not be appropriate due to high frequency of hurricanes and tropical storms.









LIST OF REFERENCES


Alford, R. A. & Richards, S. J. (1999). Global amphibian declines: A problem in applied
ecology. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 30, 133-165

Ash, A. N. (1997). Disappearance and return of plethodontid salamanders to clearcut plots in the
southern blue ridge mountains. Conservation Biology, 11, 983-989

Biek, R., Mills, S. L., & Bury, B. R. (2002). Terrestrial and stream amphibians across clearcut-
forest interfaces in the Siskiyou Mountains, Oregon. Northwest Science, 76, 129-140

Blaustein A. R & Kiesecker J. M. (2002). Complexity in conservation: lessons from the global
decline of amphibian populations. Ecology Letters, 5, 597-608

Blaustein, A. R., Wake, D. B. & Sousa, W. P. (1994). Amphibian declines: Judging stability,
persistence, and susceptibility of populations to local and global extinctions. Conservation
Biology, 8, 60-71

Boughton, R. G., Staiger, J. & Franz, R. (2000). Use of PVC pipe refugia as a sampling
technique for hylid treefrogs. The American Midland Naturalist, 144, 168-177

Burton T. M., & Likens G. E. (1975a). Energy flow and nutrient cycling in salamander
populations in the Hubbard Brook experimental forest, New Hampshire. Ecology 56,
1068-1080

Burton, T. M. & Likens, G. E. (1975b). Salamander populations and biomass in the Hubbard
Brook experimental forest, New Hampshire. Copeia, 1975, 541-546

Clawson, R. G., Lockaby, B. G. & Jones, R. H. (1997). Amphibian responses to helicopter
harvesting in forested floodplains of low order, blackwater streams. Forest Ecology and
Management, 90, 225-235

Collins, J. P. & Storfer, A. (2003). Global amphibian declines: Sorting the hypotheses. Diversity
and Distributions, 9, 89-98

Committee on Riparian Zone Functioning and Strategies for Management, Water Science and
Technology Board, National Research Council. (2002). Riparian Areas: Functions and
Strategies for Management [Electronic version]. Retrieved December 13, 2007, from
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?recordid=10327

Couch, C. A, Hopkins, E. H., & Hardy, P. S. (1996). Influences of environmental settings on
aquatic ecosystems in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint river basin. U.S. Geological
Survey National Water-Quality Assessment Program. Water-Resources Investigations
Report 95-4278. 58 pp.

Dale, V. H., & Beyeler, S. C. (2001). Challenges in development and use of ecological
indicators. Ecological Indicators, 1, 3-10









Dodd, C. K. & Dorazio, R. M. (2004). Using counts to simultaneously estimate abundance and
detection probabilities in a salamander community. Herpetologica, 60, 468-478

Duellman, W. E., & Trueb, L. (1994). Biology ofAmphibians. (The Johns Hopkins University
Press)

Entrekin, S., Golladay, S., Ruhlman, M., & Hedman, C. (1999). Unique steephead stream
segments in Southwest Georgia: invertebrate diversity and biomonitoring. Proceedings of
the 1999 Georgia Water Resources Conference, held March 30-31, 1999, at University of
Georgia. Kathryn J. Hatcher, editor, Institute of Ecology, The University of Georgia,
Athens, Georgia.

Enge, K. M. (2002). Herpetofaunal drift-fence survey of steephead ravines and seepage bogs in
the western Florida Panhandle. Final Performance Report. Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, Florida, USA.

Georgia Forestry Commission (1999). Georgia's Best Management Practices for Forestry.
Retrieved December 13, 2007, from
http://www.gfc.state.ga.us/ForestManagement/documents/GeorgiaForestryBMPManual.pd
f

Grant, B. W., Tucker, A., D., Lovich, J. E., Mills, A. M., Dixon, P. M., & Gibbons, J. W. (1992).
The use of coverboards in estimating patterns of reptile and amphibian biodiversity. (In D.
R. McCullough, & R. H. Barrett (Eds.), Wildlife 2001: Populations (pp. 379-403).
Elsevier Science Publ. Inc., London, England.)

Grialou, J. A., West, S. D. & Wilkins, N. R. (2000). The effects of forest clearcut harvesting and
thinning on terrestrial salamanders. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 64, 105-113

Grover, M. C. (2000). Determinants of salamander distributions along moisture gradients.
Copeia, 2000, 156-168

Grover, M. C. (1998). Influence of cover and moisture on abundances of the terrestrial
salamanders plethodon cinereus and plethodon glutinosus. Journal ofHerpetology, 32,
489-497

Guerry, A. D., & Hunter, M. L. (2002). Amphibian distributions in a landscape of forests and
agriculture: an examination of landscape composition and configuration. Conservation
Biology, 16, 745-754

Harrison, S., & Voller, J. (1998). Conservation biology principlesforforested landscapes.
(University of British Columbia Press)

Harpole, D. N., & Haas, C. A. (1999). Effects of seven silvicultural treatments on terrestrial
salamanders. Forest Ecology andManagement, 114, 349-356

Hartley, M. J. (2002). Rationale and methods for conserving biodiversity in plantation forests.
Forest Ecology and Management, 155, 81-95









Heyer, W. R., Donnelly M. A., McDiarmid, R. W., Hayek, L. C., & Foster, M. S. (1994).
Standard Techniques. (In W. R. Heyer, M. A. Donnelly, R. W. McDiarmid, L. C. Hayek &
M. S. Foster (Eds), Measuring and Monitoring Biological Diversity: Standard Methods for
Amphibians (pp. 75-78) Smithsonian Inst. Press, Washington, D. C.)

Holomuzki, J. R., Collins J. P., & Brunkow P. E. (1994). Trophic control of fishless ponds by
tiger salamander larvae. Oikos, 71, 55-64.

Houlahan, J. E., Scott, F. C., Benedikt, S. R., Meyer, A. H., & Sergious, K. L. (2000).
Quantitative evidence for global amphibian population declines. Nature, 404, 752-755.

Hyde, E. J. & Simons, T. R. (2001). Sampling plethodontid salamanders: Sources of variability.
The Journal of Wildlife Management, 65, 624-632

Houze, M. C., & Chandler, C. R. (2002). Evaluation of coverboards for sampling terrestrial
salamanders in South Georgia. Journal of Herpetology, 36, 75-81

Jones, D.G., Summer, W.B., Miwa, M., & Jackson, C.R. (2003). Baseline characterization of
forested headwater stream hydrology and water chemistry in southwest Georgia. (In:
Connor, K.F. (Eds). Proceedings of the 12th biennial \inh,,eii n1 silviculture research
conference. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-71. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Southern Research Station: 161-165)

Knapp, S. M., Haas, C. A., Harpole, D. N., & Kirkpatrick, R. L. (2003). Initial effects of
clearcutting and alternative silvicultural practices on terrestrial salamander abundance.
Conservation Biology, 17, 752-762

MacKenzie, D. I., Nichols, J. D., Lachman, G. B., Droege, S., Royle, J. A., & Langtimm, C. A.
(2002). Estimating site occupancy rates when detection probabilities are less than one.
Ecology, 83, 2248-2255

Means, D. B. (1985). The canyonlands of Florida. Nature Conservancy News,
September/October, 13-17

Means, D. B. (2000). Southeastern U.S. Coastal Plain habitats of the Plethodontidae: the
importance of relief, ravines, and seepage. (In R. C. Bruce, R. J. Jaeger, and L. D. Houck,
(Eds.) The biology ofplethodontid salamanders. (Pages 287-302) Plenum, New York,
New York, USA.)

Marsh, D. M. & Goicochea, M. A. (2003). Monitoring terrestrial salamanders: Biases caused by
intense sampling and choice of cover objects. Journal ofHerpetology, 37, 460-466

Maxcy, K. A. & Richardson, J. (2000). Abundance and movements of terrestrial salamanders in
second-growth forests of southwestern British Columbia. (Proceedings of a conference on
the biology and management of species and habitats at risk, Kamloops, B. C.)









Monti, L., Hunter, M., & Witham, J. (2000). An evaluation of the artificial cover object (ACO)
method for monitoring populations of the redback salamander plethodon cinereus. Journal
ofHerpetology, 34, 624-629

New Georgia Encyclopedia, 2007. http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Articlej sp?id=h-
2188&hl=y. Last accessed March 26, 2007.

Niemela, J. (2001). The utility of movement corridors in forested landscapes. Scandinavian
Journal ofForest Research, 16, 70

O'Neill, E. D. (1995). Amphibian and reptile communities of temporary ponds in a managed
pine flatwoods. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida. 106 p. M.S. thesis.

Parris, K. M. (1999). Review: Amphibian Surveys in Forests and Woodlands. Contemporary
Herpetology, 1, 1-14.

Petranka, J. W. (1994). Response to impact of timber harvesting on salamanders. Conservation
Biology, 8, 302-304

Petranka, J. W. (1998). Salamanders of the United States and Canada. Smithsonian Institution
Press, Washington DC.

Petranka, J. W., & Murray, S. S. (2001). Effectiveness of removal sampling for determining
salamander density and biomass: a case study in an Appalachian streamside community.
Journal ofHerpetology, 35, 36-44

Pollock, K. H., Nichols, J. D., Simons, T. R., Farnsworth, G. L., Bailey, L. L., & Sauer, J. R.
(2002). Large scale wildlife monitoring studies: statistical methods for design and analysis.
Environmetrics, 13, 105-119

Royle, J. A. (2004). N-mixture models for estimating population size from spatially replicated
counts. Biometrics, 60, 108-115

Russell, K. R., Van Lear, D.H., & Guynn, D.C., Jr. (2002). Responses of isolated wetland
herpetofauna to upland forest management. Journal of Wildlife Management. 66, 603-617

Russell, K. R., Wigley, T. B., Baughman, W. M., Hanlin, H. G., & Ford, M. W. (2004).
Responses of southeastern amphibians and reptiles to forest management: a review. (In
Southern Forest Science. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service,
Southern Research Station. General Technical Reprort SRS-75, pp. 319-334.)

Ryan, T. J., Philippi, T., Leiden, Y. A., Dorcas, M. E., Wigley, T. B. & Gibbons, J. W. (2002).
Monitoring herpetofauna in a managed forest landscape: Effects of habitat types and
census techniques. Forest Ecology and Management, 167, 83-90

Schmidt, B. R. (2003). Count data, detection probabilities, and the demography, dynamics,
distribution, and decline of amphibians. Comptes Rendus Biologies, 326, 119-124









Semlitsch, R. D. (1998). Biological delineation of terrestrial buffer zones for pond-breeding
salamanders. Conservation Biology, 12, 1113-1119

Semlitsch, R. D. & Bodie, J. R. (2003). Biological criteria for buffer zones around wetlands and
riparian habitats for amphibians and reptiles. Conservation Biology, 17, 1219-1228

Sharitz, R. R., Boring, L. R., Van Lear, D. H., & Pinder, J. E. (1992). Integrating ecological
concepts with natural resource management of southern forests. Ecological Applications,
2, 226-237

Smith, C. K. & Petranka, J. W. (2000). Monitoring terrestrial salamanders: Repeatability and
validity of area-constrained cover object searches. Journal ofHerpetology, 34, 547-557

Southeast Regional Climate Center. Bainbridge, Georgia Climate Information.
http://climate.engr.uga.edu/bainbridge/index.html, Last accessed August 8, 2004.

Stewart M. M., & Woolbright L. L. (1996). Amphibians. (In: Reagan DP and Waide RP (Eds).
Thefood web of a tropical rainforest. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.)

Stuart, S. N., Chanson, J. S., Cox, N. A., Young, B. E., Rodrigues A. S., Fischman, D. L., &
Waller, R. W. (2004). Status and trends of amphibian declines and extinctions worldwide.
Science 306, 1783-86

Summer, W.B., Jackson, C. R., Jones, D. G., & Miwa, M. (2003). Characterization of hydrologic
and sediment transport behavior of forested headwater streams in southwest Georgia. (In:
Proceedings of the 2003 Georgia Water Resources Conference, Athens, GA. 23-24 April
2003. The Institute of Ecology: The University of Georgia, Athens, GA. 157-160.)

Summer, W.B., Jackson, R.C., Jones, D., Golladay, S.W., & Miwa, M., (2005). Hydrologic and
Sediment Transport Response to Forestry; Southwest Georgia Headwater Streams. (In:
Proceedings of the 2005 Georgia Water Resources Conference, held April 25-27, 2005.
The Institute of Ecology: The University of Georgia, Athens, GA.)

Sun, G., Riedel, M., Jackson, R., Kolka, R., Amataya, D., & Shepard, J., (2004). Chapter 19:
Influences of Management of Southern Forests on Water Quality and Quantity. United
States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Southern Research Station General
Technical Report SRS-75. Southern Forest Science: Past, Present, Future. 408 p.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (2005). National Management Measures to
Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry.
http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/forestrymgmt/. Last accessed March 26, 2007.

United States Forest Service (1969). A Forest Atlas of the South. Southern Forest Experiment
Station and Southeastern Forest Experiment Station Publication. 27 pp.

U.S. Geological Survey National Water-Quality Assessment Program. Water-Resources
Investigations Report 95-4278. 58 pp.









Vitt, L. J., J. P. Caldwell, H. M. Wilbur, & D. C. Smith (1990). Amphibians as harbingers of
decay. BioScience 40, 418

Wake D. B. (1991). Declining amphibian populations. Science 253, 860

Welsh, H. H. & Droege, S. (2001). A case for using plethodontid salamanders for monitoring
biodiversity and ecosystem integrity of north american forests. Conservation Biology, 15,
558-569

Wissinger S. A., Whiteman, H. H., Sparks, G. B., Rouse, G. L., & Brown, W. S. (1999).
Foraging tradeoffs along a predator-permanence gradient in subalpine wetlands. Ecology,
80, 2102-16

Wyatt, J. L. & Forys, E. A. (2004). Conservation implications of predation by Cuban Treefrogs
(Osteopilus septentrionalis) on native hylids in Florida. .wntlt/ie, ii Naturalist, 3, 695-
700









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Diane W. Bennett spent her childhood years in Nashville, Tennessee as the youngest of

three children. In middle school, she was relocated to the suburbs of Orlando, Florida where she

spent her teenage years attending Lyman High School. After graduating high school in 1997, she

traveled for two years working odd jobs such as meat cutting and cable lineman until learning

she had been awarded the Florida Bright Futures Scholarship, for which she aptly returned to

Florida to enroll in Valencia Community College.

College began with courses in remedial math and English, but hard work and

determination led her to tutoring mathematics, eventually earning over 32 credits in mathematics

alone. She attended leadership workshops and worked closely with students and professors to

improve campus environmental quality through club and community forums. She served as

president for Phi Theta Kappa (International Honors Society) and co-founded The

Environmental Club, which was awarded "Best Environmental Outreach" by Florida Leader

Magazine, May 2002. In May 2003, she graduated with Honors, receiving her Associates Degree

for Pre-Engineering, and was recognized as Valencia Community College Alumni Association's

Distinguished Graduate, for which she was keynote speaker at her graduation.

In January 2004, Diane enrolled in the Environmental Engineering Sciences Department at

The University of Florida to complete her bachelor's degree. After attending an applied ecology

course in summer 2004, she began working for Dr. Thomas L. Crisman in the Howard T. Odum

Center for Wetlands. Once there, she branched off from engineering to study ecological

indicators and watershed management. In May 2005 she was granted a monetary award by the

University Scholar's Program to complete a study with the advisement of Dr. Crisman to

evaluate amphibians along disturbance gradients in urban headwater streams. As part of her

capstone design course for engineering, Diane worked with a team of student engineers to design









an expansion to a wastewater treatment facility. This team was awarded First Place at both

Regional and National conferences in 2006. She graduated with her bachelor's degree in

environmental engineering sciences in May 2006, and immediately enrolled in the master's

program to continue working under the direction of Dr. Crisman.

Upon completion of her master's degree, Diane will search for government employment

involving sustainable watershed development. She hopes to apply her knowledge of ecology

with engineering, and to bridge gaps between these sciences. She plans to continue her

education, eventually earning her PhD, with anticipation that one day she may return inspiration,

nurturing, and guidance to students like that she received throughout her academic career.





PAGE 1

AMPHIBIAN RESPONSES TO FOREST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN SOUTHWESTERN GEORGIA By DIANE W. BENNETT A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ENGINEERING UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2008 1

PAGE 2

2008 Diane W. Bennett 2

PAGE 3

To the little things. 3

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank the chair and members of my supervisory committee for their mentoring and patience, the students and professors of the Environmental Engi neering Department for their inspiration, and International Paper, Nationa l Council for Air and Stream Improvement, and National Fish and Wildlife Foundation for their ge nerous support. I also thank my parents for encouraging me to take the necessary leaps of faith that separate happiness from complacency, and my friends for their continuous suppor t and endurance throughout this process. 4

PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................................7 LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................................8 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ..........................................................................................................9 ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................................10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. .11 2 EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS OF COVERBOARD AGE IN TERRESTRIAL SALAMANDER MONITORING PROGRAMS...................................................................14 Introduction .............................................................................................................................14 Materials and Methods ...........................................................................................................16 Data Analysis ..........................................................................................................................17 Results .....................................................................................................................................18 Acclimation Period ..........................................................................................................18 Salamander Encounters Under Old versus New Coverboards ........................................18 Sizes .................................................................................................................................19 Coverboard Microhabitat .................................................................................................19 Discussion ...............................................................................................................................19 3 AMPHIBIAN RESPONSES TO FOREST HARVEST AND STREAMSIDE MANAGEMENT ZONE PRACTICES IN SOUTHWESTERN GEORGIA........................26 Introduction .............................................................................................................................26 Amphibians as Biological Indicators ...............................................................................26 Forestry BMPs in the Southeast ......................................................................................27 Research Problem ............................................................................................................28 Methods ..................................................................................................................................29 Site Description ...............................................................................................................29 Climate .....................................................................................................................29 Steep-head ravines ....................................................................................................30 Soils ..........................................................................................................................31 Study Design ...................................................................................................................31 Field Sampling .................................................................................................................32 Terrestrial adult salamander monitoring ..................................................................32 Aquatic larval salamander monitoring .....................................................................33 Adult treefrog monitoring ........................................................................................33 5

PAGE 6

Data Analysis ...................................................................................................................33 Results and Discussion ...........................................................................................................34 Effects of Harvest on Amphibian Presen ce and Distributions within Watersheds .........34 Results: Adult salamander presence .........................................................................34 Results: Adult salamander distributions ...................................................................35 Results: Treefrog presence .......................................................................................35 Results: Treefrog distributions .................................................................................36 Discussion: Effects of harvest on am phibian presence and distributions ................36 Effects of Harvest on Amphibian Abundances within SMZs .........................................38 Results: Adult salamanders ......................................................................................38 Results: Treefrogs ....................................................................................................39 Discussion: Amphibian abundance within SMZs ....................................................40 Effects of SMZ Thinning on Amphibian Abundance .....................................................43 Results: Adult salamanders ......................................................................................43 Results: Larval salamanders .....................................................................................43 Results: Treefrogs ....................................................................................................44 Discussion: SMZ thinning ........................................................................................44 Recommendations...................................................................................................................46 SMZ Width ......................................................................................................................46 SMZ Thinning .................................................................................................................46 4 CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................................. ..56 LIST OF REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................58 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .........................................................................................................64 6

PAGE 7

LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 Distribution of salamanders under both old and new coverboards....................................23 2-2 Average salamander snout-to-vent length under old and new coverboards ......................23 3-3 Timetable for the Dry Creek St udy, Southlands Fore st, Bainbridge, GA. ........................48 3-1 SMZ widths by slope class and stream type. .....................................................................48 3-2 Flow statistics in study watersheds during 27-month pre-treatment survey. .....................48 3-4 Salamander species pres ence in four sub-watersheds ........................................................49 3-5 Treefrog species presence in four sub-watersheds .............................................................50 7

PAGE 8

LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-1 Number of salamanders captured relativ e to number of months since coverboards were installed .....................................................................................................................24 2-2 Number of salamander captures for new coverboards compared to old coverboards .......24 2-3 Coverboard mean soil temperature and pe rcent moisture compared to natural cover .......25 3-1 Location of study site in relation to physiographic regions ...............................................51 3-2 Mean salamander count in re lation to distance from streams ............................................52 3-3 Mean treefrog count in re lation to distance from streams .................................................52 3-4 Mean annual terrestrial salamander counts in four watersheds .........................................53 3-5 Mean annual treefrog counts in forested and harvested watersheds ..................................53 3-6 Mean annual terrestrial salamander c ounts within upstream/dow nstream portions of forested watersheds compared to thinned and intact SMZs of harvested watersheds.......54 3-7 Mean annual in-stream salamander la rvae counts for reference and harvested watersheds ..........................................................................................................................54 3-8 Mean annual treefrog counts for reference and harvested watersheds..............................55 8

PAGE 9

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Detection probability BACI-P Before-after-control-impact-paired BMPs Best management practices C Count D Population density Dry Creek Study Streamside management zone effectiveness of hydrology, water quality, and aquatic habitats in southwes tern Georgia headwater streams IPSF International Papers Southlands Forest NCASI National Council for Air and Stream Improvement NFWF National Fish and Wildlife Foundation PVC Polyvinyl chloride SMZs Streamside management zones 9

PAGE 10

Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Engineering AMPHIBIAN RESPONSES TO FOREST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN SOUTHWESTERN GEORGIA By Diane W. Bennett May 2008 Chair: Thomas L. Crisman Major: Environmental Engineering Sciences Amphibians (frogs and salamanders) were monitored monthly since December 2002 as part of a study examining the impact of forest harvest and Streamside Management Zone (SMZ) practices. The study encompassed four adjacent s ubwatersheds of the Dry Creek Watershed at the Southlands Experimental Forest of Intern ational Paper, Bainbridge, GA. Two watersheds were left intact, while two were harvested. The SM Z was left intact in the upstream reach of each treatment stream, while in the downstream, 50% of basal area was removed from the SMZ (thinned). Terrestrial salamander numbers were assessed using plywood coverboards at fixed stations throughout the watersheds. Salamander numbers were greate st closer to the streams, within the width covered by the SMZ, and thinni ng of SMZs did not affect salamander counts. Comparison of concurrent old and new coverboa rd data for one year suggested that board replacement had an effect on salamander capture s, with more encounters occurring under old boards. Treefrog numbers were assessed using PVC pipes driven vertically into the substrate as habitat attractants. Capture like lihood was reduced in harvested ar eas, as well as thinned SMZs. However, all species of amphibians recorded during the pre-harvest survey period remained present following harvest. This study suggest s that current SMZ widths are adequate for maintaining amphibian presence. However, thin ning in this region may be inappropriate. 10

PAGE 11

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Forest managers are challenged to balance pr oduction of forest produc ts with maintenance of environmental quality, mana gement of wildlife habitat, an d conservation of biodiversity (Hartley, 2002; Sharitz et al., 1992 ). Best management practices (B MPs) are sustainable forestry guidelines developed to inform sivilculture ope rators of practices to minimize nonpoint source pollution (e.g., soil erosion and stream sedime ntation) and thermal pollution, thus reducing environmental degradation (Georgia Forest ry Commission, 1999). Impacts to environmental quality as a result of forestry practices have the abil ity to alter habitats beyond thresholds of certain species. These indicator species can be monitored, evaluated, and used to assess the condition of the environment either to provide an early warning of changes in the environment, or to diagnose the cause of an enviro nmental problem (Dale and Beyeler, 2001). Amphibians are valuable biological indicators for southeastern fo restry due to life history traits, abundance, and sensitivity to environmen tal perturbations (Vitt et al., 1990; Welsh and Droege, 2001). Evaluation of amphibian responses to forestry practices ca n provide insight into the effects of forestry management practices on environmental quality. In a literature review on amphibian responses to forestry (Russell et al ., 2004) conflicting result s necessitated further research. Previous research has concentrated on res ponses to clear-cut harvesting, with little attention to forestry BMPs (Ash, 1988, 1997; Cl awson et al., 1997; Knapp et al., 2003). Many studies that reported declines in amphibians occurred in the Pa cific Northwest or Appalachians (Biek et al., 2002; Petranka, 1994, 1998; Harpole and Haas, 1999), whereas studies in the Southeastern United States reported increa sed numbers of amphibians following forestry operations (ONeill, 1995; Clawson et al., 1997). These contradictions emphasize that amphibian 11

PAGE 12

populations are difficult to char acterize and that more resear ch is necessary to understand discrepancies regarding respons es to forest management. Russell et al. (2004) reported only six studies investigating effects of forest management on southeastern herpetofauna that employed ma nipulative designs with pre-treatment and posttreatment data, treatment replicat ion, or true spatial and temporal references (Ash, 1997; Chazal and Niewiarowski, 1998; Clawson et al., 1997; Harpole and Haas, 1999; Knapp et al., 2003; Russell et al., 2002). Among these studies, a lim ited number contained pre-treatment data, spanned multiple years, or included treefrog monitoring. Furthermore, few studies have evaluated management practices within SMZs (Streamside Management Zones), making the appropriateness of these applications uncerta in (Grialou et al., 2000; Committee on Riparian Zone Functioning and Strategies for Mana gement, Water Science and Technology Board National Research Council, 2002). Contradictory findings and lack of quantifiable evidence on BMP effectiveness in protecting amphibian biodiversity fail to support presumptions that current forest management is successful at balancing production with conservation. More standardized, controlled manipulation e xperiments are needed. To meet these research needs, Internationa l Paper, along with partners University of Florida, University of Georgia, Clemson Univer sity, Jones Ecological Res earch Center, National Council for Air and Stream Improvement (NCAS I), Georgia Forestry Commission, and National Fish and Wildlife Foundati on (NFWF) developed the Dry Creek Study (Streamside Management Zone Effectiveness of Hydrology, Water Quality, a nd Aquatic Habitats in Southwestern Georgia Headwater Streams) in 2000 to determine how upland and streamside forest management affects stream hydrology, water quality and biological indicators. As a component of the study, amphibians were monitored. 12

PAGE 13

This study evaluates the effectiveness of fo restry BMPs, specifically SMZs and partial timber harvesting on amphibian presence, distribu tion, and relative abundance. This experiment was conducted using the manipulative Before-A fter-Control-Impact-P aired (BACI-P) design. Initial and short-term responses to forestry were evaluated over a four-year period, with one year serving as pre-harvest data. Amphibians monitored in this study include d adult and juvenile salamanders and treefrogs. Passive trapping techniques (i.e., cove rboards and PVC pipes) were elected for terrestrial amphibian monitoring, while active trappi ng (i.e., dipnet) was performed for larval salamander sampling. Salamander size dist ributions were included to assess impacts on reproduction. Chapter 2 is dedicated to evaluation of samp ling methodology used for salamanders in this study. Chapter 3 then covers amphibian respon ses to forestry management and the final discussion includes recommendations for SMZs. Finally, Chapter 4 presents conclusions from both studies, providing insight for futu re studies and forest management. 13

PAGE 14

CHAPTER 2 EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS OF COVERBOARD AGE IN TERRESTRIAL SALAMANDER MONITORING PROGRAMS Introduction Salamanders are valuable biological indicator s of ecosystem health (Welsh and Droege, 2001). Reports of global declines (e.g., Alford and Richards, 1999; Blaustein et al., 1994; Houlahan, 2000) support the need for research on anthropogenic effects on populations. One facet of this research is to understand largescale dynamics of terrestri al salamander populations and their responses to forest harvest (Petranka, 1 994; Ash, 1997). Due to extensive spatial and temporal scales of these studies, it is often too impractical or costly to determine absolute abundance; instead populations are estimated with indices of relative (observed) abundance. However, some assumptions made when equating indices with populations may be invalid when making comparisons across large sp atial and temporal scales. In such cases, indices may produce results unrepresentative of act ual populations, eventually a ffecting forestry management decisions. Several sampling techniques are availabl e to determine relative abundance of salamanders (Heyer et al., 1994), each able to det ect different subsets of populations (Parris, 1999; Dodd and Dorazio, 2004). Coverboards are often used to sample surface dwelling, terrestrial salamanders, and thei r application has been evaluate d relative to other techniques (Monti et al., 2000; Houze and Chandler, 2002 ; Ryan et al., 2002). They are normally nontreated plywood shingles placed on the ground to mi mic natural cover objects. Periodically these boards are lifted, and the area beneath search ed for salamanders. A population index is developed by the count ( C ) of salamanders encountered under the coverboards and assumed to be directly proportional to th e actual population density ( D ) and the probability of detecting the animal in the survey ( ) (Pollock et al., 2002; Schmidt, 2003) Salamander detection probability, 14

PAGE 15

, is assumed to be constant over space and time; a critical assumption when assessing population changes. If this assumption is violated, then changes in both detection probability and population size are confounded, and conclusions about responses to anthropogenic effects cannot be made. Salamander detection probability is dependent on biotic (e.g., weather, rainfall, microhabitat quality, breeding patterns) and abio tic (e.g., observer ability, enumeration method) factors that are susceptible to variation (Dodd and Dorazio, 2004). Coverboards can help control some of the variability in making them useful for large-scal e studies (Parris, 1999). Detection probability is stabilized across space when cover board sampling occurs concurrently, since largescale environmental factors su ch as weather and time of da y are controlled. Coverboards standardize sampling ability and between-observer bias (S mith and Petranka, 2000), and destruction to the natural habitat is minimized (Marsh and Goicochea, 2003) thus preventing changes to the microhabitat over time. Additional benef its of the use of co verboards for largescale studies include time and labor efficiency (Monti et al., 2000) and low maintenance and cost relative to other methods (Ryan et al., 2002). Despite advantages of using coverboards, sa lamander detection is still imperfect, and its probability is subject to change over time. Salama nders may require an acclimation period before species are detected under newly installed coverboards, in dicating increasing Over time, plywood coverboards weather and deteriorate, potentially affecting microhabitat quality underneath. Studies have suggested that salamander detection is re lated to microhabitat variables and have postulated that aging of coverboards may create habitat of different quality over time (Houze and Chandler, 2002). In contrast, Hyde and Simons (2001) suggested that large-scale factors (i.e., disturbance history, proximity to stream, elevation) have more effect on detection 15

PAGE 16

probability than microhabitat, implying that ag ing of coverboards will not affect population indices. There is need for understa nding factors that influence proba bility of detection to ensure that relative abundance comparis ons over space and time represen t actual population dynamics accurately. In a watershed-scale study of terrestrial amphibian response to forestry BMPs, nontreated plywood coverboards were used to monitor surface dwelling popula tions of terrestrial salamanders. After three years of monthly m onitoring, the boards had begun to rot and deteriorate, aging to the point of affecting routine sampling. New coverboards were then installed directly adjacent to old coverboards. Both old and new boards were checked monthly for one year until old coverboards deteriorated to the point that the area underneath could no longer be adequately searched. Such monitoring permitted evaluation of sampling bias attributed to coverboard age. Acclimation periods for new boards were examined, as were microhabitats to determine whether coverboards adequately mimicked the natural environment. Materials and Methods This study was conducted in the coastal plai ns physiographic regi on of southwestern Georgia. The study site was in the Dry Creek Wa tershed located in the Southlands Forest of International Paper at Bainbridge, GA. Four sub-wa tersheds (A, B, C, D) were selected for study sites, ranging in area from 25.8 to 48.0 ha. All exhibited steep slopes (35) towards groundwater-fed streams. Timber in watersheds B and C was clear-cut harvested in Fall 2003 following Georgia BMPs. Each sub-watershed was divided into four rectangular sampling grids located on opposite banks of upstream and downstream reaches of the stream course, for a total of sixteen grids for the study. Each grid contained thre e transects (streamside, riparian, midslope) that ran parallel to the stream for roughly 40 meters. In Decem ber 2002, plywood coverboards (60 x 60 x 2 cm) 16

PAGE 17

were placed at four stations 5 meters apart along each transect in the sampling grids. The areas where coverboards were installed were cleared of leaf litter and woody debris so boards had direct contact with the soil. Grids were th en searched monthly for twelve months for salamanders. By May 2005, the boards had weat hered and begun to deteriorate, and new coverboards of the same materials and dimensions were placed adjacent to the old boards. Both old and new coverboards were then checked monthly (except December 2005) for salamander presence from June 2005 through June 2006, when ol d coverboards had deteriorated to the point that the area underneath could not be adequately searched. When searching grids, each coverboard wa s lifted, and the entire area was examined underneath for salamanders. All salamanders encountered were identif ied to species and measured (snout-vent length, SVL). Individual salamanders were not marked, and analyses were based on the number of salamanders encountered per search from new versus old coverboards on the same grid. To compare aged coverboard microc limate to that of the natural environment, soil temperature and moisture readings were record ed both under old coverboards and in the natural environment for each transect on each sampling occasion using an Aquaterr M-300 digital meter. Data Analysis Salamander capture data from sub-watersheds were combined to examine coverboard detections. To examine acclimation periods, Spearm ans rank correlations were used to analyze for temporal trends since coverboards were in stalled to monitor salamander captures over a twelve-month period. Variance was evaluated using Le venes test statistic to assess whether new and old coverboards had equal variance in numbe r of captures. For each grid, mean salamander encounter rate was calculated as the number of salamanders en countered per grid search over twelve searches for both old and new coverboard s. These data were then analyzed using the Mann-Whitney test statistic to evaluate the null hypothesis that two independent samples come 17

PAGE 18

from the same population. Total numbers of salama nder encounters were analyzed by species for both old and new coverboards, and a t-test was perf ormed to test for differences in body sizes of the two most commonly encountered species. Fina lly, a t-test compared soil temperature and moisture data of coverboards to the natural envi ronment. All statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS (vers. 12.0, SPSS Inc.) at a significance level of P < 0.05. Results Acclimation Period Because watersheds B and C were clear-cut in 2003, they were eliminated from this portion of the analysis, and data from watershe ds A and D were combined. A total of 107 and 118 salamanders were recorded during a 12-month inspection of newly installed coverboards for the 2002-03 and 2005-06 sampling periods, respectiv ely. Salamanders were found in the initial sampling period following a one-month acclimati on period for both 2003 and 2005 installations. There was no relationship between number of salamanders captured and time elapsed since coverboards were installed (2003, Spearman s rho = 0.27, P = 0.42; 2005 Spearmans rho = 0.05, P = 0.89) over a twelve-month period (Figure 2-1). Salamander Encounters Under Ol d versus New Coverboards A total of 349 salamanders were captured be tween June 2005 and June 2006 in all four sub-watersheds. Old and new coverboards ac counted for 205 and 144 captures, respectively. Less than 1% of total coverboa rds recorded more than one sa lamander underneath (old = 1.17%, new = 0.78%). A mean of 1.06 salamanders ( + 0.10 SE; median = 1) was encountered per search under old coverboards, while a mean value of 0.75 salamanders ( + 0.09 SE; median = 0) was encountered per search under new coverboards. The number of monthly salamander detections with both old and new coverboards varied simila rly throughout the year, (Levenes F = 2.03, df = 18

PAGE 19

22, P = 0.169), with peaks occurring simultaneously during winter (Figure 2-2). There were significantly more salamanders encountered under old than ne w coverboards (P = 0.01). Sizes Five salamander species from three genera were encountered under both old and new coverboards (Table 2-1). Eurycea cirrigera, Eurycea longicauda guttolineata and Plethodon grobmani were the most common (45.6%, 29.8%, and 16.6% of total indivi duals encountered, respectively) with Pseudotriton ruber vioscai and Desmognathus apalachicolae infrequently encountered. The number of salamander species varied among watersheds. E. cirrigera E. longicauda guttolineata and P. grobmani were detected in all watersheds. P. ruber vioscai was encountered in watersheds A and C only, while D. apalachicolae was recorded in only C and D. SVLs were measured for 154 E. cirrigera and 98 E. longicauda guttolineata found under old and new coverboards. Mean SVL values of individuals found under old versus new coverboards were not significantl y different, suggesting that c overboard age has no effect on salamander length for these two species (Table 2-2). Coverboard Microhabitat Coverboards and natural cover disp layed mean temperatures of 65.04 + 6.28 and 64.52 + 6.53, respectively (Figure 2-3). There were no st atistical differences in temperature between coverboard and natural cover (P = 0.39). Furthermore, percent moisture under coverboards (mean = 61.14 + 35.74) was not significantl y different from natural cover objects (mean = 59.37 + 35.75; P = 0.61). Discussion Using indices of relative abundance to ev aluate population dynamics is common in terrestrial salamander studies. Howe ver, inconsistent responses to forestry (Russell et al., 2004) and other anthropogenic influences (Collins and Storfer, 2003) illuminate the fact that 19

PAGE 20

salamander populations are difficu lt to characterize, suggesti ng flaws in monitoring and/or statistical techniques. To develop a more accura te depiction of absolute abundance, underlying assumptions in relative abundance indices mu st be scrutinized. This study assessed the assumption of constant detection probability ( ); specifically that dete ction of salamanders under coverboards is constant over time. This study found that coverboards did not require an extended acclimation period before detection occurred. Salamanders colonized c overboards quickly following both 2002 and 2005 installations. Coverboards attracted salamanders after only a 1-month acclimation period, despite being installed during different times of year (December, 2002; June, 2005). This was consistent with a study by Houze and Chandler (2002) that detected salamanders within the first week following installation. Salamander captures did not increase as coverb oards aged, when examined over a one-year period. This agrees with a study by Monti et al. (2000) evaluating capture bias due to 1-year old coverboards. When 3-year old boards were exam ined next to new boards, however, aged boards captured more salamanders. Within the first year of coverboard usage there was no correlation between numbers of salamander captures and coverboard age; however, in the third year a relationship existed. Development of this relations hip probably occurred in the second year of coverboard usage, for which th is study does not have data. Despite increasing salamander counts with cove rboard age, both new and old coverboards did a good job of detecting the same species. Furthermore, si ze distribution of E. cirrigera and E. longicauda guttolineata did not differ with board age, a nd there was no evidence that newly installed coverboards biased sampling with respec t to size, at least for the most common species. 20

PAGE 21

Differences in physical characteristics between new and old coverboards may contribute to salamander capture biases. As coverboards decay, they may more effectively reproduce microclimates of natural cover and attract more salamanders than new coverboards. In this study, the microclimate of aged coverboards was simila r to the natural environment suggesting that as coverboards age, they more closely resemble na tural microhabitats of salamanders. However, it still remains unclear whether new coverboards adequately simulate salamander microclimates. Houze and Chandler (2002) recorded daily temp eratures under 4-month old coverboards and compared them to natural cover objects and f ound that although there was no difference in mean daily temperatures, there was signi ficantly more variability in coverboard temperatures than natural cover. Knowing that capture biases due to coverboard age occur within the third year of coverboard usage, but not the first year, it is difficult to draw definitive conclusions about relative abundance from temporal co mparisons of more than two years. Therefore, it is suggested that coverboard replacement occur within the se cond year of monitoring to prevent changes in salamander detection probability du e to coverboard age; thus avoiding violation of assumptions inherent in relative abundance indices. Because only a short acclimation period is required, frequent coverboard replacement should not re quire extensive planning. New boards should be placed directly next to old boards to keep samp ling areas consistent over time. Since salamander detection with coverboards may be more dependent on time of year than on acclimation periods, it may be important to consider the timing of ne w coverboard installation. Once coverboards are installed, side-by-side monitoring of new a nd old boards should continue until new boards become colonized. However, due to natural sala mander population fluctuations and the inability 21

PAGE 22

to standardize completely, statistical estimates of det ection probability should be considered to ensure accurate representation of salamande r population dynamics (MacKenzie et al., 2002). 22

PAGE 23

Table 2-1. Distribution of salamanders unde r both old and new cove rboards, Dry Creek Watershed, Georgia. Number of encounters Species Old coverboards New coverboards Total Eurycea cirrigera 85 (53.5%) 74 (46.5%) 159 Eurycea longicauda guttolineata 66 (63.5%) 38 (36.5%) 104 Plethodon grobmani 38 (65.5%) 20 (34.5%) 58 Pseudotriton ruber vioscai 10 (58.8%) 7 (41.2%) 17 Desmognathus apalachicolae 6 (54.5%) 5 (45.5%) 11 TOTAL 205 (58.7%) 144 (41.3%) 349 Table 2-2. Average salamander snout-to-vent length (SVL) ( + 1 SD) under old and new coverboards. P-values indicate no sign ificant difference in salamander size. Average SVL (cm) Old Coverboards New Coverboards P E. cirrigera 3.40 ( + 0.07) 3.34 ( + 0.07) 0.55 E. longicauda guttolineata 4.34 ( + 0.13) 4.48 ( + 0.17) 0.50 23

PAGE 24

0 10 20 30 123456789101112 Months after InstallationSalamanders counte d 2003 2005 Installation Year Figure 2-1. Number of salamanders captured rela tive to number of months since coverboards were installed for both 2003 and 2005 0 10 20 30 40JUN JUL AUG S E P OCT NOV JAN F E B MAR APR MAY JU NMonthSalamanders counte d Old coverboards New coverboards Figure 2-2. Number of salamander captures fo r new coverboards installed in June 2005 compared to old coverboards 24

PAGE 25

Figure 2-3. Coverboard mean soil temperature and percent moisture compared to natural cover. Error bars represent 95% conf idence intervals. Coverboard microhabitat did not differ significantly from natural microhabitat (tem perature, P = 0.39; moisture, P = 0.58). 25

PAGE 26

CHAPTER 3 AMPHIBIAN RESPONSES TO FOREST HARVEST AND STREAMSIDE MANAGEMENT ZONE PRACTICES IN SOUTHWESTERN GEORGIA Introduction Amphibians as Biological Indicators Amphibians represent much of the faunal biomass within riparian and in-stream habitats of southeastern United States ecosystems (Burt on and Likens, 1975b; Stew art and Woolbright, 1996; Petranka and Murray, 2001). Approximately 80 of the 245 species nationwide occur in Georgia (New Georgia Encyclopedia, 2007). Am phibians have unique biphasic lifecycles, occupying both terrestrial and aquatic habitats duri ng their lives. As a result, they have evolved as an integral component of energy transfer and nutrient cycling in riparian forest ecosystems (Burton and Likens, 1975a; Petra nka and Murray, 2001). They are an important constituent of forest food webs and may be keystone species in habitats where they have a disproportionately large effect on ecosystem structure (Holom uzki et al., 1994; Wissinger et al., 1999). Forest amphibians (especially salamanders) have unique qualities that make them suitable as biological indicators (Vitt et al., 1990). Th ey have narrow tolerance ranges for several environmental variables, are sensitive to changes in microclimates, have permeable skin and gills that are sensitive to sedimentation, are locate d in mid-trophic levels within food webs, are numerous in southeastern forests, and can be easily and cheaply sampled (Dale and Beyeler, 2001; Welsh and Droege, 2001). These qualities make amphibians valuable biological indicators for sustainable forestry in the southeastern U.S. Reports of global amphibian declines (Stuart et al., 2004) spur the necessity for collecting baseline data on populations and their distribu tions, as well as understanding their ecological niches. Amphibian population declin es have been attributed to anthropogenic habitat loss, global climate change, chemical contamination, UVB ra diation, overexploitation, both singly and in 26

PAGE 27

combination (Wake, 1991; Blaustein and Kies ecker, 2002). Forestry operations are a major contributor to habitat loss. Of the 9.9 million ha of forestland in Georgia, nearly 98% is available for timber production (Georgia Forestry Commissi on, 2004). This amounts to nearly 60% of the total land area of the state being available fo r harvest, with likely amphibian impacts. Forestry BMPs in the Southeast BMPs are sustainable forestry guidelines deve loped to inform sivilculture operators of practices to minimize nonpoint (e.g., soil erosi on and stream sedimentation) and thermal pollution (Georgia Forestry Commission, 1999). SMZs are a specific type of BMP designed to protect stream channel and riparian ecosystems from potential impacts related to forestry and other operations (United States En vironmental Protection Agency, 2005). They are vegetated riparian buffer strips located pa rallel and adjacent to streams that are left intact during sivilculture operations. Riparian vegetation is beneficial to water quality and stream hab itat. It can protect stream water quality from sedimentation by filtering runoff from the watershed as it flows over disturbed, harvested land toward the stream (Georgia Forestry Commission, 1999; Sun et al., 2004; United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2005). Canopy species remaining within the SMZ provide an additional benefit by shading surface water, thereby moderating water temperatures (Georgia Forestry Commissi on, 1999; Sun et al., 2004; United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2005). Trees within an SMZ also supply organic matter vital to the stream ecosystem and maintain landscap e connectivity to adjacent watersheds by serving as habitat and wildlif e corridors (Georgia Forestry Commission, 1999; United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2005). 27

PAGE 28

The State of Georgia Forestry Commission ha s developed guidelines for delineating the width of SMZs. Instead of providi ng a formula, principles rela ted to the stream type, slope stability, and soil erosion potential of th e harvested land are used (Table 3-1). Research Problem Given that amphibians occupy riparian-fores t habitats, are biol ogical indicators of ecosystem quality, and are species of global concern, it is surprising that they are not considered in forest management plans more often. Ti mber harvesting has several impacts on amphibian habitat. Air, soil, and stream temperatures ma y increase, affecting microhabitat quality. Streams may experience increased sedimentation, making in -stream habitats inhosp itable to larvae. Many studies in the southeastern U.S. have demons trated that amphibian populations are negatively affected by timber harvest (Ash, 1997; Petra nka, 1994); however, there is debate about the degree of impact, time required for recovery, a nd validity of sampling methods (Ash and Bruce, 1994; Petranka, 1994). Amphibians are dependent on the same wate r quality characteristics that SMZs are intended to protect; therefore, inferences could be made about the effectiveness of SMZs by monitoring amphibian responses to harvesting. Though use of SMZs is a widely accepted practice in southeastern states, little is known about the amphibian response to harvest practices within SMZs (Russell et al., 2004). To address these concerns development of monitoring programs that span several years and employ non -biased, reliable, and efficient surveying techniques appropriate for multiple y ear comparisons has become paramount. To meet these research needs, Internationa l Paper, along with partners University of Florida, University of Georgia, Clemson Univer sity, Jones Ecological Research Center, NCASI, Georgia Forestry Commission, and NFWF established the Dry Creek Study in 2000 to determine 28

PAGE 29

how upland and streamside forest management affects stream hydrology, water quality and biological indicators. As a component of the study, amphibians were monitored. The objective of this research was to evaluate amphibian responses to forest harvest and SMZ management techniques. Major questions that were addressed included impacts of clear-cut harvest on amphibian presence, di stribution, and abundance within intact and thinned SMZs. By learning how sensitive species such as amphibians respond to current forest management practices, an important contribu tion can be made to developing sustainable forestry practices. This study will provide forest managers w ith recommendations for forest management, specifically regarding development of streamside management zone practices that are compatible with maintaining healthy populations of forest amphibians. Methods Site Description International Papers Southlands Forest (IPSF) an experimental and working forest since 1947, is located in the Coastal Plain physiographic province, approximately 16 km south of Bainbridge, Georgia (Figure 3-1). Climate Climate of the region is ch aracterized by warm, humid su mmers, and mild winters. Temperatures in January range from an average maximum of 16.3 C to a minimum of 2.8 C. July is the hottest month with an average ma ximum temperature of 33. 5 C and minimum of 21.5 C (SERCC, 2004). Mean annual precipitat ion is 1412 mm. June has the highest mean rainfall (152.1 mm) and October the lowest (77.5 mm) (SERCC, 2004) Summer rains are usually short, with high intensity events giving way to low intensity frontal events from late fall to early spring. Due to proximity of the Gulf of Mexico, heavy rainfall associated with hurricanes and tropical storms in late summer is not unusual. 29

PAGE 30

Steep-head ravines The steeply sloping Pelham Escar pment on which the site is situated forms the boundary or surface-water divide between the Flint River basi n to the west and Ochlockonee River basin to the east (Couch et al., 1996). Streams originating from the Pelham Escarpment are characterized by perennial headwaters that become intermittent downstream or drain di rectly into the Flint River. Bluffs and deep ravines, or steep-head ravines, also characteri ze this transitional area (Entrekin et al., 1999). Means (1985, 2000) defined steep-head ravine s as landscape features formed by large rivers that cut deep through porous sands, intersect with perched groundwater tables, then infiltrate laterally atop impermeable layers of s ilty marl, clay, or limestone. Pore spaces within the karst limestone endemic to the region se rve as underground conduits for groundwater to travel laterally, eventually seeping out at points of low topography and creating groundwater dominated headwater streams. Steep-head ravine systems are characterized by undulating waves of topographical relief. The er oding churn of surface water over flow, rise and fall of the groundwater table, and dissolution of karst limest one, result in solution caverns formed within the substrate, weakening upper soil layers and ca using strain on soil strata. The combination of these forces creates highly erodable landscap es with diverse topogr aphical features. Lowgradient seepage streams at the base of valle ys may be as much as 35 m below the upland habitat, with walls slop ing more than 45 (Means, 1985). Stee p slopes serve as physical barriers that distinguish watersheds. Within these wate rsheds are cool microclimates formed by the constant seeping of groundwater of relatively un iform temperature. This provides the humidity necessary to buffer air temperatur es, providing adequate habitat to support rare plant and animal species (Enge, 2002). 30

PAGE 31

Soils Soils of this area are dominated by Ultisols. Summer et al. (2003) described the riparian soils as Chiefland and Esto series that are well-drained, fine sands over clay loams. The lower slopes feature Eustis series soils, which are lo amy sands over sandy loams and are classified as somewhat excessively well drained. The uplan d soils are comprised of Wagram, Norfolk, Lakeland, Orangeburg, and Lucy series, which are generally well-drained, loamy sands over sandy clay loams, with the exception of the Lakeland Unit, which has a sandy texture throughout and is characterized as excessively well drained. Study Design The overall Dry Creek Study design follows the BACI-P experimental design. The streams in this study drain four adjacent watersheds with similar aspect, size, sh ape, soils and vegetative cover type. Sub-watersheds were paired accord ing to valley floor geomorphologic differences into what was initially believed to be most op timal groups (A+B and C+D). Watersheds A and B have broad, flat valleys with riparian wetlands, while watersheds C and D have more channelized streams running through steeper, v-shaped vall eys (Jones et al., 2003). However, pre-harvest hydrological survey results showed that stream flow characteris tics are more similar between watersheds B+C and watersheds A+D (Summer et al., 2005 ) (Table 3-2). Watersheds A and D were designated as c ontrols, thus left undisturbed throughout the entire study period. Watersheds B and C were selected as treatment watersheds and were harvested during fall 2003. A timetable of study components is provided in Table 3-3. Each watershed was harvested according to minimum re quirements set forth in the State of Georgia BMP Manual. SMZ widths range d from 30 m perpendicular to the stream edge on either side. Watersheds B and C each received two sivilculture treatments; mechanical clear-cut upland harvesting and partial harvesting of downstream SMZ. Half of the basal area was removed 31

PAGE 32

within the downstream portion of harvested sites SMZ, while the upstream SMZ was left intact in order to evaluate the effects of harvesting within the SMZ. Field Sampling Monthly amphibian monitoring began in Decem ber 2002, allowing for ten months of baseline data collection before the harvest period began in September 2003. The experimental layout of semi-aquatic salamander and treefrog monitori ng for each watershed was a grid consisting of four transects running parallel to each side of the stream and perpendicularly upslope along a habitat gradient. The four transects were designate d as habitat zones: (1) stream (2) riparian (3) midslope (4) upslope, representing increasi ng distance from stream. Sampling techniques employed to capture amphibians included coverboard shelter attractants (for adult salamanders), vertical PVC pipe shelter attrac tants (for treefrogs), and dipnet sweeps (for larval salamanders). Due to lack of reliable, efficient techniques av ailable for marking amphibians, animals were not mark-recaptured (Grialou et al ., 2000; Monti et al., 2000). Terrestrial adult salamander monitoring Experimental grids contained transects with four passive sampling locations for which semi-aquatic salamanders and treefrogs could be monitored. Coverboards were used as shelter attractants for adult, terrestr ial salamanders (Houze and Chandl er, 2002). Boards were cut from 2.0-cm untreated plywood sheets into 60 x 60 cm squares (Grant et al., 1992) and placed along transects perpendicular to stream channels toward uplands. Eight coverboards were placed in designated habitat zones for a given sample reach (four coverboards on either side of the stream, 256 total coverboards). Salamanders found under c overboards were identi fied to species, counted, and measured for snout-to-vent length (SVL, cm). 32

PAGE 33

Aquatic larval salamander monitoring Active sampling was used for in-stream larval salamander monitoring. To sample all potential microhabitats within the stream, the flat surface of a standard D-frame dipnet (V 0.02-m 3 ; dimensions: 0.3-m 2 opening, 0.5-m length, 1,000m mesh) was swept along the bottom of the stream and under incised banks. For each sample reach, 20 dipnet sweeps were performed, each ~1-m long. Captured larvae we re counted, identified to species, and released into the stream reach where captured. Adult treefrog monitoring Vertical polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipes (5 .1-cm diameter, 60-cm height above ground) were used for treefrog monitoring (Boughton et al., 2000). PVC pipes act as sh elter attract ants by shielding inhabitants from extreme wind and temper ature, thereby providing moist refuge (Wyatt and Forys, 2004). One sampling pipe was installe d at each coverboard location (256 total pipes). Frogs inhabiting the artificial habi tat were identified to species, counted, and PVC pipe location was noted. Data Analysis Amphibians were grouped as salamanders and treefrogs. Low monthly captures resulted in multiple zeros causing amphibian detection probabil ity to be less than 1 (MacKenzie et al., 2002; Royle, 2004). Hence data were compiled annually to strengthen statistical analyses. Nonparametric tests for multiple independent sample s were then used due to small number of monthly samplings (N = 12 for year 0, 1, 2; N = 11 for year 3). Amphibian presence was noted for each y ear of the study, and distributions were calculated as percentage of total captures within ha bitat zones. To test for the effects of clear-cut harvesting on amphibian capture rates within SM Zs, comparisons of amphibian counts within riparian areas were made between watersheds and among years. To examine differences in 33

PAGE 34

amphibian captures among all watersheds duri ng the pre-harvest survey, Kruskal-Wallis rank sum tests were performed to evaluate the nul l hypothesis that multiple independent samples come from the same population. When tests yielded a significant H statistic, Wilcoxon rank sum tests were then used to determine which watershed pairs contributed to the overall differences. To evaluate for changes in number of captures among years, the non-parametric analog of a Repeated Measures ANOVA (Friedmans F-Test Statistic) was used for each watershed. Posthoc comparisons were performed using Wilcoxons Matched Pairs to test for differences among consecutive years. Analysis of salamander SV Ls was performed by combining data from all years following harvest for the most common species encountered for harvested and forested sites. T-tests were then performed to analyze for differences in size due to harvest. The effect of partial harvesting of SMZs was analyzed by combin ing data from harvested and forested reaches (because of the low total number of catches for each reach). Mann Whitney tests were then used to compare the capture means of upstream /downstream and thinned/intact reaches. Analyses were performed at significance levels of P < 0.05. Results and Discussion Effects of Harvest on Amphibian Presen ce and Distributions within Watersheds Results: Adult salamander presence A total of 993 salamanders, six species from five genera, were captured during the period December 2002 December 2006 (Table 3-4). All watersheds were inhabited by E. cirrigera, E. longicauda guttolineata, P. grobmani, and P. ruber vioscai. D. apalachicolae was found only at watersheds C and D, and N. viridescens was detected only in watershed D. For the first two years of the study, E. longicauda guttolineata and D. apalachicolae were not detected in forested waters heds A and D, respectively. However, both species were found in their respective watersheds during the final two years of moni toring. In the first year following 34

PAGE 35

harvest, P. ruber vioscai was not detected at harvested site C, but was found again during years 2 and 3. In the final year of sampling, P. grobmani was not detected in harvested watershed B, and P. ruber vioscai was not detected at watershed D. Results: Adult salamander distributions Salamanders were monitored monthly for one year prior to harvest to establish baseline conditions. During the pre-harvest survey period (Year 0), the majority of salamander captures occurred within boundaries of SMZs (90.8% of total captures, Figure 32). Only one salamander capture occurred on the upslope transect for the entire study (watershed C, Feb 2003, P. grobmani). In the years following harvest, forested watersheds continued to maintain the majority of salamanders within boundaries of SMZs (Year 1 = 85.5%; Y ear 2 = 91.7%; Year 3 = 91.2%) with just two salamander species being recorded in the midslope and upslope regions (P. grobmani and E. cirrigera). There were no captures outside of the SMZ in watershed B following harvest, and in watershed C there were 5 total captures of P. grobmani on the midslope. Results: Treefrog presence Six species of treefrogs from two genera were captured during the study totaling 2236 captures (Table 3-5). All watersheds recorded Hyla squirrella, Hyla cinerea, Hyla chrysoscelis, and Pseudacris. crucifer. Watersheds A, C, and D reported captures of Hyla femoralis, while Hyla avivoca was detected only at watersheds A and D. Treefrog presence varied for all watersheds dur ing all years of study. Forested watersheds did not record H. chrysoscelis or H. femoralis until the second and third year of study, respectively. Harvested watersheds did not record presence of H. femoralis following harvest. 35

PAGE 36

Results: Treefrog distributions The results of the pre-harvest survey reveal that 76.1% of total treefrogs captured were located within boundaries of SMZs (Figure 3-3). Watersheds B and C con tinued to capture the majority of treefrogs within SMZs following harvest (Year 1 = 93%; Ye ar 2 = 90%; Year 3 = 85%), while forested watersheds captures decreas ed within SMZs (Year 1 = 81%; Year 2 = 61%; Year 3 = 62%) and increased outside the SMZs Captures in regions outside SMZs were significantly greater for forested watersheds compared to harvested (forested N = 591, harvested N = 29). Discussion: Effects of harvest on amphibian presence and distributions Watersheds displayed similar species assemb lages during preand post-harvest surveys. Harvest did not affect species presence within SMZs of harvested watersheds. The pre-harvest survey indicated that the majo rity of salamanders inhabit the region within the SMZ, with few occurrences on midslope, and zero occurrences on upslope reaches of watersheds. After harvest, salamanders were not found in clearcut areas outside SMZs; however, forested watersheds continued to yield capture d salamanders on midslope transects occasionally. SMZ widths extended 30 m from each side of th e stream edge, much less than suggested buffer widths necessary to protect 50% of salamander populations (i.e., 125 m; Semlitsch, 1998). Despite the small buffer area, nearly 95% of salamanders captured in forested watersheds occurred within this zone. The majority of salamander species disperse parallel to aquatic habitats (Maxcy, 2000). However, dispersal patterns can be speci es specific depending on body-size and breeding strategy (Grover, 2000). In this study, the majority of salamanders were Plethodontid stream salamanders. Although migratory at some stage in their life cycle, these salamanders remain close to the edges of streams, seldom moving more than 20 30 m from aquatic habitats 36

PAGE 37

(Grover, 1998). However, P. grobmani, a terrestrial breeding species abundant in this study, accounted for the majority of captures at midslope transects that were ~ 50-m from the stream edge. These results may be indi cative of the breeding strategy of P. grobmani, which lays eggs in leaf mats in terrestrial habitats away from stream edges. The larger body size enables it to resist desiccation (Grover, 2000), allo wing travel farther from humi d environments compared to smaller semi-aquatic species. Dispersal patterns of other species may be inhibited by steeply sloping ravines characteristic of th is region. Perpendicularly from the stream, elevation increases rapidly, resulting in a shift in microclimate. Sharp gradients in moisture-temperature regimes may cause species to remain close to stream edges where cool, humid, microclimates are protected by ravine slopes. Harvest did not affect presence of treefrogs. Du ring the pre-harvest survey, the majority of treefrogs were captured within riparian regions of waters heds, with about 25% of captures occurring on midand upslope transects. Following harvest, mo st captures occurred within SMZs of watersheds B and C, while in forest ed watersheds, the propor tion of population outside of SMZ grew over consecutive year s. Anurans have larger dispersal distances than salamanders with some species traveling as far as 1000 1600 m (Semlitsch et al., 2003). Only 29 individuals were recorded in uphill regions of clear-cut areas, compared to forested areas, with 591 detections. Nearly 40% of all treefrog captures were recorded in uphill regions of forested watersheds by the fourth year of study, suggest ing large dispersal ranges for treefrogs in this region. Impacts of clear-cutti ng may interrupt anuran movement s resulting in isolation of metapopulations. Studies have shown positive responses by frogs to forest harvest (O Neill, 1995; Russell et al., 2002). Anuran resilience has been attributed to non-selective breedi ng strategies (often 37

PAGE 38

depositing eggs in skidder ruts) and the ability to resist desiccation resulting from habitat alterations (Russell et al., 2004). However, in those studies, Bufos, Ranids and Hylids were grouped together, with few reports detailing in formation regarding just treefrog responses. Bufos and Ranids occupy different landscape patches, with select species being negatively associated with forest area (Guerry, 2002). Because of the increased difference in treefrog encounters in upland areas compared to clear-cut over consecutiv e years, this study suggests that treefrogs may respond negatively to clear-cut operations. Effects of Harvest on Amphibian Abundances within SMZs Results: Adult salamanders Because so few salamanders were captured outside of SMZs, they were eliminated from this portion of the analysis. Instead, salamander abundance inside SMZs was analyzed. Kruskal Wallis test results were marginally significant in detecting similarities in salamander abundance among all sub-watersheds during th e pre-harvest survey period (H = 7.62, df = 3, P = 0.06). Following harvest, there were significant differences in salamander captures between watersheds for all years (2004 H = 13.75, df = 3, P = 0.00; 2005 H = 13.06, df = 3, P = 0.01; 2006 H = 9.22, df = 3, P = 0.03). Watershed pairs were similar in salamander captures during the pre-harvest survey (A+B W = -1.13, P = 0.26; C+D W = -0.77, P = 0.44) (Figure 3-4). Following harvest of watershed C, there were significantly fewer salamander capture s compared to D for the first two years (2004 W = -2.77, P = 0.01; 2005 W = -2.12, P = 0.03), but the watershed pair was similar again the third year (2006 W = -1.73, P = 0.08). For the firs t two years after harvest of watershed B, there were no differences in salamander captures wh en compared to forested watershed A (2004 W = 1.59, P = 0.11; 2005, W = -0.49, P = 0.62); however, in the third year, the pair was different (2006 W =-2.96, P = 0.00). Comparisons across years for each watershed resulted in no 38

PAGE 39

significant differences in salamander abundance for either forested (A F = 3.95, df = 3, P = 0. 27; D F = 3.38, df =3, P= 0.34) or harvested watersheds (B F = 2.72, df =3, P = 0. 44; C, F = 5.97, df = 3, P = 0.11). Tests for differences in salamander SVLs (c m) were performed for the most abundant salamander species captured at all watersheds. No statistical differences were found between salamander SVLs of forested and harvested sites for E. cirrigera (forested mean =3.4 + 0.0 cm; harvested mean =3.4 + 0.0-cm; t = 0.45, df = 309, P = 0.66) or P. grobmani (forested mean 4.1 + 0.1-cm; harvested mean = 4.1 + 0.1-cm; t = 0.43, df = 314, P = 0.67). However, SVLs of E. guttolineata were significantly greater at harvested than forested sites (forested mean =4.0 + 0.9cm; harvested mean = 4.3 + 0.1-cm; t = -2.84, df = 304, P = 0.01). Results: Treefrogs Kruskal Wallis tests were significantly different for treefrog captures between watersheds for all years (2003 H =10.43, P = 0.02; 2004 H =16.22, P = 0.00; 2005 H =12.78, P = 0.01; 2006 H =29.81, P = 0.00). Watersheds A+B were similar in treefrog captures during the pre-harvest survey (2003 W =-0.27, P = 0.79) and first year following harvest (2004 W =-0.10, P =0.92); however, in the second and third y ear, they were different (2005 W =-2.14, P = 0.03; 2006 W =3.07, P = 0.00). Watersheds C+D were differe nt in the pre-harvest survey (2003 W =-2.07, P = 0.04) and all years following harvest (2004 W =-3.06, P = 0.00; 2005 W =-2.94, P = 0.00; 2006 W =-3.06, P = 0.00) (Figure 3-5). Friedman F-statistical tests were significantly different for treefrog captures among years for forested watersheds (A F = 27.00, df = 3, F = 0.00; D F = 20.45, df = 3, P = 0.00) but not harvested watersheds (B F =6.98, df = 3, P = 0.07; C F = 3.31, df = 3, F = 0.35). Post hoc comparisons of watershed A revealed an incr ease in annual captures among consecutive years (Year 0-1, W = -3.08, P = 0.00; Year 1-2, W = -1 .81, P = 0.07; Year 2-3, W = -2.50, P = 0.01) 39

PAGE 40

Watershed D experienced an increase in the firs t year (Year 0-1, W = -2.54, P = 0.01), stayed steady in the second (Year 1-2; W = -0.59, P = 0. 56), and increased again in the third year (Year 2-3, W = -2.85, P = 0.00). Discussion: Amphibian abundance within SMZs Observed amphibian abundance (C) is a function of population density (D) and detection probability (). Differences in abundances can be attribut ed to natural fluctuations in amphibian populations, their response to harvest, or ch anges in detection ab ility (Chapter 3). All watersheds were similar in salamander cap tures during the pre-ha rvest survey period, and watershed pairs were well matched. However, differences in salamander capture following harvest between watershed pairs and among years were confounded, making definitive conclusions regarding salamander responses diffi cult. Responses to harvest may have been delayed or the number of captures may have been influenced by con-specific attraction, interannual breeding cycles, stream flows, or local meteorology. Adult salamander counts may reflect a delaye d response to harvest due to faster rehydration rates than juven iles (Grover, 2000). Adult body size is larger and able to retain more moisture than smaller body sizes, thus enabling th em to be more tolerant to environmental disturbances. Clear-cut harvest can alter micr oclimates within SMZs beyond thresholds of juveniles. If there is high juvenile mortality, a delayed response in decreasing adult populations may occur. This, coupled with an increase in captur es of larger adults due to smaller individuals burrowing or desiccating, may suggest a negative response of salamanders within SMZs to forest harvest. These results may be exemplified in the third year following harvest of watershed B when captures decreased rela tive to A, and SVLs of E. longicauda guttolineata were smaller in harvested than forested watersheds. Howeve r, body sizes of the more abundant salamander 40

PAGE 41

species such as E. cirrigera remained similar between forested and harvested watersheds. Responses to harvest may be taxon specific. Harvested watersheds contained more fallen trees and large woody debris than that of forested. Con-specific attraction of adult salamanders to natural cover in harvested watersheds over coverboards may result in decr eased counts in harvested compared to forested watersheds. Grover (2002) showed a high correlation between salamander abundance and large woody debris. Moreover, coverboard microhabitat can be more variable than natural cover (Houze and Chandler, 2002). Salamanders may seek larger c over objects in harvested watersheds due to increased temperatures, making cover boards less attractive habitat. Harvest may have resulted in a different s ubset of salamander populations being sampled relative to forested watersheds. Variability in captures increased in watershed C compared to D with most captures at site C occurring during wi nter breeding months. Sa lamanders at harvested sites were infrequently encountered during summer when they burrow underground seeking refuge from elevated temperatures. Captures at site D were more consistent year-round, with peaks still occurring during wint er. Harvest may result in only breeding salamanders being sampled, thus violating assumptions of constant detection probability between watershed pairs. Large-scale habitat variables such stream flow and meteorology were highly variable and could not be standardized. Amphibians have been linked to hydrologic cycles, with breeding events occurring sporadically in response to meteorology. Seve ral hurricanes occurred during the 2004 season, and amphibians may have respo nded with increasing pop ulations. Watershed A experienced a high number of no-flow days in the stream during 2003, 2004, but not during 2005 or 2006. Terrestrial salamander captures did not indicate any differences among years for any watersheds. However, controlling factors for amph ibian captures become tangled by reactions to 41

PAGE 42

environmental fluctuations resulting in too much variability to detect small changes in populations with few sample si zes (N = 12). Abundance of sala manders is a function of many variables, and increases or decreases may be attr ibuted to factors other than forest management. Pre-harvest survey data indicated that waters hed D was different from all other watersheds in number of treefrog captures. There were dispr oportionately more treefrogs recorded in this watershed at the beginning of th e study, and by the final year, six times more treefrogs were captured at this watershed relative to others. Due to this large difference, comparisons of treefrog captures of watershed D relative to C resulted in differences during all 3 years following harvest, rendering this watershed pair a poor comparison. Most interestingly though is the increase in treefrog captu res among consecutive years in forested watersheds compared to harvested. PVC pipes appear to accumulate treefrogs over time in forest watersheds, but not in harvested. Tr eefrogs within SMZs may be affected by harvest and may not have the population densities availa ble to increase numbers in PVC pipes. Treefrog habitat is directly affected by removal of ca nopy trees. Since treefrogs require larger habitat areas and have greater dispersal distances, it is possible that upland habitat removal affected treefrogs inhabiting SMZs. However, as in the cas e of salamanders, definitive conclusions are difficult to make due to other confounding vari ables. Other habitats may be available in harvested watersheds (e.g., downed logs, ruts, pools) that attract treefrogs over PVC pipes. PVC pipes located in harvested watersheds were inha bited by other species (e.g., wasps) more often than forested watersheds, which may also have interfered with detections. Due to greater dispersal distances, treefrogs seemingly are more impacted by harvest than salamanders due to upland habitat loss. Howeve r, because treefrogs are presumably more resilient to disturbances than salamanders (compared with salamanders, anurans have relatively 42

PAGE 43

high operating and tolerance temperatures and ha ve the ability to store and reabsorb large quantities of water in the bladder) (Duellman and Trueb, 1994), populations may be expected to recover. However, there is concern that upland habitat alterations may interrupt metapopulation dynamics, resulting in regional decl ine of treefrogs. SMZs presumably provide wildlife corridors to adjacent forested watersheds, but Niemela ( 2001) expressed apprehension about the belief that animals isolated within corridors utilize them for movement between landscapes. These concerns highlight the need for quantitative evidence on the utility of SMZs as movement corridors and their role in metapopulation dynamics. Effects of SMZ Thinning on Amphibian Abundance Results: Adult salamanders For this portion of the analysis, watershe ds A, B, C, and D were divided into upstream/downstream segments, and captures were combined for respective segments. Results of Mann Whitney comparisons found no difference between salamander counts downstream compared to upstream portions of any watershe ds during pre-harvest su rvey (Down-Up, S = 0.35, P = 0.73; Thinned-Intact, S =-0.24, P = 0. 81) (Figure 3-6). After thinning the downstream SMZ of watersheds B and C, no significant diffe rences were found between thinned and intact SMZs for the duration of the study (Year 1 P = 0.19; Year 2 P = 0.13; Year 3 P = 0.65). Forested watersheds recorded significantly higher capture s in the upstream reaches of watersheds during year 1 (S =-0.347, P = 0.03), were marginally high er in year 2 (S = -1.78, P = 0.07) and were significantly higher in year 3 (S =-2.61, P = 0.01). Results: Larval salamanders There were significant differences in upstream-downstream segments during the preharvest survey (Year 0) for all watersheds (F igure 3-7). Watersheds A and D had significantly more larvae in their upstream sections (S = -3.67, P = 0.00) compared to downstream, while 43

PAGE 44

watersheds B and C had more in their downstrea m sections (S = -2.57, P = 0.01). Following harvest of watersheds B and C, there were no significant differences in number of larvae captured in the streams of thinned versus intact SMZs for all years (Year 1 S = -0.18, P = 0.86; Year 2 S = -1.44, P = 0.15; Year 3 S = -0.05, P = 0.96). Reference watersheds showed significantly more larvae in the upstream segments for all years (Year 1, S = -4.38, P = 0.00; Year 2 S = -2.29, P = 0.02; Year 3 S = -2.15, P = 0.03). Results: Treefrogs Mann Whitney tests revealed no differences in upstream or downstream treefrog counts during the pre-harvest survey (Down-Up, S = -0. 48, P = 0.63; Thinned-Intact, S = -1.00, P = 0.32) (Figure 3-8). Following harv est, watersheds B and C recorded significantly fewer treefrogs in thinned SMZs than intact for years 1 (S = -2.1 2, P = 0.03) and 3 (S = -3.22, P = 0.00) but not year 2 (S = -0.92, P = 0.36). Forested wate rsheds A and D did not show any significant differences in the number of treefrog captures for the upstream-downstream segments for all years (Year 1, S = -1.40, P = 0.16; Year 2, S = -1.28, P = 0.20; Year 3, S = -0.78, P = 0.44). Discussion: SMZ thinning Grialou et al. (2000) evaluated redbacked salamander responses to thinning within SMZs in the Pacific Northwest and found that forest th inning stimulated salamanders. No statistical differences were found between thinned and intact reaches of harvested watersheds for this study, though slightly more salamanders were captured in intact segments over consecutive years. Adult salamander counts were greater in upstream segments of forested watersheds. Means (2000) found that salamanders of this region prefer headwater habitats of upstream reaches that contain small seeps, no fish competiti on, and little variability in flow regimes. One similarity of all watersheds was that the upstream areas where salamanders were sampled were 44

PAGE 45

broad and flat compared to downstream regions. Hydrology in the upstream segments may have been less variable, and more suitable for salamander breeding. Larval salamanders showed the same trend as adults, with significantly greater numbers in upstream sections of forested watersheds. Harves ted watersheds showed different trends with more larvae in their downstream segments during the pre-harvest survey. After harvest, there were no statistical differences. This may not be a result of thinning, but rather a sampling bias in reference watershed A. Disproportionately larger numbers of juveniles were captured in the upstream segments of watershed A for all years of the study. During the first two years, this particular site had many no flow days in the downstream portion, making it impossible to dipnet the stream. However, although dry in the downstream portion, the upstream portion contained big, deep pools of quiescent water, enabling larg e volumes to be sampled with a dipnet. Juvenile salamanders were concentrated in these pools, en abling easy detection. Comparatively, upstream segments of all other watersheds were sh allow and flowing throughout the study. Smaller volumes were sampled, and juveniles were not c oncentrated. This scenario is reflected in the variability of the upstream sections during the first two years of study. Variability in the detection probability of juvenile captures precluded an analysis of the effects of thinning. Size class descriptions may be more informative. More treefrogs were captured in intact SMZs for all years following harvest, although the second year did not show a signi ficant difference. Reference watersheds did not indicate a preference for upstream or downstream reaches. Differences in treefrog abundances may be attributed directly to thinning and associated habitat loss. 45

PAGE 46

Recommendations SMZ Width SMZs are important habitat for feeding, overw intering, and breeding of amphibians. They not only buffer aquatic habitat but also provide an area for the biological interdependence between aquatic and terrestrial ha bitats that is essential for pe rsistence of populations. Harrison and Voller (1998) suggested that corridor location and design should reflect the ecology of an area and that riparian buffer widths be adjusted proportionally with stream width, intensity of adjacent harvest, and slope. Individual taxa shoul d also be considered in buffer width design. SMZs have multiple purposes (e.g., prevent stream sedimentation, thermal pollution, habitat), and widths should be optimized for all management goals (e.g., production, conservation of biodiversity). Microclimates pr esumably decrease in humidity along elevation gradients perpendicular to stream s, and the intensity of this gradient may be a good determinant of SMZ width for this region. SMZ boundaries may occur where microclimates exceed thresholds of target organisms such as salamanders. Wider SMZs that incorporate midslope reaches may offer necessary habitat for terrestrial breeding amphibians and provide additional bu ffer for semi-aquatic salamander and treefrog territories. However, this may be unnecessary for species survival and recovery, and will result in more costs and loss of revenue for forestry operations. For this st udy, a 30 m buffer width appeared adequate for species existence. SMZ Thinning Natural preference of headwa ter habitats by salamanders suggests that thinning of downstream segments be more appropriate to protect amphibian-breeding areas. However, reports of salamanders responding positively to th inning in the Pacific No rthwest (Grialou et al., 2000) imply that thinning may not adversely affect salamande r populations. Treefrogs may be 46

PAGE 47

more affected by thinning than salamanders due to habitat loss, but because they are presumably more resilient, this may not be a concern. It is important to note, however, that thinning resulted in substantially more canopy loss due to windthr ow. Hurricanes frequently pass through this region, and thinned canopies are susceptible to hurricane force winds. Additional canopy loss due to wind-throw may result in cost benefit ratios greater than one. Managers should weigh decisions and optimize production with maintenance of biodiversity. Thinning of SMZs in this region may not be appropriate. 47

PAGE 48

Table 3-3. Timetable for the Dry Creek St udy, Southlands Forest, Bainbridge, GA. Date Action December 2000 Study established May 2001 Initiation of continuous stream flow gauging June 2001 Initiation of wa ter quality data collection December 2002 Initiation of te rrestrial amphibian monitoring SeptemberNovember 2003 Upland harv esting and SMZ partial harvesting May 2004 Initiation of soil moisture-temperature data collection September 2004 Site preparation herbicide November 2004 Site preparation burn December 2004 Site replanting September 2006 End soil moisture-temperature data collection March 2007 End of amphibian monitoring Table 3-1. SMZ widths by sl ope class and stream type. Minimum width (ft) SMZ on each side Slope Class Perennial Intermittent Trout Slight (<20 %) 40 20 100 Moderate (21-40%) 70 35 100 Steep (>40%) 100 50 100 (Georgia Forestry Commission, 1999) Table 3-2. Flow statistics in study watersheds during 27-month pre-treatment survey. Site Area Mean Q (L/s/ha) Max Q (L/s/ha) Zero Flow Days (/822) A 25.8 .055 8.37 163 (20%) B 34.7 .074 14.08 6 (.7%) C 42.7 .073 9.91 2 (.02%) D 48.0 .042 7.17 206 (25%) Summer, W.B., Jackson, R.C., Jones, D., Go lladay, S.W., & Miwa, M., (2005). Hydrologic and Sediment Transport Response to Forestry; Southwest Georgia Headwater Streams. (In: Proceedings of the 2005 Georgia Water Resour ces Conference, held April 25-27, 2005. The Institute of Ecology: The Universi ty of Georgia, Athens, GA.) 48

PAGE 49

Table 3-4. Salamander species presence in four s ub-watersheds of the Dry Creek Basin, Georgia. Watersheds B and C were harvested in September 2003; watersheds A and D were left intact for the entire study. Watershed A: Forested Watershed B: Harvested Year 0 (Preharvest) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 0 (Preharvest) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Eurycea cirrigera X X X X X X X X Eurycea longicauda guttolineata X X X X X X Plethodon grobmani X X X X X X X Pseudotriton ruber vioscai X X X X X X X Desmognathus apalachicoloae Notophthalmus viridescens Watershed D: Forested Watershed C: Harvested Eurycea cirrigera X X X X X X X X Eurycea longicauda guttolineata X X X X X X X X Plethodon grobmani X X X X X X X X Pseudotriton ruber vioscai X X X X X X X Desmognathus apalachicoloae X X X X X Notophthalmus viridescens X X 49

PAGE 50

Table 3-5. Treefrog species presence in four subwatersheds of the Dry Cr eek Basin, Georgia. Watershed A: Forested Watershed B: Harvested Year 0 (Preharvest) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 0 (Preharvest) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Hyla squirella X X X X X X X X Hyla cinerea X X X X X X X Hyla chrysoscelis X X X X X Hyla femoralis X Hyla avivoca X Pseudacris crucifer X X X X X X X Watershed D: Forested Watershed C: Harvested Hyla squirella X X X X X X X X Hyla cinerea X X X X X X X X Hyla chrysoscelis X X X X X Hyla femoralis X X X Hyla avivoca X Pseudacris crucifer X X X X X X 50

PAGE 51

Figure 3-1. Location of study site in relation to physiographic regi ons (modified from US Forest Service, 1969). 51

PAGE 52

0 20 40 60 streamsideriparianmidslopeupslopeDistance from streamSalamander count (Pre-harvest) SM Z boundar y Figure 3-2. Mean salamander count in relation to distance from st reams in four sub-watersheds of the Dry Creek Basin, Geor gia. Captures occurred during pre-harvest survey period December 2002November 2003. Line designate s generalized location of SMZ. Bars represent standard deviation. 0 20 40 60 streamsideriparianmidslopeupslopeDistance from streamTreefrog count (Pre-harvest) SM Z boundar y Figure 3-3. Mean treefrog count in relation to distance from stream s in four sub-watersheds of the Dry Creek Basin, Georgia. Captures occurred during pre-harvest survey period December 2002November 2003. Line desi gnates hypothetical boundary where SMZ would occur. Bars represent standard deviation. 52

PAGE 53

Figure 3-4. Mean ( + 1 SE) annual terrestrial salamander counts in four watersheds (A, B, C, D). Harvested (H) watersheds were paired with forested (F) watersheds during the preharvest survey (Year 0) and monthly m onitoring continued three years following clear-cut harvesting. Significant differen ces in counts among wa tershed pairs (A+B, C+D) are denoted (P < 0.05 = *, P < 0.01 = **). Figure 3-5. Mean ( + 1 SE) annual treefrog counts in forested (F) and harvested (H) watersheds of the Dry Creek Basin, GA. Significant differe nces in paired wate rsheds A+B and C+D are denoted (P < 0.05 = *; P < 0.01 = **). 53

PAGE 54

Figure 3-6. Mean ( + 1 SE) annual terrestrial salamander counts within upstream/downstream portions of forested watersheds compared to thinned and intact SMZs of harvested watersheds. Significant differences between upstream-downstream and thinned-intact stream segments are denoted (P < 0.05 = *). Figure 3-7. Mean ( + 1 SE) annual in-stream salamander larv ae counts for reference and harvested watersheds. Significant differences between upstream-downstream and thinned-intact stream segments are denoted (P < 0.05 = *, P < 0.01 = **). 54

PAGE 55

Figure 3-8. Mean ( + 1 SE) annual treefrog counts for refe rence and harvested watersheds. Significant differences between upstreamdownstream and thinned-intact stream segments are denoted (P < 0.05 = *, P < 0.01 = **). 55

PAGE 56

CHAPTER 4 CONCLUSIONS The objective of this research was to determine amphibian res ponses to forest harvest and SMZ management techniques applied in sout hwestern Georgia. Conflicting evidence on responses of amphibians to forest harvest across the U.S. warranted additional research on this subject. Amphibians are abundant in southeastern ecosystems and are reliant on the same habitat variables that SMZs are intended to protect. Therefore inferences on how amphibians respond to forest harvest and SMZ practices can aid in determining if th ese practices are effective in protecting stream and riparian ecosystems. Amphibian populations are difficu lt to characterize due to fluctuations in detection probability. When developing relative (observed) abundance indexes, it is assumed that detection probability is constant across space and time. However, when salamander detections with coverboards were evaluated (Chapter 2) it wa s found that detection probability changes as coverboards age. Salamanders were detected more often with three-year old coverboards than new coverboards. This suggests that temporal comparisons of abundance indices made over 3years violate assumptions of constant detecti on probability. Therefore it is suggested that coverboards be replaced every two years to mainta in similar detection pr obability. To alleviate bias in relative abundance indice s, it is suggested that stat istical estimates of detection probability be considered. This study also evaluated amphibian responses to forest harvest and management practices in SMZs (Chapter 3). All species of amphibian s detected during the pre-harvest survey period were found present following clear-cut timber ha rvesting of watersheds. Counts of terrestrial salamanders within SMZs were similar before an d after harvest. There was a decline in treefrog counts within SMZs of harvested relative to forested watersheds SMZs in downstream segments 56

PAGE 57

were thinned and compared to upstream intact SMZs. There was no effect of thinning SMZs on terrestrial or larval salamanders, however, thinni ng adversely affected treefrogs, resulting in lower counts compared to intact SMZs. Treefrogs ma y be more susceptible to forest harvest than salamanders due to their need for large disp ersal ranges. Whether treefrogs use SMZs as corridors for movement and metapopulation dynam ics remains uncertain. Furthermore, thinning resulted in more canopy loss due to windthrow than intact SMZs. Thinning in this region may not be appropriate due to high freque ncy of hurricanes and tropical storms. 57

PAGE 58

LIST OF REFERENCES Alford, R. A. & Richards, S. J. (1999). Globa l amphibian declines: A problem in applied ecology. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 30, 133-165 Ash, A. N. (1997). Disappearance and return of plethodontid salamanders to clearcut plots in the southern blue ridge mountains. Conservation Biology, 11, 983-989 Biek, R., Mills, S. L., & Bury, B. R. (2002). Terrestrial and stream am phibians across clearcutforest interfaces in the Siskiyou Mountains, Oregon. Northwest Science, 76, 129-140 Blaustein A. R & Kiesecker J. M. (2002). Comple xity in conservation: lessons from the global decline of amphibian populations. Ecology Letters, 5, 597 Blaustein, A. R., Wake, D. B. & Sousa, W. P. (1994). Amphibian declines: Judging stability, persistence, and susceptibili ty of populations to local and global extinctions. Conservation Biology, 8, 60-71 Boughton, R. G., Staiger, J. & Franz, R. ( 2000). Use of PVC pipe refugia as a sampling technique for hylid treefrogs. The American Midland Naturalist, 144, 168-177 Burton T. M., & Likens G. E. (1975a). Ener gy flow and nutrient cycling in salamander populations in the Hubbard Brook expe rimental forest, New Hampshire. Ecology 56, 1068 Burton, T. M. & Likens, G. E. (1975b). Sala mander populations and biomass in the Hubbard Brook experimental forest, New Hampshire. Copeia, 1975, 541-546 Clawson, R. G., Lockaby, B. G. & Jones, R. H. (1997). Amphibian responses to helicopter harvesting in forested floodplains of low order, blackwater streams. Forest Ecology and Management, 90, 225-235 Collins, J. P. & Storfer, A. (2003). Global amphibian declines: Sorting the hypotheses. Diversity and Distributions, 9, 89-98 Committee on Riparian Zone Functioning and Stra tegies for Management, Water Science and Technology Board, National Research Council. (2002). Riparian Ar eas: Functions and Strategies for Management [Electronic ve rsion]. Retrieved December 13, 2007, from http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10327 Couch, C. A, Hopkins, E. H., & Hardy, P. S. (1996). Influences of environmental settings on aquatic ecosystems in the Apalachicola-Chatta hoochee-Flint river ba sin. U.S. Geological Survey National Water-Quality Assessment Program. Water-Resources Investigations Report 95-4278. 58 pp. Dale, V. H., & Beyeler, S. C. (2001). Cha llenges in development and use of ecological indicators. Ecological Indicators, 1, 3-10 58

PAGE 59

Dodd, C. K. & Dorazio, R. M. (2004). Using co unts to simultaneously estimate abundance and detection probabilities in a salamander community. Herpetologica, 60, 468-478 Duellman, W. E., & Trueb, L. (1994). Biology of Amphibians. (The Johns Hopkins University Press) Entrekin, S., Golladay, S., Ruhlman, M., & Hedman, C. (1999). Unique steephead stream segments in Southwest Georgia: inve rtebrate diversity and biomonitoring. Proceedings of the 1999 Georgia Water Resources Conference, held March 30-31, 1999, at University of Georgia. Kathryn J. Hatcher, editor, Institute of Ecology, The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia. Enge, K. M. (2002). Herpetofaunal drift-fence su rvey of steephead ravines and seepage bogs in the western Florida Panhandle. Final Perf ormance Report. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Ta llahassee, Florida, USA. Georgia Forestry Commission (1999). Georgias Best Management Practices for Forestry. Retrieved December 13, 2007, from http://www.gfc.state.ga.us/ForestManageme nt/documents/GeorgiaForestryBMPManual.pd f Grant, B. W., Tucker, A., D., Lovich, J. E., Mi lls, A. M., Dixon, P. M., & Gibbons, J. W. (1992). The use of coverboards in estimating pattern s of reptile and amphibian biodiversity. (In D. R. McCullough, & R. H. Barrett (Eds.), Wildlife 2001: Populations (pp. 379). Elsevier Science Publ. Inc., London, England.) Grialou, J. A., West, S. D. & Wilkins, N. R. ( 2000). The effects of forest clearcut harvesting and thinning on terrestrial salamanders. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 64, 105-113 Grover, M. C. (2000). Determinants of salama nder distributions along moisture gradients. Copeia, 2000, 156-168 Grover, M. C. (1998). Influence of cover a nd moisture on abundances of the terrestrial salamanders plethodon cinereus and plethodon glutinosus. Journal of Herpetology, 32, 489-497 Guerry, A. D., & Hunter, M. L. (2002). Amphibian distributions in a landscape of forests and agriculture: an examination of lands cape composition and configuration. Conservation Biology, 16, 745-754 Harrison, S., & Voller, J. (1998). Conservation biology principl es for forested landscapes. (University of British Columbia Press) Harpole, D. N., & Haas, C. A. (1999). Effects of seven silvicultural treatments on terrestrial salamanders. Forest Ecology and Management, 114, 349-356 Hartley, M. J. (2002). Rationale and methods for conserving biodiversity in plantation forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 155, 81-95 59

PAGE 60

Heyer, W. R., Donnelly M. A., McDiarmid, R. W., Hayek, L. C., & Foster, M. S. (1994). Standard Techniques. (In W. R. Heyer, M. A. Donnelly, R. W. McDiarmid, L. C. Hayek & M. S. Foster (Eds), Measuring and Monitoring Biological Diversity: Standard Methods for Amphibians (pp. 75-78) Smithsonian Inst. Press, Washington, D. C.) Holomuzki, J. R., Collins J. P., & Brunkow P. E. (1994). Trophic control of fishless ponds by tiger salamander larvae. Oikos, 71, 55. Houlahan, J. E., Scott, F. C., Benedikt, S. R., Meyer, A. H., & Sergious, K. L. (2000). Quantitative evidence for global amphibian population declines. Nature, 404, 752-755. Hyde, E. J. & Simons, T. R. (2001). Sampling plethodontid salamanders: S ources of variability. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 65, 624-632 Houze, M. C., & Chandler, C. R. (2002). Evaluation of coverboards for sampling terrestrial salamanders in South Georgia. Journal of Herpetology, 36, 75-81 Jones, D.G., Summer, W.B., Miwa, M., & Jacks on, C.R. (2003). Baseline characterization of forested headwater stream hydrology and wate r chemistry in southwest Georgia. (In: Connor, K.F. (Eds). Proceedings of the 12th biennial southern silviculture research conference. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-71. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station: 161-165) Knapp, S. M., Haas, C. A., Harpole, D. N., & Kirkpatrick, R. L. (2003). Initial effects of clearcutting and alternative s ilvicultural practices on terrestrial salamander abundance. Conservation Biology, 17, 752-762 MacKenzie, D. I., Nichols, J. D., Lachman, G. B., Droege, S., Royle, J. A., & Langtimm, C. A. (2002). Estimating site occupancy rates when detection probabilities are less than one. Ecology, 83, 2248-2255 Means, D. B. (1985). The canyonlands of Florida. Nature Conservancy News, September/October, 13-17 Means, D. B. (2000). Southeastern U.S. Coastal Plain habitats of the Plethodontidae: the importance of relief, ravines, and seepage. (In R. C. Bruce, R. J. Jaeger, and L. D. Houck, (Eds.) The biology of plethodontid salamanders. (Pages 287) Plenum, New York, New York, USA.) Marsh, D. M. & Goicochea, M. A. (2003). Mon itoring terrestrial salamanders: Biases caused by intense sampling and ch oice of cover objects. Journal of Herpetology, 37, 460-466 Maxcy, K. A. & Richardson, J. (2000). Abundan ce and movements of terrestrial salamanders in second-growth forests of southwestern Bri tish Columbia. (Proceedings of a conference on the biology and management of species a nd habitats at risk, Kamloops, B. C.) 60

PAGE 61

Monti, L., Hunter, M., & Witham, J. (2000). An evaluation of the artific ial cover object (ACO) method for monitoring populations of the redback salamander plethodon cinereus. Journal of Herpetology, 34, 624-629 New Georgia Encyclopedia, 2007. http://www.georgiaencyclopedia. org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h2188&hl=y Last accessed March 26, 2007. Niemela, J. (2001). The utility of move ment corridors in forested landscapes. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 16, 70 ONeill, E. D. (1995). Amphibian and reptile communities of temporary ponds in a managed pine flatwoods. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida. 106 p. M.S. thesis. Parris, K. M. (1999). Review: Amphibia n Surveys in Forests and Woodlands. Contemporary Herpetology, 1, 1-14. Petranka, J. W. (1994). Response to imp act of timber harvesting on salamanders. Conservation Biology, 8, 302-304 Petranka, J. W. (1998). Salamanders of the Un ited States and Canada. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DC. Petranka, J. W., & Murray, S. S. (2001). Eff ectiveness of removal sampling for determining salamander density and biomass: a case study in an Appalachian streamside community. Journal of Herpetology, 35, 36 Pollock, K. H., Nichols, J. D., Simons, T. R., Farnsworth, G. L., Bailey, L. L., & Sauer, J. R. (2002). Large scale wildlife monitoring studies: statistical methods for design and analysis. Environmetrics, 13, 105-119 Royle, J. A. (2004). N-mixture models for estim ating population size from spatially replicated counts. Biometrics, 60, 108-115 Russell, K. R., Van Lear, D.H., & Guynn, D.C., Jr. (2002). Responses of isolated wetland herpetofauna to upland forest management. Journal of Wildlife Management. 66, 603-617 Russell, K. R., Wigley, T. B., Baughman, W. M., Hanlin, H. G., & Ford, M. W. (2004). Responses of southeastern amphibians and rept iles to forest management: a review. (In Southern Forest Science. United States De partment of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. General Technical Reprort SRS-75, pp. 319-334.) Ryan, T. J., Philippi, T., Leiden, Y. A., Dorcas, M. E., Wigley, T. B. & Gibbons, J. W. (2002). Monitoring herpetofauna in a managed forest landscape: Effects of habitat types and census techniques. Forest Ecology and Management, 167, 83-90 Schmidt, B. R. (2003). Count data, detecti on probabilities, and the demography, dynamics, distribution, and decline of amphibians. Comptes Rendus Biologies, 326, 119-124 61

PAGE 62

Semlitsch, R. D. (1998). Biological delineation of terrestrial buffer zones for pond-breeding salamanders. Conservation Biology, 12, 1113-1119 Semlitsch, R. D. & Bodie, J. R. (2003). Biological criteria for buffer zones around wetlands and riparian habitats for amphibians and reptiles. Conservation Biology, 17, 1219-1228 Sharitz, R. R., Boring, L. R., Van Lear, D. H ., & Pinder, J. E. (1992). Integrating ecological concepts with natural resource ma nagement of southern forests. Ecological Applications, 2, 226-237 Smith, C. K. & Petranka, J. W. (2000). Monitori ng terrestrial salamande rs: Repeatability and validity of area-constrained cover object searches. Journal of Herpetology, 34, 547-557 Southeast Regional Climate Center. Bai nbridge, Georgia Climate Information. http://climate.engr.uga.edu/bainbridge/index.html Last accessed August 8, 2004. Stewart M. M., & Woolbright L. L. (1996). Amphibians. (In: Reag an DP and Waide RP (Eds). The food web of a tropical rainforest. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.) Stuart, S. N., Chanson, J. S., Cox, N. A., Y oung, B. E., Rodrigues A. S., Fischman, D. L., & Waller, R. W. (2004). Status a nd trends of amphibian declines and extinctions worldwide. Science 306, 1783 Summer, W.B., Jackson, C. R., Jones, D. G., & Miwa, M. (2003). Characterization of hydrologic and sediment transport behavior of forested headwater streams in s outhwest Georgia. (In: Proceedings of the 2003 Georgia Water Res ources Conference, Athens, GA. 23-24 April 2003. The Institute of Ecology: The Univer sity of Georgia, Athens, GA. 157-160.) Summer, W.B., Jackson, R.C., Jones, D., Golladay, S.W., & Miwa, M., (2005). Hydrologic and Sediment Transport Response to Forestry; Southwest Georgia Headwater Streams. (In: Proceedings of the 2005 Georgia Water Res ources Conference, held April 25-27, 2005. The Institute of Ecology: The Univ ersity of Georgia, Athens, GA.) Sun, G., Riedel, M., Jackson, R., Kolka, R., Amataya, D., & Shepard, J., (2004). Chapter 19: Influences of Management of Southern Forests on Water Quality and Quantity. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Southern Res earch Station General Technical Report SRS-75. Southern Forest Science: Past, Present, Future. 408 p. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2005). National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry. http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/forestrymgmt/ Last accessed March 26, 2007. United States Forest Service (1969 ). A Forest Atlas of the South. Southern Forest Experiment Station and Southeastern Forest Expe riment Station Publication. 27 pp. U.S. Geological Survey National Water-Qua lity Assessment Program. Water-Resources Investigations Report 95-4278. 58 pp. 62

PAGE 63

Vitt, L. J., J. P. Caldwell, H. M. Wilbur, & D. C. Smith (1990). Amphibians as harbingers of decay. BioScience 40, 418 Wake D. B. (1991). Declin ing amphibian populations. Science 253, 860 Welsh, H. H. & Droege, S. (2001). A case for using plethodontid salamanders for monitoring biodiversity and ecosystem integrit y of north american forests. Conservation Biology, 15, 558-569 Wissinger S. A., Whiteman, H. H., Sparks, G. B., Rouse, G. L., & Brown, W. S. (1999). Foraging tradeoffs along a predator-permane nce gradient in subalpine wetlands. Ecology, 80, 2102 Wyatt, J. L. & Forys, E. A. (2004). Conservati on implications of predation by Cuban Treefrogs (Osteopilus septentrionalis) on native hylids in Florida. Southeastern Naturalist, 3, 695700 63

PAGE 64

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Diane W. Bennett spent her childhood years in Nashville, Tennessee as the youngest of three children. In middle school, she was relocated to the suburbs of Orlando, Florida where she spent her teenage years attending Lyman High School. After graduating high school in 1997, she traveled for two years working odd jobs such as meat cutting and cable lineman until learning she had been awarded the Florida Bright Futures Scholarship, for which she aptly returned to Florida to enroll in Valencia Community College. College began with courses in remedial math and English, but hard work and determination led her to tutoring mathematics, eventually earning over 32 credits in mathematics alone. She attended leadership wo rkshops and worked closely with students and professors to improve campus environmental quality through cl ub and community forums. She served as president for Phi Theta Kappa (Interna tional Honors Society) and co-founded The Environmental Club, which was awarded Best Environmental Outreach by Florida Leader Magazine, May 2002. In May 2003, she graduated w ith Honors, receiving her Associates Degree for Pre-Engineering, and was recognized as Vale ncia Community College Alumni Associations Distinguished Graduate, for which she wa s keynote speaker at her graduation. In January 2004, Diane enrolled in the Environmental Engineering Sciences Department at The University of Florida to complete her bach elors degree. After atte nding an applied ecology course in summer 2004, she began working for Dr. Thomas L. Crisman in the Howard T. Odum Center for Wetlands. Once there, she branched off from engineering to study ecological indicators and watershed management. In May 2005 she was granted a monetary award by the University Scholars Program to complete a st udy with the advisement of Dr. Crisman to evaluate amphibians along distur bance gradients in urban headwa ter streams. As part of her capstone design course for engineering, Diane worked with a team of student engineers to design 64

PAGE 65

an expansion to a wastewater treatment facil ity. This team was awarded First Place at both Regional and National conferences in 2006. She graduated with her bachelors degree in environmental engineering sciences in May 2006, and immediately enrolled in the masters program to continue working under the direction of Dr. Crisman. Upon completion of her masters degree, Di ane will search for government employment involving sustainable watershed development. She hopes to apply her knowledge of ecology with engineering, and to bri dge gaps between these sciences She plans to continue her education, eventually earning her PhD, with anti cipation that one day she may return inspiration, nurturing, and guidance to students like that she received throughout her academic career. 65


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101203_AAAAEU INGEST_TIME 2010-12-04T01:39:36Z PACKAGE UFE0021895_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 26000 DFID F20101203_AABZTJ ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH bennett_d_Page_46.QC.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
41cbaff199f11e897d9931a07759c852
SHA-1
0baa8741135d07aad30f66a961e60ed27a0b7748
1834 F20101203_AABZES bennett_d_Page_35.txt
9173a4d7d664bf8aceaad5609ac8f38d
7deeb72caf514fad4fce76df87610d83059c1525
10934 F20101203_AABZOM bennett_d_Page_55.pro
8248409755886e51ca32fb9a1ba71bf9
8e494fc464a7a62d6eaf6f40c249edaefd349be1
66601 F20101203_AABZJP bennett_d_Page_13.jp2
f44c43bc6c59f478a7c1090a12e026c1
6d08735c7e3d3c3d930eb51773063256dcbcb286
9553 F20101203_AABZTK bennett_d_Page_47.QC.jpg
42d83a099a8b48b82143ef64b551ddb2
3444a3a671b7669ae57023e14c648005f3308b6d
6446 F20101203_AABZET bennett_d_Page_21thm.jpg
54af54afc877edc299ef772299e5f48a
8775aac218e3167c0d727c9747e0c26203dcf661
16730 F20101203_AABZON bennett_d_Page_57.pro
5cdf852d36406d5299be4c86e4074715
b4d06930c4d6195ffba4ee26f61c63eca733ebda
117913 F20101203_AABZJQ bennett_d_Page_15.jp2
be9de887c101ac78e8321a83be9ee1e9
059dcbaf7d42171964f580a150d7821168939ca9
2252 F20101203_AABZTL bennett_d_Page_47thm.jpg
ba468444997cf0edc77ac5d76c0beaad
e47429176be83f7216d439fc3d4b355662648b49
64098 F20101203_AABZOO bennett_d_Page_58.pro
8b688fbc0e84ca9bb07e500e6fa919c2
6f76ee7e0a5efc10107273d3ddd3677aa55894c9
116053 F20101203_AABZJR bennett_d_Page_16.jp2
6950ba5a9c09c863f2ef76123a4a915f
7843884a22247d8970c088f89f8d63c2a96e74a7
14915 F20101203_AABZTM bennett_d_Page_49.QC.jpg
d6ceef3f3bf43284d052ae3256546ece
1c47876590bdade24ebdab07847c5d3db711a70a
10117 F20101203_AABZEU bennett_d_Page_57.QC.jpg
2c269ba8b7b2234a7cb131412189947d
52dc98a11a415d84c1913ece31f9e0fb309ca480
65843 F20101203_AABZOP bennett_d_Page_59.pro
0a311aeb5a95f54ed44a18e9708d386e
bd4be8da61273742ae8b24b53f99626a6607f662
109958 F20101203_AABZJS bennett_d_Page_18.jp2
8382f601e263c9838459edeae3efc9ba
93cc955201007fcbf04ca31146f1815e2ae09a16
4075 F20101203_AABZTN bennett_d_Page_49thm.jpg
840b2d175e994d0f4a83f014a0028f2e
ecb805e845bf740665e2a8e1f248806f92eb9abc
20193 F20101203_AABZEV bennett_d_Page_05.QC.jpg
7ac9d7a044775c8494e11c186c2c3178
7fdea58951e9d40c8fac985fc4731058a5d50bb5
68049 F20101203_AABZOQ bennett_d_Page_60.pro
36f0357afc55810ba36de5fea3d28e9b
82fc4f0efca1e80846c64fad73b18aa797931a5f
109711 F20101203_AABZJT bennett_d_Page_19.jp2
6a47a9283477faaba9e7390bd359ceda
c25d00f4d9b78abacabe7bc02b75329605922453
12284 F20101203_AABZTO bennett_d_Page_50.QC.jpg
e6c009e3624ebc6ddffdf4c46a826dd7
6333093df2d4afd0437be4e97797bea7d3af4253
1051961 F20101203_AABZEW bennett_d_Page_61.jp2
85ce132ee3d0694dbbea8cdfac212cef
82364027f113ea45dc9a654923bbbd7e3090e236
20006 F20101203_AABZOR bennett_d_Page_63.pro
da7065a8d1cdf7b4a94b2aa935d81960
a9ba6f8a86fbdfe59633ac6ba23e7a4298e0d6f3
111364 F20101203_AABZJU bennett_d_Page_20.jp2
2768cd0d4e91161f7fed56dc86583f28
744747a7d2493e35377dd735839207decc5cf1bc
3290 F20101203_AABZTP bennett_d_Page_50thm.jpg
dc2f3f593e425be2e08a2f4380e073a8
84f78a75787988f67f5db09d4a01c9555babcf7a
1930 F20101203_AABZEX bennett_d_Page_45.txt
672e45b359fbeee72846884124eca44a
d9766b6993da0d424309823125f2b3c109a6f182
54338 F20101203_AABZOS bennett_d_Page_64.pro
1ae8d86241b6bfa8211eee17a9d4cbaf
1fe8ced4276afcb67a2d754cd7b0fc84798b586f
114023 F20101203_AABZJV bennett_d_Page_21.jp2
73c89d8b48c356a7adfe80395b9e6222
210782a62778d8b18f5e4f6128901afdcc64175f
9568 F20101203_AABZTQ bennett_d_Page_51.QC.jpg
a998cad3e7209ce0a33627dcd184c2ca
0f7ec1f6f29fb397c48897b7b624645379e2cf86
1053954 F20101203_AABZEY bennett_d_Page_56.tif
bfc0f2a6d7f0e2ae0402fe6e39c3cf14
4e56b4ef5a158638dd09eb07e532576d7dcc538b
20660 F20101203_AABZOT bennett_d_Page_65.pro
a20424ec5bcff5be3be8c9e55e6e054a
a9ea5ef79a257739631e2f596feae864996b06dd
14946 F20101203_AABZJW bennett_d_Page_22.jp2
acbd4df471f07a9ac88601ee1355ba5d
b41c48d7f3c5a4abddea862e3d697495203ba1d2
2599 F20101203_AABZTR bennett_d_Page_51thm.jpg
39862805436a85365532f8e2532fbae4
0e636a46c5690a11ff6cf381105775862989718f
144125 F20101203_AABZEZ bennett_d_Page_60.jp2
ccb5488e8f6b882a3daa544bbe2eb6fa
1aef2ab1133dfa7c66bb1b4fc61e9b5f05417ade
467 F20101203_AABZOU bennett_d_Page_01.txt
067746b8a80729c2b5645b87d8d131bd
a9fc98a23f0b17f954be0bc62f37c6990c2e0c1b
52723 F20101203_AABZJX bennett_d_Page_23.jp2
1fd9fd2200782c679ca895bf923e735a
ca523cceca8a17b91923cf34afd3782e4630955e
12761 F20101203_AABZTS bennett_d_Page_52.QC.jpg
af7fe9d1214ed5063e1080cacaa52e13
a67104938fc47328057ad365d22fb1e33cea608e
96 F20101203_AABZOV bennett_d_Page_02.txt
c909bb37aad5d5c451f12579dcdb242b
c534a8e2c68651aa53e2795524e4825002226448
39318 F20101203_AABZJY bennett_d_Page_24.jp2
fe05862d2da7dfc876f3cfc35f6cc212
e45ffdfd92f8df7d67860bc876b297b2398c5e7f
3509 F20101203_AABZTT bennett_d_Page_52thm.jpg
910dfd928c2578dd5cf9fc2121078210
696620532581b952e1872a91585620274d49c0a1
88 F20101203_AABZOW bennett_d_Page_03.txt
8c0822a17474b42bc329e97d4271e8fe
95a651411d10a83d3ee8355e96d20d6daea8a2f5
6427 F20101203_AABZHA bennett_d_Page_12thm.jpg
d07236b30becc7e29946f8d2b9ed9000
458deb806f675342d63863ad5cc978ca3194d41a
3994 F20101203_AABZTU bennett_d_Page_53thm.jpg
308b34f5696491d02d174b21d4806dd2
5b5e87f2da64d9c0d0ebaee329d49496a26cd119
623 F20101203_AABZOX bennett_d_Page_04.txt
cf460629008a6c8fc6a5622b53edb375
350a6ec0bd3c93dfa30ee37b29229da7c9d3610c
41306 F20101203_AABZHB bennett_d_Page_23.jpg
b17ff82106fd2f001596c3654c26a16c
1fbd0670973435ff4ec3b9570444bb9aa7e4ac5a
280337 F20101203_AABZJZ bennett_d_Page_25.jp2
d2c753efa804236e5e31c27bf4650fe6
96ff51242295ac7e173251363edb076e2a78889a
14146 F20101203_AABZTV bennett_d_Page_54.QC.jpg
189c1209e26edb6eb995cc2b033489e6
e6a01c3131b57ff687c6aab5fb7afd344f6a90a6
3938 F20101203_AABZOY bennett_d_Page_05.txt
e58313c7e0106712281f135d2c7c6f68
be8c8cd65be77d9ca0061589a490e8171ab76ee9
8423998 F20101203_AABZHC bennett_d_Page_52.tif
66f4265f23a74db3a7ab1e5451b163c0
3c1bddc118531e11b21be011b676d8eb19969809
7102 F20101203_AABZTW bennett_d_Page_55.QC.jpg
814ef4148e046e26ac403b8088668bad
ce879b8c4d0e7a52fe3a571c1c955030e580e08e
F20101203_AABZMA bennett_d_Page_39.tif
8706bac516d8464daf69ea2f074e28e8
7a321e09dfc3537404af56ec95389f805cb6c71b
2689 F20101203_AABZOZ bennett_d_Page_06.txt
6df88919f5efc73f5bbd8dfb529a16bd
df0637a9e2e3fa373af704fb598362a365bcf21b
112854 F20101203_AABZHD bennett_d_Page_43.jp2
422064856e7bb9c2a29994bc4fc7355c
afdcd7a7fc2e62bca63d7c700632a2ffdeea6b98
2242 F20101203_AABZTX bennett_d_Page_55thm.jpg
460e26df6ecf4b8cfa804408d5f05493
e30a587c7c4cbf040b5c8988b8ded027f29c7c37
F20101203_AABZMB bennett_d_Page_42.tif
8b0b5ccecfa1786eef33bd4e2b45b60b
bab88be952d116458cf164d1da82ee52b713c29e
1051983 F20101203_AABZHE bennett_d_Page_05.jp2
4c4a6e269b18e63212cd82b502662740
a507bf9583f56ee29266aee7ddc99ce1e25adb75
6319 F20101203_AABZTY bennett_d_Page_56thm.jpg
f1078e3c0ac3d7f57e8ed205b6ac2fa3
bd94920f85d6eef568f6d0bb7bef065d883c56c4
F20101203_AABZMC bennett_d_Page_43.tif
c809ad462a252e0a0cd54592d9275032
345901af98e75052c02a591d05bbefce1bc0d1a3
23973 F20101203_AABZHF bennett_d_Page_53.pro
a35d077cc9223b69e9314cd05ccaed02
f063ae09d933579502ea11f94c66a5ce458a9da6
10288 F20101203_AABZRA bennett_d_Page_63.QC.jpg
95ed09c68bffeffd85a5d92cdb92ee8f
92e8d89755f14b7ce4e8312df6f759f777bade67
2376 F20101203_AABZTZ bennett_d_Page_57thm.jpg
0cf14b59258a565014a414d6738e8a3d
86166c95a8456f8880502348b764359078f90c04
F20101203_AABZMD bennett_d_Page_44.tif
33d1d315ef94836b4b78fbc9f5c486a1
5183e0274c9b836de1849475613dbae83cf06c49
1981 F20101203_AABZHG bennett_d_Page_46.txt
281de96c36ba7d0e59f501ed396ff5ce
38bc8d0a8c68de975737b51a6ae53e38d1104d8e
F20101203_AABZME bennett_d_Page_45.tif
3e97c8951ce5422415f558ca2fe1e329
b9ba5115ae5da8a025bacf0fd1928d95a7cf5ffd
83398 F20101203_AABZHH bennett_d_Page_18.jpg
b2074b97ab504c3e97aeaed80ed2ea9c
e77820cf410900d63ad68c4460896dde832a8860
99822 F20101203_AABZRB UFE0021895_00001.xml FULL
4c0f93060b1af9402874794854b9d685
4767cc18974eeb08e34cec3431c9cb625574e408
F20101203_AABZMF bennett_d_Page_46.tif
a841631b5253b0ce5eedda03e1254772
eb202f170eaaedfb9c2f7bba842f30a29a652660
107774 F20101203_AABZHI bennett_d_Page_27.jp2
654701a15f5699ec0cd17fde764408e2
7940328d9fb58e05cfbbb60386ecb177bceb158f
6305 F20101203_AABZRC bennett_d_Page_01.QC.jpg
f42a56687e756edc73f4bb35077d4e76
54dc664e8fcbaaaa0fce6503f569d08acf406b17
F20101203_AABZMG bennett_d_Page_47.tif
3477456b776f6222f11499c08fa98f3d
a592af4147d1a03e2e9df98a2fae0151880f31df
77231 F20101203_AABZHJ UFE0021895_00001.mets
79e6d1330299d5ac97a7af5bba610cfe
b031dc7924114f9e6346762790b90b7b487988b9
1065 F20101203_AABZRD bennett_d_Page_02.QC.jpg
f4f2e671a2c32aa7e53877bc1992d2d3
29f4515f1943cca9db6140424d5c773510b70c0d
F20101203_AABZMH bennett_d_Page_48.tif
014a28e6926515d9bff0578f22617843
f6061fc6c5e89f841dad6dd4b47d8814de07d093
471 F20101203_AABZRE bennett_d_Page_02thm.jpg
c092ac692b359075309aaa69dad1bc28
9fe6cc3720e1992ae0e5c5d19c1021f0abd0b481
995 F20101203_AABZRF bennett_d_Page_03.QC.jpg
2ffe9c13cb698404e9245769a00b912e
ab9d122b9fa970df00d45019064bf932b2ffa702
F20101203_AABZMI bennett_d_Page_49.tif
229dcfa745a6dd8bf37005f889c5224f
bbb73bc870f7457089d7c78a32c23cfef71c85c8
3730 F20101203_AABZHM bennett_d_Page_02.jpg
84bd75af1dfac8d686939779eeaed5e4
e64aebe749f46510d4451c1038b08b3dc9eb25f3
409 F20101203_AABZRG bennett_d_Page_03thm.jpg
ae5fa9a0ecf0a831004e755c295e82e6
e952bd7eb32d5b676eb5301b951acadf1b884676
F20101203_AABZMJ bennett_d_Page_50.tif
bc2f2e9eec4f0e38760d0ce11ef4bb13
b0d7bec0c1936f5364099a3f202663587e02b2a2
3322 F20101203_AABZHN bennett_d_Page_03.jpg
f2fc6d1c4c9dd6fc1cb84c54129c5213
2865be0e8fbbd79cacb54f48e9f4bf1226f50f54
8860 F20101203_AABZRH bennett_d_Page_04.QC.jpg
657018b384b3cc4ae7791491d5a5f80d
c42651b2db5d57b937eb6d850ec2bff0837228eb
25271604 F20101203_AABZCQ bennett_d_Page_51.tif
ee118727844d890cbbdcd83824754996
cf8e29a8ff8c8366a68a0376733be0a91c8e3fa7
F20101203_AABZMK bennett_d_Page_54.tif
0092874aa560aa6897e3eeadd2a32245
66565fefdb5e3457f907fa454658124d3ef294a6
28042 F20101203_AABZHO bennett_d_Page_04.jpg
839cfb6c5d17e0fd7365f2d92c086d1c
c2dbf9bb04471defc0cd9cf4def89ceda5f2937b
2106 F20101203_AABZRI bennett_d_Page_04thm.jpg
0d49d97fc28a49468d3e80a9fa6a738d
23146da06ea163f475020be62bdf04f9e2ea4030
26424 F20101203_AABZCR bennett_d_Page_21.QC.jpg
effb972557776d9f76afd9c871cdd158
56ff11a0304e39ead26c11c46e5d0fc90b411953
F20101203_AABZML bennett_d_Page_55.tif
2723b1b838f4ecde46f10e589cfe6146
2659e40bdfc98d6a578f3ce6720bd4f1a6ee1bbc
91606 F20101203_AABZHP bennett_d_Page_05.jpg
176c07da9aed64de9a1f43e591683742
d0ae1aa12a6ae3ac36dcf47e222134eb58ec9b44
5062 F20101203_AABZRJ bennett_d_Page_05thm.jpg
935756e8c37d042b5b58e1fa4c14c57a
c0f9da4306d6515363373f5ecc4acf12c86b66fd
F20101203_AABZMM bennett_d_Page_57.tif
9a99ce66244ae5b49439f319d4700e36
f1700898a4b6d3a08f87e7d5ef725020cbc08cbe
66588 F20101203_AABZHQ bennett_d_Page_06.jpg
fd4a13cb82bfdd81932940f9b0ac071b
2d3bda81985473bbbf26c0ce24d344df742b57d1
14312 F20101203_AABZRK bennett_d_Page_06.QC.jpg
7d31c5bddf8c4e529d801e42eac64d4a
747e473442363d93aefcb24b0add42be2b4f4f0d
122357 F20101203_AABZCS bennett_d_Page_17.jp2
806ace62dd808ce60bb03d8b06d5bc23
2c2df01b97b3966c3c183c8899e09db6f0b8f075
F20101203_AABZMN bennett_d_Page_58.tif
5c66fb99568dfae0a864113ad7e89e1f
9dc3798a58080f56b61c48506841668f0a831e27
33774 F20101203_AABZHR bennett_d_Page_07.jpg
a2bbdcb8e343f63da3b8ae1fd7f4d898
29e1479ea2d0ee4913d96793228fc4e5d9bf8d89
2496 F20101203_AABZRL bennett_d_Page_07thm.jpg
140b94753600c20775ca9d9cedaa9679
738214fd91ceffda64e76569aa8413d496bc36f1
51478 F20101203_AABZCT bennett_d_Page_13.jpg
72b0046a4665c9b2e53c51672771f28c
48c2195aa927a9c6eadd568b14c43e4fdf159fbd
F20101203_AABZMO bennett_d_Page_59.tif
9764eefa9d0f2cda775194dcaebca876
092863772a3bbc44805da6b5791d11408302f7c9
58418 F20101203_AABZHS bennett_d_Page_08.jpg
c066c12ab1b34f14534be757f4af6275
c6145b3048d6206ce8f71f6f15888bffd0c110db
16539 F20101203_AABZRM bennett_d_Page_08.QC.jpg
2f7c654b356dd4cbe17ffcf3abcbcfbf
6561d2b544334d385251c1b8d29f4624a00951bd
F20101203_AABZCU bennett_d_Page_34.tif
5eb5d9e359a7ddb9577703d33f214ab8
d1e88f67a3f1fa2cc3d4a5dca2e50b767b9e82d0
F20101203_AABZMP bennett_d_Page_60.tif
990c95e9d0af1c3794873673fe961ae3
5d5be53d2f0e9c0aa7a976bd775c0461f26eeeff
27628 F20101203_AABZHT bennett_d_Page_09.jpg
25bb695eb3b29f80165e360e3e782c7f
89747016f1412170aa5be8637eb8bfdb7d90355d
2238 F20101203_AABZRN bennett_d_Page_09thm.jpg
5c30bb7002f06243b3cbb14ca7138e6a
11b0a7d41af9f9cc689f9c8de7f577df32aa33f4
11886 F20101203_AABZCV bennett_d_Page_23.QC.jpg
d9767a095975bc3543eeb1ba9a4c5d47
e6552e7d05f0daeec7c461962f118af5ea616413
F20101203_AABZMQ bennett_d_Page_61.tif
51e02a4d7d21f5afe29be4ee91c5a4c9
5234898ac40e649d5e2a21f55961bfec34222db3
83218 F20101203_AABZHU bennett_d_Page_10.jpg
63d13cd211ad8be1cd176e49c444a783
10ed264af017031b4ae952d76065ca5f2270a791
25022 F20101203_AABZRO bennett_d_Page_10.QC.jpg
adc3303da74cb215dfca875e10a497dd
793aa6b3dc5fc4eedccb197e8fe997fe759537c6
37139 F20101203_AABZCW bennett_d_Page_47.jp2
bd1817e79a0e5a15b26cba7ce99bb21b
355796c72af3eab7f0913ee588c5ac2612b1d3ce
F20101203_AABZMR bennett_d_Page_62.tif
67ba9825dc3c02b75140eca4b6944a3a
3d466ffb026074c75e631f4cc8bfacaa10e04d5b
87605 F20101203_AABZHV bennett_d_Page_12.jpg
32119844402becdcbec8109883943c4f
532409a991b558e4cd4198722439fbf7b3599dd7
5976 F20101203_AABZRP bennett_d_Page_10thm.jpg
7ac702bc1858d5a2b61f259660d4a385
54265a68cce5a875212d747e9a6b1d4866c85030
F20101203_AABZCX bennett_d_Page_11.tif
cfeb511ccfb1b6c2393364d1eb52d037
6104704705bbeaea05f017d0a277bd9fd3bd44be
F20101203_AABZMS bennett_d_Page_64.tif
39c6360795b6434d185eadae97aa565e
7bfbd90236c1d742315689f4a219edfc3d95e393
88490 F20101203_AABZHW bennett_d_Page_14.jpg
b79beaa3c6e13e65b9dc7d594963bcb5
d4f78625ada9eab343dd580792311ce45ecdb2df
27174 F20101203_AABZRQ bennett_d_Page_11.QC.jpg
80d0095feace4061c4724e634dea3ffd
60c587f8a5d1c7559fd14ca756c9e9b4ac83547f
662 F20101203_AABZCY bennett_d_Page_24.txt
4777bc81c9cb80ab7d64ff65e19e49b9
687047241e634859c85333d16b5bcf7fbe57b100
7956 F20101203_AABZMT bennett_d_Page_01.pro
6f6a290bc17cd8f369d4c04ee6d7d996
48d8dad3e65b765ef9ce6c43ade141eae0bd850c
6295 F20101203_AABZRR bennett_d_Page_11thm.jpg
92df9c433a404bcb2f204d4ac5602f12
68ca900eb0b0a4ca3a26d7ee604dae9c918290b5
F20101203_AABZCZ bennett_d_Page_40.tif
de2bd4eb64064a8ba9e1bc7efd2bafd3
b33e1bae33773c7a292a55356e99b7b85e8a1254
886 F20101203_AABZMU bennett_d_Page_02.pro
3f60c082c1b44633f1e40513a269c704
682b993510a4bca2015fec8b02961696a1ea1d2e
83318 F20101203_AABZHX bennett_d_Page_19.jpg
4ffeef6e5038e762c3a63103180150a3
abed1a9e0ef985e853564428f7125abb2f17c307
26898 F20101203_AABZRS bennett_d_Page_12.QC.jpg
88a9c4ec75d6862806cb471fea284cee
6dde273113aab892aad1722c4cf049c5efce407d
832 F20101203_AABZMV bennett_d_Page_03.pro
973b82043667dc79c52993035fdd72b2
c1a174e689b875d14f7cfd4b224f627782dc1fbc
83481 F20101203_AABZHY bennett_d_Page_20.jpg
00be124b160f7fb7d63d4a51b668a5ed
a3c54f4102258224f17737edc15380978f9f1920
16249 F20101203_AABZRT bennett_d_Page_13.QC.jpg
ff3d90dba9c3d1746629bbbfbf7d17e2
9e9433368a0a016e3f6ee43d98bf678e59ed985d
14702 F20101203_AABZMW bennett_d_Page_04.pro
2323b732ccfcfe3ecf94e2223d8941ce
a7c9c0347a87feca166c6e9db0386c762d8432f1
30197 F20101203_AABZFA bennett_d_Page_51.jpg
7ca91aa65177e1df3c28b5e195cd0099
33f3901cc3866d77176b998f107afe780df0a173
86933 F20101203_AABZHZ bennett_d_Page_21.jpg
01d3b7d3f39526897316cab3ccb30e93
1bd8ff864926ae341cd1e734e341aa1ea7e3674a
3884 F20101203_AABZRU bennett_d_Page_13thm.jpg
26183d75f9b848ba314af85769aa9f3e
9e060d0c8af3f548e35a28c063cd6063f90092c7
96775 F20101203_AABZMX bennett_d_Page_05.pro
fab5b4ef2a35b4885c51a82b78cc9f9e
c87947af1f11a9390bb365bc43802af5cd1b7e58
1983 F20101203_AABZFB bennett_d_Page_20.txt
3fa998eedc963aed05a2e6c9d5f04ef4
ee5bd6c4fe65336cbceaaee52afc5f2de4c5fbd4
27904 F20101203_AABZRV bennett_d_Page_14.QC.jpg
43c3edaa55a883f20818706fe6002673
8ece07791ac2b4a1c18517443aadb7f05148a824
20679 F20101203_AABZMY bennett_d_Page_07.pro
e6c8df2123cccfd6ab2e4aee7c8847de
24109648d85ba0960d20fae8607abe0a70ef1d22
F20101203_AABZFC bennett_d_Page_65.tif
5153d815a7f8350ce137a96d71f11014
2055f249489c5986bb624110ac4901fb98e88816
27396 F20101203_AABZRW bennett_d_Page_15.QC.jpg
dbb316ac829a2799917778820b403bbb
3ad605cdeca172d98f7a499e4bfff33a19b1a10d
105109 F20101203_AABZKA bennett_d_Page_29.jp2
981f1a8ae2b83cef424e33a648e7eb29
a6055be1c2a4c372b7b09a3daa16b057b6e2e264
37587 F20101203_AABZMZ bennett_d_Page_08.pro
3efe14a47586a19fb41a8decc260295b
d20be15746ac9ec844aaf153c9f73820f6fbb53e
579 F20101203_AABZFD bennett_d_Page_55.txt
b25de76ab4cb73a16ecf6cfac70f9faf
c9f7fe8164a81e2b60ce4d49999c1fa02da77bf7
6659 F20101203_AABZRX bennett_d_Page_15thm.jpg
0d1408d6f2498c9b35441dc95142bfc8
fa361c6c0ee284472fd2f5f4049238253db59013
111808 F20101203_AABZKB bennett_d_Page_30.jp2
deb4ba454e0cb7ff667d7f4f45a4dfca
5a9b97b7b205b32e821bc8f60beafcec8d357d16
88776 F20101203_AABZFE bennett_d_Page_38.jpg
efc41c0bca2eccc5949ab0a14b52ccbb
262e02e9556eb28c26692426c26ee41e19f6ab82
27945 F20101203_AABZRY bennett_d_Page_16.QC.jpg
8630331dc736bd8a3d77b128d16bfe7e
7c2b08eea38a25594e311b40a919e57ddeaf4878
108116 F20101203_AABZKC bennett_d_Page_32.jp2
96eb880b13cf70c5b1821964df968f46
e154b28a12254a5ef5392c56806694b1700c14c9
F20101203_AABZFF bennett_d_Page_24.tif
e0be62393254ccbca1094269a3932795
55ff78d5ea1a20447095641e68e2078fea5339ab
1558 F20101203_AABZPA bennett_d_Page_08.txt
622336c531325644a7bb102eb7e0f958
5d74c75bcad260d18dc1e72067471d27e2b0b422
6379 F20101203_AABZRZ bennett_d_Page_16thm.jpg
47edde4b91021d1c60e991d9de97d063
cd05e76308c74dbc9899f11a995d4568e2565106
108005 F20101203_AABZKD bennett_d_Page_33.jp2
586c8c9f52bacd9ccac0d612ef1f88ab
14073b26db1a04e21c87ee2cb1814b53c0195b3f
664 F20101203_AABZFG bennett_d_Page_57.txt
cee83cbf4494b5e910530e825c760a9e
9cfe0c829a863eb16aaaf42b985ce319a062227a
2083 F20101203_AABZPB bennett_d_Page_10.txt
3de937845f9c755c63f4c5a965c2e693
abd75670d906c7867e5709fe9128dc8da74cf42a
119774 F20101203_AABZKE bennett_d_Page_34.jp2
ca363db07f3ce6d1733ccec23b3cd332
fe72e769e75158b7014de17566da916d5ccf92f2
8981 F20101203_AABZFH bennett_d_Page_25.QC.jpg
64946e3c69f03126d0517b00c2bb2cab
45ea8e158fa2753cdc90eb05c34898979e2b0ef5
29282 F20101203_AABZUA bennett_d_Page_58.QC.jpg
ec79451cca26961487de09ec1e2bc0e4
682f050849e40ebd2467c7a73d66518b8997c769
2151 F20101203_AABZPC bennett_d_Page_11.txt
bf11dc2838afd861bbcb1d50dde92a66
7d04c9af29aa88f9ed5fc38d26a90adf85203299
104092 F20101203_AABZKF bennett_d_Page_35.jp2
4dfa1bad251b694cb732491f249d2206
27186b372b3071f5ec3c48ef6bae4d8d41acc312
27479 F20101203_AABZFI bennett_d_Page_37.QC.jpg
34127a522ad31a671b43de1f307556d7
7f28bf3202c14ad3e3fe2f04c92fac0bf8905bc7
7075 F20101203_AABZUB bennett_d_Page_58thm.jpg
1d706f16f18f927c454de917301d3ee9
62877897b0643f48801e82aa7c9a60761b1d9890
2044 F20101203_AABZPD bennett_d_Page_12.txt
7bd5a5d520bb49e3807a1e8decaced28
b8fc83d642de25fb82d35aaa85eb4e2f7bd97534
116215 F20101203_AABZKG bennett_d_Page_36.jp2
f00406a86fb45c6803d6b8f136364259
8ee1be71207517bb2d138fea3dd3a399480ecdfe
F20101203_AABZFJ bennett_d_Page_05.tif
f5d3b6ebd887f91e5a7eecf6a87e4f77
3c04305eb1b1ecb1ba46712601364b40e986d669
31114 F20101203_AABZUC bennett_d_Page_59.QC.jpg
07cef0d4687015f9a0ae7ceb92247094
577ffb41f20f500cca1e871d4500664eef5de796
116692 F20101203_AABZKH bennett_d_Page_37.jp2
849f822a49adc9e843fd9f829c256e9a
453d4a13d2397a7343efdebef4e273f6d7bad950
20973 F20101203_AABZFK bennett_d_Page_01.jpg
aa622f57061fe2340bc8cb7229ecc743
90e491e3f171ffd05482df56cd9bfc17799056cb
2116 F20101203_AABZPE bennett_d_Page_16.txt
fcfdb26b1a4aaa150a9d38daeb329d25
b92627fe37bfd78c319af93091c9791540c3dda2
7329 F20101203_AABZUD bennett_d_Page_59thm.jpg
147b15c951eed938f3df0c8e5f7841c5
1cbfee68007ed1bb8a2006c676c3d8dc4a3aceba
116677 F20101203_AABZKI bennett_d_Page_38.jp2
8a27152a50b7276048b0332dfac6742e
71af66989ffa176e336106192f52c2bce93ffc4c
868 F20101203_AABZFL bennett_d_Page_07.txt
43d6ccd21aa2999f59a9b7077890b375
30346b211af07e6ce70174fecfd02ccd5f778641
2216 F20101203_AABZPF bennett_d_Page_17.txt
65410838d8cabe9c7a391ddf25ad2937
1947083d836e4fed15039fc85b24db313d53b2d9
111489 F20101203_AABZKJ bennett_d_Page_39.jp2
1b84f2ca773cec083d1e843261e4fb4c
1524e90f66ce5f60844c533e0ed4bc13dc5a26a0
64946 F20101203_AABZFM bennett_d_Page_61.pro
6ef0003fbdffbcfbc09f771e9595d2f6
abb616c307972b49a9ff3782217f6f99479bd85e
1995 F20101203_AABZPG bennett_d_Page_18.txt
9863f86815f263886230943d34ca536e
f701fce00fe18d5ef3184fd69ed857e8fafcc1c4
6831 F20101203_AABZUE bennett_d_Page_60thm.jpg
d5bc3ce598db2dbd22eb68d3f7805786
bd85ffa06bad49dc6de97ef1855b0bbb4189659c
114473 F20101203_AABZKK bennett_d_Page_40.jp2
b65544337e1ecbf3a33710f1e185a4d6
e02225fd489790bec5e8ca9f238bd3bbc6d0ab4b
116496 F20101203_AABZFN bennett_d_Page_14.jp2
9a094e88f4b21eb27ea9e23d4344e178
e1d29f21f3f1254fd3aef292849f46954541abaa
1963 F20101203_AABZPH bennett_d_Page_19.txt
fcd0384f5639209f9aa71dcb7f22905f
f2bd43309a4eeb5e49d34263e6d9c05917c1fb73
7488 F20101203_AABZUF bennett_d_Page_62thm.jpg
a2d9e570d5496deab50d6a0c9513b878
f8460c11493610207b51079fb17c691b89fdccac
120813 F20101203_AABZKL bennett_d_Page_41.jp2
23ca14677a56c3e17305f0c90446aba2
b23933aa4c75f64691cba35e563233d269a70395
2030 F20101203_AABZFO bennett_d_Page_44.txt
7d5e0197a104193f28cc48e0783d80e5
7739b4d16ae9bba24dd48c80f5a96378226e01b0
2052 F20101203_AABZPI bennett_d_Page_21.txt
91ab9ad40c15d6102dbe6fb5a58fa594
b0449e6b2f39cec5f3878cd2f810db06d5027b86
29220 F20101203_AABZUG bennett_d_Page_64.QC.jpg
a81760b5e7fc370777226e612f90ab84
0dac1da556aec13adf22e0afa4b2dcaf71d425d1
110248 F20101203_AABZKM bennett_d_Page_46.jp2
580f34bd860b62b21e20de8a4fd6b6f2
40d8aa1d14678561444645f97907c2bbaf346f51
27866 F20101203_AABZFP bennett_d_Page_31.QC.jpg
c9528d65c5fc11a08483667d865f9a61
676218b746d1a36608191d066547ceb47a0a3e47
1086 F20101203_AABZPJ bennett_d_Page_23.txt
c5377e1ef5ef0e01f0288a1843f93254
50d0db42d930b5c1a846a7df90e0ea8a83a982bd
11721 F20101203_AABZUH bennett_d_Page_65.QC.jpg
1879931c95dba96e0a0269f55f770656
d52cdb74f8d47ad07adb19d186ac5a81feb80a8d
635866 F20101203_AABZKN bennett_d_Page_51.jp2
2d3231937b3b640e1845f47f80614e12
db5e48ea71186d95699b4966285bbdfbff8db290
26644 F20101203_AABZFQ bennett_d_Page_56.QC.jpg
f3514bee965f2321c333d2c8575fbcb5
bae757e4ddbdad03bf09cfd16963f4f2acea45fc
2163 F20101203_AABZPK bennett_d_Page_26.txt
262823eef136ff17ddd64da61c9cfdcf
22cfeec0efffd815253a571b2fefab8bd075a14a
517056 F20101203_AABZKO bennett_d_Page_52.jp2
a307435377c88e57cf348f9d5fd13be8
be9698f37c3a577148816144924fbd870de493b8
28782 F20101203_AABZFR bennett_d_Page_38.QC.jpg
c5c6d98744bf23d47f1ef8296bdd9dbe
269edb61359f319ac7f4669feae1e0dd85643523
1910 F20101203_AABZPL bennett_d_Page_27.txt
4239bc813acc4571eda9a2f9a00c78c6
b47af65b7380b34fcbeb806e12c9ea64c625e191
531432 F20101203_AABZKP bennett_d_Page_54.jp2
a3caaafb8164340c22d9cce75a2e33b8
116cf3ebbbf8847712778faa4ae8a0e0b822882f
60020 F20101203_AABZFS bennett_d_Page_49.jp2
be0f500f2336ac6b9316a6a46da09e19
142d486c34787dc39630709303dfb87d2717c0cf
2033 F20101203_AABZPM bennett_d_Page_28.txt
53a99e89528eb36f932088dec9127857
cbd7743164a13c3e3ef255c8a600bb1605af6a5a
238001 F20101203_AABZKQ bennett_d_Page_55.jp2
38e75fde09a4bacee26afe1b3e7fd15b
7c008c9cf9e4d613cbbc442fbba51959f5537e8e
6607 F20101203_AABZFT bennett_d_Page_39thm.jpg
37edc6b019b624db416acabc3e74592d
9815e9c0b713594a50399a726824a4e05942f857
1941 F20101203_AABZPN bennett_d_Page_29.txt
224833e7fd9f6967c653e1e736ecacd7
20428e1d30df537e660f8e44bf9723edb96b78c2
113966 F20101203_AABZKR bennett_d_Page_56.jp2
30e2c89662fecc9edbd3afca1c8f9e9a
57c62175cdd99df098772ca9f7fa31e095beb21b
2100 F20101203_AABZFU bennett_d_Page_37.txt
1703147325a43f9561acd622342faeef
8150bbca5955c82a61693b420167480bedfdd28f
2022 F20101203_AABZPO bennett_d_Page_30.txt
1168e8bd9def331640c2f5c3214d7118
3c5f9fdf9c84591bc3ccca258203e619ed1a464e
40158 F20101203_AABZKS bennett_d_Page_57.jp2
43c4817685f69b08021229785d1bb427
0b763c92a25e489bebfd6ec276463f62df144f2e
2078 F20101203_AABZPP bennett_d_Page_31.txt
ed4909da75a96c88e83cc4e1592f79d3
d0772589398b6496aeb8bfcb874a5ec1aacb1ca6
1051936 F20101203_AABZKT bennett_d_Page_58.jp2
5b7ca206b3c9c544d33da87721c1b7ec
e1384c3449cac1c947241fdd590a49f534e43ee6
116547 F20101203_AABZFV bennett_d_Page_12.jp2
c65c4953ef18fb2021731a62863ff975
2df08187216b9dd3e02584e73ba5635bc76525a1
1917 F20101203_AABZPQ bennett_d_Page_32.txt
22308b1f472d72f82e9e957513467fd9
612378025f131b4708f58d1ad7e5eea546b9c5f4
1051958 F20101203_AABZKU bennett_d_Page_59.jp2
3bff72e40f2c25f05be92bf19feb528e
75e68c39c63a0a533cb9f14c922c7f13bc7ec531
F20101203_AABZFW bennett_d_Page_07.tif
1cc38db05d401d3c6115b677ebaeb674
ca597cf4ff10743d63707b2483d434349a59a56f
F20101203_AABZPR bennett_d_Page_33.txt
e9ec62edaa181540f63353d0421b97dc
1b37328db26acaad342403c8ab0d0a927e8e9cdb
1051972 F20101203_AABZKV bennett_d_Page_62.jp2
6f27bc9ffdb37e8301817a282751f230
75141e07a4ee2a7daecc476caf8f1fe442ef2dd0
6197 F20101203_AABZFX bennett_d_Page_36thm.jpg
af4fc16015c4cacca9d4cc6e1138614d
b155f0e3ec66978d861bced0b55dac269d88111c
2155 F20101203_AABZPS bennett_d_Page_34.txt
3f2f1c1605d7e09c3bb1597d5c6422e1
eb7ee07c0655ff5622952529149d5a501d413eb4
46428 F20101203_AABZKW bennett_d_Page_63.jp2
a16b9a08b3405d8eb4cf84435117d872
490601f976bcb94ef27e76cfc097e8ea835753cb
9843 F20101203_AABZDA bennett_d_Page_07.QC.jpg
92f211b50777d323c9527e364bd2f221
d6d82ac1c6cc3870aebbe5ccea4ec44780e11bb8
29863 F20101203_AABZFY bennett_d_Page_60.QC.jpg
4dcdc3077f6f9302d28215969203709a
a03d35490b10a6a58f4a390ebaed1b1dc30b0870
2111 F20101203_AABZPT bennett_d_Page_38.txt
0ab9beb41d3baba9e93614e2a9f9ad76
ba5ab5fd2b02d428a4c1020b4275f8967148b221
120179 F20101203_AABZKX bennett_d_Page_64.jp2
ecf5a88128c7e6aa6d46bdd8f4009443
e96530d846999731d6987e222e96286217865e61
21750 F20101203_AABZDB bennett_d_Page_52.pro
14d2c7afb4ec52b7c13f3e04fb4977d2
947d043c4e01a8dc38a60c694ceb8648fbc512da
13687 F20101203_AABZFZ bennett_d_Page_53.QC.jpg
ada12bc33c9a4bbd84d582a2b010575c
a82a7b145e5ff321407101c37daff76e8f1ff893
2088 F20101203_AABZPU bennett_d_Page_39.txt
5b0bef5bf0b81511c9f9816a78aec81c
fff8fa4e1962987548fe9abc7f7d6839a01ab0f1
48696 F20101203_AABZKY bennett_d_Page_65.jp2
d27ae854d54281401212fce99380d797
ba4a052d45e2dc3d8e08322393ade36c7c3e5cc2
6755 F20101203_AABZDC bennett_d_Page_38thm.jpg
ed6174a4ecff784722192e4795fe5a1d
58f311fa30fcb944f0250b0a9c0f5abe06464725
2068 F20101203_AABZPV bennett_d_Page_40.txt
acd5e6ddb074b509aac0565af513fe32
f9e81fcc986e60806cbd576368ca1321e4417fa0
F20101203_AABZKZ bennett_d_Page_02.tif
b4ad0c82609d5884889498ae134be52b
83dd99790a36dbf191ac475d8bbfa9437ad644ac
825 F20101203_AABZDD bennett_d_Page_65.txt
b96d30ab59ff44bc712a4d4a0ec0f1d4
598d4a069fe26dfa55d6657c700b10a309a4fbb3
2136 F20101203_AABZPW bennett_d_Page_41.txt
2e6c30050668c7a302303ac8eace84ed
f3d77b44e691291d00b6f8c2582b4d81e79cb7e3
11861 F20101203_AABZIA bennett_d_Page_22.jpg
0fe8541a91e5a385df8084dbea8882f8
5b9930ce375b8076a5efe0e4c7cfff4d2c96bcb0
1578 F20101203_AABZDE bennett_d_Page_01thm.jpg
bb6c6a4901283af808c9b2025e3bdd1b
338329f76ebd792762fff9ecbc15eddb10bfcc1e
2190 F20101203_AABZPX bennett_d_Page_42.txt
16d960bd8eb7fd60f08440afdd9228de
88161c037c88104db27cedfa775d4311976aad3c
35712 F20101203_AABZIB bennett_d_Page_24.jpg
99fdeff20f6c91e99854c39c9f460a77
c2cb593af45bc834c3203082d5e1764ed98db4d9
F20101203_AABZDF bennett_d_Page_31.tif
17e763930d87877247b98190f27b4201
7d58d9876639c2a1f3eaa33f3c1d684d59252618
2040 F20101203_AABZPY bennett_d_Page_43.txt
7a32d3a0e3d17608d5b0dab13b31a02b
81277a44450f910a7a7fc17a786ffd111e4c0597
27342 F20101203_AABZIC bennett_d_Page_25.jpg
052031d0d69e14b7e54eae2b1423a04b
57491023b21f4ec8c7229c45a8d0e3d2c9cd7507
113562 F20101203_AABZDG bennett_d_Page_28.jp2
5800603701cb05edd166f6e122df8cc7
f107638cb5623f6c85e8fc934e9f702d127f6b1e
13540 F20101203_AABZNA bennett_d_Page_09.pro
d89fbaf3a50d7c29f3f994166388ca1e
bcb292003771f8391d1e2597982e3d29e69af67c
632 F20101203_AABZPZ bennett_d_Page_47.txt
afff261f4317b4ff9429a7e67723e9a2
69e84bd562d8d549b7348e0d0d6326e2fa5c29ec
90363 F20101203_AABZID bennett_d_Page_26.jpg
cbd2864c241b0d887c4a355cf7025a69
712e599d7b1a973aeb4b05e0a5048d7305870874
91470 F20101203_AABZDH bennett_d_Page_17.jpg
7f0ef71d0f1f311450d0d0a84799d12a
55f54324327cc3309cc7b034edd72eb646c1fc63
47815 F20101203_AABZNB bennett_d_Page_10.pro
0960d0dcbd1f1e6407e47772292032e0
c91361603c6827d7f4db4b92f1b8aa6365c6536c
80715 F20101203_AABZIE bennett_d_Page_27.jpg
d695a89576289ef7bc9546f831e1f34c
e0a237cca853bf378b8160da8c97c3eae9f9cd00
26965 F20101203_AABZSA bennett_d_Page_18.QC.jpg
f8fb7a98f3d7c511a67b5e642edd6c11
2bdad7d58f3287fceeb526f830c4315a6da6a3cd
29353 F20101203_AABZDI bennett_d_Page_17.QC.jpg
7365dbaa07e11cae4c08c522a71e90f2
149f7465f001e59119ab850dfdd2fd2de37d30e2
52667 F20101203_AABZNC bennett_d_Page_11.pro
7106656ec9d27d28ee791842648feb33
79f0cd57a39a088b7c5195b89f5e5832e303152a
80253 F20101203_AABZIF bennett_d_Page_29.jpg
ac0f1f0c227d6e6425510509b328ee44
b6a7e3f0e6047c968edb75564f1c4ce792012b99
121099 F20101203_AABZDJ bennett_d_Page_42.jp2
49fd6e04e7d6db36d58a39a47b5bc1ca
dd8b10f22a47a5aa0abedec3f0c4ddd57c7766c4
51892 F20101203_AABZND bennett_d_Page_12.pro
8022104b7fe88930fcb701227ee1c253
a1086c20646940a9f3d5f883032d1176d38789c3
88757 F20101203_AABZIG bennett_d_Page_31.jpg
ea1061c2d48421375fe2612c54317b55
823530b24a4a07a0fab1f3b10d52b1d941968b5b
6111 F20101203_AABZSB bennett_d_Page_18thm.jpg
46bfbdedb3d41083e3350cadf509b3ee
6fc8bb97f4e57a190c47b883c79439c4e4483583
183 F20101203_AABZDK bennett_d_Page_51.txt
41caffbf6b272ef17fda3022b0362e9a
cafc31fb92a3647aeeaf5b3d8af68df17f77038a
29171 F20101203_AABZNE bennett_d_Page_13.pro
1be2befa4c3218ae0972333ad1af1893
2805ec23f4210e3d93142b522c29e77d6f6544d7
82047 F20101203_AABZIH bennett_d_Page_32.jpg
a41a0cbb0307c62d9273fdaf5e6059dd
1b293eeda96e7b51054f71aed131ea4a12d01868
26381 F20101203_AABZSC bennett_d_Page_19.QC.jpg
678f2560410a0057456228dde7eb5a3b
07f7456260e16c5985efd48ce3748c1e83946b08
49030 F20101203_AABZDL bennett_d_Page_33.pro
818327ac99e62e0470830244d8760e91
9faf5f1a131871b8904a6b1fdc52f684de9bf4f7
52674 F20101203_AABZNF bennett_d_Page_14.pro
7b3e43859588f6842d259fa74c8a7342
a37f46e20d6f2c5affa2d189222182051fff4f25
90120 F20101203_AABZII bennett_d_Page_34.jpg
a8bf8421ae92709b9a8b7eff17e60bcb
a93e74e915555ba149386b198c300af956201469
6228 F20101203_AABZSD bennett_d_Page_19thm.jpg
c421b5329c9e6bf38bdd58be6381a258
6db7254da75391ef3bd69865c1e2e946cd004f21
857 F20101203_AABZDM bennett_d_Page_25.txt
9568b27e2a1efe5e5b67b2a22639c039
412ae01093df35956f3bdb144ce09af5cdf98cc3
53984 F20101203_AABZNG bennett_d_Page_15.pro
d3ca2a22eabbaccdc0b2f14a2f320fdd
7443bbe88210f0ed4b53d4f4cac598f7459dd1af
78458 F20101203_AABZIJ bennett_d_Page_35.jpg
a489ee14e9d720bc5ee47f01f8a0b0f1
a6d800456afe89eafc52e114a1fb18563324a899
6470 F20101203_AABZSE bennett_d_Page_20thm.jpg
74afe860c0e56dc061a15f11dc2ce449
3179727cc966a124d1349e9138ca891fdc23f1fa
55563 F20101203_AABZDN bennett_d_Page_17.pro
009dc1d5c293c49cf0e85231c7cbe679
5dfe81c04ecf052f76a4d359544bd0da682ae0e9
52711 F20101203_AABZNH bennett_d_Page_16.pro
9e52c2d882063cab7463a939db6659e0
ec3cb764c52cf033b672433d951d635ee459a50a
85458 F20101203_AABZIK bennett_d_Page_36.jpg
b9f750d89b7c1864f064e82e25c3f62c
a043e18fcd37add6484467d769c18a7bbe1892cf
4203 F20101203_AABZSF bennett_d_Page_22.QC.jpg
238e256615251f79e632cf455faba60e
e1a814ba91cd54969d4419e6374610dbb4bf718a
87902 F20101203_AABZDO bennett_d_Page_15.jpg
9d450d6ead7ac2351419aab1c82e6a6b
f7b1de72a1ac0693a9302f6381b1b5a8bdbf9608
49603 F20101203_AABZNI bennett_d_Page_18.pro
632b485cd7f83bf104d3f9983cd0dfa8
4165e91a4c7cf72e7e5a1d50d36a1f1d25ba454a
88022 F20101203_AABZIL bennett_d_Page_37.jpg
d37ec5493bcbd3264c18c599f5ab65ff
ec29a8611545912c1f97137b64bbcb66a9f00820
1035 F20101203_AABZSG bennett_d_Page_22thm.jpg
864b697bde9cabfd996ea8b5b48ada27
a67e9ac2c8c1de46e7efc662de760233f7d7b898
6802 F20101203_AABZDP bennett_d_Page_17thm.jpg
89a2b3f8a0f390d9e1e8b9d480fd34df
ce4628fddeeee891115758f244bb6337261baffb
48380 F20101203_AABZNJ bennett_d_Page_19.pro
793d933c4b2300129a5b19f82955a562
db3e152c19a96eff33b4da14d456d8921a0c6c37
86585 F20101203_AABZIM bennett_d_Page_39.jpg
2357027f36f002a9bced86fa82401384
93b4ce4e017fb19a848ad7ff20a699231756a285
2748 F20101203_AABZSH bennett_d_Page_23thm.jpg
a36981e16ffc6d9cb0643cda78724303
e429b639c4f19699c862a9221b983f964c1c1139
61997 F20101203_AABZDQ bennett_d_Page_06.pro
4ab7dd8ac8e587c3c9245b301d33b6e4
bd3adab228fbe35a2e2e1d583ae729d7c240de55
50162 F20101203_AABZNK bennett_d_Page_20.pro
7f750179402cc1b251734230b0b61da5
52dbfa42ddd13b6b42ffad34e4b5427305155800
89610 F20101203_AABZIN bennett_d_Page_41.jpg
5650d4b2eab438e7a26cb15ca5a364a1
a7195cd1582a97f23bcb15af11f896a304feb74f
12149 F20101203_AABZSI bennett_d_Page_24.QC.jpg
d93d6ed1ef528a7afb1151a826e3c341
fcd979e00d972465125df55c01e1e2ea891b8092
27809 F20101203_AABZDR bennett_d_Page_40.QC.jpg
fa77eec57edad1f51b73dbf57e9e0fe1
e5bf78add0d51799b98bbc911989c83d63aec4cd
52105 F20101203_AABZNL bennett_d_Page_21.pro
623218b34930beeb06b8ba051758f451
21db42816372246b51f5e586bf9d5fe9d04a9316
90599 F20101203_AABZIO bennett_d_Page_42.jpg
ec12aa80c99ab4fe2c7a5db7a4e9237c
7e82dfdaff47c2d8c17cfaa8c4fa912d0713fe2e
3468 F20101203_AABZSJ bennett_d_Page_24thm.jpg
018eb120a472cd798d6ba12f132b8d4d
394845bb7d46595ee40254a458397111b70076c7
2171 F20101203_AABZDS bennett_d_Page_14.txt
f562ae3f69ee6b0a08b621dd98393f00
d80e9b62f00c1bd6308e1db40b36974bc493849a
5267 F20101203_AABZNM bennett_d_Page_22.pro
faae9accb72d943844258bae679a6657
0472a5ec7a83d70bf0e7eb32d71868974793afa0
87422 F20101203_AABZIP bennett_d_Page_43.jpg
05243b2ce590ff8ffd92ef5836fbe200
abcb6f63c26a639851eaeac2a241e8b9547e4ca2
2724 F20101203_AABZSK bennett_d_Page_25thm.jpg
dcc3da82aa9a10111f08c66673c8cb37
6d271df237b89acd9aa1fd58cda6b7daa73022e6
21781 F20101203_AABZNN bennett_d_Page_23.pro
3b1288ec81e738a7636332c9dd0cd67a
efb91c838e270bfe5fdd4052d305ecabce64d3c9
86094 F20101203_AABZIQ bennett_d_Page_44.jpg
813099c1cd0d244df7ed80c3df1a9786
52d9fbee4f2de424b3b8a22fb6bfd8b5725f2e55
28492 F20101203_AABZSL bennett_d_Page_26.QC.jpg
40d33dcf32dddcbefd01ee89dbbd5b59
136f12eda3b3cc41bf27407eaca719c8902cb50b
13414 F20101203_AABZNO bennett_d_Page_25.pro
883bc74556deca80c9a754fec9b22943
374c7f60c603bf6ce8b9dd4b344e5385669180d1
83624 F20101203_AABZIR bennett_d_Page_46.jpg
408fee732166f764b1c82df1497187b5
b7b93ead6bf81b53a3fa3fa3231144cc59ccad2a
6526 F20101203_AABZDT bennett_d_Page_31thm.jpg
9fadbb81934b64fa6f469d220b25e3ac
8955c94007cc212be8f91e24634f3b7ab0f3f54b
6531 F20101203_AABZSM bennett_d_Page_26thm.jpg
aee764e271441acc7a894e33eae176db
6b8947a3542724bb274e0477cef6b0d2b245aae5
52599 F20101203_AABZNP bennett_d_Page_26.pro
adad5caab4a3b9c6f9fcb97152775539
22651ee14d40221e6973bbb5f1da1f71195a32b7
28947 F20101203_AABZIS bennett_d_Page_47.jpg
10347eb7f980f68de9c63604706be886
fd7d22d5c2554d7880c87db8de6d6745a4556714
211 F20101203_AABZDU bennett_d_Page_22.txt
9184e071aca866a41d6c6069f97d17b0
dc0e138ed7e74caa9474526e6492bd8ce61c09f6
25429 F20101203_AABZSN bennett_d_Page_27.QC.jpg
4b0eab7a161b2fe8002d7c1015d46e49
d13f5baa861a7c4f75d4322fe9af92bea196ec85
48267 F20101203_AABZNQ bennett_d_Page_27.pro
88baffd8afe22aa15bc15b25a4a80432
d7b559a438bae3c8881a0f1f68cb4341a27c6310
72363 F20101203_AABZIT bennett_d_Page_48.jpg
29b555bbb941e88d92442e049a390917
a19d6d74d2e72925061423d584de730f9e3efb25
536815 F20101203_AABZDV bennett_d_Page_53.jp2
57dd402c640c111bf57c068a8a7edd89
437d2c4d1c7a649fa967008ef8b0d968cf191b41
6081 F20101203_AABZSO bennett_d_Page_27thm.jpg
fd0cd9d82425409978f0f7133baddc65
570312095104393b94544aa85995a9206ae56854
51355 F20101203_AABZNR bennett_d_Page_28.pro
8278044699a16777a1e5cc795b59a8e2
408c07d677e7bb5cac2b74a91bd2874733ecbca1
36680 F20101203_AABZIU bennett_d_Page_50.jpg
1f6343fe195d4cdfb7eaf8bca33a2997
dc908ff5fa0e68ea68fd55b6af8ccde81edee3ba
118442 F20101203_AABZDW bennett_d_Page_62.jpg
8895e2b538e39f731cb48537978927e6
004a7e06f5aa45e03f583f88bdf29e98fa41e828
27673 F20101203_AABZSP bennett_d_Page_28.QC.jpg
c235ceda487744624f2b050001f657aa
5bd12ebae9287591fb474c63f4a73e97989f3d9f
47920 F20101203_AABZNS bennett_d_Page_29.pro
e9cc465ff33e3e6130b3804a73632d37
eba855cb252764f9f94d4b06c8da5e6c7c375764
43063 F20101203_AABZIV bennett_d_Page_52.jpg
91caa8da33e76992520098636dff892d
51f5e4e4c29982d1117806b61950f99ee9276316
2109 F20101203_AABZDX bennett_d_Page_56.txt
6ad9982819c9d5e39f5a639eb3777750
bccb349be5b3fba2d7ac84625e40156cc4d88b81
6459 F20101203_AABZSQ bennett_d_Page_28thm.jpg
a9dfe2f36e438c82b664b1af78bdf50e
4ccfdc0642c0604097c0e0555ca0d30b17d2e6f8
51286 F20101203_AABZNT bennett_d_Page_30.pro
aa7ada8416efb5958ce42b197f0f1db0
b480ebd8eef938e58af3d96606e275a11deaad33
44952 F20101203_AABZIW bennett_d_Page_53.jpg
53846084b5dcbc34cc054a8d26f0f38e
f5d6855b28ac35fe46fab2e2500a41f45c434a58
87030 F20101203_AABZDY bennett_d_Page_40.jpg
e93f6c932d10a7ef6e9c3e67ed3e1557
72b4a733590bb516b641b458fffe75dd18bb6af6
25779 F20101203_AABZSR bennett_d_Page_29.QC.jpg
98d545c926c2dee76f6cc176646c6ff6
4eddedb44f8b1d0323af94f7ffa208dc98d3ab1f
52763 F20101203_AABZNU bennett_d_Page_31.pro
6de69f6311c17c34b73dcf57efe4967a
fbffb3272c09ed23ae66d4aae0eee882bd61c225
45336 F20101203_AABZIX bennett_d_Page_54.jpg
063da68be69b80ab8d383babb9f3f0d9
0b9ae503d24734dc523ecf078b87bc46577ebfc5
F20101203_AABZDZ bennett_d_Page_01.tif
8500858feb0c787ea2d4c5ce1b109c14
01966ec70e74d0255fb5aa5943bd3fc7ac247000
6077 F20101203_AABZSS bennett_d_Page_29thm.jpg
8ca36cbc26cae37f3733493ee86d5274
e850116f090d5dc3df91d7c77bdc2a393b1f7242
48445 F20101203_AABZNV bennett_d_Page_32.pro
9b90c0e481187daa7d07f225764df6d1
4c9613f3a5ae80f0a3aba08cf6cb6640cc33159e
25915 F20101203_AABZST bennett_d_Page_30.QC.jpg
15baa3b02a306aba1550cf40acaff155
3d05898288a89a841b0b6611afd9f6a963d8a065
53949 F20101203_AABZNW bennett_d_Page_34.pro
b21c16bbee2db0ba035b21868965bc24
bd17ee32ceb138d3ca1c037bfeb197d44f8f0894
106523 F20101203_AABZGA bennett_d_Page_45.jp2
c72e6666707cf4d536246c16a64a33b8
22fd8370d306c92776ff7cc9aaa6195923fda0b2
85620 F20101203_AABZIY bennett_d_Page_56.jpg
4c205c902ed61133e804a83e67d5ce57
c851623397dcb3f9d85985a58aa4cfd78104e57b
6257 F20101203_AABZSU bennett_d_Page_30thm.jpg
bef18adc003223cea9f007c0078a8e86
cc29928411d8e127adaf87ecb88b585fc9a942d4
46197 F20101203_AABZNX bennett_d_Page_35.pro
aef129fd8fe5165ccecc85f0c496c99a
27ab37755aca71211dccd82083e12cba29ccabe1
47300 F20101203_AABZGB bennett_d_Page_49.jpg
e3221de0ef5bfc5cd8fd2792e3fd1a4e
b43df43de890b1113dd2e48eba4a6752a53cff1d
30372 F20101203_AABZIZ bennett_d_Page_57.jpg
9287e92a44b8bd87e11449249289af42
e91e73a8062351b3f633f59dbe7eb2dde428cde8
6140 F20101203_AABZSV bennett_d_Page_32thm.jpg
34ee3ff211a21ba99429a9fd64f80add
1fa7d4ac2bd18b82ec2ed01dd756a4037a03ef06
51815 F20101203_AABZNY bennett_d_Page_36.pro
ad77b293be63bc768d9f99ab33131fb0
45ee1bbd14069c84e0a75818a7353f00b9f5ffc5
72517 F20101203_AABZGC bennett_d_Page_62.pro
60c765758bab795a759797893173751d
dfb63c5c02c9a03e4622fe7bf41a6c6cd74505f6
6090 F20101203_AABZSW bennett_d_Page_33thm.jpg
b0e118b41cfac4cef233b3eeb5ced605
4d9b9da5c29a6402168a2034b1b0eab9f14a25e8
53320 F20101203_AABZNZ bennett_d_Page_37.pro
fd5850279b2e5ed14a0148607750f266
1f68ae943168afaaa328ffb3c74592722a4be9d8
25470 F20101203_AABZGD bennett_d_Page_32.QC.jpg
a722735b2f0f51d161f86b85411d310c
556c3d7bb2c545ed6aa9291e936abe95a9fcf843
F20101203_AABZLA bennett_d_Page_03.tif
dc9f92441258e1eab4ac1b2a892c8944
70b71af0a086c1b203abb2b13db5038754c96db5
28582 F20101203_AABZSX bennett_d_Page_34.QC.jpg
9e32a65f9149210768692f720e776c34
be586c680c398d028680b444094d68a8239e14c9
33782 F20101203_AABZGE bennett_d_Page_63.jpg
9ca79f29cc714069f29f6a1165cc7cce
f6b6a038afc35c23ee6f48587ace3def1668f26b
F20101203_AABZLB bennett_d_Page_08.tif
6f01edbc79481b6f6dff1decfb2953f7
de110513da99b721d475adae1e5acec21f9bd9b6
6611 F20101203_AABZSY bennett_d_Page_37thm.jpg
26e18f16e6ddd58fb9d3ff2e568f80f0
7cdc629e210a1879e6adce62a3057479578a660b
6445 F20101203_AABZGF bennett_d_Page_14thm.jpg
4ec87b341ee40a7df79efe97c1b168b3
6d477f5ba8df7379db328f8e79cfadc873744d3f
F20101203_AABZLC bennett_d_Page_09.tif
b0373926fae9d5e8ae023bdcf6e4b08f
cb88f507a40af3fdf7565361791b58000d272642
27752 F20101203_AABZSZ bennett_d_Page_39.QC.jpg
ad7372df4399e7c224b8eb6262a2ef89
8e64e25f163f4ad5bdf37e7538fef154be8f2aec
51583 F20101203_AABZGG bennett_d_Page_44.pro
4d72d8719760e269e7856e86c3b16276
846ecc6dfca5e3ed57ce939734a1145de25a647c
1953 F20101203_AABZQA bennett_d_Page_48.txt
8761879bb28a4ccb148be489dfd20945
9791d2298bd7d9063413bed3167988e87bacfef5
F20101203_AABZLD bennett_d_Page_10.tif
71dbdf94263c50234780ccb17ce62220
4d6f173c262284a4a185a7ccab58e7d4561fb696
86342 F20101203_AABZGH bennett_d_Page_28.jpg
a001b994c0e498c3340ab10b9d922059
2e5078217bd40e2642b933f549653428d69c8899
1603 F20101203_AABZQB bennett_d_Page_49.txt
1118932ebb6315cfaa3d6c2b1860b90d
db8626ccb8ceab6ac7cca42521a84f7e1b63d4ca
F20101203_AABZLE bennett_d_Page_12.tif
720768e856cc8b6d1f4413a845dc781c
98c1b980d8443c34ed08b19f9db943b43c5ce5b8
F20101203_AABZGI bennett_d_Page_63.tif
9b32dee58ea5f83535eb62440f9fc61b
51674ab23da1f81d28c6ed37a1d40d4d14b341af
1524 F20101203_AABZQC bennett_d_Page_50.txt
0a1c60dd166e1b5845bf75be9194ed5f
066d7f78eafcf0730cd0c9aa336d29bc5f4406f9
F20101203_AABZLF bennett_d_Page_13.tif
7811f00e295122fef3f1c15a57901c5e
94cb25a84b1723e55392eaea9bedfe9d48293b1f
87969 F20101203_AABZGJ bennett_d_Page_16.jpg
515c11da9a1186a43a4d1cfbd46421ff
686064b18326ca5c7f6d3360b8829f25de7c1d75
1246 F20101203_AABZQD bennett_d_Page_52.txt
eb8f1c4d8565f5cc6ca857e635247f8f
e0a58b17814d0dbedcc08785ac62b7251ad42526
F20101203_AABZLG bennett_d_Page_14.tif
7d8acb9fd5cc70efe78b70f60b1271f7
b145c46b9495c7ae83e1b532d4c22d27ebcffb15
2047 F20101203_AABZGK bennett_d_Page_36.txt
4e4d14f22c5c89079528ac35e52ff4fe
5d0202aafc7ac5c9c5319feda1d78510dd535196
1308 F20101203_AABZQE bennett_d_Page_54.txt
59fe68811f6704bb98cd7f8128083d72
929090c42c52f567575324e01a8eed21ade91fab
F20101203_AABZLH bennett_d_Page_15.tif
7f52e71dd4c737d5fd8e57836887174e
ef420362a54bdfd7ea6901f050fd12ed59fdaa9b
596 F20101203_AABZGL bennett_d_Page_09.txt
6d16e85dc9119aff808e23342ca39717
2cdcde6b04302807211762856cbef297e739f3d8
2583 F20101203_AABZQF bennett_d_Page_58.txt
8bc9af1adc79ab5da05954a3e1f78432
ccdcd2b5f4f6d6785745651d2a46f2198eb5edf8
F20101203_AABZLI bennett_d_Page_16.tif
682e00e43004d2d5c51cf83049bb52bb
5d259088730d61fb03dc8a6d850f0bb03e3f21d0
84819 F20101203_AABZGM bennett_d_Page_30.jpg
650bafcb01ce8f7d3d122c7f010e49f0
f9ea41dc4a2157d5df943a9b8739ee7cb24ae80c
2671 F20101203_AABZQG bennett_d_Page_59.txt
f5eaa18cd6a3076aa788ac44f4e0416b
469fbbd053a725e2ca23853867cd9e4a2b3a8a59
F20101203_AABZLJ bennett_d_Page_18.tif
9f3590089cda0c2fa9d4a87430f6fca9
52edf4f83c369d2a5c8a3a82e20e1aa0a0d7e48d
86805 F20101203_AABZGN bennett_d_Page_11.jpg
c2bd7cd3b796bfe008c54e4b754d6d7d
bbfbacf64c9e15f8c1a41dd7a14af708251f1e80
2744 F20101203_AABZQH bennett_d_Page_60.txt
7ea65119367d9e63e0fa4222f4ef5e82
35f983f2dd1ac48ab53938776ce6aa580ef98921
F20101203_AABZLK bennett_d_Page_19.tif
29417ce96e521ba84e0b0916110fd9cc
5c43af67530590466236fc0c1513a01730f2e760
5983 F20101203_AABZGO bennett_d_Page_35thm.jpg
d7eafc0786bd02e78f97b70d4d1a8a12
31c693d63cc6833a2bf6b28c890ce1097a18dd97
2613 F20101203_AABZQI bennett_d_Page_61.txt
3ab5f3a0fb89af24e0477d5096e6e717
8343134c6a23ec7ca422565c1371f381db44c907
F20101203_AABZLL bennett_d_Page_20.tif
b94b26f0fbad4961a883d8f05d4763d0
1127b8964ba60e2b4ca8356855c299613c030ae5
50048 F20101203_AABZGP bennett_d_Page_46.pro
8fec0ea7e4195a137d625b86511ccbf5
f39cd58e9a34318bc0b1274ad989d4c19de19762
2922 F20101203_AABZQJ bennett_d_Page_62.txt
88b921aab0a4c1a52c9b671e9c03bdfc
7e7bdcc10c7e2d9b147173cfd6a9fc844f74b61e
F20101203_AABZLM bennett_d_Page_21.tif
0693fb4604ab0c52715ff66640d4fa70
d7f502e72f56a8aea00a2a3f21cf81a96e76e4f0
824 F20101203_AABZQK bennett_d_Page_63.txt
8456962a58b06a9d862b161bd8047721
a2ad195917fcc6342dc99564e61194a7332dfd92
F20101203_AABZLN bennett_d_Page_22.tif
247c61d4ae1c25c82d944d197c74d98c
c7c9f9c549df505c013596e36486a92be236463d
2121 F20101203_AABZGQ bennett_d_Page_15.txt
1c1b0284feaad24ed556281aacf62dba
ad715184c467441308f0de4d6976218712dd2689
F20101203_AABZQL bennett_d_Page_64.txt
129ee9689af4a78476cb3ce8a1396ff7
ea896135c640e22d57bb025bc38d631b8de697f5
F20101203_AABZLO bennett_d_Page_23.tif
179cf4c7bf904e38af7161a6024f1b99
fed509992409f9328e308d55933efae23358978a
116529 F20101203_AABZGR bennett_d_Page_26.jp2
416db9c262f5f646c35e8dd7d9120d80
af8ad0c442a30a411e3244f04f7e38739dfbd6bd
508795 F20101203_AABZQM bennett_d.pdf
317e230147b2bd02878970b2bb3c8eb9
f9c83c7fc7e7bfa42fde874f5f21bb1affc8c080
F20101203_AABZLP bennett_d_Page_25.tif
cdb00c66dfc275e8ee7d6cfa92806be5
9d5a6aa266532b6f84847e6a11e1149c0cfab14e
89913 F20101203_AABZGS bennett_d_Page_48.jp2
2912881a392cc405dcf1f9bccec605f2
71239a52074254ebffd3c5577b372c0330c75bbb
32506 F20101203_AABZQN bennett_d_Page_62.QC.jpg
31e6ffde8f7df363f570d649e9d6932e
c00f9cffbfcdff059916bb26cbe17211d38c83b8
F20101203_AABZLQ bennett_d_Page_26.tif
6af7799d188e9e67991844e648069381
957ee1b2ba2385f19f35c4f95287e9c276f08d29
F20101203_AABZGT bennett_d_Page_53.tif
ee5d2c0f4a508ef8bb45f862e8c25462
4e29bb9bc55eeed897472b939c2093db6d429c18
2979 F20101203_AABZQO bennett_d_Page_65thm.jpg
05590b240b7086f4bd280c7dbaa6879e
7ed0a36c2cf1473840f89321f9b31994f3b9a3d1
F20101203_AABZLR bennett_d_Page_27.tif
7b989b749fdd01dd754db15fad66b514
6c109d2e7030c019e5fa0f1c511ed323df918bfc
42169 F20101203_AABZGU bennett_d_Page_48.pro
65e85ba231121da818da24d8d8a882af
ea69dc49305f2752ab5c7da38f4aa9fa0feeaa69
19764 F20101203_AABZQP bennett_d_Page_48.QC.jpg
2913973d2f3d813ef6853c55c82b2a02
54e821cbd46a2948b3f7207327ced0daebba1a3e
F20101203_AABZLS bennett_d_Page_28.tif
7297332c487c0a0fe897882c976c9ee9
37b57447d7ecb1df3f18d47da311d13fefaa354d
6540 F20101203_AABZGV bennett_d_Page_40thm.jpg
44f795edfa502e1c737f3f749c7a517b
b8594a9f85b3d0edc87087bd1a205d9b5ce7877d
7299 F20101203_AABZQQ bennett_d_Page_61thm.jpg
b08ee37551ef9d6e7d5cf569127a9b31
66f208e3b07b1da23157027f896cf5417c7b50fd
F20101203_AABZLT bennett_d_Page_29.tif
dfd499bd8749993c4cfad75ca12ac47c
28ea41ec6178cc7b0a95074811f66913414cb062
2694 F20101203_AABZQR bennett_d_Page_63thm.jpg
ed6ba3d447b7929cc73c6f3b22353fbd
26d3abf31ccb578e43b9ecadba53d17b73e55313
F20101203_AABZLU bennett_d_Page_30.tif
3277b58f9c01746ada4fcbe319a415bc
26235194a4bf1bea34caaa52143a04494887423a
110147 F20101203_AABZGW bennett_d_Page_44.jp2
53ab6461d2d4b80685db654acc1d3023
c95613c85ebf35fb8ff25d643fda307d2d883077
25868 F20101203_AABZQS bennett_d_Page_33.QC.jpg
4e5c2af2426e1351247bcf2d97cc97fd
6fdb9fbf0119e9fdbfc1a94fda86255df7e60ae9
F20101203_AABZLV bennett_d_Page_33.tif
8955be3ca2bfa17104d83191389c7e0f
485603920485ee0e2d5c7394bbd6117c6a090b83
29959 F20101203_AABZGX bennett_d_Page_61.QC.jpg
792c84c72018e258584fb3523cdb331e
3a5a2120d973510c5a4d34e6436d83c380d564a9
27164 F20101203_AABZQT bennett_d_Page_36.QC.jpg
197575c72eeaef986639b2cef10b1c3f
3b5097591ba16d7565891d0d53302031420c3d1e
F20101203_AABZLW bennett_d_Page_35.tif
03c69ccb4b2b79413b544b62e943b713
d3a25d87512fbf04f760d5c9c13bce8d4cf1ac63
1051951 F20101203_AABZEA bennett_d_Page_06.jp2
5f880b9cb091277af98e9959611a1ac3
de4e6cade97afbdda42a54e52d4f902831b57cee
81633 F20101203_AABZGY bennett_d_Page_33.jpg
fb355769ccd314c21dce8ba556276fd5
b82842182dd2f2563cde3e2d91dccea5956040d7
4139 F20101203_AABZQU bennett_d_Page_08thm.jpg
86be0b8dc9170f657bba3d1cb3b08968
a21b8dfaf768268119228deca20577adf0b9ae48
F20101203_AABZLX bennett_d_Page_36.tif
cb2cf09650c032a98cc0f758cb563e9e
52c40cdc7858ff9ebb6770393cc597eae99e31f2
6753 F20101203_AABZEB bennett_d_Page_34thm.jpg
10381c0657abd77c33050ef83740e43b
6e05b86aa8744ea2a9900856d3e732bbbd46c939
8875 F20101203_AABZGZ bennett_d_Page_09.QC.jpg
be0835475a76479cd5f4f5d404cf92d4
e2f8a65caf360b5616fbf5451c1eee33340c8e84
3339 F20101203_AABZQV bennett_d_Page_06thm.jpg
50f303ab32695c97f783819b0aba5f43
c6b734a5c7ef5b3ec654faf580e71597395f5648
F20101203_AABZLY bennett_d_Page_37.tif
0e1ffc9dcd3765f5a34849bac982903f
da2d8a630223c81c88d305c3ba19e343b6b1195d
28320 F20101203_AABZEC bennett_d_Page_42.QC.jpg
1d881c18a5df8040f61d5ec1b3b57f0f
1f306a725aade0e490bc813e9abfa60973161e6b
6640 F20101203_AABZQW bennett_d_Page_64thm.jpg
ced4aff0c21f28d7f1a8ce1050a78ed4
06b3f55c2e1d15a8868cc58177485a15ac7839c8
106697 F20101203_AABZJA bennett_d_Page_58.jpg
55a2529b165aa4eeef4ae5fd63114623
79f45e459fe3e0372b5e78a7d2328da9b2ee52a9
F20101203_AABZLZ bennett_d_Page_38.tif
90535dae35453dc8bf8f41ea76153064
3415772d94cbe884295c59b1565e5e2f8376d4e8
21698 F20101203_AABZED bennett_d_Page_55.jpg
f1dd448c485eb02093f5328e28f8d20f
2cb3fae038dc2068db7e68f647fbdb401576d9b2
6086 F20101203_AABZQX bennett_d_Page_46thm.jpg
8d21edd7c46f5a8e8a6a68a0fbae151e
cc9f58a41ed58c5a44de42091bbc6a4d1c11650f
114449 F20101203_AABZJB bennett_d_Page_59.jpg
57b92fe1af2c108ef7b0cb0acc815d5c
1ff685d8ed3179b1a6f635f8f8e476a445a0e23d
80442 F20101203_AABZEE bennett_d_Page_45.jpg
d3d36fa56bc700b336fb4ef10287d2e0
02dbbaa45457655813f6250dd242e5315f53a54d
4657 F20101203_AABZQY bennett_d_Page_48thm.jpg
cbcb837efa5467d4ada5cf2794abd536
173328a642935c31da67c343422dba71ff5f6255
111458 F20101203_AABZJC bennett_d_Page_60.jpg
75b15b7943f772f8bc344945ecd32a3a
d15bcc6695bb17aa0bc0129d568318cab1adbbab
F20101203_AABZEF bennett_d_Page_32.tif
efc3f074753cc1aa7c1057cc7ed40ce5
148154d418c2bb588434df86e9585502dbe92bd2
106401 F20101203_AABZJD bennett_d_Page_61.jpg
d97d1acd11a9c0fc3eb3d3708dcdcb89
5f7ff83b746f97b88598ebf0588ae23327f99b26
44112 F20101203_AABZEG bennett_d_Page_50.jp2
31e1a706310f3b6354a8b5e7f498021e
74835d076bdc4469a1ba4226f1cb550ee0a7a4db
53821 F20101203_AABZOA bennett_d_Page_38.pro
509badf2759b73aaa0269d3a1d6e44a7
ecce6cdee5b3b1b6c1bf8fa0af67d2db50e2b27a
24499 F20101203_AABZQZ bennett_d_Page_35.QC.jpg
e4c79d305f3bee224b48cc7b6edbeb6e
403c1df138c398017c5ab29dc979ca6f8fd40832
93084 F20101203_AABZJE bennett_d_Page_64.jpg
23281a53e7323695770e846bbeeabe4d
da56aa05745dc15a3aff67fb65f30375f32e33b5
25585 F20101203_AABZEH bennett_d_Page_20.QC.jpg
72186f7ea948cc904202fa35752aa105
7f3f85b6be0c6f6ec477bb8f7765b02e3ec801e6
53108 F20101203_AABZOB bennett_d_Page_39.pro
d748a64ebf35852362f488ce2dd427cd
15847bedb06104be9e606acefee380785f498e4e
27667 F20101203_AABZTA bennett_d_Page_41.QC.jpg
30e3b803525d81521b28d2850323432f
e6bd0afe6045af7e3853bdc751a276584523f195
37270 F20101203_AABZJF bennett_d_Page_65.jpg
6653899d0e40b85de5b3a1eefc1983d5
4e327a290630305870f76726bcd2f865d61f8e4b
F20101203_AABZEI bennett_d_Page_06.tif
406c52bdafd713924ba3f7f980ac7525
433eb33cf46c59293ae910c54a18f3ee9fda2500
52465 F20101203_AABZOC bennett_d_Page_40.pro
a8c593221bdad3075470c8d7264d3d6b
834bb5de7050b7a6aaab797395a918a816b77d1e
6660 F20101203_AABZTB bennett_d_Page_41thm.jpg
7d439afa162231f02f745601b4562d8d
fbfc384ff7cb5febfb2c7b0c23aad207c54745a7
24630 F20101203_AABZJG bennett_d_Page_01.jp2
cfcb3c3aca5913c0adc4b9f5958fefed
e7a6264199bab78d3989bfbbcddb79cedc9f0145
F20101203_AABZEJ bennett_d_Page_04.tif
b40776d0a561779bf6143d6cb4c4fc11
f388e68be7f254a8989c74aba78c4080cec7a415
54252 F20101203_AABZOD bennett_d_Page_41.pro
31377de841d911b432aa09a068d424ca
00077493d0791ed62837765f565ef3b5793e09c4
6732 F20101203_AABZTC bennett_d_Page_42thm.jpg
462e96f5c58b03d893d16648b7b6bb7f
84032656ad9b5949a270203661141e8b2a60cff6
5323 F20101203_AABZJH bennett_d_Page_02.jp2
ea2e6de5da6fbeb6847340092be31df8
9c4ac444bfa88db4aac19561c961e12cd652bf03
F20101203_AABZEK bennett_d_Page_17.tif
3c12c567a712a9021fa00bd93f618f06
8765dd28888bd413071bba15b2f629f99ccf07ee
55603 F20101203_AABZOE bennett_d_Page_42.pro
6a16626a7c8f2adfb5a0dee4b51a84bf
5b2c0ae584657c38f71cc8b4817ca39b67338c55
4644 F20101203_AABZJI bennett_d_Page_03.jp2
b778977557c28e62ba108d9f5b9601d3
a9c7dd17c815099afded5457b263e5773fbf6c3f
116511 F20101203_AABZEL bennett_d_Page_31.jp2
ba13f342e36d919a9a92e7e0598671a3
c768d54d920fc947f903d27386690b455160317d
51804 F20101203_AABZOF bennett_d_Page_43.pro
d61674d157ea711ab0a7aec6f1cd0177
cdadd6296a0e406dab0ec08e555ec7d36b18e1d7
27734 F20101203_AABZTD bennett_d_Page_43.QC.jpg
793530d27409eda0c67193ad1700f857
4fa0ce4e8ee66615d7d43e28a9f3d63c74555696
35920 F20101203_AABZJJ bennett_d_Page_04.jp2
93982681db59d17fd94d12cfb73c6668
ebb3061f18122562cde458143acc4f2f1e2f2c88
F20101203_AABZEM bennett_d_Page_41.tif
811d1dcbb121ff5b5bfd46a8c5dc19b3
8f64aba4fa02e2f9a68a828c061f9287b90e5fda
48741 F20101203_AABZOG bennett_d_Page_45.pro
f0ae454a0b390e757210f8d29c1ee539
2db38b9063297c88268038e4e69bebd62c24958e
6440 F20101203_AABZTE bennett_d_Page_43thm.jpg
174eb7da9e690c78a827a0af66a5fd78
0a1936474ab70a9eabf07c30fa756fab7ce56b12
768628 F20101203_AABZJK bennett_d_Page_07.jp2
e9886c5d9f8f4e789a98700c31d93311
14aba80a2c0bd9a1ad0ad5d9ab08ef47dfcae781
12916 F20101203_AABZEN bennett_d_Page_24.pro
b582daec46e4db6fa3797e57ed1f978d
78b3b88a7fc3c2594050eab4416c831db0b6282e
15898 F20101203_AABZOH bennett_d_Page_47.pro
894bed70fbccb62058418613c83982c3
ddb0f1d5b1d02db0ceb667d8e724cf52f2a707a4
27133 F20101203_AABZTF bennett_d_Page_44.QC.jpg
740f7543087ed1304a4dc0b463c5df8c
0cceeea02d17458354cb6e1504d12bb75ad45336
1051984 F20101203_AABZJL bennett_d_Page_08.jp2
bad3ea2081ee61164b1985458365a0a0
c156ba6a9882379099f6dfe5b0e9ee52869d8062
4227 F20101203_AABZEO bennett_d_Page_54thm.jpg
212e44bec5825caf2ea4121efef886fd
ed917ab8f089a0b5788817de71233072a075f053
30562 F20101203_AABZOI bennett_d_Page_49.pro
87f8c2d534dc524cb62aa055af13b627
002ee785cea718ac15ac5ad09f2764ccc3630bca
6403 F20101203_AABZTG bennett_d_Page_44thm.jpg
31dc0f33b2f4e8246ce1b183ea1a29b8
4354b496f28d75f727356cc361a1923fcd7b3a65
1169 F20101203_AABZEP bennett_d_Page_13.txt
a2c8b693354d928bef8aa74029661abc
9ed2e184a091cb05d46bfaeffaee7206e6e519bd
27876 F20101203_AABZOJ bennett_d_Page_50.pro
f834df0e61135f2afcfa8ffcb8e6236a
40cab30030b9036cf76507510261058de77d6535
35330 F20101203_AABZJM bennett_d_Page_09.jp2
db24f4e51485e7df14b09f0fe663102a
1f2c0590034f67dbe5369cd1b7d82dac5ca4909f
25553 F20101203_AABZTH bennett_d_Page_45.QC.jpg
e536a5e6af49b8015a76aa1d65732197
8ced970939fa0ee146ff6804fd6a7f9392f457f4
1158 F20101203_AABZEQ bennett_d_Page_53.txt
c61a007f7f6a8ce5705401fa6b6862a2
589b59e8f5eca42391fe30f531f5f55f6ac55f0f
3213 F20101203_AABZOK bennett_d_Page_51.pro
07bb7d02722fdf0a0d9d91f343c42068
ec8744334ecb329d4e3de68dc4ec6887bba5d5ed
107716 F20101203_AABZJN bennett_d_Page_10.jp2
165b7708a368d14f7473b684cb887ee6
bcc6845e84aa53422248393beaa49fd65d5960b0
6032 F20101203_AABZTI bennett_d_Page_45thm.jpg
3e2a427538770c11f4eb397f060d393b
a737b9b2e228f384be5f3f7294d3c47170267eb5
51537 F20101203_AABZER bennett_d_Page_56.pro
681a0413025d5dbc10cfeb8ca4a657f7
b412ac521bd26a5a176694c0d68d17fa5d612563
23396 F20101203_AABZOL bennett_d_Page_54.pro
a2e04a6296cb9774af0985b8b64c9334
b6321c921d55ded828a797ff13d974146d4ec06c
113782 F20101203_AABZJO bennett_d_Page_11.jp2
eb654125006bafeb0205b33369fe5add
5773ce5d1069cba45c226c106c5f1e47fa88ef8b